|Home / Headlines / We, the People vs. Zionism|
We, the People vs. Zionism
"The "neo-conservative" cloak worn by Zionists in the US is designed to bring legitimacy to a political, economic and social ideology called Zionism that is repugnant to most people who are not Jewish, and also to a growing number of Jews."
"International politics are conducted by the media in today’s world. Israel must win this war."
-- Statement made by American University professor, and leading Zionist intellectual, Amos Perlmutter, in "False hopes along fast track to war, " Washington Times, May 22, 2001
Exactly what Zionism is or is not, does not seem to be of much interest to many Americans who are accustomed to hearing the word "Zionism" in respect to the Biblical idea, and who perhaps have not made the connection between Zionism and neo-conservatism in the United States. Unsavory Zionist ideologues and propagandist among Evangelicals and the Christian right have made a point of purposely blurring any distinctions between spiritual Zion, and the Jewish supremacist ideology called Zionism. They do this hoping to keep America’s faithful pumping their hard earned tax dollars, and charity into Israel, with false claims that Israel is Biblical Zion, and that Zionism is a messianic message.
Outside of the church, the US corporate media, owned and operated by leading Zionists, also do their part to keep the general public off balance on this identity issue. They make it a point to steer any public scrutiny or criticism of Zionist political misconduct in the US towards non-Jewish elected officials. The media does this, perhaps hoping that all questions that might lead to the discovery that Zionism is a political theory that has adherents who are operating in our government, might be avoided. Creating even more confusion is the fact that Zionist operatives in our government and their supporters are called "neo-conservatives" instead of Zionist. They are called this even though their political outlook is uniquely liberal, and most are former democrats who are fanatically loyal to the idea of a Jewish State that is exclusively for Jews. One of neo-conservatism’s, or rather one of Zionism’s leading American intellectuals, Professor Harvey Mansfield of Harvard University, admitted in an interview on Book TV that he is actually a liberal, and changed his political veneer only upon recommendation of some "neo-conservative" colleagues.
When it comes to Zionist activism, and indeed they have organizations that clearly and unashamedly promote Zionism, and that seek to protect the supreme Zionist initiative, which is Israel, there is no ambiguity about who they are, and what their objectives are. Their activism is protected in the United States by our Constitution that protects the right to have ideas, to organize around those ideas, and to raise funds, to associate and even to assemble and speak, so long as such activity stays within certain bounds. The Constitution does not protect the violation of the constitutional rights of others, libel and slander, and defamation. It does not protect seditious speech, or encouragement of treasonous behavior. Representatives of these organizations regularly appear in US Congressional hearings to recommend that our US Constitution be ignored, subjected to novel interpretations, and that the rights of certain groups, i.e., Muslims, be either curtailed, or eliminated all together. Whereas they will do anything and everything to promote and secure the so-called right for an exclusively "Jewish State" to exist, they vehemently oppose any semblance of religion in the US, except of course Judaism. They have made it their life’s work to prevent the establishment of an Islamic state anywhere in the world, and have led a defamation campaign against Islam and Muslims for years, that is very similar to the Cold war that the US waged against communism. Still, they are not the big problem. The bigger problem facing the American people is that we have Zionists in our government who are not identified as such. Rather, they have cloaked themselves under the mantle of true conservatism, while accommodating their unique worldview by claiming to be "neo" or new conservatives. This is more than merely a political hoax. It is a dangerous deception, since its primary purpose has been to mislead the American people to believe that neo-conservatives are in fact a legitimate political grouping that adheres to, and seeks to advance a traditional American political outlook that is popular, and that is consistent with conservative values. The exact opposite is true. Neo-conservatives are actually the political arm of international Zionism, or Jewish supremacism, operating here in the United States. Their political outlook is anything but traditionally American, and is void of any appearance of American values.
The "neo-conservative" cloak worn by Zionists in the US is designed to bring legitimacy to a political, economic and social ideology called Zionism that is repugnant to most people who are not Jewish, and also to a growing number of Jews.
In June of 2004, H’aretz, one of Israel’s leading newspapers published an article, "Do not have children if they will not be healthy." In the article the writer bemoans the racist underpinnings of Zionism and the Zionist goal to perfect the Jewish race through eugenics. What she wrote also brings to mind the Hurricane Katrina debacle, and the reports of euthanasia and other strange occurrences that occurred in New Orleans following the storm. The author, Tamara Traubman wrote,
Castrating the mentally ill, encouraging reproduction among families "numbered among the intelligentsia" and limiting the size of families of "Eastern origin" and "preventing…lives that lack purpose"-these proposals are not far from the Third Reich, but were brought up by key figures in the Zionist establishment of the land of Israel. There was a great deal of enthusiasm here for the improvement of the hereditary characteristics of a particular race (Jews).
