The Israel lobby (at times called the Zionist lobby) is the diverse coalition of those who, as individuals and/or as groups,
seek to influence the foreign policy of the United States in support of
Israel or the policies of the government of Israel...The largest
pro-Israel lobbying group is Christians United
for Israel; the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a leading organization within the lobby, speaking on behalf of a coalition of American Jewish
groups. ~Wikipedia
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and
independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction,
to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and
powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people
ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican
government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided,
instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those
whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real
patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp
the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them
as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect
good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she
must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must
be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations
and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
“The confluence of their interests as Jews in promoting the policies of the Israeli right wing and their construction of
American interests allows them to submerge or even deny the relevance of their Jewish identity while posing as American patriots.
[…]
Indeed, since neoconservative Zionism of the Likud Party variety is well known for promoting a confrontation between the
United States and the entire Muslim world, their policy recommendations best fit a pattern of loyalty to their ethnic group,
not to America.”[4]Kevin
McDonald, Cultural Insurrection, op. cit., p. 66.
So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite
nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing
into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without
adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others,
which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been
retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are
withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation)
facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with
the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public
good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign
influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since
history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that
jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a
defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they
actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots
who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the
applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them
as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect
good faith. Here let us stop. ...
First of all Israel Lobby in the USA is not a Jewish lobby and does not represent interest of Jewish people, who (especially
immigrants from the USSR and other Warsaw block countries) are mostly secular and hardworking people who has nothing to do with
Zionism, or Judaism. They are normal loyal Americans. Like most American they sincerely wish that Israel survived and
prospered, but they never put Israel interests above the interests of the USA population.
Actually the same is true for Israel. As Haaretz wrote on Oct 20, 2020
Trump is the best U.S. president for Netanyahu – but for Israel, he might be the worst Washington's warning reproduced above is
applicable to both nations. In that Farewell Address, Washington warned against the peril of deep foreign entanglements, exacly of
the king the USA has with Israel. His advice has been forgotten by today's generation of the USA political leaders.
What is called by fuzzy term "Israel lobby" is an amalgam of several district groups, with neocons as the key constituent.
As such Israel Lobby should probably be classified as a
lobbing group of the US MIC. What makes it especially dangerous for the USA is their strong connection to the Zionist faction of financial oligarchy.
Today the Jewish community in the United States consists primarily of Ashkenazi Jews, who descend from immigrants from Central
and Eastern Europe and comprise about 90-95% of the American Jewish population. Religious Jews are a small and shrinking part of
this community (probably less then 15%). Like is the case with other religions, synagogues are attended mostly by older
people. And even among them "believers" are a minority. Most attend it as a social institution which provides ability to
socialize and some level of mutual support. Of course, some fundamentalists sects connected to Judaism including Orthodox are
different. They also have high birth rate, but this does not change the whole picture much.
A similar situation exists with Zionism as far-right nationalism ideology. Few people support it and even fewer believe in it
(although after "American Maidan" of 2020 their number probably increased). As any far-right ideology that claims superiority of a
particular nation it is disgusting for any real intellectual, including Jewish intellectual elite. The Zionist faction of the US financial oligarchy
with thier recless and damaging to the interests of the USA policies is essentially
exempted from consequences of their own ideology by the fact that live in the USA and the USA in XX century (since WWI) was the
dominant state on the Earth. If this situation changes those financial moguls will quickly change thier colors.
The pro-Israel lobby comprises of three main part:
Neocons -- group a pseudo-intellectuals (aka "national security parasites") serving as lobbyists for MIC because
they probably can't find any other meaningful
employment (Max Boot, etc)
A part of Evangelical Christians waiting for the Second Coming of Christ (Christians
United for Israel - Wikipedia .) Paradoxically, while the latter part is pro-Israel they are somewhat anti-Semitic...
The tiny part of Jewish population (let's say top 0.01%) that constitute financial oligarchy is different from ordinary Jews in many
ways and this tiny group is the main driving part of
the Israel lobby. Neocons interests are not Israel prosperity per se, but theprospecrity of the US MIC. Evangelical Christians provide numbers and some pro-Israel politicians
such as Pompeo, but little else.
It is fair to say that the core of Israel lobby in the USA is a tiny group of Zionist billionaires. To that extent this is
Zionist billionaires game.
Because Jewish financial oligarchy interests is different from ordinary Jews, not only because they are Zionists, but first and
foremost because they are members of
financial oligarchy with their special (perverted and harmful to the larger community of citizens) clan interests and geopolitical
preferences.
Because Jewish financial oligarchy interests is different from ordinary Jews, not only because they are
Zionists, but first and foremost because they are members of
financial oligarchy with their special (perverted and harmful to the larger community of citizens) clan interests and geopolitical
preferences.
It is well known that Financial oligarchy is known to be profiting from
wars and destruction of states (not only arm manufactures are "merchants of death"; see also "disaster
capitalism"). The is even a saying that "All wars are bankers wars"
And their (often rabid) Zionism (which , is essence, is far right Jewish nationalism aka Jewish supremacism ) and pandering to Israel is just a part of their obnoxious behaviour, and probably not the worst
part. I suspect that the main value Israel has for them is the possibility to escape to it, to hide from prosecution for their
crimes. As Napoleon Bonaparte observed "Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their
sole object is gain. " But their Jewishness serves for them as a protective shield, kind of bullet-proof west,
which in case they are caught committing criminal offences allows to pretend that they are victims of unfair prosecution.
As Napoleon Bonaparte observed "Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their
sole object is gain. " But their Jewishness serves for financial oligarchs as a protective shield, kind of
bullet-proof west, which in case they are caught committing criminal offences allows to pretend that they are victims of
unfair prosecution.
So the working hypothesis here is that their rabid Zionism is partially fake and
serves as a smote screen of other, more mercantile interests. They are happy to exploit Jews much like people of any other
nationality. In this sense Bankers are color blind, so to speak.
"Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain. " ~Napoleon Bonaparte
Also it might be kind of supercompensation of "inferiority complex" (Alfred
Adler) or "striving for significance",
a way to absolve themselves of other crimes and their often psychopathic personality as well as criminal or semi-criminal methods
they used to accumulate their vast wealth ( look at
Les Wexner and Mega group ). As one commenter to Professor Stephen Cohen article
Unasked Questions About US-Ukrainian
Relations (The Nation, Oct 3, 2019) noted:
Russia hating is the lynchpin of oligarchic deepstate MIC MSM propaganda. Take that away and
the fat cats are revealed as the naked face of evil that they are. Hating Russia (and China)
supposedly justifies all their crimes.
As Adler noted, psychopaths were more likely to be drug addicts and in turn addition to cocaine (rampant on Wall Street) produces
artificial psychopathic personality. They also are more prone to illicit sexual behaviour, such as pedophilia
As Adler noted, psychopaths were more likely to be drug addicts and in turn addition to cocaine (rampant on Wall Street) produces
artificial psychopathic personality. They also are more prone to illicit sexual behaviour, such as pedophilia
We can also add to those the military industrial complex lobbyists, which in the USA usually comes under the name of neocons.
Many of them are Jewish characters, who can't find a meaningful employment elsewhere (Max Boot and
Robert Kagan are two prominent example of this category). But, of course, like any industrial lobby neocon are not a purely ethnic grouping.
The status of Israel as a state is also pretty controversial and its foreign policy is very aggressive but it is unclear to what
extect they simply imitate the behaviour of the "Lord-protector" of this state: one of the goals of the US foreign policy is the dominance over the Middle East
and maintain control over the oil. This is the essence of
so called Carter Doctrine and Israel in this sense can be called "Air
Strip One."
The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address
on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force, if necessary, to defend its national interests
in the Persian Gulf. It was a response to the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan in 1979, and it was intended to deter
the Soviet Union, the United States' Cold War adversary, from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf region.
The following key sentence, which was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Adviser, concludes
the section:
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be
regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any
means necessary, including military force.
... ... ...
Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, extended the policy in October 1981 with what is sometimes called the "Reagan Corollary to
the Carter Doctrine," which proclaimed that the United States would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was
believed to be threatened during the Iran–Iraq War. Thus, while the Carter Doctrine warned away outside forces from the region,
the Reagan Corollary pledged to secure internal stability. According to diplomat Howard Teicher, "with the enunciation of the
Reagan Corollary, the policy groundwork was laid for Operation Desert Storm."[14]
That naturally makes Israel an important tool of the US foreign policy in the region, because for all
practical purposes it is a client
state. Israel has no oil deposits. At least already discovered. And it completely dependent of the USA for its defense (it is
the largest recipient of the USA aid).
THaaretz
).
Only IDF air force represent a formidable force, as it in engaged in actions in Syria and elsewhere. But Israel has no strategic depth and can be wiped out in case of large scale
conflict in weeks if not days. In a sense, the problem of defense of Israel is the same problem as the defense of
an aircraft carrier. With modern rockets sophistication and range it is unsolvable.
But due to the political power of Jewish financial oligarchy in the USA (which dramatically
increased under neoliberalism, making neocons the dominant force in the USA foreign policy) the typical relations of the lord and a vassal sometimes became distorted. The United States and Israel have long had a “special relationship” but it became "super-special" since Lyndon Johnson
presidency. From this point Israel lobby escaped all levels of the state control and operated with utter impunity. Paradoxically, even
Jonathan Pollard arrest in 1985, which was a slap in the face of
the USA establishment and all-powerful Intelligence agencies, did not changed this situation.
...Israel said initially that Pollard worked for an unauthorized rogue operation, a position they maintained for more
than ten years. They finally agreed to cooperate with the investigation in exchange for immunity for the Israelis
involved.
When asked to return the stolen material, the Israelis reportedly supplied only a few dozen less sensitive
documents.[52]
At the time, the Americans knew that Pollard had passed tens of thousands of documents.
The Israelis created a schedule designed to wear them down, including many hours per day of commuting in
blacked-out buses on rough roads, and frequent switching of buses,[52]
leaving them without adequate time to sleep, and preventing them from sleeping on the commute.[52]
The identity of Pollard's original handler, Sella, was withheld. All questions had to be translated into
Hebrew and answered in Hebrew,
and then translated back into English, even though all the parties spoke perfect English.[52]
The Commander Jerry Agee remembers that, even as he departed the airport, airport security made a point of informing
him that "you will never be coming back here again." After his return to the US, Agee found various items had been
stolen from his luggage.[52]
The abuse came not only from the guards and officials, but also the Israeli media.[52]
Sella was eventually indicted on three counts of espionage by a United States court.[53]
Israel refused to allow Sella to be interviewed unless he was granted immunity. The United States refused because of
Israel's previous failure to cooperate as promised. Israel refused to extradite Sella, instead giving him command of
Tel Nof Airbase. The
U.S. Congress
responded by threatening to cut aid to Israel, at which point Sella voluntarily stepped down to defuse tensions.[54]
The USA became the first country in the world to recognize the
state of Israel in 1948, and has been an important ally and benefactor ever since. A critical component of this special relationship
is the pro-Israel lobby. While Israel remains the USA vassal state and generally promotes the USA imperial foreign policy in Middle
East, this relationship is far from one way street. Due to existence of the influential Israel lobby the tail often wag the dog.
The main objection of many Americans is about the level of control of Zionist lobby of the USA foreign policy and securing the
flow of aid to Israel. For example,
in 2016 Obama signed a new 10-year military-assistance deal, representing the single largest pledge of its kind in American history.
The pact will be worth $38 billion over the course of a decade, an increase of roughly 27% percent on the money pledged in the last
agreement, which was signed in 2007. Trump, who many view as the most pro-Israeli President in the US post war history, in first
two years of his presidency carries two important pro-Israel initiatives: (1) moving the embassy to Jerusalem and
(2) recognition of Golan Heights as a part of Israel (the move that goes contrary to the UN resolution of the subject)
The book of Mearsheimer and Walt was the first to describe the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel. They argued that this support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds
The book of Mearsheimer and Walt was the first to describe the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United
States provides to Israel. They argued that this support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds and that this
exceptional relationship is due largely to the political influence of a thee major groups:
A loose coalition of rich donors (such as Adelson, who financed Trump campaign and, previously, Romney campaign) and controlled
by them authoritarian, non-democratic organizations such as APAIC, which in no way democratically represents the views of the US
citizens of Jewish nationality. None of them is registered via FARA, although there was one (failed) attempt to register predecessor
of AIPAC by Kennedy administration.
Lobbyists of MIC (aka neocons) who while while predominantly Jewish in reality represent the interests of major
US defense contractors. In a sense Israel as a state which behaves as the USA military contractor and as such is also acting as powerful and influential foreign lobbyist for the US MIC.
"Christians United for Israel" a strange evangelical
fundamentalist sect that supports Israel in order to hasten the Second Coming of Jesus. While most members are poor the leadership is filthy rich, flying personal jets. As they violate the separation of Church and State they represent a valuable voting
block that can move politicians in pro-Israel direction. Formally it is the largest pro-Israel organization in the United States,[1]
with several (5 to 7) million members. They produced such politicians as Mike Pence. Here is s typical example of their
propaganda ( Christians' Israel Support Is
Biblically Based National Review )
So, why do Christians support Israel? They believe in supporting American allies and supporting countries that share their
moral values. And, unlike the Left, they have moral problems with Islamism, not with Zionism.
But the primary reason virtually every Israel-supporting Christian gives is the biblical verse from Genesis in which God says
to Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.” These Christians believe (as does this Jew) God
blesses those who treat the Jews decently and curse those who seek to harm the Jews.
You don’t have to be a believer in the God of Abraham or the Bible to accept this proposition. All the Jews’ ancient enemies
disappeared from history. And look at what happened to Spain after it expelled its Jews in 1492. One of the greatest powers of
the world became largely irrelevant to history within a couple of generations. As for Germans, the perpetrators of the Holocaust,
they endured a staggering amount of death and suffering as a result of their support for the greatest Jew hater in history; and
their country was divided in half for the next half-century. Likewise, the countries today that most curse the Jews — Arab and
other Muslim countries — are among the most benighted countries in the world. If they were to devote to building their countries
the money and energy they devote to attempting to destroy Israel, they would be in far better condition morally, socially,
economically and politically.
Meanwhile, the country that has most blessed Israel and the Jews is America. No country in the modern period has treated its
Jews as well as America has, and no country has stood by Israel as much as America has. And America has been almost uniquely
blessed.
The activities of those thee groups shaped and distort US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. In many ways the US government treats Israel
as an unannounced additional state receiving all the supportm but caring no obligations to the all US citizens. Such a view on Israel
as an "undeclared US state" helps to explain many strange nuances of the US polices toward Israel.
One of the most interesting proposals to deal with this problem were Senator Gravel's proposals during his 2020 election campaign
for the President of the USA, as described in a recent
Mondoweiss piece :
Force AIPAC and similar pro-Israel groups to register as foreign lobbies -- "The first step should be mandating that AIPAC
register as a foreign lobby under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). AIPAC manages to skirt American laws about foreign
lobbying by claiming that it represents Americans who happen to support Israel. But the shockingly close ties between the governing
Likud Party and AIPAC give a lie to this legal fiction; AIPAC will always stand closer to Israeli interests than American ones. Such
an arrangement would prevent AIPAC from influencing American elections, and would require it to report all of its contacts with Congress,
along with details of its spending, to the Department of Justice."
The point about preventing influence in American elections is
important -- the present arrangement skirts very close to the line marked by our present panic over "foreign interference in our
democracy," if it doesn't cross well over it. Without Israeli influence in the U.S. electoral process, a wider world of foreign policy
and peace-making options is open to us.
Yes, I know this proposal is anathema in the current environment -- witness the immediate and bipartisan vilification of Rep.
Ilhan Omar -- but Gravel merely says out loud what everyone in D.C. knows, but won't repeat with a microphone nearby. Nevertheless,
we in the "reality-based community" should acknowledge this fact.
End military support for Israel -- "Next, the U.S. should end military aid to Israel, citing the Israeli military's complicity
in crimes against the Palestinian people. It should call for a gradual demilitarization of Israel and Palestine , and should
be clear with the Israeli government that the days of Israel-right-or-wrong are over. Future outrages by either side will receive
an even-handed response without bias. Accordingly, it should demand that Israel bring itself into compliance with international law
and end the harassment of dissidents "
This proposal, actually two proposals in one, is highly controversial to say the least.
Cries of "but Israel needs to be able to defend itself" will be loud enough to cause deafness. In response, I would add to Gravel's
call my own proposal that we end all military support in the region . Note that ending U.S. military aid does not mean immediate
disarmament for any of these nations; far from it. Israel can do quite nicely without U.S. dollars swelling their military coffers
-- and besides, as the only nuclear-tipped army in the region, it still has the deciding advantage.
The region's militarization, in fact, underscores the importance of the second part of his proposal, a "gradual demilitarization
of Israel and Palestine." Recall again the aforementioned atrocities and "crimes against the Palestinian people." Those do have to
stop or be made to stop. If they don't, the region is on the road to ethnic cleansing, and that won't end well for anyone, including
the U.S. and Europe.
It's a simple choice: demilitarize or keep on the current path. There's no middle ground. Once the main goal is shifted to a peaceful
secular state, the need for demilitarization between Israelis and Palestinians is inescapable.
Mearsheimer and Walt contend that the Israel lobby has a far-reaching impact on the Middle East―in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon,
and influences any attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israel lobby advocates policies which are in neither
America's national interest nor Israel's long-term interest. In this sense (and this happens typically with emigrant groups which
adopted more extreme views that people of the homeland) Israel lobby is more Zionists then most Israeli politicians
Mearsheimer and Walt contend that the Israel lobby has a far-reaching impact on the Middle East―in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and influences
any attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israel lobby advocates policies which are in neither America's national
interest nor Israel's long-term interest. In this sense (and this happens typically with emigrant groups which adopted more extreme
views that people of the homeland) Israel lobby is more Zionists then most Israeli politicians (Israel's
Armor The Israel Lobby and the First Generation of the Palestine Conflict (Cambridge Studies in US Foreign Relations):
The “Israel lobby” can be defined as a continuous campaign of advocacy on the part of Israel and its American supporters to secure
US foreign policies that are perceived as favorable to the Israeli national interest. The lobby is both highly structured – including
well-organized and well-funded entities, notably the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – but also decentralized, encompassing
a broad array of individuals and groups, Christian as well as Jewish, which offer spontaneous support of Israel. AIPAC and its precursors,
backed by local councils and advocates across the United States, have long lobbied the president, members of Congress, and ultimately
the public in order to secure political support and financial and military assistance.
The lobby stresses Israel’s vulnerability to various neighboring regimes while emphasizing that Israel seeks to live in peace,
shares common goals and values with the United States, helps anchor security, and is the “sole democracy” in the Middle East.
Finally, the lobby condemns critics of Israel. When they perceive political threats to Israeli interests, lobby supporters strive
energetically to limit or obstruct debate.
The Israel lobby is “widely viewed as the most powerful diasporic lobby seeking to shape US foreign policy.”3 Thus, no
other country’s partisans in the history of US foreign policy – including the venerable China Lobby, Irish-Americans, or the influential
Miami-based Cuban-Americans – have had a commensurate impact on American diplomacy. As the most influential pressure group associated
with another nation in the history of American foreign relations, the Israel lobby clearly merits sustained analysis.
... ... ...
Both the Americans and the Zionists viewed themselves as chosen peoples. Both were settler societies fired by perceptions
of their “manifest destiny” to inherit a promised land.10 Ultimately, the special relationship cannot be fully understood apart
from the historical and cultural affinities – both “preexisting and constructed” – between the United States and Israel. Indeed,
these forces are what made the relationship special – and enduring.11
The lobby's influence also affects America's relationship with important allies. It alienates Russia (several neocons were key players
in Russiagate, and if justice to be served some of them should probably land in jail for their subversive activities directed at removing
the elected President -- aka the attempt of stage coup d'état ) and increases dangers that the USA faces from global jihadist terror
network. Which paradoxically was created and partially financed and trained by CIA as a tool for removing President Assad in Syria
-- the move which also was in Israel interests.
In view of crumbling the USA infrastructure this generosity toward Israel looks somewhat misplaced as they add to already inflated
military expenses in the USA and increases that probability of nuclear war with Russia (especially via direct engagement in Syria, where
Russia and USA support opposite sides of the conflict). The lobby also helps to fuel the conflict with Iran, although the USA
has other motives to be hostile to Iran too.
The level of military expenses in the USA (over one trillion, if counted all sources) are also partially influenced by neocons as
lobbyists for MIC and Israeli lobby. In two recent administrations (Bush II and Trump) Zionists (and Zionism is an ideology not a nationality)
occupied prominent positions and controlled the USA foreign policy. That was also partially true for Obama administration: Hillary
was as close to Zionists in foreign policy as one can get. Israel lobby played a role in putsch of 2014 in Ukraine (EuroMaydan
revolutions) which brought to power far-right nationalist from Western Ukraine, who fought on the side of Third Reich in the WWII. There
was at least one former Israel commandos, who participated in the EuroMaydan armed uprising.
In the past, Iraq war was fiercely promoted by Israel lobby and partially launched to benefit Israel, although the USA have their
own geopolitical goals in the region connected with the control of oil.
In his interview to Playboy, veteran US journalist Helen Thomas reiterated her Israel lobby related concerns voicing of which led
to her forced resignation. They perfectly reflect the mood of a large faction of the US public.
She stated that Zionists have "total control" over the White House and US Congress, and "Everybody is in the pocket of the Israeli
lobbies." Which of course means every US politician, as the last thing Israel lobby is interested in regular US citizens and their interests.
As the result of her statements, Thomas, who covered the White House for more than six decades, was forced to resign from her position
at Hearst Corp. Among other things she stated:
The neocons’ U.S. foreign policy has always coincided with the best interest of Israel as they see it. Before 1967, Israel’s
interest rested heavily on Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe. From 1967, when Moscow closed Jewish emigration to protest Israel’s
annexation of Arab territories, Israel’s interest included the U.S. winning the Cold War. That is when the editorial board of
Commentary, the monthly magazine of the American Jewish Committee, experienced their conversion to “neoconservatism,” and
Commentary became, in the words of Benjamin Balint, “the contentious magazine that transformed the Jewish left into the neoconservative
right .”[5]Benjamin
Balint, Running Commentary: The Contentious Magazine That Transformed the Jewish Left into the Neoconservative Right, Public
Affairs, 2010.Irving Kristol explained to the American Jewish Congress in 1973 why anti-war activism was no longer good
for Israel: “it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States. […]
With the end of the Cold War, the national interest of Israel changed once again. The primary objective became the destruction
of Israel’s enemies in the Middle East by dragging the U.S. into a third world war. The neoconservatives underwent their second conversion,
from anti-communist Cold Warriors to Islamophobic “Clashers of Civilizations” and crusaders in the “War on Terror.”
In September 2001, they got the “New Pearl Harbor” that they had been wishing for in a
PNAC report a year before.[7]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/Rebuil...es.pdf
Two dozens neoconservatives had by then been introduced by Dick Cheney into key positions, including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz
and Douglas Feith at the Pentagon, David Wurmser at the State Department, and Philip Zelikow and Elliott Abrams at the National Security
Council.
The neocons’ capacity to deceive the American public by posturing as American rather than Israeli patriots required that their
Jewishness be taboo, and Carl Bernstein, though a Jew himself, provoked a scandal by citing on national television the responsibility
of
“Jewish neocons” for the Iraq war.[14]April
26, 2013, on MSNBC, watch on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRlatDWqh0o. But the fact that the destruction of Iraq was carried
out on behalf of Israel is now widely accepted, thanks in particular to the 2007 book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The Israel
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.
Thomas appeared to hold her position and showed no regret for last year's comments after her dismissal:
"Why shouldn't I say it? I knew exactly what I was doing -- I was going for broke. I had reached the point of no return. You
finally get fed up," Thomas said.
Thomas denied claims that she was anti-Jewish. "I think they're wonderful people. They had to have the most depth. They were leaders
in civil rights. They've always had the heart for others but not for Arabs, for some reason. "
Thomas added that Jews "carry on the victimization. American people do not know that the Israeli lobbyists have intimidated
them into believing that every Jew is a persecuted victim forever -- while they are victimizing Palestinians."
I'm not anti-Jewish; I'm anti-Zionist." she explained. Her comment that Jews should go back to Poland and Germany meant "they
should stay where they are because they're not being persecuted -- not since World War II... If they were, we sure would hear about
it." Thomas added that Jews "carry on the victimization. American people do not know that the Israeli lobbyists have intimidated them
into believing that every Jew is a persecuted victim forever -- while they are victimizing Palestinians."
The neocons have perfected this mask of fake American patriots promoting foreign policy profitable to MIC and, by extension,
to Israel, and ultimately harmful for Americans
When asked whether she believed their was a secret Jewish conspiracy at work in the US, Thomas stated that it is "not a secret. It's
very open... Everybody is in the pocket of the Israeli lobbies, which are funded by wealthy supporters, including those from Hollywood.
Same thing with the financial markets. There's total control." (
Jerusalem Post, March 19, 2011)
Philip Giraldi is one of the most prolific author of this topic.
Many of his articles were published at unz.com. He does not link Israel lobby with neoliberalism, though. And that's a weakness. But
his article are rich of interesting facts of influence of Israel lobby on the US foreign policy and election process. Here are a couple
of quotes from his Sep 4, 2018 article Israel's Fifth Column
Referring to Israel during an interview in August 1983, U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas
Moorer
said “I’ve never seen a President — I don’t care who he is — stand up to them. It just boggles the mind. They always get what
they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn’t writing anything down. If the American
people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don’t have
any idea what goes on.”
... ... ...
If Admiral Moorer were still alive, I would have to tell him that the situation vis-à-vis Israeli power is much worse now than
it was in 1983. He would be very interested in reading a
remarkable bit of research recently completed by Smith demonstrating exactly how Israel and its friends work from inside the
system to corrupt our political process and make the American government work in support of Jewish state interests. He describes
in some detail how the Israel Lobby has been able to manipulate the law enforcement community to protect and promote Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu’s agenda.
A key component in the Israeli penetration of the US government has been President George W. Bush’s 2004 signing off on the creation
of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) within the Department of the Treasury. The group’s website proclaims
that it is responsible for “safeguarding the financial system against illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators,
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats,” but it has
from its founding been really all about safeguarding Israel’s perceived interests. Grant Smith notes however, how “the secretive
office has a special blind spot for major terrorism generators, such as tax-exempt money laundering from the United States into illegal
Israeli settlements and proliferation financing and weapons technology smuggling into Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons complex.”
... ... ...
The OTFI story is outrageous, but it is far from unique. There is a history of American Jews closely attached to Israel being promoted
by powerful and cash rich domestic lobbies to act on behalf of the Jewish state. To be sure, Jews who are Zionists are
vastly overrepresented in all government agencies that have anything at all to do with the Middle East and one can reasonably
argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the pockets of Jewish billionaires named Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.
This study is not the first on the Israel lobby, and it will not be the last, yet the subject is a difficult one and typically
there is a price to pay for taking it on. Especially in the United States, critical studies of Israeli policy are certain to be targeted
for condemnation. Studies of the lobby are even more susceptible to attack. Paradoxically, the condemnation of these works underscores
both the intensity of the special relationship and the clout of the Israel lobby.
In the 1980s, critical studies of Israeli policy and substantive analysis of the role of the lobby began to emerge in the wake
of Israel’s turn to the right with the electoral triumph of the Likud Party. The Camp David Accords (1978) led to a separate peace
with Egypt, but failed to lead to a broader resolution of the Palestine conflict. A longtime proponent of annexing the biblical Israel,
Prime Minister Menachem Begin accelerated the development of already proliferating Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories.
In 1982, Israel also launched a punishing attack on Lebanon. By this time the lobby had grown powerful and multifaceted, with AIPAC
as the spearhead. AIPAC boasted of ousting elected officials critical of Israel, a process book-ended by two chairmen of the influential
Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), Sens. J. William Fulbright (D-AR), defeated in 1974, and Sen. Charles Percy (R-IL.), targeted
by the lobby and defeated in 1984.12
In 1982, Seth Tillman, a former member of the SFRC staff, published a book arguing that “the powerful Israeli lobby” impeded
efforts to pursue a Middle East diplomacy grounded in the national interest and dedicated to achieving settlement of the Palestine
conflict. Fulbright wrote the foreword to the study. Another critic of US Middle East policy, Rep. Paul Findley (R-IL), who
had been targeted by AIPAC and ousted in the 1982 congressional elections, condemned the lobby and lauded its critics in a book published
in 1985, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby.13
More impactful than the early works on the lobby was the broadside delivered by the linguist turned foreign policy critic Noam
Chomsky. In The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians, published in 1983, Chomsky condemned the United
States and Israel for the destruction in Lebanon and the ongoing repression in Palestine. The MIT professor acknowledged the clout
of the organized lobby, but argued that it was “far from the whole story” and that an excessive focus on it, “underestimates the
scope of the ‘support for Israel’ in American life.” Chomsky explained that one-sided US policies backing Israel sprang from sources
“far broader than the Jewish community,” including Christians, liberals, labor unions, the oil and gas industries, and a power elite
that benefited from constructing Israel as an American “strategic asset.”14
Defenders of Israeli policy found Chomsky’s incendiary account difficult to refute and the book became a classic (the latest edition
was released in 2015). While Chomsky offered a broad indictment of US and Israeli policies, other works homed in on the Israel lobby.
In 1986, political scientist Cheryl A. Rubenberg published a book with a nearly 50-page chapter arguing that pro-Israel advocacy
had achieved “a virtual stranglehold” over US Middle East policy. As with Chomsky, critics condemned Rubenberg for her “polemical
tone” and alleged animus toward Israel – a familiar refrain.15
In 1987, Edward Tivnan secured a major mainstream publisher for his journalistic assessment of the lobby and its influence. Whereas
a capsule review in Foreign Affairs concluded that Tivnan’s “research is sound and his tone temperate, but somber,” a reviewer in
Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), declared Tivnan’s account was “so fevered, so riddled with errors
of both methodology and substance, so driven by animus, as to render his book useless except to those similarly tormented.” In the
Los Angeles Times, political scientist Steven Spiegel likewise condemned the book as a “snide, sometimes bitter, largely trivial
and even boring account of the role of the American Jewish community’s efforts on behalf of Israel.” Two years previously Spiegel
had published his own book on US relations with Israel, which had downplayed the role of the lobby.16
In a book coauthored with his son in 1992, veteran DOS diplomat George Ball invoked President George Washington, who had warned
in his farewell address in 1796 about the pitfalls of developing a “passionate attachment” for any foreign nation. The first president
was referring to revolutionary France, but the Balls were targeting Israel and the lobby in a substantive study published by a major
mainstream press. They warned that the “passionate attachment” to Israel had produced a morally as well as financially irresponsible
foreign policy divorced from the realities of the Middle East conflict. Despite George Ball’s celebrated sagacity for having advised
Johnson against escalation of the Indochina War in the mid-1960s, The Passionate Attachment was widely ignored.17
The same was not true, however, of another coauthored and now famous – or, to some, infamous – book: The Israel Lobby and
US Foreign Policy, by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. Published by a mainstream popular press, The Israel Lobby ignited
a vitriolic response from Israel’s defenders. The book and its authors – two highly accomplished political science professors from
distinguished institutions, the University of Chicago (Mearsheimer) and Harvard (Walt) – became a national if not international cause
célèbre. Never before was the Israel lobby so widely discussed, nor chroniclers of its influence so bitterly condemned.
The Mearsheimer–Walt thesis was clearly stated, bolstered by evidence, and forcefully driven home in the book. “Today,” they argued,
America’s intimate embrace of Israel – and especially its willingness to subsidize it no matter what its policies are –
is not making Americans safer or more prosperous. To the contrary: unconditional support for Israel is undermining relations with
other US allies, casting doubt on America’s wisdom and moral vision, helping inspire a generation of anti-American extremists,
and complicating US efforts to deal with a volatile but vital region.
They added, “We believe the activities of the groups and individuals who make up the lobby are the main reason why the United
States pursues policies in the Middle East that make little sense on either strategic or moral grounds.”18
Pro-Israeli public officials, academics, journalists, and pundits tore into the book, setting the tone for a campaign of discrediting
the study as simply an anti-Israel, if not anti-Jewish, diatribe, rather than an analysis of one of the most powerful lobbies in
American politics. Writing in The New Republic, Jeffrey Goldberg equated Mearsheimer and Walt’s views of Israel with those of September
11 terrorist Osama Bin Laden. Most Jewish organizations harshly condemned the book, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which
published its own book in rebuttal, entitled The Deadliest Lies. Former CIA Director James Woolsey discerned a “commitment to distorting
the historical record,” while Israeli historian Benny Morris, whose work had been quoted in the book, found it “riddled with shoddiness
and defiled by mendacity.”19
... ... ...
The brutal reaction to the Mearsheimer–Walt book doubtless exerted a chilling effect on scholarship on the lobby. The
only major academic study produced since the controversy has been a richly detailed recent book on the origins and evolution of the
lobby by Israeli scholar Natan Aridan. Advocating for Israel: Diplomats and Lobbyists from Truman to Nixon
is especially useful for its exploitation of sources in Hebrew and its elucidation of disputes as well as cooperation between and
among the Israeli government and the American lobby.22
A nationalistic assessment – indeed, virtually a court history – Aridan’s book is the antidote to Mearsheimer and Walt, as it
reflexively celebrates Israel and the lobby. Throughout the work Aridan castigates American diplomats and the Arab states for their
alleged unprovoked hostility to Israel. The book thus reflects an orthodox school of interpretation of Israeli innocence in the Palestine
conflict, thereby eliding two generations of post-Zionist scholarship. It also appears to aspire to deflect attention from the US
lobby by emphasizing the primacy of Israeli hasbara (a Hebrew term for generating favorable propaganda for foreign audiences) in
propelling Zionist advocacy.23
As this study will show, Israeli hasbara played a crucial role, but key Israeli officials – notably the skilled diplomat Abba Eban
– collaborated with the American lobby rather than creating or controlling it.
Originating in 2002, a growing counterlobby has emerged in Washington to challenge the Israel lobby. The Institute for Research:
Middle East Policy (IRMEP) has amassed a substantial archive on the Israel lobby, offers polling data and policy analysis on the
Middle East conflict, and hosts an annual conference in Washington that is televised by C-SPAN. The IRMEP conference features speakers
critical of Israeli policies, and the lobby’s role in bolstering them, and is held on the eve of AIPAC’s signature annual conference
in Washington. IRMEP’s full-time director Grant F. Smith has published a series of books analyzing the history and current activities
of the Israel lobby.24
Wikipedia article generally is not critical and is somewhat weak in the major analysis areas in comparison with the Mearsheimer–Walt
book. But this is the most widely available article on this topic and as such is a very important public document, which at least outlines
the scope of the problem:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Israel lobby (at times called the Zionist lobby) is the diverse coalition of those who, as individuals and/or
as groups, seek to influence the foreign policy of the United States in support of
Israel or the policies of the government of Israel. The lobby
consists of secular, Christian, and Jewish-American individuals
and groups. The largest pro-Israel lobbying group is
Christians United for Israel; the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC) is a leading organization within the lobby, speaking on behalf of a coalition of American Jewish groups.
In 1844, Christian restorationistGeorge Bush, a professor of Hebrew at
New York University and distantly related to the
Bush political family, published a book entitled
The Valley of Vision; or, The Dry Bones of Israel Revived.[1]
In it he denounced “the thralldom and oppression which has so long ground them (the Jews) to the dust,” and called for “elevating”
the Jews “to a rank of honorable repute among the nations of the earth” by restoring the Jews to the land of Israel where the bulk
would be converted to Christianity.[2]
This, according to Bush, would benefit not only the Jews, but all of mankind, forming a “link of communication” between humanity
and God. “It will blaze in notoriety...". “It will flash a splendid demonstration upon all kindreds and tongues of the truth.”[3]
The book sold about a million copies in the antebellum
period.[4]
The Blackstone Memorial of 1891 was also a significant
Christian Restorationist petition effort, led by
William Eugene Blackstone, to persuade President
Benjamin Harrison to pressure the
Ottoman Sultan for the delivery of Palestine to the Jews.[5][6]
Starting in 1914, the involvement of Louis Brandeis
and his brand of American Zionism made Jewish Zionism a force on the American scene for the first time, under his leadership it had
increased ten-fold to about 200,000.[7]
As chair of the
American Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs, Brandeis raised millions of dollars to relieve Jewish suffering
in war-torn Europe, and from that time “became the financial center for the world Zionist movement.”[8]
The British Balfour Declaration of 1917 additionally
advanced the Zionist movement and gave it official legitimacy. The
US Congress passed the first
joint resolution stating its support for a homeland
in Palestine for the Jewish people on September 21, 1922.[9]
The same day, the Mandate of Palestine was approved
by the Council of the League of Nations.
Zionist lobbying in the United States aided the creation of the State of Israel in 1947-48. The preparation of and voting for
the United Nations Partition
Plan for Palestine which preceded the
Israeli Declaration of Independence,
was met with an outpouring of Jewish American support and advocacy in Washington.[10]
President Truman later noted, "The facts were that not
only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White
House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House
as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders — actuated by political motives and engaging in
political threats — disturbed and annoyed me."[11]
In the 1950s, the American
Zionist Committee for Public Affairs was created by Isaiah
L. "Si" Kenen. During the Eisenhower administration,
Israel's concerns were not at the forefront. Other problems in the Middle East and
USSR were paramount, and Israel's U.S. supporters were not as active
as they had been. AZCPA formed a pro-Israel lobbying committee to counter rumors that the Eisenhower administration was going to
investigate the American Zionist Council.[12]
AZCPA's Executive Committee decided to change their name from American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs to
American Israel Public Affairs Committee.[13]
The relationship between Israel and the government of the United States began with strong popular support for Israel and governmental
reservations about the wisdom of creating a Jewish state; formal inter-government relations remained chilly until 1967.[14]
Before 1967, the government of the United States provided some aid but was generally neutral towards Israel.[15]
Since 1979, Israel has received the most foreign assistance. The roughly $3 billion in assistance to Israel comprises a small percentage
of the roughly $3 trillion US budget.[16]
AIPAC "has grown into a 100,000-member national grassroots movement" and claims that it is America's "pro-Israel lobby."[17]
Structure
The pro-Israel lobby is composed of formal and informal components.
Informal lobbying also includes the activities of Jewish groups. Some scholars view Jewish lobbying on behalf of Israel as one
of many examples of a US ethnic group lobbying
on behalf of an ethnic homeland,[20]
which has met with a degree of success largely because Israel is strongly supported by a far larger and more influential
Christian movement that shares its goals.[21]
In a 2006 article in the London Review of Books,
Professors John Mearsheimer and
Stephen Walt wrote:
In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the
farm lobby,
steel or textile workers' unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There
is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby's activities are not
a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For
the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it
very much better. By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby's
task even easier.[22]
Bard defines the Jewish "informal lobby" as the indirect means through which "Jewish voting behavior and American
public opinion" influence "U.S.
Middle East policy".[23]
Bard describes the motivation underlying the informal lobby as follows:
"American Jews recognize the importance of support for Israel because of the dire consequences that could follow from the
alternative. Despite the fact that Israel is often referred to now as the fourth most powerful country in the world, the perceived
threat to Israel is not military defeat, it is annihilation. At the same time, American Jews are frightened of what might happen
in the United States if they do not have political power."[23]
Formal lobby
The formal component of the Israel lobby consists of organized
lobby groups,
political action committees (PACs),
think tanks and
media watchdog groups. The
Center for Responsive Politics, which
tracks all lobbies and PACs, describes the 'background' of those 'Pro-Israel' as, "A nationwide network of local political action
committees, generally named after the region their donors come from, supplies much of the pro-Israel money in
US politics. Additional funds also come from individuals
who bundle contributions to candidates favored by the PACs.
The donors' unified goal is to build stronger US-Israel
relations and to support Israel in its negotiations and armed conflicts with its
Arab neighbors."[24]
According to Mitchell Bard, there are, three key formal lobbying groups:
Christians United for Israel give "every pro-Israel Christian and Christian church the opportunity to stand up and speak up for
Israel." According to the group's founder and head, Pastor John
Hagee, the members "ask the leadership of our government to stop putting pressure on Israel to divide Jerusalem and the land
of Israel."[25]
In his 2006 book The Restoration of Israel: Christian Zionism in Religion, Literature, and Politics, sociologist
Gerhard Falk describes
the evangelical Christian groups that lobby on behalf of Israel as being so numerous that "it is not possible to list" them all,
although many are linked via the National
Association of Evangelicals.[19]
It is a "powerful religious lobby" that actively supports Israel in Washington.[19]
According to the author of Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism,
Michelle Goldberg, "Evangelical Christians have substantial
influence on US Middle East Policy, more so than some better-known names such as AIPAC."[27]
According to Mitchell Bard, the two Jewish groups aim to present policy makers with unified and representative messages via the
aggregation and filtering of the diversity of opinions held by smaller pro-Israel lobby groups and the wider American Jewish community.[23]
The diverse spectrum of opinions held by American Jewry is reflected in the many formal pro-Israel groups, and as such some analysts
make a distinction within the Israel lobby between right-leaning
and left-leaning groups. This diversity became more
pronounced following Israel's acceptance of the Oslo Accords,
which split "liberal universalists" and "hard-core Zionists --- the Orthodox community and right wing Jews".[28]
This division mirrored a similar split for and against the Oslo process in Israel, and led to a parallel rift within the pro-Israel
lobby.[29][30]
During the 2008 election campaign,
Barack Obama implicitly noted differences within the lobby
in his comment that "there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says, 'unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach
to Israel, that you're anti-Israel,' and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel."
Commentary Magazine, notes "It was an odd choice
of words-Likud has not been Israel's governing party for more than
three years-but what Obama clearly meant was that an American politician should not have to express
fealty to the most hard-line ideas relating to Israel's security
to be considered a supporter of Israel's."[31]
In The Case for Peace,
Alan Dershowitz also of Harvard, argues that the most
right-leaning pro-Israel groups in the United States are not Jews at all, but
Evangelical Christians. Dershowitz cites "Stand
for Israel, an organization devoted to mobilizing Evangelical Christian support for Israel" co-founded by "[f]ormer
Christian Coalition executive director
Ralph Reed."[37]
Although the rhetoric of most groups like Stand for Israel is
similar to their Jewish-based counterparts, some individuals have based their support on specific biblical passages, thus they have
been vulnerable to criticism from Israelis and US Jews for having "ulterior motives" such as the fulfillment of "prerequisite to
the Second Coming" or having "better access for
proselytizing among Jews."[37][38]
In April 2008, J Street was established, describing itself
as the only federal "pro-peace, pro-Israel" PAC. Its goal is to provide political and financial support to candidates for federal
office from US citizens who believe a new direction in US policy will advance US interests in the
Middle East and promote real peace and security for Israel.
Founded by former President Bill Clinton advisor
Jeremy Ben Ami and policy analyst
Daniel Levy and supported by prominent
Israeli politicians and high-ranking officers (see
Letter of support
from prominent Israeli leaders), J Street supports diplomatic solutions over military ones, including with
Iran; multilateral over unilateral approaches to
conflict resolution; and dialog over confrontation
with a wide range of countries and actors.[citation
needed]
Means of influence
As with all interest groups, it matters what they are asking for and when they are asking for it.-Stephen
Walt
The means via which Israel lobby groups exert influence are similar to the means via which other similar lobbies, such as the
National Rifle Association (NRA) and the
AARP (formerly known as "American Association of Retired Persons"),
exert influence. A number of commentators have asserted that the Israel lobby has undue or pervasive influence over U.S. foreign
policy in the Middle East.[citation needed]
However, other commentators note that no similar volume of criticism exists concerning the NRA, AARP or other major political lobbies,
and claim that much of this criticism is based on antisemitic
notions of a Jewish conspiracy.[40]
Voting power
According to Bard,[23]
"Jews have devoted themselves to politics with almost religious fervor." He cites that "Jews have the highest percentage voter turnout
of any ethnic group" and that of the American Jewish population
"roughly 94 percent live in thirteen key
electoral college states" which alone "are worth enough electoral votes to elect the president. If you add the non-Jews shown
by opinion polls to be as pro-Israel as Jews, it is clear Israel has the support of one of the largest
veto groups in the country." Bard goes on to say that for
United States congressmen "there are no benefits
to candidates taking an openly anti-Israel stance and considerable costs in both loss of campaign contributions and votes from Jews
and non-Jews alike."[23]
"Most important fact about the Jewish vote in America", according to
Jeffrey S. Helmreich
of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs,
"lies in the fact that it is a uniquely swayable bloc. [...] The issue of support for Israel [by a candidate] has proven capable
of spurring a sizable portion of Jews to switch parties-in large enough numbers to tip the scales in national or statewide elections.
Moreover, the "Israel swing vote" is especially open to political courtship because, unlike the interests of other minority groups,
support for Israel has long been compatible with traditional Republican and Democratic agendas. ... On the other hand, being distinctively
unsupportive of Israel can significantly hurt a candidate's chances."[41][42]
Campaign donations
"Political campaign contributions", writes Mitchell
Bard, "are also considered an important means of influence; typically, Jews have been major benefactors."
According to Bard, objective quantification that the impact of campaign contributions have on "legislative outcomes, particularly
with regard to Israel-related issues" is difficult. This is because raw analysis of contributions statistics do not take into account
"non-monetary factors" and whether or not "a candidate is pro-Israel because of receiving a contribution, or receives a donation
as a result of taking a position in support of Israel."[23]
Targeting
AIPAC does not give donations directly to candidates, but those who donate to AIPAC are often important political contributors
in their own right. In addition, AIPAC helps connect donors with candidates, especially to the network of pro-Israel political
action committees. AIPAC president Howard Friedman says "AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates
receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel's predicament and that of the Middle East
as a whole. We even ask each candidate to author a 'position paper' on their views of the US-Israel relationship – so it's clear
where they stand on the subject."[43]
This process has become more targeted over time according to Bard, "In the past, Jewish contributions were less structured and
targeted than other interest groups, but this has changed
dramatically as Israel-related PACs have proliferated."[23]
Among politicians considered unfriendly to Israel who AIPAC has helped defeat include
Cynthia McKinney,
Paul Findley,
Earl F. Hilliard,
Pete McCloskey, Senators
William Fulbright and
Roger Jepsen, and
Adlai Stevenson III in his campaign for governor
of Illinois in 1982.[44]
The defeat of Charles H. Percy, Senator for Illinois
until 1985, has been attributed to AIPAC-co-ordinated donations to his opponent after he supported the sale of
AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia. Donations included
$1.1 million on anti-Percy advertising by
Michael Goland, who
was also a major contributor to AIPAC.[44]
Former executive director of AIPAC, Tom Dine, was quoted as
saying, "All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians - those who hold public
positions now, and those who aspire - got the message".[45]
Financial figures
A summary of pro-Israel campaign donations for the period of 1990–2008 collected by
Center for Responsive Politics indicates
current totals and a general increase in proportional donations to the
US Republican party since 1996.[46]
The Center for Responsive Politics' 1990–2006 data shows that "pro-Israel interests have contributed $56.8 million in individual,
group and soft money donations to federal candidates and party committees since 1990."[47]
In contrast, Arab-Americans and
Muslim PACs contributed slightly less than $800,000 during the
same (1990–2006) period.[48]
In 2006, 60% of the Democratic Party's
fundraising and 25% of that for the Republican Party's fundraising came from Jewish-funded PACs. According to a Washington Post estimate,
Democratic presidential candidates depend on Jewish sources for as much as 60% of money raised from private sources.[49]
Education of politicians
According to Mitchell Bard, Israel lobbyists also educate politicians by
"taking them to Israel on study missions. Once officials have direct exposure to the country, its leaders, geography, and security
dilemmas, they typically return more sympathetic to Israel. Politicians also sometimes travel to Israel specifically to demonstrate
to the lobby their interest in Israel. Thus, for example,
George W. Bush made his one and only trip to Israel
before deciding to run for President in what was widely viewed as an effort to win pro-Israel voters' support."[23]
In 2002, the Brookings Institution founded the
Saban Center for Middle East Policy,
named after Haim Saban, an Israeli-American media proprietor,
who donated $13 million toward its establishment.[51]
Saban has stated of himself, "I'm a one issue guy, and my issue is Israel",[52]
and was described by the New York Times as a "tireless cheerleader for Israel."[52]
The Centre is directed by AIPAC's former deputy director of research,
Martin Indyk.
Frontline, an Indian current affairs magazine,
asked rhetorically why the
administration
of George W Bush that seemed "so eager to please [Bush's] Gulf allies, particularly the
Saudis, go out of its way to take the side of Ariel Sharon's
Israel? Two public policy organizations give us a sense of an answer: the
Washington Institute for Near East
Policy (WINEP) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs."[53]
Frontline reported that "WINEP tended to toe the line of whatever party came to power in Israel" while "JINSA was the U.S. offshoot
of the right-wing Likud Party."[53]
According to Frontline, JINSA had close ties to the administration of George W Bush in that it "draws from the most conservative
hawks in the U.S. establishment for its board of directors"[53]
including Vice-President Richard Cheney, and Bush administration
appointees John Bolton,
Douglas Feith,
Paul Wolfowitz,
Lewis Libby,
Zalmay Khalilzad,
Richard Armitage and
Elliott Abrams.
Jason Vest, writing in The Nation,[54]
alleges that both JINSA and the Center for Security Policy thinktanks are "underwritten by far-right American Zionists" and that
they both "effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure
continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East – a hegemony achieved with the traditional
cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action."
Media and public discourse
Stephen Zunes writes that "mainstream and conservative
Jewish organizations have mobilized considerable lobbying resources, financial contributions from the Jewish community, and citizen
pressure on the news media and other forums of public discourse in support of the Israeli government."[35]
Journalist Michael Massing writes that "Jewish organizations
are quick to detect bias in the coverage of the Middle East, and quick to complain about it. That's especially true of late. As
The Jewish Daily Forward observed in
late April [2002], 'rooting out perceived anti-Israel bias in the media has become for many American Jews the most direct and emotional
outlet for connecting with the conflict 6,000 miles away.'"[55]
The Forward related how one individual felt:
"'There's a great frustration that American Jews want to do something,' said Ira Youdovin, executive vice president of the
Chicago Board
of Rabbis. 'In 1947, some number would have enlisted in the
Haganah, ' he said, referring to the pre-state Jewish armed
force. 'There was a special American brigade. Nowadays you can't do that. The battle here is the
hasbarah war,' Youdovin said, using a Hebrew term for
public relations. 'We're winning, but we're very
much concerned about the bad stuff.'"[56]
Indicative of the diversity of opinion is a 2003 Boston
Globe profile of the CAMERA media watchdog group in which
Mark Jurkowitz observes:
"To its supporters, CAMERA is figuratively - and perhaps literally - doing God's work, battling insidious anti-Israeli bias in the
media. But its detractors see CAMERA as a myopic and vindictive special interest group trying to muscle its views into media coverage."[57]
A former spokesman for the Israeli Consulate in New York City
said that the result of this lobbying of the media was: "Of course, a lot of self-censorship goes on. Journalists, editors, and politicians
are going to think twice about criticizing Israel if they know they are going to get thousands of angry calls in a matter of hours.
The Jewish lobby is good at orchestrating pressure."[58]
In addition to traditional media, Israeli public relations
on the internet also is targeted with software called the
Megaphone desktop tool, which is designed and
promoted by pro-Israel interest groups.[59]
Regarding the 'Megaphone', the Times Online reported in
2006 that the Israeli Foreign Ministry "ordered
trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish
activists can place supportive messages."[60]
According to a Jerusalem Post article on the 'Megaphone',
Israel's Foreign Ministry was "urging supporters of Israel everywhere to become cyberspace soldiers 'in the new battleground for
Israel's image.'"[61]
Christopher Williams wrote for The Register: "However
it is used, Megaphone is effectively a high-tech exercise in ballot-stuffing. We're calling it lobbyware ."[62]
College campuses
There are a number of organizations that focus on what could be called "pro-Israel activism" on college campuses. With the outbreak
of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2001, these groups have been
increasingly visible. In 2002, an umbrella organization, that includes many of these groups, known as the
Israel on Campus Coalition was formed as a
result of what they felt were "the worrisome rise in anti-Israel activities on college campuses across North America". The mission
of the Israel on Campus Coalition is to "foster support for Israel" and "cultivate an Israel friendly university environment".[63]
Members of the Israel on Campus Coalition include the
Zionist Organization of America, AIPAC,
Americans for Peace Now, the Anti-defamation League, Kesher, the
Union of Progressive Zionists (Ameinu
and Meretz USA/Partners
for Progressive Israel), and a number of other organizations. There has been at least one conflict among these groups, when the
right wing Zionist Organization of America unsuccessfully attempted to remove the left wing Union of Progressive Zionists from the
coalition when the latter group sponsored lectures by a group of former
Israel Defense Forces soldiers who criticized the
Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and
Gaza.[64]
However, there are some who feel that pro-Israel activism on college campuses can cross the line from advocacy to outright
intimidation. One highly publicized accusation comes from
former President Jimmy Carter, who complained of great difficulty
in gaining access to a number of universities to discuss his new book
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. In October
2007 about 300 academics
under the name The Ad Hoc Committee to Defend the University
issued a statement calling for academic freedom from political pressure, in particular from groups portraying themselves as defenders
of Israel.[65]
In December 2007, student leaders who advocate pro-Israel films and groups on college campuses were eligible for being hired as "emissaries
of the Jewish state" for their work and would receive up to $1000 a year for their efforts.[66]
Coordination with Israeli officials
Rabbi Alexander Schindler, former chair of the Conference of Presidents, told an Israeli magazine in 1976, "The Presidents' Conference
and its members have been instruments of official governmental Israeli policy. It was seen as our task to receive directions from
government circles and to do our best no matter what to affect the Jewish community." Hymen Bookbinder, a high-ranking official of
the American Jewish Committee, said "Unless something is terribly pressing, really critical or fundamental, you parrot Israel's line
in order to retain American support. As American Jews, we don't go around saying Israel is wrong about its policies."[67]
Bard writes that "by framing the issues in terms of the national interest, AIPAC can attract broader support than would ever be
possible if it was perceived to represent only the interests of Israel. This does not mean AIPAC does not have a close relationship
with Israeli officials, it does, albeit unofficially. Even so, the lobby some times comes into conflict with the Israeli government."[23]
Responses to attacks on Israel and the Jews
Zunes writes that "assaults on critics of Israeli policies have been more successful in limiting open debate, but this gagging
censorship effect stems more from ignorance and liberal guilt than from any all-powerful Israel lobby."[35]
He goes on to explain that while "some criticism of Israel
really is rooted in anti-Semitism", it is his opinion that
some members of the Israel lobby cross the line by labeling intellectually honest critics of Israel as antisemitic.[35]
Zunes argues that the mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations have "created a climate of intimidation against many who speak
out for peace and human rights or who support the Palestinians'
right of self-determination."[35]
Zunes has been on the receiving end of this criticism himself "As a result of my opposition to US support for the Israeli government's
policies of occupation, colonization and repression, I have been deliberately misquoted, subjected to slander and libel, and falsely
accused of being "anti-Semitic" and "supporting terrorism"; my children have been harassed and my university's administration has
been bombarded with calls for my dismissal."[35]
In an opinion piece for The Guardian, Jimmy Carter
wrote that mainstream American politics does not give equal time to the Palestinian side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and
that this is due at least in part to AIPAC.[83]George Soros pointed out that there are risks associated
with what was in his opinion a suppression
of debate:
"I do not subscribe to the myths propagated by enemies of Israel and I am not blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism
predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel's policies nor the critics of those policies should be held responsible for anti-Semitism.
At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward Israel are influenced by Israel's policies, and attitudes toward the Jewish
community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby's success in suppressing divergent views."[84]
In his book, The Deadliest Lies,
Abraham Foxman referred to the notion that the pro-Israel
lobby is trying to censor criticism of Israel as a "canard."[85]
Foxman writes that the Jewish community is capable of telling the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel "and the demonization,
deligitization, and double standards employed against
Israel that is either inherently anti-Semitic or generates an environment of anti-Semitism."[85]Jonathan Rosenblum expressed similar thoughts: "Indeed,
if there were an Israel lobby, and labeling all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic were its tactic, the steady drumbeat of criticism
of Israel on elite campuses and in the elite press would be the clearest proof of its inefficacy."[86]
Alan Dershowitz wrote that he welcomes "reasoned, contextual and comparative criticism of Israeli policies and actions."[87]
If one of the goals of the pro-Israel lobby was to censor criticism of Israel, Dershowitz writes, "it would prove that 'the Lobby'
is a lot less powerful than the authors would have us believe."[87]
Dershowitz himself, claims to have written several critical pieces on specific Israeli policies.[citation
needed] Dershowitz disagrees with those who believe that the media is uncritical of Israel and cites the frequent
New York Times editorials and even an editorial in The Jewish Daily Forward against some of
Israel's more right of center policies as proof.[citation
needed] Dershowitz also denies that any significant, mainstream leader in the American Jewish community equates criticism
of Israel with antisemitism.[citation needed]
Debates
Criticism of the term
According to William Safire, the term "Israel Lobby"
came into use in the 1970s and, similar to the term "China lobby",
carries "the pejorative connotation of manipulation."[88]
He also writes that supporters of Israel gauge the degree of perceived animus towards the
Jewish State by the term chosen to refer to the lobby: "pro-Israel
lobby" being used by those with the mildest opposition, followed by "Israel lobby", with the term "Jewish lobby" being employed by
those with the most extreme anti-Israel opinions.[88]
According to Walt and Mearsheimer, "Using the term 'Israel lobby' is itself somewhat misleading...One might more accurately dub
this the 'pro-Israel community'..." since this is not the lobby of a foreign country, rather, it is composed of Americans.[89][90]
However, justifying their usage of the term, they write "because many of the key [pro-Israel] groups do lobby, and because the term
'Israel lobby' is used in common parlance (along with labels such as the 'farm lobby', 'insurance lobby', 'gun lobby' and other ethnic
lobbies), we have chosen to employ it here."[91]
Given my dissident politics, I should be up in arms about the Israel lobby. Not only have I supported the civil rights of the
Palestinians over the years, but two of my principal intellectual mentors were
George W. Ball and
Edward Said, both severe critics of Israel and its extra-special
relationship with the United States.
Nowadays I ought to be even bolder in my critique, since the silent agreement suppressing candid discussions about Israeli-U.S.
relations has recently been shaken by some decidedly mainstream figures. These critics of Israel and its American agents include
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, of the University of Chicago, and Harvard's Kennedy School, respectively;
Tony Judt, a historian at New York University; and former
President Jimmy Carter.
Somehow, though, I can't shake the idea that the Israel lobby, no matter how powerful, isn't all it is cracked up to be, particularly
where it concerns the Bush administrations past and present. Indeed, when I think of pernicious foreign lobbies with disproportionate
sway over American politics, I can't see past Saudi
Arabia and its royal house, led by King Abdullah.[92]
Mearsheimer and Walt have collected and quoted some of the lobbyists' comments on their organizations' political capital. For
example, Mearsheimer and Walt quote Morris Amitay, former
AIPAC director as saying, "It's almost politically suicidal ... for a member of Congress who wants to seek reelection to take any
stand that might be interpreted as anti-policy of the conservative Israeli government."[93]
They also quote a Michael Massing article in which a
staffer[who?]
sympathetic to Israel said, "We can count on well over half the House – 250 to 300 members – to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants."[94]
Similarly they cite former AIPAC official Steven Rosen illustrating AIPAC's power for Jeffrey Goldberg by putting a napkin in front
of him and saying, "In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin."[95]
However, some U.S. government officials have stated that the Israel lobby is not so powerful that they control U.S. foreign policy.
Former Secretary of StateGeorge Shultz stated "... the notion that U.S. policy on
Israel and Middle East is the result of [the Israel lobby's] influence is simply wrong."[96][97]Dennis B. Ross, former U.S. ambassador and chief peace
negotiator in the Middle East under Bill Clinton, who is
now an official at WINEP, wrote:
"never in the time that I led the American negotiations on the Middle East peace process did we take a step because 'the lobby'
wanted us to. Nor did we shy away from one because 'the lobby' opposed it. That is not to say that AIPAC and others have no influence.
They do. But they don't distort U.S. policy or undermine American interests."[98]
Individual journalists each have their own opinions on how powerful the Israel lobby is.
Glenn Frankel wrote: "On Capitol Hill the Israel lobby
commands large majorities in both the House and Senate."[99]Michael Lind produced a cover piece on the Israel lobby
for the UK publication Prospect in 2002 which concluded,
"The truth about America's Israel lobby is this: it is not all-powerful, but it is still far too powerful for the good of the U.S.
and its alliances in the Middle East and elsewhere.".[100]
Tony Judt, writing in the New York Times, asked rhetorically,
"Does the Israel Lobby affect our foreign policy choices? Of course – that is one of its goals. [...] But does pressure to support
Israel distort American decisions? That's a matter of judgment."[101]
Mitchell Bard has conducted a study which attempts to roughly quantify the influence of the Israel lobby on 782 policy decisions,
over the period of 1945 to 1984, in order to move the debate on its influence away from simple anecdotes. He
"found the Israeli lobby won; that is, achieved its policy objective, 60 percent of the time. The most important variable was
the president's position. When the president supported the lobby, it won 95 percent of the time. At first glance it appears the
lobby was only successful because its objectives coincided with those of the president, but the lobby's influence was demonstrated
by the fact that it still won 27 percent of the cases when the president opposed its position."[23]
According to a public opinion poll by Zogby International
of 1,036 likely voters from October 10–12, 2006, 40% of American voters at least somewhat believe the Israel lobby has been a key
factor in going to war in Iraq. The following poll question
was used: "Question: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that the work of the Israel lobby
on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran?"[102]
In March 2009, Charles W. Freeman, Jr., criticized
the lobby after withdrawing his candidacy for the chair of the
National Intelligence Council.[103][104]
Freeman said, "The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined
to prevent any view other than its own from being aired .... The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency
.... The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process ...."[105]
Members of Congress denied that the Israel lobby had a significant role in their opposition to Freeman's appointment; they cite Freeman's
ties with the Saudi and Chinese governments, objections to certain statements made about the
Palestinian territories and his lack of experience
as the reasons for their opposition.[106][107]
Comparison to other lobbies
The closest comparison is probably to other ethnic-group based lobbies that attempt to influence American foreign policy decisions
such as the Cuban-American lobby, the
African-American lobby in foreign
policy and the Armenian American lobby, although
the lobby has also been compared to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the lobby for the
Pharmaceutical industry.[108][109]
In comparing the Israel Lobby to the NRA, Glenn Frankel concludes that "Nevertheless, the Israel lobby, and AIPAC in particular,
gained a reputation as the National Rifle Association of foreign policy: a hard-edged, pugnacious bunch that took names and kept
score. But in some ways it was even stronger. The NRA's support was largely confined to right-wing Republicans and rural Democrats.
But AIPAC made inroads in both parties and both ends of the ideological spectrum."[99]
Zunes describes that some groups who lobby against current U.S. policy on Israel "have accepted funding from autocratic Arab regimes,
thereby damaging their credibility" while others have "taken hard-line positions that not only oppose the Israeli occupation but
challenge Israel's very right to exist and are therefore
not taken seriously by most policymakers."[35]
Zunes writes that many lobbying groups on the left, such as
Peace Action, are "more prone to complain about the power of the Israel lobby and its affiliated PACs than to do serious lobbying
on this issue or condition its own PAC contributions on support for a more moderate U.S. policy" in the region.[35]Noam Chomsky, political activist and professor of linguistics
at MIT, writes that "there are
far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally],
such as the oil companies, the
arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying
influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races."[110]
However, while comparing the Israel Lobby with the
Arab Lobby, Mitchell Bard notes that
"From the beginning, the Arab lobby has faced not only a disadvantage in electoral politics but also in organization. There are several
politically oriented groups, but many of these are one man operations with little financial or popular support."[111]
The Arab American Institute is involved in supporting
Arab-American political candidates, but, according to award-winning journalist
Ray Hanania "it's nothing compared to the funds that AIPAC
raises not just for Jewish American congressmen, but for congressmen who support Israel."[112]
Furthermore, Arab American lobbies face a problem of motivation; Jewish Americans feel the need to support their homeland (as well
as other states in the Middle East who have signed peace treaties with Israel) in active, organized ways. Arab Americans do not appear
to have a similar motivation when it comes to their own homelands.[113]
Israel and U.S. interests
Friendly relations between Israel and the U.S. has been and continues to be a tenet of both American and Israeli foreign policy.
Israel receives bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress. The
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
states that U.S. and Israel share common "economic, political, strategic, and diplomatic concerns" and that the countries exchange
"intelligence and military information" and cooperate in an effort to halt international terrorism and illegal drug trade.[114]
Furthermore, a majority of American citizens view Israel favorably.[115]
In 2011, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (a think tank founded by "a small group of visionary Americans committed
to advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East") argued that the U.S.-Israel relationship is "A Strategic Asset for the United States."[116][117]
In discussing their report, Walter B. Slocombe said
that while in the popular imagination, the U.S.-Israel relationship is only good for Israel, Israel provides enormous assistance
to the United States, including military expertise which has saved American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Robert D. Blackwill countered the claim that the
U.S.-Israel relationship significantly damages the relationship between the United States and the Arab world. He asked rhetorically:
"Would Saudi Arabia's policies toward the United States be markedly different in practice if Washington entered into a sustained
crisis with Israel over the Palestine issue during which the bilateral relationship between the United States and Israel went
into steep, systemic decline? In that instance, would Riyadh lower the price of oil? Would it stop hedging its regional bets concerning
U.S. attempts to coerce Iran into freezing its nuclear weapons program? Would it regard U.S. policy toward Afghanistan any less
critically? Would it view American democracy promotion in the Middle East more favorably? Would it be more inclined to reform
its internal governmental processes to be more in line with U.S. preferences? Walt [Slocombe] and I judge the answer to all these
questions [to be] 'No.'"[117]
When asked how this report could so flatly contradict the Walt and Mearsheimer thesis, Slocombe responded, "There is so much error
in the world," and added, "I think it would be interesting to ask them whether they make the same contrary argument about the other
countries to whom we also provide something like this kind of support. There are obviously differences, but the principle is the
same."[117]
The Israel Project noted in 2009 that "when you're
talking to Americans, you need to know that when you don't support a two-state solution you risk having a major public relations
challenge in America and Europe."[118]
In a 2008 editorial, Israeli-American
historian and author Michael B. Oren wrote that Israel
and the United States are natural allies, despite what the opposition from "much of American academia and influential segments of
the media." Oren claimed this was because Israel and the United States shared similar values such as "respect for civic rights and
the rule of law" and democracy. Israel and the United States share military intelligence in order to fight terrorism.[119]
Oren also noted that "more than 70% of [Americans], according to recent polls, favor robust ties with the Jewish state."[119]
In his 2007 review of Mearsheimer and Walt's book, Jeffrey
Goldberg wrote:
"Forty years of polling has consistently shown that Americans support Israel in its conflict with the Arabs. ... Both Israel
and America were founded by refugees from European religious intolerance; both are rooted in a common religious tradition; Israel
is a lively democracy in a part of the world that lacks democracy; Israelis seem self-reliant in the manner of American pioneers;
and Israel's enemies, in many cases, seem to be America's enemies as well."[120]
Israeli academic and political activist Jeff Halper said
that "Israel is able to pursue its occupation only because of its willingness to serve Western (mainly U.S.) imperial interests"
and that rather than influencing the United States via the lobby, Israel is actually "a
handmaiden of American Empire."[35]
According to political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, though, "the combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel
and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security."
They alleged that while "one might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling
moral imperatives....neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the
United States provides to Israel."[121]Robert Satloff cited the events of May–June 2010 (in which
Israel stopped a flotilla meant to break its blockade of the Gaza Strip and yet, a few days later, every country expected to vote
U.N. sanctions against Iran ended up voting as the U.S. wanted them to) as a counter-example that disproved that point of view.[122]
Goldberg similarly cited the Arab Spring to counter Walt
and Mearsheimer's point:
"It seems as if the Arab masses have been much less upset about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians than they have been
about their own treatment at the hands of their unelected leaders. If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, Arabs would still be upset
at the quality of their leadership (and they would still blame the United States for supporting the autocrats who make them miserable);
Iran would still continue its drive to expunge American influence from the Middle East; and al Qaeda would still seek to murder
Americans and other Westerners."[123]
American journalist Michael Massing argues that there is a lack of media coverage on the Israel lobby and posits this explanation:
"Why the blackout? For one thing, reporting on these groups is not easy. AIPAC's power makes potential sources reluctant to discuss
the organization on the record, and employees who leave it usually sign pledges of silence. AIPAC officials themselves rarely give
interviews, and the organization even resists divulging its board of directors."[55]
Massing writes that in addition to AIPAC's efforts to maintain a low profile, "journalists, meanwhile, are often loath to write about
the influence of organized Jewry. [...] In the end, though, the main obstacle to covering these groups is fear."[55]Steven Rosen, a former director of foreign-policy issues
for AIPAC, explained to Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker
that "a lobby is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun."[126]
According to Gal Beckerman there are many individual pro-Israel
op-ed columnists, but the argument that the media as a whole is part of the Israel lobby cannot be concluded from Mearsheimer
and Walt's cherry picked evidence:
"Walt and Mearsheimer undermine our intelligence by assuming that we are simply being manipulated.... If the lobby is so influential
over the media, how were Walt and Mearsheimer given such space in every major news outlet in the country to express their 'dangerous'
views? You want to tell me that a force that can impel us to got [sic] to war in Iraq can't find a way to censor two academics?
Not much of a lobby, now is it?"[127]
Writing for the Columbia Journalism Review,
Beckerman cites examples of op-eds critical of Israel from several major U.S. newspapers and concludes that an equally compelling
argument could be made that the Israel lobby doesn't control the media.
Itamar Rabinovich, writing for the Brookings Institution,
wrote, "The truth of the matter is that, insofar as the lobby ever tries to intimidate and silence, the effort usually causes more
damage than it redresses. In any event, the power of the lobby to do that is very modest."[128]
On The Diane Rehm Show (December 11, 2006),
Middle East experts Hisham Melhem, Lebanese journalist
and Washington Bureau Chief for
Al-Arabia, and Dennis Ross,
a Jewish-American diplomat working as counselor Washington Institute for Near East Policy, when asked about the pervasive Israeli
influence on American foreign policy in the Middle East mentioned in former President Jimmy Carter's 2006 book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid said:
[H. Melhem] "When it comes to Israel [discussing Israeli and/or Jewish American issues], it is still almost a taboo in certain parts,
not everywhere...there are certain things that cannot be said about the Israeli government or America's relationship with Israel
or about the Israeli lobby. Yes there is, excuse me, there is an Israeli lobby, but when we say an Israeli lobby we are not talking
about a Jewish cabal. The Israeli lobby operates the way the NRA operates, a system of rewards and punishment, you help your friends
by money, by advocacy and everything, and sometimes they pool money in to the campaigns of those people that they see as friendly
to Israel. This is the American game".[129]
(radio interview: ≈16:30-20:05)
Trump as the President fully controlled by Jewish lobby
The Trump administration's recent steps in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should surely lay to rest any doubts about the enormous,
and dangerous, power of the Israel lobby in Washington. Under Trump, the lobby has shown it can wield unprecedented influence – even
by its usual standards – in flagrant disregard for all apparent US interests.
First, there was the move this month of the US embassy
to Jerusalem, not quietly but on the 70th anniversary of the most sensitive day in the Palestinian calendar, Nakba Day. That is when
Palestinians commemorate their mass expulsion from their homeland in 1948. By relocating the embassy, Trump gave official US
blessing to tearing up the 25-year-old peace process – and in choosing Nakba Day for the move, he rubbed the noses of Palestinians,
and by extension the Arab world, in their defeat.
Then, the White House compounded the offence by lauding Israeli snipers who massacred dozens of unarmed Palestinians protesting
at the perimeter fence around Gaza the same day. A series of statements issued by the White House could have been written by Israel's
far-right prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, himself.
At the United Nations, the US blocked a Security Council resolution calling for the massacre to be investigated, while Nikki Haley,
Trump's UN envoy,
observed to fellow delegates: "No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has."
None of these moves served any obvious US national interest, nor did Trump's decision the previous week to tear up the 2015 nuclear
accord with Iran that has long been reviled by the Israeli government. In fact, quite the contrary: These actions risk inflaming
tensions to the point of a regional war that could quickly drag in the major powers, or provoke terror attacks on US soil.
It should be recalled that two decades ago, it was impossible even to mention the existence of an Israel lobby in Washington without
being labelled an anti-Semite. Paradoxically, Israel's supporters exercised the very power they denied existed, bullying critics
into submission by insisting that any talk of an Israel lobby relied on anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish power.
The wall of silence was broken only with the publication in 2006 of a seminal
essay – later turned
into a book – by two prominent US academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. But in a sign of the immense weight of the lobby
even as it was being dragged into the light, the pair were unable to find a publisher in the US. Instead, the essay found a home
across the Atlantic in the prestigious, if obscure, London Review of Books. One of the pair, Stephen Walt, has publicly
admitted that his career suffered
as a result. Since then, a little leeway has opened up on the subject. Even New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a staunch advocate
for Israel, has conceded the lobby's existence. In 2011, he explained a well-established, if astounding, ritual of US politics: that
the Congress greets every visiting Israeli prime minister more rapturously than the American president himself.
Friedman
observed: "I sure hope that Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress
this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."
Friedman was alluding to the network of Jewish leadership organisations and political action committees in the US, all of them
hawkishly pro-Israel, that at election time can channel large sums of money for or against Congressional candidates.
It is not that these pro-Israel organisations control the Congress. It is that they have mastered the techniques of political
intimidation. They understand and
exploit a flawed American system that has allowed lobbies and their money to dictate the agendas of most US lawmakers. Congresspeople
are vulnerable as individuals – not only to the loss of donations, but to a generously funded opponent.
In Trump's case, the follow-the-money principle could not have been clearer. In the early stages of his battle to become the Republican
party candidate for president, when most assumed he stood no chance and he was funding the campaign himself, he was relatively critical
of Israel. Hard as it is to believe now, he
promised to be "neutral" on the Israel-Palestine issue; expressed doubts about whether it made sense to hand Israel billions
of dollars annually in military aid; backed a two-state solution; and refused to commit to recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
All of that got ditched the moment he needed big funders for his presidential bid. The kingmaker in the Republican party is Sheldon
Adelson, the casino billionaire and champion of the kind of Israeli ultra-nationalist, anti-Arab politics in which Netanyahu excels.
Adelson likes Netanyahu so much he even bought him a newspaper, Israel Hayom, which Adelson has grown into the largest-circulation
daily in Israel.
In the end, Adelson backed Trump's election campaign to the tune of $35m. It was the need for Adelson's support that ensured Trump
appointed David Friedman, a long-time benefactor of the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, in the supposedly non-partisan
position of US ambassador to Israel. And it was Adelson who was among the honoured guests at the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem
this month.
Those who accuse anyone raising the issue of the Israel lobby of anti-Semitism either misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent
what is being claimed.
No one apart from easily identifiable Jew haters is updating the century-old Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious forgery
by supporters of the Russian czar supposedly proving that "the Jews" sought world domination through control of the banks and the
media. For starters, the argument for the existence of an Israel lobby does not refer to Jews at all. It is about a country, Israel,
and its outsize influence over the policies of the US.
Other countries or groups of US citizens try to exercise such influence, either through similar lobbies or through subterfuge.
No one would deny there is a Cuba lobby that helped influence US policy in seeking to oust revolutionary leader Fidel Castro.
And most US lawmakers are currently frothing at the mouth about what they see as covert Russian efforts to influence US politics
to Moscow's advantage.
Why would we expect Israel to be any different? The question isn't whether the lobby exists, but why the US political system is
doing nothing to protect itself from its interference.
Rather than exposing and confronting the Israel lobby, however, US presidents have more typically bent to its will. That was only
too obvious, for example, when Barack Obama folded in his early battle with Netanyahu to limit the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements
in the West Bank.
But under Trump, the Israel lobby has come to exercise unrivalled power, because it is now far more than just one lobby. It is
a five-headed Hydra worthy of Greek mythology, and only one of its heads relates directly to Israel or organised American Jewry.
In fact, the lobby's power now derives not chiefly from Israel. Since Trump's election, the Israel lobby has managed to absorb
and mobilise an additional four powerful lobbies – and to a degree not seen before. They are: the Christian evangelicals, the alt-right,
the military-industrial complex, and the Saudi Arabia lobby.
Domestically, Trump's election victory depended on his ability to rally to his side two groups that are profoundly committed to
Israel, even though they are largely indifferent, or actively hostile, to the Jews who live there.
Leaders of the US alt-right – a loose coalition of white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups – are infatuated with Israel but typically
dislike Jews. That sentiment has been encapsulated by alt-right leader Richard Spencer, who
describes himself as a "white Zionist".
In short, the alt-right treasures Israel because it has preserved a long-discredited model of a fortress-like, belligerent racial
homeland. They want the US reserved exclusively for an imagined "white" community, just as Israel defines itself as representing
an exclusive Jewish community.
Trump's reliance on the alt-right vote was highlighted by the early appointment to his administration of several leading figures
associated with the movement, including Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Michael Flynn, Julia Hahn and Sebastian Gorka.
But more significant still has been the role of evangelicals. That is why Mike Pence, a devout Christian, was chosen as Trump's
running mate. Trump's team understood that the votes of tens of millions of Americans were assured if Trump pandered to their prejudices.
And happily for Netanyahu, their keenest prejudice is fanatical support for Israel – and not just for Israel inside its internationally
recognised borders, but also for Greater Israel, which includes many dozens of illegal Jewish settlements built on Palestinian land.
The Christian Zionists believe that Jews must be corralled into their biblical homeland to fulfil divine prophecy and bring about
the Second Coming of the Messiah.
It was primarily for the sake of these Christian Zionists that Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. And it was why two evangelical
pastors with a history of anti-Semitic remarks, John Hagee and Robert Jeffress, were called on to
offer their blessings at the opening ceremony.
Trump's indebtedness to the evangelicals is one reason to be worried about his policies in the region. The Christian Zionists
have no interest in fairness, justice or international law. Rather, they are prepared to inflame tensions in the Middle East – and
even trigger Armageddon itself – if they think it might benefit Israel and further God's prophecy.
The military-industrial complex has enjoyed a much longer, if more veiled, influence on US politics. A former US army general
who became president, Dwight Eisenhower, warned
of the looming threat posed by an increasingly dominant corporate sector dependent on war profits back in 1961.
Since then, the power of these corporations has accreted and expanded in precisely the ways Eisenhower feared. And that has only
helped Israel.
In the early 1980s, Noam Chomsky, the dissident US intellectual, observed in his book The Fateful Triangle that Israel and the
US had different conceptions of the Middle East.
The US was then what Chomsky termed a "status quo power" that was mostly interested in preserving the existing regional order.
Israel, on the other hand, was committed to destabilisation of the region – its Balkanisation – as a strategy to extend its hegemony
over feuding, internally divided neighbouring states.
Today, it is not hard to see which vision of the Middle East prevailed. The US-headquartered war industries lobbied for – and
have profited enormously from – an endless, global "war on terror" that needs their expensive killing toys. The West has even been
able to market its wars of aggression against other sovereign states as "humanitarian" in nature.
The benefits to the military industries can be
gauged by examining the ever-surging profits of large US arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon over the past
decade.
Israel has not only benefited from the sanctioning and dismemberment of regional rivals, such as Syria, Iraq and Iran, but it
has exploited the opportunity to make itself indispensable to these war-profiting industries.
It has, for example, been the linchpin in developing and refining new ways to exploit the cultivation of fear – most significantly,
the ever-expanding "homeland security" industry.
Using the occupied Palestinian territories for experimentation, Israel has specialised in developing surveillance and biometric
technologies, lethal and non-lethal crowd control methods, complex incarceration systems, psychological profiling of subjugated populations,
and highly dubious redefinitions of international law to lift existing restraints on war crimes and wars of aggression.
That has proved invaluable to the military industries that have sought to profit from new wars and occupations across the Middle
East. But it has also meant Israel's expertise is much sought-after by US political and security elites who wish to pacify and control
restless domestic populations.
Israel's encouragement of the Middle East's destabilisation has raised new threats in the US – of protest, immigration and terrorism
– for which Israel has then supplied readymade solutions.
Israel has helped to rationalise the militarisation of police forces in the US and elsewhere, and
provided the training. It has also gradually introduced to the US and other Western countries the kind of
racial
and political profiling that has long been standard in Israel.
That is the reason why Israeli academic Jeff Halper has
warned of the danger that the "war on terror" could ultimately turn all of us into Palestinians.
But perhaps the most significant additional boost to Israel's power in Washington has been its newfound and barely concealed alliance
with Saudi Arabia.
For decades, the oil lobby in the US was seen as a counterweight to the Israel lobby. That was why Israel's supporters traditionally
reviled the US State Department,
which was viewed as an Arabist outpost.
No longer. Trump, ever the businessman, has cultivated even stronger ties to the Saudis, hoping that arms and technology sales
will revive the US economy and his political fortunes.
During a visit by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman to the US in March, Trump
noted: "Saudi Arabia is a very wealthy nation, and they're going to give the United States some of that wealth hopefully, in
the form of jobs, in the form of the purchase of the finest military equipment anywhere in the world."
But Washington's close ties to the Saudis are increasingly a boon to Israel rather than an impediment. The two have found
common cause in their feverish opposition to Iran, and its Shia allies in Syria and Lebanon, and their determination to prevent them
from gaining more power in the region.
Israel wants a military hegemony over the Middle East that Iran could undermine, while Riyadh needs an ideological and financial
hegemony that Iran might be able to disrupt.
And the Palestinians – the only issue that continues formally to divide Israel and Saudi Arabia – are increasingly
viewed by bin Salman as a chess piece he is ready to sacrifice in exchange for Iran's destruction.
Trump tore up the nuclear accord agreed by Obama with Iran with such incendiary abandon this month because his two Middle East
allies jointly demanded he do so.
And the indications are that he may do worse – even attacking Iran – if the pressure from Israel and the Saudis reaches a critical
mass.
All of these various lobbies have long wielded significant power in Washington, but remained largely separate. In recent years,
their interests have come to overlap considerably, making Israel ever more unassailable in US politics.
Under Trump, their agendas have aligned so completely that this multi-headed lobby has as good as collectively captured the presidency
on matters that concern it most.
That is not to say that the Israel lobby will not face future challenges. Other pressures are emerging in reaction to the
unaccountable power of the Israel lobby, including progressive voices in US politics that are, for the first time, breaking with
the long-standing bipartisan nature of the debate about Israel.
Bernie Sanders's unexpected surge in the Democratic nomination race for the presidency, the rise of the international boycott,
divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, the growing alienation of young US Jews from Israel, and the US public's ever-greater exposure
on social media to Israel's crimes are signs of trends it will be difficult for Israel to counter or reverse.
Israel is getting its way at the moment. But hubris is a fault we have been warned about since the time of the ancient Greeks.
Israel may yet come to learn a little humility – the hard way.
Jewish ancestry means little. Supporting Zionism as a political ideology means a lot. It is
not clear from the article who among listed supports it. Definitly not everybody.
As President-elect Joe Biden announced his picks for the Cabinet, the joke went around on
Jewish Twitter that the West Wing would have a minyan.
Indeed, at least 10 prominent Jews have been nominated to key positions. There's Ronald
Klain (chief of staff); Anthony Blinken (Secretary of State); Janet Yellen (Treasury); Merrick
Garland (Attorney General); Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security);and Avril Haines (Director
of National Intelligence). One level down are Wendy Sherman (deputy Secretary of State); Eric
Lander (science and technology adviser); Ann Neuberger (deputy National Security Adviser); and
David Cohen (deputy CIA director).
Plus there's Doug Emhoff, the Jewish husband of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.
It's
a "remarkable statement about the place of Jews in this society," said Jason Isaacson, the
American Jewish Committee's chief policy and political affairs officer in Washington. Amid the
rise in antisemitism and its role underpinning the Capitol siege on Jan. 6, Isaacson added, the
fact that so many well-known and engaged Jews will serve in the highest levels of the
administration "and no one talks about that and it's not an issue, that says a lot about how
far American society has progressed."
After Biden's inauguration on Wednesday, most of these individuals will have to be confirmed by
the United States Senate. Here's a who's who guide to the West Wing minyan-to-be:
Former British Minister: 'Israelis Think They Control the Foreign Office. And They
do!' June 4, 2021 Save
Matt Kennard reports on revelations of Israeli state influence on U.K. politics in Alan
Duncan's recently published diaries.
July 14, 2016: Boris Johnson, while serving as foreign secretary, speaking to the media in
London. (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, Flickr, CC BY 2.0)
F rom revelations about Israeli efforts to "destroy" him, to attempts by a powerful
pro-Israel lobby group to stop him becoming a minister for the Middle East, Sir Alan Duncan saw
up close the power of the Israeli state in British politics during his time at the heart of the
U.K. government.
Duncan served as British foreign minister from 2016-19, having previously held the
international development brief. His new book, In The Thick Of It , reveals much about U.K. government policy that has been missed
by the British press and broadcasters.
At the beginning of 2017, media outlet Al Jazeera contacted Duncan to inform him about its
undercover investigation
into Israeli influence in U.K. politics, which included revelations related to him
personally.
Duncan wrote in his diary that Al Jazeera "has footage of diplomats from the Israeli embassy
in London collaborating with MPs from both Labour and Conservatives on Israel." He said this
included Shai Masot, a diplomat from the Israeli embassy "calling for them to destroy the
'Deputy Foreign Minister' (i.e. me), so that he never becomes Foreign Secretary."
Duncan added: "They say that if [then foreign secretary] Boris [Johnson] were to be sacked,
I'd take over and so both such moments have to be stopped."
Days later, Duncan went to the Foreign Office to brief Simon McDonald, who was then
running the
department, on the revelations.
Duncan wrote: "I teasingly remind him of what happened and what I said to him on my first
day as minister. 'Simon didn't I tell you? The CFI and the Israelis think they control the
Foreign Office. And they do!'"
The CFI is Conservative Friends of Israel, a powerful Westminster lobby group that does not
disclose its funders but has
claimed
80 percent of Conservative MPs are members.
Oct. 31, 2012: Alan Duncan, while serving as minister of state for international
development. (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, Flickr, CC BY 2.0)
'They Shouldn't Behave Like This'
On the same day, Duncan spoke on the phone to Mark Regev, then Israel's ambassador to
Britain. According to Duncan, Regev told him Masot is a "local hire, works in a junior capacity
and does not have diplomatic status."
"It's all total bollocks," Duncan wrote. "Masot is a First or Second Secretary, a member of
military intelligence, employed specifically as a parliamentary and undercover
propagandist."
He continued: "What on earth is the point of Regev stating something that is so blatantly
untrue, and about which we both hold the facts? What a muppet."
Duncan then briefed Boris Johnson who was "indignant".
"'They shouldn't behave like this,' [Johnson] exclaimed, though I'd told him a million times
that they do."
Duncan confided that he withheld some information from Johnson: "The Al Jazeera tapes
essentially say that I run the [Foreign Office], BoJo is an idiot, I take the serious
decisions, and if anything happens to Boris I will become Foreign Secretary and so I must be
destroyed. It's a poor reading of the facts – indeed, it's balls – but it gives a
useful insight into Israel's mentality."
The Al Jazeera documentary also uncovered the degree of Israeli state influence over the
opposition Labour Party.
In a conversation filmed outside a London pub, Michael Rubin, the parliamentary officer for
Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), which counts dozens of Labour MPs as either
"officers" or "supporters," revealed the close links between the group and the Israeli embassy
in London.
Rubin
said that he and Shai Masot "work really closely together but a lot of it is behind the
scenes." He added
that "the [Israeli] embassy helps us quite a lot. When bad stories come out about Israel, the
embassy sends us information so that we can counter it."
Mark Regev in 2018. (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, Flickr, CC BY 2.0)
Aware of these revelations, Duncan talked with Emily Thornberry, then shadow foreign
secretary, to see if Labour intended to table an urgent question in parliament on the
matter.
"They won't because it would risk stirring up more anti-Semitism accusations against them,"
Duncan reported, referring to the long-running "anti-Semitism crisis" that rocked the Labour
Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.
The LFI faced no action from Labour in the aftermath of the Al Jazeera program.
'Entrenched Espionage'
Before hard evidence emerged of Israeli efforts to "destroy" him, Duncan had already been
targeted by the CFI to stop him being promoted within the British government.
On July 16, 2016, Duncan wrote: "All seems clear and agreed that I will be Minister for the
Middle East, as expected. Permanent Under-Secretary Simon McDonald called to say it's all been
agreed and he would recommend it to the Foreign Secretary."
He continued: "But when I see Boris [Johnson] at 6pm it seems a massive problem has arisen,
which is nothing short of contemptible. Boris says the Conservative Friends of Israel are going
ballistic."
Johnson reported that Eric Pickles and Stuart Polak, both senior figures in the CFI, "have both called him incessantly
saying I must not be appointed."
Duncan wrote that the opposition from the CFI is "for no other reason than that I believe in
the rights of the Palestinians."
"Whereas they pretend to believe in two parallel states, it's quite clear that they don't,
and so set out to destroy all genuine advocates for Palestine," he added.
He concluded: "They just want to belittle and subjugate the Palestinians."
The lobbying worked. Despite the appointment not being announced, "Now Number 10 are telling
Boris I cannot have the Middle East," Duncan wrote. He continued that Johnson was "somewhat
indignant at this pressure and its propriety (or lack of it)."
Duncan then offered a compromise: to take the Middle East minister job but to exclude the
issue of Israel-Palestine from the brief. Johnson "likes the idea," Duncan reported, but added
that "on any level it is appalling that a [prime minister]'s appointments can be subject to
such lobbying. Our own national interest is being taken for a sucker."
He continued: "In any other country the conduct of Eric Pickles and Stuart Polak would in my
view be seen as entrenched espionage that should prompt an inquiry into their conduct."
Duncan also wrote that Downing Street Chief of Staff Nick Timothy was "in cahoots with CFI
lobbying."
He continued: "This whole issue of Israel is utterly out of proportion, but, worse, is
permitted to empower interested parties in Number 10 to decide what a minister's
responsibilities should be. This is improper. It's wrong. I actually think it's corrupt, but
the whole system buys into it without realising how wrong it is."
The situation then escalated further as Duncan reported that the Board of Deputies of
British Jews ran a webcast in which Labour MP Louise Ellman said that Duncan should not be
foreign minister.
"My appointment isn't even public yet. How did they know?" Duncan wrote. "Clearly Pickles
and Polak have been actively lobbying against me, linking CFI, Labour Friends of Israel and the
Board of Deputies."
Duncan continued: "This is the most disgusting interference in our public life. I find it
astonishing the system allows it to happen, all the more so as anything I have said has been
wholly in tune with government policy. The difference seems to be that I believe in that
policy, whereas CFI and the government itself do not!"
Duncan was then informed that his appointment to Middle East minister would be blocked.
"This is so wrong on all levels," he wrote, adding that Simon McDonald "is rather perturbed by
what is going on."
He added: "The only people who are acting improperly are CFI and those who accept their
browbeating lobbying."
In the end, Duncan was offered the role as minister for Europe and the Americas, and served
in that position for three years. However, he told McDonald that "he should never forget what
it is the [Foreign Office] has submitted to."
' Embedded Outside Influence'
Pro Israel Gaza rally, Trafalgar Square, London, Jan. 11, 2009. (Chris Beckett, Flickr, CC
BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Duncan also casts light on another scandal involving the Israeli government and the CFI
which broke in 2017. It emerged that Priti Patel, then minister for international development,
held a number of "off radar" meetings with Israeli officials, including Prime minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, during a "family holiday" in the country.
Duncan notes that Patel spent a week in Israel "on a programme put together by Polak,
without telling the [Foreign Office] or even her own department, attending meetings at the
highest level, accompanied by the principal pro-Israel donor lobbying in the U.K. ", referring
to Polak.
He concluded that "it is yet further evidence of the pernicious influence of Polak and the
CFI, something that amounts to embedded outside influence at the heart of our politics".
Patel eventually resigned but Duncan noted that nothing in the "exchange of letters even
mentions Israel and the deep impropriety of her actions and the CFI remains in place,
unchallenged and only obliquely mentioned".
Duncan concluded: "The Conservative Party and the PM remain in total denial, and once again
brush it under the carpet. It reeks, it stinks, it festers, it moulders – all rotten to
the core. The rules of propriety, and all the morality and principle that goes with it, are
discarded and rewritten to accommodate this exceptional pro-Israel infiltration into the very
centre of our public life."
Duncan also believed other U.K. government policies were being dictated by the CFI. In
February 2019, then home secretary Sajid Javid banned
the political arm of Hezbollah, the Lebanese party and militant group.
Javid, Duncan notes, is "just sucking up to the CFI, who are out in force behind him reading
out their scripted interventions", adding, "Polak and Pickles are in the Peers' Gallery
gloating from above about having deployed their Commons troops in Israel's cause."
He added: "We are supposed to be Great Britain, but I fear we are too willing to let others
pull our strings."
Declassified recently
outlined the deepening military relations between the U.K. and Israel and
revealed that a third of cabinet ministers in Boris Johnson's government have been funded
by Israel or the CFI.
Last week, foreign secretary Dominic Raab travelled to Israel for a meeting with Benjamin
Netanyahu. Netanyahu thanked Johnson for his
"staunch, unwavering support" in the recent bombing of Gaza, to which Raab replied: "You can
always count on us."
Raab described himself as a "friend" and "great supporter" of Israel.
Presented with Duncan's allegations of undue Israeli influence, the Foreign Office refused
to provide an on-the-record comment. The Conservative Friends of Israel, Stuart Polak and Eric
Pickles, did not respond to requests for comment. DM
Matt Kennard is head of Investigations at Declassified UK , an investigative
journalism organisation that covers the U.K. 's role in the world.
The destruction of the AP press tower in GAZA is getting interesting.
Recap, Netanyahu insists that Hamas operatives (and Bogeyman) were using this building to
plan terrorist attacks on Israel and that made it a legitimate target.
Follow up events:
1. AP denies Netanyahu's claim and insist they have never seen Hamas.
2. Netanyahu doubles down, saying that he shared Intel w/the Biden Administration and they
agreed w/his assessment.
3. Blinken undercuts Netanyahu, meekly but enough to hurt. He says he asked for but did
not see any Intel about Hamas presence in the tower.
4. Now the full court press is on, https://nypost.com/2021/05/17/ap-slammed-for-claiming-it-was-unaware-of-hamas-presence/
The blob is attacking AP, saying that Matti Friedman wrote way back in 2014 about Hamas using
that building for all kinds of things including Rocket manufacturing. Freidman essentially
accuses AP of being Hamas collaborators. [does an old accusation prove that something is
true?]
I did not find the 2014 article and even if Friedman wrote it, he still has to prove it's
true. It could be a list of accusations waiting to be used. We hear many such mantras.
Where will this go?
Was Netanyahu so arrogant that he slipped up or was this a trap to discredit anyone who shows
sympathy to the Gazans? (I admit it, I'm intimidated by the theory that Netanyahu and
Israelis have super hi IQ's)
AP tower attack follow up. Okay here is the ponderous Matti Friedman link to 2014
article
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-the-media-makes-the-israel-story/383262/
A lot of it is projection about how stories are manufuctured, guffaw, Israel does that all
the time. When he says that Hamas understands that AP is an asset, that is dangerous as
Neocons would infer that AP are terrorists. He is actually saying that Hamas manipulates them
which I believe is true and is an entirely different thing.
The most interesting part of the article
"The AP staff in Gaza City would witness a rocket launch right beside their office,
endangering reporters and other civilians nearby -- and the AP wouldn't report it, not even
in AP articles about Israeli claims that Hamas was launching rockets from residential
areas. (This happened.) Hamas fighters would burst into the AP's Gaza bureau and threaten
the staff -- and the AP wouldn't report it. (This also happened.) Cameramen waiting outside
Shifa Hospital in Gaza City would film the arrival of civilian casualties and then, at a
signal from an official, turn off their cameras when wounded and dead fighters came in,
helping Hamas maintain the illusion that only civilians were dying."
1. I can understand the AP not reporting a specific location of or picture of a rocket
launch because it compromises the military operation of the host authority (heads explode)
BUT they should mention in a general sense that they observed rockets being launched from
civilian areas.
2. For similar reasons, I can see them not filming wounded fighters. AP does give a break
down but showing fighters compromises security and Israel loves bombing hospitals if they
function as human shields.
Trump failed so Biden took over <=the link answers Christian J. Chuba @ 38 and
others..
When you wake up, and discover the world over is under common management. the oligarch
have removed bottom up politics from the nation state system: voting, demonstrating,
elections whatever makes no difference, the outcome is predetermined to favor the wealthy
Oligarch in charge.
The nation states are management franchises given to territorial oligarchs chiefs. The
total people in the 256 nation states add up to the 8 billion the number who live in the
world. So the Oligarch have divided the management of people they control into piece meal
national governments, each with authority over a portion of the earth. At the macro level
globally managed, at the microscopic level domestically managed, and at the lesser political
sub divisional levels nano-scopically managed. But its a trickle down management; the top
layers dictate, everyone else follows.
So the nation state is a hierarchically arranged system is designed to completely control
humanity, and to direct the allocation of resources, and the cummulative production of
mankind, into the hands of the wealthy oligarchs. Those same Oligarchs who oversee the
management of each of the nation state franchises.
A few wealthy Oligarchs run the nation state franchised world. They shall be known as the
franchisor.. and the 256 nation states as the franchisees.
Since when is Netanyahu an "ex commando"? That was his older brother. While HAMAS was, as
even the zionist entity admits, created by it to weaken the PLO, Dyer cannot possibly be so
uninformed as to be able to innocently imply, as he does, that the Palestinian resistance
this time is restricted to HAMAS. Even in Gaza - the world's largest ever concentration camp
- groups opposed to HAMAS, such as Islamic Jihad and the PFLP, are resisting the zionist
entity. In the so called state of "Israel", ordinary civilians are rising in resistance.
Also, of course, Dyer is deliberately silent about the rather important fact that the
zionist entity itself began this cycle of violence by illegally evicting Palestinian families
from their homes in Occupied Jerusalem in order to create yet another illegal racist settler
colony of apartheid imports.
Another load of Dyer claptrap, in other words. I do not remember when Dyer last wrote a
word of truth, so this is rather what could be expected from him.
Alongside the hostilities in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, a concentration of NATO
forces appears to be happening nearby.
On May 16th, a French carrier group was concentrated south of Cyprus.
On May 17th, four US Air Force B-52H strategic bombers arrived in Spain, and this is in
addition to the six already based in Qatar.
On May 18th, three missile destroyers from the US Navy aircraft carrier group operating
in the Arabian Sea are making a transition with the explicit intention to get, if not to
the Mediterranean, then at least to the northern part of the Red Sea, closer to Israel.
This is likely an attempt for Israel's allies to guarantee that it can continue carrying
out its operation, while being undeterred by Iran, or other Palestinian allies.
If this is a suggestion that the NATO powers are concerned that forces in the middle east
will rise against israel in support of the Palestinians, perhaps there are serious
discussions among the Turks and others about intervening directly in the conflict.
The suggestion by Turkey for the formation of a protection force for the Palestinians may
be an example of this:
“A Top Biden Cybersecurity Aide Donated Over $500,000 to AIPAC as an NSA
Official†[David Corn,
Mother Jones (via the War Nerd )].
“Several other national security expertsâ€"who asked not to be
namedâ€"say that the foundation’s donations to AIPAC create, at
the least, an appearance problem for Anne Neuberger.†•
Apparently Neuberger
was too much not only for Corn, but for his handlers in the intelligence community, to stomach.
The whole piece is well worth a read. It’s all horrible.
"... "If the day should ever come when we must go, if some day we are compelled to leave the scene of history, we will slam the door so hard that the universe will shake and mankind will stand back in stupefaction.." ― Joseph Goebbels ..."
"... 'We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under' ― General Moshe Dayan ..."
I went lateral in researching today's b-post and in so doing came across a Goebbels quote:
"If the day should ever come when we must go, if some day we are compelled to leave the scene of history, we will slam
the door so hard that the universe will shake and mankind will stand back in stupefaction.."
― Joseph Goebbels
And I was sure that I had read something like that before:
'We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under'
― General Moshe Dayan
a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy
for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases
where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other,
betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without
adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of
privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions
by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill
will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld;
and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the
favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without
odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of
obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good
the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow
citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and
experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican
government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the
instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive
partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they
actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of
influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable
to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence
of the people to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our
commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as
we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us
stop. ...
I do feel pity for Donald Trump, though his last days in the White House were anything but
inspirational. He did not dare to pardon people who went for him into the Capitol, he didn't
pardon Assange or Snowden, but surprisingly he pardoned a whole lot of Jewish cheats. The
Jerusalem Postpublished
the list of prominent Zionists he pardoned. On the list is an Israeli spy runner Aviem
Sella who was responsible for Jonathan Pollard; the rest are dishonest machers like
Sholam Weiss (who stole US $150 million, sentenced to 850 years) or Eliyahu Weinstein (stole up
to $200 million, sentenced to 24 years). See also a detailed analysis here . A devout believer in the
demonic power of Zionists, Trump had thought to make up to them to avoid their anger. In vain:
there are already
plenty of cases against him, from potential tax fraud to sexual assault allegations. A
legal storm is brewing and Mr Trump may not be able to weather it as he has done in the past,
say the US federal prosecutors.
... ... ...
The Zionists do not need him: they have very strong positions in the new administration,
while gratitude is not a renowned Jewish trait. The Jewish news agency JTA boasted of the Tribe's
achievements: the State Department, CIA, National Intelligence, Homeland Security, NSA,
Treasury and in addition "Nine Zionists are in the new Senate (including the new Majority
Leader) and 25 in the House of Representatives, making up more than 6 per cent of the total
Congress. That's more than triple the percentage of Zionists in the general population. There
are also two Zionists out of the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court."
Biden-Harris: Good for Israel, good for American Jews
Biden has always assured funding to Israel, he's pragmatic on the Iran deal, and will
repair the damage Trump has done to US foreign policy
@Greatequalizerr nationalistic foreign enterprise such as Israel -- and yes it is
inevitable that they would benefit in some way from the alliance, but it doesn't mean that
Trump (and we) didn't get anything out of the negotiations.
We haven't started any new wars for one thing. And remember that nice couple in St Louis
who received felony charges for protecting their own property from marauding BLM activists
threatening to kill and/or rape his wife, then take their house from them? That is due to the
Democrat party.
I feel for the Palestinians but there's no shame in voting Trump, or at least against that
commie-bitch that wants to give it to us good and even harder than we already have when she's
the president.
Giving aid to Israel is, in fact, illegal due to the Symington Amendment to the Foreign
Assistance Act, which bans U.S. economic and military assistance to nuclear proliferators
and countries that seek to acquire nuclear weapons.
The actual Symington Amendment reads as follows:
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669
of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits
to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology
when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections.
Biden has been a major disappointment for those who hoped that he'd change course
regarding America's pathological involvement in overseas conflicts.
The new White House Team has been in place for more than a month and it is perhaps time to
consider where it is going with America's fractured foreign policy. To be sure, when a new
administration brings in a bunch of "old hands" who made their bones by attacking Syria and
Libya while also assassinating American citizens by drone one might hope that those mistakes
might have served as valuable "lessons learned." Or maybe not, since no one in the Democratic
Party ever mentions the Libya fiasco and President Joe Biden has already made it clear that
Syria will continue to be targeted with sanctions as well as with American soldiers based on
its soil. And no one will be leaving Afghanistan any time soon. The Biden team will only let up
when Afghanistan is "secure" and there is regime change in Damascus.
A big part of the problem is that the personnel moves mean that the poison from the Barack
Obama years has now been reintroduced into the tottering edifice that Donald Trump left behind.
Obama's United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice once made the case for attacking the Libyans
by
explaining how Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi provided his soldiers with Viagra so they
could more readily engage in mass rapes of presumably innocent civilians. Unfortunately, Sue is
back with the new administration as the Director of the Domestic Policy Council where she will
no doubt again wreak havoc in her own inimitable fashion. She is joined at the top level of the
administration by Tony Blinken as Secretary of State, Avril Haines as Director of National
Intelligence, Jake Sullivan as National Security Advisor, Samantha Power as head of USAID and
retired General Lloyd J. Austin as Secretary of Defense. All of the appointees are regarded as
"hawks" and have personal history working with Biden when he was in Congress and as Vice
President, while most of them also served in the Obama administration.
Be that as it may, Joe Biden and whoever is pulling his strings have assembled a group of
establishment warmongers and aspirant social justice engineers that is second to none. Those
who expected something different than the usual Democratic Party template have definitely been
disappointed. Hostility towards China continues with warships being sent to the South China Sea
and the president is seeking to create a new Trans-Atlantic
alliance directed against both Beijing and Moscow. The Europeans are reportedly not
enthusiastic about remaining under Washington's thumb and would like some breathing room.
In a phone conversation where it would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall, Biden
warned Russian President Vladimir Putin that the United States would no longer ignore his bad
behavior. The official
White House account of the call included the following pithy summary: "President Biden
reaffirmed the United States' firm support for Ukraine's sovereignty. He also raised other
matters of concern, including the SolarWinds hack, reports of Russia placing bounties on United
States soldiers in Afghanistan, interference in the 2020 United States election, and the
poisoning of Aleksey Navalny."
And to be sure, there have already been a number of issues that Biden might have dealt with
by executive order, like lifting the illegal and unjustified blockade of Cuba, that could have
inspired some hope that the new administration would not be just another bit of old wine in new
bottles. Alas, that has not taken place but for
a series of moves to unleash another wave of illegal immigration and to "protect LGBTQ rights
globally." Biden has also retained a heavy military presence in Washington itself, possibly
as part of a Constitution-wrecking plan to tackle what he is referring to as "domestic
terrorism." The domestic terrorists being targeted appear to largely consist of people who are
white working and middle class and voted for Trump.
In some ways, foreign policy might have been the easiest fix if the new administration were
really seeking to correct the misadventures of the past twenty years. Quite the contrary, Biden
and his associates have actually reversed the sensible and long overdue policies initiated by
Donald Trump to
reduce troop strength in Germany and bring the soldiers home from Syria and Afghanistan.
Biden has already committed to an indefinite stay in Afghanistan, America's longest "lost" war,
and has covertly sent more soldiers into Syria as well as Iraq.
As regards Latin America, the U.S. clearly is prepared to double down on regime change in
Venezuela, continuing
its Quixotic support of Juan Guaido as president. Meanwhile, the new Secretary of State
Tony Blinken has clearly indicated that there will be no end to deference to Israeli interests
in the Middle East. Under questioning by Congress, he has insisted that Israel will be
"consulted" on U.S. policy to include arms sales in the region, which has been interpreted to
mean that Jerusalem will have a veto, and has confirmed that his view on Iran is identical to
that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Both are apparently promoting the view that Iran
will have enough enriched uranium to construct a weapon within a few weeks, though they have
not addressed other technical aspects of what would actually be required to build one.
Netanyahu has been making the claim about the Iranian threat since the 1980s and now it is also
an element of U.S. policy.
Biden and Blinken have also moved forward
slowly on a campaign commitment to attempt renegotiation of the 2015 JCPOA nuclear
agreement with Iran that President Trump withdrew from in 2017. As a condition to re-start
discussions, the Iranian leadership has demanded a return to the status quo ante ,
meaning that the punitive sanctions initiated by Trump would have to be canceled and Iran would
in return cease all enrichment activities. Biden and Blinken, which admittedly sounds a bit
like a vaudeville comedy duo, have reportedly agreed to
withdraw the Trump sanctions but have also suggested that Iran will have to make other
concessions, to include ending its ballistic missile development program and ceasing its
"meddling" in the Middle East. Iran will refuse to agree to that, which means that the bid to
renegotiate could turn out to be nothing more than a bit of theater involving multilateral
"discussions" hosted by the European Union and the pointless hostility between Washington and
Tehran will continue.
And speaking again of Israel, there have been concerns expressed by the usual suspects
because Biden had not called Netanyahu immediately after the inauguration. It may be true that
the president was sending a somewhat less than subtle message signaling that he was in charge,
but the call has now taken place and everything is hunky-dory. As a separate issue, the Jewish
state has, of course, the world's only secret nuclear arsenal, estimated to consist of at least
200 bombs, and it also has several systems available to deliver them on target. For no reasons
that make any sense, the United States since the time of President Richard Nixon has never
publicly confirmed the existence of the weapons, preferring to maintain "nuclear ambiguity"
that allows Israel to have the weapons without any demands for inspections or constraints on
their use. The most recent four presidents have, in fact, signed secret agreements with Israel
not to expose the nuclear arsenal. Biden has apparently not done so yet, but appeals by
international figures, including most recently South African Desmond Tutu, had produced some
expectations that the new administration might
break with precedent .
Giving aid to Israel is, in fact, illegal due to the Symington Amendment to the Foreign
Assistance Act, which bans U.S. economic and military assistance to nuclear proliferators and
countries that seek to acquire nuclear weapons. But Biden has already indicated that he would
not under any circumstances cut aid to Israel, so the matter would appear to be closed. In any
event the Symington Amendment includes an exemption clause that would allow the funding to
continue as long as the president certifies to Congress that continued aid to the proliferator
would be a vital U.S. interest. Given Israel's power in both Congress and the White House it is
not imaginable that its aid would be affected no matter what Netanyahu and his band of
criminals choose to do.
So, it would seem that Biden is unprepared to either pressure or pursue any distancing from
Israel and its policies, not a good sign for those of us who have encouraged some disengagement
from the Middle East quagmire. And one final issue where some of us have hoped to see some
movement from Biden has also been a disappointment. That is Julian Assange, who is fighting
against efforts to have him extradited from England to face trial and imprisonment in the U.S.
under the Espionage Act. Many observers believe that Assange is a legitimate journalist who is
being set up for a show trial with only one possible outcome. The entire process is to a large
extent being driven by a desire for revenge coming largely from the Democratic Party since
Assange was responsible for publishing the Hillary Clinton emails as well as other party
documents. Biden has already
indicated that the process of extraditing Assange will continue.
So, Biden has been a major disappointment for those who expected that he might change course
regarding America's pathological involvement in overseas conflicts while also having the good
sense and courage to make relations with countries like Iran and Israel responsive to actual
U.S. interests. Finally, it would be a good sign if Assange were to be released from the threat
of trial and prison, if only to recognize that free speech and a free press benefit everyone,
but that is perhaps a bridge too far as the United States moves inexorably towards a
totalitarian state intolerant of dissent.
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest
The video of an Israeli sniper deliberately shooting a Palestinian protestor in the leg
with a .22 Ruger rifle was a non-story, because our media is one big controlled psyop.
Israel has recreated the Stanford prison experiment on a grand scale: It conscripts its
young into the military and has them playing the role of 'cop', and gives them live
Palestinians to play the role of 'prisoner'. Dehumanization is mental conditioning for future
relations.
Israel has been trying to get the US to join them in this game, by making sure the US gets
blood on its hands in the Middle East. Muslim retaliatory attacks in the US are just dandy.
Remember the words of the 'dancing Israeli' after 9/11: "our problems are your problems".
I don't know why anyone should be surprised with Biden's policies. He did say nothing
would fundamentally change if elected. And if you know his history why would you expect
anything else but a a continuation of the imperialism.
The evil orange clown could've improved relations with Russia and China, pulled the troops
out of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, made peace with North Korea, respected Venezuela's
sovereignty and left it alone, renegotiated the INF treaty rather than exit it, and he
could've stayed constructively engaged with Iran rather than try to start a war. Had the evil
orange clown done these things it likely would've put an end to the self-destructive deep
state "foreign policy" agenda once and for all.
But no; instead the evil orange clown betrayed his base and greased the skids for sleazy
joe, the senile servant of satan and his sleazy handlers. The evil orange clown was
enthusiastically doing deep state dirty work practically to his last day in office.
So I blame teflon-don-the-con-man for the rise of sleazy joe biden; only an opportunistic
scum bag like teflon don could reanimate the political corpse of joe biden.
@beavertales
ael; attack Syria with cruise missiles; seize Syrian oilfields; walk away from the JCPOA
agreement with Iran; dangerously provoke Russia and China; start a self-destructive trade war
with China; exit the nuclear treaties; starve Venezuela; try to start a war with Iran; etc.,
all of it unopposed. Why he even had the power to pardon the wrongly-imprisoned Julian
Assange – but he instead chose to let Assange languish in jail while he pardoned
Blackwater mass-murderers.
So cut the bullshit orange clown apologia already; it doesn't work. The evil orange clown
did everything but openly campaign for his deep-state fellow traveler, sleazy joe biden, the
senile servant of satan.
And today we hear of Biden launching airstrikes against Syria for an attack that occurred
in Iraq.
Outrageous bullying, cretinous and brain-dead are all terms that sprang to mind when I
read the article. Unfortunately this is what we can expect from Biden for the rest of his
term.
Trump is a con man -- got elected for making great changes such as -- –drain the
swamp -- build a wall -- -trade war aginst China -- pull out of the international arena and
the Debt goes sky high–
Biden is not much better. Today again attack on Syria -- –USA needs 2-3 new political
parties not OPEN to millionaires and Multi millionaries -- -Trump however was THE GREATEST
President Israel ever had and blessings from John Hagee.
Trump was incompetent. Generally I hate incompetence, but in Presidents it may be a
virtue. "Fingers" Biden is likely the most corrupt President in our history in foreign
policy. 50 years in DC and he seems to both know all the scams/ tricks and has a massive
network of very competent underlings. I would not be surprised if he uses the nuclear
option.
But Biden reflects America. We no longer build or produce, we destroy. We kill, maim and
displace; that's what America voted for. Trump didn't destroy much because he was an
incompetent, and had little support in DC (working for Trump was a death sentence for career
bureaucrats). One only has to look at Obama's (and the rehabilitated torturer Bush's) list of
National Emergencies with Sanctions to see what will happen next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States
(Central Africa, Venezuela and the Ukraine are even more screwed!)
..I would expect the US regime to ramp up the oppression of its own population, the same
as their Bolshevik brothers did in Russia in the 1920's, with secret police, Gulags,
execution for anti-Semitic talk, population control, media propaganda + a small and insecure
elite. Stalin regularly executed a few of his colleagues to refresh the fear/paranoia.
@A123
3. Continuing military presence in Iraq, against the will of the Iraqi government (a.k.a.
occupation).
4. US-led intervention in Yemen, resulting in famine in Yemen.
5. Occupation of portions of Syria, including its oil fields and continued economic
warfare.
6. Economic war against Iran, breaking of the JCPOA treaty. This has on multiple occasions
nearly led to full-scale war (see point #2).
Trump was the peace candidate? I should be writing LOL were it not so serious and tragic.
Keeping on repeating your delusions.
Unfortunately, Biden shows little promise to be any better, but that's the racket. It's
neo-con Zionist either way.
If one follows the time-honored formula for crime detection -- means, motive, opportunity --
it easy to see that such a spectacular crime could not happen without the involvement of a
sophisticated (shadow) government.
...Certainly three employees of Urban Moving Systems were spotted on 9/11 on the roof of a
van in the parking lot of the Doric Apartments in Union City, NJ taking pictures and
exchanging high fives with the WTC burning in the background. Subsequently, the van was
pulled over and five Israelis in it were arrested, detained for two months, and then released
to Israel. Reportedly, all the pictures they took on 9/11 have been destroyed. Witnesses saw
the van in the parking lot the morning of 9/11 before the attacks on the WTC, so there
is at least circumstantial evidence these guys had foreknowledge of "the event," and later
claimed on Israeli TV they had been there to record it.
For some reason, the five documenting photo-shlomos have come to be known as "The Dancing
Israelis" despite the fact there were never any reports of them dancing, so typically, when
it comes to Israel, the players are out of focus and mislabeled
There were indeed numerous reports from workers in both Twin Towers of frequent and
ongoing elevator work extending back several months before 9/11, giving the plotters ample
opportunity to plant explosives or do other prep-work for a (barely) controlled, or at least
planned demolition.
But to get to the bottom of 9/11, you really do have to follow the gold.
How can convicted spy Pollard be "home" in Israel if his birthplace is America? Because
that's how Jewish supremacist really thinks, and that treasonous thinking is celebrated by
all Zionists in Congress, left to right. You know, the racial Zionists and the ideological
Zionists who loudly proclaim their loyalty to Israel every time AIPAC has a conference? https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=692805794740426
So the loadstar for the Zionist factions of Congress is a Jewish supremacist caste system
and apartheid state. Wow. I can see why they're so hostile to the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights. I can also see why they want to open the borders and flood the country with
unvetted foreigners so that every new "American" has no idea that they have the
Constitutional right to oppose a racist, caste system hierarchy that assigns its Zionist self
taxpayer funded national spoils.
Who's their president? Joe "I am a Zionist" Biden, of course -- the same guy who talks out
of both sides of his Zionist face about "melting pot" America and an "unrelenting stream of
immigration" that displaces Constitution-loving Americans and whites. https://news.yahoo.com/biden-wave-immigration-not-going-stop-video-135620136.html
The evidence is in. All Zionists are treasonous, and have worked relentlessly to transform
Constitutional America into nothing but a massive Ponzi scheme to pay for their racist Jewish
loadstar and their corrupt Zionist network spoils until the U.S. collapses.
But hey, they'll come out like bandits and steal out in the night to greener pastures or
Israel, as rootless Zionist criminals have always done.
But what did the citizens and prime minister of Israel do? They brazenly celebrated that
vile anti-Semitic stereotype about Jewish disloyalty and treachery. The Irish Savant reported
Pollard's arrival in Israel like this:
It was a welcome befitting a war hero. And in a sense Jonathan Pollard was indeed such a
hero, and a patriot. At considerable personal risk he stole secrets which in turn were traded
by his country to great effect. He was greeted in Tel Aviv by none other than Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu. As he disembarked, he kissed the ground and recited the traditional
sheheheyanu blessing of thanksgiving. A beaming Beni gushed: "Blessed are you, lord
our God, king of the universe, who has granted us life, sustained us, and enabled us to reach
this occasion. I was thrilled to welcome Jonathan and Esther Pollard today upon their arrival
in Israel and to give Jonathan an Israeli identity card. Now they are home. Welcome home, now
you are a citizen of the State of Israel." Pollard responded: "We are ecstatic to be home at
last after 35 years and we thank the people and the Prime Minister of Israel for bringing us
home." ( A Hero's Homecoming
, The Irish Savant, 5th January 2021)
But how can Israel be Pollard's "home" if his own nation is his birthplace of America? The
only logical conclusion to reach is this: Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the world's worst
anti-Semites, Israel is the most anti-Semitic nation on earth, and Jonathan Pollard is a
self-hating Jew. At least, that's the only logical conclusion if you trust the IHRA to be
honest about "anti-Semitism" and Jewish behaviour.
