One 9/11 is not going to be enough...

Alternative political tunes of this decade, another 9/11 is in the making....



Al Qaeda Sisters - Trained By the CIA

We're trained by the CIA to blow you away

Created out of the need for the war machine.

We'll mirror the spread in the war against freedom.

The people who hire us should be tried for treason.

It's all to advance the plans of the banking clans.

The Rockefellers' would like to use us again.

They want another 9/11.

They want control over the heavens.

It's too late. Plans have been made.

It's too late.

You're already a slave.

We're trained by the CIA to blow you away.

Don't listen to what the phony reporter will say.

We're American allies in the war against freedom.

They can arrest you now without having a reason.

We're hired to advance the plan of the military clan.

The new world order will strike out again.

They want another 9/11.

They want the dollar to sink to the bottom.

It's too late. Now you will never escape.

It's too late.

You're already a slave.....?

.... Getting away with espionage:

1. The 'Holocaust exception' - the doctrine in international law which states that international law applies to everybody in the world except Jews - has now been extended so that American laws against espionage and treason apply to everybody except Jews.
2. What happens when the characters in the AIPAC spy case are replaced with Chinese? The judge, T.S. Ellis III, who must be a Christian Zionist hurrying up the Rapture, required that the case couldn't succeed unless:
   
   1. The prosecutors reveal the contents of classified information to the public; and
   2. The prosecutors prove the defendants intended to cause harm to the United States.
      
   Of course, the rulings sunk the case. It is impossible for Israeli agents to cause harm to the United States as apparently the interests of Israel and the United States are exactly the same. Since the United States only remains a first-world economy because of being propped up by the Chinese, you could make a strong argument that it is really American and Chinese interests that are the same. If defense lawyers for Chinese spies act aggressively, will the judge give up and distinguish the AIPAC case by saying that the AIPAC dudes got off solely because they were Jews?
3. There is a remarkable move from some of the A-list blogs to sweep the connected Harman treason case under the rug by characterizing it as a turf war between Porter Goss and others (this despite the fact, as you can see at the 'Late Update 05/05/09, 10:30am' here, that the entire premise of the revisionism is untrue).
4. The AIPAC case isn't very complicated. Larry Franklin had some information on the American position on Iran which Israel didn't have. In order to manage its American serfs, the Lobby requires up-to-the-minute information on secret American strategic thinking (the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was such a disaster for the Jews because it blindsided them). The AIPACers offered to help Larry Franklin on his career path - and gain a well-placed AIPAC agent - in return for classified info. That was what the FBI stumbled upon. Any fool can see this is espionage. The Jew-controlled NYT notwithstanding, the case has absolutely fuck-all to do with press freedoms. The AIPAC dudes weren't journalists and had no journalistic intent, and any judge could see that.
5. As James G. Abourezk notes, the entire prosecution of the case was weird. American prosecutors usually massively over-charge, so they can still obtain a conviction if they lose some of the charges, and have more negotiation room for a plea bargain. Prosecutors in this case bizarrely under-charged, passing over many more obvious choices to rely solely an obscure charge from the First World War. They set themselves up to fail. When Obama himself weighed in - to be sure that the end of the proceedings, just before the AIPAC conference, would be perceived as his personal gift to AIPAC - the game was over, and years of FBI work was flushed down the drain.
6. The Jews are out for FBI heads. The reason for this isn't just the characteristic Jewish desire for revenge (how dare you attack your superiors!). They want to permanently stop the FBI's search for the hidden Israeli super spies left untouched fro decades....
   

And there are still those who will call you an anti-Semite for suggesting that the Lobby has any power......!.


http://www.newsfollowup.com/index.html

9/11 Propaganda at its worst

After almost eight years, the Statue of Liberty crown is opening for visitors on July 4.

I guess the decision was made to end this small part of the 9/11 cover up and use the reopening as symbolic of the 'change' in direction of the new administration.

Using the Statue of Liberty for the propaganda purposes of maintaining the myth that 19 Arabs did 9/11 and that none of our national treasures are safe has been an insult to knowledgeable Americans. The grand reopening will be used as a talking point/media event for the President and many others. That will also be insulting.


Shanksville, PA

Equally insulting is the push to use eminent domain to finish up the land grabbing for a $58 million, 2,200-acre permanent memorial and national park at the 'crash' site of Flight 93 on 9/11. It needs to be ready by the tenth anniversary for the propaganda stage show of 'we've been safe since that day but we can't let our guard down.'

Memorializing a flight shot down by our Air Force and the so far successful psyops of "Let's Roll" is as in your face as social engineering and conditioning can be.



In this photograph released by the White House of the flight that terrified many, Air Force One passes by the Statue of Liberty in New York. (Photo/The White House)

Just another reminder/reinforcement of the 9/11 lies. Keeping the folks in a state of fear.
It's not a coincidence that this photo was released on the same day as the announcement of the reopening of the Statue of Liberty.


Obama met with 9/11 and USS Cole victims families to placate them but the sad thing is that these deceived people still actually think that al-Qaeda did it. They are looking for justice in the wrong places.

Obama and the 9/11 Families

The Obama team has established a pattern that should be plain for all to see. When controversy erupts or legitimate policy differences are presented by well-meaning people, send out the celebrity president to flatter and charm.

The American people do actually deserve better than this never ending onslaught of 9/11 propaganda but the problem remains.....most don't even care....?







Pakistani president: Osama bin Laden is dead

Hersh: Children sodomized at Abu Ghraib, on tape

I obtained a couple of pieces of irregular information that caused me to question many of my assumptions. This initiated a quest to research. After several months I was able to join many dots that had hitherto been invisible, even though I had always considered myself well-read. My understanding of reality was thus transformed.

I love my country no less than you do, but as hard as it might be for you to accept, the truth is that it has been under the control of some very evil, very manipulative, and very cunning people (probably numbering less than 150 or 200 persons all told) for most of the 20th century. They have magnified their efforts since the start of the first Thatcher government.

