The Definitive Source For News On Jews

In international politics, image counts. A country’s reputation, the aura it projects, the esteem in which its leaders are held — these are as important as its armed services in providing protection for its citizens. Most politicians know that soft power, skillfully used, can be at least as effective as blood-drenched hard power.

This is a lesson Israel appears to have forgotten. Its pitiless treatment of the Palestinians, whether under occupation on the West Bank or under siege in Gaza — not to mention its repeated assaults on Lebanon, its 2007 raid on Syria and its relentless sabre-rattling against Iran — have done terrible damage to its image.

The admiration which its early state-building once aroused in many parts of the world has turned into angry impatience, outrage, even contempt.

Few outside Israel itself — and outside the shrinking ranks of its diehard supporters in the United States and Europe — would today be prepared to defend its arrogant militarists, its fanatical land-grabbing settlers, its racist politicians.

Astonishingly, there is no sign that Israel’s political leaders have understood the magnitude of the problem or are doing anything serious to address it. On the contrary, they are busy digging deeper into a hole of their own making.

Turkey’s sudden cancellation this week of a major air force exercise with Israel was a salutary wake-up call. Evidently, Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan found it necessary to cancel the drill because of the widespread hostility to Israel among Turkey’s population. He has had to take Turkish public opinion into account. Foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu spelled out the reasons in diplomatic terms: “We hope that the situation in Gaza will improve…and that will create a new atmosphere in Turkish-Israeli relations…”

To offend the Turks is no small matter. Israel cannot afford to ignore the warning or sweep it under the carpet. Turkey has for many years been Israel’s main regional strategic partner — indeed its only one since the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979. Losing Turkey could turn out to be the worst setback Israel has suffered for a very long time.

Turkey’s army is the largest in the region; so is its industrial base. Its GDP, at over $1,000bn (in 2008) dwarfs that of the oil producers, whether Arab or Iranian, and is four times larger than Israel’s own. In recent years, Turkey has greatly improved its relations with Iran and with neighboring Arab states — Syria in particular — and is emerging as the wise “big brother” of the greater Middle East. It has offered to mediate local conflicts and is attempting to spread stability and security all around it.

From the moment Israel started hammering Gaza last December, it was clear that its insane war was a grotesque mistake, which would end up fuelling nothing but hate, and might even delegitimize Israel in the eyes of much of the world. The Goldstone report has now driven a giant nail into the coffin of Israel’s reputation by finding that, in Gaza, there was evidence that Israel “committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.”

Instead of agreeing to carry out an independent investigation into these charges, as the UN mission demanded — before the matter was referred to the Security Council for prosecution at the International Criminal Court — Israel launched an all-out attack on Goldstone and his report. It used all its diplomatic clout to get the report discredited as biased and its examination deferred.

Not only is Judge Richard Goldstone an eminent international jurist with a towering reputation for integrity and fairness, but he is also a Jew and a self-proclaimed Zionist. He won praise for exposing the crimes of South Africa’s Apartheid regime and for his scrupulous work as chief UN prosecutor in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

So anxious was he to be even-handed that, before accepting to head the Gaza fact-finding mission, he insisted that the mandate be expanded to include Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. Indeed, his report found evidence that Palestinian armed groups also committed war crimes, as well as possible crimes against humanity.

Israel’s propaganda war on the Goldstone report has proved both wrong-headed and self-defeating. Among its victims is the hapless Mahmud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority who, under pressure from both Israel and the United States, agreed not to press for an immediate examination of the report by the Security Council. Recognizing his mistake, he has since tried to backtrack, but his leadership has been severely dented.

The result has been to undermine and weaken Palestinian moderates — such as Abbas — whom Israel, one might have supposed, would want to strengthen, and with whom it would seek to negotiate. But does Israel want peace? Does it want to negotiate? Or does it, on the contrary, seek to radicalize the Palestinians so as to avoid serious negotiations until it has seized more territory?

Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s extremist foreign minister, has given the game away by declaring that there can be no peace with the Palestinians for several more years. In refusing to freeze settlements or engage in negotiations, what Lieberman and his boss, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, are doing is to challenge not just peace-loving opinion around the world, but also — first and foremost — U.S. President Barack Obama.

The Israeli right-wing and its neo-conservative supporters in the United States have launched a frontal assault on a central goal of Obama’s foreign policy, namely a two-state solution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. To undermine Obama, they have not hesitated to mount a vicious campaign of incitement against him. He is depicted as a Nazi, a Muslim and a Jew-hater. His Nobel Peace Prize has been mocked.

Israel is here venturing on very dangerous ground. So far, Obama has sought to persuade rather than to threaten. In his dealings with both Iran and Israel, he has tried to reach agreement by accommodation. With Iran, he has achieved some progress — breaking a 30-year long stalemate — and no doubt more progress will follow. With Israel, he has met a stone wall.

Israel should reflect. Obama’s patience is not endless. Losing Turkey is one thing. To risk losing America is quite another.

Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.

Related posts:

1. Israel prepares to wipe Gaza Strip off Earth’s face Israel continues its massive military operation against Palestine for…
2. Israel Prepares for Nuclear Strike on Iran Two Israeli missile class warships have sailed through the…
3. Who Will Stand Up to the Zionist Masters of America and Israel? “Obama Calls on World to ‘Stand Up to’ North…

No wonder why so many people hate America, it’s because America is controlled by Jews.

Related posts:

1. Blacks commit 50 times more crimes than whites, Jewish media never tells anything because it’s “racist” . Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence each…
2. Calls For War Crimes Charges Against Israel Increase Calls are increasing from a number of quarters for…
3. Israel Recruits Army Of Bloggers To Troll Anti-War Websites Israel has announced that it is setting up a…

by Gilad Atzmon
Interpreting the Zionist Dream

“The socio-economic structure of the Jewish people differs radically from that of other nations. Ours is an anomalous, abnormal structure.” (Ber Borochov- The Economic Development of the Jewish People  1917)
“You [Jews] lack the right notion of honour, feeling for duty, morality, patriotism, idealism….” (Max Nordau – Address at the [...]

How many times have you heard this one? Well after his UN report, damning Israel and Hamas of war crimes,  it was inevitable that Judge Richard Goldstone, born into a South African Jewish family, would be labelled a “self-hating Jew” and a Jewish antisemite.

You couldn’t make it up.  So Goldstone is a self hating Jew, did you know that in South Africa during Apartheid any White who spoke up for the black man was labelled a kaffir-boetie - Goldstone was that too of course. The man just can’t seem to get it right! When one runs out of logic and things to say, they resort to character assassination.