Since Zionism is a racial supremacism, it cannot fit easily, neatly or legitimately into the mainstream of US political thought and activity. Indeed, according to US law, much of the Zionist ideology and agenda is illegal since it is blatantly racist and discriminatory. It is contrary to everything that the US professes to stand for. Zionism’s ideological premise is anathema to our founding ideals and philosophy, which is that all people, and not only Jewish people, were given rights by the Creator, and that all people are equally interdependent, and share common imperfections in our humanness. By contrast the Talmud, which is their book of guidance, says that there must be two laws, one for Jews, and another for inferior non-Jews.
The need to appear legitimate is extremely important to a movement whose ideals are so abhorrent, and starkly offensive to the American ideal. Zionist could never win an election, and so that they can only govern, or rule by stealth, or rather by proxy, through non-Jewish elected officials who lend them not only intellectual legitimacy, but also the political legitimacy that is earned through the elections process. They are the incarnation of mythical "Grimerwormtongues," wretches who secretly rule, and overturn Kingdoms by merely sitting close to the king, into whose ears they pump flatteries and lies, and upon whom they cast magic spells, a metaphor for very effectual propaganda.
The legitimacy of a governing authority, and its accountability to the voting populace are part of what distinguish representative governments from tyrannies and totalitarian regimes, and why Zionist cannot operate openly in our government. Has anyone noticed that over every major neo-con operative in the White House, there is a powerful elected official that serves as a "buck stops here" buffer that keeps the unaccountable neo-cons from public scrutiny and accountability, and free to operate, and it also ironically keeps their shields mostly silent? Remember that unfortunate homosexual governor of New Jersey? His resignation was a falling upon the sword that should have been honored, since by resigning and telling his own story he took power away from a Zionist insider who was possibly undermining the security of the state of New Jersey. Instead of being seen for what it was, this act of bravery was treated as a "gay outing" by the media, and trivialized as a sex scandal.
Only the Pentagon had no such shield over neo-cons, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, who were supposedly under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s authority. Rumsfeld is not an elected official. Now, (watch this) once the Valerie Plame investigation spread beyond the White House to the Pentagon, the media reports that Vice President Cheney, and not Rumsfeld was actually overseeing the flow of pre-war intelligence, and decision making for the Pentagon leading up to the Iraq war. That change in authority lines Cheney up to take the fall once the people begin to demand explanations for the needless deaths of our children in war in Iraq, a war that was premised upon a lie. Accountability makes politicians vulnerable to public sentiment, and guess what else? It gives credibility to public policies that are formulated, and implemented, recommended and advocated by our elected officials. To be accountable is a check upon power, which means that public policies are legitimized by the fact that a legitimately elected public official, who represents the people, and is accountable to them, oversaw the development and implementation of the policy. Since policy failure is not a crime, the most that elected officials, who in most legal cases also enjoy some type of immunity, can be blamed for is poor judgement. Zionist underling operatives are never charged or accused of anything at all. Ironically, or perhaps conveniently, most neo-con underlings are career employees that man their posts regardless of which party is elected to lead the country, and they are hired, and moved up the ranks, usually by recommendation, and not job performance. A good example is the former head of FEMA. Michael Brown was recommended by Joseph Lieberman, a Zionist and a Democrat, and appointed to that job during the reign of a Republican administration, even though he was not qualified by most accounts.
How Zionists and their supporters subvert the public will, violate international laws and create international chaos on behalf of Israel
The protective shield that guarded Zionist operatives in the US from public scrutiny and accountability at times seemed impenetrable. Until the controversy surrounding the Valerie Plame case, no one in the media or the government dared even mention to the US public what was actually going on in the White House and Pentagon prior to the Iraq war. A former Colin Powell aide named Lawrence Wilkerson broke silence on this issue. Wilkerson described the White House in the New York Times article, "Former Powell Aide says Bush Policy is run by "Cabal," as a "cabal between the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld." He added that in his years of government service he had never seen "the US security apparatus so twisted" and called it "bastardization, aberration, and perturbations." Note that Wilkerson never mentions President Bush in his remarks, but the New York Times makes a point of including Bush’s name, not in the article, but in the headline. The NY Time’s implication is that the alleged cabal, and its activities were either rubber stamped, or overlooked by the highest ranking public and elected official in the US, President George W. Bush. This raises again, the issue of accountability, also immunity and might show further how Zionist in our government places themselves within close proximity to power that is protected. In this way they can manipulate US policies with propaganda and fake intelligence, or by withholding intelligence. More importantly they are shielded from public scrutiny and accountability by these associations. Without fail, the Zionist controlled media will always deflect public scrutiny from the Zionist operative’s role, and focus our attention to the elected official for accountability, and scrutiny.
