Friday, April 17, 2009

Tribes with Flags which will be brought about worldwide by the threesome of assassins, CIA/MOSSAD/MI6.....

Ethiopia/USA/Somali pirates’ cover-up....Tribes with Flags which will be brought about worldwide by the threesome of assassins, CIA/MOSSAD/MI6.....all the way to
way of using the ** stooge of CIA the Dalai Lama.....

Apr 17, 2009,

ASMARA, Eritrea -- One of the best kept secrets in the international media these days is the link between the USA, Ethiopia and the Somali pirates. First, a little reliable background from someone on the ground in the Horn of Africa.

The Somali pirates operate out of the Ethiopian and USA created enclaves in Somalia calling themselves Somaliland and Puntland. These Ethiopian and USA backed warlord controlled territories have for many years hosted Ethiopian military bases, which have been greatly expanded recently by the addition of thousands of Ethiopian troops who were driven out of southern and central Somali by the Somali resistance to the Ethiopian invasion.

After securing their ransom for the hijacked ships the Somali pirates head directly to their local safe havens, in this case, the Ethiopian military bases, where they make a sizeable contribution to the retirement accounts of the Ethiopian regime headed by Meles Zenawi.

Of course, the international naval forces who are patrolling the Horn of Africa know all too well what is going on for they have at their disposal all sorts of high tech observation platforms, ranging from satellites to unmanned drones with high resolution video cameras that report back in real time.

The French commandos started to pursue the Somali pirates into their lairs last year until the pirates got the word that for the right amount of cash they were more than welcome in the Ethiopian military bases in their local neighborhoods. Ethiopia being the western, mainly USA, Cop on the Beat in East Africa put these bases off limits to the frustrated navies of the world, who are no doubt growling in anger to their USA counterparts about why this is all going on.

Now that the pirates have started attacking USA flagged shipping, something that was until now off limits, it remains to be seen what the Obama administration will do. One thing we in the Horn of Africa have learned all too well, when it comes to Ethiopia, don’t expect anything resembling accurate coverage by the media, especially those who operate under the cloak of “freedom of the press.”

Stay tuned for more on this , the only site willing to expose the truth on matters no one else will the thousands of Tribes with Flags which will be brought about worldwide by the threesome of assassins, CIA/MOSSAD/MI6.....

In other words, the Dalai Lama while pretending that he is an adherent
of Buddhism which advocates nonviolence preaches that violence is not
violence, but rather nonviolence if the person who committed violence
was motivated by a ``good cause''.

So what constitutes a ``good cause''? He didn't say. But he said he
and George Bush the mass murderer of this century became instant
buddies and he loved him. (The Dalai Lama also declared that he would
not pass judgment on the aggression against Iraq. Of course not!
understandably, the NGOs under Bush gave the priest a lot of money to
speak on the neoconservatives' behalf and speak glowingly about their

By his definition, a Tibetan who threw firebombs into a shop in Lhasa,
murdered the shop operator and his wife, and destroyed the property,
might not have committed violence because his motivation was to take
Tibet out of China's control. The Dalai Lama has described life in
Tibet under China as hell for the ``Tibetans''.

But of course, he was just saying what the Bin Laden has been saying
about kicking the US military out of Saudi Arabia and other parts of
the Middle East, though he wanted to pretend that he himself was no
Bin Laden because he advocated nonviolence while every Western host he
pays a visit to has branded Bin Laden a most-wanted terrorist.

While the jihadists in the Middle East have been honest about their
goal and justify their jihad as self-defense, an act allowed by Islam,
the Dalai Lama resorts to ugly sophistry to justify his disgusting
relationship with George Bush and to continue to incite his followers
in Tibet to commit violence.

So, we now can be absolutely sure that the Dalai Lama's ``Third Way''
is in actuality his idea of wanting both ways: wanting violence
against others but refuse to accept the judgment that he is a real
advocate of violence.

And so, no wonder why the Chinese government (of which I am not a fan)
doesn't want to negotiate with him.

Who would want to negotiate with someone with a forked tongue whose
words do not mean anything?

And that's why I've been saying that the Dalai Lama ill-serves the
Tibetan people as their spokesman and self-appointed leader. The
longer he is fooling-around by consorting with mass-murderers in the
West, the longer the Tibetan people have to suffer. For example, the
Autonomous Region of Inner Mongolia has many colleges and universities
since the Communists took over China and invested in the region, Tibet
continues to be largely illiterate because the Dalai Lama encourages
the people to be isolationists, ignoring the necessity for education
for the sake of survival.

The Dalai Lama no doubt earns 6 figure honoraria spending a week here
and a week there in the US (the hosts couldn't possibly be paying him
anything less than they would pay Al Gore for example, could they?)

So the Dalai Lama is willing to prostitute the interests of ``his
people'' in exchange for the dollars of CIA..... How sad!

QANA Israel's turning point as always

Les criminels de guerre Barak, Peres, Netanayahu et leur derniere trouvaille politique pour sauver 'Eretz Yisrael', un gouvernement raciste de type apartheid-militaro-rabinique, est-ce que le criminel de guerre Sarkosy veut imposer le meme type de gouvernement aux francais, de pretendus laics ? Les masques sont tombés...

La Face D'Israël Est Entrain De Changer pour le pire...encore plus de racisme d'etat.....