If someone criticizes Israel, the automatic knee jerk reaction from the zealots is that they must be anti semetic, this has been used to much that it has totally lost its meaning now, so nobody takes any notice. If it is a Jew doing the criticism, he must be a self hating Jew. 

It is totally clear that these phrases in political discourse are a nasty form of verbal intimidation, designed to suppress free and open political debate. When the term is used, it almost invariably means that the person using it has lost the argument and is trying to shift the ground of discourse in his favour.

An internal Pan Am investigation concluded that the Lockerbie bomb was targeted specifically to kill a small band of US Defence Intelligence Agency operatives (including Major Charles McKee) who had uncovered a drugs ring run by a CIA unit in Lebanon.

The drugs ring is said to have been set up by Israeli Mossad agents.

Reportedly, the drugs ring involved ‘CIA-asset’ Monzer al-Kassar, a Syrian with links to the brother of Syria’s President Assad. Also it is believed that Monzer al-Kassar was involved with Lt-Colonel Oliver North, of Iran-Contra fame.

The CIA and its allies allowed the Contras to ship huge amounts of cocaine into the United States and sell it to mafia families in New York, Los Angeles, Texas, Miami, and a number of other places.

The proceeds of these sales allowed the Contras to buy (third-rate) arms and other supplies from the United States…

The Israelis played a major role in the whole Iran-Contra affair.

They were used as an intermediary to sell the arms to Iran.

They also supported the United States in training the Contras, and apparently also in shipping the drugs and assassinating those who tried to expose these schemes…

Certain people such as: Boas, Mathot, Vanden Boeynants and Beaurir reportedly had their names linked to the Iran-Contra and the Dutroux child abuse scandal in Belgium.

According to a book on the Franklin Affair, A former security guard for Larry King has sworn that he saw Oliver North attend at least one of King’s parties, a party at which children were also present.

Incredibly, not only have the Belgians that were involved in Iran Contra been accused of child abuse (Boas, Mathot, Vanden Boeynants and Beaurir), but North and his employer, vice president and later president George Bush, were uncomfortably close to the Franklin child abuse affair in the United States.

Both were mentioned by witnesses as having attended the parties of alleged child abuser, Satanist, Contra supporter, money launderer and drug dealer Lawrence E. ‘Larry’ King.

TIME magazine, 27 April 1992, tells us more about Major Charles McKee.

According to Time Magazine, Charles McKee’s mother suspects that it was a government action that indirectly led to her only son’s death.

Beulah McKee is quoted as saying:

For three years, I’ve had a feeling that if Chuck hadn’t been on that plane, it wouldn’t have been bombed… I’ve never been satisfied at all by what the people in Washington told me.

In Beirut, McKee was a military attaché assigned to the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA).

An investigation by Time disclosed that:

According to “an FBI field report from Germany”, the bomb probably went onto the plane in Frankfurt, not in Malta.

The flight may have been targeted “because on board was an intelligence team led by Charles McKee.”

Pan Am’s lawyers hired Interfor, a New York firm run by Juval Aviv.

The central figure in the Interfor investigation is Syrian arms and drug trafficker, Monzer al-Kassar.

Kassar “was part of the covert network run by U.S. Lieut. Colonel Oliver North.”

A CIA unit code-named COREA, based in Wiesbaden, Germany “was reported to be trafficking in drugs and arms…”

According to Aviv, “agents in COREA’s Wiesbaden headquarters allowed al- Kassar to continue running his smuggling routes to American cities…”

It is assumed that Al-Kassar “wouldn’t want anything to disrupt his profitable CIA-assisted drug and arms business.”

Reportedly, Al-Kassar figured out that Pan Am Flight 103 was a target and “notified the COREA unit.”

In Frankfurt, a polygraphist administered lie-detector tests to Pan Am baggage handlers Kilin Caslan Tuzcu and Roland O’Neill.

Pan Am believes that they were the only ones who were in a position to place the bomb-laden bag aboard Flight 103.

The polygraphist testified thatTuzcu “was not truthful when he said he did not switch the suitcases.”

The polygraphist also told the grand jury, “It is my opinion that Roland O’Neill wasn’t truthful when he stated he did not see the suitcase being switched, and when he stated that he did not know what was in the switched suitcase.”

In 1987, Lester Coleman, an undercover Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) operative, was transferred from Lebanon to Cyprus, where he began work for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

In Nicosia, Coleman saw CIA (COREA) shipments of heroin “grow into a torrent”.

The drugs couriers with their heroin arrived by ferry from the Lebanon.

The drugs couriers then received their travel orders from the DEA.

The couriers “were escorted to the Larnaca airport by the Cypriot national police and sent on their way to Frankfurt and other European transit points”.

Coleman says the DEA paid him with unsigned Visa traveler’s checks issued by B.C.C.I. in Luxembourg.

Coleman says that informant Ibrahim el-Jorr told him that that in Frankfurt airport suitcases containing heroin were put on flights to the U.S. by agents or other sources working in the baggage area.

Reportedly, Germany’s BKA federal police was involved in the plot, as was the UK Customs and Excise service.

Coleman became a witness for Pan Am.

Informants had told Coleman that al-Kassar and the Syrian President’s brother Rifaat Assad were taking over drug production in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, under protection of the Syrian army.

Coleman says he learned that the main European transfer point for their heroin shipments was the Frankfurt airport.

Charles McKee’s team in Beirut got wind of Al-Kassar’s CIA connection.

The team was outraged that the COREA unit in Wiesbaden was doing business with a Syrian who had terrorist connections.

A key member of the team was Matthew Gannon, 34, the CIA’s deputy station chief in Beirut.

McKee and Gannon expressed their anger about al-Kassar to the CIA HQ in Langley in the USA, but they got no response.

Gannon’s father-in-law Thomas Twetten was then chief of Middle East operations based in Langley. He was also Oliver North’s CIA contact.

McKee, Gannon and three other members of the team decided to fly back to CIA HQ and expose the COREA unit’s secret deal with al- Kassar.

They booked seats on Pan Am 103.

In his book, Lockerbie: The Tragedy of Flight 103, Scottish radio reporter David Johnston described how CIA agents helicoptered into Lockerbie shortly after the crash. They were looking for McKee’s suitcase.

“Having found part of their quarry,” Johnston wrote:

the CIA had no intention of following the exacting rules of evidence employed by the Scottish police. They took the suitcase and its contents into the chopper and flew with it to an unknown destination.

