America controls the world, we control America. Never before
have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of
world power.
Uri Avnery "The Night After" CounterPunch (USA) April 10, 2003
Iraq: The Trail of Disinformation
What Really Happened
April 21, 2005
Let's start with a simple fact. The United States invaded and conquered
Iraq on the basis of lies. Even the official report of the United
States Senate ( http://www.infowars.com/print/iraq/war_on_alie.htm )
admits as much.
So, where did all this bad information come from? While the culprits
would like to pin the blame on the Central Intelligence Agency, the
facts point in a different direction. To cite just one example, the
now-discredited claim that Saddam was trying to buy "Yellow Cake"
Uranium from Niger came from the Pentagon, specifically from Paul
Wolfowitz ( http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold.php?articleid=1913 ),
using information the CIA stated was unreliable. Wolfowitz, and his
assistant Douglas Feith, set up a special office called the "Office
of Special Plans" in 2001, that fed information to the White House
to urge the attack on Iraq. Shortly after the invasion, the OSP was
disbanded.
So, the trail of the lies that started a war goes from the White
House, to the Pentagon, to the Office of Special Plans. But where
was the OSP getting their information? Clearly, they were not
using information provided by the CIA, or the CIA would not have
denounced their cources as "unreliable". According to some reports,
the OSP was using "consultants" who came from outside the Pentagon
and operated with no oversight or accountability!
( http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0402osp.php )
The Office of Special Plans operated on its own, off the official
payroll and away from Congressional oversight
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html ).
According to several sources, it was the information given out
by the Office of Special Plans that Dick Cheney "encouraged"
the CIA to adopt! So where does the trail lead from the OSP?
As it turns out, the OSP was getting their information from primarily
two sources. The first was Ahmed Chalabi, the bank embezzler who
would be king and didn't care how it came about.
( http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030707&s=dreyfuss )
The second, and more damning source, is the office of the Prime
Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon! As the Office of Special Plans
poured out the lies that led to war, Israeli officers, up to the
rank of General, were repeatedly escorted inside the Pentagon to
the Office of Special Plans
( http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0807-02.htm ). At no
time were they required to sign in!
Douglas Feith would then take this information, despite CIA doubts
about the credibility of the claims, into private briefings at the
White House that bypassed CIA. ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/11/wsept11.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/11/
ixnewstop.html ... ) In some cases, the CIA was unaware of Feith's
private briefings until the OSP information became part of White
House public policy.
So, this is the trail of the lies that started a war, beginning
at the White House, and via Dick Cheney moving upstream to the
Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, under Wolfowitz and Feith,
then from OSP to a parallel group operating out of Ariel Sharon's
office in Israel.
That's the trail.
See also: The Path To War:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pathtowar.html
Article nr. 11225 sent on 21-apr-2005 23:13 ECT
The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=11225
The incoming address of this article is :
www.whatreallyhappened.com/trailofdisinformation.html
THE PATH TO WAR
Who are the winners? They are the so-called neo-cons, or neoconservatives.
A compact group, almost all of whose members are
Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration,
as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in
formulating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential
newspapers. [...] The immense influence of this largely Jewish
group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing
Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush's Republican
party. [...] Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America
controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews
exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power.
Uri Avnery "The Night After" CounterPunch (USA) April 10, 2003
www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html
On another disturbing front, Israel Radio (Kol Yisrael), reported
on Oct. 3, 2001, that Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, had
boasted at a Cabinet meeting, "I want to tell you something very
clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the
Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."
William Hughes "Lieberman's Conflict of Interest?" CounterPunch
(USA) August 23, 2002
www.counterpunch.org/hughes0823.html
Over the years, that segment, the organized American Jewish community -
in short, the Israel lobby - has amassed unparalleled political
power through skillfully combining the wealth of its members with
its extraordinary organizational skills to achieve what amounts to a
corporate takeover of the U.S. Congress and virtual veto power over
the presidency. There is virtually no sector of the American body
politic that has been immune to the lobby's penetration. [...] It
was no secret that Israel had long been interested in eliminating the
regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and redrawing the map of the Middle
East to enhance its power in the region. Initiating that undertaking
became a task for key individuals in and around the White House with
deep roots in right-wing Israeli politics. The attack on the World
Trade Center supplied the opportunity. That Iraq had nothing to
do with it was immaterial. The lobby's propaganda apparatus would
make the American people believe otherwise. The first step has been
completed. Saddam Hussein has been removed, not by Israel, but by the
U.S. and its "coalition of the willing." From the perspective of the
Israelis and, one must assume, the lobby, it is better that American
and foreign soldiers do the shedding of blood, Iraqi and their own,
rather than those of Israel, the world's fourth ranked military power.
Such an accusation will most assuredly draw cries of "blood libel"
from the likes of the Anti-Defamation League, but it is a conclusion
that one can readily draw from the facts. The degree to which
the present Iraq situation, as well as the first Gulf War, can
be attributed to efforts of key individuals and the major Jewish
organizations that constitute the lobby is what this article will
examine.
Jeffrey Blankfort "A War For Israel" Left Curve (USA) April 2004
www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html
Judith Miller is one of the [New York Times]'s most senior journalists.
A Pulitzer Prize winning writer and regarded expert on Middle East
issues and WMD, Miller has written extensively on Osama Bin Laden and
the al-Qaeda network. In the run-up to the Iraq war, Miller became a
key reporter on that country's supposedly documented WMD's. She wrote
many articles relayed around the globe on the Bush administration's
doomsday reading of Saddam's regime. She painted a terrifying picture
of his arsenal with apparently sound intelligence sources to back her
claims. (...) Who is Judith Miller? According to a report in Editor
and Publisher by William E. Jackson Jr., she is "not a neutral, nor
an objective journalist": "This can be acceptable, if you're a great
reporter, 'but she ain't, and that's why she's a propagandist,' stated
on old New York Times hand..." Regarded as a neo-conservative with
a deep sympathy for the Bush administration's agenda and a vocal
supporter of Saddam's overthrow, Miller has close links with the
pro-Israeli camp, some of whom have channelled Israeli intelligence
through her work. (...) Miller's reporting on Iraq's WMD was
constantly flawed and yet her senior editors gave her carte blanche
to continue being the main conduit through which these serious issues
were covered in the NYTimes.
Antony Loewenstein "Engineering consent: The New York Times' role
in promoting war on Iraq" The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
March 23, 2004 www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5931.htm
As Pat Buchanan put it in the run-up to the invasion:
"We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to
ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's
interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those
wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately
damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies
Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of
their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all
over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris,
and bellicosity. They charge us with anti-Semitism - i.e., a hatred
of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is,
those hurling these charges harbor a 'passionate attachment' to a
nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of
their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what's
good for Israel is good for America." [...] This theme - that an
Israeli- centric foreign policy is the real reason for this war -
was not looked on with favor when the shooting began. But a year
later, by a simple process of elimination, it is the only rational
explanation left standing. [...] That left only the truth, and it
is this: Israel is the chief beneficiary of this war, with Bin Laden
coming in a close second. [...] In undertaking what promises to be a
project of many years, the U.S. invasion has shifted the balance of
power - already weighted in Israel's favor, thanks to massive American
military aid - decisively and perhaps permanently in favor of the
Israelis. Bristling with weaponry, including nuclear arms, and not shy
about mobilizing its international amen corner to aggressively defend
its interests, Israel is fast achieving the status of regional hegemon.