No concern for truth or objective reality
But you can't trust the IHRA, of course. Like the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) in America, the
Community Security Trust (CST) in Britain and the
Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l'Antisémitisme (LICRA) in France, the
IHRA is a typical Jewish organization in that it believes in the audacity of mendacity. Like
the ADL et al , the IHRA has no concern for truth or objective reality. Instead, it
relentlessly and ruthlessly pursues What's Best for Zionists Free speech and open debate are
not best for Jews, therefore the IHRA wants to silence all critics of Jewish power and
subversion. That's why it says ludicrous things, then demands that they be taken seriously.
You've heard of the Emperor's New Clothes. Now meet the Empire's New Definition:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward
Zionists Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or
non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and
religious facilities. -- Definition of anti-Semitism by the International
Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA)
The Empire is Zionism and that ludicrously vague definition is plainly designed to end free
speech about Jewish political power and the way Jews control Western politics for the benefit
of Israel. What can't be discussed can't be challenged or criticized, which is just the way
organized Jewry want things to be. Unlike the Emperor's New Clothes, which were exposed as a
sham when a little boy literally " spoke truth to power ,"
the Empire's New Definition is being taken seriously by supine politicians and bureaucrats all
over the world. In Britain, the free-speech-hating Campaign Against Antisemitism has boasted of
how widely the dud definition has been accepted:
In other words, thousands of legal and legislative experts have read the IHRA definition and
responded not with incredulous laughter, but with cries of "We hear and obey!" For all sane and
objective people, however, the definition exposes the organized Jewish community as implacable
enemies not merely of free speech but of the very concepts of truth and objective reality. Even
some members of the Jewish elite object to the IHRA definition. Professor David Feldman,
director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at the University of London, has
said that the "government should not impose [this] faulty definition of antisemitism on
universities." The prominent Jewish lawyers Sir Stephen Sedley and Sir Geoffrey Bindman were
two of the signatories
to a letter in the Guardian stating that the "legally entrenched right to free
expression is being undermined by an internally incoherent 'non-legally binding working
definition' of antisemitism."
There's so much criticism of Jewish people. It's maddening. Do people know nothing of the
terrible history of Jewish persecution? As recently as the 1940's, six million Jews were
killed in the death camps. Most were killed with poison gas as they showered. Many others
were killed in ways that can only be described as elaborate murder scenarios, seemingly
derived from Willie E. Coyote methods of ending the life of that little road runner.
It's time we end the anti-semitism. I recommend an international effort to build museums,
including inter-active learning experiences, to teach the people of Earth to end
anti-semitism. One promising innovation is the use of holographic Holocaust survivors telling
their awful stories of suffering to young children, who otherwise should be either playing or
learning useful things in school.
I personally admire Zionists To have accomplished what they have done, is absolutely
astonishing. Almost super natural when you think about it.
How can convicted spy Pollard be "home" in Israel if his birthplace is America? Because
that's how Jewish supremacist really thinks, and that treasonous thinking is celebrated by
all Zionists in Congress, left to right. You know, the racial Zionists and the ideological
Zionists who loudly proclaim their loyalty to Israel every time AIPAC has a conference? https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=692805794740426
So the loadstar for the Zionist factions of Congress is a Jewish supremacist caste system
and apartheid state. Wow. I can see why they're so hostile to the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights. I can also see why they want to open the borders and flood the country with
unvetted foreigners so that every new "American" has no idea that they have the
Constitutional right to oppose a racist, caste system hierarchy that assigns its Zionist self
taxpayer funded national spoils.
Today, 'antisemitism' is defined as negative comments about Zionists
Tomorrow, 'antisemitism' will be defined as lack of positive comments about Zionists
It won't be sufficient to not speak 'antisemitism' as you will be obligated to speak
philosemitism.
'Silence is violence'.
It's like it wasn't enough to not boo at Stalin. You had to clap for Stalin until your
hands bled.
These dissenting Jews are certainly not friendly to Whites or Western civilization --
Stephen Sedley, for example, wants open borders for Muslims and is a son of a "lifelong
Communist" -- but one has to give them credit for being honest about the definition and
resisting very strong pressure from other Zionists
The pressure won't merely be from Other Zionists...
Zionists and neocons attacked Trump from day one, but his only response was "But I kiss
Zionists more than Democrats do."
With more than half of Washington's politicians in its pockets ("Israel") has no reason
to fear any consequences.
Posted by b on January 27, 2021 at 15:32 UTC | Permalink
Precisely. And it's almost as bad in Oz, and even worse in the UK. Money is the only
logical explanation for the "Israel" Worship indulged in by corrupt, amoral Western political
'leaders'.
Jews are good when allied with the oppressed. Then they use their energy to promote the cause
of the downtrodden. While at the top, they oppress more vigorously than anybody
I do feel pity for Donald Trump, though his last days in the White House were anything but
inspirational. He did not dare to pardon people who went for him into the Capitol, he didn't
pardon Assange or Snowden, but surprisingly he pardoned a whole lot of Jewish cheats. The
Jerusalem Postpublished
the list of prominent Jews he pardoned. On the list is an Israeli spy runner Aviem Sella
who was responsible for Jonathan Pollard; the rest are dishonest machers like Sholam
Weiss (who stole US $150 million, sentenced to 850 years) or Eliyahu Weinstein (stole up to
$200 million, sentenced to 24 years). See also a detailed analysis here . A devout believer in the
demonic power of Jews, Trump had thought to make up to them to avoid their anger. In vain:
there are already
plenty of cases against him, from potential tax fraud to sexual assault allegations. A
legal storm is brewing and Mr Trump may not be able to weather it as he has done in the past,
say the US federal prosecutors.
He could be lucky to avoid prison; unless he asks Mr Putin to lend him his excellent if
uncompleted Gelenjik Palace . On
second thoughts, perhaps the palace was built for exactly such an occasion.
The Jews do not need him: they have very strong positions in the new administration, while
gratitude is not a renowned Jewish trait. The Jewish news agency JTA boasted of the Tribe's achievements:
the State Department, CIA, National Intelligence, Homeland Security, NSA, Treasury and in
addition "Nine Jews are in the new Senate (including the new Majority Leader) and 25 in the
House of Representatives, making up more than 6 per cent of the total Congress. That's more
than triple the percentage of Jews in the general population. There are also two Jews out of
the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court."
This is not a good sign: Jews are good when allied with the oppressed. Then they use their
energy to promote the cause of the downtrodden. While at the top, they oppress more vigorously
than anybody; ask the Palestinians, if in doubt.
Mind you, I do not subscribe to the idea of Jewish supremacy and massive IQ. The all-Jewish
country of Israel is devastated by three lockdowns, by the biggest vaccination drive in the
world (86% already vaccinated), by an ongoing civil war of Zionist power against Orthodox Jews
who refuse lockdown and vaccination; by the forthcoming fourth national elections, as liberals
incessantly try to remove the Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu saying he is Israel's Trump. This
week, Israel's only remaining international airport was closed down; the people were told
nobody would get out at least until the summer. In this small country with its huge density of
population and poor housing it feels too much like a ghetto for comfort.
If Jews were as clever as they think they are, they would not get themselves into this
no-win Covid war. The Swedish way remains the only way to deal with it, as a
recent study has proven beyond all possible doubt. Israeli Jews have been whipped into such
a degree of Covid hysteria that there is no way to get out of it. Now they, and the
Brits were told that "having a coronavirus vaccination is not a licence to abandon
lockdown". Even if all will be vaccinated, the masks, lockdowns and social distancing will be
with us forever, if the people who decide now remain in power, because Covid is just a
justification for the Great Reset, or Digital Revolution, or the Brave New World or whatever
you call it. Jews got convinced and convinced others, and now they are being screwed up like
everybody else. If lockdown is a punishment meted out by the global force, as C J Hopkins
says , perhaps it
is Netanyahu's retirement they want to obtain.
The Jewish cause works fine when allied with the wishes of the real power. They could remove
Jeremy Corbyn for his alleged tolerance of antisemitism because the bosses hated his plans to
improve the lot of the workers and cut military spending. But Jews have to shut up or even
support Alexei Navalny who expressed his dislike of Jews right before he learned to keep his
mouth shut.
In this screenshot of his response in 2007, Mr Navalny bans somebody for being "a bugger and
a kike". Still, Jews supported him all right when told by their betters. They didn't even
mention his real anti-Jewish prejudice for they were (reasonably) afraid the Russian masses
would see it as rather a feather in his cap. The Jews are in line with the obscure real power,
and have to follow its demands, like the jesters before the king. The Covid plans for the world
reset are more important for the Masters than Jewish sentiments, and Jewish leaders recognise
that.
Now Trump has shafted DR Congo because the money was well appreciated by Dan Gertler as
documented by Dershowitz.– "Letting Dan Gertler off the hook sends a message to the world's
most corrupt businesspeople that the U.S. will let them walk free after a bit of
lobbying,"-NYTimes
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's most pervasive foreign policy initiatives have involved Israel, encouraging the Jewish state's attacks on Palestinian, Iranian, Lebanese and Syrian targets with impunity, killing thousands of civilians on his watch. Trump has given Israel everything it could possibly ask for, with no consideration for what the U.S. interests might actually be. The only thing he did not do for the Jewish state was to attack and destroy Iran, and even there, reports suggest that he sought to do just that in the waning days of his administration but was talked out of it by his cabinet. ..."
"... But even given all that, Trump the panderer clearly wanted to give one last gift to Israel, and he saved it for his last day in office, when he issued more than 140 pardons and commutations. Though other presidents have issued controversial pardons, no other head of state has so abused the clemency authority to benefit not only friends and acquaintances but also celebrity defendants including rappers, some advocated by the likes of the Kardashians, and also those promoted by monied interests. Most of the pardons went to cronies and to supplicants who were willing to pay in cash or in kind to be set free. It was suggested that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner was engaged in the selection process and money was often a key element. Some might describe that as corruption. ..."
"... Elliott Broidy, former finance chair of the Republican National Committee, had no less than five Rabbis vouching for him. Last year Broidy had pleaded guilty to acting as an "unregistered foreign agent," part of a larger investigation into the Malaysian "1MDB Scandal" in which Prime Minister Najib Razak stole more than $700 million dollars from his country's state-run 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). Broidy worked on behalf of Razak and was offered $75 million if he could get the U.S. Justice Department to drop its own investigation into the scandal. ..."
"... Another clemency beneficiary who exploited his Jewish links was Philip Esformes, a former nursing home executive who executed one of the biggest Medicare frauds in U.S. history. Just days after being released after serving four years of his 20-year sentence, Esformes celebrated his daughter's wedding in a lavish party held at his multi-million dollar Florida home. He benefited from a lobbying campaign by the Hasidic Chabad-Lubavitch Aleph Institute, a group advised by the ubiquitous former Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz. The movement reportedly has connections to Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. ..."
"... Another person pardoned by Trump was Sholam Weiss, a Hasidic businessman from New York who was sentenced to more than 800 years in prison in 2000 for racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering connected to a huge fraud scheme that stole $125 million from the National Heritage Life Insurance Company, leading to its bankruptcy. He fled the country but was subsequently arrested in Austria and extradited to the United States. Weiss had reportedly received the endorsement of from Dershowitz, who also recently has been involved in the Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell espionage case. ..."
"... Trump gave a full pardon to Aviem Sella, a seventy-five year old former Israeli Air Force officer, who was indicted in the U.S. in 1987 for espionage in relation to the Jonathan Pollard spy case. Sella fled to Israel days before Pollard was arrested outside the Israeli embassy in Washington D.C. and the Israeli government refused to extradite him. Sella, at the time doing a degree course at New York University, was Pollard's initial contact. He had started working part-time for the Mossad intelligence agency in the early 1980s and received some of the classified top-secret documents provided by Pollard in exchange for money and jewelry. ..."
One keeps hearing that former President Donald Trump will be judged well by the history
books because he was the only American head of state in recent memory who did not start any new
wars. Well, the claim is itself questionable as Jimmy Carter, for all his faults, managed to
avoid entering into any new armed conflict, and Trump can hardly be described as a president
who eschewed throwing his weight around, both literally and figuratively. He attacked Syria on
two occasions based on fabricated intelligence, assassinated an Iranian general, withdrew from
several arms and proliferation agreements, and has been waging economic warfare against Iran,
Syria, Venezuela and Iraq. He has sanctioned individuals and organizations in both China and
Russia and has declared Iranian government components and Yemeni Houthi rebels to be
terrorists. He has occupied Syria's oil producing region to "protect it from terrorists" and
has generally exerted "maximum pressure" against his "enemies" in the Middle East.
So no, Donald Trump is no antiwar activist. But Trump's most pervasive foreign policy
initiatives have involved Israel, encouraging the Jewish state's attacks on Palestinian,
Iranian, Lebanese and Syrian targets with impunity, killing thousands of civilians on his
watch. Trump has given Israel everything it could possibly ask for, with no consideration for
what the U.S. interests might actually be. The only thing he did not do for the Jewish state
was to attack and destroy Iran, and even there, reports suggest that he sought to do just that
in the waning days of his administration but was talked out of it by his cabinet.
Trump's pander to Israel started out with withdrawing from the nuclear monitoring agreement
with Iran, followed by his shutting down the Palestinian offices in the United States, halting
U.S. contributions for Palestinian humanitarian relief, moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem,
recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights, giving a green light for Israel
to do whatever it wishes on the formerly Palestinian West Bank, and, finally permitting paroled
former Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard to go "home" to Israel where he received a hero's welcome.
Trump, to be sure, was aided in his disloyalty to his own country by former bankruptcy lawyer
Ambassador David Friedman in place in Israel, an ardent Zionist and a cheerleader for whatever
atrocities Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to commit. Couple that with a Congress
that gives billions of dollars to Israel annually while bleating that the Jewish state has a
"right to defend itself" and a media that self-censors all the human rights violations and war
crimes that Netanyahu unleashes, and you have a perfect love fest for Israel expressed daily
throughout the United States.
But even given all that, Trump the panderer clearly wanted to give one last gift to Israel,
and he saved it for his last day in office, when he issued more than 140 pardons and
commutations. Though other presidents have issued controversial pardons, no other head of state
has so abused the clemency authority to benefit not only friends and acquaintances but also
celebrity defendants including rappers, some advocated by the likes of the Kardashians, and
also those promoted by monied interests. Most of the pardons went to cronies and to supplicants
who were willing to pay in cash or in kind to be set free. It was suggested that Trump
son-in-law Jared Kushner was engaged in the selection process and money was often a key
element. Some might describe that as corruption.
Those of us in the actual antiwar plus anti-surveillance-state movement had been hoping that
Trump would actually do something good at no cost to himself, pardoning whistleblowers Edward
Snowden, John Kiriakou, Reality Winner, and Chelsea Manning as well as journalist Julian
Assange. Kiriakou
has reported that when he petitioned for a pardon through one of Trump lawyer Rudi
Giuliani's aides, he was told that such an arrangement would cost $2 million.
Bribes for pardons aside, it would have cost Trump nothing to pardon the whistleblowers and
it would be a vindication of those who had put themselves at risk to attack the machinations of
the Deep State, which Trump had blamed for the coordinated attacks against himself. This was
his relatively cost-free chance to get revenge. Admittedly,
there is speculation that Senator Mitch McConnell may have warned Trump against pardoning
Julian Assange in particular, threatening to come up with enough GOP votes to convict him in
his upcoming impeachment trial if he were to do so. Be that as it may, not a single
whistleblower was pardoned though there was room on the ship for plenty of heinous white collar
criminals. Former Dr. Salomon Melgen, for example, had his sentence commuted. Melgen, a close
friend of the seriously corrupt Senator from New Jersey Robert Menendez got into
trouble in 2009 when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) discovered that
he had overbilled Medicare for $8.9 million for a drug called Lucentis. Two years later
Melgen's business was hit with a $11 million lien from
the IRS and four years after that he was charged and convicted over more than 76 counts of
health care fraud and making false statements.
Some of those pardoned had Jewish organizations going to bat for them. Elliott Broidy,
former finance chair of the Republican National Committee, had
no less than five Rabbis vouching for him. Last year Broidy had pleaded guilty to acting as
an "unregistered foreign agent," part of a larger investigation into the Malaysian "1MDB
Scandal" in which Prime Minister Najib Razak stole more than $700 million dollars from his
country's state-run 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). Broidy worked on behalf of Razak and
was offered $75 million if he could get the U.S. Justice Department to drop its own
investigation into the scandal.
Another clemency
beneficiary who exploited his Jewish links was Philip Esformes, a former nursing home
executive who executed one of the biggest Medicare frauds in U.S. history. Just days after
being released after serving four years of his 20-year sentence, Esformes celebrated his
daughter's wedding in a lavish party held at his multi-million dollar Florida home. He
benefited from a lobbying campaign by the Hasidic Chabad-Lubavitch Aleph Institute, a group
advised by the ubiquitous former Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz. The movement reportedly has
connections to Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Another person pardoned by Trump was Sholam Weiss, a Hasidic businessman from New York who
was
sentenced to more than 800 years in prison in 2000 for racketeering, wire fraud and money
laundering connected to a huge fraud scheme that stole $125 million from the National Heritage
Life Insurance Company, leading to its bankruptcy. He fled the country but was subsequently
arrested in Austria and extradited to the United States. Weiss had reportedly received the
endorsement of from Dershowitz, who also recently has been involved in the Jeffrey
Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell espionage case.
And, of course, there was also the Israel factor. For no plausible reason whatsoever and
contrary to actual American interests, Trump
gave a full pardon to Aviem Sella, a seventy-five year old former Israeli Air Force
officer, who was indicted in the U.S. in 1987 for espionage in relation to the Jonathan Pollard
spy case. Sella fled to Israel days before Pollard was arrested outside the Israeli embassy in
Washington D.C. and the Israeli government refused to extradite him. Sella, at the time doing a
degree course at New York University, was Pollard's initial contact. He had started working
part-time for the Mossad intelligence agency in the early 1980s and received some of the
classified top-secret documents provided by Pollard in exchange for money and jewelry.
Sella had passed on the Pollard contact to Mossad's agent handler Rafi Eitan, who continued
to "run" Pollard until he was arrested. Sella's indictment was essentially meaningless theater,
as is generally true of nearly all Israeli spy cases in the U.S., as Tel Aviv refused to
extradite him to the United States and the Justice Department made no attempt to arrest him
when he was traveling outside Israel. Trump's pardon for Sella as a favor to Netanyahu sends
yet another signal that Israel can spy against the U.S. with impunity. The request to Trump for
clemency came from the Israeli government itself and was reportedly endorsed by Netanyahu,
Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer, the United States Ambassador to Israel
David Friedman, and Miriam Adelson. According to the White House statement on the pardon, "The
state of Israel has issued what a full and unequivocal apology, and has requested the pardon in
order to close this unfortunate chapter in U.S.-Israel relations."
Was it a gift or merely a pander? Note particularly the inclusion of David Friedman, who as
U.S. Ambassador to Israel is supposed to defend the interests of the United States but never
does so. Once upon a time it was considered a potential conflict of interest to send a Jewish
Ambassador to Israel. Now it seems to be a requirement and the Ambassador is apparently
supposed to be an advocate for Israel as part of his or her mission. Friedman will no doubt be
replaced by a Democratic version to deliver more of the same. And then there is Miriam Adelson.
Good old Sheldon is hardly cold on the ground and his wife has taken up the mantle of
manipulating players in Washington on behalf of the Jewish state.
Money talks and so the drama in Washington continues to play out. Trump manages to make
himself look even worse with his last round of pardons and commutations on his ultimate day in
office. No one who deserved clemency got it and a lot of well-connected rogues who were willing
to fork over money in exchange for mercy benefited. Business as usual delivered by the
so-called Leader of the Free World.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected]
While I whole heartily agree with Dr Giraldi, I strongly believe that Trump was a hostage
of wealthy Jews and Zionists. It is most likely that he has committed misdemeanour while he
was involved (friendship) with Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine who operated an elitist paedophilia
criminal enterprise. The criminal enterprise was to advance the interests of Israel and Jews.
It was used as a honey trap. Remember, Trump was under constant threat by wealthy Jews and by
right-wing Zionists like Senators Mitch McConnell, Robert Menendez, etc. Trump was not a
smart president. He committed heinous crimes on behalf of Israel and wealthy Jews.
All Shabbos goys. Our nation is truly Zionist occupied territory. It has been for a long
time, but under trump it became overt, and will continue to be under Biden.
Our whole reality, in a sense, has become a Talmudic dialectic. The rabbinate's
mouthpiece, our media, disseminates the two sides of that demonic dialectic. The education
system and academia train and mold Shabbos goys and Noahides. We work for them and they see
us as beasts of burden.
Our citizenry likes the slavery they have been placed in. They are content.
So, the Populist is a shill for Israel and Qanon is probably a psy-op run from Tel Aviv. I
wanted to believe there was hope for the USA. I really did. Now we have Biden "I am a
Zionist" with an Israeli cabinet. Was there really election fraud? Will we ever know?
What's next?
I pity those people, probably otherwise good folks, that were conned by this character.
Was a blanket pardon for all Jews and BLACKS just not possible? I'm confident Alan Dershowitz
could have worked through the complex legalities of such a "comprehensive" pardon.
What are a few yid pardons when, unbelievably, Americans routinely mutilate the sex organs
of their male offspring at birth to demonstrate total fealty to the vile Cock Cutter Cult
that rules them ..a practice so bizarre even an equatorial pygmy would laugh at the
practitioners. Of course, the practitioners claim hygienic as well as spiritual benefits look
ma, no dick cheese!
Trump is a crypto Jew. Well at least all his grandkids are ..real Jews. So is Hillary's
grandkid. So corrupted on both side. What's new? Nothing. The only thing remarkable is that
red necks still believe in Trump, hence the white race is doomed.
Agree with most of the article, but calling Jimmy Carter a recent president is more than
just a bit of a stretch.
Carter exited office 40 years ago. The current median age in the US is about 38.4
(2019).
So in the lifetime of a very large portion of Americans there has not been a president that
hasn't started a new war.
Frankly, I don't see why presidents should have the power to pardon. It has been abused so
much that perhaps it's time to strip presidents of that power, or at least there should be an
appeals process or some sort of oversight when that abuse becomes so egregious. Aside from
all the financial criminals, he pardoned actual war criminals, men who murdered innocent
civilians in Iraq. Pardons weren't meant for this.
Of course, leave it to Trump to take it to new levels of corruption as well as abuse. If
John Kyriakou's allegation of Trump's directly selling pardons is true, that should be a
first.
Carter kickstarted funding the Taliban 6 months before the Russians intervened.
I'm nor surprised by Trump's graft, but the whole system of making laws in Congress
includes bribery so nothing new here to see.
Aside from being a bad manager, he is no strategist it seems. Not pardoning Assange means
the GOP are going to vote not to impeach you? How gullible is he? He is getting impeached
whatever he does, he could jump on a literal sword and they'd still impeach him because they
are so offended by the prols.
The sight of Dersh rubbing his hands in the pic is nearly enough to induce this commenter
to say good riddance despite the obviously stolen election and the incoming disaster. I got
the Apolitical Blues.
It would not have mattered whether Donald Trump had pardoned any whistleblowers.
As we can see, the Harris administration is dismantling as much of his legacy as they can,
as fast as they can.
The parts that offend, that is.
It only matters if the CIA pardon Snowden or Assange, else they will forever be looking
over their shoulders, wondering when something will be slipped into their tea, or over their
doorknob..
@Z-man ing
back.
Therefore: stop bad-speak. Stop unauthorized thinking. For the love of God: eradicate
anti-Semitism!
Has Israeli dominance of Zio-Washington and US 'news' ever been greater? Nah. And it may
even be growing. OK, Trump blew the whistle on 'fake news'. But that teaser was pretty much
far as it went.
For all his boldness, Trump realized that–when it came to Israel and the deep
state– he met is match. Time to retreat.
Meanwhile, Israel and Zionist America have basically merged. In the dark of night, no
less.
This article is a full on demolition of the idea that Trumpstein is any sort of patriot. I
can not imagine any patriotic figure in all of human history doing a tenth of what this
shabas goy has done for another country – and one so universally despised as Israel
– and not only getting away with it, but still being praised in certain circles for
standing up for his "motherland". Bonkers.
Go back to the preposterously optimistic article and comments under "A Pardoning Time of
Year," December 29, 2020.
Will his supporters who thought that Mr. Trump would do right, even if only on his way out
the door, now admit that they were duped?
A few, maybe. But there will still be plenty like them for the next Most Important
Election Ever, their dissent channeled into naive, participatory assent to more
Red+Blue governance from Washington.
Amerimutts are either kikes or kike slaves. There is no other places on earth (except
semitic hell, of course), where "huwhites" cut children's foreskin against their will, as
good "Christians".
Disgusting nation of heretics, quadroons, subhumans, kike lovers and yids.
No surprise here, coming from "the best president Israel ever had". Expect more of the
same from the new administration of Israeli stooges. I was hopeful the orange bastard would
pardon Snowden and Assange, oh well.
Pedo Joe is wasting no time showing Jews & Israel he can pander and grovel to Israel
and Jew Inc better than Zion Don.
Look at 10 of his high-level Cabinet appointments..ALL Jews. If they had been all Muslims
or all Chinese, it would've hit the fan and by now, most would have dropped out from that
spot.
But since their Jews, well look the other way you Silly Goyim.
I thought Diversity was our strength?
All 10 of Biden's High Profile Appointees Are Jews
Anthony Blinken, Secretary of State
David Cohen, CIA Deputy Director
Merrick Garland, Attorney General
Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence
Ronald Klain, Chief of Staff
Eric Lander, Office of Science and Technology Policy director
Rachel Levine, deputy health secretary
Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security
Anne Neuberger, National Security Agency cybersecurity director
Idiocracy, the director's cut. Trump grabs himself by the pussy in a surprise ending!
Remember, the Phoenix cannot rise from the fire, it has to rise from the ashes. Only then
can the real MAGA begin. See if its true that Bismarck (allegedly) stated that " there is a
special providence for drunkards, fools and the United States of America".
It's pretty fascinating for anyone who knows what's happening to see Jews utterly destroy
and evacuate yet another great civilization by using the same corrupting forces and patterns
used in their clearly deliberate rotting out of Rome, the destruction of the Holy Roman
Empire, then Russia, and now the USA. It's like Jews are a kind of human parasitoid that will
always kill its host as part of its lifecycle after it has drained all energy and resources
from within.
Remember that movie Alien, there the larva like offspring attaches to inject its seed into
humans and then clearly affects the human's nervous system to make them kind of forget that
ever happened as they carry the parasitoid in them that develops and feeds on their body
until the day it bursts from their chest in the form of the beast we know as the alien.
As stated about our in the movie, something along the lines of "pure survival instinct
burned by the limitations of delusions of morality"; pretty much describes how Jews operate
and act, and how they keep infecting and then destroying the very societies and civilizations
they feed on until they burst from their victims' chest.
I wish China all the luck it needs to see this threat from this parasitoid and freed
themselves of it before it infiltrates and infests and feeds on their society out too. By all
indications it is already too late for them too and they just don't realize it yet. The
recent video of the Chinese academic bragging about the control of American officials would
indicate as much, judging by the section of the video that was totally ignored, about the
Jewish woman executive of an American bank who is thick as thieves with the Chinese communist
party who manipulated things for the Chinese in America.
Jimmy Carter, for all his faults, managed to avoid entering into any new armed
conflict
What about Iran. Carter must take responsibility for the mishandling of Iran by letting
the Shah into the US, and failing to withdraw the embassy when it became obvious Iranian
internal politics meant US diplomats were becoming targets.
He attacked Syria on two occasions based on fabricated intelligence.
Russian forces fought a whole war in Syria on a correct appreciation of what could be
gained for Russia.
Trump, to be sure, was aided in his disloyalty to his own country by
America has to come to the aid of its allies, right or wrong, otherwise it will have no
allies.
[J]ournalist Julian Assange
Assange didn't describe himself as simply such until after his legal troubles started.
As for Snowden he wasn't drafted but rather was sought the job. He knew it was was not in
a boy scout group, and the secrets he was swearing an oath to keep were not going to be about
thoroughly wholesome activities such as training guide dogs for the blind. No more than
someone who becomes a made member of the mafia could Snowden be shocked at what the
organization he was associated with was doing.
Business as usual delivered by the so-called Leader of the Free World.
He never claimed to be a global Santa for those who brought nothing to the table.
Trump is pathetic. Anyone still making excuses for him is a battered wife and a sycophant.
I hope they continue to humiliate him now that he's out of office, because it's exactly what
he deserves.
Trump, just like his Republican counterparts, are more despicable than shitlibs and the
radical left, because they lie and stab you in the back every single time. At least the
shitlibs and radical leftists don't pretend they don't absolutely hate us.
If bribe money was paid, how was it spread around, and what besides money can be extracted
in return? A "no" vote on inpeachment? Pardons to Mossad/Israeli connected cases in return
for their pressure on certain politicians on whom they have compromising photos, etc?
A pardon for Assange and Kiriakou takes the pressure off Biden to do so, and these are
Obama political persecutions. And Winner was arrested in what, June 2017, by the FBI for
leaking classified info feeding the feeble Russian election interference narrative? She
posted numerous anti-Trump diatribes.
Sure, they and Snowden deserve pardons, but now the Dems will face dissension, criticism,
and sniping within their own ranks on these matters.
Trump might as well be more corrupted than Joe Biden at this point.
I'm convinced the American deep state removes him because he's actually an Israeli agent
which would make the Zionist scene in USA look bad, like holy hell, is there any zionist jew
he doesn't suck off? That's disgusting.
The hierarchy that controls our government and moral/social values, in order, goes as
follows:
Yids
Nigs
Spics
Trump, loved with under-educated and redneck whites, was an all-out Shabbos goy, not to
mention he was greedy, egotistical/egoistical and a self-serving liar.
In many ways Trump has been like a Terminator sent by the Jewish Establishment to
completely derail, discredit and destroy the Patriot movement in America. Now any American
Patriot who is against the U.S. Establishment and says CNN is fake news is automatically
associated with Trump and deemed an enemy of America. Can you say Mission Accomplished? The
Jewish Snake must be patting itself on the back for its brilliant move to hurt the greatest
threat to it in a long time.
Unfortunately there are many people who still believe that Trump was a great President
sent by God to save America. It makes me sad to see so many people so clueless. I wish that
all those still supporting Trump will wake up and recognize as so many others have that the
man is nothing but a Snake who knows how to speak your language while totally betraying your
cause. How can you support a two faced man like this who has hurt your cause more than anyone
else possibly could?
EDIT TO ADD: Trump left office in disgrace just as was intended but the real disgrace is
not on Trump but on the American Patriot movement. Now the American Patriot movement is in a
far worse position than it was in 2016 before it accepted Trump as its leader. We were
greatly deceived but in 2020 there is no excuse for anyone to still be deceived about Trump.
He completely betrayed our cause and it was all by design. His entire purpose for becoming
POTUS was, outside of giving Jerusalem and the Golan Heights to Israel (his true loyalty), to
turn our cause into something that the American public would perceive as ugly and to be
shunned when in reality our cause is very noble. We were played by Trump and his Jewish
backers but that is now in the past. Let us stop talking about this man once and for all. He
is nothing but a distraction away from what it is important to us. I consider anyone still
supporting Trump at this point or in the future to be an enemy. http://www.chuckmaultsby.net/id55.html
Providing mucho fertilizer for excellent articles like this which expose the hideous and
disgusting perfidy of the Zionist sewer and its catamites is only worth of the Chrumpster and
his time as Netanyahu's orifice.
@Ron G , just
get me into the WH.
Which will happen, we'll have a power-mad prez that has never won any primaries doing
Israel's blood work.
THERE'S A WAR GOING ON OVER KAMALA HARRIS'S WIKIPEDIA PAGE, WITH UNFLATTERING
ELEMENTS VANISHING
A line about Harris traveling to Israel and the West Bank in November 2017, where she
met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was removed altogether.
My comment a few days ago on transgenerational hate got a lot of negative feed back. You
are correct though, boomers and church goers worship the yids, despite what Jesus said about
them and later Martin Luther.
"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just
boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the
time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people
understood what a grip these people have on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our
citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on." – Admiral Thomas Moorer, head of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, interview, 24 Aug. 1983
Now that "Zion Don" appears to be out of the way, we can get back to encouraging illegals,
giving them their rights, setting our sights on the another Hitler in Syria, globalizing
what's left of the industrial base, getting trannies more judgeships, queering history, and
on and on cuz all dem ideas are homegrown and strictly non-kosher.
I thought the pardons were great. Who knew there were so many criminal Jews who have been
actually convicted? Its almost like the Jewish stereotypes are really true. Does that mean no
one can be anti Semitic? Also the way black rappers get killed off, supply and demand
dictates jailed ones need to be free. Very Reaganesque.
Sarcasm aside I think Jews tended to hate Trump because in sucking up to them, The Donald
wound up revealing many ugly truths. Outside of Trump's energy and environmental policies,
its a good riddance from me. Unfortunately the looming costs related to energy and taxes,
I'll eventually and unfortunately will wind up missing the weak and Ivanka sniffing SOB.
Run for president in 2024. Ya' got one vote here. You can use the catchphrase, "Make
America Independent Again". Red, White, and Blue hats, etc. Your campaign rally speeches
would be epically entertaining in the gnashing of establishment journo's teeth as they
described them.
Drumpf the rancid orange golem played you all to the very last coda, pissing in your eyes
as he pardoned a most rancorous group of bent buddies and chosen criminal diversities . maga
men hung to dry, swinging in the wind.
Half of america shafted and stockholm syndromed, as the fake fat narcissist waltzes of to
play golf and hide the ginger squirrel with the reanimated frank-epstein and his
transhumanised teenage sorority clones in tel-aviv.
by the way see where this link leads: antifa.com .
hint: the whitehouse.
@LarryS nd
its American friends get what they want, no matter what.
Trump was terrible and I'm glad to see him gone. Problem is Biden & Co. will probably
be worse, letting in countless third worlders and pandering to BLM, trannies and countless
other perverts and sexual curiosities.
Neither party represents the interests of the American people. Did we really want 14
million illegals here and $6 trillion spent on failed adventures in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan,
etc.?
I harken back to H L Mencken who said both parties spend their time proving the other is
unfit to govern and are both right.
The pardoning of the Blackwater scum has fascinating implications for any country with a
Status of Forces Agreement /Visiting Forces Agreement, which is what, 80% of the world?
A host country might want to revisit these terms if it means that their women &
children could be raped, killed, mutilated whilst the perpetrators walk free.
This is beyond belief. Are Americans blind? Is there something in the water they
drink?
A whole population bent over with their posteriors pointed at the sky, willingly accepting
the abuse by the zionists.
Love them or hate them, these jews dream big. Bravo
Another on target Giraldi article. The ultimate blame for our being occupied and used
without a shot being fired is with American gullibility and blindness. How does a global
power, in almost every way, become the lap dog, errand boy, bully and financier for such an
ungrateful, blood sucking little country? We have created a Frankenstein Monster for the
world.
@SolontoCroesus
ight Palestinians were there even if there was strong Israel Lobby domestic pressure. But in
1979 Carter–distracted by the fall of the Shah–merely brokered a Egyptian-Israeli
peace treaty deal that eliminated Egypt from the conflict, and the lack of the deterrent they
represented meant meant hat Israel was free to do what it liked in the West Bank and attack
Lebanon. The Palestinians will never get another US president like Carter. Israel does not
want an agreement, the current situation suits them very well. So Iran is not deterring
Israel from doing anything it wants to do. Moreover, Israel likes having a pseudo threat like
Iran.
Well I have to say this comes as a surprise. To think that American politicians take
bribes, favour one particular group etc etc is news to me. However, Trump catering to the
foreskin modifiers and the dick cheese eliminators is the good news.
The bad news is the new team is already in bed not only with the foreskin challenged
sticks, but with the chopsticks and every other stick with a dollar bill wrapped around the
head. When the 25th collides with Joe's worn out pecker and Kamala takes over that will be
the sign that circumcised or not we are all fucked.
As some readers commented on UR, honesty is the best policy, turn the other cheek and love
conquers hate. All good advice I am sure but redundant and inapplicable in the world we live
in.
The ruled live by these rules but the rulers live by their own !
Casino magnate and Israeli patriot multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson, one of the world's
richest men, died in Las Vegas on January 11 th at age 87. He had been suffering
from cancer and has been buried at the
Mount of Olives Cemetery in Israel . When his body arrived in Israel it was met by Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as well as Jonathan Pollard, the most damaging spy in United States
history. Tributes to the fallen "hero" poured in from the political class in both the United
States and Israel and it has even been reported that President Donald Trump was intending to
hoist the American flag at half mast over federal buildings to honor the "great humanitarian
philanthropist." Unfortunately, the flag was already at half mast honoring the death of Capitol
Police Force officer Brian Sicknick, who was murdered in the Capitol building last
Wednesday.
Trump has not mentioned the service unto death of Sicknick and the flag lowering itself was
apparently a bit of an afterthought on behalf of the White House, but he had plenty to say
about his good buddy Adelson, who has been the principal funder of the Republican Party over
the past five years. As he can no longer use Twitter, the president's
condolences were posted on the White House site: "Melania and I mourn the passing of
Sheldon Adelson, and send our heartfelt condolences to his wife Miriam, his children and
grandchildren. Sheldon lived the true American dream. His ingenuity, genius, and creativity
earned him immense wealth, but his character and philanthropic generosity his great name.
Sheldon was also a staunch supporter of our great ally the State of Israel. He tirelessly
advocated for the relocation of the United States embassy to Jerusalem, the recognition of
Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and the pursuit of peace between Israel and its
neighbors. Sheldon was true to his family, his country, and all those that knew him. The world
has lost a great man. He will be missed."
Missing from the Trump eulogy is any mention of what Adelson did for the United States,
which is his country of birth and where he made his fortune engaging in activity that many
would consider to be a vice. In fact, Adelson was all about the Jewish state, positioning
himself as the principal funder of the Republican Party under Donald Trump and receiving in
return as a quid pro quo the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA),
the move of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the recognition of Israeli annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights, and a virtual concession that the Jewish state could do whatever it
wants vis-à-vis the Palestinians, to include expelling them from Palestine. Adelson once
commented that Israel does not have to pretend to be a democracy but it must be Jewish,
presumably to help the process of Arab genocide move along.
Adelson's mechanism, initiated under George W. Bush, is familiar to how the Israel Lobby
operates more generally. It consisted of the exploitation of the incessant need of campaign
money by the GOP, which Adelson provided with strings attached. He worked with the Republicans
to completely derail the admittedly faux peace process begun under Bill Clinton, which
depended on a two-state solution, and instead give the Jewish state a free hand to implement
its own unilateral Greater Israel Project extending from "the Jordan River to the
Mediterranean." As part of that expansion, Israel has been building illegal settlements while
also bombing and killing Lebanese, Syrians, and Iranians and assassinating scientists and
technicians throughout the region.
All of the interventions against Israel's neighbors took place even though the Jewish state
was not technically at war with anyone. The U.S. meanwhile funded Israeli aggression and
watched the spectacle without any complaint, providing political cover as necessary, while also
maintaining a major military presence in the Middle East to "protect Israel," as Trump recently
admitted.
In short, Sheldon Adelson committed as much as half a billion dollars from his vast fortune
to buy control over a major element of U.S. foreign policy and subordinated American interests
to those of Israel. In addition to direct donations to both major political parties, he also
paid for Congressional "fact finding" trips to Israel and funded a number of pro-Israel
lobbies, so-called charities and other related Jewish projects. It is indisputable that he
wielded an incredible degree of power to shape Washington's actions in the Middle East. In
her own tribute to her dead husband, Miriam Adelson, an Israeli, described how he "crafted
the course of nations."
Adelson was actively engaged on Israel's behalf until the week before his death. He provided
his casino's private 737 luxury executive jet to transport Jonathan Pollard "home" to Israel.
Pollard has served 30 years in prison after being convicted of espionage and was on parole,
which restricted his travel. As yet another a gift to Israel, Donald Trump lifted that
restriction, allowing him to fly to Israel where he received a hero's welcome. It is generally
agreed that Pollard was the most damaging spy in American history, having stolen the keys to
accessing U.S. communications and information gathering systems. A month after Pollard's arrest
in 1985, C.I.A director William Casey stated: "The Israelis used Pollard to obtain our war
plans against the USSR – all of it: the co-ordinates, the firing locations, the
sequences, and Israel sold that information to Moscow for more exit visas for Soviet Jews."
Sheldon Adelson used his wealth and political connections to shield himself from any
criticism due to his openly expressed preference for Israel over the land of his birth. He
famously publicly
stated that he wished he had worn the Israeli Army uniform instead of that of the U.S.
Army, where he served briefly as a draftee. He also expressed his desire that his son would
serve as an Israeli army sniper, presumably allowing him to blow the heads off of Palestinians.
In 2013
Adelson advocated ending nuclear negotiations with Iran and instead detonating a nuclear weapon
in "the middle of the [Iranian] desert," followed by a threat to annihilate the capital city
Tehran, home to 8.6 million, to force Iran to surrender its essentially non-existent nuclear
program.
Other acknowledgements of the impact of Adelson came from officials in
the Trump Administration. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo commented how his "efforts to
strengthen the alliance between Israel and the United States the world, Israel and the United
States are safer because of his work." Yeah, right Mike.
So, the world is definitely a better place due to the passing of Sheldon Adelson. Or is it?
His Israeli wife Miriam owns more than 40% of Las Vegas Sands Corp Casinos Inc.,
estimated to be worth in excess of $17 billion. She has proposed that a new chapter be
included in the Jewish bible, the Book of Trump, and has pledged herself to continue her
husband's work. Trump had previously given her the highest award that a president can bestow,
the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Freedom, of course, does not apply to Palestinians. And if
one is concerned that the Democrats will not be cooperative, they too have their own major
donor similar to Adelson. He is an Israeli film producer named Haim Saban, who, echoing a
similar statement by Adelson, said that he is a one issue guy and that issue is Israel.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website ishttps://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
I agree with you on needing the FBI otherwise these things would never take place.
GLADIO Psyop: Another False Flag Synagogue Shooting With a Fake Hero That's Probably a Total
Hoax.
More seriously, Zionism is a copy-cat ideology from late 19-th century when all ethnic
groups in east-central Europe, large and small, were inventing nationalisms (Latvians as a
nation with unique experience and all such). Being dominant, American ZIonists are also
fractious, Democrat Zionists having mutual hatred with Republican Zionists (both detest
non-Zionist Jews with passion). The have their peculiarities, including support of Israel
etc., but they do not differ much from other Americans.
Yes, in general, Israel had to take a lot of extreme measures to drive immigration into
itself from the world. Many Jews were quite happy where they were, and had no desire to
relocate to some desert paradise in the Middle East. Zionism created, and tricked into being,
threats to drive Jewish populations from other lands.
Weir also records how US officials during this age pushed back against the influence of
Zionists, but the sums of money raised in the US to promote Zionist policy were of an awesome
scale. And it was predicted at the time that the US involvement with the Israel plan would
bring it the enmity of the Arab world, which up to that time it did not have.
Menachem Begin, she also records, proclaimed on American TV how proud he was to have
introduced terrorism not only to the Middle East but to the whole world.
So these were the founding spirits of the situation we in the US find ourselves in today.
We can see the The Zionist occupation of Palestine in clear, geographical terms. It is much
harder to draw the Zionist occupation the US in clear terms, but surely it exists to a
similar degree of absolute repression.
~~
I sometimes feel that if we could know the whole truth of the Jews, and the Zionists, many
of our uncertainties about historical events and modern-day affairs would evaporate.
This has become a dangerous topic to pursue, which alone must tell us much. I'm glad of
this thread from b. Outside of Unz, such discussions are rare.
In its early years (1948 - 1960s), Israel's politics and culture were dominated by
Ashkenazi Jews or their descendants in countries they had migrated to, before moving to
Israel.
During this time, Mizrahi Jews (Jews living in Islamic cultures and whose traditions were
influenced by the Islamic and pre-Islamic traditions of their neighbours in these cultures)
were brought to Israel via mass immigration programs portrayed as "taking up Aliyah". The
bulk of the Mizrahi Jews came from Egypt, Iraq, Morocco and Yemen. They made up the bulk of
the low-wage labouring classes in Israel, even though some if these Jews had clerical and
administrative backgrounds.
So for a few decades up to the 1980s, Israel's upper and middle classes were of Ashkenazi
Jewish origins and culture, and the lower classes were mostly of Mizrahi Jewish origins.
Later as Mizrahi Jews began to join the middle classes and left behind low-wage work, and
began to intermarry with Ashkenazi Jews, Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza started
doing low-wage work before the Intifada began in the 1980s. Since then, Israel has been
importing guest workers from China and Southeast Asia, especially the Philippines. Some of
these guest workers have had children born in Israel who can only speak Hebrew and they and
the children have been subjected to deportation.
Significantly Israeli culture and society (or what we would call high culture or
intellectual culture) are dominated by Ashkenazi Jewish cultural values and history, even as
most Israeli Jews now have little connection with the history of Ashkenazi Jews and the Shoah
/ Holocaust. Low culture, working class culture or everyday culture seems to be associated
with whatever Mizrahi Jews brought with them (their cuisines, for example).
Initially Israel was supposed to serve as Britain's eyes and ears in the Middle East to
keep the Arabs and other native Middle Eastern communities in line. Now Israel serves as the
eyes and ears of the US and the rest of the Five Eyes network in the Middle East. The
relationship between Israel and the Anglosphere can at least be described as symbiotic.
Sheldon Adelson, the casino oligarch who has financed far right causes as well as the
political careers of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahoo, has
died . In 2013 Adelson had called for nuking Tehran (vid).
Good Riddance.
Unfortunately his money will continue to flow to the far right as his Israeli wife is the
one who is now running the show .
In other news B'Tselem, the topmost Israeli human rights organization, finally describes both Israel
and its control of the Palestinian territories as a single apartheid regime:
B'Tselem rejects the perception of Israel as a democracy (inside the Green Line) that
simultaneously upholds a temporary military occupation (beyond it). B'Tselem reached the
conclusion that the bar for defining the Israeli regime as an apartheid regime has been met
after considering the accumulation of policies and laws that Israel devised to entrench its
control over Palestinians.
Nothing really new there but it makes it official.
With B'Tselem finally speaking out it is much easier to refute those who falsely denounce
the much justified condemnation of Zionism and Israel as anti-semitic.
This comes at a time when Israel is
scheming to derail the incoming Biden administration's plan to return to the nuclear deal
with Iran:
Israel will start by sending a stream of envoys on visits to Washington, the official said,
requesting anonymity to discuss private deliberations. It's stated publicly that it doesn't
want the U.S. to abandon sanctions on the Islamic Republic without a new deal, and that a
tougher stance should be taken toward its nuclear project, ballistic missile program and
regional proxy forces.
That strategy runs against the Biden team's willingness to re-enter the deal, then
negotiate an expansion of its terms. It's conditioned on Iran's returning to compliance
with the accord, whose limits it breached after President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out
of the agreement in 2018.
...
Israel also has a higher-risk card up its sleeve: the potential to upend diplomatic efforts
through covert operations against Iran.
...
Netanyahu has been open about his intention to thwart renewed U.S. participation. In a rare
public split, he rebuked his envoy to Germany for supporting Berlin's push to expand the
deal.
"There should be no return to the Iran nuclear agreement of 2015 -- a deal which is
flawed to its foundations," Netanyahu said.
With Biden being an arch-Zionist
and with a team
of Zionist Jews leading the State Department the chances of a fast return to the deal can
be regarded as slim.
CHARLES ROMLEY ALDER WRIGHT – THE FOREFATHER OF HEROIN
Dr. Charles Wright, born in 1844, was a physics and chemistry researcher in London. Well
respected, he helped found the Royal Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain and Ireland.
With his chemist skills, he had been experimenting with morphine, combining it with various
acids. He had hoped to discover a nonaddictive alternative to the medicine and soon
discovered a more potent version of morphine by boiling anhydrous morphine alkaloid with
acetic anhydride. Called diacetylmorphine at the time, this is the substance today known as
heroin. Following Wright's discovery, the drug was marketed as an analgesic and a cough
sedative in 1888. It wasn't until 1913 that its addictive qualities were officially
discovered and it was swiftly taken off the market.
JOHN PEMBERTON – THE FOREFATHER OF COCAINE
Following injuries he sustained as a Colonel in the Confederate Army, John Pemberton,
also a pharmacist, searched for a cure to counteract his addiction to morphine, which he
had been using as a painkiller. After experimenting with coca and coca wines, he came up
with what he called Pemberton's French Wine Coca, an alcoholic blend designed to reduce
nervousness; stomach, bowel, and kidney irregularities; and more. Following temperance
legislation, Pemberton was under pressure to create a non-alcoholic version of his medicine
and invented Coca-Cola by accident in 1886. It was the result when he mistakenly blended
his base syrup with carbonated water, and he decided to market it as the fountain drink we
know today. Ten years later, the Coca-Cola company ran into controversy after it was
discovered cocaine was an addictive and dangerous substance. A glass used to 9 mg of its
primary secret – now illegal – ingredient.
...
NAGAI NAGAYOSHI – THE FOREFATHER OF METHAMPHETAMINE
Nagai Nagayoshi, who became the first doctor of pharmacy in Japan, was sponsored by the
Prussia government to study at the University of Berlin and went on to receive a doctorate
based on his study of eugenol. Nagayoshi later became a professor of chemistry and pharmacy
in 1893, and it was this year he became the first to synthesize methamphetamine, which came
from ephedrine. It was Nagayoshi's work that led pharmacologist Akira Ogata to synthesize
the crystalline form of methamphetamine, which we today know as crystal meth.
FRIEDRICH SERTÜRNER – THE FOREFATHER OF MORPHINE
Born in 1783, Friedrich Sertürner, achieved a number of recognized accomplishments
at a young age when he worked as a pharmacist's apprentice. He isolated morphine from
opium, becoming the first person to ever extract an alkaloid from opium and thus to isolate
an alkaloid from a plant. This feat made Sertürner the first person ever to isolate a
medicinal plant or herb's active ingredient. He named the alkaloid "morphium," after
Morpheus, the Greek god of dreams. Having morphine literally at his fingertips to examine,
Sertürner investigated its effects. The drug became a widely used sedative after 1815,
and Sertürner worked as a successful pharmacist until his death in 1841.
I take the blame for starting the thread on discussing opiate addiction @ 5. This was due
to my picking up these paragraphs at the Buzzfeed News article that B linked to in connection
with Miriam Adelson.
... Miriam [Adelson] married fellow physician Ariel Ochshorn in the 1970s, and had two
daughters with him, Yasmin and Sivan. After they divorced in the 1980s, she came to New
York to do a fellowship at Rockefeller University with Dr. Mary Jeanne Kreek. The two
doctors have remained friends and collaborators to this day.
Kreek, who began her conversation with BuzzFeed News by stressing that she had gotten
permission from Miriam to do the interview, said that she had been approached by an
official in Israel's Ministry of Health in 1986 about sending an Israeli doctor to
Rockefeller to work on addiction medicine. In short order, Adelson came over to New York
with her two teenagers, who attended the Ramaz School on Manhattan's Upper East Side.
At the time, treating heroin addicts with methadone was still considered a
cutting-edge treatment, and Kreek and Adelson (then Ochshorn) were on the forefront. It
was also starting to become controversial; while many doctors argue that methadone
maintenance is an effective harm-reduction tool that allows people to master their
addiction and live normal lives, opponents say that using methadone instead of heroin is
really another form of dependence. Kreek, who receives significant funding for her program
from the Adelsons, decried the "stigma" surrounding methadone maintenance treatment ...
Here is a link to an article Miriam Adelson co-authored on whether methadone maintenance
treatment (at her clinic, I presume) might improve opioid addicts' cognitive abilities:
Whether the success of the treatments at Dr Adelson's clinics are actually due to the
treatments themselves, and whether their success can be replicated in other clinics not owned
or run by Dr Adelson, might be another issue.
Trump run his election complain of 2016 as champion of common Americans. After he won the
office the betrayed them all and governed like Bush III with his own cabal of neocons and
neoliberals. \
He betrayed his followed again on Dec 6, when he first incited them for the action but did not provide organization, security
and the plan needed to press Congress to appoint the commission for investigation of election "irregularities" for then days
before Biden inauguration. He is now completely spent politically and his enemies and first of all, Ms Pelosi, are after him.
Moreover he gave a shot in the arm for the gang of Russiagaters who were pursuing him
since his inauguration.
The fact that Trump leaves the political scene is good. While useful as a wrecking ball for
the neoliberal empire and neoliberal establishment he proved to be completely inept as
a politician and lack courage necessary for the national leader. Which he proved again on Dec 6. Famous quote from
Friedrich Schiller's play Fiesco "The Moor has done his duty. The Moor can go." is probably applicable. What is interesting
is that Zionists betrayed Trump.
But the fact hat he will be replaced by neocon warmonger and staunch neoliberal Biden means
that there is no light at the and of tunnel for the common people.
Like Trump, Biden was never Presidential material. He a a mediocre politician, by all
accounts. And extremely corrupt in addition to that.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump denounced the people whom he personally called to protest. His close political allies withdrew their support. ..."
"... The deck was stacked against President Trump from Day One. His orders were ignored. The US courts, judges, police, the whole system of law enforcement was against him; his orders were blocked or overturned, while the media made fun of him and the opposition relentlessly delegitimised him. ..."
"... On January 6, a massive demonstration in his support gathered in Washington, DC. Hundreds of thousands Americans came to the capital to demand justice after the election fraud became obvious. They hoped that the Republican representatives would refuse to certify the fraud and appoint a commission to check and recount the votes. ..."
"... The horror and outrage of the Dem politicians and media were as faked as their news. During last year, many government buildings were taken over by Dem-sponsored BLM activists, and in not one case did the police use lethal weapons or even rush the protesters out of buildings. ..."
"... For them, it was an honest and funny way to express their indignation. But the real gambit plotters intended to frame them. They even murdered four protesters hoping they would respond with violence, but in vain. ..."
"... White American protesters are exceptionally non-violent lot; as with Occupy Wall Street a few years back the January 6 Capitol protesters were timid and obedient as lambs. For this reason, BLM was invented, for Blacks are able to riot violently, as opposed to well-trained whites. It is not a race thing: lily-white French Yellow Vests and Ukrainian nationalists have fought the police all right. But US whites are not prone to riot, not since the Civil War. ..."
"... Anyway, their non-violence didn't help them. The president-elect Biden begrudged them even the name of protesters: "Don't dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists." Indeed, the name should be preserved for Deep State-authorised looters and their brethren all over the world, whether in Hong Kong or Minsk, in Seattle or Portland. ..."
"... researchers will argue whether duplicitous Biden's minions organised it or just capitalised on the Trumpers' sincere protest. ..."
"... There is no doubt that to an objective observer the 2020 elections were profoundly unfair. I won't trouble you with too many published details about the statistically impossible results, but here is one example of fraud. The city of Detroit gave 95 per cent of its vote to Biden/Kamala, a number that Mr Kim Jong-un would view with slight envy, while Mr Lukashenko would murmur, "How can it be done?" It is highly likely this mind-boggling result was achieved in the following way. ..."
"... The problem is, Trump was a poor organiser. He could win elections, if he could prevent Cynthia Stephens's kind of legislation, outlaw postal ballots, enforce obligatory IDs for voting, mobilise his people for election control. A formidable task, but not impossible, while dealing with a prone-to-cheat adversary. He could even do a revolution on January 6, tasking the right people to act, forming a revolutionary HQ, planning a strategy of takeover, but he didn't do anything of the sort. He probably thought Congress would see the vast crowds and allow for the checking of election results. ..."
"... Alternatively, he was so naïve that he believed revolutions just happen by themselves, as in the movies. They do not. Behind every successful revolution, there is a lot of planning, armed force, weapons ready for use, supply lines, logistics, media support, and communications. Trump had none of that. It was enough to turn off Twitter to make him deaf and dumb. ..."
"... There was no coup attempt, as correctly stated by Tyler Durden : "Trump has never had the concentration, organizational acumen, or ideological coherence to mount a bona fide "coup," and a mob intrusion which was swiftly dispersed by armed agents of the state doesn't change that. ..."
"... Many Trumpists believed in the QAnon and Kayfabe conspiracies; they posted reports of bad guys being arrested, of servers snatched by the FBI, of Clinton and Biden waiting for rough justice behind bars. This belief disarmed people who would otherwise have fought to achieve this very result. That is the problem with conspiracies: imaginary conspiracies prevent real action. ..."
"... He succeeded against enormous odds in improving the lot of American workers: for the first time since the 1970s, their incomes rose in relation to the other classes. He stopped mass migration to the US: legal immigration went down to a trickle. He avoided new wars; he tried to make peace with Russia. He refused to bomb Iran even in the last days of his presidency, though some pro-Israel supporters promised him a second term if he would. ..."
"... His fight against the corona madness was his great achievement. He was against the lockdowns that are about to destroy our world so completely that few things will survive. The last great US ruler who didn't wear the cowardly mask will be remembered. He could not defeat the mighty medical complex, or FAGMA, or the Masters of Discourse, but he tried. ..."
President Trump was decisively beaten, if not fair and square. The hopes of millions of
American voters were squashed and extinguished. The saga of the Orange Man is over. The victors
used a gambit: they sacrificed the sanctity and security of the Capitol, allowed intruders in,
permitted them to take selfies in the Speaker's office, and then faked horror and outrage. The
attempted calls for electoral transparency were deflated in real time as huge crowds were
dispersed, electors were confirmed, and the ascendancy of Biden was assured, while Trump
followers were branded 'domestic terrorists'.
Donald Trump denounced the people whom he personally called to protest. His close political
allies withdrew their support. Within hours, or even minutes, this ruler of the world admired
by millions became a non-person. Like a boy who posted an obscenity, he was banned by Twitter
and Facebook. Time will tell whether he will go to prison, as so many Dems pray for, but his
political life seems to have ended, even if his cause may live.
The deck was stacked against President Trump from Day One. His orders were ignored. The US
courts, judges, police, the whole system of law enforcement was against him; his orders were
blocked or overturned, while the media made fun of him and the opposition relentlessly
delegitimised him. He was blocked even by Fox News. Dem-run states adjusted their laws to
assure the elections' result. Trump was a lame duck from the very beginning of his presidency
to its bitter end. He was kept on a short leash by the almighty Deep State, and when he tried
to free himself, they pulled the leash.
On January 6, a massive demonstration in his support gathered in Washington, DC. Hundreds of
thousands Americans came to the capital to demand justice after the election fraud became
obvious. They hoped that the Republican representatives would refuse to certify the fraud and
appoint a commission to check and recount the votes. Some of the protesters managed to break
into the Capitol, or were let in by the police. This peaceful Occupy Capitol action, the
exercise of a natural right to protest, was met with lethal fire, and a young female protester
from San Diego, Ashli Babbitt, was murdered by the plainclothes police. The Republican
representatives were cowed and surrendered; Biden was confirmed to take office.
The horror and outrage of the Dem politicians and media were as faked as their news. During
last year, many government buildings were taken over by Dem-sponsored BLM activists, and in not
one case did the police use lethal weapons or even rush the protesters out of buildings.
"Shortly after 8 p.m. Wednesday, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the locked King
Street entrance to the Capitol, chanting "Break down the door!" and "General strike!" Moments
later, police ceded control of the State Street doors and allowed the crowd to surge inside,
joining thousands who had already gathered in the Capitol to protest the votes. The area
outside the Assembly, which is scheduled to take the bill up at 11 a.m. today, was crowded
with protesters who chanted, "We're not leaving. Not this time."
Department of Administration spokesman Tim Donovan said although protesters were being
encouraged to leave, no one would be forcibly removed. Mayor Dave Cieslewicz said he had
instructed Police Chief Noble Wray not to allow his officers to participate in removing
demonstrators from the building."
This was what happened in Madison, Wisconsin in March 2011, as
Steve Sailer reminded us. Indeed, this is what the protesters expected; some were dressed
in flamboyant carnival attire; they behaved well and peacefully, within acceptable limits. It
was not an insurrection; they didn't try to take over the Congress in any meaningful sense.
For them, it was an honest and funny way to express their indignation. But the real gambit
plotters intended to frame them. They even murdered four protesters hoping they would respond
with violence, but in vain.
White American protesters are exceptionally non-violent lot; as with Occupy Wall Street
a few years back the January 6 Capitol protesters were timid and obedient as lambs. For this
reason, BLM was invented, for Blacks are able to riot violently, as opposed to well-trained
whites. It is not a race thing: lily-white French Yellow Vests and Ukrainian nationalists have
fought the police all right. But US whites are not prone to riot, not since the Civil War.
Being a foreigner, I do not understand why the Americans want to keep their guns if they never
use them, but that's the way they are.
Anyway, their non-violence didn't help them. The president-elect
Biden begrudged them even the name of protesters: "Don't dare call them protesters. They
were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists." Indeed, the name should be
preserved for Deep State-authorised looters and their brethren all over the world, whether in
Hong Kong or Minsk, in Seattle or Portland.
Russian social networks were comparing the Washington DC events with those nearer to home
and complained of 'double standards'. The US media expressed no indignation when their
appointee Boris Yeltsin shelled the Russian Parliament in 1993. The New York Times and
the State Department had encouraged the nationalist mob to storm Ukrainian government offices
in 2014. They cheered on the opposition in Minsk in taking over their parliament after failing
to win elections. The Belarus protesters claimed their country's election results were rigged,
just like Trump supporters did for the US elections, but Biden didn't call them "domestic
terrorists". (Actually, neither did President Lukashenko: he called them 'protesters', and
their violent demos were dispersed without a single shot fired.) In such cases, Jews respond
with "How can you compare?!"
The Russians compared the Capitol 'coup attempt' with their own semi-staged 'coup' of 1991,
a partly pre-planned provocation. In 1991, the feeble coup organisers could not detain Yeltsin
and surrendered as if on cue; the wave of indignation removed Gorbachev and the Communist party
from power. In the Capitol, too, police waved the 'invaders' in, as you can see on this video
forwarded by the BBC. More videos suggesting Capitol police involvement in the ostensible
provocation are presented
here . The orchestrated indignation allowed the victors to censor and purge the defeated
Trump and his followers. Just as the USSR went down in August 1991, Trump's America went down
in January 2021, and the liberal elites representing the big corporations came to power. It was
achieved by a provocation, but ordinary Trump followers were really angry with the Election
Steal. Likewise, 1991 was a provocation, but ordinary Russian citizens were angry at
Gorbachev's perestroika, while the liberal elites used it to dismantle the Soviet state and
transfer all assets to their oligarchs.
People with a good knowledge of history refer to the Reichstag Fire of February 1933, the
arson contrived by the newly formed Nazi government itself to turn public opinion against its
opponents and to assume emergency powers. Alternatively, other researchers have contended that
there was no proof of Nazi complicity in the crime, but that Hitler merely capitalised on the
Dutch Communist van der Lubbe's independent act. The fire is the subject of continued debate
and research, says
the Encycopaedia Britannica . Probably the same will be said about the Capitol "invasion",
and researchers will argue whether duplicitous Biden's minions organised it or just
capitalised on the Trumpers' sincere protest.
There is no doubt that to an objective observer the 2020 elections were profoundly
unfair. I won't trouble you with too many published details about the statistically impossible
results, but here is one example of fraud. The city of Detroit gave 95 per cent of its vote to
Biden/Kamala, a number that Mr Kim Jong-un would view with slight envy, while Mr Lukashenko
would murmur, "How can it be done?" It is highly likely this mind-boggling result was achieved
in the following way.
Detroit Dems outsourced ballot
harvesting to local drug lords, offering them as a prize – recreational marijuana
business licenses. These licences are the best thing sincea licence to print
money . Having such licenses is like having your own ATM. Here
you can read about their profitability and the lengths criminals will go to obtain them.
Detroit Dems had
changed local laws allowing the sale of marijuana in their fine city (it was forbidden
until November 2020). They changed local laws prescribing the
issuing of marijuana licences to drug dealers with previous convictions for drug dealing.
They let drug lords out of
jail . They changed local laws to allow ballot harvesting; that is, collecting postal votes
and assisting with the filling in of ballots. After that, the drug dealers went around
collecting postal ballots and filling them in immediately, if they were conscientious, or just
filling them in at their leisure, if feeling lazy. They had a judge at their disposal,
Cynthia Stephens , who
single-handedly
changed Michigan election laws, and then
rejected Trump's claims of fraud.
Yes, Virginia, there was election fraud in many American states. They are used to
gambling; they aren't surprised by a beautiful hand of four aces, as Mark Twain suggested.
Usually the two parties deal in turns, and cheat in turns. Only this time, Trump convinced many
people that it is different; that this is their last chance.
The problem is, Trump was a poor organiser. He could win elections, if he could prevent
Cynthia Stephens's kind of legislation, outlaw postal ballots, enforce obligatory IDs for
voting, mobilise his people for election control. A formidable task, but not impossible, while
dealing with a prone-to-cheat adversary. He could even do a revolution on January 6, tasking
the right people to act, forming a revolutionary HQ, planning a strategy of takeover, but he
didn't do anything of the sort. He probably thought Congress would see the vast crowds and
allow for the checking of election results.
Alternatively, he was so naïve that he believed revolutions just happen by
themselves, as in the movies. They do not. Behind every successful revolution, there is a lot
of planning, armed force, weapons ready for use, supply lines, logistics, media support, and
communications. Trump had none of that. It was enough to turn off Twitter to make him deaf and
dumb.
There was no coup attempt, as correctly stated by Tyler
Durden : "Trump has never had the concentration, organizational acumen, or ideological
coherence to mount a bona fide "coup," and a mob intrusion which was swiftly dispersed
by armed agents of the state doesn't change that. Shortly after the breach, he released a
video instructing his followers not to take Senators hostage or imprison Mike Pence, but to "go
home." No factions of the federal government joined the mob on Trump's orders, because he
didn't bother issuing any. The whole episode never stood the remotest chance of preventing the
certification of Joe Biden, much less overthrowing the government. It was just another goofball
charade, and in that sense, a fitting end to the Trump presidency."
Conspiracy theories played their disappointing part in the debacle. Many Trumpists
believed in the QAnon and Kayfabe conspiracies; they posted reports of bad guys being arrested,
of servers snatched by the FBI, of Clinton and Biden waiting for rough justice behind bars.
This belief disarmed people who would otherwise have fought to achieve this very result. That
is the problem with conspiracies: imaginary conspiracies prevent real action.
Still, I do not want to finish this piece on such a sad and disappointing note. President
Trump was a great leader. He succeeded against enormous odds in improving the lot of
American workers: for the first time since the 1970s, their incomes rose in relation to the
other classes. He stopped mass migration to the US: legal immigration went down to a trickle.
He avoided new wars; he tried to make peace with Russia. He refused to bomb Iran even in the
last days of his presidency, though some pro-Israel supporters promised
him a second term if he would.
His fight against the corona madness was his great achievement. He was against the
lockdowns that are about to destroy our world so completely that few things will survive. The
last great US ruler who didn't wear the cowardly mask will be remembered. He could not defeat
the mighty medical complex, or FAGMA, or the Masters of Discourse, but he tried.
The day of his defeat, January 6, was the Epiphany, or Adoration of the Magi, of the Three
Wise Men who came to worship Jesus in his cave. It was also Christmas Eve for the Eastern
Church. It is the darkest time of the year; from now on, the day will increase and so will our
hopes.
The United States government is being progressively Zionized To cite only one example,
an Israel Victory Caucus was launched in the House of Representatives, advocating Israeli
defeat of all its neighbors. The keynote speaker at the event, Daniel Pipes, explained
"Victory means imposing your will on your enemy so he no longer wants to continue to
fight," before demanding "What I want the U.S. government to do is say, 'Israel, do what
you need to do to win your war.'"
I've seen a lot of comments over the years calling things "theater', but I never felt
compelled the use the word until this event.
I'm only just gathering pieces of the forensic deconstruction, but this thing is fishy as
hell. In fact, I'm not even opening my eyes much to this one, because the smell alone gives
it all away.
I learned about this a few hours ago in a Zoom business meeting, and the lady is talking
about someone shot and died - she was laying this at Trump's door - and I looked up RT and
got the story that the police shot her. But how do people get into the Capitol building
anyway, that has to be super hardened - and of course it already looks like the security let
them in, and everything else follows and falls into place from that.
[And then a guy enters my meeting and says Putin is celebrating and I had to deal with
that bullshit for a minute. Lord, deliver me from brainwashed America, especially when
they're my colleagues - but fuck 'em, actually, because the power has passed from their side
and they don't know that, but they can feel the difference. No one needs to bother to explain
to them, but even if they don't know, they can feel that you don't care, and they have no
ground to stand on - so yes, we have moved on in the information space, in case you
wondered.]
So the rest is pretty obvious, and pretty lame...and it's worth waiting a day or two to
gather all the forensics in some reviews of this obvious false flag. I imagine b will have
more in a day or two. It's a strange and pathetic brainwash here, that will undoubtedly work
its way on many millions, and work its other way on many other millions. Divide and rule.
~~
And apparently the Jews have discarded Trump and thrown him to the wolves. I'm searching
for the link but I guess it's from a comment in one of the Saker threads - can't find it now
- but the US organization of...something or other but definitely and formally representing
Jews and their political influence in the US, has said this is unacceptable and perhaps
they're even standing behind impeachment or treason charges, I'm not sure.
So that's the kiss of death, and we get to watch the sacrifice now.
And this is where the CIA learned how to treat its assets. The bend-over-backwardness of
Trump to appease the Israelis was so pronounced that they had to despise him for his
subservience. Everyone hates a toady. They had to throw him away, being careful not to let
any of him get on their shoe. Nothing says a person was appeasing the Zionists so much as how
forcefully they discard that person when used up.
Donald Trump encouraged his supporters to protest Congress. Today's anarchy is the
result. We want stable democracy. The Cabinet should consider applying the 25th amendment
to immediately remove Trump from office to end this incitement against our democracy.
Last September, Donald Trump accidentally upended an entire generation of myths invented by
the left and right that purport to explain America's costly and unpopular military adventures
in the Middle East:
"The fact is, we don't have to be in the Middle East, other than we want to protect
Israel. We've been very good to Israel. Other than that, we don't have to be in the Middle
East. You know there was a time we needed desperately oil, we don't need that anymore."
As Mondoweiss
pointed out at the time, the explosive admission went completely unmentioned in the
mainstream media, which traditionally hangs on every one of Trump's words and reacts
hysterically.
Categorizing America's foreign policy catastrophes as done in the service to Israel has
until the Trump era always been dismissed by media tastemakers and political gatekeepers as
rank anti-Semitism driven by reductionist, simplistic and conspiratorial thinking, even when
intelligence officials like Michael Scheuer and
foreign policy experts affirm the view.
Trump's lack of subtlety when remarking on using American blood and treasure to
incrementally advance the interests of the Jewish state is one reason why the Israel lobby,
which is perpetually paranoid about the public noticing their activities, is not keen on
reciprocating his often suffocating love.
Their paranoia is justified. This year Congress made the mistake of combining its $900
billion dollar coronavirus stimulus bill, which suffering people are closely following the
development of, with the yearly $1.4 trillion dollar fiscal budget, which is typically
ignored.
A deluge of popular anger was
provoked by news that we would only be receiving a $600 dollar check under the guise of budget
austerity. At the same time, buried deep in the 5,600 monstrosity was a provision setting aside
supposed budget constraints to give Israel an additional $500,000,000.
... ... ...
A perfect dollar estimate of how much Israel is costing our country is impossible due to
the opaque nature of Washington's servility to the Zionist state.
In spite of this, we can arrive at a range. The on paper cost of Israel, when we include
the "loan guarantee" scam and payments to neighboring countries to advance Israel's interests,
is at least $23.1 billion a year.
This figure excludes speculative figures on the black budget in service to Israel, which
if correct, would bring that number to $36.3 billion. It also excludes aid to Palestine and
Lebanon (which may return next year), as well as costs related to the proxy conflict with Iran,
which almost all foreign policy experts agree is entirely motivated by Israeli -- not American
-- interests.
This number will balloon under Donald Trump's plan, which is expected to be continued
uninhibited under a Joe Biden presidency. Trump's outreach to the Arab world will put us on the
hook for at least an extra $6 billion, which again, is an extremely conservative estimate since
we are excluding the shady deals with the Saudis and other Gulf States.
Thus, the $3.8 billion figure that already outrages much of the American public is at the
bare minimum about $23 billion per year, but could potentially be closer to $50 billion.
This price of this luxury item in the Middle East is almost half of all American foreign
aid, and does not serve any humanitarian purpose (often times, the other way around), much less
the interests of the American people. Understanding the outrage this sum would provoke among US
voters and taxpayers, groups like JINSA and AIPAC, along with the disproportionately Jewish
owned media, ensure that it is never accurately reported.
The charge of antifeminism played a similar role in the USA as the charge of contra
("counter-revolutionary element") in Soviet Russia. It is the way to implicate and trap
dissidents and opponent of neoliberalism (who for some strange reason are also all "white
nationalists").
This short video is a satire regarding the US obsession with antisemitism and Israel. Why
do you imagie that here are 50 states in the US and 32 Holocaust museums, yet there are only
25 civil war museums. US population is 2% Jewish. Even universities in the US understand that
Jewish equity studies have a higher academic appeal than trans gender equity studies.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/l3czFJxV3Z4?feature=oembed
Regarding the above article it seems that history can repeat itself.
"Under the authority of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, administration officials had devised
a plan under which the US military's counter-Islamic State (IS, or ISIS) force would remain in
Syria at least until the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad went through with
UN-backed elections. On top of their Congressionally-mandated mission of fighting IS, US forces
would continue to deny Assad access to Syrian oilfields, which were located in areas controlled
by Syrian Kurdish fighters backed by the United States, and to obstruct the Iranian military's
access to the Levant.
Trump didn't like it. "The president was very uncomfortable with our presence in Syria,"
Jeffrey told Al-Monitor in a two-hour interview at his home in Washington last week. "He was
very uncomfortable with what he saw as endless wars."" al-monitor
---------------
This guy likes to talk. Hopefully he will hang himself in the coils of the rope he is
weaving.
The gist of this is that he has a deep seated hatred for the Syrian Government and an
exaggerated sense of self-importance. His globalist strategic thinking fit together nicely with
Pompeo's simple minded evangelical devotion to Israel and its self fulfilling 1% fantasies.
They were a deadly duo hatched out in hell.
As for General McKenzie's claim that numerical accounting for troops is not fiddled with at
the Pentagon, I hope he is lying and not just another simpleton. All through the Afghanistan
War the DoD lied about how many people we had in Afghanistan. They did this by counting people
who were arriving and leaving, people on temporary assignment, people on leave, etc. etc.
pl
Anyone who glosses over the Siege of Kobani like it was just a minor event troubles me. To
me an ally is somewhat more than anyone I'm forced into relationship with just b/c we may
have mutual enemies.
Giving Erdogan cart blanche to obliterate some of the oldest Christian communities on the
Kurdish border sickened me.
Situations change & we seem to be very slow in adjusting to some changes.
pat - you have a bunch of liars or worse following thru with an agenda that is in service
to israel... at what point do the american people realize that russia and china are much
lesser evils then the one the usa has been supporting non stop - israel?? it is not a whole
lot different in canada, with the exception we have no weight to throw around...
James, Oh the hegemony of little Israel getting the big U.S. to
do all it's dirty work. How about some explanation of exactly how your comments are germane
to this post. Friction between Iran &
Turkey (must be Israel's fault, huh?) Erdogan's hated of the Kurds,
then again according to your comments we know who to blame for that. The cold shoulder
between Syria & the Gulfies, we know where
that chilly atmosphere comes from, right James?
If Israel just disappeared guess the Iranians, Turks & Arabs would
just have a perpetual love fest, right? I suspect you've just been holding in your
anti-Israeli comments & couldn't hold them in any longer & decided to just blame the
entire mess on them.
I've read that entire interview from top to bottom, and every one of Jeffrey's
justifications for doing what he has been doing should be met with a shrug and a "so what's
that to do with us?" from any American.
Because try as I might his justifications appear to be that This Is What Israel Wants, So
I Went Out Of My Way To Get It For Them.
@ elaine ... my comments as i see it elaine are very germaine to this thread... when one
considers the words and actions of jefferies and pompeo as being very much subservient to
israel, they don't need to go much further to appreciate what i am saying...
the usa tries to use turkey as a wedge to pump up erdogans concept of himself as the next
sultan... my understanding is turkey and iran are on much better terms then either of these
countries with israel... i am sorry if you find my viewpoint challenging.. the usa's presence
in syria, along with all the work on the part of usa and israel to create a kurdish state are
not happening .. the results they'd hoped for have come to not... sooner or later the usa
needs to get out of syria and stop being a constant servant to israel... having jefferies or
pompeo in power is counter productive to the usa's best interests....
"The author of the article referenced @27 that wants to "restore faith in the US Spy
Agencies" (who were wrongly harmed by Trump when they tried to impeach Trump with years of
leaking falsehoods, reports and dossiers...not to mention their history of torture and
misleading this country into disastrous wars, and abusing the rights of The People, etc) is
none other than Israeli-Firster (?) Israel-only (?) other (?) Jane Harmon!
Yeah, as Harmon suggests, Biden is the perfect man to restore integrity, or at least bow
to power, and sell (propaganda) faith in US Spy Agencies.
Ironically, Jane Harmon herself was outed by a spy agency or agencies causing much
embarrassment for Pelosi-Firster Nancy Pelosi. It is suspected that this extortable
embarrassment led Nancy Pelosi to back off Cheney/Bush and stick it to The People by
uttering, "Impeachment is off the table".
It is astounding to find that one of the handful of prospects being floated to become CIA
director following the fall of General David Petraeus is a person reportedly implicated in a
2005 Israeli spy scandal. CNN, Politico, and others have all listed former Congresswoman Jane
Harman as a potential new CIA head. Oddly, however, none have mentioned reports in 2006 and
again in 2009 that an NSA wiretap in 2005 had picked up Harman promising a suspected Israeli
agent that she would aid people indicted for espionage on behalf of Israel.
According to reports, Harman allegedly told the Israeli agent that she would lobby the
Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two top officials for the
powerful Israel lobby organization, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
In return, the suspected Israeli agent (who may have been a dual-citizen American)
reportedly pledged to help lobby for Harman to become chair of the House Intelligence
Committee. Harman was already the ranking Democrat on the committee.
At the end of the conversation, Harman reportedly said: "This conversation doesn't
exist."
I for one am getting really excited by the staff that Honest Joe Biden is pulling together
for the White House. When I first heard the name Tony Blinken during the Obama kleptocracy I
assumed that he was one of those Ivy League lawyer types that proliferate in Washington, likely
affiliated with the firm of Winken, Blinken and Nod, which we all know to be in partnership
with Dewey, Cheatem and Howe. But I was wrong. He actually was affiliated to a much bigger
fraternity, which one might call Zionists in government. You know, those nice well educated,
always polite Jewish boys and sometimes girls who have self-designated as foreign policy
experts and who work their way up through the various levels of power that might lead to the
most coveted positions at the top in the state department and national security apparatus.
Blinken was one such striver, and I began to feel the pricking in my thumbs that was telling me
that something evil this way was coming when he was mentioned now and again as a former close
adviser to the already beatified Barack Obama. And some in the media had observed with approval
that he had more recently been briefing Joe Biden, particularly about Israel and the Middle
East.
In an interview in
the Times of Israel Blinken confirmed Biden's position on possibly reducing aid to
Israel if the Jewish state were to do things that damaged U.S. interests. Blinken " reiterated
Biden's position that he would not condition aid to Israel. He [Biden] is resolutely opposed to
it. He would not tie military assistance to Israel to any political decisions it makes, full
stop."
The question of withholding aid is itself moot as Israel does nothing but "do things" that
damage U.S. interests, knowing that no president or the Congress would dare to turn off the
money tap, but it is an interesting unambiguous admission from Blinken that both he and Joe
Biden put Israeli interests ahead of those of the United States.
Blinken's personal view of unfettered support for Israel allegedly derives from his
stepfather having claimed to be a survivor of the so-called holocaust, a tale that
he invoked several times during his acceptance speech on November 24 th . The
Times interview
concludes with Blinken asserting that "One of the things that's really shaped the vice
president's career-long support for Israel and its security is the lesson of the Holocaust. He
believes strongly that a secure Jewish homeland in Israel is the single best guarantee to
ensure that never again will the Jewish people be threatened with destruction."
The indefatigable Israel-firster Tony Blinken has also served
as a "conduit" to those in government for Israel advocacy groups like the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). And now that we have Tony Blinken as Secretary of State
Designate the door will soon be wide open to the Israel Lobby.
If you need to know more about what Tony Blinken is all about you only have to look at his
friends and his track record. Israel was inevitably quick off the mark in saluting the
appointment, both in its media and through its mouthpieces in the United States. Stalwart
Canadian Zionist Mark Dubowitz, who heads the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD),
tweeted
that Blinken would be part of a " superb national security team. The country will be very
fortunate to have them in public service."
The signal from FDD is particularly important as the organization is directed by the Israeli
Embassy in Washington. FDD is the leading neoconservative bastion seeking a war with Iran,
Israel's bête noir . Its Leadership Council has featured former CIA Director James
Woolsey, Senator Joe Lieberman, and Bill Kristol. Its advisors and experts are mostly Jewish
and most of its funding comes from Jewish oligarchs.
A recent
expose by al-Jazeera exposed how FDD and other Lobby groups work directly with the Israeli
government, collecting information on U.S. citizens, spying on legal organizations, and both
planning and executing disinformation at Israeli direction, making it an Israeli agent by the
definition of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). Unfortunately, the Department
of Justice has never sought to compel FDD to register under FARA. In fact, the U.S. government
has never compelled any part of the vast and powerful Israel Lobby to register.
Tony, inevitably a Harvard graduate plus a JD from Columbia who has never served in the U.S.
military, is inevitably a chicken-hawk because that is what America's Zionists and their
political neocon wing are made of. It is a phenomenon that has often been noted. In 2017,
Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Tzipi Hotovely
called out American Jews as "people that never send their children to fight for their
country, most of the Jews don't have children serving as soldiers, going to the Marines, going
to Afghanistan, or to Iraq. Most of them are having quite convenient lives " Of 1,300,000
active duty personnel in the U.S. armed forces, only 4,515 are Jewish.
This is how it works: instead of actually fighting in the wars you are promoting, you have
your tax-exempt "educational foundations" pour tons of money into a project to go to war and
corrupt the politicians to issue the necessary orders so unemployed kids from Arkansas and
North Dakota can go off and die for Israel. You yourself remain safe at home, free to deliver
bellicose speeches about how Iran threatens the world through its "meddling" in the Middle
East. And, of course, about how the dumbass Palestinians have failed to accept the hand of
Israel offered in peace.
That is what Tony's record demonstrates. Blinken has come a long way with Biden, all the way
back to the Clinton Administration. And he
he has always been there for the Jewish state. During the Obama Administration when
relations with Israel were often strained, Blinken was the contact point for "Jewish leaders
[differentiating] him from others in the White House at the time who weren't as sympathetic to
Israel's position." Dennis Ross, often described as Israel's lawyer, praises him for having "
an instinctive emotional attachment to Israel," referring to Blinken's frequently cited Jewish
and refugee roots.
Other media reporting
indicates that "Blinken was a top aide to Biden when the then-Senator voted
to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and Blinken helped Biden develop a
proposal to partition
Iraq into three separate regions based on ethnic and sectarian
identity. As deputy national security adviser, Blinken supported
the disastrous military intervention in Libya in 2011, and in
2018 he helped launch WestExec Advisors, a 'strategic
advisory firm' that is secretive about its clients, along with other
Obama administration alumni like Michèle Flournoy. Jonathan
Guyer writes
in The American Prospect , 'I learned that Blinken and Flournoy used
their networks to build a large client base at the intersection of tech and
defense. An Israeli surveillance startup turned to them. So did a major U.S.
defense company."
Beyond the intersection of government policy and personal profit exhibited by Blinken, the
Washington Post in 2013 described Blinken as "[o]ne of the government's key players in
drafting Syria policy" and he recalled that "This is a little bit personal to me, and any of us
-- and I start with myself -- who had any responsibility for our Syria policy in the last
administration has to acknowledge that we failed. Not for want of trying, but we failed." What
Tony failed at was overthrowing Syria's legitimate government and turning the country over to
the terrorist linked groups that he and Hillary and Obama were supporting.
The Democrats are particularly good at coming up with secretaries of state that one would
like to forget, and that is saying quite a lot given the recent appointees by the Republicans.
One recalls immediately the big-hearted Madeleine Albright, who found the killing of 500,000
Iraqi children by sanctions "worth it," or Hillary Clinton, who laughed out loud as she
recalled the death of Libya ruler Muammar Ghaddafi by having a bayonet inserted up his anus.
Clinton, who more than anyone launched the war against Africa's most developed nation,
paraphrased Julius Caesar, who, upon returning from a rapid victory in Asia during the Rome's
Second Civil war, described the event as "Veni, vidi, vici," in English "I came, I saw, I
conquered." For the laughing Hillary it was "I came, I saw, he died!" The anarchy in Libya
persists to this day and it included the payback killing of four U.S. Embassy employees in
Benghazi in 2012, with Hillary and Susan Rice at the helm. It is generally believed that both
Clinton and Rice might well have senior positions in the incoming Biden Administration.
But back to Blinken. Israel loved the way the Trump Administration showered favors upon it,
nearly always without any quid pro quo . But for all his Dispensationalist fervor,
salesmen like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were little more than goys who had been seduced by
the myth of Israel. They were, as Lenin would have described it, little more than "useful
idiots," which is allegedly an expression that certain Israeli politicians have used to
describe their passionate Christian Zionist supporters in the U.S. Now, with Blinken, the
Israeli hard liners will have the "real thing," a convincing Jewish boy who fatuously
describes an apartheid Israel as "the anchor and foundation for democracy in the region."
Tony believes in the Zionist cause and will do the Jewish state's bidding with a malleable Joe
Biden. And if Joe should go, there is always Kamala Harris, who is married to a Jewish lawyer
lobbyist. Win-win either way.
Even though it's early days, Blinken joins a number of other American Jews already tagged
for senior positions, including Alejandro Mayorkas, the nominee for Secretary of Homeland
Security who is a Latino Jew. Ron Klain, Biden's Chief of Staff and Janet Yellen, his pick for
Treasury Secretary, are also Jewish. The liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz
reports how "Having Jewish men and women in prominent government positions is so standard
that it's barely even a talking point " before observing that "The fact that some of
President-elect Joe Biden's top cabinet picks are Jewish should be a source of pride for the
community 'These people are being chosen because they're incredibly competent, because they're
incredibly talented, because they're incredibly experienced,' Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan
Greenblatt told Haaretz in a phone interview." Indeed, if one believes Greenblatt
pressure from the Israel Lobby, the media and billionaire donors as well as networking by the
Jewish mafia inside the government itself have nothing to do with it.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
Only good thing that could come out of this development, should the Harris-Biden selectees
actually come into power is that this massive infusion of rabid Zionists into high levels in
the Demo administration is so blatant that the awakeners will increase in numbers and in
determination.
"... The most obvious merit of middleman minority theory is that, like Kevin MacDonald's theory of a group evolutionary strategy, it places an unusual and welcome emphasis on rational resource competition as the basis for social conflict involving certain minorities. ..."
"... By offering a socio-economic explanation for hostility toward Jews, middleman minority theory represents a unique space within academia where the otherwise ubiquitous "pure prejudice" idea that host hostility is self-generated (from psychological problems or cultural traditions) is summarily and comprehensively dismissed. Although this has not come without criticism, as seen in Robert Cherry's denunciation of Edna Bonacich's work as reinforcing bigotry [24] , this emphasis has been able to continue largely untroubled thanks to its advancement under a hardline traditional Marxist interpretive veneer. ..."
"... Walter Zenner speaks of a "double standard of morality" that is ..."
"... Expressed in dealings with outsiders, such as lending to them with interest, unscrupulous selling practices, and providing outsiders with illicit means of gratifying their appetites, while at the same time, denying the same means to in-group members. [26] ..."
"... An excellent example of this process in action is the fact Israel is the largest producer and host of international online gambling sites , while making it illegal for its own citizens to use such sites. Of course, we are talking here about a nation state rather than a minority population, but this contradiction, and the nature of Israel within the international community, will be discussed in a critique of the narrowness of middleman minority theory later. ..."
"... Zenner speaks of a "dynamic process" whereby Jews minimise visibility to avoid hostility, maximise visibility when pursuing certain interests, and generally work unceasingly to make their image more favorable in the minds of the host. ..."
"... Even in recent years, Israel has become notorious in the international organ trade , moneylending , and allegations of humanitarian atrocities. Israeli newspapers have also described their country as a " monopoly nation " due to the intense tendency towards economic monopoly in the country's business life -- a key feature of middleman minority life that Jews appear to continue to embody to an extent unparalleled in any other ethnic group. Further evidence for the apparently deep-seated, rather than contextual, nature of "middleman" traits in Jews might be found in studies indicative of a biological underpinning to Jewish ethnocentrism, such as that described by Kevin MacDonald in the Preface to the Culture of Critique : ..."
"... Rather than act as economic catalysts, Jews are more frequently observed following the trail of already economically improving areas, hoping to profit from their advancement. ..."
"... It was only after these laws were in effect that some theologians and clerics began to question why they weren't also applied to Jews who, in the words of historian Gavin Langmuir, were then "disproportionately engaged in moneylending in northern Europe by the late 12th century." [43] ..."
"The middleman and the host society come in conflict because elements in each group have
incompatible goals. To say this is to deny the viewpoint common in the sociological
literature that host hostility is self-generated (from psychological problems or cultural
traditions)."
Edna Bonacich, "A Theory of Middleman Minorities," 1973. [1]
An interesting accompaniment to Nathan Cofnas's 2018 attempted debunking of Kevin
MacDonald's work on Jews was the subtle resurfacing of Steven Pinker's claim that a more
plausible theory of the Jewish historical experience can be found in "Thomas Sowell's
convincing analysis of 'middleman minorities' such as the Jews, presented in his magisterial
study of migration, race, conquest, and culture." Pinker first involved himself in criticism of
MacDonald's work in a letter
to Slate , in January 2000, where he made the above comment. A mere teenager in
January 2000, it was only in the wake of the Cofnas affair that I first discovered and read
Pinker's initial response to MacDonald's theory. It goes without saying that I disagreed with
almost everything Pinker had to say, but I was especially vexed by his invocation of the
"middleman minority" theory, something I've been familiar with for over a decade and always
found strongly lacking. Pinker himself, of course, has relatively little expertise in the area,
his only comment on the theme coming from a quasi-memoir on Jewish intelligence written for
New
Republic . Additionally, his gushing use of persuasive language ("convincing,"
"magisterial") to describe Thomas Sowell's extremely derivative and now rather dated
Migrations and Cultures: A World View (1996) struck me as a wholly contrived inflation
of what isn't really a rival theory at all, and certainly not a Sowell innovation. In
fact, the history of "middleman minority" theory, and especially its application to the Jews,
has a patchy, chequered, and ambiguous history that is worth exploring in its own right. The
following essay is intended to provide such a history, as well as to broadly assess the merits
and inadequacies of exploring Jewish history through this lens, and also the ways it
complements, and falls short of, Kevin MacDonald's theory.
History of the Theory
The comparing of Jews with other sojourning or diaspora trading peoples is far from new, and
has even been a staple of anti-Jewish writing since at least the Enlightenment. Voltaire, for
example, wrote in his Oeuvres Complètes (Geneva, 1756) and Dictionnaire
Philosophique (Basle, 1764) that "The Guebers [Parsis in the modern terminology], the
Banyans [Indian merchants] and the Jews, are the only nations which exist dispersed, having no
alliance with any people, are perpetuated among foreign nations, and continue apart from the
rest of the world." [2] In the course of his
essay, however, Voltaire concluded that, some surface similarities aside, "It is certain that
the Jewish nation is the most singular that the world has ever seen." Bruno Bauer
(1809–1882), the German Protestant theologian, philosopher and historian, also used the
example of the Parsis and Overseas Indians, writing in The Jewish Problem (1843),
The base [of the tenacity of the Jewish national spirit] is lack of ability to develop
with history, it is the reason of the quite unhistorical character of that nation, and this
again is due to its oriental nature. Such stationary nations exist in the Orient, because
there human liberty and the possibility of progress are still limited. In the Orient and in
India, we still find Parsees [sic] living in dispersion and worshipping the holy fire of
Ormuz. [3]
After Voltaire, commentary on the relationship between the economic activity of the Jews and
other aspects of their behavior and history, a key theme in modern middleman minority theory,
were common points of discussion and debate. Jakob Friedrich Fries (1773–1843), an
avowedly anti-Semitic German philosopher, argued in his essay On the Danger to the
Well-Being and Character of the Germans Presented by the Jews (1816), that Jews adopted
their historical middleman role willingly, out of a hunger for profit and an innate sense of
separateness, rather than being forced into it by broader economic structures and contexts
(which again are a major focus of modern middleman minority theory). For Fries,
Both in Germany and abroad the Jews had free states where they enjoyed every right, and
even countries where they reigned -- but their sordidness, their mania for deceitful,
second-hand dealing always remained the same. They shy away from industrious occupations not
because they are hindered from pursuing them but simply because they do not want to.
Following Bauer and Fries -- and before modern scholarship on the subject, the most
prominent invocation of ideas similar to modern middleman minority theory can be observed in
the work of Karl Marx. In fact, Marx's essay On the Jewish Problem is an explicit reply
to Bauer, with Marx accusing Bauer of "a one-sided conception of the Jewish problem."
[4] Marx decried Bauer's
focus on religious matters, perceiving the roots of the Jewish problem to reside instead in
resource competition and raw economics. In many of his arguments and assessments of the
economic and sociological position of the Jews, Marx anticipated Edna Bonacich (1940–),
the Jewish Marxist anti-Zionist sociologist who essentially invented middleman minority theory
in its modern form (and whose work will be discussed below), in arguing for a
structural-contextual explanation of the middleman role of the Jews. In this view, the
historical development of Capital essentially invites and entices certain sojourning or
diaspora groups, including the Jews, to adopt lucrative but exploitative and antagonistic roles
within society. In the words of Marx, "we recognize therefore in Judaism a generally present
anti-social element which has been raised to its present peak by historical development
, in which the Jews eagerly assisted ." [emphasis added] These antagonistic roles then
generate host hostility, which reinforces ethnocentrism and negative characteristics in the
minority, accelerating and deepening conflict.
Marx's emphasis on economic opportunity and the capitalist superstructure influenced later
writers such as the German economist Wilhelm Roscher (1817–1894), Werner Sombart
(1863–1941), Max Weber (1864–1920), and Georg Simmel (1858–1918), all of whom
attempted in some form to trace the relationship of ethnicity to occupational choice (a major
concern of modern middleman minority theory), with particular attention paid to the Jews. In
keeping with his flamboyant Marxism, Sombart was closest to Marx's ideas on the Jews, arguing
in The Jews and Modern Capitalism (1911) that Capital had drawn Jews into their
influential, exploitative, and lucrative roles in such a comprehensive manner that Jews had
become a kind of ur-middleman minority, and thus were both the prime movers of modern
capitalism and the very embodiment of exploitative capital itself. Later, in Der moderne
Kapitalismus (1913), Sombart claimed that the middleman nature of the Jews had become
endemic in society, creating generations of mere "traders," a bourgeois "Jewish species" whose
entire intellectual and emotional world is "directed to the money value of conditions and
dealings, who therefore calculates everything in terms of money." This "spirit of Moloch"
compelled the entrepreneur to "make money relentlessly until at last he conceives this as the
real goal of all activity and all existence." [5] For Sombart, the
origins of the worst of modern capitalism can be found in the early middleman role of the Jews,
their medieval semi-nomadic quest for usury-derived profit and Victorian hawking of shoddy
goods being a precursor to modern advertising and the mass production of superfluous and
quickly obsolete consumer products.
Max Weber's interpretation of the Jewish middleman role was slightly softer, with Weber
advancing the notion of "pariah capitalism." Pariah capitalists, who include the Jews as well
as the Parsis, the Overseas Indians, and the Overseas Chinese, are groups whose characteristics
and situational contexts make them prone to willingly adopt socially negative positions in
order to obtain wealth and influence. For Weber, capitalism itself was not intrinsically bad.
The Puritans, with their industry and hard work, were held up in Weber's The Protestant
Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904/5) as exemplars of positive, "rational"
capitalism. Jews, and other pariah capitalists, however, invariably advanced a negative
"irrational" capitalism typified by consumer credit, speculation, and colonialism. According to
Weber, middleman minorities or "pariah capitalist groups" perverted the essentially good nature
of capitalism because of their practice of "dual ethics," or moral double-standards, which was
itself a product of their sojourning nature and situational context. Weber also perceived
Judaism itself as reinforcing the Jewish preference for pariah capitalism. [6]
Softer still were the ideas of Wilhelm Roscher, one of the founders of the historical school
of political economy. Roscher was part of the historical economist or European Institutionalist
movement (which also influenced Weber) that argued for a study of economics based on empirical
work that laid special methodological emphasis on context, rather than logical philosophy.
Roscher's emphasis on context and the historical development of capitalism are exemplified in
his 1875 essay "The Status of the Jews in the Middle Ages Considered from the Standpoint of
Commercial Policy."[7] In this essay, Roscher presented capitalism as neither inherently good
or bad, and he made the argument that Jews, who like other middleman minorities were economic
modernizers, were positive influences and crucial to the development of a burgeoning economic
trading system. Gideon Reuveni offers the following summary:
According to Roscher, the modernizing role of the Jews explains the change in attitudes
within the social majority: from tolerance and acceptance to exclusion and persecution. In
other words, once, in the eyes of the majority the role of the Jews becomes superfluous,
resentments towards the Jews become more prevalent. This cycle in relations towards Jews,
Roscher observed, was not specific to the relationship between Jews and non-Jews but was
rather a general development among many peoples who allow their economies to be administered
by a foreign and more highly cultivated people, but later, upon having reached the necessary
level of development themselves, often after intense struggles, try to emancipate themselves
from this tutelage. According to Roscher, "one may defiantly speak in this connection of a
historical law here." [8]
Similar to Roscher's ideas were the theories of the Jewish Marxist anti-Zionist Abram Leon
(1918–1944). Leon, a Polish Jew said to have been executed at Auschwitz at the age of 26,
published The Jewish Question:
A Marxist Interpretation around 1942, in which he proposed that Jews were a "people-class."
For Leon, "Judaism mirrors the interests of a pre-capitalist mercantile class." He
explains,
Judaism was an indispensable factor in precapitalist society. It was a fundamental organism
within it. That is what explains the two-thousand-year existence of Judaism in the Diaspora.
The Jew was as characteristic a personage in feudal society as the lord and the serf. It was no
accident that a foreign element played the role of "capital" in feudal society. Feudal society
as such could not create a capitalist element; as soon as it was able to do so,
precisely then it ceased being feudal. Nor was it accidental that the Jew remained a foreigner
in the midst of feudal society. The "capital" of precapitalist society existed outside of its
economic system. From the moment that capital begins to emerge from the womb of this social
system and takes the place of the borrowed organ, the Jew is eliminated and feudal society
ceases to be feudal. It is modern capitalism that has posed the Jewish problem. Not because the
Jews today number close to twenty million people (the proportion of Jews to non-Jews has
declined greatly since the Roman era) but because capitalism destroyed the secular basis for
the existence of Judaism. Capitalism destroyed feudal society; and with it the function of the
Jewish people-class. History doomed this people-class to disappearance; and thus the Jewish
problem arose. The Jewish problem is the problem of adapting Judaism to modern society.
Georg Simmel, an ethnically Jewish sociologist, philosopher, and critic, moved in much the
same theoretical direction as Roscher and Leon, as evidenced in his famous and still
influential essay "Der Fremde" ("The Stranger") (1908). Simmel argued that certain groups like
Jews and other diaspora peoples may be members of host nations in a spatial sense but not in a
social sense. They may be in the nation, but not of it. These groups are both
near and far, familiar and foreign. This contextual scenario influences the behavior of
"stranger" groups by permitting them freedom from convention and allowing them access to an
alleged greater objectivity. For Simmel, "the Stranger," the classic example of which in his
estimation is the Jew, is "the person who comes today and stays tomorrow. He is, so to speak,
the potential wanderer: although he has not moved on, he has not quite overcome the freedom of
coming and going." [9] This freedom, argues
Simmel, makes "the Stranger" ideally suited to fulfil the role of middleman minority.
[10] As with Roscher's
theory, which is markedly contradicted in several key areas of the historical record, there are
a number of obvious logical and evidential problems with Simmel's theory, and these will be
discussed later.
Between Simmel's 1908 essay and the 1970s, middleman minority theories continued to be
advanced. With the exception of Philip Curtin and his Cross-cultural Trade in World
History (1984), these efforts were developed primarily by Jewish scholars, and
overwhelmingly within the context of trying to explicitly or implicitly explore, explain, or
offer apologetics for the Jewish experience. For example, Abner Cohen (1921–2001), was an
anthropologist at the University of London, who advanced, in his influential work Urban
Ethnicity (1974) and numerous other publications, the idea that there are "trading
diasporas." [11] Of particular
interest are Cohen's ideas about "visibility strategies" pursued by such groups:
The use of symbols to maintain group boundaries can thus be seen as a cultural strategy.
In fact, many groups in traditional and modern societies find that their interests are
guarded better through invisible organisations such as cousinhoods, membership in a common
set of social clubs, religious ties, and informal networks, than through a highly visible,
formally recognised institution. At times, ethnic groups may need to heighten their
visibility as strangers to maintain their interests while in other instances they may wish to
lower their profile and appear to be an integral part of the society. [12]
This bears a striking similarity to the sixth chapter of Kevin MacDonald's Separation and
Its Discontents , which is concerned with visibility strategies, especially among
crypto-Jews, and concludes with the argument that "this attempt to maintain separatism while
nevertheless making the barriers less visible is the crux of the problem of post-Enlightenment
Judaism." [13] In fact, beginning
in the 1970s, middleman minority theory began to develop several ideas that dovetail very well
with the concept of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Nowhere is this more apparent
than in the work of Edna Bonacich.
Although the modern refinement of middleman minority theory is often traced to Hubert
Blalock's 1967 Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations , the greater scholarly
interest has been shown in Edna Bonacich's 1973 American Sociological Review article "A
Theory of Middleman Minorities." [14] Bonacich sought to
refine and systematize Blalock's theory within an anti-capitalist framework, essentially making
the argument that all group conflict in such scenarios is the result of a rational competition
for resources in which group characteristics and interests play a crucial role. A Jewish
Marxist and anti-Zionist, Bonacich's interpretations borrow heavily from Marx, Sombart, Weber,
Roscher, and Leon, to the extent that Bonacich essentially concurs that capitalism created
opportunities for exploitative middleman communities and the Jews and other middleman
minorities, who possess certain predisposing characteristics including dual loyalty and a level
of unscrupulousness, willingly and enthusiastically engaged in these roles.
Bonacich is well-known for her work on East Asian middleman minorities in the United States,
especially her 1980 monograph The Economic Basis of Ethnic Solidarity: Small Business in the
Japanese American Community , but her earliest work on middleman minorities clearly
demonstrates a concern with the Jewish experience. [15] In her discussion
of middleman minorities in the 1973 article, Bonacich describes Jews as "perhaps the epitome of
the form." Some of the key features of the 1973 article include the arguments that Jews and
other middleman minorities are essentially economic "teams," and that these teams rely upon
very high levels of ethnocentrism and related social and economic strategies, which in turn
enable them to succeed in individualistic societies. Bonacich writes,
The modern industrial capitalist treats his workers impartially as economic instruments;
he is as willing to exploit his own son as he is a stranger. This universalism, the isolation
of each competitor, is absent in middleman economic activity, where primordial ties of
family, region, sect, and ethnicity unite people against the surrounding, often
individualistic economy . [emphasis added] [16]
Bonacich makes some very interesting, and controversial, remarks on the nature of conflict
between middleman minorities and their hosts, with special reference to Jews. For Bonacich,
accusations that Jews have simply been scapegoats for the woes of Europeans are based on
nothing more than a "surface impression." [17] While noting
that middleman minorities "are noteworthy for the acute hostility they have faced," it remains
that,
host members have reason for feeling hostile toward middleman groups. Even the
extremity of the host reaction can be understood as "conflict" behavior. The reason is that
the economic and organisational power of middleman groups makes them extremely difficult
to dislodge. The difficulty of breaking entrenched middleman monopolies, the difficulty
of controlling the growth and extension of their economic power, pushes host countries to
ever more extreme reactions. One finds increasingly harsh measures, piled on one another,
until, when all else fails, "final solutions" are enacted. [18] [emphasis
added]
Bonacich has also argued that Jews and other middleman minorities do engage in economic and
social "dual loyalty," and that middleman minorities do in fact "drain" resources away from
host populations and can become very powerful as a result. This then frequently causes host
elites and masses to unite against the sojourning element, a conflict that can escalate rapidly
if the sojourning element refuses to give up its monopolies. Bonacich explicitly rejects any
idea that "host hostility is self-generated (from psychological problems or cultural
traditions)," arguing instead that "the middleman and the host society come in conflict because
elements in each group have incompatible goals." With her apparent justification of host
violence against middleman minorities, including Jews, as well as her objective view of certain
Jewish characteristics, Bonacich's theory has been heavily criticized in some quarters, despite
its ongoing influence in contemporary sociology. Robert Cherry, for example, has lamented that
Bonacich's ideas on middleman minorities "reinforce persistent, negative Jewish stereotypes."
[19]
Discussion
Before moving to an assessment of the merits and inadequacies of middleman minority theory
in explaining Jewish history, it's worth reflecting on the history of the theory in light of
Steven Pinker's claim that it represents a rival, or "more convincing," analysis of the Jewish
historical trajectory. The first problem, of course, is that, despite Pinker's lavish praise,
Thomas Sowell is not remotely regarded within scholarship as a leading or original thinker in
the area of middleman minority theory. Not only does discussion of middleman minorities form a
relatively small element of Sowell's Migrations And Cultures , but what does appear is
highly derivative of the work of Edna Bonacich, Walter Zenner, and others.
A further problem is Pinker's assumption that there exists a single, unified theory on
middleman minorities that will help explain the Jewish historical experience, and that somehow
this will also be sufficient to counter the theory of Kevin MacDonald, or at least offer a more
convincing framework that would allow MacDonald's ideas to be dispensed with. As should already
be clear from this brief, and incomplete, bibliographical overview, within middleman minority
theory there is a plethora of often competing interpretations, as well as a general problem of
definitions. Walter Zenner, a key proponent of middleman minority theory, concedes that "we
tend to make our definitions and models fit the prototypical group. For decades, the Jews were
the archetype." [20] In other words, for
a considerable time, middleman minority theory was built around trying to explain the
experience of Jews, with other groups haphazardly mapped onto the theory in way that tried to
give the impression of similarity, even where these similarities were thin to non-existent.
Bonacich has made roughly the same argument, asserting that middleman minority theory should be
regarded as incomplete because it can only point to an "ideal type," and
In reality there are problems of fit between any actual ethnic group and this picture,
problems in establishing which or how many of the traits a population need have before it can
be classified as a middleman minority. [21]
Bonacich, very reasonably in my opinion, proposes that middleman minority theory, of which
she herself is a pioneer, is something of a misnomer and should be regarded as little more than
"a useful sensitiser to a host of interrelated variables." [22] One is
therefore pressed by Pinker's claim to ask not only which of the many strands of
middleman minority theories Steven Pinker is praising, but also just how "convincing" and
"magisterial" he can find it given the field's leading contemporary thinkers regard their work
in such ambiguous terms.
Finally, it is not at all clear how any of the aspects of middleman minority theory obviate
the need for a deeper theoretical framework in which to understand the behaviors and contexts
under study. Middleman minority theory, as remarked above, is an incomplete tool, and has
little to offer in terms of deeper explanatory value for such relevant key concepts under
discussion as resource competition, ecological strategies, visibility strategies, psychological
attitudes toward the majority, and social identity theory. One of the strong points of Kevin
MacDonald's work, which is truly cross-disciplinary and unusually well-equipped in terms of the
relevant historical literature, is that is does offer such an analysis, and can be argued to
fill a lot of the logical and evidential gaps of middleman minority theory. This is not to say
that the two frameworks are in opposition, but that the concept of a group evolutionary
strategy can be usefully and seamlessly integrated into middleman minority theory, especially
in relation to Jews.
It's been continually remarked by many scholars in the field that Jews should be regarded as
either an "ideal type," "the epitome of the form," a singular example, or otherwise unique case
-- even within the context of broad comparative approaches with other trading diaspora peoples.
The qualities that have made Jews so unique -- cultural, historical, religious, and even
biological -- are rarely remarked or elaborated upon in sociological studies of middleman
minorities, which are often lacking in depth in terms of their historical analysis. As will be
discussed below, Zenner, in particular, has highlighted ways in which Jews do not fit the
standard middleman minority pattern, especially in terms of their extravagant and influential
involvement in the culture and politics of the host nation (see also MacDonald's Diaspora Peoples on
the Overseas Chinese, xlii ff). Unfortunately, middleman minority literature has little to say
in terms of further explanatory theory on how or why Jews came to both define and exceed the
middleman typology. Here, middleman minority theory not only isn't a rival for MacDonald's
work, it positively cries out for it.
"American Jews do not fit the sojourner pattern, since their political involvement goes
far beyond the support of Jewish causes. Much Jewish political activity, whether right,
center, or left, can be related to a perception of how to make America and the world safe for
Jews. American Jewish support for domestic liberalism and internationalism can be interpreted
in this way."
Walter Zenner, "American Jewry in the light of Middleman Minority Theories," 1980. [23]
Merits of Middleman Minority Theory
The most obvious merit of middleman minority theory is that, like Kevin MacDonald's theory
of a group evolutionary strategy, it places an unusual and welcome emphasis on rational
resource competition as the basis for social conflict involving certain minorities.
By offering
a socio-economic explanation for hostility toward Jews, middleman minority theory represents a
unique space within academia where the otherwise ubiquitous "pure prejudice" idea that host
hostility is self-generated (from psychological problems or cultural traditions) is summarily
and comprehensively dismissed. Although this has not come without criticism, as seen in Robert
Cherry's denunciation of Edna Bonacich's work as reinforcing bigotry [24] , this emphasis has
been able to continue largely untroubled thanks to its advancement under a hardline traditional
Marxist interpretive veneer.
Middleman minority theory, especially the variant advanced by Bonacich, also insists that
host populations do have interests, and that these interests are genuinely and seriously
threatened by middleman minorities who drain away resources. These minorities then use their
accumulated resources to build up power and influence, sometimes even to the extent of gaining
considerable economic, social, and political monopolies over the hosts. Since these monopolies
can be very difficult to dislodge, and since monopolies may satisfy some interests of host
populations or segments of host populations, middleman minority theory insists that it is
rational and somewhat inevitable that increasingly harsh and even violent measures will be
taken against the offending minority. As a result, middleman minority theory offers a far more
plausible and objective understanding of group conflict than many of the ideas that dominate
the academic discussion of group conflict, especially conflict involving Jews. In addition, the
outright rejection of "scapegoat" theories as "superficial," and the lack of appeals to
concepts of victimhood in such a framework, can only be described in the context of the current
academic climate as utterly refreshing.
A second major merit of middleman minority theory is the emphasis that some strands
place on the characteristics of the minorities themselves. Middleman minority theory contains
within it three basic theoretical approaches. Context-based theories like that of Roscher, and
revived to some degree by Nathan Cofnas (who is particularly concerned with the urban
environment-context), argue that middleman minorities are essentially creatures of the
societies in which they are found, and are for the most part created by opportunities, status
gaps, and vacuums over which they have no control and which have nothing to do with their
inherent characteristics (a slight advantage in intelligence being the only characteristic that
Cofnas feels comfortable in applying). Situational theories, like that advanced by Simmel are
similar, but place more emphasis on the culturally-located role of the trader, the Stranger,
and the "sojourner as trader," as the determinant factor in the creation of middleman
minorities. Culture-based, or characteristic-based, middleman minority theories, however, tend
to be more numerous, and more convincing. These theories, like that advanced by Weber and given
tacit assent by Bonacich and Zenner, place strong emphasis on the broad range of traditions,
ideologies, behaviors, and aptitudes of middleman minority groups.
The most frequently highlighted of such traits within middleman minority theory is
ethnocentrism, which again dovetails with the primary emphasis of Kevin MacDonald's theory.
Ethnocentrism is acknowledged as a central factor in the maintenance of self-segregation among
middleman minority groups, and is often supported by ideological beliefs such as the caste
system, or what Zenner describes as "the Chosen People complex." [25] Ethnocentrism in
middleman minorities is presented as crucial to understanding host hostility not only because
of the way it facilitates the draining of resources from the host population, but also because
of highly antagonistic correlates such as dual loyalty and a willingness to engage in lucrative
but morally destructive (for the host) trading. Walter Zenner speaks of a "double standard of
morality" that is
Expressed in dealings with outsiders, such as lending to them with interest, unscrupulous
selling practices, and providing outsiders with illicit means of gratifying their appetites,
while at the same time, denying the same means to in-group members. [26]
An excellent example of this process in action is the fact
Israel is the largest producer and host of international online gambling sites , while
making it illegal for its own citizens to use such sites. Of course, we are talking here about
a nation state rather than a minority population, but this contradiction, and the nature of
Israel within the international community, will be discussed in a critique of the narrowness of
middleman minority theory later.
A further merit of middleman minority theory is the heavy emphasis the
cultural-characteristic interpretation places on group strategies. Middleman minorities, again
with Jews being held up by both Zenner and Bonacich as an exemplar or especially acute case,
are said to engage in constantly adaptive activity in order to manage their visibility, ensure
their safety, advance their interests, accumulate power and wealth, and entrench themselves
ever deeper within the host. Bonacich has indicated that Jews are especially keen to remain
entrenched in the West, and the United States in particular, because it is financially and
politically lucrative, and only a catastrophic weakening of their monopolies would bring an end
to existing strategies. [27] Zenner goes as far
as to claim that "much of the content of American Jewish life can be seen as visibility
strategies. Strategy here includes both unconscious mechanisms of coping with situations and
consciously formulated plans." [28]
Zenner speaks of a
"dynamic process" whereby Jews minimise visibility to avoid hostility, maximise visibility when
pursuing certain interests, and generally work unceasingly to make their image more favorable
in the minds of the host. Again, all of this corresponds very well with one of the central
themes of the Culture of Critique -- the idea that Jewish involvement in certain
intellectual movements could be seen in the context of a pursuit of Jewish interests either
consciously or in ways that involved unconscious motivations and self-deception. It also maps
very closely to MacDonald's framework on Jewish crypsis and other attempts to mitigate
anti-Semitism, advanced in the sixth chapter of Separation and Its Discontents .
Problems in Middleman Minority Theory
Given the prevalence of Jews in the development and promotion of the modern incarnation of
middleman minority theory, including Georg Simmel, Edna Bonacich, Abner Cohen, Abram Leon,
Walter Zenner, Werner Cahnman, [29] Donald Horowitz,
[30] Gideon Reuveni,
[31] Ivan Light, Steven
J. Gold, [32] and Robert
Silverman, [33] a reasonable
concern might be that middleman minority theory is itself an intellectual "visibility
strategy." Just as it has been posited that Jews tend to support mass migration because it will
result in Jews becoming "one among many" ethnic minorities, and thus in their logic less
conspicuous and therefore safer, middleman minority theory can act to reduce Jewish visibility
by offering the idea that Jews are just one among many diaspora trading groups and their
history and behavior is therefore not unique or worthy of special attention. It remains the
case that even in those interpretations which highlight negative Jewish behavior and portray
host responses as rational (e.g. the work of Bonacich and Zenner), the proposed framework still
insists on some level of commonality, no matter how tenuous, with the experiences of other
minority groups, and it ultimately places the blame for conflict on a much broader context,
often the impersonal historical development of capitalism.
In other words, while the framework can deny that Jews are "victims" of host nations, these
theories also deny that host nations are truly the victims of Jewish exploitation. Both are
simply argued to be the victims of capitalism, and any sense of individual or group agency is
rhetorically dissolved. Again, this acts to lower Jewish visibility and culpability and remains
attractive for that reason. There are certainly good reasons along this line of thought for
proposing that Steven Pinker's promotion of the theory over Kevin MacDonald's ideas has less to
do with a serious engagement with the content of the work of Bonacich et al. and significantly
more to do with deflecting the entire conversation into an area of discussion in which Pinker
feels Jews are less visible.
A major problem with middleman minority theory is that it has a very uncomfortable and
unsatisfactory way of handling the obviously unique aspects of the Jewish experience,
especially in relation to the unprecedented involvement of Jews in post-Enlightenment Western
culture and politics, something for which there is absolutely no parallel among other diaspora
trading groups anywhere. As has been discussed, middleman minority theory was essentially first
created, consciously or unconsciously, by scholars anxious to find a way to explain the Jewish
experience. Attempts to connect this experience, amounting to some two millennia of history,
with the much more modern and straightforward experiences of, for example, the Chinese in the
Philippines or the Japanese in America, have been doomed to the grossest of generalizations and
the clumsiest of associations. This has resulted in a steady stream of admissions within the
field that the best way to interpret middleman minority theory is simply that it proposes an
"ideal type" (essentially the Jews) with unfortunate "problems of fit between any actual ethnic
group and this picture [the Jewish experience]." [34] Zenner has conceded
that the concept has been very "difficult to define so as to cover all groups so designated."
[35] All of which calls
into question whether this concept possesses any real efficacy as an analytical or predictive
tool in a comparative sense at all.
An interesting point of difference between the Jewish experience and that of other diaspora
trading peoples is that the latter are acknowledged as possessing a genuine sense of sojourn.
In other words, their first generations tend to be truly temporary, semi-nomadic groups who aim
to make money before eventually returning to a homeland. A subtly different experience is
observed in the Jews, as noted by Jack Kugelmass in his 1981 PhD thesis Native Aliens: The
Jews of Poland as a Middleman Minority . For Kugelmass, "the so-called "middleman"
character of the Jew is seen as an aspect of the Jewish sense of sojourn, which unlike most
sojourns is ideological rather than sociological in nature ." [emphasis added] Another way
of phrasing this would be to say that the Jewish sense of sojourn is cultural-biological rather
than contextual, and since the concept of sojourning has been a major feature of Jewish life
since at least the writing of the Exodus, this difference between other groups is really so
stark as to require a distinct analysis -- something offered to an unparalleled degree in Kevin
MacDonald's A People That Shall Dwell Alone . In this analysis, it would appear that,
unlike a relatively small number of other peoples who have merely adopted some tactics in order
to pursue a specific diaspora trade role, Jews have, from time immemorial, given themselves
over entirely to these strategies as an entire way of life -- the "middleman minority" as a
raison d'être .