Several days later the empty suitcase was returned to the same spot, where Johnston reported that it was “found” by two British Transport Police officers, “who in their ignorance were quite happy to sign statements about the case’s discovery.”

M. Gene Wheaton, a retired U.S. military-intelligence officer, said: “A couple of my old black ops buddies in the Pentagon believe the Pan Am bombers were gunning for McKee’s … team.”

Victor Marchetti, former executive assistant to the CIA’s deputy director, and co-author of The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, said of the plot against PanAm 103:

The Mossad knew about it and didn’t give proper warning.

Charles McKee who was fiercely anti drugs was going back to Washington to blow the whistle on the CIA-Mossad drug trade in the Middle East, he had to be stopped.

Source

Lockerbie was the biggest terrorist attack ever committed on UK soil. There is one issue that almost everybody has though. Nobody believes the man convicted, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was actually responsible.

From the BBC:

An internal investigation by Pan Am is believed to have found that the bomb planted on Flight 103 was put on the plane during a stop-over in Frankfurt… The Pan Am report is believed to have concluded that the bomb was not aimed at the killing of Americans in general, but was targeted specifically to kill a small band of DIA operatives that had uncovered a drugs ring run by a ‘rogue’ CIA unit in Lebanon… The drugs-ring and the connection to Hezbollah is said to have been set up by Israeli Mossad agents.

And of course there is this from the Guardian:

Nearly two decades after Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Scotland on 21 December, 1988, allegations of international political intrigue and shoddy investigative work are being levelled at the British government, the FBI and the Scottish police as one of the crucial witnesses, Swiss engineer Ulrich Lumpert, has apparently confessed that he lied about the origins of a crucial ‘timer’ – evidence that helped tie the man convicted of the bombing to the crime.

In 2001, Bollier spent five days in the witness box at the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. ‘I was a defence witness, but the trial was so skewed to prove Libyan involvement that the details of what I had to say was ignored. A photograph of the fragments was produced in court and I asked to see the pieces again. When they were brought to me, they were practically carbonised. They had been tampered with since I had seen them in Dumfries.’

Believe it or not, that is just scratching the surface. The whole event reeks with Mossad and CIA involvement. Police Constable Mary Boylan states that all the notebooks from the Lothian and Borders region police department had been destroyed.

Towards the latter part of 1999, I was asked to attend at Dumfries Police Station, to give a statement to the Procurator Fiscal regarding my duties at Lockerbie. Almost eleven years had elapsed since the disaster, so I phoned ‘F’ Divisional HQ at Livingston Police Station to request my notebook to refresh my memory. I was told that someone would be in touch with me, and after a few days I was informed that my notebook could not be found. Shortly after this I read in a Scottish broadsheet that Lothian and Borders Police notebooks had been destroyed.

Source

And that’s not it, there is more.

Al-Megrahi dropped his 2^nd appeal. Those who are not familiar with court proceedings and law, are probably thinking, so what? How is that significant?

For someone who has constantly maintained their innocence, and considering the fact it is almost absolutely impossible to be granted a 2^nd appeal, you can only get to this stage if you have a strong case or a solid foundation for your appeal. So to drop it is highly suspicious.

Megrahi’s sudden desire to drop the appeal ’stinks’, and there was no reason for him to abandon his appeal.

So how about that? Another false flag cover up, Al Megrahi was obviously innocent, so a deal had to be struck at all costs to save embarrassment.

Barqusya was a small village of 383 people in the district of Hebron. Barqusya does not exist today. It was completely obliterated and defaced by Jewish troops in 1948.

According to the Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi, the village remaining structures on the village land are:

“No houses remain. Some graves can be seen amidst foxtail and khubbayza (mallow) plants. One of the graves has an inscribed tombstone resting on the superstructure. There are also the remnants of a well.”

I saw this brilliant post at Palestine Remembered and had to post it here.

Gerald Kaufman, a governing Labour Party British Member of Parliament, declared Thursday that Israel was taking advantage of the guilt many non-Jews feel over the Holocaust to ruthlessly press ahead with its offensive in Gaza.

Kaufman, a frequent critic of Israel who was raised as an Orthodox Jew, sharply criticized Israel in a House of Commons debate on Gaza, saying that “The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt from Gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians.”

The MP also commented on the claim that large numbers of the Palestinian victims were militants, saying that “I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants,” he said.

Kaufman urged the British government to impose an arms embargo on Israel.

The Rogatka bar in Tel Aviv was involved in a confrontation with two IDF soldiers when they were told that they had to leave, because they were wearing uniform.

“It’s nothing personal, but ideological,” the soldiers were told by Rogatka employees. “Your uniforms symbolize genocide and violence, and the violence that the IDF perpetrates is the reason for ongoing violence.”

“Your shirt symbolizes shit and disgust and as soon as I see your shirt, it hurts me,” one of the employees said. “Get out of here.”

“I kill myself to protect you and you’re throwing me out?” the solider reportedly replied.

“You aren’t killing yourself,” the soldier was told. “They are taking advantage of you, and you’re a slave to the army. Now leave.”

It’s good to see Israeli citizens taking a stand against the war machine. Read more at Jpost.

In unconventional warfare, beliefs are deployed as weapons by those waging war by way of deception. Does anyone recall Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda? Iraq’s biological weapons laboratories? The Iraqi meetings in Prague with Al Qaeda? Iraq’s purchases of yellowcake uranium from Niger?

All were alleged true but later proven false or, worse, fabricated. Yet all were widely believed. In combination, those beliefs induced a consensus to wage war in Iraq in response to a mass murder on U.S. soil.

The battlefield has shifted. Ground warfare is secondary. Likewise for airstrikes, naval support and covert operations. Physical operations are all downstream of information operations. False beliefs come first. Psyops precede missiles, and bombs. Hardware ranks a distant third. Foremost are the consensus shapers who manipulate perceptions until a critical mass of phony intelligence is reached. Then comes war.

People are preeminent. Wars are won by those skilled at creating consensus opinions. Where is modern-day warfare waged? Not on the ground; nor in the air or on the seas. The shared mindset is this combatant’s theater of operations. Their battlefield is the shared field of consciousness. Deceit is not new to warfare. What’s new is the technology that enables psyops on a global scale.

