Friday, March 27, 2009

CIA Releases 25-Year Program Archive Search

* CIA Releases 25-Year Program of sanitized and selective "Archive" Search...where you will not find anything about the White House Murder INC, or any other odious assassination since JFK's until today....

"The automatic declassification provisions of Executive Order 12958, as amended, require the declassification of nonexempt historically-valuable records 25 years old or older. By 31 December 2006 all agencies were to have completed the review of all hardcopy documents determined to be historically valuable (designated as "permanent" by the agency and the National Archives) and exclusively containing their equities. As the deadline pertains to CIA, it covers the span of relevant documents originally dating from the establishment of the CIA after WWII through 1981.

CIA has deployed an electronic full-text searchable system it has named CREST (the CIA Records Search Tool), which has been operational since 2000 and is located at NARA II in College Park Maryland. On this Agency site, researchers can now use an on-line CREST Finding Aid to research the availability of CIA documents declassified and loaded onto CREST through 2008. Data for the remaining years up to the present (CREST deliveries have been ongoing) will be placed on this site at later dates.

Search the CREST web database
here. Note: it does not contain actual images of the documents as the regular Electronic Reading Room search does. Rather, it contains details on the files to speed FOIA requests...

Digital National Security Archives (DNSA)

Steps to file a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request:

National Security Archives at George Washington University

Declassified Secrets Blog

U.S. State Department's National Reading Room (Type in "Declassified-?" in the Keyword Search, then your topic of interest)

These two sources of declassified info were offered by a donor who wishes to remain anonyous: Mr. Morton: I saw these two websites you might find of interest:

Ever wonder if you or your relations have files at the FBI or other intelligence agencies? Click on this site and find out!

Thursday, March 26, 2009

AIG is CIA from its inception, another Siamese twins

AIG is CIA from its inception, another Siamese twins

Insurance and covert mission airlines: perfect together if you're the CIA and AIG. AIG's airplane business and its ties to covert U.S. operations documented...

We previously reported on Sir Allen Stanford's aviation fleet and its curious links to covert U.S. intelligence operations. American International Group (AIG) is also in the aviation business and its subsidiary, International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC), is one of the largest aircraft leasing businesses in the world.

Last year, ILFC's CEO Steven Udvar-Hazy, a Hungarian émigré who founded ILFC in 1973, attempted to buy back ILF from AIG. As a $65 million donor to the Smithsonian's Dulles annex, the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum annex at Dulles International Airport is named for Udvar-Hazy. The SR-71 Blackbird spy plane among other large aircraft, are on display at the annex. Udvar-Hazy, one of the world's richest men, may still get his wish to reacquire ILFC as AIG attempts to come up with much-needed cash. In 2006, Udvar-Hazy was one of the members of the official U.S. delegation to Hungary that was led by part-Hungarian New York Governor George Pataki to mark the 50th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of the country.

Questions remain as to why a company primarily involved in insurance would have taken over an aircraft leasing business that leases Airbus and Boeing passenger jet liners to airlines, the super wealthy, and Hollywood stars. The answer may be found in AIG's classified files that would put the spotlight on AIG's clandestine work for U.S. intelligence since the company's founding in 1919 in Shanghai as American Asiatic Underwriters by Cornelius Vander Starr, the uncle of President Clinton's chief prosecutor, Kenneth Starr. In 1992, Maurice "Hank" Greenberg took over majority shares in the company from Starr.

Greenberg, a close confidante of Henry Kissinger, was once considered by Clinton to head up the CIA after James Woolsey's departure in 1995 and Greenberg named Kissinger as chairman of AIG's International Advisory Board. AIG's one-time Vice Chairman was Frank G. Wisner, Jr., son of veteran Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and CIA veteran Frank Wisner, a one-time liaison to British agent Kim Philby, who later turned out to be a top Soviet spy. The senior Wisner allegedly committed suicide in 1965 using his son's shotgun.

A check of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings show that ILFC leased aircraft to three large U.S. airlines that have been involved with various CIA and U.S. military operations for a number of years: World Airways, Tower Air, and Evergreen International Airlines.

In 1978, the Canadian press revealed that World Airways Chairman and President E. J. Daly gave funds to the international environmental movement Greenpeace. There was just one hitch. In return, Daly apparently arranged for two CIA agents to join Greenpeace expeditions aimed against whaling and U.S. nuclear tests in Amchitka, Alaska in 1971 and 1977. Some Greenpeace members voiced opposition to the strings that came with Daly's money.

In 1975, upon the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese and Vietcong, World Airways was the last flight out of Saigon. During the first Gulf War, the airline flew 300 flights into the Persian Gulf region, bringing in troops and supplied during Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. World Airways also flew into Somalia during Operation Restore Hope.

In 2006, protests against World Airways use of Shannon Airport in Ireland to ferry U.S. troops back and forth to Iraq resulted in the airline bypassing Ireland and using Frankfurt as an alternate stopover. Shannon was also used by a number of CIA-leased "extraordinary rendition" aircraft used to transport kidnapped alleged "terrorists."

World Airways, after going public, attracted significant Malaysian investment and captured a lucrative cut-rate Tel Aviv-New York passenger route that particularly catered to "Yeshiva" students and their families. World Airways President Charles Pollard, who championed the Tel Aviv route but later abandoned it, told The Jerusalem Post in 1995 that "Tel Aviv is becoming the gateway to the Near East and the Far East."

Tower Air was also used by the Pentagon to shuttle troops to the Persian Gulf during Desert Shield and Storm.

Evergreen International Airlines was part of a network of covert CIA airlines that was founded by George A. Doole, Jr., a veteran CIA agent. In the CIA's network were Air America, Air Asia, Civil Air Transport, Intermountain Aviation, and Southern Air Transport. Pinal Air Park, near Marana, Arizona, was the base for Doole's Evergreen International's maintenance operation and a storage facility for 60 boneyard airliners, some of which may have been used after 9/11 for CIA detainee renditions.

From CIA airlines to covert operations using its American International Assurance Asian (AIA) unit as cover in Asia, AIG has plenty to answer for. Unfortunately, for the American taxpayers, those answers will be buried in classified files that will never see the light of day.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Death squad leader ‘was top CIA agent’

Jovica Stanisic reported to CIA on Milosevic plans in Balkans, including mass killings... Of course, that is why Milosevic left The Hague in a coffin... CIA alumni: Saddam, Noriega, Bin Laden, and now, Milosevic...
Nouri Al-Maliki, Salam Fayyad, Foud Siniora, Hosni Moubarak, Bashar Assad, Asef Shawkat, King Hussein, King Abdallah, etc....
Death squad leader ‘was top CIA agent’

The Story of the CIA's "Finders" Abduction Operation

The CIA Traffics in Drugs, and Global Murder

THE LATE President Milosevic's secret police chief and organiser of Serb death squads during the genocidal ethnic cleansing of disintegrating Yugoslavia was the United States' top CIA agent in Belgrade, according to the independent Belgrade Radio B92.