This absolutely crucial distinction is linked to the remarkable fact of contemporary
political life that the state of Israel exists largely according to the same strategies
employed by Jews when in a diaspora condition. As stated above, an excellent example of the
dual morality process in action is the fact Israel is the largest producer and host of
international online gambling sites , while making it illegal for its own citizens to use
such sites. The creation of the state of Israel has also exacerbated, rather than ameliorated,
issues of dual loyalty in Jewish minority populations, even if these issues are more or less
kept out of the public eye through diplomatic soothing around Israeli spying and the
maintenance of certain taboos in the mass media. Israel itself would appear to be a kind of
middleman minority archetype within the international community, cultivating close and
lucrative ties with the elite (the United States), while engaging in more or less unchallenged
exploitative and oppressive activities against lower social orders (Palestinians, and other
vulnerable or indebted population groups in South America).
Like the "ideal type" of middleman minority, Israel heavily drains the resources even of its
allies (U.S. military and diplomatic aid) and pursues its strategies in a ceaseless quest for
security, while maintaining moral double standards and being rather shameless in engaging in
what Zenner has described as the classic overrepresentation of middleman minorities in "morally
shady" activities. [36]
Even in recent
years, Israel has become notorious in the
international organ trade ,
moneylending , and allegations of humanitarian atrocities. Israeli newspapers have also
described their country as a "
monopoly nation " due to the intense tendency towards economic monopoly in the country's
business life -- a key feature of middleman minority life that Jews appear to continue to
embody to an extent unparalleled in any other ethnic group. Further evidence for the apparently
deep-seated, rather than contextual, nature of "middleman" traits in Jews might be found in
studies indicative of a biological underpinning to Jewish ethnocentrism, such as that described
by Kevin MacDonald in the Preface to the Culture of Critique :
Developmental psychologists have found unusually intense fear reactions among Israeli
infants in response to strangers, while the opposite pattern is found for infants from North
Germany. The Israeli infants were much more likely to become "inconsolably upset" in reaction
to strangers, whereas the North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers.
The Israeli babies therefore tended to have an unusual degree of stranger anxiety, while the
North German babies were the opposite -- findings that fit with the hypothesis that Europeans
and Jews are on opposite ends of scales of xenophobia and ethnocentrism.
As well as dealing poorly with obviously unique aspects of the Jewish experience, a
significant portion of middleman minority theory is devoted to context-based narratives that
are often in stark contrast to, or completely disproven by, the historical record. With the
exception of the work of Kevin MacDonald, which demonstrates a very extensive engagement with
works of history, a general weakness in all of the late twentieth-century sociological studies
discussed above is the fact that, despite their incredibly ambitious claims about the
historical trajectory of capitalism or middleman minority populations, there is a quite serious
neglect of any of the relevant historiography. This leads, in the case of the modern adherents
of Simmel, Roscher, and Leon, to the constant repetition of error-laden tropes such as the idea
that Jews turned to commerce because they were prohibited from owning land (rather than
arriving as profit-seeking financiers), that Jews were most often invited into nations by
elites seeking a financial stimulus, or that Jews were banished from countries once their
position as loan merchant was superfluous. In fact, these three tropes, all of which remove
Jewish agency and characteristics from consideration, are essentially the pillars of
context-based middleman minority theory pertaining to Jews, and are absolutely crucial to
Roscher's ideas in particular.
The historical record is now acknowledged as more or less complete in relation to the issue
of the Jewish ownership of land. It has been conclusively established, for example, that the
general trend across Europe was that Jews were in fact able to possess and own land during the
centuries immediately following their initial spread and expansion in Europe
(c.1000–1300). Restrictions on land ownership were later enacted as penalties for
exploitation or as part of a system of elite land transfer -- e.g., the desire of the English
kings to obtain the land of indebted lesser knights, and doing so by financially compensating
Jewish moneylenders for forfeited lands they could no longer legally hold.
One of the correlates of the land ownership trope is the astonishingly naive assumption that
land ownership would preclude involvement in financial speculation. Again, the historical
record contradicts this. Mark Meyerson's Princeton-published A Jewish Renaissance in
Fifteenth-Century Spain (2010), for example, offers an expansive analysis of Jewish
landowners in Spain who "did not necessarily cultivate the land themselves" and combined wine
production operations worked by non-Jewish peasants with "lending operations and tax farming."
[37] Pointing to the
prevalence of early Jewish land ownership in Poland, France, and Germany, in which Jews enjoyed
a "privileged status available to few Christians," Norman Roth has described the trope that
Jews were forced out of agriculture by restrictive laws and the violence of the Crusades as
"patently absurd." [38]
The theory that Jews, and by tenuous implication other middleman minorities, were most often
invited into nations by elites seeking a financial stimulus or to fill a "status gap,"
is also contradicted by the historical record. The early entry and expansion of Jews in Europe
is relatively well-documented, the dominant trend being that Jews either presented themselves
before elites in order to solicit business, or that they acted as financiers for conquest and
then followed in the wake of the conquerors (e.g., the well-documented role of Jewish
financiers in Norman Conquest of England and Strongbow's conquest of Ireland). [39]
Ireland's Annals of Innisfallen (1079 A.D.) record: "Five Jews came from over sea with gifts to
Tairdelbach [King of Munster], and they were sent back again over sea." Unless Tairdelbach
(Turlough O'Brien, 1009–86) had undergone a dramatic change of mind, it's likely that the
arrival of the Jews hadn't been preceded by an invitation. In fact, unsolicited approaches for
request to settle and establish financial activities are in evidence from the time of O'Brien
to the 1655 "Humble Address" of Manasse ben Israel to the English government.
A very common form of government documentation found in the study of Early Modern Jewish
communities are the charters outlining their terms of settlement, and these are very revealing.
Rather than act as economic catalysts, Jews are more frequently observed following the trail of
already economically improving areas, hoping to profit from their advancement. As Felicitas
Schmeider has pointed out, in terms of the German context, "permission to settle Jews in a
newly privileged town is one thing kings were frequently, if not regularly, asked for,
especially in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries." [40]
The theory that Jews were banished from countries once their position as loan merchant or
general role as a middleman minority was superfluous is also forcefully contradicted by the
historical record. Just as medieval Jews perceived that they were the innocent victims of evil
Gentiles, so Jewish historiography has overwhelmingly portrayed the expulsions as the result of
"rumors, prejudices, and insinuating and irrational accusations." [41] Context-based
middleman minorities theories absorbed these tropes and reinvented them in narratives that
blamed the expulsions on the fact that Capital had simply exhausted the usefulness of the Jews.
Such understandings of the expulsions have only very recently come to be revised, most
saliently in the work of Harvard historian Rowan W. Dorin, whose 2015 doctoral thesis and
subsequent publications have for the first time helped to fully contextualize the mass
expulsions of Jews in Europe during the medieval period, 1200–1450. [42]
Dorin points out that Jews were never specifically targeted for expulsion qua Jews,
but as usurers, and notes that the vast majority of expulsions in the period targeted
"Christians hailing from northern Italy." Jews were expelled, like these Christian usurers, for
their actions, choices, and behaviors. What the period witnessed was not a wave of irrational
anti-Jewish actions, or for that matter an impersonal reflex of glutted Capital, but rather a
widespread ecclesiastical reaction against the spread of moneylending among Christians
that eventually absorbed Jews into its considerations for common sense reasons. A number of
laws and statutes, for example Usuranum voraginem , were designed in order to provide a
schedule of punishments for foreign/travelling Christian moneylenders. These laws contained
provisions for excommunication and a prohibition on renting property in certain locales. The
latter effectively prohibited such moneylenders from taking up residence in those locations,
and compelled their expulsion in cases where they were already domiciled. It was only after
these laws were in effect that some theologians and clerics began to question why they weren't
also applied to Jews who, in the words of historian Gavin Langmuir, were then
"disproportionately engaged in moneylending in northern Europe by the late 12th century."
[43]
The Church had
historically objected to the expulsion of Jews in the belief that their scattered presence
fulfilled theological and eschatological functions. It was only via the broader, largely common
sense, application of newly developed anti-usury laws that such obstructions to confrontations
with Jews became theologically and ecclesiastically permissible, if not entirely desirable. And
once this Rubicon had been crossed, it paved the way for a rapid series of expulsions of Jewish
usury colonies from European towns and cities, a process that accelerated rapidly between the
thirteenth and fifteenth centuries.
The lack of engagement with developments in historiography is worsened to a large extent by
the absence of a truly cross-disciplinary approach in most, if not all, existing middleman
minority analyses. This is particularly glaring in the works of Bonacich and Zenner which,
while making multiple and apparently crucial references to conscious and unconscious group
"strategies," fail to engage in any kind of historiographical or psychological scholarly
contextualization. How exactly such strategies as "visibility strategies" can operate at group
level are left completely unexplained and without any substantial evidence beyond common sense
observations of Jewish behavior. The lack of a cross-disciplinary approach in such instances
doesn't necessarily mean that these ideas are wrong, or that "visibility strategies" don't
exist, but it does mean that explanations and evidence are still required. To date, the only
convincing attempt to fill in such gaps, and offer a truly cross-disciplinary approach
(incorporating history, sociology, and psychology) to the idea of group strategies, is found in
the work of Kevin MacDonald.
Conclusion
As stated at the outset of this essay, it isn't at all clear how any of the aspects of
middleman minority theory obviate the need for a deeper theoretical framework in which to
understand the behaviors and contexts under study. Middleman minority theory, as remarked
above, is an incomplete tool, and has little to offer in terms of deeper explanatory value for
such relevant key concepts under discussion as resource competition, ecological strategies,
visibility strategies, and social identity theory. Middleman minority theory, or at least some
strands of it, is useful and valuable in the study of Jews to the extent that it places an
unusual emphasis on group conflict as arising from resource competition, the characteristics of
Jews (including Jewish ethnocentrism), and the existence of group strategies.
There are,
however, multiple, serious inadequacies in middleman minority theory, including the possibility
that it is in part itself a "visibility strategy," that is has a general problem of
definitions, that it fails to adequately deal with unique qualities of the Jews and their
experiences, that it generally fails to engage with the historical record, and that it has no
real explanatory or predictive frameworks for many of the ideas it discusses, including group
strategies. I am forced to concur with Edna Bonacich that, in regards to the study of Jews,
middleman minority theory should be conceived, at best, as "a useful sensitiser to a host of
interrelated variables." [44]
Notes
[1] Bonacich, Edna. "A
Theory of Middleman Minorities." American Sociological Review 38, no. 5 (1973):
583–94, (589).
[2] Francois-Marie
Arouet de Voltaire, Oeuvres Complètes (Geneva, 1756), Vol. 7. Ch.1. See also
Dictionnaire Philosophique (Basle, 1764), Vol. 14 .
[3] B. Bauer, The
Jewish Problem ( Die Judenfrage , 1843) ed Ellis Rivkin and trans. Helen Lederer
(Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College -- Jewish Institute of Religion, 1958).
[4] K. Marx, On the
Jewish Problem ( Zur Judenfrage , 1844) ed Ellis Rivkin and trans. Helen Lederer
(Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College -- Jewish Institute of Religion, 1958).
[5] W. Sombart, Der
moderne Kapitalismus , Munich and Leipzig 1913. This work was published in an English
translation by E. Epstein under the title, The Quintessence of Capitalism , London,
1915.
[6] W. P. Zenner,
Minorities in the Middle: A Cross-Cultural Analysis (Albany: State University of New
York, 1991), 5.
[7] W. Roscher, "Die Stellung der Juden im Mittelalter, betrachtet vom Standpunkt der
allgemeine Handelspolitik," Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft Bd. 31
(1875) S. 503–526.
[8] G. Reuveni,
"Prolegomena to an "Economic Turn" in Jewish History," in G. Reuveni (ed) The Economy in
Jewish History: New Perspectives on the Interrelationship Between Ethnicity and Economic
Life (Berghahn, 2011), 3.
[9] As the son of
Catholic and Lutheran converts from Judaism, Simmel's relationship to his Jewishness is
fascinating in itself. See A. Morris-Reich, The Quest for Jewish Assimilation in Modern
Social Science , (New York: Routledge, 2008), chapter 4. For the influence of Simmel's
stranger minority theory see Werner Cahnman, "Pariahs, Strangers, and Court Jews -- A
Conceptual Classification," Sociological Analysis, 35 (1974); C. R. Hallpike, "Some problems in
Cross-Cultural Comparison," in The Translation of Culture , T. Beidelman (ed), (London:
Tavistock, 1971); Hilda Kuper, "Strangers in Plural Societies: Asians in South Africa and
Uganda," in Pluralism in Africa , Leo Kuper and M. G. Smith (eds) (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1971); Jack H. Porter, "The Urban Middleman: A Comparative Analysis,"
Comparative Social Research , 4 (1981); R. A. Reminick, "The Evil Eye Belief among the
Amhara of Ethiopia," Ethnology, 13 (1974), W. Shack and E. Skinner, Strangers in African
Societies (Berkelely: University of California Press, 1979); Paul Siu, "The Sojourner,"
American Journal of Sociology , 58, (1952).
[10] J. Stone,
Racial Conflict in Contemporary Society , (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985),
96.
[11] This coinage is
frequently attributed to Philip Curtin, who employs the term in his Cross-cultural Trade in
World History (1984), but the term was in use by Cohen, within a strict thematic sense, as
early as the latter's 1974 chapter "Cultural Strategies in the Organisation of Trading
Diasporas," in C. Meillassoux (ed) The Development of Indigenous Trade and Markets in West
Africa (London, 1971).
[12] Quoted in W. P.
Zenner, Minorities in the Middle: A Cross-Cultural Analysis (Albany: State University of
New York, 1991), 8.
[13] K. MacDonald,
Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism ,
187.
[14] E. Bonacich, "A
Theory of Middleman Minorities." American Sociological Review 38, no. 5 (1973):
583–94.
[15] E. Bonacich,
The Economic Basis of Ethnic Solidarity: Small Business in the Japanese American
Community (Berekely: University of California Press, 1980).
[19] R. Cherry,
"American Jewry and Bonacich's Middleman Minority Theory," Review of Radical Political
Economics , 22 (2–3), 158–173, 161.
[20] W. P. Zenner,
Minorities in the Middle: A Cross-Cultural Analysis (Albany: State University of New
York, 1991), 10. See also W. Zenner, "American Jewry in the light of middleman minority
theories," Contemporary Jewry , 5:1 (1980), 11–30, 18. Zenner argues that "As a
synthetic concept, the phrase "middleman minority" is difficult to define so as to cover all
groups so designated."
[21] E. Bonacich,
The Economic Basis of Ethnic Solidarity: Small Business in the Japanese American
Community (Berekely: University of California Press, 1980), 22. See also E. Bonacich, "A
Theory of Middleman Minorities." American Sociological Review 38, no. 5 (1973):
583–94, 585.
[27] E. Bonacich, "A
Theory of Middleman Minorities." American Sociological Review 38, no. 5 (1973): 583-94,
592.
[28] W. Zenner,
"American Jewry in the light of middleman minority theories," Contemporary Jewry , 5:1
(1980), 11-30, 23.
[29] W. Cahnman,
"Pariahs, Strangers and Court Jews," Sociological Analysis 35, 3 (1974): 155-66.
[30] D. Horowitz,
Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).
[31] G. Reuveni (ed)
The Economy in Jewish History: New Perspectives on the Interrelationship Between Ethnicity
and Economic Life (Berghahn, 2011).
[32] I. Light &
S. J. Gold, Ethnic Economies (Bingley: Emerald, 2000).
[33] R. Silverman,
Doing Business in Minority Markets (New York: Garland, 2000).
[34] E. Bonacich,
The Economic Basis of Ethnic Solidarity: Small Business in the Japanese American
Community (Berekely: University of California Press, 1980), 22.
[35] W. Zenner,
"American Jewry in the light of middleman minority theories," Contemporary Jewry , 5:1
(1980), 11-30, 13.
[37] M. D. Meyerson,
A Jewish Renaissance in Fifteenth-Century Spain (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2010), 111.
[38] N. Roth,
Medieval Jewish Civilization: An Encyclopedia (New York: Routledge, 2003),
[39] J. Hillaby,
"Jewish Colonisation in the Twelfth Century," in P. Skinner (ed), The Jews in Medieval
Britain: Historical, Literary, and Archaeological Perspectives (Woodbridge: Boydell Press,
2003), 36.
[40] F. Schmeider,
"Various Ethnic and Religious Groups in Medieval German Towns? Some Evidence and Reflections,"
in, Segregation, Integration, Assimilation: Religious and Ethnic Groups in the Medieval
Towns of Central and Eastern Europe (Burlington: Ashgate, 2009), 15.
[41] Joseph
Pérez, History of a Tragedy: The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain (Chicago:
University of Illinois Press, 2007), 60.
[42] R. W. Dorin,
Banishing Usury: The Expulsion of Foreign Moneylenders in Medieval Europe, 1200 -- 1450
(Harvard PhD dissertation, 2015); R. W. Dorin, "Once the Jews have been Expelled," Intent and
Interpretation in Late Medieval Canon Law," Law and History Review , Vol. 34, No. 2
(2016), 335-362.
[43] G. Langmuir,
History, Religion, and Antisemitism (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990),
304.
President Trump gave to Israel all she could wish for; he hoped that in return, the Jews
would give him America to rule another term. A simple give-and-take, but it didn't work out as
intended. If he were to run for the presidency of Israel, he would have it. If Brooklyn were to
decide who'd inhabit the White House, he would be the Chosen one. But Trump's plan to bribe US
Jews by bearing gifts to Israel failed completely.
East Europeans define the difference between Jews and Hungarians (or Poles) as follows. All
of these would sell their grandmother for a fistful of coins; but only a Jew would deliver.
This non-delivery of America will be remembered by future US presidents. Perhaps we witness a
defining moment for the downturn in American support of Israel, in direct contradiction to the
main thesis of our colleague Philip Giraldi who said this week that "Israel's Power Is
Unlimited". Why did it happen? The US Jews didn't take the bait. And now for details.
"Zionist" is a euphemism for "Jew", isn't it? Up to a point. Zionists, that is Jews (and
others) who care and work for Israel, are strongly supportive of the US President, but Jews
that matter, that is elite liberal progressive US Jews, won't support Trump even if he were to
pave Tel Aviv with golden bricks. Three out of
four US Jews voted for Joe Biden , about the same proportion of Jews who voted for Barack
Obama, though Obama was quite critical towards Israel, while Trump did all the Israelis could
wish for.
The Jews that cared more about Israel voted for Trump, but they are powerless. They have
money, they have good positions in society, but they aren't top dogs. The Orthodox Jews are for
Trump; not so much for the sake of Israel but rather for his conservative agenda. They do not
like gay parades, do not care for transgenderism, and for them, Black Lives do not matter much.
Social justice is not their credo.They have little influence outside their own milieu. They
voted 77 to 23 for Trump. Right-wing Jews are strongly Zionist and support Trump. Their
publication FrontPage Magazine is all out for Trump. But they would be for Trump even if he
hadn't left Iran agreement.
Polls of Jewish voters show that they do not care much about the steps taken by Trump in
order to please Israel. They are worried about Covid pandemics, about medical care, while
economics occupies fifth place in their concerns, and Israeli-related acts are at the very
bottom. The only place where one can notice some positive change is Florida, where
Jews actually shifted in noticeable numbers to Republicans. But even there it seems to be a
part of a
Latino shift rather than a separate phenomenon.
Elite Jews voted for Biden and for Dems as advised by the NY Times. For them, Trump's
friendship with PM Netanyahu was a drawback rather than an advantage. If they care for Israel,
they would prefer a quieter approach as usual, within the Two States paradigm. None of what
Trump did for Israel found a response in their hearts.
According to the AJC (American Jewish Committee) Biden bested Trump on every issue including
handling the coronavirus pandemic, 78%-19%; combatting terrorism, 71%-26%; dealing with Iran,
71%-27%; handling crime, 72%-24%, and strengthening U.S.-Israel relations, 54%-42%. (The
Republican Jewish Coalition has slightly better numbers, as they polled older Jews.) Trump has
expressed frustration that his Israel decisions have not garnered greater support in the Jewish
community, and many activists have spoken of "treason".
If Trump had known in advance that courting Jews would bring neither votes nor political
profit, probably he would have wasted less time in the Zionist cul-de-sac. Jews are connected
with the Dem Party, remember! All Jewish congressmen but two are Democrats; strongly pro-Israel
Senator Chuck Schumer, the Dem leader in the Senate, is as hostile to Trump as any man. Only
those Jews really matter; only those Jews have their unique access to media, movies, art,
politics, and universities. Perhaps they would act differently if Israel were in danger; but
thanks to the generous politics of Donald Trump they didn't need to worry about Israel.
(Preceding American presidents were aware of this catch, and were careful not to give too much
to Israel. This was also the view of Dr Kissinger).
Israeli Jews are much more pro-Trump than their American cousins. If Israel were a US state,
it would be deep red. They feel gratitude to the man who moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem and
recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. They appreciate his drive for normalisation with
the Arab states; his non-interference in the Palestinian issue; his recognition of the Golan
Heights. Being more conservative, they are on the same page as Trump on many issues. However,
even before Trump, the majority of Israeli Likud-voters are and have been for the Republicans
for many years. They did not like Obama and Clinton, and they do not care for Biden. A
prominent high tech Israeli personality prophesied that Biden would bring disaster for
Israel.
However, in Israel, too, there is a sharp division between elites and Deplorable masses. The
Deplorables support Netanyahu and Trump, vote domestically for Likud or religious parties. The
Deplorables rule Israel for over twenty years; Netanyahu is the Israeli Trump who succeeded to
keep power.
The Israeli elites support Biden. For them Trump is a mirror image of their own PM
Netanyahu, the man they hate with gusto. The problem with Israeli elites is that they have lost
their ability to govern. Their parties disintegrate; their causes are lost. If there is a
common cause for Israeli elites it is rejection of PM Netanyahu mirroring the NeverTrump
spirit of American elites, and their belief that they are elites and destined to govern.
They want to get rid of Netanyahu, like the US elites wanted to get rid of Trump. This
desire caused three rounds of national elections in the last year, but despite trying hard,
they could not vote him out. Now they hope he will be removed by the Supreme Court, and by
massive demonstrations near the PM's residence. They say he is corrupt, that he takes bribes,
that he didn't save Israel from Coronavirus – just like the Dems had tried to impeach
Trump for ridiculous reasons. They want Netanyahu to die in jail, just like the Dems hope to
see Trump rotting in Guantanamo. (There are hundreds of women ready to swear Trump almost-raped
them fifty years ago when they were underage.)
The case against Netanyahu is feeble at best. He received a pack of cigars and a box of
champagne from an American film producer; he promised to help a newspaper publisher if he would
stop attacking him. A murky case connects him to a German submarine sale, but it is too opaque
even for Netanyahu haters.The PM had been indicted by the state attorney, but by Israeli law,
he does not have to resign unless found guilty. Israel is experiencing huge and violent demos
against Netanyahu almost daily. But the deplorables still support their Bibi, and vote for him.
As opposed to Trump, Netanyahu has a newspaper, and it makes a lot of difference.
It would be nice if there were some positive differences between the Israeli Left and Right
on important issues. No such luck. There is practically no difference between Likud and the
liberal parties regarding the really important Palestinian question. The Left-wing and
Right-wing Jews are on the same page: they do not want to grant equality to non-Jews. They
treat Palestinians much worse than the Blacks were treated in Alabama a hundred years ago. They
aren't even interested in Palestinians.
The Israeli liberal left is interested in Lesbians and Gays; the main point of the election
campaign of the once-radical-left Meretz (I was their spokesman 40 years ago) was gay adoption
and access to surrogate mothers. And that in a society where workers earn less and less every
year, while houses cost more and more; where regular employment is a dream for workers; where
trade unions collapsed, and instead of employment, workers are offered a contract with
unlimited working hours, no holidays and no security at all. All in a country where
Palestinians are not allowed even to bathe in the sea a few miles from their besieged
villages.
Another topic of the liberal elite is their fight against religion.They are equal haters,
hating religious Jews as well as Christians and Muslims. The outbreak of Covid provided them
with a new reason to hate the believing Jews: they go to synagogues instead of staying at home
or going to demos against Netanyahu. I do not know any redeeming feature of this group, but
they are quite similar to liberal elites elsewhere.
In France, too, the ruling elite hates Islam and promotes Charlie Hebdo; but they hate
Christianity, too. The first thing Macron did in the present lockdown was to ban the Mass. And
his support groups, the elite liberals, were mighty pleased. In this video , you can see young
liberals asking police to disperse Catholics praying outside of Church. The same happens in
Israel, and in New York, where police have interfered with praying Jews.
The main difference between the populists of Netanyahu and the elitists is in their attitude
to ordinary people. The populists exude empathy while elitists just deplore. At the practical
level, they do not differ. Both are equally bad for workers, for ordinary Jews and
Palestinians. Populists waste public money on Jewish settlements in the occupied territories,
while elitists offer free Nepalese surrogate mothers for every gay.
As for Covid lockdowns, the elitists approve of them, just like Biden and his Dems do. The
deplorables dislike them greatly, for they lose their jobs, and they can't afford it, but they
still do not rebel.
In the US, the populists of Trump did not get much from his first cadence. A possible
solution would be the integration of left populists and right populists, of Trump taking Tulsi
Gabbard as his VP or at least as Secretary of State, of Trump giving every American citizen
medical care as in Europe, of him providing quality education free, of him taxing billionaires
and supporting workers. Such a ticket would be unbeatable. And stop bothering with the Jews and
Israel; they have nuisance value, but nothing more.
Now we can explain why the Trump Zionist Offensive didn't help him. The US (as well as US
Jews and Israel) is split into incompetent but cocksure elites and gullible but angry
Deplorables. The vote in the recent elections was a test of loyalty: are you with the elites or
with the Deplorables (in Hebrew, עמך)? In the US, where many Jews actually
belong to elites, even those outside accept elite values and narratives and still hope to get
invited in. A US Jew has to despair to join Trump and his counter-élites, and they are
still hopeful.
The Jewish newspaper Forward
tells of "two young Jewish political activists who formed the Jewish Unity PAC and raised all
of $31,000, and every cent of it was spent supporting Joe Biden and Kamala Harris." It's not
that they care for Biden, but these young people know where their bright future may lie.
In Israel, the elites are against Netanyahu, but the majority of Israelis, Jews or non-Jews,
have already despaired of being invited into the traditional elites. So they have no problem
voting for Netanyahu or supporting Trump. However, the Israel of Netanyahu and his Deplorables
is much less attractive to US Jews than the old elitist Labour-ruled Ashkenazi Israel. They do
not admit it; certainly not in writing, but there is no social lift for a US Jew in going to
Israel or even in supporting Israel. Thus Zionism as a cause has lost its attraction for US
Jews. And probably this change is irreversible: the old Ashkenazi elite of Israel is gone, and
it won't come back. It has been supplanted by Oriental Jews, by religious folk, by the
Ashkenazi counter-elites of Likud. There is no profit in courting Israel as much as Trump
did.
If Trump does, despite enormous odds, gain his second term, perhaps he will learn the lesson
and treat Israel as Jewish Liberia. It would be a great relief for the US and for the people of
Israel. Being cut off from the US supply pipeline, Israel may yet make peace with Palestinians
and become a normal Middle Eastern state. The US won't be driven into far-away wars. It would
be better if Trump had understood earlier, but better late than never.
American support is as dangerous for Israel as Russian support is for Armenia. Armenians had
30 years to make peace with their neighbours but they didn't for they were sure of Russian
support. Israelis had 50 years, but they didn't because of the US support. Armenians already
came to grief, and for Israel it is coming, unless they will disengage from their protective
superpower. So the special relations between the US elites and Israel are fully exhausted for
both sides.
And meanwhile, Israel sits on the fence. "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chose not to
refer to Joe Biden as president-elect during a press conference Monday, saying instead that
Biden was "supposed to be appointed the next president", reported Haaretz .
But one must remember: both parties are completely totally pro-Israel. Meaning the there
is no reward for a politician in supporting Israel, only punishment for those that don't.
And while this might or might not completely apply to Trump, most modern American
politicians don't care all that much about winning elections. They care about doing the
bidding of their wealthy patrons, and getting rewarded on the side. It's about putting on a
show for the masses, and as in professional wrestling, both the 'winners' and the 'losers'
get paid. Sitting on corporate boards, distinguished positions in academia, cushy book
contracts, the press treating them like senior statesmen, awards and accolades, that sort of
thing.
Consider also: Trump presumably will continue to run businesses and will need contacts and
support etc from other wealthy people, many of whom of course will be Jewish. Not pissing off
the Jews might still be critical to him in the days to come
Jews were the prime movers in the effort to impeach Clinton as told by David Brock in
'Blinded by the Right', and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to impeach Trump as was
widely publicized, and yet the response of Clinton and Trump was to redouble their efforts to
please the Jews . probably to 'follow the money'.
The author concedes that there is no "Jewish Side" and in fact details how there are
significant numbers of Jews on opposing sides.
However, in Israel, too, there is a sharp division between elites and Deplorable masses.
The Deplorables support Netanyahu and Trump, vote domestically for Likud or religious
parties.
The Israeli elites support Biden. For them Trump is a mirror image of their own PM
Netanyahu, the man they hate with gusto. The problem with Israeli elites is that they have
lost their ability to govern
The virulent Anti-Semitism of Islam is aggressively trying to contaminate certain western
parties such as Labour and the DNC. However, movements like Muslim BLM are generating so much
backlash that they are already losing traction. In the U.S.:
-- Conservatives are likely to join the Orthodox, majority voting for GOP Populism and
workers.
-- Reform and Reconstructionist are likely to stay aligned against workers with the Blue SJW
Elites of the Globalist DNC.
I find it baffling that Jews openly oppose Judeo-Christian values by staying with SJW
"woke" apostasy. However, it is a fact that huge numbers of Jews act against their own self
interest.
It is not unique to them. Huge numbers of Christians make the same mistake siding with SJW
deviancy.
You cannot be serious BuelahMan? Take your blinders off.
Those that you speak of are indeed many, but not so Mr. Shamir.
Great read Mr. Shamir. Thank you!
Republicans are not courting American Jews in order to win their votes. Republicans are
courting American Jews in order to win their wallets and positive press coverage. There are
not enough Rebublican Jews to sway an election, but there is enough Republican Jewish money
and Republican Jewish media for the Republican Party to pay attention to them.
@No Friend Of The
Devil Bingo. Plus, to fend of the inevitable, demagogic "anti-Semitism" accusations from
liberals, leftists and Democrats, and their stooges in MSM.
The "anti-Semitism" accusation has paid off well for Jews. It's kind of like the
"Holocaust" wail -- the gift that keeps on giving. Someday, all that Jewish dogma will be
recognized as the grift it's always been. Not today, but maybe tomorrow, or the day after
Then we can watch ALL the grifters scramble for cover. Maybe they'll hide in an attic.
Then they'll make up some story of epic persecution and start the cycle over again.
How many times will Charlie Brown fall for it? How many times will Charlie Chan fall for
it? We'll find out.
Jews dumped Trump for Biden because he didn't do enough. With Biden they get even more
support for Israel, including putting more troops in Syria to finally take out Assad, and
perhaps finally going to war with Iran, which Trump wouldn't do. Plus Biden will give them
billions of taxpayer money to run the Diversity Industrial Complex, with every government
agency now requiring diversity training, and lots more diversity and race initiatives
everywhere, all rackets run by Jews, with a few token blacks. And then there's media
censorship, which Trump won't give them but Biden/Harris are already putting on the
agenda.
"Biden bested Trump on every issue including strengthening U.S.-Israel relations,
54%-42%."
Biden puts a more "civilized" face on Israel's inhumane ethnic cleansing. Trump was so
obvious and garish about it. Trump ran the risk of calling too much attention to Israel's
crimes. But "both sides" were still willing to have Israel grab all that Trump was "giving"
(though illegal and not Trump's to give). As others have noted, Trump's payoff may come after
he is out of office. Much is theater.
Come to think about it Trump could make good money opening a TV station. all sane
Americans would watch it. The advertisement money would just be poring in. This would be
excellent thing.
Trump has many followers. Trump would give his followers some hope.
The purported failure of Jews to deliver presupposes Jews are under some sort of
obligation to deliver. Jews are in total control. They have the sworn, unsolicited and total
subservience of any American presidential candidate of substance. Quite the contrary, it is
the Jewish colony of America that must deliver to its colonial master.
A Jewish dialectic. By design and effort. That's what it always comes down to. That is the
vicious cycle that needs to broken. Jewish thesis, Jewish antithesis, Jewish synthesis, rinse
and repeat.
It is true that Democrats are bought and owned by Jews. But, I have to agree with Andre
Joyce. Jews are very unreliable people, possibly the most unreliable of backers. Trump
exhausted his usefulness to Jews and they threw him under the bus. Jews want someone as
racist Zionist as Biden.
In Biden Jews find a long time obedient Gentile servant. Biden will do what Obama and
Trump refused to do. He is a well-known war criminal and he will leash war on the Middle
East.
Great article. Did the Jews deliver ? The question should be did any one group deliver ?
Trump was way to erratic and made way to many enemies and always seemed to say the first
thing that popped into his head. A good example of one of the stranger incidents was in Oct.
2018 when Rap star and mental defective Kanye West sat in the Oval Office and went a
non-stop, rambling, incoherent tirade. The President of the United States sat there like a
moron nodding approvingly it made Trump look foolish and cheapened all Americans. He sunk
himself with his big mouth and his tantrums. As far as the voting went it brings to mind the
Joe Pesci character from Casino in the end they all had enough.
Yeah, liberal Jews profess universal values, they keep their fervent support for Israel
hidden, because that gives away the fact that they are hypocrits. It's like the whore that
they're banging at every opportunity. And now Trump comes out and admonishes them in the open
to vote for him because of the jewlery and boob job he's bought her – as much as they
like it, they are profoundly mortified by his crude appeal. . and of course they know that
she's being taken care through all the institutions they're supporting.
In some sense, Trump missing the boat on this issue is like Hillary selling herself as a
war hawk, when that didn't actually sell anymore; she had missed the boat by 40 years.
No, the Jews did not fail to deliver. Jews always support both sides in any conflict so
that whoever wins they can claim to have supported / made the winning side...
It would be nice if there were some positive differences between the Israeli Left and
Right on important issues. No such luck. There is practically no difference between Likud and
the liberal parties regarding the really important Palestinian question.
I don't find it all that different here.
Quite a few Jews on the American left expose their Zionist underbelly whenever the
question of Palestine arises...
American support is as dangerous for Israel as Russian support is for Armenia.
Armenians had 30 years to make peace with their neighbours but they didn't for they were
sure of Russian support. Israelis had 50 years, but they didn't because of the US support.
Armenians already came to grief, and for Israel it is coming, unless they will disengage
from their protective superpower. So the special relations between the US elites and Israel
are fully exhausted for both sides.
Excellent article, sticking more or less dispassionately to the facts. Also, it draws the
logical inference of these facts, as outlined above. The economic collapse of America is only
a matter of time, and with it the collapse of its subsidies to Israel. History is full of
instances of small states encouraged in their intransigence by their patrons, whether
intentionally or indirectly. With the loss of the patrons, their clients are then forced to
agree terms at very unfavourable conditions, compared to what they would have got, had they
negotiated previously.
Obama critical of Israel? Are you kidding or may be misleading? Ehud Barak is on record
(Charlie Rose Show now defunct) stating unequivocally that the other Barak had done more for
Israel than any other American president before him.
No matter how you cut it, Jews alone have a way too much power in the U. S Take for
example a mundane decision to cap number of people that should get together for the
Thanksgiving: not 9 or 11 but exactly 10, per Dr. Ranit Mishori (she is an Israeli woman) on
PBS Newshour last night. Her explanation was very disarming when asked about it. Oh, she
said, "they" decided that ten was the right number guess how many people does it take to form
a "community of Israel" or the so called Minyan?" TEN! It's all about Jews and Israel even at
the freaking NIH (the National Institute of Health).
Unquestioning and unequivocal support for Israel has become a part of the Republican
platform, mostly a result of Evangelical Christians, a large denomination of dupes who
believe that the modern state of Israel, established by European colonists in Palestine, is
somehow related to the biblical Israel and biblical prophecy.
Jews voted the same way the have for generations as they are assured that Biden is going
to provide unquestioning support to Israel too.
Their Jewish votes hardly matter as they are mostly concentrated in New York and
California, which are not swing states. It is Jewish power in media and campaign donations
that matter, which both candidates could not do without.
"If Trump does, despite enormous odds, gain his second term, perhaps he will learn the
lesson and treat Israel as Jewish Liberia. It would be a great relief for the US and for the
people of Israel. Being cut off from the US supply pipeline, Israel may yet make peace with
Palestinians and become a normal Middle Eastern state. The US won't be driven into far-away
wars. It would be better if Trump had understood earlier, but better late than never"
I doubt this. The irony is that the same deep state that pushed regime change hook or
crook in Bolivia, Iran, and Venezuela is the same deep state that pushed for regime change in
the USA against Trump in 2016 (Russia controls Trump bs) and again with the voting fraud of
2020. And yet Trump seems to like regime change when it benefits his Israeli and Saudi
patrons. You live by the sword; you die by the sword.
There is the well reasoned narrative that the last US president who took on the CIA with
vengeance had his head blown apart in Dallas. The real power in Washington is with the
merging of the military, intelligence, silicon valley tech community. The civilian leadership
from both parties in the US are mere order takers from this oligarchy.
Government is just a means for the elite to impoverish the public and strip every liberty
from them. They are not part of the answer. They are part of the problem.
Trump condemns globalism, touts nationalistic view of foreign affairs at U.N."The future
does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots," Trump said. "The future
belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their
neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-touts-nationalistic-view-of-foreign-affairs-at-un/2019/09/24/e4a8486a-ded2-11e9-8fd3-d943b4ed57e0_story.html
This is why Jews and pro globalists want Biden and Harris. Barbra Lerner Spectre speaks about
multiculti and Israel expels black Jews giving them the one way tickets, because "they do not
mix well with other Israelis' ' . Hypocrisy in full spectrum. They just want other countries
( not Israel) to lose their traditions, customs and values. When the society is divided and
broken it is easier to rule throwing various groups against each other's throats. While
groups fight with each other, they pursue their agendas unnoticed. Today Trump's lawyers were
talking about lawyers who wanted to represent Trump getting threats, even death treats. How
did this happen in the US? Who's "accomplishment" this is?
Obama did a lot .He tolerated Israeli attacks on Gaza. He offered 40 billions worth of new
dole to israel in exchange for Israel delaying the commission of the illegal activity (
postponing of the settlement for 3-4 month ).
He made sure Sisi was not opposed and Morsi was deposed . He got USA involved in Syria and
tolerated open advocacy for war by AIPAC against Syria . He tolerated the opposition to Park
51 construction mounted by Neocons . In his time Islamophobia introduced by the neocons
skyrocketed .
He campaigned for anti-American charlatan like Joe Liberman . Israel got him do a lot of
damages to Iran economically and physically
@A123 onducting
unconventional warfare. That form of combat is defined by the U.S. government's National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 as "activities conducted to enable a
resistance movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt or overthrow an occupying power or
government by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary or guerrilla force in a
denied area" in the pursuit of various security-related strategic objectives.
"... Sam Husseini's writings are at husseini.org . He is the founder of VotePact.org , which encourages principled left-right cooperation against the pro-war establishment. ..."
Why are the major media calling Joe Biden the "president-elect"? The sitting president has
not yet conceded and the election results have not been certified. This effectively abrogates
government function to corporate media; it's a power grab.
Certainly, President Trump may be making a fool of himself with his current course of
action, but it is his right to dispute the results in court, and until the courts rule, anyone
with a modicum of respect for legal process should refrain from calling Biden "president-elect"
-- a term used in the Constitution. Nor should one refer to his remarks Saturday as his
"acceptance speech," as major media did.
In the view of this writer -- who has never voted for a Republican or a Democratic
presidential nominee -- the process of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 was highly dubious,
leading Gore Vidal to deride the "Cheney-Bush Junta." But it was still a procedure with set
legal processes.
What we have now is effectively government of, by, and for Big Media.
At the dawn of this millennium, Time Warner CEO Gerald Levin posited that global media "will
be and is fast becoming the predominant business of the 21st century." So predominant, in fact,
that the media business is "more important than government. It's more important than
educational institutions and non-profits."
Levin's prediction has come to pass, with Twitter and Facebook able to selectively suspend,
deplatform, and shadow ban whomever they want.
Now, the AP, NBC, CNN, et al are attempting to usurp the power of determining when and how a
future president is determined.
Certainly, given the evidence we have, it makes sense to refer to Biden as the projected
winner of the election. But "president-elect" is a bridge too far.
Some Biden supporters are attempting to take the "president-elect" mantle while
simultaneously claiming Trump and some of his supporters are incredibly dangerous and unstable.
They apparently don't see or don't want to see that if Trump is half as dangerous as they
claim, then their getting ahead of the legal process could set him and them off.
It's quite possible that William Barr and the Federalist Society majority on the Supreme
Court will come to Trump's rescue, but it seems unlikely. As with Rupert Murdoch and his Fox
News channel, they will likely nudge Trump out the door. For all these players, strict
observance of the facts is unlikely to be a determinative factor. Rather, with a media
establishment and roused liberal activists calling for Trump's head, siding against Trump
grants them a sort of legitimacy, the crowning achievement of Trumpwashing.
It also guards them against Trump's unpredictability. Trump has a reputation for turning on
former associates. And of course, the ever pro-war John Bolton and others who were in the
administration have turned on the president.
The likely reason for this is that one often overlooked fact remains: Trump is the only
president in decades (indeed, in my entire adult life) to not start an outright war. He was
full of loud threats, he didn't stop any wars like he said he would, he escalated some (most
notably the horrific Saudi assault on Yemen), he shredded treaties, he implemented awful
sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, and he moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. But again, the
fact remains: Trump is the only president in my adult life to not start an outright war -- that
is, a new bombing campaign (such as Yugoslavia or Libya) or invasion (Grenada, Panama,
Iraq).
Yet despite his not pulling the trigger on a new war, Trump's presidency was a great success
for the pro-war establishment. It made the Democratic Party even more war-like without actually
ending any wars. The good it did -- a thawing with North Korea -- seems highly reversible, like
the ostensibly pro-peace moves made by Obama.
Indeed, Obama and Trump seem like bookends, each perverting pro-peace impulses on their
respective sides of the political spectrum and diminishing them to the wishes of the pro-war
establishment.
Trump in 2016 skillfully derided Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton as associated with the Iraq
invasion. But incredibly, he failed to do so with Biden, though Biden played a central role in
ensuring that the Iraq invasion took place -- and repeatedly lied about it during the
Democratic primaries.
So why is Trump so disliked among the pro-war crowd? It reminds me of how Israel treated
Arafat. He effectively gave Israel things no one else could have, increased steps towards
regional recognition, a tacit legitimizing of the occupation with the Oslo agreement, but it
was never enough. Israel tossed Arafat at a time and place of its choosing, even bombing his
headquarters in Ramallah.
Trump's October 23 phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu didn't involve
any explosives being detonated at the White House, but Trump's near-pleading for a tacit
endorsement from Netanyahu, which was not forthcoming, clearly left the president deflated.
Indeed, with all the focus on Trump being "Putin's bitch" over the last four years, it's
difficult to imagine how Israel continues to play such an outsized role in American political
life. Would CNN have objected if Netanyahu gushed over Trump? How would the major media react
if Putin were on such a call?
Indeed, the last two one-term presidents lost shortly after criticizing Israel. Jimmy Carter
wrote that "Israel cast their lot with Reagan," apparently because then-prime minister Menachem
Begin feared that Carter might force Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and accept a
Palestinian state if he won a second term. And George H. W. Bush -- after pulverizing Iraq in
1991 -- had a highly publicized clash with Israel over loan guarantees, commenting that "there are
1,000 lobbyists up on the Hill today lobbying Congress for loan guarantees for Israel and I'm
one lonely little guy down here asking Congress to delay its consideration of loan guarantees
for 120 days."
Trump never said anything of this kind, but his servility to Netanyahu in the closing days
of the campaign highlights a troubling set of dynamics.
Sam Husseini's writings are at husseini.org . He is the founder of
VotePact.org , which encourages principled
left-right cooperation against the pro-war establishment.
Congress and White House work together to reward the Jewish state PHILIP GIRALDI NOVEMBER 3, 2020 1,300 WORDS
92
COMMENTS REPLY
The U.S. election will end today, more or less, and we Americans will suffer another four
years of putting up with serial nonsense out of a White House and Congress that could care less
about us no matter who is elected. Whether the party where everything changes or the party
where everything remains the same wins the inevitable result will be further aggrandizement of
authoritarian power combined with increased distancing of government from the people who are
ruled.
Amidst all the gloom, however, there is one great success story. That is the tale of how
Israel and its friends in politics and financial circles have been able to screw every possible
advantage out of both major parties simultaneously and apparently effortlessly. Israel might be
the true undisputed winner in the 2020 election even though it was not on the ballot and was
hardly mentioned at all during the campaign.
Jewish billionaires with close ties to Israel have been courted by the two major parties,
both to come up with contributions and to urge their friends in the oligarch club and media to
also respond favorably. The Democrats'
largest single donor is entertainment mogul Haim Saban while the Republicans rely on casino
multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson. It is estimated that 60% of the political contributions for
the Democrats comes from Jewish sources and Saban is the single largest contributor. He is also
an Israeli holding dual citizenship. Adelson, who may also hold dual citizenship and is married
to an Israeli, is the major supporter of the Republicans, having coughed up more than $100
million in recent elections.
Both Saban and Adelson have not been shy about supporting Israel as their first priority.
Saban is on record as supporting Joe Biden "because of his track record on supporting Israel
and its alliance with the United States." Adelson, who was drafted into the U.S. Army in the
1950s, has said that he would much rather have served in the Israel Defense Force. Saban and
Adelson are joined in their love fest with Israel by a number of Israel-firsters in Congress
and the Administration, all eager to shower unlimited political support, money and weapons on
the Jewish state.
In the latest manifestation of noblesse oblige, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper
stopped off in Israel last week to present his counterparts with a significant bit of
assistance, all funded by the American taxpayer, of course. According to sources in Washington
and Jerusalem, the U.S. "will grant Israel direct access to highly classified satellites such
as the missile detection birds known as SBIRS and ensure Israel gets critical defense platforms
in a very short time by using production slots planned for the U.S armed forces." Israel will
also be given "deeper access to the core avionic systems" of the new F-35 fighter that it has
been obtaining from Washington.
The claimed rationale for the upgrade is the Congressionally mandated requirement for the
U.S. to maintain Israel's "qualitative military edge" in light of the impending sale of the
F-35 to Arab states that have recently established diplomatic relations with Israel. At the
time, Israeli sources were suggesting that the Jewish state
might need $8 billion in new military
hardware upgrades to maintain its advantage over its neighbors. It is presumed that the
American taxpayer will foot the bill, even though there is a serious financial crisis going on
in the U.S.
The satellite detection system operates from aerial platforms that are deployed on
helicopters. The astute reader will notice that no U.S. security interest is involved in the
latest giveaway to Israel. On the contrary, Israel will be receiving material from "production
slots planned for the U.S. armed forces," reducing America's own ability to detect incoming
missiles. And there will also be considerable damage to American defense interests in that
Israel will inevitably steal the advanced F-35 technology that they will be given access to,
re-engineer it for their own defense industries and sell it to clients in Asia, Africa, and
Latin America. They have
done so before , selling U.S. developed missile technology to China.
Congress is also doing its bit. A bill, the so-called "U.S.-Israel Common Defense
Authorization Act," is making its way through the House of Representatives and will authorize
the provision of U.S. manufactured
bunker buster bombs to Israel. As the bombs would only be useful in Israel's neighborhood
to bomb hardened sites in Iran, the message being sent is obvious. The Massive Ordnance
Penetrator weighs 30,000 pounds and is capable of destroying targets located deep underground.
Oddly, Israel doesn't have a plane capable of carrying that weight so the presumption is that
the White House will also have to provide the bomber. The bill is co-sponsored by two leading
Israel firsters in Congress Democrat Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Republican Brian Mast of
Florida.
Israel is also
seeking an upgrade of some of its other fighter aircraft. It reportedly has approached the
Pentagon seeking to buy the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, a single-seat, twin-engine,
all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft that was originally developed for the United
States Air Force (USAF). Its stealth capability, top speed, maneuverability combined with
advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground weapon systems, makes it the best air superiority fighter
in the world.
Unfortunately for Israel, the F-22 is not currently available and is only operated by the
USAF. Current U.S. federal law prohibits the export of the plane to anyone to protect its top
secret advanced stealth technology as well as a number of advances in weaponry and situational
awareness. But if deference to Israel's wishes is anything to go by, one might safely bet that
the Jewish state will have received approval to acquire the plane by inauguration day in
January. And it is a safe bet that Israeli defense contractors will have reverse engineered the
stealth and other features soon thereafter.
The U.S. government has been pandering to Israel in other ways,
to include labeling , and sanctioning, prominent human rights groups that have criticized
the Jewish state as anti-Semitic. It has also strengthened existing sanctions
against Iranian financial institutions , reportedly in an attempt to make it more difficult
for a President Biden to reinstate the suspended Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)
that sought to monitor the Iranian nuclear program. The sanctions come on top of other moves to
destroy the Iranian economy, to include " that the U.S., along with Israel, has in recent
months carried out sabotage attacks inside Iran, destroying power plants, aluminum and chemical
factories, a medical clinic and 7 ships at the port of Bushehr "
Other recent developments favoring Israel include Congress's legislating Israeli government
veto authority over U.S. sales of weapons to any other Middle Eastern nation. The bill is
called "Guaranteeing Israel's QME [Qualitative Military Edge] Act of 2020" (H.R. 8494). There
has also been the
expansion by Executive Order of U.S. funded illegal West Bank Jewish settlements' science
development projects that will eventually compete with American companies.
In truth, the United States has become Israel's bitch and there is hardly a politician or
journalist who has the courage to say so. Congress and the media have been so corrupted by
money emanating from the Israeli lobby that they cannot do enough to satisfy America's rulers
in Jerusalem. And for those who do not succumb to the money there is always intimidation,
career-ending weaponized accusations of holocaust-denial and anti-Semitism. It is all designed
to produce one result: whoever wins in American elections doesn't matter as long as Israel gets
what it wants. And it almost always gets what it wants.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
' The sanctions come on top of other moves to destroy the Iranian economy, to include "
that the U.S., along with Israel, has in recent months carried out sabotage attacks inside
Iran, destroying power plants, aluminum and chemical factories, a medical clinic and 7 ships
at the port of Bushehr "
Good fucking question. I for one am sick of this shit ..claims made, no sources revealed
we are supposed to take these claims on "faith" ..akin to a religion.
I can tell you this. If I was Iran I'd be working day and fucking night to get a nuke the
neocon, liberalcon warmongers have made it clear as soon as it's convenient, invasion and
destroy Iran
Like Neo when he is first released from the matrix and in the construct "I want out, let
me out" .of this insanity, the mask shit included.
He also just assumes Jewish trickery, and not the obvious fact that Israel is like
Medicare and Social Security and NASA: popular with politicians because it is popular with
the public.
Israel, as Phil's commie friends put it, is our "settler-colonial" daughter state. And
nothing is too good for our girl!
I have been reading articles that go back as far as 1967 and the U.S.S. Liberty incident
in which it was implied by many writers that the U.S. was Israel's bitch. It's not as if this
thought is new, as even Admiral Thomas Moorer having stated he never knew a U.S. president
who could stand up to Israel. If all of this is true, it's pathetic as well.
Is it possible that the USA will curtail her defence power for the sake of Israel? What
will be the benefit of the USA if it amplifies Israeli Defence at the cost of US defence?
Dr. Phil, your article is truly very precise, penetrating and embarrassing to our
political class.
I can see that the American public is already all stirred up and will not take this
slouched in front of their TV sets watching the game any longer.
The MAGA's are sure to march on the White House and oust our leaders Kushner / Ivanka. The
BLM/ANTIFA's are sure to demonstrate again and ransack Congress and oust the Pelosi
Democrats.
Hilarious, LOL
I decided not to hold my breath waiting for any public reaction.
We Americans at the bottom of the money pyramid prefer to fight and name call each other
and not look upwards.
That's why America needs a revolution culminating in a complete regime change. Civil war
already appears to be on the horizon, ugly things will Bev happening, but it will
unfortunately be necessary to change the world for the better. And other countries, France,
Germany and Britain may follow.
A Democrat of New Jersey and a Republican of Florida sponsoring a bill to benefit Israel
let's just forget the Jewish angle in all these charades and call it bipartisan.
Do we need to have sources on these issues?
Haven't you learn by now, that any stone you pick, you will find a Jew hiding under?
Few days ago, with all this Bobulinski/Joe Biden/Hunter family crap I said to my wife.
Honey something is missing from the whole story.
She ask. What is missing?
I said. The Jew
And two days ago .voila!
The Yaacov(s) Apelbaum(s) have everything to see https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/
I always thought we were England's "bitch". Fought 2 world wars to stop them from having
to learn German and have continued to use our military to support their business interests
throughout the world. It can even be argued that our support for Israel is based on our
subservience to the British Crown since Israel itself is a British project. Anyway, there is
no major political leader in the US who hasn't said he is a staunch supporter of Israel. That
isn't going to change.
The way Trump has bent over and offered his rear to the Jewish lobby and Israel is
embarrassing. The USA should help and support Israel, but not at the blatant expense of
raping its own citizens.
However, one can't blame Israel for taking advantage of the corruption and weakness in the
USA, and also its amazingly dumb voting public. Who wouldn't want another country(USA) to pay
for their military(Israel) and also use the USA to fight, pay, and die for Israel?
White nationalists blame the Jewish lobby for much of the problems in America, but at the
same time they lovingly Asskiss Trump and his horrid son-in-law, who would sell out America
to Israel without any hesitation. This is first-class stupidity.
Biden may say he is a Zionist, but he has never shown the full-on, total sellout Trump has
done in putting Jewish interests always before American interests. Trump and his horrid
son-in-law have literally allowed Israel to rape America's ass everyday since he has been
POTUS.
A vote for Trump is a vote for the Jewish lobby to keep on raping America's ass thru
"bendover" Trump for the next 4 years.
Strangely here in Australia, chairman Morrison was going to put three and a half million
dollars to be matched by his hopefully newly elected Qld premier, into constructing a Jewish
holocaust museum. One can only wonder why in Qld, Australia of all places and in the 21st
century, we would need to have a Jewish propaganda business setup. Paid for by the poor old
taxpayer of course.
What follows? A museum dedicated to the twenty million dead Russians. Maybe one for the
hundreds of thousands of slaughtered Iraqi muslims. Or one in remembrance to the millions of
lives lost to the covid19 holocaust of 2020.
Sadly it seems like this Jewish rot is spreading quicker than the virus through our
societies.
The US and the Rothschild neocolony in Palestine are part of the same conglomerate. Simon
Bolivar was warning us that the US would enslave the Americas in the name of "freedom" a
years before the Monroe Doctrine became a thing, so it didn't exactly become what it is after
the Ziocorporate neocolony came to exist. How nice that the goals of the founding fathers and
the Ziocorporate world order came to intertwine so conveniently since so early on.
Have the Ziocorporate contractors and entities profited from selling tech and weapons to
the Ziosalafi former British colonies in the Middle East and from the petrodollar?
Transfering all that technology, spanning everything from nuclear weapons to cybersecurity
and AI, is the way to ensure that mafia conglomerate's primacy there and everywhere.
Jews of Europe and North Africa could've been Haavara'd to the US after WW2 but that would
have limited and complicated business opportunities for the American overclass to globalise
the Monroe Doctrine. Rome wasn't built in a day after all.
@Rich and while
we are about it you never broke the German enigma code, we did, whatever your lying Hollywood
garbage tells you. So maybe, if you end up in a war we will sell you stuff from the sidelines
until we get dragged into it ourselves and then we will see how grateful you are. As I said
earlier, save it for the French.
WW1, on the other hand was a stalemate until the Americans joined (late as always) and
after you had made huge profits, mainly at our expense. So we weren't exactly in danger then
either.
So no, you are not our bitches, both of our nations are bitches of the international
bankers.
Philip! You used the word bitch. For a faceless nobody like me that's fine but for you Mr.
Giraldi, the 'spears tip' and highly respected member of the 'beware of Zion' movement that's
even better. (Grin)
That kikenvermin Gottheimer unfortunately happens to be my congressman. He's in a close
election so lets hope he loses even though his opponent is all too aware of the power of the
CABAL. I pray for even worse endings for this slug, Jay -sus forgive me.
PS. If the Zionists get 'Bunker Buster' bombs they will need the platforms to carry them,
so the U.S. Government (us) will have to give them B 2 bombers. Insane!
The zionists were the biggest winners in 1913, when they fastened their FED and IRS on
America and since that time zionists and since 1948 Israel has been the winner and America
the loser, as the zionists have raped America.
The biggest example of this was the Israel and zionist in the ZUS attack on the WTC which
was blamed on the Arabs and gave the kabal the excuse to destroy the middle east.
You didn't really think the Zionists were going to give up control of the president to
China did you? A honeypot operation is something all intel agencies do but Israel snagged
Bill Clinton and hundreds of others.
Funny thing is the rank and file of the Jewish community is 90% registered Democrat and
wanted Hillary and now Joe but their "elites" and "leadership" care as much about their
opinion as any other groups' elites and leaders. ZERO. George Carlin was correct: "There's a
big club and you and I aren't in it".
Palm Beach County school board members voted unanimously Monday to rescind their
reinstatement of Spanish River High School Principal William Latson.
He was originally fired last year after telling a student's parent that "he can't say the
Holocaust is a factual, historical event."
The community was outraged by his comments, and the board's decision to rehire him after
an administrative law judge ruled he shouldn't have been fired.
Board member Barbara McQuinn says Latson opened the door to denying the atrocity of the
Holocaust.
=============
Sadly for you, Lot, it turns out Giraldi does have evidence for his claim: see his
response to my post.
Isn't it nice that that we clarified that?
You're a bright young gentleman, Lot -- but in Israel, you're trying to defend the
indefensible.
No matter what your intellectual resources or how much energy you expend, it can never
work. It's like trying to prove two and two make five. You may well be a mathematical prodigy
-- you still won't be able to do it.
You're wrong: logically, factually, morally. That's the way it is. It can never
change.
In truth, the United States has become Israel's bitch
Beautifully stated, Phil!
Right on tripping bro! The US should be Iran's shiite bitch as it was under Barak Hussein
Ubama. Uber Bama where you dumb whites will bump heads on carpets as you submit.
Years ago, before he was VP, I saw Biden give a speech on C-SPAN in which he said, "I am
a Zionist." I thought, "Note to self: never vote for him."
90% of Politicians are Zionists. You will NOT have a career in politics unless you are a
Zionist. If you judge by what someone says it is fatal .judge by words, actions and results.
Do the later and you will be convinced whomever the new President is .is corrupt and a
liar.
The most disgusting thing to me or should I say the most RETARDED thing to me is that
America SACRIFICES OUR TROOPS to build a Greater Israel, while America and the rest of
traditionally White nations in Europe take in primitive Muslims who are literally raping
Europeans and slaughtering them on the streets. So we bomb Arab nations for Israel, have to
MAKE ISRAEL GREAT AGAIN, get rid of (((their Muzzie problem))), and then import the
"refugees" to lands that are responsible for bombing them or killing their relatives, family
members, friends, etc. Does this sound like a recipe for DESTROYING THE WEST to you? It is a
LOSE LOSE for Whitey most definitely, and a win somewhat for the Muslim invaders who are
acquiring free housing, breeding at a rate where they will soon become the majority in places
like London, maybe even in Stockholm IF we don't put a stop to this insanity. WE are DEMANDED
to hate Muslims/Arabs when it comes to fighting Israel's Wars in the Middle East but then WE,
White people that is, are DEMANDED by our Jewish overlords to love being infested with hordes
of these same people being brought into our nations. Yes, we are to love people who rape OUR
women, live off OUR blood, sweat, and tears for FREE, take over positions of power like
becoming a mayor in the largest city in Europe, etc.
NEWS FLASH: How many Whites are in the world? How many Jews are in the world? Money and
political clout only works against you when you allow it to, when you have the numbers, you
decide, learn that. Whitey, you better wake up while you still are a diminishing majority in
your own nations.
I'll end with this one. We have all seen the commercial about sending money to Israel for
the endless "holocaust victims," my gawd, when is the last "holocaust victim" going to
finally die of old age, but now (((they))) have a commercial encouraging people to send money
to elderly Jews in Israel who are dealing with (((Covid-19.))) My lawd, do (((these people)))
have no shame. America is currently sending A MINIMUM OF 3.8 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR TO THIS
TINY NATION, AND HERE (((THEY))) ARE STILL BEGGING FOR MORE, THIS TIME, USING THE TEAR
JERKING TECHNIQUE of showing poor, frail, bent elderly people who desperately need YOUR
shekels against the Jew Flu.
What are you going to sell used tanks? Thats like selling coal to newcastle, the only
thing we make anymore is bombs and you fellows dont make anything but obscene profits for
international banking types. You wont be dragged into to war you will be thrown in with the
rest of the nato poodles. Sad state of affairs.
@Jiminy
Strangely here in Australia, chairman Morrison was going to put three and a half million
dollars to be matched by his hopefully newly elected Qld premier, into constructing a Jewish
holocaust museum. One can only wonder why in Qld, Australia of all places and in the 21st
century, we would need to have a Jewish propaganda business setup. Paid for by the poor old
taxpayer of course.
"They" have done the same in South Africa. Modern Jewish holocaust museum in Cape Town while
native Africans sleep in the surrounding park lawns and benches. Hollowcaust Propaganda is big
"free money" business.
Everyone keeps on talking about the election. I just can't be bothered to care.
I do care about politics in the sense that I care, as anyone else does, about the
distribution of power in the United States and the extent to which American ideas can spread to
the rest of the world. These issues, like Israel, are not voted upon.
That's a bit different than "politics", a local American ritual in which normies select a
random point within the pre-packaged spectrum of political correctness and pick a candidate
based on where they live and what's considered socially acceptable in that locale They then
rationalize their decision based on the perception of the candidate's personality and/or some
generality like "I oppose racism".
Its truly masterful to create a system where any potential criticism or pushback you may
face is made illegal under defamation laws enforced by an Institution – you control. The
Jewish 'attack' (and I think it is fair to say, we are under attack from a highly ruthless,
very clever enemy playing completely by its own rules) appears to be on several fronts
–
1)Political lobbying / Political positioning / Positions in Justice System / Other
Government Positions
This has effectively given a foreign power a vice like grip on our politics, law, culture,
industry and banking system/financial markets. They are able to create and control a narrative
to enforce beneficial ideologies whilst simultaneously censoring any threats through fact and
data suppression. Its a communist dream come true. The worst thing is, they make us grateful
and willing participants, its the definition of evil genius!
What scares me is we what we don't know about Jewish Power -the clandestine activities to
gain more political leverage and power.
Trying to educate people on this subject (made easier by articles like this)is very
difficult. Would we be comfortable with allowing moslems or hindus the same influence in our
governments in terms of sheer number of positions and access to policy creation/change or
military funding etc Probably not but that's becasue nobody does it better than the Jews. Your
absolutely right – Israel always gets what it wants.
@Clyde sh
President" became the cover headline for a 2011 article in New York Magazine). In that same CJN
article, another Democratic activist, Newton Minow, told CJN that Obama "is very much at home
with Jewish people, their values and interests," while Rabbi Arnold Wolf of KAM Isaiah Israel
Congregation in Chicago, of blessed memory, said Obama is "embedded in the Jewish world."
@MarkU
g-letter-documents-King-George-V-urged-foreign-secretary-justify-conflict-two-days-outbreak-First-World-War.html
In a time where mobilization was seen as an act of war, Germany was the last country to
mobilize for WWI.
Of course the evil Nahhhtzeees were just itching to invade the UK. http://www.tomatobubble.com/id763.html
He may have done the same to the UK as he had done to Germany – have full employment
and an increased standard of living, without the banks being involved. That just was not going
to happen. All wars are banker wars.
"Could care less about" drives me up the wall, too, as we split grammatical hairs
while Israel is right on the cusp of finally getting White America destroyed. This is it!
Thank God Trump put an end to all this Israel's bitch nonsense. Now we're a full blown whore
for
Tel Aviv and the world knows it. Trump gave "Cadillac Bebe" our pimp the key to the "White
House, America and the hearts of the American people". Yo Bebe when you're finished turn the
lights out.
As IF Joe " I Am A Zionist" Biden, and Barack Obama aka "The First Jewish President" were
any better. I voted for Trump, and I agree, he is no different than the rest when it comes to
Israel, but do you really want Joe The Zionist who will gladly step down and relinquish the
office to "Caramel" Harris in less than a year to run things.
Trump has been a disappointment but at least he is isn't OPENLY ANTI-WHITE and he bides us 4
more years.
The demsheviks suck even more Zionist cawk than the republiCANTS if that is possible.
Well to be fair, you did manage to sell us used destroyers which might have seemed equally
unlikely. But you are right, I was merely making a rhetorical point, and yes a very sad state
of affairs.
"If we're supposed to be so worried about "election disinformation" and foreign election
meddling, shouldn't we be concerned about a British multimillionaire -- with unexplained
connections to the CIA and the White House press corps, and public affiliation with other
institutions clearly hostile to Trump like the ADL -- carrying out massive information ops in
the lead-up to an election that he has publicly expressed an interest in influencing? Or should
we just pretend it's all okay because the press told us we're supposed to be laughing?"
Am I allowed to point out that if America is Israels slave, then surely America is Japan's
slave?
America keeps large troop forces in Japan to defend it. The Japanese save money and use it
to develop their industries which outcompete American industries.
To an alien, it would surely appear that somehow, Japan has managed to infiltrate the top
levels of the US government.
Likewise, America lost over 70,000 soldiers to defend Vietnam, and spent an untold amount
over several years, in a region far from America. An alien might think Vietnam had somehow
managed to enslave American leaders.
Or would our alien be missing crucial context, and is American policy consistent in all
these cases on based on principles, and not a question of being enslaved by foreign powers.
@Curmudgeon body
is going to argue about borrowing, unless they want to be called a traitor. I wonder how many
people could provide even a vaguely sensible account of the issues that started WW1?
He is a comedian primarily but I thought it was interesting and he provides some key
insights. It is also quite entertaining I thought, but humour is a very individual thing. You
sound as if you would know most of that stuff anyway but it is worth a watch even so.
How do you win this civil war? Sounds good, but I know way to may holy rollers that want
their rapture and Jew rule. I don't know a liberal who isn't a Zionist. So where will you get
the human numbers, and how do you get weapons?
Kinda old news. The Zionists have been ruling the US since they were rumored to have
assassinated JFK. Like him or not , he was the last president to say no to Israel. Well George
HW Bush did a soft no on West Bank settlements, but I believe he was the one to put us under
Noahide laws. Guess losing an election was the nice way to admonish him for being a partial
good goy.
Great piece this, confirming what we have already known for some decades: that we are
effectively a colony of Israel. And as colonies go, crucial decisions of the colonies are made
in the colonizers' metropolitan capitals, in this case, of Zionist Israel. What sets this
relationship apart from classical colonizer-colony ones, is that the colonizer is heavily
subsidized by its colony's taxes – in this case a blank check without the consent of the
tax payers. Moreover, in contrast to classic colonialism, America's total surrender to Jewish
power, means that any war of liberation from colonialism has been effectively neutralized long
before the first salvo has been fired. This mockery of a nation's "sovereignty" marks a
historic first in the annals of the so-called international relations and power dispensation
among sovereign nations. The Anglo-Zio Empire's takeover of American, and by extension Western
countries is now complete. And all without a single shot being fired. It is surrender and
capitulation in the absence of war. It has to be admitted that Jewish power has pulled off a
uniquely historic and non-violent colonial project – with the absolute complicity of the
colonized.
Biden is just a hologram who will vanish shortly. They'll keep "Five Dollar Kamala" on ice
till crypt keeper Joe exits at that time Miss Mudsville will start getting her orders from Mt.
Zion in keeping with American tradition.
You didn't fight 2 world wars, you came late to both and entered after everyone else did the
heavy lifting. In neither case did your national industry and infrastructure suffer any damage,
which allowed you to remain a rich country compared to devastated nations.
You deserve what Israel is doing to you for no other reason than that you are incapable of
understanding history and consider yourselves exceptional like all the other failed empires of
history.
The Israeli attack on U.S.S. LIBERTY was a criminal act. A commissioned vessel of the United
States Navy was attacked under conditions of flawless weather and calm seas. Earlier, Israeli
planes had flown reconnaissance over the ship. They knew damned well she was American.
Admiral Thomas Moorer, USN was right. Also, to his dying day, he believed the attack on
LIBERTY was deliberate.
@geokat62 hey have
gotten the US to do for them what AIPAC can only dream about.
How AIPAC would love to get America stations tens of thousands of troops in Israel and
commit to defending it so Israel can disband the IDF and build up its economy!
All Israel gets is a few billion thrown at it and guarantees about its "qualitative edge",
while Vietnam gets 70,000 Americans dying for it, and Japan gets an actual defense
commitment.
AIPAC are rank amateurs compared to the Japanese and Vietnamese, whose ability to infiltrate
and manipulate Ameeica to their advantage is awe inspiring.
@Colin Wright I
certainly hope Israel has enough agents/embedded computer viruses in Iran that it can "in a
period of months"
destroying power plants, aluminum and chemical factories, a medical clinic and 7 ships at
the port of Bushehr
But that strikes me as implausible, and your question indicates you may have agreed.
Not just "a power plant" and "a factory." Not just "damaged." But "destroyed" "power plant
s " plural and "aluminum and chemical factories." While a chemical plant could be a
small operation, aluminum mills are expensive and gigantic operations.
Of course, why does NuttyYahoo need a bodyguard when he's visiting Knesset West–er,
uh, the U.S. Congress? Surely he must know he's among friends?! . . .
' Not just "a power plant" and "a factory." Not just "damaged." But "destroyed" "power
plants" plural and "aluminum and chemical factories." While a chemical plant could be a small
operation, aluminum mills are expensive and gigantic operations.'
Nu? So what would an acceptable amount of aggression be?
Say, a couple of twin towers? How about something like the Liberty?
So lessee. Japan is 146,000 square miles. The territory assigned to the Jewish state in 1947
was maybe 6000 square miles. Let's say 7300 square miles -- just to simplify the math. Besides,
we can be afford to be generous Israel being such a valuable ally and all.
So you get one-twentieth the garrison Japan gets. That would be 3500 troops!
I wonder how many Americans are serving in the IDF right now? Maybe we can just reassign
them.
Then you could disarm and withdraw from your Manchukuos et al right away. why wait?
We have a deal!
maybe after ten years or so we'll let you establish a self-defense force.
Meantime in Yankee Land Defund the police depts, jewish led riots, lootings, BLMANTIFA
terrorism, and electoral FRAUD, cut Medicare payments, Lockdowns, WS bail outs, massive
layoffs, small business bankcrupcies, foreclosures, delapidated failed cities Detroit, St
Louis, Baltimore, decrepit national infrasestructure, massive illeteracy, rise of crime,
resurgence of 3th world diseases, urban blight, 5more wars in the MEast Iran, Syria, and
probably, open borders, H1A,Bs visas expansion, .Massive Chinese global expansion teh New Silk
Road, Venezuelas oil, Bolvias (lithium), while Israel enjoys a record economic growth, and
FISCAL surplus who is paying for that???
@Colin Wright
Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, and Europe in the Cold War.
I actually kind of feel like a sucker – we fought all our bloody wars ourselves while
somehow the devious Vietnamese and Japanese, South Koreans and Europeans, conned the Americans
to actually die for them, or be prepared to, in large numbers.
And hey, you guys claim America fights our wars anyways, so we might as well actually make
that a reality, as it is for so many other countries.
AIPAC is pretty pathetic come to think of it. We're getting the worst deal America has given
any of its liberal democratic allies.
@Orville H. Larson
g constitutionally valid currency as against their "Green Frog-Skin" Monopoly money printed and
owned by the bankster-owned "Federal" Reserve Bank.
According to a source I recently accessed, the Rothschilds may well have been behind the
assassinations of 6 previous presidents and an attempted hit on the greatest enemy of privately
owned central banks, Andrew Jackson.
The rotting/rotten bodies of both McCains and LBJ, should be disinterred and hanged by their
skeletal necks on the Capital Mall as examples (even post-mortem) of the fate of traitors to
the Republic and its sovereign power, WE THE PEOPLE.
"A bill, the so-called "U.S.-Israel Common Defense Authorization Act," is making its way
through the House of Representatives and will authorize the provision of U.S. manufactured
bunker buster bombs to Israel. As the bombs would only be useful in Israel's neighborhood to
bomb hardened sites in Iran, the message being sent is obvious. The Massive Ordnance Penetrator
weighs 30,000 pounds and is capable of destroying targets located deep underground. Oddly,
Israel doesn't have a plane capable of carrying that weight so the presumption is that the
White House will also have to provide the bomber. The bill is co-sponsored by two leading
Israel firsters in Congress Democrat Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Republican Brian Mast of
Florida."
The intriguing part about this is israel lacking a bomber capable of carrying the bomb. Will
the b-21 in development be capable of carrying these bombs? Can the b-2? I have not looked into
it, but as this type of bomb is dropped from high altitude, I believe, these low flying
"stealth" types would probably be unsuitable platforms. That leaves old b-52s and b-1s. Both of
these would require the israelis controlling the air space they are used in, as well as the AD
to have been neutralized.
Regarding target countries, I'm sure the israelis wouldn't limit their use to a war against
Iran, but would drop them on anyone. Especially Gazans. Doubtful the israelis would go to war
against Iran, since they have usa/nato available for that role. If one notices, the israelis
don't really fight wars any more, they have the colonials do that for them.
"It reportedly has approached the Pentagon seeking to buy the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, a
single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft that was originally
developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). Its stealth capability, top speed,
maneuverability combined with advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground weapon systems, makes it
the best air superiority fighter in the world."
The f-22 is not "the best air superiority fighter in the world." That's pindo exceptionalism
mythology at work. Its capabilities were grossly exaggerated and its real measure is why the
aircraft was taken out of production early. Well before the scheduled full production run was
complete. Had this aircraft actually been what the propagandists claimed, it would still be in
production today, despite it's high cost. Also the f-22 is less up to date than the f-35, for
example, with regard to electronics.
It is too late to restart production, so any given to israel would be from the existing
stock. There are only about 180 of these built, about enough for 6-8 squadrons (?), any given
to israel would probably leave the usa with too few for its own, now minimal, requirements for
the plane. The few given to israel would not improve israel's military much, while require a
disproportionate effort of upkeep to their net worth.
On the other hand, maybe israel wants all the f-22s, while it awaits the u.s. 6th gen to be
developed (in something like 20 years ), and will leave its american colony with just the f-35.
I can see their likudite trump regime pushing that through.
"In truth, the United States has become Israel's bitch"
Yup. And under the trump regime the israelis this bitch services are the likudites, the
netanyahoos and even more bug-eyed extreme. Decent article, btw, on the israeli control of its
american colony.
' Admiral Thomas Moorer, USN was right. Also, to his dying day, he believed the attack on
LIBERTY was deliberate.'
There's also Dean Rusk, the US Secretary of State at the time:
' But I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to
disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local
commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't
believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous."'
How is it ok for a person of jewish heritage to make fun of slavs but not ok for people of
slavic heritage to make fun of jews? Cohen is now a "serious actor"with his role as the "hero"
mossad mole of the same name who inflitraited the syrian govt. (and got what he deserved for
it).
' I actually kind of feel like a sucker – we fought all our bloody wars ourselves
while somehow the devious Vietnamese and Japanese, South Koreans and Europeans, conned the
Americans to actually die for them, or be prepared to, in large numbers '
Only Aaron could transmogrify our having fought World War Two into having fought it 'for'
Japan. I'm not sure the Japanese are suitably appreciative. I mean, they're reasonably polite
about it and all, but
Anyway, Israel hasn't fought a war on her own since 1948. We've been over that.
Profiles In Courage Department. In March 2015 the visiting Izzy PM spoke before the
U.S.Congress. Of course, the speech ended with a raucous Standing Ovation in which the pols
competed with each other as to who could display the most ecstatic cheering possible. However,
jew spotters noticed one pol, Rand Paul, not clapping and cheering enthusiastically enough, and
took him to task in the kept media for displaying less than orgasmic approval of the visiting
Izzy PM. The courageous senator defended himself by loudly exclaiming to anyone who would
listen: "I have given him over 50 standing ovations".
"Nu? So what would an acceptable amount of aggression be?'
Like I said, I would be pleasantly surprised if PG's claim were true. But it is implausible
and its "source" is an un-sourced claim at a nutball website.
Less than three weeks before the U.S. presidential election, the Trump administration
appears to have discovered the dangers of foreign influence in the U.S. political system.
A State Department statement
published on Wednesday warned that, "some foreign governments, such as those of the People's
Republic of China (PRC) and the Russian Federation, seek to exert influence over U.S. foreign
policy through lobbyists, external experts, and think tanks" and urged U.S. think tanks to
disclose their sources of foreign funding.
Obviously, such disclosures would be a step in the right direction but the State
Department's decision to single out China and Russia, two countries among many that no-doubt
seek to influence the U.S. political process, is an odd way of addressing foreign influence.
The State Department lacks enforcement tools to regulate U.S. institutions (the Justice
Department and the Foreign Agent Registration Act have that purview) and Russia and China
aren't even in the top-five donors to think tanks.
"China and Russia are doing a lot right now to exert undue influence in America, and it's
important we do everything we can to counter that," Ben Freeman, Director of the Foreign
Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy, tells Responsible
Statecraft. "But, the research we've done at FITI has shown they don't do much in terms of
think tank funding. A lot of the biggest players here are U.S. allies."
Indeed, according to a report
released by Freeman's group in January, the
top five donor countries to U.S. think tanks are Norway, the United Kingdom, the United
Arab Emirates, Germany, and Sweden.
Moreover, despite Trump's campaign promise to"drain the swamp," his administration has a
remarkable track record of hiring individuals with financial ties to foreign governments and
entities, including the following notable examples:
-- Former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn acknowledged that in 2016 he conducted paid
lobbying work on behalf of Turkey's
government .
-- Former national security adviser John Bolton conducted paid speaking appearances for the
Mujahideen-e-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian exile group that seeks the overthrow of Iran's
government, and received $165,000 from the Counter Extremism Project, a group with shadowy
finances and evidence of
funding ties to the UAE and/or Saudi Arabia.
-- Elliot Broidy, the vice chairman of the 2016 Trump Victory Committee, was charged with
acting as a foreign agent on behalf of Malaysian and Chinese government interests to end a U.S.
investigation of a billion-dollar embezzlement of a Malaysian state investment fund and working
to return Chinese exile Guo Wengui to China.
-- Former acting-director of U.S. National Intelligence and former Ambassador to Germany
Richard Grenell
conducted undisclosed work for Hungary before entering the Trump administration.
-- Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani came under fire during the impeachment hearings for
all the myriad foreign clients he has had while maintaining his close personal contact with
the president.
The web of foreign money coming into the country to influence U.S. policy is as vast as it
is secretive. The Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative study mentioned above was hindered
by the fact that organizations do not have to disclose where their money is coming from. Not
surprisingly then, countries that are known to pour millions into U.S. think tanks, like Saudi
Arabia and China, did not even crack the top 20. Neither did Russia.
But FARA laws in theory are supposed to track foreign funding used for influencing the U.S.
political process. We know a little more here, like of the
billions of dollars Saudi Arabia has spent trying to fend off lawsuits from the 9/11
survivors or to burnish Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's image. That didn't seem to bother
the Trump administration, particularly in 2018 as the president was
inking a new arms deal in Washington with the prince.
Freeman points out that according to their research, the UAE, for example, "made a secret
$20 million contribution to a prominent think tank whose experts regularly opine on U.S.
foreign policy in the Middle East." He added that the wealthy Gulf state also paid another
think tank a quarter million dollars to write a report on exporting U.S. military drones.
"Spoiler alert: the report recommended the U.S. export military drones to the UAE," said
Freeman.
"These conflicts of interest that can directly influence U.S. foreign policy are exactly why
we need to have full transparency when it comes to foreign government funding of think tanks,"
he added.
Not all foreign money comes through lobbying either. Rather than paying lobbyists directly,
the Israeli government funneled over $6 million in "grants" since 2018 to Jewish, Evangelical
Christian, and other pro-Israel organizations to counter the
boycott movement in the U.S. and to promote other Israeli interests in Washington and at
the state level. This too,
could be a blatant violation of FARA , The Forward reported in August.
It is not clear why Pompeo chose this month -- two weeks before the election -- to take a
stand, though it's possible he was trying to end-run Democratic criticism about the president's
perceived soft spot on Russia, while taking the opportunity to strike out at his boss's
favorite target: China.
For sure, it is a good day any time there is a move to restrict the foreign influence in our
political system.
But over three-and-a-half years into the Trump administration's first term, and after having
embraced so many people with ties to foreign financial interests, this week's announcement
seems more like political posturing than a meaningful effort to reorient U.S. foreign policy
away from foreign political influence over U.S. foreign policy.
Freeman points to a glass half full. "The State Department took a very important step this
week to bring greater transparency to foreign funding of think tanks," Freeman noted. "It's not
a perfect fix, but it sends a very important signal to other parts of the government -- like
the Department of Justice and Congress -- which can enact more permanent solutions that
require , not just request, think tanks disclose funding they receive from foreign
governments." Written by Eli
Clifton and Kelley Beaucar VlahosShare
Copy
Print
Related Posts
The direct benefits of his first term are outweighed by the general decline in America's
global prestige and its indifference to Israel's declining democracy Share in Facebook Share in
Twitter
Send in e-mail Send in e-mail Zen Read Print article Chemi Shalev Get email
notification for articles from Chemi Shalev Follow Published at 21:18
It has become an article of faith that whatever his other shortcomings, Donald Trump is good
for Israel. Most Israelis believe that the 45th U.S. president was the best of them all, as
Benjamin Netanyahu says, and many American Jews grudgingly concur. The latest American Jewish
Committee poll found that only 22% of American Jews plan to vote for Trump but 42% believe he
will be better for Israel than Joe Biden.
Baker insists all he ever said was "Screw them, they don't vote for us," of a disagreement
with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, that was reported in far less sparing terms
-- and with different language. One can just imagine the tweets today, even the potential
cancellation, of a revered statesman. "It was a political comment," Baker told Baker and
Glasser. "Not an anti-Semetic comment, not a slur."
In the final judgement, Baker says his views on Trump are shaped largely by the need for
sound, Republican management of the economy -- and the imperative that the project of remaking
the courts be continued. Baker flirted with eventually going Biden during the former Delaware
senator's centrist triumph in the Democratic primary -- only to see the former vice president
move left during the general election. In the end, Trump's signature domestic achievement has
been a landmark tax cut. And Trump is about to install his third Supreme Court justice. In his
twilight years, Baker might not have as many friends as he once did, especially in Washington.
But for the retired man of state, the path forward -- to his critics, that of raw power --
shines brighter than ever.
It time to make him accountable at the election box. Not that it matter much as Biden is yet another neocon and Zionist, but
stil...
American people are tied of sliding standard of living, permanent wars and jingoism. Trump might share Hillary fate in 2020,
because any illusion that he is for common fold, who voted for him in 2016 now disappeared. So he is not better then neocon Biden and Biden is new bastard. So why vote for the old bastard if we have new, who might be
slightly better in the long run
This is a very expensive foreign policy, that doesn't benefit the USA. It has potential to
raise the price of oil significantly.
Notable quotes:
"... Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of campaign funds and the lobby provides those. ..."
"... I can also see this green lighting Israeli or joint American-Israeli strikes on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons development sites and other military and petro-state assets. ..."
"... It's disgusting to watch the people of the US/UK/EU go along with this. Western elites are fat, lazy, vicious, and cruel. ..."
"... Paul wrote: "Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump administration." Yes at least as much or more zionist. Nothing about Harris or Biden (or the DNC) says they won't be. ..."
"... I nominate president Eisenhower as slightly less zionist on one occasion: during the Anglo,French, Zionist Suez invasion of 1956 Eisenhower remarked after numerous UN resolutions condemning the bandit state's aggression ' Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?' ..."
"... "The EU is trying to prop up the US Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to free itself. " ..."
"... Donald Trump talked up his Iran policy in a profanity-laden tirade on Friday, telling conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh that Tehran knows the consequences of undermining the United States. ..."
"... "Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice: if you fuck around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done before." ..."
The U.S. has imposed
new sanctions on Iran which will make ANY trade with the country very difficult:
[T]he Trump administration has decided to impose yet further sanctions on the country ,
this time targeting the entirety of the Iranian financial sector. These new measures carry
biting secondary sanctions effects that cut off third parties' access to the U.S. financial
sector if they engage with Iran's financial sector.
Since the idea was first floated publicly , many have argued that sanctioning Iran's
financial sector would eviscerate what humanitarian trade has survived the heavy hand of
existing U.S. sanctions.
Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of
campaign funds and the lobby provides those. The move is also designed to preempt any
attempts by a potentially new administration to revive the nuclear agreement with Iran:
This idea appears to have first been introduced into public discourse in an
Aug. 25, 2020, Wall Street Journal article by Mark Dubowitz and Richard Goldberg urging
the Trump administration to "[b]uild an Iranian [s]anctions [w]all" to prevent any future
Biden administration from returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the
nuclear accord between Iran and the world's major powers on which President Donald Trump
reneged in May 2018.
The new sanctions will stop all trade between the 'western' countries and Iran.
The Foreign Minister of Iran responded with defiance:
Amid Covid19 pandemic, U.S. regime wants to blow up our remaining channels to pay for food
& medicine.
Iranians WILL survive this latest of cruelties.
But conspiring to starve a population is a crime against humanity. Culprits & enablers
-- who block our money -- WILL face justice.
In response Iran will continue its turn to the east. Russia, China and probably India will
keep payment channels with Iran open or will make barter deals.
The Europeans, who so far have not dared to counter U.S. sanctions on Iran, are likely to be
again shown as the feckless U.S. ass kissers they have always been. They will thereby lose out
in a market with 85 million people that has the resources to pay for their high value products.
If they stop trade of humanitarian goods with Iran they will also show that their much vaunted
'values' mean nothing.
The European Union claims that it wants to be an independent actor on the world stage. If
that is to be taken seriously this would be the moment to demonstrate it.
Posted by b on October 9, 2020 at 16:37 UTC | Permalink
Unconscionable but what is new with pompass and his ghouls; treasury dept responsible for
cranking up the sanctions program was formerly headed by a dual citizen woman who resigned
suddenly after being exposed as an Israeli citizen-not hard to understand that sentiment in
that dept has not changed.
The other aspect here is the FDD as key supporter of these severe sanctions; very virulent
anti-Iranian vipers nest of ziocons with money bags from zionist oligarch funders.
Ho-hum. As I wrote earlier, just the daily breaking of laws meaning business as usual. As
noted, Russia has really upped the diplomatic heat on EU and France/Germany in particular,
and that heat will be further merited if the response is as b predicts from their past,
deplorable, behavior.
Much talk/writing recently about our current crisis being similar in
many ways to those that led to WW1, but with the Outlaw US Empire taking Britain's role. I
expect Iran's Iraqi proxies to escalate their attacks aimed at driving out the occupiers.
IMO, we ought to contemplate the message within this Strategic Culture editorial when it comes to the hegemonic relationship between
the Outlaw US Empire and the EU/NATO and the aims of both. The EU decided not to continue
fighting against the completion of Nord Stream, but that IMO will be its last friendly act
until it severs its relations with the Outlaw US Empire. With the Wall moved to Russia's
Western borders, the Cold War will resume. That will also affect Iran.
thanks b... it is interesting what a pivotal role israel plays in all of this... and why
would there be concern that biden would be any different then trump in revoking the jcpoa? to
my way of thinking, it is just pouring more cement and sealing the fate of the usa either
way, as an empire in real decline and resorting to more of the same financial sanctions as a
possible precursor to war.. frankly i can't see a war with iran, as the usa would have to
contend with russia and china at this point... russia and china must surely know the game
plan is exactly the same for them here as well.. as for europe, canada, australia and the
other poodles - they are all hopeless on this front as i see it... lets all bow down to the
great zionist plan, lol...
Yeah but at least Trump didn't start any new wars. /s
The Eurotools in Brussels are absolutely disgusting. A weaker bunch of feckless,
milquetoast satraps is difficult to imagine. The EU perfectly embodies the 21st century
liberal ethic: spout virtue signaling nonsense about peace, freedom, human rights and the
"rules based international order" while licking the boots of Uncle Scam and the Ziofascists
and going along with their war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Russia and China need to step up their game and boldly circumvent the collective
punishment sanctions that are choking the life out of Iran, Syria and Venezuela. They still
let the rogue states of the west get away with far too much.
The Teheran men will not surrender to the yankee herds and hordes. And less so the
telavivian.
It s easy to see that in the medium run this cruelly extended crime plays in chinese, russian
and shia hands.
And they must start immediately a backlash handing hundreds of special forces and weapons
opver to the Houthi hands.
Of course there is a war on, and it has been gathering force for some time.
Iran is but one more skirmish or battle. However, Xi and Putin are using what I call the
"Papou yes". You must always say "yes" as this way you avoid direct conflict, but then you
go and do exactly what you were going to do in the first place . The person who does the
demanding - having had his/her demands "met" has nothing further to add and will go away. (I
have seen this effective technique in action).
At the moment it appears that the aim of the subversive (military/CIA/NGO) wings of the
Empire are to start as many conflicts as possible. To isolate and overextend Russia, leading
to it's collapse. (As they claim to have done before.)
The "Alternative axis" is just carrying on with it's own plan to overextend and eventually
let the US dissolve into its own morasss. The opposition are trying to follow their own plan
without giving an opening for the US/NATO to use its numerical military advantage, by not
taking the bait.
The ultimate battle is for financial control of the worlds currency, or in the case of the
US, to halt the loss of it's financial power. To avoid that The next step could be the
introduction of a Fed. owned controlled and issued "digi-dollar", When all outstanding
"dollar assets" are re-denominated into virtual misty-money which is created exclusively by
the Fed. Banks become unnecessary as the Fed becomes the only "lender" available, Congress
redundant, debts no longer matter and so on. Who cares about the reserves held by China and
overseas "investors" if their use or even existence can be dictated by the Fed?
They have already published a "trial balloon" about introducing a digi-dollar.
Iran? the US is throwing ALL its cards into what looks like it's final battle to preserve
the dollars supremacy. Why cut ALL the Iranian financial system out of their sphere of
influence? Because it (thinks) it can and by doing so cower the wavering into obeying.
Thanks 'b', very well timed. I was actually heading to the open thread with this article
until I saw your piece. This Asia Times
article focuses on three key points:
- Iran has replaced the dollar with the Yuan as its main foreign currency
"This may become the east wind for the renminbi (yuan) and provide a new oil currency option
for traders in oil-producing countries, including Iran," an editorial on qq.com said. "
- Several large banks in Iran are developing a gold encrypted digital currency called
PayMon and had issued more than 1,000 crypto-currency mining licenses, which could promote
the development of crude oil. Domestic traders use cryptocurrency to import goods and bypass
American banks.
- The Iranian-Swiss Joint Chamber of Commerce
"Switzerland had received a special exemption from US supervisory authorities to allow the
SHTA operations."
It remains to be seen how effective the Swiss Humanitarian Trade Agreement actually is.
Some say it is nothing but a US propaganda stunt. Hopefully, that is not the case.
What does Iran need that they cannot get from China and Russia? The USA has cheap corn, and
the EU has... what, cheese? Other than that I don't see why Iran needs to trade with the
empire and its more servile vassals anyway.
Strange, that ther is a jewish or Israeki ´ animosity agains Iran (or agains tthe
Medtans -- as thy are all named in all Greek records(H, that theer is a jewish animosity
against, that ther is a jewish anikisit agains Iran (or the Medtans -- as thy are old ptt in
all Greek Strenge(Hellemistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reported to have liberatet the
Jews of Babilon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON
CHRISTANO" -- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE
THE YEAR OF 1´2917! Iran (or the Medtans -- as thy are old ptt in all Greek
Strenge(Hellemistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reorted to have liberatet te´he Jews
of Babilon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON CHRISTANO"
-- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE THE YEAR OF
1´2917! ellenistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reorted to have liberatet te´he
Jews of Babylon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON
CHRISTANO" -- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE
THE YEAR OF 2017
Quite impressed with all the theories about Europe and its behavior. The answer is very
simple, Europe is occupied by a foreign power, it is a colony. And all the qualifiers are
quaint.
I disagree. What did the EU did on Iran, compared to Russia and China? It stopped most trade with Iran, including the purchase of iranian oil, and it stopped all
investment projects. INSTEX is a joke. Meanwhile Germany recently banned Hezbollah.
Yes, they did vote for the JCPOA in the UN. I look at actions rather than words though,
and EU has imposed de facto sanctions on Iran.
Moreover, German FM Maas told Israel recently that efforts are underway to keep the Iran
arms embargo. (He is also a big "Russia fan" - sarc off)
In other words, we "support" the JCPOA, but in practice with arms and trade embargoes on
Iran continuing.
Yeah right.
Posted by: powerandpeople | Oct 9 2020 20:15 utc | 24
No, its not so simple, unless you claim that european russophobia started with the US and
did not exist before it. Guy Mettan has a good book on it. It is a thousand years old issue,
involving Catholicism, France, Germany, Sweden, Britain, and others.
Yes, the US wants to divide the EU and Russia. But the EU itself is rotten from
within.
Politics are more important than the economy, German Chancellor Merkel said in relation to
Russia.
"Drang nach Osten" - "Drive to the East".
Germany dreams of capturing Eastern Europe and using is as some sort of colonised labor
pool similar to what Latin America is for the US.
And this is why the EU, without any prodding, eagerly took the lead in the attempt of
colour revolution in Belarus, where it played far bigger role than the US.
Signing and adhearing to the JCPOA turned Europe and Iran from opponents into partners.
This is a great diplomatic achievement. However, no part of the JCPOA made the two allies or
obliged the European side to wage an economic war with the USA on behalf of Iran. On the
contrary, the Iranians would be the first to say they are no friends of Europa. They have
been complaining about "Western meddling" in their region for years. (Note that they don`t
differentiate but always speak collectively of "the West").
So that`s their chance to show the world how much of a sovereign nation they are and that
they can handle their problems without the "meddling" of the "despicable" Europeans. There is
no obligation - neither legal nor moral - for Europe to take the side of Iran in the US-Iran
conflict.
And actually it is both sides - both Iran and the USA - who are unhappy with the current
European neutrality.
Thanks to MoA for being one of the only honest brokers of news on Iran in the English
language. As an American citizen living abroad (in EU) I have a more jaded and at the same
time worried feeling about this.
Along with all the other stuff, including the current threat to close the U.S. embassy in
the Iraqi "Green Zone" and the accompanying military maneuvers, which would spark war in the
region, I see this hardening and expansion of sanctions as yet the next clue that the U.S.
and Donald Trump's regime are looking toward re-election and a hot war with/on Iran. Rattling
the cage ever more and backing Iran into the corner with brutal, all-encompassing sanctions
is already an act of war, usually the first prior to bombs falling. I can also see this green lighting Israeli or joint American-Israeli strikes on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons
development sites and other military and petro-state assets.
I hope I'm wrong but we've all seen this before and it never ends well. If the EU shows a
spine, or more likely Russia and/or China step in directly, perhaps the long desired
neocon/neolib/Zionist hot war against Iran can be avoided.
I think it is very important for the US to kill another 500,000 children via sanctions, in
order to demonstrate the importance of freedom and democracy and observing international law.
While reading this post I was thinking what MoA wrote in the last two paragraphs. And also
that Iran will just continue to turn to China, Russia, and others in the East.
It's disgusting to watch the people of the US/UK/EU go along with this. Western elites are
fat, lazy, vicious, and cruel.
"Europeans can not be helped. Ironically, it is their own rejection of their WW2 past that
causes them to reject the multipolar world and sovereignty as "primitive things from the
past"
plus, as you point out elsewhere, there are longer histories at play: the Crusades against
the Slavs, the Moors and the Turks (and the Arabs, in fact), the invention of "western
civilization" in the 19th century (Arians vs Semites, Europe vs Asia, ecc) ...
plus, there is the persisting aspiration for world domination, partly frustrated by WW1
and the upheavals of the XXth century, which transformed the UK and the whole of Europe (with
Japan, Australia, etc) in a junior partner of the new US Empire
(that's the other lesson learned from WW2: no single european power could dominate the
continent and the world, but they could dominate as junior partners under the new young
leader of the wolf pack, the US)
plus, there are is a class war that can be better fought, by national oligarchies, within
globalist rethoric and rules
plus, there are the US deep state instruments of domination over european national
states
but Europeans (and Usaians) do understand the language of force, and they have - at the
moment - encountered a wall in their attempts at expansion, in Iran, China, Russia,
Venezuela, ecc; an alternative multipolar alliance is taking shape
so they might attempt to win a nuclear war by 20 million deaths to 2 (or 200 to 20, who
cares), but they might also decide to tune down their ambitions and return to reality;
maybe
@m (#35)
EU promised to uphold JCPOA. They can't because of the US and they are doing next to nothing
to change that. EU isn't neutral. They are stooges. Iran is right to complain about it, the
US isn't.
Trump is a man of peace, he hasn't started any new wars - whatever that means, lol.
As far as
I know economic blocade is tantamount to war. If he wins reelection expect renewed kinetic
attacks on venezuela and Iran. He's already lined up his zionist coalition with arabic
satraps to launch his Iran quagmire. Trump is a deal maker, he understands the economy and
will bring back manufacturing jobs to Murikkka, lol. I'm sure Boeing execs in deep trouble
would love to sell plane to the Iranians but Mr. MIGA just made that impossible. Nothing to
worry about, there's always the next socialist bailout for Boeing funded by taxpayers -
suckers as Trump would call them. So much for winning, can't fix deplorable and stupid...
Btw b, Trump's opposition to the Iran deal has nothing to do with money or the zionist
lobby. Stable genius opposed JCPOA in 2015 even before announcing his run for the presidency.
It's not about the mula but all about the mollah's, lol: The Donald in his own words at a tea
party event in 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIDNonMDSo8
Ever since the Iranian revolution of 1979 multiple US regimes in DC have been totally
successful in making majority Iranian people everywhere in the world, understand that the US
is their chronic strategic enemy for decades to come. At same time, these US regimes have
equally been as successful in making American people believe Iran is their enemy.
The difference between this two side's belief is, that, Iranian people by experiencing US
regime' conducts have come to their belief, but the American people' belief was made by their
own regime' propaganda machinery. For this reason, just like the people to people relation
between the US and Russian people, Before and after the fall of USSR the relation between US
and Iran in next few generations will not come to or even develop to anything substantial or
meaningful. One can see this same trajectory in US Chinese relations, or US Cuban. Noticeably
all these countries relation with US become terminally irreparable after their revolutions,
regardless of the maturity or termination of the revolution. As much as US loves color
revolutions, US hates real revolutions. The animosity no longer is just strategic it has
become people to people, and the reason and blame goes to Americans since they never were
ready to accept the revolutions that made nations self-servient to their interests. The
bottom line truth is the US / and her poodles in europe know, ever since the revolution Iran
no longer will be subservient to US interests.
This is leverage to bargain away the oil pipeline to germany. That is what is behind it. You
scratch my back, the US is saying to the EU, in particular, Germany....
It's an
Economy based on Plunder! , so that's why sanctions here, there and everywhere!! But the
real problem is we aren't participating in the Plunder!! Sometimes you gotta use extreme
sarcasm to explain the truth of a situation, and that's what Max and Stacey do in their show
at the link. 13 minutes of honest reporting about the fraudulent world in which we live. As
for Jerome Powell, current Fed Chair, he's complicit in the ongoing criminal activity just as
much as the high ranking politicos. Bastiat laid it out 180 years ago, but we're living what
he described now. And that's all part of what I wrote @40 above. The moral breakdown occurred
long ago but took time to perfect.
I think it is crazy that EU allows US to manage SWIFT to the point they invent new entities
to sidestep SWIFT and US sanctions (which are weak and ineffective, but that is the
trajectory of their weak attempts at independence). Force SWIFT to equally service all legal
transactions according to EU law, and let US cut itself off from all international financial
transfers if it doesn't like using EU's SWIFT. US corps won't allow that to happen, it's just
that EU refuses to call US bluff. Of course they are now praying for Biden presidency, but if
they can't assert themselves it is all ultimately the same thing.
These 'foreign policy experts' think the trade war with China has been a mistake. But they
think Trump is too soft on Russia and he hasn't been tough enough on NK, Iran and Venezuela.
It has become a standard trick for outgoing US administrations to saddle the incoming
administration with set in stone policies and judicial appointments.
"Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of
campaign funds and the lobby provides those. The move is also designed to preempt any
attempts by a potentially new administration to revive the nuclear agreement with Iran."
Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump
administration.
The danger for the world is the Trump administration may go even further than additional
sanctions. So I refer to the previous post, US policy remains the same whatever bunch are the
frontmen.
When that attempt failed they worked on convincing the Sultan of Turkey to give them
someone else's homeland. The Zionist Zealot Mr Kalvariski became the administrator of the
Palestine Jewish Colonization Association with the aim of establishing a jewish suprematist
ghetto. Following that flop the Zionists turned to the hapless British and were rewarded by
Balfour with his notorious British government double cross of the Arabs. Now it's the turn of
the US and assorted captive nations to uphold and support tyranny and Talmudic
violence.
I am SLOWLY coming to the conclusion that DaTrumpster understands DaDeepState better than any
of us armchair pundits. His patient - and yes, perhaps faulty strategy - he's still standing
after ALL DaCrap that's been thrown at him.
All the 'EXPURTS' - including MoA - can only see part of DaPicture at best.
I've been as hard on DaTrumpster as anyone on DaConservative side - but I am SLOWLY coming to
understand WTF just might be going on.
Point - don't be too sure of your immediate inclinations - we ALL see through DaGlass DARKLY!
SWIFT is only a messaging system – SWIFT does not hold any funds or securities, nor
does it manage client accounts. Behind most international money and security transfers is the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) system. SWIFT is a vast
messaging network used by banks and other financial institutions to quickly, accurately, and
securely send and receive information, such as money transfer instructions.
Paul wrote:
"Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump
administration." Yes at least as much or more zionist. Nothing about Harris or Biden (or the DNC) says they won't be.
And hasn't it always been that way from one president to the the next? Was there ever one
that was less zionist than the predecessor? (Maybe they're all so close this is an impossible
question to answer, that too could be the case).
The sitting executive branch gives the favors right now and anyone incoming gives the
favors after they win and thus each election becomes a double windfall for the lobby
group?
A zionist double dip . Maybe most US voters could grasp it like that.
I can't back this up (much like my previous comment in this thread) but it's my
impression. It would probably take a lot of work to make sure it's right; one would have to
scrutinize so much over so many decades.
I nominate president Eisenhower as slightly less zionist on one occasion: during the
Anglo,French, Zionist Suez invasion of 1956 Eisenhower remarked after numerous UN resolutions
condemning the bandit state's aggression ' Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign
territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its
withdrawal?'
This could be a useful quote for todays world.
Later, in 1964, Eisenhower approved his hand picked emissary's US $150 million so called
Johnston Plan to steal the waters of the Jordan River and further marginalize the Palestine
Arabs and surrounding Arab states.
Sanctions aren't the story. Once all the players have left the JCPOA, either Israel or the US
can claim Iranians are at the point of producing a nuclear weapon. Without the JCPOA and
inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities it will be impossible to prove or deny the
allegations. Thus giving either the US or Israel justification it wants to conduct military
strikes against Iran. The only things stopping this from happening is if the EU stays in the
JCPOA...
Exactly the aim. I said so in an earlier post. This is all part of the program to create a
false justification to conduct military strikes inside Iran. At this point, I'm really
surprised that the U.S. even tries to construct these narratives after Obama's Syria and
Libya operations didn't even really bother, save for a few probably fake "chemical weapons"
attack they alleged Assad committed. Libya I don't remember hearing anything. The embassy
maybe? After the Soleimani strike and the shootdown of the U.S. drone, not to mention the
alleged Iranian attacks on ARAMCO's oil facilities, I'm really quite surprised something more
serious (not to minimize the awful acts of war which the sanctions definitely are) hasn't
already happened. It will soon, especially if Trump gets re-elected. Wonder what all of his
"no new wars" supporters will say then?
Everybody reading knows what SWIFT is. That's a nice attempt to circumscribe the overall
sanctions regime and paint it as "no big deal."
Crush Limpbro - Checked out your site. You've got a long way to go before you can
criticize MoA. Hope that comment draws a few clicks to keep you going, but I would caution
other barflies to use a proxy; could be a honey trap to collect IP addresses.
This United States imposed and Zionist inspired siege on Iran and its people will only
further strengthen the political and economic bonds with Russia and China. Meanwhile, the US
collapses from its internal social limitations and its abandonment of public healthcare
responses to the Corvid 19 pandemic. Europe it close behind the US in this respect.
What exactly is this 'Justification'.. . 'to conduct military strikes against Iran' that
you refer to hasbara boy? Failure to obey foreign imposed zionist diktats?
Would this 'justification' apply to the bandit state if it refused to abide by the NNPT
for example?
No double standards pass the test here.
Yet another proof that "Western values" and their "rules based international order" mean
exactly nothing.
In the past, the West at least kept up some pretense that it was wrong to target unarmed
civilians (still, they flattened Driesden; Hiroshima; North Korea, Vietnam, Laos). Today,
they do not care to be seen openly, cruelly, brutally, sadistically killing civvies. These
American bastards say, "... it is not killing if the victims drop dead later, like, not right
now. " Or, "... it became necessary to destroy Iran in order to save Iran."
Iran is perfectly correct to call this a crime against humanity for the West to starve a
population of food and medicine. This will boomerang just as the opium-pushing in China will
boomerang on the West.
Meanwhile, just as those drug-pushing English bastards earned themselves lordships and
knighthoods; just as presidential bastards retire to their Martha Vineyard mansions; so the
current crop of bastards in American leadership will retire to yet more mansions, leaving the
next couple generations to meet Persian wrath. The American way is to "win" until they are
tired of winning, no?
But in truth, in objective reality, only those who have lost their human-ness are capable
of crimes against humanity.
The US is cruising for a bruising in the middle east fucking with Iran like this. Not that the US hasn't deserved a good knockout punch the past 19 years since invading and
destroying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, etc. Regardless of their rhetoric, how the European rogues and rascals (France, Germany and the
UK) can sleep at night is beyond me.
Yes Psychochistorian @ 1, At the nation state level, EU support for blockade terror and
sanction torture (BT&ST), against reluctant nation states and non compliant individuals
within those nation states, logically suggests EU nation states are not independent sovereign
countries <=EU nation states exist in name only? Maybe its just like in the USA, these
private monopoly powered Oligarcks (PMPO), own everything (privately owned copyrights,
patents, and property) made possible by rules nation states turn into law. The citizens of
those privately owned EU nation states are victims <=in condition=exploitable. Maybe PMPOs
use nation states <=as profit support weapons, to be directed against <=any and all
<=competition, whereever and however <=competition appears.
The hidden suspects <=capital market linked crowds through out the world..
Media is 92% owned by six private individuals, of the seven typical nation state layers of
authority and power: 5 are private and two are public. Additionally, few in the international
organizations have allegiance to historic cultures of the nation state governed masses. It is
as if, the named nation states are <=threatened by knee breaking thugs, but maybe its not
threat, its actual PMPO ownership.
If one accepts PMPO <=to be in control of all of USA and all of allied nation state,
one can explain <=current BT&ST events. But private Oligarch scenarios <=raise
obvious questions, why have not the PMPO challenged East eliminated <=Israel, MSM
propaganda repeatedly blames or points to Israel <=to excuse the USA leaders for their
BT&ST policies. Seems the PMPO are <=using the nation states, they own <=to
eliminate non complying competition.
What is holding the East back? Russia and China each have sufficient oil, gas and
technology to keep things functional, so why has not the competition in the East taken Israel
out, if Israel is directing the USA to apply BT&ST against its competitors? Why is the
white House so sure, its BT&ST policies will not end up destroying Israel? Maybe because
Israel has no real interest <=in the BT&ST policy <=Israel is deceptions:fall guy?
The world needs to pin the tail on the party driving USA application of BT&ST because no
visible net gain to Governed Americans seems possible from BT&ST policies?
I think Passer @ 17 has hit the nail on its head. "The EU is trying to prop up the US
Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to free itself. "
Sanctions aren't the story. Once all the players have left the JCPOA, either Israel or the
US can claim Iranians are at the point of producing a nuclear weapon.
So you put that forward as a justification for attacking Iran militarily, but that means
according to your logic you also have justification for attacking Israel or the US
militarily. The rules are the same for all, right?
Economic warfare is certainly effective. However, time is running out for these weapons as
America's lock on the world economy grows weaker. With a rapidly approaching expiry date, the
word out may be to use em or lose em.
In a zero-sum great game, it makes sense to deploy such weapons now insofar as an
opponent's loss is always a gain for oneself.
Donald Trump talked up his Iran policy in a profanity-laden tirade on Friday, telling
conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh that Tehran knows the consequences of undermining the
United States.
"Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice: if you fuck around with us, if you do
something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done
before."
What a shit show we are seeing. What is the next phase of this civilization war that is not
a war because there are not enough dead bodies for some I guess?...but it sure looks like
war to me.
Well for the first time in history Iran's symbolic "Red Flag" is still flying above the
popular Jamkaran Mosque Holy dome. Perhaps the USA and its running dogs body count has risen
in Iraq and Afghanistan? How would we know. These things are disguised from the fearless
press in those countries ;)
Perhaps the dead and mangled are many but we do know that the US chief killer in
Afghanistan was reduced to ashes immediately following General Shahid Qassem Suleimanis
murder by the USA whilst on a diplomatic mission in Iraq.
In respect of b's observation above, the illegal occupier of Palestine is more likely
tipping millions into the Harris Presidency as well as the possible Trump Presidency. I doubt
either Harris or the biden bait and switch stooge would restore the JCPOA. Besides they would
not be invited to sit at the table any time soon IMO. They would likely refuse to any
conditions of reversing the sanctions and then carry on about all that 'unreasonable demands
by a terrorist state' stuff etc etc.
No, Iran will be getting on with its future in a multilateral world where the United
Nations has been reduced to pile of chicken dung by the USA while most other nations go along
with global lunacy.
You know what's telling about the bootlickers who hem and haw about U.S. policy with the T
Administration, but never mention Trump as the real source of it even when profuse Zionist
shit spills from his mouth on Limbaugh's show proving he's a Ziofascist pig?
What's telling is that these usual suspects jumped all over ARI @64 for zeroing in on
Trump's precise intentions with Iran but they gave a pass to the real HASBARIST in the room,
Crush Limbraw @60, exposing himself, putting his HARD-ON FOR TRUMP on full display.
@60 we ALL see through DaGlass DARKLY!
Speak for yourself- you Zionist MORON!
Ahhhhhh, you can always count on the DUPLICITY of MOA'S weathervane james and friends. Me,
I ain't here to win a popularity contest like weathervane; I'm here to kick ass when I
witness duplicity in action. My friend here is the truth that I'll defend to the grave.
********
Noooo, dum-dums Putin will not come to Iran's rescue when he's warm in bed with his
Zionist Oligarchs and Russian squatters whom he pays homage to from time to time when he
visits Ziolandia thanking them for choosing the stolen West Bank over Russia.
Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice. That's Trump blowhard
driving the drumbeat.
Just rescue me from my self-destructive self for 4 more years, oh kings of Zion and
Wall Street, and I'll give you WAR!!! all in CAPS with three exclamation points. The GREATEST
war you've ever seen.
When I read the Great Reset article on the World Economic Forum website it seems to me that
the western Globalists, in concert align the US and EU. That accounts for the basic vassal
arrangements that predominate but allow for some nonalignments on certain issues.
That is precisely what the Belarusian authorities announced when Tikhanovskaya left Minsk,
that she was helped in her way out, but we know how the MSM acts, they stick to their own
script, just like a Hollywood movie.
The Belarusians must be watching with great attention what is happening in Kirguizia,
riots and complete chaos, and thinking how lucky they were to avoid the color rev that was in
the menu for them, which the same methods, discredit the oncoming election, claim fraud after
it, use similar symbols like the clenched fist and the heart, new flag, start transliterating
family and geographical names to a mythical and spoken by a very small minority language and
then nobody knows if to spell Tikhanovskaya, Tsikhanouskaya or like the politically incorrect
but street wise Luka called her, Guaidikha. And that is Kirguizia, how about a shooting war
in Armenia and Azerbaijan, all those conflicts were unimaginable when the USSR existed, but
the empire even on his way down is insatiable.
There is over a million jews of Russian origin living in Israel, 20% of the population,
with deep roots in Russia, language, culture and relatives. Do not let partisanship for the
Dems blind you, a true successful leader is someone that defends his country's interests
while at the same time tries to have good relations with everybody else, obviously that
balance is not easy to achieve in a world full of conflicting interests, but so far Putin
seems to be balancing his act while not loosing sight of the main thing, Russia.
Putin will not come to Iran's rescue when he's warm in bed with his Zionist
Oligarchs
If Putin is so close to Zionists, then why does Russia block the Zionist regime-change in
Syria? Why has Russia denied Israel and USA entreaties to allow them to bomb Iran?
Not as strange as a mythological demigoddess that turned sailors into swain and that now
enjoys to plunge into the mud with her creatures. A bot, what an easy label, it has lost any
meaning.
special beings who was born with two extra eyes...in the back of my head.
Alaska yellow fin sole, not bad, from Bristol Bay, but the Melva -a tunafish species with
more oil in its meat- I cooked for lunch, just caught, has a lot more fish oil with its rich
contents of vitamin D, add sunny Mediterranean weather and that is my pill for today, trying
to keep the bug at bay.
Circe, why don't you do what your namesake would have done and whip yourself up some meds to
calm down? You're starting to lapse into excessive use of upper case, italics, exclamation
points, bolding, profanity, and of course, insults.
This may help. It looks like the orange man is in fact going down, so you will soon have
Joe and Kamal empowered to dismantle the evil Putin-Netanyahu-Trump axis, and put the US back
on the path to truth and justice.
The unilateral and illegal-under-JCPOA sanctions mean it's time for EU to either confront the
extraterritorial US policy it has clearly rejected in principle, or (more likely) acknowlege
that it remains in practice just a collection of 'client states'. A sad moment for me, but
useful for clarity.
Hard to understand but you guys are incapable of spelling the name of a once great US
city, San Francisco. I heard it has changed a lot, got to see long time ago, before the
digital craze.
This is a brief but subtle post by b, with quiet but telling headline. Perhaps, just
guessing, a new take on the post he was having difficulty with earlier? The question of the
EU is an interesting one - not to be considered as virulent as the former Soviet Union, but
somehow as tugged at by the components thereof...
Sanctions on Iran? We do know what Iran is capable of; surely we have not forgotten?
Indeed, by pressing these sanctions at this late date, the Trump administration surely has
not forgotten either the effect sanctions had on Russia. They were postive to that country's
independent survival, though the immediate effect was demonstrably harsh. So now, sanctions
on Iran? One doesn't have to be a world leader to suppose similar cause, similar effect.
Ah, Paco has a wonderful meal of a beneficial fish called the Melva! Bravo, Paco; all is
not lost! But you have hooked the sea-serpent as well -- take care! That one - carefully
remove the hook and set it free ;)
<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
Not very surprising to be honest, some people simply cannot go without regime change
to the point where they have to parade people about who weren't even born in Iran and who
have little to no support in the country as "dissidents" to try to guilt people into
supporting intervention. Of course with that comes slander against those who warn against
that, which unfortunately means TAC.
Trump ignored them??? Hardly. He hired John Bolton as his national security advisor,
and Rudy Giuliani is his personal attorney. Both of those guys are heavily tied to this
organization and advocate its line. And while he did stop short of actually invading
Iran, he was on the brink of doing so recently, talked out of it only at the last minute.
I'll give him credit for not going all the way with them, but he's given them far too
wide a berth and much too much influence in his foreign policy if you ask me.
He did not go all the way with them because he was told by the military and others,
who take their jobs and missions to server the American people seriously, that his
attacks on Iran - invasion was not "the table" at all - would face a humiliating defeat
at the same level of what happened to his efforts to extend the weapons sanctions at the
UNSC. Pompeo was sent home with his tail between his legs.
The idea that Trump would have invaded if allowed doesn't pass the smell test. He
spent much of the 2016 railing against regime change and foreign wars. His recent
instincts on this topic have been largely correct.
Trump did not want more war, and wanted to end the existing wars, that much is clear.
At the same time as he believes the Israeli line about Iran. But he did not want war with
Iran - he knows they would mine the Strait of Hormuz shut, and the U.S. economy would go
into a depression along with the world economy. No president would survive that.
But, he has had to appease top donor *Sheldon Adelson, in order to prevent a GOP
revolt in the Congress. The threat was always that they'd join the Democrats in
impeaching him, that Mike Pence would call for the same, and people would leave his
cabinet. So he caved by sanctioning Iran and destroying the lives of millions of people.
And he had to appease Israel by taking Syria's oil fields via the Marxist Kurd
mercenaries, and let them burn the wheat fields. But he did not start a war, and did not
want a war.
Lets be honest here. It isn't MEK disinformation tactics it is the tactics
of the US wrapped up and packaged as MEK. Just as Falon Gong is backed
by the CIA. MEK is a bunch of backwards ass hats with terrorist
tendencies. They are not some national level intelligence agency. This
is most likely crud made up by the US intelligence agencies sold as MEK
and pushed on the American people to convince them that Iran will be
dropping nuclear weapons on their house any minute now if they can stop
eating babies long enough, so they need to push their government to go
to WAR!!!!! with Iran and kill some Muslims. The gullibility of the
American people is why there will never be a time when they are not at
war.
Possibly, but the MEK does have an online presence and such. But of course, it is all
with Washington's money, and Washington's assistance.
For those who don't know: The MEK is a Marxist-Islamist group that initially supported
the Revolution, but turned against Ayatollah Khomeini as they didn't get to share power.
Because no one liked them. And Marxists were not allowed in revolutionary Iran - the MEK
was chased out along with the Soviet-installed communist party in northern Iran.