QANA Israel's turning point as always

17/04/2009 They could have been fathers and mothers today telling their children the stories of what’s right and what’s wrong.
They could have been grandmothers and grandfathers.
They could have been vivid young men and young women working on their future.

106 people could have been anything other than mere remains and anyplace other than under the ground of Qana.

13 years ago, Qana was the scene of an obscene massacre caused by one of Israel’s “Grapes of Wrath.”

Few know that the name the Grapes of Wrath has religious implications. Israeli Rabbi Moshe Cohen explained that the word “grapes” came from the fact that grapes occupied the first position among the seven fruits mentioned in the Talmud, which means that the “grapes of wrath” means anger of the Jewish people.

Israel had bombed the UNIFIL headquarters in the southern town of Qana with “pinpoint accuracy” just after dozens of Lebanese refugees had sheltered there. More than half of the 106 martyrs were children.
One really must have a heart of stone not to feel compassion for those children who became numbers on plastic bags and in some cases small body parts in carpets.

The gruesome pictures of the massacre were published in most Arab newspapers. In the West, however, publishers spared their readers the terrible pictures of how an ill-minded entity steels the future from children. True they respect the dead, but did they respect them when they were alive. The 155mm shell that killed those children was made in the US, and so was the missile that killed the children of the Nabatiyeh massacre on that same day and the children of the Mansouri ambulance massacre earlier and the many Israeli slaughters to follow.

Israel said it was returning fire at Hezbollah and that technical failures might have occurred.

The UN appointed military advisor Major-General Franklin van Kappen of the Netherlands to investigate the massacre. He said in his conclusion that: “a) The distribution of impacts at Qana shows two distinct concentrations, whose mean points of impact are about 140 meters apart. If the guns were converged, as stated by the Israeli forces, there should have been only one main point of impact.
b) The pattern of impacts is inconsistent with a normal overshooting of the declared target (the mortar site) by a few rounds, as suggested by the Israeli forces. c) During the shelling, there was a perceptible shift in the weight of fire from the mortar site to the United Nations compound. d) The distribution of point impact detonations and air bursts makes it improbable that impact fuses and proximity fuses were employed in random order, as stated by the Israeli forces.
e) There were no impacts in the second target area which the Israeli forces claim to have shelled.
f) Contrary to repeated denials, two Israeli helicopters and a remotely piloted vehicle were present in the Qana area at the time of the shelling. While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of gross technical and/or procedural errors.”

Then U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali released the report after coming under severe pressure not to release it Shamefully though the U.N. Security Council has refused to act on the report or to hold the Israelis accountable. Of course the American veto threat and tremendous pressures upon Boutros-Ghali and member states at the U.N. was behind this further demonstration of U.N. impotence and cowardice. For his crime, Ghali was later sacrificed at the altar of the Zionist masters who controlled the Oval Office.

Israel responded by categorically rejecting the findings of the UN report and insisted that “their investigation” has shown that the UN position was hit by artillery fire “due to incorrect targeting based on erroneous data.”

Israel needed to get rid of the July 1993 understanding that put the conflict between occupation forces and the resistance in its absolute military form, excluding civilians from military operations. Moreover, then Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Perez was accused by the Likud and his own Labor party of helplessness in dealing with the Lebanese resistance attacks. Perez was facing election before the summer of 1996. With an American blessing, he exploited the international sympathy with Israel in the wake of the Palestinian resistance attacks. This sympathy was established in the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in Egypt on the 13th of March 1996, which gave Israel full rein to crush resistance forces in Palestine and Lebanon; a plan was set.

Israeli occupation forces opened artillery fire at the southern village of Yater and killed several people. It was the first fruit of the Israeli plot, grapes of wrath. Bit by bit, yet in a fast pace, Israeli artillery fire and air raids expanded to reach the Bekaa region and southern populated areas. The Israeli fire was accompanied by a psychological warfare assumed by the (Voice of the South) radio, controlled by the pro-Israeli militias of chief collaborator Antoine Lahed. Beirut’s southern suburbs were targeted with four laser-guided missiles near Hezbollah’s Shoura council announcing the beginning of a fierce war. The party’s Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah announced that Hezbollah will retaliate to the Israeli aggression by bombing settlements in northern occupied Palestine.

And so it happened.

Rounds of Katyusha missiles fell on the settlements of Keryat Shmonah, Nahariya and Metula.
On the fifth day of the aggression, it became evident that the initiative was in the hands of the resistance.
The Israeli command realized that “grapes of wrath” had backlashed. To escape this situation, it intensified military assaults, while the resistance raised its tone and threatened to attack more settlements. In the meantime, Damascus, Tehran and Beirut were confronting the Israeli-American axis, while Paris and Moscow which intervened for calm down had their initiatives hindered by the American demand that concerned parties sign a document calling in one of its article for the deletion of resolution 425; the UN resolution that demanded Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. Washington was also protecting Israel at the Security Council by vetoing any resolution that condemned Israeli aggressions against Lebanon, including the massacres in Qana, Nabatiyeh and other places.

Realizing Israel was heading to abyss, the Americans launched their own initiative.

Then US Ambassador to Lebanon Richard Jones told the Lebanese government of martyr Rafik Hariri that to end Israeli hostilities in Lebanon, the resistance had to stop attacking Israeli forces in the south, whereas Israeli forces preserved the right to attack Hezbollah positions if they attacked “northern Israel.”
Lebanon seemed to be fighting this war alone, amid Arab silence.
Beirut and the Lebanese backed the resistance and Lebanon’s allies were working on a cease-fire. The Americans acknowledged that Sayyed Nasrallah had become a major player in any attempt to reach a cease-fire.