Both 9-11 and 7/7 were "Inside Jobs." There were no Arab Hijackers commandeering airliners over American Airspace and then piloting them with pin-point accuracy into the WTC Twin Towers, and then the Pentagon. A 3rd building at the WTC complex -- Building 7 -- collapsed in exactly the same way as the twin towers, but several hours later. No aircraft struck Building 7 yet it still collapsed and at free-fall speed, in a symmetrical fashion, onto its own footprint: a text-book controlled demolition (as were the North & South towers).

The official account states that a hijacked airliner was crashed, kamikaze like, into the Pentagon. Strange that the wreckage did not resemble a plane of the size mentioned! Indeed, the hole made in the Pentagon structure was so small, it could only have been made by a missile (with a very small warhead) or a small aircraft, possibly an airforce jet fighter. The Pentagon's exterior failed to show any evidence of being hit by the very large wings of a Boeing 777 sized aircraft; ditto the engines, which are constructed of hardened alloys and therefore would have caused immense structural damage had such a plane truly been the one used in the attack.

The most ridiculous & damning piece of evidence shown to the public is the passport of Mohammed Atta, which was alleged to have been found near the fiery rubble of the WTC towers (at Ground Zero). There it was, in all its pristine glory, a passport that had somehow survived the fireball of the plane strike intact before floating around in the air for almost 1 hour waiting for both towers to collapse & the dust settle, before deciding to gently fall to earth to be picked up by a government employee. It was then displayed by a Washington spokesman on CNN. You couldn't make up this dumb-ass Hollywood stuff if you tried!

As for the 7/7 outrage ... the alleged perpetrators of the attack on London's Underground were a group of Anglo-Pakistanis from the North of England. The still footage of them entering the train station at Luton (if I remember correctly) has been Photoshopped. Even an untrained eye can see this. The time stamp on those images indicate their arrival time at the station whereupon they would have missed their rendezvous with destiny! Indeed, the train we have been told they boarded was either canceled on this day, 7th July 2005, or it had been severely delayed.

Several passenger eye witnesses have sworn they saw nobody board the carriages wearing back-packs and that many swore the explosions had come up through the floor. Photographs do exist that confirm this evidence: the steel members of one undercarriage can clearly be seen pointing upwards into the passenger space. This blast direction explains why so many passengers suffered leg injuries.

Your so-called "government" isn't what you thought it was. I don't doubt there are many professional, dedicated, honorable, and faithful people working for MI5 and MI6, but they are being duped and fooled by the same methods that have you duped and fooled. This secret cabal have already declared war on 'we the people,' and whoever they are, they are NOT Muslims.

So, if you truly want to consider the proper perspective as you have declared in your comment, then you should re-read this comment of mine until it awakens the spark of anger & indignation in your soul. That way, you might at least begin asking very hard questions. You don't need a Ph D., just some applied common sense, honesty, & self-respect!!!.

Stellar Wind routinely eavesdropped on journalists and public officials

Stellar Wind routinely eavesdropped on journalists and public officials, and they are still at it today....

The warrantless National Security Agency (NSA) electronic eavesdropping program known to only a handful of Bush administration officials by its code word "Stellar Wind" and by a few other Justice Department officials only as "The Program" routinely intercepted the communications and transactional data, including credit card usage, of journalists and public officials, according to sources familiar with the program.

The Stellar Wind program was considered so illegal by the Justice Department and FBI agents who knew about it, there was a belief that then-Attorney General John Ashcroft would be indicted for allowing the interception program to operate. Known also as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," the warrantless wiretapping was authorized by President George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11 and had to be re-certified every 45 days. In March 2004, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, upon the determination of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, decided that certification would not occur because the program was deemed as illegal.

After Comey became acting Attorney General after Ashcroft went to George Washington University hospital suffering from acute pancreatitis, there was a now infamous scene of White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales demanding that a barely conscious Ashcroft re-certify "the program." Comey, with Ashcroft's wife by the bedside of her husband, were present as Card and Gonzales demanded that Ashcroft re-certify the surveillance program. Ashcroft said Comey was the attorney general. The min-rebellion within the top echelons of the Bush administration resulted in the White House re-authorizing the illegal Stellar Wind without the concurrence of the Department of Justice. Bush called his illegal surveillance program, using NSA to spy on innocent Americans, the "crown jewels of national security."

WMR has also learned that the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, was, after the 2004 Ashcroft hospital scene, informed of the illegal wiretap program. Conyers took no action when informed by a contact within the Justice Department and replied in an email to the contact, "Whistleblowers don't fare very well."

Conyers also refused to take any action when NSA employees like Russell Tice, familiar with the illegal NSA program, validated the information about "The Program" that was coming from within the Justice Department. Congress, including then-Senator Barack Obama, then gave telecommunications companies like AT&T and Verizon, which were cooperating in the illegal NSA surveillance program by granting the firms immunity from prosecution. These telecommunications firms maintained a number of "secret rooms" at their major switching centers that allowed NSA to conduct illegal surveillance on Americans.

WMR has also learned that one of the main architects of the Stellar Wind program was Vice President Dick Cheney's then-chief counsel David Addington. Cheney and Addington decided to keep a number of details of the super-classified Stellar Wind program secret from the Congress. What we were told is that "Cheney did not view Congress as a co-equal branch" of the executive. The so-called "unitary executive," which has powers greater than the legislative and judicial branches in violation of the U.S. Constitution, was an idea that was being pushed by Addington and other officials within the Bush White House.

WMR has also discovered that Addington once joked about "blowing up the FISA Court."

Sources have also told WMR that there was a "pre-disposition" by the Bush White House to implementing Stellar Wind prior to 9/11. Cheney was also particularly fond of using NSA to illegally spy on Americans. The Stellar Wind program was so classified that Comey's predecessor as Deputy Attorney General, Larry Thompson, was never "read into" the special access program that minimally required a Top Secret/Special Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) security clearance along with clearance to the Stellar Wind program.