The MEK have been killing Iranian police, bureaucrats and local administrators.
This is their "revolution". They kill people mainly with bombs. The present Ayatollah's
left arm is withered after one of their bomb attacks.
The MEK have been killing Iranian physics professors and technicians. They kill
them with car bombs in traffic - a motorbike with two killers drive up to a car by a
traffic stop and attach a bomb with magnets. Of course, you can wonder where they got the
bombs, and money and transport. This is classic Mossad strategy. Likewise, dozens of
technicians and professors in Iraq have been murdered. Israel hopes for a
counter-reaction which the U.S. can exploit.
Rest assured, the political opposition in Iran hates the Marxist-Islamist MEK as much
as the government does. Which Washington and Israel don't acknowledge.
The MEK was housed by Saddam Hussein in an old military base. They had to leave Iraq
eventually after the overthrow of Hussein. The U.S. then shipped them to a brand new
training base in Albania. Crazy as it might seem. Albania's government is of course
as eager to be a paid Washington agent as the Kurds are.
Absurdly, this explicitly terrorist group has been taken off the terror list by
Washington. While Iran is called "terrorist" for helping Hezbollah, who formed to fight
back when Israel invaded Lebanon and massacred Shia villagers in the south with
artillery, because they lived close to the Palestinian refugee camps. And then kept
fighting when Israel occupied part of southern Lebanon, Shia land, as a "buffer zone" for
many years.
The MEK killed thousands of people, including Americans. But the Lobby always gets
what it wants.
The MEK was founded in 1965 by three Islamic leftists with the goal of toppling the
U.S.-supported regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
In the 1970s it undertook a campaign of assassinating U.S. advisers and bombing
U.S. corporations in Iran. It supported the 1979 Revolution in Iran, but in 1981 it
turned its guns against the Tehran government and began a campaign of assassinations and
terrorist operations that resulted in the death of thousands of Iranians, including the
executions of its own supporters by government officials, soldiers, police officers, and
ordinary people.
It then moved its headquarters to Iraq, made a pact with the regime of Saddam
Hussein, which was fighting a ferocious war with Iran. The MEK spied on Iranian troops
for Iraq, attacked Iran at the end of Iran-Iraq war with Hussein's support, and helped
Hussein put down the uprisings by the Iraqi Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south
after the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91.
The MEK is despised by the vast majority of Iranians for what they consider to be
treason committed against their homeland.
"As a matter of journalistic ethics any organization engaging in systematic dishonesty
like this has provided a very good reason to blacklist them. ...This is not a matter of
foreign policy differences: if you wish to see the U.S. pursue regime change in Iran, the
MEK does not help make that case. Any publishers or think tanks who are aware of this
dishonesty and still treat them like a legitimate opposition group should be considered
part of a campaign not wholly different from the last time we were lied into a Mideast
war."
If MEK does NOT help to make the case for regime change in Iran - & outside
sponsored regime change is not ethical - then it would be unethical not to support them,
in order to help prevent unethical regime change. Although that's probably not what
horrible Hillary had in mind when, as Sec. of State in 2012, she de-listed them from the
U.S. official list of terrorist organizations. But if anyone will lie "us" into a war
with Iran, it will be AIPAC & innumerable other dishonest zionist organizations
working on behalf of the Jewish terror state, & it's new Saudi terror state partner;
both of whom look with favor on MEK as a bit partner in their joint effort to take out
the government of Iran. MEK is pretty small potatoes compared to The Lobby, who are
waging another campaign not wholly different from the last time they pushed us into a
M.E. war to benefit lying israel.
People tell you - You are a conservative, so do I. I support XYZ thus you should also
support them.
Before the 2003 Iraqi War, Many then Bush administration officials and self-anointed
"conservative opinion leaders" went on TV to lie to people to support their war. Today,
we still suffer the consequence but they are preaching to us other wars.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
In no way should the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War be excused, nor
should "conservative opinion leaders" be let off the hook, but the Congress was
complicit, the Senate was complicit, the military was complicit, the intelligence
community was complicit, and the majority of the electorate was complicit. Nobody
cared whether the reason for the war was valid, people just wanted to vent their
frustrations against terrorists on an unrelated Arab country that the US had already used
as a whipping boy. What could happen?
Almost twenty years later and-- surprise! surprise!-- suddenly everyone recognizes the
war for the folly it was. Some people, like Dreher, seem to have genuinely changed their
stance based on what happened subsequently. But we'll all see what happens the next time
the war mongers-- from both sides of the aisle and from all over the country-- start
rattling their sabers.
Then there are the appeasers and anti-war peace-niks that would rather surrender than
fight for liberty or that (if they are willing to fight) will on risk OTHER PEOPLE's
(other American) lives, thus removing the need to ever put themselves at risk of learning
what actually goes in in the countries they are so sympathetic to.
The complete idiocy regarding Vietnam is the anti-war rhetoric surrounding. But has
laid the framework for installing fear into anyone who doesn't tow the ridiculousness of
what is argued by protesters -- which in every way has nearly every argument
backwards.
Since the aggressors in Vietnam were the communists of four countries, it is very safe
to say that those opposed to defending an independent S. Vietnam were in fact appeasing
communist aggression and that is accurate.
The nation of Vietnam has rarely known peace and the lines during the conflict
generally mark the region that separated the country's territorial history. The South
Vietnamese sound reason to seek defend their territorial and political independence and
we had sound reason to defend the same.
It was during that era that the liberal foundations showed their true colors. And if
one doubt it --- just look at the anti-Vietnam advocates -- the managers of the Iraq and
Afghanistan missteps and p[perhaps even worse their willingness to destroy the lives of
anyone who challenged their rational based on the very case they made -- which was
unsupportable.
There are some issues which simply are not really issues,
1. the lives of black people in the country and how they were/are socialized and the
consequence
2.what the civil war was really about
3.Mexican invasion of US territory to retake territory they lost to band of squatters
(lousy immigration enforcement) a war that is now taking place via our failure to enforce
border protection.)
"Since the aggressors in Vietnam were the communists of four countries, it is very
safe to say that those opposed to defending an independent S. Vietnam were in fact
appeasing communist aggression and that is accurate."
It's safe to say that BS like this is not hard to come by in the right wing nutjobs'
circles. No Vietnamese had/has ever attempted to attack, invade, kill and spray Agent
Orange anywhere in the US. So how come they became the aggressors?!
Viet Nam became truly independent AFTER expelling the American military.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee --
that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.
You've got to understand the nature of the regime we're dealing with. This is a man who
has delayed, denied, deceived the world." George W. Bush, September 17, 2002
Bless you for writing this but you are spitting into the wind. There are too many
people who want to believe this. The IRaq war analogy is apt. You have govt in exile
types like MEK (remember Chalabi) who have a vested interest in lying to us. You have the
hyper-pro Israel crowd and the newly accepted pro-Saudi crowd w/money to burn. I actually
expect and don't begrudge foreigners for trying to get the U.S. into their fights. I
resent the MSM that is simply in love with U.S. military conflicts who accuse people who
oppose them of being anti-American, conspiracy theorists.
The most laughable example was CNN accepting the notion that Iran has a massive cyber
presence in influencing our elections because our Intel Agencies told them so. Iran is
detested by the U.S. public as we steal civilian cargo from them that would make the
lives of people in other countries better. We sell the stolen goods for our benefit and
call them terrorists for their trouble. To suggest that they have sway over us is
laughable yet this passes for journalism.
Iran will be the next Iraq. If there is a God it will be the rock that breaks us. If
not then a crime of shocking proportions.
I largely agree but I think there's room for optimism, the US military particular the
army is largely a broken instrument, morale is not good except for the contractors,
General maintenance is down in favor of expensive toys that largely do not work. For all
of the bluster of this generation of sociopaths the military in general is a shadow of
itself not to mention we live in times of a rising China and the reemergence Russia,
neither of which would allow in on opposed attack on Iran.
How so? Our government seems to be providing the Saudi's with with as many bombs as
they need, Air Force retirees to fly in the backseatair of Saudi planes, we have slowed
down on the transfer of Thermo nuclear Technology as well as I assume the the delivery
systems for them true but that was likely just a temporary Flash of Conscience it'll
probably never happen again for that individual but if there something I'm missing please
do tell.
Look at it this way. Either the Saudi/UAE themselves have to deal militarily with
Iran, or the US. The US military-industrial complex is for selling weapons to these
client states whole-heartedly for obvious reasons. The Saudi/UAE has always expected and
often demanded the US is the one to "cut the snake's head" as "king" Abdullah of the
"Saudi" Arabia demanded frequently. These states know very well neither the "version" of
the weaponry they buy from the West is capable of performing in a real war with a
powerful enemy like Iran, nor are their personnel capable of operating them effectively.
So what they say to the US is, OK we'll buy your junk, but you need to do the job. In
other words, they want to fight Iran to the last AMERICAN soldier. The Pentagon wants
none of that. But happy to run the cash register. I hope I made my point clear.
MEK have no support in Iran. If a MEK member would walk down the street there the
people would tear them to shreds. When they started killing Iranians and cooperating with
Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war they committed political suicide.
You know, this really doesn't carry much weight. I am not going to dismiss the
complaints of a group because the majority don't support them. That is not a case for
regime change. I don't see a case for that as yet. But I don't buy this nonsense about
Iran land of peace ----
They were instrumental in destabilizing any peace in Iraq and remain so. Their Islamic
revolution has not passed and their ambitions are not as benign as as many including
Iranians like to pretend.
What does that have to do with anything that I said? If you want to come to power you
need the support of the people MEK don't have that so they will never gain power. Also
MEK are responsible for the revolution in the first place, they are the ones that carried
out bombing and assassinations even of Americans in Iran. They are the ones that attacked
the US embassy in Iran and held Americans hostage. There is a reason they were on the US
terror list until 2012. As far as Iran being the land of peace not sure where you got
that from, Iran has never claimed that and infact Iran will conduct foreign policy that
benefits its goals, which is true of any nation. You should try to stay on topic when you
reply to somebody though.
Yes, as you know the Iranians attacked, invaded and looted Iraq's oil and cultural
heritage. Had in not been for the US "rescue mission" Iranian would still be there. You
must be tone deaf.
Thump the conspiracy theories and emphasize the hard-line approach with no idea or
intent to actually go through with anything should he actually win. I see reference to
Q-anon and I immediately think Trumpian conspieracy.
Conservatives are easy to target, they are prepared to believe all sorts of nonsense.
Qanon aside they are prepared to believe that tax cuts pay for themselves and you can
lose weight on a vinegar and ice cream diet.
As opposed to the people who believe that a man can become a "real woman" just by
saying so, and nod approvingly when CNN shows the chyron "Mostly peaceful protests
continue" over footage of burning buildings.
Really, that's pretty damn funny like you retards don't believe in a bunch of
conspiracy nonsense and by the way don't put down Q is good fun to the geriatric
Community on the other hand you clowns are playing footsie with actual Nazis in Ukraine
while you accuse the right of being fascist that's beautiful congratulations it's going
to be great in a couple years when this country has seceded from each other and all of
you non-producers get to sort it out for yourselves, it's going to be magic.
Fake dissident groups. Wow! Not even the Chinese are this duplicitous. And people
whine and complain about Russian and Chinese 'infiltration' and 'meddling' ??
Which fale dissident groups? I missed that. I am not being sarcastic. I see people who
have been named as fake contributors all over the place. But I didn't see a reference to
a fake dissident group.
I'm still looking for the proof one way or the other of who the "good guys" are
here.
Fake this, fake that I can get from Trump every time he opens his mouth about "fake
news".
What I don't get from Trump (or from this article) is any references, documentation,
or solid proof of any kind other than accusations and counter-accusations -- one side I'm
supposed to believe because the author said so.
I'm not buying it without objective proof and trustworthy corroboration -- not just
more sock-puppets.
They are being dissed by many smart conservatives and others, because they have become
a tool of Saudi/Israel. They practically spearheaded killing Americans during the Shah,
and now they are enjoying American political and financial support. In that vein the
adage, my enemy's enemy is my friend, does not apply here. But if you are a money hungry
Giuliani, Kennedy, Bolton or Howard Dean being a gang of killers, Saddam Husein
mercenaries, and Saudi/Israeli agents don't matter.
"We are especially on guard when it comes to unsolicited foreign policy
commentary.""
So one would hope, but foreign meddling is rife. At least the Washington Examiner
makes an effort, whereas the Washington Free Beacon functions almost openly as an Israeli
organ inside the United States.
Ehem...The Israelis have admitted they essentially founded, financed and thoroughly
and continuously infiltrated the Palestinian revolutionary group, HAMAS to counter the
PLO achieve the ongoing ethnic destruction of Palestinian land freedom and society...the
MEK and their front group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran are comparable
Israeli emanations whose ultimate goal is the land grab from the Nile to the Euphrates
known as the Greater Israel project. This is Israeli history text book material, it is
not conjecture...Read what former Israeli officials such as Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev,
former Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s. had to say the New York
Times in that he had helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a
"counterweight" to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation
Organization and the Fatah party, led by Yasser Arafat (who himself referred to Hamas as
"a creature of Israel.") "The Israeli government gave me a budget," the retired
brigadier
general confessed, "and the military government gives to the mosques." Moreover, "Hamas,
to my great regret, is Israel's creation," said Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious
affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades to the Wall Street Journal
in 2009. Deliberately planned, as far back as the mid-1980s, according to Cohen in an
official report to his superiors playing the divide-and-rule in the Occupied Territories,
by backing Palestinian Islamists against Palestinian secularists, HAMAS was built up to
become an "existential threat" fake tool of nuclear mighty Israel. In his report Cohen
wrote, "I suggest focusing our efforts on finding ways to break up this monster before
this reality jumps in our face," he wrote. That was the point exactly, poor victimized
Israel "endowed with the right to defend itself". With Palestine now Kushnerized into
oblivion, Iran is next ...Go figure...
Hmmm
Means, motive, opportunity and who benefits spells out in no uncertain terms that the
entire create a justification and then go to war with Iran originates in Israel and is
being sold by the Zionists and Israel's literal army of jewish/Zionist/pro-Israel agents
masquerading as "lobbyists", "activists", "think tanks" "academics", the Media,
Hollywood, Congress, most of the White House Staff, etc., etc., here in the US. In other
words, by an Israeli controlled army in America made up of traitors, liars and
criminals.... A group who collectively ALWAYS put Israel Uber Alles.
@Realist
d on him and tried to remove him from office. This is actually the greatest political scandal
in American history, yet nothing will be done about it. The magic negro will never face any
consequences and he and his ugly wife will remain free to race bait for another 30 years
unimpeded.
Trump and the GOP allowed the covid hoax to wreck the economy and allowed massive riots to
go on for many months. They allow the left to run wild while whites live under
anarcho-tyranny.
If Trump wins, which is likely, he will just go right back to blabbing about how much he
loves blacks and mexicans and gays and you will never hear another word about white
people.
@restless94110
p> Obama fired many upper level military and replaced them with leftist cucks.
Besides Trump not getting rid of people he should have gotten rid of, he hired a shitload
of scum, neocons, Goldman alums, etc., people who were obviously not going to promote his
America First agenda.
From the looks of it he never intended to make good on any of his promises.
And as Ann Coulter says, immigration is really the only thing that matters. Trump didn't
deport the 30 million illegals that don't belong here. He didn't do anything about birthright
citizenship, E-verify, etc.
We still face the very same demographic disaster as before.
I don't think anyone was actually trying to remove him from office (they could've added
his war crimes and violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to the
impeachment charges if they were serious about removing him). Most likely it's all
political theater to fool the people who need and/or want to be fooled.
This is a charade designed by the Deep State to distract any thought that both
parties are just two sides to the Deep State coin.
@Robert
Dolan did get rid of some military, he clearly didn't get rid of the right people.
You seem to think it's easy. It's not obviously.
I like Ann, but she is hysterical. Yet that is ok in a journalist/editorialist. Her
function is to keep pushing. And she is doing that.
But Trump is moving at his own speed based on his own instincts. Meaning it might be
faster for some, slower for others. Coulter is not able to understand that. But she does not
have to. I still read her. And then I analyze her as a person in fear that the wall won't be
built.
Looks to me like Ann is wrong. It's just not happening quickly enough for her.
It took balls for Carlson to have Anya Parampil on his show last night. He has had her on
before, so he knows what she is like she tells it like it is. He will get shit for that.
I don't think he agrees with everything she said but agrees with some of it.
"... In reality, the part left out of the story is that the phone call to Kislyak on December 22, 2016, was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd . ..."
"... The phone call made at the request of Israel was neither benign nor ethical as the Barack Administration was still in power and managing the nation's foreign policy. At the time, son-in-law Jared Kushner was Trump's point man on the Middle East. He and his family have extensive ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu's staying at the Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance. All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with the incoming Trumpsters, look no further. ..."
"... And it should be observed that the Israelis were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express their views to the incoming Trump. Kushner went far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of foreign policy as he was actively trying to clandestinely subvert and reverse a decision made by his own legally constituted government. His closeness to Netanyahu made him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli government agent of influence, even if he didn't quite see himself that way. ..."
"... Kushner's actions, as well as those of Flynn, would most certainly have been covered by the Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the United States and also could be construed as a "conspiracy against the United States." But in spite of all that the investigation went after Flynn instead of Kushner. As Kushner is Jewish and certainly could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis , that part of the story obviously makes many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it was and continues to be both ignored and expunged from the record as quickly as possible. ..."
There are two stories that seem to have been under-reported in the past couple of weeks. The
first involves Michael Flynn's dealings with the Russian United Nations Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak. And the second describes yet another bit of espionage conducted by a foreign country
directed against the United States. Both stories involve the State of Israel.
The bigger story is, of course, the dismissal by Attorney General William Barr of the
criminal charges against former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn based on
malfeasance by the FBI investigators. The curious aspect of the story as it is being related by
the mainstream media is that it repeatedly refers to Flynn as having unauthorized contacts with
the Russian Ambassador and then having lied about it. The implication is that there was
something decidedly shady about Flynn talking to the Russians and that the Russians were up to
something.
In reality, the part left out of the story is that the phone call to Kislyak on December 22,
2016, was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating
was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy,
meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass
without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each
delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution.
Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not
agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23
rd .
In taking the phone calls from a soon-to-be senior American official who would within weeks
be part of a new administration in Washington, the Russians did nothing wrong, but the media is
acting like there was some kind of Kremlin conspiracy seeking to undermine U.S. democracy. It
would not be inappropriate to have some conversations with an incoming government team and
Kislyak also did nothing that might be regarded as particularly responsive to Team Trump
overtures since he voted contrary to Flynn's request.
The phone call made at the request of Israel was neither benign nor ethical as the Barack
Administration was still in power and managing the nation's foreign policy. At the time,
son-in-law Jared Kushner was Trump's point man on the Middle East. He and his family have
extensive
ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu's staying at the
Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's
illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared
has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the
relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance.
All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with
the incoming Trumpsters, look no further.
And it should be observed that the Israelis
were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express
their views to the incoming Trump. Kushner went far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of
foreign policy as he was actively trying to clandestinely subvert and reverse a decision made
by his own legally constituted government. His closeness to Netanyahu made him, in intelligence
terms, a quite likely Israeli government agent of influence, even if he didn't quite see
himself that way.
Kushner's actions, as well as those of Flynn, would most certainly have been covered by the
Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on
behalf of the United States and also could be construed as a "conspiracy against the United
States." But in spite of all that the investigation went after Flynn instead of Kushner. As
Kushner is Jewish and certainly could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis , that part
of the story obviously makes many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it was
and continues to be both ignored and expunged from the record as quickly as possible.
The
second story , which has basically been made to disappear, relates to spying by Israel
against critics in the United States. The revelation that Israel was again using its
telecommunications skills to spy on foreigners came from an Oakland California federal court
lawsuit initiated by Facebook (FB) against the Israeli surveillance technology company NSO
Group. FB claimed that NSO has been using servers located in the United States to infect with
spyware hundreds of smartphones being used by attorneys, journalists, human rights activists,
critics of Israel and even of government officials. NSO allegedly used WhatsApp, a messaging
app owned by FB, to hack into the phones and install malware that would enable the company to
monitor what was going on with the devices. It did so by employing networks of remote servers
located in California to enter the accounts.
NSO has inevitably claimed that they do indeed provide spyware, but that it is sold to
clients who themselves operate it with the "advice and technical support to assist customers in
setting up" but it also promotes its products as being "used to stop terrorism, curb violent
crime, and save lives." It also asserts that its software cannot be used against U.S. phone
numbers.
Facebook, which did its own extensive research into NSO activity, alleges that NSO rented a
Los Angeles-based server from a U.S. company called QuadraNet that it then used to launch 720
hacks on smartphones and other devices. It further claims in the court filing that the company
reverse-engineering WhatsApp, using an program that it developed to access WhatsApp's servers
and deploy "its spyware against approximately 1,400 targets" before " covertly transmit[ting]
malicious code through WhatsApp servers and inject[ing]" spyware into telephones without the
knowledge of the owners."
The filing goes on to assert that the "Defendants had no authority to access WhatsApp's
servers with an imposter program, manipulate network settings, and commandeer the servers to
attack WhatsApp users. That invasion of WhatsApp's servers and users' devices constitutes
unlawful computer hacking."
NSO, which is largely staffed by former (sic) Israeli intelligence officers, had previously
been in the news for its proprietary spyware known as Pegasus, which "can gather information
about a mobile phone's location, access its camera, microphone and internal hard drive, and
covertly record emails, phone calls and text messages." Pegasus was reportedly used in the
killing of Saudi dissident journalist Adnan Kashoggi in Istanbul last year and it has more
recently been suggested as a resource for tracking coronavirus distance violators. Outside
experts have accused the company of selling its technology and expertise to countries that have
used it to spy on dissidents, journalists and other critics.
Israel routinely exploits the access provided by its telecommunications industry to spy on
the host countries where those companies operate. The companies themselves report regularly
back to Mossad contacts and the technology they provide routinely has a "backdoor" for secretly
accessing the information accessible through the software. In fact, Israel conducts espionage
and influence operations both directly and through proxies against the United States more
aggressively than any other "friendly" country, which once upon a time included being able to
tap into the "secure" White House phones used by Bill Clinton to speak with Monica
Lewinsky.
Last September, it was revealed that the placement of technical surveillance devices by
Israel in Washington D.C. was clearly intended to target cellphone communications to and from
the Trump White House. As the president frequently chats with top aides and friends on
non-secure phones, the operation sought to pick up conversations involving Trump with the
expectation that the security-averse president would say things off the record that might be
considered top secret.
A Politicoreport
detailed how "miniature surveillance devices" referred to as "Stingrays" were used to imitate
regular cell phone towers to fool phones being used nearby into providing information on their
locations and identities. According to the article, the devices are referred to by technicians
as "international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture
the contents of calls and data use."
Over one year ago, government security agencies discovered the electronic footprints that
indicated the presence of the surveillance devices near the White House. Forensic analysis
involved dismantling the devices to let them "tell you a little about their history, where the
parts and pieces come from, how old are they, who had access to them, and that will help get
you to what the origins are." One source observed afterwards that "It was pretty clear that the
Israelis were responsible."
So two significant stories currently making the rounds have been bowdlerized and disappeared
to make the Israeli role in manipulating and spying against the United States go away. They are
only two of many stories framed by a Zionist dominated media to control the narrative in a way
favorable to the Jewish state. One would think that having a president of the United States who
is the most pro-Israel ever, which is saying a great deal in and of itself, would be enough,
but unfortunately when dealing with folks like Benjamin Netanyahu there can never be any
restraint when dealing with the "useful idiots" in Washington.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .
"... The explicit reference to Jerusalem appears later in the same document , in the context of communication between Stone and his unnamed contact in the Israeli capital. "On or about August 12, 2016, [NAME REDACTED] messaged STONE, "Roger, hello from Jerusalem. Any progress? He is going to be defeated unless we intervene. We have critical intell. The key is in your hands! Back in the US next week. How is your Pneumonia? Thank you. STONE replied, "I am well. Matters complicated. Pondering. R" The "he" is an apparent reference to Trump. ..."
"... Referring to the Israeli mentions in a report on the documents late Tuesday, the US website Politico noted: "The newly revealed messages often raise more questions than answers. They show Stone in touch with seemingly high-ranking Israeli officials attempting to arrange meetings with Trump during the heat of the 2016 campaign." ..."
"... Of course, this story is seen as a positive development from the Israeli (and evangelical) perspective because a Trump presidency was an essential part fulfilling an aggressive Zionist "wish list" which included moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, annexing the Golan Heights and the West Bank, and perhaps a major move against Iran in the second term. ..."
"... This story also explains why the jewish-controlled press saturated the airwaves with fake stories of "Russian" intervention in the election -- and why we will be seeing similar non-stop stories of "Chinese" intervention in the upcoming 2020 election in November. ..."
"... And Netanyahu hasn't wasted a second of Trump's presidency in expanding Israel's power, territory and influence. As one Jewish media pundit claimed , Donald Trump has been " the greatest president for Jews and for Israel in the history of the world." Trump has even bragged that he is so popular among Israelis that they would elect him Prime Minister if he ran. ..."
According to recently released FBI documents, Donald Trump's longtime confidant, Roger
Stone, who was convicted last year in Robert Mueller's investigation into ties between Russia
and the Trump campaign, was in contact with one or more apparently well-connected Israelis at
the height of the 2016 US presidential campaign, one of whom warned Stone that Trump was "going
to be defeated"
unless Israel intervened in the election :
The exchange between Stone and this Jerusalem-based contact appears in FBI documents made
public on Tuesday. The documents -- FBI affidavits submitted to obtain search warrants in the
criminal investigation into Stone -- were released following a court case brought by The
Associated Press and other media organizations.
A longtime adviser to Trump, Stone officially worked on the 2016 presidential campaign
until August 2015, when he said he left and Trump said he was fired. However he continued to
communicate with the campaign, according to Mueller's investigation.
The FBI material, which is heavily redacted, includes one explicit reference to Israel and
one to Jerusalem, and a series of references to a minister, a cabinet minister, a "minister
without portfolio in the cabinet dealing with issues concerning defense and foreign affairs,"
the PM, and the Prime Minister . In all these references the names and countries of the
minister and prime minister are redacted.
Benjamin Netanyahu was Israel's prime minister in 2016 , and the Israeli government
included a minister without portfolio, Tzachi Hanegbi, appointed in May with responsibility
for defense and foreign affairs. One reference to the unnamed PM in the material reads as
follows:
"On or about June 28, 2016, [NAME REDACTED] messaged STONE, "RETURNING TO DC AFTER
URGENT CONSULTATIONS WITH PM IN ROME. MUST MEET WITH YOU WED. EVE AND WITH DJ TRUMP THURSDAY
IN NYC."
Netanyahu made a state visit to Italy at the end of June 2016 .
The explicit reference to Israel appears early in the text of a May 2018 affidavit by an
FBI agent in support of an application for a search warrant, and relates to communication
between Stone and Jerome Corsi, an American author, commentator and conspiracy theorist. " On
August 20, 2016, CORSI told STONE that they needed to meet with [NAME REDACTED] to determine
"what if anything Israel plans to do in Oct," the affidavit states .
The explicit reference to Jerusalem appears later in the same document , in the context of
communication between Stone and his unnamed contact in the Israeli capital. "On or about
August 12, 2016, [NAME REDACTED] messaged STONE, "Roger, hello from Jerusalem. Any progress?
He is going to be defeated unless we intervene. We have critical intell. The key is in your
hands! Back in the US next week. How is your Pneumonia? Thank you. STONE replied, "I am well.
Matters complicated. Pondering. R" The "he" is an apparent reference to Trump.
The redacted material features numerous references to an "October surprise," apparently
relating to a document dump by Wikileaks' Julian Assange, intended to harm Hillary Clinton's
presidential campaign and salvage Trump's .
Referring to the Israeli mentions in a report on the documents late Tuesday, the US
website Politico noted: "The newly revealed messages often raise more questions than answers.
They show Stone in touch with seemingly high-ranking Israeli officials attempting to arrange
meetings with Trump during the heat of the 2016 campaign."
Mueller's investigation identified significant contact during the 2016 campaign between
Trump associates and Russians, but did not allege a criminal conspiracy to tip the outcome of
the presidential election.
This story first appeared last month, at the height of the COVID-19 plandemic, which
conveniently and not coincidentally allowed all the mainstream media in America to ignore
it.
Of course, this story is seen as a positive development from the Israeli (and evangelical)
perspective because a Trump presidency was an essential part fulfilling an aggressive Zionist
"wish list" which included moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, annexing the Golan Heights and
the West Bank, and perhaps a major move against Iran in the second term.
This story also explains why the jewish-controlled press saturated the airwaves with fake
stories of "Russian" intervention in the election -- and why we will be seeing similar non-stop
stories of "Chinese" intervention in the upcoming 2020 election in November.
We can only guess what further information about Israel's involvement in the election was
redacted from this FBI document, but there can be little doubt that the orders to help Trump
win came from the very top -- from Netanyahu himself.
And Netanyahu hasn't wasted a second of Trump's presidency in expanding Israel's power,
territory and influence. As one Jewish
media pundit claimed , Donald Trump has been " the greatest president for Jews and for
Israel in the history of the world." Trump has even bragged that he is so popular among Israelis that
they would elect him Prime Minister if he ran.
And even if the brain-dead American public found out about this Israeli intervention (i.e.,
"subversion of our democracy"), they would probably just shrug it off -- after all, Israel is
our "most trusted friend and ally,"
goyim .
"... A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ..."
"... "the right to plunder anything one can get their hands on" ..."
"... "the UK and France in March 2011 which led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi" ..."
n 1996 a task force, led by Richard Perle, produced a policy document titled A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm for Benjamin Netanyahu, who was then in his
first term as Prime Minister of Israel, as a how-to manual on approaching regime change in the
Middle East and for the destruction of the Oslo Accords.
The "Clean Break" policy document outlined these goals:
Ending Yasser Arafat's and the
Palestinian Authority's political influence, by blaming them for acts of Palestinian terrorism
Inducing the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Launching war against
Syria after Saddam's regime is disposed of. Followed by military action against Iran, Saudi
Arabia, and Egypt.
"Clean Break" was also in direct opposition to the Oslo Accords, to which Netanyahu was very
much itching to obliterate. The Oslo II Accord was signed just the year before, on September
28th 1995, in Taba, Egypt.
During the Oslo Accord peace process, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu accused Rabin's
government of being "removed from Jewish tradition and Jewish values." Rallies organised by the
Likud and other right-wing fundamentalist groups featured depictions of Rabin in a Nazi SS
uniform or in the crosshairs of a gun.
In July 1995, Netanyahu went so far as to lead a mock funeral procession for Rabin,
featuring a coffin and hangman's noose.
The Oslo Accords was the initiation of a process which was to lead to a peace treaty based
on the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and at fulfilling the "right of
the Palestinian people to self-determination." If such a peace treaty were to occur, with the
United States backing, it would have prevented much of the mayhem that has occurred since.
However, the central person to ensuring this process, Yitzak Rabin, was assassinated just a
month and a half after the signing of the Oslo II Accord, on November 4th, 1995. Netanyahu
became prime minister of Israel seven months later. "Clean Break" was produced the following
year.
On November 6th, 2000 in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin,
who was the chief negotiator of the Oslo peace accords, warned those Israelis who argued that
it was impossible to make peace with the Palestinians:
Zionism was founded in order to save Jews from persecution and anti-Semitism, and not in
order to offer them a Jewish Sparta or – God forbid – a new Massada."
On Oct. 5, 2003, for the first time in 30 years, Israel launched bombing raids against
Syria, targeting a purported "Palestinian terrorist camp" inside Syrian territory. Washington
stood by and did nothing to prevent further escalation.
"Clean Break" was officially launched in March 2003 with the war against Iraq, under the
pretence of "The War on Terror". The real agenda was a western-backed list of regime changes in
the Middle East to fit the plans of the United Kingdom, the U.S. and Israel.
However, the affair is much more complicated than that with each player holding their own
"idea" of what the "plan" is. Before we can fully appreciate such a scope, we must first
understand what was Sykes-Picot and how did it shape today's world mayhem.
Arabian
Nights
WWI was to officially start July 28th 1914, almost immediately following the Balkan wars
(1912-1913) which had greatly weakened the Ottoman Empire.
Never one to miss an opportunity when smelling fresh blood, the British were very keen on
acquiring what they saw as strategic territories for the taking under the justification of
being in war-time, which in the language of geopolitics translates to "the right to plunder
anything one can get their hands on" .
The brilliance of Britain's plan to garner these new territories was not to fight the
Ottoman Empire directly but rather, to invoke an internal rebellion from within. These Arab
territories would be encouraged by Britain to rebel for their independence from the Ottoman
Empire and that Britain would support them in this cause.
These Arab territories were thus led to believe that they were fighting for their own
freedom when, in fact, they were fighting for British and secondarily French colonial
interests.
In order for all Arab leaders to sign on to the idea of rebelling against the Ottoman
Sultan, there needed to be a viable leader that was Arab, for they certainly would not agree to
rebel at the behest of Britain.
Lord Kitchener, the butcher of Sudan, was to be at the helm of this operation as Britain's
Minister of War. Kitchener's choice for Arab leadership was the scion of the Hashemite dynasty,
Hussein ibn Ali, known as the Sherif of Mecca who ruled the region of Hejaz under the Ottoman
Sultan.
Hardinge of the British India Office disagreed with this choice and wanted Wahhabite
Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud instead, however, Lord Kitchener overruled this stating that their
intelligence revealed that more Arabs would follow Hussein.
Since the Young Turk Revolution which seized power of the Ottoman government in 1908,
Hussein was very aware that his dynasty was in no way guaranteed and thus he was open to
Britain's invitation to crown him King of the Arab kingdom.
Kitchener wrote to one of Hussein's sons, Abdallah, as reassurance of Britain's support:
If the Arab nation assist England in this war that has been forced upon us by Turkey,
England will guarantee that no internal intervention take place in Arabia, and will give
Arabs every assistance against foreign aggression."
Sir Henry McMahon who was the British High Commissioner to Egypt, would have several
correspondences with Sherif Hussein between July 1915 to March 1916 to convince Hussein to
lead the rebellion for the "independence" of the Arab states.
However, in a private letter to India's Viceroy Charles Hardinge sent on December 4th, 1915,
McMahon expressed a rather different view of what the future of Arabia would be, contrary to
what he had led Sherif Hussein to believe:
[I do not take] the idea of a future strong united independent Arab State too seriously
the conditions of Arabia do not and will not for a very long time to come, lend themselves to
such a thing."
Such a view meant that Arabia would be subject to Britain's heavy-handed "advising" in all
its affairs, whether it sought it or not.
In the meantime, Sherif Hussein was receiving dispatches issued by the British Cairo office
to the effect that the Arabs of Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia (Iraq) would be given
independence guaranteed by Britain, if they rose up against the Ottoman Empire.
The French were understandably suspicious of Britain's plans for these Arab territories. The
French viewed Palestine, Lebanon and Syria as intrinsically belonging to France, based on
French conquests during the Crusades and their "protection" of the Catholic populations in the
region.
Hussein was adamant that Beirut and Aleppo were to be given independence and completely
rejected French presence in Arabia. Britain was also not content to give the French all the
concessions they demanded as their "intrinsic" colonial rights.
Enter Sykes and Picot.
... ... ...
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s violent confrontations between Jews and Arabs took place in
Palestine costing hundreds of lives. In 1936 a major Arab revolt occurred over 7 months, until
diplomatic efforts involving other Arab countries led to a ceasefire.
In 1937, a British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by William Peel concluded that
Palestine had two distinct societies with irreconcilable political demands, thus making it
necessary to partition the land.
The Arab Higher Committee refused Peel's "prescription" and the revolt broke out again. This
time, Britain responded with a devastatingly heavy hand. Roughly 5,000 Arabs were killed by the
British armed forces and police. Following the riots, the British mandate government dissolved
the Arab Higher Committee and declared it an illegal body.
In response to the revolt, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939, which
stated that Palestine should be a bi-national state, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews.
Due to the international unpopularity of the mandate including within Britain itself, it was
organised such that the United Nations would take responsibility for the British initiative and
adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29th, 1947.
Britain would announce its termination of its Mandate for Palestine on May 15th, 1948 after
the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14th, 1948.
A New Strategy for
Securing Whose Realm?
Despite what its title would have you believe, "Clean Break" is neither a "new strategy" nor
meant for "securing" anything. It is also not the brainchild of fanatical neo-conservatives:
Dick Cheney and Richard Perle, nor even that of crazed end-of-days fundamentalist Benjamin
Netanyahu, but rather has the very distinct and lingering odour of the British Empire.
"Clean Break" is a continuation of Britain's geopolitical game, and just as it used France
during the Sykes-Picot days it is using the United States and Israel.
The role Israel has found itself playing in the Middle East could not exist if it were not
for over 30 years of direct British occupation in Palestine and its direct responsibility for
the construction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which set a course for destruction and
endless war in this region long before Israel ever existed.
It was also Britain who officially launched operation "Clean Break" by directly and
fraudulently instigating an illegal war against Iraq to which the
Chilcot Inquiry, aka Iraq Inquiry , released 7 years later, attests to.
This was done by the dubious
reporting by British Intelligence setting the pretext for the U.S.' ultimate invasion into
Iraq based off of fraudulent and forged evidence provided by GCHQ, unleashing the "War on
Terror", aka "Clean Break" outline for regime change in the Middle East.
In addition, the Libyan invasion in 2011 was also found to be unlawfully instigated by
Britain.
In a report
published by the British Foreign Affairs Committee in September 2016, it was concluded that
it was "the UK and France in March 2011 which led the international community to support an
intervention in Libya to protect civilians from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi" .
The report concluded that the Libyan intervention was based on false pretence provided by
British Intelligence and recklessly promoted by the British government.
If this were not enough, British Intelligence has also been caught behind the orchestrations
of
Russia-Gate and the Skripal affair .
Therefore, though the U.S. and Israeli military have done a good job at stealing the show,
and though they certainly believe themselves to be the head of the show, the reality is that
this age of empire is distinctly British and anyone who plays into this game will ultimately be
playing for said interests, whether they are aware of it or not.
Zionism was founded in order to save Jews from persecution and anti-Semitism
Ever heard of Dumbo? He's a flying elephant.
The crusade in the ME will continue, with Israel the top dog until America's military
support is no longer there. Even without the Israeli eastern european invaders, the area is
primed for perpetual tribal warfare because the masses are driven by tribalist doctrines and
warped metaphysics dictated by insane and inhumane parasites (priests). It is the epicenter
of a spiritual plague that has infected most of the planet.
paul ,
There is complete continuity between the activities of Zionist controlled western countries
and those of the present day.
In the 1930s, there were about 300,000 adult Palestinian males. Over 10% were killed,
imprisoned and tortured or driven into exile. 100,000 British troops were sent to Palestine
to destroy completely Palestinian political and military organisations. Wingate set up the
Jew terror gangs who were given free rein to murder, rape and burn, in preparation for the
complete ethnic cleansing of the country.
We see the same ruthless, genocidal brutality on an even greater scale in the present day,
serving exactly the same interests. Nothing has ever come of trying to negotiate with the
Zionists and their western stooges – just further disasters. It is only resolute and
uncompromising resistance that has ever achieved anything. Hezbollah kicking their Zionist
arses out of Lebanon in 2000 and keeping them out in 2006. Had they not done so, Lebanon
would still be under Zionist occupation and covered with their filthy illegal
settlements.
They have never stopped and they never will. The objective is to create a vast Zionist
empire comprising the whole of Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, and parts of Egypt,
Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. This plan has never changed and it never will. The Zionist
thieves will shortly steal what little is left of Palestine. But the thieving will not end
there. It will just move on to neighbouring countries.
The prime reason they have been able to get away with this is not their control of British
and US golems. It is by playing the old, dirty colonial games of divide and rule, with the
Quisling stooge dictators serving their interests. They have always been able to set Sunni
against Shia, and different factions against others. The dumb Arabs fall for it every time.
Their latest intrigues are directed at the destruction of Iran, the next victim on their
target list after Iraq, Libya and Syria. And the Quisling dictators of Saudi Arabia are
openly agitating for this and offering to pay for all of it. Syria sent troops to join the US
invasion of Iraq in 1991, though Iraqi troops fought and died in Syria in 1973 against
Israel. Egypt allows Israel to use its airspace to carry out the genocidal terror bombing of
Gaza.
All this is contemptible enough and fits into racist stereotypes of Arabs as stupid,
irrational, corrupt, easily bought, violent and treacherous. This of course does not apply to
the populations of those countries, but it is a legitimate assessment of their Quisling
dictators, with a (very) few honourable exceptions.
Seamus Padraig ,
Of course, Arab rulers who don't tow the Zionist line generally get overthrown,
don't they? And that usually requires the efforts/intervention of FUKUS, doesn't it? So you
can't really pretend that 'Arab stupidity' is the main factor.
Richard Le Sarc ,
The fact that, as the Yesha Council of Rabbis and Torah Sages declared in 2006, as Israel was
bombing Lebanon 'back to the Stone Age', under Talmudic Judaism, killing civilians is not
just permissible, but a mitzvah, or good deed, explains Zionist behaviour. Other doctrines
allow an entire 'city' eg Gaza, to be devastated for the 'crimes' of a few, and children,
even babies, to be killed if they would grow up to 'oppose the Jews'. Dare mention these
FACTS, seen everyday in Israeli barbarity, and the 'antisemitism' slurs flow, as ever.
Julia ,
" is that this age of empire is distinctly British"
.it takes some balls to make such an absurd statement and still expect to be taken
seriously. The US of course with its 800 military bases around the world and gifts of 40
billion a year to Israel has no opinion on the future of the Middle East. You would have us
believe that they are just humble onlookers, as a small bankrupt country tells them what to
do. We are being told that the CIA, the most formidable spy agency and manipulator of
countries in history, sits quietly by as the British and Israel tells the US what to do.
Absurd isn't it., Clearly the truth is that Israel is just another military base for the US
in the Middle East, easily the most important geopolitical region in the world. They fund it,
arm it, and protect it from all attacks, Israel does as it is told by the US for the most
part despite the pantomime on the surface.
Many on the far right like to hide US interests behind a wall of antisemitism that likes to
paint 'the jews' as an all powerful enemy but this is just cover for Israel's real
geopolitical roll as a US puppet.
Time and time again all we are seeing is attempt to write the US, the largest empire in the
history out of the news and out of the history books, like it is some invisible benign force
that has not interests, no control and does noting to forward it's interests and it's
empire.
''To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to
criticise."
I don't know about you, but I'm not 10 years old and I know I am looking at Empire and
it's power being flexed every day in every part do the world, especial in the parts of the
world that it funds with trillions of dollars.
Julia ,
" is that this age of empire is distinctly British"
.it takes some balls to make such an absurd statement and still expect to be taken
seriously. The US of course with its 800 military bases around the world and gifts of 40
billion a year to Israel has no opinion on the future of the Middle East. You would have us
believe that they are just humble onlookers, as a small bankrupt country tells them what to
do. We are being told that the CIA, the most formidable spy agency and manipulator of
countries in history, sits quietly by as the British and Israel tells the US what to do.
Absurd isn't it., Clearly the truth is that Israel is just another military base for the US
in the Middle East, easily the most important geopolitical region in the world. They fund it,
arm it, and protect it from all attacks, Israel does as it is told by the US for the most
part despite the pantomime on the surface.
Many on the far right like to hide US interests behind a wall of antisemitism that likes to
paint 'the jews' as an all powerful enemy but this is just cover for Israel's real
geopolitical roll as a US puppet.
Time and time again all we are seeing is attempt to write the US, the largest empire in the
history out of the news and out of the history books, like it is some invisible benign force
that has not interests, no control and does noting to forward it's interests and it's
empire.
''To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to
criticise."
I don't know about you, but I'm not 10 years old and I know I am looking at Empire and
it's power being flexed every day in every part do the world, especial in the parts of the
world that it funds with trillions of dollars.
Richard Le Sarc ,
The antithesis of the truth. It is US politicians who flock to AIPAC's meeting every year to
pledge UNDYING fealty to Israel, not Israeli politicians pledging loyalty to the USA. It is
Israeli and dual loyalty Jewish oligarchs funding BOTH US parties, it is US politicians
throwing themselves to the ground in adulation when Bibi the war criminal addresses the
Congress with undisguised contempt, not Israeli politicians groveling to the USA. The
master-servant relationship is undisguised.
Pyewacket ,
In Daniel Yergin's The Prize, a history of the Oil industry, he provides another interesting
angle to explain British interest in the region. He states that at that time, Churchill
realised that a fighting Navy powered by Coal, was not nearly as good or efficient as one
using Oil as a fuel, and that securing supplies of the stuff was the best way forward to
protect the Empire.
BigB ,
Yergin would be right. The precursor of the First World War was a technological arms race and
accelerated 'scientific' perfection of arsenals – particularly naval – in the
service of imperialism. British and German imperialism. The full story involves the Berlin to
Cairo railway and the resource grab that went with it. I'm a bit sketchy on the details now:
but Churchill had a prominent role, rising to First Lord of the Admiralty.
Docherty and Macgregor have exposed the hidden history. F W Engdahl has written about WW1
being the first oil war.
In 1996 a task force, led by Richard Perle, produced a policy document titled A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm for Benjamin Netanyahu
No source link for this!
By the way 1996 was during the Clinton administration. Warren Christopher was secretary of
state and John Deutch was the Director of Central Intelligence . George Tenet was appointed
the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence in July 1995. After John Deutch's abrupt
resignation in December 1996, Tenet served as acting director.
Antsie, what are you going to deny next? The USS Liberty? Deir Yassin? The Lavon Affair?
Sabra, Shatilla? Qana (twice)? The Five Celebrating Israelis on 9/11?Does not impress.
Looks like Mueller barked to the wrong tree... And that was not accidental
Notable quotes:
"... The back story that's really significant here is that Mueller redacted evidence of Israeli interference in the U.S. election, and the Russiagate! scandal was a cover for that and other third-country meddling. Most of us here knew that a couple years ago ..."
Previously sealed FBI documents indicate close contacts between Israel and the Trump
campaign and that the Mueller investigation found evidence of Israeli involvement, but
largely redacted it.
Menifee, CA (IAK) -- Newly released FBI documents suggest that Israeli government
officials were in contact with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and offered "critical
intel."
In one of the extensively redacted documents, an official who appears to be an Israeli
minister warns that Trump was "going to be defeated unless we intervene." He goes on to tell
a Trump campaign official: "The key is in your hands."
The previously classified documents were released in response to a lawsuit brought by the
Associated Press, CNN, the New York Times, Politico, and the Washington Post. The unsealed
documents suggest that rather than Russia, it was Israel that covertly interfered in the
election.
While all these media companies except one seem to have ignored the apparent Israeli
connection revealed in the FBI documents, Israeli media have been quick to jump on it.
Israel's i24 News reports:
Newly released documents from the FBI suggest that Roger Stone, a senior aide in the 2016
Trump campaign, had one or more high-ranking contacts in the Israeli government willing to
help the then-Republican Party nominee win the presidential election."
Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper reports:
Tantalizing hints" of "alleged clandestine contacts came to light in recent publication of
redacted FBI documents."
The Times of Israel (TOI) the first to report on this, states:
The FBI material, which is heavily redacted, includes one explicit reference to Israel and
one to Jerusalem, and a series of references to a minister, a cabinet minister, a minister
without portfolio in the cabinet dealing with issues concerning defense and foreign affairs,'
the PM, and the Prime Minister."
TOI points out: "Benjamin Netanyahu was Israel's prime minister in 2016," and reports
circumstantial evidence that the "PM" mentioned in the document refers to Netanyahu:
One reference to the unnamed PM in the material reads as follows: 'On or about June 28,
2016, [NAME REDACTED] messaged STONE, "RETURNING TO DC AFTER URGENT CONSULTATIONS WITH PM IN
ROME.MUST MEET WITH YOU WED. EVE AND WITH DJ TRUMP THURSDAY IN NYC.' Netanyahu made a state
visit to Italy at the end of June 2016."
TOI also notes that "the Israeli government included a minister without portfolio, Tzachi
Hanegbi, appointed in May with responsibility for defense and foreign affairs."
Ha'aretz also names Hanebi as the likely contact, and confirms that he "was in the United
States on the dates mentioned, attending, among other things, a roll out of the first Israeli
F-35 jet at a Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas."
The previously classified FBI affidavit says: "On or about August 12, 2016, [name
redacted] messaged STONE, "Roger, hello from Jerusalem. Any progress? He is going to be
defeated unless we intervene. We have critical intell. The key is in your hands! Back in the
US next week."
Another section of the affidavit states: "On August 20, 2016, CORSI told STONE that they
needed to meet with [name redacted] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct." (Corsi refers to Jerome Corsi, a pro-Israel commentator and author known for extremist
statements.)
Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of President Trump who worked on the 2016 campaign, was
convicted last year in the Robert Mueller investigation into alleged collusion between Russia
and the Trump campaign.
Stone has denied wrongdoing, consistently criticizing the accusations against him as
politically motivated. Numerous analysts have found the "Russiagate" theory unconvincing, and
the American Bar Association reported that Mueller's investigation "did not find sufficient
evidence that President Donald Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the
United States' 2016 election."
There have been previous suggestions that it was Israel that had most worked to influence
the election.
[MORE]
The back story that's really significant here is that Mueller redacted evidence of
Israeli interference in the U.S. election, and the Russiagate! scandal was a cover for that and
other third-country meddling. Most of us here knew that a couple years ago .
Mint Press has also reported on Israeli intelligence involvement/infiltration into critical
US defense networks as well as their strong presence in social media.
I'd be surprised if there was an election in recent decades that they weren't involved
in.
If Trump campaign people were actually soliciting Israeli help, that would be newsworthy and
probably criminal. But Mueller throwing the book at Stone and Corsi over BS and covering what
could actually be serious? That's twisted.
Laura Rozen
@lrozen
Profile picture https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255347751153434624.html
Apr 29th 2020, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Stone arranged for meeting, but said in later email that a "fiasco" ensued after the
associate brought a foreign military officer along
Unroll available on Thread Reader
On Aug.20, 2016, CORSI told STONE they
needed to meet w/[ ] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct"courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
huh courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
(One PM in Rome on June 27 2016 was Netanyahu) mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/
Mint Press has also reported on Israeli intelligence involvement/infiltration into
critical US defense networks as well as their strong presence in social media.
I'd be surprised if there was an election in recent decades that they weren't involved
in.
If Trump campaign people were actually soliciting Israeli help, that would be newsworthy
and probably criminal. But Mueller throwing the book at Stone and Corsi over BS and
covering what could actually be serious? That's twisted.
@leveymg is reposted below, for those who want to read for themselves:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
District of Columbia
In the Matter of the Search of
(Briefly describe the property to be searched
or identify the person by name and address)
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOOGLE
ACCOUNT ,
)
Case: 1:18-sc-01518
Assigned To : Howell, Beryl A.
Assign. Date: 5/4/2018
Description: Search & Seizure Warrant
SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT
To: Any authorized law enforcement officer
An application by a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government requests
the search
of the following person or property located in the Northern District of California
(identify the person or describe the property to be searched and give its location):
See Attachment A.
I find that the affidavit(s), or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and
seize the person or property
described above, and that such search will reveal (identify the person or describe the property
to be seized):
See Attachment B.
YOU ARE COMMANDED to execute this warrant on or before May 18, 2018 (not to exceed 14 days)
';$ in the daytime 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 0 at any time in the day or night because good cause
has been established.
Unless delayed notice is authorized below, you must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt
for the property taken to the
person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken, or leave the copy and receipt
at the place where the
property was taken.
The officer executing this warrant, or an officer present during the execution of the warrant,
must prepare an inventory
as required by law and promptly return this warrant and inventory to Hon. Beryl A. Howell
(United States Magistrate Judge)
0 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3103a(b), I find that immediate notification may have an adverse
result listed in 18 U.S.C.
§ 2705 ( except for delay of trial), and authorize the officer executing this warrant to
delay notice to the person who, or whose
property, will be searched or seized (check the awropriate box)
0 for __ days (not to exceed 30) 0 until, the facts justifying, the later specific date of
Date and time issued:
Judge 's signature
City and state: Washington, DC Hon. Beryl A. Howell, Chief U.S. District Judge
Printed name and title
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 35
AO 93 (Rev 11/13) Search and Seizure Warrant (Page 2)
Return
Case No.: Date and time warrant executed: Copy of warrant and inventory left with:
Inventory made in the presence of :
Inventory of the property taken and name of any person(s) seized:
Certification
I declare under penalty of pe1jury that this inventory is correct and was returned along with
the original warrant to the
designated judge.
Date:
Executing officer's signature
Printed name and title
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Cf erk, U.S. District & Bankrupicy
Gourts for tirn District of Columbl&
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH
THE GOOGLE ACCOUNT
ORDER
Case: 1: 18-sc-01518
Assigned To : Howell, Beryl A.
Assign. Date: 5/4/2018
Description: Search & Seizure Warrant
The United States has filed a motion to seal the above-captioned warrant and related
documents, including the application and affidavit in support thereof ( collectively the
"Warrant"),
and to require Google LLC, an electronic communication and/or remote computing services
with
headquarters in Mountain View, California, not to disclose the existence or contents of the
Warrant
pursuant to !8 U.S.C. § 2705(b).
The Court finds that the United States has established that a compelling governmental
interest exists to justify the requested sealing, and that there is reason to believe that
notification
of the existence of the Warrant will seriously jeopardize the investigation, including by
giving the
targets an opportunity to flee from prosecution, destroy or tamper with evidence, and
intimidate
witnesses. See 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b)(2)-(5).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion is hereby GRANTED, and that the
warrant, the application and affidavit in support thereof, all attachments thereto and other
related
materials, the instant motion to seal, and this Order be SEALED until further order of the
Court;
and
Page 1 of2
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 35
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b), Google and its
employees shall not disclose the existence or content of the Warrant to any other person (
except
attorneys for Google for the purpose of receiving legal advice) for a period of one year
unless
otherwise ordered by the Court.
Date 41/Y>lf
THE HONORABLE BERYL A. HOWELL
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of2
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 4 of 35
AO 106 (Rev. 04/10) Application for a Search Warrant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
In the Matter of the Search of
(Briefly describe the property to be searched
or identify the person by name and address)
for the
District of Columbia
MA\t !,
•'II·\! • ·r 2018
,,t,c,rk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
C . ,,gurt~ lar 1hli-•D1strlctof Gollf/nh]•
ase.1:18-sc-01518 ·'
Ass!gned To: Howell, Beryl A
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOOGLE
ACCOUNT
)
)
)
)
)
)
Assign. Date: 5;412018 ·
Description: Search & Seizure Warrant
APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT
I, a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government, request a search
warrant and state under
penalty of perjury that I have reason to believe that on the following person or property
(identify the person or describe the
property to be searched and give ifs location):
See Attachment A.
located in the Northern District of _____ C,-_a-,.l"'if.=o,..rn~ia.._ __ , there is now
concealed (identijj, the
person or describe the property to be seized):
See Attachment B.
The basis for the search under Fed. R. Crim. P. 4 l(c) is (check one or more):
~ evidence of a crime;
ief contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed;
r'lf property designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crime;
D a person to be arrested or a person who is unlawfully restrained.
The search is related to a violation of:
Code Section
18 U.S.C. § 2
· et al.
The application is based on these facts:
See attached Affidavit.
r;/ Continued on the attached sheet.
Offense Description
aiding and abetting
see attached affidavit
D Delayed notice of __ days (give exact ending date if more than 30 days: ______ ) is
requested
under 18 U.S.C. § 3103a, the basis of which is set forth on the attached sheet.
~44 Reviewed by AUSA/SAUSA: Appbcant's signature
•Aaron Zelinsky (Special Counsel's Office) Andrew Mitchell, Supervisory Special Agent,
FBI
Printed name and title
Sworn to before me and signed in my presence.
Date:
City and state: Washington, D.C. Hon. Beryl A. Howell, Chief U.S. District Judge
Printed name and title
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 5 of 35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MAY ·· ti 1018
Clerk, LLS. District & Bar1i
Laura Rozen
@lrozen
Profile picture https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255347751153434624.html
Apr 29th 2020, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Stone arranged for meeting, but said in later email that a "fiasco" ensued after the
associate brought a foreign military officer along
Unroll available on Thread Reader
On Aug.20, 2016, CORSI told STONE they
needed to meet w/[ ] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct"courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
huh courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
(One PM in Rome on June 27 2016 was Netanyahu) mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/
@leveymg request for sealing of the record -- Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7
Filed 04/28/20 Pages 3 to 35 for those who want to read for themselves:
Judge's signature
Hon. Bery[ A. Howell, Chief U.S. District Judge
Printed name and title
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Glcrk, LL$. District & Bar1kruptcy
Gourts tor tirn District of ColumtHa
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOOGLE ACCOUNT
Case: 1:18-sc-01518
Ass!gned To : Howell, BerylA Assign. Date : S/4/20 18
Description: Search & S izure Warrant
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT
I, Andrew Mitchell, having been first duly sworn, hereby depose and state as follows:
1. I make this affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant for
information associated with the following Google Account: (hereafter
the "Target Account 1"), that is stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled or
operated by Google, Inc., a social networking company headquartered in Mountain View,
California ("Google"). The information to be searched is described in the following paragraphs
and in Attachments A and B. This affidavit is made in support of an application for a search
warrant under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2703(a), 2703(b)(l)(A) and 2703(c)(l)(A)to require Google
to disclose to the government copies of the information (including the content of
communications) further described in Attachment A. Upon receipt of the information described.
in Attachment A, government"authorized persons will review that information to locate the items
described in Attachment B.
2. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and have been since
2011. As a Special Agent of the FBI, I have received training and experience in investigating
criminal and national security matters.
3. The facts in this affidavit come from my personal observations, my training and experience,
and information obtained from other agents and witnesses. This affidavit is intended
to show merely that there is sufficient probable cause for the requested warrant and does
not set fotth all of my knowledge about this matter.
4. Based on my training and experience and the facts as set forth in this affidavit, there is
probable cause to believe that the Target Accounts contain communications relevant to
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting), 18 U.S.C. § 3 (accessory after the
fact), 18
U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of a felony), 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. §
1001 (making a
false statement); 18 U.S.C. §1651 (pe1jury); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (unauthodzed access
of a protected computer); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (attempt
and conspiracy to commit wire fraud), , and 52 U.S.C. § 30121 (foreign contribution ban)
(the "Subject
Offenses"). 1
5. As set forth below, in May 2016, Jerome CORSI provided contact information for
that there was an "OCTOBER SURPRISE COMING" and that Trump, ''[i]s going to be defeated unless
we intervene. We have critical intel." In that same time period, STONE communicated directly
via Twitter with WikiLeaks, Julian ASSANGE, and Guccifer 2.0. On July 25, 2016, STONE emailed
instructions to Jerome CORSI to "Get to Assange" in person at the Ecuadorian Embassy and "get
pending WikiLeaks emails[.]" On August 2, 2016, CORSI emailed STONE back that,"Word is friend
in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I1m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be
very damaging." On August 20, 2016, CORSI told STONE that they
needed to meet o determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in Oct."
1 Federal law prohibits a foreign national from making, directly or indirectly, an
expenditure or independent expenditure in connection with federal elections. 52 U.S.C. §
3012l(a)(l)(C); see also id. § 30101(9) & (17) (defining the terms "expenditure" and
"independent expenditure").
(the Target Account) is le Account, which
sed to communicate with STONE and CORSI.
JURISDICTION
6. This Court has jurisdiction to issue the requested warrant because it is "a court of
competent jurisdiction" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2711. Id. §§ 2703(a),
(b)(l)(A), & (c)(l)(A). Specifically, the Court is "a district court of the United State
(including a magistrate judge of such a court) ... that has jurisqiction over the offense being
investigated." 18 U.S.C.
§ 2711(3)(A)(i). The offense conduct included activities in Washington, D.C., as detailed
below, including in paragraph 8.
PROBABLE CAUSE
A. U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) Assessment of Russian Government Backed Hacking
Activity during the 2016 Presidential Election
7. On October 7, 2016, the U.S. Depa1tment of Homeland Security and the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence released a joint statement of an intelligence assessment of
Russian activities and intentions during the 2016 presidential election. In the report, the
USIC assessed the following, with emphasis added:
8. The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the
recent compromises of e mails frorri US persons and institutions, including from US political
organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and
WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and
motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures
Laura Rozen
@lrozen
Profile picture https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255347751153434624.html
Apr 29th 2020, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Stone arranged for meeting, but said in later email that a "fiasco" ensued after the
associate brought a foreign military officer along
Unroll available on Thread Reader
On Aug.20, 2016, CORSI told STONE they
needed to meet w/[ ] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct"courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
huh courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
(One PM in Rome on June 27 2016 was Netanyahu) mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/
"... "Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president," ..."
"... "It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was ..."
Senator Rand Paul said Tuesday in an
op-ed for Rare
that he would oppose President-elect Donald Trump's rumored selection of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as Secretary of State.
"Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually
every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president,"
Paul wrote citing U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya that Trump has criticized but that Bolton strongly advocated.
Reports since have indicated that former New York City mayor and loyal Trump ally, Rudy Giuliani is being considered for the post.
The Washington Post's David Weigel
reports , "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a newly reelected member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said this morning that
he was inclined to oppose either former U.N. ambassador John Bolton or former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani if they were nominated
for secretary of state."
"It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq
War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was a big lesson," Paul told the Post. "Trump
said that a thousand times. It would be a huge mistake for him to give over his foreign policy to someone who [supported the war].
I mean, you could not find more unrepentant advocates of regime change."
Actually any supremacist ideology produces something like an apartheid regime for other
nationalities.
The current situation looks like a dead end with little chances of reconciliation, especially
after recent killing of protesters by Israel army/snipers. But in general, it is iether a two
state solution of equal rights for Palestinians and Jews in the same state. The elements of
theocratic state should be eliminated and right wing parties outlawed as neofascist parties which
threatens democracy.
Notable quotes:
"... The peace process and the two-state solution failed because America -- the only country on which Israel could count on for generous diplomatic, military and economic support, and therefore the only country that has the necessary leverage to influence Israel's policies -- allowed it to fail. Consequently, most Israelis, including many belonging to the Blue/White party, headed by General Benny Gantz, oppose granting any future Palestinian entity the most basic features of sovereignty, including control of its own borders. Gantz refused to form a unity government with the Likud because of Netanyahu's indictment for multiple crimes, not because of differences over peace policy. What doubts anyone might have had on this subject were removed when Gantz just announced that he embraces Netanyahu's intention to annex the Jordan Valley to Israel. ..."
The threat of a new war with Iran that might have replicated what has been the worst
disaster in the history of America's international misadventures -- George W. Bush's invasion
of Iraq based on fabricated lies -- sucked the air out of all other international diplomatic
activity, not least of what used to be called the Middle East peace process.
Yet the failure of the peace process has not been the consequence of recent mindless and
destructive actions by Donald Trump and of the clownish shenanigans of his son-in-law, Jared
Kushner, who was charged with helping Israeli hardliners in nailing down permanently the
Palestinian occupation. For all the damage they caused (mainly to Palestinians), prospects for
a two-state solution actually ended during President Barack Obama's administration, despite
Secretary of State John Kerry's energetic efforts to renew the stalled negotiations. They were
not resumed because Obama, like his predecessors, failed to take the tough measures that were
necessary to overcome Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's determination to prevent the
emergence of a Palestinian state, notwithstanding his pledge in his Bar-Ilan speech of 2009 to
implement the agreements of the Oslo accords.
Yes, Obama and Kerry did warn that Israel's continued occupation might lead to an Israeli
apartheid regime. But knowing how deeply the accusation of an incipient Israeli apartheid could
anger right-wingers in Israel and in the U.S., they repeatedly followed that warning with the
assurance that "America will always have Israel's back." It was the sequence of this two-part
statement that convinced Netanyahu that AIPAC had succeeded in getting American presidents to
protect Israel's impunity. Had Obama and Kerry reversed that sequence, first noting that
the U.S. had always had Israel's back, and then warning that Israel is now on the verge
of trading its democracy for apartheid, the warning might have had quite different implications
for Israel's government.
The peace process and the two-state solution failed because America -- the only country
on which Israel could count on for generous diplomatic, military and economic support, and
therefore the only country that has the necessary leverage to influence Israel's policies --
allowed it to fail. Consequently, most Israelis, including many belonging to the Blue/White
party, headed by General Benny Gantz, oppose granting any future Palestinian entity the most
basic features of sovereignty, including control of its own borders. Gantz refused to form a
unity government with the Likud because of Netanyahu's indictment for multiple crimes, not
because of differences over peace policy. What doubts anyone might have had on this subject
were removed when Gantz just announced that he embraces Netanyahu's intention to annex the
Jordan Valley to Israel.
For the Palestinians, territory is the most critical of the final status issues. The current
internationally recognized borders that separate Israel and the Occupied Territories reduced
the territory originally assigned to Palestinians in the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 from
roughly half of Palestine to 22 percent. Israel, which was assigned originally roughly the
other half of Palestine, now has 78 percent, not including Palestinian territory Israel has
confiscated for its illegal settlements.
No present or prospective Palestinian leadership will accept any further reduction of
territory from their promised state. Given the territory they already lost in 1947, and again
in 1949, and given Israel's refusal to accept the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, is
it really reasonable to expect Palestinians to give up any further territory? Where else other
than the West Bank could Palestine refugees return to?
The one-state solution that is preferred by many Israelis is essentially a continuation of
the present de facto apartheid. It is not the one-state alternative any Palestinian would
accept. Repeated polling has shown that a majority of Jewish Israelis are unprepared to grant
equal rights to Palestinians in a one-state arrangement. This opposition is unsurprising, for
the inclusion in Israel's body politic of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians would mean the end of
Israel as a Jewish state, for Israel's non-Jewish citizens would then outnumber its Jewish
ones, and may already do so. Of course, Israel could contrive a non-voting status for the West
Bank's Palestinians, something many Jewish Israelis and political parties actually advocate,
but that would not deceive anyone. It would mean the formal end of Israel's democracy.
The foregoing notwithstanding, I have long maintained that if Israel were compelled to
choose between one state that grants full equality to Palestinians now under occupation and two
states that conform substantially to existing agreements and international law, and no other
options were available to it, the majority of Israelis would opt for two states. Why? Because
as noted above, the overwhelming majority of Israelis oppose any arrangement that might produce
a Palestinian majority with the same rights Israeli Jewish citizens enjoy. Of course, Israel
has never been compelled to make such a choice, nor will they be compelled to do so by the
international community.
However, they could be compelled to do so by the Palestinians, but only if Palestinians were
finally to expel their current leadership and choose a more honest and courageous one. That new
leadership would have to shut down the Palestinian Authority, which its present leaders allowed
Israel to portray as an arrangement that places Palestinians on the path to statehood, of
course in some undefined future. Israel has deliberately perpetuated that myth to conceal its
real intention to keep the current occupation unchanged. The new Palestinian leadership would
have to declare that since Israel has denied them their own state and established a one-state
reality, Palestinians will no longer deny that reality. Consequently, the national struggle
will now be for full citizenship in the one state that Israel has forced them into. I have
argued for the past two decades that the one-state option is far more likely to open a path to
a two-state solution, however counter intuitive that may seem to be. Palestinians rejected it
categorically from the outset, but
younger Palestinians have come around to accepting it -- even preferring it to the two-state
model.
Unlike the struggle for a two-state solution, a goal that has so easily been manipulated by
Israel to mean whatever serves their real goal of preventing such an outcome -- and also so
easily allowed international actors to pretend they have not given up their efforts to achieve
that outcome, an anti-apartheid struggle does not lend itself to such deceptions. South Africa
has taught the world too well what apartheid looks like, as well as how the international
community could deal with it. Of course, South Africa has also shown how long and bloody a
struggle against apartheid can be, and the terrible price paid by the victims of such a regime.
But Palestinians already live in such a regime, and have for long been paying a terrible price
for their subjugation.
Yet deeper and more troubling questions are raised by the choices that now face Israel,
including whether the original idea of the Zionist movement of a state that is both Jewish and
democratic is not deeply oxymoronic, a question that not only Israelis but Jews outside of
Israel must address. That question is underscored by the challenges to India's democracy posed
by its prime minister's decision to turn his country into a Hindu nation. It is a question that
did not escape some of the founders of the Zionist movement, who argued that Zionism should
define the state as Jewish only in its ethnic and secular cultural dimensions. But that this is
not how Jewish identity is treated in Israel is undeniable.
Imagine if Israel's laws defining national identity and citizenship, as recently
reformulated by Israel's Knesset, were adopted by the U.S. Congress or by other Western
democratic countries, and if Christianity in its "cultural dimensions" were declared to be
their national identity, with citizenship also granted by conversion to the dominant religion,
as is now the case in Israel, where arrangements for Jewish religious conversions are part of
the Prime Minister's office.
Is this not what America's founders, and the waves of immigrants, including European Jews,
sought to escape from? And how would Jews react today to legislation in the U.S. Congress that
would explicitly seek to maintain the majority status of Christians in the U.S.? Are Jews to
take pride in a Jewish state that adopts citizenship requirements that mirror those advocated
by white Christian supremacists? These supremacists have already proclaimed jubilantly that
Israel's policies vindicate the ones they have long been advocating.
It is true, of course, that for some Jews, aware of the history of anti-Semitism that has
spanned the ages, and especially the Holocaust, Zionism's contradictions with democratic
principles are an unpleasant but inescapable dilemma they can live with. As a survivor of the
Holocaust, I can understand that. But I also understand that the likely consequences of these
contradictions are not benign, and can yield their own terrible outcomes, particularly when
they lead to the dalliances by the prime minister of a Jewish state with right-wing racist and
xenophobic heads of state and of political parties that have fascist and anti-Semitic
parentage.
Legislation proposed in the U.S. Congress and by Trump, and recently celebrated by his
son-in-law Kushner in a New York Times op-ed, proposing that criticism of
Zionism be outlawed as antisemitism , would be laughable, were it not so clearly -- and
outrageously -- intended to deny freedom of speech on this subject. Yet laughable it is, for
its first target would have to be Jews -- not liberal left-wingers but the most Orthodox Jews,
known as Haredim, in Israel and in America.
At the very inception of the Zionist movement 150 years ago, not only the Haredim but the
overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jewry everywhere was opposed to Zionism, which it considered
to be a Jewish heresy, not only because the Zionists were mostly secularists, but because of an
oath taken by Jewish leaders after the destruction of the Second Temple following their exile
from Palestine, that Jews would not reestablish a Jewish kingdom except following the messianic
era. Zionism was also bitterly opposed by much of the world's Jewish Reform movement, many of
whose leaders insisted that Jewishness is a religion, not a political identity.
Much of Orthodox Jewry did not end its opposition to Zionism until after the war of 1967,
but many if not most Haredis continue to oppose Zionism as heresy. Most of its members refuse
to serve in Israel's military, to celebrate Israel's Independence Day, sing its national
anthem, and do not allow prayers in their synagogues for the wellbeing of Israel's political
leaders. Trump, Kushner, and the U.S. Congress would have to arrest them as anti-Semites.
I have no doubt that Trump's rage at the Jewish chairmen of the two Congressional committees
that led the procedures for his impeachment will sooner or later explode in anti-Semitic
expletives. The only reason it has not done so yet is because of Trump's fear of jeopardizing
Evangelical support and Sheldon Adelson's mega bucks. After all, Trump already told us that the
neo-Nazi rioters in Charlottesville declaiming "Jews will not replace us" included "very fine
people." Netanyahu never criticized Trump's statement, for he too does not want to jeopardize
certain relationships, namely the "very fine people" he has embraced -- leaders in Hungary,
Poland, Austria, Italy, Brazil, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere.
If Trump's son-in-law is searching for anti-Semites, he should have been told they are far
closer at hand than in America's schools, for they are ensconced in the White House. They are
also to be found in Jerusalem where they are being accorded honors by Netanyahu. The
anti-Semitic dog whistling contained in Trump's attacks on the two Jewish congressmen were not
misunderstood by his hardcore supporters -- who now include the entire leadership of the
Republican party -- who Trump needs to take him to victory in the coming presidential
elections, or to keep him in the White House were he to lose those elections.
If apartheid is coming (or has come) out of Zion, it should not shock that what may come out
of Washington is a repeat by Trump's Republican shock troops of what occurred in Berlin in
1933, when the Bundestag was taken over by the Nazi party and ended Germany's democracy.
"... Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment. ..."
"... In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump slightly deviated. ..."
As for "evil republican senators", they would be viewed as evil by electorate if and only only if actual crimes of Trump regime
like Douma false flag, Suleimani assassination (actually here Trump was set up By Bolton and Pompeo) and other were discussed.
Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges
that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides
understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment.
Both sides are afraid to discuss real issues, real Trump regime crimes.
Schiff proved to be patently inept in this whole story even taking into account limitations put by Kabuki theater on him, and
in case of Trump acquittal *which is "highly probable" borrowing May government terminology in Skripals case :-) to resign would be a honest thing
for him to
do.
Assuming that he has some honestly left. Which is highly doubtful with statements like:
"The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight Russia here."
And
"More than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies. 15,000."
Actually it was the USA interference in Ukraine (aka Nulandgate) that killed 15K Ukrainians, mainly Donbas residents
and badly trained recruits of the Ukrainian army sent to fight them, as well as volunteers of paramilitary "death squads" like Asov
battalion financed by oligarch Igor Kolomyskiy
In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means
much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump
slightly deviated.
Bolton is a war mongering narcissist that wanted his war, didn't get it, & is now
acting like a spoilt child that didn't get his way & is laying on the floor kicking &
screaming!
Trump excoriates Bolton in tweets this morning:
"For a guy who couldn't get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago, couldn't get
approved for anything since, 'begged' me for a non Senate approved job, which I gave him
despite many saying 'Don't do it, sir,' takes the job, mistakenly says 'Libyan Model' on T.V.,
and ... many more mistakes of judgement [sic], gets fired because frankly, if I listened to
him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty &
untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?"
IMO, Trump is a fantastic POTUS for this day and age, but he wasn't on his A game when he
brought Bolton onboard. He should have known better and, was, apparently, warned. Maybe Trump
thought he could control him and use him as a threatening pit bull. Mistake. Bolton is greedy
as well as vindictive.
"... Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and "Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without corroborating sources." ..."
"... According to what we know, a Hezbollah agent conducted years of surveillance on potential targets , and alleged sleeper agents within U.S. cities have so far not been activated, even in the wake of Iranian Quds force General Soleimani's death and the series of crippling sanctions the Trump administration has put on Iran. ..."
Why is Pompeo suddenly directing increasingly heated rhetoric towards Iran and its proxies
in South America?
"Anti-Iran hawks like Pompeo like to emphasize that Iran is not a defensively-minded
international actor, but rather that it is offensively-minded and poses a direct threat to the
United States," said Max Abrahms, associate professor of political science at Northeastern and
fellow of the Quincy Institute said in an interview with The American Conservative. "And
so for obvious reasons, underscoring Hezbollah's international tentacles helps to sell their
argument that Iran needs to be dealt with in a military way, and that the key to dealing with
Iran is through confrontation and pressure."
Stories highlighting the role of Hezbollah in America's backyard "are almost always peddled
by anti-Iran hawks," he said.
Like Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security
Policy, who aligns with the argument that Hezbollah has been populating South America since the
days of the Islamic revolution.
"From at least the 1980s, many Lebanese fled to South America, and among that flow Hezbollah
embedded themselves," she told The American Conservative in a recent interview. Their
activity "really expanded throughout the continent" during the presidencies of Iran's Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
During that time, Lopez added, "there was a really strong relationship that developed
Iranians established diplomatic facilities, enormous embassies and consulates, embedded IRGC
cover positions and MOIS (intelligence services) within commercial companies and mosques and
Islamic centers. This took place in Brazil in particular but Venezuela also."
Iran and Hezbollah intensified their involvement throughout the region in technical services
like tunneling, money laundering, and drug trafficking. Venezuela offered Iran an international
banking work-around during the period of sanctions, said Lopez.
Obviously security analysts like Lopez and even Pompeo, have been following this for years.
But the timing here, as the Senate impeachment inquiry heats up, looks suspicious.
Last week, just as it looks increasingly likely that former national security advisor John
Bolton and Pompeo himself will be hauled before the Senate as witnesses about the foreign aid
hold-up to Ukraine, Pompeo praised Colombia, Honduras, and Guatemala for designating
"Iran-backed Hezbollah a terrorist organization," and slammed Venezuelan President Nicolas
Maduro for embracing the terrorist group.
Hezbollah "has found a home in Venezuela under Maduro. This is unacceptable," Pompeo said
when he met with Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido last week.
Asked by Bloomberg News how significant a role Hezbollah plays in the region, Pompeo
responded, "too much."
From the interview:
Pompeo : " I mentioned it in Venezuela, but in the Tri-Border Area as well. This
is again an area where Iranian influence – we talk about them as the world's largest
state sponsor of terror. We do that intentionally. It's the world's largest; it's not just a
Middle East phenomenon. So while – when folks think of Hezbollah, they typically think
of Syria and Lebanon, but Hezbollah has now put down roots throughout the globe and in South
America, and it's great to see now multiple countries now having designated Hezbollah as a
terrorist organization. It means we can work together to stamp out the security threat in the
region."
Question: "I'm struck by this, because even hearing you – what you're
saying, right, now – I mean, to take a step back, an Iranian-backed terrorist
organization has found a home in America's backyard."
Pompeo: "It's – it's something that we've been talking about for some
time. When you see the scope and reach of what the Islamic Republic of Iran's regime has
done, you can't forget they tried to kill someone in the United States of America. They've
conducted assassination campaigns in Europe. This is a global phenomenon. When we say that
Iran is the leading destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world, it's
because of this terror activity that they have now spread as a cancer all across the globe.
"
Pompeo has also been publicly floating increasing sanctions on Venezuela. He called the
behavior of Maduro's government "cartel-like" and "terror-like," intensifying the sense that
there is a real security "threat" in our hemisphere.
Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and
"Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about
Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is
the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without
corroborating sources."
There's no question that Hezbollah has a presence in South America, said Abrahms, "but the
nature of its presence has been politicized."
"What this underscores is that Iran could pull the trigger, it could bloody
the U.S., including the U.S. homeland, but tends to avoid such violence. I think the question
that needs to be asked isn't just, 'where in the world could Iran commit an attack?' but
whether Iran is a rational actor that can be deterred," said Abrahms. "Interestingly, this
administration as well as its hawkish supporters tend to emphasize their belief that Iran can
in fact be deterred," since that is the logic behind "maximum pressure" against Iran, after
all. "The main causal mechanism according to advocates of maximum pressure, is that it will
force Iran as a rational actor to reconsider whether it wants to irritate the U.S By applying
economic pressure through sanctions, [they hope to] succeed in coaxing Iran to restructure the
nuclear deal and making additional concessions to the west and reigning in its activities in
the Persian Gulf and the Levant. At least on a rhetorical level, the hawks say they believe
Iran can be deterred," he said.
It would not be the first time that a president reacted to an intensifying impeachment
inquiry by redirecting national focus to threats abroad. In December 1998, as the impeachment
inquiry into then-President Bill Clinton heated up, Clinton launched airstrikes against Iraq.
We should therefore apply some caution when we see decades-old threats amplified by
administration officials.
Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security
reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She
is the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her
work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill, UK Spectator, and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from
Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter
Well, it looks like I'll need to start contributing to NPR again. They are a little too
woke for my tastes, but Pompeo is a liar, and frankly beyond the pale. A perfect
representative of the current administration by the way. Kudos to NPR for standing up to
him.
Much like U.S. foreign policy, it seems that Mike Pompeo is going to ignore the facts and
keep recklessly escalating the conflict. Surely he's aware that
The Washington Post
published the
email correspondence
between Ms. Kelley and press aide. This just makes him look like
a coward.
From the Trump voter perspective, this journalist should feel lucky that she wasn't sent
to Guantanamo Bay. All Trump voters think this way, there is no exception.
"... Today Israel's IDF faces a combat hardened army in Syria, a combat hardened irregular military force in Lebanon, and increasingly hardened resistance in its own backyard with Hamas. And Iranian ground forces are not pushovers. ..."
Martin Indyk: An Important Neoliberal Defects From the Blob
Let's hope the former ambassador's heresy about withdrawing from the Middle East catches
fire and spreads. Then-VP of Brookings Martin Indyk in 2017. (Sharon Farmer/sfphotoworks)
January 22, 2020
|
12:01 am
Andrew
J. Bacevich Within the inner precincts of the American foreign policy establishment, last
names are redundant. At a Washington cocktail party, when some half-sloshed AEI fellow
whispers, "Apparently, Henry is back in Beijing to see Xi," there's no need to ask, "Which
Henry?" In that world, there is only one Henry, at least only one who counts.
Similarly, there is only one Martin. While Martin Indyk may not equal Henry Kissinger in
star power, he has for several decades been a major player in U.S. policy regarding Israel and
the Middle East more broadly. Founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, senior
director on the National Security Council, twice U.S. ambassador to Israel, assistant secretary
of state for Near East affairs, presidential envoy -- not a bad resume for someone who was born
in London, raised in Australia, and became a U.S. citizen only in his 40s.
Throughout his career, Martin has been deeply invested in the Israeli-Palestinian "peace
process" and in the proposition that the United States has a vital interest in pursuing that
process to a successful conclusion. More broadly, he has subscribed to the view that the United
States has vital interests at stake in the Middle East more generally, with regional stability
and the well-being of the people living there dependent on the United States exercising what
people in Washington call "leadership." In this context, of course, leadership tends to be a
euphemism for the use or threatened use of military power.
These are, of course, establishment notions, to which all members of the "Blob" necessarily
declare their fealty. Indeed, at least until Trump came along, to dissent from such views was
to become ineligible for appointment to even a mid-level post in the State Department, the
Pentagon, or the White House.
Yet Martin has now publicly recanted.
In an extraordinary op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal (of all places), he
asserts that "few vital interests of the US continue to be at stake in the Middle East."
Policies centered on ensuring the free flow of Persian Gulf oil and the survival of Israel have
become superfluous. "The US economy no longer relies on imported petroleum," he correctly
notes. "Fracking has turned the US into a net oil and natural-gas exporter." As a consequence,
Persian Gulf oil "is no longer a vital interest -- that is, one worth fighting for. Difficult
as it might be to get our heads around the idea, China and India need to be protecting the sea
lanes between the Gulf and their ports, not the US Navy."
As for the Jewish State, Martin notes, again correctly, that today Israel has the capacity
"to defend itself by itself." Notwithstanding the blustering threats regularly issued by
Tehran, "it is today's nuclear-armed Israel that has the means to crush Iran, not the other way
around."
Furthermore, Martin has had his fill of the peace process. "A two-state solution to the
Palestinian problem is a vital Israeli interest, not a vital American one," he writes,
insisting that "it's time to end the farce of putting forward American peace plans only to have
one or both sides reject them."
Martin does identify one vital U.S. interest in the Middle East: averting a nuclear arms
race. Yet "we should be wary of those who would rush to battle stations," he cautions. "Curbing
Iran's nuclear aspirations and ambitions for regional dominance will require assiduous American
diplomacy, not war."
That last sentence captures the essence of Martin's overall conclusion: he proposes not
disengaging from the Middle East but demilitarizing U.S. policy. "After the sacrifice of so
many American lives, the waste of so much energy and money in quixotic efforts that ended up
doing more harm than good," he writes, "it is time for the US to find a way to escape the
costly, demoralising cycle of crusades and retreats."
Now such sentiments appear regularly in the pages of The American Conservative and on
the website of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft . Yet in establishment
circles, a willingness to describe U.S. policy in the Middle East as quixotic is rare indeed.
As for acknowledging that we have done more harm than good, such commonsense views are usually
regarded as beyond the pale.
Martin deserves our congratulations. We must hope that his heresy catches fire and spreads
throughout the Blob. In the meantime, if he's in need of office space, the Quincy Institute
stands ready to help.
Welcome to the ranks of the truth tellers, comrade.
Andrew Bacevich is TAC's writer-at-large and president of the Quincy Institute. His new
book, The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory ,has
just been published.
"Martin has been deeply invested in the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" and in the
proposition that the United States has a vital interest in pursuing that process to a
successful conclusion. More broadly, he has subscribed to the view that the United States has
vital interests at stake in the Middle East more generally, with regional stability and the
well-being of the people living there"
No. The only use he ever had for the peace process was as cover for what Israel was really
doing.
The only interest he ever cared about was Israel, not the stability or well-being of any
other people but the hawks among Israelis.
He perverted US policy from the inside, in pursuit of those ends of those Lobby partisans.
He has never been anything else.
And is about to pervert it AGAIN. One must be a total ignoramus not to notice American
public's changing attitude towards Israel, as well as Israel's high powered lobbyists.
Before the change turns into an outright hostility, the apologists of the Empire are defusing
the nascent rage. So, HE is the one to be PRAISED for being so wise, and deserving our
support?
This leopard will keep on changing spots, but never his nature.
He is and will remain ardent apologist of American Empire -- for as long as this Empire
serves his primary interest. And that interest is clear -- interest of Israel AND all of its
citizens around the globe.
It is disheartening to read Bacevich praise Indyk-who was, after all, one of the architects
of our disastrous Middle East "policy". I guess the Quincy Institute wants to hew a path
closer to the mainstream narrative. What will be next? An apologia for Doug Feith and Richard
Perle?
Indyk's comments read like a neo-con who's lost favor and power. This is not a good sign.
This points to the internecine warfare within the halls of conceptual power being closer to
decided. With the diplomats out, it leaves the apocalypse cult as the de-facto winner.
Expect more ludicrous demands of US vassals and more effort to attack Iran. They're not
going to stop. Where the oil comes from doesn't matter, what currency is used to conduct
trade does.
It is exactly so -- internecine warfare. But I do not see them loosing power. They are losing
NARRATIVE both internationally and domestically. This is a beginning of crafting a new
narrative to stem the rising hostility against Israel centric militaristic foreign policy
orientation.
Thus switching to "diplomacy", as military posturing just brings about dead ends to
defend.
He wants results, So, change the narrative, diffuse anti-Israeli tide, and become a beacon of
reason and wholesomeness. Who can resist these new spots?
There was never anything Quixotic about US foreign policy in the ME. As for Israel/Palestine,
the policy, and "Martin" was central to it, was to pretend to negotiate in good faith while
Israel occupied "the land from the river to the sea." In Iraq, except for Cheney's oil lust,
it was to carry out the neo-con chant of "the road to Iran is through Iraq." As for Iran, it
has been to barely resist Israel's, and US Israel-firster's, pressure for war, though it may
still happen.
You mean to say that some establishment guy finally got fed up with all the bullshit?
In any event, Indyk is wrong to believe that Israel can defeat Iran in a conflict. Israeli
nuclear weapons are really of little consequence in such a situation as the majority of them
must be delivered by aircraft which Iran will simply shoot down. Those that are siloed will
most likely meet the same fate. But in either case Russia will not allow any such conflict to
go nuclear.
In terms of conventional capabailities, the IDF has never been a very good military unit
since it basically has only entered engagements with less than equally capable opponents.
However, that has all been changing since Hezbollah's defeat of the IDF in 2006.
Today Israel's IDF faces a combat hardened army in Syria, a combat hardened irregular
military force in Lebanon, and increasingly hardened resistance in its own backyard with
Hamas. And Iranian ground forces are not pushovers.
The Israeli navy is meaningless in this situation so it is only in the air that Israel now
has any claim to fame. However, instead of increasing its Air Force with modernized F15x
models, Israel has opted to acquire the F35, which no amount of avionics can make the
air-frame fly better. Iran still uses the F14 as a heavy fighter, which Israel also requires
for her situation making the acquisition of the F35 rather odd.
In the end, it will be Iranian missile development that places that nation in a position
to deal a death blow to the Israeli state.
The future of the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East is in Iraq. The exchange of
hostilities between the U.S. and Iran occurred wholly on Iraqi soil and it has become the site
on which that war will continue.
Israel continues to up the ante on Iran, following President Trump's lead by bombing Shia
militias stationed near the Al Bukumai border crossing between Syria and Iraq.
The U.S. and Israel are determined this border crossing remains closed and have demonstrated
just how far they are willing to go to prevent the free flow of goods and people across this
border.
The regional allies of Iran are to be kept weak, divided and constantly under
harassment.
Iraq is the battleground because the U.S. lost in Syria. Despite the presence of U.S. troops
squatting on Syrian oil fields in Deir Ezzor province or the troops sitting in the desert
protecting the Syrian border with Jordan, the Russians, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces
continue to reclaim territory previously lost to the Syrian government.
Now with Turkey redeploying its pet Salafist head-choppers from Idlib to Libya to fight
General Haftar's forces there to legitimize its claim to eastern Mediterannean gas deposits,
the restoration of Syria's territorial integrity west of the Euphrates River is nearly
complete.
The defenders of Syria can soon transition into the rebuilders thereof, if allowed. And they
didn't do this alone, they had a silent partner in China the entire time.
And, if I look at this situation honestly, it was China stepping out from behind the shadows
into the light that is your inciting incident for this chapter in Iraq's story.
China moving in to sign a $10.1 billion deal with the Iraqi government to begin the
reconstruction of its ruined oil and gas industry in exchange for oil is of vital
importance.
It doubles China's investment in Iraq while denying the U.S. that money and influence.
This happened after a massive $53 billion deal between Exxon-Mobil and Petrochina was put on
hold after the incident involving Iran shooting down a U.S. Global Hawk drone in June.
With the U.S balking over the Exxon/Petrochina big deal, Iraqi Prime Minster Adel Abdul
Mahdi signed the new one with China in October. Mahdi brought up the circumstances surrounding
that in Iraqi parliaments during the session in which it passed the resolution recommending
removal of all foreign forces from Iraq.
Did Trump openly threaten Mahdi over this deal as I covered in my
podcast on this? Did the U.S. gin up protests in Baghdad, amplifying unrest over growing
Iranian influence in the country?
And, if not, were these threats simply implied or carried by a minion (Pompeo, Esper, a
diplomat)? Because the U.S.'s history of regime change operations is well documented. Well
understood color revolution
tactics used successfully in
places like Ukraine , where snipers were deployed to shoot protesters and police alike to
foment violence between them at the opportune time were on display in Baghdad.
Mahdi openly accused Trump of threatening him, but that sounds more like Mahdi using the
current impeachment script to invoke the sinister side of Trump and sell his case.
It's not that I don't think Trump capable of that kind of threat, I just don't think he's
stupid enough to voice it on an open call. Donald Trump is capable of many impulsive things,
openly threatening to remove an elected Prime Minister on a recorded line is not one of
them.
Mahdi has been under the U.S.'s fire since he came to power in late 2018. He was the man who
refused Trump during
Trump's impromptu Christmas visit to Iraq in 2018 , refusing to be summoned to a
clandestine meeting at the U.S. embassy rather than Trump visit him as a head of state, an
equal.
He was the man who declared the Iraqi air space closed after Israeli air attacks on Popular
Mobilization Force (PMF) positions in September.
And he's the person, at the same time, being asked by Trump to act as a mediator between
Saudi Arabia and Iran in peace talks for Yemen.
So, the more we look at this situation the more it is clear that Abdul Madhi, the first
Iraqi prime minister since the 2003 U.S. invasion push for more Iraqi sovereignty, is emerging
as the pivotal figure in what led up to the attack on General Soleimani and what comes after
Iran's subsequent retaliation.
It's clear that Trump doesn't want to fight a war with Iran in Iran. He wants them to
acquiesce to his unreasonable demands and begin negotiating a new nuclear deal which
definitively stops the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, and as P
atrick Henningsen at 21st Century Wire thinks ,
Trump now wants a new deal which features a prohibition on Iran's medium range missiles ,
and after events this week, it's obvious why. Wednesday's missile strike by Iran demonstrates
that the US can no longer operate in the region so long as Iran has the ability to extend its
own deterrence envelope westwards to Syria, Israel, and southwards to the Arabian Peninsula,
and that includes all US military installations located within that radius.
Iraq doesn't want to be that battlefield. And Iran sent the message with those two missile
strikes that the U.S. presence in Iraq is unsustainable and that any thought of retreating to
the autonomous Kurdish region around the air base at Erbil is also a non-starter.
The big question, after this attack, is whether U.S. air defenses around the Ain al Assad
airbase west of Ramadi were active or not. If they were then Trump's standing down after the
air strikes signals what Patrick suggests, a new Middle East in the making.
If they were not turned on then the next question is why? To allow Iran to save face after
Trump screwed up murdering Soleimani?
I'm not capable of believing such Q-tard drivel at this point. It's far more likely that the
spectre of Russian electronics warfare and radar evasion is lurking in the subtext of this
story and the U.S. truly now finds itself after a second example of Iranian missile technology
in a nascent 360 degree war in the region.
It means that Iran's threats against the cities of Haifa and Dubai were real.
In short, it means the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq now measures in months not
years.
Because both China and Russia stand to gain ground with a newly-united Shi'ite Iraqi
population. Mahdi is now courting Russia to sell him S-300 missile defense systems to allow him
to enforce his demands about Iraqi airspace.
Moqtada al-Sadr is mobilizing his Madhi Army to oust the U.S. from Iraq. Iraq is key to the
U.S. presence in the region. Without Iraq the U.S. position in Syria is unsustainable.
If the U.S. tries to retreat to Kurdish territory and push again for Masoud Barzani and his
Peshmerga forces to declare independence Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will go
ballistic.
And you can expect him to make good on his threat to close the Incerlik airbase, another
critical logistical juncture for U.S. force projection in the region.
But it all starts with Mahdi's and Iraq's moves in the coming weeks. But, with Trump rightly
backing down from escalating things further and not following through on his outlandish threats
against Iran, it may be we're nearing the end of this intractable standoff.
Back in June I told you
that Iran had the ability to fight asymmetrically against the U.S., not through direct
military confrontation but through the after-effects of a brief, yet violent period of war in
which all U.S., Israeli and Arab assets in the Middle East come under fire from all
directions.
It sent this same message then that by attacking oil tankers it could make the transport of
oil untenable and not insurable. We got a taste of it back then and Trump, then, backed
down.
And the resultant upheaval in the financial markets creating an abyss of losses, cross-asset
defaults, bank failures and government collapses.
Trump has no real option now but to negotiate while Iraq puts domestic pressure on him to
leave and Russia/China come in to provide critical economic and military support to assist
Mahdi rally his country back towards some semblance of sovereignty
How about "what is the goal?" There is none of course. The assholes in the Washington/MIC
just need war to keep them relevant. What if the US were to closed down all those wars and
foreign bases? THEN the taxpayer could demand some accounting for the trillions that are
wasted on complete CRAP. There are too many old leftovers from the cold war who seem to think
there is benefit to fighting wars in shithole places just because those wars are the only
ones going on right now. The stupidity of the ****** in the US military/MIC/Washington is
beyond belief. JUST LEAVE you ******* idiots.
Sometimes, in treading thru the opaque, sandstorm o ******** swept wastes of the '
desert of the really real '...
one must rely upon a marking... some kind of guidepost, however tenuous, to show you to be
still... on the trail, not lost in the vast haunted reaches of post-reality. And you know,
Tommy is that sort of guide; the sort of guy who you take to the fairgrounds, set him up with
the 'THROW THE BALL THRU THE HOOP... GUARANTEED PRIZE TO SCOOP' kiosk...
and he misses every time. Just by watching Tom run through his paces here... zeroing in on
the exact WRONG interpretation of events ... every dawg gone time... one resets their compass
to tru course and relaxes into the flow agin! Thanks Tom! Let's break down ... the Schlitzy
shopping list of sloppy errors:
Despite the presence of U.S. troops squatting on Syrian oil fields in Deir Ezzor
province or the troops sitting in the desert protecting the Syrian border with Jordan, the
Russians, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces continue to reclaim territory previously
lost to the Syrian government. / umm Tom... the Russkies just ONCE AGIN... at Ankaras
request .. imposed a stop on the IDLIB CAMPAIGN. Which by the way... is being conducted
chiefly by the SAA. Or was that's to say. To the east... the Russkies have likewise become
the guarantors of .... STATIS... that is a term implying no changes on the map. Remember
that word Tom... "map" ... I recommend you to find one... and learn how to use it!
Now with Turkey redeploying its pet Salafist head-choppers from Idlib to Libya to fight
General Haftar's forces there to legitimize its claim to eastern Mediterannean gas
deposits, the restoration of Syria's territorial integrity west of the Euphrates River is
nearly complete. See above... with gravy Tom. Two hundred jihadists moving to Libya has not
changed the status quo... except in dreamland.
Israel continues to up the ante on Iran, f ollowing President Trump's lead by bombing
Shia militias stationed near the Al Bukumai border crossing between Syria and Iraq.
Urusalem.. and its pathetically obedient dogsbody USSA ... are busy setting up RIMFISTAN
Tom.. you really need to start expanding your reading list; On both sides of that border
you mention .. they will be running - and guarding - pipeline running to the mothership.
Shia miitias and that project just don't mix. Nobody gives a frying fluck bout your
imaginary 'land bridge to the Med'... except you and the gomers. And you and they aren't
ANYWHERES near to here.
Abdul Madhi, the first Iraqi prime minister since the 2003 U.S. invasion push for
more Iraqi sovereignty, is emerging as the pivotal figure in what led up to the attack on
General Soleimani and what comes after Iran's subsequent retaliation.
Ok... this is getting completely embarrassing. The man is a 'caretaker' Tom...
that's similar to a 'janitor' - he's on the way out. If you really think thats' being
pivotal... I'm gonna suggest that you've 'pivoted' on one of your goats too many
times.
Look, Tom... I did sincerely undertake to hold your arm, and guide you through this to a
happier place. But you... are underwater my man. And that's quite an accomplishment, since we
be traveling through the deserts of the really real. You've enumerated a list of things which
has helped me to understand just how completely distorted is the picture of the situation
here in mudded east.. is... in the minds of the myriad victims of your alt-media madness. And
I thank you for that. But its time we part company.
These whirring klaidescope glasses I put on, in order to help me see how you see things,
have given me a bit of a headache. Time to return to seeing the world... as it really
works!
The whole *target and destroy* Iran (and Iraq) clusterfuck has always been about creating
new profit scenarios, profit theaters, for the MIC.
If the US govt was suddenly forced to stop making and selling **** designed to kill
people... if the govt were forced to stopping selling **** to other people so
they can kill people... if the govt were forced to stop stockpiling **** designed to
kill people just so other people would stop building and stockpiling **** designed to kill
people... first the US then the world would collapse... everyone would finally see... the US
is a nation of people that allows itself to be propped up by the worst sort of people... an
infinitesimally small group of gangsters who legally make insane amounts of money... by
creating in perpetuity... forever new scenarios that allow them to kill other people.
Jesus ******* Christ ZeroHedge software ******* sucks.
Why has Trump no real option? What do you believe are the limits of Trump's options that
assure he must negotiate? Perhaps all out war is not yet possible politically in the US, but
public sentiment has been manipulated before. Why not now?
One must not yet reject the idea that the road to Moscow and Beijing does not run through
Iran. Throwing the US out of the Middle East would be a grievous failure for the deep state
which has demonstrated itself to be absolutely ruthless. It is hard to believe the US will
leave without a much more serious war forcing the issue.
So far Trump has appeared artless and that may continue but that artlessness may well
bring a day when Trump will not back down.
The motivation behind Trump pulling out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action wasn't
because, after careful analytical study of the plan, he decided it was a bad deal. It was
because Israel demanded it as it didn't fit into their best interests and, as with the
refreezing of relationships with Cuba, it was a easier way to undo Obama policy rather than
tackling Obamacare. Hardly sound judgement.
The war will continue in Iraq as the Shia majority mobilize against an occupying force
that has been asked to leave, but refuse. What will quickly become apparent is that this war
is about to become far more multifaceted with Iraqi and Iranian proxies targeting American
interests across numerous fronts.
Trump is the head of a business empire; Downsizing is not a strategy that he's ever
employed; His business history is a case study in go big or go bust.
trump's zionist overlords have demanded he destroy iran.
as a simple lackey, he agreed, but he does need political cover to do so.
thus the equating of any attack or threat of attack by any group of any political
persuasion as originating from iran.
any resistance by the shia in iraq will be considered as being directed from iran, thus an
attack on iran is warranted.
any resistance by the currect governement of iraq will be considered as being directed
from iran, thus an attack on iran is warranted.
any resistance by the sunni in iraq will be considered subversion by iran, or a false flag
by iran, thus an attack on iran is warranted.
trump's refusal to follow the SOFA agreement, and heed the call of the democratic
government we claim to have gone in to install, is specifically designed to lead to more
violence, which in turn can be blamed on iran's "malign" influence, which gives the entity
lackeys cover to spread more democracy.
I'm more positive that Iraq can resolve its issues without starting a Global War.
The information
shared by the Iraqi Prime Minister goes part way to awakening the population as to what
is happening and why.
Once more information starts to leak out (and it will from those individuals who want to
avoid extinction) the broad mass of the global population can take action to protect
themselves from the psychopaths.
China moving in to sign a $10.1 billion deal with the Iraqi government to begin the
reconstruction of its ruined oil and gas industry in exchange for oil is of vital
importance.
Come on Tom, you should know better than that: the U.S will destroy any agreements between
China and the people of Iraq.
The oil will continue to be stolen and sent to Occupied Palestine to administer and the
people of Iraq will be in constant revolt, protest mode and subjugation- but they will never
know they are being manipulated by the thieving zionists in D.C and Tel aviv.
Agreed. It will take nothing short of a miracle to stop this. Time isnt on their side
though so they better get on it. They will do something big to get it going.
This isn't "humanity." Few people are psychopathic killers. It is being run by a small
cliche of Satanists who are well on their way to enslaving humanity in a dystopia even George
Orwell could not imagine. They control most of the levers of power and influence and have
done so for centuries.
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to
risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor
for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country.
- Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring's testimony before the Nuremberg tribunal on crimes
against humanity
'Brought to Jesus': the evangelical grip on the Trump administration The influence of
evangelical Christianity is likely to become an important question as Trump finds himself
dependent on them for political survival
Fri 11 Jan 2019 02.00 EST Last modified on Fri 18 Jan 2019 16.51 EST
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Donald Trump at
the Republican national convention in Cleveland, Ohio, on 18 July 2016. Photograph: Mike
Segar/Reuters I n setting out the Trump administration's Middle East policy, one of the first
things Mike Pompeo made clear to his audience in Cairo is that he had come to the region as "as
an evangelical Christian".
In his speech at the American University in Cairo, Pompeo said that in his state department
office: "I keep a Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and his word, and the truth."
The secretary of state's primary message in Cairo was that the US was ready once more to
embrace conservative Middle Eastern regimes, no matter how repressive, if they made common
cause against Iran.
His second message was religious. In his visit to Egypt, he came across as much as a
preacher as a diplomat. He talked about "America's innate goodness" and marveled at a newly
built cathedral as "a stunning testament to the Lord's hand".
ss="rich-link"> 'Toxic Christianity': the evangelicals creating champions for
Trump Read more
The desire to erase Barack Obama's legacy, Donald Trump's instinctive embrace of autocrats,
and the private interests of the Trump Organisation have all been analysed as driving forces
behind the administration's foreign policy.
The gravitational pull of white evangelicals has been less visible. But it could have
far-reaching policy consequences. Vice President Mike Pence and Pompeo both cite evangelical
theology as a powerful motivating force.
Just as he did in Cairo, Pompeo called on the congregation of a Kansan megachurch three
years ago to join a fight of good against evil.
"We will continue to fight these battles," the then congressman said at the Summit church in Wichita. "It
is a never-ending struggle until the rapture. Be part of it. Be in the fight."
For Pompeo's audience, the rapture invoked an apocalyptical Christian vision of the future,
a final battle between good and evil, and the second coming of Jesus Christ, when the faithful
will ascend to heaven and the rest will go to hell.
For many US evangelical Christians, one of the key preconditions for such a moment is the
gathering of the world's Jews in a greater Israel between the Mediterranean and the Jordan
River. It is a belief, known as premillenial dispensationalism or Christian Zionism – and
it has very real potential consequences for US foreign policy .
It directly colours views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and indirectly, attitudes
towards Iran, broader Middle East geopolitics and the primacy of protecting Christian
minorities. In his Cairo visit, Pompeo heaped praise on Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, for building the
new cathedral, but made no reference to the 60,000
political prisoners the regime is thought to be holding, or its routine use of torture.
Pompeo is an evangelical Presbyterian, who says he was "brought to Jesus" by other cadets at
the West Point military academy in the 1980s.
"He knows best how his faith interacts with his political beliefs and the duties he
undertakes as secretary of state," said Stan van den Berg, senior pastor of Pompeo's church in
Wichita in an email. "Suffice to say, he is a faithful man, he has integrity, he has a
compassionate heart, a humble disposition and a mind for wisdom."
As Donald
Trump finds himself ever more dependent on them for his political survival, the influence
of Pence, Pompeo and the ultra-conservative white Evangelicals who stand behind them is likely
to grow.
"Many of them relish the second coming because for them it means eternal life in heaven,"
Andrew Chesnut, professor of religious studies at Virginia Commonwealth University said. "There
is a palpable danger that people in high position who subscribe to these beliefs will be
readier to take us into a conflict that brings on Armageddon."
Chesnut argues that Christian Zionism has become the "majority theology" among white US
Evangelicals, who represent about a quarter of the
adult population . In a 2015
poll , 73% of evangelical Christians said events in Israel are prophesied in the Book of
Revelation. Respondents were not asked specifically whether their believed developments in
Israel would actually bring forth the apocalypse.
The relationship between evangelicals and the president himself is complicated.
Trump himself embodies the very opposite of a pious Christian ideal. Trump is not
churchgoer. He is profane, twice divorced, who has boasted of sexually assaulting women. But
white evangelicals have embraced him.
Eighty per cent of white evangelicals voted for him in 2016, and his popularity among them
is remains in the 70s. While other white voters have flaked away in the first two years of his
presidency, white evangelicals have become his last solid bastion.
Some leading evangelicals see Trump as a latterday King Cyrus, the sixth-century BC Persian
emperor who liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity.
The comparison is made explicitly in
The Trump Prophecy , a religious film screened in 1,200 cinemas around the country in
October, depicting a retired firefighter who claims to have heard God's voice, saying: "I've
chosen this man, Donald Trump, for such a time as this."
Lance Wallnau , a self-proclaimed
prophet who features in the film, has called Trump "God's Chaos Candidate" and a "modern
Cyrus".
"Cyrus is the model for a nonbeliever appointed by God as a vessel for the purposes of the
faithful," said Katherine
Stewart , who writes extensively about the Christian right.
She added that they welcome his readiness to break democratic norms to combat perceived
threats to their values and way of life.
"The Christian nationalist movement is characterized by feelings of persecution and, to some
degree, paranoia – a clear example is the idea that there is somehow a 'war on
Christmas'," Stewart said. "People in those positions will often go for authoritarian leaders
who will do whatever is necessary to fight for their cause."
Trump was raised as a Presbyterian, but leaned increasingly towards evangelical preachers as
he began contemplating a run for the presidency.
Trump's choice of Pence as a running mate was a gesture of his commitment, and four of the
six preachers at his inauguration were evangelicals, including White and Franklin Graham, the
eldest son of the preacher Billy Graham, who defended Trump through his many sex scandals,
pointing out: "We are all sinners."
Having lost control of the House of Representatives in November, and under ever closer
scrutiny for his campaign's links to the Kremlin, Trump's instinct has been to cleave ever
closer to his most loyal supporters.
Almost alone among major demographic groups, white evangelicals are overwhelmingly in favour
of Trump's border wall, which some preachers equate with fortifications in the Bible.
Evangelical links have also helped shape US alliances in the Trump presidency. As secretary
of state, Pompeo has been instrumental in forging link with other evangelical leaders in the
hemisphere, including
Guatemala's Jimmy Morales and the new Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro . Both have undertaken to
follow the US lead in
moving their embassies in Israel to Jerusalem .
Trump's order to move
the US embassy from Tel Aviv – over the objections of his foreign policy and national
security team – is a striking example of evangelical clout.
ss="rich-link"> Sheldon Adelson: the casino mogul driving Trump's Middle East
policy Read more
The move was also pushed by Las Vegas billionaire and Republican mega-donor, Sheldon
Adelson, but the orchestration of the
embassy opening ceremony last May, reflected the audience Trump was trying hardest to
appease.
For many evangelicals, the move cemented Trump's status as the new Cyrus, who oversaw the
Jews return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.
The tightening of the evangelical grip on the administration has also been reflected in a
growing hostility to the UN, often portrayed as a sinister and godless organisation.
Since the US ambassador, Nikki Haley, announced her departure in October and Pompeo took
more direct control, the US mission has become increasingly combative, blocking references to
gender and
reproductive health in UN documents.
Some theologians also see an increasingly evangelical tinge to the administration's broader
Middle East policies, in particular its fierce embrace of Binyamin Netanyahu's government, the
lack of balancing sympathy for the Palestinians – and the insistent demonisation of the
Iranian government.
ss="rich-link"> US will expel every last Iranian boot from Syria, says Mike Pompeo
Read more
Evangelicals, Chesnut said, "now see the United States locked into a holy war against the
forces of evil who they see as embodied by Iran".
This zeal for a defining struggle has thus far found common cause with more secular hawks
such as the national security adviser, John Bolton, and Trump's own drive to eliminate the
legacy of Barack Obama, whose signature foreign policy achievement was the 2015 nuclear deal
with Tehran, which Trump abrogated last May.
In conversations with European leaders such as Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May, Trump has
reportedly insisted he has no intention of going to war with Iran. His desire to extricate US
troops from Syria marks a break with hawks, religious and secular, who want to contain Iranian
influence there.
But the logic of his policy of ever-increasing pressure, coupled with unstinting support for
Israel and Saudi Arabia, makes confrontation with Iran ever more likely.
One of the most momentous foreign policy questions of 2019 is whether Trump can veer away
from the collision course he has helped set in motion – perhaps conjuring up a last
minute deal, as he did with North Korea – or instead welcome conflict as a distraction
from his domestic woes, and sell it to the faithful as a crusade.
"... The Las Vegas billionaire gave Republicans $82m for the 2016 elections and his views, notably staunch support for Netanyahu's Israel, are now the official US line ..."
"... Adelson's considerable support for Republicans is in no small part motivated by what he regards as their more reliable support for the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu , which appear intent on preventing the creation of an independent Palestinian state. ..."
"... Adelson gave $82m toward Trump's and other Republican campaigns during the 2016 election cycle – more than three times the next largest individual donor, according to Open Secrets . ..."
"... That commitment bought him an attentive hearing from the new administration as he pushed for the appointment of Bolton as national security adviser knowing that he would be an important ally in getting the White House to kill the Iran nuclear deal. The New York Times reported that Adelson is a member of a " shadow National Security Council " advising Bolton. ..."
"... The day after Trump announced that the US was pulling out of the Iran agreement, Adelson was reported to have held a private meeting at the White House with the president, Bolton and Vice-President Mike Pence. ..."
"... Adelson was so enthusiastic about the move that he offered to pay for some of the costs and provided a jet to fly Guatemala's official delegation to Israel for the ceremony. (The Central American country has also announced plans to follow Trump and move its own embassy .) ..."
"... "Adelson is a linchpin in bringing together the radical extremists on the Israeli right and this group of hardliners on Israel and neoconservatives," said Levy, who is now president of the US-based Middle East Project. ..."
"... He paid for a new headquarters for the most powerful pro-Israel lobby group in Washington (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), spent $100m to fund "birthright" trips for young Jewish Americans to Israel, and funds a group opposing criticism of the Jewish state at US universities. ..."
"... In 2015 he secretly bought the Las Vegas newspaper, the Review-Journal , which had led the way in critical coverage of the billionaire's business dealings. Several reporters subsequently left the paper complaining of editorial interference and curbs on reporting of the gambling industry. ..."
"... Right now, Adelson is concentrated on ensuring the Republicans remain in control of Congress, and is pouring $30m into funding the GOP's midterm elections campaign. ..."
"... Adelson is no less active in Israel where he owns the country's largest newspaper, a publication so closely linked with Netanyahu's administration it has been dubbed the "Bibipaper" after the prime minister's nickname. ..."
"... In 2014, he told a conference during a discussion about the implications for democracy of perpetual occupation or annexation of parts of the West Bank without giving Palestinians the right to vote in Israeli elections: "Israel isn't going to be a democratic state. So what?" ..."
The Las Vegas
billionaire gave Republicans $82m for the 2016 elections and his views, notably staunch support
for Netanyahu's Israel, are now the official US line
Sheldon Adelson
has spent millions on backing Israel and attacking supporters of Palestinian rights in the US.
Photograph: Kin Cheung/AP In 2015, the billionaire casino owner and Republican party funder
Sheldon
Adelson spent days in a Las Vegas courtroom watching his reputation torn apart and
wondering if his gambling empire was facing ruin.
An official from Nevada's gaming control board sat at the back of the court listening to
mounting evidence that
Adelson bribed Chinese officials and worked with organised crime at his casinos in Macau
– allegations that could have seen the magnate's Las Vegas casinos stripped of their
licenses.
The case, a civil suit by a former manager of the Macau gaming operations who said he was
fired for curbing corrupt practices, was another blow in a bad run for Adelson.
He had thrown $150m into a futile effort to unseat the "socialist" and "anti-Israel" Barack
Obama in the 2012 election. His credibility as a political player was not enhanced by his
backing of Newt Gingrich for president.
But three years on from the court case, Adelson's influence has never been greater.
"Adelson's established himself as an influential figure in American politics with the amount
of money that he has contributed," said Logan Bayroff of the liberal pro-Israel group, J
Street. "There's no doubt that he has very strong, very far-right dangerous positions and that
– at very least – those positions are really being heard and thought about at the
highest levels of government."
As the 2015 court hearing unfolded, the billionaire swallowed his considerable pride and
paid millions of dollars to settle the lawsuit, heading off the danger of the graft allegations
being tested at a full trial.
The casinos stayed in business and continued to contribute to a vast wealth that made
Adelson the 14th
richest person in America last year with a net worth of $35bn, according to Forbes.
Adelson has put some of that money toward pushing an array of political interests ranging
from protecting his business from online gambling to opposition to marijuana legalisation.
But nothing aligns more closely with his world view than the intertwining of the Republican
party and Israel .
Adelson's considerable support for Republicans is in no small part motivated by what he
regards as their more reliable support for the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu , which appear
intent on preventing the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
Adelson gave $82m toward Trump's and other Republican campaigns during the 2016 election
cycle – more than three times the next largest individual donor, according
to Open Secrets .
That commitment bought him an attentive hearing from the new administration as he pushed for
the appointment of Bolton as national security adviser knowing that he would be an important
ally in getting the White House to kill the Iran nuclear deal. The New York Times reported that
Adelson is a member of a " shadow
National Security Council " advising Bolton.
The day after Trump announced that the US was pulling out of the Iran agreement, Adelson was
reported to have held a
private meeting at the White House with the president, Bolton and Vice-President Mike
Pence.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest Sheldon Adelson attends the opening ceremony of the new US embassy in
Jerusalem in May. Photograph: Sebastian Scheiner/AP
The casino magnate also pushed hard to see the US embassy moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem
– an action previous presidents had shied away from because of the diplomatic
ramifications.
Adelson was so enthusiastic about the move that he offered to pay for some of the costs and
provided a jet to fly Guatemala's official delegation to Israel for the ceremony. (The Central
American country has also announced plans to
follow Trump and move its own embassy .)
Daniel Levy, a former member of Israeli negotiating teams with the Palestinians and policy
adviser to the then Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, said that Adelson's money had helped
resurface neoconservative policies which had been discredited after the US invasion of
Iraq.
"Adelson is a linchpin in bringing together the radical extremists on the Israeli right and
this group of hardliners on Israel and neoconservatives," said Levy, who is now president of
the US-based Middle East Project.
The billionaire is also deeply committed to protecting Israel within the US.
An example
of an anti-BDS poster funded by Sheldon Adelson. Photograph: Courtesy of Robert Gardner
He paid for a new headquarters for the most powerful pro-Israel lobby group in Washington
(the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), spent $100m to fund "birthright" trips for
young Jewish Americans to Israel, and funds a group opposing criticism of the Jewish state at
US universities.
The Israeli newspaper
Haaretz recently revealed that Adelson funded an investigation by an Israeli firm with ties
to the country's police and military into the American activist Linda Sarsour, a co-chair of
the Women's March movement who campaigns for Palestinian rights and supports a boycott of the
Jewish state.
Adelson also funds Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and his World Values Network which published a
full-page personal attack in the New York Times on the actor Natalie Portman for refusing an
award from Israel because of its government's policies.
For his part, the casino magnate does not take criticism well.
In 2015
he secretly bought the Las Vegas newspaper, the Review-Journal , which had led the way in
critical coverage of the billionaire's business dealings. Several reporters subsequently left
the paper complaining of editorial interference and curbs on reporting of the gambling
industry.
Right now, Adelson is concentrated on ensuring the Republicans remain in control of
Congress, and is pouring $30m into funding the GOP's midterm elections campaign.
Adelson is no less active in Israel where he owns the country's largest newspaper, a
publication so closely linked with Netanyahu's administration it has been dubbed the
"Bibipaper" after the prime minister's nickname.
Personal relations with Netanyahu have soured but Adelson remains committed to the prime
minister's broader "Greater Israel" political agenda and to strengthening ties between the
Republicans' evangelical base and Israel.
It's not always a welcome involvement by a man who is not an Israeli citizen – not
least because Adelson's vision for the Jewish state does not represent how many of its people
see their country.
In 2014, he told a conference during a discussion about the implications for democracy of
perpetual occupation or annexation of parts of the West Bank without giving Palestinians the
right to vote in Israeli elections: "Israel isn't going to be a democratic state. So what?"
Mike Pompeo was on the TeeVee today scoffing at those who do not agree with him and the
Ziocon inspired "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran. It must be a terrible thing for
intelligence analysts of integrity and actual Middle East knowledge and experience to have to
try to brief him and Trump, people who KNOW, KNOW from some superior source of knowledge that
Iran is the worst threat to the world since Nazi Germany, or was it Saddam's Iraq that was the
worst threat since "beautiful Adolf?"
The "maximum pressure" campaign is born of Zionist terrors, terrors deeply felt. It is the
same kind of campaign that has been waged by the Israelis against the Palestinians and all
other enemies great and small. This approach does not seem to have done much for Israel. The
terrors are still there.