It seems pretty obvious, following the invasion of Iraq, and the deaths of more than 2000 US soldiers, that neo-con loyalty is first and foremost to Israel. Federal laws make it almost impossible to remove them from our government. Unless they commit a crime, there is no way to fire them, without first having to struggle with the powerful Federal employee’s union. Even if they commit crimes, since they work in the shadows and under elected non-Jewish officials, their shady conduct is likely to never be deemed criminal. The media will call it misguided, wrong, or "rough political play" because they claim to follow orders, and to be dedicated to powerful political personalities and popular and justifiable causes. If you criticize them, the ones that are Jewish, you are also likely to be accused of anti-Semitism, even though the majority of Zionist Jews are descendants of East European converts to Judaism, and are not Semites. This is why we should consider, prior to moving to enact anti-Semitism hate crime laws that curtail the rights of a majority of US citizens to free speech, dissent and debate, that we have genetic testing to identify who the true victims of such an offense might be. It should not be enough to simply claim to be insulted or to feel threatened by anti-Semitism to the extent that another citizen is denied inalienable rights without the alleged victim offering proof of actually being a Semite. Such genetic testing should also be done on Jewish settlers in Israel who claim a right to residence in the Holy Land based upon a claimed right to inherit from the ancient Jewish tribes. Only the actual blood descendants of those tribes should have a right to such a claim, if that claim is true, and such heritage can be proved.
During a dinner held recently, and aired by C-Span to honor the former Russian President Mikhail Gorbechev, former US President William Clinton said in a speech, that he agrees with President Gorbechev about the future of globalization and the Islamic world. Gorbechev had said that Europe must treat the Islamic world as an equal, and with respect. Clinton said he agrees to the extent that no people claim to possess the absolute truth, and a right to impose that claimed truth upon others. I wondered at that moment if he realized what he was saying. Who are the people, who have claimed as an absolute truth their right to steal land they had never even seen or visited before, and have no historic tie, or record of inheritance upon which to base such a claim? Who are the people who sought to ethnically cleanse the indigenous people through genocide from that land, in violation of international law, and also in violation of the divine laws upon which they base their claimed entitlement? They are doing all of this evil based upon an unproven promise, and a claim to a heritage that may not even be theirs. The international community of governments and people’s willingness to turn our heads to this ugly sin has kept the entire world in turmoil for more than 60 years. A claim to ownership of absolute truths, and the right to impose those truths through violence upon the rest of world is an almost uniquely Zionist characteristic that every Zionist admits to, and that only Bill Clinton, a noted apologist for these people, could ignore.
This is the same Bill Clinton who pledged the United State’s unconditional support to Israel. He later issued an illegal Executive order that criminalized Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation and crimes against humanity in violation of the Geneva Conventions, hoping to make it legal for Israel to target and assassinate the leaders of these movements without accountability. This is also the same Bill Clinton who proceeded with the failed Camp David meetings, against all advice, with Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak, which set the stage for the Palestinian Intifada. This is the same Bill Clinton who signed the Wye Referendum calling for the murder of all Palestinian resistance activists. It is the same Bill Clinton who did nothing when Ariel Sharon, under the protection of armed snipers, desecrated Al-Aqsa mosque and set the Intifada in motion. Its first victim was a young Palestinian boy who crouched behind his father in an alcove for protection before both were shot and killed by bullets, fired by Israeli snipers.