WMR has learned from informed sources familiar with Stellar Wind that it was used to create a Richard Nixon-style "enemies list" and that one of the victims of the surveillance of his transactional data and communications traffic was New York's then-Governor Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer's Internet web page visits, e-mails, credit card transactions, and phone calls were all used by the Bush administration to discover his activities with a New York escort service and bring about his humiliation and resignation from office.

The NSA, when it learned something juicy about a public official like Spitzer, would scrub the information of all "intelligence sources and methods" information, including the involvement of companies like AT&T and Verizon, and provide it to Justice Department prosecutors for action or White House political operatives for a political sting operation targeting the individual eavesdropped upon.

There is also reason to believe that Stellar Wind was used to eavesdrop on Illinois Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich, New Mexico Democratic Governor Bill Richardson, New Jersey Democratic Governor Jon Corzine, former North Carolina Democratic Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards, and then-Illinois Democratic Senator and current President Barack Obama to "dig up" political dirt by the Bush-Cheney White House.

Others on the Bush-Cheney enemies list subject to surveillance were certainly those opposed to the Iraq War, Ironically, one of those who may have been subjected to NSA surveillance was the late former NSA director under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom, one of the earliest retired military top brass who came out publicly in opposition to the Iraq war.

It is important to note that while the NSA and White House Stellar Wind operation "minimized" intelligence reports, in a normal and legal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant, there is no such minimization of sources and methods. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants must be specific as to their relevance to a counter-intelligence or counter-terrorism investigation. However, the illegal Stellar Wind reports merely provided incriminating information without providing sources, methods, or justification information since no judicial concurrence was necessary. Under a FISA warrant, a target may only be wiretapped for 90 days in foreign counterintelligence cases. WMR has learned that during the Bush administration, FISA warrants were obtained by NSA on a number of foreign dignitaries visiting the United States. In addition, FISA warrants were issued for anyone, including American citizens, with Middle Eastern names who traveled to the Middle East. The warrants were requested even though there was no evidence that they were connected to any terrorist organizations.

WMR has also learned that John Bolton, while Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, used Stellar Wind to target a number of U.S. ambassadors, especially those career diplomats who were known to privately oppose the Bush administration's war against Iraq. One of those ambassadors was likely John Danforth, former Republican Senator from Missouri, who resigned in December 2004 as U.S. ambassador to the UN after less than six months in office. Danforth cited "policy differences" with the State Department. Danforth's resignation followed by a few weeks that of Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was also subjected to NSA eavesdropping.

WMR previously reported that Bolton received NSA transcripts of phone conversations between his boss, Powell, and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson concerning back channel nuclear talks with North Korean diplomats in New York.

We have also learned that journalists were "high on the list" for surveillance by the Bush White House under the Stellar Wind program. In December 2005, WMR first reported on a CIA/NSA program called Firstfruits that was authorized in October 2004 that was a "database that contained both the articles and the transcripts of telephone and other communications of particular Washington journalists known to report on sensitive U.S. intelligence activities, particularly those involving NSA." Targeted journalists, reported by NSA sources, included targeted journalists included author James Bamford, the New York Times' James Risen, the Washington Post's Vernon Loeb, the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, the Washington Times' Bill Gertz, UPI's John C. K. Daly, and this editor [Wayne Madsen]."

Risen was one of the New York Times journalists who first became victim of the illegal NSA intercept program. The other was Eric Lichtblau, the author of Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice.....

Spying on Individuals and Organizations: Anglo-American Defense Giants Entrusted with "Mastering the Internet"

Moqtada al-sadr the new CIA Ayatollah....

Moqtada al-sadr is the new CIA Ayatollah....and the Neo-representative of the CIA inspired Shiite Axis from Afghanistan all the way to Sudan....
Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah is aware of this major positive development for the infamous CIA....and is at a loss with and about this sordid conundrum.....and that's why Moqtada Al-SADR was not allowed to reach Lebanon from SYRIA on his last voyage through Damascus.... and a Fake car accident was invented by CIA and its chief representative in Syria, the criminal assassin Asef SHAWKAT, in order to thwart the trip of Moqtada Al-Sadr to Beirut.....for a scheduled meeting with Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah ....

Don't bet on any "Engagement" crappy talk, it's all about deceit, deception and utter lies.

For the sake of clarity I'll summarize: Pakistan is on the brink of collapse; fresh troops are needed in Afghanistan; the Iranians are well past the nuclear threshold and violence in Iraq is spiking ahead of American withdrawal..... Now is the PERFECT time to shake our fists at the criminal CIA/MOSSAD tango of the last 2 decades...!!!

The two criminal allies are now so enmeshed in strategic ties -- with dialogue at the highest level of government and military -- that complete Israeli autonomy on any major issue like Iran is notional only, and everyone in DC considers Israel as a Banana republic for starters.

When you understand that America's arms industry is the net beneficiary of tension in the Middle East you understand everything. A two state solution will bring peace to the area-who wants that? That's no good for business.....there is a tacit synchronicity in recent messages about Iran from Israel and the United States, and the order of the day is still the same as always, it is about deceit, deception, lies and a determined drive towards the fragmentation of the world into thousands of Tribes with Flags....

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hvY8TdhxfZ_QvsjOtRNdSvga3uKQ

Z. Brzezinski


Zbigniew Brzezinski est le gourou de la diplomatie démocrate et le père
fondateur de l’islamisme au service des intérêts américains.

C’est lui qui, au tout début des années soixante-dix, est chargé par les
Rockefeller de sélectionner le futur président des Etats- Unis. C’est le
gouverneur de Géorgie, Jimmy Carter, totalement inconnu, qui sera choisi
et qui deviendra président des Etats-Unis.

Z. Brzezinski sera LE conseiller personnel à la sécurité nationale. J.
Carter permettra aux membres de la Commission Trilatérale de prendre le
contrôle de l’administration américaine et tout particulièrement
d’imposer les grandes lignes de la politique étrangère de la Maison Blanche.