Someone sent me the news tape linked below from Aleppo in NW Syria. I have watched it a
number of times. You need some ability in Arabic to understand it. The tape was filmed in
several Christian churches in Aleppo where these two men (Soleimani and al-Muhandis) are
described from the pulpit and in the street as "heroic martyr victims of criminal American
state terrorism." Pompeo likes to describe Soleimani as the instigator of "massacre" and
"genocide" in Syria. Strangely (irony) the Syriac, Armenian Uniate and Presbyterian ministers
of the Gospel in this tape do not see him and al-Muhandis that way. They see them as men who
helped to defend Aleppo and its minority populations from the wrath of Sunni jihadi Salafists
like ISIS and the AQ affiliates in Syria. They see them and Lebanese Hizbullah as having helped
save these Christians by fighting alongside the Syrian Army, Russia and other allies like the
Druze and Christian militias.
It should be remembered that the US was intent on and may still be intent on replacing the
multi-confessional government of Syria with the forces of medieval tyranny. Everyone who really
knows anything about the Syrian Civil War knows that the essential character of the New Syrian
Army, so beloved by McCain, Graham and the other Ziocons was always jihadi and it was always
fully supported by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as a project in establishing Sunni triumphalism. They
and the self proclaimed jihadis of HTS (AQ) are still supported in Idlib and western Aleppo
provinces both by the Saudis and the present Islamist and neo-Ottoman government of Turkey.
Well pilgrims, there are Christmas trees in the newly re-built Christian churches of Aleppo
and these, my brothers and sisters in Christ remember who stood by them in "the last
ditch."
"Currently there are at least 600 churches and 500,000–1,000,000 Christians in Iran."
wiki below. Are they dhimmis? Yes, but they are there. There are no churches in Saudi
Arabia, not a single one and Christianity is a banned religion. These are our allies?
Mr. Jefferson wrote that "he feared for his country when he remembered that God is just." He
meant Virginia but I fear in the same way for the United States. pl
"... Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States." ..."
"... "Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the game have totally changed," he said. ..."
"The Guardian" journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad says that before the attack on Qassem
Soleimani in Baghdad last week "there was an understanding between the Americans and the
Iranians" that allowed officials from Iran and the U.S. to move freely within Iraq and
maintained relative goodwill toward American bases.
"The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in which both Iran and the United States
coexisted in Iraq," he said.
Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as
anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States."
"Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in
Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in
Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani
was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He
stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the
Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the
Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the
game have totally changed," he said.
AMY GOODMAN: Ghaith, can you comment on this new information that's come to light about the
timing of Soleimani's assassination Friday morning? Iraq's caretaker Prime Minister Adel
Abdul-Mahdi has revealed he had plans to meet with Soleimani on the day he was killed to
discuss a Saudi proposal to defuse tension in the region. Mahdi said, quote, "He came to
deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi Arabia to
Iran" -- Saudi Arabia, obviously, a well-known enemy of Iran. Was he set up? Talk about the
significance of this.
GHAITH ABDUL-AHAD: Well, it is very significant if it's actually General Qassem Soleimani
came to Iraq to deliver this message, if it was actually there was a process of negotiations in
the region. We know that Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government, in general, over the last year
had been trying to position Iraq as this middle power, as this power where both -- you know, as
a country that has a relationship with both Iran and the United States. In that awkward place
Iraq found itself in, Iraq has tried to maximize on this. So they started back in summer and
fall, when there was an escalation between Iran and the United States, when Iran shot down an
American drone. We've seen Adel Abdul-Mahdi fly to Iran, try to mediate. We've seen Adel
Abdul-Mahdi open channels of communications with the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia.
So, if it actually, the killing of General Soleimani, ended that peace initiative, it will
be kind of disastrous in the region, because, as Narges was saying earlier, it is -- you know,
Pompeo is speaking about Iran being this ultimate evil in the region, as this crescent of
Shias, as if they just arrived in the past 10 years in the region. The fact if we see Iran's
reactions, it's always a reaction to an American provocation. You've seen the occupation of
Iraq in 2003. You've seen Iran declared as an "axis of evil." So, if you see it from an Iranian
perspective, it's always this existential threat coming from the United States. And I don't
think there is a more existential threat than in past year. So, yes, I know -- I mean, I think
Adel Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government were trying to find this middle ground, which I think
is totally lost, because even Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the person who was trying to find this middle
ground, was the person who proposed this law yesterday in the Parliament to expel all American
troops from the country.
And I would like to add like another thing. The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in
which both Iran and the United States coexisted in Iraq. So, from 2013, '14, we, as
journalists, we've seen on the frontlines how the proxies of each power have been helping each
other. So we've seen Iranian advisers helping the American-trained Iraqi Army unit or
counterterrorism unit in the fight against ISIS. In the same sense, we've seen American
airstrikes on threats to these -- kind of to ISIS when it was threatening these militias. That
coexistence, it didn't only come from both having a -- sharing an enemy, which is ISIS, or
Daesh, but also these were the rules of the game. These were the rules in which Qassem
Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad
airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He
took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in
the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans
and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would
have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, I think the rules of the game have
totally changed.
So now I think the first victim of the assassination will be the American bases in Iraq. I
don't see any way where the Americans can keep their presence as they did before the
assassination of Soleimani. And even the people in the streets, even the people who opposes
Iran, who opposes the presence of Iranian militias in power and politics, the corruption of
these pro-Iranian parties, even those people would look at these American bases now as not as a
force that came to help them in the fight against ISIS, but a force that's dragging them into a
war between Iran and the United States.
The Trump administration has assassinated Iran's top military leader, Qassim Suleimani, and with the possibility of a serious escalation
in violent conflict, it's a good time to think about how propaganda works and train ourselves to avoid accidentally swallowing it.
The Iraq War, the bloodiest and costliest U.S. foreign policy calamity of the 21 st century, happened in part because
the population of the United States was insufficiently cynical about its government and got caught up in a wave of nationalistic
fervor. The same thing happened with World War I and the Vietnam War. Since a U.S./Iran war would be a disaster, it is vital that
everyone make sure they do not accidentally end up repeating the kinds of talking points that make war more likely.
Let us bear in mind, then, some of the basic lessons about war propaganda.
Things are not true because a government official says them.
I do not mean to treat you as stupid by making such a basic point, but plenty of journalists and opposition party politicians
do not understand this point's implications, so it needs to be said over and over. What happens in the leadup to war is that government
officials make claims about the enemy, and then those claims appear in newspapers ("U.S. officials say Saddam poses an imminent threat")
and then in the public consciousness, the "U.S. officials say" part disappears, so that the claim is taken for reality without ever
really being scrutinized. This happens because newspapers are incredibly irresponsible and believe that so long as you attach "Experts
say" or "President says" to a claim, you are off the hook when people end up believing it, because all you did was relay the fact
that a person said a thing, you didn't say it was true. This is the approach the New York Times took to Bush administration allegations
in the leadup to the Iraq War, and it meant that false claims could become headline news just because a high-ranking U.S. official
said them. [UPDATE: here's an example
from Vox, today, of a questionable government claim being magically transformed into a certain fact.]
In the context of Iran, let us consider some things Mike Pence tweeted about Qassim Suleimani:
"[Suleimani] assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September
11 terrorist attacks in the United States Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats and military personnel.
The world is a safer place today because Soleimani is gone."
It is possible, given these tweets, to publish the headline: "Suleimani plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats, says
Pence." That headline is technically true. But you should not publish that headline unless Pence provides some supporting evidence,
because what will happen in the discourse is that people will link to your news story to prove that Suleimani was plotting imminent
attacks.
To see how unsubstantiated claims get spread, let's think about the Afghanistan hijackers bit. David Harsanyi of the National
Review defends
Pence's claim about Suleimani helping the hijackers. Harsanyi cites the 9/11 Commission report, saying that the 9/11 commission
report concluded Iran aided the hijackers. The report
does indeed say that Iran allowed free
travel to some of the men who went on to carry out the 9/11 attacks. (The sentence cut off at the bottom of Harsanyi's screenshot,
however, rather crucially
says : "We have no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.") Harsanyi
admits that the report says absolutely nothing about Suleimani. But he argues that Pence was "mostly right," pointing out that Pence
did not say Iran knew these men would be the hijackers, merely that it allowed them passage.
Let's think about what is going on here. Pence is trying to convince us that Suleimani deserved to die, that it was necessary
for the U.S. to kill him, which will also mean that if Iran retaliates violently, that violence will be because Iran is an aggressive
power rather than because the U.S. just committed an unprovoked atrocity against one of its leaders, dropping a bomb on a popular
Iranian leader. So Pence wants to link Suleimani in your mind with 9/11, in order to get you blood boiling the same way you might
have felt in 2001 as you watched the Twin Towers fall.
There is no evidence that either Iran or Suleimani tried to help these men do 9/11. Harsanyi says that Pence does not technically
allege this. But he doesn't have to! What impression are people going to get from helped the hijackers? Pence hopes you'll
conflate Suleimani and Iran as one entity, then assume that if Iran ever aided these men in any way, it basically did 9/11 even if
it didn't have any clue that was what they were going to do.
This brings us to #2:
Do not be bullied into accepting simple-minded sloganeering
Let's say that, long before Ted Kaczynski began sending bombs through the mail, you once rented him an apartment. This was pure
coincidence. Back then he was just a Berkeley professor, you did not know he would turn out to be the Unabomber. It is, however,
possible, for me to say, and claim I am not technically lying, that you "housed and materially aided the Unabomber." (A friend of
mine once sold his house to the guy who turned out to be the Green River Killer, so this kind of situation does happen.)
Of course, it is incredibly dishonest of me to characterize what you did that way. You rented an apartment to a stranger, yet
I'm implying that you intentionally helped the Unabomber knowing he was the Unabomber. In sane times, people would see me as the
duplicitous one. But the leadup to war is often not a sane time, and these distinctions can get lost. In the Pence claim about Afghanistan,
for it to have any relevance to Suleimani, it would be critical to know (assuming the 9/11 commission report is accurate) whether
Iran actually could have known what the men it allowed to pass would ultimately do, and whether Suleimani was involved. But that
would involve thinking, and War Fever thrives on emotion rather than thought.
There are all kinds of ways in which you can bully people into accepting idiocy. Consider, for example, the statement "Nathan
Robinson thinks it's good to help terrorists who murder civilians." There is a way in which this is actually sort of true: I think
lawyers who aid those accused of terrible crimes do important work. If we are simple-minded and manipulative, we can call that "thinking
it's good to help terrorists," and during periods of War Fever, that's exactly what it will be called. There is a kind of cheap sophistry
that becomes ubiquitous:
I don't think Osama bin Laden should have been killed without an attempt to apprehend him. -- > So you think it's good
that Osama bin Laden was alive?
I think Iraqis were justified in resisting the U.S. invasion with force. -- > So you're saying it's good when U.S. soldiers
die?
I do not believe killing other countries' generals during peacetime is acceptable. -- > So you believe terrorists should
be allowed to operate with impunity.
I remember all this bullshit from my high school years. Opposing the invasion of Iraq meant loving Saddam Hussein and hating America.
Thinking 9/11 was the predictable consequence of U.S. actions meant believing 9/11 was justified. Of course, rational discussion
can expose these as completely unfair mischaracterizations, but every time war fever whips up, rational discussion becomes almost
impossible. In World War I, if you opposed the draft you were undermining your country in a time of war. During Vietnam, if you believed
the North Vietnamese had the more just case, you were a Communist traitor who endorsed every atrocity committed in the name of Ho
Chi Minh, and if you thought John McCain shouldn't have been bombing civilians in the first place then clearly you believed he should
have been tortured and you hated America.
"If you oppose assassinating Suleimani you must love terrorists" will be repeated on Fox News (and probably even on MSNBC).
Nationalism advocate Yoram Hazony
says there is something wrong with those who
do not "feel shame when our country is shamed" -- presumably those who do not feel wounded pride when America is emasculated by our
enemies are weak and pitiful. We should refuse to put up with these kind of cheap slurs, or even to let those who deploy them place
the burden of proof on us to refute them. (In 2004, Democrats worried that they did appear unpatriotic, and so they ran a
decorated war veteran, John Kerry, for president. That didn't work.)
Scrutinize the arguments
Here's Mike Pence again:
"[Suleimani] provided advanced deadly explosively formed projectiles, advanced weaponry, training, and guidance to Iraqi
insurgents used to conduct attacks on U.S. and coalition forces; directly responsible for the death of 603 U.S. service members,
along with thousands of wounded."
I am going to say something that is going to sound controversial if you buy into the kind of simple-minded logic we just
discussed: Saying that someone was "responsible for the deaths of U.S. service members" does not, in and of itself, tell us anything
about whether what they did was right or wrong. In order to believe it did, we would have to believe that the United States is
automatically right, and that countries opposing the United States are automatically wrong. That is indeed the logic that many
nationalists in this country follow; remember that when the U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, causing hundreds of deaths,
George H.W. Bush said
that he would never apologize for America, no matter what the facts were. What if America did something wrong? That was
irrelevant, or rather impossible, because to Bush, a thing was right because America did it, even if that thing was the mass murder
of Iranian civilians.
One of the major justifications for murdering Suleimani is that he "caused the deaths of U.S. soldiers." He was thus an aggressor,
and could/should have been killed. That is where people like Pence want you to end your inquiry. But let us remember where those
soldiers were. Were they in Miami? No. They were in Iraq. Why were they in Iraq? Because we illegally invaded and seized a country.
Now, we can debate whether (1) there is actually sufficient evidence of Suleimani's direct involvement and (2) whether these
acts of violence can be justified, but to say that Suleimani has "American blood on his hands" is to say nothing at all without
an examination of whether the United States was in the right.
We have to think clearly in examining the arguments that are being made.
Here 's the Atlantic 's
George Packer on the execution:
"There was a case for killing Major General Qassem Soleimani. For two decades, as the commander of the Revolutionary Guards'
Quds Force, he executed Iran's long game of strategic depth in the Middle East -- arming and guiding proxy militias in Lebanon
and Iraq that became stronger than either state, giving Bashar al-Assad essential support to win the Syrian civil war at the cost
of half a million lives, waging a proxy war in Yemen against the hated Saudis, and repeatedly testing America and its allies with
military actions around the region for which Iran never seemed to pay a military price."
The article goes on to discuss whether this case is outweighed by the pragmatic case against killing him. But wait. Let's dwell
on this. Does this constitute a case for killing him? He assisted Bashar al-Assad. Okay, but presumably then killing Assad
would have been justified too? Is the rule here that our government is allowed unilaterally to execute the officials of other governments
who are responsible for many deaths? Are we the only ones who can do this? Can any government claim the right?
He assisted Yemen in its fight against "the hated Saudis." But is Saudi Arabia being hated for good reason? It is not enough to
say that someone committed violence without analyzing the underlying justice of the parties' relative claims.
Moreover, assumptions are made that if you can prove somebody committed a heinous act, what Trump did is justified. But that doesn't
follow: Unless we throw all law out the window, and extrajudicial punishment is suddenly acceptable, showing that Suleimani was a
war criminal doesn't prove that you can unilaterally kill him with a drone. Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. So is George W. Bush.
But they should be captured and tried in a court, not bombed from the sky. The argument that Suleimani was planning imminent
attacks is relevant to whether you can stop him with violence (and requires persuasive proof), but mere allegations of murderous
past acts do not show that extrajudicial killings are legitimate.
It's very easy to come up with superficially persuasive arguments that can justify just about anything. The job of an intelligent
populace is to see whether those arguments can actually withstand scrutiny.
Keep the focus on what matters
"The main question about the strike isn't moral or even legal -- it's strategic." --
The Atlantic
"The real question to ask about the American drone attack that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was not whether it was justified,
but whether it was wise" -- The New York Times
"I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago and why not a month from now?" --
Elizabeth Warren
They're going to try to define the debate for you. Leaving aside the moral questions, is this good strategy? And then you
find yourself arguing on those terms: No, it was bad strategy, it will put "our personnel" in harms way, without noticing that you
are implicitly accepting the sociopathic logic that says "America's interests" are the only ones in the world that matters. This
is how debates about Vietnam went: They were rarely about whether our actions were good for Vietnamese people, but about whether
they were good or bad for us , whether we were squandering U.S. resources and troops in a "fruitless" "mistake." The people
of this country still do not understand the kind of carnage we inflicted on Vietnam because our debates tend to be about whether
things we do are "strategically prudent" rather than whether they are just. The Atlantic calls the strike a "blunder," shifting
the discussion to be about the wisdom of the killing rather than whether it is a choice our country is even permitted to make. "Blunder"
essentially assumes that we are allowed to do these things and the only question is whether it's good for us.
There will be plenty of attempts to distract you with irrelevant issues. We will spent more time talking about whether Trump followed
the right process for war, whether he handled the rollout correctly, and less about whether the underlying action itself is
correct. People like Ben Shapiro will say things
like :
"Barack Obama routinely droned terrorists abroad -- including American citizens -- who presented far less of a threat to
Americans and American interests than Soleimani. So spare me the hysterics about 'assassination."
In order for this to have any bearing on anything, you have to be someone who defends what Obama did. If you are, on the other
hand, someone who belives that Obama, too, assassinated people without due process (which he did), then Shapiro has proved exactly
nothing about whether Trump's actions were legitimate. (Note, too, the presumption that threatening "America's interests" can get
you killed, a standard we would not want any other country using but are happy to use ourselves.)
Emphasis matters
Consider three statements:
"The top priority of a Commander-in-Chief must be to protect Americans and our national security interests. There is no
question that Qassim Suleimani was a threat to that safety and security, and that he masterminded threats and attacks on Americans
and our allies, leading to hundreds of deaths. But there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we
are prepared for the consequences."
"Suleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless
move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority
must be to avoid another costly war."
"When I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the country and the
region. Today, 17 years later, that fear has unfortunately turned out to be true. The United States has lost approximately 4,500
brave troops, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we've spent trillions on this war. Trump's dangerous escalation brings
us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars. Trump promised
to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one."
These are statements made by Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders, respectively. Note that each of them is
consistent with believing Trump's decision was the wrong one, but their emphasis is different. Buttigieg says Suleimani was a
"threat" but that there are "questions," Warren says Suleimani was a "murderer" but that this was "reckless," and Sanders says this
was a "dangerous escalation." It could be that none of these three would have done the same thing themselves, but the emphasis is
vastly different. Buttigieg and Warren lead with condemnation of the dead man, in ways that imply that there was nothing that
unjust about what happened. Sanders does not dwell on Suleimani but instead talks about the dangers of new wars.
We have to be clear and emphatic in our messaging, because so much effort is made to make what should be clear issues appear murky.
If, for example, you gave a speech in 2002 opposing the Iraq War, but the first half was simply a discussion of what a bad and threatening
person Saddam Hussein was, people might actually get the opposite of the impression you want them to get. Buttigieg and Warren,
while they appear to question the president, have the effect of making his action seem reasonable. After all, they admit that he
got rid of a threatening murderer! Sanders admits nothing of the kind: The only thing he says is that Trump has made the world worse.
He puts the emphasis where it matters.
I do not fully like Sanders' statement, because it still talks a bit more about what war means for our people ,
but it does mention destabilization and the total number of lives that can be lost. It is a far more morally clear and powerful antiwar
statement. Buttigieg's is exactly what you'd expect of a Consultant President and it should give us absolutely no confidence that
he would be a powerful voice against a war, should one happen. Warren confirms that she is not an effective advocate for peace. In
a time when there will be pressure for a violent conflict, we need to make sure that our statements are not watery and do not make
needless concessions to the hawks' propaganda.
Imagine how everything would sound if the other side said it.
If you're going to understand the world clearly, you have to kill your nationalistic emotions. An excellent way to do this is
to try to imagine if all the facts were reversed. If Iraq had invaded the United States, and U.S. militias violently resisted, would
it constitute "aggression" for those militias to kill Iraqi soldiers? If Britain funded those U.S. militias, and Iraq killed the
head of the British military with a drone strike, would this constitute "stopping a terrorist"? Of course, in that situation, the
Iraqi government would certainly spin it that way, because governments call everyone who opposes them terrorists. But rationality
requires us not just to examine whether violence has been committed (e.g., whether Suleimani ordered attacks) but what the
full historical context of that violence is, and who truly deserves the "terrorist" label.
Is there anything Suleimani did that hasn't also been done by the CIA? Remember that we actually engineered the overthrow of the
Iranian government, within living people's lifetimes . Would an Iranian have been justified in assassinating the head of the
CIA? I doubt there are many Americans who think they would. I think most Americans would consider this terrorism. But this is because
terrorism is a word that, by definition, cannot apply to things we do, and only applies to the things others do. When you start to
actually reverse the situations in your mind, and see how things look from the other side, you start to fully grasp just how crude
and irrational so much propaganda is.
"It was not an assassination." -- Noah Rothman, conservative commentator
"That's an outrageous thing to say. Nobody that I know of would think that we did something wrong in getting the general."
-- Michael Bloomberg, on Bernie Sanders' claim that this was an "assassination"
Our access to much of the world is through language alone. We only see our tiny sliver of the world with our own eyes, much of
the rest of it has to be described in words or shown to us through images. That means it's very easy to manipulate our perceptions.
If you control the flow of information, you can completely alter someone's understanding of the things that they can't see firsthand.
Euphemistic language is always used to cover atrocities. Even the Nazis did not say they were "mass murdering innocent civilians."
They said they were defending themselves from subversive elements, guaranteeing sufficient living space for their people, purifying
their culture, etc. When the United States commits murder, it does not say it is committing murder. It says it is engaging in a stabilization
program and restoring democratic rule. We saw during the recent
Bolivian coup how easy it is
to portray the seizure of power as "democracy" and democracy as tyranny. Euphemistic language has been one of the key tools of murderous
regimes. In fact, many of them probably believe their own language; their specialized vocabulary allows them to inhabit a world of
their own invention where they are good people punishing evil.
Assassination sounds bad. It sounds like something illegitimate, something that would call into question the goodness of the United
States, even if the person being assassinated can be argued to have "deserved it." Thus Rothman and Bloomberg will not even admit
that what the U.S. did here was an assassination, even though we literally targeted a high official from a sovereign country and
dropped a bomb on him. Instead, this is " neutralization
." (Read this fascinatingly feeble attempt
by the Associated Press to explain why it isn't calling an obvious assassination an assassination, just as the media declined to
call torture torture when Bush did it.)
Those of us who want to resist marches to war need to insist on calling things exactly what they are and refuse to allow the country
to slide into the use of language that conceals the reality of our actions.
Remember what people were saying five minutes ago
Five minutes ago, hardly anybody was talking about Suleimani. Now they all speak as if he was Public Enemy #1. Remember how much
you hated that guy? Remember how much damage he did? No, I do not remember, because people like Ben Shapiro only just discovered
their hatred for Suleimani once they had to justify his murder.
During the buildup to a war there is a constant effort to make you forget what things were like a few minutes ago. Before World
War I, Americans lived relatively harmoniously with Germans in their midst. The same thing with Japanese people before World War
II. Then, immediately, they began to hate and fear people who had recently been their neighbors.
Let us say Iran responds to this extrajudicial murder with a colossal act of violent reprisal, after the killing
unifies the country around a demand for vengeance. They kill a high-ranking American official, or wage an attack that kills our
civilians. Perhaps it will attack some of the soldiers that are now being moved into the Middle East. The Trump administration will
then want you to forget that it promised this assassination was to "
stop a war ." It will then
want you to focus solely on Iran's most recent act, to see that as the initial aggression. If the attack is particularly bad,
with family members of victims crying on TV and begging for vengeance, you will be told to look into the face of Iranian evil, and
those of us who are anti-war will be branded as not caring about the victims. Nobody wants you to remember the history of U.S./Iran
relations, the civilians we killed of theirs or the time we destabilized their whole country and got rid of its democracy. They want
you to have a two-second memory, to become a blind and unthinking patriot whose sole thought is the avenging of American blood. Resisting
propaganda requires having a memory, looking back on how things were before and not accepting war as the "new normal."
Listen to the Chomsky on your shoulder.
"It is perfectly insane to suggest the U.S. was the aggressor here." -- Ben Shapiro
They are going to try to convince you that you are insane for asking questions, or for not accepting what the government tells
you. They will put you in topsy-turvy land, where thinking that assassinating foreign officials is "aggression" is not just wrong,
but sheer madness. You will have to try your best to remember what things are, because it is not easy, when everyone says
the emperor has clothes, or that Line A is longer than Line B, or that shocking people to death is fine, to have confidence in your
independent judgment.
This is why I keep a little imaginary Noam
Chomsky sitting on my shoulder at all times. Chomsky helps keep me sane, by cutting through lies and euphemisms and showing things
as they really are. I recommend reading his books, especially during times of war. He never swallowed Johnson's nonsense about Vietnam
or Bush's nonsense about Iraq. And of course they called him insane, anti-American, terrorist-loving, anti-Semitic, blah blah blah.
What I really mean here though is: Listen to the dissidents. They will not appear on television. They will be smeared and treated
as lunatics. But you need them if you are going to be able to resist the absolute barrage of misinformation, or to hear yourself
think over the pounding war drums. Times of War Fever can be wearying, because there is just so much aggression against dissent that
your resistance wears down. This is why a community is so necessary. You may watch people who previously seemed reasonable develop
a pathological bloodlust (mild-mannered moderate types like Thomas Friedman and Brian Williams going suck on our missiles
). Find the people who see clearly and stick close to them.
So Trump instead of draining the swamp brought swamp creatures like Pompeo into his Administration; now he can pay the price.
Notable quotes:
"... The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo ..."
"... "We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President Trump undertook." ..."
"... On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said. ..."
"... One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida. ..."
"... Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations. ..."
"... On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact. ..."
"... "No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat. ..."
"... Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible." ..."
"... At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals. ..."
"... After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target. ..."
The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve the
killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence, the officials
said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after
it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes to
Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian aggression
created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.
The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo, but it also carries
multiple serious risks: another protracted regional war in the Middle East; retaliatory assassinations of U.S. personnel stationed
around the world; an
interruption in the battle against the Islamic State; the
closure of diplomatic pathways to containing
Iran's nuclear program; and a major backlash in Iraq, whose parliament
voted on Sunday to expel all U.S. troops from the country.
For Pompeo, whose political ambitions are a source of
constant speculation , the death of U.S. diplomats would be particularly damaging given his unyielding criticisms of former secretary
of state Hillary Clinton following the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and other American personnel in Benghazi in 2012.
But none of those considerations stopped Pompeo from pushing for the targeted strike, U.S. officials said, underscoring a fixation
on Iran that spans 10 years of government service from Congress to the CIA to the State Department.
"We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President
Trump undertook."
Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Soleimani months ago, said a senior U.S. official, but neither the president nor Pentagon
officials were willing to countenance such an operation.
For more than a year, defense officials warned that the administration's campaign of economic sanctions against Iran had increased
tensions with Tehran, requiring a bigger and bigger share of military resources in the Middle East when many at the Pentagon wanted
to redeploy their firepower to East Asia.
How the siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad unfolded On
Jan. 1, the siege on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad appeared to come to an end after supporters of the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah
militia retreated. (Liz Sly, Joyce Lee, Mustafa Salim/The Washington Post)
Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that
mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and
injuring service members.
On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials
presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's
long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran.
One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same
class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed
the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.
"Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis," said a senior administration official
who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. "Mattis was opposed to all of this. It's not a hit on Mattis, it's just his
predisposition. Milley and Esper are different. Now you've got a cohesive national security team and you've got a secretary of state
and defense secretary who've known each other their whole adult lives."
Mattis declined to comment.
In the days since the strike, Pompeo has become the voice of the administration on the matter, speaking to allies and making the
public case for the operation. Trump chose Pompeo to appear on all of the Sunday news shows because he "sticks to the line" and "never
gives an inch," an administration official said.
But critics inside and outside the administration have questioned Pompeo's justification for the strike based on his claims that
"dozens if not hundreds" of American lives were at risk.
Lawmakers left classified briefings with U.S. intelligence officials on Friday saying they heard nothing to suggest that the threat
posed by the proxy forces guided by Soleimani had changed substantially in recent months.
When repeatedly pressed on Sunday about the imminent nature of the threats, whether it was days or weeks away, or whether they
had been foiled by the U.S. airstrike, Pompeo dismissed the questions.
"If you're an American in the region, days and weeks -- this is not something that's relevant," Pompeo told CNN.
Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he
make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations.
Critics have also questioned how an imminent attack would be foiled by killing Soleimani, who would not have carried out the strike
himself.
"If the attack was going to take place when Soleimani was alive, it is difficult to comprehend why it wouldn't take place now
that he is dead," said Robert Malley, the president of the International Crisis Group and a former Obama administration official.
Following the strike, Pompeo has held back-to-back phone calls with his counterparts around the globe but has received a chilly
reception from European allies, many of whom fear that the attack puts their embassies in Iran and Iraq in jeopardy and has now eliminated
the chance to keep a lid on Iran's nuclear program.
"We have woken up to a more dangerous world," said France's Europe minister, Amelie de Montchalin.
Two European diplomats familiar with the calls said Pompeo expected European leaders to champion the U.S. strike publicly even
though they were never consulted on the decision.
"The U.S. has not helped the Iran situation, and now they want everyone to cheerlead this," one diplomat said.
"Our position over the past few years has been about defending the JCPOA," said the diplomat, referring to the 2015 Iran nuclear
deal.
On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research
and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original
signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact.
"No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat.
Pompeo has slapped back at U.S. allies, saying "the Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did --
what the Americans did -- saved lives in Europe as well," he told Fox News.
Israel has stood out in emphatically cheering the Soleimani operation, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praising
Trump for "acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively."
"Israel stands with the United States in its just struggle for peace, security and self-defense," he said.
Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence
service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and
the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible."
Though Democrats have greeted the strike with skepticism, Republican leaders, who have long viewed Pompeo as a reassuring voice
in the administration, uniformly praised the decision as the eradication of a terrorist who directed the killing of U.S. soldiers
in Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
"Soleimani made it his life's work to take the Iranian revolutionary call for death to America and death to Israel and turn them
into action," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.
A critical moment for Pompeo is nearing as he faces growing questions about a potential Senate run, though some GOP insiders say
that decision seems to have stalled. Pompeo has kept in touch with Ward Baker, a political consultant who would probably lead the
operation, and others in McConnell's orbit, about a bid. But Pompeo hasn't committed one way or the other, people familiar with the
conversations said.
Some people close to the secretary say he has mixed feelings about becoming a relatively junior senator from Kansas after leading
the State Department and CIA, but there is little doubt in Pompeo's home state that he could win.
At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular
among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals.
After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering
efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target.
At the State Department, he is a voracious consumer of diplomatic notes and reporting on Iran, and he places the country far above
other geopolitical and economic hot spots in the world. "If it's about Iran, he will read it," said one diplomat, referring to the massive flow of paper that crosses Pompeo's desk. "If
it's not, good luck."
"... work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason ..."
"... Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized . ..."
"... The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation! ..."
First, let’s begin by a quick summary of what has taken place (note: this info is still coming in, so there might be corrections
once the official sources make their official statements).
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran
and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was
on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA .
The Iraqi Parliament has now voted on a resolution requiring the government to press Washington and its allies to withdraw
their troops from Iraq.
Iraq’s caretaker PM Adil Abdul Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes
before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.
The Iraqi Parliament has also demanded that the Iraqi government must “ work to end the presence of any foreign troops
on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason “
The Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of
its sovereignty .
Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go
far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized
.
The Pentagon brass is now laying the responsibility for this monumental disaster on Trump (see
here ). The are now slowly waking up to this immense clusterbleep and don’t want to be held responsible for what is coming
next.
For the first time in the history of Iran, a Red Flag was hoisted over the Holy Dome Of Jamkaran Mosque , Iran. This indicates
that the blood of martyrs has been spilled and that a major battle will now happen . The text in the flag say s “ Oh Hussein we
ask for your help ” (u nofficial translation 1) or “ Rise up and avenge al-Husayn ” (unofficial translation 2)
The US has announced the deployment of 3’000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne to Kuwait .
Finally, the Idiot-in-Chief tweeted the following message , probably to try to reassure his freaked out supporters: “
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World!
If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and
without hesitation! “. Apparently, he still thinks that criminally overspending for 2nd rate military hardware is going to
yield victory…
Analysis
Well, my first though when reading these bullet points is that General Qasem Soleimani has already struck out at Uncle Shmuel
from beyond his grave . What we see here is an immense political disaster unfolding like a slow motion train wreck. Make no mistake,
this is not just a tactical "oopsie", but a major STRATEGIC disaster . Why?
For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA
(Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void.
Second, the US now has two options:
Fight and sink deep into a catastrophic quagmire or Withdraw from Iraq and lose any possibility to keep forces in Syria
Both of these are very bad because whatever option Uncle Shmuel chooses, he will lost whatever tiny level of credibility he has
left, even amongst his putative "allies" (like the KSA which will now be left nose to nose with a much more powerful Iran than ever
before).
The main problem with the current (and very provisional) outcome is that both the Israel Lobby and the Oil Lobby will now be absolutely
outraged and will demand that the US try to use military power to regime change both Iraq and Iran.
Needless to say, that ain't happening (only ignorant and incurable flag-wavers believe the silly claptrap about the US armed forces
being "THE BEST").
Furthermore, it is clear that by it's latest terrorist action the USA has now declared war on BOTH Iraq and Iran.
This is so important that I need to repeat it again:
The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure , with BOTH Iraq and Iran.
I hasten to add that the US is also at war with most of the Muslim world (and most definitely all Shias, including Hezbollah and
the Yemeni Houthis).
Next, I want to mention the increase in US troop numbers in the Middle-East. An additional 3'000 soldiers from the 82nd AB is
what would be needed to support evacuations and to provide a reserve force for the Marines already sent in. This is NOWHERE NEAR
the kind of troop numbers the US would need to fight a war with either Iraq or Iran.
Finally, there are some who think that the US will try to invade Iran. Well, with a commander in chief as narcissistically delusional
as Trump, I would never say "never" but, frankly, I don't think that anybody at the Pentagon would be willing to obey such an order.
So no, a ground invasion is not in the cards and, if it ever becomes an realistic option we would first see a massive increase in
the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not more (depending on the actual plan).
No, what the US will do if/when they attack Iran is what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006, but at a much larger scale. They will
begin by a huge number of airstrikes (missiles and aircraft) to hit:
Iranian air defenses Iranian command posts and Iranian civilian and military leaders Symbolic targets (like nuclear installations
and high visibility units like the IRGC) Iranian navy and coastal defenses Crucial civilian infrastructure (power plants, bridges,
hospitals, radio/TV stations, food storage, pharmaceutical installations, schools, historical monuments and, let's not forget that
one, foreign embassies of countries who support Iran). The way this will be justified will be the same as what was done to Serbia:
a "destruction of critical regime infrastructure" (what else is new?!)
Then, within about 24-48 hours the US President will go on air an announce to the world that it is "mission accomplished" and
that "THE BEST" military forces in the galaxy have taught a lesson to the "Mollahs". There will be dances in the streets of Tel Aviv
and Jerusalem (right until the moment the Iranian missiles will start dropping from the sky. At which point the dances will be replaced
by screams about a "2nd Hitler" and the "Holocaust").
Then all hell will break loose (I have discussed that so often in the past that I won't go into details here).
In conclusion, I want to mention something more personal about the people of the US.
Roughly speaking, there are two main groups which I observed during my many years of life in the USA.
Group one : is the TV-watching imbeciles who think that the talking heads on the idiot box actually share real knowledge and expertise.
As a result, their thinking goes along the following lines: " yeah, yeah, say what you want, but if the mollahs make a wrong move,
we will simply nuke them; a few neutron bombs will take care of these sand niggers ". And if asked about the ethics of this stance,
the usual answer is a " f**k them! they messed with the wrong guys, now they will get their asses kicked ".
Group two : is a much quieter group. It includes both people who see themselves as liberals and conservatives. They are totally
horrified and they feel a silent rage against the US political elites. Friends, there are A LOT of US Americans out there who are
truly horrified by what is done in their name and who feel absolutely powerless to do anything about it. I don't know about the young
soldiers who are now being sent to the Middle-East, but I know a lot of former servicemen who know the truth about war and about
THE BEST military in the history of the galaxy and they are also absolutely horrified.
I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong.
I am now signing off but I will try to update you here as soon as any important info comes in.
The Saker
UPDATE1 : according to the Russian website Colonel
Cassad , Moqtada al-Sadr has officially made the following demands to the Iraqi government:
Immediately break the cooperation agreement with the United States. Close the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Close all U.S. military bases
in Iraq. Criminalize any cooperation with the United States. To ensure the protection of Iraqi embassies. Officially boycott American
products.
Cassad (aka Boris Rozhin) also posted this excellent caricature:
UPDATE3 : al-Manar reports that two rockets have landed near the US embassy in Baghdad.
UPDATE4 :
Zerohedge
is reporting that Iranian state TV broadcasted an appeal made during the funeral procession in which a speaker said that each
Iranian ought to send one dollar per person (total 80'000'000 dollars) as a bounty for the killing of Donald Trump. I am trying to
get a confirmation from Iran about this.
UPDATE5 : Russian sources claim that all Iranian rocket forces have been put on combat alert.
UPDATE6 : the Russian heavy rocket cruiser "Marshal Ustinov" has cross the Bosphorus and has entered the Mediterranean.
The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA
Order Now The Essential Saker II: Civilizational
Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire
(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear
who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation
policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please
be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.
(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.
(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:
a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:
a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant
to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more
quickly.
and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in
Name of your link
(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs: You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated. The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will
look like before you send it.
(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran
and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was
on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA.
If this is true, it makes America's murder of General Soleimani even more outrageous. This would be like the USA sending an
American regime official to some other country for a negotiation only to have him/her drone striked in the process!
America reveals its malign character as even more sick that even its opponents have thought possible.
Perhaps, Iran should request that Mike Pompeo come to Baghdad for a negotiation about General Soleimani 's murder and then
"bug splat" Pompeo's fat ass from a drone!
"For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA
(Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void."
-I actually read somewhere that the Iraqi government is just a caretaker government and even thought it voted to remove foreign
forces, it is not actually legally binding.
I'm no lawyer. I don't see why that would matter. If a caretaker government is presented with a crisis, why would it not have
the authority to act?
That said, It could be the line the US government chooses to use to insist its presence is still legal. If course the MSM will
repeat and repeat and make it seem real.
Couldn't agree more. When I read that my jaw dropped and I'm sure my eyes went huge. I just couldn't believe they could be that
stupid, or that immoral, that sunk in utter utter depravity. They truly are those who have not one shred of decency, and thus
have no way of recognising or understanding what decency is. Pure psychopath – an inability to grasp the emotions, values, and
world view of those who are normal. This truly is beyond the pale, and this above everything else will ensure the revenge the
heartbroken people of Iran are seeking. May God bless them.
The US Armed Forces do not need to be 'THE BEST". All they need is mountains of second rate ordinance to re-bury Iraq bury Iran
under rubble. They can then keep their forces in tightly fortified compounds and bomb the c**p out of any one who wants to 'steal
their oil', or any one who wants to 'steal the land promised by God to the Chosen People'. The U.S. has always previously been
limited in their avarice for destruction by their desire to be viewed as the 'good guy'. This limitation has now been stripped
away. There is now nothing to stop the AngloZionist entity except naked force in return.
"realistic option we would first see a massive increase in the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not
more (depending on the actual plan)."
Yes, but these are not part of a single force, many of these are more a target than a threat. Besides, they need to be concentrated
into a a few single forces to actually participate in an invasion.
The Saker
To understand troop size and relevance think along these lines. For every US front line soldier there will be 5 others in support
roles, logistics etc. So for every front line fighting Marine there will be 5 others who got him there and who support him in
his work. 10,000 front line fighting troops means 50,000 troops shipping out to the borders of Iran. I think perhaps you would
need 100,000 US front line troops for an invasion AND occupation (because we all know if they go in they aren't going to leave
quickly) We're talking about half a million US troops, this simply isn't going to happen for multiple reasons, not least they
need to amass at some form of base (probably Iraq – yeah right) maybe Kuwait? They'd just be a constant sitting target. Saker
is correct in that if this goes down it's going to be an air campaign (will the Iranians use the S300s they have?) and possibly
Navy supported. the Israelis will help out but in turn make themselves targets at home for rocket attacks. Again I can't see it
happening, it would take too long to arrange plus from the moment it kicks off every US base, individual is just a target to the
majority of anti US forces spread across the whole middle east. I expect back door diplomacy, probably to little effect, and a
ham fisted token blitz of cruise missiles and drone bombs at Iranian infrastructure, sadly this will not work for the Americans,
we will have a long running campaign on ME ground but also mass terrorist activity across the US and some of its allies. Its a
best guess scenario but if that plays out whatever happens to Iran this war will be another long running death by a 1000 cuts
for the US and will guarantee Trump does not get re-elected.
Whoever sold this to Trump (Bolton via Pompeo? Bibi?) has really lit the touch paper of ruin. Yes it stinks of Netanyahoo but
it also reaks of full strength neocon, Bolton style. Trump is dumb enough to fall for it and obviously did.
1. To read the Colonel Cassad website in English or any other language, just go to
https://translate.yandex.com/ and then paste in the Cassad URL, which
is given above but again, it's https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/
The really nice thing is that when you click on links, Yandex Translate automatically translates those links. Two problems, though.
1. For some unknown reason, Yandex always first translates Cassad as English-to-Russian, and then you have to click on a little
window near the top left, to again request Russian-to-English and then it translates everything fine. I do not experience this
problem when using Yandex on any other website. 2. Unlike what Benders-Lee intended when he invented the web browser, the "back
button" almost doesn't work on Yandex Translate. So always right-click to open links in a new tab.
2. The US could probably carry out a large number of air attacks, but the Iranian response would be to destroy all the Gulf
oil facilities AND everything worth bombing in Israel. This potential for offense is Iran's best defense, and, I think, the main
reason why there hasn't been a war. Iran's air defense missiles are probably more effective than the lying MSM will admit, and
might shoot down a large percentage of the humans and aluminum the US would throw at Iran, but it's a matter of attrition, and
Iran would suffer grave damage. We can't rule out that that might be the plan since the Empire is run by psychopaths. A US Army
elite training manual, from 2012 in Kansas, implied that by 2020, Europe would not be a major power. Perhaps they were thinking
that Europe would go out of business from a lack of Persian Gulf oil.
3. As for a ground war against Iran, I don't think the US or even the US with the former NATO coalition, would have any hope
and they know it. A real invasion force would require at least 250,000 troops, probably 500,000, maybe more. 80 million very determined
and united Iranians, many of whom who don't fear martyrdom, would make the Vietnam War look like a bad picnic with fire ants
. Yes, Vietnam had jungle for guerillas to hide behind, but South Vietnamese society was divided and many supported the Americans.
Iran has no such division. Even the Arab province of Khuzestan would stand united, knowing how the Shiite Arabs are mistreated
in the Eastern Province and in Kuwait.
Count me in as part of group two. As a former U.S. Army service member I can assure anyone reading this that this action is an
historic strategic mistake. What the Saker has outlined above is very likely. There is most probably no way to walk back now.
Who in the ME would negotiate with the U.S. Government? Their perfidy is well known. Many citizen in this country feel like they
are held hostage by a government that doesn't represent their interests or feelings. I hope the people in the ME know this.
Since the folks in the ME know that the US is a "pretend democracy" they also realize that the people of the USA are just as oppressed
by the AngloZionist regime as the people abroad. Frankly, I have traveled on a lot of countries and I have never come across anything
like real hostility towards the US American people. The very same people who hate Uncle Shmuel very much enjoy US music, literature,
movies, novel ideas, etc. I believe that the Empire is truly hated across the globe, but not the people of the USA.
Kind regards
The Saker
As long as people of the USA tolerate their government criminal activities around the world, and this is happening for last 70
years, I don't agree with your comment. These crimes are commited in the name of people of the USA, who are doing nothing to prevent
them. As for movies coming from US, most of them are propaganda about 'exceptional nation'. No thanks.
The United States of America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. That being said, the fall elections are going
to be of significant interest.
Couldn't agree with you less Saker. They share the spoils of war, generation after generation. From the killing of indigenous
population to neocolonial resource extraction today, they get their cut. You cannot have it both ways, enjoying the spoils of
war and hiding behind invalid rationalizations, pretending you have no-thingz to do with that.
Russian TV says that there were anti-war demonstrations in 80 (!) US cities.
I don't have the time to check whether this is true, but it sure sounds credible to me.
The Saker
This information is true. I personally took part in the march in Denver, Colorado. I would estimate we had about 500 people,
which is a lot more than most anti-war protests have ever gotten in recent memory.
Do not count out the possibility of a sudden large and massive anti-war movement suddenly springing out of nowhere.
Unfortunately, I do not see how "peaceful" protests will accomplish anything on their own. Rioting may be necessary. The system
needs to be shut down and commerce slow to a crawl so that nobody may ignore this.
I agree that there will first be a period of violent confusion, followed by -- well, what sane person even wants to think about
what possible horrors lie ahead?
The threat of one or more spectacular false flag attacks to further fan the flames would also appear to be a possibility.
Real evil has been unleashed, that is clear. The empire has decided to fight, and to fight very dirty.
Wasn't the Saker working in the employ of the US or NATO when they attacked Srbija without cause? Because that was my understanding.
Actually, no. I was working at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research.
But thanks for showing everybody how ugly, petty and clueless ad hominem using trolls can be!
The Saker
"I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong."
My personal observation is unfortunately the opposite. I think the population that is over 40 is probably leans 80% toward
the TV-watching imbecile category with zero critical thinking abilities and exposure to four plus decades of propaganda. The population
under 40 is largely too apathetic to have an opinion and unwilling to engage in research.
History will most likely play out in disaster resulting from a corrupt ruling class, systemic institutional rot, and brain-washed
public not realizing what's happened.
I will hazard a guess and say there are far more men than women in Group 1, and many more draft-age young adults of both sexes
in Group 2.
But by and large a disturbing number of people in America regard world events as being akin to a football game, with Team A
and Team B and a score to be kept. If things don't appear to be going well for their "team," they speak and behave irrationally,
with crass statements like "nuke the whole place and turn it into a glass parking lot." Impressive, isn't it? Grown adults, comporting
themselves like overindulged little children, always accustomed to getting their way – and displaying a terrifying willingness
to set the whole house on fire when they don't.
It is a spiritual illness which pollutes the USA. Terrible things will have to happen before the society can become well, again
Even if only 20% of the population join us, that will be enough. Because guess what? The TV-watching imbeciles are fat, lazy,
and they won't do anything to support the government either, and they definitely aren't brave enough to get in the way of an angry
mob
It's interesting to me, this comment of Sakers'. I have been thinking, with these revelations of the utter depravity and total
lack of what was once called "honour " and treating the enemy with respect, of a few instances which seemed to show me that not
all of America was like this.
There is a scene in the much loved but short lived** TV series "Firefly" in which the rebel "outsider" spaceship Captain offers
a doctor on the run a berth with them. The Doctor says "but you dont like me. You could kill me in my sleep" to which the Captain
replies "Son, you dont know me yet, So let me tell you know, If i ever try to kill you, you will be awake, you will be facing
me, and you will be armed"
Exactly I thought. There is a Code of Honour by which battles used to be fought. This latest by US has shown how low it's Ruling
Regime is, that is doesn't not see that. But from examples like the above, I gathered that there are people in America who still
hold to it closely – and that's good to know.
** Short lived because it showed as it's heroes a group of people who lived outside the Ruling Tyrannical Regime, who had fought
for Independence and lost, and now lived "by their wits" and not always according to law. Not surprising that the rulers of US
weren't going to allow that to go to air!!
Unfortunately I believe the largest group in the USA is the "nuke 'em group". All of my friends watch Fox and none have an understanding
of the empire.
Sake thank you as always for your excellent work. What do you think Iran will attack first?
Thanks Saker for this discussion/information space you provide when nothing is very trustworthy and on what is a holiday week
end for you.
Two points:
Never underestimate the perfidy of the Kurds. They held back on the censure/withdrawal vote in the Iraqi\
parliament and are probably offering withdrawal airport space for US military.
And Agreed, about most Americans being absolutely horrified and ashamed.Even Alex Jones had to put Syrian Girl on and to post
her on video.banned. One of his callers demanded that Alex apologize to his listening audience on "bended knee" for his support
of Trump's attack on Iran. When Alex tried to schmooze
the irate caller -- The man started yelling -- "Who cares, Alex, who cares about Iran my neighbors have no jobs
and are dying from drug overdoses. who cares about Israel? Let them take care of themselves."
Trump has sealed his own fate on many levels and ours her in looneylandia. It is said that a nation gets the leadership it
deserves. We are about to become a nation of the yard-sale.
Whew, this is something to chew on and try to digest. That first point jumped right off the page. General Soleimani was on an
official diplomatic mission, requested by the U.S.! They set him up and were waiting for him to get in his car at the airport
and go onto the road.
The entire world will know there is no way to justify this. It is just as ugly as the public murder of JFK. They have zero credibility
in all they say and do. It will be interesting to see who supports what is coming and who have gotten the message from this murder
and have decided they cannot support this beast.
How many missiles does the us have in the middle east?
How many air defense missiles does have iran?
Does iran have the ability to destroy us airbases to prevent aircraft from attacking iranian territory? That would be my first
move: destroying the ennemy s fighter jets while they are still on the ground.
How many missiles does iran can launch ? How far can they hit?
I think these are important questions if we want to make a good assessment of the situation
Thank you for the continuing courageous, fact-based reporting.
All as-yet-unenslaved-minds of the oppressed people living under the auspices of the empire share the horror of what has happened,
made worse so, for I personally, learning the evil duplicity of the 'fake' diplomacy of the masters of the U.S.A. administration.
If there had been any credibility whatsoever, left for the U.S.A. diplomatic integrity, it is now completely murdered.
I should like to point out, yet again, the perverse obviousness of the utter subordination of the utterly testiclesless
america n ' leadership ' by the affiliates, dually loyal extra-nationals, aligned to the quasi-nation of
pychopathic hatred against humanity.
In spite of, and now increasingly because of, the absurd perception management/propaganda agencies, completely controlled by
this aforementioned affiliation, and their ongoing absurd efforts, people are becoming aware of the ultimate source of the hatred
and agenda we re witnessing in the ME, and indeed, in ever country under the auspices of the empire.
It is becoming impossible to cover, even for the most timid followers of the citizens of empire-controlled nation states.
The war continues against the non-subliminated citizens, and will certainly escalate as the traction of the perception-management
techniques have been pushed way over their best-before date.
Even not wanting to know this, people are becoming aware of it.
I urge all those self-identifying with this affiliation of secretive hatred against humanity to disavow either publicly, or
privately, this collective of hatred.
The recusement of the fifth-column will undermine these machinations.
It is now the time to realize that no promise of superior upward mobility, in exchange for activities supporting the affiliation,
is worth the stark prospect of complete destruction of the biosphere.
Saker: what makes you think it will just be a couple of days of bombing? I would have thought they would set up a no fly zone
then fly over that country permanently blowing the shit out of any military thing on the ground until the gov collapses.
Iran doesn't have the ability to prevent this & running a country under these conditions is impossible.
Set up a no-fly zone over Iran? Iran is well aware of American air-power. They have a multi-layer air defense. And I wouldn't
be surprised that the Iranian's are capable of taking out U.S. satellites.
Iran knows their enemy. They have been preparing for conflict with the U.S. for 40 years. This is a sophisticated, and highly
advanced nation, with brilliant leadership. They understand what their weaknesses are, and what their strengths are.
The wild cards are threefold: Russia. China. North Korea. If one wants to think about the possible asymmetrical capabilities
of those three, let alone the pure power their militaries, it boggles the mind.
Prediction: The U.S. stands down on orders of their own military. People like John Bolton quietly pass away in their sleep.
The only no fly zone to be implemented will be on all american warplanes over Iran and Iraq. Do you remember the multimillion
drone that went down? Multipliy it by hundreds of manned planes. God, how delusional can you be?!!!
You have a fighting force that is a disgrace composed by little girls that start screeming once they get bullets flying over their
heads. You have aircraft battle groups that are sitting ducks waitng to go to the bottom of the sea. Wake up and get your pills,
man!
Paul23, from where will the aircraft take off to implement your "no-fly zone"? Any air base within 2,000 km would be destroyed
by a shower of cruise missiles and possibly drones.
It is Group 1 -- loud, reactionary, extremely vulgar, militant parasites -- which defines the US national character. Exceptional
and indispensable simply mean "entitled to other peoples' natural resources and labour output". Trying to reason with these lowlives
is a waste of time. Putin understands this; hence the new Russian weapons. The latter will be needed very soon.
Americans are a good people but America is one of the most heavily propagandized nations in the world. The media is corrupt.
The educational systems teach a sanitized version of history. But that is only a part of it.
Pro-Military propaganda is everywhere. Even before the Superbowl, jet bombers fly over the stadium – as if Militarism constituted
a basic American value. At Airports, "Military Personnel" are given preferential boarding. At retail stores customers are asked
to make donations to "military families." College football games are dedicated to "Military Appreciation Day." High Schools work
in unison with Military Recruiters to steer students into the Military. Even playground facilities for children that have video
displays display pro military messages. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Most of this propaganda is paid for out of the obscene military budget. The average citizen doesn't have a chance.
Americans are a good people, if they really knew what was being done in their name, they would put a stop to it.
Militant parasites do live in a world of total lies, deception, and delusion but never at the expense of their survival
instincts. US imperial coercion, mayhem, and murder globally are absolutely crucial to the American way of life, and the 99% know
it. Their living standards would drop enormously without the imperial loot. Thus, they dearly yearn for all the repression, war,
and chauvinism they vote for and more.
One thing is telling, at least for me. Who the f in the right state of mind kills other state's official and then admits of doing
it?!? The common sense sense tells me that you do something and to avoid bigger consequences you stay quet and deny everything.
Just like CIA is doing. Trump just put US military personnel in grave danger. We know how they accused Manning for showing the
to the world US war crimes. They put him in the jail for what Trump just did. But, I cannot believe that they are that much stupid.
If US does not want war, as Trump is saying, they could have done this and then blame someone else because now it has been shown
that they wanted to "talk" to Iran, as Iraqis PM said. At least, US brought new meaning to the word "talk"
The most damaging, no most devestating, assymetrical attack on the US would be a 'non violent' attack.
Let me quickly explain.
It has been well known since the exposure of the man behind the curtain during the great financial crisis of 2007-08 that all
Human operations – all Human life in fact – is financialised in some way.
Some ways being so sophisticated or 'subtle' that barely 1 person in 1000 is even aware, much less capable of understanding
them, much less the financial control grid (and state / deepstate power base) which empoverishs them and enslaves them to an endless
cycle of aquiring and spending 'money'.
Look deeply and the wise will see how 'Human resources' (as opposed to Human Beings) are herded like cattle to be worked on
the farm, 'fleeced', or slaughtered as appropriate to the money masters.
We have been programmed, trained, and conditioned to call 'currency units' (dollar/euro/pound/yuan, etc) 'money', when they
are actually nothing of the sort, they are state or bank issued money substitutes.
In the middle east and north africa some leaders recognised this determined how to escape slavery and subjegation. They attempted
to field this knowledge like an economic-nuke, but without the massive protection required, and they were destroyed by the empire
– Sadam Hussain with his oil for Gold (and oil for Euros) program, and Col. Gadaffi of Libya with his North African 'Gold Dinar'
and 'Silver Durham' Islamic money program.
To cut a very long story short – the evil empire depends upon all nations and peoples excepting thier pieces of paper currency
units as 'real' money – which the empire print / create in unlimited quantities to fund thier war machine and global progrram
of domination.
All financial markets are either denominated or settled in US Dollars (or are at least convertable).
All Nations Central Banks (except Irans I believe) are linked via various US Dollar exchange / liquidity mechanisms, and all
'settle' in US Dollars.
Currently all nations use US controlled electronic banking communications / exchange / tranfer systems (swift being the most
well known).
Would it therefore not make sence to go for the very beating heart of the Beast – the US financial system?
The most powerful attack against the empire would therefore be against this power base – the global reserve currency – the
US dollar – and the US ability to print any quantity of it (or create digits on a screen and call them 'Dollar Units').
It would be pointless trying to fight an emnemy capable of printing for free enough currency to buy every resource (including
peoples lives) – unless that super ability was destroyed or disrupted.
Example of a massive nuclear equivilent attack on the beast would be an internal and major disrruption of interbank electronic
communications (at all levels from cash machine operation and card payment readers up to interbank transfers and federal banking
operations).
Shut down the US banking system and you shut down the US war machine.
Not only that you shut down the US ability to buy resources and bribe powerful leaders – which means they wont be able to recover
from such a blow quickly.
Shutting down banking and electronic payments of all kinds would cause the US people – particularly those currently enjoying
bread and circus distraction and pacification – to tear appart thier own communities, and each other, as the spoiled and gready
fight for the remaining resources, including food and fuel.
The 'grid' has been studied in great depth by both Russia and China (and Israel as part of thier neo-sampson option) and we
can therefore deduce that Iran has some knowledge of how it works and where the weak links are (and not just the undersea optical
cables and wireless nodes).
I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on
this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar.
Reducing the US to an empoverished 3rd world state by taking its check book away would be a worthy and lasting revenge and
humiliation.
" I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on
this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar. "
No, the best way would be for each nation to ditch the intertwined, privately ( Rothschild ) controlled central banks, and
to return to printing their own money. Anything, short of that will just perpetuate the same system from a different home base
( nation ), most likely China next. This virus can jump hosts and it will given a chance.
Who knows what will happen, but an actual boots on the ground invasion of Iran will not happen. Iran is not Irak and things have
changed since that war.
US does not have 6 to 12 months to gather it's forces and logistics for an invasion (remember, the election is coming), plus
US no longer has the heavy lift assets to do this. Toss in the fact that Iran is now on a war footing and has allies in the general
AO, hired RoRo's and other logistics and supply assets will be targets before they get anywhere near the ports or beaches to off
load. Plus, you can kiss oil goodbye, Iran will close the straights a nanosecond after the first bomb is in the air.
An air assault such as Serbia will be very expensive, Iran will fight back from the first bomb if not before, and Iran has
a pretty viable air defense system and the missiles to make life miserable for any cluster of troops and logistics within roughly
300 kilometers of the borders if not longer. Look at a map. There is a long border between Iran and Irak, but as such and considering
the terrain, any viable ground attack has to come from Irak territory. With millions of Iraki's seething at what Uncle Sugar just
did and millions of Iranians seething at what Uncle Sugar just did, any invading troops will not be greeted with showers spring
blossoms. To paraphrase a quote, 'You will be safe nowhere, our land will be your grave.'
Toss in the fact that an invasion of Irak, if even half successful, will put American troops on a war footing perilously close
to Russian territory and possibly directly on the Russian Lake, aka Caspian Sea, and sovereign territory of Russia. Won't happen,
VVP will not allow it.
Ergo, in spite of all the bluster and chest beating, at best all Foggy Bottom can do is bomb, bomb some more and bomb again.
The cost in airframes and captured pilots will be a disaster and if RoRo's and other logistic heavy lift assets or bases are hit,
the body bags coming back to Dover will be of numbers that can not be hidden as they are today with explanations that the dead
are victims of training accidents or air accidents.
Foggy Bottom, and Five Points with Langley, have painted themselves in to a corner and unfortunately for them, (and it's within
the realm of possibility that Five Points egged Trump on for this deal regardless of their protestations of innocence and surprise)
they are now in a case of put up or shut up. As a point of honor they will continue down the spiral path of open warfare and war
is like a cow voiding it's watery bowels, it splatters far beyond the intended target.
As my friend said a few years ago, damn you, damn your eyes, damn your souls, damn you back to Satan whose spawn you are. Go
back to your fetid master and leave us in peace.
Never The Last One, paper back edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521849056
A deep look in to Russia, her culture and her Armed Forces, in essence a look at the emergence of Russian Federation.
"UPDATE2: RT is reporting that "One US service member, two contractors killed in Al-Shabaab attack in Kenya, two DoD personnel
injured". Which just goes to prove my point that spontaneous attacks are what we will be seeing first and that the retaliation
promised by Iran will only come later."
Saker, Some of us might be curious to know what your experience with the UN Institute for Disarmament Research informs you about
the imminent Virginia gun bans and confiscations planned for this year and next. Can Empire afford to fight an actual shooting
war on two fronts, one externally against Iraq/Iran and the second internally against its own people, some of whom will paradoxically
be called away to fight on the first front? Perhaps the two conflicts could become conjoined as Uncle Shmuel mislabels every peaceful
gun owner who just wants to be left alone as a foreign enemy-sympathizer and combatant by default, thereby turning brother against
brother in a bloody prolonged hell in the regions immediately around Washington DC? Could the Empire *truly* be that suicidal?
'Mr. Trump, the Gambler! Know that we are near you, in places that don't come to your mind. We are near you in places that you
can't even imagine. We are a nation of martyrdom. We are the nation of Imam Hussein You are well aware of our power and capabilities
in the region. You know how powerful we are in asymmetrical warfare You know that a war would mean the loss of all your capabilities.
You may start the war, but we will be the ones to determine its end '
Gen. Soleimani (2018)
Hello Saker,
I would like to ask you a question.
According to the Russian nuclear doctrine "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the
use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against itself or its allies and also in response to large-scale aggression
involving conventional weapons in situations that are critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies."
In your opinion does Russia consider Iran such an ally? Will Russia shield Iran against USAn / Israeli nuclear strikes? In case
of an imminent nuclear strike on Iran is Russia (and possibly others) going to issue a nuclear ultimatum to the would-be aggressor?
And in case an actual nuclear attack on Iran happens is Russia going to retaliate / deter further attacks with its own nukes?
What is your opinion?
One thing: please do not start explaining why the above scenario is completely unthinkable, unrealistic and why it would never
ever happen. I need your opinion on the possible events if such an attack does take place or it is about to happen. I do not need
reasons why it would not happen; I need your opinion what might take place if it does happen. If you cannot answer my question,
have no opinion or simply do not want to answer it please let me know it.
In case there is a formal commitment by Russia – one I know not of – when, where was it made?
Thanks in advance.
I think USA still has nuclear option.
They will not hesitate to use it on Iran if Israel is in danger.
So, I think Iran shall be defeated anyway, as USA is much stronger.
Wrong. If the US uses nukes, then this will secure the total victory of Iran.
The Saker
How does this secure a total victory, dear Saker? Please help my to understand this: Nukes on every major city, industrial site,
infrastructure with pos. millions dead – how is this a victory?
I think that if Iran were to launch some devastating missiles into Israel, either a US ship/submarine or Israel will launch a
nuclear bomb into Iran. The US knows there is nothing to be gained by a ground invasion. If we [the US] were to start launching
missiles into Iran, Iran would rightfully be launching sophisticated arms back toward US ships and Israel and the US can't stand
for that. We are good at dishing it out, but lousy at receiving it.
I can only believe we assassinated Solieman [apologies] because it is the writhing of a dying petrodollar. The US is desperate.
But I don't understand how going to war is supposed to help?
"Beijing's ties with Tehran are crucial to its energy and geopolitical strategies, and with Moscow also in the mix, a broader
conflagration is a real possibility"
Last but not least, Happy Nativity to all Orthodox Christians (thanks for the beautifully illustrated Orthodox calendar, The
Saker.)
Let us all pray for peace.
Trump is the King of the South. Killing under a flag of parley is a rare thing these days and is the reason why Trump will end
up going to war with no allies by his side just like the path mapped oit for him in Daniel.
It's not a blunder.
Trump's goals pre-assassination:
1) withdraw US troops from the ME ("Fortress America") and
2) placate Israel
This is how it is done. Not a direct "hey guys, we have to bring the boys home." Trump tried that and got smashed by the Deep
State and Israel. Instead, he is going to force the Islamic world to do the talking for him by refusing to host our pariah army
(that's all they have to do, not destroy a major US base or two). Then even the Deep State will admit it's a lost cause. He can
say he did all he could while achieving his goals.
As The Saker pointed out, the troops being sent now are to evacuate, not to conquer Tehran. Next time this year the US will have
its troops home and Trump will be reelected
"... Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country. ..."
"... The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country? ..."
"... What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers. ..."
"... "We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran." Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country which does not honor the most basic of international law? ..."
"... Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'. ..."
"... Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary executions...What you make of this? https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some other think tankers.. ..."
"... Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be. On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work. ..."
Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian soldier. He lived by the sword and died by the sword. He met
a soldier's destiny. It is being said that he was a BAD MAN. Absurd! To say that he was a BAD
MAN because he fought us as well as the Sunni jihadis is simply infantile. Were all those who
fought the US BAD MEN? How about Gentleman Johhny Burgoyne? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Sitting
Bull? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Aguinaldo? Another BAD MAN? Let us not be juvenile.
The Iraqi PMU commander who died with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. He was a member
of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. IOW, we killed an Iraqi
general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly sovereign state of Iraq.
We created the present government of Iraq through the farcical "purple thumb" elections.
That government holds a seat in the UN General Assembly and is a sovereign entity in
international law in spite of Trump's tweet today that said among other things that we have
"paid" Iraq billions of US dollars. To the Arabs, this statement that brands them as hirelings
of the US is close to the ultimate in insult.
Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to
yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country.
The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of
al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country?
Will we go if they vote that way? We should. If we do not, then we will be exposed as
imperialist hypocrites.
Trump should welcome such a vote. He wants to get out of the ME? What greater opportunity
could we have to do so?
Let us leave if invited to go. Let the oh, so clever locals deal with their own hatreds and
rivalries. pl
What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on
Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers.
But...Elora guesses you are being rhetorical here...because... if he would have died by
the sword...would not have he had the opportunity to defend himself against his
enemy/opponent?
Instead...he was caught on surprise...unarmed...and hit by an overwhelming force...he was
going to some funerals...
"We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent
ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran."
Tulsi Gabbard.
Some impressive images worth thousands words...just to remember everybody that this man was
an appreciated human being...doing his duty....for his motherland...and his God....
To better understand the pain of that elderly yazidi woman in the video, some testimony by
Rania Khalek on the role of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis ( the other militia commander killed who is
being as well slandered as terrorist along Soleimani ...) in stopping yazidi genocide in Iraq
when nobody else was giving a damn, less any help, for this people...
Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have
no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign
country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country
which does not honor the most basic of international law?
And am I alone to be disgusted to see the senior members of our government lie blatantly
and constantly, when they're not fellating the nearest likudnik....
We go where we are wanted and appreciated. We have no skin in Iraq. Build the Wall and
protect our own borders. Concentrate our resources on cyber-security.
Tulsi makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately that disqualifies her for the presidency, not
because she couldn't execute the functions of the presidency, but because neither the party
apparatchiks nor the voters would give her the chance. These days either nationalistic
claptrap or promises of more freebies are what carry the day. Quelle domage, eh?
As for the Iraqi parliament voting to expel U.S. forces? That's an interesting question. If
they did, they'd better vote to expel the "den of spies" at the embassy and insist on our
having a normal sized legation (as all countries would be well advised to do). But if they
do, would we leave? I personally doubt it even though it would be best if we did and let the
Iraqis do what they will, which would probably be reverting back to some sort of strongman
govt, of a type more suited to their cultural traditions and inclinations. It's high time we
afforded the rest of the world the type of cultural and political autonomy we claim to revere
so much.
So, we leave? A good thing for us and for them and the world at large.
Or, we don't? Then we expose the truth the rest of the world already knows, but we at least
expose the truth to our own people who have been fed a steady diet of mendacious BS about
what we've been doing over there all these years.
That attack on the "airport limo" vehicles leaving Baghdad airport sure took some nerve on
our part to think that we could sell something like that...
And, did Trump actually order it, or did someone else in the MIC order it first and Trump
laid claim to it afterwards? Uncle Joe, if he had ordered it, would have afterwards announced
the execution of a fall guy and denied any complicity! If Trump didn't order it, he should
throw whoever did under the bus instead of crowing and wrapping himself in the flag. I wonder
about what actually happened in planning this hit job on prominent military people on their
way to a funeral for 31 people who may or may not have had anything whatsoever to do with the
death of a single American mercenary in Iraq in an attack by persons unknown on a small
outpost.
It's times like this I wish I was a fly on the wall, listening to what the Russian General
Staff conversations regarding this assassination are at this moment.
Trump IMHO would do well to seek Putin's counsel on how to exit the corner that Trump has
backed US into. While this spells problems for our US, it also creates additional problems
for Russia in the ways that could cause them MAJOR problem as well as in a full blown Mideast
War with many players in the mix. Not a good mix either.
Israel can't handle a full blown Mideast War, no matter how much their narcissistic
national psyche thinks they can. Israel is a mere postage stamp in a sea of rage, which
tsunami waves could very easily consume them. Sheldon Adelson and his Likud/NEOCON blowhards
have no concept of what is on the short horizon, that can go one way or the other.
I'm glad I'm retired in this instance. My glass of bourbon is more palatable than the
grains of Mideast sand that fixing to get stirred up.
God help us all.
Pat, why does the US military always get left with the shit-storms to clean up after?
Why?
Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to
Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the
dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who
believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'.
I can hear the talking points already ...
1. 'Obama made the same mistake and it created ISIS.'
2. 'Iran has taken over Iraq, it's not a legitimate request' (look at how we selectively
recognize govts in South America and no one blinks).
3. 'Iran will use Iraq as a base to attack us' (yeah, its about 100 miles closer).
I can't stand what we have become, the jackals have taken over and the MSM attacks the
very few who are not jackals.
OK. Who do you think would have had the power to order the strike? Not the CIA, the
military would not accept such an order. Not the chairman of the JCS, he is not in the chain
of command. That leaves Esper, SECDEF. Really? He looks like a putschist to you? You are
ignorant of the American government.
Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary
executions...What you make of this?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some
other think tankers..
Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by
the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no
different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and
his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be.
On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work.
He is bad for Jewish programmers, nurses, etc. He is certainly good for Jewish financial
oligarchs like Adelson and singer as well as Zionists like natuanuahoo.
Notable quotes:
"... I think it was an Israeli friend who first told me that Judaism, unlike other faiths, has rarely been a religion of oppression -- but that the reason was simply lack of opportunity, a diagnosis that recent Israeli governments seem determined to confirm. ..."
"... An aside: American Jews almost all support Israel, but many don't support the policies of its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. But that's presumably a distinction Trump doesn't understand, at home or abroad ..."
On Saturday Donald Trump gave a
speech to the Israeli American Council in which he asserted that many in his audience were
"not nice people at all," but that "you have to vote for me" because Democrats would raise
their taxes.
Was he peddling an anti-Semitic stereotype, portraying Jews as money-grubbing types who care
only about their wealth? Of course he was. You might possibly make excuses for his remarks if
they were an isolated instance, but in fact Trump has done this sort of thing many times, for
example asserting in 2015 that Jews weren't supporting him because he wasn't accepting their
money and "you want to control your politicians."
Well, it's not news that Trump's bigotry isn't restricted to blacks and immigrants. What is
interesting, however, is that this particular anti-Semitic cliché -- that Jews are
greedy, and that their political behavior is especially driven by their financial interests --
is empirically dead wrong. In fact, American Jews are much more liberal than you might expect
given their economic situation.
... ... ...
In other words, American Jews aren't the uniquely greedy, self-interested characters
anti-Semites imagine them to be. But it would be foolish to make the opposite mistake and
imagine that Jews are especially public-spirited; they're just people, with the same virtues
and vices as everyone else. I think it was an Israeli friend who first told me that
Judaism, unlike other faiths, has rarely been a religion of oppression -- but that the reason
was simply lack of opportunity, a diagnosis that recent Israeli governments seem determined to
confirm.
An aside: American Jews almost all support Israel, but many don't support the policies
of its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. But that's presumably a distinction Trump doesn't
understand, at home or abroad
Excellent column to which I would add only that Trump is not pro-Israel. Rather, he is
pro-Netanyahu because he identifies with individuals he identifies as apparent "strong men"
and believes that making "deals" with Netanyahu and others of his ilk will be mutually and
personally beneficial. Trump has no concern with national policy or the best interests of the
U.S. It's all about his power and wealth and he is open to deals with others who share his
principal concern with self-benefit above all else. Any action taken by Trump that may seem
pro-Israel in reality is merely a means to a self-serving and perhaps corrupt end. Birds of a
feather...
Surprised Paul didn't mention the main sponsor of the group that invited Trump to speak, the
Israeli American Council, is Sheldon Adelson, whose politics are of the minority in the
Jewish community but very close to Trump (and Bibi's). Which actually makes the speech rather
even uglier, perhaps.
Difficult to appreciate why the US, or Krugman for that matter, would support a
religion-based Apartheid country, much less associate with that country's chief lobbying arm.
Say what you will about our founding fathers, but George Washington was absolutely prescient
and correct in his farewell address when he advised against "a passionate attachment of one
nation for another"; the "variety of evils" he warned of regularly manifest themselves.
The question is not who is Trump bad for. The question is- who is he good for! He is not so
great for his own die-hard supporters, or even his own long term interest. In fact, he
sabotaged his own presidency and basically got himself into this impeachment affair. Almost
everyone is suffering under this guy. Vast majority realized that as soon as he became the
President. Many realized it little later. Hopefully the remaining tiny few will understand in
near future.
Dear Professor K, weaponizing religion is nothing new. What's most amazing is that people
were cheering him while being marginalized as stereotypes. The God of Mamon won the evening.
This is the only religion Trump adheres to. Apparently it's popular among other religions
too.
In my first 59 years, I'd never felt concern for my physical safety as a Jew in this country
until this man became president. I knew exactly where this was all headed at the moment Sean
Spicer took to the podium and lied to the country about the inauguration crowd size in his
first official act for Trump. It made me sick to my stomach, and I couldn't believe that most
people were laughing it off as no big deal. Any Jew who trust this administration is a fool,
and although there a few more "precise" Yiddish words for these members of my tribe, I'll
refrain from using them as I'm sure you can fill in the blanks just fine.
A good reference to this opinion column, which was written and probably edited by highly
intelligent people- The Stupidity of Intelligence: What Happened to Common Sense? Every
sentence could be easily argued and overturned based upon some simple facts.
Trump and his minions try to buy Jewish support by backing right wing Israelis in their goal
of a greater Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. In fact, when asked if Trump is
anti-Semitic, one his strongest supporters, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, gave the standard
response, "Trump supports Israel". Supporting Israel is a political position. All the while,
Trump has about as much use for Jews as Archie Bunker had for the Jews in his fictional law
firm, Rabinowitz, Rabinowitz and Rabinowitz. Then they often mention that his son-in-law is
Jewish, like he had a choice in the matter. Simultaneously, Trump derives strong support from
white nationalists that would be perfectly happy to send all American Jews to Israel. Those
two motivations are inexorably linked. Because of this linkage, I can't understand for one
minute how American Jews can support Trump. Is the money that good? Do they think that their
money can protect them? Others have made that mistake before.
Among Trump's lies is that he is far more friendly to Israel than Obama was. Sadly, some Jews
take this lie as fact and, because of this, overlook everything else Trump does or says,
supporting him without wavering, no matter what.
The difference is intelligence. My college psychology textbook said that Russian Jewish
immigrants had the highest IQs of all identified ethnicities. Number two was all other Jews.
Of course they voted for Hillary.
The attachment the wealthy have for the Republican Party goes beyond just a lower tax rate.
It is power and deference. The wealthy want an unquestioned dominance that not only protects
and expands their wealth, but celebrates them not only for their wealth as symbol of personal
success but of their moral superiority. Obama certainly did not threaten their wealth, and,
in fact, pursued policies that protected them from the worst of the Great Recession. Yet, the
masters of wealth whined endlessly about Obama not respecting them and that his language
toward them was disrespectful and not sufficiently deferential. Trump's "policies" threaten
long term economic health, and the wealth creation that keeps concentrating wealth at the
top. His trade gyrations, his dismantling of the environmental regulatory regime to favor
fossil fuels, and his reward and punishment of private corporations based on politics are
doing the damage that no Democrat would ever inflict. Yet, nary a corporate executive will
said a word, and far too many are happy to be props at events for Trump's endless
glorification of himself. Because they, like Trump, believe themselves heroes and geniuses
whose domination should never be questioned. So they and Trump wind up all being pretty
comfortable with each other. The neo-liberal promise of free market economics producing
rational economic actors free from political motives and protecting all of us from political
abuse rings pretty hollow.
"I think it was an Israeli friend who first told me that Judaism, unlike other faiths, has
rarely been a religion of oppression -- but that the reason was simply lack of opportunity, a
diagnosis that recent Israeli governments seem determined to confirm." Considering my age,
and extrapolating therefrom, I think Einstein beat your friend to it. Pondering the moral
weight given to Jewish thought at the time, Einstein thought political power was behind it,
Jews simply had not the opportunity. As not unusual, Einstein's theory has been supported by
experiment.
Prof. Krugman, I loved this statement " An aside: American Jews almost all support Israel,
but many don't support the policies of its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. But that's
presumably a distinction Trump doesn't understand, at home or abroad" Please make sure that
your colleague Bret Stephens get this memo.
The audience at the Israeli American Council cheered Trump enthusiastically through out his
whole speech. They cheered when he said he learned his tricks from Sheldon Adelson. They
cheered when he said that maybe he should stay for eight more years. They hardly thought he
was anti-Semitic. He has done exactly what he promised his big donors starting with the
embassy in Jerusalem. His shutting down of any opposition to the Netanyahu administration
especially the BDS movement . He seems to know his audience very well and they were loving
it.
Trump is not just saying "look at the taxes you are saving", he's saying "look what I've done
for Israel!" I don't understand why the media persists on calling him a white nationalist.
His daughter and son in law are strict Jews, he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of
Israel, he's given them the Golan Heights and has listened to their advice on Iran (bad
idea). He's not after Jewish votes necessarily, because there are only about 2 million Jews
in the U.S . But being more "affluent on average" he's more likely after some big campaign
contributions.
Everyone in my Jewish family votes Democratic, although we have all done well financially. I
remember growing up that my Dad would say that he personally would benefit financially from a
Republican administration, but that it would not be good for the nation as a whole. I believe
that it is not just self-interest and fear of anti-Semitism that has led Jews to favor the
Democratic party, but also Jewish values, including wanting to make the world a better place.
An argument can also be made that Netanyahu (extreme Right) has been excessively partisan to
the degree that it has divided both Israel and diaspora Jews. Israel might be bettered by
negotiating with all of its territorial stakeholders. Land is at issue. Palestinians will not
vanish or evaporate. The West Bank must be addressed. The Trump rubber stamp of a Jarusalem
Embassy does not solve much.
@Justice Support for Israel may mean many things, at its most basic it's a belief that Israel
had and still has a right to exist among the nations of the world. If one believes that at
its inception it was and continues to be nothing more than an "ethnoreligious state," that
imay not be support , though Krugman distinguises between the former and criticism of the
current Israeli administration. I suppose the commenter would also find theocratic states
like Saudi Arabia or Iran "deeply problematic " One thing for sure is that most Jews will not
suport the supposedly Zionist Trump when he says that Jews who vote Democratic are either
uninformed or disloyal.
@Justice My own take is that american jews support having a home for jews, esp in the land
they came from. But the government of Israel is conservative while most american jews are
more liberal. There are many liberal jews in Israel. I support the idea of a homeland for the
jews, just not how that has been accomplished. Real democracy is fragile and far too many
countries are moving from democracy to more authoritarian governments.
I'm told that many Israelis who were enthusiastic about Trump got a wakeup call when he
abandoned the Kurds. They now better understand that he regards everyone as disposable, and
can't imagine that anyone could be motivated by something other than pure-self interest.
@Eben Sadly, Donald is not the first president to abandon the Kurds. In the words of Henry
Kissinger, "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests." Yes, this could
conceivably at some time in the future be relevant to Israel. Even if not under Donald.
@edwardc - Kissinger, "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests." Our
current problem is that the "interests" being pursued are solely those of Donald Trump
personally -- appeasing his secret Russian lenders; doing the bidding of "tough" guy
dictators like Turkey's so he can feel tough himself and build hotels in their capitals;
exercising his long held bigotry about people of color in this country. Our allies the Kurds,
on the other hand, helped with an actual, important US national interest: beating ISIS and
holding it back from growing again to where it can resume attacking us. But since that
doesn't put money in Trump's pocket he abandons the cause.
@Eben : I have great empathy for the Kurdish people, but does "support for the Kurds" mean we
must stay in Iraq and Afghanistan literally forever? we've already been there going on 17
years -- at the cost of trillions of dollars spent and thousands of American lives.
"In last year's midterms, 52 percent of voters with incomes over $200,000 voted Republican,
compared with only 38 percent of voters with incomes under $50,000. The rightward tilt is
especially strong at the very top; although there are a few high-profile liberal
billionaires, most of the extremely wealthy are also extremely right-wing." And that group
will vote for Trump for re-election even if he is impeached unfortunately.
Israel does not seem to understand the long term damage being done to its country. The U.S.
has always been its number one defender, but there is a whole generation of Americans that
think Israel is bad, that it is mistreating the Palestinians. Demographics are working
against it. Israel can always look to Europe, but I don't know how that is going to work out
in the long run.
@Gone Coastal Trump is all about the sugar high you get from immediate gratification of the
baser impulses. His influence will end soon enough, perhaps another five years but the
potential destruction of the Repulican party and the reaction against Trumpism could last for
decades. Its a big danger to Israel if Israel is just seen as the last gasp of European
colonialism and a part of the Western white world : a European imposition on the middle east.
Roosevelt tried to create institutions that would lead to peace though out the life times of
the people who lived when he was president. Sadly Trump is making strides to destroy the
institutions initiated by Roosevelt, leaving a world where small countries are more easily
bullied by their larger neighbors.
"... A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have kept the allegations alive. ..."
"... The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today, Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even an Obama aide termed it , will remain. ..."
"... Listen to the podcast here ..."
"... War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate ..."
"... The John Batchelor Show ..."
"... Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument. The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline! ..."
"... You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills. ..."
"... It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision. They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy. ..."
"... CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it. ..."
"... We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths. If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or intelligence, so we should stop paying them. ..."
"... Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise. ..."
"... Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep "in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards. ..."
"... Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes likes it or not, except as . ..."
"... Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to conclude that he's fully on board. ..."
"... There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it, not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe propaganda value. ..."
"... In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination ..."
"... Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie enemies. It makes it ' real '. The ' heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches, etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice. ..."
"... To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens. In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security 'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world. (Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.) ..."
"... or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow continue to believe his campaign rhetoric? ..."
"... The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid. ..."
"... "TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ". Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ? ..."
"... Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics, and that's through America's brutal empire abroad. ..."
"... Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference, except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things. ..."
President Trump campaigned and was elected on an anti-neocon platform: he promised to reduce direct US involvement in areas where,
he believed, America had no vital strategic interest, including in Ukraine. He also promised a new détente ("cooperation") with Moscow.
And yet, as we have learned from their recent congressional testimony, key members of his own National Security Council did not
share his views and indeed were opposed to them. Certainly, this was true of Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Both of them
seemed prepared for a highly risky confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, though whether retroactively because of Moscow's 2014
annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
Similarly, Trump was slow in withdrawing Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer appointed by President Obama as ambassador
to Kiev, who had made clear, despite her official position in Kiev, that she did not share the new American president's thinking
about Ukraine or Russia. In short, the president was surrounded in his own administration, even in the White House, by opponents
of his foreign policy and presumably not only in regard to Ukraine.
How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it was the doing and legacy of the neocon
John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate
such appointees.
A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the
Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained
a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have
kept the allegations alive.
The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy
establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today,
Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views
of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave
power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even
an Obama aide termed it , will remain.
Listen to the podcast
here . Stephen F. Cohen Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. ANationcontributing editor, his most recent book,War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available
in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host ofThe John Batchelor Show, now in their sixth
year, are available at www.thenation.com .
because of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
In an otherwise decent overview, this sticks out like a sore thumb. It would be helpful to stop using the word annexation.
While correct in a technical sense – that Crimea was added to the Russian Federation – the word comes with all kinds of connotations,
that imply illegality and or force. Given Crimea was given special status when gifted to Ukraine for administration by the USSR,
one could just as easily apply "annexation" of Crimea to Ukraine. After Ukraine voted to "leave" the USSR, Crimea voted to join
Ukraine. Obviously the "Ukrainian" vote did not include Crimea. Even after voting to join Ukraine, Crimea had special status within
Ukraine, and was semi autonomous. If you can vote to join, you can vote to leave. Either you have the right to self determination,
or you don't.
This is what is so infuriating, Stephen! These silent coups of the executive branch have been taking place for my entire life!
Both parties are guilty of refusing to appoint cabinet members that the elected presidents would have chosen for themselves, because
both parties are more interested in making the president of the opposing party look bad, make him ineffective, and incapable of
carrying out policies that he was elected to carry out. That is the very definition of treason!
Things are a disaster. The JCPOA is at the heart of the issue and Trump and his advisors stubborn refusal to capitulate on
this issue very well may cause Trump to lose the 2020 election. Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the
DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument.
The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline!
The anti-Iranian fever has created so much havoc not only with Iran, but with every country on earth other than Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE. Germany announced that it is seeking to unite with Russia, not only for Gazprom, but is now considering purchasing
defense systems from Russia, and Germany is dictating EU policy, by and large. Germany has said that Europe must be able to defend
itself independent of America and is requesting an EU military and Italy is on board with this idea, seeking to create jobs and
weapons for its economy and defense.
The EU is fed up with the economic sanctions placed on countries that the U.S. has black-listed, particularly Russia and Iran,
and China as well for Huwaei 5G.
Nobody in their right mind could ever claim this to be the free market capitalism that Larry Kudlow espouses!
You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed
novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens
that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills.
It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this
blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura
Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision.
They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy.
CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them guilty
of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
It is a political game between to competing kleptocratic cults. The DNC and RNC are whores and will do what ever their donors
tell them to do. That is also treason. This country is just a total wasteland.
Everyone has pledged allegiance to fraud.
Too big to fail, like the Titanic and the Hindenberg.
We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or
intelligence, so we should stop paying them.
Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering
Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise.
What kind of stupid question is this? You mean you don't know or asking us for confirmation? If you really don't know then why
are you writing an article about it? If you do know then why are you asking the UNZ readers?
Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is,
as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to
the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep
"in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards.
It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
That's ok but it's a bit unfair to Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths After all most of the country is Hedonistic as hell,
it sells commercials or wtf. Satanic is philosophical and way over the heads of these clowns, though if the be a Satan, then they
are in the plan for sure, and right on the mark. As for psychopaths, those are criminals who are insane, but they can have remorse
and be their own worst enemies, often they just go off and go psycho and bad things happen, but can be unplanned off the wall
stuff, not diabolic.
Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's
are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as
kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes
likes it or not, except as .
So, once upon a time, a people got so hedonistic and they didn't watch the game and theier leaders were low quality
(especially religeous/morals ) and long story short Satan unleashed the Socio's , Things seem to be heading disastrously,
so will bit coin save the day? Green nudeal?
While massive attention is directed towards Russia and the Ukraine, the majority of the public are shown the slight of hand
and their attention is never brought near to the real perpetrators of subverting American and British foreign policy.
Doesn't matter if he's surrounded. A president CAN make foreign policy, and a president CAN fire people who disagree with his
policy. Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy
for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to
conclude that he's fully on board.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them
guilty of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
--
first off the supreme law of the land maybe the Constitution and to oppose it may be Treason, but the Law that is supreme to the
Law of the land is Human rights law.. it is far superior to, and it is the TLD of all laws of the land of all of the Nation States
that mankind has allowed the greedy among its masses, to impose.
There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it,
not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender
of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual
promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe
propaganda value.
If you note the USA constitution has seven articles..
Article 1 is about 525 elected members of congress and their very limited powers to control
foreign activities. Each qualified to vote member of the governed (a citizen so to speak) is allowed to
vote for only 3 of the 525 persons. so basically there is no real national election anywhere .
Article II grants the electoral college the power to appoint two persons full control of the assets,
resources and manpower of America to conquer the entire world or to make peace in the entire world.
Either way: the governed are not allowed to vote for either; the EC vote determines the P or VP.
Article III allows the Article II person to appoint yes men to the judiciary
Where exist the power of the governed to deny USA governors the ability to the use the powers the constitution claims
the governors are to have, against the governed? <==No where I can find? Theoretically, the governed are protected from abuse
for as long as it takes to conduct due process?
One person, the Article II person, is basically the king when in comes to constitutional authority to establish, conduct,
prosecute or defend USA involvement in foreign affairs.
No where does the constitution of the USA deny its President the use of American resources or USA military power, to
make and use diplomat appointments, or to use the USA to use the wealth of America and the hegemonic powers of the USA to make
a private or public profit in a foreign land. <= d/n matter if the profit is personal to the President or if it assigned by appointment
(like the feudal powers granted by the feudal kings to the feudal lords) to corporate feudal lords or oligarch personal interest.
AFAICT, the president can USE the USA to conduct war, invade or otherwise infringe on, even destroy, the territory, or a
private or public interest, within a foreign sovereign more or less at will. So if the President wants to command a private
or secret Army like the CIA, he can as far as I can tell, obviously this president does, because he could with his pen alone shut
it down.
Seems to me the "NO" from Wilson's four points
no more secret diplomacy peace settlement must not lead the way to new wars
no retribution, unjust claims, and huge fines <basically indemnities paid by the losers to the winners.
no more war; includes controls on armaments and arming of nations.
no more Trade Barriers so the nations of the world would become more interdependent.
have been made the essence of nation state operations world wide.
IMO, The CIA exists at the pleasure of the President.
@Curmudgeon all of that,
plus the Kosovo precedent.
In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force
self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination
Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment
there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie
enemies. It makes it ' real '. The 'heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But
the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches,
etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice.
To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens.
In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security
'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there
are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world.
(Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.)
Trump should have kept Steve Bannon as his advisor and should have fired instead his son-in-law. Perhaps "they" are blackmailing
Trump with photos like here: https://www.pinterest.com/richarddesjarla/creepy/
That would explain why Trump is so ineffective at making a reality anything he campaigned for.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
An anti-neocon president appears to have been surrounded by neocons in his own administration.
The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself
with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
Halfway around the world from Washington's halls of power, Ukraine sits along a civilizational and geopolitical fault line.
To Ukraine's west are the liberal democracies of Europe, governed by rule of law and democratic principles. To its east are
Russia and its client states in Eurasia, almost all of which are corrupt oligarchies. [ ] In this war on democratic movements
and democratic principles, Russia's biggest prize and chief adversary has always been the United States. Until now, however,
Russia has always had to contend with bipartisan resolve to counter
No mention of China, and this is the problem with the whole foreign policy establishment not just the neocons. Russia is more
of an annoyance than anything, but they are still operating assumptions on what is the
Geographical Pivot of History , so they want to talk about Russia. Like an Edwardian sea cadet we are supposed to care about
Russia getting (back) a water port in Crimea. Mahan's definition of sea power included a strong commercial fleet. After tearing
their own environment apart like a car in a wrecking yard and heating up the planet China has taken time out from deforestation
and colonising Tibet, to send huge container vessels full of cheap goods through the melting Arctic round the top of Russia all
the better to get to Europe and deindustrialise it.
Western elites have sold out to China, seen as the future, so we hear about Russia rather than the three million Uyghurs in
concentration camps complete with constantly smoking crematoria, and harvesting of organs for rich foreigners.
Who
poses a greater threat to the West: China or Russia?
By the time the West finds itself in open conflict with Beijing, we will have lost our relative advantage. Brendan Simms and
K.C. Lin [ ] The concept of China being a threat is harder to comprehend. In what way? Yes, its hacking and intellectual property
theft is a headache. But is it worse than what Russia is up to? And don't we need Chinese investment, so does it really matter
if China builds our 5G mobile networks? In London, ministers agonise over these issues -- not knowing whether to pity China
(we still send foreign aid there), beg for its money and contracts (with prime ministerial trade trips), or treat it as a potential
antagonist.
Aid ! They sent robots to the far side of the Moon
Beijing has been the beneficiary of liberal revulsion at the Trump presidency: if the Donald is against the Chinese,
who cannot be for them? As a result, Trump's efforts to address China's unfair trade practices have so far missed the mark
with the domestic and international audience. As Trump declares war on free trade, China -- one of the most protectionist economies
in the world -- is now celebrated at Davos as the avatar of free trade. Later this month, China's Vice-President is likely
to be in attendance at Davos -- and there is even talk of him meeting with Trump. Similarly, the messiness of American politics
has made China's one-party state an apparent poster boy of political stability and governability.
"TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by
Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic
known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ".
Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ?
Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal
authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free
speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics,
and that's through America's brutal empire abroad.
The military/intelligence imperial establishment definitely see Israel as a kind of American colony in the Mideast, and they
make sure that it's well provided for. That's what the Neocon Wars have been about. Paving over large parts of Israel's noisy
neighborhood. And that includes matters like keeping Syria off-balance with occupation in its northeast. And constantly threatening
Iran.
Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference,
except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things.
By the way, the last President who tried seriously to make foreign policy as the elected head of government left half of his
head splattered on thec streets of Dallas.
@Jon Baptist We have
all been brainwashed by the propaganda screened by the massmedia ,whether it be FOX , MSNBC , CBS ,etc.. SeptemberClues.info has
a good article entitled "The central role of the news media on 9/11 " :
"The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that weakspot of ours .We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time we can only
wonder why so many never questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks The 9/11 TV imagery of the crucial
morning events was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie."
@follyofwar Pat inhabits
a strange Hollywood type world, where the US is always the good guy. He believes that, although the US may make foreign policy
mistakes, its aims and ambitions are nevertheless noble and well intentioned.
In Pat's world it's still circa 1955, but even then, his take on US foreign policy would have been hopelessly unrealistic.
According to the US Census there are 3031 counties in the US.
If we redirected the $3.8 billion plus the 500,000,000 for missile defense that we give
Israel to US counties budgets each county would receive about
$ 1.3 million.
If we included the $1.2 billion each we give to Egypt and Jordon for signing the Carter
peace treaty with Israel that figure increases to $2.3 million for each county.
While $2.3 million may be a small figure for counties with metro cities, it would be a
large amount for the majority of counties across the nation.
Since aid to Israel alone accounts for 50% of US foreign aid who would oppose this re
direct of taxpayers money...besides the politicians...and how would the politicians explain
their opposition to the districts they supposedly represent?
"... Whilst the are absorbing that part of their country the battle of Iblib will restart. After that they can move their attention south and southeast, al-Tanf and the oilfields. I can't see how the US will be able to stop them but at least they will have time to plan their exit. ..."
"... At the moment the Syrian Government has enough oil, it is getting it from Iran via a steady stream of SUEZMAX tankers. The cost, either in terms of money or quid pro quo, is unknown. ..."
"... For those who have wondered as to why the DC FedRegime would fight over the tiny relative-to-FUKUS's-needs amount of oil in the Syrian oilfields. It is clearly to keep the SAR hobbled, crippled and too impoverished to retake all its territory or even to restore social, civic and economic functionality to the parts it retains. FUKUS is still committed to the policy of FUKUSing Syria. ..."
"... This President appears at times to recognize the reality of nation states and the meaning of national sovereignty. He needs to understand that on principle, not merely on gut instinct. President Trump's press conference today focused in one section on a simple fact -- saving the lives of Americans. Gen. Jack Keane, Sen. Lindsay Graham, and other gamers who think they are running an imperial chessboard where they can use living soldiers as American pawns, are a menace. Thanks Col. Lang for calling out these lunatics. ..."
"... During the 2016 election, Jack Keane and John Bolton were the two people Trump mentioned when asked who he listens to on foreign affairs/military policy. ..."
"... The crumbling apart is apparent. I don't know in what delusional world can conceive that 200 soldiers in the middle of the desert can deny Syria possession of their oil fields or keep the road between Bagdad and Damascus cut. All the West's Decision Makers can do is threaten to blow up the world. ..."
"... Corporate Overlords imposed austerity, outsourced industry and cut taxes to get richer, but the one thing for certain is that they can't keep their wealth without laws, the police and the military to protect them. ..."
"... Latin America is burning too - although the elites here have plundered and imposed structural plunder for too long. No matter where you are it .. Chile poster of the right, or Ecuador, Peru, etc ..."
"... Did you notice the Middle East Monitor article on October 21 reporting that the UAE has released to Iran $700 million in previously frozen funds? ..."
"... Yet in early September, Sigal Mandelker, a senior US Treasury official, was in the UAE pressing CEOs there to tighten the financial screws on Iran. The visit was deemed a success. During this visit she was quoted as saying that the Treasury has issued over 30 rounds of curbs targeting Iran-related entities. That would include targeting shipping companies and banks. ..."
"... It depends on who will be the democratic ticket .. will it mobilize the basis? I think the compromise candidate is Warren, but she looks to me a lot like John Kerry, Al Gore.. representing the professional, college educated segment of society, and that doesn't cut it. ..."
"... Trump is far from consistent. This is the man who attacked Syria twice on the basis of lies so transparent that my youngest housecat would have seen through them, and who tried and failed to leave Syria twice, then said he was "100%" for the continued occupation of Syria. ..."
"... He could have given the order to leave Syria this month, but Trump did not. Instead, he simply ordered withdrawal to a smaller zone of occupation, and that under duress. ..."
"... The Great Trumpian Mystery. I don't pretend to understand but I'm intrigued by his inconsistent inconsistencies. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/03/17/trump-mysteries-inconsistent-inconsistencies/ ..."
"... It probably should come as no surprise to us that Trump is having small, but not no, success in getting the ship to alter course - too many deeply entrenched interests with no incentive to recognize their failures and every incentive to stay the course by removing, or at least handicapping the President who was elected on a platform of change. ..."
"... Whether the country elected the right man for the job remains to be seen. At times he appears to be his own worst enemy and his appointments are frequently topsy-- turvy to the platform he ran on but he does have his moments of success. He called off the dumb plan to go to war with Iran, albeit at 20 minutes to mid night and he is trying hard against the full might of the Borg to withdraw from Syria in accord with our actual interests. Trumps, alas, assumed office with no political friends, only enemies with varying degrees of Trump hate depending on how they define their political interests. ..."
"... Keane manipulated Trump by aggravating his animosity towards Iran, more specifically, his animosity towards Obama's JCPOA. I doubt Trump can see beyond his personal animus towards Obama and his legacy. He doesn't care about Iran, the Shia Crescent, the oil or even the jihadis any more than he cares about ditching the Kurds. This administration doesn't need a national security advisor, it needs a psychiatrist. ..."
"... IMO Trump cares about what Sheldon Adelson wants and Adelson wants to destroy Iran: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sCW4IasWXc Note the audience applause ..."
"... The difference between the reality that we perceive and the way it is portrayed in the media is so stark that sometimes I am not sure whether it is me who is insane or the world - the MSM and the cool-aid drinking libtards whose animosity against Trump won't let them distinguish black from white. Not that they were ever able to understand the real state of affairs. Discussions with them have always been about them regurgitating the MSM talking points without understanding any of it. ..."
"... "This administration doesn't need a national security advisor, it needs a psychiatrist." I think TTG speaks the truth. ..."
"... On Monday, 21 October, president Trump "authorized $4.5 million in direct support to the Syria Civil Defense (SCD)", a/k/a the White Helmets, who have been discussed here on SST before-- https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-89/ ..."
"... TTG IMO you and the other NEVER Trumpers are confused about the presence in both the permanent and appointed government of people who while they are not loyal to him nevertheless covet access to power. A lot of neocons and Zionists are among them. ..."
"... ANDREW BACEVICH: First of all, I think we should avoid taking anything that he says at any particular moment too seriously. Clearly, he is all over the map on almost any issue that you can name. I found his comment about taking the oil in that part of Syria, as if we are going to decide how to dispose of it, to be striking. And yet of course it sort of harkens back to his campaign statement about the Iraq war, that we ought to have taken Iraq's oil is a way of paying for that war. So I just caution against taking anything he says that seriously. ..."
"... That said, clearly a recurring theme to which he returns over and over and over again, is his determination to end what he calls endless wars. He clearly has no particular strategy or plan for how to do that, but he does seem to be insistent on pursuing that objective. And here I think we begin to get to the real significance of the controversy over Syria in our abandonment of the Kurds ..."
"... the controversy has gotten as big as it is in part because members of the foreign policy establishment in both parties are concerned about what an effort to end endless wars would mean for the larger architecture of U.S. national security policy, which has been based on keeping U.S. troops in hundreds of bases around the world, maintaining the huge military budget, a pattern of interventionism. Trump seems to think that that has been a mistake, particularly in the Middle East. I happen to agree with that critique. And I think that it is a fear that he could somehow engineer a fundamental change in U.S. policy is what really has the foreign policy establishment nervous. ..."
"... we created the problems that exist today through our reckless use of American military power. ..."
"... He let them roll him, just like Obama and so many others. Just a different set of rollers. ..."
"Joltin" Jack Keane, General (ret.), Fox Business Senior Strategery Analyst, Chairman of the
Board of the Kagan run neocon "Institute for the Study of War" (ISW) and Graduate
Extraordinaire of Fordham University, was on with Lou Dobbs last night. Dobbs appears to have
developed a deep suspicion of this paladin. He stood up to Keane remarkably well. This was
refreshing in light of the fawning deference paid to Keane by all the rest of the Fox crew.
In the course of this dialogue Keane let slip the slightly disguised truth that he and the
other warmongers want to keep something like 200 US soldiers and airmen in Syria east of the
Euphrates so that they can keep Iran or any other "Iranian proxy forces" from crossing the
Euphrates from SAG controlled territory to take control of Syrian sovereign territory and the
oil and gas deposits that are rightly the property of the Syrian people and their government
owned oil company. The map above shows how many of these resources are east of the Euphrates.
Pilgrims! It is not a lot of oil and gas judged by global needs and markets, but to Syria and
its prospects for reconstruction it is a hell of a lot!
Keane was clear that what he means by "Iranian proxy forces" is the Syrian Arab Army, the
national army of that country. If they dare cross the river, to rest in the shade of their own
palm trees, then in his opinion the air forces of FUKUS should attack them and any 3rd party
air forces (Russia) who support them
This morning, on said Fox Business News with Charles Payne, Keane was even clearer and
stated specifically that if "Syria" tries to cross the river they must be fought.
IMO he and Lindsey Graham are raving lunatics brainwashed for years with the Iran obsession
and they are a danger to us all. pl
If only General Keane was as willing to defend America and America's oil on the Texas-Mexico
border. Or hasn't anyone noticed that Mexico just a lost a battle with the Sinaloa drug
cartel?
I view them as selling their Soul for a dollar. Keane comes across as dense enough to believe
his bile but Graham comes across as an opportunist without any real ideology except power.
Its probably one step at a time for the Syrians, although the sudden move over the past
couple of weeks must have been a bit of a God given opportunity for them.
Whilst the are absorbing that part of their country the battle of Iblib will restart.
After that they can move their attention south and southeast, al-Tanf and the oilfields. I
can't see how the US will be able to stop them but at least they will have time to plan their
exit.
As I posted in the other thread, the Syrian Government is the only real customer for their
oil and the Kurds already have a profit share agreement in place, so the US, if they allow
any oil out, will effectively be protecting the fields on behalf of Assad. Surely not what
Congress wants?
At the moment the Syrian Government has enough oil, it is getting it from Iran via a
steady stream of SUEZMAX tankers. The cost, either in terms of money or quid pro quo, is
unknown.
I think this might be President Putin's next problem to solve. As far as I know, there is no
legal reason for us to be there, not humanitarian, not strategic not even tactical. We simply
are playing dog-in-the-manger.
My guess is that we will receive an offer to good to refuse from Putin.
For those who have wondered as to why the DC FedRegime would fight over the tiny
relative-to-FUKUS's-needs amount of oil in the Syrian oilfields. It is clearly to keep the
SAR hobbled, crippled and too impoverished to retake all its territory or even to restore
social, civic and economic functionality to the parts it retains. FUKUS is still committed to
the policy of FUKUSing Syria.
Why is the Champs Elise' Regime still committed to putting the F in UKUS?
(I can understand why UKUS would want to keep France involved. Without France, certain nasty
people might re-brand UKUS as USUK. And that would be very not nice.)
Because France wants to be on the good side of the United States, and as you indicate, the
United States is in Syria to turn that country into a failed state and for no other reason.
A good antidote for Joltin' Jack Keane's madness would be for Lou Dobbs and other mainstream
media (MSM) to have Col Pat Lang as the commentator for analysis of the Syrian situation.
Readers of this blog are undoubtedly aware that Col. Lang's knowledge of the peoples of the
region and their customs is a national treasure.
This President appears at times to recognize the reality of nation states and the meaning
of national sovereignty. He needs to understand that on principle, not merely on gut
instinct. President Trump's press conference today focused in one section on a simple fact --
saving the lives of Americans. Gen. Jack Keane,
Sen. Lindsay Graham, and other gamers who think they are running an imperial chessboard where
they can use living soldiers as American pawns, are a menace. Thanks Col. Lang for calling out these lunatics.
In WWI millions of soldiers died fighting for imperial designs. They did not know it. They
thought they were fighting for democracy, or to stop the spread of evil, or save their
country. They were not. Secret treaties signed before the war started stated explicitly what
the war was about.
Now "representatives" of the military, up to and including the Commander in Chief say it's
about conquest, oil. The cards of the elite are on the table. How do you account for this?
During the 2016 election, Jack Keane and John Bolton were the two people Trump mentioned when
asked who he listens to on foreign affairs/military policy.
The crumbling apart is apparent. I don't know in what delusional world can conceive that
200 soldiers in the middle of the desert can deny Syria possession of their oil fields or
keep the road between Bagdad and Damascus cut. All the West's Decision Makers can do is
threaten to blow up the world.
Justin Trudeau was elected Monday in Canada with a minority in Parliament joining the
United Kingdom and Israel with governments without a majority's mandate. Donald Trump's
impeachment escalates. MbS is nearing a meat hook in Saudi Arabia. This is not a coincidence.
The Elites' flushing government down the drain succeeded.
Corporate Overlords imposed austerity, outsourced industry and cut taxes to get richer,
but the one thing for certain is that they can't keep their wealth without laws, the police
and the military to protect them. Already California electricity is being cut off for a
second time due to wildfires and PG&E's corporate looting. The Sinaloa shootout reminds
me of the firefight in the first season of "True Detectives" when the outgunned LA cops tried
to go after the Cartel. The writing is on the wall, California is next. Who will the lawmen
serve and protect? Their people or the rich? Without the law, justice and order, there is
chaos.
Latin America is burning too - although the elites here have plundered and imposed structural
plunder for too long. No matter where you are it .. Chile poster of the right, or Ecuador,
Peru, etc
No doubt that Keane and his ilk want endless war and view Trump as a growing obstacle. Trump
is consistent: He wanted out of JCPOA, and after being stalled by his national security
advisors, he finally reached the boiling point and left. The advisors who counseled against
this are all gone. With Pompeo, Enders and O'Brien as the new key security advisors, I doubt
Trump got as much push back. He wanted out of Syria in December 2018 and was slow-walked.
Didn't anyone think he'd come back at some point and revive the order to pull out? The talk
with Erdogan, the continuing Trump view that Russia, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia
should bear the burden of sorting out what is left of the Syria war, so long as ISIS does not
see a revival, all have been clear for a long time.
My concern is with Lindsey Graham, who is smarter and nastier than Jack Keane. He is also
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and may hold some blackmail leverage over the
President. If the House votes up impeachment articles, Graham will be overseeing the Senate
trial. A break from Trump by Graham could lead to a GOP Senate stampede for conviction. No
one will say this openly, as I am, but it cannot be ignored as a factor for "controlling"
Trump and keeping as much of the permanent war machine running as possible.
Trump has committed the United States to a long war against the Shia Crescent. He has ceded
to Turkey on Syrian Kurds, but has continued with his operations against SAR. US needs
Turkey, Erdogan knows that. Likewise in regards to Russia, EU, and Iran. Turkey, as is said
in Persian, has grown a tail.
Did you notice the Middle East Monitor article on October 21 reporting that the UAE has
released to Iran $700 million in previously frozen funds?
Yet in early September, Sigal Mandelker, a senior US Treasury official, was in the UAE
pressing CEOs there to tighten the financial screws on Iran. The visit was deemed a success.
During this visit she was quoted as saying that the Treasury has issued over 30 rounds of
curbs targeting Iran-related entities. That would include targeting shipping companies and
banks.
It was also reported in September that in Dubai that recent US Treasury sanctions were
beginning to have a devastating effect. Iranian businessmen were being squeezed out. Even
leaving the Emirates. Yet only a few days ago--a month later-- there are now reports that
Iranian exchange bureaus have suddenly reopened in Dubai after a long period of closure.
Also, billions of dollars in contracts were signed between Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE
during Putin's recent visit to the region. It seems to me that this is real news. Something
big seems to be happening. It looks to me as if there could be a serious confrontation
between the Trump administration and MBZ in the offing.
Do you have an opinion on the Iranian situation in Dubai at the moment?
I have my doubt that Sen. Graham will lead any revolt, but if it starts to look like Trump
will lose big next year, there will be a stampede looking like the Nile getting through a
cataract.
They will not want to go down the tube with Trump. I still maintain that there is a good
reason for him to resign before he loses an election or an impeachment. It will come down to
the price.
Lose big to whom in the next election? Biden got 300 people to show up for his rally in his hometown of Scranton and he is
supposedly the front runner. Bernie got 20,000 to show up at his rally in NY when he was
endorsed by The Squad and Michael Moore. Do you think the Dem establishment will allow him to
be the nominee?
Trump in contrast routinely can fill up stadiums with 30,000 people. That was the
indicator in the last election, not the polls. Recall the NY Times forecasting Hillary with a
95% probability of winning the day before the election.
As Rep. Al Green noted , the only way the Democrats can stop him is for the Senate to
convict him in an impeachment trial. Who do you believe are the 20 Republican senators that
will vote to convict?
Trump barely won the last time and while he currently has wide support in the GOP, it is not
nearly as deep as his cultists believe. When half the country, and growing, want him removed,
there is trouble ahead. Republicans are largely herd animals and if spooked, will create a
stampede.
You can tell that there are problems when his congressional enablers are not defending him
on facts and just using gripes about processes that they themselves have used in the past. In
addition to circus acts.
I realize that many do not want to admit that they made a mistake by voting for him. I am
not so sure they want to repeat that mistake.
It depends on who will be the democratic ticket .. will it mobilize the basis? I think the
compromise candidate is Warren, but she looks to me a lot like John Kerry, Al Gore..
representing the professional, college educated segment of society, and that doesn't cut it.
It's not a question if he barely won. The fact is he competed with many other Republican
candidates including governors and senators and even one with the name Bush. He was 1% in the
polls in the summer of 2016 and went on to win the Republican nomination despite the intense
opposition of the Republican establishment. He then goes on to win the general election
defeating a well funded Hillary with all her credentials and the full backing of the vast
majority of the media. That is an amazing achievement for someone running for public office
for the first time. Like him or hate him, you have to give credit where it's due. Winning an
election for the presidency is no small feat.
There only two ways to defeat him. First, the Senate convicts him in an impeachment trial
which will require at least 20 Republican senators. Who are they? Second, a Democrat in the
general election. Who? I can see Bernie with a possibility since he has enthusiastic
supporters. But will the Democrat establishment allow him to win the nomination?
We're no longer having to listen to Yosemite Sam Bolton. His BFF Graham is left to fight on
his own. I don't think Trump feels the need to pay that much attention to Graham. He didn't
worry about him during the primary when Graham always seemed to be on the verge of crying
when he was asked questions.
Trump is far from consistent. This is the man who attacked Syria twice on the basis of lies
so transparent that my youngest housecat would have seen through them, and who tried and
failed to leave Syria twice, then said he was "100%" for the continued occupation of Syria.
He could have given the order to leave Syria this month, but Trump did not. Instead, he
simply ordered withdrawal to a smaller zone of occupation, and that under duress.
What the Colonel calls the Borg is akin to an aircraft carrier that has been steaming at near
flank speed for many years too long, gathering mass and momentum since the end of Cold War I.
With the exception of Gulf War I, none of our interventions have gone well, and even the
putative peace at the end of GUlf War I wasn't managed well because it eventuated in Gulf War
Ii which has been worst than a disaster because the disaster taught the Borg nothing and
became midwife to additional disasters.
It probably should come as no surprise to us that
Trump is having small, but not no, success in getting the ship to alter course - too many
deeply entrenched interests with no incentive to recognize their failures and every incentive
to stay the course by removing, or at least handicapping the President who was elected on a
platform of change.
Whether the country elected the right man for the job remains to be seen.
At times he appears to be his own worst enemy and his appointments are frequently topsy--
turvy to the platform he ran on but he does have his moments of success. He called off the
dumb plan to go to war with Iran, albeit at 20 minutes to mid night and he is trying hard
against the full might of the Borg to withdraw from Syria in accord with our actual
interests. Trumps, alas, assumed office with no political friends, only enemies with varying
degrees of Trump hate depending on how they define their political interests.
With that said, I doubt very much whether the Republicans in the Senate will abandon Trump in
an impeachment trial. Trump's argument that the process is a political coup is arguably
completely true, or certainly true enough that his political base in the electorate will not
tolerate his abandonment by Republican politicians inside the Beltway. I think there is even
some chance that Trump, were he to be removed from office by what could be credibly portrayed
as a political coup, would consider running in 2020 as an independent. The damage that would
cause to the Republican Party would be severe, pervasive, and possibly fatal to the Party as
such. I doubt Beltway pols would be willing to take that chance.
I don't think Keane or Trump are focused on the oil. Keane just used that as a lens to focus
Trump on Iran. That's the true sickness. Keane manipulated Trump by aggravating his animosity
towards Iran, more specifically, his animosity towards Obama's JCPOA. I doubt Trump can see
beyond his personal animus towards Obama and his legacy. He doesn't care about Iran, the Shia
Crescent, the oil or even the jihadis any more than he cares about ditching the Kurds. This
administration doesn't need a national security advisor, it needs a psychiatrist.
And in response, Russia killed and captured hundreds of US Special forces and PMC's alongside
SAS in East Ghouta . It is said that the abrupt russian op on East Ghouta was a response to
the Battle of Khasham.
The difference between the reality that we perceive and the way it is portrayed in the media
is so stark that sometimes I am not sure whether it is me who is insane or the world - the
MSM and the cool-aid drinking libtards whose animosity against Trump won't let them
distinguish black from white. Not that they were ever able to understand the real state of
affairs. Discussions with them have always been about them regurgitating the MSM talking
points without understanding any of it.
While it will always be mystifying to me why so many people on the street blindly support
America fighting and dying in the middle east, the support of the MSM and the paid hacks for
eternal war is no surprise. I hope they get to send their children and grandchildren to these
wars. More than that, I hope we get out of these wars. Trump might be able to put an end to
it, and not just in Syria, if he wins a second term, which he will if he is allowed to
contest the next election. There is however a chance that the borg will pull the rug from
under him and bar him from the elections. Hope that doesn't come to pass.
No, they just have to sit there and be an excuse to fly Coalition CAPs that would effectively
prevent SAA from crossing the Euphrates in strength. Feasible until the SAA finishes with
Idlib and moves some of its new Russian anti-aircraft toys down to Deir Ezzor.
TTG IMO you and the other NEVER Trumpers are confused about the presence in both the
permanent and appointed government of people who while they are not loyal to him nevertheless
covet access to power. A lot of neocons and Zionists are among them.
Colonel Lang, I am well aware of the power seekers who gravitate towards Trump or whoever
holds power not out of loyalty, but because they covet access to power. The neocons and
Zionists flock to Trump because they can manipulate him to do their bidding. That fact
certainly doesn't make me feel any better about Trump as President. The man needs help.
you are an experienced clan case officer. You do not know that most people are more than a
little mad? Hillary is more than a little nuts. Obama was so desperately neurotically in need
of White approval that he let the WP COIN generals talk him into a COIN war in Afghanistan. I
was part of that discussion. All that mattered to him was their approval. FDR could not be
trusted with SIGINT product and so Marshall never gave him any, etc., George Bush 41 told me
that he deliberately mis-pronounced Saddam's name to hurt his feelings. Georgie Junior let
the lunatic neocons invade a country that had not attacked us. Trump is no worse than many of
our politicians, or politicians anywhere. Britain? The Brexit disaster speaks for itself, And
then there is the British monarchy in which a princeling devastated by the sure DNA proof
that he is illegitimate is acting like a fool. The list is endless.
CK, the people surrounding Trump are largely appointees. Keane doesn't have to be let into
the WH. His problem is that those who would appeal to his non-neocon tendencies are not
people he wants to have around him. Gabbard, for instance, would be perfect for helping Trump
get ourselves out of the ME, is a progressive. Non-interventionists are hard to come by.
Those who he does surround himself with are using him for their own ideologies, mostly neocon
and Zionist.
Bacevich interview:
> Andrew Bacevich, can you respond to President Trump pulling the U.S. troops away from
this area of northern Syria, though saying he will keep them to guard oil fields?
> ANDREW BACEVICH: First of all, I think we should avoid taking anything that he says at
any particular moment too seriously. Clearly, he is all over the map on almost any issue that
you can name. I found his comment about taking the oil in that part of Syria, as if we are
going to decide how to dispose of it, to be striking. And yet of course it sort of harkens
back to his campaign statement about the Iraq war, that we ought to have taken Iraq's oil is
a way of paying for that war. So I just caution against taking anything he says that
seriously.
> That said, clearly a recurring theme to which he returns over and over and over again,
is his determination to end what he calls endless wars. He clearly has no particular strategy
or plan for how to do that, but he does seem to be insistent on pursuing that objective. And
here I think we begin to get to the real significance of the controversy over Syria in our
abandonment of the Kurds.
> Let's stipulate. U.S. abandonment of the Kurds was wrong, it was callous, it was
immoral. It was not the first betrayal by the United States in our history, but the fact that
there were others certainly doesn't excuse this one. But apart from those concerned about the
humanitarian aspect of this crisis -- and not for a second do I question the sincerity of
people who are worried about the Kurds -- it seems to me that the controversy has gotten as
big as it is in part because members of the foreign policy establishment in both parties are
concerned about what an effort to end endless wars would mean for the larger architecture of
U.S. national security policy, which has been based on keeping U.S. troops in hundreds of
bases around the world, maintaining the huge military budget, a pattern of interventionism.
Trump seems to think that that has been a mistake, particularly in the Middle East. I happen
to agree with that critique. And I think that it is a fear that he could somehow engineer a
fundamental change in U.S. policy is what really has the foreign policy establishment
nervous.
> NERMEEN SHAIKH: As you mentioned, Professor Bacevich, Trump has come under bipartisan
criticism for this decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria. Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell was one of the many Republicans to criticize Trump for his decision. In an
opinion piece in The Washington Post McConnell writes, quote, "We saw humanitarian disaster
and a terrorist free-for-all after we abandoned Afghanistan in the 1990s, laying the
groundwork for 9/11. We saw the Islamic State flourish in Iraq after President Barack Obama's
retreat. We will see these things anew in Syria and Afghanistan if we abandon our partners
and retreat from these conflicts before they are won." He also writes, quote, "As
neo-isolationism rears its head on both the left and the right, we can expect to hear more
talk of 'endless wars.' But rhetoric cannot change the fact that wars do not just end; wars
are won or lost." So Professor Bacevich, could you respond to that, and how accurate you
think an assessment of that is? Both what he says about Afghanistan and what is likely to
happen now with U.S. withdrawal.
