Mossad - search results
Update, 12 September 2013 http://www.consensus911.org Five New Consensus Points Released September 11, 2013 on SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 The 22-member 9/11 Consensus Panel has conducted three rounds of review, during which the Panelists were blind to one another, to produce five new Consensus Points refuting the official evidence of 9/11: Seismic evidence of large underground explosions…
The Anonymous hacking group has claimed that it hacked into the website of Israel‘s Mossad spy agency, gaining access to top-secret documents.
The Internet hacking group said on its twitter page that it gained access to the personal data of more than 30,000 Israeli officials, including military officials, politicians and Mossad agents, and that it will release the information gradually.
Hacking group Anonymous has launched a series of cyber attacks against Israeli websites since November 2012 in retaliation for Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip.
Anonymous said it had launched the OpIsrael campaign following threats by Tel Aviv to cut all Gaza's telecommunication links. OpIsrael campaign aims at wipping Israel off the cyber world by April 7.
Shortly after the pro-Palestinian campaign was launched, dozens of Israeli websites were defaced or attacked. Many of the sites had their homepages replaced with messages in support of Hamas and the Palestinians.
Zionists Latest Anti-Semitic Inducing Provocation: Trying to Destroy a Highly Worthy and Sane Nuclear...
Timothy Alexander Guzman, Silent Crow News – The relationship between the U.S. and Israel in the last 6 years under the Obama administration has never been stronger. In 2012, The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) declared that President Obama’s aid package for Israel was the largest in U.S. history, a fact that is hard to ignore:
President Barack Obama requested a record $3.1 billion in military assistance to Israel for the 2013 fiscal year. The requested amount is not just the largest assistance request for Israel ever; it is the largest foreign assistance request ever in U.S. history
President Barack H. Obama and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s alleged tenuous relationship is not what it seems. Sure they probably annoy each other, but Obama has provided U.S. foreign aid just as every U.S. President before him. The invitation granted by the speaker of the house John Boehner to Netanyahu so that he can present his case against Iran to the U.S. congress to prove that Obama’s negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program was a “bad deal.” According to Netanyahu, Iran threatens Israel’s existence and the world. Netanyahu’s speech was political theater. Several democrats did not attend Netanyahu’s show. Those that did criticized Netanyahu for trying to undermine the Obama administration is once again, all political theater. The democrats who skipped Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent speech to show solidarity with President Obama’s policy towards Iran were going to attend the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) event featuring an appearance by Netanyahu the following week as the Washington Examiner reported earlier this month:
All of the members skipping Netanyahu’s congressional speech the Examiner interviewed were quick to say their anger toward the prime minister and his attempt to scuttle the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program did not extend to pro-Israel committee.
“Why would I not want to meet with my friends? They’re coming to see me next week and why wouldn’t I see them?” asked Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., referring to two American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists he’s known and worked with for 25 years
Since 1948, U.S and Israeli actions taken in the Middle East has proven to be a tragic period for all people of the Middle East whether Arab, Christian, Jew, Kurdish, Sunni or Shiite. Nothing but wars and Sectarian conflicts, poverty and Western-funded extremists has destroyed Arab countries and killed millions of Muslim men, women and children that are physically and emotionally scarred for the rest of their young and innocent lives.
Can anyone think of the U.S. and its Democratic ideals as a success? The U.S. has done everything it can to create “order out of chaos.” In 1947 following the “creation of Israel” by Great Britain when the Foreign secretary Arthur James Balfour confirmed a “national home of the Jewish People” when he sent the Balfour Declaration to Walter Rothschild, head of the Rothschild banking dynasty, the Palestinian people have been living in hell. Palestine became a prison enforced by Israel’s security apparatus that resembles what George Orwell described as a total police state in his classic book “1984.” Palestine has been divided; 1.7 million Palestinians live in an open air prison in the Gaza strip while others live in the West Bank under a police state controlled by heavily armed Israeli soldiers and police. The Palestinians have been losing lands in an unprecedented fashion and in recent decades only to be accelerated under Netanyahu’s watch with a 40% increase in 2014 alone, outpacing the prior year.
Israel’s ambitions for nuclear weapons capability began after Israel became a Western sponsored state with the U.S, U.K. and France as its main allies. Many conflicts in the Middle East soon followed. The Israeli war of Independence against the Arab countries included Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria which led to the 1949 Armistice which outlined the borders of Israel. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soon began military operations against Egypt, Lebanon and Jordon to prevent terrorist attacks against its Jewish citizens. In 1956, Great Britain and France joined Israel in attacking Egypt after its government decided to nationalize the Suez Canal after the U.S. and Great Britain declined to fund the Aswan Dam. Israel was forced to retreat from the attack by the U.S. and the USSR. Soon after, the Six-Day War in 1967 began when Israel fought againstEgypt, Syria and Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others contributed weapons and troops to the Arab forces. Israel defeated the Arab armies and expanded its territory in the West Bank which included East Jerusalem to Jordan, the Golan Heights in Syria, the Sinai and the Gaza strip. Then the War of Attrition (1967-1970), the Yom Kippur War (1973) and the War in Lebanon (1982) which the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) invaded Southern Lebanon to eliminate Palestinian guerrilla fighters (the resistance) from the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which led to the Israeli Security Zone in South Lebanon. Then the South Lebanon conflict with Hezbollah that lasted for at least 20 years. It still continues today. The first and Second Intifadas began with the Palestinian uprising against a brutal Israeli occupation and the disappearance of their lands. Several wars soon followed. The last war called ‘Operation Protective Edge’ which Israel launched against the Gaza Strip. According to the State of Palestine Ministry of Health who reported on August 17, 2014 that there were 2,300 deaths and over 19,000 injured in Gaza which was a devastating conflict that traumatized the Palestinian people especially the children. It is a tragic consequence that will last a lifetime for many.
During all of the conflicts, Israel was seeking weapons to defend their new “Jewish” nation. Israel was eventually exposed as an undeclared nuclear power thanks to an Israeli man named Mordechai Vanunu who spent 18 years in the Shikma Prison in Ashkelon, with 10 of those years in solitary confinement. Mordechai exposed Israel’s secrets nuclear program to the British press in 1986.
Israel is the aggressor. It’s an illegal occupation which began under the British government and it is supported by other Western-powers, mainly the U.S. and France. Israel’s history is filled with conflicts and terrorism against the Arab world. Israel has committed political assassinations, supported extremists to topple governments including its current support to “moderate rebels” to oust Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. It has control over the natural resources including vital water supplies that Palestinians solely depend on to survive. So my question is why everyone is surprised by Netanyahu’s speech he recently gave in the U.S. House of congress? Several members of congress were “appalled” or “upset” because he disrespected U.S. lawmakers, but the reality is that the majority of elected officials in congress and every administration even before Obama have approved military aid for Israel’s security since Israel was created in 1948. Who are they fooling? Netanyahu sounded like he was the U.S. president with constant standing ovations and thunderous applauds by the AIPAC controlled congress. Those on both sides of the aisle whether democrat or republican always look forward to Jewish (Zionist) support for campaign funds. There are several members of congress who have dual citizenships that seek to protect Israel at all costs (although the actual “costs” come at the expense of U.S. taxpayers). The U.S. has been involved in the Middle East for a long time. Do not expect peace or stability. War and conquest is the true nature of both the Americans and Israeli’s regarding Middle East policies. ISIS is a perfect example of how the U.S. operates by bringing democracy to an already volatile region with its support of the Syrian rebels, al-Nusra and the decade old “al-Qaeda” with weapons to topple governments not in line with Washington only proves that war is on the agenda. Not only does the U.S. and its allies support ISIS and other terrorist organizations to topple Arab governments they protect them according to an article by Michel Chossudovsky titled ‘Obama’s “Fake War” against the Islamic State (ISIS). The Islamic State is protected by the US and its Allies’ and made an important point when he said:
What would have been required from a military standpoint to wipe out an ISIS convoy with no effective anti-aircraft capabilities? Without an understanding of military issues, common sense prevails. If they had wanted to eliminate the Islamic State brigades, they could have “carpet” bombed their convoys of Toyota pickup trucks when they crossed the desert from Syria into Iraq in June
The U.S. and Israel clearly want chaos in the Middle East. It is obvious. However, Netanyahu did say that:
The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics. Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American — of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama
Yes, the alliance between the U.S. and Israel is “above politics” and I agree it’s supposed to achieve “Full Spectrum Dominance” with the West and Israel controlling every aspect of Arab life including its lands, economy, and its natural resources in the Middle East. This is the “destiny” which Netanyahu speaks of. There is a vast amount of resources including the obvious oil, water and natural gas in the Middle East for which both the U.S. and Israel is solely interested in. It also provides a market for the Military-Industrial Complex and corporate interests. Netanyahu’s speech in Washington resembles what a genuine hypocrite that will claim it is he who is a victim of hatred, while committing heinous crimes against those he hates. Netanyahu thanked President Obama for his support over the years which are no surprise:
We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.
Now, some of that is widely known. Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N. Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.
I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment. Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists
‘Operation Protective Edge’ was supported by the Obama administration. They have collaborated on various programs including Israel security forces that provided training to U.S. Police forces. I was not surprised by the recent revelations in Chicago, Illinois concerning its secret black sites used by the Chicago police department to detain and even torture suspects. This happened under former White House Chief of Staff and also an IDF civilian volunteer and Israel supporter Rahm Emanuel whose father Benjamin M. Emanuel was once a member of the Irgun, a terrorist organization that operated in Mandate Palestine. As Netanyahu continued:
But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.
The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots — religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship
Netanyahu said that “religious Zealots” imposed a dark brutal dictatorship? Well I guess the Western-backed Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi or the “Shah of Iran” and his secret police force the Savak who terrorized the Iranian people was their preference to keep Iran under their control. Savak was trained and supported by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Israeli Mossad. The most brutal dictatorship in the Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia is an ideal model for the U.S. and Israel. If you look at the dictatorships the U.S. has supported to spread “American-Style Democracy” in the last 100 years. The results of “American-style democracy” were disastrous causing human rights violations, countless deaths and disease. Those same nations the U.S. either invaded or helped overthrow their respective governments (many of them democracies) still suffer from Washington’s “medicine.” From Pinochet in Chile, to the Somoza dynasty in Nicaragua, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier regime in Haiti to the Gulf Monarchies in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and the list goes on, U.S. policy is about dominating nations for geopolitical interests including for the control of their natural resources. The U.S. and Israel have an interest in the Middle East and that is to dominate it under their so-called “World Order.” If they remove Syria and then Iran, the Middle East would become a region that would look like Iraq or Libya. It would be a cash bonanza for the Military-Industrial Complex if they keep the civil wars among different sects and tribes going, creating a market for weapons exports. Netanyahu said Iran is a “grave threat” to World peace. Can someone say “Samson Option”? Seymour M. Hersh’s ‘The Samson Option’ noted a commentary by Norman Podhoretz that summarizes how Israel would respond if they were on the verge of defeat at the hands of Arab nations in the Middle East:
For Israel’s nuclear advocates, the Samson Option became another way of saying “Never again.” [In a 1976 essay in Commentary, Norman Podhoretz accurately summarized the pronuclear argument in describing what Israel would do if abandoned by the United States and overrun by Arabs: "The Israelis would fight . . . with conventional weapons for as long as they could, and if the tide were turning decisively against them, and if help in the form of resupply from the United States or any other guarantors were not forthcoming, it is safe to predict that they would fight with nuclear weapons in the end. ... It used to be said that the Israelis had a Masada complex . . .but if the Israelis are to be understood in terms of a 'complex' involving suicide rather than surrender and rooted in a relevant precedent of Jewish history, the example of Sarnson, whose suicide brought about the destruction of his enemies, would be more appropriate than Masada, where in committing suicide the Zealots killed only themselves and took no Romans with them."
Podhoretz, asked years later about his essay, said that his conclusions about the Samson Option were just that—his conclusions, and not based on any specific information from Israelis or anyone else about Israel's nuclear capability
What Mr. Podhoretz was describing was a “if we go down, everyone else is going down with us” scenario which is a dangerous policy for the world peace. Netanyahu also says that Assad who is backed by Iran is slaughtering Syrians. This serves the Obama Administration’s long-term goal to remove Assad from power:
Iran's goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world's oil supply
Netanyahu claim that the Jewish people can defend themselves which I agree especially when you have nuclear weapons that can destroy the entire Middle East:
We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves
Iran, Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Palestine (the West Bank and Gaza) are targets for the U.S. and Israel. They want to destabilize Syria and Iran and turn it into an Iraq and Libya with tribal and sectarian infighting among the populations. The U.S. destroyed Iraq with the intention of dividing the people. They create the conflict, develop hatred along Sunni and Shiite sects, and enforce a government subservient to Western interests. How does this benefits Israel? They keep the wars going by destabilizing regimes through ISIS and other Western-funded terrorist groups while Israel expands its territories beyond its borders. Once Syria and Iran are destroyed, the U.S. and Israel will have no use for ISIS. No more weapons will be shipped to ISIS and other groups and the U.S. and Israel with its military capabilities can easily defeat ISIS as Chossudovsky mentioned in his article. It sounds cynical but it’s the truth. It is what I call “Mafia-Style” politics, something the U.S. and Israel are very good at. The world is not fooled by the bickering between the democrats and republicans because as we all know, they are one, united with an “unbreakable bond “with Israel as Obama declared in 2013. We all know that without U.S. support, Israeli occupation of Palestine would end tomorrow. But that will not happen unless the U.S. Empire falls from power and only then, a lasting peace will ensue.
