Israel preparing for ‘large scale war’ in Middle East

Israel’s army chief told a US Congress delegation in late 2009 he was preparing for a large war in the Middle East, probably against Hamas or Hezbollah, leaked US diplomatic cables showed on Sunday.

“I am preparing the Israeli army for a large scale war, since it is easier to scale down to a smaller operation than to do the opposite,” Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi was quoted as saying in a cable from the US embassy in Tel Aviv.

The document, dated November 15, 2009, was quoted Sunday in Norwegian by Oslo-based daily Aftenposten, which said it had obtained WikiLeaks’ entire cache of 251,187 leaked US embassy cables.

“The rocket threat against Israel is more serious than ever. That is why Israel is putting such emphasis on rocket defence,” Ashkenazi told the US delegation led by Democrat Ike Skelton, the cable showed. The army chief lamented that Iran has some 300 Shihab rockets that can reach Israel and stressed that the Jewish state would have only between 10 and 12 minutes warning in case of an attack.

However, it was Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon that posed the most acute threat, he cautioned. According to the quoted cable, Hezbollah is thought to have more than 40,000 rockets, many of which are believed capable of reaching deep into Israel. US officials meanwhile reportedly estimate the militant group has acquired an arsenal of around 50,000 rockets. A 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel killed 1,200 Lebanese, many of them civilians, and 160 Israelis, most of them soldiers.

And in his comments made nearly a year after Israel on December 27, 2008 launched the deadly Gaza war, Ashkenazi said “Israel is on a collision course also with Hamas, which rules Gaza.” “Hamas will have the possibility to bombard Tel Aviv, with Israel’s highest population concentration,” he was quoted as saying. The Gaza war killed some 1,400 mainly civilian Palestinians and 13 Israelis, 10 of them soldiers. It ended on January 18, 2009. Israel had been harshly criticised for putting civilians at risk during fighting in the densely populated Gaza Strip.

However, in the cable leaked on Sunday Ashkenazi is quoted saying Israel next time will not accept ‘any restrictions on warfare in populated areas’, and insisted the army had never intentionally attacked civilian targets.

Pakistan should learn from modern Turkey and not look towards Bangladesh

Is Turkey turning its back on the West

No. But it might if Europe and America cannot come to terms with its success

Its strategic position, next to the Middle East and Russia and astride Europe and Asia, means that Turkey has always mattered. But over the past decade its significance has hugely increased. For Turkey has gone through two big, and not always widely recognised, transformations: in its economic performance and in its foreign policy.

For most of the post-war years the Turkish economy was, to reuse Tsar Nicholas I’s 19th-century phrase, “the sick man of Europe”, plagued by erratic growth, soaring inflation and periodic banking busts. Today inflation is far lower, the banks are solid and Turkey boasts the fastest-growing economy in the OECD club of rich countries. Because it is resource-poor, this growth reflects fundamental strengths, especially in manufacturing and construction. Turkey makes things like furniture, cars, cement (it is the world’s biggest exporter), shoes, televisions and DVD players. In a sense, it is Europe’s BRIC: it might be called the China of Europe.

On foreign policy this long-standing member of NATO, with an army second in size only to America’s, has always been a bulwark of the West. Turkey and Norway were the only NATO members to border the Soviet Union. But Turkey’s pro-Western stance led it to neglect its neighbourhood, including many countries once in the Ottoman empire. Here, too, there has been a transformation. Backed by its strong economy, Turkey has become highly active in its diplomacy across the Middle East, in the Balkans and as far afield as Africa-and not always to the satisfaction of its allies. In a sense, Turkey has become a local diplomatic giant-the Brazil of the region.

You might imagine that Western powers would welcome such an advance. Instead, a more prosperous, bumptious Turkey is jangling many nerves. Europeans are trembling over the prospect of being asked to admit such a populous state into the European Union. The United States, which used to scold the Europeans for their reluctance, is uncomfortable with Turkey’s newly adventurous foreign policy. Critics in the West are prone to hide behind the idea that Turkey is drifting towards Muslim fundamentalism and somehow “being lost” by the West. This judgment is completely wrong; yet the more that people in the West persist in making it, the greater the chance that they may genuinely lose Turkey.

The perils of democracy

In foreign policy, the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan has certainly fallen prey on occasion to excessive Muslim solidarity. It has been too nice to Sudan’s ghastly president, Omar al-Bashir, ignoring his indictment for war crimes. It made a mistake by joining Brazil in an ill-fated Iranian nuclear initiative that led to the embarrassing sight of Turkey, a member of the UN Security Council in 2009-10, voting against tougher sanctions on Iran. And its increasingly strident attacks on its once-close ally, Israel, have angered not only the Israelis but also many Americans, especially after the Turkish-led flotilla that tried to “relieve” the siege of Gaza this summer.

But wait a moment. Brazil was nice to Iran, without anyone doubting its Western credentials. On Israel, Mr Erdogan has certainly at times played to the Arab street. But many of Turkey’s complaints, such as over settlement-building in the West Bank, are hardly controversial. It may have been ill-judged for the government to have been involved with those who launched the Gaza flotilla, but this would not have turned into such a catastrophe had the Israelis not killed nine people on board the leading ship. More fundamentally, the Turkish government is doing what democracies tend to do: reflecting its people’s views. Many Muslims think the Palestinians have been ill-treated. From an Israeli viewpoint it is no doubt awkward to have its human-rights record questioned by an elected prime minister, rather than by the usual Arab dictators. But who would America rather hear as a Muslim voice? The autocrats in Egypt and Saudi Arabia? The clerics in Iran?

The Europeans are also in a funk-over Turkey’s possible membership of the EU. Negotiations have formally been going on for over five years. No country that has begun such talks has ever failed to be offered membership. But the leaders of France, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands seem dead set against Turkish entry, as is much of their public opinion. The unresolved Cyprus dispute seems a near-insuperable roadblock. Yet if the EU chooses to exclude its own China, it will be turning away the fastest-growing economy in its neighbourhood. It will also lose any hope of influencing the region to its east. At a time when many Europeans fret about being ignored in the world, this would be an historic mistake.

How Western are they?

The common excuse for these follies is the claim that Turkey is not really Western-and is becoming ever less so. Once again, Mr Erdogan has done some unhelpful things. Critics note that, ever since his mildly Islamist Justice and Development (AK) party came to power in 2002, it has been engaged in a battle with the Kemalist secular establishment. He is intolerant of dissent, shown in his battles with critical media commentators. And he is increasingly impatient with the EU.

Yet fears of Turkey turning into the next Iran are absurd. A new tolerance of the headscarf in universities does not imply a sudden lurch into stoning adulteresses. Mr Erdogan’s run-ins with his opponents have certainly created a polarised society; he should adopt a more conciliatory tone if he wins re-election next June. But his opponents in the media still write their critical columns. It is troublemakers in the army who have posed a greater threat to democracy in recent times.

In short, Turkey is heading in a good direction. It remains a shining (and rare) example in the Muslim world of a vibrant democracy with the rule of law and a thriving free-market economy. Much though Western leaders would like to turn the argument into one about Turkey, the real question is for them. Are Americans and Europeans prepared to accept Turkey for what it is: a Muslim democracy, with a different culture and diplomatic posture, but committed to economic and political liberalism? This newspaper hopes the answer is yes.

Former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi Says Israeli Policies are Manifestly Evil

Interview by Kourosh Ziabari for Intifada Palestine

Philip Giraldi is a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Now, he chairs the Council for the National Interest as the Executive Director. CNI is a nonprofit organization that advocates for the transformation of United States’ Middle East policy.

As a CIA officer, Giraldi served in different countries including Turkey, Italy, Germany and Spain. He is now a Francis Walsingham Fellow at The American Conservative Defense Alliance. He has appeared on several radio and TV programs including Good Morning America, MSNBC, NPR, Fox News, BBC, Al-Jazeera and 60 Minutes.

Giraldi works with the American Conservative magazine as a contributing editor and writes a regular column for the Antiwar website. He is an outspoken critic of the hawkish policies of the United States and has publicly decried Washington’s unconditional support for the state of Israel.

Philip Giraldi joined me in an exclusive interview to discuss the latest developments of the Middle East, the prospect of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the possibility of a peaceful compromise between Iran and the United States and the impact of Israeli lobby on the long-term policies of the White House.

Kourosh Ziabari: Why is the Israeli lobby so powerful, influential and authoritative? Almost all of the major media conglomerates in the United States own to well-off Jews who are committed to maintaining the interests of the state of Israel in the U.S. Some experts say that Israel is the representative of the United States in the Middle East region, but some others suggest that it’s Israel which determines the future of political developments in the United States. What’s your take on that?