Israel’s goal to crush and disarm Hezbollah had turned into a request to stop firing Katyusha missiles at settlements in return for a stop of Israel’s military campaign.

Then US Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, failed to press for Israel’s demands. After seven days of political wrangling, Christopher called up Lebanese Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Rafik Hariri for a meeting in Damascus. The April understanding, as it was later known, announced the end of the 16-day Israeli aggression. The signed understanding stated that Israel and its collaborators would not fire at civilian targets and the resistance would not attack “northern Israel” with Katyusha missiles or any other kind of weapons. The understanding included an article to form a monitoring group made up of observers from the US, France, Syria, Lebanon and Israel to oversee the implementation of the understanding.

Operation grapes of wrath ended and the Israeli military assessment concluded it was a failed operation while the political aftermath saw Shimon Peres defeated in Israeli elections.
Ten years later, Israel launched an unprecedented war against Lebanon, in yet another attempt to crush Hezbollah. In the “Second Lebanon War” Qana was again the turning point that changed the course of the war. Israel committed a massacre there killing dozens of people, mainly children and women, hiding from Israeli bombs.
This historical village in south Lebanon has contributed at least twice in hitting the last nails in the coffin of Israel.

According to the Winograd report, the Second Israeli war constituted a humiliating defeat to Israel.
Religiously speaking, the Israelis believe that the beginning of their entity’s end starts with their first defeat – which took place in 2000 and then enhanced by another resounding defeat in 2006.

The resistance remains strong and Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah’s promises are fulfilled. Today, despite attempt to distort the resistance and Sayyed Nasrallah’s image, his eminence’s pledge, in case of a new Israeli war, is to let the world witness new surprises that would change the course of the battle and the face of the whole region.

Israel’s Grapes of Wrath 1996
Israel’s Grapes of Wrath 1996
Israel’s Grapes of Wrath 1996
Israel’s Grapes of Wrath 1996
Israel’s Grapes of Wrath 1996
Israel’s Grapes of Wrath 1996
Israel’s Grapes of Wrath 1996
Israel’s Grapes of Wrath 1996

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

The ugly secret of Pentagon 9/11

The ugly secret of Pentagon 9/11.....

Severe Visibility
A film by Paul Cross

9/11 films have become a genre, whether non-fiction or fictionalized
accounts of the events and truth of that awful day. This latest, Severe
Visibility, by actor, writer, director Paul Cross, is a riveting,
Kafkaesque film which takes places largely in the matrix of the
Pentagon, the belly of the beast on 9/11 and its aftermath. The small
cast and independent production reminds me somewhat of The Reflecting
Pool, with its relentless questioning of the official story.

In this case, the hero or anti-hero is U.S. Army Major Stanley Kruter,
who works in the ill-fated Pentagon accounting office, most of which was
obliterated along with Naval Intelligence that day, both keepers of many
lost secrets. Kruter is a Vietnam veteran winding down his military
career far from the bloody battlefields he experienced as a young man,
though they have left him troubled and suffering with bouts of
depression and anti-depressants.

Kruter, though mild-mannered, self-effacing, is a fiercely patriotic
man, somewhat at conflict with his inner peacenik for his military
career. To ease his psychic pain, he keeps a diary. His pen pal or
conscience to whom he writes and questions is no less than Thomas
Jefferson, whose determined visage graces a wall of Kruter’s small office.

It is in this room in hell on the morning of 9/11 that Kruter notices
his small TV’s reception is fluttering. As he brings the antennae cord
to the window’s metal frame, he sees a craft descending like a
lightening bolt towards the building. Just then, a friend bursts in the
doorway to ask him if he’s seen what’s happened in New York. Before he
can answer, the craft makes explosive contact with the building.

Full of self-doubt, even remorse, Kruter wonders if he saw what he
thinks he saw: not the 757 he’s told later hit the building, but a
smaller, slender, missile-like craft zooming down ground level at nearly
500 mph. Though he survives the explosion with only a nasty forehead
bruise, he is further damaged psychologically by the unthinkable truth
of what he feels he really saw. Could it possibly be? Could a soldier, a
lifer, a patriot like him even think such thoughts?

In fact, at a deposition in the Pentagon, when asked what he saw by
military brass and two FBI men, he has trouble, internal trouble,
spitting out 757. Under repeated questioning, he hesitantly clings to
the official story, afraid to even touch his original perception lest he
be thought a traitor. Of course, once he has testified that yes it was a
757, the die is cast. Whatever inner peace he had is destroyed by his

To make matters worse, as he leaves the building he is questioned by a
foreign journalist who challenges him when he repeats it was a 757. This
only pours fuel on Kruter’s internal rage. And we are off and running
through his world, suddenly gone dark, and haunted by his deepest fears,
not to mention the relentless reporter, military inquirers, the incoming
information from eyewitness reports on his car radio and home television
that rebut the 757 perception.

Sufficeth to say, Kruter’s crisis of conscience is full-blown. And even
the title, Severe Visibility, begins to sound awfully like, Severe
Disability, a perhaps fatal case of PTSD. It is an irony and reckoning
for this veteran soldier who thought he had distanced himself in the
fortress of patriotism from the suffering and violence of the
battlefield. Or are they both sides of a coin fate flipped for him? And
the call, at all costs, is his.