Netanyahu concluded with “May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America” And no one else, right Mr. Netanyahu? What kind of God would bless two nations that have committed genocide against its indigenous populations? Why would God bless a nation that lies to its people and declares war on nations that want their sovereignty respected? If this is the God we as humans supposed to honor, then God is not who we think he is.
In conclusion, Netanyahu should listen to an interview conducted by Press TV based in Tehran, Iran in 2014 with Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, associate director of ‘Neturei Karta International: Jews United against Zionism’ (www.nkusa.org) and was asked about U.N. monitor Richard Falk who accused Israel of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. His response was as follows:
With the help of the almighty, I pray to the almighty to bestow upon me his truth, his wisdom. We are always confounded by this seeming ignorance of the issues and the ignoring of what is happening. The issues are clear from day one. Well over one hundred years ago when this Zionist ideology came about of Jewish people creating their own sovereignty and then eventually deciding to make their sovereignty in the Holy Land, the biblical authorities in the Holy Land, the chief rabbi of Palestine, Rabbi Dushinsky..., of that time, and later in 1947 prior to the ratification of... Israel by the United Nations, the chief rabbi was Rabbi Dushinsky; he went to a meeting in Jerusalem [al-Quds] with the members of the United Nations and he pleaded with them in the name of Judaism and the religious community that we do not want, in any form, a state …, that it is illegal, it is illegitimate. Judaism does not permit us to have to have a Jewish sovereignty, Judaism does not permit us to oppress other people, steal the land, or in any manner being uncompassionate to the people.
On the contrary we were living together with the Muslim community, with the Arabs and Muslims for hundreds and hundreds of years in Palestine and every Muslim state in total harmony without any human rights group to protect us and since this creation of Zionism and then eventually … Israel, there is an endless river of bloodshed. It is impossible to subjugate people and expect that there will be peace. Now, we are condoning what is emanating from this fact that there is a state but the fact is that it defies logic; it flies in the face of …, righteousness and everything that the humanity calls for, by occupying Palestine and so our rabbis universally opposed the existence of … Israel and that the world should totally confuse this issue.
Americans, as a whole, have been kept in the dark about this cozy arrangement because the CIA, via Operation Mockingbird, has largely controlled the media’s message. Allen Dulles forbade any bad press about his rogue agency from leaking to the public. He recruited publishers, reporters, news directors, and network executives into the fold, and CIA-friendly propaganda was widely disseminated. But the length and breadth of the Dulleses’ power is not shocking to foreigners, especially those whose self-rule and duly elected leaders were overthrown by Allen and Foster. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, southeast Asia, and Chile are just a few of the places where we are reviled. The foreign press knows more about our own country’s history than we do. Witness this article, written by Peter G. Prontzos, which appeared recently in the Vancouver Sun:
“While all governments try to manipulate public opinion, arguably none has had such dire global effects as the United States during the Cold War, when Washington portrayed the Soviets as an ‘evil empire’ trying to conquer the world. Central to that campaign were Allen Dulles and his brother, John Foster Dulles. As heads of the CIA and the State Department respectively, they had more impact on Washington’s foreign policies in the 1950s than anybody except president Dwight Eisenhower himself.
“Their bloody record is reconstructed in a fascinating history by Stephen Kinzer, a historian and award-winning journalist for the New York Times.
“Foster (as he was called) and Allen were sons of privilege, born in ‘a haven for New York millionaires on the shore of Lake Ontario.’ As young boys, they ‘dined with ambassadors, senators, cabinet secretaries, supreme court justices’ as well as presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. As adults, they were the ultimate insiders, both in Washington and on Wall Street.
“Not surprisingly, the Dulles brothers accepted the view, as common now as it was then, that the United States is an ‘exceptional’ nation because it is ‘inherently more moral’ than other countries. As a superpower, then, Washington had both the right and the duty to, ‘not only topple governments but guide the course of history.’
“The third element in their world view may be even more fundamental: ‘protecting the right of large American corporations to operate freely in the world,’ regardless of the wishes of the ‘unenlightened’ people in other nations.
“One early incident foreshadowed their cold-bloodedness. When Allen was working for the U.S. government in Switzerland during the First World War, he was told that a woman he was dating was passing information to Austria and must be ‘liquidated.’
“One night after taking her to dinner, Allen delivered her to two British agents. As Kinzer notes: ‘She was never heard from again.’
“The brothers reached the height of their power in 1953, when Eisenhower became president. One of their first crusades was to target the democratically elected government of Iran, headed by the nationalist prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. Iran’s sins included its decision to take control of the oil industry, at the time almost completely owned by the British.
“The final straw, however, was the Iranian parliament’s refusal to accept a deal with a U.S. business conglomerate which would cost that country more than half a trillion dollars (in today’s currencies). The company, OCI, was a client of Allen Dulles, who, working with the British, directed a successful coup that overthrew Iran’s democracy and replaced it with the dictatorship of the Shah who, coincidentally, was also a client of Allen.”
- Palestinians extending talks another year;
- legitimate UN diplomatic moves they're entitled to pursue won't follow;
- Washington will release Pollard before Passover begins on April 14;
- Israel will release 26 more Palestinian prisoners; they'll include 14 Israeli Arab citizens;
- another 400 close to completing their imprisonments will be freed; choices exclude sick prisoners and significant political ones supporters demand be released;
- for the next eight months, Israel will freeze most settlement construction, government tenders, and marketing of lands and planning except for East Jerusalem;
“It is common knowledge among all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe…that the disastrous 9-11 terrorist attack has been planned and realized from the CIA and Mossad.”
--former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, speaking to the Italian press
"An intelligence service is the ideal vehicle for a conspiracy."
--Allen Dulles, Director of the CIA, 1953-61
“In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here, the process is more subtle, but the end results can be the same. I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the state and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, ‘Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.’ I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.”
--Jim Garrison, New Orleans District Attorney, 1967
"But what counter-insurgency really comes down to is the protection of the capitalists back in America, their property and their privileges. US national security, as preached by US leaders, is the security of the capitalist class in the US, not the security of the rest of the people."
--Philip Agee, CIA Counterintelligence Officer, 1975
“Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars. The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted. These people attracted and promoted each other. Outside of their duplicity, the o¬nly thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things that, in looking back o¬n my life, I regret. But I was part of it and I loved being in it. . . Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, Carmel Offie, and Frank Wisner were the grand masters. If you were in a room with them you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell.” Angleton slowly sipped his tea and then said, “I guess I will see them there, soon.”
--James J. Angleton, CIA Counter Intelligence-Chief, 1985
Counterpunch – 13 February 2014
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rarely been so politically embattled. His travails indicate the Israeli right’s inability to respond to a shifting political landscape, both in the region and globally.
The context for his troubles was his commitment in 2009, under great pressure from a newly elected US president, Barack Obama, to support the creation of a Palestinian state. It was a concession he never wanted to make and one he has regretted ever since.
The US secretary of state, John Kerry, has exploited that pledge by imposing the current peace talks. Now Netanyahu faces an imminent “framework agreement” that may require him to make further commitments towards an outcome he abhors.
Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, is not helping. Rather than digging in his own heels, he offers constant accommodation. Last week Abbas told the New York Times that Israel could take a leisurely five years removing its soldiers and settlers from a key piece of Palestinian territory, the Jordan Valley. The Palestinian state would remain demilitarised, while Nato troops could stay “for a long time, and wherever they want”.
The Arab League is another thorn. It has obliged by renewing its offer from 2002, the Arab Peace Initiative, that promises Israel peaceful relations with the Arab world in return for its agreement to Palestinian statehood.
Meanwhile, the European Union is gently turning the screws on the occupation. It regularly trumpets condemnation of Israel’s settlement-building frenzies, including last week’s announcement of 558 settler homes in East Jerusalem. And in the background sanctions loom over settlement goods.
European financial institutions are providing a useful barometer of the mood among the 28 EU member states. They have become the unexpected pioneers of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, with a steady trickle of banks and pension funds pulling out their investments in recent weeks.
Pointing out that boycotts and “delegitimisation” campaigns are only going to gather pace, Kerry has warned that Israel’s traditional policy is “unsustainable”.
That message rings true with many Israeli business leaders, who have thrown their weight behind the US diplomatic plan. They believe that a Palestinian state is the key to Israel gaining access to lucrative regional markets and continued economic growth.
Netanyahu must have been disconcerted by the news that among those meeting Kerry to express support at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month was Shlomi Fogel, the prime minister’s long-time intimate.
Pressure on these various fronts may explain Netanyahu’s hasty convening last weekend of his senior ministers to devise a strategy to counter the boycott trend. Proposals include a $28 million media campaign, legal action against boycotting institutions, and intensified surveillance of overseas activists by the Mossad.
On the domestic scene, Netanyahu – who is known to prize political survival above all other concerns – is getting a rough ride as well. He is being undermined on his right flank by rivals inside the coalition.
Naftali Bennett, the settlers’ leader, provoked a chafing public feud with Netanyahu this month, accusing him of losing his “moral compass” in the negotiations. At the same time, Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister from the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party, has dramatically changed tack, cosying up to Kerry, whom he has called “a true friend of Israel”. Lieberman’s unlikely statesmanship has made Netanyahu’s run-ins with the US look, in the words of a local analyst, “childish and irresponsible”.
It is in the light of these mounting pressures on Netanyahu that one should understand his increasingly erratic behaviour – and the growing rift with the US.
A damaging falling-out last month, following insults from the defence minister against Kerry, has not subsided. Last week Netanyahu unleashed his closest cabinet allies to savage Kerry again, with one calling the US secretary of state’s pronouncements “offensive and intolerable”.
Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, tweeted her displeasure with a shot across the bows. The Israeli government’s attacks were “totally unfounded and unacceptable”, she noted. Any doubt she was speaking for the president was later dispelled when Obama praised Kerry’s “extraordinary passion and principled diplomacy”.
But despite outward signs, Netanyahu is less alone than he looks – and far from ready to compromise.
He has the bulk of the Israeli public behind him, helped by media moguls like his friend Sheldon Adelson who are stoking the national mood of besiegement and victimhood.
But most importantly he has a large chunk of Israel’s security and economic establishment on side too.
The settlers and their ideological allies have deeply penetrated the higher ranks of both the army and the Shin Bet, Israel’s secret intelligence service. The Haaretz newspaper revealed this month the disturbing news that three of the four heads of the Shin Bet now subscribe to this extremist ideology.
Moreover, powerful elements within the security establishment are financially as well as ideologically invested in the occupation. In recent years the defence budget has rocketed to record levels as a whole layer of the senior military exploits the occupation to justify feathering its nest with grossly inflated salaries and pensions.
There are also vast business profits in the status quo, from hi-tech to resource-grabbing industries. Indications of what is at stake were illuminated recently with the announcement that the Palestinians will have to buy from Israel at great cost two key natural resources – gas and water – they should have in plentiful supply were it not for the occupation.
With these interest groups at his back, a defiant Netanyahu can probably face off the US diplomatic assault this time. But Kerry is not wrong to warn that in the long term yet another victory for Israeli intransigence will prove pyrrhic.
These negotiations may not lead to an agreement, but they will mark a historic turning-point nonetheless. The delegitimisation of Israel is truly under way, and the party doing most of the damage is the Israeli leadership itself.
When people sign the declaration of peace at WorldBeyondWar.org they have the opportunity to type in a brief statement in their own words. Thousands have done so, including those pasted below. (And a few great quotes from the past have been added here in graphic form.)