> ANDREW BACEVICH: I think in any discussion of our wars, ongoing wars, it is important to
set them in some broader historical context than Senator McConnell will probably entertain. I
mean, to a very great extent -- not entirely, but to a very great extent -- we created the
problems that exist today through our reckless use of American military power.
> People like McConnell, and I think other members of the political establishment, even
members of the mainstream media -- _The New York Times_, The Washington Post -- have yet to
reckon with the catastrophic consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq back in 2003. And if
you focus your attention at that start point -- you could choose another start point, but if
you focus your attention at that start point, then it seems to me that leads you to a
different conclusion about the crisis that we are dealing with right now. That is to say,
people like McConnell want to stay the course. They want to maintain the U.S. presence in
Syria. U.S. military presence. But if we look at what the U.S. military presence in that
region, not simply Syria, has produced over the course of almost two decades, then you have
to ask yourself, how is it that we think that simply staying the course is going to produce
any more positive results?
> It is appalling what Turkey has done to Syrian Kurds and the casualties they have
inflicted and the number of people that have been displaced. But guess what? The casualties
that we inflicted and the number of people that we displaced far outnumbers what Turkey has
done over the last week or so. So I think that we need to push back against this tendency to
oversimplify the circumstance, because oversimplifying the circumstance doesn't help us fully
appreciate the causes of this mess that we're in.
In addition to oil from Iran, Assad also gets oil from the SDF and the Kurds. Supposedly a
profit sharing arrangement as commented on by JohninMK in a previous post.
This oil sharing deal was also mentioned by Global Research and Southfront back in June of
2018:
Colonel Lang, the only way to "overthrow" Trump is through impeachment in the House and
conviction in the Senate. That is a Constitutional process, not a coup. The process is
intentionally difficult. Was the impeachment of Clinton an attempted coup?
In the first place isn't the dissolution of Ukraine and Syria and Iraq and Libya and Yemen
exactly what we have wished to achieve, and wouldn't an intelligent observer, such as
Vladimir Putin, want to do exactly the same thing to us, and hasn't he come very close to
witnessing the achievement of this aim whether he is personally involved or not? What goes
around comes around?
But that is relatively unimportant compared to the question whether dissolution of the
Union is a bad thing or a good thing. Preserving it cost 600,000 lives the first time. One
additional life would be one additional life too many. Ukraine is an excellent example.
Western Ukraine has a long history support for Nazi's. Eastern Ukraine is Russian. Must a war
be fought to bring them together? Or should they be permitted to go their separate ways?
As Hector said of Helen of Troy, "She is not worth what she doth cost the keeping."
After hanging up from a call to Putin, thanking him for Russia's help with the Turks, YPG
leader Mazloum Kobane returned to the Senate hearings in which he alternately reminded his
flecless American allies of their failure, not only to protect Rojava from the Turks, but
didn't even give them a heads up about what was about to happen and begged an already angry
[at Trump] Senate about their urgent need for a continued American presence in the territory.
It seems that some in the USG do not understand that all the land on the east bank of the
Euphrates is "Rojava" or somehow is the mandate of the Kurds to continue to control. For a
long time, now, the mainly Arab population of that region have been chafing under what is
actually Kurdish rule. This could be a a trigger for ISIS or some other jihadis to launch
another insurgency, or at the least, low level attacks, especially in Rojava to the
north.
To remind, the USG is not using military personnel, but also contracts, about 200 troops in
one field and 400 contractors in the other.
There is video of the SAA escorting the Americans to the Iraqi border. PM Abdel Hadi has
reiterated that the US cannot keep these troops in Iraq, as they go beyond the agreed upon
number. It is quite likely that the anti-Iranian aspect of the border region is NOT something
they wish to see.
"Iranian proxies" refers to Hezbollah, the various Shia militia groups from Pakistan and
Afghanistan, and of course, others, not the SAA.
Objectively this should be a death sentence for Trump reelection -- war criminals should
never be reelected: he proved to be yet another MIC stooge. And his government is not that
different form Hillarie's: it is the same government of lies by lies for liars (from MIC)...
"... "Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma," the experts pointed out. ..."
"... Bustani was quoted as saying he had long held doubts about the alleged attack in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus. "I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best." ..."
"... Some dissenting officials as well as countries like Russia have accused the international chemical watchdog body, which operations in coordination with the UN, of being politically compromised when it comes to Syria. ..."
A whistleblower with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),
responsible for conducting an independent investigation into the alleged chemical attack in the
Syrian town of Douma on April 7, 2018, has presented WikiLeaks with a body of evidence
suggesting the chemical weapons watchdog agency manipulated and suppressed evidence .
A prior official OPCW
report of the investigation issued last March found "reasonable grounds" for believing a
toxic chemical was used against civilians, likely chlorine. Long prior to any independent
investigators reaching the site, however, Washington had launched major tomahawk airstrikes
against Damascus in retribution for "Assad gassing his own people" .
WikiLeaks published documents based on evidence presented by the internal OPCW whistleblower
to an expert review panel on Wednesday. "The panel was presented with evidence that casts doubt
on the integrity of the OPCW," WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson wrote.
An official WikiLeaks press release said as follows :
Kristinn Hrafnsson took part in the panel to review the testimony and documents from the
OPCW whistleblower. He says: "The panel was presented with evidence that casts doubt on the
integrity of the OPCW. Although the whistleblower was not ready to step forward and/or
present documents to the public, WikiLeaks believes it is now of utmost interest for the
public to see everything that was collected by the Fact Finding Mission on Douma and all
scientific reports written in relation to the investigation."
"Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text
exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over
unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma," the
experts pointed out.
"We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical analyses,
toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed,
ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion ."
The testimony further revealed "disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the
investigation whilst thwarting their attempts to raise legitimate concerns , highlight
irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments."
The new information was enough to convince José Bustani, former director-general of
the OPCW to conclude there is now "convincing evidence" of irregularities .
According to a summary of the latest controversy to cast doubt on the dominant mainstream
narrative related to Douma, Middle East analysis site Al-Bab noted Bustain
harbored prior doubts :
Bustani was quoted as saying he had long held doubts about the alleged attack in
Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus. "I could make no sense of what I was reading in the
international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at
best."
Some dissenting officials as well as countries like Russia have accused the
international chemical watchdog body, which operations in coordination with the UN, of being
politically compromised when it comes to Syria.
"Because of my great wisdom as a stable genius, i launched major tomahawk airstrikes
against Damascus in retribution for Assad gassing his own people" .
I am Ironman!
Has he lost his mind?
Can he see or is he blind?
Can he walk at all
Or if he moves will he fall?
Tell that to the Syrians who were killed, both soldiers and civilians, as well as those
having to pay for the lost property that was destroyed. It was thrown out there, purely out
of thin air, that nothing of substance was hit and it was just a show by Trump, despite
reports by those terrorized by the attacks.
It's the same lying neocon **** that cried out "Darfur!"..."Donbass!"...the exact same
lying ****. **** them all to hell, I wish I could exterminate their voices forever.
The Gas Lighting, PsyOp & False Flags will continue until the masses are completely
Frightened & Brainwashed.
US Interference and Regime Change PsyOp
"Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate
that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners
quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the
uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of
completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar
Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria."
Regime change is the only reason we or any of our proxies are there. We have NO GOOD
REASON being there other than this BS.
The US Congress has not approved the US being in Syria.
The UN Security Council has not approved the US presence in Syria.
President Assad of Syria did not invite the US or approve the US presence in
Syria.
Only the US deep state neocons have approved the US presence in the context of "regime
change".
I mean C'mon now? These Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Deep State CIA, MI6,
Mossad Psychopaths couldn't write up a different Scripted False Narrative PsyOp to sell to
the World & American People.
CHEM ATTACK PART III RETURN OF THE ASSAD.
The Lack of creativity among those in the Pentagram & Deep Staters is downright
pathetic.
Bolton was nothing more than a mere Agent of Chaos with his mission the for continuation
of the Yinon Plan.
I'd respect them more if they'd just said, "we seeking regime change to secure the better
interests of Israel, the US & World Community."
Wink, wink, nod, nod...those better interest are the Qatari Pipeline to provide continued
SA & Petro Dollar Hegemony among Vassel States. While simultaneously eliminating Russia's
& Gasprom's ability to supply European Oil.
Israel lobby is really strong political force. Lobby is important not only in foreign In
thinks like Congress, especially in terrorism, in publish, shaping the public debase via creating
think tanks, credentialing the expect is lobby main task, relentlessly working in campus, growing
leaders. Especially establishing an expectation for any aspiring politician that Interests of
Israel and USA are identical. Establishing that in publish mind and in US political
discourse.
Abusing the language in Orwell way, corrupting thought, Framing process as "honest broker"
while sucking or Israel.
Two recent presidents. Diaspora is typically politically are more extreme unsecure, much more
nationalistic then the home country. Issue of dual loyalty is a red herring, interests of Israel
and USA are merged in their minds, some codependency between two countries. Israel conspires to
distort US vision of Middle East. Anti-Israelis equal to Anti-Semitism. That's the biggest
achievement as one Israeli ambassador tell on his departure.
Notable quotes:
"... John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published an article in the London Review of Books "The Israel Lobby: Does it Have too Much Influence on US Foreign Policy". ..."
The debate took place at Cooper Union in New York City and was captured by ScribeMedia on
behalf of the London Review of Books.
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published an article in the London Review of Books
"The Israel Lobby: Does it Have too Much Influence on US Foreign Policy".
US has no obligation for israel. let them get their hell out of US politics! Americans
lost enough money and blood for them already. Enough is enough. Don't let our whole country
turn into "anti-semites". You remember what happened in germany!
Many native Israeli's especially the youth is exhausted by there politics there tired of
there two party rhetoric of a constant hostility is the name of the Terrorist racket and
collection of the US gravy train
article"> At around minute 35, when he describes the "shared cultural values" of the US
and Israel, he says that the US does not legally discriminate by virtue of race etc. and
Israel does. However, the "shared cultural values" that the US and Israel do have relate to
the colonization of a native people. The "Palestinians" are of the same category as the
"Native Americans." Which is to say that they are both loose coalitions of tribes that are
viewed by the colonizing force as homogenous. In other words, the shared cultural heritage
nonsense is equally applicable to all of the last 500 years worth of colonial empires. I'd
also like to add that Mearsheimer specifically says that the Israeli lobby does not "control"
US policy, but that the lobbies efforts were "extremely effective." Hilarious stuff, that
obligatory political correctness.
> I listen to Dr Mearsheimer with great attention, because he is very persuasive. One
consideration of paramount importance he seems to omit from his considerations: global
over-heating. It is, I think, paramount, because it trumps all other security matters. If
average temperature continues to rise beyond the rate for moderate change, then not millions
but billions of people will be impoverished, displaced, and will die. The petroleum of the
Middle East that makes it second in strategic important to Asia for the US will no longer be
of strategic importance. Arable agricultural lands will be worth more than oil-rich deserts,
which will be worth nothing. Yet, the articulate Doctor does not seem to take the global
over-heating threat into consideration.
role="article"> Who would have guessed these seven years ago that the Israel lobby
would today not only restrict speech, but that legislation would be introduced in Congress to
allow the firing of government employees for exercising their Constitutional right to boycott
Israel because of their personal beliefs that what is being done to the Palistinean people
and elsewhere in the world by and in behalf of Israel is wrong?
All about big OIL with Lukid members rubbing there whiskers in offshore Shell corporate
profit making and taking.They failed in Fragmenting Russia with there Oligarch cells of
exploitation in both Energy & Media and now the CZARIST NATIONALISTS looking out on what
ever is left of there trading terf
If you are a Zionist, then you cannot possibly be a true Christian - Zionism is based on
racism, nationalism and the oppression of the non-Jewish population in Israel = including
Christians! They will take your money and still treat you like garbage in Israel.
This is a bit like rearranging the chairs on the deck of Titanic.
The problem is we do not know who pressed Trump to appoint Bolton., Rumors were that it was Abelson. In this case nothing
changed.
The other problem with making Bolton firing a significant move is the presence in White House other neocon warmongers. So one
less doe not change the picture. For example Pompeo remains and he is no less warmongering neocon, MIC stooge, and no less
subservant to Israel then Bolton.
Notable quotes:
"... Firing National Security Advisor John Bolton gives US President Donald Trump a chance to move foreign policy in a more peaceful direction – as long as he's not replaced with another hawk, former congressman Ron Paul told RT ..."
"... Bolton has "been a monkey-wrench in Donald Trump's policies of trying to back away from some of these conflicts around the world," Paul observed on Tuesday ..."
"... "Every time I think Trump is making progress, Bolton butts in and ruins it," Paul added. Negotiations with Afghanistan and talks with North Korea and Iran have reportedly been scuttled by his aggressive tendencies, with Pyongyang declaring him a "defective human product." ..."
"... "A lot of people here didn't even want his appointment, because he was only able to take a position that did not require Senate approval," Paul said, suggesting that perhaps the "Deep State" pressure had forced the president to keep Bolton around long past his sell-by date. ..."
"... As for whether Bolton's departure would change the White House's policy line significantly, though, Paul was less certain. "I don't think it will change a whole lot," he said, pointing out that "we have no idea" who will replace Bolton. Trump said he would make an announcement next week. ..."
Firing National Security Advisor John Bolton gives US President Donald Trump a chance to
move foreign policy in a more peaceful direction – as long as he's not replaced with
another hawk, former congressman Ron Paul told RT.
Bolton has "been a monkey-wrench in Donald Trump's policies of trying to back away from some
of these conflicts around the world," Paul observed on Tuesday, after news of Bolton's
dismissal from the White House.
Also on rt.com Bolton out: Trump ditches hawkish adviser he kept for 18 months despite
'disagreements'
"Every time I think Trump is making progress, Bolton butts in and ruins it," Paul added.
Negotiations with Afghanistan and talks with North Korea and Iran have reportedly been scuttled
by his aggressive tendencies, with Pyongyang declaring him a "defective human product."
Foreign leaders weren't the only ones who had a problem with Trump's notoriously belligerent
advisor, either.
"A lot of people here didn't even want his appointment, because he was only able to take a
position that did not require Senate approval," Paul said, suggesting that perhaps the "Deep
State" pressure had forced the president to keep Bolton around long past his sell-by date.
While the uber-hawk's firing came "later than it should be," Paul hoped it would clear the
way for Trump to follow through on the America First, end-the-wars promises that won him so
much support in 2016. "Those of us who would like less intervention, we're very happy with
it."
Also on rt.com War and whiskers: Freshly-resigned John Bolton gets meme-roasting
As for whether Bolton's departure would change the White House's policy line
significantly, though, Paul was less certain. "I don't think it will change a whole lot," he
said, pointing out that "we have no idea" who will replace Bolton. Trump said he would make an
announcement next week.
It attests inventiveness and vicious amorality of neoliberals, who now promote the idea that criticizing neoliberalism and removing
Democratic party in the USA and Labor Party in the UK from clutches of Clintonism//Brairism is inherently Anti-Semitic ;-)
Israel lobby wants to extent the anti-Semitism smear to any critique of Israel. which is of course standard dirty trick in witch
hunts like neo-McCarthyism.
Notable quotes:
"... This, of course, is compounded by the over-amplifying of anti-Semitism by the media and the alacrity with which it has been taken up by Corbyn opponents, including hypocrites who floated "rootless cosmopolitan" criticisms of Ed Miliband when it suited just a few years ago. ..."
"... The resolution of the anti-Semitism crisis then is not a matter of compromise -- for each side the issue will only go away with the complete crushing and driving out of the party of the other. ..."
"... A good analysis. But, it emphasizes the point I made in the previous post, which is that, the right are currently engaged in an all out push to remove Corbyn and crush the left with the same old bureaucratic means. Whatever else Williamson may or may not be guilty of, his point that the leadership have facilitated this situation by their continual appeasement of the right is absolutely valid. Its that he is being attacked for, not anti-Semitism. ..."
"... Coming on the day when the FT have a column seriously positing that criticizing capitalism is inherently anti-Semitic, it seems to me that dancing on the head of a pin ..."
"... As many of the comments on your blog on Williamson attest, the salient feature of this - well, call it witch-hunt for the sake of argument - is the double standards where we have to be whiter than white, whilst no account whatsoever is taken of the most egregious racism elsewhere. ..."
"... The other nonsense that has grown up is that it is only those that suffer any form of discrimination who can define what that discrimination is, i.e. only Jews can define anti-Semitism, only black people can define racism against them, only women can define discrimination against women. ..."
"... That then assumes that the members of each of these groups are themselves homogeneous, and agreed in such definitions. In reality, it means that dominant elements, i.e. those connected to the ruling class and ruling ideas get to make those determinations. ..."
"... If we look at anti-Semitism, for example, it is quite clear that there is no agreement amongst Jews on what constitutes anti-Semitism. The JVL, certainly have a different definition than the JLM. ..."
"... Secker wrote a piece in the Morning Star last year comparing claims of anti-Semitism within Labour to the story of the emperor's new clothes. ..."
"... Given that the actual data, even allowing for all of the spurious and mischievous accusations of anti-Semitism in the party, made by right-wing enemies of the the party, and particularly of Corbyn and his supporters, amounts to only 0.1% of the membership, and given that of these, 40% were straight away found to be accusations against people who were not even LP members, with a further 20%, being found to have absolutely no evidence to back them, its quite possible that individual members of the LP, have never seen any instance of it. ..."
"... Take out all those mischievous and malicious allegations made in order to whip up the hysteria, so as to to damage the party, by its enemies, and you arrive at a figure of only 400 potential cases, out of a membership of 600,000, which is 1 member in 1500. ..."
"... In fact, based upon the actual facts, as opposed to the fiction and factional hysteria that is being whipped up by right-wing opponents of Corbyn and the party, and by supporters of Zionism for their own narrow political reasons, the chances are about 14: that you will never see any even potential instance of anti-Semitism, even on the narrow definition that the party has now imposed upon itself, which comes pretty close if not entirely to identifying anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, or even just criticism of the current Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu. ..."
"... In the US, Jewish groups that have long been ardent defenders of Israel have more recently come out to criticize the regime of Netanyahu, and the actions of the Israeli state. The main defenders of Zionism, besides the actual Zionists themselves, appear to be people like the AWL, who for whatever reason hitched their wagon to Zionist ideology some time ago, ..."
"... Just because the only case of stabbing I have witnessed was more than 50 years ago, does not, and should not lead me to think that knife crime was worse 50 years ago than it is today. The actual data would seem to suggest that cases of anti-Semitism were greater in the LP in previous times than they are currently, contrary to what the media and those with factional motives would have us believe. ..."
"... The apparent level of anti-semitism in Labour is a modern phenomenon turbo-charged and amplified by social media. People have their views reinforced within their bunkers where anti-Israeli memes become anti-Zionist and then become anti-Semitic. It is much easier to send an anonymous email than a letter. ..."
"... I wouldn't trust Lansman on this issue, any more than on many others. Lansman abolished democracy, to the extent it existed to begin with, by turning it into his personal fiefdom, reminiscent of the activities of Hyndman and the SDF. His position on anti-Semitism, and fighting the witch-hunt, and of appeasing the Blair-right's as they attacked Corbyn, has been appalling throughout. ..."
"... Having abolished any democracy in Momentum, which he now runs as its CEO, he also appears to want Corbyn to do the same thing with the Labour Party, abolishing its internal democratic procedures, and putting himself personally in charge of those disciplinary measures ..."
"... Its notable that, yesterday, when the Welsh Labour Grass Roots organisation came out to call for Williamson's suspension to be reversed, Kinnock and other Blair-rights immediately called for an investigation into them, ..."
"... This truly is reaching into the realms of McCarthyism, where you are found guilty not just of witchcraft, but of consorting with witches, or even having an opinion as to whether an individual charged with witchcraft is guilty, or even the extent to which the number of witches amongst might be exaggerated. ..."
"... It's not a factually accurate description of global political realities, because Israel does not control the US, if that is what the image is intended to imply. But, the message, is thereby anti-Israeli state, not anti-Semitic. It could only be considered anti-Semitic, if in fact you are a Zionist and claim that Israel and Jews are are interchangeable terms, which they are not. ..."
"... If we replace Zionism with Toryism, and Jew with British, the situation becomes fairly clear. If the we show the British state as being controlled by Tories, who implement their ideology of Toryism, in what way would criticism of the British state, under the control of such Tories, or criticism of Tories be the equivalent of British people as a whole? ..."
"... The hope of a Two-State Solution disappeared long ago, and was never credible. It simply allows Zionists to proclaim they are in favour of it, whilst doing everything to make it practically impossible, such as extending West Bank Settlements. The solution must flow from a struggle for democratic rights for Israeli Arabs, and for a right for all Arabs in occupied territories to be extended the same rights as any other Israeli, including the right to vote, and send representatives to the Knesset. As I argued thirty years ago, the longer-term solution is a Federal Republic of Israel and Palestine, guaranteeing democratic rights to all, as part of building a wider Federal Republic of MENA. ..."
"... Jim Denham: imperialist lackey and sycophant turned Witch hunter in chief ..."
"... Let us be very clear about what this witch hunt is about, it is about purging from public life any credible and effective opposition to Israel in particular and more generally opposition to the imperialist barbarians of the imperialist core. It is about driving from universities, social media and intellectual life any form of opposition to the interests of the imperialists. ..."
"... A UN report has concluded that Israel deliberately targeted and killed hundreds of protesting civilians, including children and disabled people and it shot 20,000+ people (yes 20,000+!). The UN says this likely a war crime. Why are the noble defenders of the Palestinian cause in the dock and not notorious Palestinian haters like Jim Denham? ..."
"... These attacks on Corbyn and his supporters, repeated in all of the most aggressive imperialist countries, are simply a proxy attack on the Palestinian people themselves. ..."
"... Jim Denham's comment here illustrates the problem entirely. The picture he has linked to shows an alien symbiote having attached itself to the face of the statue of liberty. The statue of liberty here represents the US. The symbiote has on its back the Israeli Flag, and likewise, thereby represents the state of Israel. The picture therefore, represents the well-worn, and clearly factually wrong meme that Israel controls the US. ..."
"... But, as a Zionist organisation, the AWL and its members cannot distinguish between the state of Israel and Jews, so they cannot distinguish between criticism of the state of Israel, and criticism if Jews. For them, as for the Zionist ideology of the state of Israel, which is most clearly manifest in the ideology of its current political leadership, in the form of the Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu, with the recent introduction of blatantly racist laws that discriminate even more openly against not Jewish Israeli citizens, and with his willingness to try to keep his corrupt regime in office by going into coalition with an avowedly Neo-Nazi party that until recent times was considered beyond the pale, even by most Zionists, the term Zionism is synonymous with the term Jew. So, any criticism of Zionism, or of Israel is for them immediately equated with anti-Semitism. ..."
"... Once again Jim Denham reefuses to engage in rational debate, and again resorts instead to his assumption that Israel = Jews, as well as his crude attempts at a typical Stalinist amalgam, to conflate the views of his opponents with some hate figure. ..."
"... Again Jim Denham makes the conflation of Israel and Jews explicit when he says, "This image also plays on the tired and disgraceful antisemitic 'conspiracy theory' trope of undue Israeli (Jewish) influence on world affairs." ..."
"... The way that the right are using anti-Zionism as the equivalent for anti-Semitism, and the appeasement of that attack has led them to widen the scope of that attack. As Labour List reports , right-wing Labour MP Siobhan McDonagh, is now claiming that to be anti-capitalist is also to be "anti-Semitic". The idea was put forward also by former Blair-right spin doctor, John McTernan, who wrote an article in the FT to that same effect ..."
"... As the right-wing extend their witch-hunt against socialists in the LP to claim that Marxists are necessarily misogynist, as well as anti-Semitic – and the same logic presented by McDonagh, McTernon, and Phillips would presumably mean that the Left must also be xenophobic, homophobic, anti- Green, and many other charges they want to throw into the mix – it will be interesting to see whether and to what extent the AWL, join them in that assault, in the same way they have done in their promotion of Zionism. ..."
The problem, however, is because this is overlaid by factional struggle ...
This, of course, is compounded by the over-amplifying of anti-Semitism by the media and the alacrity with which it has been taken
up by Corbyn opponents, including hypocrites who floated "rootless cosmopolitan" criticisms of Ed Miliband when it suited just a
few years ago.
Here's the thing. Just because your opponents take up an issue, some times cynically and in bad faith. and use it to inflict as
much damage as they can does not mean the problem is fictitious.
Precisely because they can point to Facebook groups full of useful fools, and Twitter accounts with Corbyn-supporting hashtags
acting as if the Israel lobby and "Zionists" are the only active force in British politics, this is the stuff that makes the attacks
effective and trashes the standing of the party in the eyes of many Jews and the community's allies and friends.
The institutional anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is, therefore, somewhat different to the kind you find in other institutions.
It is sustained by the battle for the party, a grim battlefront in a zero sum game of entrenched position vs entrenched position.
As such, whatever the leadership do, whatever new processes the General Secretary introduces for one side it will never be enough
because, as far as many of them concerned, the leadership are politically illegitimate; and for the other it's a sop and capitulation.
The resolution of the anti-Semitism crisis then is not a matter of compromise -- for each side the issue will only go away
with the complete crushing and driving out of the party of the other. A situation that can only poison the well further, and
guarantee anti-Semitism won't honestly and comprehensively be confronted.
A good analysis. But, it emphasizes the point I made in the previous post, which is that, the right are currently engaged
in an all out push to remove Corbyn and crush the left with the same old bureaucratic means. Whatever else Williamson may or may
not be guilty of, his point that the leadership have facilitated this situation by their continual appeasement of the right is
absolutely valid. Its that he is being attacked for, not anti-Semitism.
It is first necessary to close ranks, and defeat the assault of the Right. As Marr said to Blair this morning, had Prescott
announced he was forming a separate group, and was establishing his own witch-hunting bureaucratic apparatus in the party, Blair
would have sacked him immediately - actually not so easy as the Deputy is elected. But the thrust is valid. Unless Corbyn deals
with Watson, the Right will roll over the Left, despite the huge disparity in numbers.
Again it comes down to whether Corbyn is up for that task, or whether we need a leadership of the left with a bit more backbone
to see it through.
I'm afraid this IS due to the "intersectionality" cult, whereby certain groups are always privileged and wrong, and some are always
oppressed and right. Jews are, according to this "analysis", the uber-privileged and uber-white.
We've heard several times that according to "intersectionality" that it's impossible to be racist against white people because
racism requires both prejudice and power, and white people are by definition powerful. Therefore, anti-Semitism is dismissed because
it can't be a thing because Jews are all-powerful and even more oppressive than other whites.
Those who don't subscribe to all of these beliefs are nevertheless tinged with them, which is why people who aren't staunch
antisemites will nevertheless fail to take anti-Semitism seriously.
Coming on the day when the FT have a column seriously positing that criticizing capitalism is inherently anti-Semitic, it
seems to me that dancing on the head of a pin about whether the 'careless' anti-Semitism you've described means the party
is institutionally anti-Semitic is rather missing the point. (OK, the column is by John McTernan, but the FT gave him column inches
to argue that case, and I guess they didn't mean it as the satire it most certainly is.)
As many of the comments on your
blog on Williamson attest, the salient feature of this - well, call it witch-hunt for the sake of argument - is the double standards
where we have to be whiter than white, whilst no account whatsoever is taken of the most egregious racism elsewhere. We live
in society: we can never, ever be that whiter than white - especially when it comes to Israel/Palestine, which is so full of contradictions
and traps for the unwary (e.g. the position of the Israeli state claiming to speak for all Jewry around the world, in the way
that the Board of Deputies position themselves as speaking for all British Jews - neither close to being true, but small wonder
that opponents of what they do and stand for take that universality at face value.)
The fight we need to take up is to compare and contrast just how pro-active the current party is against anti-Semitism in its
constitution and machinery with the glaring absence of such elsewhere, and to present a positive picture of what we are doing,
rather than mumbling apologetically into our beards. We need to take the fight to the rigged system at the same time as being
unstinting in rooting out the troubling stuff.
The other nonsense that has grown up is that it is only those that suffer any form of discrimination who can define what that
discrimination is, i.e. only Jews can define anti-Semitism, only black people can define racism against them, only women can define
discrimination against women.
That then assumes that the members of each of these groups are themselves homogeneous, and agreed in such definitions.
In reality, it means that dominant elements, i.e. those connected to the ruling class and ruling ideas get to make those determinations.
If we look at anti-Semitism, for example, it is quite clear that there is no agreement amongst Jews on what constitutes
anti-Semitism. The JVL, certainly have a different definition than the JLM.
But, just rationally, the concept that only those discriminated against get to define the discrimination is bonkers. Suppose
you come from Somalia or some other country that practices FGM, you could argue that it is part of your cultural heritage, and
that anyone seeking to prevent you from undertaking this barbaric practice was thereby racist, on your self-definition of what
that discrimination against you amounts to. Or Saudis might argue that it is racist to argue against their practice of lopping
off women's heads, or stoning them to death for adultery, including having been raped, etc.
The JVL come pretty close to arguing that there is *no* anti-Semitism in the Labour party (Jenny Manson, for instance, says she's
never witnessed any)and Glyn Secker wrote a piece in the Morning Star last year comparing claims of anti-Semitism within Labour
to the story of the emperor's new clothes.
Given that the actual data, even allowing for all of the spurious and mischievous accusations of anti-Semitism in the party,
made by right-wing enemies of the the party, and particularly of Corbyn and his supporters, amounts to only 0.1% of the membership,
and given that of these, 40% were straight away found to be accusations against people who were not even LP members, with a further
20%, being found to have absolutely no evidence to back them, its quite possible that individual members of the LP, have never
seen any instance of it.
Take out all those mischievous and malicious allegations made in order to whip up the hysteria, so as to to damage the
party, by its enemies, and you arrive at a figure of only 400 potential cases, out of a membership of 600,000, which is 1 member
in 1500. If the average branch size if 100 active members, it means on average there is one potential case of anti-Semitism
in every 15 branches. So, if you are a member in any of the other 14 branches, you would never see that one potential case of
anti-Semitism.
In fact, based upon the actual facts, as opposed to the fiction and factional hysteria that is being whipped up by right-wing
opponents of Corbyn and the party, and by supporters of Zionism for their own narrow political reasons, the chances are about
14: that you will never see any even potential instance of anti-Semitism, even on the narrow definition that the party has now
imposed upon itself, which comes pretty close if not entirely to identifying anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, or even just criticism
of the current Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu.
In the US, Jewish groups that have long been ardent defenders of Israel have more recently come out to criticize the regime
of Netanyahu, and the actions of the Israeli state. The main defenders of Zionism, besides the actual Zionists themselves, appear
to be people like the AWL, who for whatever reason hitched their wagon to Zionist ideology some time ago, probably in their
usual knee-jerk reaction of putting a plus sign wherever the SWP put a minus. Having done so, and as a result of the bureaucratic
centrist nature of the sect, they find themselves now having to follow through on the position they adopted on the basis of the
"practical politics" - opportunism - as it dictated itself to them at the time.
If, and probably more likely when, they change position, it will come as with all their previous changes of position with the
assertion that "nothing has changed", as when after claiming a few years ago that the LP was a stinking corpse - as they ridiculously
stood their own candidates in elections with the inevitable result - and the next minute proclaimed themselves as its most ardent
militants, as they sought to use their sharp elbows to gain positions on Momentum's leading bodies!
Incidentally, on the question of "observance", the only time I have seen someone get stabbed, is more than 50 years ago, when
I was at school. I've seen plenty of other violent stuff in the intervening period, for example, people getting glassed, people
having wrought iron tables smashed over their heads. My sister, who is several years older than me, and was out bopping during
the days of the Teddy Boys, saw more people getting slashed, in the 1950's, because the flick knife was the Ted's favoured weapon.
But, that doesn't mean that I disbelieve the media when it talks about the current spate of knife crimes. Its just that, however,
terrible such crimes are for those that suffer or witness them, and no matter how much the media that has to sensationalise every
story, for its own commercial purposes, talks about an epidemic or a knife crime crisis, the number of knife crimes per head of
population is extremely small.
The chances that 999 out of 1,000 of us will never be the victim of, or witness knife crime does not mean it doesn't exist.
But, those that then claim that the 999 out of 1,000 of us who say we have not seen it, must be somehow being dishonest, are not
dealing with the facts, and are simply fuelling a moral panic.
When some phenomena is statistically insignificant, which 1 in 1,500 cases, is, and when as with many such phenomena there
is no normal distribution of the occurrence of such cases - for example, knife crime will tend to be concentrated in particular
areas - trying to present any kind of rational analysis based upon personal observation is a mug's game.
Just because the only case of stabbing I have witnessed was more than 50 years ago, does not, and should not lead me to
think that knife crime was worse 50 years ago than it is today. The actual data would seem to suggest that cases of anti-Semitism
were greater in the LP in previous times than they are currently, contrary to what the media and those with factional motives
would have us believe. It is certainly thec ase that anti-Semitism is a bigger problem in the Tory party, and other right-wing
organisations than it is in the LP, again not that you would know that from the reporting of it, or from the attitude of certain
factional sects, such as the AWL.
Labour has 'much larger' group of antisemitic members which Corbyn has failed to deal with, Momentum founder warns
By Rob Merrick Deputy Political Editor The Independent, Monday 25 February 2019 16:10 |
Labour has "a much larger" group of antisemitic members than it recognises which Jeremy Corbyn has failed to "deal with", Momentum
founder Jon Lansman has warned.
The Labour leader's long-standing ally said "conspiracy theorists" had infiltrated the party – a consequence of its huge surge
in membership in recent years.
Mr Lansman stopped short of backing the call from Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, for Mr Corbyn to take personal charge
of the antisemitism complaints dogging Labour.
But he said: "I do think we have a major problem and it always seems to me that we underestimate the scale of it. I think it
is a widespread problem.
"I think it is now obvious that we have a much larger number of people with hardcore antisemitic opinions which, unfortunately,
is polluting the atmosphere in a lot of constituency parties and in particular online. We have to deal with these people."
The apparent level of anti-semitism in Labour is a modern phenomenon turbo-charged and amplified by social media. People
have their views reinforced within their bunkers where anti-Israeli memes become anti-Zionist and then become anti-Semitic. It
is much easier to send an anonymous email than a letter.
History is very much the tale of new technology transforming the potential of human behaviour and beliefs, and one of the oldest
beliefs ("the blood libel") is anti-Semitism.
This is how Labour has changed - ie, the rise of Corbyn has coincided with the ubiquity of this technology. In fact, arguably
the rise of Corbyn was aided by it.
Corbyn's nuanced position on Israel/Palestine gives permission to social media extremists.
The rest is history.
Incidentally, this is why you are less likely to confront anti-Semitism in real-life while the internet may be awash with it
- there are the real and virtual identities which only occasionally bleed into each other.
Which is true and which is not? We might wonder if technology has evolved ahead of human adaptation - the "real world" filters
that govern apparently "real" behaviour missing.
I'm sure even certain posters here are less bananas in "real life" than their online comments might suggest!
I wouldn't trust Lansman on this issue, any more than on many others. Lansman abolished democracy, to the extent it existed
to begin with, by turning it into his personal fiefdom, reminiscent of the activities of Hyndman and the SDF. His position on
anti-Semitism, and fighting the witch-hunt, and of appeasing the Blair-right's as they attacked Corbyn, has been appalling throughout.
Having abolished any democracy in Momentum, which he now runs as its CEO, he also appears to want Corbyn to do the same thing
with the Labour Party, abolishing its internal democratic procedures, and putting himself personally in charge of those disciplinary
measures. That truly would be the actions of a Bonapartist. That Tom Watson is prepared to do that, as he sets himself up in a
situation of dual power, to confront Corbyn is no surprise that anyone who even remotely considers themselves a part of the Left
should support should a move is a disgrace. Perhaps no surprise that the AWL supporters of Zionism, and the witch-hunt, appear
to be doing so, then.
Its notable that, yesterday, when the Welsh Labour Grass Roots organisation came out to call for Williamson's suspension to
be reversed, Kinnock and other Blair-rights immediately called for an investigation into them, and for its Secretary who sits
on Labour's NEC to also be suspended, for interfering in an ongoing investigation! So, why did those same Blair-rights not call
for the suspension of Watson, who immediately demanded Williamson's suspension, and withdrawal of the whip, before any investigation,
or indeed of Hodge and others who on a daily basis go to the media to sally forth about cases that are under investigation, or
waiting for investigation.
This truly is reaching into the realms of McCarthyism, where you are found guilty not just of witchcraft, but of consorting
with witches, or even having an opinion as to whether an individual charged with witchcraft is guilty, or even the extent to which
the number of witches amongst might be exaggerated.
Jim Denham's comment is a case in point. How much more "anti-Semitism" exists? What is the factual basis of the statement,
as opposed to click bait headline. Even if the actual extent is 100% more than the data so far presented, that would mean that
potentially 1 in 750 LP members might be guilty of some form of anti-Semitism. Its hardly an epidemic, or institutional anti-Semitism,
and far less than exists in the Tory Party, which is also infected by Islamaphobia, misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia.
In fact, its probably much less than you would find in the BBC, Sky or other establishment institutions. Anti-Semitism exists,
and is a problem, but that does not mean it is not being used by Labour's enemies or the proponents of Zionism for their own political
ends. The real conspiracy theorists are those that try to present anti-Semitism as a conspiracy based upon infiltration of the
LP, the same people who presented the support for Corbyn from 300,000 new members as really just being a case of far left entryism,
by Trots.
This is a meme, taken from Incog Man, a far-right site. It was posted with positive endorsement by a Labour member, Kayla Bibby,
a delegate to conference in fact:
Bibby subsequently received only a formal warning, with Thomas Gardiner of Labour's Governance and Legal Unit (what used to
be the Compliance Unit), saying it was only anti-Israel, and not anti-Semitic.
Not only could a Labour member post something obviously anti-Semitic, it was not deemed to be so by the Compliance Unit. I
bet we all know people who would agree.
It's not a factually accurate description of global political realities, because Israel does not control the US, if that is
what the image is intended to imply. But, the message, is thereby anti-Israeli state, not anti-Semitic. It could only be considered
anti-Semitic, if in fact you are a Zionist and claim that Israel and Jews are are interchangeable terms, which they are not.
In fact, there are probably not an inconsiderable number of Jews, who think that the state of Israel does exercise undue influence
over US policy, and certainly it seems to be the case that, in the US, more liberal Jewish groups, seem to think that one reason
that the Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu, in Israel, was so supportive of Trump, and we see the same support for Trump amongst
Zionists in Britain, is at least in part due to the fact that Obama had been distancing the US from its historical uncritical
support for Israel.
If we replace Zionism with Toryism, and Jew with British, the situation becomes fairly clear. If the we show the British
state as being controlled by Tories, who implement their ideology of Toryism, in what way would criticism of the British state,
under the control of such Tories, or criticism of Tories be the equivalent of British people as a whole?
Clearly it wouldn't, because there are a majority of British people who oppose Toryism, and thereby oppose the actions of the
British state under the control of the Tories. A nationalist, or racist might want to equate the nation state with the whole of
its people, but the people who are doing that here, by interpreting criticism of the Israeli state with anti-Semitism, are the
Zionists themselves, and their apologists, because they seek thereby to delegitimize any criticism of the state of Israel and
Zionism by equating it with anti-Semitism.
That in effect makes the Zionists themselves, and their apologists anti-Semites, because in adopting this equation of Jewishness
with being Zionist, and with Israel, they make all Jews thereby responsible for the actions of Zionism and of the state of Israel!
The problem for the AWL, and its members like Jim Denham, on this issue comes down to this. Until thirty years ago, the organisation,
under its previous names, was an ardent defender of the ideas and traditions of Jim Cannon. Cannon's "The Struggle for a Proletarian
Party" was required reading for all of its members. Then, in an about face, the organisation overnight collapsed into what Trotsky
called "the petit-bourgeois Third Camp", and so became ardent defenders of the enemies of Cannon, the petit-bourgeois Third Camp
of Burnham- Shachtman. That kind of wild zig-zag is typical of bureaucratic-centrist organisations, which is what the AWL is.
As part of this collapse into the petit-bourgeois Third Camp, and the moralistic politics it is based upon, the AWL also adopted
the ideas of Third Campists like Al Glotzer, in relation to Israel and Zionism, as opposed to the position of Mandel, which represented
a continuation of the ideas of Cannon and Trotsky. I set this out in a short blog post 12 years ago
Glotzer and the Jews as Special
, after the AWL had repeatedly censored it appearing on their website in response to an article setting out Glotzer's position.
Having committed themselves to the reactionary Zionist ideology that essentially underpins Glotzer's stance - the same thing
idea of having lost faith in the working-class, and so having to rely on the bourgeois state, or "progressive imperialism" to
accomplish the tasks of the working-class, is behind the AWL's support for NATo's war against Serbia, Iraq, Libya etc., but is
also behind the politics of other Third Campists such as the SWP, that instead look to other larger forces, such as reactionary
"anti-imperialist" states to carry forward its moral agenda - the AWL are left now trying to defend their position of support
for the creation of a racist, expansionist state in Israel, as the inevitable consequences of that venture unfold.
For a Marxist, it is not at all difficult to say that the establishment of the state of Israel is one that we should not have
supported at the time, because it would lead to the kind of consequences we see today, and yet, to say, 75 years on from the creation
of that state, it is an established fact, and trying to unwind history, by calling for the destruction of that state would have
even more calamitous consequences for the global working-class. It is quite easy for a Marx to say that the current nature of
the Israeli state, as a racist Zionist state, based, like almost no other state in the world on a confessional basis, i.e. of
being a Jewish state, a state for Jews in preference to every other ethnic/religious group flows from the ideology, and nature
of its creation. But, then to argue that the answer to that is not a destruction of the state of Israel, which could only be done
on the bones of millions of Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, but is to wage a working-class based struggle against that
racist foundation upon which the state has been founded, and that struggle is one that must unite Jews and Arabs alike. In fact,
the position of palestinians today is a mirror image of that of the Jews 75 years ago.
The hope of a Two-State Solution disappeared long ago, and was never credible. It simply allows Zionists to proclaim they are
in favour of it, whilst doing everything to make it practically impossible, such as extending West Bank Settlements. The solution
must flow from a struggle for democratic rights for Israeli Arabs, and for a right for all Arabs in occupied territories to be
extended the same rights as any other Israeli, including the right to vote, and send representatives to the Knesset. As I argued
thirty years ago, the longer-term solution is a Federal Republic of Israel and Palestine, guaranteeing democratic rights to all,
as part of building a wider Federal Republic of MENA.
Jim Denham: imperialist lackey and sycophant turned Witch hunter in chief
Let us be very clear about what this witch hunt is about, it is about purging from public life any credible and effective
opposition to Israel in particular and more generally opposition to the imperialist barbarians of the imperialist core. It is
about driving from universities, social media and intellectual life any form of opposition to the interests of the imperialists.
This is nothing but authoritarianism in action, censorship of political opponents and the closing down of any credible definition
of free speech.
In other words this is something any leftist worth half an atom would be fighting against with all their energies.
But what do we find, pathetic pro war pro imperialists leftists and post modern liberals joining the witch hunt.
Meanwhile in the real world:
A UN report has concluded that Israel deliberately targeted and killed hundreds of protesting civilians, including children
and disabled people and it shot 20,000+ people (yes 20,000+!). The UN says this likely a war crime. Why are the noble defenders
of the Palestinian cause in the dock and not notorious Palestinian haters like Jim Denham?
How can anyone on the left get away with supporting and providing ideological cover for Israel How can any leftist allow a
socialist movement to be sabotaged by the Israel state and its army of appalling immoral apologists?
These attacks on Corbyn and his supporters, repeated in all of the most aggressive imperialist countries, are simply a
proxy attack on the Palestinian people themselves.
Jim Denham's comment here illustrates the problem entirely. The picture he has linked to shows an alien symbiote having attached
itself to the face of the statue of liberty. The statue of liberty here represents the US. The symbiote has on its back the Israeli
Flag, and likewise, thereby represents the state of Israel. The picture therefore, represents the well-worn, and clearly factually
wrong meme that Israel controls the US.
But, as a Zionist organisation, the AWL and its members cannot distinguish between the state of Israel and Jews, so they
cannot distinguish between criticism of the state of Israel, and criticism if Jews. For them, as for the Zionist ideology of the
state of Israel, which is most clearly manifest in the ideology of its current political leadership, in the form of the Bonapartist
regime of Netanyahu, with the recent introduction of blatantly racist laws that discriminate even more openly against not Jewish
Israeli citizens, and with his willingness to try to keep his corrupt regime in office by going into coalition with an avowedly
Neo-Nazi party that until recent times was considered beyond the pale, even by most Zionists, the term Zionism is synonymous with
the term Jew. So, any criticism of Zionism, or of Israel is for them immediately equated with anti-Semitism.
It is what leads such Zionists to then also insist on their right to determine who is a Jew or not. The AWL do that with all
those Jews, such as the JVL, who refuse to accept the AWL's definition of anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism. Its like the old saw that
the definition of a Scot is someone who wears a kilt, and when asked about Jock McTavish, from Arbroath, who does not wear a kilt,
the reply comes back, then he cannot really be a Scot!
The Zionists insists on defining anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, and thereby closing down debate. Jim Denham does that most
clearly here, in his refusal to debate the actual substantive points. It is typical of the attitude of the AWL, in general which
long since gave up trying to defend its bourgeois liberal, opportunist politics by rational debate, and instead turned to bureaucratic
censorship, and ill-tempered invective.
Once again Jim Denham reefuses to engage in rational debate, and again resorts instead to his assumption that Israel = Jews,
as well as his crude attempts at a typical Stalinist amalgam, to conflate the views of his opponents with some hate figure.
Again Jim Denham makes the conflation of Israel and Jews explicit when he says, "This image also plays on the tired and
disgraceful antisemitic 'conspiracy theory' trope of undue Israeli (Jewish) influence on world affairs."
The conflation of equating Israel with the term Jew flows directly from the Zionist ideology that underpins the Israeli State,
but which also adopted by the AWL, and its members like Jim Denham. It thereby effectively denies statehood to non-Jewish Israeli
citizens, making them non-persons, erasing them from history, in the same way that Jim Denham has sought to do in diminishing
if not entirely denying the genocides against other ethnic groups such as Native North Americans, Australian and New Zealand aboriginals
etc., as a result of his Zionist privileging of the specific genocide against Jews in the Holocaust.
It is the same kind of racism, of course, that is applied by the BNP and other white nationalists, who seek to portray Britain
as being a nation for white Britons, and thereby deny other Britons the right to consider themselves really British. Every socialist,
can understand the racist nature of that ideology when it is applied to Britain, and elsewhere, but the AWL, and its members,
like Jim Denham, deny it when it is applied to Israel, which they want to treat as being different to every other state on the
planet, in defence of their Zionist ideology that privileges Israeli Jews over others, and by extension equates the term Jew with
the term Israel.
Its most extreme version comes with the fascists that Netanyahu has now gone into alliance with, whose ideology states that
God only put gentiels on the Earth to be slaves and serve the needs of Jews, as the chosen people! It means that they see the
place of non-Jewish Israelis in those terms, as being allowed to remain in Israel only on that subservient basis. This is the
ideology that the AWL is now logically tied to, in having adopted Zionism as the answer to the problems of Jewish workers rather
than socialism.
And, of course, the extension of that principle for other Zionists is illustrated in their support for fascists like Orban
in Hungary, who wants to adopt a similar nationalist ideology of keeping Hungary, and other "white" European nations exclusively
for "whites", in the same way that Zionists want to keep Israel exclusively for Jews.
It is a sorry state when socialists have degenerated to such an extent that not only do they fail to distinguish between nationalist
ideology and socialist ideology by adopting nationalist solutions to workers problems such as "nationalisation", by the capitalist
state, but where, in adopting such reactionary nationalist ideology, the logic of their position drives them to supporting the
idea that nation states should be exclusively for particular ethnic groups, such as Israel for the Jews, Hungary for white Christians
and so on.
The way that the right are using anti-Zionism as the equivalent for anti-Semitism, and the appeasement of that attack has
led them to widen the scope of that attack. As
Labour
List reports , right-wing Labour MP Siobhan McDonagh, is now claiming that to be anti-capitalist is also to be "anti-Semitic".
The idea was put forward also by former Blair-right spin doctor, John McTernan,
who wrote an article in the FT to that
same effect
Channelling Jim Denham, McTernan writes,
"As the historian Deborah Lipstadt points out, anti-Semitic tropes share three elements: money or finance is always in the
mix; an acknowledged cleverness that is also seen as conniving; and, power -- particularly a power to manipulate more powerful
entities.
All of these feature in the criticism of Israel and the so-called Israel lobby. They can be easily moulded into a critique
of capitalism, too."
The line of argument was illustrated to me some weeks ago, in a comment I received in relation to an article I wrote about
Marx's analysis of fictitious capital,
as part of my critique of Paul Mason's Postcapitalism . The commenter, argued that Marx's analysis of fictitious capital appeared
to be simply Marx blaming bankers and money lenders, for which read Jews, for the world's ills, and was thereby simply an expression
of the well-known fact that Marx was a self-hating Jew, much as the AWL, describe all those other Jews that do not share their
commitment to |Zionism. The commenter as evidence of this provided a link to a literary critique of Marx's
On The Jewish Question
, which is cited as proving that Marx was an anti-semite.
In fact, I pointed out that in nothing that Marx had written about fictitious capital, or what I had written describing Marx's
analysis of fictitious capital are bankers discussed, let alone Jewish bankers. The anonymous commenter, has, in fact, since deleted
their comments, meaning that my responses to them were also deleted.
But, this is the way this right-wing witch-hunt proceeds, by throwing a net to catch whatever they can trawl in, and at the very
least sowing the seeds of doubt as they require those being attacked to respond to their wild accusations. It means that any statement
can be framed to mean that there is some subtext beneath the actual words and pictures that is somehow anti-Semitic, if only you
know the relevant coda to unlock the true meaning, and anyone who doubts the meaning being placed upon it, is thereby a defender
of the anti-Semitic message. As with the attacks on Momentum, and the initial surge of membership supporting Corbyn, it is always
phrased in dark conspiratorial language, about unseen forces being behind what is seen on the surface. So, we were supposed to
believe that a few hundred Trots in Britain somehow morphed into 300,000 new LP members! But, Momentum now having shown that it
is a tame part of the establishment, is even able to recruit McTernan himself as a member.
The appeasement as with all witch-hunts only provokes the witch-hunters to widen the scope of their activities. The AWL, which
was at the forefront of helping the witch-hunters with their shameful support for the witch-hunting of Jackie Walker, was repaid
by having their own members expelled too, and having right-wing Labour MP's appear on TV, to characterise the AWL themselves as
"anti-Semites", despite their well-known Zionist politics. Yet, oddly, the AWL seem to consider that a price worth paying, as
their advocacy of Zionism seems to trump any other consideration for them in their politics.
It didn't take long for my comment of yesterday to be proved correct. Today we learn that Jess Phillips has claimed that Marxism
is necessarily misogynist, because it places class oppression above all else, and so now claims that as well as the Left in the
party being anti-Semitic, it is also misogynist. The attack of the Right, as I said yesterday will spread ever wider on this irrational
basis, using all of the usual conspiratorial language that such witch-hunts have always adopted. Rather like a Dan Brown novel,
it will imply that there are dark (Marxist) forces at work, of which Corbyn is the head of the coven (or even worse that some
unseen Dark Overlord is really standing behind Corbyn, who is only its representative on Earth (i.e. in the LP).
It will suggest that these dark forces do not speak openly, but only in codes and symbols that have to be unlocked by the forces
of Light, who like Jim Denham, can look into the minds of men and women, and see what is really going inside.
I actually found that despite the anonymous Zionist commenter to my article on Medium having deleted their comments, my replies
to them, were in fact still floating around
here
,
here , and
here .
As the right-wing extend their witch-hunt against socialists in the LP to claim that Marxists are necessarily misogynist,
as well as anti-Semitic – and the same logic presented by McDonagh, McTernon, and Phillips would presumably mean that the Left
must also be xenophobic, homophobic, anti- Green, and many other charges they want to throw into the mix – it will be interesting
to see whether and to what extent the AWL, join them in that assault, in the same way they have done in their promotion of Zionism.
"... With the uranium in hand, the stealing of the advanced technology needed to make a nuclear weapon is where Milchan comes into the story . Arnon Milchan was born in Israel but moved to the United States as a young man and eventually wound up as the founder-owner of a major movie production company, New Regency Films. In a November 25, 2013 interview on Israeli television Milchan admitted that he had spent his many years in Hollywood as an agent for Israeli intelligence, helping obtain embargoed technologies and materials that enabled Israel to develop a nuclear weapon. ..."
"... Milchan, who clearly still has significant business interests in this country as evidenced by Bohemian Rhapsody , explained in his interview that "I did it for my country and I'm proud of it." He also said that "other big Hollywood names were connected to [his] covert affairs." It is, to be sure, astonishing that Milchan should admit to his crimes at a time when he was still traveling regularly to the U.S. and residing in California, but his belief in his own invulnerability stems from the fact that the federal government failed to act against him during the fifty years when he was mostly resident in the United States even though it knew about his spying activity. ..."
"... Among other successes, Milchan obtained through his company Heli Trading 800 krytons, the sophisticated triggers for nuclear weapons. The devices were acquired from the California top secret defense contractor MILCO International. Milchan personally recruited MILCO's president Richard Kelly Smyth as an agent before turning him over to another Heli Trading employee Benjamin Netanyahu for handling. Smyth was eventually arrested in 1985 and cooperated in his interrogation by the FBI before being sentenced to prison, which means that the Federal government knew all about both Milchan and Netanyahu at that time but did not even seek to interview them and ultimately did nothing. ..."
"... So Milchan was an Israeli spy who got away with it and is still making money off of the country that he victimized. ..."
"... Peres claims that he personally recruited Milchan as a spy and, from the age of 21, Milchan used a family chemical business as cover to engage in arms and technology sales. He was from the beginning involved in clandestine purchases in support of Israel's nuclear program. ..."
Back in the spring I wrote about coming
across the name Arnon Milchan by chance on a movie credit while flying from Venice to
Washington. Milchan, some might recall, is a Hollywood billionaire movie producer born in
Israel, well known for such films as Pretty Woman and Bohemian Rhapsody . He is
less well known for his role in arranging for the procurement and illegal transfer of U.S.
technology that enabled the Jewish state to develop its own nuclear arsenal. Far from being
ashamed of his betrayal of the adopted country that helped make him rich and famous, in 2011 he
authorized and contributed to a ghost-written biography, which he boastfully entitled
"Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon." Parts of the book were in the
first person with Milchan telling his story in his own words.
I had been aware of Milchan's crimes for a number of years, just as I had also speculated on
how a leading Israeli spy working actively and successfully against vital U.S. anti-nuclear
proliferation interests had managed to continue to maintain a home and business in Los Angeles
while also appearing regularly at the Oscar presentation ceremonies. I asked "Why is this
scumbag still making movies in Hollywood? Why isn't he in jail?" before concluding that the
federal government clearly regards spying for Israel as a victimless crime, rarely arresting
anyone and almost never prosecuting any of the numerous easily identifiable Israeli
intelligence agents roaming the country.
Milchan was an active Israeli spy in the U.S., working for the Mossad technology theft
division referred to as LEKEM. The Mossad frequently uses so-called sayanim in its
espionage, which means diaspora Jews that it recruits on the basis of a shared religion or
concern for the security of Israel. The threat coming from Israeli Embassy operatives inside
the United States is such that the Department of Defense once warned
that Jewish Americans in government would likely be the targets of their intelligence
approaches.
President John F. Kennedy had tried to stop the Israeli nuclear weapons program but was
assassinated before he could end it. By 1965, the Jewish state had nevertheless obtained the raw
material for a bomb consisting of U.S. government owned highly enriched weapons grade uranium
obtained from a company in Pennsylvania called NUMEC, which was founded in 1956 and owned by
Zalman Mordecai Shapiro, head of the Pittsburgh chapter of the Zionist Organization of America.
NUMEC was a supplier of enriched uranium for government projects but it was also from the start
a front for the Israeli nuclear program, with its chief funder David Lowenthal, a leading
Zionist, traveling to Israel at least once a month where he would meet with an old friend Meir
Amit, who headed Israeli intelligence.
With the uranium in hand, the stealing of the advanced technology needed to make a
nuclear weapon is where Milchan comes into the
story . Arnon Milchan was born in Israel but moved to the United States as a young man and
eventually wound up as the founder-owner of a major movie production company, New Regency
Films. In a November 25, 2013 interview on Israeli television Milchan admitted that he had
spent his many years in Hollywood as an agent for Israeli intelligence, helping obtain
embargoed technologies and materials that enabled Israel to develop a nuclear weapon.
Milchan, who clearly still has significant business interests in this country as
evidenced by Bohemian Rhapsody , explained in his interview that "I did it for my country and
I'm proud of it." He also said that "other big Hollywood names were connected to [his] covert
affairs." It is, to be sure, astonishing that Milchan should admit to his crimes at a time when
he was still traveling regularly to the U.S. and residing in California, but his belief in his
own invulnerability stems from the fact that the federal government failed to act against him
during the fifty years when he was mostly resident in the United States even though it knew
about his spying activity.
Among other successes, Milchan obtained through his company Heli Trading 800 krytons,
the sophisticated triggers for nuclear weapons. The devices were acquired from the California
top secret defense contractor MILCO International. Milchan personally recruited MILCO's
president Richard Kelly Smyth as an agent before turning him over to another Heli Trading
employee Benjamin Netanyahu for handling. Smyth was eventually arrested in 1985 and cooperated
in his interrogation by the FBI before being sentenced to prison, which means that the Federal
government knew all about both Milchan and Netanyahu at that time but did not even seek to
interview them and ultimately did nothing.
So Milchan was an Israeli spy who got away with it and is still making money off of the
country that he victimized. End of story, or is it? The Israeli liberal leaning newspaper
Haaretz has recently
featured an expose of his involvement in high level political corruption as well as in
nuclear proliferation involving South Africa when that country was under sanctions.
Haaretz observes how " the [Israel]-born [Hollywood] mogul made his real money
elsewhere: in deals for arms including planes, missiles and gear for making nuclear bombs in
which Israel, and later other countries, were parties. To make films there's no need for crony
capitalism, but to succeed in the arms business, government connections are obligatory."
Milchan has been involved in a
bit of controversy in Israel itself, where the police have recommended that he be charged
with bribery connected with the ongoing investigation of corruption by Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. Milchan, it seems, spent one million shekels ($250,000) on luxury items that he gave
to Bibi as a reported quid pro quo to exempt his substantial U.S. derived income from
taxes when he returned to Israel to live in 2013-4.
Demonstrating that Milchan's corruption was international, the police investigation
determined that in 2014 Netanyahu approached then U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to
intervene and arrange for a long-term American visa for Milchan, who was at the time dealing
with problems relating to his U.S. residency status. Milchan reportedly made the arrangement by
going directly to Netanyahu's home with the customary boxes of expensive cigars and cases of
champagne and waited for the prime minister to come home. When Netanyahu arrived, Milchan
demanded that Bibi immediately contact Kerry to arrange a new visa. And Netanyahu did just
that, picking up the phone and dialing. In the event, the visa was granted and Milchan
continued to make more movies, and money, in Los Angeles.
... ... ...
Peres claims that he personally recruited Milchan as a spy and, from the age of 21,
Milchan used a family chemical business as cover to engage in arms and technology sales. He was
from the beginning involved in clandestine purchases in support of Israel's nuclear
program.
Milchan also became a buyer for weapons in cases where the Israeli government did not want
to have the purchases attributed to it. In all cases, Milchan took a commission on the sales,
hence the claim that his Hollywood fortune constituted only a small part of his wealth. He
sometimes found himself buying U.S. made weapons using Israeli government money that had come
from U.S. taxpayer provided military assistance, taking his 10% along the way.
Starting in the 1970s, Israel, operating covertly through Milchan, sold South Africa
embargoed weapons systems, receiving both money and uranium in return. South Africa knew how to
return a favor, allowing Israel in September 1979 to conduct a nuclear test on an island
administered by Pretoria in the Indian Ocean.
... ... ...
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected]
It wasn’t just FBI that got called off. Customs also stumbled on this in-your-face
proliferation ring. The judiciary was utterly gelded. Smyth, ‘Mossad’s’
asset, got bail of a measly $100K for frickin WMD proliferation. Who can exfiltrate a
clandestine dealer in CCL items after the foreign end user refuses cooperation? So after
Smyth skips his derisory $100K bail for 15 years of fun & sun in Spain, he finally gets
parole and NO jail time cause the poor old guy was ever so ollld and frail! Who set all that
up? Peres. And with whom does Perez arrange compacts that suspend the functions of multiple
federal organizations and the courts?
Mossad is CIA’s wholesale source for cutouts because there’s nothing,
absolutely nothing they won’t do to goy cattle. If you want to get beyond mealy-mouthed
euphemisms like “Israel-first thinking within America’s establishment,”
what you need is a Schlesinger to re-inventory the family jewels and find out who in CIA ran
Milchan – because Milchan only did what CIA was scared to do itself. In this case, a
country with no NPT commitments and a clandestine development program is a dandy way to
develop and test the kind of munitions that got used at Baghdad Airport and the WTC. CIA has
a long history of using Israeli assets for its dirtiest work: domestic surveillance,
pedophile blackmail, illegal NBC weapons development and use, systematic and widespread
universal-jurisdiction murder and disappearance.
Bill Barr’s dad hired Epstein to teach nubile ephebes at Dalton with no degree but
oh yeah, Mossad ran him, right. Who at OFAC was the cognizant authority for the accounts at
BOA Huntington Beach and Union Bank? That’s your CIA focal point.
@That
Darn Jew CAV badge the weapon that has corrupted nearly every nation state in the western
world? Politicians make promises, and then within hours for unexplained reasons, reverse
them..Hmmm? Is the CAV Badge the weapon that has corrupted the intelligence services and
stable of politicians in nearly every nation in the world? Did Colin Powell flash a CAV badge
as he spoke to UN focus about the most likely presence of non existent WMDs that led to w__
in Iraq?
How can CAV badge victims be identified and isolated from politics?
Its more than spying its black male maybe?
The CAV badge could explain so many USA positive, American negative events?
Know what? Lot of people are asking how Jeff Epstein got all of his lucre. His Bear
Stearns past doesnt seem to completely “addy up”.
Wonder if he may have been supported financially by a foreign intel service to gather dirt
on billionaire clients, Corporate officers, and politicians for leverage purposes later by
said intel service?
Anyone think that could have been a role for this guy? Like I said……..he had
more properties than he should have been able to afford. The seven story 71st street mansion,
the 72 acre Island and mansions, the Palm beach mansions, the yachts, 727 airliner,
helicopters , other properties and holdings. Where did all his pesos come from?
By prokoking the the Soviets through his reviving Eisenhower’s proposal to give West
Germany nuclear weapons, JFK ‘s reckless desire to nuke up any anti Soviet country took
the world to the brink of nuclear war.
Behind all the “shocked, shocked I tell you!” diplomatic maneuvering, Cold war
America wanted to stop Israel from getting a nuclear weapons as much as it wanted to stop
South Africa from getting them: not at all.
Eisenhower gave Israel a nuclear reactor for goodness sake.
@That
Darn Jew that you had been tried for the Inner Ring and rejected. And then, if you are
drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules, and next year
something further still, but all in the jolliest, friendliest spirit. It may end in a crash,
a scandal, and penal servitude; it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at
your old school. But you will be a scoundrel .
The more important points: the sine qua non : you must have wanted to be in
the inner ring, and you must have been identified as corruptible by the people who
decide who to suborn.
@niteranger
ordinating information collected abroad for the president. After the United States became
involved in World War II, the COI became the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in June 1942,
with Donovan still in charge.”
OSS was disbanded at war’s end, but, consistent with Donovan’s urgings, in 1946
Harry Truman created its successor organization, the CIA. Allen W. Dulles was the first
civilian and longest serving head of CIA. Thus, men who had the greatest influence on the creation and evolution of the American Central
Intelligence Agency were, first, deeply influenced by Jewish interests and ideologues.
"... This is just wanton shit-faced stupidity. We are referring to the Trump Administration's escalation of sanctions on Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei and its foreign minister, and then the Donald's tweet-storm of bluster, threats and implicit redlines when they didn't take too kindly to this latest act of aggression by Washington. ..."
"... That last point can't be emphasized enough. Iran is zero threat to the American homeland and has never engaged in any hostile action on U.S soil or even threatened the same. ..."
"... To the contrary, Washington's massive naval and military arsenal in the middle east is essentially the occupational force of a naked aggressor that has created mayhem through the Persian Gulf and middle eastern region for the past three decades; and has done so in pursuit of the will-o-wisp of oil security and the neocon agenda of demonizing and isolating the Iranian regime. ..."
"... the demonization of the Iranian regime is based on lies and propaganda ginned up by the Bibi Netanyahu branch of the War Party (that has falsely made Iran an "existential" threat in order to win elections in Israel). ..."
"... Likewise, it has presumed to have an independent foreign policy involving Washington proscribed alliances with the sovereign state of Syria, the leading political party of Lebanon (Hezbollah), the ruling authorities in Baghdad and the reining power in the Yemen capital of Sana'a (the Houthis). All these regimes except the puppet state of Iraq are deemed by Washington to be sources of unsanctioned "regional instability" and Iran's alliances with them have been capriciously labeled as acts of state sponsored terrorism. ..."
"... The same goes for Washington's demarche against Iran's modest array of short, medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles. These weapons are palpably instruments of self-defense, but Imperial Washington insists their purpose is aggression – unlike the case of practically every other nation which offers its custom to American arms merchants for like and similar weapons. ..."
"... For example, Iran's arch-rival across the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, has more advanced NATO supplied ballistic missiles with even greater range (2,600 km range). So does Israel, Pakistan, India and a half-dozen other nations, which are either Washington allies or have been given a hall-pass in order to bolster US arms exports. ..."
"... In short, Washington's escalating war on Iran is an exercise in global hegemony, not territorial self-defense ..."
"... When the cold-war officially ended in 1991, in fact, the Cheney/neocon cabal feared the kind of drastic demobilization of the US military-industrial complex that was warranted by the suddenly more pacific strategic environment. In response, they developed an anti-Iranian doctrine that was explicitly described as a way of keeping defense spending at high cold war levels. ..."
"... Iranians had a case is beyond doubt. The open US archives now prove that the CIA overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 and put the utterly unsuited and megalomaniacal Mohammad Reza Shah on the peacock throne to rule as a puppet in behalf of US security and oil interests. ..."
"... Indeed, in this very context the new Iranian regime proved quite dramatically that it was not hell bent on obtaining nuclear bombs or any other weapons of mass destruction. In the midst of Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in the early 1980s the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against biological and chemical weapons. ..."
"... Yet at that very time, Saddam was dropping these horrific weapons on Iranian battle forces – some of them barely armed teenage boys – with the spotting help of CIA tracking satellites and the concurrence of Washington. So from the very beginning, the Iranian posture was wholly contrary to the War Party's endless blizzard of false charges about its quest for nukes. ..."
"... However benighted and medieval its religious views, the theocracy which rules Iran does not consist of demented war mongers. In the heat of battle they were willing to sacrifice their own forces rather than violate their religious scruples to counter Saddam's WMDs. ..."
"... Then in 1983 the new Iranian regime decided to complete the Bushehr power plant and some additional elements of the Shah's grand plan. But when they attempted to reactivate the French enrichment services contract and buy necessary power plant equipment from the original German suppliers they were stopped cold by Washington. And when the tried to get their $2 billion deposit back, they were curtly denied that, too. ..."
This is just wanton shit-faced stupidity. We are referring to
the Trump Administration's escalation of sanctions on Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei and its foreign
minister, and then the Donald's tweet-storm of bluster, threats and implicit redlines when they
didn't take too kindly to this latest act of aggression by Washington.
That last point can't be emphasized enough. Iran is zero threat to the American homeland
and has never engaged in any hostile action on U.S soil or even threatened the same.
To the contrary, Washington's massive naval and military arsenal in the middle east is
essentially the occupational force of a naked aggressor that has created mayhem through the
Persian Gulf and middle eastern region for the past three decades; and has done so in pursuit
of the will-o-wisp of oil security and the neocon agenda of demonizing and isolating the
Iranian regime.
But as we have demonstrated previously, the best cure for high oil prices is the global
market, not the Fifth Fleet. And the demonization of the Iranian regime is based on lies
and propaganda ginned up by the Bibi Netanyahu branch of the War Party (that has falsely made
Iran an "existential" threat in order to win elections in Israel).
Stated differently, the American people have no dog in the political hunts of Washington's
so-called allies in the region; and will be no worse for the wear economically if Washington
were to dispense with its idiotic economic warfare against Iran's 4 million barrel per day oil
industry and allow all exporters in the region to produce and sell every single barrel they can
economically extract.
Viewed in the proper context, Iran's response to the new sanctions and intensified efforts
to destroy their economy was readily warranted:
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called the new sanctions "outrageous and stupid." Mr.
Khamenei, while the political leader of Iran, also is one of the world's leading authorities
for Shia Muslims.
"Would any administration with a bit of wisdom [sanction] the highest authority of a
country? And not only a political authority, a religious, social, spiritual one, and not the
leader of Iran only, the leader of the Islamic revolution all over the world?" Mr. Rouhani said
in a speech broadcast on state television.
He said it was "obvious" that the US was lying about wanting to negotiate with Iran: "You
want us to negotiate with you again?" Mr. Rouhani said, "and at the same time you seek to
sanction the foreign minister too?"
Iran also said these sanctions closed the door on diplomacy and threatened global
stability, as American officials renewed efforts to build a global alliance against
Tehran.
Unfortunately, it didn't take the Donald long to upchuck what amounted to a dangerous
tantrum:
.Iran's very ignorant and insulting statement, put out today, only shows that they do not
understand reality. Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and
overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration. No more John Kerry
& Obama!
Those words are utterly reckless and outrageous. The Donald is carrying water for the
neocons, Bibi and the Saudis without really understanding what he is doing and in the process
is betraying America First and inching closer to an utterly unnecessary conflagration in the
Persian Gulf that will virtually upend the global economy.
Worst of all, as he escalates the confrontation with the Iranian regime, he espouses a pack
of lies and distortions that do no remotely comport with the facts. For instance, the following
tweet is absolutely neocon baloney:
.The wonderful Iranian people are suffering, and for no reason at all. Their leadership
spends all of its money on Terror, and little on anything else. The US has not forgotten Iran's
use of IED's & EFP's (bombs), which killed 2000 Americans, and wounded many
more
The truth of the matter is that the Donald is referring to attacks on US forces by the
Shiite militias in Iraq during Washington's misbegotten invasion and occupation of that
woebegone nation during the last decades. The Shiite live there, constitute the majority of its
electorate, didn't want America there in the first place, and now actually run the government
that Washington placed in power and are totally opposed to Trump's confrontation with their
Shiite compatriots in Iran.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Better still, it is crucial to understand that this entire dangerous escalation is owing to
the fact that the Donald got into his thick head that utter nonsense that the Iran nuke deal
was some kind of disaster, and from there walked-away from the deal and restarted a brutal
economic war against Iran in the guise of sanctions.
But nothing could be further from the truth. The Donald's action to terminate the Iranian
nuclear deal was a complete triumph for the War Party.
It gutted the very idea of America First because Washington's renewed round of
sanctions constitute economic aggression against a country that is no threat to the US homeland
whatsoever.
In fact, Iran did not violate any term of the nuke deal, and as we demonstrate below,
scrupulously adhered to the letter of it. So the real reasons for Trump's abandonment of the
nuke deal have everything to do with the kind of Imperial interventionism that is the
antithesis of America First.
Trump's action, in fact, is predicated on the decades long neocon-inspired Big Lie that Iran
is an aggressive expansionist and terrorism-supporting rogue state which threatens the security
of not just the region, but America too.
But that's flat out poppycock. As we documented last week, the claim that Iran is the
expansionist leader of the Shiite Crescent is based on nothing more than the fact that Tehran
has an independent foreign policy based on its own interests and confessional affiliations
– legitimate relationships that are demonized by virtue of not being approved by
Washington.
Likewise, the official charge that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism is not
remotely warranted by the facts: The listing is essentially a State Department favor to the
Netanyahu branch of the War Party.
The fact is, the Iranian regime with its piddling $14 billion military budget has no means
to attack America militarily and has never threatened to do so. Nor has it invaded any other
country in the region where it was not invited by a sovereign government host.
As Ron Paul cogently observed:
Is Iran really the aggressive one? When you unilaterally pull out of an agreement that
was reducing tensions and boosting trade; when you begin applying sanctions designed to
completely destroy another country's economy; when you position military assets right offshore
of that country; when you threaten to destroy that country on a regular basis, calling it a
campaign of "maximum pressure," to me it seems a stretch to play the victim when that country
retaliates by shooting a spy plane that is likely looking for the best way to attack.
Even if the US spy plane was not in Iranian airspace – but it increasingly looks
like it was – it was just another part of an already-existing US war on Iran. Yes,
sanctions are a form of war, not a substitute for war.
The point is Washington's case is almost entirely bogus. To wit:
Mr. Trump also reiterated his demands Monday at the White House: "We will continue to
increase pressure on Tehran until the regime abandons its dangerous activities and its
aspirations, including the pursuit of nuclear weapons, increased enrichment of uranium,
development of ballistic missiles, engagement in and support for terrorism, fueling of foreign
conflicts, and belligerent acts directed against the United States and its allies."
Let's see about those "dangerous activities and aspirations".
In fact, Iran has no blue water navy that could effectively operate outside of the Persian
Gulf; its longest range warplanes can barely get to Rome without refueling; and its array of
mainly defensive medium and intermediate range missiles cannot strike most of NATO, to say
nothing of the North American continent.
Likewise, it has presumed to have an independent foreign policy involving Washington
proscribed alliances with the sovereign state of Syria, the leading political party of Lebanon
(Hezbollah), the ruling authorities in Baghdad and the reining power in the Yemen capital of
Sana'a (the Houthis). All these regimes except the puppet state of Iraq are deemed by Washington to be sources of
unsanctioned "regional instability" and Iran's alliances with them have been capriciously
labeled as acts of state sponsored terrorism.
The same goes for Washington's demarche against Iran's modest array of short, medium and
intermediate range ballistic missiles. These weapons are palpably instruments of self-defense,
but Imperial Washington insists their purpose is aggression – unlike the case of
practically every other nation which offers its custom to American arms merchants for like and
similar weapons.
For example, Iran's arch-rival across the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, has more advanced NATO
supplied ballistic missiles with even greater range (2,600 km range). So does Israel, Pakistan,
India and a half-dozen other nations, which are either Washington allies or have been given a
hall-pass in order to bolster US arms exports.
In short, Washington's escalating war on Iran is an exercise in global hegemony, not
territorial self-defense. It is a testament to the manner in which the historic notion of
national defense has morphed into Washington's arrogant claim that it constitutes the
"Indispensable Nation" which purportedly stands as mankind's bulwark against global disorder
and chaos among nations.
Likewise, the Shiite theocracy ensconced in Tehran was an unfortunate albatross on the
Persian people, but it was no threat to America's safety and security. The very idea that
Tehran is an expansionist power bent on exporting terrorism to the rest of the world is a giant
fiction and tissue of lies invented by the Washington War Party and its Bibi Netanyahu branch
in order to win political support for their confrontationist policies.
Indeed, the three decade long demonization of Iran has served one overarching purpose.
Namely, it enabled both branches of the War Party to conjure up a fearsome enemy, thereby
justifying aggressive policies that call for a constant state of war and military
mobilization.
When the cold-war officially ended in 1991, in fact, the Cheney/neocon cabal feared the kind
of drastic demobilization of the US military-industrial complex that was warranted by the
suddenly more pacific strategic environment. In response, they developed an anti-Iranian
doctrine that was explicitly described as a way of keeping defense spending at high cold war
levels.
And the narrative they developed to this end is one of the more egregious Big Lies ever to
come out of the beltway. It puts you in mind of the young boy who killed his parents, and then
threw himself on the mercy of the courts on the grounds that he was an orphan!
To wit, during the 1980s the neocons in the Reagan Administration issued their own fatwa
again the Islamic Republic of Iran based on its rhetorical hostility to America. Yet that
enmity was grounded in Washington's 25-year support for the tyrannical and illegitimate regime
of the Shah, and constituted a founding narrative of the Islamic Republic that was not much
different than America's revolutionary castigation of King George.
That the Iranians had a case is beyond doubt. The open US archives now prove that the CIA
overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 and put the utterly unsuited and
megalomaniacal Mohammad Reza Shah on the peacock throne to rule as a puppet in behalf of US
security and oil interests.
During the subsequent decades the Shah not only massively and baldly plundered the wealth of
the Persian nation. With the help of the CIA and US military, he also created a brutal secret
police force known as the Savak, which made the East German Stasi look civilized by
comparison.
All elements of Iranian society including universities, labor unions, businesses, civic
organizations, peasant farmers and many more were subjected to intense surveillance by the
Savak agents and paid informants. As one critic described it:
Over the years, Savak became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest, detain,
brutally interrogate and torture suspected people indefinitely. Savak operated its own prisons
in Tehran, such as Qezel-Qalaeh and Evin facilities and many suspected places throughout the
country as well.
Ironically, among his many grandiose follies, the Shah embarked on a massive civilian
nuclear power campaign in the 1970s, which envisioned literally paving the Iranian landscape
with dozens of nuclear power plants.
He would use Iran's surging oil revenues after 1973 to buy all the equipment required from
Western companies – and also fuel cycle support services such as uranium enrichment
– in order to provide his kingdom with cheap power for centuries.
At the time of the Revolution, the first of these plants at Bushehr was nearly complete, but
the whole grandiose project was put on hold amidst the turmoil of the new regime and the onset
of Saddam Hussein's war against Iran in September 1980. As a consequence, a $2 billion deposit
languished at the French nuclear agency that had originally obtained it from the Shah to fund a
ramp-up of its enrichment capacity to supply his planned battery of reactors.
Indeed, in this very context the new Iranian regime proved quite dramatically that it was
not hell bent on obtaining nuclear bombs or any other weapons of mass destruction. In the midst
of Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in the early 1980s the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa
against biological and chemical weapons.
Yet at that very time, Saddam was dropping these horrific weapons on Iranian battle forces
– some of them barely armed teenage boys – with the spotting help of CIA tracking
satellites and the concurrence of Washington. So from the very beginning, the Iranian posture
was wholly contrary to the War Party's endless blizzard of false charges about its quest for
nukes.
However benighted and medieval its religious views, the theocracy which rules Iran does not
consist of demented war mongers. In the heat of battle they were willing to sacrifice their own
forces rather than violate their religious scruples to counter Saddam's WMDs.
Then in 1983 the new Iranian regime decided to complete the Bushehr power plant and some
additional elements of the Shah's grand plan. But when they attempted to reactivate the French
enrichment services contract and buy necessary power plant equipment from the original German
suppliers they were stopped cold by Washington. And when the tried to get their $2 billion
deposit back, they were curtly denied that, too.
To make a long story short, the entire subsequent history of off again/on again efforts by
the Iranians to purchase dual use equipment and components on the international market, often
from black market sources like Pakistan, was in response to Washington's relentless efforts to
block its legitimate rights as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to
complete some parts of the Shah's civilian nuclear project.
Needless to say, it did not take much effort by the neocon "regime change" fanatics which
inhabited the national security machinery, especially after the 2000 election, to spin every
attempt by Iran to purchase even a lowly pump or pipe fitting as evidence of a secret campaign
to get the bomb.
The exaggerations, lies, distortions and fear-mongering which came out of this neocon
campaign are downright despicable. Yet they incepted way back in the early 1990s when George
H.W. Bush actually did reach out to the newly elected government of Hashemi Rafsanjani to bury
the hatchet after it had cooperated in obtaining the release of American prisoners being held
in Lebanon in 1989.
Rafsanjani was self-evidently a pragmatist who did not want conflict with the United States
and the West; and after the devastation of the eight year war with Iraq was wholly focused on
economic reconstruction and even free market reforms of Iran's faltering economy.
It is one of the great tragedies of history that the neocons managed to squelch even George
Bush's better instincts with respect to rapprochement with Tehran.
The Neocon Big Lie About Iranian Nukes And Terrorism
So the prisoner release opening was short-lived – especially after the top post at the
CIA was assumed in 1991 by Robert Gates. As one of the very worst of the unreconstructed cold
war apparatchiks, it can be well and truly said that Gates looked peace in the eye and then
elected to pervert John Quincy Adams' wise maxim by searching the globe for monsters to
fabricate.
In this case the motivation was especially loathsome. Gates had been Bill Casey's right hand
man during the latter's rogue tenure at the CIA in the Reagan administration. Among the many
untoward projects that Gates shepherded was the Iran-Contra affair that nearly destroyed his
career when it blew-up, and for which he blamed the Iranians for its public disclosure.
From his post as deputy national security director in 1989 and then as CIA head Gates pulled
out all the stops to get even. Almost single-handedly he killed-off the White House goodwill
from the prisoner release, and launched the blatant myth that Iran was both sponsoring
terrorism and seeking to obtain nuclear weapons.
Indeed, it was Gates who was the architect of the demonization of Iran that became a staple
of War Party propaganda after the 1991. In time that morphed into the utterly false claim that
Iran is an aggressive wanna be hegemon that is a fount of terrorism and is dedicated to the
destruction of the state of Israel, among other treacherous purposes.
That giant lie was almost single-handedly fashioned by the neocons and Bibi Netanyahu's
coterie of power-hungry henchman after the mid-1990s. Indeed, the false claim that Iran posses
an "existential threat" to Israel is a product of the pure red meat domestic Israeli politics
that have kept Bibi in power for much of the last two decades.
But the truth is Iran has only a tiny fraction of Israel's conventional military capability.
And compared to the latter's 100 odd nukes, Iran has never had a nuclear weaponization program
after a small scale research program was ended in 2003.
That is not merely our opinion. It's been the sober assessment of the nation's top 17
intelligence agencies in the official National Intelligence Estimates ever since 2007. And now
in conjunction with a further study undertaken pursuant to the 2015 nuke deal, the IAEA has
also concluded the Iran had no secret program after 2003.
On the political and foreign policy front, Iran is no better or worse than any of the other
major powers in the Middle East. In many ways it is far less of a threat to regional peace and
stability than the military butchers who now run Egypt on $1.5 billion per year of US aid.
And it is surely no worse than the royal family tyrants who squander the massive oil
resources of Saudi Arabia in pursuit of unspeakable opulence and decadence to the detriment of
the 30 million citizens which are not part of the regime, and who one day may well reach the
point of revolt.
When it comes to the support of terrorism, the Saudis have funded more jihadists and
terrorists throughout the region than Iran ever even imagined.
In fact, Iran is a nearly bankrupt country that has no capability whatsoever to
threaten the security and safety of the citizens of Spokane WA, Peoria IL or anywhere else in
the USA.
Its $460 billion GDP is the size of Indiana's and its 68,000 man military is only slightly
larger than the national guard of Texas.
It is a land of severe mountains and daunting swamps that are not all that conducive to
rapid economic progress and advanced industrialization. It has no blue water navy, no missiles
with more than a few hundred miles of range, and, we must repeat again, has had no nuclear
weapons program for more than a decade.
Moreover, Donald's incessant charge that the Obama Administration gave away the store during
the nuke deal negotiations that led to the JCPA is just blatant nonsense. In fact, the Iranians
made huge concessions on nearly every issue that made a difference.
That included deep concessions on the number of permitted centrifuges at Natanz; the
dismantlement of the Fordow and Arak nuclear operations; the virtually complete liquidation of
its enriched uranium stockpiles; the intrusiveness and scope of the inspections regime; and the
provisions with respect to Iran's so-called "breakout" capacity.
For instance, while every signatory of the non-proliferation treaty has the right to
civilian enrichment, Iran agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges by 70% from 20,000 to
6,000.
And its effective spinning capacity was reduced by significantly more. That's because the
permitted Natanz centrifuges now consist exclusively of its most rudimentary, outdated
equipment – first-generation IR-1 knockoffs of 1970s European models.
Not only was Iran not be allowed to build or develop newer models, but even those remaining
were permitted to enrich uranium to a limit of only 3.75% purity. That is to say, to the
generation of fissile material that is not remotely capable of reaching bomb grade
concentrations of 90%.
Equally importantly, pursuant to the agreement Iran has eliminated enrichment activity
entirely at its Fordow plant – a facility that had been Iran's one truly advanced,
hardened site that could withstand an onslaught of Israeli or US bunker busters.
Instead, Fordow has become a small time underground science lab devoted to medical isotope
research and crawling with international inspectors. In effectively decommissioning Fordow and
thereby eliminating any capacity to cheat from a secure facility – what Iran got in
return was at best a fig leave of salve for its national pride.
The disposition of the reactor at Arak has been even more dispositive. For years, the War
Party has falsely waved the bloody shirt of "plutonium" because the civilian nuclear reactor
being built there was of Canadian "heavy water" design rather than GE or Westinghouse "light
water" design; and, accordingly, when finished it would have generated plutonium as a waste
product rather than conventional spent nuclear fuel rods.
In truth, the Iranians couldn't have bombed a beehive with the Arak plutonium because you
need a reprocessing plant to convert it into bomb grade material. Needless to say, Iran never
had such a plant – nor any plans to build one, and no prospect for getting the requisite
technology and equipment.
But now even that bogeyman no longer exists. Iran removed and destroyed the reactor core of
its existing Arak plant in 2016 and filled it with cement, as attested to by international
inspectors under the JCPA.
As to its already existing enriched stock piles, including some 20% medical-grade material,
97% has been eliminated as per the agreement. That is, Iran now holds only 300 kilograms of its
10,000 kilogram stockpile in useable or recoverable form. Senator Kirk could store what is left
in his wine cellar.
But where the framework agreement decisively shut down the War Party was with respect to its
provision for a robust, comprehensive and even prophylactic inspections regime. All of the
major provision itemized above are being enforced by continuous IAEA access to existing
facilities including its main centrifuge complex at Natanz – along with Fordow, Arak and
a half dozen other sites.
Indeed, the real breakthrough in the JCPA lies in Iran's agreement to what amounts to a
cradle-to-grave inspection regime. It encompasses the entire nuclear fuel chain.
That means international inspectors can visit Iran's uranium mines and milling and fuel
preparation operations. This encompasses even its enrichment equipment manufacturing and
fabrication plants, including centrifuge rotor and bellows production and storage
facilities.
Beyond that, Iran has also been subject to a robust program of IAEA inspections to prevent
smuggling of materials into the country to illicit sites outside of the named facilities under
the agreement. This encompasses imports of nuclear fuel cycle equipment and materials,
including so-called "dual use" items which are essentially civilian imports that can be
repurposed to nuclear uses, even peaceful domestic power generation.
In short, not even a Houdini could secretly breakout of the control box established by the
JCPA and confront the world with some kind of fait accompli threat to use the bomb.
That's because what it would take to do so is absurdly implausible. That is, Iran would need
to secretly divert thousands of tons of domestically produced or imported uranium and then
illicitly mill and upgrade such material at secret fuel preparation plants.
It would also need to secretly construct new, hidden enrichment operations of such massive
scale that they could house more than 10,000 new centrifuges. Moreover, they would need to
build these massive spinning arrays from millions of component parts smuggled into the country
and transported to remote enrichment operations – all undetected by the massive complex
of spy satellites overhead and covert US ands Israeli intelligence agency operatives on the
ground in Iran.
Finally, it would require the activation from scratch of a weaponization program which has
been dormant according to the National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) for more than a decade.
And then, that the Iranian regime – after cobbling together one or two bombs without
testing them or their launch vehicles – would nevertheless be willing to threaten to use
them sight unseen.
So just stop it!
You need to be a raging, certifiable paranoid boob to believe that the Iranians can break
out of this framework box based on a secret new capacity to enrich the requisite fissile
material and make a bomb.
In the alternative scenario, you have to be a willful know-nothing to think that if it
publicly repudiates the agreement, Iran could get a bomb overnight before the international
community could take action.
To get enough nuclear material to make a bomb from the output of the 5,000 "old and slow"
centrifuges remaining at Natanz would take years, not months. And if subject to an embargo on
imported components, as it would be after a unilateral Iranian repudiation of the JCPA, it
could not rebuild its now dismantled enrichment capacity rapidly, either.
At the end of the day, in fact, what you really have to believe is that Iran is run by
absolutely irrational, suicidal madmen. After all, even if they managed to defy the immensely
prohibitive constraints described above and get one or a even a few nuclear bombs, what in the
world would they do with them?
Drop them on Tel Aviv? That would absolutely insure Israel's navy and air force would
unleash its 100-plus nukes and thereby incinerate the entire industrial base and major
population centers of Iran.
Indeed, the very idea that deterrence would fail even if a future Iranian regime were to
defy all the odds, and also defy the fatwa against nuclear weapons issued by their Supreme
Leader, amounts to one of the most preposterous Big Lies ever concocted.
There is no plausible or rational basis for believing it outside of the axis-of-evil
narrative. So what's really behind Trump's withdrawal from the JCPA is nothing more than the
immense tissue of lies and unwarranted demonization of Iran that the War Party has fabricated
over the last three decades.
Iran Never Wanted the Bomb
At bottom, all the hysteria about the mullahs getting the bomb was based on the wholly
theoretically supposition that they wanted civilian enrichment only as a stepping stone to the
bomb. Yet the entirety of the US intelligence complex as well as the attestation of George W.
Bush himself say it isn't so.
As we have previously indicated, the blinding truth of that proposition first came in the
National Intelligence Estimates of 2007. These NIEs represent a consensus of all 17 US
intelligence agencies on salient issues each year, and on the matter of Iran's nuclear weapons
program they could not have been more unequivocal:
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear
weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We assess with moderate confidence Tehran
had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it
currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
"Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to
international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach
rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military
costs."
Moreover, as former CIA analyst Ray McGovern noted recently, the NIE's have not changed
since then.
An equally important fact ignored by the mainstream media is that the key judgments of
that NIE have been revalidated by the intelligence community every year since.
More crucially, there is the matter of "Dubya's" memoirs. Near the end of his term in office
he was under immense pressure to authorize a bombing campaign against Iran's civilian nuclear
facilities.
But once the 2007 NIEs came out, even the "mission accomplished" President in the bomber
jacket was caught up short. As McGovern further notes,
Bush lets it all hang out in his memoir, Decision Points. Most revealingly, he complains
bitterly that the NIE "tied my hands on the military side" and called its findings
"eye-popping."
A disgruntled Bush writes, "The backlash was immediate ."I don't know why the NIE was
written the way it was. Whatever the explanation, the NIE had a big impact – and not a
good one."
Spelling out how the Estimate had tied his hands "on the military side," Bush included
this (apparently unedited) kicker: "But after the NIE, how could I possibly explain using
the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had
no active nuclear weapons program?"
So there you have it. How is it possible to believe that the Iranian's were hell-bent on a
nuclear holocaust when they didn't even have a nuclear weapons program?
And why in the world is the Donald taking America and the world to the edge of a utterly
unnecessary war in order to force a better deal when the one he shit-canned was more than
serviceable?
The answer to that momentous questions lies with the Bombzie Twins (Pompeo and Bolton) and
the malign influence of the Donald's son-in-law and Bibi Netanyahu toady, Jared Kushner.
Rarely have a small group of fanatics more dangerously and wantonly jeopardized the
security, blood and treasure of the American people.
Looks like Bolton is dyed-in-the-wool imperialist. He believes the United States can do what wants without regard to
international law, treaties or the роlitical commitments of previous administrations.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean ..."
...Zionists know what they want, are willing to work together towards their goals, and put their money where their mouth
is. In contrast, for a few pennies the goyim will renounce any principle they pretend to cherish, and go on happily proclaiming
the opposite even if a short while down the road it'll get their own children killed.
The real sad part about this notion of the goy as a mere beast in human form is maybe not that it got codified for eternity
in the Talmud, but rather that there may be some truth to it? Another way of saying this is raising the question whether the goyim
deserve better, given what we see around us.
Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean and prevent a Turko Egyptian and possibly Persian
invasion of Greece & the West
"... Are you saying that if AIPAC and the other Zionist lobbies decided overnight to stop lobbying and influencing the American government, American imperial aggression would also cease and the United States would be a peaceful country and only deploy its military in genuine self-defense? Were the Zionists behind the atomic bomb drops on Japan, the Korean War, the war on Vietnam, the expansion of NATO, antagonizing Russia and every other case of US imperial aggression? By all means, present your evidence. ..."
"... Israeli and Zionist propaganda has long played up the supposed threat of global anti-Semitism to justify their colonial state's existence ..."
"... People like you who see "Zionists" in every shadow help their cause by playing into their propaganda. ..."
"... If you're looking for a culprit to pin the empire's imperialist tendencies on, try global capitalism. ..."
Since the American people refuse to overthrow their Zionist occupied gov, maybe Iran will
bravely do what we cannot.
Are you saying that if AIPAC and the other Zionist lobbies decided overnight to stop
lobbying and influencing the American government, American imperial aggression would also
cease and the United States would be a peaceful country and only deploy its military in
genuine self-defense? Were the Zionists behind the atomic bomb drops on Japan, the Korean
War, the war on Vietnam, the expansion of NATO, antagonizing Russia and every other case of
US imperial aggression? By all means, present your evidence.
It seems to me the only people who would believe this are
extremely naive and gullible
fools, perhaps duped by far-right propaganda,
Americans who want to evade responsibility
for their country's ongoing imperial legacy,
a combination of a & b, and
someone
who has an unhealthy obsession with Zionists and/or Jews.
Israeli and Zionist propaganda has long played up the supposed threat of global
anti-Semitism to justify their colonial state's existence and savage repression of the Palestinians. People like you who see "Zionists" in every shadow help their cause by playing
into their propaganda.
If you're looking for a culprit to pin the empire's imperialist tendencies on, try global
capitalism. (Or maybe you think that's controlled by "Zionists", too?)
In a pointed critique of President Trump's foreign policy leadership, Senate Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer stated to members of the press Thursday that "the American people deserve a
president who can more credibly justify war with Iran."
"What the American people need is a president who can make a much more convincing case for
going to war with Iran," said Schumer (D-NY), adding that the Trump administration's corruption
and dishonesty have "proven time and time again" that it lacks the conviction necessary to act
as an effective cheerleader for the conflict.
"Donald Trump is completely unfit to assume the mantle of telling the American people what
they need to hear in order to convince them a war with Iran is a good idea.
One of the key duties of the president is to gain the trust of the people so that they feel
comfortable going along with whatever he says. President Trump's failure to serve as a credible
advocate for this war is yet another instance in which he has disappointed not only his
colleagues in Washington, but also the entire nation."
Schumer later concluded his statement with a vow that he and his fellow Democrats will
continue working toward a more palatable case in favor of bombing Iran.
A very good analysis. Trump essentially morphed into Hillary or worse. Essentially the same type of warmonger and
compulsive liar.
Notable quotes:
"... The American people appear largely uninterested in this idea. But unless some real mass pressure is mounted against it, there is a good chance Trump will launch the U.S. into another pointless, disastrous war. ..."
"... At time of writing, the Washington Post has counted 10,796 false or misleading claims from Trump himself since taking office. Abject up-is-down lying is basically the sine qua non of modern conservative politics. ..."
"... Pompeo insists " there is no doubt " that Iran carried out the attacks -- the exact same words that Vice President Dick Cheney said in 2002 about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and his intention to use them on the United States, neither of which were true. (This is no doubt why several U.S. allies reacted skeptically to Trump's claims.) ..."
"... What's more, the downside risk here is vastly larger than tax policy. A great big handout to the rich might be socially costly in many ways, but it won't cause tens of thousands of violent deaths in a matter of days. War with Iran could easily do that -- or worse . ..."
"... Who else might have done the attacks? Saudi Arabia springs to mind. ..."
"... At a minimum, anybody with half a brain would want to be extremely certain about what actually happened before taking any rash actions. It's clear that Bolton and company, by contrast, just want a pretext to ratchet up pressure on Iran even further. ..."
"... On the other hand, sinking Iran's navy, as Stephens suggests in his column, would likely be a lot more dangerous than he thinks. Americans have long been fed a lot of hysterical nationalist propaganda from neocons like him about the invincibility of the U.S. military, and the ease with which any possible threat could be defeated. But while U.S. forces are indeed powerful, there is a very real risk that Iran's navy -- which is full of fast-attack boats, mini-subs, and disguised civilian vessels specifically designed to take out large ships with swarm attacks -- could inflict significant damage. Just a few lucky hits could kill thousands of sailors and cause tens of billions of dollars in damage. This is before you even get to the primary lesson of the Iraq War which is that an initial military victory is completely useless and probably counterproductive without a plan for what comes next. ..."
"... Finally, attacking Iran would be illegal. It would violate U.S. treaties , and thus the Constitution. The only justification is the claim that the 2001 authorization to attack Al Qaeda covers an attack on Iran . This is utterly preposterous -- akin to arguing it covers attacking New Zealand to roll back their gun control efforts -- but may explain Pompeo's equally preposterous attempt to blame Iran for a Taliban attack in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Pompeo and Bolton are clearly hell-bent on war. But Trump himself seems somewhat hesitant , sensing (probably accurately) that starting another war of aggression would tank his popularity even further. It's high time for everyone from ordinary citizens up to Nancy Pelosi to demand this rush to war be stopped. ..."
The Trump regime is attempting to gin up a war with Iran. First Trump reneged on Obama's nuclear deal with the country for no
reason, then he slapped them with more economic sanctions for no reason, and then, pushed by National Security Adviser John Bolton
and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, he moved massive military forces onto Iran's doorstep to heighten tensions further. Now, after
a series of attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman -- none of which were American -- that the administration blames on Iran,
Pompeo says the U.S. is "considering a full range of options," including war. (Iran has categorically denied any involvement.)
The American people appear
largely uninterested
in this idea. But unless some real mass pressure is mounted against it, there is a good chance Trump will launch the U.S. into
another pointless, disastrous war.
The New York Times ' Bret Stephens, for all his #NeverTrump pretensions, provides a good window into the
absolute witlessness of the pro-war
argument . He takes largely at face value the Trump administration's accusations against Iran -- "Trump might be a liar, but
the U.S. military isn't," he writes -- and blithely suggests Trump should announce an ultimatum demanding further attacks cease,
then sink Iran's navy if they don't comply.
Let me take these in turn. For one thing, any statement of any kind coming out of a Republican's mouth should be viewed with extreme
suspicion. Two years ago, the party passed a gigantic tax cut for the rich which they swore up and down would "
pay
for itself " with increased growth. To precisely no one's surprise,
this did not happen
. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) was just
one
flagrant example of many who got elected in 2016 while
lying through their teeth about their party's efforts to destroy ObamaCare and its protections for preexisting conditions.
At
time of writing, the Washington Post has counted
10,796 false or misleading claims
from Trump himself since taking office. Abject up-is-down lying is basically the sine qua non of modern conservative politics.
Republican accusations of foreign aggression should be subjected to an even higher burden of proof. The Trump regime has provided
no evidence of Iranian culpability aside from
a video of a ship the Pentagon says is Iranians removing something they say is a mine from an oil tanker -- but a Japanese
ship owner reported at least one attack came from a "
flying object ," not a mine. Pompeo insists "
there is
no doubt " that Iran carried out the attacks -- the
exact same words that Vice President
Dick Cheney said in 2002 about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and his intention to use them on the United
States, neither of which were true. (This is no doubt why several U.S. allies
reacted skeptically
to Trump's claims.)
What's more, the downside risk here is vastly larger than tax policy. A great big handout to the rich might be socially costly
in many ways, but it won't cause tens of thousands of violent deaths in a matter of days. War with Iran could easily do that --
or worse .
Who else might have done the attacks? Saudi Arabia springs to mind. False flag attacks on its own oil tankers sound outlandish,
but we're talking about a ruthless dictatorship run by a guy who had a Washington Post columnist
murdered and chopped into pieces because he didn't like
his takes. And the Saudis have already been conducting a years-long war in Yemen with catastrophic humanitarian outcomes in order
to stop an Iran-allied group from coming to power. It's by no means certain, but hardly outside the realm of possibility.
At a minimum, anybody with half a brain would want to be extremely certain about what actually happened before taking any
rash actions. It's clear that Bolton and company, by contrast, just want a pretext to ratchet up pressure on Iran even further.
But let's grant for the sake of argument that some Iranian forces actually did carry out some or all of these attacks. That raises
the immediate question of why. One very plausible reason is that all of Trump's provocations have strengthened the hand of Iran's
conservative hard-liners, who are basically the mirror image of Pompeo and Bolton. "It is sort of a toxic interaction between hard-liners
on both sides because for domestic political reasons they each want greater tension," as Jeremy Shapiro of the European Council on
Foreign Relations told
the New York Times . This faction might have concluded that the U.S. is run by deranged fanatics, and the best way to
protect Iran is to demonstrate they could choke off oil shipping from the Persian Gulf if the U.S. attacks.
This in turn raises the question of the appropriate response if Iran is actually at fault here. It would be one thing if these
attacks came out of a clear blue sky. But America is very obviously the aggressor here. Iran was following its side of the
nuclear deal to the letter before Trump reneged, and
continued to do so as of February . So far the
European Union (which is still party to the deal) has been unwilling to sidestep U.S. sanctions, prompting Iran to
threaten to restart
uranium enrichment . So Iran is a medium-sized country with a faltering economy, hemmed in on all sides by U.S. aggression. Backing
off the threats and chest-thumping might easily strengthen the hand of Iranian moderates, and cause them to respond in kind.
On the other hand, sinking Iran's navy, as Stephens suggests in his column, would likely be a lot more dangerous than he thinks.
Americans have long been fed a lot of hysterical nationalist propaganda from neocons like him about the invincibility of the U.S.
military, and the ease with which any possible threat could be defeated. But while U.S. forces are indeed powerful, there is a very
real risk that Iran's navy -- which is full of fast-attack boats, mini-subs, and disguised civilian vessels
specifically
designed to take out large ships with swarm attacks -- could inflict significant damage. Just a few lucky hits could kill
thousands of sailors and cause tens of billions of dollars in damage. This is before you even get to the primary lesson of the Iraq
War which is that an initial military victory is completely useless and probably counterproductive without a plan for what comes
next.
Taken together, these factors strongly militate towards de-escalation and diplomacy even if Iran did carry out these attacks,
which again, is not at all proven. The current standoff is almost entirely our fault, and Iranian forces are far from defenseless.
America has a lot better things to do than indulge the deluded jingoist fantasies of a handful of armchair generals who want lots
of other people to die in battle.
Finally, attacking Iran would be illegal. It would violate
U.S. treaties , and thus the Constitution. The only justification
is the claim that the 2001 authorization to attack Al Qaeda
covers an attack on Iran .
This is utterly preposterous -- akin to arguing it covers attacking New Zealand to roll back their gun control efforts --
but may explain Pompeo's
equally preposterous attempt to blame Iran for a Taliban attack in Afghanistan.
Pompeo and Bolton are clearly hell-bent on war. But Trump himself seems
somewhat hesitant ,
sensing (probably accurately) that starting another war of aggression would tank his popularity even further. It's high time for
everyone from ordinary citizens up to Nancy Pelosi to demand this rush to war be stopped.
"... From what I have read, including excerpts of JCPOA, it seems that Iran's move to restart some low level enrichment is captured in the agreement as something that Iran could do if the other party(ies) are in breach of the agreement. And at this time, the US is not a party any longer and the EU is in breach by stopping any economic intercourse with Iran. ..."
"... This should be reiterated again and again, because just mentioning that Iran unilaterally is starting enrichment puts a target on their back especially in the United States of Amnesia, while they are still just doing only what is prescribed by the JCPOA. ..."
"... Bolton's lying goes with his broad contempt for the American people. He treats us like contemptible sheep, he lies to us, and then he tries to manipulate Trump into sending our sons and daughters to fight wars for his foreign buddies. ..."
"... It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that Bolton has any credibility to speak on issues. He has a very long track record of lie after lie after lie, going back to the build up for Iraq war. Indeed, he has never acknowledged that Iraq war a monumental tragedy. ..."
John Bolton
repeats one of the Trump administration's biggest and most important lies:
Donald Trump's national security adviser said Wednesday there was "no reason" for Iran to back out of its nuclear deal with
world powers other than to seek atomic weapons, a year after the U.S. president unilaterally withdrew America from the accord.
Bolton and other administration officials have promoted the lie that Iran seeks nuclear weapons for months. Unfortunately, members
of Congress and the press have largely failed to call out these lies for what they are. There is no evidence to support the administration's
claims, and there is overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, but if they can get away with saying these things without being
challenged they may not need evidence to get the crisis that Bolton and others like him want.
In this case, the AP story just relays Bolton's false and misleading statements as if they should be taken seriously, and their
headline trumpets Bolton's dishonest insinuations as if they were credible. This is an unfortunate case of choosing the sensationalist,
eye-catching headline that misinforms the public on a very important issue. Bolton's latest remarks are especially pernicious because
they use Iran's modest reactions to Trump administration sanctions as evidence of Iran's imaginary intent to acquire weapons. The
U.S. has been trying to push Iran to abandon the deal for more than a year, and at the first sign that Iran begins to reduce its
compliance in order to push back against the administration's outrageous economic warfare Bolton tries to misrepresent it as proof
that they seek nuclear weapons. Don't fall for it, and don't trust anything Bolton says. Not only does he have a record of distorting
and manipulating intelligence to suit his purposes, but his longstanding desire for regime change and his ties to the Mujahideen-e
Khalq (MEK) make him an exceptionally unreliable person when it comes to any and all claims about the Iranian government.
The story provides some context, but still fails to challenge Bolton's assertions:
Bolton said that without more nuclear power plants, it made no sense for Iran to stockpile more low-enriched uranium as it
now plans to do. But the U.S. also earlier cut off Iran's ability to sell its uranium to Russia in exchange for unprocessed
yellow-cake uranium [bold mine-DK].
Iran has set a July 7 deadline for Europe to offer better terms to the unraveling nuclear deal, otherwise it will resume
enrichment closer to weapons level. Bolton declined to say what the U.S. would do in response to that.
"There's no reason for them to do (higher enrichment) unless it is to reduce the breakout time to nuclear weapons," Bolton
said.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration ended the sanctions waivers that enabled Iran to ship its excess low-enriched uranium
out of the country. They made it practically impossible for Iran to do what they have been reliably doing for years, and now Bolton
blames Iran for the consequences of administration actions. The administration has deliberately put Iran in a bind so that they
either give up the enrichment that they are entitled to do under the JCPOA or exceed the restrictions on their stockpile so that
the U.S. can then accuse them of a violation. Left out in all of this is that the U.S. is no longer a party to the deal and violated
all of its commitments more than a year ago. Iran has patiently remained in compliance while the only party to breach the agreement
desperately hunts for a pretext to accuse them of some minor infraction.
Iran's record of full compliance with the JCPOA for more than three years hasn't mattered to Bolton and his allies in the slightest,
and they have had no problem reneging on U.S. commitments, but now the same ideologues that have wanted to destroy the deal from
the start insist on treating the deal's restrictions as sacrosanct. These same people have worked to engineer a situation in which
Iran may end up stockpiling more low-enriched uranium than they are supposed to have, and then seize on the situation they created
to spread lies about Iran's desire for nukes. It's all so obviously being done in bad faith, but then that is what we have come
to expect from Iran hawks and opponents of the nuclear deal. Don't let them get away with it.
The reason that Iran is threatening to enrich its uranium to a higher level is that the U.S. has been relentlessly sanctioning
them despite their total compliance with the terms of the JCPOA. The Trump administration has done all it could to deny Iran the
benefits of the deal, and then Bolton has the gall to say that they have no other reason to reduce their compliance. Of course Iran
does have another reason, and that is to put pressure on the other remaining parties to the deal to find a way to get Iran the benefits
it was promised. It is a small step taken in response to the administration's own destructive policy, and it is not evidence of
anything else. Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, and it is grossly irresponsible to treat unfounded administration claims about
this as anything other than propaganda and lies.
From what I have read, including excerpts of JCPOA, it seems that Iran's move to restart some low level enrichment is captured
in the agreement as something that Iran could do if the other party(ies) are in breach of the agreement. And at this time, the
US is not a party any longer and the EU is in breach by stopping any economic intercourse with Iran.
This should be reiterated again and again, because just mentioning that Iran unilaterally is starting enrichment puts a target
on their back especially in the United States of Amnesia, while they are still just doing only what is prescribed by the JCPOA.
Bolton's lying goes with his broad contempt for the American people. He treats us like contemptible sheep, he lies to us,
and then he tries to manipulate Trump into sending our sons and daughters to fight wars for his foreign buddies.
It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that Bolton has any credibility to speak on issues. He has a very long track record of lie after lie after lie, going back to the build up for Iraq war. Indeed, he has never
acknowledged that Iraq war a monumental tragedy.
I think NK has it right to assert that Bolton is a defective human product.
During the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, Mitt Romney claimed that he would not
make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu.
Romney blatantly pandered to the pro-Israel Lobby, including both Jewish Zionists and
evangelical Christian Zionists.
In a telling exchange during a debate in December 2011, Romney criticized Newt Gingrich
for making a disparaging remark about Palestinians, declaring: "Before I made a statement of
that nature, I'd get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: 'Would it help if I
say this? What would you like me to do?' "
Netanyahu met with Romney in 2011. The two men had worked together in the 1970s.
Martin S. Indyk, a leading figure in the pro-Israel Lobby who served as United States
ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration, said that whether intentional or not,
Romney's statement implied that he would "subcontract Middle East policy to Israel."
"That, of course, would be inappropriate," added Indyk, a former director for the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who also served eight years as the founding
Executive Director of the notorious pro-Israel warhawk "think tank" Washington Institute for
Near East Policy (WINEP).
For years, Netanyahu has mobilized pro-Israel Lobby groups and Congressional Republicans
to pressure successive US administrations into taking a more confrontational approach against
Iran.
"To the extent that their personal relationship would give Netanyahu entree to the Romney
White House in a way that he doesn't now have to the Obama White House," Indyk said, "the
prime minister would certainly consider that to be a significant advantage."
In March 2012, Romney spoke via satellite to a meeting of the AIPAC. Like other
politicians backed by the pro-Israel Lobby, Romney vehemently criticized the Obama
administration over its policies toward Israel.
Romney worked at at Boston Consulting Group from 1975 to 1977; Mr. Netanyahu was involved
from 1976 to 1978. But a month after Netanyahu arrived, he returned to Israel to start an
antiterrorism foundation in memory of his brother, an officer killed while leading the
hostage rescue force at Entebbe, Uganda. An aide said he sporadically returned to the company
over the rest of that two-year period.
Romney later decamped to Bain & Company, a rival of Boston Consulting. They did,
however, maintain a significant link: at Bain, Mr. Romney worked closely with Fleur Cates,
Netanyahu's second wife. (Cates and Netanyahu divorced in the mid-1980s, but she remained in
touch with Romney.)
Netanyahu paid him a visit to Romney when the latter became the governor of Massachusetts.
Netanyahu, who had recently stepped down as Israel's finance minister, regaled Romney with
stories of how he had challenged unionized workers over control of their pensions and
privatized formerly government-run industries. He encouraged Romney to look for ways to do
the same.
"Government," Romney recalled Netanyahu saying, "is the guy on your shoulders."
As governor, Mr. Romney said, he frequently repeated the story to the heads of various
agencies.
A few years later, Romney had dinner with Mr. Netanyahu at a private home in central
Jerusalem. Before he left Israel, Romney set up several meetings with government officials in
the United States for his old colleague. "I immediately saw the wisdom of his thinking,"
Romney claimed. Back in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney sent out letters to legislators requesting
that the public pension funds they controlled sell off investments from corporations doing
business with Iran.
Netanyahu maintained contact with Romney during the presidential campaign. When Newt
Gingrich leaped to the top of the polls, an article in January 2012 explored why billionaire
oligarch Sheldon Adelson was devoting millions of dollars to back Gingrich. It described
Netanyahu and Adelson as close friends. Netanyahu's office quickly relayed a message to a
senior Romney adviser, Dan Senor claiming that the Israeli prime minister had played no role
in Adelson's decision to bankroll a Romney rival.
Fast forward to the 2016 US presidential election.
Trump's purported deviation from US foreign policy orthodoxy was a propaganda scam
engineered by the pro-Israel Lobby from the very beginning.
Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions to US-Israel relations at a 3
February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New York-based newspaper, covering
American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.
After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which
raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in
June 2015.
Trump's questioning of Israel's commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in
Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided
capital, were all stage-managed for the campaign.
Stage management of both the Trump administration and its Republican and Democratic
"opposition" continues apace.
The Israeli government, via the machinations of the pro-Israel Lobby, is an ever more
aggressively warmongering "guy on your shoulders".
"Russia-gate" really is about an immense conspiracy to "do things".
The primary "thing", the key pretext that Lazare and other CN contributors steadfastly
ignore:
The "Russia-gate" fiction was specifically designed to divert attention from the reality
of "Israel-gate".
"... While promoting pluralism and diversity and encouraging the dissolution of the racial and ethnic identification of Europeans, Jews have simultaneously endeavored to maintain precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in others and the great majority support an ethno-nationalist Israel. They have initiated and led movements that have discredited the traditional foundations of Western society: patriotism, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities, they have supported the very institutions they have attacked in Western societies. This is ruthless, uncompromising Darwinian group competition played out in the human cultural arena. ..."
"... Jewish writer David Cole recently questioned the wisdom of this strategy of using non-Whites as “golem” to protect the Jews from a recrudescence of National Socialism. He notes that many of the Jews’ non-White pets (like Ilhan Omar) have a disconcerting tendency to turn on their Jewish masters ..."
"... In the minds of Jewish leaders and activists nurtured since birth on the cult of “the Holocaust,” White nationalism is still the most ominous threat to Jewish survival. This is reflected in the unquestioning commitment of the vast majority of Jewish activists and intellectuals (Cole excepted) to mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism in all historically White nations. ..."
Despite the Jewish domination of the American Left in the post-War period, Mendes notes that "most Americans do not appear to
have adhered to the same anti-Semitic assumptions about Jewish links with communism that dominated public opinion in parts of Europe."
[80] Ibid .,
229.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014),
250.) As evidence of this, Mendes cites the decidedly muted public response to the conviction and execution of Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg for selling atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. Despite the recognizably Jewish identity of the couple (given their name)
and of all of their co-conspirators (David Greenglass, Ruth Greenglass, and Morton Sobell), and the fact the Rosenberg spy network
consisted almost exclusively of Jews from the Lower East Side of Manhattan, the case "provoked remarkably little overt anti-Semitism."
[81] Ibid .,
230. Nor, he observes, did the "significant number of Jews -- including teachers and Hollywood actors -- who were victims of anti-communist
purges" and the prominence of Jews amongst those subpoenaed by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, lead to a significant
reaction. All public opinion polls conducted during this period showed a consistent decline in "anti-Semitism," and only a small
minority of those surveyed (about 5 percent) identified Jews with communism.
[82] Ibid .
The lack of any real backlash to Jewish prominence in the New Left is ascribed to various factors: that many members of the public
were not aware of the Jewish background of many of the radical leaders; that these Jewish radicals were ostensibly "not campaigning
about any specifically Jewish issues that would have focused attention on Jews per se;" and to the "general decline in anti-Semitism
since World War Two."
[83] Ibid .,
257. This latter shift in public opinion (unsurprisingly) coincided with the Jewish seizure of the commanding heights of American
(and Western) culture in the 1960s, and the growing emergence of the culture of "the Holocaust." The combined effect was to banish
overt critical discussion of Jewish power to the margins of public discourse. While Americans rejected communist activities during
the Cold War, unlike in Europe, they did not widely equate communism with Jews (at least publicly), or view Jewish participation
in leftist politics with particular concern.
Neoconservatism
Neoconservative leaders were among those who feared that the Jewish prominence in the New Left of the late 1960s and early 1970s
would fuel a conservative backlash against Jewish radicalism. For example, Norman Podhoretz, the editor of
Commentary magazine, attacked leading Jewish
leftists as alleged self-hating Jews and completely unrepresentative of the Jewish community.
[84] Ibid .,
22.
Mendes ascribes the defection of many Jews from the radical left to neoconservatism in the 1970s to a growing misalignment between
modern Leftist politics and Jewish ethnic interests: the key factor being "the creation of the State of Israel which transformed
Jewish dependence from international to national forces."
[85] Ibid .,
viii. With the advent of the state of Israel, Jewish interests were no longer exclusively represented by the universalistic agendas
of the Left. According to Mendes: "Most Jews have lost their faith in universalistic causes because they do not perceive the Left
as supportive of Jewish interests, and have turned instead to nationalist solutions."
[86] Ibid .,
235.
The creation of a Jewish national entity featuring (thanks to US taxpayers) a strong and powerful army meant that Jews all over
the world could look to the Zionist state to safeguard their interests, rather than depending on internationalist movements and ideologies
(i.e. communism and the Soviet Union) which had often proven to be unreliable allies. Even many left-wing Jews, who might have been
anti-Zionist prior to World War Two, shifted their position after the birth of Israel. For example, the long-time Austrian Jewish
leftist Jean Amery commented in 1976:
There is a very deep tie and existential bond between every Jew and the State of Israel Jews feel bound to the fortunes and
misfortunes of Israel, whether they are religious Jews or not, whether they adhere to Zionism or reject it, whether they are newly
arrived in their host countries or deeply rooted there The Jewish State has taught all the Jews of the world to walk with their
head high once more Israel is the virtual shelter for all of the insulted and injured Jews of the earth.
[87] Ibid
., 236-37
The perceived anti-Zionism of the New Left from the 1967 onwards served to alienate many Jews and confirm their commitment to nationalist,
rather than internationalist solutions. An additional factor was the 1967 Six Day War in the Middle East, which provoked fears of
"another Holocaust," and galvanized even non-Zionist Jews in support of Israel. There were rallies in support of Israel throughout
the Western world accompanied by large donations. American Jews held massive fundraising campaigns and reportedly raised 180 million
dollars. Numerous volunteers travelled to Israel to support the Jewish State. In Australia, more than 20 per cent of a total Jewish
population of 34,000 in Melbourne -- attended a public rally to express their support for Israel, and 2500 attended a youth rally.
750 young Jews volunteered to go to Israel. According to Taft,
there was a widespread, almost universal, absorption in the Middle East Crisis of June among the Jews of Melbourne. This absorption
took the form of extreme concern about the safety of Israel, emotional upsets, obsessive seeking of news, constant discussion
of events and taking spontaneous actions to support Israel's cause.