Israel seems to be the one exception to the new U.S. theory of global
preeminence - what might be called the Wolfowitz Doctrine, since
he was one of the first to put it in writing - that no power should
rival U.S. hegemony in any region of the world. [...] Strip away the
ideological pretenses, the sexed-up "intelligence," and the "patriotic"
window- dressing, and what you see is the naked reality of Israel's
fifth column in America. [...] Robert Dreyfuss, writing in The Nation,
cites a former U.S. ambassador with strong ties to the CIA: "According
to the former official, also feeding information to the Office of
Special Plans was a secret, rump unit established last year in the
office of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel. This unit, which
paralleled [Abram N.] Shulsky's - and which has not previously been
reported - prepared intelligence reports on Iraq in English (not
Hebrew) and forwarded them to the Office of Special Plans. It was
created in Sharon's office, not inside Israel's Mossad intelligence
service, because the Mossad - which prides itself on extreme
professionalism - had views closer to the CIA's, not the Pentagon's,
on Iraq. This secretive unit, and not the Mossad, may well have been
the source of the forged documents purporting to show that Iraq tried
to purchase yellowcake uranium for weapons from Niger in West Africa,
according to the former official." [...]
Justin Raimondo "The Neocons' War" June 2, 2004
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2727
Powell felt Cheney and his allies -- his chief aide, I. Lewis "Scooter"
Libby, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Undersecretary
of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and what Powell called Feith's
"Gestapo" office -- had established what amounted to a separate
government.
William Hamilton "Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11"
The Washington Post (USA) April 17, 2004
Now, a new firsthand account of life in the US Defense Department
shows just how pro-Israeli groups exerted their influence from within
the government. Karen Kwiatkowski retired as a lieutenant colonel
in the US Air Force after two decades of distinguished service. Her
last posting was at the Near East South Asia (NESA) directorate at
the Pentagon. In a lengthy article in the online journal Salon.com,
Kwiatkowski writes, "From May 2002 until February 2003, I observed
firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and
watched the latter stages of the neoconservative capture of the policyintelligence
nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq." The "seizure
of the reins of US Middle East policy," Kwiatkowski recounts, "was
directly visible to many of us working in the Near East South Asia
Policy office, and yet there seemed to be little any of us could do
about it." All this happened under the watch of Bill Luti, the deputy
secretary of defense for NESA, and went up and down the chain of
command. Some of the specific incidents Kwiatkowski recalls are
illustrative: "Longtime office director Joe McMillan was reassigned
to the National Defense University. The director's job in the time
of transition was to help bring the newly appointed deputy assistant
secretary up to speed, ensure office continuity, act as a resource
relating to regional histories and policies ... Removing such a
critical continuity factor was not only unusual but also seemed like
willful handicapping." Kwiatkowski said "the expertise on Mideast
policy was not only being removed, but was also being exchanged for
that from various agenda-bearing think tanks, including the Middle
East Media Research Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs." The
main agenda of all these organizations is advocating closer US-Israel
ties. She saw the "replacement of the civilian head of the Israel,
Lebanon and Syria desk office with a young political appointee from
the Washington Institute, David Schenker. Word was that the former
experienced civilian desk officer tended to be evenhanded toward the
policies of Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon of Israel, but there were
complaints and he was gone." As the personnel changed, so did the
atmosphere; Kwiatkowski recalls that a "career civil servant rather
unhappily advised me that if I wanted to be successful here, I'd
better remember not to say anything positive about the Palestinians."
In an official meeting at which Kwiatkowski was present, Luti openly
called Marine General, former Chief of Central Command, and Middle
East envoy Anthony Zinni, a "traitor" for having reservations about
the march to war, and open contempt and calls for Secretary of State
Colin Powell to resign were common. What she observed until her
voluntary early retirement was nothing less than a full- scale assault
on the intelligence and policymaking apparatus of the United States.
She witnessed intelligence and careful analysis being replaced with
propaganda, falsehoods and manipulation and fed to the Congress and
the Executive Office of the President. This "fear peddling" was,
Kwiatkowski writes, "designed to take Congress and the country into
a war of executive choice, a war based on false pretenses."
Ali Abunimah "It's worse than you thought: pro-Israel influence on US
policy" The Electronic Intifada (USA)
March 15, 2004 http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2503.shtml
OSP [Office of Special Plans] was conceived days after September 11 by
Paul Wolfowitz, deputy Secretary of Defense and a protégé of Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. OSP's director was Abram Shulsky, who
worked for Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle in the Reagan
administration. Both Shulsky and Wolfowitz are Straussians, that is,
followers of political philosopher Leo Strauss. He directed both their
dissertations at the University of Chicago, and his teachings guide
their actions. It was out of the Office of Special Plans that, in the
best Straussian tradition, the war in Iraq was conceived, packaged,
sold and delivered. (...) Shulsky, the OSP director, and Gary Schmitt,
executive director of the Project for the New American Century, coauthored
an article, "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence." They
write that Strauss "alerts one to the possibility that political life
may be closely linked to deception. Indeed it suggests that deception
is the norm in political life." (...) In post-9/11 Washington, [Shadia]
Drury sees the spirit of Strauss at work. "I never imagined when I
wrote my first book on Strauss that the unscrupulous elite that he
elevates would ever come so close to political power."
Joel Bleifuss "A Man, a Plan, a Cabal" In These Times (USA)
April 26, 2004
The "neoconservatives" who run the Bush regime all have close ties
with the Likud government in Tel Aviv and the Zionist lobby groups
in Washington. In 1997, the Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs (Jinsa) declared: "Jinsa has been working closely with Iraqi
National Council leader Dr Ahmad Chalabi to promote Saddam Hussein's
removal from office..." Chalabi is the CIA-backed stooge and convicted
embezzler at present organising the next "democratic" government in
Baghdad. Until recently, a group of Zionists ran their own intelligence
service inside the Pentagon. This was known as the Office of Special
Plans, and was overseen by Douglas Feith, an under-secretary of
defence, extreme Zionist and opponent of any negotiated peace with
the Palestinians. It was the Office of Special Plans that supplied
Downing Street with much of its scuttlebutt about Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction; more often than not, the original source was Israel.
John Pilger "The Unmentionable Source Of Terrorism"
New Statesman (Australia) March 19, 2004
www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=5169
General Anthony Zinni, who headed CENTCOM from 1997 to 2000, continued
his own attack on the neocons, begun earlier this year, and had an
opportunity to make his case on CBS's 60 Minutes, namely, that the
neocons conned the Resident into going to war.
Zinni specifically targeted Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz,
Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, Former Defense Policy Board
member Richard Perle, National Security Council member Elliot Abrams,
and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby -
all of whom happen to be Jewish - whom, Zinni claims, saw the invasion
of Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and
strengthen the position of Israel. "I think it's the worst kept secret
in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington -
has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were
trying to do," says Zinni. "Because I mentioned the neo-conservatives,
who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, said Zinni, I was
called anti-Semitic. I mean, it's unbelievable that that's the kind of
personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those
who propose it."
KZYX Radio (Mendocino County, USA) Takes on the World
May 26, 2004
As the war planning progressed, on December 21, 2002, [George]
Tenet and his top deputy, John McLaughlin, went to the White House
to brief Bush and Cheney on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction,
Woodward reports.