“I support this proposal and agree with this great and important initiative to abolish militarism and war. I will continue to speak out for an end to the institution of militarism and war and for institutions built on international law and human rights and nonviolent conflict resolution.” — Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate
“As a 29 year veteran of the US Army/Army Reserves, retiring as a Colonel and having served as a U.S. diplomat for 16 years and resigning in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq war, I firmly believe war does not resolve political issues. We must work diligently to force the governments of our nations to use diplomacy, not weapons.” —Ann Wright
“Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.” — Noam Chomsky
“It is so inspiring to see a new group coming together not to focus on a particular war or weapons system, but on all war–everywhere. And it’s great to have such beautifully crafted arguments about why war is not inevitable and how war contributes to so many other global ills. This coalition is worthy of Martin Luther King’s call to end violence and instead put our energies and resources into ‘life-affirming activities.’ Bravo!” —Medea Benjamin
“We must work to end all war because: 1. In war there are no winners, only losers. 2. To thrive, humans need peace, which cannot be created by war. 3. We need all our ingenuity, creativity, technology and will to find a solution to runaway climate change. We cannot afford the military-industrial complex.” — Sally Reynolds, Abingdon Peace Group
“The abolition of war is an idea whose time has come. We are at a transformative moment in history. Our Mother Earth is under siege from destructive global warming and industrialization. It is essential that we mobilize to save our planet. War is a cruel and untenable distraction, draining trillions of dollars and incalculable losses of intellectual firepower away from the essential work that needs to be done to create a livable future for humanity.” — Alice Slater, Global Council of Abolition 2000
“War is a crime against humanity. When 90% of the casualties of war are civilians including children, its time to End ALL WARS! The world badly needs the resources to meet human and environmental needs. Wars are not making us more secure, but creating more enemies. There are more effective means of achieving security than war and killing other people’s children. As former President Eisenhower said, ‘I like to believe that the people of the world will want peace so much that governments will have to get out of the way and let them have it.’ When the people of the world decide to end war, we can end it. At least 99% of the world’s people do not benefit at all from all the wars our governments are waging. The time is NOW. Please join us.” —David Hartsough
“If anything can halt climate change it’s redirecting the unfathomable pile of money and energy now wasted on a war machine that kills for fossil fuels and consumes a good share of them in the process. The symptoms of militarism addressed by human rights and civil liberties groups would end if the disease were treated. Our culture of violence, our government of secrecy, our provocation of animosity around the world: these would end if we stopped slaughtering people under the banner of war. If a fraction of those damaged by war work to end war, it will quickly become a thing of the past — seen then as the unmitigated barbarism that many find it hard to recognize as long as war is accepted by those in positions of power.” — David Swanson, author of War No More: The Case for Abolition
“History has shown us that the institution of war created by humans is not only morally reprehensible, but utterly ineffective in resolving any kind of disputes. The human, social, environmental and economic costs of war are too high. We now know more about the reality of a global peace system built upon global collaboration, social change and constructive conflict transformation. It is time for a re-energized effort to build a world beyond war by challenging the war system and supporting the infrastructure of peace.” — Patrick Hiller, Peace Scientist and Director of War Prevention Initiative by the Jubitz Family Foundation
“War is a great destroyer. And human history has arrived at a pivotal moment. We can choose a path built on cooperation, where our caring and sharing side uplifts us, or we can continue to embrace a worldview where domination using violence imprisons us in cycles of killing and destruction. I’m a biologist, and war is not genetically fixed. War is a cultural invention. It’s time to end this abomination, and this World Beyond War movement is uniquely focused on unifying the human community to create one of the biggest revolutions in history. I’m in. Join us!” — Judith Hand, Founder: A Future Without War.org
“Change will not come from a President Gandhi. Rather, the initiate for change will come from the bottom up as citizens force politicians to act. We just need to put our voices together and get sufficiently organized. Ultimately change will come from the ingenuity, compassion and ability of the American people to self-correct and chart a more secure and sustainable course for the future.” — Russell Faure-Brac, author of Transition to Peace
“Our greatest enemy today is not a particular group of people in a far-off country. Our greatest enemy is war itself.” — Paul Chappell, author of The Art of Waging Peace
“We must work to end all war because the health, welfare, and safety of the children is the most important element of a society. The children can be the focus for mobilizing, conflict resolution, and uniting for the future of humanity. The children allow the people of the world to show kindness, generosity, and compassion.” — Andre Sheldon, Director of Global Strategy of Nonviolence
“We must end war because war is an abrogation of the inviolable bonds of connection between all people, all living things and the planet. To participate in it is a denial of the trust in continuity deeded to us by our forebears and expected of us by future generations. Every act of war and aggression diminishes the humanity of the individuals involved, destabilizes communities and nations; and scars the entire human family. We are committed not to ending wars but to ending war itself, and to addressing the fear, greed, misunderstanding and drive for power that lead to violent conflict and war.” — Rena Guay, Executive Director, Center for Conscience in Action
“Richard Wendell Fogg, Center for the Study of Conflict, years ago said rather than saying we need to abolish war, we should talk of REPLACING war. In the field of conflict analysis and transformation, there are creative strategies we can apply to solutions that can solve problems and make war unnecessary. With increasing lethality of weapons, evolving technology and communications, war is obsolete. It is a solution worse than any problem it presumes to solve. We can address conflicts constructively. Beyond diplomacy, we can use mediation, negotiation and problem-solving strategies to transcend war.” —Diane Perlman
“Humanity can no longer afford war for two reasons. 1) We need all our resources to deal with the consequences of climate change and peak oil, and 2) War is too wasteful of both human and physical resources to be further utilized or tolerated by the human species. Indeed, nuclear war, which remains a major threat to the world as we know it, would likely make our planet uninhabitable for our own species and many others.” —Peter Bergel
“War is at the heart of all global problems, impeding humanity from a full realization of just, equitable and sustainable communities.” —Kent D. Shifferd
“There is enough for everyone to have what they need without exploitation. Adequate distribution of resources, including education, without violence can lead to a sustainable system that doesn’t stress the ecosphere. Alternately, continued violence feeds population surges and hoarding the products of exploitative extraction, which endanger the survival of our species. In short, if we want a future with humans on Earth, we’ve got to stop war.” —Vernon Huffman
“Life on earth is not sustainable continuing down this path. War destroys people, the air, the ground, the water. It destroys history. It inhales money/resources literally taking food out of the mouths of the people. It takes generations to recover if that is even possible. Enough.” —Barbara Cummings
“War is the worst act of terrorism and among the greatest causes of human suffering and death and ecological degradation. Wars are declared by the rich and fought by the poor. There will be no real justice and protection of human rights and the rights of nature until a sustainable global peace has been achieved.” —Brian J. Trautman
“I know from my lengthy experience as a journalist, researcher, and human being working in various war-torn or recently war-battered countries that all wars inflict terrible, long-lasting damage on all the residents of the war-zone– with the weakest members of society always suffering the most. There is no such thing as a ‘humanitarian’ war. In cases of conflict or bitter oppression, the very best way to mend broken relationships while building a solid basis for a better situation going forward is to use all nonviolent means possible to de-escalate tensions and work for a better life going forward on the basis of the equality and equal worth of all human persons.” —Helena Cobban
“War murders our children and sickens the survivors. ‘Peace or Perish: Abolish War on Planet and Poor’ (Theme of the 2014 Veterans For Peace National Convention, Asheville, NC, July 2–27).” —John Heuer
“The main obstacle to disarmament is the general/common belief that it is impossible. And it is — just as impossible as ending slavery, apartheid, the Cold War, and tearing the Iron Curtain. Humanity suffers under poverty, unhealth, pollution, depletion of resources, climate change. Instead of being an extremely expensive and deadly risk on top of all those threats militarism is clearly the best option/chance/opportunity to do something substantial — if all countries would join in abolition of military force and forces (the idea that Nobel in his will for ‘the champions of peace’ called ‘creating the brotherhood of nations’).” —Fredrik S. Heffermehl
“Militarism is the world’s biggest problem…morally, socially, economically, and environmentally.” —Ward Reilly
“Creating a world beyond war may be the noblest endeavor we can work on. Can you imagine what future generations will think if we succeed? We will leave them a world where trillions of dollars are not wasted annually on weapons and war, where tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands are no longer slaughtered in unnecessary wars. Surely we can imagine solving conflicts between nations in a more mature way; we can imagine the human race evolving to a higher consciousness that no longer requires war. We can imagine a world without war, now we have to work toward such a world. It will be a global challenge, uniting the world to accomplish this great new reality.” —Kevin Zeese, PopularResistance.org
“War is a lie. War is a racket. War is hell. War is waste. War is a crime. War is terrorism. War is not the answer.” —Coleen Rowley
“War destroys. War obliterates. War is ruination. And war begets more war. After thousands of years of experience proving this, and reams of literature and countless works of art exposing it, when are people going to learn?” —Lisa Simeone
“War is a barbaric tool of the war profiteers and Empires who employ them. War pits young people from the working class against other similarly poor, or disadvantaged humans, for nothing but the greed of the few. Only we the people can make war obsolete by not participating in the profound crimes of the profiteers and other war mongers.” —Cindy Sheehan
“War causes pain, suffering, and gross violations to human needs and rights. War causes a violent domino effect for years to come. Humans have no business being involved in war. We are an evolved species that needs to focus on peace and justice in our world. We must honor and show respect for our planet and all living and nonliving entities. We need to shift away from violence and focus on the beauty of nonviolence. War and destructive violence are not solutions to any problem. War must be ended. When that happens we will lift the pain and suffering of our world and allow humanity to begin to heal. It is time we wake up and raise our thoughts to a higher consciousness. If we do not end war now, it will end us. Call on me. I am ready to help end all war!” —Joy Henry
“We need a movement if we are going to stop wars and this may be it. So many of us are working in small groups and we need to come together as one.” —JoAnne Lingle
“The future existence of our planet depends upon ending war. War and violence are not a solution to conflict. They contribute to more violence, more death, more poverty, more suffering physically and psychologically, more patriotism, more borders, more ignorance, and more stupidity. How tragic is all of that. The ecology of our planet is in jeopardy and the pollution of the war machine world wide is a huge contributor to climate change.” —Ann Tiffany
“As professor of global peace studies at the International Islamic University of Malaysia I am committed to the ending of war also through criminalization of war, an approach that has not been sufficiently used in spite of the UN Charter outlawing war — with too many loopholes used buy aggressive countries.” —Johan Galtung, Founder of TRANSCEND International
“I applaud the establishment of a global movement to end all war, but note that citizens of the United States have a special responsibility to make this happen. Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has bombed more than 25 countries. In those 68 years, no other nation has killed and injured more people living outside of its borders. Most Americans remain silent while we spend more on war, and have more soldiers in other countries, than all other nations combined. War and soldiers are glorified in the U.S. Please recognize and honor those who have had the courage to take a public stand against one or more U.S. warswww.uspeacememorial.org/Registry.htm. We celebrate these role models in hopes of inspiring other Americans to speak out against war and for peace.” —Michael D. Knox, US Peace Memorial Foundation
“War is about nothing but violence. War is terrible! I have a first-hand war experience and I know what war is all about! I dream of peace!” —Fidaa Abuassi
“War, and preparation for war is draining resources that are life giving from countries, statesnd cities. The world we help create is the world we leave for those who come after us. I am committed to living non-violently in response to the violence in my neighborhood, my city, my state, my country, my hemisphere and my world because non-violent love in action is the most powerful force for change that exists.” —Joyce Ellwanger
“As Ernest Hemingway wrote, ‘Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. Ask the infantry and ask the dead…’” —Christopher Flynn
“The biosphere can no longer tolerate the toxic affects of modern warfare, which threaten the continued existence of all humanity and many animals and plants on which we are dependent.” —Richard Ochs
“War benefits no one, with the exception of military contractors and their shareholders. It makes our communities poor, our nation less safe, and ourselves less fully human. We must commit to diplomacy, peacemaking and development!” —Diane Farsetta
“This atavistic practice has always been horrible, but technology makes it even more destructive and savage. it is time for humanity to become civilized.” —Sally-Alice Thompson
“We need to solve some of the world’s problems like climate change, world hunger, homelessness, income disparity, the influence of money ine lections, destruction of the environment, etc. and stop wasting our resources on killing people and destroying the environment.” —Jean Gordon
“The U.S. has become the most egregious war-monger and terrorist nation in the world, as well as the long-time leading purveyor of weapons of war throughout the world, and because here at home, we have 50 million of our citizens living in poverty, one in four children surviving on Food Stamps, a collapsing education system, poor health care, and many other disasters, none of which can be addressed as long as the country keeps pouring trillions of dollars into war and militarism. This madness and criminality must end!” —Dave Lindorff
“It’s obvious: war is a waste of human and earth resources that results only in suffering. There are other ways to disagree.” —Karen Malpede
“As John F. Kennedy said, it will end us instead. ‘If mankind does not put an end to war, then war will put an end to mankind.’ Modern war is ecocide, genocide and ethnocide and is not sustainable. The costs of war are enormous, not just financial but social, ecological and global. War must become obsolete if the world is to survive.” —John Judge
“We’re destroying life on earth in all its forms. By supporting war we are creating poverty that includes fear and anxiety about the future which leads to depression, poor health, food insecurity, and homelessnes. People all over the world are experiencing the destructive effects of investing most of our country’s resources in war resulting in the failure to create a healthy, well-educated and secure environment for humanity around the world.” —Nancy Schoerke