Lorsque les néo-conservateurs de l’administration Bush décidèrent de
dépasser les limites de l’agenda qu’ils devaient respecter en
programmant une attaque nucléaire contre l’Iran, LIESI a, contre l’avis
de la quasi- totalité des analystes du renseignement privé, annoncé
qu’il n’y aurait pas d’attaque et nous avions, à l’époque, expliqué ce
que cachait l’affaire des missiles détournés.

Puis, après l’annonce des résultats des élections législatives
américaines de la mi-mandat, en novembre 2006, ce qui a été décrit comme
un coup de théâtre par les experts géopolitiques n’a été, en réalité,
que la traduction dans les faits de l’analyse de LIESI : la démission du
secrétaire à la Défense, Donald Rumsfeld, et son remplacement par Robert
Gates, ancien chef de la CIA qui « sera chargé d’apporter une
perspective nouvelle et un nouveau regard sur la politique suivie en
Irak ».

Dès lors, les choses se sont calmées avec l’Iran et Z. Brzezinski a
alors préparé l’étape suivante de l’agenda Rockefeller en s’occupant
tout particulièrement d’une étoile montante : Barack Obama !

D’aucuns ont eu tort de ne pas s’arrêter sur les raisons pour lesquelles
le CFR et la Commission Trilatérale ont imposé Robert Gates à l’équipe
de bellicistes néo¬conservateurs de G.W. Bush.

En fait, Z. Brzezinski poussait pour cette nomination parce que R. Gates
ouvrait la voie à des arrangements avec le régime des mollahs. En outre,
et pour information, Gates est avec Brzezinski le co-auteur d’un rapport
écrit sur l’Iran en juillet 2004 pour le Council of Foreign Relations...

La Russie est l’ennemi de Z. Brzezinski

Dans la seconde partie des années soixante-dix, Brzezinski sera
considéré comme l’architecte du projet intitulé Ceinture Verte et dont
l’objectif était d’utiliser l’Islam pour abattre les Soviétiques.

C’est Brzezinski qui, six mois avant l’intervention soviétique en 1980
en Afghanistan, demande à J. Carter d’ordonner à la CIA de livrer des
armes aux moudjahiddines afghans.

La République Islamique d’Iran est le bébé de Brzezinski.

D’ailleurs, l’anecdote sur les livraisons d’armes aux moudjahiddines
afghans provient des Mémoires de Robert Gates dont le nom semble
indissociable de Brzezinski. Doit-on alors s’étonner si Robert Gates est
RESTE à son poste une fois le démocrate Obama installé à la Maison Blanche ?

Selon le Rapport Brzezinski/Gates, la politique américaine à l’égard de
l’Iran doit autant être incitative que punitive.

Les sanctions unilatérales n’ont pas obtenu de résultats.

Au contraire, selon ce rapport, il faut développer les relations
commerciales avec l’Iran et commencer les formalités de son entrée dans
l’OMC. Finalement, les auteurs recommandent l’ouverture d’un dialogue
direct entre les Etats-Unis et l’Iran sur des éléments de stabilisation
dans la région.

Ce rapport a été rédigé un an après la découverte du programme nucléaire
iranien. Selon les auteurs qui recommandent un dialogue avec les
Iraniens, « l’Iran représente un défi et une opportunité pour les
Etats-Unis ».

Brzezinski travaille au Council of Foreign Relations qui est lié à
Chatham House (1).

Le Council of Foreign Relations et Chatham House travaillent en tandem
pour la promotion des réformateurs et des (faux) dissidents du régime
des mollahs aux Etats-Unis et en Europe.

Le Rapport Brzezinski/Gates fut suivi du Rapport de James Baker, un
autre élément du CFR. Le Rapport Baker a pour objet l’Iran et non
l’Irak. Ce plan est une refonte de la diplomatie américaine au Moyen-
Orient et une tentative pour récupérer le régime des mollahs afin que
l’Iran ne soit pas absorbé par la Russie et ne devienne le levier de ses
politiques les plus inavouables au Moyen-Orient et en Asie Centrale.

Le Rapport Baker recommande d’arrêter de mettre l’accent sur la
démocratisation et le changement de régime iranien car « il serait
déraisonnable de vouloir stabiliser l’Irak et en même temps vouloir
déstabiliser l’Iran et la Syrie ».

Donc, depuis 2006, il y a de l’arrangement dans l’air... et Obama arrive
au bon moment.

D’ailleurs, au début du mois de mars 2009, Hillary Clinton a invité les
mollahs à la conférence internationale sur l’Afghanistan qui doit se
tenir le 31 mars à La Haye, avec l’arrière-pensée de mettre fin à leur
fuite devant tout dialogue ou compromis.

Téhéran ne cesse de recevoir des demandes de participation à la
conférence en l’honneur de son attachement à la stabilité de
l’Afghanistan et de la région !

(1) Un centre britannique de recherches diplomatiques que l’on compare à
l’American Enterprise Institute aux Etats-Unis.
_____________________________________

L’Iran : un PION déterminant sur l’échiquier entre Washington et Moscou


La Russie a besoin de l’Iran pour bloquer l’accès à l’Asie Centrale, et
les mollahs ont besoin de la Russie pour bloquer les Américains au
Conseil de Sécurité.

Mais leur alliance n’est pas amicale : pour profiter de cette protection
russe, l’Iran a dû renoncer à servir de couloir d’accès vers l’Asie
Centrale et par conséquent abandonner l’espoir de recevoir des milliards
de dollars qui font maintenant la fortune de la Russie et de Gazprom.

Cependant, bien que liés par intérêts, leurs statuts diffèrent : la
Russie n’a pas le choix alors que les mollahs l’ont. Les Russes doivent
garder l’Iran ou périr alors que Téhéran peut changer de bord d’autant
mieux qu’il est courtisé par Washington.

Ce choix, de la part des Iraniens, offrirait sur un plateau l’Asie
Centrale (fournisseur de gaz à la Chine et à la Russie) aux Américains.
D’ailleurs, pressé de réaliser cet exploit aux multiples retombées
économiques et stratégiques, tous les jours depuis son élection, Obama
fait des offres de dialogue sans conditions préalables aux mollahs.