Within this taut set-up, we have a graceful dramatic device for
exposition of all the facts and non-facts and what questions arose after
Pentagon 9/11. They are doled out by the relentless reporter, whom
Kruter contacts, and by Kruter himself who begins to look more closely
at photos of the front of the building, and to realize the absence of
the massive wings, tail, fuselage, engines and baggage.

Kruter also notices a file cabinet and computer screen in an exposed
office on the second floor above where the airliner was said to hit.
They survived the heat that purportedly evaporated the craft and bodies.
As he pursues the impulses of his doubt, he awakens the suspicions of
others. A military guard catches Kruter entering a cordoned off office
directly below his own. He explains to the guard he wanted to see if the
view was any different than his. It wasn’t, but the guard reports him.

The revelations that the Pentagon hit was what he really saw begin to
tighten like a hanging noose around his neck, suffocating him. He visits
his psychiatrist, begins to rely on pills and whiskey to dim his
consciousness, but it’s too late. He is approached by the two FBI men
who had been at his original deposition and is questioned again. He
realizes that his worst nightmare is beginning to come true.

I leave the rest and the best of it all for you to see -- you being
anyone who likes a good story well told, or who are interested in what
really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. Ultimately, what Kruter finds
out catapults him into this matrix of intrigue, madness, and suspense,
setting him on a collision course with his destiny, one from which he
finds no return.

Severe Visibility was an Official Selection of the New York
International Independent Film and Video Festival of 2007.

The Bush Six to Be Indicted

The Bush Six to Be Indicted

Alberto Gonzales

Spanish prosecutors will seek criminal charges against Alberto Gonzales and five high-ranking Bush administration officials for sanctioning torture at Guantánamo. By Scott Horton.

Spanish prosecutors have decided to press forward with a criminal investigation targeting former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and five top associates over their role in the torture of five Spanish citizens held at Guantánamo, several reliable sources close to the investigation have told The Daily Beast. Their decision is expected to be announced on Tuesday before the Spanish central criminal court, the Audencia Nacional, in Madrid. But the decision is likely to raise concerns with the human-rights community on other points: They will seek to have the case referred to a different judge.

Both Washington and Madrid appear determined not to allow the pending criminal investigation to get in the way of improved relations....????

The six defendants—in addition to Gonzales, Federal Appeals Court Judge and former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, University of California law professor and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, former Defense Department general counsel and current Chevron lawyer William J. Haynes II, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff David Addington, and former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith—are accused of having given the green light to the torture and mistreatment of prisoners held in U.S. detention in “the war on terror.” The case arises in the context of a pending proceeding before the court involving terrorism charges against five Spaniards formerly held at Guantánamo. A group of human-rights lawyers originally filed a criminal complaint asking the court to look at the possibility of charges against the six American lawyers. Baltasar Garzón Real, the investigating judge, accepted the complaint and referred it to Spanish prosecutors for a view as to whether they would accept the case and press it forward. “The evidence provided was more than sufficient to justify a more comprehensive investigation,” one of the lawyers associated with the prosecution stated.

But prosecutors will also ask that Judge Garzón, an internationally known figure due to his management of the case against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and other high-profile cases, step aside. The case originally came to Garzón because he presided over efforts to bring terrorism charges against the five Spaniards previously held at Guantánamo. Spanish prosecutors consider it “awkward” for the same judge to have both the case against former U.S. officials based on the possible torture of the five Spaniards at Guantánamo and the case against those very same Spaniards. A source close to the prosecution also noted that there was concern about the reaction to the case in some parts of the U.S. media, where it had been viewed, incorrectly, as a sort of personal frolic of Judge Garzón. Instead, the prosecutors will ask Garzón to transfer the case to Judge Ismail Moreno, who is currently handling an investigation into kidnapping charges surrounding the CIA’s use of facilities as a safe harbor in connection with the seizure of Khalid el-Masri, a German greengrocer who was seized and held at various CIA blacksites for about half a year as a result of mistaken identity. The decision on the transfer will be up to Judge Garzón in the first instance, and he is expected to make a quick ruling. If he denies the request, it may be appealed.

Judge Garzón’s name grabs headlines in Spain today less because of his involvement in the Gonzales torture case than because of his supervision of the Gürtel affair, in which leading figures of the conservative Partido Popular in Madrid and Valencia are now under investigation or indictment on suspicions of corruptly awarding public-works contracts. Garzón is also the nation’s leading counterterrorism judge, responsible for hundreds of investigations targeting Basque terrorist groups, as well as a major recent effort to identify and root out al Qaeda affiliates operating in the Spanish enclaves of North Africa.

Announcement of the prosecutor’s decision was delayed until after the Easter holiday in order not to interfere with a series of meetings between President Barack Obama and Spanish Prime Minister José Zapatero. However, contrary to a claim contained in an editorial on April 8 in the Wall Street Journal, the Obama State Department has been in steady contact with the Spanish government about the case. Shortly after the case was filed on March 17, chief prosecutor Javier Zaragoza was invited to the U.S. embassy in Madrid to brief members of the embassy staff about the matter. A person in attendance at the meeting described the process as “correct and formal.” The Spanish prosecutors briefed the American diplomats on the status of the case, how it arose, the nature of the allegations raised against the former U.S. government officials. The Americans “were basically there just to collect information,” the source stated.The Spanish prosecutors advised the Americans that they would suspend their investigation if at any point the United States were to undertake an investigation of its own into these matters. They pressed to know whether any such investigation was pending. These inquiries met with no answer from the U.S. side.