Philip Giraldi: The Israel Lobby is so powerful because it deliberately set out to establish control over key elements in the United States. It has demonstrated a number of times thatpoliticians who are perceived as being unfriendly to Israel will face serious problems in being reelected because the Lobby mobilizes to provide money and media support to opponents.This means that congress is afraid to oppose anything that Israel and its Lobby wants. The same holds true for the presidency. Every presidential candidate must be seen as friendly to Israel or he will be attacked in the media and denied millions of dollars in political contributions, making it a safer option to support Israel. Finally, pro-Israeli interests control much of the media and, more important, dominate the opinion and editorial pages, making the only narrative that most Americans hear about the Middle East highly favorable to Israel and highly critical of all Israel’s enemies. As a result, Israel is able to control U.S. foreign policy as it relates to the Middle East and also much of the Muslim world.

KZ: The recent call by the Iranian President on framing a fact-finding group to probe into the 9/11 attacks sparked intense controversy around the United States. Is it because the United States considers 9/11 a red line which should not be crossed?

PG: Many Americans believe that 9/11 was never properly investigated. Some believe that the U.S. and, or Israeli governments were actually involved. The Federal government does not want the case to be reopened because a truly open investigation might reveal things that it would like to keep hidden. I do not know what exactly those things might be, but, at a minimum, there was a high level of incompetence within the government in the lead up to the attacks, both by Democrats and Republicans.

KZ: The former Italian President had once said that Mossad had played a role in the 9/11 attacks. Is there any convincing evidence that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks? Can we rely on some implications including the five dancing Israelis who were seen cheering while the Twin Towers collapsed, or the closure of Zim Shipping Company’s headquarters at the World Trade Center two week before the 9/11 attacks?

PG: Most intelligence officers believe that Israel, which was conducting a massive and illegal spy operation inside the U.S. aimed at Arabs living here, knew at least parts of the 9/11 conspiracy. It did not share that information and it is also clear that leading Israeli politicians welcomed the attacks because they made Washington a totally committed ally in full agreement with the Israeli view of Islamic terrorism. The Israel view, i.e. that anyone hostile to Israel is a terrorist, has done great damage to the United States because it has created enemies where no enemies previously existed.

KZ: What’s your take on the exercise of double standards by the U.S. over Israel’s nuclear issue?

PG: There is no justification for Washington’s hypocrisy over Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Israel should be held to the same standard as everyone else, but the action of the Israeli Lobby means that it will never be accountable for anything as long as Washington is in a position to protect it.

KZ: As someone who has closely worked with one of the most sensitive parts of the U.S. government, do you like the continuation of belligerence and hostility between Iran and the United States? Are these two nations fated to be at odds forever? Can you foresee promising horizons of reconciliation and friendship?

PG: I do not believe that Washington and Tehran are natural enemies. I believe that they have been turned into enemies by the media and the activity of the Israel Lobby. Unfortunately, that situation will not change until Washington completely overturns its policies in the Middle East, something that might not happen in our lifetimes. Many young Iranians, the bulk of the population, do not harbor any real hostility towards the United States and if the policies were to change I believe the two countries could again become friendly.

KZ: Is it plausible to be a former CIA officer at the same time as being an outspoken critic of the U.S. administration? You’ve been quite forthright in your criticism of the U.S. foreign policy, especially with regards to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Haven’t been any pressure on you to soften your tone or retreat from your stance?

PG: I have never been pressured to soften my criticism of the US government’s foreign and security policies. There are many former intelligence officers who have also been highly critical of developments since 9/11. It is because intelligence officers quickly recognize lies when they hear them and are not very tolerant of a government that lies its way to war.

KZ: Iran marked the 20th anniversary of the conclusion of 8-year war with Iraq last month. Iranians well remember that it was the United States and its European allies, who persuaded, equipped, funded and aided Saddam Hussein in invading Iran. 20 years later, they came together to topple the very Saddam they had supported in war with Iran. Saddam killed more than 400,000 Iranians. My uncle was one of them. Can you put yourself in the place of an Iranian citizen who witnessed the war? What would be your feeling then?

PG: For the United States, the support of Saddam Hussein against Iran was a quid pro quo that goes back to the holding of the U.S. Embassy hostages in Tehran after the Islamic revolution. It was revenge pure and simple in hopes that Iraq would prove victorious and bring down the Iranian government. As an Iranian, you have a right to be outraged by what happened but the Embassy seizure was also outrageous. The U.S. response was, as it often is, disproportional and I am ashamed of my government’s support of wars to fix political disputes.

KZ: and for the final question, how do you estimate the prospect of Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

PG: There is no hope for resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict as long as the United States continues to permit the Israelis to expand and commit crimes against humanity directed towards the Palestinian people. Evil is evil no matter how you try to dress it up and the Israeli policies are manifestly evil. The Palestinians cannot ever accept a peace settlement that requires being held in a large outdoor prison camp by the Israelis supported by the United States.

This Is How US Agents Sneak Into Pakistan

For a few hundred dollars, low-paid border guards are allowing entry into Pakistan to spies and agents of multiple foreign intelligence agencies operating in Afghanistan. In this story and video, see how a US lady entered Pakistan through Torkham on Saturday, Mar. 13, 2010, without visa and without the knowledge of Pakistani intelligence officers posted there. This happens in a country that faces terrorism exported by both US-controlled Afghanistan and its Indian ally.

BY SYED FAWAD ALI SHAH:

TORKHAM, Pakistan-Rampant corruption and a weak Pakistani state are helping the entry into Pakistan of spies and terrorists from multiple foreign intelligence agencies operating in Afghanistan. Almost all terror in Pakistan is coming from Afghanistan.

This American woman tried to sneak into Pakistan through Torkham on Afghan border today, Saturday, Mar. 13, 2010, around early afternoon. She was wearing an Afghan woman’s burqa and apparently spoke local dialects. She would have successfully crossed into Pakistan safely hidden among a group of Afghan women but something about her demeanor raised the suspicion of a Pakistani border guard.

However, the border guards, known as Khasadars, made sure that Pakistani intelligence officers posted in the area are not told about this arrest. Torkham is considered a hot station within Kasadar tribal force circles. With salaries that go less than PKR 10,000 per month [less than US$ 130], major checkpoints such as Torkham provide an extra source of income for the Khasadars through bribes from travelers.

The guards kept the woman in a room for about thirty minutes and then let her enter Pakistan in her burqa. She paid the Khasadar guards a handsome amount of money as bribe. According a source in the Khasadar Force who witnessed the whole thing, the woman didn’t panic. She appeared composed and familiar with the ways of the border guards. She knew what to do in such a situation.

Thanks to my contacts in the border force, I was able to make a cell phone video of her passport while the Khasadar chief at the checkpoint talked to her.

Her name on the passport was Zohra Rehmati, which makes her an American from either Iranian or Tajik-Afghan extract.

Over the past four years, a large number of US agents have entered Pakistan through Afghanistan. Several have been arrested in different parts of the country disguised as Afghan men, complete with beards and Turbans and fluent in Pashto, Dari and Urdu. Unfortunately, much of this covert American activity was sanctioned first by the Musharraf government and now by the pro-US Zardari-Haqqani combine in the incumbent government.

Ms. Rehmati, if that is her real name, may or may not be a CIA operative, or one of its private contractors associated with either DynCorp or Xe International. But such lax security in a country that is a target of terrorism, DynCorp managed to create quite a covert network in Pakistan before being busted by Pakistani security last year. DynCorp remains in Pakistan, thanks to backing from both the US Embassy in Islamabad and the pro-US government, despite repeated attempts by the country’s security officials to force the US defense contractor to wrap up its operations here. Xe International, formerly known as Blackwater, also operated in Pakistan until 2005 before being moved to Afghanistan, according to an earlier report in the New York Times. But going by the number of incidents in Pakistan over the past couple of years where US private agents were seen operating in major Pakistani cities, it is safe to say that both contractors continue to quietly operate in Pakistan in one

Private contractors help give CIA the benefit of deniability if an agent is arrested on foreign territory.

CIA has been known to send US citizens of foreign descent to their home countries for espionage.

The most recent example is Roxana Saberi, an Iranian-American who was busted in Tehran carrying sensitive documents handed to her by an informant. Ms. Saberi was sent to Iran posing as a journalist. CIA even managed to get her newspaper accreditation from a major American newspaper. The US government was embarrassed at the arrest because Ms. Saberi was arrested red handed receiving official documents from a contact.