Bien évidemment, les Russes ne sont pas dupes de la situation
sous-jacente. D’ailleurs, tout en poursuivant le dessein d’un Nouvel
Ordre Mondial, les hommes du Kremlin cherchent néanmoins à assurer leurs
arrières.

C’est ainsi que le 17 mars 2009, s’exprimant lors d’une réunion avec de
hauts représentants du ministère de la Défense, Medvedev a annoncé : « A
partir de 2011 débutera un réarmement à grande échelle de l'armée et de
la marine russes.

L'analyse de la situation politico-militaire dans le monde a montré
qu'il restait un potentiel de conflit sérieux dans certaines régions,
alimenté par des crises locales et les tentatives incessantes de l'Otan
de développer son infrastructure militaire près de la Russie.

La principale tâche est d'augmenter la capacité de combat de nos forces,
avant tout celles de nos forces stratégiques nucléaires. Elles doivent
être capables de remplir toutes les tâches indispensables pour assurer
la sécurité de la Russie », a poursuivi le chef de l’Etat russe....

Secret U.S.-Israel nuclear accord in jeopardy....?

too early to tell....

President Obama's efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons
threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to
shield Israel's nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former
and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.

The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr.
Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will
uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear
concessions for Iranian ones.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a
U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said
Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare
and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel,
Pakistan and North Korea, ... remains a fundamental objective of the
United States," Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting, ....

She declined to say, however, whether the Obama administration would
press Israel to join the treaty.

A senior White House official said the administration considered the
nuclear programs of Israel and Iran to be unrelated "apples and
oranges."

Asked by The Washington Times whether the administration would press
Israel to join the NPT, the official said, "We support universal
adherence to the NPT. [It] remains a long-term goal."

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the
sensitivity of the issue.

Avner Cohen, author of "Israel and the Bomb" and the leading expert
outside the Israeli government on the history of Israel's nuclear
program, said Mr. Obama's "upcoming meeting with Netanyahu, due to the
impending discussions with Iran, will be a platform for Israel to ask
for reassurances that old understandings on the nuclear issue are
still valid."

For the past 40 years, Israel and the U.S. have kept quiet about an
Israeli nuclear arsenal that is now estimated at 80 to 200 weapons.
Israel has promised not to test nuclear weapons while the U.S. has not
pressed Israel to sign the nuclear NPT, which permits only five
countries - the U.S., France, Britain, China and Russia - to have
nuclear arms.

The U.S. also has opposed most regional calls for a "nuclear-free
Middle East." The accord was forged at a summit between Israeli Prime
Minister Golda Meir and President Nixon on Sept. 25, 1969, according
to recently released documents, but remains so secret that there is no
explicit record of it. Mr. Cohen has referred to the deal as "don't
ask, don't tell," because it commits both the U.S. and Israel never to
acknowledge in public Israels nuclear arsenal.

When asked what the Obama administration's position was on the 1969
understanding, the senior White House official offered no comment.

Over the years, demands for Israel to come clean have multiplied.

The Iran factor

Iranian leaders have long complained about being subjected to a double
standard that allows non-NPT members India and Pakistan, as well as
Israel, to maintain and even increase their nuclear arsenals but
sanctions Tehran, an NPT member, for not cooperating fully with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

On Monday, Iranian Deputy Foreign MinisterMohammad Ali Hosseini told a
U.N. meeting preparing for a major review of the NPT next year that
nuclear cooperation by the U.S., France and Britain with Israel is "in
total disregard with the obligations under the treaty and commitments
undertaken in 1995 and 2000, and a source of real concern for the
international community, especially the parties to the treaty in the
Middle East."

The Obama administration is seeking talks with Iran on its nuclear
program and has dropped a precondition for negotiations that Iran
first suspend its uranium enrichment program.

"What the Israelis sense, rightly, is that Obama wants to do something
new on Iran and this may very well involve doing something new about
Israel's program," said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington think
tank.

Bruce Riedel, a former senior director for the Middle East and South
Asia on the White House National Security Council, said, "If you're
really serious about a deal with Iran, Israel has to come out of the
closet. A policy based on fiction and double standards is bound to
fail sooner or later. What's remarkable is that it's lasted so long."
Mr. Riedel headed the Obama administration's review of strategy toward
Afghanistan and Pakistan but does not hold a permanent administration
position and has returned to private life as a scholar at the
Brookings Institution.

The open secret

Elliott Abrams, deputy national security adviser for the George W.
Bush administration, said that administration resisted international
efforts to pressure Israel on the nuclear front.

"We did not want to accept any operational language that would put
Israel at a disadvantage and raise the question of whether Israel was
a nuclear power," he said. "That was not a discussion that we thought
was helpful. We allowed very general statements about the goal of a
nuclear-free Middle East as long that language was hortatory."

Israel began its nuclear program shortly after the state was founded
in 1948 and produced its first weapons, according to Mr. Cohen's book,
on the eve of the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli defense doctrine considers
the nuclear arsenal to be a strategic deterrent against extinction.
But its nuclear monopoly is increasingly jeopardized by Iranian
advances and the possibility that Iran's program could trigger a
nuclear arms race in the region.

Israel's arsenal has also been an open secret for decades, despite the
fact that Israeli law forbids Israeli journalists from referring to
the state's nuclear weapons unless they quote non-Israeli sources.

In 1986, the Israeli nuclear scientist, Mordecai Vanunu disclosed in
the Sunday Times of London photographs and the first insider account
of Dimona, the location of Israels primary nuclear facility. Israel
responded by convicting him of treason. He was released in 2004 after
spending 18 years in prison but has continued to talk about the
program on occasion. The government has barred Mr. Vanunu from leaving
Israel.

'Nuclear-free' zone

References to a "nuclear-free Middle East," meanwhile, have cropped up
increasingly in international resolutions and conferences. For
example, the 1991 U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, which
sanctioned Saddam Hussein's Iraq, noted "the objective of achieving
balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region." More
recently, a March 2006 IAEA resolution, in referring Iran to the
Security Council, noted "that a solution to the Iranian issue would
contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and to realizing the
objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction."