Spanish officials are highly conscious of the political context of the case and have measured the Obama administration’s low-key reaction attentively. Although Spain is a NATO ally that initially supported “the war on terror” under Bush with a commitment of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, relations with the Bush administration deteriorated after Zapatero became prime minister and acted quickly to withdraw the Spanish contingent in Iraq. In the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican John McCain referred to Spain as a hostile state in comments that mystified Spaniards (it appears that McCain may have confused Spain with Venezuela and Zapatero with Hugo Chávez). Recently, the United States and Spain also wrangled over Spain’s decision to withdraw its troop commitment in Kosovo as well. Both Zapatero and Obama, however, have given a high priority to improving relations between the two long-standing allies. Spanish newspapers hailed the fact that Obama referred to Zapatero three times as “my good friend” during the recent European summit meetings, a sharp contrast with meetings at which former President Bush gave Zapatero a cold shoulder.

Both Washington and Madrid appear determined not to allow the pending criminal investigation to get in the way of improved relations, which both desire, particularly in regard to coordinated economic policy to confront the current financial crisis and a reshaped NATO mandate for action in Afghanistan. With the case now proceeding, that will be more of a challenge. The reaction on American editorial pages is divided—some questioning sharply why the Obama administration is not conducting an investigation, which is implicitly the question raised by the Spanish prosecutors. Publications loyal to the Bush team argue that the Spanish investigation is an “intrusion” into American affairs, even when those affairs involve the torture of five Spaniards on Cuba.

The Bush Six labored at length to create a legal black hole in which they could implement their policies safe from the scrutiny of American courts and the American media. Perhaps they achieved much of their objective, but the law of unintended consequences has kicked in. If U.S. courts and prosecutors will not address the matter because of a lack of jurisdiction, foreign courts appear only too happy to step in.

Israel's racists in chief abound....

Israel’s Racist in Chief: ... [Lieberman] said in 2004 that 90 percent of Israel's Palestinian citizens "have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost." This statement was especially galling since Lieberman, unlike the Palestinian majority who can trace their ancestry in the region back generations, immigrated to Israel in 1978 from Moldova and retains a heavy Russian accent.

He has suggested bombing Egypt's Aswan Dam, an act that would lead to a massive loss of Egyptian lives. As Ariel Sharon's minister of transportation he offered to bus several hundred Palestinian prisoners to the sea and drown them. He recently told the president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, one of Israel's few Arab allies, to "go to hell." And, along with Netanyahu, he advocates massive airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Lieberman, from the floor of the Knesset, openly fantasized three years ago about executing the handful of Palestinian Knesset members.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Exposing two notorious Ziocons pro-Israel warmongers

Exposing two notorious pro-Israel warmongers
How Gilad Atzmon routed David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen

By Gilad Atzmon

11 April 2009

Israeli-born jazz musician and writer Gilad Atzmon describes how, at a
debate on anti-Semitism held at Oxford University, he demolished two of
Britain’s most notorious pro-war and pro-Israel lobbyists, David
Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen.

On 1 April 2009, I participated in a panel that could have been a
breakthrough debate on issues having to do with “anti-Semitism”. The
event was part of the Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival and it took
place at Oxford University. The discussion was moderated by the
legendary BBC reporter, Martin Bell. On the panel we had Nick Cohen and
David Aaronovitch. They were there to elaborate on the case of “the new
anti-Semitism”. Interestingly enough, Aaronovitch and Cohen were
prominent advocates of the illegal war on Iraq through the British
press. They are also notoriously famous for their Islamophobic ranting,
and, as if this were not enough, they were also caught supporting the
latest deadly Israeli campaign in Gaza. I was at the panel to argue that
anti-Semitism is a spin, a myth. I was there to deliver a very simple
message: there is no such thing as anti-Semitism.

I was looking forward to the event. I suspected that it might not be
easy confronting Britain’s loudest Zionist-conservative (Ziocon)
lobbyists on my own. In fact, I was wrong. It was a piece of cake. It
was almost an effortless task to expose and demolish the lame Zionist
argument, mainly because there is no such argument. Zionism is not a
dialogical narrative; rather, it is a pragmatic and ruthless practice
that seeks control of land and discourse.

In contrast to Aaronovitch and Cohen, I believe in dialogue and I
support every form of well-argued debate. In fact, I would debate with
anyone, whether it is a Nazi or a Zionist, whether it is a white
supremacist or a Judaeocentric Islamophobic agitator. In my world,
platform is granted to anyone who is willing to hold a well-mannered
conversation. However, on 1 April both Aaronovitch and Cohen didn’t want
to debate or to argue. They believed that finishing me off would serve
their cause. Funnily enough, not only did they fail, but they ended up
on the defensive, running out of sympathy and begging for the audience
to stop applauding me.