In Pakistan, a State that is falling apart at the seams, with no central figure or department to control the rot, is providing the perfect environment for meddling in the country not only by the United States, UK, India and other established powers based in Afghanistan, but also by a puppet regime like that of Mr. Hamid Karzai and his spymasters, who in eight years are in a good position today to wreak mayhem inside Pakistan while the politicians in Islamabad and the military in Rawaplpindi have little recourse beyond words of appeasement or caution during closed-door meetings with foreign powers in Afghanistan that are never translated into action to reestablish Pakistan’s writ domestically and in the region.

Mr. Shah is an independent journalist based in Peshawar.

Islam and non-violence

“The Christian God is a being of terrific character – cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust,” Thomas Jefferson, US President (1801-1809).

“Now go and attack Amalek and utterly destroy all they have and do not spare them. Kill both men and women, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey,” 1 Sam 15:3. Similar violent commands can be found in Hebrew Bible in Deut, 2:30-35, 7: 1-2, 7:16 and Jer. 13:14, etc.

“Thus were both the daughters of Lot (a Biblical prophet) with child by their father,” Genesis 19:36

The born-again Jew, the former US secretary of state, Madelein Albright, was asked by Lesley Stahl that (USrael) sanctions (against Iraq) has killed half a million children – more than children killed in Heroshima as result of US nuclear attack. “Do you believe it’s worth the price?” Albright’s respose was: “I think it’s a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it”. Interestingly, Albright could hold her tears on TV while mentioning the death of seven Jewish girls along Jordanian border at the hands of a Jordanian soldier in March 1997.

The stereotype image of Muslim fanatics crashing planes into high-rise buildings and blowing up innocent people by their suicidal actions – are created by the Islamophobe writers working for the Zionist-controlled mainstream media and the pro-Israel government officials and the intelligence agencies – all working for the benefit of the Zionist entity in the Middle East. The great majority of the terrorist activites for which Muslims are blamed – were in fact Israeli false-flag operations meant to demonize the Muslims and Islam in general.

Israel was never mentioned by name in the Bible until the Zionist created Scofield Study Bible which created the ‘divine’ support for the creation of the Zionist state as the fulfilment of the Biblical prophecy. Scofield Bible is the ‘religious inspiration’ for the majority of 70 million pro-Israel Zionist Christians.

Holy Qur’an commands non-violence when Allah says: “There is no compulsion in religion”. However, Holy Qyr’an also says that Allah will not have Mercy on the unrepentant Evildoers in order to defend His Attribute of being the enforcer of ‘Absolute Justice’. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also carried out a non-violent Jihad (struggle) for first thirteen years of his prophethood to bring reformation to the Makkan pagan society. He and his followers suffered so much humiliation and torture in Makkah that some of them had to take refuge in the nearby Christian Kingdom of Habsha. The Prophet (pbuh) himself took self-exile in Medinah on the request of his followers in Mdinah. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tried for two years to seek cooperation from the followers of other Abrahamic religion (Israelite) who dominated the city as traders and money-lenders. They took the message of Islam (usury, slavery, greed and treason) as a great threat to their power. Therefore, they collaborated with the enemies of Islam by funding them. As a result, City’s Chief Rabbi, based on Torah’s command – gave the Muslims the right for the expulsion of the three Jewish tribes – though two of the Prophet’s (pbuh) wives belonged to Jewish tribes.

The misunderstood word ‘Jihad’ – is NOT equivalent to western Crusades or America’s war on everyone who refuses to accept its dictation. Islamic Jihad mean “struggle to understand one’s purpose of creation”. In Islamic Shari’ah there are six kinds of Jihad. Five involves in purification of one’s religious, social and political actions – as commanded by Allah in Holy Qur’an and practiced by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) during his life. The sixth Jihad is to use force to stop evilness being constantly committed after all non-violent resistance has failed. All religions and the international law allow people to fight the resist the military occupation by every possible mean including the armed resistance. That’s what some Muslim groups are doing in occupied Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Philippines.

The modern history the greatest non-violent movement was 1979 Isranian Revolution lead by Imam Khomeini, which toppled the pro-USrael dynasty of Reza Shah Pahlavi (d.1980 in Cairo and is buried next to King Farouk in the Al-Rifai mosque) without a shot or the acts of hooliganism are being carried out by the US-funded protest marches against Ahmadinejad’s re-election in June 2009. In June 2008 – it was revealed that a 2007 Bush administration directive provided for an additional US$400 million to expand US operations in Islamic Iran – one priority of which was described as “supporting the opposition groups in a bid to undermine the current regime”.

Randall Amster PhD, in his article “What the Muslim World Can Teach Us about Nonviolence”, wrote:

“It might be a bad dream, but it feels real enough. The mantle of warfare slips seamlessly from one president to another, from one party to another, from one decade to another, from one generation to another. The impetus of national aggression transcends race, creed, socio-economic status, age and geography. Our collective sin is the bald lie that we all live and perpetuate from moment to moment, year upon year, from our past to the days ahead: the misbegotten belief that we are a peaceful people.

Yes, we are good and peaceful, and they (whatever “they” we’re focused on today) are ruthless and evil. Institutionally, these values are operationalized every day. Drone attacks, propped-up murderers and dictators, weapons manufacturing and distribution, clandestine death squads, full-on warfare, neglect of starvation and disease, collateral damage, structural adjustments, black holes of torture, targeting civilians – this is the essence of our foreign policy…… Please don’t get stuck on the standard lines that “all these people understand is violence” and “their religion is based on violence.” If we are to judge Muslims as a whole based on the actions of a small sample of fanatics, then we have to apply the same gaze to ourselves, and it isn’t a pretty reflection looking back….”

Is There A Religious War Being Waged Against Islam?

The Muslims are under attack both militarily and ideologically – that is self evident and a fact that only hard-line Zionist and Western ideological propagandists seek to dismiss.

The real question is not whether we are being attacked but why.

The main narrative that supportive left wing liberals put forward is to steal oil from the Muslim world. This sounds plausible in Iraq, but how does that explain Palestine, Afghanistan or the backing of Israel to attack Lebanon which Condi Rice spookily called ‘Birth Pangs’ of a new Middle East?

Why sanction Iran or seek regime change there when it sells oil at the market rate already? The oil lobby in Washington, ‘Big Oil’, lobbied and lost against the neo-con plan for Iraq, suggesting Big Oil had nothing to gain from a destroyed and destabilised Iraq. Something was missing and oil security alone could not explain it.

A possible clue was given in George Bush’s speech when he spoke of a ‘Crusade’. It was quickly brushed off by the corporate Media as a ‘mistake’. Others however believed it was something more sinister and far more intelligent than a slip of the tongue. It was, in fact, a ‘dog whistle’ to Christian right wing voters who were seeking exactly that: a Crusade against the Muslims to hasten the return of the Messiah and the final battle between good and evil.

If that was indeed the first clue, more were to follow. The largest private army in the world, Blackwater, was then sent to ‘stabilise’ the ‘freedom’ America had given to the Muslims. It later emerged that it was headed (again by chance some would argue) by a devout Christian who hired those who followed his faith.

His mission, he told his high ranking team, was to ‘wipe the Muslims off the faith of this earth’.

The neo-conservatives, of course, that paid for and sent Blackwater into the Muslim world were, you guessed it, by-and large, Jewish and Christian Zionists.

Yes, there were pieces of evidence littered everywhere that those who were pushing for war in Muslim countries in particular held deep-seated religious convictions, not just financial ones. Remember how Tony Blair famously remarked ‘How God would judge him’ when talking of the invasion of Iraq?

General Wesley Clark reported in his latest book that the White House had drawn up a list of exclusively Muslim nations to target as enemies over the next four years (Afghanistan, Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and the Sudan).

Strange stories surfaced about the military and its Christian revival. In Iraq for example, a government-paid chaplain had been baptizing American soldiers as Christians in exchange for giving them water to take showers.

Others were more chilling. Whilst serving under Bush, General William G. Boykin believed that these wars were being fought against Satan himself. In public, this military officer and aide to Bush insisted that the mission of the American military was to defeat Islam in the name of Christianity. The Bush White House refused to distance itself from Boykin’s claim and defended Boykin’s appropriation of the American military for religious purposes as “free speech”.

Preaching in his military uniform before a religious congregation in Oregon, General Boykin proclaimed, “We’re a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian. Did I say Judeo-Christian? Yes. Judeo-Christian.”

He continued, “The enemy that has come against our nation is a spiritual enemy. His name is Satan. And if you do not believe that Satan is real, you are ignoring the same Bible that tells you about God.”

Just in case you did not know who Satan was, he explained, comparing himself to Muslims, General Boykin offered this taunt “My God is bigger than his.” His other comments in further interviews proved his barely concealed hatred towards Muslims and Islam.

To that same congregation, still in military uniform, General Boykin said of George W. Bush that, “He was appointed by God” to be leader of the United States.