High Crimes; No Misdemeanors
Who knew that for years, perhaps as early as 1993, that pro-Israeli zealots in our government were busy crafting a US foreign policy that would lead the US into wars in the Middle East that would cost millions of human lives, and billions of US taxpayer dollars. The Iraq war has also destroyed infrastructure, and shut down an oil industry due to sabotage and insurrection, for no reason except to appease Israel’s desire to expand beyond Palestine, and to become Greater, and more prosperous Israel. It is not a crime to desire security and prosperity. It’s too bad that Israel has never considered that it would be much easier to be prosperous and accommodated in the region if it would give up racist Zionism, and join the world community, a community that shares the same hopes and desires as all human beings. Who knew that our entrance into the Iraq war, and other planned wars, were and will be based upon fake intelligence, outright lies, deliberate provocation and in violation of international and US laws? US Muslims knew, and so became the subjects of a historic smear campaign. Zionist in the US carried out a national and international security hoax that painted all Muslims terrorists or potential terrorists based merely upon our political fundraising, opinions and association, all of which are supposedly constitutionally protected. People like Palestinian Professor Sami Al-Arian knew. That is why he is locked away in a US prison in solitary confinement. He is one of a growing number of Muslim political prisoners, and deportees who have been locked up, or whisked out of the country due to secret evidence laws. The media creates Secret evidence, first introduced, and recommended to our legislature by a Zionist journalist, Steven Emerson, close friend and ally of Judith Miller, also a Zionist journalist and the famed creator of the Iraq WMD scheme. A good part of secret evidence has also proven to originate from rumor and accusations lodged by political opponents, ex-wives and angry and jealous girlfriends. It is used, almost exclusively against Muslim and Arab citizens and others to prevent them from telling the truth about Israel, Israel’s operatives here in the US, and their intent. Is it any wonder that the truth about Iraq’s non-existent weapons program could not find its way to the American people, who were dependant on a media that according to Judith Miller was tied, by her high security clearance, to the Pentagon where we find messieurs Feith, Perle and Wolfowitz? Feith and Perle, along with former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, wrote, back in 1993, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which is a policy paper that calls for US attacks on Iraq, Syria and Iran on behalf of Israel.
Is it merely coincidence that Miller, who is suspected of being Israeli intelligence operating under the guise of a US journalist, carried lies from Israel to our Pentagon that were then used by Feith and Perle to bolster their arguments for war? If she is and did, it wouldn’t be the first time that Miller has transported lies and false information from Israel that was published in the US as researched, and credible information, and provided to the general public. In her Muslim bashing book, God has ninety-nine names Miller claims that Israel mailed a package to an Iranian diplomat that blew his hand off and left him maimed. She writes that Israel did this, hoping of course to kill him, in retaliation for his planning the attack on the US Marine barracks that left more than 200 US Marines dead during Israel’s illegal occupation of South Lebanon. She claims that Israel knew that this was the right person to be eliminated, because he had admitted to being the planner. She adds a footnote asterisk to the statement, to make it appear as though this information was researched and that there is a reference, or a published and credible source to support her assertion. Yet, when you read the footnote, what you find is a very slick notation that says a third party, "admitted" that the victim was guilty of the crime.
The media wants us to place the blame for the WMD hoax that led us into Iraq, on Ahmed Chalabi, who it appears, is little more than a small time gossip and political opportunist. They want us to ignore the very strong possibility that false WMD information flowed from Israel, to Miller, and then to Feith and Perle, who used Chalabi to corroborate that information. Chalabi’s only real value to the Zionist in the Pentagon, who claimed to support him prior to the invasion, was his persona as an Iraqi dissident, and head of an Iraqi manned, anti-Hussein operation. That gave him credibility in the eyes of the American public, and that is where he was mostly used. He appeared on almost every US news program prior to the invasion to demonize Hussein, and to create a false sense of confidence in the American people as to the ease, and brevity of the planned operation. He was only one of the many liars who claimed that the Iraqi people would meet US forces in the streets as liberators. Chalabi is without doubt to be blamed for greasing the path to war with lies, yet, in respect to the WMD hoax, he could only be used effectively as a corroborating, and not as a reliable primary source for this type of information. Chalabi was in Europe in exile and was also dependant upon human intelligence being harvested from people on the ground whose intelligence gathering techniques were amateurish, and whose sources and the suspected motives of those sources, weakened the credibility of the information they provided.
Why didn’t the US media tell us what price we were destined to pay in US lives, treasure, credibility, and prestige, should our government follow the neo-cons into war, serving as Israel’s "proxy army"? Whenever such serious questions were asked, the media provided us with stupid answers like "cakewalk, and "slam dunk." Where were the hard questions? Where was the media search for truth? Where was the patriotism? Where were our elected officials among both Democrats and Republicans? The plan for war, not only against Iraq, but also against Syria and Iran, was forged in complete opposition to the preponderance of intelligence on the region as it relates to the war on terrorism, and also the 9/11 attacks. Other absurdities that went unchallenged include the neo-cons claim that following an invasion, the Shiite in Iraq would submit to Jordan’s leadership and authority since the Jordanian hierarchy claims to descend from the family of the prophet Muhammad, to which the Shiite are loyal. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about Islam would know that this was a ridiculous assumption, and hardly enough reason to expect that following a military regime change in Iraq, that there would be peace and cooperation, in fact even gratitude offered by the Iraqi people. Sound US intelligence contradicted most, if not all of the neo-con premises upon which they built their Clean Break, and also their New American Century policy, that includes planned US military action, and perpetual war in the Muslim world. Why was this intelligence ignored in deference to Israeli intelligence, when it was the US that was being asked to carry out the prescribed regime changes and also the shock and awe upon Muslims and Arabs in the Muslim world?