U.S. allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia also have pressed the U.S. to link
Israel's weapons to Iran's as part of a plan to implement a nuclear-
free Middle East.

A proposal to introduce a Security Council resolution declaring the
Middle East a nuclear-free zone and calling for sanctions against
those countries that did not comply was broached in a 2006 strategic
dialogue between Saudi Arabia and the United States, said Turki al-
Faisal, who was Saudi ambassador to the U.S.

"When I talked to American officials about that when I was ambassador
here, and before that to British officials in the U.K., the immediate
response was, 'Israel is not going to accept,' " Prince Turki told
editors and reporters of The Washington Times last month. "And my
immediate response was, 'So what?' If Israel doesnt accept, it doesnt
mean its a bad idea."

A balancing act

Mr. Netanyahu, whose meeting with Mr. Obama on May 18 will be the
first since both took office, raised the issue of the nuclear
understanding during a previous tenure as prime minister.

Israeli journalists and officials said Mr. Netanyahu asked for a
reaffirmation and clarification of the Nixon-Meir understanding in
1998 at Wye River, where the U.S. mediated an agreement between Israel
and the Palestinians. Mr. Netanyahu wanted a personal commitment from
President Clinton because of concerns about a treaty that Mr. Clinton
supported to bar production of fissile materials that can be used to
make weapons. Israel was worried that the treaty would apply to de
facto nuclear states, including Israel, and might oblige it to allow
inspections of Dimona.

In 2000, Israeli journalist Aluf Benn disclosed that Mr. Clinton at
Wye River promised Mr. Netanyahu that "Israels nuclear capability will
be preserved." Mr. Benn described as testy an exchange of letters
between the two leaders over the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. He
said Mr. Netanyahu wrote Mr. Clinton: "We will never sign the treaty,
and do not delude yourselves - no pressure will help. We will not sign
the treaty because we will not commit suicide."

The Bush administration largely dropped the treaty in its first term
and reopened negotiations in its second term with a proposal that did
not include verification.

The Obama agenda

Mr. Obama has made nuclear disarmament a bigger priority in part to
undercut Iran's and North Korea's rationale for proliferation. His
administration has begun negotiations with Russia on a new treaty to
reduce U.S. and Russian arsenals. He also has expressed support for
the fissile material treaty.

"To cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States
will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile
materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons," he said last
month in Prague. "If we are serious about stopping the spread of these
weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of
weapons-grade materials that create them."

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and
International Security, a Washington think tank, said such a treaty
would be the first step toward limiting the Israeli nuclear program.

"The question is how much of a priority is this for the Obama
administration?" he said.

John R. Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador and undersecretary of state,
said Israel was right to be concerned.

"If I were the Israeli government, I would be very worried about the
Obama administration's attitude on their nuclear deterrent," he said.
"You can barely raise the subject of nuclear weapons in the Middle
East without someone saying: 'What about Israel?' If Israel's
opponents put it on the table, it is entirely possible Obama will pick
it up."

Asked about the issue, Jonathan Peled, spokesman for the Israeli
Embassy in Washington, said, "We don't discuss the strategic
relationship between the United States and Israel." The White House
had no immediate comment.

However, Ms. Gottemoeller endorsed the concept of a nuclear-free
Middle East in a 2005 paper that she co-authored, "Universal
Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security."

"Instead of defensively trying to ignore Israels nuclear status, the
United States and Israel should proactively call for regional dialogue
to specify the conditions necessary to achieve a zone free of nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons," she wrote.

The paper recommends that Israel take steps to disarm in exchange for
its neighbors getting rid of chemical and biological weapons programs
as well as Iran forgoing uranium enrichment.....

RUSSIA's military intelligence GRU gets a new Chief

On April 24, President Dmitry Medvedev dismissed Army General Valentin Korabelnikov from the position of chief of the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), Russia's military intelligence agency, and deputy chief of the General Staff and appointed Korabelnikov's deputy, Lieutenant General Alexander Shlyakhturov, in his place.

Korabelnikov's possible resignation, which was long surrounded by rumors, is now a reality. The Russian media says Korabelnikov opposed the Kremlin's sweeping reforms for the country's Armed Forces.

In the past few months, top GRU officials and the Defense Ministry were divided on the military reform, primarily its aspects concerning the military intelligence agency.

The sides disagreed on the proposed reduction of special weapons and tactics (SWAT) GRU brigades and their re-subordination to military district headquarters. This process became the focus of contradictory media reports, some of which implied that the Armed Forces would be deprived of their SWAT units.

A respected publication claimed that the GRU's technical reconnaissance systems, namely, space satellites and radio intercept units, would be re-subordinated to the Foreign Intelligence Service, an off-shoot of the Soviet State Security Committee (KGB).

The very same publication discussed the possible re-subordination of all GRU divisions to the Foreign Intelligence Service. Although this rumor was not confirmed, it, along with other reports concerning a resignation allegedly handed in by Korabelnikov, caused many questions about the future of the GRU and the entire military reform.

Despite groundless rumors concerning the GRU's possible liquidation, many analysts knew that a conflict was brewing between top GRU and Defense Ministry officials, and that either the GRU chief or the Defense Minister would have to step down. General Korabelnikov had to resign because Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and his concept of the military reform are supported by the Kremlin.

General Korabelnikov received an honorable discharge, plus the Order of Service to the Fatherland, 3rd class, and was reportedly allowed to choose his successor, General Shlyakhturov.

The public knows nothing about General Shlyakhturov's biography and service record. Such tight secrecy implies that he is a career intelligence operative.

It is unclear how the GRU of the General Staff will change under General Shlyakhturov. One thing is obvious: The agency will have to be overhauled together with the entire army, whose administrative and troop control divisions, which had evolved over the decades, are currently being revamped. Personnel cuts and other negative consequences seem inevitable.