And what was he appointed to do? Boykin expands, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, we will never abandon Israel, we will never walk away from our commitment to Israel because our roots are there. Our religion came from Judaism and therefore these radicals will hate us forever.”

But he is not of course the only religious fanatic in a position within the military establishment of the US.

James Woolsey the Director of Central Intelligence in a little known speech in Israel talking about Iran and Syria was quoted saying:

“If we use force, we should use it decisively, not execute some surgical strike. It is a shame that Israel and the US have so far failed in participating in a move against Syria and Iran last summer’. He paused. ‘Finally’ he said looking into the eyes of the audience, ‘we must not forget who we are. We, as Jews and Christians are heirs of the tradition deriving from Judaism.’

The most recent and perhaps the most telling clue that those behind the wars being waged and being pushed were in fact waging a Christian and Jewish Crusade against the Muslim world was a small under-reported story that appeared on the ABC news website.

It revealed that the guns used by American forces had Bible codes on them, referring to the digits imprinted onto the gun sights that referred to passages in the Bible. The codes had been put there before Iraq they claimed. Perhaps so, but again at the very least it showed the link between the military and the Christian right, and to the Christian right Muslims are the enemy of Jesus.

Of course it is not just driven by right wing Christians but also a growing militancy within the Jewish community.

Whether or not this ideological and military war is driven solely by religious extremists within American & European political circles is a matter of debate. However no one can deny that they are playing a large and secretive part in the push for war. The question is how large a part it is.

The real religious extremism, then, does not primarily come from the Muslims who are taking up arms in a bid to stop their own occupation and slaughter but the trillion dollar war machine run by men in suits who talk of ‘freedom’ in public but who follow their religious books of war in secret.

For further research into this we recommend the superb books Israel Clash of Civilisation by Jonathan Cooke and The Last Crusade by Barbara Victor. Alternatively, come to our discussion groups around the UK and discuss this and other matters…we would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

The United States, Israel And The Retreat Of Freedom

By Ali Abunimah
19 January, 2010
The Electronic Intifada

Epitomizing freedom: an Israeli soldier aims a gas grenade launcher at a Palestinian demonstrator in the occupied West Bank. (Oren Ziv/ActiveStills)

The world is suffering from a “freedom recession” according to a new report from the American think tank Freedom House (“Freedom in the World 2010,” 12 January 2010).

Established in 1941, Freedom House markets itself as “an independent watchdog organization that supports democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and human rights.” Its board of directors, chaired by a former US deputy secretary of defense, is a who’s who of Democratic and Republican former US government officials, prominent neoconservatives and Israel lobby stalwarts such as Tom Dine, former executive director of AIPAC. In 2007, more than two-thirds of its $16 million budget came directly from the United States government.

Not surprisingly then, Freedom House’s report reveals more about the groupthink of the US establishment — especially with respect to its continued efforts to dominate the Middle East and ensure Israel’s supremacy — than it does about the countries surveyed.

Focusing on two categories of “freedom” — “civil liberties” and “political rights” — the report divides the world’s 194 countries into three groups: “free” (89), “partly free” (58), and “not free” (47).

Interestingly, Freedom House records “declines in freedom” in “countries that had registered positive trends in previous years, including Bahrain, Jordan, Kenya and Kyrgyzstan.” Jordan was one of only six countries to move from the “partly free” category to “not free.” What does it say about US “democracy promotion” that Jordan, Bahrain and Kyrgyzstan — major political and military operating bases for the “war on terror” and US-led occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan — have become less free as their dependence on the US has increased?

Sadly, while the report frets that “the most powerful authoritarian regimes [such as Russia and China] have become more repressive, more influential in the international arena, and more uncompromising,” it has nothing at all to say about the US role in restricting freedom and spreading mayhem around the world. Sometimes this is truly absurd as the report points to “continued terrorist and insurgent violence in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen,” but fails to note that two of these countries are under direct US military occupation (Afghanistan and Iraq) while the US is intervening militarily in the other three. (The report presents a mixed picture for the US-occupied countries; both are “Not Free” but Iraq allegedly became more free during 2009 and Afghanistan less free.)

Rather than offer any introspection on the inverse relationship between US efforts at global domination on the one hand, and the spread of freedom on the other, the report’s overview essay concludes with a call for more vigorous intervention: “The United States and other democracies should take the initiative to meet the authoritarian challenge …”

Freedom House’s approach to Israel provides the starkest example of the abyss into which liberal thinking has fallen on the relationship between colonialism and freedom. Israel, we are told, “remains the only country in the [Middle East] region to hold a Freedom in the World designation of Free.” We are informed euphemistically that “The beginning of the year [2009] was marred by fierce fighting between the Israeli military and the Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip.”

There is no mention of the deliberate targeting by Israel of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure and the resulting massive destruction, and death and injury to thousands of Palestinian civilians. Nothing is said of the denial of fundamental political, civil and human rights, or freedom of movement, association and education to four million Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation and siege in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. There is no mention of the systematic discrimination, and social and political exclusion faced by 1.5 million Palestinian citizens of Israel, nor of the denial of the right of return of millions of Palestinian refugees.

There is an acknowledgment that “Hundreds of people were arrested during demonstrations against the Gaza conflict, and the parliamentary elections committee passed a measure banning two political parties from national elections, though the ban was quickly overturned by the Supreme Court.”

Despite this, on the tables accompanying the report, “Israel” receives the highest score of “1″ for political rights, and a very respectable “2″ for civil liberties — on a par with Italy and Japan. The overall impression is of minor glitches that could occur in any exemplary “Western” democracy.

Then on a separate table of “Disputed Territories” we find “Israeli-occupied territories” and “Palestinian Authority-administered territories” both listed. Both are given the designation “Not Free” and nearly the lowest scores for political rights and civil liberties. There is no narrative to explain who is responsible for this dire state of affairs. This convenient separation allows for all the ugly realities of what “free” Israel does in the occupied territories to be pushed out of sight and ignored.

But in what scheme can Israel be awarded freest of the free status when for two-thirds of its existence, since 1967, it has ruled directly over millions of disenfranchised Palestinians through violence and repression? The idea that the political regime in Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries can be looked at as a “democracy” even while the situation in the occupied territories can be criticized as undemocratic is very widespread among Israelis and American liberals.

Former US President Jimmy Carter has been excoriated (and recently forced to apologize) by the Israel lobby for calling the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip “apartheid.” Yet even he had simultaneously claimed that within its pre-1967 boundaries, “Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment of all citizens whether Arab or Jew.” True, Palestinian citizens of Israel can vote and are accorded civil rights far wider than their Palestinian counterparts in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But even Israeli Jews commonly concede that Palestinian citizens suffer systematic and severe disadvantage and total exclusion from key political decisions about the country.

Israeli Jewish leftists (a rapidly dwindling group) and Western liberal sympathizers tend to view Israel within its 1967 boundaries as a flawed democracy — perfectible with a reallocation of resources and less discrimination against non-Jews, even as they remain fully invested in maintaining Israel as a “Jewish state” with a Jewish demographic majority.

They view the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as the original sin that corrupted a purer Zionist vision, and thus remain fixated on the chimera of “ending the occupation” through a “two-state solution.” Once this nirvana is reached, so they believe, Israel can resume its destiny as a liberal democratic state among others.

But it is not just the discrimination and limited rights of Palestinian citizens and other non-Jews that undermine the claim that Israel — considered separately from the West Bank and Gaza Strip — is a democracy. Nor is it even that Israeli settler-citizens in the West Bank have full voting rights for the Israeli parliament while Palestinians in the same territory have none. It is that “Israel” and the “occupied territories” are two sides of the same coin.

Israel’s 1948 and subsequent ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and ongoing repressive rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not exceptional or temporary conditions. They are constitutive of the situation that allows Israeli Jews to currently claim they live in a (flawed) liberal democracy.

To be clear, the argument is not that conditions in Israel and the occupied territories are indistinguishable; rather it is that they form a single interdependent system. Israeli Jews can “freely” elect a Jewish government in Israel only because most Palestinians have already been ethnically cleansed. Thus the maintenance of this “liberal democratic” Jewish space depends directly on the permanent denial of fundamental rights to Palestinians.

Palestinian citizens of Israel — who form 20 percent of the population within Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries — are, as noted, accorded limited liberal rights. This helps boost Israel’s external image as a “wonderful democracy,” but if the exercise of these rights ever threatens Jewish domination, they are curtailed. Examples include the constant legal harassment of Palestinian members of the Knesset, and various legislative projects for loyalty oaths or to ban commemoration of the Nakba, the 1948 ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians. Overwhelming Israeli Jewish opposition to calls by Palestinians in Israel for the country to be a “state of all its citizens” is an indication that Israeli Jews value their own supremacy over democracy.