The claim that from 1992 until the end of the decade, Jovica Stanisic, head of Serbia's murderous DB Secret Police, was regularly informing his CIA handlers of the thinking in Milosevic's inner circle has shocked the region.

Stanisic is said to have loyally served his two masters for eight years. He is facing war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

In the terrifying years of Yugoslavia's internecine wars, he acted as the willing "muscle" behind Milosevic's genocidal campaigns in Croatia, Kosovo and Bosnia, including Sebrenica.

According to the charges he faces, Stanisic was "part of a joint criminal enterprise that included former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic and other Serbian politicians".

Dermot Groome, The Hague's chief prosecutor, has specifically accused him of sending in the Serb Scorpion and Red Beret death squads into the states seeking independence from Belgrade. Stanisic has pleaded not guilty.

Like in a Cold War spy thriller, Serbia's secret police chief met his CIA handlers in safe houses, parks and boats on the river Sava to betray his master's action plans. He provided, it is claimed, information on the whereabouts of Nato hostages, aided CIA operatives in their search for Muslim mass graves and helped the US set up secret bases in Bosnia to monitor the implementation of the 1995 Dayton peace accord.

This has raised awkward questions for Washington. With Stanisic providing chapter and verse of the genocidal slaughter of Croats, Bosnians and Albanians from the early 1990s, should President Clinton have cut a deal with Milosevic at Dayton, Ohio, ending the Bosnian war on such equitable terms for the Serbs? Or, using Stanisic's evidence, should the Americans not have unmasked Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic, the then head of Republika Srpska, as genocidal war criminals and demanded their surrender?

From his prison cell at The Hague, Stanisic countered the charges facing him with an aide memoir portraying himself as "a person who had sought to moderate Milosevic and had done a great deal to moderate the crisis".

In an unusual move, the CIA has submitted classified documents to the court that confirm Stanisic's "undercover operative role in helping to bring peace to the region and aiding the agency's work. He helped defuse some of the most explosive actions of the Bosnian war."

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, William Lofgren, his original CIA recruiter and handler, now retired, said: "Stanisic provided valuable information from Milosevic's inner circle. But he never took money from the CIA, worked with the agency on operations or took steps that he would have considered a blatant betrayal of his boss."

Thus the judges at The Hague are having to judge a man who allegedly sent the Scorpion death squads to Srebrenica to "deal" with men and boys fleeing the UN-protected Muslim enclave, while working with the CIA trying to end Milosevic's ethnic wars.

The way the CIA apparently viewed their Belgrade "asset" is revealed in an interview with Balkan Insight, a little known south-east European publication.

The emerging picture is a quaint reflection from a hall of mirrors. Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times, writing about the links between the CIA and the Serb secret police chief, is quoted as saying: "As I said in the LAT story, the CIA do not see Stanisic as a choirboy. When you talk to people who work in espionage, this is often the case.

"Because of the nature of that job, of that assignment, they are working with people who do not have unblemished records, it would be difficult for them to be effective if they only worked with people who had unblemished records.

"People in Belgrade who have been following the career of Jovica Stanisic would say that this was a guy who was an expert in his field; he was a highly-trained and highly-effective spy. His motivation may have been that he wanted to know what the United States was up to.

"He did not believe that Milosevic was taking the country in the right direction - so he wanted to influence events. He saw himself as an important guy who could pull strings behind the scenes to make things happen in Belgrade."

Stanisic apparently did so on his own terms, while trying to remain a loyal Serb. He did not succeed.

Now he is having to account for his actions as Milosevic's loyal lieutenant at The Hague....


Bing Liar (Greenspan, the failed financier turned economic icon is STILL lying to us?):

Bang (secret laboratories for spook and death technologies spreading like a disease since '9/11'?):

Boom (they are STILL telling us to give the banksters more trillions to 'save' the economy?):
After years of police and prosecutors enquiries, after a trial lasting 4
months and a 700 pages sentence, we still do not know who planned,
organized and carried out the Madrid terrorist attacks.
Wake up people and demand an investigation into false flag terrorism .

War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History

War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History

By Gilad Atzmon
Mar 18th, 2009 at 9:59

The issue I am going to discuss today is probably the most important
thing I’ve ever had to say about Israeli brutality and contemporary
Jewish identity. I assume that I could have shaped my thought into a
wide-ranging book or an analytical academic text but instead, I will do
the very opposite, I will make it as short and as simple as possible.

In the weeks that have just passed we had been witness to an Israeli
genocidal campaign against the Palestinian civilian population in Gaza.
We had been witnessing one of the strongest armies in the world
squashing women, elderly people and children. We saw blizzards of
unconventional weapons bursting over schools, hospitals and refugee
camps. We had seen and heard about war crimes committed before, but this
time, the Israeli transgression was categorically different. It was
supported by the total absolute majority of the Israeli Jewish
population. The IDF military campaign in Gaza enjoyed the support of
94% of the Israeli population. 94% of the Israelis apparently approved
of the air raids against civilians. The Israeli people saw the carnage
on their TV screens, they heard the voices, they saw hospitals and
refugee camps in flames and yet, they weren’t really moved by it all.
They didn’t do much to stop their “democratically elected” ruthless
leaders. Instead, some of them grabbed a seat and settled on the hills
overlooking the Gaza Strip to watch their army turning Gaza into modern
Hebraic coliseum of blood. Even now when the campaign seems to be over
and the scale of the carnage in Gaza has been revealed, the Israelis
fail to show any signs of remorse. As if this is not enough, all
throughout the war, Jews around the world rallied in support of their
“Jews-only state”. Such a popular support of outright war crimes is
unheard of. Terrorist states do kill, yet they are slightly shy about it
all. Stalin’s USSR did it in some remote Gulags, Nazi Germany executed
its victims in deep forests and behind barbed wire. In the Jewish state,
the Israelis slaughter defenceless women, children and the old in broad
daylight, using unconventional weapons targeting schools, hospitals and
refugee camps.

This level of group barbarism cries for an explanation. The task ahead
can be easily defined as the quest for a realisation of Israeli
collective brutality. How is it that a society has managed to lose its
grip of any sense of compassion and mercy?