Sadly, the panel was not very effective in elaborating on the given
topic (“Anti-Semitism – alive and well in Europe?”). David Aaronovitch,
who happened to be the first to talk, insisted that, rather than discuss
the subject, he would score more points by citing the best of my
published jewels. He was determined to convince the audience that I was
the lowest of the low and that I should have never been invited to such
a prestigious platform. This is not a joke. Aaronovitch, who is
notoriously famous for lobbying for a war that that has left (so far)
1.5 million civilians dead, a person who is engaged in spreading vile
anti-left and Zionist Islamophobic propaganda, is convinced that he is
entitled to preach to the public on who should and who should not
participate in the discourse. Foolishly, Aaronovitch anticipated that,
once he read out my words, a gasp of resentment towards me would spread
in the marquee. The deluded man must have invested an enormous amount of
energy gathering these endless quotes. He must have read each of my
papers, picking out what he interpreted, in his deluded Zionist
world-view, as “outrageous thoughts”. For my part, I was rather thrilled
and amused. It doesn’t happen that often that people read my works with
such enthusiasm on such a prestigious platform. Neither me nor my most
devoted readers could have done a better job presenting my ideas.

Sadly for Aaronovitch, his plan didn’t work out. There was not a single
noticeable reaction in the room. There was not a single gasp of
resentment. And yet, the truth must be said, Aaronovitch is a very
talented, melodramatic performer. He brilliantly over-dramatized my
ideas, he beautifully stressed the different variations of the “J” word.
He would then slow down, stare at me with exaggerated contempt and
giggle, expecting the crowd to join him. But they didn’t.

For reasons known only to themselves, Aaronovitch and Cohen failed to
realize that Oxford University was not exactly a Yeshiva. It was not an
occupied territory either. It wasn’t down to them or the Israeli Hasbara
Committee to decide who was entitled to engage in a public debate. If
anything, the two warmongers should have had the minimum intellectual
integrity to ban themselves from the public eye for advocating a war
that has led to a genocide. The two warmongers should have had enough
honesty to realize that, if there is anti-Semitism, as they say, they
must be the root cause for such a phenomenon.

Aaronovitch failed to grasp that people who attend literary events are
largely curious and open minded; they are far more interested in
listening to enlightening ideas rather than to be indoctrinated or
patronized by a right-wing Zionist agitator.

Seemingly, Aaronovitch failed to realize that people out there do read
the news from time to time. They read about Charles Freeman and the
Jewish lobby, they read about the swindler Bernard Madoff, Lord Michael
“Cashpoint” Levy, proxy donor David Abrahams, Labour Friends of Israel,
Alan Greenspan and the credit crunch. People out there do realize that
more than just a few prominent Zionist Jews are caught in the eye of the
current storms (Iraq, finance, Gaza). Aaronovitch, who by his own
admission, has been monitoring my writing for years, should have known
that NO ONE out of the Jewish ghetto is offended by my observations
about excessive Jewish lobbying and Zionist power. If anything, my stand
against tribal politics makes me more and more popular within far bigger

Needless to say, I myself have never sought this kind of fame. I am a
jazz musician, I have a very rewarding musical career. When it comes to
my intervention on Jewish identity, I write what I regard to be the
truth, realizing that there maybe more than one truth. I publish my
thoughts in the full knowledge that my truth today may be shaken
tomorrow. My task is very simple. I try to be coherent, to make sure
that at least I can follow my own threads of thought. I am aware of the
fact that my writing may demolish some – in fact, more than once I
surprised even myself by my own ideas. Unlike Cohen and Aaronovitch, for
me this has never been a political battle, it has never been about power
or about scoring points. It was always about ethics and intellectual
integrity. Seemingly, ethics and intellectual honesty are exactly what
the Ziocons à la Aaronovitch/Cohen lack. It is evidently the shortage of
ethical commitment and intellectual integrity that pushes Cohen and
Aaronovitch back to where they belong: the insular, segregated kosher

Notably, both Aaronovitch and Cohen are famous for their incredibly
deceiving call to “liberate the Iraqi people”. The two Jewish Chronicle
writers claimed to know what the Iraqi people “desired”. They were
obviously wrong and the total Western defeat in Iraq proves it beyond
doubt. It is understandable and to be expected that two Zionist
Londoners would fail to grasp the true will of the Iraqi people. Yet,
one would expect Aaronovitch and Cohen to know “something” about the
middle class crowd in Oxford. At the end of the day, Aaronovitch and
Cohen were raised in the UK and educated at British universities. In
spite of their promoting of Zionist propaganda in the British media,
they are still British; they should have known better. I would have also
expected that, after 200 years of “Jewish assimilation”, the tribal
activists would learn something about their neighbours’ appetite.
Apparently, Aaronovitch and Cohen didn’t. The enthusiastic reception of
my intervention drove Aaronovitch into a vile tantrum. “Shame on you,”
he shouted at the applauding Oxford crowd. Before too long, he was
caught on tape blaming his audience for being anti-Semitic. Clearly, on
the recording, some members of the audience are heard giggling at the
embarrassing outburst of a neurotic, decaying neo-conservative.

I do realize that my performance in Oxford was actually very symbolic in
its resemblance to the success of the Iraqi resistance: despite my
rather broken English, my faulty grammar and my limited resources, and
notwithstanding being sluggish and slightly messy, the truth was on my
side – or I should say, the truth is in our side. As far as public
debate is concerned, Jewish tribalism, Zionism and neo-con precepts are
indefensible. We will win in every intellectual battle against these
warmongers just because we are ethical, genuine and coherent. All we
have to do is to survive their endless spin and slander.