Israel has sometimes been described as an “ethnocracy” — a state where one ethnic group dominates and enjoys a wide range of liberal rights which are denied to others. But these liberal rights depend directly on the successful repression of the non-privileged ethnic group(s). As rebellions by the disenfranchised require ever greater levels of repression and violence to control, the repression must also be turned inwards.

In recent days, Israel extended for six months a ban on Sheikh Raed Salah, an Israeli citizen, and leader of the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, from traveling to Jerusalem, Israel’s ostensible capital, where he had been exercising his civil rights to campaign against Israeli efforts to “Judaize” the city. (Separately Salah was also sentenced to nine months in prison for allegedly assaulting a police officer during a 2007 demonstration; a conviction condemned as political persecution by other Palestinian leaders inside Israel.)

Such repression does not only affect non-Jews. The United Nations-commissioned Goldstone report noted “that actions of the Israeli government” within Israel, during and after Israel’s invasion of Gaza last winter, “including interrogation of political activists, repression of criticism and sources of potential criticism of Israeli military actions, in particular nongovernmental organizations, have contributed significantly to a political climate in which dissent with the government and its actions in the Occupied Territories is not tolerated.”

These means of “internal” repression resemble the movement bans, censorship and other forms of harassment that the South African apartheid regime began to deploy in its late stages against dissenting whites, eroding the “liberal democratic” space they had for so long enjoyed at the expense of the country’s black majority.

Maintaining a Jewish-controlled “liberal democratic” regime in Palestine/Israel is incompatible with the exercise of the inalienable rights of Palestinians. It emphatically depends on their permanent violation, especially the right of return. But the exercise of the inalienable rights of Palestinians — an end to discrimination against Palestinian citizens, dismantling the 1967 occupation regime, and the right of return for refugees — is fully compatible with Israeli Jews exercising the human, civil, political and cultural rights to which they are unquestionably entitled.

As a first step toward imagining and creating such a framework, we have to ditch the absurd idea reproduced by Freedom House, that Israeli Jews can epitomize perfect freedom while imposing perfect tyranny and dispossession on a greater number of human beings who belong to the same country.

Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.

The terrorist Arab TVs

Americans and the European countries love to pat their backs for being the true supporters of the so-called ‘freedom of speech’. However, their self-praise is based on double standard.

For example, one can say or write anything against Islam or even Christianity while living inside a ‘freedom of speech’ Western country – but would be called a ‘hatemonger’ or ‘anti-semite’ or ‘Jew hater’ – if he dares criticize Israel or Zionism – in the same ‘freedom of speech’ Western country.

A similar double standard applies to American ‘democracy’ as well. When its serves Israel’s interests in the Arab world – regardless of the principle of governess (kingdom, dictatorship, etc.) – they turn to be ‘good examples’. However, when it doesn’t – the whole concept of American deomcracy changes too – as is the case in occupied Palestine, Lebanon, Venezuela, Turkey and Iran.

Last month, US Congress passed a bill by a vote of 395-3 (that shows you the power of Israel Lobby), which would require “the US President to file an annual report to Congress on anti-American incitement ti violence in the Middle East media.” The bill was sponsored by Gus Bilirakis (R-Florida), Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and lleana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida). The bill singled out Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV and Al-Rafidayn TV and Hizbollah’s Al-Manar TV. Once okeyed by the Senate and signed by Barack Obama – these and other Arab media outlets relaying news critical to Zionist entity would be sanctioned under the ‘Specially Designated Global Terrorist’ Act – which according to Jerusalem Post “would also affect the satellite carrier which broadcast them”.

Interestingly, most of the TV program used as ‘the evidence’ – are based on the historical Israel-Palestine or Israel-Hizbollah context rather than preaching terrorism against the US. The ‘terrorist list’ includes Al-Aqsa’s children program ‘Tomorrow’s Pioneers’ in which the cartoon characters like teddy bear and a bumblebee (see video below) are used to “indoctrinate youth and incite violence against Israel”. It looks Fatah likes the bill too. It has called for the boycott of the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya satellite networks for being baised towards it.

Lebanese president Michel Suleiman has criticized the bill during his meeting with visiting US Senator John McCain: “President Suleiman asked that Washington backtrack on its decision to ban certain television channels including Al-Manar,” statement issued after the conclusion of the meeting on Friday. John McCain is heading a Congressmen group on visit to Lebanon currently. The other lebanese leaders who criticized Congress decision included Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who in his letter to Congress Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated: “The bill issued by your Congress undermines our sovereigntyas well as the sovereignty of many other countries and damages the principles of freedom and civilian rights and therefore, further complicates the relationship.”

Franklin Lamb PhD writes from Beirut: “Al-Manar is being singled out by the US Israel Lobby precisely because it excels as a responsible TV channel that demands and applies the highest industry standards and Israelis and western viewers trust is news broadcasts more than they do much of their own media.” In suppressing Al-Manar, the US Congress is saying that it shall determine what the American public can be trusted to know. During the Cold War, when the USSR dedicated itself to the destruction of the West, the US declined to block foreign media.

The main ‘evidence’ offered by the US State Department for Al-Manar being ‘anti-semite’ – for criticizing Israel – was its 2003 airing of the Syrian produced 29 part TV series, The Diaspora. The popular series trace the history of the founding of Zionism, Jewish collaboration with Nazis, Jews behind Communism and the bloody Russian Revolution and the establishment of the Zionist state in 1948. Some of the historical narrations, naturally, don’t follow the history taught in Israel. In reality, Al-Manar management did drop the series and apologized to Jewish people, saying that “it knows the difference between Judaism and Zionism.” The followers of Moses along with the followers of Christ – are called “The People of Book” in Holy Qur’an and considered equal to Muslims in cases of piety.

In reality, the West is trying to contain Islamic resistance that has unsettled its compliance and threatens Zionist entity. If by Western standard apolitical, docile Islam is the moderate element to be supported, then Hamas and Hizbollah by definition become the ‘extremist’ to be opposed and ultimately eliminated.

Bilal El-Amine’s article in Red Pepper magazine, titled Home-grown in Lebanon, is worth reading for those who are interested to know the real Hizbollah which is masked by Israel Lobby. Only Israel, the US and Canada has declared Hizbollah “a terrorist organization” – though it has ministers in the current Lebanese government and the largest social network in the Middle East.

When Obama took his eyes off the Palestine ball

By Daoud Kuttab

For a few minutes on Sunday I wondered what would have happened if I was reading rather than listening to US President Barack Obama’s statement from Hawaii. The US president took time off his Christmas vacation to speak about the incident that occurred on the flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. Had I not heard his voice and seen his picture, I would have thought that the speaker was none other than former US president George W. Bush. What has happened to Obama in less than one year?

Unlike any of his previous speeches, Obama spoke totally out of script by using the word “terrorism” three times in a statement that lasted only a few minutes. Until this incident, Obama had preferred to use the word “radical” or “extremist” rather than much more politically loaded terrorists and terrorism.

What made the statement sound more like a Bush speech rather than an Obama one was the reference to the aim of the anti-American attackers. Obama had the following to say: “Those plotting against us seek not only to undermine our security, but also the open society and the values that we cherish as Americans.”

Obama clearly capitulated to forces on the right who have repeatedly described any attack against the US because of its foreign policy as attacks against America’s “open society” and American “values”.

What has happened to President Obama?

Is it simply that he was shocked that people around the world would dare attack America and American soil despite his own pro-world point of view? Is it that he is so angry that he is unable to realise that his own decision to ratchet up US presence in Afghanistan would inevitably produce anti-American violence?

During Obama’s visit to Cairo and his speech to the Muslim world, the attitude and tone of the son of an African-Muslim leader was widely welcomed. In fact worldwide reaction to Obama’s first months in office was extremely positive about the direction he plans to take on major foreign policy issues.

Obama’s appointment of Senator George Mitchell as his personal envoy to the Middle East and his call to close Guantanamo during his first year in office were seen as positive signs of a change. Obama’s public position as well as that of his secretary of state, in total opposition to any sort of Israeli settlement activities was seen as a breath of fresh air in Washington. But those signals would quickly crumble and US foreign policy, especially vis-à-vis Palestine, would retract back to its tilt in the direction of Israel. This was clear with the way Obama and Hilary Clinton retracted the call for a total settlement freeze. It was also obvious when the US exerted political pressure on the Palestinian president in an attempt to quash the Goldstone report. One would have expected jurist and internationalist Obama to support rather than oppose actions of an impeccable South African war crimes lawyer such as Richard Goldstone.