The president, unimpressed by the presentation of satellite photographs
and intercepts, pressed Tenet and McLaughlin, saying their information
would not "convince Joe Public" and asking Tenet, "This is the best
we've got?" Woodward reports. According to Woodward, Tenet reassured
the president that "it's a slam dunk case" that Saddam had weapons
of mass destruction. In his CBS interview, Woodward said he "asked
the president about this, and he said it was very important to have
the CIA director, 'slam-dunk' is as I interpreted it, a sure thing,
guaranteed." CNN "Woodward: Tenet told Bush WMD case a 'slam dunk'"
Monday, April 19, 2004
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/index.html
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan said [CIA Director George] Tenet
presented false information to the UN during public hearings about
all the top suspected weapons of mass destruction sites in Iraq
before the war. The senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services
Committee and a member of the intelligence committee, Levin
added he could "only speculate as to Director Tenet's motive."
"CIA accused of lying about WMDs" AFP February 24, 2004 Via
english.aljazeera.net According to the Mother Jones article, even
before the Bush team at the Pentagon formally had been installed,
[Paul] Wolfowitz and fellow neocon Douglas Feith, under secretary of
defense for policy, had begun putting together what would become the
rationale for regime change in Iraq. Wolfowitz, clearly with Israeli
interests in mind, long had held that not taking Baghdad after the
first Iraqi war had been a mistake. Feith, an activist in far-right
Zionist circles, was a former aide to Richard Perle-the former chair,
and now former member, of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board who is
known as the "Prince of Darkness"-when Perle was assistant secretary
of defense at the Pentagon from 1981 to 1988. [...] [Harold] Rhode
and Feith purged those career Defense Department officials, including
Kwiatkowski, who weren't sufficiently enthusiastic about the antiIraq
crusade. Unofficial off-site recruiting ground for the anti-Iraq
crusade was the neocon bastion American Enterprise Institute (AEI),
Perle's home base, where the 12th floor conference room is named for
neocon mentor Wohlstetter. Michael Rubin and David Wurmser, then AEI's
director of Middle East studies and now foreign policy adviser to
Vice President Cheney, also crossed the Potomac to serve as Pentagon
consultants. Wurmser, whom Dreyfus and Vest describe as a "shrill
ideologue," was part of a "minority crusade" in the 1990s promoting
war with Iraq. He, his wife, Meyrav Wurmser, Perle and Feith wrote a
provocative paper for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in
1996 entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm."
Under this scheme, Israel Israel would work with Jordan and Turkey to
overthrow Saddam Hussein and restore the old Hashemite dynasty.
Andrew I. Killgore "The War on Iraq Has 'Outed" the Neo-Conservatives"
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) June 2004
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/June_2004/0406019.html
Israel stands to benefit greatly from the US led war on Iraq, primarily
by getting rid of an implacable foe in President Saddam Hussein and the
threat from the weapons of mass destruction he was alleged to possess.
But it seems the Israelis have other things in mind.
An intriguing pointer to one potentially significant benefit
was a report by Haaretz on 31 March that minister for national
infrastructures Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility
of reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the
Mediterranean port of Haifa. With Israel lacking energy resources
of its own and depending on highly expensive oil from Russia,
reopening the pipeline would transform its economy. To resume supplies
from Mosul to Haifa would require the approval of whatever Iraqi
government emerges and presumably the Jordanian government, through
whose territory it would be likely to run. [...] According to Western
diplomatic sources in the region, the USA has discussed this with
Iraqi opposition groups. It is understood from diplomatic sources
that the Bush administration has said it will not support lifting UN
sanctions on Iraq unless Saddam's successors agree to supply Israel
with oil. All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is
part of a masterplan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel 's
interests.
"Oil from Iraq: An Israeli pipedream?"
www.janes.com/regional_news/africa_middle_east/news/
fr/fr030416_1_n.shtml
Thanks to the suffocating influence of Israel's U.S. lobby, open
discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been non-existent in our
government all these years. I have firsthand knowledge, because I was
a member of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee
in June 1967 when Israeli military forces took control of the Golan
Heights, a part of Syria, as well as the Palestinian West Bank and
Gaza. I continued as a member for 16 years and to this day maintain
a close watch on Congress. For 35 years, not a word has been expressed
in that committee or in either chamber of Congress that deserves to
be called debate on Middle East policy. No restrictive or limiting
amendments on aid to Israel have been offered for 20 years, and none
of the few offered in previous years received more than a handful
of votes. On Capitol Hill, criticism of Israel, even in private
conversation, is all but forbidden, treated as downright unpatriotic,
if not anti-Semitic. The continued absence of free speech was assured
when those few who spoke out-Senators Adlai Stevenson and Charles
Percy, and Reps. Paul "Pete" McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, Earl
Hilliard, and myself-were defeated at the polls by candidates heavily
financed by pro-Israel forces. As a result, legislation dealing with
the Middle East has been heavily biased in favor of Israel and against
Palestinians and other Arabs year after year. Home constituencies,
misled by news coverage equally lop-sided in Israel's favor, remain
largely unaware that Congress behaves as if it were a subcommittee
of the Israeli parliament. (...) The lobby's intimidation remains
pervasive. It seems to reach every government center and even houses
of worship and revered institutions of higher learning. It is highly
effective in silencing the many U.S. Jews who object to the lobby's
tactics and Israel's brutality.
Paul Findley "Liberating America From Israel" September 9, 2002
www.rense.com/general29/lib.htm
[Senator Joseph] Lieberman, on the other hand, is noted for pushing
the U.S. into the unjustified and costly war with Iraq. (...)
Lieberman never missed a beat in the Congress supporting Resolutions,
laws or budget requests that favored Israel. In one sentence,
Lieberman is a legislative pimp for Zionist Israel!
William Hughes "Lieberman is No Roger Sherman" September 12, 2003
world.mediamonitors.net
Ralph Nader: The subservience of our congressional and White House
puppets to Israeli military policy has been consistent. [...] Pat
Buchanan: You used the term "congressional puppets." Did John Kerry
show himself to be a congressional puppet when he voted to give the
president a blank check to go to war?
RN: They're almost all puppets. There are two sets: Congressional
puppets and White House puppets. When the chief puppeteer comes to
Washington, the puppets prance.
PB: Why do both sets of puppets, support the Sharon/ Likud policies
in the Middle East rather than the peace movement candidates and
leaders in Israel?
RN: [...] The answer to your question is that instead of focusing
on how to bring a peaceful settlement, both parties concede their
independent judgment to the pro-Israeli lobbies in this country
because they perceive them as determining the margin in some state
elections and as sources of funding.
"Ralph Nader: Conservatively Speaking"
The American Conservative June 21, 2004
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html
It was easy, almost obligatory to hate the vicious young men, who
destroyed crops and starved villages. This particular settlement is
known as a bulwark of the Kahanist or Judeo-Nazi creed, as the late
Professor Leibovich called it. They celebrated the assassination of
Prime Minister Rabbin; they worshipped Baruch Goldstein, the mass
murderer from Brooklyn; they published the banned book of Rabbi Alba
that openly proclaims the religious duty of the Jew to exterminate
Gentiles. [...] These young crackpots were sent by the bigger hoods,
too. That is why the soldiers did not bat an eyelid when the settlers
attacked the farmers. It was the division of labour: the thugs starved
the peasants, the army protected the thugs, and the goverment endorsed
it. While the army guns kept down the Palestinians, the US army kept
down Iraq, the only state in the region that might be able to provide
the balance of power, and the US diplomats wielded their veto in the
Security Council. And beyond them, one could see the biggest hoods
that did not care for olives, peasants or soldiers. On one end of the
chain of command, there was a crazy Brooklyn settler with an M-16;
on the other end, Bronfman and Zuckerman, Sulzberger and Wolfowitz,
Foxman and Friedman. And somewhere between, were we, the Israelis and
the American Jews, who duly voted and paid taxes and supported the
scheme, because without our support, Wolfowitz would have to conquer
Baghdad single-handedly and Bronfman would have to burn the olives
himself.