Once Aaronovitch ended citing my “pearls”, Nick Cohen took the platform.
He spoke about the Elders of Zion. Like Aaronovitch, he failed to
address the subject. It is clear that Zionist lobbyists really believe
that focusing on a 19th century text would distract attention from the
current powerful elders who lobby for more and more global conflicts and
biblical plunder. Cohen, I guess, must be convinced that, as long as the
Protocols [of the Elders of Zion] are alive in our thoughts, he might be
able to advocate wars without us noticing. He must be a fool. We do see
him, we see it all and we do not like what we see.

“I refuse to accept the premise of the debate,” I told the people in
Oxford. Anti-Semitism is a misleading notion. It is there to give the
impression that opposition to Jewish politics is racially motivated.
However, Jews are not a race nor are they in any proximity of any
recognized racial continuum. Since Jews are not a race (but can be very
racist), opposition to what some of them advocate, at least currently,
is not racially orientated or motivated at all.

Anti-Semitism is nothing but spin, it is there to silence criticism of
Israel, Jewish nationalism, Jewish politics and Jewish lobbies around
the world. Rather than talking about anti-Semitism, we had better talk
about the rise of anti-Jewish feelings.

I am more than willing to admit that there is indeed more than one piece
of evidence of growing resentment towards Jewishness, and I am referring
here to Jewish ideology and Jewish politics. Yet, in a liberal society,
political and ideological criticism is supposed to be a fully legitimate
endeavour. As it happens, there is a growing rage against Jewish
politics and national politics in particular, but this shouldn’t take us
by surprise, considering the crimes that are committed locally and
globally by Zionists and neo-cons, whether it is Ehud Olmert’s genocidal
practice in Palestine or the Aaronovitch/Cohen lobbying for a war
against Israel’s enemies.

I am also willing to admit that some innocent ethnic Jews are caught in
the middle of all this. This is indeed a serious problem and I do not
have a simple answer to offer. Yet, I would mention that my wife, my
kids and a few of my band members who happen to be of Jewish origin have
never come across any form of anti-Semitic abuse. If we have ever
noticed any abuse, it was somehow always Jewish violence against us in
the form of death threats, smears, slander and spin.

In the light of this very simple observation, two questions must be asked.
First, how is it that the campaigners against anti Semitism, such as
Aaronovitch and Cohen, happen to be also muddled up with some ludicrous
Islamophobic statements?

The answer is very simple. Those who preach to us about anti-Semitism
are neither humanists nor universalists. They are simply banal tribal
activists that are committed to the interests of their ethnic group and
that group alone. The few gentiles who advocate this immoral discourse
do it for political reasons. Within the Jewish terminology, they are
called the “Sabbath Goy”1. They are there to work for the Jews and they
are fully rewarded accordingly.

Second, we have good reason to believe that Aaronovitch and Cohen know
very well that Jews are not descendants of people of Semitic origin and
do not form a racial continuum. Why then do they try to pretend that the
negation towards Jews is racially motivated?

Again the answer is rather obvious. The Jewish ethnic campaigner will
spin and cheat and spread lies because Jewish ideology (right, left and
centre) cannot be defended or argued in rational or ethical terms. All
Jewish national political discourses are exclusivist, supremacist and
racially orientated. (Although Jews are far from being a race, every
form of Jewish politics is categorically racist to the bone. It is
always about different formations of a “Jews only” club.)

To a certain extent, I was very lucky to share a platform with
Aaronovitch and Cohen for the simple reason that they are the ultimate
embodiment of tribal activism and war lobbying in this country.
Aaronovitch and Cohen, among a few other Zio-con protagonists, are the
root cause of resentment towards Jewish political lobbying. It was
almost entertaining to hear the Jewish Chronicle writer Aaronovitch
denying being a Jew, presenting the lame and pathetic argument that he
had been in a synagogue just “three times in my entire life”.
Aaronovitch obviously thought that he would get away with this new spin.
He obviously knows that Jews do not have to believe in God, they do not
have to go to synagogues. He must know also that even one visit to a
synagogue is probably far more than the vast majority of humanity has
ever experienced. What makes Aaronovitch into a Jewish tribal campaigner
is, for instance, the fact that he is listed on the Israel Hasbara2
Committee as one of their authors. The Israeli Propaganda (Hasbara)
Committee, which lists Aaronovitch as one of its authors declares that
its aim is:“To promote understanding of Judaism and Israel.”

Do you know of any goy who is affiliated with the “promotion” of Judaism
AND Israel? Oh yes, Aaronovitch, has one more spinning line he has yet
to explore. He may suggest to us that he is actually a “Christian Zionist”.

What makes Aaronovitch into a Jew has nothing to do with his religious
affiliation or belief. It has nothing to do with the ethnicity of his
parents. It has nothing to do with the shape of his nose or the tip of
his knob. What makes Aaronovitch into a Jew and a Zionist one in
particular is his affiliation with the most rabid, notorious,
nationalist Jewish political school. What made Aaronovitch so spiteful
and despised in Oxford had nothing to do with his father’s origin. It is
actually his Zionist politics and Zionized tactics, it is his commitment
to Israeli propaganda, it is the fact that he lobbied for a war that
made us all into war criminals, a war that has led to the genocide of
1.5 million innocent Iraqi civilians.