The Terror Within

More than anything else, the Israelis and their supportive Jewish
communities are terrorised by the brutality they find in themselves. The
more ruthless the Israelis are, the more frightened they become. The
logic is simple. The more suffering one inflicts on the other, the more
anxious one becomes of the possible potential deadly capacity around. In
broad terms, the Israeli projects on the Palestinian, Arab, Muslim and
Iranian the aggression which he finds in himself. Considering the fact
that Israeli brutality is now proved to be with no limit and with no
comparison, their anxiety is as at least as great.

Seemingly, the Israelis are fearful of themselves being the henchmen.
They are engaged in a deadly battle with the terror within. But the
Israeli is not alone. The Diaspora Jew who rallies in support of a state
that pours white phosphorous on civilians is caught in the exact same
devastating trap. Being an enthusiastic backer of an overwhelming crime,
he is horrified by the thought that the cruelty he happens to find in
himself may manifest itself in others. The Diaspora Jew who supports
Israel is devastated by the imaginary possibility that a brutal intent,
similar to his own, may one day turn against him. This very concern is
what the fear of anti-Semitism is all about. It is basically the
projection of the collective Zio-centric tribal ruthlessness onto others.

There is no Israeli - Palestinian Conflict

What we see here is a clear formation of a vicious cycle in which the
Israeli and his supporters are becoming an insular fireball of vengeance
that is fuelled by some explosive internal aggression. The meaning of it
all is pretty revealing. Since Palestinians cannot militarily confront
Israeli aggression and destructive capacity, we are entitled to argue
that there is no Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All there is, is Israeli
psychosis in which the Israeli is being shattered with anxiety by the
reflection of his own ruthlessness. Being regarded as the Nazis of our
time, the Israeli is thus doomed to seeing a Nazi in everyone.
Similarly, there is no rise in anti-Semitism either. The Diaspora
Zionist Jew is simply devastated by the possibility that someone out
there is as ethically corrupted and merciless as he himself proved to
be. In short, Israeli politics and Zionist lobbying should be seen as no
less than a lethal Zio-centric collective paranoia on the verge of total

Is there a way to redeem the Zionist of his bloody expedition? Is there
a way to change the course of history, to save the Israelis and their
supporters from total depravity? Probably the best way to pose this
question is to ask whether there is a way to save the Israeli and the
Zionist from themselves. As one may gather, I am not exactly interested
in saving Israelis or Zionists, however, I do grasp that redeeming
Zionists of their transgression may bring a prospect of peace to
Palestine, Iraq and probably the rest of us. For those who fail to see
it, Israel is just the tip of the iceberg. At the end of the day,
America, Britain and the West are now subject to some similar forms of
"politics of fear" that are the direct outcome of Neocon deadly
interventionist ideology and practices.

The Shrink from Nazareth

Many years ago, so we are told, there was an Israelite who lived amongst
his brethren in the land of Canaan. Like the contemporary Israelis, he
was surrounded by hate, vengeance and fear. At a certain stage he had
decided to intervene and to bring a change about, he realised that there
was no other way to fight ruthlessness than to search for grace. “Turn
your other cheek” was his simple suggestion. Identifying the Israelite’s
psychosis as “a war against terror within”, Jesus grasped that the only
way to counter violence is to look in the mirror while searching for
Goodness within.

It is rather apparent that Jesus’ lesson paved the way to the formation
of western universal ethics. Modern political ideologies drew their
lesson from the Christian prospect. Marx’s normative search for equality
can be seen as a secular rewriting of Jesus’ notion of brotherhood. And
yet, not a single political ideology has managed to integrate the
deepest notion of Jesus’ grace. To seek peace is primarily to search for
one within. While Israelis and their Neocon twins would aim at achieving
peace by means of deterrence, true peace is achieved by the search for
harmony within. As a Lacanian scholar may suggest, to love your
neighbour is actually to love yourself loving your neighbour. The case
of the Israeli is the complete opposite. As they manage to prove time
after time, they are really loving themselves hating their neighbours or
in short, they simply love themselves hating in general. They hate
almost everything: the neighbour, the Arab, Chavez, the German, Islam,
the Goy, Pork, the Pope, the Palestinian, the Church, Jesus, Hamas,
calamari and Iran. You name it, they hate it. One may have to admit
that hating so much must be a very consuming project unless it gives
pleasure. And indeed the Israeli “pleasure principle” could be
articulated as follows: it continuously drives the Israeli to seek
pleasure in hate while inflicting pain upon others.

It must be mentioned at this point that the ˜War Against Terror within”
is not exactly a Jewish invention. Everyone, whether it is nations,
peoples or individuals, are a potential subject to it. The consequences
of American nuclear murderous slaughter in Hiroshima and Nagasaki made
the American people into a terrorised collective. This collective
anxiety is known as the “cold war”. America is yet to redeem itself of
the fear that there maybe someone out there as merciless as America
proved to be. To a certain extent, operation Shock and Awe had a very
similar effect on Britain and America. It led to the creation of
horrified masses easily manipulated by highly motivated elite. This
exact type of politics is called “politics of fear”.

And yet, within the western discourse a correction mechanism is in
place. Unlike the Jewish state that is getting radicalised by its own
self feeding paranoia, in the West, evil is somehow confronted and
contained eventually. The murderer is denounced and hope for peace is
somehow reinstated till further notice. Not that I hold my breath for
President Obama bringing any change, one thing is rather clear, Obama
was voted in to bring a change. Obama is a symbol of our genuine attempt
to curtail evil. In the Jewish state, not only it doesn’t happen, it can
never happen. The difference between Israel and the West is rather
obvious. In the West, Christian heritage is providing us with a
possibility of a wish grounded on belief in universal goodness. Though,
we are under the constant danger of exposure to evil, we tend to believe
that goodness will eventually prevail. On the other hand, in Hebraic
tribal discourse, Goodness is the property of the chosen. The Israelis
do not see goodness or kindness in their neighbors, they see them as
savage and as a life-threatening entity. For the Israelis, kindness is
their very own property, accidentally they are also innocent and
victims. Within the western universal discourse, goodness doesn’t
belong to one people or a single nation, it belongs to all and to none
at the same time. Within the western universal heritage, Goodness is
found in each of us. It doesn’t belong to a political party or an
ideology. The elevating notion of grace and a Good God is there in each
of us, it is always very close to home.

What Kind Of Father Is That?

“Then when the Lord your God brings you to the land he promised your
ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to give you –“ a land with large,
fine cities you did not build, houses filled with choice things you did
not accumulate, hewn out cisterns you did not dig, and vineyards and
olive groves you did not plant – and you eat your fill.” (Deuteronomy:
6: 10 -11).