Prior to the US led invasion of Iraq, the US media created the image of a White House that was divided between hawks and doves, unilateralists and multilateralists, who disagreed over political, rather than ideological, moral or legal issues. Now we realize that what was going on was more than merely political debate. As more information is released surrounding the Valerie Plame case, it is becoming increasingly apparent that there was likely a grand conspiracy undertaken by one of these factions. This conspiracy appears to have been a plot designed to mislead the American people and to take our country to war based upon an intelligence hoax that was created, and perpetuated by intelligence operatives in the media, and the Israeli, and US governments. Investigative journalist, Molly Moore wrote an article that sought to identify the source of the fake intelligence that led us into Iraq. The Washington Post newspaper published the article shortly after the invasion. In that article Moore quotes Israeli General Shlomo Brom, who wrote in an intelligence analysis for Tel Aviv University that, " Israeli intelligence services and political leaders provided an exaggerated assessment of Iraqi capabilities, raising the possibilities that the intelligence picture was manipulated." The media is now attempting to place all of the blame for false intelligence on Ahmed Chalabi, a former Iraqi dissident. Chalabi may have played a part in the manipulation of false information related to Iraq’s weapons programs, still Brom’s statement makes it clear that Israel was the primary, and trusted source. Chalabi’s close relationship with the Pentagon makes it plausible that he was working along with others to see that the US attacked Iraq, removed Hussein, and established a new government that he had expected to lead, making him possibly part of the alleged conspiracy. His relatively minor status as somewhat of an informant, makes it less likely that Pentagon officials would ignore his too obvious motive, and depend upon his intelligence assessments rather than Israel’s. It is more likely that Chalabi was used to corroborate, rather than to supply information, keeping in mind that much of the human intelligence coming from Iraq itself, probably made its way to Israel via Iraqi Jews.
There is strong speculation building suggesting that Karl Rove, President Bush’s aide, and I. Scooter Libby, Vice president Cheney’s aide, are only a small part of a much larger, in fact what might be called a "grander conspiracy." This conspiracy may also include the former national security advisor, and now Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, and her friend and colleague, US Ambassador John Bolton. During Bolton’s confirmation hearings it came out that he had requested and received from Rice’s NSC, the name of a US citizen that had been gleaned from taped conversations involving Iraq WMD intelligence gathering in Niger. The Senate requested more information on the exchange of information from the White House, seeking to ascertain whose name it was that was revealed to Bolton, and why. Did Rice give Bolton Valerie Plames name, and was it Bolton who gave Plame’s name to Libby or Rove, or Miller? It is more likely that Miller, who can’t seem to remember exactly where she got Plame’s name, got the name from Bolton, and that Bolton and Rice, and not Libby, are perhaps the sources that Miller spent 85 days in jail to protect. Rice, for her part, certainly did what she could to convince the world that the WMD hoax was true. She appeared on national television and said that an imminent threat existed in the form of an impending nuclear attack that made it legal for the President to go to war unilaterally under the US War Powers Act. Keep in mind that this is the same Rice who previous to 9/11 failed to get a daily brief to the President that warned of an impending Al-Qadea attack that did happen. She may have been over cautious on the Iraq threat, hoping to compensate for her previous national security blunder. It’s hard to imagine that our government has no internal system for verifying or debunking such information, and no policy that protects us from an individual’s personal belief’s and private reactions to information in respect to national security matters. Bush, for his part deviated from the neo-con playbook by seeking advice and consent from the US Congress, and a resolution for war from the United Nations. He received both by nearly unanimous votes in both venues.