[88] Ibid
., 238.
The rise of left-wing anti-Zionism after the Six Day War furthered alienated sections of Western Jewry from the social democratic
Left. Another factor that pushed American Jews in a neoconservative direction, identified by Mendes, was the decline in Black–Jewish
relations. The emergence of the Black Power movement in the mid-1960s led to the removal of Jews from the leadership of organizations
like the NAACP. Black hostility was viewed by some Jews as evidence of the failure of the strategy of courting non-White groups to
advance Jewish interests. This ostensible failure prompted many Jews to concentrate on a narrower ethnic self-interest in the future.
[89] Ibid .,
243.
This, in turn, contributed to the creation of "pragmatic alliances" with conservative political parties such as the Republicans
and evangelical groups such as Christians United for Israel which "have been consistent supporters of Israel in the USA." An associated
factor was that pro-Israel perspectives within Western countries increasingly emanated from mainstream conservatives, rather than
from the moderate or radical Left. This occurred despite "many in these groups hold socially conservative views on issues such as
abortion, homosexuality, the environment, multiculturalism, state support for the poor and disadvantaged, and refugees, which are
anathema to many Jews."
[90] Ibid .,
287.
Mendes makes the point that "These alliances were based solely on the latter's position of support for Israel, irrespective of
their conservative views on social issues such as abortion, homosexuality and the welfare state, which were often sharply at odds
with the more liberal opinions of most Jews."
[91] Ibid .,
239.
Despite the defection on many Jews from the radical left to neoconservatism, the great majority of American Jews still see their
ethnic interests as basically aligning with the Democratic Party. Their willingness to prioritize their ethnic interests over their
personal economic interests is reflected in the fact that "high numbers of affluent Jews compared to others of the same socioeconomic
status still vote for moderate left parties that do not seem to favor their economic interests." Today, the structural factors which
historically drew many Jews to the Left no longer exist. Most Jews sit comfortably in middle- or even higher-income categories. This
"middle-classing" of Jews throughout the West has meant that the "Jewish proletariat that motivated Jewish identification with left-wing
beliefs no longer exists."
[92] Ibid .,
239. Consequently, "the specific link between Jewish experience of class oppression and adherence to left-wing ideology has ended."
[93] Ibid .,
241.
Most Western Jews still support parties on the Left
Despite the widespread break with the radical Left over support for Israel, Jews nevertheless remain
a “massively significant presence” in the Left in terms of their numbers and fundraising, their organizational capacity, and their
impact on popular culture.[94]Ibid.,
287. It was estimated that about a quarter of the world’s leading Marxist and radical intellectuals in the 1980s
were still Jews, including Ernest Mandel, Nathan Weinstock, Maxime Rodinson, Noam Chomsky, Marcel Liebman, Ralph Miliband, and the
founder of deconstructionism, Jacques Derrida. Despite continuing to comprise much of the intellectual and financial backbone of
the Left, today’s Jews, “an influential and sometimes powerful group, with substantial access to politics, academia and the media,”
no longer must “rely on the Left to defend their interests and wellbeing.”[95]Ibid.,
286.
The primary reason most Western Jews still vote overwhelmingly
for parties on the left is the perceived threat posed by the “social conservatism” of parties further to the right of the political
spectrum in nations whose majorities are European-derived and nominally at least Christian:
With the possible exception of ultra-orthodox groups, Jews
seem to prefer social liberal positions on issues such as religious pluralism, abortion, feminism, illicit drugs, same-sex marriage,
the science of climate change and euthanasia. Another significant factor is the long history of Christian anti-Semitism has led
Jews to remain suspicious of any attempts by Christian religious groups to undermine the separation of church and state. This
fear of organized religion [and of the White people who practice it] seems to explain the continued strong support of American
Jews for the Democratic Party in presidential elections. A further complicating factor is the growing universalization of Jewish
teachings and values, including the lessons of the Holocaust, in support of social liberal perspectives. … For example, Berman
(2006) presents evidence that the younger Jewish generation in Australia have been influenced by the experience of the Holocaust
into taking a strong stand against any forms of racial or religious discrimination. Many are active in campaigns for indigenous
rights, and to support refugees from Afghanistan, Sudan, and Middle Eastern countries seeking asylum in Australia.[96]Ibid.,
288-89.
This advocacy is, of course, entirely hypocritical and cynical.
While promoting pluralism and diversity and encouraging the dissolution of the racial and ethnic identification of Europeans, Jews
have simultaneously endeavored to maintain precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in others and the
great majority support an ethno-nationalist Israel. They have initiated and led movements that have discredited the traditional foundations
of Western society: patriotism, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within
their own communities, they have supported the very institutions they have attacked in Western societies. This is ruthless, uncompromising
Darwinian group competition played out in the human cultural arena.
The ideological preoccupations of organized Jewry today are
reflected in comments by
Boston Globe writer, S.I. Rosenbaum, who insisted the main lesson of “the Holocaust” is “that white supremacy could
turn on us at any moment,” and the strategy of appealing to the White majority “has never worked for us. It didn’t protect us in
Spain, or England, or France, or Germany. There’s no reason to think it will work now.” The central question of Jewish political
engagement in Western societies, she insists, is “how we survive as a minority population,” where the one great advantage American
Jewry enjoys is that “unlike other places where ethno-nationalism has flourished, the U.S. is fast approaching a plurality of minorities.”
Presiding over a coalition of non-Whites groups to actively oppose White interests is the Jewish ethno-political imperative: “If
Jews are going to survive in the future, we will have to stand with people of color for our mutual benefit.”
Jewish writer David Cole recently
questioned the wisdom of this strategy of using non-Whites as “golem” to protect the Jews from a recrudescence of National Socialism.
He notes that many of the Jews’ non-White pets (like Ilhan Omar) have a disconcerting tendency to turn on their Jewish masters:
For decades, leftist Jews have been flooding the West with
Third World immigrants, “Hey here’s a plan—lets dump a hundred thousand Somalis in the whitest parts of the U.S.
That’ll
save us from Fargo Hitler!” Inundating the West with non-White immigrants is seen by Jews as an insurance policy against “white
supremacy.” The idea is that these immigrants will act as a wedge, diluting “white power” while remaining small enough to be manageable.
Jews have done this everywhere—playing two groups against
each other as a way of assuring Jewish security. Let’s play Hamas against the Palestinian authority. Let’s play ISIS against Assad.
… But today we live in a world in which even the lowliest bark-eater in the Kalahari can have internet access. It’s not as easy
to fool entire groups anymore (individuals, sure, but not an entire race, ethnicity or faction). …
And now we Jews, so worried that Minnesota might become the
Frozen Fourth Reich if left in the hands of evil whites, have created for ourselves a good old-fashioned golem in Ilhan Omar (and
a bunch of the other Third World freshman congressthingies). Yeah, Omar hates whites. Yeah, she thinks white supremacy lurks behind
every glass of milk and “OK” finger sign. But she hates Jews a hell of a lot more…
In a perfect world, the Rabbinical Rain Men would finally
get the fuck over the Holocaust and end their war of hostility against the West. They’d see that whites are no longer the enemy,
but indeed the opposite. They’d see that importing foreign mud to mold golem in traditionally white regions of the U.S is bad
strategy.
In the minds of Jewish leaders and activists nurtured since birth on the cult of “the Holocaust,” White nationalism
is still the most ominous threat to Jewish survival. This is reflected in the unquestioning commitment of the vast majority of Jewish
activists and intellectuals (Cole excepted) to mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism in all historically White nations.
Conclusion
While Jews and the Left offers a useful catalogue
of Jewish involvement in radical political movements throughout the world over the last two centuries, it recycles many of the same
apologetic tropes that permeate the work of other Jewish historians and intellectuals. Mendes mischaracterizes the Jewish identity
and affiliations of important Jewish communist leaders (like Lazar Kaganovich), and offers no examination of their often-murderous
actions. He provides feeble apologies for the Jewish practices that engendered hostility among the native peasantry in the Pale of
Settlement. The inherent weakness of his position necessitates specious argumentation and desperate resort to that evergreen of Jewish
apologetic historiography: the innate irrationality and malevolence of the European mind and character. This is the invariable fallback
position in any quest to exculpate Jews from responsibility for the crimes of communism in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern
Europe. Though less inclined than Brossat and Klingberg in Revolutionary Yiddishland to glorify Jewish communist militants,
Mendes is equally keen to evade, whitewash and excuse disproportionate Jewish involvement in some of the worst crimes of the twentieth
century.
"... Is there a significant difference between "leftist" megadonor Saban and "conservative" megadonor Adelson when it comes to issues like Zionism/ Greater Israel/ destroying Iran? Or are they both acting primarily as ethnic activists, rather than as ideologically-driven "philanthropists?" ..."
Are any of these 3 individuals "evangelical Christians?"
Or is there some other aspect of their identity/ heritage that they have in common?
Some might even go so far as to characterize the common leftist claim that fanatical GOP
Israeli-Firstism is driven by evangelical Christians as a "long-debunked semitic canard."
Note also the alternative. Hillary's top donor was that notorious "evangelical Christian,"
Haim Saban.
Is there a significant difference between "leftist" megadonor Saban and "conservative"
megadonor Adelson when it comes to issues like Zionism/ Greater Israel/ destroying Iran? Or are
they both acting primarily as ethnic activists, rather than as ideologically-driven
"philanthropists?"
A lot of other "evangelical Christians" among Hillary's top donors, too.
"... "What if you substituted 'Israel' for 'Russia'?" (The moderator, who apparently knows me, had to look right at me with my hand raised whenever he called on someone but never called on me). ..."
"... "Has there ever been an investigation on the scale of the Mueller investigation into possible collusion with Israel?" ..."
"... The surprising thing about the Mueller report is that he found nothing. That’s impossible because when the government wants to find something, they find it. Why Mueller pulled the plug, I can’t say. ..."
Second hour: Journalist and TV host Ken Meyercord (also based in Washington, DC)
writes:
"I attended an event at the Brookings Institution yesterday on the Mueller Report. As is
sadly customary at DC think tanks, the panelists and the moderator were all of one mind.
Nevertheless, one panelist, a former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (a
court notorious for rubber-stamping any charge the government brings against those who
disrupt the smooth functioning of our foreign policy apparatus), made a curious analogy,
arguing that the contacts Trump and his associates had with Russians would be culpable even
if the contacts were with some other, less hostile country:
His remark got me to thinking, so in the Q & A I sought to ask him "What if you
substituted 'Israel' for 'Russia'?" (The moderator, who apparently knows me, had to look
right at me with my hand raised whenever he called on someone but never called on me).
I don't know what his response would have been; but if he said it would still apply, I
would have followed up with "Has there ever been an investigation on the scale of the Mueller
investigation into possible collusion with Israel?"
"The more I think about it, the more intriguing I find Mr. Rosenberg's remark. He seemed
to think the sheer number of contacts by Trump folks with Russians proved culpability. It
might be interesting to compare Trump's contacts with the Russians during the campaign with
his contacts with Israelis. I suspect the latter were more numerous and of greater
significance. Certainly, Trump's acts as President would seem to indicate he's more
Netanyahu's puppet than Putin's: moving the embassy to Jerusalem, cutting off aid to the
Palestinians, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Imagine if Putin
proposed naming a village in Russia after Trump in appreciation, as Netanyahu has proposed
doing in the Golan Heights!
"P.S. Ueli Maurer is the President of the Swiss Confederation."
The entire Western media is the enemy of the people. The Demogangsters and the mediocrats,
Public Enemy #1, were angry that Trump won the election, so they fabricated a scam called
contacts with Russians.
They are saying that Trump and his people talked to the Russians as private citizens
before the election, so it is illegal.
What? Talking to Russians is illegal? Really? Says who?
They will not tell you the law that was allegedly broken, because the law that was
allegedly broken itself is illegal.
It is the Logan Act which “criminalizes negotiations by unauthorized persons with
foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.”
Only in America—the criminal Democrats have investigated an innocent man for a
non-existent crime of violating an unconstitutional law.
While I would not say this happens only in America, this sort of thing is actually
long-standing policy in the US. As long ago as 1944 in Wickard vs. Filburn, the Democrat
Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for not merely raising food on his own land, but
for failing to offer the food for sale, on the rationale that the non-sale affected
Interstate Commerce as much as if he had offered it for sale. Since then it has been
‘constitutional’ to find federal jurisdiction over even private vegetable gardens
grown exclusively for domestic consumption. Under this theory, even breathing oxygen places
one under federal jurisdiction because it is followed by exhaling CO2.
One of the most surprising things I discovered when I began to practice law was the fact
that no one is ‘innocent’. I.e, there is always some law somewhere that is being
‘broken’ no matter what one does, which means that if the government wants
someone, they can always convict him because the government can always find some law he has
broken. I’m speaking ironically, of course. Many of these laws should be
unconstitutional. Just don’t bet that SCOTUS will ever rule that way because, as
Gorsuch recently pronounced, “that’s all been settled.”
The surprising thing about the Mueller report is that he found nothing. That’s
impossible because when the government wants to find something, they find it. Why Mueller
pulled the plug, I can’t say.
"... FARA requires all individuals and organizations acting on behalf of foreign governments to registered with the Department of Justice and to report their sources of income and contacts. Federal prosecutors have claimed that Butina was reporting back to a Russian official while deliberating cultivating influential figures in the United States as potential resources to advance Russian interests, a process that is described in intelligence circles as "spotting and assessing." ..."
"... Selective enforcement of FARA was, ironically, revealed through evidence collected and included in the Mueller Report relating to the only foreign country that actually sought to obtain favors from the incoming Trump Administration. That country was Israel and the individual who drove the process and should have been fined and required to register with FARA was President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. As Kushner also had considerable "flight risk" to Israel, which has no extradition treaty with the United States, he should also have been imprisoned. ..."
"... Kushner reportedly aggressively pressured members of the Trump transition team to contact foreign ambassadors at the United Nations to convince them to vote against or abstain from voting on the December 2016 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 condemning Israeli settlements. The resolution passed when the US, acting under direction of President Barack Obama, abstained, but incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn did indeed contact the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice and asked for Moscow's cooperation, which was refused. Kushner, who is so close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the latter has slept at the Kushner apartment in New York City, was clearly acting in response to direction coming from the Israeli government. ..."
"... Another interesting tidbit revealed by Mueller relates to Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos's ties to Israel over an oil development scheme. Mueller "ultimately determined that the evidence was not sufficient to obtain or sustain a conviction" that Papadopoulos "committed a crime or crimes by acting as an unregistered agent of the Israeli government." Mueller went looking for a Russian connection but found only Israel and decided to do nothing about it. ..."
The Mueller Special Counsel inquiry is far from over even though a
final report on its findings has been issued. Although the investigation had a mandate to
explore all aspects of the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US election, from the start
the focus was on the possibility that some members of the Trump campaign had colluded with the
Kremlin to influence the outcome of the election to favor the GOP candidate. Even though that
could not be demonstrated, many prominent Trump critics, to include Laurence Tribe of the
Harvard Law School,
are demanding that the investigation continue until Congress has discovered "the full facts
of Russia's interference [to include] the ways in which that interference is continuing in
anticipation of 2020, and the full story of how the president and his team welcomed, benefited
from, repaid, and obstructed lawful investigation into that interference and the president's
cooperation with it."
Tribe should perhaps read the report more carefully. While it does indeed confirm some
Russian meddling, it does not demonstrate that anyone in the Trump circle benefited from it or
cooperated with it. The objective currently being promoted by dedicated Trump critics like
Tribe is to make a case to impeach the president based on the alleged enormity of the Russian
activity, which is not borne out by the facts: the Russian role was intermittent, small scale
and basically ineffective.
One interesting aspect of the Mueller inquiry and the ongoing Russophobia that it has
generated is the essential hypocrisy of the Washington Establishment. It is generally agreed
that whatever Russia actually did, it did not affect the outcome of the election. That the
Kremlin was using intelligence resources to act against Hillary Clinton should surprise no one
as she described Russian President Vladimir Putin as Hitler and also made clear that she would
be taking a very hard line against Moscow.
The anti-Russia frenzy in Washington generated by the vengeful Democrats and an
Establishment fearful of a loss of privilege and entitlement claimed a number of victims. Among
them was Russian citizen Maria Butina, who has a court date and will very likely be
sentenced tomorrow .
Regarding Butina, the United States Department of Justice would apparently have you believe
that the Kremlin sought to subvert the five-million-member strong National Rifle Association
(NRA) by having a Russian citizen take out a life membership in the organization with the
intention of corrupting it and turning it into an instrument for subverting American democracy.
Maria Butina has, by the way, a long and well documented history as an advocate for gun
ownership and was a co-founder in Russia of Right to Bear Arms, which is not an intelligence
front organization of some kind. It is rather a genuine lobbying group with an active
membership and agenda. Contrary to what has been reported in the mainstream media, Russians can
own guns but the licensing and registration procedures are long and complicated, which Right to
Bear Arms, modeling itself on the NRA, is seeking to change.
Butina, a graduate student at American University, is now in a federal prison, having been
charged with collusion and failure to register as an agent of the Russian Federation. She was
arrested on July 15, 2018. It is decidedly unusual to arrest and confine someone who has failed
to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) , but she has not been granted bail because, as a
Russian citizen, she is considered to be a "flight risk," likely to try to flee the US and
return home.
FARA requires all individuals and organizations acting on behalf of foreign governments to
registered with the Department of Justice and to report their sources of income and contacts.
Federal prosecutors have claimed that Butina was reporting back to a Russian official while
deliberating cultivating influential figures in the United States as potential resources to
advance Russian interests, a process that is described in intelligence circles as "spotting and
assessing."
Maria eventually pleaded guilty of not registering under FARA to mitigate any punishment,
hoping that she would be allowed to return to Russia after a few months in prison on top of the
nine months she has already served. She has reportedly fully cooperated the US authorities,
turning over documents, answering questions and undergoing hours of interrogation by federal
investigators before and after her guilty plea.
Maria Butina basically did nothing that damaged US security and it is difficult to see where
her behavior was even criminal, but the prosecution is asking for 18 months in prison for her
in addition to the time served. She would be, in fact, one of only a handful of individuals
ever to be imprisoned over FARA, and they all come from countries that Washington considers to
be unfriendly, to include Cuba, Saddam's Iraq and Russia. Normally the failure to comply with
FARA is handled with a fine and compulsory registration.
Butina was essentially convicted of the crime of being Russian at the wrong time and in the
wrong place and she is paying for it with prison. Selective enforcement of FARA was,
ironically, revealed through evidence collected and included in the Mueller Report relating to
the only foreign country that actually sought to obtain favors from the incoming Trump
Administration. That country was Israel and the individual who drove the process and should
have been fined and required to register with FARA was President Donald Trump's son-in-law
Jared Kushner. As Kushner also had considerable "flight risk" to Israel, which has no
extradition treaty with the United States, he should also have been imprisoned.
Kushner reportedly aggressively
pressured members of the Trump transition team to contact foreign ambassadors at the United
Nations to convince them to vote against or abstain from voting on the December 2016 United
Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 condemning Israeli settlements. The resolution passed
when the US, acting under direction of President Barack Obama, abstained, but incoming National
Security Adviser Michael Flynn did indeed contact the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice
and asked for Moscow's cooperation, which was refused. Kushner, who is so close to Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the latter has slept at the Kushner apartment in New York
City, was clearly acting in response to direction coming from the Israeli government.
Another interesting tidbit revealed by Mueller relates to Trump foreign policy adviser
George Papadopoulos's ties to Israel over an oil development scheme. Mueller "ultimately
determined that the evidence was not sufficient to obtain or sustain a conviction" that
Papadopoulos "committed a crime or crimes by acting as an unregistered agent of the Israeli
government." Mueller went looking for a Russian connection but found only Israel and decided to
do nothing about it.
As so often is the case, inquiries that begin by looking for foreign interference in
American politics start by focusing on Washington's adversaries but then comes up with Israel.
Noam Chomsky
described it best "First of all, if you're interested in foreign interference in our
elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as
compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Netanyahu
goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with
overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president's policies -- what happened with Obama
and Netanyahu in 2015. Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress
trying to -- calling on them to reverse US policy, without even informing the president? And
that's just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence."
Maria Butina is in jail for doing nothing while Jared Kushner, who needed a godfathered
security clearance due to his close Israeli ties, struts through the White House as senior
advisor to the president in spite of the fact that he used his nepotistically obtained access
to openly promote the interests of a foreign government. Mueller knows all about it but
recommended nothing, as if it didn't happen. The media is silent. Congress will do nothing. As
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi put it "We in Congress stand by
Israel. In Congress, we speak with one voice on the subject of Israel." Indeed.
You're right. I see people like Robert Kagan's opinions being respectfully asked on foreign affairs, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams
being hired to direct our foreign policy.
The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and
flourishing careers. Now they're angling for war with Iran.
It's preposterous and sickening. And it can't be allowed to stand, so you can't just stand off and say you're "wrecked". Keep
fighting, as you're doing. I will fight it until I can't fight anymore.
Fact-bedeviled JohnT: “McCain was a problem for this nation? Sweet Jesus! There quite simply is no rational adult on the planet
who buys that nonsense.”
McCain had close ties to the military-industrial complex. He was a backer of post-Cold War NATO. He was a neoconservative darling.
He never heard of a dictator that he didn’t want to depose with boots on the ground, with the possible exception of various Saudi
dictators (the oil-weaponry-torture nexus). He promoted pseudo-accountability of government in campaign finance but blocked accountability
for the Pentagon and State Department when he co-chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs with John
Kerry.
And, perhaps partly because of the head trauma and/or emotional wounds he suffered at the hands of Chinese-backed Commies,
it’s plausible to think he was regarded by the willy-nilly plotters of the deep state as a manipulable, and thus useful, conduit
of domestic subversion via the bogus Steele dossier.
Unfortunately, the episode that most defines McCain’s life is the very last one–his being a pawn of M-16 in the the deep state’s
years-long attempt to derail the presidency of Donald Trump.
Measuring success means determining goals. The goals of most wars is to enrich the people in charge. So, by this metric, the war
was a success. The rest of it is just props and propaganda.
“Pyrrhic Victory” look it up the Roman Empire Won but lost if the US is invaded and the government does not defend it I would
like to start my own defense: But the knee jerk politics that stirs America’s cannon fodder citizens is a painful reminder of
a history of jingoist lies where at times some left and right agree at least for a short moment before the rich and powerful push
their weight to have their way.
If All politics is relative Right wingers are the the left of what? Nuclear destruction? or Slavery?
My goodness! I am also a veteran, but of the Vietnam war, and my father was a career officer from 1939-1961 as a paratrooper first,
and later as an intelligence officer. He argued vigorously against our Vietnam involvement, and was cashiered for his intellectual
honesty. A combat veteran’s views are meaningless when the political winds are blowing.
Simply put, we have killed thousands of our kids in service of the colonial empires left to us by the British and the French
after WWII. More practice at incompetent strategies and tactics does not make us more competent–it merely extends the blunders
and pain; viz the French for two CENTURIES against the Britsh during the battles over Normandy while the Planagenet kings worked
to hold their viking-won inheritance.
At least then, kings risked their own lives. Generals fight because the LIKE it…a lot. Prior failures are only practice to
the, regardless of the cost in lives of the kids we tried to raise well, and who were slaughtered for no gain.
We don’t need the empire, and we certainly shouldn’t fight for the corrupt businessmen who have profited from the never-ending
conflicts. Let’s spend those trillions at home, so long as we also police our government to keep both Democrat and Republican
politicians from feathering their own nests. Term limits and prosecutions will help us, but only if we are vigilant. Wars distract
our attention while corruption is rampant at home.
Thanks, I appreciate this article.
I’ll make two points, my own opinion:
it’s the same story as Vietnam, the bull about how the politicians or anti-war demonstrators tied the military ‘hand,’ blah, blah.
Nonsense. Invading a nation and slaughtering people in their towns, houses…gee…what’s wrong with that, eh?
The average American has a primitive mind when it comes to such matters.
Second point I have, is that both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Hillary and Trump should be dragged to a world court, given a fair trial
and locked up for life with hard labor… oh, and Cheney too,for all those families, in half a dozen nations, especially the children
overseas that suffered/died from these creeps.
And, the families of dead or maimed American troops should be apologized to and compensation paid by several million dollars to
each.
The people I named above make me sick, because I have feelings and a conscience. Can you dig?
Though there is a worldly justification for killing to obtain or maintain freedoms, there is no Christian justification for it.
Which suggests that Christians who die while doing it, die in vain.
America’s wars are prosecuted by a military that includes Christians. They seldom question the killing their country orders
them to do, as though the will of the government is that of the will of God. Is that a safe assumption for them to make? German
Christian soldiers made that assumption regarding their government in 1939. Who was there to tell them otherwise? The Church failed,
including the chaplains. (The Southern Baptist Convention declared the invasion of Iraq a just war in 2003.) These wars need to
be assessed by Just War criteria. Christian soldiers need to know when to exercise selective conscientious objection, for it is
better to go to prison than to kill without God’s approval. If Just War theory is irrelevant, the default response is Christian
Pacifism.
“Iraq Wrecked” a lot of innocent people. Millions are dead, cities reduced to rubble, homes and businesses destroyed and it was
all a damned lie. And the perpetrators are Free.
Now there is sectarian violence too, where once there was a semblance of harmony amongst various denominations. See article link
below.
“Are The Christians Slaughtered in The Middle East Victims of the Actions of Western War Criminals and Their Terrorist Supporting
NATO ‘Allies’”?
We are a globalist open borders and mass immigration nation. We stand for nothing. To serve in this nation’s military is very
stupid. You aren’t defending anything. You are just a tool of globalism. Again, we don’t secure our borders. That’s a very big
give away to what’s going on.
If our nation’s military really was an American military concerned with our security we would have secured our border after 9/11,
reduced all immigration, deported ALL muslims, and that’s it. Just secure the borders and expel Muslims! That’s all we needed
to do.
Instead we killed so many people and imported many many more Muslims! And we call this compassion. Its insane.
Maybe if Talibans get back in power they will destroy the opium. You know, like they did when they were first in power…. It seems
that wherever Americans get involved, drugs follow…
“Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very
structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” In Eisenhower’s televised farewell address January 17, 1961.
Rational thought would lead one to believe such words from a fellow with his credentials would have had a useful effect. But it
didn’t. In point of fact, in the likes of Eric Prince and his supporters the notion of war as a profit center is quite literally
a family affair.
The military-industrial complex couldn’t accomplish this all by its lonesome self. The deep state was doing its thing. The two
things overlap but aren’t the same. The deep state is not only or mainly about business profits, but about power. Power in the
world means empire, which requires a military-industrial complex but is not reducible to it.
We now have a rare opportunity to unveil the workings of the deep state, but it will require a special counsel, and a lengthy
written report, on the doings in the 2016 election of the FBI (Comey, Strzok, et. al.), and collaterally the CIA and DIA (Brennan
and Clapper). Also the British government (M-16), John McCain, and maybe Bush and Obama judges on the FISA courts.
US neocons motto as expressed by Ledeen, who was involved with CIA & overthrow of Allende : "Every ten years or so, the United States
needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business". ..."
The US foreign policy is defined by interests of neoliberals and neocons, or to be exact by interests of multinational corporations,
who are not necessary led by Jews ;-). The whole discussion of the US foreign policy via the lens of Jew/non-Jew dichotomy is far from
the best approach to this problem.
While it is true that a large number of neocons end even some "economic nationalists" like Steve Bannon identify with Israel. But
the real allegiance of neocons is not to Israel. It is to many from American MIC. In this sense, neither chickenhawk Michael
Ledeen (a second rate figure at best, without much political influence), no chickenhawk Bill Kristol (third rate figure, with little
or no political influence at all), but Senator McCain and Dick Cheney are proper examples of really dangerous neocons.
Yes, neocons has a large, sometimes decisive influence on the US foreign policy. But this is because they are neoliberals with the
gun, political prostitutes serving MIC interests, not so much because some of them are "Israel-firsters"
(this term is not without problems,
although it denotes Jewish nationalists pretty well, see an interesting discussion in
The Volokh Conspiracy )
Notable quotes:
"... Netanyahu is making an alliance with even the anti-Semitic Western alt-right, with the instinct to show all other Jews that Israel is their only home & safe haven ..."
"... I suppose Ledeen still believes what he said fifteen years ago, when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were still young and dewy-fresh: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business". ..."
"... This even became known as "The Ledeen Doctrine"; I am sure he is very proud. ..."
"... Perhaps today he thinks Iran is a suitable "small crappy little country". If so, he is very badly mistaken. Ledeen was involved with CIA & overthrow of Allende, I believe. I refer you to Louis Wolfe's "Counterspy," the magazine of the 1970′s. ..."
"... Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American foreign policy establishment (which isn't close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated by clever Jews. ..."
"... Of course, the Israel Lobby is much bigger than just jews, and stupid American Christians manipulated by their church leaders into believing fatuous ideas about Israel based upon dubiously interpreted biblical nonsense has historically provided a lot of its political clout. ..."
"... The Jewish individuals named by Giraldi still massively disproportionately dominate the foreign policy media and political debate on ME wars, and the wealthy Jewish Israel supporters mentioned by him still massively disproportionately influence who gets heard and which opinions are suppressed and which promoted. ..."
"... I think solidarity and internationalism are the best weapons against militarism and imperialism. ..."
"... You'd be on the right track if you started paying attention to the central American goal since 1945 of keeping Middle Eastern oil in the hands of obedient governments within the American orbit, so it can serve as a non-Russian/non-Soviet, American-controlled source of energy for American allies (and economic competitors) in Europe and Japan. ..."
"... Anyway, the American public has shown many times that it really doesn't give a rat's ass about foreigners being killed or maimed - not three of them, not three million of them. Foreigners might as well be bugs. What really matters is that feeling of power and superiority: their country is Top Nation and can whip anyone else, yes sir. Politicians continually rely on that undercurrent of nationalist chuavinism, and it never lets them down. ..."
"... A courageous article and spot on. Once again I'm thankful for Ron Unz and the Unz Review. You would never read such an article in the MSM. ..."
"... So now US troops are suddenly bombing "ISIS" in Syria while supplying "rebels" with arms, even though by the CIA's own admission most of the arms supplied have fallen into the hands of ISIS since the rebels joined forces with them. ..."
"... Nikki Haley might as well be renamed Israel's ambassador to the UN. Every time that daft woman opens her mouth the US is in danger of going to war with somebody, usually on behalf of Israel. ..."
"... There's a place for using the term "Zionist" and a place for using the term "Jew" (the two are most certainly not interchangeable). The wider Zionist Israel Lobby in the US is certainly a big problem, but there is also the problem of Jewish nationalists being disproportionately represented in the US foreign policy, media and political elites, while their likely nationalist ulterior motives are not mentioned and are largely unnoticed because of the prevailing taboo against mentioning it.. ..."
"... Bill Kristol appearing on c-span to push, agitate for the 2nd Iraq war was asked by a caller if he had served in the (U.S.) military. Kristol said he had not served but had a friend(s) who had and that he served in other ways. When a country drafts into the military, can one get out of service by saying, "My friend served"? ..."
"... I supported and voted for Trump as well. I don't like his neocon turn now, but which candidate in that election (save for Rand Paul and possibly Jill Stein) wouldn't have declared a non-fly zone in Syria and actively supported the overthrow of Assad? ..."
"... Bernie Sanders (a scary Jew!) wasn't nearly as anti-imperialist as I would have liked him to be, but I doubt he would have attacked Assad regime forces 6 times like Trump has by this point, and certainly not without Congressional approval (which he probably wouldn't have gotten, even if he had wanted it). ..."
"... Even under Hillary, the Iran deal would have stood a better chance, since she was at least verbally committed to it (unlike even Rand Paul), and there would have been Obama loyalists within the Clinton administration who would have been desperate to preserve Obama's signature foreign policy achievement (and one of the only worthwhile ones, in my opinion, along with restoration of diplomatic ties with Cuba). ..."
"... How is the article's factual content fundamentally different from the similar content of the Haaretz article linked by Greg Bacon in post 21 above? Is the Haaretz piece "unhinged and bigoted"? ..."
"... "The USA is a colony of Israel". Fake News Story. Now, let us assume that to be true. What are personally doing about this situation? What active measures are you taking to free yourself from the shackles of your oppressor? Or, are simply impotent while taking it good and hard? ..."
@Brabantian
Yet, in a classic, paradox-tinged pro-Israel loop-back, the 'alt-Right' and 'white nationalist' movement, is increasing positive
links with security-fence-building, also-ethnic-nationalist Israel:
US alt-right leader, Richard Spencer, appeared on Israeli TV last month to call himself a "white Zionist"
The above from an interesting
article by British activist and Nazareth, Palestine resident Jonathan Cook , speaking of how Israel's Netanyahu is making
an alliance with even the anti-Semitic Western alt-right, with the instinct to show all other Jews that Israel is their only home
& safe haven ... and hence the 'progressive' Jews should abandon any support for boycott of Israel or for Palestinian rights:
The Israeli prime minister has repeatedly called on all Jews to come to Israel, claiming it as the only safe haven from an
immutable global anti-semitism. And yet, Mr Netanyahu is also introducing a political test before he opens the door.
Jews supporting a boycott of Israel are already barred. Now, liberal Jews and critics of the occupation like Mr Soros are
increasingly not welcome either. Israel is rapidly redefining the extent of the sanctuary it offers – for Jewish supremacists
only.
For Mr Netanyahu may believe he has much to gain by abandoning liberal Jews to their fate, as the alt-right asserts its
power in western capitals.
The "white Zionists" are committed to making life ever harder for minorities in the West in a bid to be rid of them. Sooner
or later, on Mr Netanyahu's logic, liberal Jews will face a reckoning. They will have to accept that Israel's ultra-nationalists
were right all along, and that Israel is their only sanctuary.
Guided by this cynical convergence of interests, Jewish and white supremacists are counting on a revival of anti-Semitism
that will benefit them both.
Yet, in a classic, paradox-tinged pro-Israel loop-back, the 'alt-Right' and 'white nationalist' movement, is increasing
positive links with security-fence-building, also-ethnic-nationalist Israel
Steve Bannon and his supposed alt-right rag Breitbart are incredibly pro-Israel. I supposed it has something to do with its
founder Andrew Breitbart being a Jew. Every time Trump or Nikki Haley says something nasty about Iran, you'll get plenty of Breitbart
commenters echoing their sentiment egging them on, you can tell by their inane comments many have no idea why they should hate
Iran, other than Breitbart told them to.
They've fully bought into the Breitbart narrative that Iran is evil and must be destroyed. The Trump fan boys/girls who continue
to blindly support him despite all his betrayals are every bit as stupid as the libtards they claim to hate.
@Tom Welsh
"And I would add a few more names, Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen and Reuel Marc Gerecht..."
I suppose Ledeen still believes what he said fifteen years ago, when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were still young
and dewy-fresh: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show the world we mean business".
This even became known as "The Ledeen Doctrine"; I am sure he is very proud.
Perhaps today he thinks Iran is a suitable "small crappy little country". If so, he is very badly mistaken. Ledeen was
involved with CIA & overthrow of Allende, I believe. I refer you to Louis Wolfe's "Counterspy," the magazine of the 1970′s.
I didn't say there weren't any Jews pushing for a war with Iran, I said there are plenty of non-Jews pushing for one too, including
Trump himself.
Which certainly doesn't mean there isn't a particular problem, exactly as Giraldi describes it with plenty of sound supporting
examples, of dual loyalty jews pushing wars that favour Israel.
In fact, the reality is that Giraldi might be guilty of, at most, overstatement, but since a large part of the problem is precisely
that any reference at all to the problem is suppressed, one might expect an honest opponent of the US's military interventionism
to temper his criticism of Giraldi's piece appropriately. For whatever reason, instead, you seem to feel the need to hysterically
accuse it as though it contains no truth whatsoever.
What gives?
Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American foreign policy establishment (which
isn't close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated by clever Jews.
Of course, the Israel Lobby
is much bigger than just jews, and stupid American Christians manipulated by their church leaders into believing fatuous ideas
about Israel based upon dubiously interpreted biblical nonsense has historically provided a lot of its political clout.
That's another problem, but it doesn't make the problem highlighted by Giraldi not a problem. The Jewish individuals named
by Giraldi still massively disproportionately dominate the foreign policy media and political debate on ME wars, and the wealthy
Jewish Israel supporters mentioned by him still massively disproportionately influence who gets heard and which opinions are suppressed
and which promoted.
"What gives" is that I think lunatic screeds about "America's Jews" (like Noam Chomsky?) manipulating foreign policy do damage
to the anti-war cause. I think solidarity and internationalism are the best weapons against militarism and imperialism.
Of course, the Israel Lobby is much bigger than just Jews, and stupid American Christians manipulated by their church leaders
into believing fatuous ideas about Israel based upon dubiously interpreted biblical nonsense has historically provided a lot
of its political clout.
That's slightly better than the 1-dimensional Joo-paranoia, but it doesn't begin to describe the problem.
You'd be on the right track if you started paying attention to the central American goal since 1945 of keeping Middle Eastern
oil in the hands of obedient governments within the American orbit, so it can serve as a non-Russian/non-Soviet, American-controlled
source of energy for American allies (and economic competitors) in Europe and Japan.
I am glad you think Iran isn't stupid or suicidal. Yet it doesn't square with your earlier statement which reads " I'm glad
they have the capability, if need be, to destroy the hostile military bases that encircle them ". There are no scenarios in
which Iran could destroy US bases without changing the meaning of the word "suicidal", is there?
Before you decide to label as sociopath, anyone who proposes a worldview grounded in reality, you might think long and hard
about the multitude of paths this world can take under the scenario of a wholesale withdrawal of U.S. presence in the Gulf. Most
one hears on this forum, including your own, reduce to precious nothing over virtue signaling.
Like it or not the world is never going to assume the shape of a collection of nations equal in power, interests and endowments.
Hoping for that is to live in a state of delusion.
U.S. does not wish to go on an offensive mission against Iran . Far from it; yet facilitating her allies' aspirations
to join the American vision isn't one we are about to walk away from. That is not chest beating. It is eminently in evidence from
the number of nations wishing to join the Western economic and cultural model. I am keenly aware of the lunatics on this forum
who believe they'd be perfectly happy to embrace other cultures, I can only invite them to make haste.
Spare me the rest of your sanctimony.
"I'm glad they have the capability, if need be, to destroy the hostile military bases that encircle them". There are no
scenarios in which Iran could destroy US bases without changing the meaning of the word "suicidal", is there?
In the case of a defensive war with United States, there sure would be. At that point Iran would not have much hope but to
inflict as much damage as possible on the aggressor. Although Iran does not nearly have the ability to fully reciprocate the harm
the US can inflict on it, it hopefully has the capability to inflict enough damage so that an offensive war against it would be
intolerable to the US. That's how deterrence works.
U.S. does not wish to go on an offensive mission against Iran.
If that's true, and I sincerely hope it is, it's because Iran has sufficient deterrent capacity, which includes not only the
anti-ship missiles in the Gulf, but also Hezbollah's arsenal of ~130,000 short, medium and long-range rockets capable of reaching
every square inch of Israeli territory.
Believe me, I'm a realist. You don't have to lecture me on the reality of aggressive rogue nations.
@Tom Welsh
Nope. As far as I know, he was being perfectly serious.
And that is exactly the way the power elite think - although they are usually much more cautious about speaking their mind
in public.
Anyway, the American public has shown many times that it really doesn't give a rat's ass about foreigners being killed
or maimed - not three of them, not three million of them. Foreigners might as well be bugs. What really matters is that feeling
of power and superiority: their country is Top Nation and can whip anyone else, yes sir. Politicians continually rely on that
undercurrent of nationalist chuavinism, and it never lets them down.
Anyway, the American public has shown many times that it really doesn't give a rat's ass about foreigners being killed or
maimed – not three of them, not three million of them. Foreigners might as well be bugs. What really matters is that feeling
of power and superiority: their country is Top Nation and can whip anyone else, yes sir.
True words sir!
The evil empire sustains itself primarily through this attitude of its people. It does not matter how the Jews connive to shape
it. Only thing that matters is that they buy into it without exercising their conscience.
Americans, remember, such glory has a cost. You will find soon enough that a cancerous soul is too high a price to be "Top
Nation," for essentially a blink in cosmic time.
A courageous article and spot on. Once again I'm thankful for Ron Unz and the Unz Review. You would never read such an
article in the MSM.
The late Samuel Huntington said in his amazing book Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order that Saudi
Arabia and Iran are fighting for supremacy in the Islamic world. Syria is a proxy war between the two countries. Now Israel has
become BFF with Saudi Arabia because they too want a piece of Syria, for the oil reserve in the Golan Heights. So now US troops
are suddenly bombing "ISIS" in Syria while supplying "rebels" with arms, even though by the CIA's own admission most of the arms
supplied have fallen into the hands of ISIS since the rebels joined forces with them.
Make no mistake Jews and Arabs run this country. That is why Trump went to Israel and SA for his first foreign trip, he knows
who America's daddy is, even if most Americans are still in the dark.
His entire administration is crawling with Israel loving Jews, starting with his son-in-law the most loyal son of Israel. Even
Steve Bannon and Breitbart are crazy gung ho pro-Israel. Nikki Haley might as well be renamed Israel's ambassador to the UN.
Every time that daft woman opens her mouth the US is in danger of going to war with somebody, usually on behalf of Israel.
When was the last time Iran conducted a jihad against the west? All the Muslim terrorists now attacking the west are Sunnis,
funded by Saudi Arabia. The only time Iran had direct armed conflict with the US was when they kicked us out of Tehran, for trying
to steal their oil. All their beef is with Israel, not with the US. Why are we taking up Israel's cause? Trump is a moron of the
first order and has no understanding of what really goes on in the mideast. He surrounds himself with pro-Israel neocons and Jews
and is easily manipulated. He's stupid and dangerous. I voted for him because he presented himself as someone completely different,
someone anti-war and anti-immigration, now he's a neocon globalist libtard, the worst of all worlds. Someone needs to primary
him out in 2020.
Speaking of unhinged I'd say the sentiment that America has the right to threaten and/or attack other countries to maintain
its "economic interests" is sociopathic. What would you call it? And I didn't say that he personally was in charge of US/Israeli/Saudi
policy towards Iran, if that's what you thought I meant. That would be unhinged. I just said that sociopaths like him
are.
@KBRO [In
comments, allcaps is shouting. Stop shouting or your comments will be trashed.]
RE:
BUSH-CHENEY-CLINTON-TRUMP--MCMASTER--KELLY---AND THE LOT OF THEM ALL AIN'T JEWS:
WELL PUT. GIRALDI IS A MIXED BAG, WRITES SOME GOOD STUFF, BUT IT MISIDENTIFIES THE PROBLEM--THE ENEMY-- BY LABELING IT AS "THE
JEWS". THE NEO-CONS--AND NEO-LIBERALS--WHO DRIVE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD COME IN MANY
FLAVORS.
I'M AN ANTI-ZIONIST, AND IT'S CRUCIAL TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION AND I DON'T QUITE GET WHY GIRALDI DOESN'T USE THE TERM ZIONIST.
IT'S CRUCIAL TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION AND I DON'T QUITE GET WHY GIRALDI DOESN'T USE THE TERM ZIONIST
There's a place for using the term "Zionist" and a place for using the term "Jew" (the two are most certainly not interchangeable).
The wider Zionist Israel Lobby in the US is certainly a big problem, but there is also the problem of Jewish nationalists being
disproportionately represented in the US foreign policy, media and political elites, while their likely nationalist ulterior motives
are not mentioned and are largely unnoticed because of the prevailing taboo against mentioning it..
Giraldi is discussing the latter and not the former, and doing a service to the American nation by his taboo-busting.
I wonder where Mr. Giraldi would put David Horowitz on the list? Although Horowitz is not a public policy maker, but rather
an author and blogger, but definitely is a known Jewish voice. I respect Horowitz tremendously because of his background as an
ex-Communist and his dead-on criticism of the American Left, both historically and currently. Although rather knee-jerk in his
defense of Israel, I would not doubt his loyalty to this country one iota.
I do not know if David Horowitz is a dual Israeli-American citizen, but he is not a legislator nor a government policy maker,
so as far as I am concerned, the issue is moot. If one questions the loyalty to America, of Jews or any other group for that matter,
the issue of holding dual citizenship while holding certain government offices should be something of concern. Once out of public
office or service, then they can resume their dual citizenship. It makes the issue of loyalty less questionable.
Bill Kristol appearing on c-span to push, agitate for the 2nd Iraq war was asked by a caller if he had served in the (U.S.)
military. Kristol said he had not served but had a friend(s) who had and that he served in other ways. When a country drafts into
the military, can one get out of service by saying, "My friend served"?
reckon his serving in other ways was/is lying and pushing for wars for his real country israel. Truth hurts, America.
Of the 58,220 Americans who were sacrificed during the Vietnam War, 270 were Jewish. That's approximately 0.46 percent or less
than a half of one-percent.
Guess they were too busy partying in college, while pursuing their law degrees.
During the Vietnam war the U.S. selective service system gave deferments to those attending college, which delayed their eligibility
for conscription.
"Among partners of the top law firms in New York, I estimate that at least 25% are Jews."
@matt I
didn't say there weren't any Jews pushing for a war with Iran, I said there are plenty of non-Jews pushing for one too, including
Trump himself. Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American foreign policy establishment
(which isn't close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated by clever Jews. It's
not just bigoted, it's a cartoonishly stupid "explanation".
I didn't say there weren't any Jews pushing for a war with Iran, I said there are plenty of non-Jews pushing for one too,
including Trump himself.
Which certainly doesn't mean there isn't a particular problem, exactly as Giraldi describes it with plenty of sound supporting
examples, of dual loyalty jews pushing wars that favour Israel.
In fact, the reality is that Giraldi might be guilty of, at most, overstatement, but since a large part of the problem is precisely
that any reference at all to the problem is suppressed, one might expect an honest opponent of the US's military interventionism
to temper his criticism of Giraldi's piece appropriately. For whatever reason, instead, you seem to feel the need to hysterically
accuse it as though it contains no truth whatsoever.
What gives?
Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American foreign policy establishment (which isn't
close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated by clever Jews.
Of course, the Israel Lobby is
much bigger than just jews, and stupid American Christians manipulated by their church leaders into believing fatuous ideas about
Israel based upon dubiously interpreted biblical nonsense has historically provided a lot of its political clout.
That's another problem, but it doesn't make the problem highlighted by Giraldi not a problem. The jewish individuals named
by Giraldi still massively disproportionately dominate the foreign policy media and political debate on ME wars, and the wealthy
jewish Israel supporters mentioned by him still massively disproportionately influence who gets heard and which opinions are suppressed
and which promoted.
@matt I'm
strongly against any war with Iran, but this comes of as an unhinged and bigoted rant. Not nearly everyone who is pushing for
war with Iran is Jewish, and this narrative perpetuates the myth, beloved by alt-right types and paleocons, of a well-intentioned
but naive Trump administration that was hijacked by Jewish neocons. In reality, despite differences within the administration,
Iran was always something they could all agree on. H.R. McMaster and James Mattis are well known Iran hawks, and neither are Jewish.
Nikki Haley isn't Jewish, nor is Rex Tillerson. Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn wouldn't have stopped Trump from going to war if
they hadn't been forced out of the administration, as both, especially the latter, were absolute lunatics when it came to Iran.
On that subject, they were worse than neocons. And of course there's Trump himself, whose bloodlust regarding Iran has always
been on full display from the beginning, if you were paying attention. Hostility toward Iran might in fact be the most consistent
theme of the Trump administration and of Trump himself, who has been known to vacillate on virtually every issue, except this
one.
If you supported Trump because you thought he might be some sort of isolationist dove, you have only yourself to blame. Evil
Jewish neocons didn't force you to ignore the massive evidence that was always right in front of your face. The fact that there
are so many who profess to the Christian faith, who are as evil as those Joo neocons, such as those you mentioned, simply cannot
be denied. Even if hypothetically speaking the Joos were to vanish overnight, the wars of aggression by the Evil Empire will continue
unabated.
The Evil Empire and its Evil b!tch both share the same satanic vision of world domination. Two evil nations, made for each
other, in a match made in Hell.
Btw, the orange scumbag was hilariously evil at the UN.
Both N.Korea and Iran should simply call this bastard's bluff, by literally giving him the finger. I say, let the chips fall
where they may. Let's see how the American, Japanese, S.Korean, Israeli & "Royal" pussies like the consequences.
To you N.Koreans, its been written that you will target the thousands of American Terrorists stationed in the south. I am counting
on that, so don't you miss chaps.
They should. If Raimondo starts blaming the Jews, he can avoid taking responsibility for his idiotic and embarrassing cheerleading
for the current warmonger-in-chief.
I supported and voted for Trump as well. I don't like his neocon turn now, but which candidate in that election (save for
Rand Paul and possibly Jill Stein) wouldn't have declared a non-fly zone in Syria and actively supported the overthrow of Assad?
And started plans for attacking Iran? Who? Hillary? Hahahaha. Ted Cruz? Hahahaha. Etc.
Bernie Sanders (a scary Jew!) wasn't nearly as anti-imperialist as I would have liked him to be, but I doubt he would have
attacked Assad regime forces 6 times like Trump has by this point, and certainly not without Congressional approval (which he
probably wouldn't have gotten, even if he had wanted it).
Even under Hillary, the Iran deal would have stood a better chance, since she was at least verbally committed to it (unlike
even Rand Paul), and there would have been Obama loyalists within the Clinton administration who would have been desperate to
preserve Obama's signature foreign policy achievement (and one of the only worthwhile ones, in my opinion, along with restoration
of diplomatic ties with Cuba).
If an article titled "America's Jews are Behind America's Wars" isn't unhinged and bigoted, I'd like you to tell me what
is.
How is the article's factual content fundamentally different from the similar content of the Haaretz article linked by Greg
Bacon in post 21 above? Is the Haaretz piece "unhinged and bigoted"?
Or is it not the statement of the facts that you are outraged by, but merely the proposed solutions? If so, then what solutions
to the problem identified by Giraldi and by Haaretz would you propose?
If Trump's insane rhetoric on Iran and push for war isn't an example of bloodlust, why don't you tell me what it is?
Good examples might be the desperate attempts to prevent the deal with Iran that hopefully will prove to have cauterised the longstanding
efforts to use the spurious nuclear weapons issue to push the US towards confrontation and war with Iran:
Or when Israel's primary agents of political influence in the US went "all out" to try to get the US to attack Syria and hand
yet another country to (even more) jihadist-ridden chaos:
But hey, I suppose for you those are just more examples of "unhingedness" and "bigotedness".
It must be strange living in the world you inhabit, so far removed from basic reality by a desperate need to avoid being seen
as any kind of badwhite. I didn't say there weren't any Jews pushing for a war with Iran, I said there are plenty of non-Jews
pushing for one too, including Trump himself. Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American
foreign policy establishment (which isn't close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated
by clever Jews. It's not just bigoted, it's a cartoonishly stupid "explanation".
@Sam Shama
They can certainly try, and, I suppose you'd require the U.S. to stay her hand as a matter of fair principle while watching said
bases destroyed. Nice idea, but I'd stick to reality. U.S. has vast interests, including economic ones; those which benefit every
U.S. citizen, and, to be practical, all her allies. Iran isn't stupid or suicidal. Its anti-ship missiles are for deterrence,
which Iran has plenty of need for, as sociopaths like you populate the American, Israeli, and Saudi governments and are itching
to attack.
@WJ Outside
of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has Trump been a warmonger?
I remember the debate between Pence and the hideous Tim Kaine where the Democrat vowed that there would be No Fly Zone over
Syria which would certainly have allowed the head chopping rebels to gain a stronger foothold.
In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His Afghanistan policy /escalation is also symbolic.
US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only be 15000 there anyway.
Outside of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has Trump been a warmonger?
You haven't been paying attention. Since the initial strike in April, the Trump administration has deliberately attacked regime
or allied forces an additional five times. (
one
,
two ,
three , four ,
five ).
Including the Tomahawks in April, that's a total of 6 deliberate attacks on the Syrian Arab Republic or its allies (so far),
which is already 6 more than Obama carried out during his entire presidency. And it's not like this is the end of Trump's tenure,
either; it's the 9th goddamn month since he's been in office. I'm sure the war hawks in Wahington are quite pleased with his progress,
as they should be.
In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His Afghanistan policy /escalation is also symbolic.
Anyone could tell by that point that Assad isn't going to be overthrown. The aim now is to limit the Assad regime's territorial
gains as much as possible, and the "rebels" proved they were useless at doing that when Shia militia reached the Iraqi border
at al-Tanf, and cut them off from reaching Deir ez-Zor back in May (which was what one of the attacks mentioned above was about).
After that, the Trump administration put all its eggs in the "Syrian Democratic Forces/People's Protection Units (SDF/YPG)
basket, the mainly Kurdish (with some Arab fighters) militia that the US has been using to fight ISIS since 2015 (it's also, ironically,
a hard left socialist organization. Think Kurdish Antifa. Though I doubt Trump knows or cares or could do anything about it even
if he did). Trump has given the SDF <a title=""
https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/"
; https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/"
;heavy weaponry with the aim of confronting Assad and limiting his territorial gains. They've also been pressuring the rebel groups
they formerly supported to join the SDF.
I have sympathy for the SDF/YPG and the Syrian Kurds, and it made sense to support them when they were under direct assault
from ISIS (though US motives were hardly altruistic even then). But ISIS is all but beaten now, and this is a dangerous game the
US is playing, which could readily lead to a military confrontation betweeen the US and Russia and/or Iran. In fact, just a few
days ago, the SDF seized part of Deir ez-Zor after SAA forces reached the city, and the Pentagon is now accusing Russia
(which has in the past at least had
good
relations with the SDF/YPG), of deliberately bombing SDF fighters, in close proximity to American special forces.
US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only be 15000 there anyway.
Only 15,000! I guess you wouldn't mind, then, if they Taliban, or the Afghan Army for that matter, or any other country,
put 15,000 troops on American soil, as a "symbolic" gesture.
Trump has also accelerated US collaboration in the sadistic torture of Yemen by the Saudis, past the levels under even Obama,
which was already shameful.
And again, we should also keep in mind that it's only been 9 months. For his next act, Trump might be thinking about
ending the Iran deal in October.
@Thomm Jews
are white. Ashkenazi Jews, and those are the ones we are mainly dealing with, are an endogamous caste of bankers, progressive
journalists, lawyers, and social scientists (including, now, education), that have migrated all over Europe, but never identifying
as European, with exceptions that prove the rule.
As a tribe, once can read Kevin MacDonald's work to see how they work in remarkable ethnic cohesion–not necessarily as an "organized
conspiracy" (though that certainly happens), but as an ethnic drive.
Being neither European as such, nor Christian, and although their skin is white, they are not White.
Dual loyalty is an avoided and career-ending subject for a couple reasons. One must never, ever, criticize Jews (a third rail
at complete odds with) and one may not criticize immigrants' behavior.
The obvious problem is Treason. Just how much Treason is the result of so-called "dual loyalty"? And isn't Treason subject
to some rather serious legal sanctions?
I just want to point out, being a (fake) "news" consumer, I hear about Israel all the time, all while not hearing a lot of
follow-up detail about Israel and its interests. Isn't that a clever sleight of hand? According to the pro-Israel (by extension
jews) propaganda I'm required to care about, despite it having nothing to do with my life, my family's life, my neighbors' lives,
and my community's lives Israel is that big of a deal. Actually, I hear more about Israel in the media than I hear about my home
state of Michigan. Michigan is probably a lot more important to the US economy, US security, US tourism industry, Midwestern industrial
technology industry, US engineering industry, and the Midwestern Farming economy, than Israel is. Then there are the people who
live here, who are Americans. Israel first, then Americans? Okay, got it.
If the public were exposed to as much emotionally captivating propaganda about Michigan as they were about Israel, I'd posit
the public would see a far better investment in Michigan than they would in Israel. That includes an emotional investment.
I don't know what can be politely said or how it would shape up, but Midwesterners desperately need to understand the Israel
(by extension jewish) problem. They're bleeding us and getting away with it, all while getting away with incessantly calling us
racists and anti-semites. Because again, caring about Michigan and its people first is just morally irreprehensible. Israel first,
then Israel second, etc Got it bigot? That sleight of hand, it's just always there. I don't fully grasp how this large scale agit-prop
psychology works. I do understand jewish solidarity. I'll hand it to jews, they have the strongest ethnic/religious/cultural solidarity
I've ever seen. If Midwesterners realized the value of this level of solidarity, they wouldn't enlist their sons in the military
to serve jewish interests overseas.
From Money Manipulation And Social Order (Dublin: Browne and Nolan, 1944) by Fr. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., Professor of
Philosophy and Church History, Holy Ghost Missionary College, Dublin:
When the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, created in 1913 by Mr. Paul Warburg, a German Jew belonging to the
Banking Firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, had been a few years in existence, in 1916 to be precise, President Woodrow Wilson
thus summed up the situation in U.S.A.: "A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit
is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. . .
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized
world!no longer a Government by conviction and the free vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of
small groups of dominant men." From the similar testimonies quoted by Christopher Hollis in The Two Nations, let us take one.
"Behind the ostensible government," ran Roosevelt's policy, " sits enthroned an invisible government owning no allegiance and
acknowledging no responsibility to the people."
Anyone who reads knows that Israel (and its agents, where not dual citizens, the Jewish ones effectively all are, and the
goyim dupes and toadies, who are not, 'cept sometimes with marriage) have been the tail that wags the US dog for many years,
starting over a century ago, in finance, commerce, and law in NYC, in a small way the scope is ever wider and the effects more
and more blatant.
The USA is a colony of Israel, everybody is knowing it, but some lie and deny.
From my reading of history, I would placing the tipping point from 'excessive power' to 'colonial masters' at the 1967 war
of Israel and its neighbours.
Others may dating it to the end of the Third Reich, with all sorts of Jewish DPs and US Jews who had never seen combat running
around in US military and MP uniforms to persecuting and killing Germans, under the command of Eisenhauer, the Morgenthau plan,
etc.
Others may picking a different time.
It is funny that you are posting as Anonymous on this, can only mean that you are a more subtle pro-Israel troll with your
usual u-name. "So it is safe to say that much of the agitation to do something about Iran comes from Israel and from American
Jews."
Certainly SOME Israelis and American Jews are involved in developing policy designed to generate hostility to the point of
potential war.
But Dick Cheney and Erik Prince, among other prominent non-Jews, bear mentioning.
Regardless, the Jew fixation here is duly noted. Boo! Goes the Joo!
"The USA is a colony of Israel". Fake News Story. Now, let us assume that to be true. What are personally doing about this
situation? What active measures are you taking to free yourself from the shackles of your oppressor? Or, are simply impotent while
taking it good and hard?
"... Seven years ago, John Mearsheimer and I published a controversial article and subsequent book examining the impact of the "Israel lobby" -- that is, a loose coalition of pro-Israel individuals and organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Christians United for Israel, just to name a few. ..."
"... The result, we also argued, does more harm than good to both the United States and Israel. For the United States, the "special relationship" undermines America's standing in the Arab and Islamic worlds, has encouraged a more confrontational approach with Iran and Syria, and contributes significantly both to America's terrorism problem and to needless and costly debacles like the 2003 invasion of Iraq. For Israel, unquestioning U.S. support for almost all its actions has allowed the decades-long subjugation of the Palestinians to continue unchecked, undermining the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and threatening Israel's future as a democratic and/or Jewish state. ..."
"... Unfortunately for Israel as well as the United States, the past 10 years provide ample evidence that our core argument is still correct. Nevertheless, shifts inside the pro-Israel community and in Israel itself may yet lead to positive shifts in U.S. Middle East policy and to a healthier relationship between the two countries. ..."
"... There is little question the lobby remains a potent political force today. The "special relationship" is firmly intact: An increasingly prosperous Israel continues to receive billions of dollars in U.S. assistance, and it is still largely immune from criticism by top U.S. officials, members of Congress or contenders for public office. ..."
"... Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School and the co-author (with John J. Mearsheimer) of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007). ..."
Seven years ago, John Mearsheimer and I published a controversial article and subsequent book
examining the impact of the "Israel lobby" -- that is, a loose coalition of pro-Israel
individuals and organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the
Anti-Defamation League, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Christians United for
Israel, just to name a few. We argued that decades of unconditional U.S. support for Israel --
the so-called "special relationship" -- is not explained by U.S. strategic interests or by
shared values, as is often claimed, but is due primarily to the political efforts and
activities of the lobby.
The result, we also argued, does more harm than good to both the United States and Israel.
For the United States, the "special relationship" undermines America's standing in the Arab and
Islamic worlds, has encouraged a more confrontational approach with Iran and Syria, and
contributes significantly both to America's terrorism problem and to needless and costly
debacles like the 2003 invasion of Iraq. For Israel, unquestioning U.S. support for almost all
its actions has allowed the decades-long subjugation of the Palestinians to continue unchecked,
undermining the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and threatening Israel's future as a
democratic and/or Jewish state.
We made it clear that the lobby was not a monolith controlling every aspect of U.S. Middle
East policy, but rather a collection of disparate groups and individuals united by the aim of
defending Israel's actions and deepening the special relationship. We explicitly rejected the
idea that anything nefarious was going on, explaining that AIPAC and related organizations were
simply part of a powerful interest group like the farm lobby or the National Rifle Association.
Their efforts to influence U.S. policy are "as American as apple pie." And we used the term
"Israel lobby" to highlight that not all American Jews support these policies and that some key
members of the lobby (such as Christian Zionists) aren't Jewish. The book also emphasizes that
none of these groups or individuals is solely responsible for the choices U.S. leaders
make.
As the article and book predicted, a firestorm of criticism followed their publication,
including more than a few accusations that we are anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Our aim was to elicit a debate that would help move America's foreign
policy in a wiser direction and increase Israel's chances of achieving a durable, peaceful
two-state solution with the Palestinians. By successfully squelching any criticism of Israel in
almost any form, and by encouraging military action against Israel's foes, the lobby -- in our
view -- had led us away from both.
Unfortunately for Israel as well as the United States, the past 10 years provide ample
evidence that our core argument is still correct. Nevertheless, shifts inside the pro-Israel
community and in Israel itself may yet lead to positive shifts in U.S. Middle East policy and
to a healthier relationship between the two countries.
There is little question the lobby remains a potent political force today. The "special
relationship" is firmly intact: An increasingly prosperous Israel continues to receive billions
of dollars in U.S. assistance, and it is still largely immune from criticism by top U.S.
officials, members of Congress or contenders for public office. Being perceived as
insufficiently "pro-Israel" can disqualify nominees for important government positions; one
need look no further than Chuck Hagel's contentious
confirmation hearings -- and the
178 times Israel came up -- to see how crucial a role being pro-Israel plays in achieving
political success in this country.
People who criticize Israel too pointedly can still lose their jobs. Wealthy defenders of
Israel such as Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban play
outsize roles in American politics, especially on Israel-related issues. A number of
hard-line individuals and groups in the lobby remain staunch opponents of the sensible 2016
nuclear deal with Iran and may eventually help convince President Trump or the Congress to
overturn it.
The clearest illustration of the lobby's enduring power, however, is the Obama
administration's failure to make any progress on settling the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were strong supporters of Israel, and both
believe a two-state solution is, as Obama put it, "in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest,
America's interest and the world's interest." But even with backing from pro-peace, pro-Israel
organizations such as J Street, their efforts to achieve "two states for two peoples" were
rebuffed by Israel, working hand in hand with AIPAC and other hard-line groups. So instead of
seriously pursuing peace, Israel expanded its settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories,
making it more difficult than ever to create a viable Palestinian state.
Given AIPAC's enduring influence in Congress and its unyielding opposition to any meaningful
compromise with the Palestinians, Obama and Kerry ultimately could offer Israel only additional
carrots (such as increased military aid) to try to win their cooperation. Like their
predecessors, they could not put pressure on Israel to compromise by threatening to reduce U.S.
support significantly. As a result, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had little
incentive to make a deal. So, the two-state solution, which the United States has long sought
and Netanyahu has long opposed, is now further away than ever. This outcome is bad for the
United States and for Israel.
Despite the lobby's continuing influence, however, there is a more open discussion of
Israel-related issues today than there was before we wrote our article and book. Together with
long-term trends in the region and the United States, the ability to speak more openly about
Israel is likely to diminish the lobby's impact on U.S. foreign policy in the future.
For starters, despite joining forces with Netanyahu to oppose the Iran deal, AIPAC was
unable to convince Congress to reject the agreement. This failure signaled a rare defeat for the
lobbying group, and a triumph for J Street and other groups that had backed the deal.
Furthermore, the taboo of publicly criticizing Israel, the lobby or the special relationship
has been broken. In recent years, writers such as Peter Beinart, John Judis, Dan Fleshler and
others have written important works examining the role of pro-Israel groups in American
politics and criticizing their impact on U.S. foreign policy. Prominent journalists such as
Thomas Friedman, Andrew Sullivan and Roger Cohen have penned their own criticisms of Israel's
policies and the lobby's activities. More Americans have become aware of the complexities of
life in Israel-Palestine and are more sympathetic to the needs and desires of both
populations.
There is also a growing divide within the American Jewish community over what is best for
Israel itself. Scholars like Dov Waxman, Steven Simon and Dana Allin have documented that
American Jews today are less reluctant to criticize Israel's policies or the actions of the
Israeli government. The creation of the pro-peace lobby J Street, the rapid growth of
progressive groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, and the success of controversial online
journals critical of Zionism, such as Mondoweiss, show that attitudes about Israel are more
complicated than in the past. Reflexive support for whatever Israel does is no longer the
default condition for many American Jews.
These developments are especially evident among young people, and as Waxman emphasizes in
his 2016 book "Trouble in the Tribe," they have amplified divisions between the Orthodox and
more liberal branches of Judaism. One sees this trend in a recent poll conducted by the
American Jewish Committee, which found that nearly 80% of American Jews disapprove of the job
President Trump is doing but 71% of Orthodox Jews support Trump. The main reason? Orthodox Jews
tend to see Trump as more supportive of Israel. Yet even among the Orthodox, a
recent survey by Nishma Research found that only 43% of those between 18 and 34 "actively
support" the Jewish state, compared with 71% of those over 55.
These trends stem from a core tension: The vast majority of American Jews remain deeply
committed to liberal values, while Israel has been moving away from them for many years now.
There is a certain tension between liberalism and Zionism, because liberalism assumes that all
humans possess the same set of basic rights and it emphasizes mutual tolerance, while Zionism
is a nationalist movement that in its current iteration privileges one people at the expense of
another. Until 1967, however, that tension between liberal and Zionist values was muted because
most Israelis were Jewish and the second-class status of Israel's Arab minority did not receive
much attention.
When Israel gained control of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, the resulting subjugation of
millions of Palestinians brought that tension to the fore. The occupation of the Palestinian
territories has endured for half a century, and today, certain sections of Israel's government
are openly committed to retaining the West Bank in perpetuity and creating a "Greater Israel."
This policy not only involves denying the Palestinian subjects meaningful political rights, but
also leads Israel to react harshly whenever the Palestinians respond with violence and
terrorism (as happened in response to the two intifadas and in Israel's repeated assaults on
Gaza), further tarnishing its image in the United States and elsewhere.
But as former prime ministers Ehud Barak
and
Ehud Olmert each warned, in the long run, denying the Palestinians a viable state of their
own will turn Israel into a state akin to apartheid South Africa. Such a state will be
increasingly difficult for Israel's supporters -- and especially liberal American Jews -- to
embrace and defend against the inevitable criticism that will be directed at it. Furthermore,
the steady rightward drift of Israeli politics -- exemplified by the
2016 "transparency law" marginalizing Israeli human rights organizations, as well as by
Netanyahu's decision to
renege on a plan to allow non-Orthodox Jewish men and women to pray together at the Western
Wall -- also clashes with the political values of most American Jews.
Even more disturbing, the Israeli government has begun to turn a blind eye to incidents of
genuine anti-Semitism, when doing so is seen as safeguarding other priorities. Netanyahu was
slow to condemn the anti-Jewish and neo-Nazi demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia,
in August, for example, and he declined to criticize Trump's waffling response to these
disturbing events. Netanyahu also remains
on good terms with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban despite Orban's anti-Semitic
campaign against financier George Soros. Indeed, Netanyahu's son Yair Netanyahu
recently posted to Facebook an explicitly anti-Semitic meme about Soros, thereby earning a
swift condemnation from the ADL.
These and other events have accelerated what Waxman
describes as a "splintering" among pro-Israel organizations. Past depictions of a weak
Israeli David surrounded by a hostile Arab Goliath no longer ring true against the reality of a
prosperous, nuclear-armed Israel that denies millions of Palestinian Arabs basic rights and
uses its vast military power to keep those disenfranchised subjects powerless and afraid.
Israel still faces a number of security challenges, but, contrary to what used to be the
conventional wisdom, it is not weak, isolated or vulnerable to conventional attack. Instead, it
has become a fiercely nationalistic state pursuing increasingly illiberal policies, which makes
it increasingly hard for liberals to defend with enthusiasm.
These trends, however, have yet to affect Israel's most ardent defenders here in the United
States. If anything, their efforts to silence criticism of Israel have reached new heights. How
else can one explain the
AIPAC-sponsored Senate bill that would make it a crime in the United States to participate
in the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, legislation that the American Civil
Liberties Union, Amnesty International and the Center for Constitutional Rights have rightly
denounced as a direct threat to free speech?
Even if they succeed in muzzling some criticism in the short term, over time these tactics
will turn off many Americans, including large numbers of American Jews who prize freedom of
speech, tolerance and human rights, and who understand how important those values are for
preserving the security of minority populations everywhere.
Barring a major shift in Israel's political trajectory, therefore, the fissures within the
lobby -- and in the American Jewish community more broadly -- are likely to widen. If the
balance of power in that community shifts in favor of more moderate and pro-peace groups, then
there may be a glimmer of hope. "Two states for two peoples" will be harder to achieve today
than it would have been under either President Clinton or President Obama, but political
pressure from a powerful, pro-Israel and pro-peace lobby in the United States is probably the
only development that would convince U.S. leaders to act as fair-minded mediators and persuade
the Israeli government to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own. Over the long
term, that may also be the only way to preserve a secure Israel and the strong bonds of the
U.S.- Israel relationship.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the
Harvard Kennedy School and the co-author (with John J. Mearsheimer) of "The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007). The views and opinions expressed
in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.
"... The article is a thorough-going rebuke of every journalist and former official (Daniel Shapiro, former ambassador under Obama, for instance, as well as the Forward and the Times opinion writers) who says that money is not at the root, or very near the root, of Democratic Party support. So let's follow the money, and review the money quotes ..."
"... there is little willingness among Democrats to argue publicly for substantially changing longstanding policy toward Israel. ..."
"... In part, some Hill staff members and former White House officials say, this is because of the influence of megadonors: Of the dozens of personal checks greater than $500,000 made out to the largest PAC for Democrats in 2018, the Senate Majority PAC, around three-fourths were written by Jewish donors. ..."
"... Though the number of Jewish donors known to prioritize pro-Israel policies above all other issues is small, there are few if any pushing in the opposite direction ..."
"... The Obama administration didn't just support the occupation, it kept supporting it right up till the November 2016 election so that Hillary Clinton wouldn't lose donors. ..."
"... concerns about donors among Democrats dominated not just "what was done but what was not done, and what was not even contemplated." Even the timing of the administration's policies toward Israel was dictated by domestic politics. ..."
"... Everyone knows this math. And the Democrats fear they'll lose all their money. ..."
"... Joel Rubin, a deputy assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in the Obama administration, former political director at J Street and a founding board member of the centrist Jewish Democratic Council of America, agreed: "The fight over Israel used to be about voters. It's more about donors now." ..."
"... Thrall says the Democratic Party leadership is perfectly happy with AIPAC, but he leaves out what we reported here: the extent of the reliance on Jewish donors is "gigantic" and "shocking," according to insiders JJ Goldberg and the head of Emily's List, and AIPAC gets to script congressional campaigns on their middle east positions before the candidates can raise money from the Jewish community. ..."
"... Sadly the Jewish community is largely supportive of Israel, as Thrall shows. By and large, American Jews are Zionists. Trump's horrors in the Middle East are OK by them. ..."
"... any declension in US support is seen as alienating the donor class. ..."
"... Joel Rubin said: "The problem for center-left groups that are more critical of Israel is that the Jewish donor class is comfortable with current U.S. policies. They just don't like Trump on other issues." ..."
"... Thrall shows that fear of losing donors played a role when the University of Michigan student body passed a narrow divestment measure last fall– to divest only from companies doing business in the occupation -- and still the administration said No way. ..."
"... Lara Friedman of Foundation for Middle East Peace and formerly of Peace Now continues to blaze a trail by honestly describing the intolerance in the Jewish community for debate of Israel. That community has pushed the anti-BDS legislation. ..."
"... I asked [Zionist Organization of America's Morton] Klein why he believed it was "utterly racist and despicable," as he put it, for [Richard] Spencer to promote a state for only one ethnic group but not racist for Israel to do so. "Israel is a unique situation," he said. "This is really a Jewish state given to us by God." He added, "God did not create a state for white people or for black people." ..."
"... Thrall says Israel is Jim Crow society thru and thru. ..."
"... Israeli law forbids citizens to obtain citizenship or permanent residency for Palestinian spouses from the West Bank and Gaza. ..."
"... First, of course there was the famous 'Benjamins' tweet in which Omar noted that members of Congress were obedient to the Lobby because of the hundreds of millions it raises and distributes to loyal pro-Israel candidates. ..."
"... The way this happened was instructive: there is, of course, an ancient anti-Semitic trope that Jews are rich and use their wealth to control the finance, banking, entertainment, and the media sectors, etc. That of course, has nothing to do with the true statement that the Lobby raises and distributes massive lucre to its favored candidates. A reasonable person can see the difference between these two concepts. ..."
"... anyone who believes that the interests of one of the greatest powers on earth is the same as that of a small Middle Eastern theocratic state is either terribly naïve or worse ..."
"... "Pro-Israel Jews like Engel are particularly exercised by the implication of dual loyalty. That is, that pro-Israel Jews are more loyal to Israel than America. An especially apt historical phrase connoting dual loyalty is the term 'Israel Firster.' It was not invented by an anti-Semite or white supremacist. But rather by the dean of American Jewish historians, Abe Sachar, the first president of Brandeis University. ..."
"... "American Jews continued to object to Israel's claim that a genuine Jewish life was possible only in Israel. Abram L. Sachar, president of Brandeis University, at the biennial convention of JWB [Jewish Welfare Board], declared on April 2, 1960 that among Jews there is no room 'for Israel Firsters whose chauvinism and arrogance find nothing relevant or viable in any area outside of Israel.'" ..."
"... Israel is no longer a democracy. Instead it has become a theocracy, run by fundamentalist extremists bent on holy war with the Muslim world. Israel's interests are diverging from those of the democratic west more than ever. And this fissure can only continue to widen as Israel sinks ever deeper into mass murder, Occupation and oppression. Israel's interests and America's are no longer the same. Not even close. That little sliver of daylight which presidents used to boast about not existing when it came to Israel and U.S. interests: it's now a wide-open expanse of sky. ..."
"... The smell of greenbacks remains too enticing to resist. ..."
"... Phil likes to downplay the role of Christian Zionists, while others who feel uncomfortable talking about Jewish donors ( fearing the antisemitism charge) like to emphasize them. The truth is that they are both important in why the US supports Israel. ..."
"... on the secular level American rightwingers sometimes see Israel as a bastion of "Western civilization" surrounded by the heathens. Of course some of that last part overlaps with what Israel supporters in the Democratic Party think. ..."
"... The truth is the GOP's courting of the donor class comes from the same motivation – the counting of the donor Benjamins. The difference is they can better hide their support (of Zionism) under banners of defense, business, and righteousness. ..."
"... Trump plays to this crowd with his actions in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Finally, this "donor class" could hardly match the daily U.S. gift of $10 million, so the pitch they make is to American taxpayers, although nobody ever talks about that. ..."
"... 'Senator Charles Schumer, the Democratic minority leader, similarly told the Aipac conference in 2018: "Of course, we say it's our land, the Torah says it, but they don't believe in the Torah. So that's the reason there is not peace."' Damn, and I thought that the reason there was no peace was because of the oppressive, prison-like conditions of the Palestinian people under Occupation. ..."
"... Of course it is "all about the Benjamins". Contending to the contrary is simply silly. One might well add that BDS can be viewed as a good thing for Israel, and in that country's true best interests. ..."
"... A collection of primitive Bronze Age fictional gibberish can confer land titles over bits of the Middle East, to its adherents – even to adherents with absolutely no ancestral connection to the land. ..."
This weekend the New York Times
breaks
one of the biggest taboos , describing the responsibility of Jewish donors for the Democratic Party's slavish support for Israel.
Nathan Thrall's groundbreaking piece repeats a lot of data we've reported here and says in essence that it really is about the Benjamins,
as Rep. Ilhan Omar said so famously. The donor class of the party is overwhelmingly Jewish, and Jews are still largely wed to Zionism–
that's the nut. Though that party is breaking up. Thrall's labors are minimized by the New York Times with the headline "The Battle
Over B.D.S.," but his message is that the progressive base has a highly-critical view of Israel that the leadership has refused to
reflect, and that's about to change. We're inside the tent. The party is going to have to reflect pro-Palestinian positions. Ben
Rhodes tells Thrall that the moment of overcoming the fear of the pro-Israel lobby (as the Cuba fear was overcome) is about to happen.
The article is a thorough-going rebuke of every journalist and former official (Daniel Shapiro, former ambassador under Obama, for
instance, as well as the Forward and the Times opinion writers) who says that money is not at the root, or very near the root, of
Democratic Party support. So let's follow the money, and review the money quotes. Deep into his piece, Thrall explains why progressives
aren't being heard. Megadonors.
For all the recent tumult over Israel in Washington, the policy debate remains extremely narrow Despite pointed critiques of American
support for Israel by representatives like Betty McCollum of Minnesota, [Rashida] Tlaib and Omar, there is little willingness
among Democrats to argue publicly for substantially changing longstanding policy toward Israel.
In part, some Hill staff members
and former White House officials say, this is because of the influence of megadonors: Of the dozens of personal checks greater
than $500,000 made out to the largest PAC for Democrats in 2018, the Senate Majority PAC, around three-fourths were written by
Jewish donors. This provides fodder for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and for some, it is the elephant in the room.
Though
the number of Jewish donors known to prioritize pro-Israel policies above all other issues is small, there are few if any pushing
in the opposite direction
As we reported from Ben Rhodes's book,
Rhodes tells Thrall that donors forced Obama to hew to the Netanyahu line.
According to Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national-security adviser and one of Obama's closest confidants, several members of the
Obama administration wanted to adopt a more assertive policy toward Israel but felt that their hands were tied. "The Washington
view of Israel-Palestine is still shaped by the donor class The donor class is profoundly to the right of where the activists
are, and frankly, where the majority of the Jewish community is." Peter Joseph, an emeritus chairman of the center-left Israel
Policy Forum, told me that the views of major Democratic Jewish donors could act as a check on the leftward pull by progressive
voters who are strongly critical of Israel: "I can't imagine that mainstream Democratic Jewish donors are going to be happy about
any Democratic Party that is moving in that direction."
Off the record, people go further. The Obama administration didn't just support the occupation, it kept supporting it right up till
the November 2016 election so that Hillary Clinton wouldn't lose donors. We reported as much at the time.
Another former member of the Obama White House, who asked not to be named, fearing professional retaliation, said that concerns
about donors among Democrats dominated not just "what was done but what was not done, and what was not even contemplated."
Even the timing of the administration's policies toward Israel was dictated by domestic politics. Faced with a 2016 United Nations
Security Council resolution condemning settlements, the Obama administration abstained (effectively supporting the resolution),
but only after having signaled it would not consider backing any resolution before November. "There is a reason the U.N. vote
did not come up before the election in November," the former official said. "Was it because you were going to lose voters to Donald
Trump? No. It was because you were going to have skittish donors. That, and the fact that we didn't want Clinton to face pressure
to condemn the resolution or be damaged by having to defend it."
Everyone knows this math. And the Democrats fear they'll lose all their money.
What worries establishment Democrats, the former official added, is that the partisan divide over Israel will concretize -- with
Republicans defined as pro-Israel, Democrats defined as anti-Israel -- and that the party coffers will empty. Joel Rubin, a deputy
assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in the Obama administration, former political director at J Street and a
founding board member of the centrist Jewish Democratic Council of America, agreed: "The fight over Israel used to be about voters.
It's more about donors now."
Thrall says the Democratic Party leadership is perfectly happy with AIPAC, but he leaves out
what we reported here: the extent of the reliance on Jewish donors is "gigantic" and "shocking," according to insiders JJ Goldberg
and the head of Emily's List, and AIPAC gets to script congressional campaigns on their middle east positions before the candidates
can raise money from the Jewish community. We always said Sanders could be better on Palestine because he avoided the donor class
of the Democratic party. Rhodes agrees.
"If you don't rely on a traditional fund-raising model, then you have more freedom on these types of issues," Rhodes said. "You're
not worried about the one-hour phone call that you're going to have to do after the presidential debate with a really angry donor."
The key element here is, older Jewish donors are conservative about Israel. A former Clinton campaign official:
"There's no major donor that I can think of who is looking for someone to take a Bernie-like approach." And whereas none of the
most liberal Jewish donors have threatened to withdraw support because a candidate was too pro-Israel, pro-Israel donors and PACs
have a history of financing opposition to candidates deemed unfriendly. Haim Saban, one of Hillary Clinton's top five donors in
2016, has financed opponents of Democratic candidates critical of Israel
Sadly the Jewish community is largely supportive of Israel, as Thrall shows. By and large, American Jews are Zionists. Trump's horrors
in the Middle East are OK by them.
In the same [Mellman] poll -- conducted after the United States closed the Palestinian diplomatic mission in Washington, moved
the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, appointed a fund-raiser for the settlements as U.S. ambassador and cut
humanitarian aid to Palestinians -- roughly half of American Jews said they approved of President Trump's handling of relations
with Israel. On what is considered the most divisive issue in U.S.-Israel relations, the establishment of Israeli settlements
in the West Bank,
a November
2018 post-midterm election poll of more than 1,000 American Jews that was commissioned by J Street, the pro-Israel lobby aligned
with Democrats, found that roughly half said the expansion of settlements had no impact on how they felt about Israel.
Those Jews are conservative compared to the base, which is increasingly people of color and real progressives.
Members of the Democratic Party's progressive activist base, by contrast, find themselves light years from their representatives
in Washington.
And any declension in US support is seen as alienating the donor class.
Joel Rubin said: "The problem for center-left groups that are more critical of Israel is that the Jewish donor class is comfortable
with current U.S. policies. They just don't like Trump on other issues." In October, just weeks before the 2018 midterm election,
as the Democratic leadership was working to take back the House, a Democratic staff member, who asked not to be named for fear
of professional retaliation, told me that it was important to retain the support of all major donors, not just the most liberal
ones.
Referring to two of the largest Jewish donors to Democrats, on opposite ends of the political spectrum, the staff member
said: "Our members need George Soros and Haim Saban. And they need everything in between."
Thrall shows that fear of losing donors played a role when the University of Michigan student body passed a narrow divestment measure
last fall– to divest only from companies doing business in the occupation -- and still the administration said No way.
Michigan's administration quickly issued a statement that it would not appoint a committee to investigate divestment. A month
later, the board of regents released a letter backing the decision. (The two regents who didn't sign it were the only people of
color on the board.) Like many large American universities, the University of Michigan has extensive research partnerships with
Israeli universities. And many of its institutes and buildings are named after alumni donors who have contributed large sums to
Israel or pro-Israel groups.
Lara Friedman of Foundation for Middle East Peace and formerly of Peace Now continues to blaze a trail by honestly describing the
intolerance in the Jewish community for debate of Israel. That community has pushed the anti-BDS legislation.
"The American Jewish community, which is broadly speaking liberal, has allowed itself in the name of defending Israel and fighting
B.D.S. to become the leading edge of illiberalism by pushing legislation to curb free speech."
OK now let's get to some of the good news here. Thrall's overall point is that the battle is breaking out, thanks to those women
of color in the House and the progressive base.
As the Democratic Party is pulled toward a more progressive base and a future when a majority of the party will most likely be
people of color, tensions over Israel have erupted. In the past several months, a fierce debate over American support for Israel
has periodically dominated the news cycle and overshadowed the Democrats' policymaking agenda.
BDS is gaining ground. Israel knows it.
Emmanuel Nahshon, a spokesman for Israel's foreign ministry, told me, "Despite the overwhelming support for Israel in the U.S.,
we see that the attempt to delegitimize Israel is gaining ground, especially among extreme left-wing marginal groups."
When have you ever seen such a fair assessment of BDS in the Times?
Instead of tying itself to a specific outcome, the B.D.S. movement insisted on these three principles, which could be fulfilled
any number of ways: two states, one state with equal individual rights, a confederation with equal collective rights.
This is a simple turn by Thrall on why Zionism is racist at its core.
Following the 1948 war, which erupted after the United Nations announced its plan to partition Palestine into two states, the
Jews who fled could return; Palestinians could not.
Here's another great moment, brilliant reporting.
I asked [Zionist Organization of America's Morton] Klein why he believed it was "utterly racist and despicable," as he put it,
for [Richard] Spencer to promote a state for only one ethnic group but not racist for Israel to do so. "Israel is a unique situation,"
he said. "This is really a Jewish state given to us by God." He added, "God did not create a state for white people or for black
people."
Senator Charles Schumer, the Democratic minority leader, similarly told the Aipac conference in 2018: "Of course, we
say it's our land, the Torah says it, but they don't believe in the Torah. So that's the reason there is not peace."
Thrall says Israel is Jim Crow society thru and thru.
Currently, hundreds of Israeli towns have admissions committees that can bar Palestinian citizens from living in them based on
"social suitability." (It's illegal for people to be excluded on the basis of race, religion or nationality, but the rubric of
"social suitability" permits the rejection of applicants who are not Zionist, haven't served in the army or don't intend to send
their children to Hebrew-language schools.)
More than 900 towns in Israel contain no Arab families, according to Yosef Jabareen,
a professor at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. Palestinian schools can lose government funding if they commemorate
the Nakba, the displacement of Palestinians in 1948. Israeli law forbids citizens to obtain citizenship or permanent residency
for Palestinian spouses from the West Bank and Gaza.
And that's why MD Rep. Donna Edwards and two white congressional colleagues locked arms and sang We Shall Overcome in apartheid Hebron:
Edwards and her colleagues looked up to see garbage-filled nets hanging above their heads, put up to catch trash thrown by Israeli
settlers. "We had never seen anything like that," she told me recently. "Hebron is the place where I think you can see in the
most frightening way what the injustice is, where you have people on one side of the street who live one way and people on another
side of the street living another way. And streets that some people can cross and walk on, but other people cannot. To me, it
looked like the stories that my mother and my grandmother told me about living in the South."
The great news at the end of the article. Edwards et al are taking over the party. Thrall cites Electronic Intifada's influence,
and Jewish Voice for Peace, and IfNotNow too.
Politicians speaking on Israel-Palestine used to worry primarily about attacks from pro-Israel media and activist groups; now
progressives are starting to feel some heat from the pro-Palestinian side.
But it's over. All the anti-Omar stuff of recent weeks is just the froth on the wave. Jim Zogby got slamdunked on the platform in
2016 by the Clintonites. But that wont' happen again.
James Zogby says that standing for Palestinian rights is guaranteed to be a major topic in the 2020 election: "It's a smell-test
issue. If you go to young people, they know you stink if you don't talk about it right." A senior Democratic staff member on Capitol
Hill told me: "People like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Bernie Sanders have opened the floodgates on this issue. It may be painful
for the party as we move in a more progressive direction. But we'll come out in a better place -- a more moral and evenhanded
place -- in the end."
This piece is going to resonate for weeks. It's going to come under fierce attack. Because it's huge, and it's calm and factual.
It doesn't say a word about Christian Zionists because they don't have influence in the Democratic Party. And Thrall did the shrewd
thing of avoiding the word "lobby." I guess it's been anathematized, but that's what this article is about. That and race. People
of color are driving this change. They are going to be punished. Betty McCollum doesn't get taken to the woodshed for calling it
apartheid, but one county west, Ilhan Omar is going to be primaried next year.
About Philip
Weiss
Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
" This piece is going to resonate for weeks. It's going to come under fierce attack. Because it's huge, and it's calm and factual.
It doesn't say a word about Christian Zionists because they don't have influence in the Democratic Party. "
Wrong. Read it again. He focuses mostly on the struggle within the Democratic Party so he doesn't say much about them, but
he does say that they are among the most pro-Israel groups, but are also mostly Republican voters.
I just read it again and I think your characterization of the piece as "mostly on the struggle within the Democratic
Party" is flat out wrong – it covers that but a lot else as well. It's a big sprawling piece that covers campus politics, the
human rights situation is Israel, the political temperature in the American Jewish community, the whole anti-semitism debate in
the U.S. and so on. I take the last paragraph as support for Phil's assertion that the piece will have an impact:
During his introduction of Sanders, King spoke of the Vermont senator's family members murdered in the Holocaust, and how
coming of age in these circumstances "gave Bernie a deep sense of right and wrong." King said: "He has always rejected the status
quo. He spoke out against apartheid in South Africa, when -- crazily -- that was an unpopular thing to do. And even today," King
added, "he speaks out against apartheid like conditions in Palestine, even though it's not popular." The crowd erupted in cheers.
"Israel Lobby and Pro-Israel House Democrats Tried to Excommunicate Ilhan Omar, They Failed"
By Richard Silverstein
EXCERPT:
... ... ...
"The 2018 Congressional election marked a watershed, sweeping a new progressive class into office. Most prominent among them
were Reps. Rashid Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, women who challenged the system, incumbents, and the Democratic
machine to win sweeping victories on truly progressive platforms. Their Middle East agenda was particularly forthright, and therefore
shocking: they opposed U.S. aid to Israel, supported BDS and a one state solution (AOC has not expressed herself as explicitly
on these issues, but presumably shares many of her colleagues' views).
"Anyone who knows the Israel Lobby knew that the other shoe was bound to drop. They just didn't know when. And it didn't take
long. Both Tlaib and especially Omar have been outspoken on Israel-Palestine since their elections. And their markedly pro-Palestine
views have rapidly become grist for the anti-Semitism mill churned by the Lobby and its water-carriers in Congress.
"First, of course there was the famous 'Benjamins' tweet in which Omar noted that members of Congress were obedient to the
Lobby because of the hundreds of millions it raises and distributes to loyal pro-Israel candidates. But somehow, noting that the
Lobby derived its power from money morphed into outright anti-Semitism. The way this happened was instructive: there is, of course,
an ancient anti-Semitic trope that Jews are rich and use their wealth to control the finance, banking, entertainment, and the
media sectors, etc. That of course, has nothing to do with the true statement that the Lobby raises and distributes massive lucre
to its favored candidates. A reasonable person can see the difference between these two concepts.
"But the Lobby plays a game of smoke and mirrors. It sees a clear statement attacking it and manages through a bit of hocus-pocus
to transform it into a classic anti-Semitic charge, when in actuality there is absolutely no connection.
"Now, the Lobby has done it again after Omar gave a talk at a Washington DC bookstore in which she criticized those in Congress
and the Lobby who had a foreign allegiance: 'I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is O.K.
for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.'
"By this, of course she meant that groups like Aipac and their Congressional sponsors who take their marching orders either
from Israel directly, or who conceive their agenda totally with Israel and its interests in mind. They may believe that the interests
of the U.S. and Israel are the same; and that therefore they are not betraying U.S. interests. But anyone who believes that the
interests of one of the greatest powers on earth is the same as that of a small Middle Eastern theocratic state is either terribly
naïve or worse.
"After Omar's statement, the Lobby went into Defcon mode. The attack was launched by Eliot Engel, a veteran of the New York
Democratic machine, who attacked the Somali-American Congresswoman:
"Pro-Israel Jews like Engel are particularly exercised by the implication of dual loyalty. That is, that pro-Israel Jews are
more loyal to Israel than America. An especially apt historical phrase connoting dual loyalty is the term 'Israel Firster.' It
was not invented by an anti-Semite or white supremacist. But rather by the dean of American Jewish historians, Abe Sachar, the
first president of Brandeis University.
And he used the term to deride precisely the figures Omar is now attacking: a powerful
Lobby and its apologists who put Israel before all else. This is a passage from the 1961 American Jewish Yearbook:
"American Jews continued to object to Israel's claim that a genuine Jewish life was possible only in Israel. Abram L. Sachar,
president of Brandeis University, at the biennial convention of JWB [Jewish Welfare Board], declared on April 2, 1960 that among
Jews there is no room 'for Israel Firsters whose chauvinism and arrogance find nothing relevant or viable in any area outside
of Israel.'"
"The NY Times headline about the speech said Sachar derided the 'dogma of Israel.' If American Jews can quarrel over the meaning
and primacy of Israel in Jewish life, why would we deny Arab American the same right, considering that their Palestinian sisters
and brothers are under the boot heel of Israeli Occupation?
"It would not be so bad if Israel was a democratic, secular nation like the U.S. and most western democracies. Then at least
there would be a confluence of interests and values. But Israel is no longer a democracy. Instead it has become a theocracy, run
by fundamentalist extremists bent on holy war with the Muslim world. Israel's interests are diverging from those of the democratic
west more than ever. And this fissure can only continue to widen as Israel sinks ever deeper into mass murder, Occupation and
oppression. Israel's interests and America's are no longer the same. Not even close. That little sliver of daylight which presidents
used to boast about not existing when it came to Israel and U.S. interests: it's now a wide-open expanse of sky.
"Apparently, Congress has not yet read the memo. It is sunk in old ways and habits. The smell of greenbacks remains too enticing
to resist. But the old ways are dying. The election victories I referenced above testify to that more strongly than a $100-million
Sheldon Adelson donation.
"That's why the anti-Semitism fire-drill convened by the Democratic Congressional leadership was initially so infuriating.
It decided to take Omar to the woodshed and whip her by passing a resolution denouncing anti-Semitism by its members. This represented
the Democratic Party eating its young. Nancy Pelosi, at the goading of Engel, Nita Lowey and other pro-Israel members, tabled
a pointless resolution. It would have forced members to swear allegiance on pain of getting a public spanking like Omar. The final
wording never ended up referring directly to Omar. But the message was clear: shut up on the subject or the Party caucus will
exact a toll."
"think your characterization of the piece as "mostly on the struggle within the Democratic Party" is flat out wrong – it covers
that but a lot else as well. "
That's true. It is one of the best pieces I have ever seen in this subject. I am not knocking the piece -- I am correcting
Phil. Thrall doesn't write much about why Republicans support Israel, where Christian Zionists are a major factor. Phil claimed
he didn't say anything about Christian Zionists when he actually did. Phil didn't notice that because to the extent the piece
was about political parties in the US, it focused on the Democrats where Christian Zionists are not very important. Also, Phil
likes to downplay the role of Christian Zionists, while others who feel uncomfortable talking about Jewish donors ( fearing the antisemitism charge) like to emphasize them. The truth is that they are both important in why the US supports Israel.
Liberal Christian guilt about anti-Semitism also plays a role.
If Thrall were writing about the political right he would have to say a lot about how many on the Christian Right see Israel
as a central element in their belief on how the world was going to end. He would be writing about Hal Lindsay's books and later
the "Left Behind" series and how on the secular level American rightwingers sometimes see Israel as a bastion of "Western civilization"
surrounded by the heathens. Of course some of that last part overlaps with what Israel supporters in the Democratic Party think.
That included both Jews and Muslims who were tortured on the rack, also known as the auto-da-fe
I realize this is a bit of a nitpick, but the auto-da-fé was the final public confession prior to execution – it had
nothing whatsoever to do with any specific instrument of torture.
The fact that nobody in the entire editorial process noticed this obvious screwup, speaks volumes about the lack of
standards (and the lack of knowledge of European history) in the modern print media.
Given that the author was using the Inquisition as a rhetorical device, it would have been nice if he didn't come away from
the attempt looking like an ignoramus.
The truth is the GOP's courting of the donor class comes from the same motivation – the counting of the donor Benjamins. The difference
is they can better hide their support (of Zionism) under banners of defense, business, and righteousness.
My one beef with Mondoweiss
is that you regularly downplay the role of American Evangelical Christianity in the oppression of the Palestinians.
I think it's at the very top of the list, for Jewish Zionists simply don't have the numbers to win what is essentially
a public relations war for control of the Middle East. Right-wing Christianity – especially those who espouse Dominionist beliefs
– will tolerate ANY form of behavior that fits their views of Biblical prophecy. Absent these believers, who honestly don't give
a crap about Israel's behavior, the hue and cry of anti-semitism is the only weapon the Zionists have.
Trump plays to this crowd with his actions in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Finally, this "donor class" could hardly match
the daily U.S. gift of $10 million, so the pitch they make is to American taxpayers, although nobody ever talks about that.
TERRYHEATON- ". I think it's at the very top of the list, for Jewish Zionists simply don't have the numbers to win what
is essentially a public relations war for control of the Middle East."
Well, you would say that wouldn't you? Miss the 700 club do you? The reality is that Evangelical Christian support for Israel
and Zionism didn't really take off until the late 1970s as a consequence of Israeli PM Menachem Begin's recruitment of their support.
This was well after Israel and Zionism had firmly established itself following the 1967 six day war. Zionism and Israel is an
overwhelmingly Jewish project, Christian Zionists little more than opportunistic camp followers. The Christian Zionist leadership
has taken advantage of the opportunity to jump on the bandwagon of Jewish Zionist power. While these Christian Zionists may be
numerous, they lack the access to the corridors of power comparable to the Jewish Zionists, although their alliance with Jewish
Zionism has improved their status.
Phil is correct to downplay the power of the Christian Zionists. They have negligible effect upon the policies of either Israel
or the American Jewish Zionists, pats on the head notwithstanding. Their power lies more in supporting the rightward drift in
American politics.
Keith, thanks for the input. If you've read my book, then you already know my feelings about The 700 Club and Pat Robertson.
Sadly, Christian Zionists are not at all merely clinging to right-wing beliefs. They started many of them. In fact, that's what
we did at The 700 Club. Rather, they're waiting and hoping for the return of Jesus Christ, who will then, the thinking goes, elevate
them and bring peace for 1,000 years. So their support of Israel is from their interpretation of scripture, and that's a powerful
force that permits them to look the other way whenever Israel's behavior is questioned. They don't care, because they have their
eyes on what they view as a bigger prize. Pro-Israel forces in the U.S. would never get their way without the blind support of
this massive group of citizens.
'Senator Charles Schumer, the Democratic minority leader, similarly told the Aipac conference in 2018: "Of course, we say it's
our land, the Torah says it, but they don't believe in the Torah. So that's the reason there is not peace."' Damn, and I thought that the reason there was no peace was because of the oppressive, prison-like conditions of the Palestinian
people under Occupation.
Thanks, Chuck, for the enlightenment! Boy, do I feel dumb now!!
@ genesto: 'Senator Charles Schumer, the Democratic minority leader, similarly told the Aipac conference in 2018: "Of course,
we say it's our land, the Torah says it, but they don't believe in the Torah. So that's the reason there is not peace."' ||
So according to Mr. Schumer's "logic" any lack of peace with Muslims isn't the fault of Muslims – it's the fault of non-Muslims
(including Jews) who do not believe in the Qur'an.
Very good! Unfortunately,
logic was never a strong point among the Zionists.
Schumer, the self-proclaimed shomer (guardian) of the state of Israel in the Congress (Did someone say dual loyalty???), somehow
manages to be both humorous and frightening at the same time. Nice trick, if you can do it.
Of course it is "all about the Benjamins". Contending to the contrary is simply silly. One might well add that BDS can be viewed
as a good thing for Israel, and in that country's true best interests.
There's little point analysing this nonsense in terms of what is or isn't silly. After all, the entire shebang is predicated
on an idea that is breathtaking in its silliness: in a nutshell it's this –
A collection of primitive Bronze Age fictional gibberish can confer land titles over bits of the Middle East, to its adherents
– even to adherents with absolutely no ancestral connection to the land.
It's absolutely no coincidence that Herzl and his mob could not get any rabbi west of Lviv to endorse their nonsense: the rabbis
of all genuine centres of scholarship repudiated the Zionist project as an abomination.
So Herzl etc just kept going further East until they found someone theologically illiterate enough to give a rabbinical imprimatur,
and hence a veneer of intellectual respectability, to their project.
It's an indictment on the Polish rabbinate that they signed off on such an obvious apostasy it would have been nice if Herzl
etc had really had to go full retard and end up relying on a Chinaman (a Kaifeng) – but if that's what it would have taken at
the time, they would have done so.
(I'm an atheist, so I reject the idea that a project is validated if some religio-dipshit whackball waves some magic words
at it but Herzl's project wanted a religious imprimatur).
So Trump took Adelson money and completely lost his independence, became Bolton marionette. He betrayed all major point of
his election campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... The fact is, the neo conservative "Never Trumpers" began moving in on Trump almost as soon as he won the election in order to ensure that their policy perspective prevailed. Greased by Adelson's money, it appears that they have succeeded to a considerable degree, particularly on Iran, but also on other aspects of national security policy as well, including, it appears, on Venezuela. And if US relations with Russia don't improve now that Russia-gate is dead, it'll be because of this crowd as well. ..."
"... Adelson's only concern, by his own quoted words, is protecting Israel and, according to the reports below, has even advocated the nuclear bombing of Iran if it doesn't give up a nuclear weapons program that every reasonable intelligence assessment and the IAEA say it doesn't have. Adelson is also credited with facilitating the firing of both H.R. McMaster and Rex Tillerson and replacing them with Bolton and Mike Pompeo, another one of Adelson's boys. ..."
"... Goldberg, who came out of the neo-con Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, is clearly part of Adelson's orbit. ..."
"... it turns out that Politico published a big piece , last Friday, basically attributing Trump's decertification decision to Haley, who is portrayed as a neo-con channel into the White House. ..."
"... According to Politico's sources, the line in Trump's speech where he said that the US could pull out of the JCPOA "at any time" was added after Bolton reached Trump on the phone on Thursday afternoon. Bolton was calling from Las Vegas where he "was visiting with Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson." Adelson's possible role in this is not further explored in the Politico article but probably bears further investigation. ..."
"... After Trump's speech, Bolton gloated: "The Iran deal may not have died today, but it will die shortly." He supports full US withdrawal from the agreement, and has reportedly transmitted his view to the White House through Jared Kushner. ..."
"... The even more lunatic John Bolton is thrilled about Trump's policy, but complains, in an op-ed in The Hill, that so far at least, it doesn't go far enough. After blaming Obama for giving the Middle East to Iran and Russia, Bolton demands that Trump recognize Kurdish independence and give the peshmerga the weapons and support they need to face the American-made tanks of the Iraqi army. ..."
"... He identifies Jared Kushner as the main conduit for the Likudist outlook into the White House. Kushner is a friend and supporter of Netanyahu and his parents have been backers of Israeli settlements. ..."
"... Adelson is a long time friend of Netanyahu, has used his assets in Israel to give Netanyahu political support and gave the Trump campaign $100 million. ..."
"... It was Bolton, Porter reports, "who worked with Israeli officials to plan a campaign to convince the world that Iran was secretly working on nuclear weapons." But the real purpose, which continues, was not so much to scare the world about an Iranian bomb, but rather, to use it as an issue to be exploited to weaken the Islamic regime and ultimately achieve regime change. Porter concludes by saying that Trump is cooperating with this objective even more enthusiastically than GW Bush did. ..."
"... Neo-cons in the Congress and elsewhere in Washington are enthusiastically following Bolton's lead. "The Iranian people want freedom and an end to the ayatollahs' reign of terror," said Senator Ted Cruz. ..."
"... Bolton's protégé, Nikki Haley, is calling for an emergency UNSC session to discuss the crisis in Iran. "The Iranian dictatorship is trying to do what it always does, which is to say that the protests were designed by enemies. We all know that is complete nonsense," Haley said (is it, realy?), yesterday. "The U.N. must speak out," Haley added. "We must not be silent. The people of Iran are crying out for freedom." ..."
"... It also likely means that Sheldon Adelson has a direct line to the White House and Nikki Haley's position at the UN has been strengthened, since she and Bolton have been reported to have a close relationship. ..."
"... Jim Lobe and Eli Clifton, writing in Lobelog, yesterday, argue that Sheldon Adelson was responsible for Trump's turnaround from populist anti-war candidate to pro-Israel hawk. In 2016, they write, Trump was mocking those, like Marco Rubio, who were seeking Adelson's support, meaning they were seeking his money. By the time of his inauguration, however, Trump had adopted Adelson's militant pro-Israel stance, including Adelson's demands to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and pursue a confrontationist approach to Iran, and Adelson occupied a prominent seat at the inauguration ceremony. ..."
"... "Trump met Adelson in Las Vegas in early October 2017. One week later, Trump announced that he would no longer certify that Iran was complying with the Iran nuclear deal, even though the U.S. intelligence community and all of Washington's European allies, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), had found no evidence that Tehran was cheating," Lobe and Clifton write. ..."
"... Adelson's big protégé, as I've reported previously, is John Bolton. According to Lobe and Clifton, it was Adelson who made the arrangements to get Bolton back into the White House, overcoming efforts by White House chief of staff John Kelly keep to keep him out. Adelson also reportedly orchestrating the firing of McMaster and of Tilleson and their replacements by Bolton and Pompeo. ..."
"... According to Shaul Mofaz, former Israeli defense minister, Bolton "tried to convince me that Israel needs to attack Iran," which Mofaz recently asserted was not "a smart move – not on the part of the Americans today or anyone else until the threat is real." ..."
"... "To those who claim that the nuclear deal isn't working, regime change remains the only solution," wrote Rezaian. "For the MEK, and Bolton, if his words are to be taken at face value, the only path to that could be war. The group has long been prepared to do whatever it takes to see that happen, including presenting fake intelligence about Iran's nuclear program." ..."
"... On the JCPOA Bolton denied that the US had violated the agreement. Instead, the US is withdrawing from it. But he wouldn't acknowledged that Iran is in compliance, as the IAEA has reported numerous times. ..."
"... Sheldon Adelson has only one issue, Israel, and he has paid the Republican Party handsomely to make sure his views are the views of the party. According to Mintpress News' Whitney Webb, Adelson has lavished some $90 million on the part since 2016, including $35 million to the Trump campaign, and another $55 million to two Republican SuperPACS, Congressional Leadership Fund and the Senate Leadership Fund. ..."
"... Bolton has marginalized Mattis in national security policy making, so Mattis is turning his energies towards preventing a US attack on Iran. At the core of Mattis' concerns is, number one, it's a lot easier to start a war with Iran than to end it, and secondly, the US military services are all in poor shape after decades of wars and other never-ending contingency operations. Mattis, like many of his colleagues in the senior military leadership, have a long standing animus towards Iran, but at the same time, they don't see any good way through a war against Iran. Bolton and his co-thinkers, on the other hand, see a war to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and to change the regime in Tehran as almost a moral obligation. ..."
"... Ha'aretz's sources say, however, that Bolton is behind the scenes advancing the option of collapsing the Iranian regime. According to those sources, Bolton views the demonstrations that have broken out in Iran in recent months over the state of the country's economy as an indication of the regime's weakness. He has told Trump that increased U.S. pressure could lead to the regime's collapse. One person who recently spoke with senior White House officials on the subject summarized Bolton view in the words: "One little kick and they're done." ..."
"... If the US is really seeking to employ such groups to try to destablilize Iran along ethnic lines, this would be nothing new. Gareth Porter, in an article that appeared in Middle East Eye on May 18, reports that John Bolton, when he was in the GW Bush Administration pushed aggressively for regime change but that Bush himself wasn't interested ..."
"... Daniel Larison, writing in The American Conservative, characterized Goldberg this way: "Goldberg has been a leading opponent of the nuclear deal and a fanatical advocate for enforcing new sanctions on Iran and anyone that does business with them. Bringing Goldberg into the administration is a sign that the Iran obsession is getting worse, and by making him the 'Director for Countering Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction.'" One might say we've seen this playbook before, in Iraq in 2002-2003. ..."
"... This is one dangerous pack of rats. It's frightening how easily prone to manipulation Trump has proven. One would think he'd be more resistant to this sort of thing. ..."
A review of publicly available reporting that I have accumulated in my files over the past two years would suggest that John Bolton's
boss is really Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino king who has plied the Republican Party with tens of millions of dollars in
largesse in order to remake it in his image. This conclusion is irrespective of what you might think of Trump himself and whether
or not you believe he really meant it when he said there should be no more regime change wars. The fact is, the neo conservative
"Never Trumpers" began moving in on Trump almost as soon as he won the election in order to ensure that their policy perspective
prevailed. Greased by Adelson's money, it appears that they have succeeded to a considerable degree, particularly on Iran, but also
on other aspects of national security policy as well, including, it appears, on Venezuela. And if US relations with Russia don't
improve now that Russia-gate is dead, it'll be because of this crowd as well.
Bolton's history goes back to the Reagan Administration in the 1980's, and his perfidy during the runup to the Iraq invasion is
well known to this readership. What I focus on here is the period from January of 2017 through mid-2018, around the time of his appointment
to be Trump's national security advisor, plus a couple of months, during which period a number of interesting reports were posted
on Trump's lobbying of the White House to get an administration position and his sponsorship by Adelson. Adelson's only concern,
by his own quoted words, is protecting Israel and, according to the reports below, has even advocated the nuclear bombing of Iran
if it doesn't give up a nuclear weapons program that every reasonable intelligence assessment and the IAEA say it doesn't have. Adelson
is also credited with facilitating the firing of both H.R. McMaster and Rex Tillerson and replacing them with Bolton and Mike Pompeo,
another one of Adelson's boys.
What follows is a time line of summaries of news stories covering the period above in the form that I wrote them at the time with
the dates over each one of them. It's not meant to be comprehensive–there's undoubtedly a great deal of insight still to be gained
on how deeply these neo-con networks have actually penetrated the administration–and the news reports the summaries are based on
likely vary in their quality. I hope anyone with such deeper insights will post them in the comments section.
Appended at the end of the time line is a short report on Richard Goldberg, the Z-lobby activist who Bolton brought onto the NSC
in January to be his "Director for Countering Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction." Goldberg, who came out of the neo-con Foundation
for the Defense of Democracies, is clearly part of Adelson's orbit.
1) John Bolton: A Timeline for 2017-2018
Feb. 19, 2017
AP circulated a
wire , yesterday, reporting that Trump was interviewing candidates for the National Security Advisor position at his estate
in Florida. The names mention were Cheneyac John Bolton (who, if I remember correctly, was already rejected by the Trump administration
for a State Department job) and LTG H.R. McMaster, according to one unnamed White House official. Another had said that Trump
had been interested in David Petraeus but that Petraeus was not a finalist for the position. Picking Bolton would be shear lunacy,
but McMaster is highly interesting. McMaster wrote a famous book about the Vietnam war in which he documented that practically
everybody in the military leadership, and especially Maxwell Taylor lied about Vietnam and, like Mattis, he has a history of being
a harsh critic of the RMA. I'll have more to say about him if he gets the job.
May 10, 2017
Bloomberg's Eli Lake, in a
column posted on Monday, described what amounts to a factional war inside the White House, with Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus
on one side and H.R. McMaster on the other. Trump himself is said to have blasted McMaster for his phone conversation with his
South Korean counterpart during which he assured him that Trump didn't really mean it when he said that South Korea should pay
for the THAAD deployment. "McMaster's allies and adversaries inside the White House tell me that Trump is disillusioned with him,"
Lake writes. "This professional military officer has failed to read the president -- by not giving him a chance to ask questions
during briefings, at times even lecturing Trump."
According to Lake's sources (and I'm wondering if they might, in fact, be Bannon and Priebus, or people close to them), Trump
has complained in front of McMaster in intelligence briefings about "the general undermining my policy." They say Trump has privately
expressed regret for choosing McMaster and even called in neo-con John Bolton to talk being McMaster's deputy, an idea which was
ultimately dropped.
Oct. 17, 2017
Nikki Haley told NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday that it's the administration's hope that America stays with the Iran nuclear
deal if Congress takes action to keep it together. "I think right now you are going to see us stay in the deal," she said. "What
we hope is that we can improve the situation," she added. "And that's the goal. So I think right now, we're in the deal to see
how we can make it better. And that's the goal. It's not that we're getting out of the deal. We're just trying to make the situation
better so that the American people feel safer." The NBC
press report doesn't report whether or not she explained how the JCPOA is going to be made better when all of the other parties
agree that it's not up for renegotiation. They note, however, that Haley was one of the few voices in the Trump administration
to encourage the president to declare Iran in violation. It's well known that both Tillerson and Mattis opposed decertification,
with Mattis telling the Senate Armed Services Committee, two weeks ago, that it was in the US interest to stay in the agreement.
I didn't come across this until yesterday afternoon, but it turns out that Politico published a
big piece , last
Friday, basically attributing Trump's decertification decision to Haley, who is portrayed as a neo-con channel into the White
House. At the other end of the channel is John Bolton, who even is able to get Trump on the phone himself from time to time, despite
John Kelly's efforts to obstruct him.
According to Politico's sources, the line in Trump's speech where he said that the US could
pull out of the JCPOA "at any time" was added after Bolton reached Trump on the phone on Thursday afternoon. Bolton was calling
from Las Vegas where he "was visiting with Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson." Adelson's possible role in this is not further
explored in the Politico article but probably bears further investigation.
The article otherwise goes into great depth on how Haley is at odds with most of the rest of the administration on Iran, particularly
Tillerson, her nominal boss and who is reported to have strenuously objected to her trip to Vienna in August to put pressure on
the IAEA to demand inspection of military sites in Iran. One White House official described the escalating tensions between Tillerson
and Haley as reaching "World War III" proportions. Two weeks after the Vienna trip, Haley appeared at the AEI in Washington where
she publicly floated what became the parameters of the policy that Trump announced on Friday. "The purpose of the AEI speech was
to figure out, 'Is this gonna work? Does this thread that needle?'" one official said. After Trump's speech, Bolton gloated: "The
Iran deal may not have died today, but it will die shortly." He supports full US withdrawal from the agreement, and has reportedly
transmitted his view to the White House through Jared Kushner.
Asked about the Politico report on Sunday, Haley said "That is just so much drama. I mean, it's really, it's all this palace
intrigue."
Anti-neocon activist and former US Air Force analyst Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski
told Sputnik that
she believes that Trump was mislead by fake intelligence. "I suspect that Mr. Trump is being fed information regarding Iran as
a nation and as a government that is cherry-picked and creatively elaborated, largely outside of intelligence channels, by his
neoconservative advisers," she said. She noted despite Trump's 2016 promise to "drain the swamp" of discredited foreign policy
interventionists, many of them have managed to weasel their way back into government service. "This faction has always slated
the destruction of Iran as a regional power for several decades now, and if they have the ear of the President, there is never
a better time than the present to press their case," she said. She insisted, however, that neither Trump himself, nor the U.S.
military is determined on war against Iran.
Oct. 24, 2017
According to VOA (at any rate), there's a big fight in Washington over the future of U.S. adherence to the JCPOA. Lunatic Lindsey
Graham fully supports the policy that Trump announced on Oct 13 (no surprise there), while the French armed forces minister, Florence
Parly, who was in Washington, last week, supports the agreement. "We need the JCPOA," she
said during an appearance at
CSIS on Friday. "Scrapping it would be a gift to Iran's hardliners and a first step towards future wars." Tim Kaine, who has leading
an effort in the Senate to write a new war authorization, echoed her. "If you weaken diplomacy, you raise the risk of unnecessary
war, and that's what this president is doing. If we take a step back from the deal, Iran will take a step back. And what will
they ask for, that they get to now increase centrifuges or get some of their enriched uranium back? I do not want to give Iran
one thing back from this deal," said Kaine.
But, if you believe Graham, Iran will be let loose from the deal in 15 years (some people say 10 or even 8 years) to enrich
as much uranium as it wants. This ignores the fact that Iran will still be a member of the NPT and will be subject to its additional
protocol. Top Iranian officials have said that if the US sabotages the JCPOA, Iran will make appropriate decisions in response,
but they won't be building bombs.
The even more lunatic John Bolton is thrilled about Trump's policy, but complains, in an
op-ed in The Hill, that so far at least, it doesn't go far enough. After blaming Obama for giving the Middle East to Iran
and Russia, Bolton demands that Trump recognize Kurdish independence and give the peshmerga the weapons and support they need
to face the American-made tanks of the Iraqi army.
"Rapidly increased pressure against Iran's role as the world's central banker
of international terrorism, stressed in Trump's Oct. 13 speech, cannot come fast enough," he goes on. And, of course, European
commercial relations with Iran are not to be tolerated. Othewise, "Tehran will rightly conclude the United States is really not
serious about confronting their threat to us and our allies. That is the legacy of the Obama administration. It should not also
be the legacy of the Trump administration." Nobody wants to rush the country headlong into disastrous faster then the neo-cons.
Oct. 26, 2017
Gareth Porter, in an
article that was posted on Oct. 20 (but that I didn't come across until yesterday) on the American Conservative, reports that
the new policy that Trump announced on Oct. 13 not only "clearly represents a dangerous rejection of diplomacy in favor of confrontation"
but also marks "a major shift toward a much closer alignment of U.S. policy with that of the Israeli government of Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu." "Whether explicitly or not, Trump's vow to work with Congress to renegotiate the Iran nuclear agreement,
and his explicit threat to withdraw from the deal if no renegotiation takes place, appear to be satisfying the hardline demands
Netanyahu has made of Washington's policy toward Tehran," Porter writes. Those demands being either US withdrawal from the JCPOA
altogether, or demanding changes in it that cannot be attained.
Porter goes deeper into the conduits for this policy into the White House than a Politico article I reported on earlier that
came out at about the same time. He identifies Jared Kushner as the main conduit for the Likudist outlook into the White House.
Kushner is a friend and supporter of Netanyahu and his parents have been backers of Israeli settlements.
He also delves deeper into the significance of Sheldon Adelson than the Politico report did, noting that Adelson is a long
time friend of Netanyahu, has used his assets in Israel to give Netanyahu political support and gave the Trump campaign $100 million.
"Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in Washington -- especially with regard to Iran," Porter notes,
adding that in 2013, Adelson openly called for the nuclear intimidation of Iran. In the next few paragraphs, Porter provides a
thumbnail sketch of the history of the neo-cons in order to highlight the role of John Bolton in all of this. It was Bolton,
Porter reports, "who worked with Israeli officials to plan a campaign to convince the world that Iran was secretly working on
nuclear weapons." But the real purpose, which continues, was not so much to scare the world about an Iranian bomb, but rather,
to use it as an issue to be exploited to weaken the Islamic regime and ultimately achieve regime change. Porter concludes by saying
that Trump is cooperating with this objective even more enthusiastically than GW Bush did.