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to
possess and drives out before you many nations…then you must destroy
them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy.”
(Deuteronomy 7:1-2)

At this point we may try to attempt and to grasp the root cause behind
the severe lack of compassion within the Israeli discourse and its
supportive lobbies. I believe that an elaboration on the troubled
relationships between the Jews and their different Gods may throw some
light on the topic. It is rather obvious that the ever growing list of
Jewish “Gods”, “Idols” and “Father-figures” is slightly problematic at
least as far as ethics and kindness are concerned. The very relationship
between “the son” and the “non-ethical father” must be explored. The
philosopher Ariella Atzmon (who happens to be my mother) defines the
complexity of the false beginning as the “Fagin Syndrome”. Charles
Dickens’ Fagin is a “kidsman”, an adult who recruits children and trains
them as pickpockets and thieves, exchanging food and shelter for goods
the children steal. Though the kids must be grateful towards their
master, they must also despise him for turning them into thieves and
pickpockets. The kids realise that Fagin’s goods are all stolen and his
kindness is far from being genuinely honest or pure. Sooner or later
the kids will turn against their master Fagin in an attempt to liberate
themselves of the immoral catch.

From a father-son perspective, the Biblical Jewish God Jehovah is no
different from what we might see in the Fagin syndrome. The father of
Israel leads his chosen people through the desert to the promised land
so they can rob and plunder its indigenous habitants. This is not
exactly what one may expect of an ethical father or a “kind God”.
Consequently, as much as the sons of Israel love Jehovah, they must also
be slightly suspicious of him for turning them into robbers and
murderers. They might even be apprehensive regarding his kindness. Thus,
it shouldn’t take us by a surprise that throughout Jewish history more
than just a few Jews had turned against their heavenly father.

However, bearing in mind the common secularist perception that Gods are
actually invented by people, one may wonder, what leads to the invention
of such an “unethical God”? What makes people follow the rules of such a
God? It would be also interesting to find out what kind of alternative
Gods Jews happened to pick or invent once Jehovah has been shunned.

Since emancipation, more than just a few Jews had been disassociating
themselves from the traditional tribal setting and rabbinical Judaism.
Many intermingled with their surrounding realities, dropped their chosen
entitlement and turned into ordinary human beings. Many other Jews
insisted upon dropping God yet maintaining their racially orientated
tribal affiliation. They decided to base their tribal belonging on
ethnic, racial, political, cultural and ideological grounds rather than
the Judaic precept. Though they noticeably dropped Jehovah they insisted
upon adopting a secularist view that was soon shaped into a monolithic
religious-like precept. All throughout the 20th century, the two
religious-like political ideologies that had been found to be most
appealing by the Jewish masses were Marxism and Zionism.

Marxism can be easily portrayed as a secular universal ethical ideology.
However, within the process of transformation into a Jewish tribal
precept, Marxism has managed to lose any traces of humanism or
universalism. As we know, early Zionist ideology and practice was
largely dominated by Jewish leftists who regarded themselves as true
followers of Marx. They genuinely believed that celebrating their Jewish
national revival at the expense of Palestinians was a legitimate
socialist endeavour.

Interestingly enough, their opponents, the anti-Zionist Bund of the East
European Jewish Labour, didn’t really believe in the institutional
robbery of the Palestinians, instead, they believed that taking from
rich European is a great universal mitzvah on the path towards social

The following are a few lines from The Bund’s anthem

We swear our stalwart hate persists,

Of those who rob and kill the poor:

The Tsar, the masters, capitalists.

Our vengeance will be swift and sure.

So swear together to live or die!

Without engaging in questions having to do with ethics or political
affiliation, it is rather obvious that the Jewish Marxist anthem is
overwhelmingly saturated with “hate” and “vengeance”. As much as Jews
were enthusiastic about Marx, Marxism, Bolshevism and equality, the end
of the story is known. Jews en masse dropped Marx a long time ago. They
somehow left the revolution to some enlightened Goyim such as Hugo
Chavez and Evo Morales. Leaders who truly internalised in the real
meaning of universal equality and ethics.

Though in the late 19th century and the early 20th century, Marxism
found many followers amongst European Jews, following the Holocaust,
Zionism has gradually become the voice of world Jewry. Like Fagin, the
Zionist Gods and Idols: Herzl, Ben Gurion, Nordau, Weizmann, promised
their followers a new unethical beginning. Robbing the Palestinians
was their path towards a long overdue historical justice. Zionism
transformed the Old Testament from a spiritual text into a land
registry. But again as in the case of Jehovah, the Zio God transformed
the Jew into a thief, it promised him someone else’s property. This in
itself may explain the Israeli resentment towards Zionism and Zionist
ideology. Israelis prefer to see themselves as the natural dwellers of
the land rather than pioneers in a non-ethical Jewish Diaspora colonial
project. The Israeli Jew furnishes his political stand by means of
severe ethical escapism. This may explain the fact that as much as the
Israelis love their wars, they really hate to fight them. They are not
willing to die for a big abstract remote ideology such as the “Jewish
nation” or “Zionism”. They overwhelmingly prefer to drop white
phosphorous and cluster bombs from afar.

However, along the relatively short history of modern Jewish nationalism
the Zio God made friends with some other Gods and kosher idols. Back in
1917 Lord Balfour promised the Jews that they would erect their national
home in Palestine. Needless to say, as in the case of Jehovah, Lord
Balfour made the Jews into plunderers and robbers, he came up with an
outright non-ethical promise. He promised the Jews someone else’s land.
This was basically a false beginning. Evidently, it didn’t take long
before the Jews turned against the British Empire. In 1947 the UN made
exactly the same foolish mistake, it gave birth to the “Jews-only State”
again at the expense of the Palestinians. It legitimised the robbery of
Palestine in the name of the nations. Like in the case of shunned
Jehovah, it didn’t take long before the Jews turned against the UN. “It
doesn’t matter what the Goyim say, all that matters is what the Jews
do”, said Israeli PM David Ben Gurion. Recently Israelis had managed to
even shun their best subservient friends in the White House. On the eve
of the last American presidential election Israeli Generals had been
filmed denouncing President Bush for “damaging Israeli interests for
being overwhelmingly supportive” (Ret. Brig General Shlomo Brom). The
Israeli Generals basically blamed Bush for not stopping Israel from
destroying its neighbours. The moral is rather clear, the Zionists and
the Israelis will inevitably turn against their Gods, Idols, fathers and
others who try to help them. This is the real meaning of the Fagin
syndrome within the Israeli political context. They will always have to
turn against their fathers.