“We must shift from ‘war is a necessary evil’ to ‘peace is a necessary good.’” —Swami Beyondananda, Steve Bhaerman
“The myth that war creates justice, solves problems, improves security and enables peace is absurd. If we weren’t so bombarded with propaganda to the contrary, everyone would know that. We need to insist on a new story, the true story. We must forbid the few to profit from war so that we may all begin to profit from peace.” —Robert Shetterly
“We have seen enough of war to know that it doesn’t work to resolve conflicts. It only exacerbates them. It is time we find other solutions and dedicate ourselves to life–not death.” —Peter Kuznick
“To the extent that today’s world is civilized at all, it’s largely thanks to yesterday’s opponents of war and misery: the soldiers who refused to fight, the civilians who refused to accept war and occupation, and all those who worked for a global order based on peace and equity. Yet the institutions and forces that produce war have not been eradicated. Today we must build an international movement that will not only prevent future wars but transform the very structures on which war, militarism, and imperial domination are based. This struggle will not be won quickly, but in the process even small acts and partial victories can help save numerous lives.” —Kevin Young
“It is clear to me that war creates violence and does not solve problems. I have lived and worked in Iran. Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine and have seen first hard the broken bodies of children and the anger at our impact as a nation on people’s lives. Thank you for putting this opportunity together. Peace” —Ann Huntwork
“I don’t believe there is such a thing as a ‘just war’. Murder is murder, whether sanctioned by a government or not. All people should have the right to life and liberty, so long as they do no harm to others, and war extinguishes both.” —Ethan Bell
“War promotes rascism all around the globe.” —Muhammad Ali Khan
“The greatest threat to humanity today is climate change. Militarism exacerbates that threat, and is in no way useful for addressing that threat. The resources invested in militarism must be redirected to combat climate change and global warming.” —Larry A. Unruh
“As a very young man I signed a declaration – ‘I renounce war and will never support another’. That was in 1939 and I have maintained this stand throughout the whole period, including WW2, as a Conscientious Objector.Worked to achieve Peace since. It is necessary for individuals to take this stand and maintain it. War never solves anything – it accentuates any problem, whatever it is, and makes matters worse. There is no moral or humanitarian justification for it.” —Donald Saunders
“Having survived WWII as a child I am TOTALLY against ALL wars, there is not excuse for killing and injuring humans, all innocent, for life. I am still traumatized from the war and the bombing and starvation.” —Ingrid Kepler-May
“We still carry ancient beliefs from thousands and thousands of years ago when war was the only thing known. We have options now. This organization will help shift the collective consciousness toward greater humanity and peace. War has indoctrinated the U.S. government as well as other countries. There is no integral intention that exists behind war. It is a contradiction and therefor useless. Its time to evolve greatly. ‘Love precious humanity’” —Leslie Naugle
“I want a world without war. War never works it just kills. I want my children to never have to have a close contact with war. I want my children and future generations to grow up free and in a peaceful world. War is not freedom it is a malignant force imposed by men in power. We must change the views of people in power now and let them know that in a diplomatic and peaceful way issues can be solved.” —Ana Martins
“I am working with the higher education system in Afghanistan. My work in this world is teaching and serving as a role model for peace, particularly in this environment that has been devastated by the ravages of 30+ years of horrific conflict. I have a number of close Afghan friends and they, probably more than any people I have ever met, want peace for themselves, their families and their country. I am privileged to know them and am inspired by their endurance and resilience. Endless war serves only to enrich those who champion it and it is long past time that it be stopped.” —James Stapp
“We know, deep down inside, it’s wrong! There’s nothing you can say to ever make it right! Killing is killing, no matter how you slice it! And the ones doing all the killing should be locked up, and be forced to watch the world transform from, This evil place they’ve created, To the wonderful place we should be creating!” —Ronald Richter
“Why must we work to end all war? War keeps us from progressing as a race. We can’t reach a point of sustainability with war taking up so much of our time. It attributes to the division of wealth providing greater conflict between classes and it hands over authority to the wealthy class. It makes them richer while the working class is left to die. War need to end because it’s a tool used to control the masses with fear. It distracts us from the problems within the social hierarchical systems that have been established. We must end all war because we’ll never have peace without it. War is expensive and destroys makes the economy unstable. War is a tool of capital gain, it’s marketable and from youth we are encouraged to take and defend our ruling authority without question. There are other ways to solve conflicts. Civilians are the ones who suffer the most damage. War and violence is terrible for you Psyche due to the traumatizing events. And Finally the main reason we should end all war is because it will kill us if we don’t.” —Jessica Gartner
“While I was always aware that there was a sickness that pervades every social institution I just could not make the connection to myself and this ‘sickness’ until my beautiful child was murdered in the ‘theater’ of ‘War’. This experience was eviscerating. I was disgorged of this ‘sickness’. I could see that ‘war’ is just goddamn MEAN. It bears no resemblance to what lives in my heart and mind so why was I able to accept it as a way of life? Why was I able to accept my son being part of a force for death…for entropy? I see it all clearly now, though. There is a deep sickness that pervades all social institutions and these sicknesses have made us mentally ‘disturbed’ – working out of balance with the gift of life. My granddaughter, Eva, is now four and has no father. She has no protector in this mean world where men prey upon life with a sense of entitlement that desires are to be quenched at all costs. Who will protect my granddaughter now? Through the physical death of my beloved son I have learned that misogyny is the root of warring behavior – and this thought process, this behavior is just goddamn mean.” —Jamie Santos
“Every person who dies is someone’s son, dad, mom, brother or sister.” —Gaston Locklear
“Nelson Mandela said: ‘It always seems impossible until it’s done.’ Peace is possible.” —John Bonifaz
“Every modern war has had its root in exploitation. The Civil War was fought to decide whether the slaveholders of the South or the capitalists of the North should exploit the West. The Spanish-American War decided that the United States should exploit Cuba.” —Larry Egly, Veterans For Peace Chapter 961 Codirector
“Another war will likely lead to the end of the human race.” —Lewis Patrie, WNC Physicians for Social Responsibility
“LAW opposes the illegal use of force supports the use of national and international law to settle disputes, prosecute offenders and protect rights.” —Gail Davidson, Lawyers against the War
“As a 70 year old woman, I have seen just what the destruction of war has done to my home country and also those we have invaded in the name of democracy! None of this has been done with my consent, so for the rest of my life I want to promote peace.” —Katherine Schock
“War takes people’s lives and destroys property, but it does not resolve the world’s problems. If anything is achieved through war, it is to plant the seeds for the next violent conflict as the vanquished and their children will usually not accept the outcome.” —Bruce Van Voorhis
“War is an irrational, counter-productive way to handle conflicts.” —Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History emeritus, SUNY/Albany
“Because we are being used as pawns in an endless game of bloodletting. One generation has to stop this. Please let it be ours.” —Lynne Thomas
“War traumatizes soldier and civilian alike; warfare is a profit-making racket; warfare resolves nothing that negotiations can’t resolve better; the weapons we have now make non-violence the only option to planetary annihilation.” —Madeline Taylor, Topanga Peace Alliance
“Those who exploit our susceptibility to the us-them fallacy to enlarge themselves are today no worse than those who have done the same down through the ages. But the world is different.” —Roger Arnold
“I know war. I was in one in 1991 in Bosnia. It is something that has to stop now. Noone should experience something like that ever again.” —Hatidza Isic
“War is the worst thing that human beings can do to each other, and the worst form of exploitation by the rich and the powerful.” —Nicolas J Sandy Davies
“As a geologist I have travelled the world and lived and worked amongst wonderful but disadvantaged peoples. I am emotionally moved to welcome this campaign.” —Kenneth Buckland
“It is time for the thinking man to realise that what we do to other living things and our environment we do to ourselves. As previous civilisations have learnt, the only way is to create harmony in our world and move beyond hypocrisy.” —Nozar Mossadeghi
“War must become obsolete in the 21st Century. Modern War is genocide, ecocide and ethnocide. Wars profit the few and destroy the many. ‘The hour is getting late,’ sang Bob Dylan. War is destroying the future of humanity.” —John Judge
“We owe it to our children and their children. The end of war is an end to poverty. War is a crime against humanity.” —Jean Andrew
“It’s time, at this 100-year anniversary of the start of World War I, for us all to join together to fight only war itself.” —Marie Reinsdorf
“War ain’t good for shit!” —Bryant White
Washington Destabilizes Ukraine Only Washington Knows Best Paul Craig Roberts The control freaks in Washington think that only the decisions that Washington makes and imposes on other sovereign countries are democratic. No other country on earth is capable of making…
Maybury writes, "...the CIA’s legendary chief of counter-intelligence – its brain for years – was James Jesus Angleton (aka The Kingfisher)...the narrative of the CIA would not be complete without him to be sure.
"He began his career shortly after the formation of the CIA in 1947, and was the station chief in Italy just after the war ended. Here he was instrumental in the undermining of the bourgeoning communist movement taking root in the later 40s, and amongst the tactics he used was eliciting the support of Italy’s Mafia, thereby setting a long-time precedent for the agency that was to feature frequently in its clandestine operations for decades to come.
"He was amongst the most out-there of people, a TS Eliot quoting/loving, chain-smoking, hard-drinking, orchid-growing, fly-fishing, gem collecting, insomniac raconteur who burned the spy-candle at both ends. Exceedingly well read and (counter?) intelligent, he was something of a polymath. In his day many considered this dude the sharpest tool in the spy shed, bar none! JJ’s motto: ‘absolute security at any cost’, one that would prove to be his undoing, as we will see.
"The term ‘Angeltonian’ even entered the espionage vernacular to become a byword in spy circles for overly conspiratorial and/or obsessively paranoid behaviour. Angleton was like DCI Allen Dulles alter ego – he was the uber-counter-spy, the spookiest of spooks in the spookier end of the spook business.
"If his boss Dulles was the Dagger in the Cloak and Dagger business, JJ was the Cloak! His spycraft was apparently second to none in the non-communist world. Even the Soviets had a fan club going of sorts; he was that good at what he did, they even copied his methods, proving that even in the spy world, the ‘imitation as the sincerest form of flattery’ thing still applies. He was once quoted as saying that: ‘Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the state’.
"The origin of his nick-name The Kingfisher is uncertain, but interestingly they are a bird species that have evolved unique visual faculties whereby they can see equally well in polar opposite environments, in their case air and water. A nice metaphor one suspects given his line of work, especially if it was not intended.
"On a more mundane level his nick-name may have been because of his striking features, which were indeed bird-like, if not ‘kingfisherish’. He eventually rose to the position of chief of Counter-intelligence at The Company, and although it’s not known if he ever sought the position or was even offered it, he would have been a prime candidate for Director either way. He could even have interrogated/interviewed himself for the job, a bonus. The motherfucker was that good.
- Spy v Spy Redux -
"He served under Dulles, and then later on Dulles successors, firstly John McCone, then Richard Helms, and for a brief time William Colby. A cryptographer by training (and it has to be said) inclination, he was also very knowledgeable about nuclear technology, having worked on the Manhattan Project (of which more in a later episode), and was apparently involved in the breaking of the Germans’ Enigma code, which did so much to aid the allied effort in the latter part of the War.
"Both these skills were handy during a Cold War. If there is such a thing as spy heaven (a safe house or waiting room in the afterlife maybe?), most of them be coming up to the Kingfisher, high-fiving his avian-eyed ass and be saying how much they ‘love his work’.
As indicated he was as paranoid as they come, for the most part a truly valuable character trait in the counter-spy business, given that the counter espionage and counter intelligence business is all about stopping the targets of your spying from doing what you’re trying to do to them, which is to spy on them. By definition, this means being permanently paranoid.
"Or more accurately, the counter spy/espionage/intelligence ‘schtick’ is more about ensuring that the spies on the other side enjoy minimal success at recruiting your own spies to spy on you and not them as you’d prefer them to continue doing without you finding out about it until it is too late.
"However, like JJ often did, I digress!
"And if Angleton trusted anyone, it is not known whether it worked to their advantage or not, and we’re not even talking about the Soviets here. We’re talking his own – indeed, especially his own – CIA colleagues. He was one of the coldest and most calculating of the Langley Cold Warriors. A strong pro-war hawk on Vietnam, he was also notoriously known for his surveillance of anti-war protesters, political activists and domestic dissidents (of which there were no shortages) during the Vietnam War and throughout the 60’s and early 70’s. He has also been frequently mentioned as having involvement in, knowledge of, and/or connections to the JFK hit and the Norma Jean suicide/accidental death/murder.
- The Hollow Man -
"As good as Angleton was, he wasn’t good enough though to pick up on arguably the biggest spies in the West before they defected to the USSR, who were located in the UK, and operating out of the august Cambridge University.
"As CIA CI chief, part of his responsibility was liaison with foreign intelligence and security officials and spooks, including with Mossad, SAVAK and MI6. Although some say he had his suspicions about the Cambridge group before anyone else did including the British – yes, he was that paranoid – he failed to act on these in time to prevent their subsequent defection. This was an outcome from which he never recovered, and indeed amongst many other missteps, it brought about his downfall eventually, but not for a long time to come.
"After the belated discovery of the aforementioned Cambridge spies (one of whom – Philby – Angleton worked with closely in London during the war, and later got pissed with on a frequent basis, and with whom he shared secrets that got many Western agents killed), Angleton became even more paranoid, seeing spies all over the Langley complex, which began to irritate a lot of people, managing to piss off not only then DCI Richard Helms, but also J Edgar Hoover over at the FBI HQ as well, with Hoover pulling the pin on any further cooperation with the super-spook.
"To piss Edgar off, or to have him pull the pin on you as we’ve seen in an earlier episode, was not all that difficult and certainly not always a good career move to repeat it inside or outside of the FBI. And as for being paranoid, there were few more so than Edgar. But Angleton survived Edgar; he was that ‘good’! And that paranoid! History tells us that paranoia is often proven most justified when it is the most ignored, but many would argue the lessons of history don’t appear to have become a collective political wisdom in the West, and especially some might say in Washington D.C., or for that matter in Langley.
"Not even Angleton though could last forever in the CIA. The culture didn’t make allowances for that. His increasingly pathological paranoia eventually brought him unstuck."