However, most Russians will never be able to assess the effectiveness of the GRU reform.

AIPAC strives for political indoctrination for college and El-Hi students

AIPAC strives for political indoctrination for college and El-Hi students

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) might learn a thing or two from Lyndon Johnson's famous quote about FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, "Its probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in." US forgives Israeli spies amid AIPAC heat....

Having received no word back from AIPAC on receiving credentials to cover their annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center, this editor set out to pick up as many side conversations and abandoned AIPAC literature from the attendees' hotel venues.

This year's AIPAC policy conference's theme is "Relationships Matter."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1084656.html

At a luncheon event at the Hyatt Hotel across from the convention center, 193 student government association presidents from colleges and universities across the nation, including a fair number of historically African American universities, were treated to a right-wing message of unbridled U.S. support for Israel. Although AIPAC's website states that College Democrats of America were invited to the luncheon in addition to the College Republican National Committee, the AIPAC message was clearly conservative in nature. One student, upon leaving the luncheon, said to his colleagues that he was encouraged by the luncheon's theme of "spreading the conservative message on campus."

For AIPAC, that message is ensuring that campus student organizations toe a pro-Israel line and that all campus initiatives to disinvest in Israel are defeated.

But it is not just America's college students who are being subjected to AIPAC's right-wing propaganda blitzkrieg. This editor overheard a conversation by another AIPAC attendee about continued non-profit funding for a network of summer camps to stress support for Israel and "Jewishness" among the generation following in the footsteps of college students and the generation following that. Clearly understood in the conversation was that the effort was planning for thirty years into the future.

Speakers already featured at AIPAC's policy conference are those who represent a "Who's Who" of Israel's influence peddling in Washington: former CIA director James Woolsey; Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) executive director Robert Satloff (who replaced Dennis Ross, who now serves as a Middle East policy adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton); and former Coalition Provisional Authority press spokesman Dan Senor of the Council on Foreign Relations (and the husband of CNN's Campbell Brown. At CNN, with the examples of Campbell Brown and John King, it is best under the tutelage of CNN Washington bureau chief and former AIPAC press spokesman Wolf Blitzer to marry Jewish and convert to Judaism or possible run the risk of losing your job).

Also speaking at AIPAC was Representative Jane Harman (D-CA), who was identified by National Security Agency (NSA) "Stellar Wind" wiretaps trying to get an espionage case dropped against former AIPAC officials Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman in exchange for landing the coveted job as Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The espionage case against Rosen and Weissman was dropped by the Obama administration prior to the AIPAC conference. Harman is but one of Israel's and AIPAC's many water carriers in the U.S. Congress.

Hasidics brave the wet weather to protest at the AIPAC conference: they can be counted on to be there every year. They expected more of their collegues to be arriving from New York in time for the May 4 banquet event.

This editor recently spoke briefly to former Representative Paul Findlay (R-IL), who was driven from office by AIPAC money for refusing to bow down to Israel's dictates. Findlay later wrote a book titled, "They Dare to Speak Out" about the power of the Israel Lobby in Washington. A former top U.S. diplomat recently told this editor that at a luncheon, Rosen once told him that AIPAC was so powerful that by the end of the afternoon, Rosen could have seventy signatures of U.S. senators, with no questions asked, on a napkin he was holding up.

AIPAC conference attendees were greeted by this mobile billboard across from one of the conference hotels.

AIPAC insists that it is a private lobbying organization funded through private donations. From the license plates pulling into the convention center and hotels it appears that much of AIPAC's support comes from New York. However, given the presence of Israel's top government, military, diplomatic, parastatal, and intelligence leadership at the AIPAC policy conference, it appears that AIPAC is running afoul of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938, which requires lobbying organizations that represent foreign governments to register with the Justice Department.

FARA was originally enacted to combat Nazi German propaganda in the United States. Given AIPAC's indoctrination of college students, and summer camp-age children in their political dogma, it would appear that the Israelis and their American supporters are taking a page right out of the Nazi playbook that resulted in the passage of FARA. But AIPAC claims FARA does not apply to it. However, FARA was enacted when it became apparent that Berlin was funding the German American Bund and two camps for the indoctrination of young people, Camp Nordland in New Jersey and Camp Siegfried in New York. It all sounds very familiar.

If there was any doubt at all that the MOSSAD and Israel are a US colony and a Banana Republic, here is the proof:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Federal prosecutors moved Friday to dismiss espionage-related charges against two former pro-Israel lobbyists accused of disclosing classified U.S. defense information, ending a tortuous inside-the-Beltway legal battle rife with national security intrigue.

Critics of the prosecution of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee accused the federal government of trying to criminalize the sort of back-channel discussions between government officials, lobbyists and reporters that are commonplace in the nation's capital. AIPAC is an influential pro-Israel lobbying group.

Acting U.S. Attorney Dana Boente said the government moved to dismiss the charges in the drawn-out case after concluding that pretrial rulings would make it too difficult for the government to prove its case.

Boente also said he was worried that classified information would be disclosed at trial.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III had made several legal rulings that prosecutors worried would make it almost impossible to obtain a guilty verdict. Among them was a requirement that the government would have to prove that Rosen and Weissman knew they were harming the United States by trading in sensitive national defense information.

The defense had also been prepared to put on a strong case that the information obtained by Rosen and Weissman, while technically classified, was not truly secret and that its disclosure was irrelevant to the nation's security.

The federal government's former arbiter of classification, J. William Leonard, was prepared to testify for the defense that the government overuses classification and applies the label to information that by any practical measure does not need to be secret. The government had sought to bar Leonard's testimony.

The trial had been scheduled to start June 2 in a case first brought in 2005.

Rosen and Weissman had not been charged with actual espionage, although the charges did fall under provisions of the 1917 Espionage Act, a rarely used World War I-era law that had never before been applied to lobbyists.

Weissman's lawyer, Baruch Weiss, called the dismissal a "huge victory for the First Amendment." Had Rosen and Weissman been convicted, he said it would have set a precedent for prosecuting reporters any time they obtained information from government officials that was later deemed too sensitive to be disclosed.