A search of what happened to Obama since his early hopeful days can be found in the president’s own rhetoric.

One issue that Obama and his personal envoy clearly articulated during those crucial first months was the need for the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state. The language used in support of such a political resolution was unprecedented because of its repeated emphasis that the creation of a Palestinian state is in the “national interest” of the United States of America.

During the presidential election campaign, candidate Barack Obama attacked. Bush for what he considered the mistaken launch of the wrong war against Iraq. Obama repeatedly stated that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Bush took his eyes off the ball by attacking Iraq rather than Afghanistan.

Surely Obama, who has been seen worldwide as having started on the right foot regarding the Middle East, was drawn away by the healthcare debates and the internal discussions on troop deployment. Others believe that Obama has allowed some pro-Israeli staff and advisers such Rahm Emanuel and Denis Ross to manage the Palestine-Israeli dossier. Adding more troops to an unwinnable war also doesn’t help to stem the motivations for continued attacks against Americans.

Observers of the Middle East conflict insist that the continuation of the plight of the Palestinians and the injustice they are suffering at the hands of the Israeli occupiers is a source of anger and frustration for millions around the world. Candidate Obama, as well as President Obama in his first 100 days, would not have taken his eyes off the ball. Preventing further attacks against American targets will not take place with hard power. Soft power and support of justice and neutrality in the Middle East will provide much better protection than body scanners and efficient intelligence work.

If 2009 is to be evaluated fairly in respect to the issue of Palestine, it would be safe to say that Obama took his eyes off an issue that is of national interest to the US.

‘Noble’ Obama’s Nobel Prize

GREG MATTHEWS-007

IF intentions are the criteria for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize then Obama was definitely one of the contenders. If the requirement is actual deeds and actions then perhaps he does not qualify. The President has been long on rhetoric and woefully short on action. It must, however, be admitted that the conflicts that overshadow peace are protracted and intractable.

President Obama’s speech in support of non-proliferation and disarmament remains a speech with no follow up action. If anything India has been encouraged on the nuclear track set for it with the Bush administrations hare brained and blatantly discriminatory Civil Technology Nuclear Agreement. Thanks to the precedence set, India is going ahead with other such agreements with Russia, Canada and Australia. The entire non-proliferation regime has been stood on its head. Obama should have used his diplomatic and oratory skills to put across his views if he really wants peace. As it is India is muddying the waters in Afghanistan and through Afghanistan in Pakistan and contributing to a situation in which many are dying. Messrs Mullen and McChrystal have been more outspoken!

Read Complete Article : http://gregmatthews007.newsvine.com/_news/2009/12/11/3618545-noble-obamas-nobel-prize

Germany attacks Israel settlement plan before visit

BERLIN, Nov 23 (Reuters) – Germany on Monday criticised Israeli plans to expand settlements in the occupied West Bank, in unusually explicit terms a week before the two countries’ leaders meet in Berlin.

The comments, made by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman, coincide with German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle’s first trip to Israel and are in response to Israel’s approval last week of plans to build 900 new homes near Jerusalem.

Germany has traditionally been softer than many other nations in its criticism of Israel due to the legacy of the Holocaust in which the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, but politicians have recently adopted a sharper tone.

“We greatly regret the recent decision to allow the construction of new homes in East Jerusalem,” spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm told reporters at a regular news conference.

“Settlement building in East Jerusalem is a major stumbling block on the road towards sustainable progress in the Middle East peace process,” he said, adding Merkel would discuss the matter with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next week.

Netanyahu and other top Israeli cabinet ministers travel to Berlin next week to meet their German counterparts.

U.S. President Barack Obama has also criticised Israel’s latest plans but Netanyahu rejects Washington’s calls for a settlement freeze, arguing Israel has to accommodate what he calls the “natural growth” of settler families.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said he will not renew negotiations with Israel unless it agrees to freeze settlement expansion.

(Reporting by Madeline Chambers; editing by Robin Pomeroy)

Israel’s Role In Destabilizing Pakistan

By Jeff Gates

When waging war “by way of deception,” the motto of the Israeli Mossad, well-timed crises play a critical agenda-setting role by displacing facts with what a target population can be deceived to believe. Thus the force-multiplier effect when staged crises are reinforced with pre-staged intelligence. In combination, the two often prove persuasive.

That duplicity was on display when U.S. lawmakers were induced to invade Iraq in response to the mass murder of 9-11. That crisis alone, however, was insufficient. Military mobilization required a “consensus” belief in Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi mobile biological weapons, Iraqi meetings in Prague, and so forth. Though all were false, those “facts” proved sufficient to induce an invasion of Iraq.

Such agent provocateur operations typically include collateral incidents as pre-staging for the intended main event. Ongoing incidents suggest a follow-on operation is underway. Recent history suggests we’ll see an orgy of evidence that plausibly indicts a pre-staged Evil Doer. Though Iran is an obvious candidate, Pakistan is also a possibility where outside forces have been destabilizing this nuclear Islamic nation with a series of violent incidents.

Will it be coincidence if the next war-like the last-is consistent with the expansive goals of Jewish nationalists?

The Indo-Israel Alliance

December 2007 saw the murder of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Mark Siegel, her Ashkenazim biographer and lobbyist, assured U.S. diplomats that her return was “the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact.”

President Pervez Musharraf had announced that resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict was essential to the resolution of conflicts in Iraq and neighboring Afghanistan. That comment made him a target for Tel Aviv.
During Bhutto’s two terms as prime minister, Pakistani support for the Taliban-then celebrated as the freedom-fighting Mujahadin-enabled her to wield influence in Afghanistan while also catalyzing conflicts in Kashmir. By fueling tension with India, she also fueled an Indo-Israel alliance as Tel Aviv provided New Delhi an emergency shipment of artillery shells during a conflict over the Kirpal region of Kashmir.

In January 2009, Israel delivered to India the first of three Phalcon Airborne Warning & Control Systems (AWACS) shifting the balance of conventional weapons in the region. That sale confirmed what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had earlier announced: “Our ties with India don’t have any limitation….” That became apparent in April when Israel signed a $1.1 billion agreement to provide India an advanced tactical air defense system developed by Raytheon, a U.S. defense contractor.

In August 2008, Ashkenazim General David Kezerashvili returned to Georgia from Tel Aviv to lead an assault on separatists in South Ossetia with the support of Israeli arms and training. That crisis ignited Cold War tensions between the U.S. and Russia, key members of the Quartet (along with the EU and the UN) pledged to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Little was said about the Israeli interest in a pipeline across Georgia meant to move Caspian oil through Turkey and on to Eurasia, using Israel as an intermediary while undermining Russia’s oil industry.

More Game Theory Warfare?

Bhutto’s murder ensured a crisis that replaced Musharaff with Asif Ali Zardari, her notoriously corrupt husband. By Washington’s alliance with Zardari, the U.S. could be portrayed as extending its corrupting influence in the region.

On August 7, 2008, the Zadari-led ruling coalition called for a no-confidence vote in Parliament against Musharraf just as he was departing for the Summer Olympics in Beijing. On August 8, heavy fighting erupted overnight in South Ossetia. As with many of the recent incidents in Pakistan, this violent event involved armed separatists.

But for pro-Israeli influence inside the U.S. government, would our State Department have installed in office the corrupt Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, leading to record-level poppy production? Is the heroin epidemic presently eroding Russian society traceable to Israel’s infamous game theory war-planners? [See "How Israel Wages Game Theory Warfare" and "Israel and 9-11" .]

In late November 2008, a terrorist attack in Mumbai, India’s financial center, renewed fears of nuclear tension between India and Pakistan. When the attackers struck a hostel managed by Chabad Lubavitch, an ultra-orthodox Jewish sect from New York, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced from Tel Aviv: “Our world is under attack.” By early December, Israeli journalists urged that we “fortify the security of Jewish institutions worldwide.”

Soon after “India’s 9-11″ was found to include operatives from Pakistan’s western tribal region, Zardari announced an agreement with the Taliban to allow Sharia law to govern a swath of the North West Frontier Province where Al Qaeda members reportedly reside.

Pakistani cooperation with “Islamic extremists” created the impression of enhanced insecurity and vulnerability for the U.S. and its allies. That perceived threat was marketed by mainstream media as proof of the perils of “militant Islam.”

With the Taliban and Al Qaeda portrayed as operating freely in a nuclear-armed Islamic state, Tel Aviv gained traction for its claim that a nuclear Tehran posed an “existential threat” to the Jewish state. Meanwhile Israel’s election of an ultra-nationalist/ultra-orthodox coalition further delayed resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

More delay is destined to evoke more extremism and gain more traction for those marketing the “global war on terrorism.” Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni argued after the assault in Mumbai: “Israel, India and the rest of the free world are positioned in the forefront of the battle against terrorists and extremism.”