Employing a scientific process of analysis called factor analysis using data being provided as a result of the Plame investigation, we can create a reasoned portrayal of a possible criminal conspiracy that might involve Zionist ideologues that are very high placed within our government, media, academia and think tanks. Richard B. Darlington Ph.D., who has served as a professor of graduate psychology at Cornell University since 1963, presents an excellent explanation of what factor analysis is, and the many ways it can be used. Darlington wrote,
Suppose each of 500 people, who are all familiar with different kinds of automobiles, rates each of 20 automobile models on the question, "How much would you like to own that kind of automobile?" We could usefully ask about the number of dimensions on which the ratings differ. A one-factor theory would posit that people simply give the highest ratings to the most expensive models. A two-factor theory would posit that some people are most attracted to sporty models while others are most attracted to luxurious models. Three-factor and four-factor theories might add safety and reliability. Or instead of automobiles you might choose to study attitudes concerning foods, political policies, political candidates, or many other kinds of objects. Start with the simplest possible theory (usually m = 1), test the fit between that theory and the data, and then increase m as needed. Each increase in m produces a theory that is more complex, but will fit the data better. Stop when you find a theory that fits the data adequately.
In respect to the Plame case and the plausibility that a grander conspiracy exists, we can begin as Darlington suggests, with the simple theory that "m=1." M represents Plames name being leaked, and 1, represents the conspiracy. The data to be utilized is the information being presented from the investigation and also information, including the New American Century, and Clean Break policy papers, and background information specific to the primary players, including their common political and religious affiliations.
Those who perhaps aided and abetted the suspected cabal of conspirators might include the likes of Ahmed Chalabi, and according to the Downing Street memo, British intelligence operatives, and government figures. Others might include some Arab governments like Jordan, and organizations like JINSA, of which John Bolton is a Board member, and also others, including the Zionist Organizations of America (ZOA). The ZOA’s part was perhaps to apply political pressure on Congress, (which could include blackmail and threats of violence), and to reward cooperation with campaign contributions, and promises of support in upcoming elections. Simultaneous to these ongoing efforts, AIPAC (American/Israel Political Action Committee) was busy spying, gathering and transporting US intelligence on Iran, from the Pentagon to Israel, in preparation for the next stage in Israel’s expansion plot. According to the Clean Break policy paper the next steps after invading Iraq is to send the US, or a UN sanctioned international force to attack Syria and also Iran. The media did not cover the AIPAC spy case. As a result, many Americans don’t know that there was a guilty plea in that case, and an admission that AIPAC, along with a Zionist Pentagon insider and Israeli intelligence worked together to steal US secrets on Iran, and to deliver that information to Israel.
Zionists, and their supporters in the US and abroad, have led our nation into a war that we cannot simply walk away from, and that is costing us lives and billions of taxpayer dollars, and could go on for years. As a result of the neo-con’s web of lies, propaganda, espionage, etc., the US is in a precarious situation where we are forced not only to kill, but also to be killed by people who are not, and who were never our enemies. The Iraqi crime is that Iraq stands in the way of the Zionist dream of Greater Israel, and economic prosperity. Its bad luck was Saddam Hussein. As a consequence, Iraq has suffered through years of unjust economic sanctions, wars, and routine bombings by the US and Britain, carried out under the cover of UN resolutions. These bombings, destroyed much of Iraq’s infrastructure even before the invasion, and took the lives of innocents, women and children, and all to appease Israel.
Here we go again?
In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, a sovereign Arab country claiming that the invasion was necessary for security reasons. The late writer and intellectual, Israel Shahak, in the article, "The Real Israeli Interest in Lebanon" explains to us, that Israel was not seeking security. Shahak wrote, "When facing atrocities like those caused by the "Grapes of Wrath" operation, it is more important than ever not to lose sight of the real reasons the atrocities are committed. It means asking ourselves what are the real reasons such atrocities are committed. It means asking ourselves what are Israel’s real interests in Lebanon." Shahak reminds us that one of the first things that Israel did on invading Lebanon was to remove customs barriers separating the two countries, "as far as entry of Israeli merchandise is concerned." He stated, " Thus it can be presumed that the main Israeli aim in Lebanon is the economic exploitation of this country and other Middle Eastern nation/states, and that the use of the "Zone" is to serve as an instrument for the realization of this aim." According to Shahak, " Ordinarily Lebanese goods are still forbidden to enter Israel, although a brisk import of drugs (re-exported to other countries) is going on." He said further, " Israeli merchandise enters Lebanon with the full encouragement of the Israeli government, without paying customs duties of any kind, and is also re-exported to other countries."