Israel Shamir "The Green Rain of Yassouf" Flowers of Galilee The
Collected Essays of Israel Shamir Dandelion Books Publications, 2004
In my view, the legislation is dangerous. The bill authorizes a
variety of cultural and economic sanctions against Syria. It is
dangerous because imposing sanctions is an extreme foreign policy--
only one step from war. Nothing I heard from [Senator Ron] Wyden
changed my opinion that Israeli PM Ariel Sharon was the driving
force behind this bill. Not even the neo-cons in Washington initially
wanted it. The Bush administration announced its support --to save
face--only when the bill's passage became inevitable. This bill
renders absurd any further talk about a roadmap for peace. There is
no roadmap: Sharon tore it to shreds last summer, and with this bill
he has blown back the pieces into Bush's face. Now armed with an
obsequious US Congress (one house in each pocket), Sharon is perfectly
positioned to wring even more aid/concessions from the White House.
[...] The question we Americans should be asking our elected
representatives is: Why is this war criminal dictating US foreign
policy?
Mark Gaffney "Sharon's Favorite Senator" "Ron Wyden and Israel"
CounterPunch (USA) February 4, 2004
www.counterpunch.org/gaffney02042004.html
Since 1967, we have received some 170 billion dollars from the
people of the US. This money could be used to feed and school all
the underprivileged kids of America. It could pay to compensate
the descendants of the African slaves and help them out of their
hardship. It could save the sick and comfort the miserable; it could
turn Africa into a paradise. But it was kidnapped and shipped to
our shores. Every dollar invested by the Israeli lobby into senators
and congressmen has been returned a hundred fold, as promised
by the Bible. Besides the taxpayer's money, the supporters of
Israel's = business executives - invested billions of dollars that
their shareholders entrusted them with. There is no sound business
reason behind Intel's investment, or other similar investments.
Israel has no pool of qualified workers, they have to be imported
like everything else. The risk of the investments in our country is
great and the profits are meager. But then again, they are playing
with somebody else's money. Israel's supporters fleece America in
a grand way, but they also go after other prey. [...] The Swiss and
the Germans keep paying umpteen billions of dollars to Israel for the
confiscated property of Jews, though Israel never paid even one penny
for the confiscated Gentile property. The Europeans meekly comply
under threat of the toughest of brothers Cray, the mightiest enforcer
of Jewish loans, the US. Israel's supporters overseas are like a
giant Hoover machine, sucking out money and sweat from all over the
world. Witness Mark Rich, the thieving billionaire, pardoned by the
best supporter of Israel, Bill Clinton? He was a Mossad agent. [...]
Sometimes, the Palestinians and their friends bemoan their inability
to build up their own Arab lobby to counteract the Israeli lobby. They
miss the most important point. The Israeli lobby should not be just a
Palestinian concern, but the concern of all Americans. When oil runs
out of a tanker's hulk, it should concern the crew and the owners,
not only the fish. Israel's supporters swindle all Americans of
their money, and antagonize America's potential friends abroad. Many
American politicians support the swindle in order to remain in power.
For personal political ambitions, they betray the trust of their
voters. John F. Kennedy told Gore Vidal, that in 1948, Harry Truman
was on the verge of losing the presidential election, but a Zionist
supporter brought to him 2 million dollars cash and saved his skin.
It caused America to vote for the creation of the Jewish State. This
pattern perpetuates itself. The politicians take bribes, sell pardons,
accept "donations", and help the Israeli lobby to rob the people
of America. The actual direct contribution of American Jews for the
welfare of Israel is quite small and tax exempt. It would hardly cover
the cost of the missiles and nerve gas to kill Palestinians, much less
support the Israeli life style to which we have become accustomed. But
what Israel supporters collect in campaign contributions is enough to
bribe politicians and embezzle a good chunk of American money from the
US treasury. If such a swindle would be hatched by, say, the Libyan
lobby, the media would rightly demand these people be registered as
foreign agents of influence. That is where the Israeli lobby cashes in
on the solidarity of the many American Jews and right-wing Christian
Zionists in the national media.
Israel Shamir "Kid Sister" February 17, 2001
www.israelshamir.net/english_articles.html
The performance of [American ambassador Martin] Indyk is as predictable
as the stance taken by the other pro-Israeli lobbyist turned Middle
East 'American' diplomat, Dennis Ross. Both men had built a career
on pressuring Congress and the American government to go along with
every Israeli whim. If Clinton expected them to miraculously transform
themselves into neutral mediators, he was deluded. But what he
certainly must have expected was that the Israeli Lobby would show
appropriate generosity by financing the political campaigns of Bill
and Hill. Indyking the Palestinians turned out to be a major cash
cow that financed Clinton's ambitions and got him out of some serious
Lewinsky troubles. The problem with American foreign policy in the
Middle East is that it is not very American. It is twisted out of
shape by powerful men, in and out of government, whose main concern
is marketing the Israeli agenda.
Ahmed Amr "Indyking the Palestinians" 2001
What seems to be particularly vexing to American Jews is to be reminded
that this grand design originated in a paper written in 1996 by Richard
Perle and Douglas Feith for the Institute for Advanced Strategic and
Political Studies, an Israeli think tank. The document was titled "A
Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It was intended
to be a blueprint for the incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu.
The complete break with the past was to be a new strategy "based on
an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic
initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible
energy on rebuilding Zionism." Israel, according to this 1996 PerleFeith
paper, would "shape its strategic environment," beginning with
the removal of Saddam Hussein and the restoration of the Hashemite
monarchy in Baghdad (Iraq and Jordan, prior to May 1958, shared a
joint monarchial system). (...) For the strategy to succeed, Perle and
Feith wrote, Israel would have to win broad American support for these
new policies. And to ensure support in Washington, the Israeli prime
minister was advised to use "language familiar to the Americans by
tapping into themes of past U.S. Administrations during the Cold
War, which apply as well to Israel." Which is exactly what Sharon did
after 9/11, thus convincing president Bush that his war on terrorism
and Israel's were one and the same.
Arnaud de Borchgrave "Zionism and anti-Semitism"
March 4, 2004
www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040304-112255-8322r.htm
"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for
this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this," [Rep. James P.
Moran] said at a gathering of antiwar activists in Reston a year
ago. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough
that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I
think they should." [...] After his remark blaming Jews for the war,
Mr. Moran was stripped of his post as regional whip for members of
Mid-Atlantic states and asked by several Democratic House members
not to run for re-election in the fall.