Maybury's apt portrayal of JJ Angleton left me chilled and angry. To think that America was literally turned over, post-WWII, to rats like him and the Dulles brothers never stops infuriating me. Shrewd, ruthless, paranoid, warmongering sociopaths controlled our foreign and domestic policy for over half a century and still do. Of course, they could not have done it in a vacuum. When considering the sources and consequences of Corporation Invisible Army's consolidation of power, one must remember that Operation MK-ULTRA (the covert experimentation with and drugging of innocent Americans) relied on Operation Mockingbird (the subversion of the free press); Operation PBSUCCESS (the overthrow of duly elected foreign governments) went hand in hand with Operation Paperclip (the secret recruitment of Nazi war criminals to serve in our intelligence, medicine, military and aerospace spheres). Angleton and Dulles made sure they could run roughshod over democracy in secret. In so doing, they amassed power unprecedented in our history. More power than presidents, legislative bodies, the Pentagon, and the media combined.
While I concur with most of the content, I take exception to three assertions--one) von Braun was a Nazi...his reputation was softened by a compliant press (which assiduously, and at Dulles's insistence, referred to him as a "German" scientist) once he emigrated to America and his new position at NASA; two) ALL Nazis were war criminals because they either knew of the death camps or participated in the executions; three) Dulles was sympathetic to Hitler and the Reich because his Sullivan and Cromwell clients had big-time investments to protect. Dulles's "Heil Hitler" salutation in correspondences with the Fuhrer is telling.
May Angleton and Dulles and all the other rats burn in hell for eternity.
Under great pressure from those who have filed civil suits, the National Security Archive has posted several documents relating to the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. For those of you who need a quick history refresher, Mossadegh was Iran's legitimately elected leader who just happened to have populist/socialist leanings, and, as such, threatened U.S. business interests in the region--specifically the oil industry. Mossadegh was beloved by the Iranian people, but he was deemed unsuitable by the CIA (Corporations Invisible Army) and was thus overthrown. An iron-fisted totalitarian was installed; perhaps you'll remember him: the Shah of Iran. Despised by the people for his political oppression and his overt corruption, the Shah did a profitable business with U.S. oil companies for a quarter century. When the Iranian people finally took action in the late '70s, the Shah was deposed and American embassy workers were taken hostage. The hostage crisis lasted 15 months, toppled the Carter administration and ushered in the era of Reagan. But the genesis of the crisis can be fully blamed on the U.S. itself, namely the CIA and its corporate allies, for intervening in a sovereign nation's right to determine its own destiny.
This was standard operating procedure for the CIA, which overthrew socialist and communist leaders across the globe from the 1940s on. Among their other clandestine tricks were the rescue and repatriation of Nazi war criminals after World War II and the subversion of the free press in America. Operations we are learning more about each day.
The work of incorporating Nazis into our intelligence apparatus, space programs, medical research, and weapons technology was called Operation Sunrise or Operation Paperclip. Among the well-known "Paperclip Nazis" were:
Wernher von Braun, Nazi V-2 rocket scientist who worked on guided missiles and manned rocket programs for the U.S. He was named Director of NASA's Space Flight Center, and, despite his questionable past, became somewhat of a celebrity in the 1960s. At no time was he forced to publicly renounce his Nazi ideology or made to pay for his war crimes. (He used slave labor camps to build his rockets in Nazi Germany. Thousands died of starvation and brutality in these camps.) A CIA-sponsored feature film, called I Aim For The Stars, was even made which honored his courage and audacity.
Kurt Blome, Nazi chemist who performed cruel experiments on death camp prisoners. He was hired by the U.S. Army to develop chemical warfare weapons.
Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's top intelligence officer. He got a job spying on the Soviets for the CIA. In fact, he cut a deal with the CIA (OSS) to hire practically his entire Third Reich intelligence network. Much of the information he provided his superiors in U.S. intelligence greatly exaggerated Soviet military capabilities. Gehlen lied to make himself seem more important and useful to the CIA, and this led directly to the escalation of the Cold War and U.S. military buildup in the 1950s and beyond.
Heinrich Rupp, another Nazi war criminal who went to work for the CIA after World War II. In 1980 he accompanied George H.W. Bush, Vice Presidential candidate at the time, to cut a deal with Iran to delay the release of American hostages until after the election of the Reagan/Bush ticket in America in November 1980. The hostages were released on January 20, 1981, just minutes after Reagan and Bush were sworn into office. In return, Rupp promised release of Iran's frozen assets, laying the groundwork for the Iran-Contra deal. So Rupp, the Paperclip Nazi, helped steal an election, control U.S. foreign policy, and helped precipitate one of the worst scandals of the 1980s.
Arthur Rudolph, Operations Director at Mittelwerk factory at the Dora/Nordhausen concentration camps where thousands were worked to death.
Evil as it was, Operation Paperclip was surpassed, some say, by Operation Mockingbird. Mockingbird was a well-organized, systematic destruction of the free press in America in the second half of the 20th century. Why destroy the free press? Because a free and independent press was the CIA's worst enemy. Unfettered investigative journalism would have (or at least should have) uncovered the CIA's dirty secrets and criminal operations. The CIA needed to operate in secrecy, without threat of being detected, in order to get away with murder, coup d'états, drug running, sabotage of democracies, and covert fascist policies.
As outlined by reporter Carl Bernstein in a Rolling Stone article in 1977, the CIA co-opted, bribed, threatened, recruited and partnered with media assets at TV networks, newspapers, publishers and radio outlets across the nation. Frank Wisner, who ran Mockingbird for the CIA in the 1950s, once famously bragged, the program was like his own mighty Wurlitzer, "...I can play any tune I want on it, and America will follow along." William Colby, CIA Director under Nixon, added, "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." This meant that it was a simple matter for the agency to print and broadcast propaganda, cover up misdeeds, plant false stories, and smear CIA opponents at will. I believe this is what prevented an honest journalistic investigation of the JFK assassination.
By Dennis Cimino with Jim Fetzer
The following is an excerpt from an important article* originally appearing at Veterans Today on January 30, 2013.-JFT
We can now prove that the entire CT State emergency communications system was ‘hijacked’ and ‘unplugged’ on December 14th., 2012, per an elaborate frequency change plan implemented merely 5 hours in advance on that morning, effectively supplanting and replacing normal police and EMS with FEMA / DHS ‘shadow’ command center personnel, where it turns out that they (the HOAX perpetrators from FEMA) made one critical mistake that they hoped nobody would catch.
But last night, I caught it. During the listening to the plethora of radio scanner audio recordings, I finally had a chance to hear the infamous plate run of the black Honda. I had for weeks taken for granted that others who heard it would have validated it as either fakery or reality but nobody caught the fact it is in it’s entirely, FAKE.
Police and Dispatch, nation wide, use a very time honored ALPHA PHONETIC System to enunciate alpha numeric data between the officers and the dispatchers. It is different from what military use, and it is so ingrained and dyed into the wool of real law enforcement and dispatchers for a good reason. Any error can cost not only the officer his life, but potentially cost others their lives either by sending people to the wrong address or by implicating the wrong person in a crime, or missing a criminal during a CODE TEN run on the person through the system.
During the course of the running of the black Honda, this ALPHA PHONETIC police and dispatch protocol was totally out the window and not used at all. I listened to that audio last night in utter disbelief. Between the alleged officers running the plate through dispatch, and the dispatcher herself, the data was read to and fro like any normal citizen would read data on a radio. They did not use the ALPHA PHONETIC protocol that is ingrained in both the officer and the dispatcher. While other questions have been raised about these communications, this one is decisive:
Suppose for the record that had the officer deviated and read data to dispatch improperly, the dispatcher would have read it back with PROPER PHONETIC enunciation to the officer under any and all circumstances, not as a correction of the officer but to make it clear that to all on the circuit who are listening that they pay attention to the data readback, as many backup units in the vicinity may need that data to properly B.O.L.O. find a car they need to intercept. B.O.L.O. is Be On Look Out, by the way. So on the 14th of December, we know that 5 hours earlier, a comprehensive frequency change plan for all emergency communications in Connecticut, State Wide, got implemented. It wasn’t just a coincidence.
As it would now appear, a ‘shadow’ dispatch center went into operation on December 14th., presumably run entirely by FEMA and DHS or MOSSAD possibly, because they used non trained, non familiar with the ALPHA PHONETIC protocols police use, to do radio transmissions that day, which now clearly must have all been staged for us like the rest of this hoax was. This is a strong allegation to make, but I make it now based on the way this information was transferred by clearly non law enforcement personnel, intentionally in a way that was interceptable and recorded by someone, if not wholly fed to us via calibrated feed or leak by the perpetrators of the hoax.
It is pretty clear that the entire emergency radio apparatus of Connecticut was unplugged altogether on December 14th., with possibly a back channel to allow non HOAX or NON DRILL emergency information to be handled by real law enforcers and real dispatchers. As is now certified by this analysis, clearly there is evidence of circumvention just as NEADS was circumvented and not allowed to have live radar feeds from radar facilities on 9/11, but had data that was 26 seconds OLD, for good reason: that being to cull out and remove real targets that the perpetrators needed never to be intercepted, while loading the system up with pre recorded exercise radar tracks and artificial targets to confuse not just military but CIVILIAN ATC personnel on 9/11.
So back to this HOAX in Newtown CT, for example, when a police officer calls in ‘A B C D’ to dispatch, he or she phonetically enunciates it as; “ADAM BAKER CHARLES DAVID” over the radio, and the dispatcher will read back the same PHONETIC information for clarification. On December 14th., the plate data was not read to and from dispatch like this at all. The way the officer and dispatcher read this data was; ‘A B C D’ AYE BEE CEE DEE’ and that is clearly not correct and NEVER EVER DONE as it is too easy to mistakenly misunderstand transmissions coded thusly. This is now a record, not conjecture, not speculation, but stuff everyone has in their possession that was disseminated and NOT CHALLENGED by Lt. Vance of the CT STATE PATROL or other law enforcers now for several weeks, had it been not their transmissions. Why is this such an important issue? Dispatchers and Law Enforcement personnel are trained and trained and trained and trained. Even in high stress environments which they train in simulations, by the way, they are ingrained to not deviate from these procedures.
So it is important to point out here that the people on the radio in Connecticut that day clearly were not law enforcement or dispatcher personnel. They could not have been. They so grossly deviated in the data reads over the radio that no law enforcer or dispatcher would so deviate like that. Absolutely never. Much of these recordings clearly are indicative of non law enforcement personnel on radios. Persons without intensive training as to how to report information to dispatchers and other officers. Other people familiar with the normal POLICE alpha phonetic system also concur with my evaluation that these are not police nor are they trained dispatch personnel on these recordings.
FEMA or DHS Personnel in Charge
They are FEMA personnel most likely or DHS personnel, or maybe even MOSSAD agents, given the dynamic of how much control they have here in the U.S., in direct collusion with this government. They provide intelligence to the acting director of DHS, Janet Napoletano, and they are integral to most of the fusion centers in the U.S., effectively legitimizing a foreign secret police force on U.S. soil who’s sole purpose is to spy on and harass American Citizens, who, for many reasons, do not like what is going on in this hijacked by Israeli spies, nation. The 33 frequency change modification to the communications plan for Connecticut that went into effect 5 hours before the staged hoax went down, happened for a reason.
It entirely CIRCUMVENTED ALL NORMAL RADIO DISPATCH and POLICE FUNCTIONS in Connecticut on this day. The screen shots of these 33 frequency changes, which were made just hours before the event, and of the ‘dummy’ non-named frequency allocation to one “phantom” that would not normally be blanked out like this in any normal frequency allocation chart, are published here. To whom does it belong? DHS? FEMA? FBI? This is the de-facto smoking gun that virtually all scanner radio traffic heard on police scanners or whomever provided these to us, are STAGED. And here is a scan of the Connecticut Statewide Emergency Radio Network at the time:
For comparison, here’s a parallel scan for the Fairview County Simulcast, which under normal conditions it would resemble:
Plus there was an addition that day of one more communications site for which the data is mysteriously absence altogether:
It would not be unreasonable to conclude that Site 1-22 was the DHS or FEMA master control site, which was monitoring every communication related to Sandy Hook that day and make sure that no information that would blow its cover got out.
Dennis Cimino, who has extensive engineering and support experience with military electronics, predominantly US Navy Combat Systems, was the Navy’s top EMI troubleshooter before he went to work for Raytheon in the 1980s.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
President Kennedy was murdered on November 22, 1963 and less than two years later American Marines entered South Vietnam beginning the US intervention that would end ten years later with the fall of Saigon and millions dead. Less than two years after the September 11th attacks in New York and Washington, the United States began the Iraq War, which would end eight years later with the withdrawal of the coalition forces, leaving Iraq destabilized and clearly within the sphere of Iranian influence.
Apart from the similar aftermaths, both events have common elements both in their buildup, and execution as well their social ramifications.
Precision Beyond the Apparent Capacity of the Perpetrators
The Warren Commission argues that Oswald fired on the President’s motorcade from a distance of about 80 meters, getting off three shots in 8.3 seconds with an Italian bolt action rifle made in 1940 which he bought for $19.95. On behalf of the Warren Commission, Army rifleman were not able to reproduce Oswald’s feat and Italian tests on the rifle determined it would have been impossible to get the shots off in such a short time span.
The Marine Corp rates shooting ability on the following scale:
Expert: a score of 220 to 250.
Sharpshooter: 210 to 219.
Marksman: 190 to 209.