In announcing that list, Islamabad was indicted by its exclusion even though Pakistan is dominantly Sunni and, unlike Iran’s Shi’a , abhors theocratic rule. The fact patterns suggest that Pakistan, not India, was the target of the murderous terrorism in Mumbai.

Advised by legions of Ashkenazim, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent mission to Islamabad was a diplomatic disaster. Abrasive and arrogant, America’s top diplomat reinforced Pakistani concerns that it is surrounded by hostile forces and that the nation is being set up to fail by Jewish nationalist advisers to a nation it considered an ally.

In a climate of heightened tensions, Clinton undermined U.S. interests, boosted the Israeli case for a global war on “Islamo-fascism” and lent credence to the Clash of Civilizations.

Destabilization as a Prequel to Domination

As Afghanistan and Pakistan join other nations being destabilized by outside forces, key questions must be answered:

Was India’s 9-11 a form of geopolitical misdirection meant to serve both the tactical goals of Muslim extremists and the strategic goals of Jewish nationalists? Who benefits-within Pakistan-from humiliation at the hands of India and the U.S.?

With Bhutto’s murder and Musharraf’s departure, the crisis in Mumbai drew Pakistani forces to the Indian border and away from the western tribal region. Was that the geostrategic goal of these well-timed crises? What role, if any, did Israel play?

Is delay in ending the occupation of Palestine part of an agent provocateur strategy? Was the latest assault on Gaza part of this strategy?

Each of these crises incrementally advanced the expansionist agenda of Colonial Zionists. Do these collateral incidents trace their origin to a common source? Is that source again using serial events to pre-stage a main event?

The public has an intuitive grasp of the source of this oft-recurring behavior. An October 2003 poll of 7,500 respondents in member nations of the European Union found that Israel was considered the greatest threat to world peace.

Is terrorism limited to “Islamo-fascists”? Are mass murders also deployed-from the shadows-as a strategy of geopolitical manipulation by those who Ashkenazim philosopher Hannah Arendt described as “Jewish fascists”?

Author, educator, attorney, merchant banker and adviser to policy-makers worldwide and U.S. Veteran

Jeff was counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance (1980-87) working for Democrat Russell Long, son of Louisiana Governor and U.S. Senator Huey P. Long. Specialist in employee benefits law-pensions, 401(k) plans, stock options, employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), et.al. Tax-qualified employee benefit plans accounted for $17 trillion in assets (April 2007) and more than half the funds in the hands of institutional investors. As of 2007, ESOPs were in place in 11,500 firms nationwide, covering 10% of the U.S. workforce and holding $800 billion in assets. Law practice w/ former Senators Russell Long, Democrat of Louisiana and Paul Laxalt, Republican of Nevada, chairman of Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaigns.

Global Jihad: Taliban still working for the CIA?

by Henry Marow, Phd

As President Obama ponders whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, there is mounting evidence the Taliban is supported by the CIA. If correct, the Afghan war is a charade with a hidden agenda.

First, we have many reports that unmarked helicopters are ferrying the Taliban to targets, and relieving them when cornered. “Just when the police and army managed to surround the Taliban in a village of Qala-e-Zaal district, we saw helicopters land with support teams,” an Afghan soldier said. “They managed to rescue their friends from our encirclement, and even to inflict defeat on the Afghan National Army.” This story, in one form or another, is being repeated throughout northern Afghanistan. Dozens of people claim to have seen Taliban fighters disembark from foreign helicopters in several provinces.

“I saw the helicopters with my own eyes,” said Sayed Rafiq from Baghlan-e-Markazi.

“They landed near the foothills and offloaded dozens of Taliban with turbans, and wrapped in patus (a blanket-type shawl).”

“Our fight against the Taliban is nonsense,” said the first soldier. “Our foreigner ‘friends’ are friendlier to the opposition.”

CIA AIR BASES IN PAKISTAN

Last February, there were reports of CIA airbases within Pakistan used for drones. If this is true, Pakistanis are being attacked by drones based in their own country. Obviously, the CIA helicopters supporting the Taliban could also come from these bases.

In May, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, told NBC News that the CIA and the U.S.-Funded Pakistani ISI intelligence service “has created the Taliban.”

Zardari said that the CIA and the ISI are still supporting the Taliban.

On Oct 29, 2009, Hillary Clinton told Pakistani officials that she found it “hard to believe” the Pakistani ISI didn’t know where Al Qaeda leaders were hiding. Her role is to maintain the illusion that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not CIA creations.

Just the day before, Oct. 18, four American citizens were caught photographing sensitive buildings in Islamabad. All four were dressed in traditional Afghan outfits and were found to be in possession of illegal weapons and explosives.

Their vehicles contained 2 M-16A1 rifles, 2 handguns and 2 hand-grenades. The police held the American citizens in custody for an hour before the Interior Ministry interfered and had them released without charge even as preliminary investigation was being carried out.

Clearly, the CIA could be involved in the recent attacks on Pakistani institutions. Who knows? In some cases, the “Taliban” could be CIA mercenaries.

In Feb. 2008, the British were caught planning a training camp for the Taliban in Southern Afghanistan supposedly to make them “change sides.” Karzai expelled two top British “diplomats.” This was all part of the ongoing charade.

THE HIDDEN AGENDA

All wars are charades. This is true of the world wars, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, 9-11 and the current war on terror. The human race is caught in a hologram controlled by the Illuminati Rothschild central bankers. War are necessary to keep the human race divided, distracted and dehumanized.Otherwise, we might focus on the fact that a small network of Masonic families, based in London, control government credit. Therefore, the central banking cartel incites wars using pawns like Bush and Obama, and intelligence agencies like the CIA, Mossad, MI-6 and ISI. They finance these wars by issuing debt repayable to them by the taxpayer.

As I have said, their ultimate goal is to translate their monopoly over government credit into a worldwide monopoly over power, wealth and culture; in other words, to disinherit and enslave the human race. This is called world government.

I’m not an expert on the politics of the Asian subcontinent. But it appears that the Afghanistan war should be seen in a larger regional context. Zbigniew Brzezinski advocated a “global-zone of percolating violence,” that included all of Central Asia, Turkey, southern Russia, and the western borders of China. It also included the entire Middle East, the Persian Gulf (Iran), Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The plan was outlined in Brzezinski’s book, “The Grand Chessboard” (1997) . Ostensibly, the purpose was to prevent Russia from becoming an imperial power again. But that’s not the real reason. What do these countries have in common? They are Muslim. Islam is the last redoubt of faith in God.

The Illuminati are Satanists. Put two and two together. The Afghan war has some immediate benefits: perpetual war, arms spending, drugs, pipelines etc. But it is part of a larger “war of civilizations” designed to degrade and destroy Islam. Look for this war to expand and go on forever.

On a related note, The New York Times reported Oct. 28, 2009 that the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been getting regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, citing current and former U.S. officials.

“Ahmed Wali Karzai is a suspected player in Afghanistan’s opium trade and has been paid by the CIA over the past eight years for services that included helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the CIA’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar,” the newspaper reported.

India’s War at Home

By Jyoti Thottam / Srinagar

A rock and a hard place – A Srinagar youth readies his slingshot during protests in May
Keith Bedford / Atlas Press

Abid Baig is a salesman in a dried-fruits shop in Lal Chowk, the central shopping district of Srinagar, Indian Kashmir’s capital. But Baig’s real calling is as a stone thrower. A familiar figure at protests for azadi, or freedom, that regularly clog Srinagar’s streets, 21-year-old Baig is angry, blaming the pervasive Indian security presence for choking off his chance at a decent life. His parents pulled him out of school when he was just in 10th grade because they worried that their only child would be picked up by police trolling for militants. Baig speaks intensely and deliberately, looking down at his hands, so an arc of black hair droops over his forehead. “Everybody wants to be something,” he says. “I wanted to be a doctor.” Instead, he hurls stones to vent his frustration. “They don’t allow us to live in peace.”

Peace in Kashmir – as in Afghanistan, Iraq and much of the Middle East – has long seemed out of reach, but it is just as urgent. India and Pakistan have fought three wars over the territory since 1947, when Muslim-majority Kashmir acceded to mostly Hindu India, over Pakistan’s objections. Kashmir is much more than an unresolved border dispute, however. To Pakistan, it is an endless grudge against an old enemy that seems to supersede even its own war against the Taliban. To India, Kashmir is the most potent reminder of the violence it has been unable to escape while aspiring to a more prosperous future. (Read “A Violent Crime Resurrects Kashmir’s Call for Freedom.”)