Charles Hurt The Washington Times (USA)
March 26, 2004
The Pentagon, that enormous, sprawling building on the banks of
the Potomac, houses most of the Department of Defense's central
headquarters. It is the top command for the forces and measures
which provide Americans with security in a troubled world. Across
the Potomac is the Department of State, a massive eight-story
building on Washington's Foggy Bottom, the nerve center of our
nation's worldwide diplomatic network. These buildings are channels
through which flow each day thousands of messages dealing with
the nation's top secrets. No one can enter either building without
special identification or advance clearance. Armed guards seem to
be everywhere, and in late 1983 concrete emplacements were added
and heavy trucks strategically parked to provide extra buffers if
a fanatic should launch an attack. These buildings are fortresses
where the nation's most precious secrets are carefully guarded by
the most advanced technology.
But how secure are the secrets?
"The leaks to Israel are fantastic. If I have something I want the
secretary of state to know, but don't want Israel to know, I must
wait till I have a chance to see him personally." The declaration
comes from an ambassador still on active duty in a top assignment,
reviewing his long career in numerous posts in the Middle East.
Although hardly a household name in the United States, his is one of
America's best-known abroad. Interviewed in the State Department, he
speaks deliberately, choosing his words carefully. "It is a fact of
life that everyone in authority is reluctant to put anything on paper
that concerns Israel if it is to be withheld from Israel's knowledge,"
says the veteran. "Nor do such people even feel free to speak in a
crowded room of such things."
Paul Findley Former Congressman from Illinois They Dare To Speak Out -
People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby Lawrence Hill Books,
1989, p. 139
The political season is upon us and it is with some measure of dread
that one watches the contenders stumble over themselves to curry
favor with an electorate that represents less than two per cent of
the voting public. And that small portion of the electorate that puts
Israel's interests first wants its derriere kissed, no doubt about
it. [...] Not to be outdone, John Kerry the Democratic candidate --
showing that there's not a nickels worth of difference between the
major parties on this issue -- has pledged his strong support for
Israel and vowed not to follow the Oslo path (spoken like a true
Likudnik) at a meeting with Jewish leaders and politicians. He also
said if elected, he'll be the nation's first president with Jewish
roots. Now that's some serious kissing-up, and it's not even mistletoe
season. [...] Politicians have a herd mentality, following the
stampede if they believe it in their interest to do so. They have
been led to believe that all Jews in the U.S. are passionate supporters
of Israel and since that segment of society wields a lot of power they
are catered to in no uncertain terms. It's not a question of right
or wrong for that never enters the equation. Whatever Israel wants,
Israel gets including massive financial and military aid. Letters to
the sitting president supporting Israel are written, and signed, by
an overwhelming majority of senators and congressmen whenever he shows
the slightest sign of faltering in that support. Scorecards are kept
of who is a "friend" of Israel and the tacit implication is, if you
want to be reelected, you'd better be on that list.
Raff Ellis
"All ye politicians pucker up -- yon Israeli derriere is awaiting''
Yellow Times (USA)
March 18, 2004
"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals,
most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the
course of history."
Israeli Journalist Ari Shavit
www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279
Quoted in:
Ian Gurney "The Prince Of Darkness" February 07, 2004
www.rense.com/general48/prince.htm
Why then is the Zionist lobby so powerful when their own scholars
write endlessly about the alienation of their youth from the movement?
The answer is simple: the Jews are the richest ethnic or religious
stratum in the US. Because their standard of living is so high, they
are the most educated. Because they are the most educated, they are
the most scientific oriented, hence most inclined towards atheism or
religious skepticism. But the true believer minority still has an
unbelievable amount of money to throw at the politicians. In 1991,
I interviewed Harold Seneker, then the editor of the Forbes 400 list
of the richest Americans, for an article in The Nation. I told him
that I found Jews, 2.2% of the population, to be about 25% of the 400.
[...] My estimate is that 84 of the latest 400 are Jews. The magazine
doesn't list religious affiliations unless the person involved
is distinctive in giving to religious charities, etc. And not all
of the Jews are pro-Zionists. Some listees are among the educated
disaffiliated we are discussing. But Zionist money is prodigious.
James Tisch, chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish
Organizations isn't on the list, altho he is CEO of Loews Corp.,
listed on the Fortune 500 list. But daddy, Laurence, is, at $2
billion, and uncle Preston is worth $2.3 billion. His predecessors at
the Conference were Ronald Lauder, $1.8 billion, and Mort Zuckerman,
who struggles along with a penny ante $1.2 billion. Chaim Sabon, $1.7
billion, is a University of California regent. Mayhaps he got the job
because he gave the Democrats the largest campaign contribution in
American history? [...] Both major parties pick their candidates
via primaries which any member can enter. So occasionally an honest
Democrat or Republican is elected to Congress and begins to criticize
their party's Israel über alles line. Usually it doesn't take long
before a tidal wave of Zionist cash pours in against them in the next
election and out they go. [...] Many leftists don't like to talk about
it because of their fear of raising anti- Semitism. They want to talk
about oil money. That's fine. Any kid who they let cross streets alone
knows that oil is the major reason that the US is so deeply involved
in the Middle East. But that doesn't explain why the two capitalist
parties are so pro-Zionist. Indeed their pro-Zionism creates problems
for them with the Arab masses. And it doesn't explain why liberal
Democrats are as zealous for Israel as the most fanatic Republican
Christian Zionist. [...] The moral of the story is that, while it is
crucial to talk about oil industry domination of US foreign policy,
it is just as crucial to talk about Zionist funding and its enormous
influence on domestic politics.
Lenni Brenner "The Demographics of American Jews" CounterPunch (USA)
October 24, 2003 www.counterpunch.org/brenner10242003.html
Since 9-11, a small group of "neo-conservatives" in the Administration
have effectively gutted--they would say reformed--traditional American
foreign and security policy. Notable features of the new Bush doctrine
include the pre-emptive use of unilateral force, and the undermining
of the United Nations and the principle instruments and institutions
of international law....all in the cause of fighting terrorism and
promoting homeland security.
Some skeptics, noting the neo-cons' past academic and professional
associations, writings and public utterances, have suggested that
their underlying agenda is the alignment of U.S. foreign and security
policies with those of Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing. The
administration's new hard line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
certainly suggests that, as perhaps does the destruction, with U.S.
soldiers and funds, of the military capacity of Iraq, and the current
belligerent neo-con campaign against the other two countries which
constitute a remaining counterforce to Israeli military hegemony in
the region--Iran and Syria.
Have the neo-conservatives--many of whom are senior officials in the
Defense Department, National Security Council and Office of the Vice
President--had dual agendas, while professing to work for the internal
security of the United States against its terrorist enemies?
A review of the internal security backgrounds of some of the best
known among them strongly suggests the answer.
Stephen Green "Serving Two Flags: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush
Administration" CounterPunch (USA) February 28 / 29, 2004
www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html
Given the state of opinion within Israel, and still assuming unchanging
U.S. "support for Israel," what long-term policies is Israel likely to
pursue, apart from continued steps towards integration of the occupied
territories in either the Likud or Labor style? Surely Israel will
not tolerate any military build-up in the surrounding region that it
considers a potential threat, and there will be no end to such threats
if there is no political settlement, a prospect virtually guaranteed
by U.S.- Israeli rejectionism. Furthermore, the costs of a permanent
state of war are immense, and mounting, costs that Israel is
increasingly unable to bear and that cannot be reduced as long
as tension exists and its adversaries are not crushed. Hence the
inducement to undertake a preemptive strike will always be high,
and with it, the likehood of regional or even global war. It is only
natural to expect that Israel will seek to destabilize the surrounding
states, for essentially the reasons that lead South Africa on a
similar course in its region. In fact, given continuing military
tensions, that might be seen virtually as a security imperative.