I believe that the most interesting Jewish belief system of them all is
the Holocaust Religion, which the Israeli Philosopher Yeshayahu
Leibowitz rightly defined as the “new Jewish religion”. The most
interesting aspect of the Holocaust religion is its God-figure, namely
“the Jew”. The Jewish follower of that newly formed dogmatic precept
believes in “the Jew”, the one who redeemed oneself. The one who
“survived” the “ultimate genocidal” event. The followers believe in “the
Jew”, the “innocent” victim sufferer who returned to his “promised land”
and now celebrates his successful revival narrative. To a certain
extent, within the Holocaust religious discourse, the Jew believes in
“the Jew”, expressed as his/her powers and his/her eternal qualities.
Within the newly formed religious framework, Mecca is Tel Aviv and the
Holy Shrine is the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum. The newly formed
religion has many shrines (Museums) scattered around the world and it
has many priests who spread the message around and punish its opposing
elements. From a Jewish perspective, the Holocaust religion is a fully
transparent expression of self love. It is where past and future merge
into a meaningful present, it is when history is translated into praxis.
Whether consciously or unconsciously, every person who identifies
politically and ideologically (rather than religiously) as a Jew is,
practically speaking, succumbing to the Holocaust religion and a
follower of its father-figure “the Jew”. And yet, one may wonder, what
about Kindness, is there any goodness in this newly formed
‘father-figure’? Is there any grace in this narrative of innocent
victimhood that is celebrated daily at the expense of the Palestinian

If there is an end to history, the Holocaust religion embodies the very
end of Jewish history. In the light of the Holocaust religion the
“Father” and the “Son” unite at last. At least in the case of Israel
and Zionism they bond into an amalgam of genocidal ideology and reality.
In the light of the Holocaust religion and its epic survival ethos the
Jewish State considers itself legitimated in dropping white phosphorus
on women and children who they have caged in an inescapable open-air
prison. Sadly enough, the crimes committed by the Jewish State are done
on behalf of the Jewish people and in the name of their troubled history
of persecution. The Holocaust religion brings to life what seems to be
the ultimate possible form of insular brutal incarnation.

Historically Jews have shunned many Gods, they dropped Jehovah, they
dumped Marx, some have never followed Zionism. But in the light of the
Holocaust religion, while bearing in mind the scenes from Gaza, Jenin
and Lebanon, the Jew may have to continue in the tradition and drop
“the Jew”. He will have to accept that his newly formed father-figure
was formed in his own shape. More concerning is the devastating fact
that the new father is proved to be a call to kill. Seemingly, the new
father is the ultimate evil God of them all.

I wonder how many Jews will be courageous enough to shun their esoteric
newly formed father-figure. Will they be courageous enough to join the
rest of humanity adopting a universal ethical discourse? Whether the
Jew drops “The Jew”, only time will tell. Just to remove any doubt, I
did drop my “Jew” a long time ago and I am doing fine...
New World Order alert

"It would be my greatest sadness to see Zionists (Jews) do to
Palestinian Arabs much of what Nazis did to Jews."

Albert Einstein

Donald Dinelli, M.A.

In the Beginning

Zionism is a movement started, partly in response to Russion pogroms, by
a number of European Jews in the 1890's. At the first Zionist conference
which was convened in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland, and lead by Theodor
Herzl, a tenacious, Austrian Jew, the 197 Jewish delegates passed the
following resolution: "Zionism seeks to secure a publically recognized,
legally secured home in Palestine for the Jewish people."1 These Jews
formed an organization called the World Zionist Organization, later just
called the Jewish Agency or Jewish Committee. By 1914 the Zionists had
127,000 dues paying members world-wide.2 Today, you can find a chapter
of the Jewish Agency in every Jewish community throughout the world.

Without delay the Zionists set out to implement their mission of
removing Palestinians from the land. They set up "the Fund" or "the
Jewish National Fund" to buy land from under the Palestinians' noses and
deposited it in a trust which allowed only Jews to use or rent it. Most
Palestinians at this time were peasants working the land of rich,
absentee, Arab landlords. Theodor Herzl avowed: "We shall try to spirit
the penniless (Palestinian) population across the border by procuring
employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any
employment in Palestine ... Both the process of expropriation and the
removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly," 3
From the beginning of Zionism this was the essence of Zionist policy:
use Jewish money, collected from throughout the world, to run the
Palestinians out of Palestine by buying their land and/or their jobs. If
that didn't work the Zionists would use the money to terrorize the
Palestinians into fleeing or kill them.

Out of a population of 1,000,000 people in 1897 Palestine, only 5% -
50,000 - were Jewish. Those few Jews reacted negatively to Zionism. They
neither saw the need for a Jewish state in Palestine, not did they want
to exacerbate relations with the Palestinian Arabs. At this time in the
Holy Land, religions lived together in relative harmony - a harmony only
disrupted when the Zionists began to claim that Palestine was the
'rightful' possession of the 'Jewish people' to the exclusion of its
Muslim and Christian inhabitants.
Zionism and the Media

In 1919 Ben-Gurion, who later would become the first prime minister of
Israel, saw that the Zionists were creating a problem with no just
solution. "No solution! There is a gulf, and nothing can fill this guilt
... I do not know what Arab will agree that Palestine should belong to
the Jews. ..We, as a nation, want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as
a nation, want this country to be theirs." Later, during the Arab revolt
of 1936-39 against this takeover, Ben-Gurion continued: "This is an
active resistance by the Palestinians to what they regard as a
usurpation of their homeland by the Jews ... But the fighting is only
one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And
politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." 4 He
proceeded to strengthen the Jewish terrorists organizations like the
Irgun with more guns and explosives so that they could, with bullets
when necessary, force the Arabs into relinquishing their ownership of

In 1938, he was most explicit on what land the Zionist intended to take
and make part of "Greater Israel." "The boundaries of Zionist
aspiration," he told the World Council of Poale Zion is Tel aviv,
"include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today's Jordan, all of
Cis-Jordan (West Bank) and the Sinai."5

Later he continued, "After we become a strong force as the result of the
creation of the state, we shall abolish partition (the UN's partition
which created Israel and left some of Palestine) and expand (Israel) to
the whole of Palestine. The state will only be a stage in the
realization of Zionism and its task is to prepare the ground for our
expansion. The state will have to preserve order - not by preaching but
with machine guns."6 As to the Palestine inhabitants who are in the way
of all this expansion, his answer was always, "Drive them out."7

Zionists are terrorists. Their movement is a terrorist movement
continuing today. Israel practices state terrorism as it implements
these Zionist plans.