Oswald was last rated in 1959 and scored 191, barely reaching the lowest level of marksmanship. Marine Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results by explaining that Oswald “was not a particularly outstanding shot”. If Oswald did in fact fire all the shots, it was a highly unlikely, even extraordinary feat.
Hani Hanjour was considered a terrible pilot and neither he, nor any other of the other two pilots who successfully guided their jets into buildings on that day had ever flown a jet before. According to 9/11 Commission Report, “To our knowledge none of them [the hijackers] had ever flown an actual airliner before.” Yet they were able to commandeer the aircraft, and on their first time ever in the cockpit of an actual jetliner, navigate towards their destinations and maneuver the planes under extreme conditions in terms of velocity and altitude before guiding the airliners perfectly into their targets.
One of the air traffic controllers from Dulles said the following when describing Hani Hanjour’s maneuver which brought American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe.”
CBS News described Hanjour’s maneuver this way:
“...flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed. The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph.”
And retired Navy pilot, Ted Muga, explained it this way:
"The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that... to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it's bordering on impossible."
Yet Hani Hanjour, one month before the attacks, was not allowed to fly a Cessna alone after a test flight with instructors. As reported by NewsDay, his instructors stated that “they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172.”
Oswald could have hit the President in the upper body on two out of three shots fired within 8.3 seconds, and Hani Hanjour could have made an exceptional maneuver moments before his death the first time he ever flew an airliner, but it takes a leap of faith to believe amateurs actually carried out these actions with such professional precision. More importantly, it casts enough doubt on the official version of events for a reasonable person to have reasonable doubts about the accepted view of what happened on those fateful days.
Immediate Identification of the Villains
Lee Harvey Oswald was apprehended seventy minutes after the assassination when his supervisor at The Texas School Book Depository alerted the police that he had gone missing. By that evening he had been charged with killing police officer J.D. Tippit and assassinating the President. Oswald’s troubled and short life would end two days later when he was killed by Jack Ruby, a man with significant ties to organized crime. This terrible murder with many potential culprits was solved in 90 minutes and justice was served in two days. Oswald is a true enigma, so complex a figure, so multi-layered that it is almost impossible to separate the real from the surreal, the man from the hologram.
Two days after the 9/11 attacks Colin Powell identified Bin Laden as the key suspect in the attacks and the following day the FBI released the names of the hijackers. Apparently, there was no need for an investigation, evidence or witnesses to tie Bin Laden to the crime.
The two most horrendous, violent, and nebulous events in American history are officially solved within hours, yet years later they continue to confound.
Silenced Suspects who are Never Tried
The institutions of government so clearly saw the truth that neither perpetrator was ever tried. For a society based on rule of law, it’s ironic that Americas’s two greatest crimes were resolved by politically appointed commissions and not courts of law.
Bin Laden released three tapes in the days and weeks after the 9/11 attacks, in the first of which he denied responsibility for the the attacks of 9/11 and in the subsequent two he took no responsibility for them. Then, on November 9, 2001, American forces found a tape in a house in Afghanistan. In the video tape Osama Bin Laden supposedly takes responsibility for the attacks though many have argued about the translation. Finally, on October 29th, just days before the 2004 US Presidential elections al Jazeera broadcast a tape of Bin Laden explaining to the American people why he had made the attacks. The extremely fortunate timing and discovery of the self contradicting Bin Laden tapes has created much doubt and confusion.
What would Oswald have said if he had taken the stand? Which Bin Laden would have appeared in court, the one who claimed innocence or the one who explained how he came up with the ideas of taking down the World Trade Center? We will never know.
On May 2, 2011 American commandos captured Bin Laden and assassinated him. Leon Panetta, CIA Director at the time, explained that capturing him alive was not considered, as he explained, “we always assumed from the beginning that the likelihood was that he was going to be killed.” From details of the raid it seems clear that Bin Laden was not armed when he was captured. So why wasn't he captured, brought to the United States and tried publicly for the crime he was accused of committing?
The American people were deprived of the opportunity to test the case the government had formed within days of the attack, a case whose consequences were two wars and hundreds of thousands killed.
The Magic Bullet - "According to the single-bullet theory, a three-centimeter (1.2″)-long copper-jacketed lead-core 6.5-millimeter rifle bullet fired from the sixth floor of theTexas School Book Depository passed through President Kennedy’s neck and Governor Connally’s chest and wrist and embedded itself in the Governor’s thigh. If so, this bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone. The bullet was found on a gurney in the corridor at the Parkland Memorial Hospital, in Dallas, after the assassination." From Wikipedia
In October of 1963 someone claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald called and went to the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City asking for a visa. The problem was, it wasn’t the same Lee Harvey Oswald who was captured in Dallas. Less than 24 hours after having supposedly killed the President, Lyndon Johnson had this conversation with J Edgar Hoover:
LBJ: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?
Hoover: No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason—we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.
And then there is this FBI report:
“The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to-individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald…..”
The “extremely sensitive” source was the CIA itself as they were filming the visitors and tapping the phones of the two embassies Oswald visited. Why would the CIA want to make it appear that Oswald was colluding with the enemy a month before he kills the President?
Oswald, who had top secret clearance working for the CIA on U2 flights, defects to the Soviet Union, announces to US Embassy that he is renouncing his citizenship and going to reveal U2 secrets to the Soviets but later decides to leave the Soviet Union and is welcomed with open arms and even given a loan to come back to the US. Why wasn't he tried as a traitor? He then moves to Texas where he is surrounded by people with connections to the the FBI and the CIA.
The incredible way Building 7 collapsed on 9/11, at almost free fall speed and very similar to the way buildings collapse in controlled demolition caused many to question the official version of events. Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane and the BBC even reported it had collapsed twenty minutes before it actually did. The lack of film footage of the attack on the Pentagon, which one can assume has extensive video surveillance, was also very surprising.
These are only a few of the outstanding quagmires embedded in these two crimes. None of this proves a conspiracy, but it does make it reasonable for a person to doubt the official version of events.
The Taboo of not BelievingDue to the many inconsistencies and oddities in the Warren Commission, more and more Americans in the late 1960’s began doubting the ‘lone shooter’ thesis it described. This worried the CIA which created a “dispatch”, numbered 1035-960 in order to counteract the growing skepticism and marginalize those who questioned the official story. As Kevin R. Ryan explains:
“This cultural phenomenon goes back to 1967. At that time, in response to questions about the Warren Commission Report (which President Ford helped create), the CIA issued a memorandum calling for mainstream media sources to begin countering “conspiracy theorists.” In the 45 years before the CIA memo came out, the phrase “conspiracy theory” appeared in the Washington Post and New York Times only 50 times, or about once per year. In the 45 years after the CIA memo, the phrase appeared 2,630 times, or about once per week.”
As a consequence, those that spoke out against the Warren Commission’s conclusions were tainted with the derogatory term of ‘conspiracy theorist’ which implied they lacked the psychological and intellectual capacity to the understand a complex world. It became more mature, patriotic, and coherent to assume that a momentous crime with cataclysmic consequences was only within the purview of lone nut. If a journalist or academic suggested that the CIA played a role in the assassination then they were considered outside the mainstream in spite of the fact that the CIA had a hand in the overthrows of Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Mossadegh in Iran, Lumumba in the Congo, Jacob Arbenz in Guatemala, Joao Goulart in Brazil, and Sukarno in Indonesia. It was deemed socially and intellectually unsound to believe that such an organization would ever use its skills at home in order to move forward its agenda.
Following the the 9/11 attacks the meme repeated itself with an Orwellian flavor by calling those who doubted The 9/11 Commission Report ‘Truthers’. No major American newspaper has an editorial writer that questions the official version of events on 9/11. It’s a taboo topic that if breached, pushes one beyond the pale and into the margins of public rhetoric.
Why was it so absurd to think that the CIA, which had been running Operation Mockingbird to manipulate the press in the United States from the 1950’s through the 1970’s and which, through its Project MKUltra, had tried to create ‘Manchurian Candidates’ would also stoop to violence against the American people to achieve it’s goals?
It’s perfectly acceptable in the mainstream to deny the existence of evolution, yet it is grounds for expulsion from major media if one doubts the official version of how Building 7 collapsed or if one implies that the CIA may have had a hand in the Kennedy assassination.
"Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.”
Lost and Senseless Wars: Cui Bono?
In the days previous to the Bay of Pigs fiasco the CIA knew that Castro had information regarding the invasion but they withheld it from Kennedy in the hopes that he would bow to their pressure to intervene-he didn't acquiesce. In the aftermath Kennedy fired CIA Director Allen Dulles saying, "I want to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." Dulles would later become a member of the Warren Commission which would establish the official narrative of the ‘lone gunman’ Oswald.
During the Cuban missile crisis the generals clamored for war, pushing their Commander and Chief to invade the island. Curtis Lemay, Chief of Staff of the Air Force argued vehemently with the President:
"This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich…We don't have any choice but direct military action. I see no other solution. This blockade and political action I see leading to war."
As James Douglass eloquently argues in his book, JFK and the Unspeakable, Kennedy changed during his time in the White House from a hawk to man determined to establish peace and end the Cold War. He had begun communicating with Khrushchev through back- channels and had sent feelers out to do the same with Castro. He became increasingly pessimistic about Vietnam and on Oct. 11, 1963 he signed directive NSAM-263 which called for the immediate withdrawal of 1,000 advisers from Vietnam and the removal of the remaining 15,000 by the end of 1965. Four days after his death, his successor Lyndon Johnson signed directive NSAM 273 which overturned Kennedy’s directive and increased military involvement in Vietnam.
As Kennedy lost faith in his generals and the CIA, he moved away from military solutions and this evolution culminated in his American University speech where he laid out his plans for peaceful coexistence with the communist world- heresy to the military and the CIA."What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children—not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time."
Kennedy was killed and the generals got their war. They used the domino theory to justify it, arguing that if Vietnam fell to the communists, the rest of South East Asia would also fall, threatening American security. Vietnam fell in 1975 to the communists after millions were killed, the domino theory long discredited.
In the 1990’s the Neo-Cons pushed for the invasion of Iraq. In 2001, in the aftermath of 9/11, they also got their war. They had their own version of the domino theory as they argued that if Saddam Hussein was ousted, the Iraqi Shiites would rise up, creating a vibrant democracy that would empower the Iranian and Syrian youth to overthrow their respective regimes. Instead Iran wound up controlling Iraq and Assad remains in power in Syria. Another theory was laid to waste over the corpses of hundreds of thousands.
The late 1950’s and late 1990’s had much in common. America experienced prosperity, peace, wealth, the admiration of the world and clear military superiority over all nations. They were by far the ‘best of times’ of the postwar period, guided by two term presidents who were blessed with such immense economic growth that their most important role was to keep their hands off the controls and let peace and prosperity bloom. Both periods ended abruptly, violently, and were followed by long, ill conceived wars, the expansion of the security state, internal strife, extreme partisanship, ballooning debt and inflated and an overextended military.
The only beneficiaries of these two violent turns were the military industrial complex. In light of much of the transcripts and documents released from the Kennedy era, it’s clear that JFK was on a path of peace, not only in Vietnam, but with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Similarly, it was hard to imagine in the year 2000 that the US would entangle itself in an two new wars lasting almost a decade, forgetting all the terrible lessons of Vietnam and once again descending into the hell of violence. It was as if some dark hand swooped down in a malevolent fury, angry at the peace and prosperity the nation was enjoying.
No matter who committed these heinous crimes, what is clear is that their aftermaths were cataclysmic for the nation and the dissent of those seeing more than a lone gunman or a band of religious fanatics operating out of caves was met with fierce resistance and marginalization. Why was this dissent shunned with such opprobrium? Could it be that those who ventured beyond the strict confines of the mainstream of ideas might see the obvious and shout it out from the rooftops?
The most disturbing common thread in the aftermath of these two crimes was the reticence to thoroughly and openly investigate them. Both crimes were ‘solved’ within hours, the basic outline of events decided on in days and etched in stone, never to be disturbed. Even to mention a doubt as to the perpetrators was to question the very essence of the nation because it seemed clear that to disbelieve the guilt of Oswald or the Bin Laden had one very dangerous consequence- the implosion of the modern myth upholding the entire state apparatus.
It’s hard not to make the comparison with a family ravaged by an abusive father, avoiding the obvious in a desperate attempt to maintain its existence as a unit.The mystic Thomas Merton called it the ‘unspeakable’ and described it with sublime understanding in his 1965 essay:
“Those who are at present so eager to be reconciled with the world at any price must take care not to be reconciled with it under this particular aspect: as the nest of The Unspeakable. This is what too few are willing to see….
“You are not big enough to accuse the whole age effectively, but let us say you are in dissent. You are in no position to issue commands, but you can speak words of hope. Shall this be the substance of your message? Be human in this most inhuman of ages; guard the image of man for it is the image of God. You agree? Good. Then go with my blessing. But I warn you, do not expect to make many friends. As for the Unspeakable—his implacable presence will not be disturbed by a little fellow like you!”
Robert Bonomo is a blogger, novelist and esotericist. Download his latest novel, Your Love Incomplete, for free here.