The military remains subordinate to politics. But politics are subordinate to those skilled at manipulating consensus beliefs. Decision-making is no better than the information on which decisions depend. Likewise for decision-makers. That’s why U.S. lawmakers have long been targeted by the Israel lobby. [See “How the Israel Lobby Took Control of the Congress.” http://criminalstate.com/2009/07/how-the-israel-lobby-took-control-of-us-foreign-policy/]

With law-making dependent on information, these mindset manipulators can operate atop the chain of command. In a system of law reliant on informed choice, self-governance can readily be replaced in plain sight by manipulated beliefs and consensus opinions. Thus the motivation for media dominance by Zionists in the U.S., Canada, Germany and elsewhere.

When waged across four key areas, such “Information Operations” can displace democratic lawmaking with a predetermined agenda. Here’s a quick look at each area: geopolitical, strategic, operational and tactical..

Duplicity in Plain Sight

The geopolitical realm is where the “framing” of future conflicts first emerges. The Clash of Civilizations first appeared in 1993 as an article in Foreign Affairs. Three years later, when this thematic framing emerged as a book, more than 100 NGOs were prepared to promote its conflict-of-opposites theme as a sequel to the Cold War—and a prequel to a “global war on terrorism.” That consensus belief emerged just as A Clean Break appeared with its proposal to “secure the realm” (Israel) by removing Saddam Hussein.

Strategically, to evoke a war requires a plausible Evil Doer and a credible provocation. The global branding of the Taliban emerged in the “field” in March 2001 with destruction of the ancient Buddhas at Bamiyan. Widely portrayed as a “cultural Holocaust,” that high-profile act put Afghanistan’s previously obscure Taliban on everyone’s list as certifiably evil. The missing piece: the mass murder of September 11, 2001.

Strongly provoked emotions facilitate the displacement of facts with what “the mark” can be induced to believe—particularly in the presence of Evil Doer pre-staging. The combination of (a) evocation (religious extremism), (b) provocation (911) and (c) association (the Axis of Evil) enhanced the capacity to deceive—fueled by false reports of Iraqi WMD and even ties between the secular Saddam and the fundamentalists of Al Qaeda (they detested each other).

When waging war on the public’s shared mindset, the power of association is one of the most effective weapons. Thus the potent imagery of the peaceful Buddhas at Bamiyan destroyed by violent extremists. Thus too the associative impact of Colin Powell’s appearance at the U.N. Security Council when his credibility was deployed—like a weapon—to spread lies about Iraq’s biological weapons. Not only was Powell “the mark” – so were the U.N. and the U.S.

Operationally, by the time the U.S. was induced to invade Iraq, 100-plus Israeli Mossad agents had been operating in Mosul for more than a decade. Soon after the invasion, several moderate clerics were murdered, enhancing the capacity to provoke a conflict-of-opposites between extremist Shias and more moderate Sunnis, a key to evoking the destabilizing insurgency.

As Information Operations proceed at the geopolitical, strategic and operational level, tactical deceit and misdirection provide key support. A recent provocation—the invasion of Gaza—was scheduled by Tel Aviv between Christmas and the inauguration of a U.S. President who promised change. That timing ensured minimal capacity to criticize.

As critics of Israeli policy emerged in universities, the Anti-Defamation League and its international network mounted an intimidation campaign on a high-profile campus that silenced academics worldwide. [See “Treason in Plain Sight?” http://criminalstate.com/2009/07/treason-in-plain-sight/]

To succeed, Information Operations require both deceit and denial of access to the facts required for informed consent. How else can anyone explain the perception that the Zionist state is a democracy—and even an ally?

Democracy assumes that all of us collectively are smarter than any of us individually. Thus the need for an unbiased media to provide the facts with which we can reason together. Thus, in turn, the need for pro-Israeli dominance of mainstream media by those skilled at waging war by way of deception. Thus what we now see portrayed in that domain: a world turned inside out where the aggressor is portrayed as victim and the predator as prey.

With consensus beliefs the upstream target, democracy becomes the downstream casualty. To protect the informed consent essential to liberty requires that those waging war on our shared mindset be made transparent. This method of warfare is ancient; only the means are modern.

The common source of this duplicity remains unknown to the public. There lies the strategic role for online media unadorned by conspiracy theories that obscure the clarity required to wage this battle with confidence.

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court brings identity politics sharply into focus. Senate Judiciary Committee members are rightly concerned that bias and personal sympathies not take priority over the law. Those concerns provide a useful portal to assess a strategy deployed to undermine national security.

The use of identity to shape judicial decisions creates precedents unintended by lawmakers. In practical effect, those sympathies become law. Once precedents appear in court opinions, they can be expanded—again without support from legislators. Judicial activism relies on the steady expansion of precedent to broaden its impact. In similar fashion, the steady deepening of U.S.-Israeli relations reflects the impact of identity politics based on bias and personal sympathies.

But for the Holocaust, Harry Truman would likely not have recognized an enclave of Jewish extremists as a nation state. Opposition arose on all fronts, including strong objections from his Secretary of State, General George C. Marshall. Yet Truman’s bias as a Christian Zionist and his sympathies from a fundamentalist upbringing in rural Missouri led him to identify with the Jews’ return to Palestine as a means to hasten the Second Coming of the Christian Messiah.

While Truman conceded that the Zionists proclaimed a Jewish state, that is not what he recognized on May 14, 1948. Instead, he crossed out “Jewish state” and wrote the “State of Israel.” In the lead-up to that date, Truman was repeatedly assured by Zionist leaders that Israel was not intended to become a theocratic state. Yet sympathetic White House aides prepared for his signature a proclamation that would have established that precedent.

How do sympathy and empathy—whether of presidents, judges or members of Congress—alter what lawmakers intend? Is this a natural process? Or can identity politics also be deployed to manipulate? In the case of Israel, history points to historic and ongoing emotional exploitation.

Dangers of Identity Politics

Truman was a product of Kansas City’s Pendergast political machine. After the National Crime Syndicate was formed at a 1929 meeting in Atlantic City, that machine evolved into a key node in the node-and-network system of organized crime. In 1931, the syndicate’s nationwide operations were formalized in a Jews-only conclave at the Franconia Hotel in Manhattan where 24 exclusive territories were sanctioned, including five in and around New York City.

Truman was profiled, picked and “produced” to be placed in office—where he then behaved consistent with his profile. Known as “assets,” such pliable operatives do not have the state of mind that consciously connects them to what the “producers” seek to achieve. That leaves assets innocent of the intent required for criminal wrongdoing—yet complicit in the underlying objective.

Assets need only possess the requisite personality for the position. Those qualifications for office include the sympathies required to support the goals of Jewish organized crime. Thus the key role played by a Christian Zionist president in granting nation state status to a Zionist enclave. Thus, more recently, the key role of another Christian Zionist president in enabling the provocation of 911 to lead the U.S. to war in Iraq—in pursuit of Zionism’s Greater Israel policy.