Israeli Zionism Now

No one can understand the Palestinian vs Israeli conflict today, if they
do not understand Zionism - it's history, policy, and methods. Zionism
is essentially Jewish nationalism rooted in 19th century racist,
colonialist thinking gilded over with a "religious" patina. The policy
which the state of Israel is executing today is nothing more than a
continuation of that Zionist policy begun in 1897. Listen:

* "We cannot make peace with the Palestinians until we reduce the
Population of the West Bank by 50 percent." says Labor's Dr. Ephraim
Sneh, a minister in Sharon's Cabinet. (August 2002).
* Approximately 80,000 Palestinians have left the West bank and
Gaza Strip since the beginning of the year (August 2002), a rise of 50%
compared to last year, says a senior Palestinian authority official.
Today, there are over 4,000,000 Palestinian refugees - Palestinians
Israeli Zionists drove out of Palestine one way or another during the
past one hundred years.
* According to a U.S. government report in 2002, 70% of
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are now living below the poverty
line; unemployment has risen to 50% while there are a minimum of 300,000
non-Palestinian foreign workers in Israel. (Unemployment rose to 80% in
2003.) Israel will not let Palestinians leave the occupied territory and
go to work in Egypt, where many of them have jobs, or Israel where they
had jobs.
* In a 21 month period in 2002 Israel has murdered over 1,450
Palestinians, 240 of them children. Over 23,000 Palestinians have been
* By now 90% of the land in Israel proper is held under:
"restrictive land covenants" barring non-Jews, even those with Israeli
citizenship from owning the land or from earning a living on it. Yet,
according to Israeli law, a Jew from anywhere in the world can come to
Israel and automatically be a citizen with the right to own land.
* Israeli Prime Ministers, repeatedly acting against international
law, have encouraged more and more Jews to establish illegal settlements
in Palestine. Today, while these settlers take up 1.7% of the West Bank,
they control 41.9% of the land in the West Bank through a system of
Jewish local and regional councils Zionist Israel has set up in Palestine.
* Israel's Labor Party platform in 1984 had the "Four No's" in it:
1) No to a Palestinian state, 2) No negotiation with the P.L.O., 3) No
return to the 1967 borders, and 4) No removal of any settlements.
* And now the Israeli Zionists are building an apartheid wall over
451 miles long, 20 feet high, topped with barbed wire, with guard towers
every so often to keep the Arab left in Palestine locked in. In America
we would call these prison like reservations; in South Africa,
Bantustans. Furthermore, throughout the West Bank, Israel has set up
over 700 military checkpoints that Palestinians must stop and get
permission to cross - even to get to the other side of their village, or
their farmland, or to get to their hospital, or to go to school.

The objective of present day Zionist Israeli policy is an intensified
version of Jewish Zionist policy used by Theodor Herzl and Ben-Gurion:
get rid of the Palestinians from Palestine; their methods are also the
same: persecute the Palestinians so they flee, take their land, starve
them through unemployment, tear up the territorial integrity of
Palestine with Jewish settlements, murder them, and keep the other
Middle Eastern nations dysfunctional. This is a state policy of ethnic
cleansing - of slow genocide - which ends up establishing Israel as an
apartheid state. Zionists have been slowly, patiently, and successfully
working at this for over 100 years. Sometimes they have had to take a
step back to take two forward but they have never lost their focus. Most
want to establish "Greater Israel". By that they mean all of Palestine -
PLUS. Many times you will hear Israeli settlers, the Likud party, or
other Zionists talk about "Greater Israel". Zionists speak of the
occupation of Greater Israel as a right, given to them by God. Below is
a map of what the Zionist plan to be "Greater Israel."

Ben-Gurion from the beginning knew that the Jewish Zionists were the
aggressors and did not care. He cared only to take the land at any cost
- he used diplomacy when it succeeded, deception and lies when needed,
and the Haganan (a Zionist terrorist group) when the others failed.
Justice was not then and is not now a concern. Sharon is no different
today. He is known as the "butcher of Sabra and Shatila" for a reason.
Ohmert is no different either.8

The UN's Mistake: the Creation of Israel

In 1947 the Zionists got Washington to affirm their creeping takeover of
Palestine. They won over President Truman, and then with his help the
United Nations.

The British who were in charge of Palestine for fifty years thought it
impossible to peacefully create two separate nations out of this little
piece of land. They recommended to Washington and the world: one federal
nation with two states. 9 But Truman, a sort of biblical Zionist
himself, running for re-election in a close race that needed the Jewish
vote, took the Zionist position and said in 1946 that he wanted two
separate nations: Israel and Palestine. 10 In 1946, after WWII, the U.S.
was more powerful than Britain.

Jewish lobbying in this country had focused on Truman and succeeded. The
Jewish Agency in 1946 raised $100 million annually - money they used to
pressure the President and the U.S. Congress. By then American Jews had
created a mammoth lobbying machine in Washington that when activated
could within days flood Congress with letters, petitions, and campaign
finance donations.11

In 1947 there were 1,300,000 Arabs in Palestine along with 560,000 Jews.
Over the years Zionists encouraged and financed Jewish immigration to
Palestine as they continue to do today. The Nazi's brutal policies of
the 1940's, (World War II) also encouraged it.

The 1947 vote in the UN to create Israel out of Palestinian land was 33
countries for, 13 against, and 10 abstentions.12 Not one Arab or
predominately Muslim country voted yes. War was inevitable. And the
nations of the UN knew it. The United Nations had made a terrible mistake.

This Palestinian, Arab-Jewish war, in one form or another, has gone on
from 1897 until today. The Palestinian intifada and suicide bombers,
Hamas and Hezbollah, along with Zionist Israel's tanks and Apache
helicopters are just a continuation of it.

Today, American, Zionist Jews continue their lobbying effort by bribing
Congress and the President with "campaign donations" and with a strong
influence and presence in the American media to force American support
for Zionist Israel and its policy of Palestinian annihilation. These
American Zionists have hung Israel like an albatross around America's
neck. And because they have put Israel first over American interests are
bordering on being traitors to America.

Without America's support, financial and diplomatic, Zionism could not
succeed. The rest of the world, especially the Arabs, know this and are
today holding America and Americans accountable. The many attacks on
American interests, including that of September 11th, are manifestations
of it....and of the Siamese twins CIA2/MOSSAD/MI6....

Israel’s Occupation

A book by Neve Gordon

Review by Yehudit Keshet

20 March 2009

Yehudit Keshet reviews Neve Gordon’s book, Israel’s Occupation, “a
valuable text for anyone trying to understand Israel’s apparatuses of
oppression”, one that “shows clearly how Israeli policy over time has
always been to hold on to the territory conquered in June 1967,
detaching the land from its existing population: the Palestinians”.