Aaronovitch and Cohen may have learned a lesson in Oxford. Aaronovitch
pledged never to see me again. Listening to the audio recording of the
event, and especially to his tantrum, he has a very good reason not to.
The contemptible Zio-con was exposed. However, in the light of his being
listed as an Israeli “propaganda author”, and bearing in mind his being
a lobbyist for an illegal war, Aaronovitch is not exactly a Western
liberal humanist. Seemingly, he is more of an Israeli patriot than a
British one. This is something that his readers in The Times must keep
in mind when Aaronovitch attempts to drag this country into another
devastating global conflict.

1. Sabbath Goy: Originally, a non-Jew who does work on Sabbath that a
Jew cannot do. In modern times, it is a non-Jew who toadies to the every
wish and whim of the Jews, especially in politics, or a non-Jew who is
heavily supportive of Israel.

2. Hasbara is Hebrew for propaganda.

Sunday, April 12, 2009

The White House Murder INC, and the Tin-pot dictator in Damascus

The White House Murder INC, and the Tin-pot dictator in Damascus and bread winner for the Alawite Mafia in Syria, a thuggish minority, continues to do Israel's bidding for decades...., in perpetuating endless proxy-wars on behalf of the threesome of assassins, CIA2/MI6/MOSSAD's tricksters, in order to stay in power, Loot Syria's resources, and oppress the good peoples of Syria.

In the last two or three years, a number of old arguments regarding Syria have again become fashionable. One of them is that peace with Syria is not only “there to be had”, but that it may lead to drastic changes in Syrian behavior, in turn altering regional dynamics for the better. However, in several recent interviews, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has made statements that paint a very different picture.

In his comments, Assad clarified exactly what he meant by “peace” with Israel, and it bore no resemblance to the rosy scenarios painted by the “peace processors.” In fact, the president raised serious questions about the value of any such deal altogether.

In a recent interview with the Emirati newspaper Al-Khaleej, Assad made a remarkable – and indeed unprecedented – comment about what his concept of “peace” with Israel was. “A peace agreement,” he said, “is a piece of paper you sign. This does not mean trade and normal relations, or borders, or otherwise.”

The long-held view among people dealing with the negotiating track between Syria and Israel is that a peace deal will lead to a normalization of relations between the two countries. That was the purported basis of their talks during the 1990s. In recent years, another element was added to the argument, namely that a peace deal would distance Syria from Iran and allied militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, so that Damascus might even put pressure on Hamas itself to accept peace talks with Israel. This ambitious theory was dubbed “strategic reorientation”, and it has become the basis for conceptualizing engagement of Syria today.

However, the implications of Assad’s statement to Al-Khaleej should lead to a reassessment of the Syrian-Israeli track. Assad has now articulated what he had strongly implied for years.

In 2002, at the Arab League summit in Beirut, Assad led a strenuous effort to torpedo the formula put forward by Saudi Arabia’s then-crown prince, Abdullah, which offered Israel “full normalization for full withdrawal.” Assad rejected the term “normalization” and in the end a compromise was reached on watered-down language proposing only “normal ties”.

Then last July, Assad went further, telling the Qatari satellite station Al-Jazeera that from the Syrian point of view, “the word ‘normalization’ does not exist.” He insisted that it was a Western concoction that Syria rejected. Instead, Assad used an even more downgraded term, namely “average relations”, whose Arabic root removes any link to the word “normal.” The late Syrian president, Hafez al-Assad, also told interlocutors during the 1990s that he did not accept the word “normalization.” Now, with his son’s declarations, the regime’s position can be summarized in three No’s: No normalization, no trade and no borders, by which Assad presumably meant no open borders.

What about Syria’s “strategic reorientation” away from Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah? Assad has been very clear on that as well. In a recent exchange with the American journalist Seymour Hersh, Assad said that Israel and the United States should not “waste time talking about who is going to send arms to Hezbollah or Hamas. Whenever you have resistance in the region, they will have armaments somehow. It is very simple.”

In other words, Assad intends to maintain his military support for these groups regardless of engagement with Syria. This undercuts the main claim of the peace processors of how an opening to Damascus might affect Syrian relations with Hezbollah, Hamas or Islamic Jihad. At best, Assad was admitting to his inability to halt arms supplies. At worst, he confessed that he intended to pursue active armament. This is precisely what Assad meant when he said, “resistance and peace form a single axis.”

What about Iran? Assad rejected that relations with Tehran were in any way part of the discussion. “It is not part of the peace process,” he told Hersh. Therefore, Assad’s “peace” involves no change in Syria’s regional posture and alliances, or its support for proxy warfare against Israel. “This peace is about peace between Syria and Israel,” Assad told Hersh. Meaning, you can forget the nonsense about “strategic reorientation.”

If this is Assad’s understanding of peace (or as the Syrians define it, “the restoration of rights in full”), what remains of the argument of those who read too much into Syrian-Israeli negotiations? Hasn’t Assad validated the old adage that peace with Syria is not worth the paper it’s written on?

When Egyptian President Anwar Sadat decided to change his country’s foreign policy, he broke with the Soviet Union years before finalizing his peace agreement with Israel, and he traveled to Jerusalem before signing the treaty. Sadat went ahead without any of the conditions imposed by Assad today, and without the excuses and exceptions that supporters of Syrian-Israeli negotiations offer on the Syrians’ behalf. Egypt was then the leader of the Arab world. Assad heads a country far less important in the Middle East, one that is often no more than a spoiler and should not be afforded disproportionate significance or unwarranted exceptionalism.