Timothy Alexander Guzman, Silent Crow News - Iran’s New President Hassan Rouhani has requested that Israel to sign and become a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as he spoke for a second time at the United Nation General Assembly. “As long as nuclear weapons exist, the threat of their use exists,” Rouhani said, citing the American bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Rouhani is calling for “nuclear-free zone” in the Middle East. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that had not and will not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel would use nuclear weapons if it felt it was threatened by any nation in the Middle East. The nuclear capability of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) defensive capabilities just reached another plateau this past April. It purchased its 5th nuclear submarine that can be deployed anywhere in the world with first strike capability. The Israel News Agency reported that Israel purchased a fifth Dolphin class submarine called the “INS Rahav” from Germany. The article headlined “Israel Launches Ninth Submarine, Ready To Strike Iran Nuclear Weapons.” Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said “The submarines are a strong, strategic tool for the IDF. The State of Israel is ready to act anytime, anywhere – on land, sea and air – in order to ensure the security of Israel’s citizens.” The submarines are equipped with Israeli-designed Popeye missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. It is no secret that Israel has nuclear weapons. Some estimates suggest that Israel has between 100 and 400 nuclear weapons. No one knows exactly how many nuclear bombs Israel possesses, but we do know they have the capability to produce them at a moment’s notice.
Mordechai Vanunu, a former Israeli technician at the Dimona nuclear research center in the Negev desert exposed Israel’s nuclear program to the world in the 1986 Sunday Times (UK). Vanunu was kidnapped in Italy by Mossad agents and brought to Israel to face an Israeli court. He was convicted and imprisoned for more than 18 years at Shikma Prison in Ashkelon, Israel. Half of his prison term was in solitary confinement. He was eventually released in 2004. Since then, Vanunu has been arrested and even imprisoned for violating his parole. He was also arrested for trying to leave Israel at one time. Former Israeli Prime Minister and Noble Peace Prize winner Shimon Peres said “he was a traitor to this country”.
Since Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; the Dimona Nuclear Research center is not subject to inspections from the international community such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). According to the Federation of American Scientists in a 2007 report, Israel has between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads, but some estimates have their nuclear warheads at less than 200. It is also known that Israel has the ability to deliver them by intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a range of 5,500 kilometers or 3,400 miles, the Jericho III missile named after the biblical city of Jericho, various aircrafts and of course submarines. The report stated the following:
By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, based on production estimates. The stockpile would certainly include warheads for mobile Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 missiles, as well as bombs for Israeli aircraft, and may include other tactical nuclear weapons of various types. Some published estimates even claimed that Israel might have as many as 400 nuclear weapons by the late 1990s. We believe these numbers are exaggerated, and that Israel’s nuclear weapons inventory may include less than 100 nuclear weapons. Stockpiled plutonium could be used to build additional weapons if so decided
Israel’s nuclear program began after World War II. Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion once said “What Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Teller, the three of them are Jews, made for the United States, could also be done by scientists in Israel, for their own people”. David Ben-Gurion wanted to establish a Jewish State with a military force that would repel an attack by any of its adversaries especially in the Arab world. Ben-Gurion’s speech to the elected assembly of Palestine Jews on October 2nd, 1947 made it clear on the intentions of a new Jewish state:
Political developments have swept us on to a momentous parting of the ways – from Mandate to independence. Today, beyond our ceaseless work in immigration, settlement and campaign, we are set three blazing tasks, whereof fulfillment will condition our perpetuity: defense, a Jewish State and Arab-Jewish Cupertino, in that order of importance and urgency.
Security is our chief problem. I do not minimize the virtue of statehood even within something less than all the territory of the Land of Israel on either bank of the Jordan; but security comes unarguably first. It dominated our concerns since the Yishuv [Jewish community in Palestine] began from the start of colonization we knew we must, in the main, guarantee it ourselves. But recent upsets and upheavals in Palestine, in the Middle East and in the wide world, and in British and international politics as well, magnify it from a local problem of current safety into Zionism’s hinge of destiny. In scope, in intensity, in purport, it is entirely different now. Just think of the new factors that invest the problem with a political significance of unprecedented gravity – and I could add a dozen others: the anti-Zionist policy pursued by the Mandatory Government during the past ten years, the obliteration of European Jewry with the willing aid of the acknowledged leader of the Palestine Arabs, the establishment of an Arab League active and united only in combating Zionism, Bevin’s ugly war against the Jews, the crisis in Britain and its political and economic aftermath, the creation of armed forces in the neighboring States, the intrusion of the Arab Legion. And not a single Jewish unit exists.
We can stand up to any aggression launched from Palestine or its border, but more in potential than yet in fact. The conversion from potential to actual is now our major, blinding headache. It will mean the swiftest, widest mobilization, here and abroad, of capacity to organize, of our resources in economics and manpower, our science and technology, our civic sense. It must be an all-out effort, sparing no man.
Several months later on May 14th, 1948, the state of Israel became a reality with David Ben-Gurion as its first Prime Minister. Ben-Gurion, Executive head of the World Zionist Organization in 1946 until 1956 and the head of the influential Weizmann Institute of Science and Defense Ministry Scientist Ernest David Bergmann recruited Jewish Scientists from abroad during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Israel recruited and funded Jewish scientists to help Israel establish a nuclear program. By 1949, the Israel Defense Forces Science Corps or ‘Hemed Gimmel’ was in search of Uranium in the Negev Desert, but only small amounts were discovered in phosphate deposits. Hemed Gimmel financed several students to study nuclear technology overseas. One of the students attended the University of Chicago to study under Enrico Fermi, who developed the Chicago Pile-1, the first nuclear reactor. Fermi also made scientific contributions to nuclear, quantum and particle physics among others. By the late 1950s Shimon Peres had established LEKEM, or the ‘Science liaison Bureau’ a new intelligence service that would search for technology, materials and equipment needed for Israel’s nuclear program. By 1952, Hemed Gimmel was under Israel’s Ministry of Defense to become the Division of Research and Infrastructure (EMET). By June 1952, The Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) was established with Ernest David Bergmann as the first chairman. Hemed Gimmel was renamed Machon 4 which became the “chief laboratory” of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC). France was a major partner for Israel’s nuclear program. France also sold weapons to Israel. The France-Israel relationship was instrumental in the development of the Dimona Nuclear Research Center. Israel signed American President Dwight Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace, an agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and Israel along with Turkey to build a “small swimming pool research reactor” at Nachal Soreq. It was the first step to building the Dimona nuclear research center in the Negev desert in collaboration with France who faced political turmoil in its former colonies in North Africa. Israel also faced Arab hostilities in the Middle East, so the cooperation on matters regarding new military technology complemented each other. On March 20, 1957 a public signing ceremony to build a “small swimming-pool research reactor” took place between France and Israel. But the reality was that France and Israel collaborated to build a larger facility at Dimona. In ‘Israel and the Bomb’ by Avner Cohen, he describes Ben Gurion’s ambitious plan regarding Israel’s nuclear program was advanced through the Atoms for Peace Initiative:
With the return of Ben Gurion to power in 1955, nuclear energy became a matter of national priority. Ben Gurion gave political backing and financial support to those in the Ministry of Defense who were committed to promoting nuclear energy-Peres, Bergmann, Mardor, and the nuclear enthusiasts at Machon 4. There was also a change in the international climate concerning nuclear energy, in the wake of Eisenhower’s December 1953 Atoms-for-Peace initiative. Until then, nuclear energy in the United States, Canada, and Britain, the three major countries dealing with nuclear energy, was largely closed to other countries. The Atoms for Peace Initiative made nuclear energy technology available to the rest of the world.
The United States under President Eisenhower allowed Israel to seek a nuclear program that would advance its defense capabilities militarily. By 1958, the construction of the Negev Nuclear Research Center located in the Negev desert in secret through the Protocol of Sevres agreement. It was a secret agreement between Israel, France and Great Britain at Sevres, France to overthrow Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser through an invasion of Egypt after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Four days after the Sèvres meeting, Israeli forces invaded Egyptian territory. French and British forces invaded shortly after they vetoed a US sponsored UN Security Council resolution under the guise that they would separate both Israeli and Egyptian forces after Egypt refused their call to withdraw from the Suez Canal.
In 1958, Charles de Gaulle became President of France. Almost immediately after he assumed office, he wanted to end France’s assistance to Israel’s nuclear program. He would only support Israel’s nuclear program if international inspectors were allowed to inspect Dimona and that Israel would declare that its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes and that under no circumstances reprocess plutonium. Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres negotiated with the French government allowing a window of opportunity for French companies to continue its work until 1966 with the Israeli government. Israel also had declared its nuclear program was “peaceful”. BBC News received secret documents that the British government also supported Israel’s nuclear program by sending illegal and restricted materials that started in the 1950′s. In 1961, the Ben-Gurion informed the Canadian government that a pilot plutonium-separation plant would be built at the Dimona facility. By 1962, the nuclear reactor at Dimona went “critical” meaning a critical mass with a small amount of fissile material was needed for a sustained nuclear chain reaction. Shortly after, Israel secretly acquired more than 90 tons of uranium oxide (yellowcake) from Argentina to fuel the reactor. By 1965 the Israeli reprocessing plant was completed and ready to convert the reactor’s fuel rods into weapons grade plutonium for a nuclear bomb. After the Six-Day War, Israel went live producing nuclear weapons. A new era began in the Middle East. One that was a dangerous step to a nuclear disaster if Israel decided to use its nuclear weapons against an Arab country.
In Seymour M. Hersh’s ‘The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy’ stated the concerns Israel’s leaders had, especially Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion if they did not obtain nuclear weapons. Hersh wrote:
“What is Israel?” he was quoted by an aide as asking. “. . . Only a small spot. One dot! How can it survive in this Arab world?” Ben-Gurion believed that he understood Arab character and was persuaded that as long as Arabs thought they could destroy the Jewish state, there would be no peace and no recognition of Israel. Many Israelis, survivors of the Holocaust, came to believe in ein brera, or “no alternative,” the doctrine that Israel was surrounded by implacable enemies and therefore had no choice but to strike out. In their view, Hitler and Nasser were interchangeable.
For these Israelis, a nuclear arsenal was essential to the survival of the state. In public speeches throughout the 1950s, Ben Gurion repeatedly linked Israel’s security to its progress in science. “Our security and independence require that more young people devote themselves to science and research, atomic and electronic research, research of solar energy . . . and the like,” he told the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, in November 1955.
Ernst Bergmann explicitly articulated the ein brera fears in a letter two years later: “I am convinced . . . that the State of Israel needs a defense research program of its own, so that we shall never again be as lambs led to the slaughter.”
Ben-Gurion, Shimon Peres, and Ernst Bergmann believed that Israel’s independent arsenal finally could provide what President Eisenhower would not—the nuclear umbrella.
Israel’s nuclear program was built on the belief that it had “no alternative” but to build a nuclear weapon to deter Arab aggression. Their experience with the Holocaust justifies their intentions on maintaining their nuclear weapons. Israel’s believes that another Holocaust can be prevented, this time not from Germany but from Iran. But many Israeli’s during the development stages of nuclear weapons were not keen on obtaining a nuclear bomb because of the Holocaust:
“Less compelling to the military men was the moral argument against the bomb raised by some on the left and in academia: that the Jewish people, victims of the Holocaust, had an obligation to prevent the degeneration of the Arab-Israeli dispute into a war of mass destruction” Stated Hersh. “ Those who held that view did not underestimate the danger of a conventional arms race, but believed that, as Simha Flapan, their passionate spokesman, wrote, “the qualitative advantages of Israel—social cohesion and organization, education and technical skills, intelligence and moral incentive—can be brought into play only in a conventional war fought by men.”
Another aspect of Israel’s foreign policy one should consider is the ‘Samson Option,’ a policy that calls for a retaliation using nuclear weapons against an enemy who threatens the Jewish homeland of its existence. Hersh explains:
Dimona’s supporters had convinced most of the leadership that only nuclear weapons could provide the absolute and final deterrent to the Arab threat, and only nuclear weapons could convince the Arabs—who were bolstered by rapidly growing Soviet economic and military aid—that they must renounce all plans for military conquest of Israel and agree to a peace settlement. With a nuclear arsenal there would be no more Masadas in Israel’s history, a reference to the decision of more than nine hundred Jewish defenders—known as the Zealots—to commit suicide in A.D. 73 rather than endure defeat at the hands of the Romans.
In its place, argued the nuclear advocates, would be the Samson Option. Samson, according to the Bible, had been captured by the Philistines after a bloody fight and put on display, with his eyes torn out, for public entertainment in Dagon’s Temple in Gaza. He asked God to give him back his strength for the last time and cried out, “Let my soul die with the Philistines.” With that, he pushed apart the temple pillars, bringing down the roof and killing himself and his enemies. For Israel’s nuclear advocates, the Samson Option became another way of saying “Never again.”
[In a 1976 essay in Commentary, Norman Podhoretz accurately summarized the pronuclear argument in describing what Israel would do if abandoned by the United States and overrun by Arabs: "The Israelis would fight . . . with conventional weapons for as long as they could, and if the tide were turning decisively against them, and if help in the form of resupply from the United States or any other guarantors were not forthcoming, it is safe to predict that they would fight with nuclear weapons in the end. ... It used to be said that the Israelis had a Masada complex . . .but if the Israelis are to be understood in terms of a 'complex' involving suicide rather than surrender and rooted in a relevant precedent of Jewish history, the example of Sarnson, whose suicide brought about the destruction of his enemies, would be more appropriate than Masada, where in committing suicide the Zealots killed only themselves and took no Romans with them." Podhoretz, asked years later about his essay, said that his conclusions about the Samson Option were just that—his conclusions, and not based on any specific information from Israelis or anyone else about Israel's nuclear capability.]