The Israel-Palestine conflict has generated a plethora of literature
ranging from personal accounts to precise recordings of abuses and
misuses of power, policies and human rights, and from historical surveys
to a host of solutions and counter-solutions for ending the occupation
and/or achieving “peace”. In this library of anguish relatively few
works provide a theoretical framework for understanding the overall
processes of Israeli domination over Palestinians and their land. The
focus tends to be experiential, on what was or is or should be done, on
what is endured rather than on the underlying structure, the deeper
meanings of oppression.

Neve Gordon’s Israel’s Occupation is therefore a welcome contribution to
the field. First of all, it is immensely readable, providing a clear,
comprehensible theoretical framework as well as tracing the development
of the occupation from its beginnings as an ostensibly temporary “benign
and enlightened” military-administrative system whose “arrangements,
legal orders and policies were constantly modified to conceal the
permanent nature of Israel’s control” (p.16) to the current phase which
Gordon identifies as a move away from a policy of colonization to a
policy of separation. That is, from the management of the colonized
population in order to maximize the exploitation of resources such as
land and water, to a policy summed up by the statement “we are here,
they are there” (p. 119), an abdication of responsibility for the
well-being of the occupied population while continuing to exploit those
same resources of land and water.

Gordon’s cardinal argument is that the underlying logic of the
occupation is, and always has been, the separation of the Palestinian
people from their land, and not simply by means of land expropriation
for colonizing purposes: in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 Six Days
War the then military advocate-general, Meir Shamgar, formulated a
manipulative legal policy that “rejected the applicability of the 1949
Fourth Geneva Convention ... to the OT [occupied territories]” (p.26).
Shamgar maintained that, since neither the West Bank nor Gaza had been
sovereign areas prior to June 1967, they should be considered disputed
rather than occupied territories. This position not only continues to
find its place in Israeli policy, but it is frequently voiced in public
discourse; it denies the rights of Palestinians to their land and to
political self-determination in that land. It cannot be stressed enough
that this removal of the people from their land, legally and,
increasingly physically, lies at the heart of the occupation. It is a
truth that is overlooked, hidden beneath the mass of plans and roads
maps for a supposed peace.

Drawing on Foucauldian theory, Gordon goes on to identify three modes of
control operative in the occupation and based on the above logic:

1. biopower – control of the population rather than the individual
via institutions that regulate aspects of societal life such as medical
care or welfare;
2. “while configuring and circumscribing the political sphere and
normalizing knowledge” (p.12), exercising disciplinary control that
“aims to engender normalization through the regulation of daily life”
(p.16); and
3. sovereign power – “the imposition of a legal system and the
employment of the state’s military to either enforce the rule of law or
to suspend it” (p.13).

These modes of control operate concurrently and frequently overlap, as
effected by Israel over the last 42 years. Gordon makes clear that this
theory is not an essentialist claim presaging a given outcome, but that
the occupation has a dynamic of its own: “Even though the Israeli state
appears to be a free actor from which a series of policies originates, a
closer investigation reveals that its policies, and more particularly
the modification of its policies over the years, have been shaped by the
different mechanisms of control operating in the OT. The same is true of
the policy choices of resistance groups ... and other non-state
actors...” (p.3).

Gordon pursues the development of the apparatuses of oppression over
five stages of occupation: military government during 1967-80; civil
administration during 1981-87; first intifada during 1988-93; the Oslo
period 1994-2000 and the second intifada from 2000 to the present. Since
1967 Israel has sought ways to manage the population by a variety of
modalities of control, initially through making the occupation invisible
– for instance, Moshe Dayan’s much vaunted Open Bridges policy in the
1960s and 1970s, bringing economic and other benefits that created an
illusion of increased prosperity and well-being. Israel also allowed the
opening of several universities as part of a normalization of the
occupation. But, as Gordon says, “...due to a series of restrictions and
constraints imposed on the Palestinian economy, the industry and service
sector could not be developed and the employment opportunities open to
professionals ... with the OT were very limited”. (p.16) The resulting
frustration of unemployed – or underemployed – graduates drew them
inevitably into political activity. This is but one, obvious, aspect of
Gordon’s thesis of excesses and contradictions that generated resistance
to the occupation and the consequent Israeli intensification of modes of
control. Excess in this context refers to a result which is not the
objective of a given means of control. For instance, Israel employed
several practices designed to suppress Palestinian nationalism and
encourage other forms of identification such as local rather than
national loyalties by retaining in the early stages of the occupation
the existing institutions inherited from the Jordanians – civil
servants, mayors and village mukhtars. At the same time, restrictions
were put in place regarding political organizing, and press and other
censorships were imposed. The resulting social friction and
dissatisfaction led to the emergence of a new, younger leadership, the
rise of the Palestine Liberation Organization among others and increased
national identification in the face of the shared hardships and limitations.

The bonding sense of shared predicament led in time to the first
intifada (1987-93), the watershed marking a transition from Israel’s bio
and disciplinary modes of control to an emphasis on sovereign power, the
imposition or suspension of law expressed in arrests, beatings, torture,
curfews – all methods that had existed previously but were now used
extensively and more intensively, as they have been ever since. The
emphasis in fact shifted from control to suppression, generating in turn
intensified resistance with its inevitable consequences.

The book traces the rise, and fall, of the Oslo process, the outsourcing
of the occupation’ (p.169) or control by other means, with Yasser Arafat
and the Palestinian Authority as subcontractors for Israeli security.
Oslo was allegedly a hiatus in the conflict, a truce towards a final
settlement that would enable Israeli control of the OT by means other
than military. The period was much marked by contradictions and
excesses: the expansion of settlements, continued land expropriation and
proliferation of checkpoints, to name but a few. The resulting
Palestinian frustrations that culminated in the second intifada again
marked the transition to Israel’s current policy of separation, that is
the suspension of law, the restructuring of Palestinian space to confine
the population in ever more restricted areas, disconnected from one
another through the cantonments of the West Bank and the enclaves
created by the “Separation Barrier”. In this phase methods of control
have become more lethal and more remote. Apart from military incursions
and night raids, the army’s presence is reduced, or at least is made
less visible. Checkpoints have become hi-tech terminals where the human
interface is all but eliminated; human movement on the ground, fraught
with uncertainty and danger, is reduced and even air-space has been
harnessed in the service of control as aerial surveillance is
intensified; death by bombing or shooting from the air is the
commonplace, as in the targeted assassinations of alleged terrorists
with their inevitable “collateral damage”. This is remote control in
every sense: not only has the Israeli army become faceless and unseen,
the Palestinians too have been positioned as faceless objects, targeted
if not for death then for reduction to the barest of bare lives, in the
most literal sense. There is no longer even the pretence of
normalization but increasingly a move from a politics of life to a
politics of death.