The two countries negotiated a Line of Control dividing Indian and Pakistani Kashmir in 1971, but that unofficial border has been a source of constant conflict and tension. In 1989, a homegrown movement of Kashmiri separatists rose up against India; Islamabad supported some of them, as well as groups of cross-border militants. To put down this multiheaded insurgency, New Delhi sent in what amounts now to a presence of 700,000 troops (among a civilian population of just 5 million). The military’s hard-line tactics have sparked considerable anger among the local populace. The presence of those troops – despite the decline of the separatist movement – is the core complaint for ordinary Kashmiris like Baig. India ignores the rage of these young men at its peril. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, head of Srinagar’s central mosque and chairman of the moderate faction of the Hurriyat group of separatists, warned in a recent speech that if the concerns of the Kashmiri people are not heard, “the mind-set of those individuals, particularly youth, will likely deteriorate into a continuous feeling of occupation and endangerment, leading them to pick up arms again.”

Baig and his friends are the new icons of Kashmiri hostility toward the Indian state. The stone throwers are often photographed in action, yet little is known about them. On a recent afternoon, however, I actually met several. There was Amir, a reedy 17-year-old who sneaks out to the protests without telling his parents; Asif, a muscular 24-year-old rickshaw driver; and Muddasar, 20, with soft blue eyes and a dark red bullet wound in his left shin. Their de facto leader is Imran Zargar, 24, who spent 11/2 years in jail after one ugly clash. His police record then disqualified him from any job with the government, by far Kashmir’s largest employer. Says Zargar: “I found that I had no future.”

Will such disillusionment evolve into a more serious threat against the Indian state? In their jeans and Nikes, the resentful young men of Srinagar identify most closely with youths on the streets of Gaza and the West Bank, not those in jihadist training camps. But they also insist that religious heads support what they do, and that if they die in a protest, they will be considered martyrs. A military intelligence official in New Delhi who has served in Kashmir worries, “Many young Kashmiris have taken arms and embraced radical Islam because there is no hope of a good life.”

Indian forces in Kashmir have traditionally been more focused on jihadists based in Pakistan, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the group that Indian and U.S. authorities blame for last November’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Indian officials say that Pakistan has not only failed to prosecute any top LeT leaders, it has continued to support their incursions into Indian Kashmir. They hold up as evidence several recent incidents, including a Sept. 12 car bomb set off next to a police bus in Srinagar. “Two Lashkar commanders masterminded the attack,” claims Farooq Ahmed, inspector general of police for Kashmir. Ahmed says that one of them, Abdur Rehman, “is hiding somewhere in south Kashmir.”

In this climate, resolving Kashmir may seem to have little chance, yet diplomacy has picked up a bit of pace. Over the past few months, there have been signs of a thaw and hints that the two countries, prodded by Washington, would reopen a dialogue that has been stalled since the Mumbai terror attacks last year. On June 16, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari shook hands at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Russia, where Zardari acknowledged that Pakistan’s greatest threat was the Taliban – a remarkable admission for a country that has long considered India its most dangerous neighbor. Indian authorities, meanwhile, may soon start talks with the Hurriyat separatists. But every gesture of reconciliation – most recently, meetings between top diplomats on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York City – has been followed by tough talk and accusations from both sides.

A Spreading Rage

The formative event for Kashmir’s angry youth was the August 2008 protests over Amarnath, a Hindu shrine about 88 miles (141 km) from Srinagar. A massive movement opposed the Kashmir state government’s controversial decision to allocate 100 acres (40 hectares) of land to a local Hindu pilgrimage group, and drew as many as 500,000 protesters on one day. The police fired on the crowds (Muddasar, the young stone thrower, was among those injured) and as many as 20 people were killed in the most intense week of protests. For Basharat, just 14, Amarnath was his initiation. I asked him what he felt the first time he threw a stone. “Anger,” he says. But throwing wasn’t enough. “It has to hit its target.”

Analysis: Turkey gets tough on Israel

By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA

ISTANBUL – Turkey’s decision to scrap a military exercise involving Israel has sparked concerns in Israel about threats to its close military and economic ties with a key Muslim nation and a NATO member not always willing to follow the Western line.

The weekend move by Turkish premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government comes at a time that the country is seeking to expand its influence in the Mideast and Europe. It is also the latest reflection of widespread anger – especially in Muslim countries – over the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in last winter’s Gaza conflict.

It could have broad relevance because of Turkey’s growing regional clout, and strategic position as a nation of more than 70 million that borders Iraq and Iran and is embroiled in a sputtering effort to join the European Union.

“Turkey is trying to reposition itself in the world,” Carina O’Reilly, Europe analyst for London-based Jane’s Country Risk, said Monday. “It’s trying to establish itself as a power in its own right.”

In Turkey, analysts see a complex situation with a government deeply rooted in Islam trying to balance an emerging role as a voice for Muslims with a continuing alliance with the West.

Turkey’s approach to Israel reflects a “double-faced policy” that began when Erdogan scolded the Israeli president over Gaza casualties at an international forum in Switzerland, said Huseyin Bagci, professor of international relations at Middle East Technical University.

“The Turkish government, since the Davos incident, (tried) to become the consciousness of the Middle East,” Bagci said. Behind the scenes, though, ties with Israel are largely “business as usual,” he said.

The furor began Sunday, when Israeli defense officials said Ankara had called off the international stage of the Anatolian Eagle drills, which were to have included the U.S. and NATO, because it opposed Israel’s participation. The U.S. and NATO have not commented on why the exercise was scrapped.

Turkey itself insisted the reason it “postponed” the exercise to have been held this week in the Turkish city of Konya was not political, saying only that it was the result of talks with participant countries. It urged Israel to exert “good sense in its approach and statements.”

However, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu linked the exercise’s cancellation to the Gaza war in an interview with CNN on Sunday. Asked why Israel was excluded, he said: “We hope that the situation in Gaza will be improved, that the situation will be back to the diplomatic track. And that will create a new atmosphere in Turkish-Israeli relations as well.”

Israel’s good ties with Turkey – a mostly Muslim nation – have been a boost for Israel over the years, easing its isolation in the region at a time of tension between the Jewish state and much of the Muslim world. Israeli tourists flocked to Turkey and Ankara benefited from a strong defense alliance with Israel’s powerful, high-tech military.

But these ties – always brittle – have started to fray since Israel’s Gaza war in January, when the deaths of Palestinian civilians outraged opinion worldwide. Use of Konya as a location for the exercise was sensitive: during the war, pro-Islamic media in Turkey published stories alleging Israeli pilots who bombed Gaza targets had been trained in exercises there.

Some Israeli commentators have raised concerns that the cancellation of the exercise is part of a gradual policy that will shift Turkey closer to fundamentalist Iran. Still, despite Turkey’s improving relationship with Iran, it covets its ties with the West and, like its allies, has deep concerns about Iran’s nuclear activities.

In the background is an increasing skepticism among Turks that their country, a secular state where tradition is nonetheless strong, will ever be admitted into the European Union as a full member. Talks have sputtered for several years and there is persistent opposition in key EU nations like France and Germany.

In fact, Turkey doesn’t want to side with any one camp or category, given its complex identity: a Muslim country with a secular political system, a deeply nationalist place with a rich imperial history that is still insecure and crafting its place in the world.

These traits shape its dispute with Israel, and drive its campaign to become a regional heavyweight with a web of intricate, overlapping alliances, from NATO to Europe, the Middle East, the Caucasus and the Balkans. It seeks reconciliation with Armenia after a century of hostility, and is trying to solve its long conflict with its own Kurdish citizens.

For decades, Turkey was a junior player in the West’s Cold War alliance, run by military generals; now it has its own voice and enough clout to spar at times with its NATO partners.

Despite harsh rhetoric, Turkish pragmatism has kept military business with Israel largely intact. Israel is involved in two major military projects – tank and fighter plane upgrades – worth more than US$1 billion in Turkey. The Turkish military has also bought Israeli drones to help fight Kurdish rebels, whose strength has waned since their heyday in the 1990s.

“Relations between Israel and Turkey are strategic and decades-old,” said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. “Despite the ups and downs, Turkey continues to be a key player in our region. We shouldn’t be drawn into frenzied statements about it.”

Alon Liel, who was Israel’s No. 1 diplomat in Turkey in the 1980s, described the situation as a “crisis” and said Israel had received “very harsh signals” from an increasingly assertive government.

“Today there is a new foreign policy that doesn’t rely only on the West. They see themselves as a player in many regional circles,” he said. “All this assertiveness in the region gives Turkey a self-confidence that allows it to be tougher to us.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Christopher Torchia is the Associated Press bureau chief in Turkey.