In a White House press conference on May 18, 2009, US President Barack Obama’s concern about “the potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon by Iran.” The United States and other Western nations have not announced any plans to disarm Israel’s nuclear weapons but rather focused its attention on Iran’s nuclear program. Obama said “Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.” Israel already won the arms race in the Middle East. What is to stop Israel’s “Zealot” mentality from using nuclear weapons in the Middle East? Israel has threatened Iran in the past. In a 2006 interview with Reuters former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres “the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map.” It was a response after a false claim Israel and its allies made on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comment in a 2005 speech at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran called “The World without Zionism” when he said Israel must be “wiped off the map” which was misinterpreted. Earlier this year, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak said that the US and Israel would take action against Iran, “I don’t see it as a binary kind of situation: either they [the Iranians] turn nuclear or we have a fully fledged war the size of the Iraqi war or even the war in Afghanistan,” Barak continued “What we basically say is that if worse comes to worst, there should be a readiness and an ability to launch a surgical operation that will delay them by a significant time frame and probably convince them that it won’t work because the world is determined to block them.” Rouhani is seeking negotiations that would put Iran, the United States and Israel on a path to a peaceful resolution. One that will recognize Iran’s right to a “peaceful” nuclear program for its country so that they can export more oil and use the revenues it earned for the benefit of the Iranian people. But do not expect any significant breakthrough between Iran and the US/Israel alliance that seeks to dominate the Middle East politically, economically and militarily.
The Obama administration is not seeking any negotiations with Iran unless they stop its nuclear program which will not happen. Iran will insist that they are signatories to the NPT and have an “inalienable right” to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Israel will not be a signatory to the NPT because “This resolution is deeply flawed and hypocritical. It ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world” according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Another reason Israel will not sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty is because they are victims of the Holocaust which is why they have violated hundreds of U.N. Security Council resolutions and has used chemical weapons on the Palestinians. The talks between Iran and the US that will be held in Geneva will fail come this October because the US wants to dominate Iran. Iran has its principles it will stand by, but so will the US on Israel’s behalf. The US and its staunch allies want Syria, Lebanon, the Gaza strip and the West Bank and every nation on earth under their rule. That is the plan.
Painting by Anthony Freda Governments Admit They Carry Out False Flag Terror Governments from around the world admit they carry out false flag terror: A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from … Continue reading →
Americans Are Finally Learning About False Flag Terror was originally published on Washington's Blog
John Kerry Honors Military Dictatorship and Totalitarian Monarchy as Examples of Progress Toward Democracy
- lengthening the breakout times;
- shortening the time to detect breakout; and
- gaining assurance that a secret centrifuge plant is unlikely to be built or finished."
- INSS Director Major General (ret.) Amos Yadlin;
- former Mossad head Major General (ret.) Meir Dagan;
- Major General (ret.) Amos Gilad;
- pro-Israeli front group Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Mehdi Khalaji; and
- Brookings Institution's Robert Einhorn.
- the impossible task of proving a negative;
- abandoning important parts of its legitimate nuclear program; and/or
- acceding entirely to Washington's unreasonable demands.
A plan to inspect and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons has focused new attention on Israel’s undeclared WMDs
Al-Jazeera Online – 20 September 2013
Israeli officials are reported to be increasingly nervous that international efforts to destroy of Syria’s chemical weapons might serve as a prelude to demands on Israel to eliminate its own, undeclared weapons of mass destruction.
Israel maintains a posture it terms ‘ambiguity’ on the question of whether it possesses either nuclear or chemical weapons. But Israel is widely believed to have a large arsenal of nuclear bombs, concealed from international scrutiny, and there are strong suspicions that it has secretly developed a chemical weapons programme.
Those concerns intensified following the disclosure this month of a confidential CIA report suggesting that Israel had created a significant stockpile of chemical weapons by the early 1980s. Israel has refused both to sign the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, covering the regulation of nuclear arms, and to ratify the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, which obligates states to submit to international oversight and destroy chemical agents in their possession.
Over the past few days there have been a series of moves by other states in the Middle East to bring international attention to Israel’s WMD.
Those efforts followed Damascus’ ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention last week and the announcement at the weekend of a timetable agreed by Russia and the United States to disarm Syria of its chemical stockpiles by the middle of next year.
Israel is now one of only six states refusing to implement the convention, along with Egypt, Myanmar, Angola, North Korea and South Sudan. That has prompted concerns that Israel could rapidly become a pariah state on the issue.
The Haaretz daily newspaper reported this week that the prospect of mounting international pressure on Israel to come clean on its WMD was “keeping quite a few top Israeli defence officials awake at night”.
Shlomo Brom, a former Israeli general and now a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, called Israel’s current policy on chemical weapons “unwise”.
“The reality in the Middle East has changed since Israel refused to ratify the convention. There is no longer a good reason for Israel to remain with the handful of regimes that oppose it.”
This week Arab states submitted a resolution to the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog body, the International Atomic Energy Agency, calling on Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the IAEA’s inspection regime as part of efforts to create a nuclear arms-free zone in the region.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Israel has refused to sign, was drawn up in 1968, the year after Israel is widely believed to have produced its first warhead.
A report on Sunday by two proliferation experts assessed that Israel had built a total of 80 nuclear bombs by 2004, the year it is believed to have halted production. The same report concluded that Israel had stocks of fissile material potentially large enough to double the number of bombs at short notice.
US officials, however, rebuffed the Arab states’s move at IAEA. Joseph Macmanus, the US envoy to the agency, said the resolution “does not advance our shared goal of progress toward a WMD-free zone in the Middle East. Instead, it undermines efforts at constructive dialogue toward that common objective.”
An Egyptian plan laying the groundwork for establishing a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction was sponsored by the US in 2010, over Israel’s opposition. However, Washington announced last year it was postponing action to an unspecified date. Meanwhile, last Sunday, Iran’s foreign ministry urged the international community to “adopt serious measures” to force Israel to back the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Following Syria’s ratification of the convention, its ambassador to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, said “the main danger of WMD is the Israeli nuclear arsenal”, adding that Israel possessed chemical weapons but most other states were not prepared to speak about it.
That may yet change. Israeli government officials are said to be worried that the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, could demand ratification from Israel as part of US efforts to clear the Middle East of chemical weapons. “Now, Kerry may say, the US needs Israel’s help by ratifying the treaty prohibiting the use of chemical weapons,” the Haaretz newspaper reported.
According to reports in the Israeli media, Israeli embassies overseas have been issued with guidelines to evade questions posed by journalists and diplomats related to Israeli chemical weapons.
The Israeli defence ministry refused to comment to Al-Jazeera, referring questions to the prime minister’s office. David Baker, a spokesman for Netanyahu, also declined to comment, calling all such discussion “speculation”. He would not say whether Israel had issued guidelines to officials.
In a rare public statement, Amir Peretz, a former defence minister, told Israel Radio this week: “I very much hope and am certain that the international community will not make this a central question and we will maintain the status quo.” Unlike Syria, he said, Israel was a “democratic, responsible regime”.
Uri Avnery, an Israeli journalist and former politician, said Israelis strongly assumed that their country secretly possessed such weapons.”The Israeli government has always maintained that Israel is an exception, that it is a responsible government and therefore does not need to subject itself to international conventions, whether nuclear, biological or chemical. Israelis believe that because of the Holocaust they have a right to extra protection, which in practice means access to every kind of weapon.”
Israel’s secrecy is, in part, motivated by a promise to avoid embarrassing the US by declaring its weapons of mass destruction. Washington would be violating US law by giving Israel the billions of dollars in aid it receives each year if Israel possesses nuclear weapons outside the non-proliferation regime.
Calling Israel’s refusal to ratify the chemical weapons convention alongside Syria “a short sighted position of dubious usefulness”, an editorial in the Haaretz said a change of policy would show Israel was “doing its part in the general effort to rid the region of weapons of mass destruction”.
Suspicions that Israel may be hiding a chemical weapons programme have grown following a recent report in Foreign Policy, a US magazine, revealing that US spy satellites located a suspected chemical weapons site in Israel’s Negev desert for the first time in 1982.
A confidential CIA report from 1983 disclosed to the magazine identified “a probable CW [chemical weapon] nerve agent production facility and a storage facility” near the Israeli town of Dimona, itself close to Israel’s nuclear reactor. The magazine said Israel’s chemical industries were also believed to be involved in the production of weapons.
According to intercepts of Israeli military communications made by the US National Security Agency at that time, Israel Air Force bombers had conducted missions simulating chemical weapons bombing runs in the Negev.
The report suggests “several indicators lead us to believe that they have available to them at least persistent and nonpersistent nerve agents, a mustard agent, and several riot-control agents, marched with suitable delivery systems”.
Although it is not possible to know whether the chemical weapons storage site identified by the CIA in the early 1980s still functions, there are indications Israel has continued to work on nerve agents in subsequent years.
Israel is known to have an Institute for Biological Research at Ness Ziona, about 20km south of Tel Aviv, which describes itself as a government research centre. Officially the institute conducts medical and defence research, including helping Israel prepare against the effects of an attack using chemical or biological weapons.
The institute is believed to have secretly developed offensive capabilities too, most famously used in an assassination attempt on a Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, in Jordan in 1997.
Meshal, who had a toxin sprayed into his ear in a Mossad operation, was only saved because the two agents involved were captured while still in Jordan. Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister then as now, agreed to hand over an antidote in return for the agents’ release.
There have been suspicions that Israel used a similarly hard-to-detect toxin in the still-unexplained death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in 2004.
The connection between Israel and chemical weapons also surfaced following a crash by a Israeli plane near Amsterdam in 1992.
The Dutch media reported that the El Al plane had been carrying substantial quantities of a major chemical component of sarin, the nerve agent used near Damascus last month for which the Syrian government has been widely blamed. The US company that supplied the chemical said it had been for delivery to the Institute for Biological Research at Ness Ziona.
A spate of reports, including by the BBC, early in the second Palestinian intifada, a decade ago, also accused Israel of using what appeared to be an experimental form of tear gas that led to severe convulsions in many of those who inhaled it.
More recently, Israel’s repeated attacks on Gaza have fuelled claims that it is using Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME) munitions, an experimental weapon not yet covered by international treaties. Its blast causes severe internal damage to victims and leaves traces of carcinogenic metals such as tungsten in the bodies of those who survive.
In winter 2008-09, Israel was also widely criticised for using white phosphorus in built-up areas of Gaza. Although allowed if used to create a smokescreen on the battlefield, white phosphorus is considered a chemical weapon when used in areas where civilians are likely to be present. Burning lumps of the chemical sear through flesh and lungs and are difficult to extinguish.
Under international pressure, the Israeli military promised to end the chemical’s use earlier this year.
Diabolical Chemical Weapons Intelligence Operation? Killing Syrian Civilians and Blaming it on the Enemy
Walberg has offered a welcome taxonomy of imperialism from its nineteenth-century genesis until today; he has given a plausible explanation of imperialism’s contours since the exit of the Soviet Union and Eastern European socialism from the world stage; and he has convincingly described Israel’s unique role in the continuing reshaping of imperialism’s grasp for world domination.
In the same vein, it is an exaggeration to portray Islam (or any other religion) as inherently anti-imperialist: in his words, “The unyielding anti-imperialist nature of Islam, its rejection of the fundamental principles of capitalism concerning money, its refusal to be sidelined from economic and hence political life…”
But Hamas is a creature of Israel which gave Hamas money, and more than 700 institutions, among them schools, universities and mosques. Even Rabin ended up admitting it, when I charged him with it, in the presence of Mubarek.
Hamas was constituted with the support of Israel. The aim was to create an organization antagonistic to the PLO. They received financing and training from Israel. They have continued to benefit from permits and authorizations.
Most Arab socialists and Communists have sought unity with organized Islamic anti-imperialist organizations, sometimes successfully, as with Hizbullah and Lebanese Communists. But on other occasions that trust has been brutally betrayed, as with the slaughter of the Tudeh (Communists) in the Islamic Republic of Iran.One of the objectives of the projects of imperialism in the Middle East is the establishment of states on religious grounds, which serves mainly Zionist plan to declare Israel a Jewish state for all Jews in the world, as well as the important results of pushing these religious countries to inevitably get caught up in sectarian conflict. And it necessarily creates strategic divisions and fragmentations of the Arab countries and brings the conflict between Sunni - Shiite, Muslim - Christian, Muslim - Jewish to replace the Arab-Israeli national liberation conflict, to replace the social class struggle among the peoples of the Arab countries, and to replace the struggle against authoritarian regimes allied with the imperialist global and international monopolies.
Kapital's weakness-- the labor theory of value-- is a materialist reductio ad absurdum, denying the 'value' of 'unproductive' labor (the elements brought to bear by the capitalist related to securing markets, research, innovations, factor management)...
The ijtihad-jihad process is in a sense just a more comprehensive version of Marxist praxis [by] emphasizing:●social unity rather than class struggle●the family and spiritual life rather than material production●evolution rather than revolution