Despite its theoretical basis, the book avoids the pitfalls of academic
jargon, making it accessible also to the interested layman. Drawing
extensively on government and military documents as well as reports and
personal testimonies, it is a valuable text for anyone trying to
understand Israel’s apparatuses of oppression – how the occupation has
worked in the past, how it continues to work in the present and how it
is likely to continue to work in the future. It shows clearly how
Israeli policy over time has always been to hold on to the territory
conquered in June 1967, detaching the land from its existing population:
the Palestinians. The consequent contradiction of having to
manage/control an existing non-Jewish population perceived as a
demographic as well as a military threat, a population with no civil and
even few human rights has inevitably led to excess, both by the Israeli
side and in the form of Palestinian resistance, violent and non-violent.
While the facts recorded in the book will be familiar to many, Gordon’s
cogent analysis gives a fresh insight and perspective as well as
exposing the dangerous trajectory on which Israel’s current separation
policy is embarked. Those who speak of “peace” and “solutions to the
conflict” would do well to heed Gordon’s closing words: “The only
tenable way to solve the conflict is by addressing the occupation’s
structural contradictions. Any attempt to reach or impose a solution ...
without reuniting the Palestinian people and their land and offering
them full sovereignty over the land, including a monopoly over
legitimate violence and the means of movement, will ultimately lead to
more contradictions, and the cycle of violence will surely resume”. (p.
Israel’s Occupation (University of California Press, Berkley, 2008). 225pp

Yehudit Keshet is Israeli co-founder of Machsom Watch, a human rights
organization that monitors Israeli checkpoints and their effect on the
Palestinians’ daily lives.....

Core of Corruption: In The Shadows - Official Trailer 1st of Five Films

Sunday, March 22, 2009

The US Government in its present form is a criminal enterprise, corrupt to the core and beyond redemption for sure.

The US Government in its present form is a criminal enterprise, corrupt to the core and beyond redemption for sure.

Double standards, War, Peace and victimization

Can anyone explain to me why men and women who participated in a war that
ended 64 years ago are still subjected to prosecution, but crimes that were
committed in Gaza just a few weeks ago are treated as just 'acts of war'
with no personal responsibility assigned to anyone...?

Because apparently Lebanese or Palestinian lives aren't considered as important as the
lives of German victims; at least in the eyes of the Zionist entity...

Because the Jews know how to manipulate the press and make their
'tragedy' seem so much worse than everyone else's. Somehow a Jewish
corpse that's been rotting for 64 years has more value than a
defenseless child killed only a few weeks ago in Lebanon or Gaza.

Many Americans, in fact, many people in the world, have been under the impression that Obama's approach to foreign policy, especially as it pertains to the Middle East, would be the antithesis of that of the Bush administration. This dichotomy, however, is increasingly questionable as the professed advocate of change looks more like a proponent of continuation.

In fact, even during the Presidential campaign Obama did not present a consistently peaceful foreign policy. For example, immediately after becoming the de facto Democratic presidential nominee he addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobby. He not only pledged full support to Israel but also expressed strong words against Iran – promising to do everything in his power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and demanding an end to Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas, the militant enemies of Israel, as the price for ending American economic warfare.

All of this can reasonably lead to the question: Will Obama's Middle East policy differ significantly from that of the neoconservatives who were the driving force for the war on Iraq and have fashioned a broader Israelocentric Middle East war agenda? (The neoconservatives are the subject of my recent book: The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel). Obama himself does not appear to be completely aligned with the neocon position as was John McCain. However, the President's close advisors, such as David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Dennis Ross, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton, tend to be ardently pro-Israel and hawkish, reflecting a neocon orientation, even though none of these individuals are actually neocons.

If there were one antiwar pledge Obama seemed bound to honor, it was that of withdrawing troops from Iraq. However, since his election, he has spoken of keeping a "residual force" in that country, which now seems to be morphing into a long-term strategic relationship. And Obama is increasing Americans forces by 50 percent in Afghanistan to deal with a "deteriorating situation," which portends to get the United States bogged down in an unwinnable war for years.

But the gravest issue facing Obama is Iran, where any American attack is apt to bring about a conflagration in the entire Gulf region, seriously hampering the flow of oil. Israel has been targeting Iran and stated that the world community – the United States – must use any means to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. If the requisite action is not taken, Israel threatens to take matters into its own hands and strike at Iran.

While Israel is rattling sabers, Obama says that he will be looking for areas where the United States can "directly engage" with Iran in face-to-face talks. Despite this pro-diplomacy rhetoric, however, Obama is putting strong barriers in the way of any real diplomacy. He emphatically states that Iran must cease funding "terrorist" groups (i.e., groups that militantly oppose Israel), and that a nuclear-armed Iran would be totally unacceptable to the United States. While a U.S. intelligence assessment released in December 2007 concluded that Iran had stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration has expressed with absolute certainty that Iran is doing so. For example, CIA director Leon E. Panetta testified to Congress, "There is no question that they are seeking that [nuclear] capability."

While making these demands, there is no indication of any comparable quid pro quo that the United States intends to offer Iran. There is no promise that the United States will stop its covert efforts to undermine the Islamic government. There is no promise that the United States could guarantee a non-nuclear Iran from an attack by Israel or its other nuclear-armed neighbors, Pakistan and India. It is not apparent how Iran is expected to feel secure when its neighbors maintain nuclear arsenals with nary a complaint from the United States.

Moreover, while the United States demands that Iran stop supporting any group that is militarily resisting Israel, there is no comparable promises that Israel will be required to obey international law and pull out of its settlements on the West Bank and allow the Palestinians a viable state, and that Israel will not invade Lebanon again.

Will Obama opt for war with Iran? The Obama administration's primary concern so far has been on the economy. However, when all the business/financial bailouts and stimulus packages fail to achieve the economic rejuvenation (the likely result which should be noticed long before the end of Obama's first term), then will be time to move into the war business. In fact, war, at least war expenditures, can be presented as the ultimate Keynesian stimulus package – as many Americans believe that World War II solved the Great Depression.

Obama, with the image of being a man of peace, would have greater credibility with the American people in taking an aggressively hard-line policy toward Iran than either Bush II or McCain. This especially would be the case after his pursuit of diplomacy, which has little chance of success without a quid pro quo to Iran. Once diplomacy breaks down, tougher measures would be portrayed as the only alternative in dealing with an allegedly intransigent foe.

And Obama would undoubtedly be pushed in this belligerent direction by the neoconservatives outside his administration and the hawks within, as well as by Congress under the sway of the Israel Lobby. Given Obama's record so far, it seems highly unlikely that he would resist. American hard-line policies such as a naval blockade or the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities would inevitably spiral into a full-scale war....?