But for their personal sympathies and that perceived identity of interest, would these two assets have embraced policies helpful to Jewish extremists and harmful to the national interest? Therein lies the danger when the U.S. was induced to embrace—with its post-WWII sympathy—an entangled alliance with what Barack Obama in mid-June described as a “Jewish state.”

How did an Illinois state senator with two years experience in the U.S. Senate become president at this key juncture? Two of his top-three campaign funders from Westside Chicago—Pritzker and Crown (né Krinsky)—trace their family histories to Jewish syndicates of the 1920s. The third, Hungarian-Ashkenazi George Soros, made his billions from hedge funds.

What role does identity politics play in the decision-making of the nation’s first African-American president? Did his minority status provide Tel Aviv a sympathetic ear that induced his refusal to take a firm stance on settlements in the West Bank? Did his empathy for protests in Tehran change his mind about talks with Iran, a diplomatic initiative opposed by Israel?

Was Barack Obama profiled, picked and produced to assume this position? Are his personality—and his personal history—being exploited to advance an agenda of which he is not consciously aware? As organized crime in the U.S. grew in scope and scale, its operations became more sophisticated. As this Jewish syndicate gained more power, its influence became subtler.

Those closest to this latest president are using identity politics to shape an agenda consistent not with U.S. interests but with the goals of the theocratic state that Truman feared Israel would become. One of Barack Obama’s top two aides (both are Jewish) served with the Israeli Defense Forces during the Gulf War.

The sensitivities—and sympathies—surrounding identity politics have thus far kept such analyses beyond the scope of inquiry. Yet national security requires that the use of such sophisticated psy-ops now be assessed based on the consistency of this strategy from Truman to today.

Judiciary Committee member Charles Schumer, third-ranking in the Senate leadership, quizzed Judge Sotomayor to show that bias, sympathy and empathy played no role in her decisions. Yet not once did Schumer, a key advocate of U.S. identity with Israel, mention the role played by pro-Israeli bias and sympathies in reshaping U.S. law and jeopardizing national security

Identity politics help explain how Jewish organized crime can operate in plain sight and, to date, with impunity. As “Chosen,” those complicit view sympathy and empathy as emotions to be manipulated, not reciprocated. Only in this broader strategic context can a jurist’s support for identity politics be properly assessed.

Readers of Guilt By Association know the role played by the power of association when well-timed crises are used to advance a global agenda—specifically to ensure that Israel retains military dominance in the Middle East, its monopoly on nuclear weapons and its refusal—along with Axis of Evil member North Korea—to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Israel long ago mastered this craft as evidenced by its ongoing ability to avoid compliance with agreed-to terms of the Roadmap. Thus it came as no surprise to see a crisis in North Korea just as the pro-Israelis who induced the U.S. to invade Iraq intensified efforts to expand the war to Iran.
After years without a serious incident, both Iran and North Korea detained U.S. journalists over a six-week period in 2009. In early February, National Public Radio’s Roxanna Saberi was detained by Tehran. In mid-March two female employees of Current TV, founded by Al Gore, were detained by Pyongyang and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

In early April, North Korea launched a rocket capable of reaching Hawaii, suggesting a threat to the U.S. Meanwhile Tel Aviv upped the pressure on Washington to shut down Iran’s nuclear program, suggesting a threat to Israel. Six weeks later, Pyongyang announced a nuclear test, its first since 2006. Meanwhile Israel insisted that Iran not be appeased or—like North Korea—it would pose a nuclear threat.

When President Obama advanced his proposed engagement with Iran, a Twitter-catalyzed crisis around Iranian elections made such diplomacy unlikely or, at the very least, ineffective. Meanwhile attempts failed to rekindle six-party talks with North Korea, making engagement unlikely and diplomacy ineffective.

Discrediting the U.N.

Simultaneously, the peace-brokering role of the U.N. was sidelined as its credibility continued a steady decline since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Though U.S. war-planners chose not to protect Baghdad’s famous antiquities museum, ensuring widespread looting, the Oil Ministry was captured intact, securing the evidence required to prove U.N. mismanagement of Iraq’s food-for-oil program—with Iran oil-trader Marc Rich again a major player.

This program offered relief from a U.N. embargo for the sale of Iraqi oil to buy food and medicine. In September 2005, an 18-month probe of the $64 billion program found that Saddam Hussein benefitted from kickbacks and oil-smuggling profits, with lucrative commissions paid to the people in between. Findings of lax U.N. oversight were worsened by charges that Koji Annan, son of Secretary General Kofi Annan, profited from insider information and access.

The discrediting of both the U.S. and the U.N. began in February 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell was dispatched by war-planners to the U.N. Security Council to vouch for the veracity of intelligence—since proven false—about Iraqi biological weapons. Then high-profile U.S. Senate hearings, chaired by Senators Carl Levin and Norm Coleman, put the food-for-oil scandal in the public eye, further damaging the U.N.’s credibility and effectiveness.

With the U.N. and its leadership at their weakest in recent memory, Israel pressed Annan for a Holocaust memorial at the U.N. and for a day to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the death camps. Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor in the Congress, lobbied reluctant nations. On January 24, 2006, the U.N. saw the first ever prayer service on its premises—the Jewish hymn for martyrs—followed by the Israeli national anthem.

Fast-forward to June 2009 and a cargo ship departed North Korea enroute to Myanmar trailed by a U.S. warship that, under a U.N. resolution, could not use force for interdiction. Pyongyang portrayed any interference as an act of war and assembled 100,000 marchers to denounce the U.S. while its leaders promised, if provoked, to “wipe out” the U.S.

A month earlier, Myanmar elections were thrown into crisis with the arrest of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Her May 27th detention enables avoidance by the ruling junta of the open elections promised in 2010 as part of the “roadmap to democracy.” In a well-timed incident, the Nobel peace laureate was taken into custody for violating the terms of her house arrest when she allowed an intruder to stay at her home for two days after he swam to her compound.

The intruder, American John Yettaw, claimed he was on “a mission” to warn her that she would be assassinated. He swam over a mile to her heavily guarded compound using cardboard flippers and plastic containers for flotation. Described by a member of Suu Kyi’s staff as “a nutty fellow,” Yattaw covered the distance carrying the book of Mormon, the ‘revealed’ text of a Zionist sect whose devotees are called “Latter Day Saints” and “The Lost Tribe of Israel.”