It is not possible to know whether or not Shahak ever read the policy paper, " A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It validates his theory, and expands upon his idea that Israel is not acting from a position, or feeling of vulnerability, but rather that Israel is motivated by an arrogant and inflated feeling of military superiority, born of US "unconditional" support for Israel. The Clean Break policy paper was written back in 1993 by a group of Zionists that included Benjamin Netanyahu, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle. The paper seeks to spell out the way to a "Clean break" for Israel from its past failure to achieve peace without giving up land, or what is called "national mass." It represents according to the paper’s introduction, a "new intellectual foundation…that restores strategic initiative and provides Israel the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism." Within this document, its authors make it very clear that Israel’s primary interest is economic and not security as it regularly claims. They wrote,
"The starting point must be economic reform."
To accomplish this new approach to peace and economic reform, the paper touts a war theory that suggests Israeli domination of the region through what it calls "balance of power.’ The document states, " peace for peace, peace through strength, and self reliance: the balance of power."
In order to shift the balance of power in the Muslim world, which quite naturally is owned primarily by the 55 or more Arab and Muslim nation/states, Israel must use either force, or negotiations to diminish the power of at least the three most powerful Arab nation/ states, Iraq, Syria and Iran. It would also require eliminating, either through armed conflict or disarmament, the powerful resistance armies such as Hezbollah, and also the Palestinian resistance. In other words, the peace for peace proposition is merely this, that Israel and its allies will destroy any Arab or Muslim nation, or people that does not peacefully surrender its power, which can include rights, its sovereignty, and its right to self-defense to Israel. These same nations must, under threat of the same, open their markets to Israeli goods. It is a formula not for peace, but rather for domination achieved through brute strength, and threat of violence resulting in expansion of Israeli influence and power throughout a region, or realm that has been effectively subdued militarily, economically and psychologically. It is terrorism.
According to the "Clean Break" playbook, the next step in Israel’s plan to shift the balance of power in the Muslim world, is to attack and destroy Iran and Syria. As we witnessed in respect to Iraq, this is to be done under cover of some proposed threat that each of these nations presents to either the US, Israel, or the world. A cause for war is all that is needed, and any observer who knows what to look for can see quite clearly that the causes is already being created. In respect to Iran, the cause will likely be a cooked up threat from Iran’s nuclear energy program. If that doesn’t work Israel will probably provoke an altercation along the Iran/Iraq border that will expand into a larger military conflict.
In the section of the Clean Break paper, "Securing the Northern Border," the paper states,
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which Americans can sympathize would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, (emphasis added) including by: paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces. Striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Looking closely at this recommendation, we can see almost immediately that what is prescribed is exactly what has been taking place. Rice’s appointment to her post at the State Department, and Bolton’s job as US ambassador to the UN are signs that the US is prepared to play its part in the further implementation of the Clean Break strategy. As a result of the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, Syria was forced out of Lebanon. The US State Department under Condoleeza Rice, Israel, and the US media sought to make the case, even prior to a UN investigation of the assassination, that Syria was responsible for Hariri’s death, and that Syria is an "agent of aggression" in Lebanon. All have also worked very hard to make the case that Syria is responsible for the insurgency in Iraq, and also that Syria is harboring terrorists, i.e., Palestinian resistance operatives. Only days after Hariri’s tragic death, both Condoleeza Rice, and her counterparts in Israel and Britain, also sought to sell the idea that Hezbollah must be disarmed. They suggested that along with getting Syria out of Lebanon, that the US and the UN must work to control Iran, preventing Iran from enriching uranium, and allowing its borders to be breached by al-Qadea operatives seeking to enter Iraq, all unproved charges that are vehemently denied by Iran. What makes all of this even more absurd is the fact that Israel was allowed to murder a man in a wheel chair who could have been arrested, since he couldn’t run away. Yet, Israel launched two rockets or more in a civilian area and killed Sheik Ahmed Yassin for organizing legal resistance against Israel’s illegal and brutal occupation of Palestine. There was no UN investigation, no sanctions against Israel, and no international outcry. Someone kills Hariri, which was a crime of equal horror, yet it raises so much more international ire. It warrants an investigation, Lebanon must remove its troops and intelligence gathering apparatus from Lebanon, etc. Syria entered Lebanon originally, at the request of the Lebanese government. Who invited Israel into Palestine?