A plausible long-term goal might be what some have called an
"Ottomanization" of the region, that is, a return to something like
the system of the Ottoman empire, with a powerful center (Turkey
then, Israel with U.S.-backing now) and much of the region fragmented
into ethnic-religious communities, preferably mutually hostile.
A clear version of such a picture was presented just prior to the
Lebanon war by Oded Yinon, who was formerly in the Israeli foreign
service, in the ideological journal of the World Zionist Organization.
(...) On the other fronts, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian
peninsula must also be dismembered into smaller "factors," religious
and ethnic, as in the Levant during the Ottoman period. (...) With
regard to Iraq, Ze'ev Schiff observed just before the Lebanon war
that it would be in Israel's interest for it to be divided into three
states, Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish - and it is difficult to see why
Israel would refrain from seeking this objective. (...) Consider the
study edited by Daniel Elazar, president of the Jerusalem Institute
for Federal Studies, published by the American Enterprise Institute,
which I have cited several times. In his summary remarks for this
collection of scholarly essays, Elazar argues that "ethno-religious
communities," not states, are the natural form of organization in the
Middle East: any general political settlement must remain "dubious
about those who claim statehood on the basis of fifteen or thirty or
even fifty years of national self-identification." A possible model
is the Ottoman millet system, he suggests. He rules out returning
the occupied territories to Jordanian or Egyptian rule, or the
establishment of a Palestinian state.
Noam Chomsky The Fateful Triangle / 4.1.2. From Coexistence to
Hegemony South End Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999 (1983) Pages 455-460
Almost all influential individuals and groups in the U.S. political
landscape still shy away from discussing the degree to which this
Israeli connection has been a major factor in determining the entire
complex of U.S. policies on Iraq and the Middle East since September
11. In the eyes of most Americans, the correctness of the ever
stronger ties between the right-wing governments of the United States
and Israel is simply not to be questioned. (If you do question these
ties, you must be prepared to deal either with suspicions of antiSemitism
that may be directed at you, or, more likely, with suggestions
that you are simply "too far out" of the mainstream and therefore
deserve no further consideration. In the latter case, an unspoken
motive of your interlocutors is often that they fear being charged
with anti-Semitism, or with being "self-hating Jews," if they seem
to agree with you.) [...] Although the war was sold to Congress
and the public on the basis of the WMD issue, many of us believed for
months before the war that the actual reasons the Bush administration
invaded Iraq were the U.S. drive for global domination, oil--and
Israel. [...] It is vital that we break through the taboos, which
have, if anything, grown stronger in recent months.
Bill and Kathleen Christison "The Pervasive Fear of Talking About
the Israeli Connection" CounterPunch (USA) December 13/14, 2003
www.counterpunch.org/christison12132003.html
I interviewed [Richard] Perle when he was buzzing around the Reagan
Administration in the 1980s, and I was struck by how truly fanatical
this man was. He was then voicing the views of total war. All of
Bush's extremism comes from the Reagan years. That's why people like
Perle, Wolfowitz, and other refugees from that period have found
favor again. I singled out Perle in the book because I thought he
rather eloquently described the policies of the Bush regime. September
11 has given these people, this clique, an opportunity from heaven.
[...] It's very clear that the Bush Administration is out of control.
It contains some truly dangerous people.
John Pilger interviewed by David Barsamian The Progressive (USA)
November 2002
A central objective of the neocon agenda is increasing the power
of Israel. Indeed, many of the so-called neocons have deep-seated
connections, interests and relationships with the right-wing Likud
party and with other Israeli fringe groups. Many are die-hard
Zionists, true believers in Israeli hegemony over the Middle East,
if not the world. From their government offices they direct US
foreign policy in favor and in direction of Israel, supporting the
Sharon government and assuring that US and Israeli interests are
placed above that of the rest of the world. The attack on Iraq was
in no small measure a war to defend Israel's interests, thereby
helping it increase its power over the Middle East. A large part
of the neocon vision for the Middle East is for the benefit of
the Jewish state, to assure for its survival and expansion, if not
territorially, then economically. This fact must not be forgotten:
the neocons oftentimes place the interests of Israel and Likud ahead
of those of the US. The rogue government is in many ways making us
subservient to Israel's Likud party run by Ariel Sharon.
Manuel Valenzuela
"The Enemy Within: The Neocon Hijacking of America" Axis of Logic
December 15, 2003
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_3981.shtml
Jewish power has, in fact, been trumpeted by a number of Jewish
writers, including one, J.J. Goldberg, editor of the Jewish weekly
Forward, who wrote a book by that name in 1996. Any attempt however,
to explore the issue from a critical standpoint inevitably leads to
accusations of anti-Semitism, as Bill and Kathy Christison pointed
out in their article on the role of right-wing Jewish neo-cons in
orchestrating US Middle East policy, in CounterPunch (1/25/03):
"Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli instigation
of, or even involvement in, Bush administration war planning is
inevitably labeled somewhere along the way as an anti-Semite. Just
whisper the word 'domination' anywhere in the vicinity of the word
'Israel', as in 'U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East' or 'the
U.S. drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for
Israel", and some Leftist who otherwise opposes going to war against
Iraq will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders
of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for
world domination." [...] This is hardly the first time that Jews
have been in the upper echelons of power, as Benjamin Ginsberg points
out in The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, but there has never
been a situation anywhere like the present. This is how Ginsberg
began his book: "Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable
influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political
life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s,
and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's corporate
mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely 2 % of the nation's
population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The
chief executive officers of the three major television networks and
the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the
nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single
newspaper, the New York Times." That was written in 1993. Today, ten
years later, ardently pro-Israel American Jews are in positions of
unprecedented influence within the United States and have assumed or
been given decision making positions over virtually every segment of
our culture and body politic. This is no secret conspiracy. Regular
readers of The New York Times business section, which reports the
comings and goings of the media tycoons, are certainly aware of it.
Is each and every tycoon a pro-Israel zealot? Not necessarily, but
when one compares the US media with its European counterparts in their
respective coverage of the Israel- Palestine conflict, the extreme
bias in favor of Israel on the part of the US media is immediately
apparent. [...] A better explanation was provided by Stephen
Green, whose Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with Militant
Israel was the first examination of State Department archives
concerning US-Israel relations. Since the Eisenhower administration,
wrote Green, in 1984, "Israel, and friends of Israel in America, have
determined the broad outlines of US policy in the region. It has been
left to American Presidents to implement that policy, with varying
degrees of enthusiasm, and to deal with the tactical issues." An
exaggeration, perhaps, but former US Senator James Abourezk (D-South
Dakota) echoed Green's words in a speech before the American-Arab
Anti- Discrimation Committee last June: "That is the state of
American politics today. The Israeli lobby has put together so
much money power that we are daily witnessing US senators and
representatives bowing down low to Israel and its US lobby. Make no
mistake. The votes and bows have nothing to do with the legislators'
love for Israel. They have everything do to with the money that is
fed into their campaigns by members of the Israeli lobby. My estimate
is that at least $6 billion flows from the American Treasury to
Israel each year. That money, plus the political support the US
gives Israel at the United Nations, is what allows Israel to conduct
criminal operations in Palestine with impunity." That is a reality
that has been expressed many times in many forms by ex-members of
Congress, usually speaking off the record.