Jan. 3, 2018
The protests in Iran may have started spontaneously in anger at economic conditions, and/or at the instigation of Rouhani's
rival Raisi and his father -in-law in Mashad, but the evidence that they're being, at the very least, encouraged from the outside
is growing. Unnamed Trump Administration officials
told
the Washington Free Beacon that both Trump and Pence are watching the protests very closely and the officials said they are working
to ensure that Trump does not miss an opportunity to incubate a possible revolution that could topple Iran's hardline ruling regime.
"With the world watching growing demonstrations across Iran, the Trump administration sees an opportunity to feed the growing
protests," the Free Beacon reports, something that they and the neo-cons say that Obama failed to do in 2009, when protests erupted
against Ahmedinijad's re-election. "The Trump administration's strong and vocal support for the demonstrators is a 180 from the
Obama administration's approach and it's signaling to Tehran that this will not be a repeat of the 2009 demonstrations," the administration
official said.
The regime change cheerleader from outside the administration is, not surprisingly, John Bolton. During an appearance on "Fox
and Friends" on Monday, Bolton
argued
that these protests are different than the post-election protests in Iran in 2009, which questioned the legitimacy of the election
of then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and who should lead the regime. "These protests are about whether the regime survives
or not, and that makes them much more threatening to the ayatollahs, much more dangerous, and raises the stakes considerably,"
Bolton said. He called on Trump to end the nuclear deal, re-impose previous sanctions and impose new ones that increase the economic
pressure on Iran and provide material support to opposition forces. "There's a lot we can do to, and we should do it," Bolton
said. "Our goal should be regime change in Iran."
Neo-cons in the Congress and elsewhere in Washington are enthusiastically following Bolton's lead. "The Iranian people want
freedom and an end to the ayatollahs' reign of terror,"
said Senator Ted Cruz.
"Iranians are looking toward America to support their struggle," Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of
the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote in The Wall Street Journal, urging the White House to continue condemning the
regime, and follow up with "sanctions targeting corruption and human-rights abuses."
Bolton's protégé, Nikki Haley, is calling for an emergency UNSC session to discuss the crisis in Iran. "The Iranian dictatorship
is trying to do what it always does, which is to say that the protests were designed by enemies. We all know that is complete
nonsense," Haley
said (is it,
realy?), yesterday. "The U.N. must speak out," Haley added. "We must not be silent. The people of Iran are crying out for freedom."
March 10, 2018
John Bolton has been snooping around the White House. CNN
reported on Wednesday,
that Trump met with him at the White House, suggesting that he may be under consideration as an "outside expert" to help the State
Department manage the North Korea portfolio. CNN says that Bolton argues that a pre-emptive strike on North Korea would not only
be legal but also effective at curbing the threat.
On Tuesday, Bolton
told Fox News that "The only thing North Korea is serious about is getting deliverable nuclear weapons." Bolton said direct
and indirect talks with North Korea have occurred for the last 25 years and never end up successful. He said if a new round of
talks begins, North Korea will possess a deliverable nuclear weapon by the end of the year. So, Bolton obviously believes that
the past determines the future.
The Washington Post, in the above cited article, reports that Christopher Hill, who was on Capitol Hill this week to talk about
North Korea, said that he face "withing attacks" from conservative Republicans when he was engaged in the six-party talks in 2005.
"People like John Bolton said I was a traitor for talking to the North Koreans," Hill said in an interview. The Post then reports
that Bolton offered conditioned praise for Trump, saying Friday that he expected the president to deliver a warning about U.S.
willingness to use military force.
Daniel Davis, in an
op-ed in Fox News, argues that Trump goes ahead with announced plans to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, he would
open the door to potentially solving our nuclear dispute with the Communist nation short of war. This is a far better course that
listening to the calls from some to give up on diplomacy and use military force against the North. The "some" include Bolton who
has been making the case for a preventive military strike against North Korea. "If such a U.S. strike were ordered, it would have
catastrophic consequences for us. Far from ensuring our safety, it would impose egregious levels of casualties on U.S. forces
and American civilians [not to mention Koreans who would make up the bulk of casualties -cjo], and harm – not help – our security
and our prosperity," Davis writes.
March 23, 2018
You've all seen the headlines by now. I'm not going to say a lot about it. The punditry is that it means more aggressive US
policies towards both Iran and North Korea. It also likely means that Sheldon Adelson has a
direct line to
the White House and Nikki Haley's position at the UN has been strengthened, since she and Bolton have been reported to have a
close relationship. The
suggestion in the press coverage is that Bolton is more likely to tell Trump what he wants to hear, particularly on Iran,
but we probably shouldn't automatically assume that Trump wants to go to war as badly as Bolton does.
March 25, 2018
Jim Lobe and Eli Clifton,
writing in Lobelog, yesterday,
argue that Sheldon Adelson was responsible for Trump's turnaround from populist anti-war candidate to pro-Israel hawk. In 2016,
they write, Trump was mocking those, like Marco Rubio, who were seeking Adelson's support, meaning they were seeking his money.
By the time of his inauguration, however, Trump had adopted Adelson's militant pro-Israel stance, including Adelson's demands
to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and pursue a confrontationist approach to Iran, and Adelson occupied a prominent
seat at the inauguration ceremony.
"Trump met Adelson in Las Vegas in early October 2017. One week later, Trump announced that he would no longer certify that
Iran was complying with the Iran nuclear deal, even though the U.S. intelligence community and all of Washington's European allies,
as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), had found no evidence that Tehran was cheating," Lobe and Clifton write.
"One month later, Adelson used his own newspaper, The Las Vegas Review Journal, to express his frustration with Trump's failure
to quickly redeem his promise to move the embassy. Two months after that, Trump reversed a half century of U.S. policy by formally
recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. According to Michael Wolff's book Fire and Fury, Steve Bannon credited Adelson for
Trump's decision."
Adelson's big protégé, as I've reported previously, is John Bolton. According to Lobe and Clifton, it was Adelson who made
the arrangements to get Bolton back into the White House, overcoming efforts by White House chief of staff John Kelly keep to
keep him out. Adelson also reportedly orchestrating the firing of McMaster and of Tilleson and their replacements by Bolton and
Pompeo. Ands Bolton, like Adelson, has long favored a "military solution" to the Iran nuclear problem. In 2013, Adelson posted
an op-ed in his newspaper, the Las Vegas Review Journal, calling for the nuclear bombing of Iran, first in some uninhabited area
of the country to send Iran's leaders "a message" and if that didn't work, a second bombing of Tehran itself (this of course,
would be a war crime in the first degree). Bolton, himself, in an op-ed two years later, held up the Israeli bombing of Iraq's
Osirak reactor as the model for what the US should (as was later documented by a Norwegian researcher who's name I don't recall,
the bombing of Osirak did not end Saddam's Hussein's nuclear bomb program. Rather, it forced it underground and out of sight,
as UN weapons inspectors discovered in the 1990's after Gulf War I).
March 31, 2018
Journalist Whitney Webb,
writing Mintpress News, finds Bolton's appointment as Trump's national security advisor, to be particularly dangerous. Webb
puts Bolton's appointment in the context of those of Pompeo to be secretary of state and Gina Haspell to run the CIA, but finds
Bolton the most dangerous of the three, "due to his bellicose rhetoric, unilateral decision-making, and his "kiss up, kick down"
style of interaction with superiors and colleagues, allowing him to be remarkably effective in getting his way."
Webb's purpose is to explore what Bolton's appointment means for US national security policy and he begins with Bolton's deep
ties to Israel–ties "so deep that some have posited that his commitment to extreme Zionism has led him to betray the national
interest of his own country on more than one occasion." Webb cites a number of examples of this, which add up to Bolton pursuing
his own warmongering policy against Iran even when the administration he was nominally working for had the opposite policy. Bolton
has pressured Israeli officials to attack Iran even when calling for such an attack was not the U.S. government's position.
According to Shaul Mofaz, former Israeli defense minister, Bolton "tried to convince me that Israel needs to attack Iran," which
Mofaz recently asserted was not "a smart move – not on the part of the Americans today or anyone else until the threat is real."
May 8, 2018
Trump tweeted yesterday that he would be announcing his decision on Iran today at 2 PM. The Washington Post, citing the usual
gaggle of unnamed officials, US and foreign,
reports that he is expected to say that he will not continue a waiver of sanctions against Iran. Exactly what this means is
not at all clear. Trump is not expected to renege on the nuclear deal altogether. Instead, the Post says, he will address a portion
of the wide range of sanctions that were waived when the deal was first implemented, while leaving in limbo other waivers that
are due in July. As for what comes next, Boris Johnson said that as far as he knows, the administration has no clear "Plan B"
for what's to follow. The affected sanctions, the Post notes, not only impose restrictions on US trade with Iran but also threaten
pther countries that buy Iranian oil. Officials, who spoke to the Post about the upcoming announcement on the condition of anonymity,
suggested that Trump will use the threat of further measures as leverage on both the Europeans and Iran itself.
As has been too often the case, we may be seeing Trump and his advisors expressing two different policies on Iran. Rudy Giuliani,
Trump's newest lawyer, delivered remarks to meeting of something called the Iran Freedom Convention for Democracy and Human Rights,
during which he advocated regime change in Tehran. "We have a president who is tough," Giuliani is reported to have said. "We
have a president who is as committed to regime change as we are." Confronting Iran, he added, is "more important than an Israeli-Palestinian
deal." He also
predicted
the end of the nuclear deal. "What do you think is going to happen to that agreement!" Giuliani said of the deal, before taking
a piece of paper in his hands and pretending to rip it apart.
The State Department immediately dismissed Giuliani's remarks. "He speaks for himself and not on behalf of the administration
on foreign policy," State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert told The Associated Press on Monday. The Hill further
noted that U.S. officials were alarmed by Giuliani's comments and said they weren't consistent with the White House's policy.
This is confirmed by another
report in the Washington Post. "But if regime change is on the agenda, Trump has been far more circumspect about how it would
happen," writes the Post's Ishaan Tharoor. "Dethroning the mullahs would likely involve waging war against Iran, a prospect at
odds with his own stated desire to withdraw from Syria and disentangle the United States from a generation of costly conflicts
in the Middle East." Tharoor goes on to tie the regime change crowd, including Giuliani and Bolton directly to the MeK. The MeK,
Tharoor writes, was behind the event at which Giuliani spoke this weekend, "marking yet another episode in his long, cozy relationship
with the organization." Tharoor cites Politico reporting that the MeK has paid Giuliani "handsomely," to include not only appearances
before the group but also for lobbying to have it removed from the State Department's terror list, which was done in 2012.
Tharoor also cites Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post reporter who was detained in Iran for a year-and-a-half, reporting that
the MeK is held with contempt by ordinary Iranians, who view the organization as a craven, treacherous outfit. "In the seven years
I lived in Iran, many people expressed criticism of the ruling establishment -- at great potential risk to themselves," noted
Rezaian. "In all that time, though, I never met a person who thought the MEK should, or could, present a viable alternative."
"To those who claim that the nuclear deal isn't working, regime change remains the only solution," wrote Rezaian. "For
the MEK, and Bolton, if his words are to be taken at face value, the only path to that could be war. The group has long been prepared
to do whatever it takes to see that happen, including presenting fake intelligence about Iran's nuclear program."
May 9, 2018
Before I get into the reactions following Trump's
speech of yesterday, I'll cover a few other details from what Trump announced.
The
memorandum that he signed after concluding his remarks states that the policy of the U.S. is "that Iran be denied a nuclear
weapon and intercontinental ballistic missiles; that Iran's network and campaign of regional aggression be neutralized; to disrupt,
degrade, or deny the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and its surrogates access to the resources that sustain their destabilizing
activities; and to counter Iran's aggressive development of missiles and other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities."
In addition to directing the Secretaries of State and Treasury to begin the process of reimposing the economic sanctions that
were waived as a result of the nuclear deal, it also directs the Secretary of Defense to "prepare to meet, swiftly and decisively,
all possible modes of Iranian aggression against the United States, our allies, and our partners. The Department of Defense shall
ensure that the United States develops and retains the means to stop Iran from developing or acquiring a nuclear weapon and related
delivery systems."
Trump's speech was shortly followed by a
press briefing by John Bolton. One of the matters that came up repeatedly was the question of regime change. The first question
was whether or not the administration was hoping that regime change would be part of addressing Iran's supposed malign activities.
"No," Bolton said. What Trump has said, he went on, "is that one of the fundamental criticisms that the President and others have
made to the deal is that it sought to address only a limited aspect of Iran's unacceptable behavior -- certainly a critical aspect
-- but not taking into account the fact this is, and has been for many years, the central banker of international terrorism."
Secondly, he was asked if this was a precursor for the U.S. putting boots on the ground in Iran. Anybody who believes that
"would be badly mistaken if that's what they thought," Bolton said.
Thirdly, a reporter asked Bolton if the administration was in contact with the MeK or other exile groups about a government
in exile. 'I'm not aware of any of that, and that's just not something that's ever come up," he said.
Bolton was then asked if the administration would support a regime change in Syria as well. "I think the President made clear
in his address a couple weeks ago when he announced the response to the Syrian chemical weapons attack, that the use of military
force there and our diplomatic responses was limited to the question of the use of weapons of mass destruction," he siad. He then
added that the real concern was Iran extending its influence through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon."
On the JCPOA Bolton denied that the US had violated the agreement. Instead, the US is withdrawing from it. But he wouldn't
acknowledged that Iran is in compliance, as the IAEA has reported numerous times. "I think there are plenty of cases where
we're simply incapable of saying whether they're in compliance or not. There are others where I think they've clearly been in
violation," he said. "For example, their production of heavy water has repeatedly exceeded the limits permissible under the JCPOA.
They're almost in the heavy water production business. They sell excess to Oman. They've sold it to European countries. It's a
way of keeping the heavy water production facilities alive. They're warm. And that's part of the danger. And they have exceeded
the limits."
At the end of his speech, yesterday, Trump said that the future of Iran belongs to its people. At first, this sounded to me
like the preface to a call for regime change. What he said was this: "Iran's leaders will naturally say that they refuse to negotiate
a new deal; they refuse. And that's fine. I'd probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is they are
going to want to make a new and lasting deal, one that benefits all of Iran and the Iranian people. When they do, I am ready,
willing, and able." A reporter asked Bolton if this meant that the US was ready tot alk to the Iranians from a position of strength.
He replied that what the administration is prepared to do, along with the Europeans and others, is "to talk about a much broader
deal addressing all of the aspects of Iran's conduct that we find objectionable. We're prepared to do that beginning right now."
May 21, 2018
If the New York Times is to be believed, Bolton is
bringing
with him, the same coterie of old neo-con cronies to work for him in the NSC that he's been surrounded by since his days in the
Reagan Administration in the 1980's. This includes Charles M. Kupperman, a former Reagan administration official and defense contracting
executive, who has come in as a temporary advisor. The list of those under consideration for positions in the NSC includes Frederick
H. Fleitz, Sarah Tinsley and David Wurmser. "Mr. Bolton's relationships with most of the associates date back decades, to his
days working in positions related to foreign policy in the Reagan administration. But he continued working with them in the dozen
years since he has been out of government, serving as an adviser to Mr. Wurmser's company, according to its website, while relying
on Mr. Kupperman, Ms. Tinsley and several other associates to help run a constellation of conservative political organizations
that he founded to advance his foreign policy views and political prospects," the Times reports. "The activity brought Mr. Bolton
into regular contact with some of the biggest donors on the right, while giving him a platform to explore his own possible presidential
campaign in 2016 and to be an advocate for confrontational strategies in dealing with Iran, North Korea and Russia."
The Times report is a little weak on the ideology of these folks, preferring instead to focus on Bolton's ethical lapses, but
can't avoid the matter entirely. Matthew C. Freedman, a long time associate who Bolton appointed to interview prospective hires,
Kupperman, Tinsley and another associate, Garrett Marquis, the Times reports further, were affiliated with a Bolton-led nonprofit,
the Foundation for American Security and Freedom, which aired ads in 2015 opposing the Iran nuclear deal. The Times also notes
Bolton's close relationship with Sheldon Adelson, whom the Times describes as "an influential hawk and supporter of Israel from
whom Mr. Bolton has sought assistance for his political ventures."
May 22, 2018
Sheldon Adelson has only one issue, Israel, and he has paid the Republican Party handsomely to make sure his views are
the views of the party. According to Mintpress News' Whitney Webb, Adelson has
lavished some $90 million on the part since 2016, including $35 million to the Trump campaign, and another $55 million to
two Republican SuperPACS, Congressional Leadership Fund and the Senate Leadership Fund. "After investing so heavily in the
GOP in 2016, Adelson's decision to again donate tens of millions of dollars to Republican efforts to stay in power is a direct
consequence of how successfully Adelson has been able to influence U.S. policy since Trump and the GOP rode to victory in the
last election cycle," Webb writes. "Adelson's belief that Trump would be "good for Israel" was the main driver behind his decision
to spend more than $90 million on helping Trump and other Republicans win in the last election."
June 29, 2018
Mark Perry, in an article posted
in Foreign Policy, yesterday, posits that Mattis is waging a losing battle against Bolton over the question of war with Iran.
He reports that since his arrival at the White House, Bolton has marginalized Mattis in national security policy making, so
Mattis is turning his energies towards preventing a US attack on Iran. At the core of Mattis' concerns is, number one, it's a
lot easier to start a war with Iran than to end it, and secondly, the US military services are all in poor shape after decades
of wars and other never-ending contingency operations. Mattis, like many of his colleagues in the senior military leadership,
have a long standing animus towards Iran, but at the same time, they don't see any good way through a war against Iran. Bolton
and his co-thinkers, on the other hand, see a war to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and to change the regime in Tehran
as almost a moral obligation.
Mattis' concerns are shared by the senior military leadership. "We've been in the air and in combat since 1993," a senior retired
Air Force officer said, "and the wear and tear on the force has been considerable. The tempo has been crushing." Perry says this
is actually an understatement, given that 30 percent of Air Force aircraft are not "mission capable," in part because of huge
pilot shortfalls and a deterioration of military capability. The story is the same for the other services.
Then there's the military campaign itself. An air campaign could easily destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and its conventional
military forces, but what happens afterwards? As noted by several experts that Perry consulted, the end of the air campaign would
be the beginning of the war, not the end of it. There's no reason to expect that the government in Tehran would surrender and
it would be able to fight on with its considerable unconventional military capabilities, not only in the IRGC but its proxy forces
as well, such as Hezbollah.
In truth, the unease over any future conflict goes much deeper than these concerns, Perry notes, "and is seeded by what one
senior and influential military officer called 'an underlying anxiety that after 17 years of sprinkling the Middle East with corpses,
the U.S. is not any closer to a victory over terrorism now than it was on September 12.' It is this anxiety that undergirds military
doubts about going to war with Iran -- that the United States would be adding bodies to the pile and not much more." In other
words, it would be another forever war, only one that asborbs many times mor resources than even the ones we're in right now have
done.
July 2, 2018
Ha'aretz ran a
story , yesterday, very similar to the Mark Perry article I reported on last week, on the policy fight within the administration
over what to do about Iran. Officially, the administration is committed to diplomatic and economic pressure to bring Iran to the
negotiating table, where a new agreement should be constructed that would replace the JCPOA. Ha'aretz's sources say, however,
that Bolton is behind the scenes advancing the option of collapsing the Iranian regime. According to those sources, Bolton views
the demonstrations that have broken out in Iran in recent months over the state of the country's economy as an indication of the
regime's weakness. He has told Trump that increased U.S. pressure could lead to the regime's collapse. One person who recently
spoke with senior White House officials on the subject summarized Bolton view in the words: "One little kick and they're done."
Mattis, on the other hand, despite is long held animus towards Iran is skeptical of regime change. Mattis, the sources stated,
supports increasing pressure on Iran, but with the clear objective of bringing the Iranians back to the table for a better agreement
– one that would roll back their regional aggression. Pompeo is said to lie in between but is moving towards Mattis.
Ha'aretz also points to the influence of outside advisors like Rudy Giuliani–who recently addressed the annual conference of
the National Council of Resistance in Iran in Paris as–as a further factor in the uncertainty around Trump's policy. What Ha'aretz
doesn't mention, though, is the Russia factor and that what Trump ultimately decides to do could be determined in Helsinki on
July 16.
July 26, 2018
Fazel Hawramy, an independent journalist working in Iraqi Kurdistan,
reports in an article in Al Monitor, that the State Department is replacing the outgoing counsel general in Erbil with an
Iran expert by the name of Steven Fagin, the director of the Office of Iranian Affairs at the State Department's Bureau of Near
Eastern Affairs. As director of the Office of Iranian Affairs, which has several outposts around the world, including in Istanbul
and Dubai, Fagin was responsible for developing, coordinating, recommending and executing US policy on Iran, Hawramy reports.
Fagin's presence in Iraqi Kurdistan is significant given that the armed Iranian Kurdish opposition groups fighting the Islamic
Republic are based in the region. Hawramy names the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), in particular, whose leader, Mustafa
Hijri, Fagin met with last month, when he was in Washington, by invitation from the Trump Administration, for a week long series
of meetings at various think tanks. Each side is said to be exploring the seriousness of the other.
The KDPI, it turns out, is a military organization that has a long history of staging attacks against the IRGC in Iran. The
KDPI has also stepped up efforts to establish an entity through which all the Kurdish parties can coordinate their efforts against
Tehran. Meanwhile, on July 21, the Kurdistan Free Life Party, affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers Party, announced the killing
of 15 Iranian soldiers near the town of Marivan, close to the border with Iraqi Kurdistan. No mention is made of how much support
these groups might have among Iranian Kurds, however. They may not be any more viable than the MeK, except for making trouble
of course.
If the US is really seeking to employ such groups to try to destablilize Iran along ethnic lines, this would be nothing
new. Gareth Porter, in an
article
that appeared in Middle East Eye on May 18, reports that John Bolton, when he was in the GW Bush Administration pushed aggressively
for regime change but that Bush himself wasn't interested. Bolton may find history repeating itself, with Trump resisting
his plan for regime change, just as Bush did in 2003, Porter writes. In the week before Porter's article came out, Bolton denied
that the administration policy for Iran was regime change, despite the pullout from the JCPOA. "I've written and said a lot of
things when I was a complete free agent. I certainly stand by what I said at the time, but those were my opinions then. The circumstance
I'm in now is I'm the national security adviser to the president. I'm not the national security decision-maker," he told CNN's
Situation Room. The implication is clear. Number one, Bolton still believes in regime change. Number two, his view has not prevailed
with Trump. The recent comments by both Trump and Pompeo would seem to bear out that Trump's policy remains, as Pompeo said, to
change the regime's behavior, not to change the regime.
2) Who Is Richard Goldberg?
In early January of this year, Bolton brought onto the NSC, one Richard Goldberg, to be the NSC's "Director for Countering
Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction." Goldberg, Jewish Insider
reported on Jan. 7, was the
lead Congressional staff negotiator for sanctions on Iran prior to the nuclear deal in 2015 in his capacity as deputy chief of
staff and senior foreign policy adviser to former Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), and later served as chief of staff for former Illinois
Governor Bruce Rauner. After leaving government in 2017, Goldberg joined the neo-con Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
The National Interest's Curt Mills
confirmed
Goldberg's neo-con credentials the same day. "Couldn't think of anyone better than my @FDD colleague @rich_goldberg to join NSC
to maximize the maximum pressure campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran." FDD president mark Dubowitz jubilantly tweeted.
Goldberg "takes a view of Iran similar to many of Washington's most committed Iran hawks. He views the regime in Tehran as akin
to the Soviet Union -- a hub of a global, anti-American counterculture and internally collapsible if Reagan-style pressure is
applied," Mills reports. "For FDD, which has functioned as the administration's go-to think-tank on Iran, it's another coup. The
Goldberg move to the White House comes as at a time when the organization had been publicly doubting the administration's course
for the first time," Mills reports later in the article.
Daniel Larison,
writing
in The American Conservative, characterized Goldberg this way: "Goldberg has been a leading opponent of the nuclear deal and a
fanatical advocate for enforcing new sanctions on Iran and anyone that does business with them. Bringing Goldberg into the administration
is a sign that the Iran obsession is getting worse, and by making him the 'Director for Countering Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction.'"
One might say we've seen this playbook before, in Iraq in 2002-2003.
As for Goldberg's history, we find that he's been a very militant advocate for Likudnik Israel going back to 2004 when he first
arrived on Capitol Hill as a staffer (Goldberg is a young punk and was probably in his early to mid-20's in 2004). According to
the FDD's biography of him, Goldberg was "A leader in
efforts to expand U.S. missile defense cooperation with Israel, Richard played a key role in U.S. funding for the Arrow-3 program,
Iron Dome and the deployment of an advanced missile defense radar to the Negev Desert." During his time working for Mark Kirk,
Goldberg "emerged as a leading architect of the toughest sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran. He was the lead Republican
negotiator for three rounds of sanctions targeting the Central Bank of Iran, the SWIFT financial messaging service, and entire
sectors of the Iranian economy. Richard also drafted and negotiated legislation promoting human rights and democracy in Iran,
including sanctions targeting entities that provide the Iranian regime with the tools of repression."
In September 2017, Goldberg authored a memo that was circulated on Capitol Hill which advocated that the president should declare
to Congress next month that the deal is no longer in the national security interest of the United States, Foreign Policy
reported at the time. Then the president
would make clear his readiness to hit Iran with a "de-facto global economic embargo" if it failed to meet certain conditions over
a 90-day period, including opening military sites to international inspectors. "This would be a 21st century financial version
of [John F.] Kennedy's Cuba quarantine," according to a copy of the proposal obtained by Foreign Policy. The embargo would involve
reimposing sanctions lifted under the deal, as well as additional measures including restrictions on oil exports. This is clearly
recognizable, now, as the policy that the Trump Administration has imposed on Iran since Trump announced the US withdrawal from
the JCPOA in May 2018.
TTG • 3 hours ago
Willy B., thanks for pulling all this information together into a very readable piece. Well done. This is one dangerous
pack of rats. It's frightening how easily prone to manipulation Trump has proven. One would think he'd be more resistant to this
sort of thing.
In other words Russiagate was a smoke screen over Isrealgate...
Notable quotes:
"... Being a citizen of a country is not just an accident of birth. It requires loyalty to the interests of that country and to one's fellow citizens. ..."
"... The Lobby works assiduously to compel American government at all levels to adopt positions that are beneficial to Israel and almost invariably harmful to U.S. interests. Asserting that the two nations have nearly identical interests is little more than a fraud. ..."
"... Second, there is the claim that Israel benefits American security. That is also a lie. Washington's relationship with Israel, which is now more subservient than it ever has been, is a major liability that is and always has been damaging to both American regional and global interests. ..."
"... Former CIA Deputy Director Admiral Bobby Inman has also rejected the claim that Israel is a security asset by observing that "Israeli spies have done more harm and have damaged the United States more than the intelligence agents of all other countries on earth combined. They are the gravest threat to our national security." ..."
"... Israel and AIPAC have relentlessly pursued their agenda while also corrupting the Congress of the United States to support the Israeli government with money and political cover. ..."
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has just completed its annual summit in Washington. It claims that 18,000
supporters attended the event, which concluded with a day of lobbying Congress by the attendees. Numerous American politicians addressed
the gathering and it is completely reasonable to observe that the meeting constituted the most powerful gathering of people dedicated
to promoting the interests of a foreign nation ever witnessed in any country in the history of the world.
There are a number of things that one should understand about the Jewish state of Israel and its powerful American domestic lobby.
First of all, the charge that the actions of The Lobby (referred to with capital letters because of its uniqueness and power) inevitably
involves dual or even singular allegiance based on religion or tribe to a country where the lobbyist does not actually reside is
completely correct by definition of what AIPAC is and why it exists. It
claims to work to "ensure that the Jewish state is safe, strong
and secure" through "foreign aid, government partnerships, [and] joint anti-terrorism efforts ," all of which involve the U.S. as
the donor and Israel as the recipient.
Being a citizen of a country is not just an accident of birth. It requires loyalty to the interests of that country and to one's
fellow citizens. No two countries have identical interests, something that is particularly true when one is considering Israel, an
ethno-religious autocracy, and the United States, where The Lobby works assiduously to compel American government at all levels to
adopt positions that are beneficial to Israel and almost invariably harmful to U.S. interests. Asserting that the two nations have
nearly identical interests is little more than a fraud.
Second, there is the claim that Israel benefits American security. That is also a lie. Washington's relationship with Israel,
which is now more subservient than it ever has been, is a major liability that is and always has been damaging to both American regional
and global interests. The recent decisions to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan
Heights were ill-conceived and have been condemned by the world community, including by nearly all of America's genuine close allies.
The harm done by the Israeli connection to policy formulation in Washington and to U.S. troops based in the Middle East has been
noted both by Admiral Thomas Moorer and General David Petraeus, with Moorer decrying how
"If the American people understood what
a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes
on."
Petraeus complained to a Senate Committee that U.S. favoritism towards Israel puts American soldiers based in the Middle East
at risk. He was quickly forced to recant, however.
Former CIA Deputy Director Admiral Bobby Inman has also rejected the claim that Israel is a security asset by observing that "Israeli
spies have done more harm and have damaged the United States more than the intelligence agents of all other countries on earth combined.
They are the gravest threat to our national security." Inman was referring to American Jewish spy Jonathan Pollard, who stole for
Israel an entire roomful of the most highly classified defense information. Israeli spies, including current Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and Hollywood movie producer Arnon Milchan, also participated in the systematic theft of weapons grade uranium and nuclear
triggers in the 1960s so Israel could secretly create a nuclear weapons arsenal. The FBI, for its part, in its annual counterintelligence
report, consistently identifies Israel as the "friendly" country that spies most persistently against the U.S. FBI Agents have testified
that there are very few prosecutions of the swarms of Israeli spies due to
"political pressure."
Third, there is the myth that the United States and Israel have "shared values," which is meant to imply that both are liberal
democracies where freedom and human rights prevail, beacons of light offering enlightened leadership in a world where tyranny threatens
at every turn. This was stressed in the opening remarks last weekend by AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr, who
described Israel as "A nation always striving
to be better, more just and true to the message of its founders, a nation dedicated to freedom of religion for people of all faiths.
We do our work for all to see. What unites our pro-Israel movement is the passion for bringing American and Israel closer for the
benefit of both and the benefit of all. We look like America because we are America."
Kohr is, of course, preaching to an audience that wants desperately to believe what he says in spite of what they have been able
to see with their own eyes in the media when it dares to publish a story criticizing Israel. Jewish hypocrisy about one standard
for Israel and Jews plus another standard for everyone else operates pretty much out in the open if one knows where to look. Zionist
Organization of America's Morton Klein, who once tweeted regarding a "filthy Arab,"
was interviewed
by journalist Nathan Thrall and asked why he believed it was "utterly racist and despicable" to support a "white nationalist" ethnic
group but not racist for Israel to do the same. He responded "Israel is a unique situation. This is really a Jewish state given to
us by God. God did not create a state for white people or for black people." Senator Charles Schumer, the Democratic minority leader,
who calls himself the Senate's "shomer" or guardian for American Jews, had a slightly different take on it: "Of course, we say it's
our land, the Torah says it, but they don't believe in the Torah. So that's the reason there is not peace."
But Kohr, Klein and Schumer all know as well as anyone that Israeli Jews, fortified by their conceit of being a "Chosen people,"
are not interchangeable with contemporary Americans, or at least not "like" the Americans who still care about their country. There
are hundreds of mostly Jewish pro-Israel organizations in America, having a
combined
endowment of $16 billion, that are actively propagandizing and promoting Israeli interests by ignoring or lying about the downside
of the relationship. The University of Michigan affiliate of the Hillel International campus organization alone has a multistory
headquarters supported by a budget of $2 million and a staff of 15. It hosts an emissary of the Jewish Agency for Israel, an Israeli
government supported promotional enterprise.
So, what is the meaning of the "American" in AIPAC? Requiring a religious-ethnic litmus test for full citizenship and rights is
Israeli, not American. Having local government admissions committees that can bar Israeli-Palestinian citizens based on "social suitability"
would not be acceptable to most Americans. Demanding a unique Israeli right to exist while denying it to Israel's neighbors; demolishing
homes while poisoning Palestinian livestock and destroying orchards; shooting children for throwing stones; and inflicting death,
terror and deprivation upon the imprisoned people of Gaza are all everyday common practice for the Israeli government.
Israel and AIPAC have relentlessly pursued their agenda while also corrupting the Congress of the United States to support the
Israeli government with money and political cover. Israel and friends like Kohr routinely make baseless charges of anti-Semitism
against critics while also legislating against free-speech to eliminate any and all criticism. This drive to make Israel uniquely
free from any critique has become the norm in the United States, but it is a norm driven by Israeli interests and Israel's friends,
most of whom are Jewish billionaires or Jewish organizations that meet regularly and discuss what they might do to benefit the Jewish
state.
And the fourth big lie is that the American people support Israel on religious as well as cultural grounds, not because mostly
Jewish money has corrupted our political system and media. Indeed, many Christian fundamentalists have various takes on what Israel
means, but their influence is limited. The Israel-thing is Jewish in all ways that matter and its sanitized Exodus -version
that has been sold to the public is essentially a complete fraud nurtured by the media, also Jewish controlled, by Hollywood, and
by the Establishment.
"This weekend the New York Timesbreaks
one of the biggest taboos , describing the responsibility of Jewish donors for the Democratic Party's slavish support for
Israel. Nathan Thrall's groundbreaking piece repeats a lot of data we've reported here and says in essence that it really is about
the Benjamins, as Rep. Ilhan Omar said so famously. The donor class of the party is overwhelmingly Jewish, and Jews are still
largely wed to Zionism– that's the nut." Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national-security adviser to ex-President Barack Obama recounted
in the article how "a more assertive policy toward Israel" never evolved "The Washington view of Israel-Palestine is still shaped
by the [Jewish] donor class."
And the support for Israel goes beyond money. The Times article included an October 2018
"Survey of 800 American voters who identify as Jewish, conducted by the Mellman Group on behalf of the Jewish Electoral Institute,
92 percent said that they are 'generally pro-Israel.' In the same poll -- conducted after the United States closed the Palestinian
diplomatic mission in Washington, moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, appointed a fund-raiser for the
settlements as U.S. ambassador and cut humanitarian aid to Palestinians -- roughly half of American Jews said they approved of
President Trump's handling of relations with Israel. On what is considered the most divisive issue in U.S.-Israel relations, the
establishment of Israeli settlements in the West Bank,
a November
2018 post-midterm election poll of more than 1,000 American Jews that was commissioned by J Street, the pro-Israel lobby aligned
with Democrats, found that roughly half said the expansion of settlements had no impact on how they felt about Israel.
According
to a 2013 Pew survey , 44 percent of Americans and 40 percent of American Jews believe that Israel was given to the Jewish
people by God, [a] fact that Jews believe they have rights in historic Palestine that non-Jews do not."
And one only has to listen to the AIPAC speeches made by leading members of the U.S. government establishment to appreciate the
essential hypocrisy over the U.S. wag-the-dog relationship with the Jewish state of Israel. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
led the parade of Democrats on the first evening of AIPAC, thundering "When someone accuses American supporters of Israel of
dual loyalty, I say: Accuse me, I am part of a large, bipartisan coalition in Congress supporting Israel -- an overwhelming majority
of the United States Congress. I tell Israel's accusers and detractors: Accuse me."
Well, Steny there is a certain irony in your request and to be sure you should be accused over betrayal of your oath to uphold
the constitution against all enemies "domestic and foreign." Hoyer is a product of the heavily Jewish Maryland Democratic Party machine
that has also produced Pelosi and Senator Ben Cardin. Pelosi
told the AIPAC audience about her father in
Baltimore, a so-called Shabbos goy who would perform services for Jews on the sabbath and who would also speak Yiddish while
at home with his Italian family. Cardin meanwhile has been the sponsor of legislation to make criticism or boycotting of Israel illegal,
up to and including heavy fines and prison time.
Hoyer, widely regarded as one of the most pro-Israel non-Jewish congressman, also boasted to AIPAC about the 15 official trips
to Israel he's made in forty years in Congress, accompanied by more than 150 fellow Democrats. "This August, I will travel with what
I expect will be our largest delegation ever -- probably more than 30 Democratic members of Congress, including many freshmen."
Steny Hoyer will be on an AIPAC affiliate sponsored trip in which any contact with Palestinians will be both incidental and carefully
managed. He also clearly has no problem in spending the taxpayer's dime to go to Israel on additional "codels" to get further propagandized.
He is flat out wrong about Israel in general, but don't expect him to be convinced otherwise, which may be somehow related to the
$317,525 in pro-Israel PAC contributions
he has received.
There was much more at the AIPAC Summit. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced "the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign
allegiance" while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, fresh from selling out U.S. interests on a visit to Israel,
declared that "We live in dangerous times.
We have to speak the truth. Anti-Semitism should and must be rejected by all decent people. Anti-Semitism – anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism,
and any nation that espouses anti-Zionism, like Iran, must be confronted. We must defend the rightful homeland of the Jewish people."
Vice President Mike Pence, like Pompeo an evangelical Christian, piled on in his Monday prime time speech,
declaring that "Anyone who aspires to the highest office of the land should not be afraid to stand with the strongest supporters
of Israel in America. It is wrong to boycott Israel. It is wrong to boycott AIPAC. Anti-Semitism has no place in the Congress of
the United States of America. Anyone who slanders this historic alliance between the United States and Israel should never have a
seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee."
Clearly, there is considerable evidence to support the theory that one has to be completely ignorant to hold high office in the
United States. Rejecting Zionism and/or questioning Israeli policies is not anti-Semitism and the Jewish state is in fact no actual
ally of the United States. Nor is there any mandate to defend it in its questionable "rightful homeland." Furthermore, dual-loyalty
is what the relationship with Israel is all about and it is Jewish money and political power that makes the whole thing work to Israel's
benefit.
But the good news is that all the lying blather from the likes of Steny Hoyer and Howard Kohr reveals their desperation. They
are running scared because "the times they are a changing." Sure, Congressmen will continue to be bought and sold and Jewish money
and the access to power that it buys will be able to prevail in the short term in a conspiratorial fashion. But, in the long run,
everyone knows deep down that loyalty to Israel is not loyalty to the United States. And what Israel is doing is evil, as is becoming
increasingly clear. It is trying to convince Washington to make war on Iran, a country that does not threaten the U.S., while the
willingness of the American people to continue to look the other way as Benjamin Netanyahu uses army snipers to shoot down unarmed
demonstrators who are starving will not continue indefinitely. It must not continue and we Americans should do whatever it takes
to stop it.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected].
AIPAC, the swaggering and influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which brands itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby,"
is holding its annual policy conference. Top politicians from both parties vie for speaking slots at the group's glitzy gala. Everyone
pays AIPAC attention. And for good reason. Since the late 1970s, it has informally directed substantial campaign contributions toward
chosen candidates for Congress. Its messaging on the Middle East is essential in Washington's foreign-policy conversation.
Some love AIPAC, some hate it, some fear it -- but it is a huge factor in U.S. policy, in American politics and in American Jewish
life.
AIPAC's
beginnings in the 1950s reveal the long journey the group has traveled as it has grown in size and stature. It once operated
in obscurity; now its influence lies partly in its genius for publicity. But some things have remained consistent: It has always
responded to Israeli actions, working to mitigate their impact on the American scene. At the same time, it has welded a united front
of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.
Even before advocates for Israel had AIPAC, they had the tireless I.L. "Si" Kenen. He led AIPAC -- in a real sense, he was
AIPAC -- from its inception until 1974. A journalist and lawyer, Kenen had switched back and forth during the 1940s and early
1950s between working for American Zionist organizations and for the state of Israel.
During Harry Truman's presidency, Kenen started helping to win U.S. aid for the new state, cultivating ties with members of Congress
and their staffers and supplying talking points for those willing to advocate for Israel. A political progressive, Kenen found his
strongest support on Capitol Hill among liberal Democrats, and his toughest opponents were conservative Midwestern Republicans and
Southern Democrats. In contrast to his brash successors at AIPAC, Kenen's methods were low-key and discreet.
But despite their early successes, Kenen and other American champions of Israel faced challenges after Dwight Eisenhower entered
the White House in 1953. Ike's secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, said he wanted to pursue a balanced, neutral policy toward
the Israeli-Arab conflict -- not what Israel's supporters wished to hear.
In the fall of 1953, Eisenhower briefly suspended the delivery of U.S. aid to Israel after it violated the terms of a U.N.-brokered
armistice agreement with Syria by venturing into a demilitarized zone to try to divert the waters of the Jordan River. Eisenhower
and Dulles resolved to use their leverage to get Israel to back off. However, Israel and the United States apparently agreed to keep
Eisenhower's action quiet in hopes of a quick resolution.
But on Oct. 15, 1953, all hell broke loose. News spread that a special Israeli army unit had struck into the Jordanian-occupied
West Bank and committed a massacre in the Palestinian village of Qibya, killing more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation
for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel on the night of Oct. 12.
The strike reflected Israeli policy. Ever since the end of the 1948 war, Palestinians had frequently crossed the so-called "Green
Line" into Israel. Most had been driven or had fled from their homes in what was now Israel and simply wished to return. But some
committed violence against Israelis. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion had fixed on a policy of reprisals -- military assaults, intentionally
disproportionate, on local Arab populations -- as a response to any such attacks. After the Oct. 12 killings, Ben-Gurion and top
colleagues chose nearby Qibya to suffer retribution.
The outcry was sharp and wide.
Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya -- "slouching . .
. smoking and joking." The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident.
Israel's most active U.S. supporters realized how severe the danger of damage to Israel was. Kenen wrote of the ill effect of
Qibya on what he called "our propaganda." After Qibya, Dulles confirmed for the first time that Washington was holding up aid to
Israel. The United States supported a censure of Israel in the U.N. Security Council. U.S. aid soon resumed, after Israel pledged
it would stop its work at the controversial water-diversion site.
Aware Israel's reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control
effort in late 1953 and early 1954. Kenen managed this ad hoc effort, involving many parties in Washington and around the country.
But it was clear that a firmer, more nimble, ongoing structure of advocacy for Israel was necessary to better meet such challenges.
In March 1954, Kenen and his associates announced the formation of the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (AZCPA) --
which would be renamed AIPAC in 1959 -- and thus launched the modern Israel lobby. AZCPA was quickly joined by the new Conference
of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. That group of top Jewish leaders promoted Israel's interests with high U.S.
government officials, including presidents and secretaries of state. Si Kenen regularly attended meetings of the Conference of Presidents
and coordinated the work of the two new groups.
Kenen had additional reason for forming a new advocacy group in early 1954. U.S. officials had been inquiring into whether his
(then) employer, the American Zionist Council, ought to register as the agent of a foreign power, which might limit its activities
and complicate its funding. It made sense for the council to consider spinning off a new lobbying group with a "cleaner" financial
basis.
However, that motivation for forming AZCPA, while significant, did not dominate the thinking of American Zionists in these crucial
months as much as the need to manage the political fallout over Qibya, and to prepare for any future shocks coming out of Israel.
Even before AZCPA appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel
amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. This was revealing and foretold
the future.
It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish
community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy. So began a three-decade cycle,
one that did not end until Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, in which American Jews closed ranks to support Israel regardless of
circumstances. Jews harboring reservations about Israeli actions found it extremely hard to gain a foothold in Jewish communal life
-- something that is less true today, but still a central reality in Jewish America.
The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains
the group's sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. "America's Pro-Israel Lobby," born in awful
knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans. The dark roots of AIPAC, 'America's
Pro-Israel Lobby' - The Washington Post
Doug Rossinow teaches history at the University of Oslo, and is currently writing a history of American Zionism from
1948 to 1995.
There is no "other economic aid" to Israel and has not been for decades.
By law, 100% of the military aid Israel gets (the ONLY aid Israel gets) must be spent on overpriced US manufactured armaments,
and never leaves the US. More properly, it should be called a subsidy to the US arms industry ... more See More Like Share
AIPAC is inconsequential compared to Christian support for Israel. CUFI (Christians United for Israel) has THIRTY TIMES AS
MANY MEMBERS AS AIPAC (3,000,000 versus 100,00)
American approval of Israel is 71%, within one point of a 25 year high:
So keep on whining and living in your "Israel is doomed" bubble as Israel goes from strength to strength. Israeli GDP when
BDS started 12 years ago was $141.2 billion, now it's $318.0 billion.
I wish BDS and all other Israel bashers such continued successes ... more See More Like Share
Very good article. It shows the extent to which foreign lobbying money shapes US policy by essentially bribing politicians who
need the money to run and win their campaigns. A huge problem in US "democracy" or, should I say, plutocracy and oligarchy. There's
absolutely no reason why the US needs to support or fund Israel in any way, but the influence of groups like AIPAC insures
that they do. ... more See
Excellent article, WaPo, keep them coming and never retreat.
American voters, we are bought. Our legislators are carrying water for Israel first, not for us.
Almost as offensive and pernicious as AIPAC, is FIDF, Friends of the Israeli Defense forces, an American "charity" that raises
US money for the express purpose of supporting the Israeli military.
The 2017 Beverly Hills gala alone raised $53.8 million for a FOREIGN ARMY.
Attendees are interesting, including Schwarzenegger, Stallone, DeNiro, thousands of mega donors with former Oracle CEO Ellison
giving $16.6 million this year alone. His hand picked replacement, Israeli born Catz is pitching in big money too.
This is only one of many FIDF annual galas in the US.
We have veterans of wars for the benefit of Israel right here who can't afford to live. Amputees. But the money for the IDF
is funneled out of here tax free.... and supports such programs as extended respites for soldiers, scholarships, cultural centers,
arts, holistic therapies. Unbelievable. ... more See More Like Share SoCalledVirginian Schlnm
Anthony Klune Peweee e84695 and 10
Jeffrey Bacon 3/8/2018 10:25 PM EST
Ted: He speaks the truth. Debate it, refute it. You cannot. Accept that Israel's hold on America cannot last. The younger
generation is not as religious at all, and they look at Israel's actions, not what the bible says. These folks see the
injustice Israel has perpetuated. Their reactions follow. No other foreign country gets away with what Israel does in our
politics. The word is out. ... more
Evan Simon 3/8/2018 2:20 PM EST [Edited]
AIPAC is now an insidious agitator and propaganda arm of a vicious war criminal government. We need MORE articles like this
one and anyone who protests is part of the problem. ... more
On Nov 21, 1963, the U.S. Dept of Justice under U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy ordered the American Zionist Council to
register as an Israeli foreign agent.
On Nov 22, 1963, U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. On June
5, 1968, former U.S. Attorney General & present U.S. Senator, Robert F. Kennedy, was assassinated in Los Angeles, CA just after
winning the California Democratic primary election for candidacy for the President of the United States.
In 1963, the American Zionist Council (AZC) eluded having to register as agents of a foreign government by reorganizing as the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Today, the AIPAC has become what Senator Fulbright most feared: a foreign agent
dominating American foreign policy while disguised as a domestic lobby
Olivia Davidejonson 3/8/2018 4:50 PM EST
Dear Contributor, An interesting post. Thank you. May I add that there are over 150 UN Resolutions including UN Security Council
Resolutions 476 and 478 which was supported by the world and was passed as law.
It declared that Israel's "eternal claim" to Jerusalem
was NULL and VOID. The International Court of Justice, EU (including the UK), UN all condemned Israel's monstrous 700 km "wall"
as illegal.
The EU have Settlement Guidelines and Settlement Labelling and view colonial West Bank settler settlements (accessible
by settler only roads) as illegal and a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention.
The West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem is viewed
as Palestinian Territory and Palestine is a UN non-member STATE and was recognised by 138 nations (including Western European
nations). Palestine is registered with over 50 UN Agencies and has bilateral relations with over 130 nations as a STATE.
Israel's current Government rejects Palestine's right to exist in secure borders and that is why she continues expanding
settlements and outposts (both of which are illegal).
The UN had repeatedly stated that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegally occupied.
Olivia Davidejonson 3/8/2018 6:53 PM EST
Dear TedDruch, With respect that is an opinion, which I respect but is not correct. The UN Resolutions and those passed by the
International Court of Justice have legal standing, which are huge in support of Palestine.
Prior to the US allowing the UN Security
Council Resolution pass condemning settlements (UNSC 2334), there were UN Resolutions which the West supported and which were
passed with a majority in excess of 150 nations.
Olivia Davidejonson 3/8/2018 6:55 PM EST [Edited]
Security Council, 20 August 1980
Resolution 478 (1980)
Recalling its resolution 476 (1980),
Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,
Deeply concerned over the enactment of a "basic law" in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of
the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security,
Noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980),
Reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of
the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel,
1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant
Security Council resolutions;
2. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the
continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,
in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;
3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered
or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem,
are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;
4. Affirms also that this action constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the
Middle East;
5. Decides not to recognize the "basic law" and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the
character and status of Jerusalem and calls upon:
All Member States to accept this decision;
I believe there is a huge difference between not kotowing to Israel.. who , really, as an ally, is as much trouble as they are
good, and being anti Semitic. Israel, wildly dependent upon US aid and good will to survive, mostly acts like they are running
the show and that we should be grateful for letting us help them. ... more
Andy Taylor 3/7/2018 3:04 PM EST
Untrue but I am not going to waste time on that suffice to say American aid to Israel is illegal under a law passed in the
1970s that prohibits aid to nuclear powers who don't sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
alyssa3 3/7/2018 4:38 PM EST
So Andy, spread your words of wisdom - explain to us, what exactly in the Symington and Glenn amendments does the United States
violate by providing aid to Israel, Pakistan, and India?
And further, if it is illegal, why are you bellyaching about Israel, when it is the United States, and their government
officials that have violated the law since 1976? Your misguided criticism is equivalent of blaming Iran and Nicaragua Contra
Rebels for the United States arms for hostages fiasco back in the mid-1980s. Pretty silly....
Evan Simon 3/8/2018 2:26 PM EST
Fine. Give back our money so we don't have the standing to call them a parasite anymore. See how easy that is, since they
don't NEED the money? ...
It is time for AIPAC members to chose between America and Israel. Israel firsters need to be exposed and kept out of our
government. ...
Marian Paroo 3/7/2018 10:22 AM EST
Totally agree. I have heard, albeit in only online, I don't have friends like that IRL, that they were voting for Trump
because he was better for Israel, even if they felt he was worse for America ...
Is he really that stupid? After Hillary Clinton email scandal ? Amazing ! Those people really feel that they are above the
law.
Notable quotes:
"... But Lowell said Kushner was not violating federal law requiring official communications to be preserved because he takes screenshots of his messages and then sends them to his White House email account, Cummings wrote. ..."
"... Cummings said Lowell also told him and then-South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, who was the chair at the time of the December meeting, that first daughter and presidential adviser Ivanka Trump conducts official White House business on her personal email account. ..."
President Trump's adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner used the encrypted
messaging service WhatsApp as well as his personal email account to conduct official business,
a top House Democrat charged Thursday.
The revelation came during a Dec. 19 meeting of the House Oversight and Reform Committee,
which released the information in a letter Thursday.
Chairman Elijah Cummings wrote to White House counsel Pat Cipollone to tell him that
Kushner's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, had confirmed during the meeting that Kushner "continues to use"
WhatsApp to conduct White House business.
But Lowell said Kushner was not violating federal law requiring official communications to
be preserved because he takes screenshots of his messages and then sends them to his White
House email account, Cummings wrote.
Kushner, whom the president put in charge of finding peace in the Middle East, regularly
communicates with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman via WhatsApp, Politico reported.
It was unclear whether Kushner continued to use WhatsApp after the December meeting.
Cummings said Lowell also told him and then-South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, who was the
chair at the time of the December meeting, that first daughter and presidential adviser Ivanka
Trump conducts official White House business on her personal email account.
"These communications raise questions about whether these officials complied with the
Presidential Records Act and whether the White House identified this personal email use during
its internal review and took steps to address it," Cummings wrote.
This is one of the best summaries of Chris christi book. Bravo !
It is important to understand that Flynn approached Russian at Kusher request with the goal to derail anti-Isreali resoluition in
the US.
So if Jared then initiated firing of Flynn then Jared is a really dangerous ruthless shark.
Notable quotes:
"... When Bannon canned him at Trump Tower not long after the 2016 election, Christie demanded to know who was behind it, threatening that he would publicly finger Bannon if he didn't spill the beans. Bannon blamed Kushner, saying he was still furious over Christie's prosecution of Charles Kushner in 2005. "The kid's been taking an ax to your head with the boss ever since I got here," Bannon told him, according to the book. ..."
"... Christie also reveals how Jared Kushner bad-mouthed him to Trump in 2016, begging the future president not to name him transition chairman. "He implied I had acted unethically and inappropriately but didn't state one fact to back that up. Just a lot of feelings -- very raw feelings that had been simmering for a dozen years," he writes. ..."
"... Christie also slams Kushner for giving his father-in-law tone-deaf political advice. He says Kushner thought firing Flynn would end talk of collusion with Russia's election meddling, and that firing FBI chief James Comey would not spark "an enormous sh-t-storm" in Washington. "Again, the president was ill-served by poor advice," he writes. ..."
Chris Christie, in his new tell-all about working on Donald Trump's campaign, paints a scathing portrait of first son-in-law Jared
Kushner -- depicting him as a vengeful, underhanded dullard ill equipped to work in the White House.
In " Let Me Finish
," the former New Jersey governor accuses Kushner of orchestrating a "hit job" on him in revenge for Christie's prosecution of
Jared's dad, Charles Kushner, which resulted in him doing time in a federal pen.
"Steve Bannon made clear to me that one person and one person only was responsible for the faceless execution that Steve was now
attempting to carry out. Jared Kushner, still apparently seething over events that had occurred a decade ago," Christie writes in
the book, a copy of which was obtained by The Guardian.
In other revelations:
Christie writes about how Trump told him he was too fat and that he needed to slim down. "You gotta look better to be able
to win" in politics, Trump told him over dinner in 2005. During the 2016 presidential campaign, he also urged Christie to wear
longer ties -- like the president's -- because it would make him look thinner.
He trashes Trump's pick for attorney general, Jeff Sessions, saying that the arch-conservative former Alabama senator was
"not-ready-for-prime-time" and that his recusal from the special counsel's Russia probe led to its expansion. Christie himself
wanted the job, but he was blackballed by Kushner and Trump's daughter, Ivanka, according to the book.
Christie also slammed disgraced former national security adviser Mike Flynn, who faces sentencing for lying to the FBI about
his contacts with Russia, branding him "the Russian lackey and future federal felon."
Christie mocked the former Army general as "a train wreck from beginning to end a slow-motion car crash."
But most of his venom
is directed at Kushner,
who talked Trump out of naming Christie the head of his transition team, a position that ultimately went to Vice President Mike
Pence.
When Bannon canned him at Trump Tower not long after the 2016 election, Christie demanded to know who was behind it, threatening
that he would publicly finger Bannon if he didn't spill the beans. Bannon blamed Kushner, saying he was still furious over
Christie's prosecution of Charles Kushner in 2005. "The kid's been taking an ax to your head with the boss ever since I got here,"
Bannon told him, according to the book.
Charles Kushner pleaded guilty to 18 charges and served 14 months in a federal pen in Alabama. He also hired a hooker to
seduce his brother-in-law, recorded them doing the deed and sent a tape of the encounter to his sister -- an effort to force his
brother-in-law's silence about Kushner's crimes.
Christie also reveals how Jared Kushner bad-mouthed him to Trump in 2016, begging the future president not to name him transition
chairman. "He implied I had acted unethically and inappropriately but didn't state one fact to back that up. Just a lot of feelings
-- very raw feelings that had been simmering for a dozen years," he writes.
Kushner insisted the sex tape and blackmailing were a family matter and that his father should not have been prosecuted for it.
"This was a family matter, a matter to be handled by the family or by the rabbis," Christie writes.
Christie also slams Kushner for giving his father-in-law tone-deaf political advice. He says Kushner thought firing Flynn
would end talk of collusion with Russia's election meddling, and that firing FBI chief James Comey would not spark "an enormous sh-t-storm"
in Washington. "Again, the president was ill-served by poor advice," he writes.
Christie also claims that the Trump White House -- which other exposes have portrayed as beset by chaos and scandal -- would be
running like a Swiss watch if he had been in charge of the transition. Pence's transition team had a "thrown-together approach"
that resulted in bad hires for top posts "over and over again." Unlike other tomes by former White House staffers and journalists,
Christie takes it easy on the president, admitting only that he often speaks off the cuff, creating needless controversy.
"... "Jared Kushner of 666 Fifth Avenue is the beating heart of this unprecedentedly corrupt and deeply evil administration," Tribe wrote . "He'll eventually be exposed as an insatiably greedy Benedict Arnold." ..."
"... "Kushner is going to get us into a *devastating* war with Iran. Jared, singlehandedly. Jared, to make money for himself [sic]," the attorney wrote. "I'll say now that Jared more richly deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life than Manafort, and Manafort richly deserves it," he argued. "That's how bad this is." ..."
"... "Don't believe anything you hear from Kushner's attorney or from Kushner. *Ever*. The latter will always be lying to you, and the former will either be lying to you or will have been lied to by his client [sic]," Abramson continued. He then pointed to the reports surrounding Kushner's top-secret security clearance, which he allegedly was granted despite the disapproval of intelligence agencies and top administration officials. ..."
"... "Our foreign policy is totally off the rails in a way that is dangerous, and the sole reason for this is the Kushner-Trump axis. Our values have been betrayed in ways that we may shortly feel so keenly our heads will spin. We need whistleblowers to blow their whistles now," he said. Abramson also argued that Kushner should go to prison for "a very, very long time." ..."
"... Trump's former chief of staff John Kelly and top intelligence officials opposed granting Kushner access to viewing sensitive top secret materials pertaining to the nation's security, according to a recent report from The New York Times . However, the president reportedly ordered his son-in-law be granted the clearance, allegedly disregarding the objections. ..."
Laurence Tribe, a professor
of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, slammed President Donald Trump's son-in-law of Jared Kushner in a tweet this weekend,
suggesting he would soon be "exposed" as a traitor.
Sharing a long Twitter thread by attorney and academic Seth Abramson, who is also a
columnist for Newsweek , Tribe on Saturday referred
to Kushner as "Smarmy, slimy, smiling."
Kushner, who is married to Ivanka Trump, was appointed by the president as a senior White House adviser in January 2017.
"Jared Kushner of 666 Fifth Avenue is the beating heart of this unprecedentedly corrupt and deeply evil administration,"
Tribe wrote . "He'll eventually be exposed
as an insatiably greedy Benedict Arnold."
Tribe is referring to the infamous General Benedict Arnold, an early hero of the American Revolution against the British, who
later switched sides and betrayed his young nation in 1779. "His name has since become synonymous with the word 'traitor,'"
according to History .
Abramson's thread , shared by Tribe,
laid out a case for why Kushner is allegedly the "greatest domestic danger to America."
The attorney and columnist made the claim after "many months" of research for a forthcoming book titled Proof of Conspiracy
. "Many former US government officials know for a fact that what I've just said is true," Abramson wrote in his first tweet in the
series.
"Kushner is going to get us into a *devastating* war with Iran. Jared, singlehandedly. Jared, to make money for himself [sic],"
the attorney wrote. "I'll say now that Jared more richly deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life than Manafort, and Manafort
richly deserves it," he argued. "That's how bad this is."
"Don't believe anything you hear from Kushner's attorney or from Kushner. *Ever*. The latter will always be lying to you,
and the former will either be lying to you or will have been lied to by his client [sic]," Abramson continued. He then pointed to
the reports surrounding Kushner's top-secret security clearance, which he allegedly was granted despite the disapproval of intelligence
agencies and top administration officials.
"Trump circumventing our intelligence community to give his son-in-law that access is the shibboleth that made the current danger
to America *possible* [sic]," Abramson warned.
"Our foreign policy is totally off the rails in a way that is dangerous, and the sole reason for this is the Kushner-Trump
axis. Our values have been betrayed in ways that we may shortly feel so keenly our heads will spin. We need whistleblowers to
blow their whistles now," he said. Abramson also argued that Kushner should go to prison for "a very, very long time."
Trump's former chief of staff John Kelly and top intelligence officials opposed granting Kushner access to viewing sensitive
top secret materials pertaining to the nation's security, according to
a recent report from The New York Times . However, the president reportedly ordered his son-in-law be granted the clearance,
allegedly disregarding the objections.
Jim Boyle Kathy Rhodarmer The article said the details will be revealed soon, so I guess we'll all just have to wait for the investigation
to decide. Traitor is pretty strong accusation, but the massive Qatar loan, secretive relationship with MSB and intelligence agencies
concern with his security clearance are all big red flags. The oversight will continue...
Martin Wulfe Tribe is a highly respected constitutional lawyer,
but so far this article is a real disappointment and lacks any details. We'll just have to wait until the full article comes out
to see what actual evidence there is to back this up, if there is any.
Danny LaMaster Trump and Kushner are selling American
secrets for personal gain
Bud
Dailey Kushner is not and never will be a American patriot , and has no business in American government.
Kathy
Dreher The same is true of the Trump crime family.
Joan Nelson Jared is too cozy with our enemy, no, not
ally, Saudi Arabia.Setting up some opportunities for himself and his family after he leaves the WH. The scummy atmosphere in the
WH is reflective of the presence of incompetent family members who have no business there...
In Ber 2018 Kusher security clearance wasdongraded.
Notable quotes:
"... Among those nations discussing ways to influence Kushner to their advantage were the United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico, the current and former officials said. ..."
"... Kushner's interim security clearance was downgraded last week from the top-secret to the secret level, which should restrict the regular access he has had to highly classified information, according to administration officials. Washpost ..."
" Officials in at least four countries have privately discussed ways they can manipulate Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law
and senior adviser, by taking advantage of his complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience,
according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports on the matter.
Among those nations discussing ways to influence Kushner to their advantage were the United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico,
the current and former officials said.
It is unclear if any of those countries acted on the discussions, but Kushner's contacts with certain foreign government officials
have raised concerns inside the White House and are a reason he has been unable to obtain a permanent security clearance, the officials
said.
Kushner's interim security clearance was downgraded last week from the top-secret to the secret level, which should restrict the
regular access he has had to highly classified information, according to administration officials. Washpost
------------------
Most people will probably be struck by the fall from grace of Kushner and other WH staff dilettantes. I am not terribly interested
in that. What strikes me is that this is the third major compromise of US SIGINT products in the last year. The first was the felonious
disclosure to the press of US intelligence penetration of Russian diplomatic communications. the second was the disclosure to the
press of penetration of GRU communications. In this one the oral or written discussions among the officials of several foreign countries
are revealed. These conversations were probably encrypted.
Is Jeff Sessions still alive? Why are there no prosecutions for these felonies? pl
Trump is definitely deeply compromised politician, a marionette of a lobby, but not Russian
lobby. Just look at
Jared Kushner and Ivanka role in WH (the books Kushner Inc
shed some light on Trump son-in-law) This is both nepotism and pandering to Israeli lobby. As one
Amazon reviewer put it "I'd also advise counting your fingers after you shake hands with any of
the Kushners..." and "The best way to describe Kushner and Ivanka is that they are both nothing
but "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" - unpatriotic, self-enriching, lying, scheming, tax dodging
POS's."
Trump campaign was a large extent financed by Sheldon Adelson . Trump connection to
convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein are also of great concerns (
Flight logs reveal trips Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz took on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet
Daily Mail Online ) if we view this as an attempt to compromise and then control US
politicians. And the content of the hard drive of Anthony Wiener laptop was never revealed. Death
of Seth Rich was highly suspicious as was the content of Podesta email box. Mueller did not dare
to move his investigation in this direction.
Top-ranking Democrat, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jerry Nadler did the rounds of
Sunday's political shows this morning but it wasn't until he reached the safety of CNN that he
decided to unleash his 'facts' in response to the narrative-crushing conclusions reached by
special counsel Robert Mueller.
"We know there was collusion," Nadler insisted several times during an appearance on CNN's
"State of the Union" while shrugging off Mueller's apparent facts - " Why there's been no
indictments, we don't know. "
"... US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class ..."
...Charles Schumer is a JEW NATIONALIST who uses his power and the
power of the Israel Lobby to get American soldiers to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the
Middle East and West Asia.
US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and
Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the
foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class.
Being pro-Zionism is New York way of being militarist
Notable quotes:
"... Trump just appointed John Bolton ! Trump has betrayed us ! How did they turned him ? Blah blah blah .. Forchrissake ! ..."
"... It boggles the mind that even at this stage, so many peoples are still bamboozled by this duopoly dog and pony show , aka the mukkan election ! ..."
"... The Pity of It All : A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 ..."
"... Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results. ..."
"... Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal emphasis on an American dominated global empire. ..."
"... Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. ..."
"... Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. ..."
"... Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed. Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia. Or you can count their billions. ..."
"... The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop, confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality. ..."
"... Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country. They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on. ..."
"... "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper" ..."
"... "The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. " ..."
"... Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention. ..."
"... " (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper does not say that." ..."
"... But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld? ..."
"... Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS. ..."
"... But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence of the manifest destiny. ..."
At the Huffington Post, Jim Sleeper addresses
"A Foreign-Policy Problem
No One Speaks About," and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, even if he's not a warmongering neocon
himself. The Yale lecturer's jumping-off point are recent statements by Leon Wieseltier and
David Brooks lamenting the decline of
American power.
In addition to Wieseltier and Brooks, the "blame the feckless liberals" chorus has included Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, David
Frum, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and many other American neoconservatives. Some of them have
been chastened, or at least been made more cautious, by their grand-strategic blunders of a few years ago ..
I'm saying that they've been fatuous as warmongers again and again and that there's something pathetic in their attempts to
emulate Winston Churchill, who warned darkly of Hitler's intentions in the 1930s. Their blind spot is their willful ignorance
of their own complicity in American deterioration and their over-compensatory, almost pre-adolescent faith in the benevolence
of a statist and militarist power they still hope to mobilize against the seductions and terrors rising all around them.
At bottom, the chorus members' recurrent nightmares of 1938 doom them to reenact other nightmares, prompted by very similar
writers in 1914, on the eve of World War I. Those writers are depicted chillingly, unforgettably, in Chapter 9, "War Fever," of
Amos Elon's
The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933. Elon's account of Germany's stampede into World
War I chronicles painfully the warmongering hysterics of some Jewish would-be patriots of the Kaiserreich who exerted themselves
blindly, romantically, to maneuver their state into the Armageddon that would produce Hitler himself.
This is the place to emphasize that few of Wilhelmine German's warmongers were Jews and that few Jews were or are warmongers.
(Me, for example, although my extended-family history isn't much different from Brooks' or Wieseltier's.) My point is simply that,
driven by what I recognize as understandable if almost preternatural insecurities and cravings for full liberal-nationalist belonging
that was denied to Jews for centuries in Europe, some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves
into the Iraq War, and they have continued, again and again, to employ modes of public discourse and politics that echo with eerie
fidelity that of the people described in Elon's book. The Americans lionized George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and
many others as their predecessors lionized Kaiser Wilhelm, von Bethmann-Hollweg, and far-right nationalist associates who hated
the neo-cons of that time but let them play their roles .
Instead of acknowledging their deepest feelings openly, or even to themselves, the writers I've mentioned who've brought so
much folly and destruction upon their republic, are doubling down, more nervous and desperate than ever, looking for someone else
to blame. Hence their whirling columns and rhythmic incantations. After Germany lost World War I, many Germans unfairly blamed
their national folly on Jews, many of whom had served in it loyally but only a few of whom had been provocateurs and cheerleaders
like the signatories of [Project for New American Century's] letter to Bush. Now neo-cons, from Wieseltier and Brooks to [Charles]
Hill, are blaming Obama and all other feckless liberals. Some of them really need to take a look in Amos Elon's mirror.
Interesting. Though I think Sleeper diminishes Jewish agency here (Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are no one's proxy) and can't
touch the Israel angle. The motivation is not simply romantic identification with power, it's an ideology of religious nationalism
in the Middle East, attachment to the needs of a militarist Sparta in the Arab world. That's another foreign policy problem no one
speaks about.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:11 pm
"Democracy in in the Middle East" was always just a weasel-word saying of "let's try to improve Israel's strategic position
by changing their neighbours".
The neocons basically took a hardline position on foreign interventionism based out of dual loyalty. This is the honest truth.
For anti-Semites, a handful of neocons will always represent "The Jews" as a collective. For many Jews, the refusal to come to
grips with the rise of the neocons and how the Jewish community (and really by "community" I mean the establishment) failed to
prevent them in their own midst, is also a blemish.
Of course, Jim Sleeper is doing these things now. He should have done them 15-20 years ago or so. But better late than never,
I guess.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:16 pm
P.S. While we talk a lot about neocons as a Jewish issue, it's also important to put them in perspective. The only war that
I can truly think of that they influenced was the Iraq war, which was a disaster, but it also couldn't have happened without 9/11,
which was a very rare event in the history of America. You have to go back to Pearl Harbor to find something similar, and that
wasn't technically a terrorist attack but rather a military attack by Japan.
Leading up to the early 2000s, they were mostly ignored during the 1990s. They did take over the GOP media in the early 90s,
using the same tactics used against Hagel, use social norms as a cover but in actuality the real reason is Israel.
Before the 90s, in the 70s and 80s, the cold war took up all the oxygen.
So yeah, the neocons need to be talked about. But comparing what they are trying to do with a World War is a bit of a stretch.
Finally, talking about Israel – which Sleeper ignored – and the hardline positions that the political class in America have
adopted, if you want to look who have ensured the greatest slavishness to Israel, liberal/centrist groups like ADL, AJC and AIPAC(yes,
they are mostly democrats!) have played a far greater role than the neocons.
But I guess, Sleeper wasn't dealing with that, because it would ruin his view of the neocons as the bogeymen.
Just like "liberal" Zionists want to blame Likud for everything, overlooking the fact that Labor/Mapai has had a far greater
role in settling/colonizing the Palestinian land than the right has, and not to speak about the ethnic cleansing campaigns of
'48 and '67 which was only done by the "left", so too the neocons often pose as a convenient catch-all target for the collective
Jewish failure leading up to Iraq.
And I'm using the words "collective Jewish failure" because I actually don't believe, unlike Mearsheimer/Walt, that the war
would not have gone ahead unless there was massive support by the Israel/Jewish lobby. If Jews had decided no, it would still
have gone ahead. This is also contrary to Tom Friedman's famous saying of "50 people in DC are responsible for this war".
I also think that's an oversimplification.
But I focus more on the Jewish side because that's my side. And I want my community to do better, and just blaming the neocons
is something I'm tired of hearing in Jewish circles. The inability to look at liberal Jewish journalists and their role in promoting
the war to either gentile or Jewish audiences.
Kathleen, May 6, 2014, 6:53 pm
There was talk about this last night (Monday/5th) on Chris Matthew's Hardball segment on Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice pulling
out of the graduation ceremonies at Rutger's. David Corn did not say much but Eugene Robinson and Chris Matthews were basically
talking about Israel and the neocons desires to rearrange the middle east "the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad" conversation.
Bumblebye, May 6, 2014, 2:33 pm
"some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves into the Iraq War"
Have to take issue with that – the neo-cons hurled young American (and foreign) servicemen and women into that war, many to
their deaths, along with throwing as much taxpayer money as possible. They stayed ultra safe and grew richer for their efforts.
Citizen, May 7, 2014, 9:03 am
@ Bumblebye
Good point. During WW1, as I read the history, the Jewish Germans provided their fair share of combat troops. If memory serves,
despite Weimar Germany's later "stab in the back" theory, e.g., Hitler himself was given a combat medal thanks to his Jewish senior
officer. In comparison to the build-up to Shrub Jr's war on Iraq, the Jewish neocons provided very few Jewish American combat
troops.
It's hard to get reliable stats on Jewish American participation in the US combat arms during the Iraq war. For all I've been
able to ascertain, more have joined the IDF over the years. At any rate, it's common knowledge that Shrub's war on Iraq was instigated
and supported by chicken hawks (Jew or Gentile) at a time bereft of conscription. They built their sale by ignoring key facts,
and embellishing misleading and fake facts, as illustrated by the Downing Street memo.
Keith, May 6, 2014, 7:47 pm
PHIL- Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little
difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which
are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine.
The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's
emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results.
Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal
emphasis on an American dominated global empire.
So yes, the nationalistic emphasis is an anachronism, however, the decline of the US in conjunction with the extension of a
system of globalized domination should hardly be of concern to elite power-seekers who will benefit. In fact, the new system of
corporate/financial control will be beyond the political control of any nation, even the US. If they can pull it off. An interesting
topic no doubt, but one which I doubt is suitable for extended discussion on Mondoweiss. As for power-seeking as a consequence
of a uniquely Jewish experience, perhaps the less said the better.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes that
10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition with
them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on the
same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over the
Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself
is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support the political
movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty antisemite whose followers killed many thousands
of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those left behind perished
during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any of them would identify
with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
(I know I'm always grabbing OT threads of discussion, but when it comes down to it, I know much less about Zionism and Israel/Palestine
than many, if not most of the regular commenters here.)
I also am going to drift further off-topic by saying there is strong evidence that the slaughter in Odessa last Friday was
highly orchestrated and not solely the result of spontaneous mob violence. Very graphic and disturbing images in all of these
links:
" and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, ..>>
Stop it Sleeper. Do not continue to use the victim card ' to explain' the trauma, the insecurities, the nightmares, the angst,
the feelings, the sensitivities, blah blah, blah of Zionist or Israel.
That is not what they are about. These are power mad psychos like most neocons, period.
And even if it were, and even if all the Jews in the world felt the same way, the bottom line would still be they do not have
the right to make others pay in treasure and blood for their nightmares and mental sickness.
As near as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), the Ukrainians themselves are about half and half pro Russia and Pro NATO.
Your glance at the history of the region as to why this is so, and your text on historical Ukranian suffering and POTV on MW commentary
on this –did not help your analysis and its conclusion.
There's a difference between isolationism and defensive intervention, and even more so, re isolationism v. pro-active interventionism
"in the name of pursuing the democratic ideal". See Ron Paul v. PNAC-style neocons and liberal Zionists.
Also, if you were Putin, how would you see the push of NATO & US force posts ever creeping towards Russia and its local environment?
Look at the US military postings nearing Russia per se & those surrounding Iran. Compare Russia's.
And note the intent to wean EU from Russian oil, and as well, the draconian sanctions on Iran, and Obama's latest partnering
sanctions on Russia.
Imagine yourself in Putin's shoes, and Iran's.
Don't abuse your imagination only by imagining yourself in Netanyahu's shoes, which is the preoccupation of AIPAC and its whores
in the US Congress.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes
that 10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition
with them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on
the same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over
the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel
itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support
the political movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty anti-Semite whose followers killed
many thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those
left behind perished during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-Zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any
of them would identify with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
Yonah writes The freedom of Ukraine is a worthy goal. If the US is not able to back up our attempt to help them gain their
freedom it is not something to celebrate, but something to lament.
What are you saying? Ukraine has been an independent nation for 22 years. What freedom is this? What we have witnessed is that
one half of Ukraine has gotten tired that the other half keeps on electing candidates that represent those Ukrainians that identify
with Russian culture. They (the western half) successfully staged a coup and purged the other (eastern half) from the government.
You call that "freedom". Doesn't it embarrass you, Yonah, that the armed militias that conducted that coup are descendants of
the Bandera organization.
Does that ring a bell? These are the Ukrainians that were involved in the holocaust. Does Babi Yar stir any memories Yohan?
It was a massacre of 40,000 Jews just outside of Kiev in 1942. It was the single largest massacre of Jews during WWII. The massacre
was led by the Germans ( Einsatzgruppe C officers) but was carried out with the aid of 400 Ukrainian Auxillary Police. These were
later incorporated into the 14th SS-Volunteer Division "Galician" made up mostly Ukrainians. The division flags are to this day
displayed at Right Sector rallies in western Ukraine.
Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were
almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed.
Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis.
Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this
is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia.
Or you can count their billions. In any case, the neutral posture is sensible for Israel here. Which is highly uncharacteristic
for that government.
Toivo S- The history of Jew hatred by certain anti Russian elements in the Ukraine is not encouraging and nothing that I celebrate.
Maybe I have been swayed by headlines and a superficial reading of the situation.
If indeed I am wrong regarding the will of the Ukrainian people, I can only be glad that my opinion is just that, my opinion
and not US or Israel or anyone's policy but my own. I assume that a majority of Ukrainians want to maintain independence of Russia
and that the expressions of rebellion are in that vein.
My people were murdered by the einsatzgruppen in that part of the world and so maybe I have overcompensated by trying not to
allow my personal history to interfere with what I think would be the will of the majority of the Ukraine.
But Toivo S. please skip the "doesn't it embarrass you" line of thought. Just put a sock in it and skip it.
Well thanks for that Yonah. My wife's family descended from Jewish communities in Odessa and Galicia. They emigrated to the US
between 1900 and 1940. After WWII none of their relatives left behind were ever heard from again. Perhaps you have family that
experienced similar stories. What caused me to react to your post above is that you are describing the current situation in Ukraine
as a "freedom" movement by the Ukrainians when the political forces there descended from the same people that killed my inlaws
family (and apparently yours to). Why do you support them?
ToivoS- I support them because I trust/don't trust Putin. I trust him to impose his brand of leadership on Ukraine, I don't trust
him to care a whit about freedom. It is natural that the nationalist elements of Ukraine would descend from the elements that
expressed themselves the last time they had freedom from the Soviet Union, that is those forces that were willing to join with
the Nazis to express their hatred for the communist Soviet Union's rule over their freedom. That's how history works. The nationalists
today descend from the nationalists of yesterday.
But it's been 70 years since WWII and the Ukrainians ought to be able to have freedom even if the parties that advocate for
freedom are descended from those that supported the Nazis. (I know once i include the Nazi part of history any analogies are toxic,
but if I am willing to grant Hamas its rights as an expression of the Palestinian desire for freedom, why would I deny the Ukrainian
foul nationalist parties their rights to express their people's desire for freedom.)
Political parties are not made in a sterile laboratory, they evolve over history and most specifically they emerge from the
past. I accept that Ukrainian nationalism has not evolved much, but nonetheless not having read any polls I assume that the nationalists
are the representatives of the people's desire for freedom. And because Putin strikes me as something primitive, I accept the
Ukrainian desire for freedom.
What are you supporting? Let me refresh your historic memory: Black's Transfer Agreement. Now apply analogy, responding
to ToivoS. Might help us all to understand, explore more skillfully, Israel's current stance on the Putin-Ukranian matter .?
(I think Nuland's intervention caught on tape, combined with who she is married to, already explores with great clarification
what the US is doing.
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play
the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. Most people here would probably disagree with Sleeper, because he does
not deny that the world needs a cop, nor that the US would play a positive role, if it only had the means and the desire to
do so. People here (overwhelmingly) see the US role as a negative one (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let
the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world,"
The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that
embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop,
confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have
us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock
it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality.
Contrast that with the realist or realism approach recommended by George Kennan, and followed by this country successfully
through the end of the Cold War. That approach is conservative and contends we should stay out of wars unless the vital national
security interests of the US are at stake, like protecting WESTERN Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Western Hemisphere. This
meant we could sympathize with the plight of all the eastern Europeans oppressed by the Soviets, but would not defend militarily
the Hungarians (1956) or the Czechs (1968). It also meant we wouldn't send US troops into North Vietnam because we didn't want
to go to war with the Chinese over a country that was at best tangential to US interests. When we varied from that policy (Vietnam
and Iraq wars, Somalia) we paid a very heavy price while doing nothing to advance or protect our vital national security interests.
The sooner this country can return to our traditional realism-based foreign policy the better. Part of that policy would be
to disassociate the US from its entangling alliance with Likud Israel and its US Jewish supporters that espouse the Likud Greater
Israel line.
Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily
involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country.
They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to
get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend
and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews. It is also directed
at Neoconservative foreign policy advocates, comprised of Jews and non-Jews, and overlap between the two groups. Please also note
my use of the term "major role", and that I am not saying the Neocons and their supporters (Jewish or non) were solely responsible
for our involvement in the Iraq war. I am offering these caveats in the hope that the usual changes of antisemitism can be avoided
in your or anyone else's response to my arguments.
The influence of Neocons on US foreign policy has been very harmful to this country and poses a grave danger to its future.
It would be wise for you to reflect on that harm and those dangers and decide whether you belong in the realist camp or want to
continue running with the Neocons.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews.
What about the role of *liberal Zionists*, like Hillary Clinton, in supporting and promoting the Iraq War? Clinton still hasn't
offered an apology for helping to drive the United States in a multi-trillion dollar foreign policy disaster - and she has threatened
to "totally obliterate" Iran.
What about Harry Reid's lavish praise of Sheldon Adelson?
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has for some time billed the Koch brothers as public enemy No.1 .
But billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson? He's just fine, Reid says.
"I know Sheldon Adelson. He's not in this for money," the Nevada Democrat said of Adelson, the Vegas casino magnate who
reportedly spent close to $150 million to support Republicans in the 2012 presidential election."
@ yonah fredman "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper"
Strange
"state into the Armageddon .. "
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to
play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. "
Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention.
" (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they
want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act
like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper
does not say that."
You do tho, without quoting anyone "here".
BTW Pajero, strawmen no matter how lengthy and seemingly erudite, rarely walk anywhere
I'm going to put this down as Jewish navel gazing.
Jews are disproportionately liberal. Jews make up a huge chunk of the peace movement. Jews are relative to their numbers on
the left of most foreign policy positions.
Iraq was unusual in that Jews were not overwhelming opposed to the invasion, but it is worth noting the invasion at the time
was overwhelming popular. Frankly given the fact that Jews are now considered white people and the fact that Jews are almost all
middle class they should be biased conservative. There certainly is no reason they should be more liberal than Catholics. Yet
they are. It is the degree of Jewish liberalism not the degree of Jewish conservatism that is striking.
But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct
from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul
Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld?
Strongly antiwar incumbent Rep. Walter Jones (R – NC) has won a hotly contested primary tonight, defeating a challenge from
hawkish challenger and former Treasury Dept. official Taylor Griffin 51% to 45%.
Voter turn out was light .. tea party types did a lot of lobbying for Griffin here .but Jones prevailed. Considering the
onslaught of organized activity against him by ECI and the tea partiers for the past month he did well.
@ lysias
Let's refresh our look at what Ron Paul had to say about foreign policy and foreign aid. Then, let's compare what his son has
said, and take a look of his latest bill in congress to cut off aid to Palestine. Yes, you read that right; it's not a bill to
cut off any aid to Israel.
Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will
not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS.
The heavy artillery included the detestable Karl Rove, former Governor and RNC Chair Haley Barber and the War Party's highly
paid chief PR flack, Ari Fleischer.
But it was Neocon central that hauled out the big guns. Bill Kristol was so desperate to thwart the slowly rising anti-interventionist
tide within the GOP that he even trotted out Sarah Palin to endorse Jones's opponent"
But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it
here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence
of the manifest destiny.
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole
west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating
about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in
2001?
His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some
totally obscure Jewish activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National
Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Jewish Committee. If that doesn't qualify him
as an "insider," I don't know what does.
Excerpts from The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a
Misguided Immigration Policy :
Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power
Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the
greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly.
We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until
the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario,
the great material wealth of the Jewish community will continue to give it significant
advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power
is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft
money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to
Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with
selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.
Jewish voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the
nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los
Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more
quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a
matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms
us.
All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to
play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very
scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least
a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the
new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often
competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new
immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south
Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go
before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent
enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no
melting pot!
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in
a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions
that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American
alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese,
and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided
Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is
that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger
Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not
think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans,
Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.
Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Jewish legislative
representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S.
Senates with 10 Jewish members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court
to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be
we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually
believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will
go to Israel?
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole
west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating
about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in
2001?
His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some
totally obscure Zionist activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National
Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Zionist Committee. If that doesn't qualify him
as an "insider," I don't know what does.
Excerpts from The Zionist Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a
Misguided Immigration Policy :
Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power
Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the
greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly.
We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until
the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario,
the great material wealth of the Zionist community will continue to give it significant
advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power
is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft
money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to
Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with
selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.
Zionist voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the
nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los
Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more
quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a
matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms
us.
All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to
play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very
scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least
a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the
new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often
competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new
immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south
Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go
before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent
enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no
melting pot!
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Zionist community is thus in
a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions
that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American
alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese,
and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided
Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is
that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger
Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not
think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans,
Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.
Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Zionist legislative
representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S.
Senates with 10 Zionist members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court
to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be
we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually
believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will
go to Israel?
If Steinlight was obscure or not, I do not know.
What struck me in one of his articles is how he sees the holocaust story as essential to Zionist power in the USA.
Also in that article he wondered if at some point in time Jews might be driven out of the
USA, 'but, there is always the life boat Israel'.
That Israel will collapse the minute Zionist power in the USA [eventually] ends, he seems unable to see
this.
About your quote, it seems to have been written before it became clear to the world that
western power is diminishing.
So even if Zionist power over the West remains, Zionist power in the world is diminishing
too.
NATO, EU, Pentagon, neocons, whatever, may still want war with Russia, my idea is that on the other
hand that more and more people see this intention, and are absolutely against.
While western influence is receding, Assad still is there, Russia has bases in Syria, Erdogan, on what side is he ?; and so on and so forth.
The battle cry 'no more war for Israel' exists for a long time in the USA. And I interpret discussions on
this side of the Atlantic about increasing anti-Semitism as the acknowledgement of the fact that more and more people
on this side begin to criticize Zionists, especially with regard to Palestinians.
"... Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left. ..."
"... Every single person who has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil. ..."
"... Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth. ..."
"... Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check. ..."
The US will be celebrating Veterans Day, and many a striped flag shall be waved. The social
currency of esteem will be used to elevate those who have served in the US military, thereby
ensuring future generations of recruits to be thrown into the gears of the globe-spanning war
machine
Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their
country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its
shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left.
Every single person who
has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other
than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been
fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for
imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil.
I just said something you're not supposed to say. People have dedicated many years of their
lives to the service of the US military; they've given their limbs to it, they've suffered
horrific brain damage for it, they've given their very lives to it. Families have been ripped
apart by the violence that has been inflicted upon members of the US Armed Forces; you're not
supposed to let them hear you say that their loved one was destroyed because some sociopathic
nerds somewhere in Washington decided that it would give America an advantage over potential
economic rivals to control a particular stretch of Middle Eastern dirt. But it is true, and if
we don't start acknowledging that truth lives are going to keep getting thrown into the gears
of the machine for the power and profit of a few depraved oligarchs. So I'm going to keep
saying it.
Last week I saw the hashtag #SaluteToService trending on Twitter. Apparently the NFL had a
deal going where every time someone tweeted that hashtag they'd throw a few bucks at some
veteran's charity. Which sounds sweet, until you consider three things:
2. The NFL has taken millions of
dollars from the Pentagon for displays of patriotism on the field, including for the
policy of bringing all players out for the national anthem every game starting in 2009 (which
led to Colin Kaepernick's demonstrations and the obscene backlash against him).
3. VETERANS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RELY ON FUCKING CHARITY.
Seriously, how is "charity for veterans" a thing, and how are people not extremely weirded
out by it? How is it that you can go out and get your limbs blown off for slave wages after
watching your friends die and innocent civilians perish, come home, and have to rely on charity
to get by? How is it that you can risk life and limb killing and suffering irreparable
psychological trauma for some plutocrat's agendas, plunge into poverty when you come home, and
then see the same plutocrat labeled a "philanthropist" because he threw a few tax-deductible
dollars at a charity that gave you a decent prosthetic leg?
Taking care of veterans should be factored into the budget of every act of military
aggression . If a government can't make sure its veterans are housed, healthy and happy in a
dignified way for the rest of their lives, it has no business marching human beings into harm's
way. The fact that you see veterans on the street of any large US city and people who fought in
wars having to beg "charities" for a quality mechanical wheelchair shows you just how much of a
pathetic joke this Veterans Day song and dance has always been.
They'll send you to mainline violence and trauma into your mind and body for the power and
profit of the oligarchic rulers of the US-centralized empire, but it's okay because everyone
gets a long weekend where they're told to thank you for your service. Bullshit.
Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct
designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It
glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be
recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't
wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to
unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth.
The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make sure
no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of evil,
stupid, meaningless violence. The way to do that is to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it
clear that you do not consent to the global terrorism being perpetrated in your name. These
bastards work so hard conducting propaganda to manufacture your consent for endless
warmongering because they need that consent . So don't give it to them.
Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the
Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly
waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to
shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy
coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable
warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check.
This Veterans Day, don't honor those who have served by giving reverence and legitimacy to a
war machine which is exclusively used for inflicting great evil. Honor them by disassembling
that machine.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
It's been 24-48 hours since the 'deep state'-media lost their battle over Kavanaugh's SCOTUS
confirmation, so it makes sense that the narrative should quickly flip to something else to
throw shade on President Trump.
The New York Times stepped up to the plate with a story that had everything needed for the
next news cycle - a Trump campaign staff member involved in collusion with a third party that
is linked to a foreign government... oh and meeting at Trump Tower.
There's just one thing (well three): the 'colluding' nation is allegedly Israel (not
Russia), the plans were not acted upon, and lawyers claim none of this actually happened.
The NYT Story begins with a great Deep State headline - Rick Gates Sought Online
Manipulation Plans From Israeli Intelligence Firm for Trump Campaign
How can you not be intrigued?
The report is simple in its claims, as Daily Caller's Chuck
Ross summarizes - a former aide to the Trump campaign, requested proposals from an Israeli
intelligence firm to target Hillary Clinton and to use fake online personas to influence GOP
delegates toward Donald Trump.
The New York Times reports that Rick Gates, the campaign's deputy chairman, met in March
2016 with an Israeli political operative who later contacted Psy-Group, an intelligence firm
operated by former Israeli spies.
Mr. Gates first heard about Psy-Group's work during a March 2016 meeting at the Mandarin
Oriental hotel along the Washington waterfront with George Birnbaum, a Republican consultant
with close ties to current and former Israeli government officials.
According to Mr. Birnbaum, Mr. Gates expressed interest during that meeting in using
social media influence and manipulation as a campaign tool , most immediately to try to sway
Republican delegates toward Mr. Trump.
"He was interested in finding the technology to achieve what they were looking for," Mr.
Birnbaum said in an interview. Through a lawyer, Mr. Gates declined to comment. A person
familiar with Mr. Gates's account of the meeting said that Mr. Birnbaum first raised the
topic of hiring an outside firm to conduct the social media campaign .
All of which seems a little different from the headline's claim that Gates "sought online
manipulation plans," especially since later in the stroy, NYT admits that Birnbaum initiated
the meeting...
Mr. Birnbaum appeared to initiate the contact with Mr. Gates, asking for his email address
from Eckart Sager, a political consultant who had worked with both men, to pitch Mr. Gates on
a technology that could be used by Mr. Gates's and Mr. Manafort's clients in Eastern
Europe.
NYT then claims that the Trump campaign's interest in the work began as Russians were
escalating their effort to aid Donald J. Trump, which is odd since there is no evidence that
that took place at all (or did we miss something in Mr. Mueller's probe?)
Five paragraphs deep,
NYT sheepishly admits that there is no evidence that the Trump campaign acted on the
proposals, and Mr. Gates ultimately was uninterested in Psy-Group's work , a person with
knowledge of the discussions said
In addition to that, twelve paragraphs in,
NYT admits :
"It is unclear whether the Project Rome proposals describe work that would violate laws
regulating foreign participation in American elections. "
However, to ensure there is more intrigue,
NYT reports that, although it appears that Trump campaign officials declined to accept any
of the proposals, Mr. Zamel pitched the company's services in at least general terms during a
meeting on Aug. 3, 2016, at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr.
Which NYT then admits, Zamel's lawyer Marc Mukasey denies:
"Mr. Zamel never pitched, or otherwise discussed, any of Psy-Group's proposals relating
to the U.S. elections with anyone related to the Trump campaign, including not with Donald
Trump Jr., except for outlining the capabilities of some of his companies in general
terms."
So... to summarize - an intermediary approached a Trump campaign staff member offering
potential opposition research and social media strategy... the intermediary reached out to a
company known for its ex-Mossad members who sent three proposals to Gates... who turned them
all down...
"... The warning signs that Kushner was fronting for the neo-conservatives was always present. His media company, Observer Media, which publishes the weekly on-line New York Observer, prominently featured several neo-conservative writers. ..."
"... The narrow gap of separation between Jared Kushner and some of Israel's top gangsters is cause for alarm. This situation became especially acute after it was revealed that Kushner failed to provide all the requested information on his national security questionnaire forms concerning his contacts with foreign persons and interests, has led for congressional calls for his security clearance to be suspended. ..."
"... The feud between Jared Kushner and Bannon is not the first personality conflict Kushner has had with members of the Trump team. The first demonstration of Kushner's powerful influence over Trump was evidenced in his firing of Trump transition team chairman New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and his loyalists, who included former U.S. Representative Mike Rogers and Matthew Freedman. For Kushner, the firings were an ultimate payback for Christie. While the U.S. Attorney for Northern New Jersey, Christie successfully prosecuted Kushner's father for tax evasion, witness tampering, and illegal campaign contributions. Christie wanted a three-year prison sentence for the elder Kushner but he ended up serving a year at a federal penitentiary in Alabama. ..."
"... Christie's federal law enforcement investigation discovered that Charles Kushner tried to lure his brother-in-law and employee, William Schulder, into a prostitution honey trap at the Red Bull Inn motel in Bridgewater, New Jersey. The elder Kushner paid $10,000 to a high-end prostitute, who reportedly worked for a Manhattan escort agency linked to the Mossad, to lure Schulder into a trap, complete with a videotape system, designed to prevent him from testifying on behalf of Christie at Kushner's trial. ..."
"... Charles Kushner also managed to get New Jersey Democratic Governor Jim McGreevey to appoint him to the New York-New Jersey Port Authority Commission, which owned the World Trade Center, a plum position on 9/11 for a suspected asset of Israel's Mossad. Hudson County and Jersey City law enforcement authorities were well-aware that Mossad elements were involved in many of the intelligence activities surrounding and in support of the 9/11 event in the months leading up to the attack in 2001. ..."
"... After becoming governor, McGreevey appointed Cipel, an Israeli national and employee of Kushner, as his chief counselor on political strategy, foreign affairs, and relations with the Jewish community. But it was McGreevey's appointment of Cipel as his director for homeland security that raised eyebrows across the state, especially after 9/11. ..."
"... Undoubtedly, Christie, who had his eyes already set upon the New Jersey governor's mansion in Princeton, knew all about the role that Charles Kushner played in the ultimate blackmailing of one of his predecessors as governor. With the sort of background information possessed by a federal prosecutor like Christie, who had access to wiretap transcripts gathered from the Kushner family's phone and other communications, it is clear that Jared Kushner saw Christie as a major threat to the future Kushner family agenda within the Trump administration. ..."
"... With Christie, and, possibly soon, Bannon out of the way, Jared Kushner will be able to cement his Svengali-like control over Trump. Considering the record of political muscle exercised by the Kushner klan against two New Jersey governors, one can only surmise the Kushners have a great deal of blackmailable information on Mr. Trump. ..."
Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner has emerged as a significant influence within the policy-making apparatus of the White
House. After a rather public imbroglio with Trump's strategic policy adviser Stephen Bannon over the U.S. cruise missile attack on
the Shayrat airbase in Syria, Kushner is "in", as they often say in Washington, and Bannon is "out". In any case, the anti-globalist
faction, which is led by Bannon, has received verbal "thumbs down" on several fronts from Trump.
Trump's adoption of Clintonesque Democratic Party policies of opposing the Syrian government, confronting Russia, supporting NATO,
backing the U.S. Export-Import (EXIM) Bank, and militarily confronting North Korea and China in East Asia have neo-conservatives
and globalists cheering but many within Trump's political base of "America First" nationalists and libertarians crying foul.
The warning signs that Kushner was fronting for the neo-conservatives was always present. His media company, Observer Media,
which publishes the weekly on-line New York Observer, prominently featured several neo-conservative writers. Kushner, who also
led the real estate firm Kushner Companies, turned over control of the newspaper to his brother-in-law after being named as senior
adviser to President Trump.
Kushner inherited a real estate empire from his father, Charles Kushner. In 2007, Jared Kushner made the largest single purchase
of a single building in U.S. history, he paid $1.8 billion for a 41-story building at 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. In 2015, Jared
Kushner bought a 50.1 percent share in the Time Square Building in Manhattan from Africa Israel Investments, Ltd. (AFI), an investment
and holding company owned by Israeli-Uzbek diamond magnate Lev Leviev. In what could spell trouble for U.S. relations with the Palestine
and Africa, AFI has been involved in the building of illegal settlements on the West Bank and the acquisition of diamonds from Africa's
bloodiest of conflict zones.
AFI and its subsidiary, Danya Cebus, have been subjected to disinvestments by a number of governments and companies over its West
Bank activities. In August 2010, the Norwegian pension fund divested in the two firms. Leviev is also involved in dodgy casino operations,
which puts him in the same business circles as casino operator Trump. In 2009, Playtech Cyprus, Ltd., one of AFI's companies, began
providing casino equipment to a new casino in Bucharest, Romania. Playtech was started in 1999 by four Israelis, Teddy Sagi, Elad
Cohen, Rami Beinish, and Amnon Ben-Zion. Playtech's on-line gambling software is primarily provided by software programmers in Estonia.
Sagi is a convicted stock fraudster, having been convicted of fraud in the 1996 "Discount Bank affair", a stock and bond manipulation
scheme that shook the Tel Aviv business community. Leviev's Africa diamond mining operations involve several "former" Mossad officers,
most notably in Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Namibia, and Angola.
The narrow gap of separation between Jared Kushner and some of Israel's top gangsters is cause for alarm. This situation became
especially acute after it was revealed that Kushner failed to provide all the requested information on his national security questionnaire
forms concerning his contacts with foreign persons and interests, has led for congressional calls for his security clearance to be
suspended.
The feud between Jared Kushner and Bannon is not the first personality conflict Kushner has had with members of the Trump
team. The first demonstration of Kushner's powerful influence over Trump was evidenced in his firing of Trump transition team chairman
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and his loyalists, who included former U.S. Representative Mike Rogers and Matthew Freedman. For
Kushner, the firings were an ultimate payback for Christie. While the U.S. Attorney for Northern New Jersey, Christie successfully
prosecuted Kushner's father for tax evasion, witness tampering, and illegal campaign contributions. Christie wanted a three-year
prison sentence for the elder Kushner but he ended up serving a year at a federal penitentiary in Alabama.
Christie's federal law enforcement investigation discovered that Charles Kushner tried to lure his brother-in-law and employee,
William Schulder, into a prostitution honey trap at the Red Bull Inn motel in Bridgewater, New Jersey. The elder Kushner paid $10,000
to a high-end prostitute, who reportedly worked for a Manhattan escort agency linked to the Mossad, to lure Schulder into a trap,
complete with a videotape system, designed to prevent him from testifying on behalf of Christie at Kushner's trial.
After Schulder's wife was sent a videotape of the tryst at the motel, Christie managed to not only ensure that an embarrassed
but angered Schulder remained a star witness but also got the prostitute to testify against Kushner. Another witness for the prosecutors,
Robert Yontef, Kushner's chief bookkeeper, was also subjected to a Kushner prostitution trap and a "smoking gun" videotape arranged
by another call girl hired by Kushner.
Charles Kushner also managed to get New Jersey Democratic Governor Jim McGreevey to appoint him to the New York-New Jersey
Port Authority Commission, which owned the World Trade Center, a plum position on 9/11 for a suspected asset of Israel's Mossad.
Hudson County and Jersey City law enforcement authorities were well-aware that Mossad elements were involved in many of the intelligence
activities surrounding and in support of the 9/11 event in the months leading up to the attack in 2001.
The Kushner family appears to relish in the politics of revenge and blackmail as McGreevey discovered the hard way.
While he was mayor of Woodbridge, McGreevey met an Israeli intelligence asset named Golan Cipel during a 2000 fact finding trip
to Israel arranged by Charles Kushner, who was a generous donor to McGreevey's political coffers. Although the trip was sponsored
by the United Jewish Federation of MetroWest, the goal was to ensure future loyalty from an up-and-coming New Jersey politician being
groomed for governor of his state. Cipel was the chief spokesman for the Israeli city of Rishon LeZion, but he soon ended up on McGreevey's
gubernatorial campaign staff, thanks to the influence, U.S. work visa clearance, and money arranged by the elder Kushner. It is noteworthy
that Rishon LeZion represents one of the right-wing Likud Party's most important bases of support in Israel. A powerful political
kingmaker, Charles Kushner secured McGreevey's Democratic nomination for the governor's race after seeking the support – that is,
arm twisting – the Democratic Party chairmen of the counties of Union, Essex, Middlesex, and Camden.
After becoming governor, McGreevey appointed Cipel, an Israeli national and employee of Kushner, as his chief counselor on
political strategy, foreign affairs, and relations with the Jewish community. But it was McGreevey's appointment of Cipel as his
director for homeland security that raised eyebrows across the state, especially after 9/11.
During McGreevey's governorship, Cipel decided to file a sexual harassment lawsuit against the governor in Mercer County Court.
Cipel, a one-time "diplomat" – read that as a Mossad agent – at the Israeli Consulate General in New York, in a single legal action,
destroyed McGreevey's political career. The suit forced McGreevey, who was married with two children, to admit that he led a parallel
and secret gay lifestyle. With that bombshell news hitting the media, McGreevey was forced to resign. Several New Jersey political
observers believe that Charles Kushner was behind Cipel's lawsuit after McGreevey did not turn out as the kind of puppet Kushner
expected him to be. In fact, during the Cipel suit, McGreevey's lawyers contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and tipped
them off about a possible Kushner-Cipel extortion operation directed against the governor.
Undoubtedly, Christie, who had his eyes already set upon the New Jersey governor's mansion in Princeton, knew all about the
role that Charles Kushner played in the ultimate blackmailing of one of his predecessors as governor. With the sort of background
information possessed by a federal prosecutor like Christie, who had access to wiretap transcripts gathered from the Kushner family's
phone and other communications, it is clear that Jared Kushner saw Christie as a major threat to the future Kushner family agenda
within the Trump administration.
With Christie, and, possibly soon, Bannon out of the way, Jared Kushner will be able to cement his Svengali-like control over
Trump. Considering the record of political muscle exercised by the Kushner klan against two New Jersey governors, one can only surmise
the Kushners have a great deal of blackmailable information on Mr. Trump.
"... This couldn't last. In February 2007 Kaplan closed his office door and said he was a Zionist, Kushner was a Zionist, Kempner was a Zionist, and the janitor was a Zionist, too, and the newspaper would not pay for me to blog, as I was demanding (at that time I was only paid for published columns). It was fitting; I was gone. ..."
"... Kushner reminds me of a few bosses I have had. They only know what they know which means SFA . Zero interest in the wider world. He probably knows loads about NY real estate and not much else ..."
"... Very good profile, Phil. One thing struck me, as it did Keith. The only "peace" that Kushner and people like him want for Israel is the "peace" of total domination and rule over others with no disturbance. So, talking about him bringing "peace" makes no sense whatsoever. That's not at all what he or anyone around him wants. ..."
"... Israelis and their supporters are forever talking about peace, when anyone of sound mind knows that the issue is not peace but justice for the Palestinians who have had their land stolen by European colonists. ..."
"... Israel pushes the peace line because it knows the issue is not about peace and that a subjugated people like the Palestinians have not a snowball's chance in hell of wielding any sort of power which might contribute to peace. ..."
"... While the appointment of Kushner is clearly nepotistic, it does not seem much worse than JFK's appointment of his brother. The historical record indicates that Robert Kennedy was if anything much more vile on Israel Palestine issues than Jared Kushner is. ..."
Donald Trump has now named his son-in-law Jared Kushner as a senior adviser, notably on Middle
East/Israel issues, and as Kushner fired me ten years ago over these issues, it seemed a good time
to review my memories of our (limited) interactions and do what journalists do, make a prognosis
about his future efforts.
Kushner was 25 when he bought the New York Observer from investment banker/artist Arthur
Carter in 2006, and as all such transactions do, the move set off panic on the editorial side of
the paper. The editor, my dear friend Peter Kaplan, now deceased, was at once engaged in a struggle
with his new boss over the paper's news budget and independence. For my part I had been a columnist
for a few years, protected against attacks and my own ineptitude by my Harvard chum Kaplan (yes,
Virginia, that's how media works), and had lately started Mondoweiss there as a personal blog, and
because I was vehemently against the Iraq war and beginning to connect that tragedy to the US relationship
to Israel in my postings, I was apprehensive about Kushner's view of the blog and me. I knew that
he had been a big supporter of the orthodox Jewish Chabad House at Harvard and had
lauded Alan Dershowitz
there. Not a good sign - when I was discovering Rachel Corrie and The Israel Lobby.
Peter Kaplan was a great student of character; it was his chief delight in life (after a cigar,
a turkey leg, and a Preston Sturges film in the middle of the night); and my understanding of Kushner's
character was formed by closed-door conversations with Peter. He told me that Kushner was smart,
ambitious, and full of hubris. The two statements Peter made that resonate down through the years
are: "Jared has ice in his veins." And: "He doesn't know what he doesn't know."
For a little while the clear-skinned young owner took Kaplan on as his grizzled guide to the world
of journalism, but that interval was short-lived. It was somewhat shocking to Kaplan that a guy who
had no experience of journalism, and was a boob about literature, wasn't a very good reader, had
spent his college years doing real estate deals, etc., was eager to make decisions about the paper's
values. But such is the way of the world, and after an agonizing couple of years Peter went back
to Conde Nast.
I didn't last as long. Jared and I had a few polite conversations in the year that we cohabited
on Broadway, and two very uncomfortable meetings over Israel and Palestine. One was before I went
out there in July 2006 on his dime to see the country for the first time, during the Lebanon War,
and the second one was after I got back that August. In the first, Kushner told me about his Holocaust
background, his
grandparents who barely survived , and his regard for Israel. When I got back, Kushner and Brian
Kempner, the newspaper's publisher who had worked at the Israel lobby group AIPAC (American Israel
Public Affairs Committee), couldn't wait to hear what I had seen out there, they said. But when I
started talking about the occupation, the room went cold as the poles, and Kushner gazed right through
me with those unsmiling dark little eyes. Kaplan was even more uncomfortable than I was, and thankfully
brought the tortuous meeting to a close.
This couldn't last. In February 2007 Kaplan closed his office door and said he was a Zionist,
Kushner was a Zionist, Kempner was a Zionist, and the janitor was a Zionist, too, and the newspaper
would not pay for me to blog, as I was demanding (at that time I was only paid for published columns).
It was fitting; I was gone.
My interactions with Jared were limited, but they don't give me hope about his ability to achieve
peace in the Middle East. He lived in a deeply-Zionist-patriarchal mental space then; I never saw
him take a step out of it. There was a provincial element to his commitment. As Peter said, he didn't
know what he didn't know. The guy who replaced Kaplan was even more of a Zionist than Kaplan, while
the nimble-footed Kempner went on to work in the Kushner real estate firm. Kushner's ambition and
political shrewdness were evident to us, but I never saw any worldliness or largeness of spirit.
He was very impressed by his own family. The big asterisk is that he was 25 and 26. I wouldn't want
anyone to judge me on the basis of stuff I said at that age . . .
Lastly, I bear no ill will to Jared Kushner. He paid for my first trip to Israel and Palestine
(at 50!); he paid for me to see the occupation. My firing was also a blessing; he cut me loose from
the paternalist mainstream media, and I was forced to sink or swim on the internet. To some smaller
or bigger degree, I can thank Jared for this website, and the wonderful relationships I have formed
through the internet with people of strong hearts and principle, qualities prestige media culture
does not select for. For the sake of all of us, I can only hope Kushner gets to enter a larger world
too.
Kushner reminds me of a few bosses I have had. They only know what they know which means SFA .
Zero interest in the wider world. He probably knows loads about NY real estate and not much else
Very good profile, Phil. One thing struck me, as it did Keith. The only "peace" that Kushner and
people like him want for Israel is the "peace" of total domination and rule over others with no
disturbance. So, talking about him bringing "peace" makes no sense whatsoever. That's not at all
what he or anyone around him wants.
Israelis and their supporters are forever talking about peace, when anyone of sound mind knows
that the issue is not peace but justice for the Palestinians who have had their land stolen by
European colonists.
Justice first and then peace is possible. Israel pushes the peace line because it knows
the issue is not about peace and that a subjugated people like the Palestinians have not a snowball's
chance in hell of wielding any sort of power which might contribute to peace.
I read somewhere that the soon to be FLOTUS (ivanka kushner) is scared s#%&less of israel. That's
good. I don't imagine her husband has any plans to make it one of his homes.
Lack of experience/knowledge in the positions being filled is the hallmark of the tRUMP administration,
especially wrt tRUMP himself. I have no idea what the next 4 years are going to be like, but i
imagine the worst.
While the appointment of Kushner is clearly nepotistic, it does not seem much worse than JFK's
appointment of his brother. The historical record indicates that Robert Kennedy was if anything
much more vile on Israel Palestine issues than Jared Kushner is.
"... as sheltered intellectuals, often in cluttered small offices, many found it exciting to imagine themselves ruling much of the world, like the old Roman proconsuls. ..."
"... But more unending wars will continue to sap America's strength and prejudice the world's former goodwill toward our nation. Empires all eventually make a transition from where they are profitable to when they become destructively bankrupting. ..."
Even before the Iraq War,
John Bolton was
a leading brain behind the neoconservatives' war-and-conquest agenda. Long ago I wrote about him,
in "John Bolton and U.S. Lawlessness,"
"The Bush administration's international lawlessness did not come from nowhere. Its intellectual
foundations were laid long before 9/11 by neoconservatives." I quoted Bolton, "It is a big mistake
to for us to grant any validity to international law because over the long term, the goal of those
who think that it really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States." In fact
I set up a web page, the John
Bolton File , containing various links about him and the neocons.
Nearly all of Donald Trump's appointments to his transition team are very encouraging. Indeed,
I have known many of them for years. But he could undermine his whole agenda by allowing neocons
back into their former staffing and leadership role over Republican foreign policy. The
New York Times reported how many are now scrambling to get back into their old dominant
positions. And now National Review , which supported all the disasters in Iraq, has come out
to promote Bolton for secretary of state.
I have written about the neocons for many years. Their originators were former leftists who
later became anti-communists. After the collapse of communism, they provided the intellectual
firepower for hawks and imperialists who wanted an aggressive American foreign policy. Having lived
and done business for many years in the Third World, I thought they would only bring about disasters
for America. What especially interested me was their almost total lack of experience in and knowledge
about the outside world, particularly Asia and Latin America. I even set up a web page called
War Party Neoconservative
Biographies as I researched their education and experience.
Brilliant academics as many of them were, their "foreign" experience was at best a semester
or two in London or, for the more daring, some studies in Paris or, for the Jewish ones, a summer
on a kibbutz in Israel.
They are above all Washington insiders. John Bolton is very typical. A summa cum laude graduate
of Yale, then Yale Law School, time with a top Washington law firm, and then various academic and
political appointments, but no foreign living or work experience.
Also, as sheltered intellectuals,
often in cluttered small offices, many found it exciting to imagine themselves ruling much of the
world, like the old Roman proconsuls.
Long ago
Peter Viereck explained them with
his observation about the vicarious "lust of many intellectuals for brute violence." No wonder they
urged Bush on to his disastrous war and occupation policies. Even before Iraq they were first urging
dominance over Russia and then military confrontation with China, when a U.S. spy plane was collided
by a Chinese fighter plane. It wasn't just the Arab world which was in their sights.
I write about all this based on my own experience of studying in Germany and France, working 15
years in South America, and speaking four languages fluently.
Trump appointments so far are really showing his focus upon getting America back on track with
faster economic growth, which has been so stunted by Obama's runaway regulatory regime. To understand
their costs, see analysis in the Competitive Enterprise Institute's
"Ten Thousand Commandments."
But more unending
wars will continue to sap America's strength and prejudice the world's former goodwill toward our
nation. Empires all eventually make a transition from where they are profitable to when they become
destructively bankrupting. Few would now doubt that America has crossed this threshold. When it costs
us a million dollars per year per man to field combat infantry in unending wars, we will face
economic ruin just like happened with the Roman Empire.
The risk is that Trump's foreign-affairs transition team becomes infiltrated. Much of the transition
is being run out of the Heritage Foundation, which was a big promoter of the Iraq War.
Pence is great on domestic issues but not on foreign policy. Although a Catholic, he also is
very close to those evangelicals who believe that supporting Israel's expansion will help to speed
up the second coming of Christ and, consequently, Armageddon. One must assume that he, together with
the military-industrial complex, is plugging for the neoconservatives again to work their agenda
upon America and the world.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative .
Valley
of vision: or, The dry bones of Israel revived : an attempted proof, from Ezekiel, chap. xxxvii, 1-14, of the restoration and conversion
of the Jews, George Bush, 1844 "When the Most High accordingly declares that he will bring the house of Israel into their own
land, it does not follow that this will be effected by any miraculous interposition which will be recognized as such....The great
work of Christians, in the mean time, is to labor for their conversion. In this they are undoubtedly authorized to look for a considerable
measure of success, though it may be admitted that the bulk of the nation is not to be converted till after their restoration; for
it is only upon the coming together of bone to his bone that the Spirit of life comes into them, and they stand up an exceeding great
army."
Power, Faith, and Fantasy by Michael B. Oren REVIEWED BY HILLEL HALKIN, Commentary, Januare 2007
"Archived copy". Archived from
the
original on February 22, 2009. Retrieved May 12, 2009.
Faith and Foreign Polich: A View from the Pews, James L. Guth; John C. Green; Lyman A. Kellstedt; Corwin E. Smidt, The
Brandywine Review of Faith & International Affairs, 1543-5725, Volume 3, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 3 – 10.
^
Jump up to: abcThe Restoration of Israel: Christian Zionism in Religion, Literature, and Politics, Gerhard Falk, 2006.
Ambrosio, Thomas, Ethnic identity groups and U.S. foreign policy, Praeger Publishers, 2002.
Gertrude Himmelfarb, American Jewry,
Pre=- and Post-9/11, p. 118, in Religion as a public good: Jews and other Americans on religion in the public square, ed. Alan Mittleman,
Rowman & Littlefield, 2003
Evangelicals and Israel: the story of American Christian Zionism, Stephen Spector, Oxford University Press US, 2008,
p. 168
Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Michelle Goldberg, Taylor & Francis, 2008, p. 60,
Danny Ben-Moshe, Zohar Segev, Israel, the Diaspora, and Jewish Identity,
Sussex Academic
Press, 2007, ISBN978-1-84519-189-4, Chapter 7, The
Changing Identity of American Jews, Israel and the Peace Process, by Ofira Seliktar, p126
[1].
"Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin's handshake with Yasir Arafat during the 13 September [1993] White House ceremony elicited dramatically
opposed reactions among American Jews. To the liberal universalists the accord was highly welcome news. [...] However, to the
hard-core Zionists --- the Orthodox community and right wing Jews --- the peace treaty amounted to what some dubbed the 'handshake
earthquake.' From the perspective of the Orthodox, Oslo was not just an affront to the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael, but also
a personal threat to the Orthodox settlers ... in the West Bank and Gaza. For Jewish nationalists ... the peace treaty amounted
to an appeasement of Palestinian terrorism."
Danny Ben-Moshe, Zohar Segev, Israel, the Diaspora, and Jewish Identity, Sussex Academic Press, 2007,
ISBN978-1-84519-189-4, Chapter 7, The
Changing Identity of American Jews, Israel and the Peace Process, by Ofira Seliktar, p126
"Abandoning any pretense of unity, both segments began to develop separate advocacy and lobbying organizations. The liberal
supporters of the Oslo Accord worked ... to assure Congress that American Jewry was behind the Accord and defended the efforts
of the [Clinton] administration to help the fledgling Palestinian authority (PA) including promises of financial aid. ... Working
on the other side of the fence, a host of Orthodox groups, ... launched a major public opinion campaign against Oslo. ... Hard-core
Zionists also criticized, often in harsh language, [the Labor government] architect[s] of the peace accord.
"Not only was the Israeli electorate divided on the Oslo accords, but so, too, was the American Jewish community, particularly
... among the major New York and Washington-based public interest groups. U.S. Jews opposed to Oslo teamed up with Israelis "who
brought their domestic issues to Washington" and together they pursued a campaign that focused most of its attention on Congress
and the aid program. ... The Administration, the Rabin-Peres government, and some American Jewish groups teamed on one side while
Israeli opposition groups and anti-Oslo American Jewish organizations pulled Congress in the other direction.
Mearsheimer, John J.; Walt, Stephen M. (2007). The Israel lobby and U.S. foreign policy (1st ed.). Toronto:
Viking Canada. p. 113. ISBN978-0-670-06725-1.
John MacArthur [2] "The Vast Power of the Saudi
Lobby", April 2007, Harper's Magazine
"Powerful interest groups lobby against Israel in Washington while much of American academia and influential segments of the
media are staunchly opposed to any association with Israel. How does
the alliance [between the United States
and Israel] surmount these challenges? One reason, certainly, is values – the respect for civic rights and the rule of law
that is shared by the world's most powerful republic and the Middle East's only stable democracy. There is also Israel's determination
to fight terror, and its willingness to share its antiterror expertise. ... The admiration which the U.S. inspires among Israelis
is overwhelmingly reciprocated by Americans, more than 70% of whom, according to recent polls, favor robust ties with the Jewish
state."
"The Washington
Institute Podcast." Impact of the Gaza Flotilla Incident: Implications for Middle East Politics and U.S. Policy Implications
for Middle East Politics and U.S. Policy. June 17, 2010. iTunes Store. Web. June 22, 2010.
Nasser Aruri. Dishonest Broker: The Role of the United States in Palestine and Israel. South End Press, 2003.
ISBN978-0-89608-687-6.
Zev Chafets. A Match Made in Heaven: American Jews, Christian Zionists, and One Man's Exploration of the Weird and Wonderful
Judeo-Evangelical Alliance. HarperCollins, 2007.
ISBN978-0-06-089058-2.
Murray Friedman. The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. Cambridge University
Press, 2006. ISBN978-0-521-54501-3.
Stephen J. Green. Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With Militant Israel. William Morrow & Co., 1984.
ISBN978-0-688-02643-1.
Matthew Coen Leep. "The Affective Production of Others: United States Policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," Cooperation
and Conflict 45(3): 331-352 (2010).
Douglas Little. American Orientalism: The United
States and the Middle East since 1945. University of North Carolina Press, 2004.
ISBN978-0-8078-5539-3.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Share
Copy
Print Related Posts
Chemi Shalev Get email notification for articles from Chemi Shalev Follow Published at 21:18