With another totalitarian regime (Myanmar) potentially gaining access to nuclear technology, Tel Aviv gained another “associative” case it can cite to oppose Iran’s nuclear program. Meanwhile an election crisis catalyzed another rallying cry for regime change in the Middle East—in Iran.

U.S. credibility in the Middle East was undercut months ago when Dennis Ross was appointed State Department special envoy to Iran. A senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Middle East Policy, a think tank founded by the Israel lobby, he has since been promoted to senior director of the National Security Council. Americans can only hope that—in that position—he will be closely monitored by those committed to restoring the national security of this nation.

Barack Obama’s June 4th speech in Cairo addressed a global population of 1.3 billion Muslims long outraged at the abuse that Israel has inflicted on its neighbors—with U.S. support. The potential positive impact of that speech was offset when he appeared the next day in Germany at the Buchenwald death camp. The timing of that Holocaust photo-op resolved all doubts about who stage-manages his presidency.

Attention then turned back to newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In mid-May, Obama’s handlers allowed this right-winger to proclaim—from the White House—that peace with the Palestinians was a distant second to Israeli concerns about Iran. In a mid-June speech, an emboldened Netanyahu grudgingly mentioned a “two state solution.” Obama quickly portrayed his use of that phrase as an “important step forward.”

In truth, that speech announced several giant steps backward. Rather than agree to negotiate a two state solution, he insisted on preconditions certain to preclude two states, leaving nothing to negotiate. Obama again countered the positive impact from Cairo when he praised a speech that directed Palestinians to recognize Israel as a “Jewish state” where Jerusalem as “Israel’s capital will remain united.”

Those remarks also proclaimed Israel’s right to continue its colonization of Palestinian land by expanding the very settlements that preclude a viable Palestinian state. By applauding Netanyahu’s defiant speech, a U.S. president helped inflame the very conditions that have precluded peace in the Middle East for more than four decades.

Anticipating pressure to change, Tel Aviv opened a three-front assault. Foreign Minister Avignor Lieberman (from Moldova) began talks in Moscow (in fluent Russian) to show that Israel could—and readily would—turn elsewhere for a “special relationship.” Second, the Israel lobby opened a domestic assault on Obama by announcing, “Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives.” The lobby also reminded this political product of Chicago-Ashkenazi money where his presidential bread is buttered.

Third, as soon as Middle East envoy George Mitchell opened talks with Syria, the first since the U.S. withdrew its ambassador in 2005, Netanyahu gave a speech with no mention of the Golan Heights and with terms certain to ensure that peace would remain beyond reach.

With no need to cite the Holocaust photo-op, the official Syrian newspaper noted simply, “This is the principle that always guides Israel when approaching the Zionist-Arab conflict. The Israelis see themselves as victims rather than the aggressor.”

By again failing to stand up to Tel Aviv and its U.S. lobby, Obama enabled the very conduct that most endangers national security. While his words in Cairo promised a “new beginning,” his actions signaled business-as-usual. If this Chicago politician continues to appease Israeli extremists, his behavior may well induce another terrorist attack.

Should that happen, recent history suggests that an orgy of evidence will plausibly point to “Islamo” fascists while Israel again portrays itself as the perennial victim in need of protection in a hostile neighborhood. Absent Obama’s proven resolve to expunge “special” from this relationship, this entangled alliance will continue to make the U.S. look guilty by its association with Israel’s extremist behavior. There lies the greatest peril to national security.

With his unrepentant remarks, Netanyahu turned a two state solution back into a bargaining chip. By his insistence on terms that preclude a final settlement, he reconfirmed Tel Aviv’s commitment to sustain this conflict. Obama’s propensity to blink at time-critical moments suggests he will continue to encourage a course that invites more terrorism—either by Israelis or those provoked by their behavior.

Any objective ranking of this presidency would reveal its disproportionate pro-Israeli staffing. Democrat Harry Truman, a Christian-Zionist, offered nation-state legitimacy to this Zionist enclave. Republican G.W. Bush, also a Christian-Zionist, staffed his presidency the same as Democrat Obama.

This transpartisan insider operation shares an allegiance neither to party nor president but to a common covenant whose faith-based obligations take precedence over U.S. interests. The depth and duration of this disabling bias suggests that the only way to restore national security is to withhold funding for Israel, withdraw our diplomats and reshape our foreign policy around U.S. interests.

Should this president, like his predecessors, continue to perform inconsistent with the national interest, an informed citizenry must remind him why the Framers set a low evidentiary standard for proving treason, requiring only that the accused “adhere” (or grant “aid and comfort”) to an enemy—whether domestic or foreign.

Should Dennis Ross, a reliably pro-Israeli diplomat, be removed as U.S. envoy to Iran, that would be the first sign that Barack Obama may yet perform consistent with his constitutional oath to defend this nation. By his repeated refusals to stand up to the Israel lobby—and by reliably blinking under pressure from a tiny minority, this president risks not only U.S. national security but also a personal charge of treason.

The Holocaust: A Student’s Guide


by Jim Kerr

Abraham Foxman – director of Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith – Frontline – January 1994

The results of this survey show that the brainwashing currently taking place in British schools regarding the Holocaust™, isn’t working. This outcome will have surely delivered a blow to the myriad of Holocaust propagandists who, despite their best efforts, are evidently not succeeding in their mission objective of keeping alive the main raison d’être for the Zionist state of Israel.

In order to perpetuate the Holocaust myth, Jewish propagandists and their sympathisers are compelled to use the state education system to implant their propaganda in the minds of young British students because the seemingly endless list of Holocaust ‘survivors’ aren’t going to be surviving for much longer. And when these ‘survivors’ do finally depart this mortal coil, so too does their ‘testimony’. Very soon, there will be no more Holocaust ‘survivors’ left alive.

Auschwitz though, will be preserved at any cost. The Shoah must go on. You can bet your last shekel that this dilapidated labour camp and tourist attraction will remain standing so that young British students can visit and see for themselves the gas chamber and crematorium 1, both of which are shown to visitors as evidence of the ‘mass extermination’ of Jews that supposedly took place there. It is extremely doubftul though, whether young British students and tourists will be told that these particular sections of the labour camp were built AFTER the second world war had ended. In 2006, the International Auschwitz Council decided to modernise what they say is a 51-year-old exhibition at the Auschwitz labour camp so to prevent the ruins of gas chambers from sinking into the ground. Do the math!