Jeffrey Blankfort "The Israel Lobby and the Left" Published in: The
Politics of Anti-Semitism Edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey
St. Clair CounterPunch and AK Press, 2003, pp. 101-106
With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer:
President Bush's policy to secure Israel. [...] Bush felt tax cuts
would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast
to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You
don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq.
Senator Ernest F. Hollings "Bush failed Mideast policy is creating
more terrorism" The Post and Courier (USA) May 6, 2004
www.charleston.net/stories/050604/com_06hollings.shtml
IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive
director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on
the United States in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission - in which
he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago
was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle
East. Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to
protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President
George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn
the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein
and its concern for Israel's security. The administration has instead
insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the
United States. (...) To date, the possibility of the United States
attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by
some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from
sources close to the administration. Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's
statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the
rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.
Emad Mekay
"9/11 Commission Director: Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel"
Inter Press Service March 30, 2004
antiwar.com/ips/mekay.php?articleid=2208
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pathtowar.html
The U.S. and the Escalating Threat to the World
Nabila Harb, FAV - Axis of Logic
Apr 22, 2005 - The U.S. and its Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt have
used their invasion of Iraq as a means through which to achieve many
goals apart from its primary goal of gaining control of Iraq and its
natural resources. This war has been a vehicle through which the U.S.
not only elevated propaganda to new heights at the expense of the
truth, but actually undertook the murder of independent journalists.
By targeting journalists for murder, a clear threat was delivered to
any one daring to publicise any facts in opposition to the U.S. and
Coalition goals. Now the example of the invasion is being utilised as
a concrete threat to any other nation that dares to demonstrate any
opposition whatsoever to international U.S./Zionist goals. Victory
has not been won by the Coalition in Iraq by any means, and yet, by
destroying buildings, statues and other symbols of the legitimate
Iraqi leadership and by encouraging widespread looting, the Coalition
is hoping to convince the Iraqi people as well as the international
community of its power to give life or death to whomsoever it wills.
Bogus accusations of 'pursuing weapons of mass destruction' were
part of the foundation upon which the Coalition based its invasion
of Iraq. Now, even as the country of Iraq continues to resist, the
U.S. warns other nations to 'draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq.'
In particular, the U.S. threatens Iran, Syria and Korea with the
possibility of a U.S. or 'Coalition' invasion, should they attempt
to retain the right to oppose U.S. foreign policy. John R. Bolton,
U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International
Security, warned Syria and other countries in the region to 'open
themselves' up to 'new possibilities for peace'. In other words, no
one has the right to self-defence or defence of the homeland. 'New
possibilities for peace' require capitulation to U.S./Zionist aims
and are predicated upon total disarmament by any country that is in
a position to threaten the Zionist entity.
Bolton declared that: 'With respect to the issue of the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction in the post-conflict period, we are
hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from
Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their
national interest.'
Of course, proliferation of nuclear arms is not only allowed but
encouraged in the case of the Zionist entity, an illegal political
entity that never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and one that
has threatened the U.S. government with the possibility of becoming
a 'rogue state' if the U.S. should ever waver in its support. In
1986, Francis Perrin, high commissioner of the French atomic energy
agency from 1951 to 1970, told the press that France and the illegal
Zionist entity had worked for two years in the late 1950s to design
an atom bomb. Perrin declared, inter alia, that: 'We [France] thought
the Israeli bomb was aimed against the Americans, not to launch it
against America but to say 'if you don't want to help us in a critical
situation we will require you to help us, otherwise we will use our
nuclear bombs.'
Indeed, the Zionists vowed before the current American invasion of
Iraq that, should Iraq attack the Zionist illegal entity, they would
feel free to use nuclear weapons in response. This is the same Zionist
entity that attempted to conceal its own nuclear capacity from the
world for decades. In fact, despite all propaganda to the contrary,
it was only Iraq who possessed no weapons of mass destruction, and
the American invasion had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'threat',
actual or potential, from a nation weakened by over a decade of
punitive sanctions.
An U.S. Air Force report from 1999 declared the Zionist entity to be
building a nuclear naval force meant to respond to any nuclear strike
by such countries as Iran or Iraq. The number of Zionist nuclear
weapons cited in the report was 400 atomic and hydrogen weapons,
double that of previous assessments. Some of these 400 nuclear and
thermonuclear weapons could be deployed by the Zionist navy on the
fleet of three German-built Dolphin-class diesel submarines, giving
the Zionist entity a second strike capability with nuclear cruise
missiles. The same report declared that: 'the first basing options
for the new second-strike force of nuclear missile capable submarines
include Oman, located strategically near Iran' but that the Zionist
entity might be able to use Jordanian air space for a nuclear
strike on Iran. It stated finally that: 'Israel's Defense Ministry
has requested from the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
authorisation for a retaliatory nuclear strike.'
In the spring of 2002, the Zionist entity contemplated a 'pre-emptive
strike' against Iran. The Coalition invasion of Iraq made it
unnecessary for the Zionists to carry out their own threats against
Iraq, but they still remain eager to see both Iran and Syria weakened
significantly or destroyed. The Bush administration now has made it
clear that it could be persuaded to turn its aggression next towards
either Syria or Iran.
Iran, despite its rather despicable attempts to curry favour with
the U.S. by abetting the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and its own
compliance with international law in terms of its nuclear programmes,
has not won either security or safety with the U.S. and its allies.
In terms of nuclear weapons, Iran, unlike the Zionist entity, is
party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has accepted full
scope safeguards and is entitled to import nuclear reactors and other
technologies under the provisions of the treaty. The International
Atomic Energy Agency regularly has inspected all of Iran's declared
nuclear facilities, reports it to be in full compliance with the
NPT and has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons effort. Since
1991, the IAEA invoked authority to conduct special inspections of
undeclared sites and Iran allowed the IAEA to visit any site upon
request. The agency failed to uncover any non-sanctioned activites
in any of its several visits. Despite all of this, Iran remains a
potential target for the next act of American/Zionist aggression
and will not be removed from Bush's characterisation as part of his
'axis of evil'. Demonstrations of disgraceful jubiliation at the
Coalition's current successes in Iraq will change nothing.
In reality, it should be far more frightening to contemplate nuclear
weapons at the disposal of the Zionists, an aggressive colonialist
racist regime proven to have expansionist aims towards the Arab
Nation than nuclear power in the hands of Syria, Iran or Korea. In
fact, the only nation that has used nuclear weapons and used them
on a civilian population is the United States, the nation that
demonstrated its aggressive, law-defying nature once again in its
invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq.
A U.S. poll was taken to show that half of the United States
population would support U.S. military action against Iran if it
continued to move toward nuclear weapons development and 42 percent
of those surveyed said the United States should take action against
Syria if it were helping Iraq. Polls only represent the views of
those chosen to participate, and one hopes that this is not the
opinion of the people of the United States, but only of those
brainwashed by official U.S./Zionist propaganda. Even so, it is a
rather frightening prospect, and if a valid poll, definitely supports
the notion of culpability of the people of the United States for the
blood shed and crimes committed by its government.
Bolton continued to elaborate upon his threat by stating that: 'I
think Syria is a good case where I hope that they will conclude that
the chemicals weapons program and the biological weapons program that
they have been pursuing are things that they should give up. It is a
wonderful opportunity for Syria to foreswear the pursuit of weapons
of mass destruction and, as with other governments in the region,
to see if there are not new possibilities in the Middle East peace
process. He concluded by stating that the priority of the United
States was the 'peaceful elimination of these programmes.'