While the US State Department under Rice, is fulfilling its obligation under the Clean Break blueprint, Israel’s foreign diplomats have been working diligently to secure economic agreements with other Muslim and Arab countries. Frightened and intimidated by what appeared to be Israel’s success at steering the US military, Israel’s "proxy army" into Muslim countries for war, these countries turned their backs on Palestine, and began to enter secret economic agreements with Israel. This in turn weakened the Palestinian negotiating position, since previously the Muslim world had closed its doors to Israeli goods, hoping to create an incentive for a peace process that included a negotiated settlement, in place of Israel’s proposed unilateral military solution. All of this relative success emboldened Israel, who announced recently that it has nothing further to offer Palestine, and all negotiations are ended. Sharon cancelled a scheduled meeting with PA president Mahmoud Abbas, saying essentially that there is nothing more to talk about. Israel also sought to provoke violence, ending the cease-fire with the Palestinian resistance by killing an Islamic Jihad officer on October 23, 2005, and several other Islamic Jihad fighters. Taking all of these events into consideration, it becomes rather obvious that what we are witnessing is the implementation of an Israeli strategy that has two primary goals, they are 1). Destroy the militaries of Syria, Iran and Iraq, and the resistance movements, leaving Israel the dominant military power in the realm 2). As a result of fear and intimidation, get other Muslim and Arab countries to do whatever Israel demands, including opening their markets to Israeli goods. This is the meaning of "peace for peace, peace through strength, and balance of power."
Power to the people
We can conclude without much doubt, that Israel working in tandem with Zionists operating within our government, academia, think tanks and media created the WMD hoax that led the US and the international coalition into war in Iraq. They also, along with a cooperative media, created the false impression that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US, and that Iraq was linked to 9/11. They spied, they stole, they attacked US citizens, destroyed people’s lives and reputations, and they undermined the US relationship with the Muslim world, and they are working diligently to get the US embroiled in military conflicts with Iran and Syria. They lied repeatedly to the US public, and policy makers, saying that Iraq’s people would greet US forces as liberators rather than conquerors. Once they had US troops committed to war, they began to also undo the US, by staging the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and using the media to publish photos that were aimed at destroying US prestige and credibility even further. It is also likely that they killed the French agent that escorted a freed French hostage out of Iraq, and also carried out the Guantanomo Bay atrocities that included torture, and some form of Qur’an desecration.
What many Americans who had previously sided with Israel out of hatred of Islam did not previously realize, is that Israel wanted Islam demonized and destroyed, along with all other competing powers, whether spiritual or material. They are especially antagonistic towards those ideas that possess any moral or religious underpinning, which would include ideas that promote human equality, human rights and freedom. Once we understand this, it becomes clear that the balance of power theory does not apply only to the Muslim world, but also to the United States, who unlike Europe, maintained its claim to religiosity, and constitutionally protected freedoms and rights for all people. The nature of Zionism is such that there can be no competing power, or moral idea allowed to co-exist that can contradict or that can challenge the Talmud’s supposed authority. The Talmud cannot share the stage easily as a book of guidance and authority written by men, in contrast to the Holy Scriptures written, or rather revealed by the One True God. Religious historians will recognize immediately that what we are observing is the centuries old battle between the Pharisees and the followers of Jesus, and also between the Quraish and the followers of Muhammad, still being fought today, in the 21st century.
Muslim Americans must work to help the United States, and the world to overcome the challenge being posed by international Zionism to all of our security. We must end Muslim antagonism towards the US resulting from its historic role as Israel’s ally and facilitator, and open dialogues aimed at easing tensions between the US and the Muslim world resulting from the war in Iraq and other controversies. This might involve creating opportunities for joint Muslim/ US cooperation on certain issues. It must involve working together to bring real representative governance to Palestine, while rebuilding the Palestinian infrastructure and economy and moving Palestine to independent statehood with secure Palestinian borders, without any interference from Israel.
We must educate, energize and mobilize the Muslim and Arab streets. Most importantly, we must highlight, and bring to bear, in contrast to the positions and actions of recalcitrant Arab and Muslim governments, the attitudes and positions of the people of the Arab and Muslim world, and also Muslims and Arabs in the Diaspora. The balance of power challenge in this instance will be the challenge to balance the power of the Muslim and Arab peoples, against those governments who have lost the will to resist Israel’s intimidation and to ignore its threats. Only the power of the people of the Muslim and Arab world can free the United States, free the Muslim world, and save the international community from a future of perpetual conflict, while halting the advance of Zionism. It is the challenge presented to us as we begin a new century, and one that can, and must be won if we have any hope to see the remainder of this century dedicated to peace, justice, and prosperity for all men and women, equitably. May God help and Guide us.
by courtesy & © 2005 Anisa Abd el Fattah
What else would you like to do now?
MMN Recommended Reading
◊ Join the struggle to keep Media Monitors Network (MMN) on the web! ◊
Make a commitment to donate and/or place all of your book and other product orders from Amazon.com and thers through MMN Shopping web-site by clicking here. The percentage we get from these sales pays for maintaining and expanding MMN.