I wonder what answers would be forthcoming if one were to assemble a group of schoolkids and ask them if they knew that the Nazis made soap out of Jews, if they were aware of lampshades having been made from the skin of Jews, or if they had ever heard of hair shaven from prisoners at Auschwitz being used to make textiles. I also wonder what response would be given if one where to ask whether they believed the Anne Frank diary to be true, or just another Holocaust myth. Anyone reading this piece who might have previously believed any of these hoaxes, or in the mythical holocaust itself, can always blame their imagination for the lapse.

Some pro-Israel gay Canadian named Fred states in his blog that education in the UK is “getting worse by the minute”, and advocates Holocaust ‘education’. Although the British education system does indeed have many shortcomings, the results of the poll undertaken by the London Jewish Cultural Centre indicate that those who are pushing Jewish propaganda on our kids via Holocaust ‘education’ aren’t succeeding in getting their message across. Whether this is directly attributable to the inherent failings of the state education system, or down to young Britons being completely uninterested in events that occurred over sixty years ago is a moot point, although I’d bet on the latter scenario being the case.

Fred is right to advocate Holocaust education. Our children need to learn about how questioning the holocaust came to be considered a thought-crime. They need to learn why it is not against the law for anyone to deny that nineteen hijackers commandeered two passenger jets and flew them into the World Trade Centre, or for anyone to deny that American astronauts landed on the moon. Our kids need to learn why it is not a crime to deny the existence of God almighty, but a crime against God to deny the Holocaust. They need to learn why Holocaust thought-crime laws exist in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland and – quite possibly in the future – here in Britain too. British schoolkids need to know why men like Ernst Zundel are imprisoned for speaking the truth while frauds like Elie Wiesel are given a platform and respectability. They need to learn why liars like Herman Rosenblat go free while those who speak the truth go to jail.

If we are to teach our children in a scholarly, academic fashion, then we must ensure that they learn to study competing arguments, and to weigh-up the evidence presented in each before reaching any conclusions. The presentation of one argument to the exclusion of all others is not education but indoctrination. If the horrors of the second world war are to be fully understood, then the full story has to be told. It wasn’t just Jews who suffered, although one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise since this is where all the focus is directed. What about the Armenian holocaust, the Ukranian holocaust and the Cambodian Holocaust? What about the German Holocaust? What of the Indian Holocaust? And what about the murder of millions of Christians and gentiles in Russia and Eastern Europe by Judaic Communists? Did the victims of these Holocausts not suffer?

Given that the world has not long emerged from a century of Holocausts, one must ask why all the aforementioned Holocausts have been omitted from the national curriculum. Do these glaring omissions not constitute Holocaust denial? Why has Jewish suffering been given an elevated status? Abraham Foxham, director of the Anti-Defamation League provides the answer.

According to Foxman, the Holocaust is “something different.” For Foxman, the Holocaust “is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and thus, on God Himself.” In Foxman’s perverted view, Jewish suffering during the second world war is a somehow unique phenomenon. It is not. 56,125,262 people lost their lives as a consequence of world war two. Even if we accept six million as a true figure for the amount of Jewish losses, that figure would represent just over 9% of the death count. Foxman pays great disrespect to the the gentiles whose lives were claimed by the second world war when he claims that Jewish losses were “something different”. They were not.

Foxman’s claim of the Jews being God’s “chosen” people is bogus. Only 20% of world Jewry has the right to legitimately call itself Jewish. The overwhelming majority of ‘Jews‘ are actually the descendants of eastern Europeans, and not descendants of Abraham, but don’t expect young British students to ever be taught anything about four-fifths of modern-day Jews being the descendants of the Khazars – converts to Judaism. Just as Jews consider the Holocaust to be “something different”, they also perceive themselves with same warped vision. The Judaic claim of them being “God’s chosen people” implies that God has given the Jews a privileged position which places them at the very top of the human pecking-order. But this falsehood is easily debunked.

Since the Jews are not a race, how then has it been possible for their ‘special’ status to have been maintained over several millenniums? Having already eliminated the option of this having been achieved genetically, and since the state of Israel did not exist prior to its’ creation by UN charter in 1948, the only other possibile explanation that remains is that the Jews have preserved their ‘special’ status over the course of thousands of years via religious means. However, the Mizrahi Jews – otherwise known as Oriental Jews – are the direct descendants of the Jews who existed in biblical times, and since Palestinians believe that they are descended from these ancient Jews; if it is true that the ‘chosen people’ status is genetically transmitted, then the Palestinians are the chosen ones, not the Jews. The claim of the Jews being “God’s chosen people” is demonstrably false, and something that young British students need to learn.

Although the standard of numerical skills being taught in British schools is undeniably quite atrocious, Jewish maths is more atrocious still. In January 1988, a German Television broadcast, “Vor Vierzig Jahren”, contained an entire newsreel titled “Welt im Filmthat”. This German newsreel had been released forty years earlier, and contained a report which focused on the closing scenes of the Krakow Auschwitz Trial that took place in the latter part of 1947. The report stated that: “altogether nearly 300,000 people from the most different nations died in the Auschwitz concentration camp.” The plaque pictured below was on display at the Auschwitz labour camp between 1948 and 1989. The obvious question here is: where did the extra 3.7 million dead Jews appear from?

And the obvious question that one must ask after observing the plaque pictured below – presently on display at Auschwitz – is: why have two and-a-half million dead Jews disappeared?

Although this plaque commemorates 1.5 million Jews who are said to have died at Auschwitz, in 1996, however, Polish authorities reduced their estimate of the Auschwitz death count from four million to just over one million although the Polish government has since revised the figure yet again and upped it to 1.5 million. How ironic it is that Holocaust revisionists are persecuted while revsionism has quite evidently been undertaken by ‘official’ revisionists. So, how many Jews did actually perish at Auschwitz? Decide for yourself after perusing the information to be found here. You can choose any number between 135,000 and 9,000,000 including that elusive six million figure.

From the front page of the 17th October 1943 edition of the British newspaper The People

It can be seen that the Holocaust ‘education’ young British students are currently receiving is based on weird science and flawed arithmetic. The knowledge being imparted to young British students in respect of the Holocaust is not being transmitted via education but via indoctrination. For the Holocaust hoax to continue, the Jews and the lackeys who serve their agenda must target young minds early. “Get’ em young, keep ‘em for life” is the means to this particular end. It is encouraging though, to discover that the Jewish propaganda being implanted in young, fertile British minds is not being fully absorbed by the target audience. Revisionists can draw hope and endeavour to make sure that the truth prevails. Who knows, maybe at some future point we’ll be hearing of how kids think Auschwitz is a type of hoax.