The U.S./Coalition invasion of Iraq is a demonstration of how
'peaceful elimination' is achieved. Indeed, it is obvious that other
nations do need to 'draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq'. The U.S.
and its allies must be stopped now. Half-hearted attempts to support
Iraq while attempting to placate the U.S. will accomplish nothing.
The real lesson to be drawn from Iraq is that one must not acquiesce
in self-destruction at the hands of the enemy. Iraq actually attempted
to conform to the dictates of the United Nations with respect to its
weapons and resources for self-defence while the United States never
had any intention of forswearing its own plans for invasion. While
Iraq destroyed weapons at the behest of U.N. inspectors, the United
States amassed troops and weapons in preparation for invasion.
Indeed, it is interesting to look at the example of North Korea and
its response to U.S. pressure. In a statement made on the 6th of
April, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea demonstrated clear recognition of the dangers that
face any nation that dares to oppose U.S. world domination and gave
its own response to recent threats made by the U.S.
Stating that 'the DPRK has so far made every possible effort to
ensure stability and peace in the Korean Peninsula and the region',
it accused the United Nations Security Council first of dealing with
the nuclear issue on the peninsula in such a manner as to make it a
'prelude to war' to be 'misused by the U.S. as an excuse for war.'
One can hear the echo of similar United Nations discussions and
resolutions on Iraq here and recall the recent U.S. manipulation,
bullying and ultimate disregard of the international community in
its inexorable aim to invade Iraq.
The DPRK then stated very forcefully that: 'The U.S. intends to force
the DPRK to disarm itself. The Iraqi war shows that to allow disarming
through inspection does not help avert a war but rather sparks it.'
Furthermore, that: 'Neither international public opinion nor the U.N.
Charter could prevent the U.S. from mounting an attack on Iraq. This
suggests that even the signing of a non-aggression treaty with the
U.S. would not help avert a war.'
And finally:
'ONLY THE PHYSICAL DETERRENT FORCE, TREMENDOUS MILITARY DETERRENT
FORCE POWERFUL ENOUGH TO DECISIVELY BEAT BACK AN ATTACK SUPPORTED
BY ANY ULTRA-MODERN WEAPONS, CAN AVERT A WAR AND PROTECT THE SECURITY
OF THE COUNTRY AND THE NATION. THIS IS A LESSON DRAWN FROM THE IRAQI
WAR.'
Syria and Iran should take note and respond in like fashion. The DPRK
continues by rejecting the entire fabric of deceit upon which the U.S.
relies to support its worldwide aggressions, stating that:
'The U.S. is seriously mistaken if it thinks that the DPRK will accept
the demand for disarming while watching one of the three countries the
U.S. listed as part of an 'axis of evil' already subject to a barbarous
military attack.'
In conclusion, the DPRK vowed that, should the U.S. target North Korea,
the DPRK would have 'no other option but to beef up the deterrent force
for war by mobilising all the potentials.'
In like manner, Syria and Iran must recognise the need for absolute
resistance to the U.S. foreign policy 'programme'. Unity against
the U.S. is vital. The lesson to be learned from the U.S./Coalition
invasion of Iraq is that the U.S. is ruthless in its programme to
eliminate any potential threats to its own status as the most powerful
dictator in the international community. At the heart of U.S. world
domination plans are Zionist interests and this never was more obvious
than when the U.S. chose to invade Iraq, a country without any socalled
'weapons of mass destruction' rather than taking any action
towards Korea, a nation possessing nuclear deterrent power. The
Zionists have no interest in Korea at present, but they do have an
interest in increasing their sphere of control within the Arab Nation
and Iran. The appointment of Jay Garner, a Zionist puppet, to supervise
the so-called 'post-Saddam Hussayn' admininstration of Iraq is damning
evidence of U.S./Zionist collaboration.
Furthermore, Iraq was chosen as the first target probably because the
U.S. believed that it would have United Nations support and because
it was able to invade Iraq in the First Gulf War without any effective
resistance from the Arab Nation as a whole. Despite Arab opposition
to the first U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the anger and frustration with
respect to the economic sanctions that punished Iraq for over a decade,
the leaders of the Arab Nation made it clear that they would not
actually oppose a second U.S. invasion. Moreover, much of the military
apparatus for a second invasion of Iraq was in place and indeed, the
U.S. and British had been invading parts of Iraq throughout the past
decade, under spurious claims of 'enforcing' the sanctions.
Iraq, therefore, was a much easier target than Syria, Iran or Korea.
The oil resources in Iraq made it irresistable to Western governments
determined to take multi-national control over Arab resources and
radically diminish the power of OPEC.
An invasion of Syria certainly would be in Zionist interests, perhaps
even more than the invasion of Iraq, but Iraq posed an easier target
in terms of the degree of passivity that the U.S. could expect from
the rest of the world, even if most of the world opposed a military
invasion of Iraq. After all, the brutal economic sanctions against
Iraq had been allowed to proceed year after year without any sort of
effective intervention from any one.
Iraq is by no means defeated, and the U.S. cannot claim true victory
of any sort at this point in time. Even so, it is vital for every
country to take note of the unequivocally aggressive nature of U.S.
foreign policy and to respond as the DPRK responded. No one can afford
to wait to see what ultimately happens in Iraq, hoping that perhaps
the United States will become so entangled in a long war of attrition
that it will not be able to open another front. After all, the United
States proved itself willing to invade Iraq even while continuing
military actions in Afghanistan, and it carried out attacks in
Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously.
There is no middle path here, and a policy of appeasement with respect
to the United States will not grant safety, peace or security to
any nation. Any country that decides to work with the United States
in an attempt to win either U.S./Zionist friendship or tolerance is
committing suicide. The U.S./Zionist aims to destroy the Arab Nation
and Iran will not waver. Any U.S. 'road map' for Palestine ultimately
will facilitate Zionist security in the region, and thus must be
repudiated categorically.
Like an abusive marriage, any so-called alliance with the U.S. or the
Zionists operates to the benefit only of the abusive partner. Any gains
for the victim are illusory at best. Independence from U.S. control is
the only path to true survival.
http://www.freearabvoice.org/articles/EscalatingThreat.htm
Article nr. 11268 sent on 23-apr-2005 10:02 ECT
The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=11268
The incoming address of this article is :
www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_17020.shtml
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------<<<·
>> GIV Mailinglist : http://mailing.giv-seiten.info <<·
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------<<<·
http://www.giv-seiten.info/www.giv-archiv.de/2002/Oktober/021031GI.010·
>> Kasnazaniya / Casnazaniyyah: http://video.giv-seiten.info <<·
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------<<<·
>> Further Informations about Iraq and Palestine: <<·
>> <<·
>> GIV-Pages Online : http://www.giv-seiten.info <<·
>> GIV-Page : http://giv.giv-seiten.info <<·
>> Iraq-Page : http://irak.giv-seiten.info <<·
>> Jemen-Page : http://jemen.giv-seiten.info <<·
>> Jordanien-Page : http://jordanien.giv-seiten.info <<·
>> GIV-Archiv : http://archiv.giv-seiten.info <<·
>> GIV-Archiv : http://www.giv-archiv.de <<·
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------<<<·
|