Michael A. Hoffman: Overcoming Orwellian Groupthink (mp3)

WW1: What Happened? – Part 1

by Michael Stewart and Jim Kerr

The first half of this production features the late Norman Dodd, who in 1953 was the chief investigator for Congressman Reece’s Special Committee On Tax Exempt Foundations. The clip is an excerpt taken from a 1982 interview conducted by G. Edward Griffin in which Dodd testifies as to how both the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace (“Peace”, according to Karl Marx “is the lack of opposition to Socialism”) and the Rockefeller Foundation actively sought America’s involvement in the first world war via the infiltration and subsequent subversion of the U.S. State Department. Dodd also tells of of the hidden agenda of these elitist organisationd to rewrite American and world history after the war had ended.

Aside from the Carnegie Foundation’s activity that saw American participation in the first world war – as testified by Norman Dodd – further insight is provided courtesy of Benjamin Freedman who speaks of the significant and pivotal role of the Zionist Federations of the world in securing American involvement. Benjamin Freedman – formerly known as Benjamin Freidman – was a Zionist sympathiser prior to him discovering its’ true ambitions whereupon he committed the remaining years of his life and fortune attempting to educate the American people about the perils of Zionism and the power they wield over the entire U.S. government. The second half of this video production is given to a pertinent excerpt from the famous 1961 speech that Freedman gave at the Willard Hotel, Washington D.C. before an audience of concerned American patriots.

Benjamin Freedman articulately narrates a historically accurate account of how the World Zionist Federations contrived certain events that led to America’s involvement in world war one. Freedman also describes the ‘prize’ that the Zionist Federations of the world received as a result of them manipulating the Americans to participate in the war that was supposed “to end all wars”. The Zionists’ ‘prize’ was the Balfour Declaration whereby Great Britain – then the occupying force in Palestine – ‘permitted’ the total “Jewish” colonisation of Palestine which was to ultimately lead to the ‘birth’ of the State of “Israel” in 1948. It must be stated that without the input of Zionist stooge Adolf Hitler there would be no Israel. Using the time-honoured trick of the ‘Hegelian dialect’, Hitler and the Nazis fomented “anti-Semitism” so that European Jews could be rounded-up and processed, with those deemed “fit” being transported to Palestine to populate the long envisioned State of “Israel”, while those who were deemed “useless”, genetically inferior and/or opposed the move were murdered.

A zip-file 2.7 megabytes in size containing some of the resources used during the research of this video is available for download.

Although Israeli shills and trolls continue to spew forth their perfidious propaganda in the manner of a gramophone needle stuck in the groove, they cannot, however, poison the well of truth because the camera does not lie. And despite Israel having prevented the global media from witnessing the carnage and devastation that the Israeli military wrought in Gaza, incontrovertible evidence of the barbaric war crimes committed in Gaza by the Zionist state is there for all the world to see and judge accordingly.

There is ample evidence of the Israeli war crimes committed in Gaza and even though this inconvenient fact cannot be denied, Israel and her legions of stooges, apologists, shills and Internet trolls will, of course, become further detached from reality and deny all charges then claim that they are the victims; not the Palestinians whose homes have been razed by Israeli bulldozers and whose children have been burned to the bone by the illegal use of white phosphorus and mercilessly slaughtered by the bombs and bullets bought and paid for by the always-generous American taxpayer.

The unholy trinity of Olmert, Livni and Barak ought to be arrested, tried at the Hague, then executed for their crimes against humanity. But no such thing will happen and Olmert, Livni and Barak will get off scot-free – as Israeli war criminals inevitably do. It’s about time these psychopathic butchers were removed from power and brought to justice.

Remember…Saddam got the rope for less.

• Israel has the inalienable right to pursue terrorists in the Gaza Strip and everywhere else they are hiding.

• Israel has the inalienable right to attack houses, mosques, churches, United Nations shelters, schools and hospitals to kill terrorists.

• Israel has the inalienable right to expropriate the land of Palestinian farmers for Israeli Jewish settlers.

• Israel has the inalienable right to arrest, torture and brutalise Palestinians who resist the expropriation of their land.

• Israel has the inalienable right to restrict the movement of Palestinians from one place to another in order to protect the settlements it has built on land expropriated, by inalienable right, from Palestinians.

• Israel has the inalienable right to demolish the houses of Palestinians, provided: the land on which the houses stand are needed for Israeli settlement; the owners of the houses are related to terrorist suspects; or Israeli military commanders determine that demolition is necessary.

• Israel has the right to erect concrete walls within the occupied territories to put more land on the Israeli side of the line for future use by Israeli settlers.

• Israel has the inalienable right to establish road networks that non-Israeli residents of the occupied territories are forbidden to use.

• Israel has the right to instruct the President of the United States how the Secretary of State must vote at the United Nations, which criminals must be granted presidential pardons and how he should treat other nations of the Middle East.

• Israel has the inalienable right to a minimum of $1,500 per Israeli Jewish citizen every year from the American Treasury.

• Israel has the inalienable right to the most sophisticated and lethal American weaponry.

• Israel has the right to deploy any and all American weapons on terrorists, whether in violation of international law or agreements with the United States not to deploy phosphorous and cluster bombs against civilian populations.

• Israel has the inalienable right to defy United Nations resolutions and World Court rulings. (A corollary of this right means that United Nations resolutions do not apply to Israel.)

• Israel has the inalienable right to accuse those who disagree with its occupation “anti-Semites,” unless the dissenters are Jewish, in which case Israel has the inalienable right to declare them “self-hating.”

• Israel has the inalienable right to demand the dismissal of American academics, journalists and politicians who voice opinions that question any of Israel’s inalienable rights.

• Israel has the inalienable right to invoke the memory of the victims of Nazi persecution to exempt itself from blame for any of its actions.

• Israel has the inalienable right to determine what rights the Palestinians have.

Thus,

• The Palestinians have no right to resist military occupation, confiscation of land, seizure of their water supply, collective punishment, arbitrary taxation, torture, public beatings, school closures and the destruction of crops and orchards.

• The Palestinians have no right to disobey Israeli soldiers’ orders or to appeal for outside assistance.

• The Palestinians have no right to non-violent civil disobedience, to armed struggle or to international representation to present their case.

• The Palestinians have no right to withhold taxes that pay for the Israeli occupation.

• The Palestinians have no rights, except those granted to them by the Israeli authorities, whose inalienable rights may not be contested.