While Weissman was overjoyed to learn the charges will be dismissed, Weiss said that the four-year prosecution "has been a tremendous hardship for both Rosen and Weissman," who have been unable to work while the charges have hung over their head and they faced the prospect of a lengthy jail term.

A former Defense Department official, Lawrence A. Franklin, previously pleaded guilty to providing Rosen and Weissman classified defense information and was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison.

Had the case gone to trial, Rosen and Weissman had won the right to subpoena former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other top Bush administration officials. The defense believed their testimony would support the claim that the United States regularly uses AIPAC to send back-channel communications to Israel. Prosecutors had sought unsuccessfully to quash the subpoenas.

The indictment had alleged that Rosen and Weissman conspired to obtain and then disclosed classified information on U.S. policy toward Iran, as well as information on the al-Qaida terror network and the bombing of the Khobar Towers dormitory in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. Air Force personnel.

It will be up to Ellis to formally dismiss the charges, but it would be highly unlikely that he would refuse the government's request for dismissal.

AIPAC spokesman Patrick Dorton said the organization is "pleased that the Justice Department has dismissed the charges. This is a great day for Steve Rosen, Keith Weissman and their families."

AIPAC fired Rosen and Weissman in April 2005, when they were under investigation but had not yet been charged. Dorton declined to comment on whether AIPAC still thinks Rosen and Weissman acted improperly.

The government's decision also won praise from the American Jewish Committee.

"The Department of Justice has now reaffirmed that the law of the United States protects citizens who engage in the everyday and essential work of political advocacy," said AJC Executive Director David Harris.


Criminal Neo-conservatives up the creek without a paddle? Not necessarily.

The neo-conservatives started out as liberals and socialists in the Democratic Party. They were never really that conservative on economic policy, only belligerent in foreign and defense policies. And in those two latter policy areas, the Democratic Party is still dominated by their close cousins, the liberal Wilsonian interventionists. Although the liberal Wilsonians—such as Hillary Clinton, Richard Holbrooke, and Madeleine Albright—are less unilateralist than the neo-conservatives and are much more in love with international organizations, they share the neo-conservatives’ passion for armed social work and nation-building. Besides, when you’re deep in the wilderness and your horse is dying, you can’t be too concerned with pimples on your new steed. The neo-conservatives will probably eventually realize that the Republican Party is dying, and will seamlessly re-infest the Democratic mother ship to preserve themselves. And again, they will probably severely debilitate their host....

From victimhood to aggression: Jewish identity in the light of Caryl Churchill’s ‘Seven Jewish Children’

From victimhood to aggression: Jewish identity in the light of Caryl Churchill’s ‘Seven Jewish Children’

Identity is a very tricky concept. It can very mean many opposing things and at the same time it can mean nothing. One may start to wonder about one’s identity only when one feels he is under the threat of losing it.

The case of Jewish identity is a very good example. Judging by the literature and history textbooks, Jews started to explore the notion of their identity following the emancipation, assimilation and the collapse of the rabbinical authority. In short, Jews started to wonder who they were once their collective self-notion was already melting down. Seemingly, the notion of ‘Jewish identity’ was there to replace the tribal, rabbinical and racially orientated notion of the ‘Jew’ with a tolerant acceptable ‘liberal’ discourse that aims at a universal awareness.

In the post-modern era, Identity is regarded as a means to impose a sort of legitimacy to separateness as a decent civil political collective consciousness. Generally speaking, identity is a social concept that allows the figure that may be considered as marginal to celebrate his unique symptoms while at the same time regarding himself as a perfectly qualified member of an extended open society. Identity Politics, accordingly, is a concept that integrates the different margins into an ideal phantasmic image of multicultural and multiethnic society.

As much as identity politics refers to an imaginary celebration of differences in a world that regards itself as a cosmopolitan global village, Jewish identity (whether it locates itself politically on the left, right or centre) is a unique setting that aims to enjoy it all while giving very little in return. Jewish Identity Politics is there to maintain legitimately that the Jews must be accepted and respected by others for what they are: their history, their suffering, their religious belief, their culture, yet, within this call for others to recognise their identity claims, they somehow surprisingly fail to assimilate any notion of tolerance towards others. All forms of Jewish identity political schools maintain some elementary and fundamental tribal exclusivist code of engagement. Whether it is the rightwing Zionist who celebrates Jewish identity at the expense of the Palestinian people, or the Lefty Jew for Justice who, for some reason, celebrates his craving for peace in a ‘Jews only club’, it seems as if the entire spectrum of Jewish political identity is a tribally orientated exclusivist practice. It seems as if the entire spectrum of Jewish identity politics lacks the true awareness and acceptance of universal attitudes as an acknowledgment of being amongst others.

This behavioural pattern can be easily grasped in historical retrospective. Bearing in mind that the discourse of identity arose as a reaction to 20th century disastrous nationalist reality, identity was an outlet that allowed a sense of belonging in a newly formed tolerant civic reality. However, the course of Jewish identity politics was very different. Within the concept of Jewish identity, Jewish suffering and victimhood are set as unique Jewish symptoms. For a Jew to celebrate his identity means to celebrate Jewish pain, to visit and to revisit the agony. To be a Jew is to religiously believe in the Holocaust. To be a Jew is to be chased. To be a Jew is to be able to find an anti-Semite under every stone and behind every corner. To be a Jew is to chase senile Nazis into their graves. Forgiveness doesn’t seem to attract the leading proponent of Jewish identity politics.

Within such a notion of Jewish identity and bearing in mind the Zionist expansionist project, it is hardly surprising that Jewish collective ideology had become a bipolar schizophrenic volley between Victimhood and Aggression.

True lies

Caryl Churchill’s play Seven Jewish Children that was written and performed in the light of the last Israeli military devastating campaign in Gaza, turns the floodlights on the confusion within Jewish identity.

On the face of it, the short play is an historical journey from victimhood into aggression. In just nine minutes we are joining an expedition that departs in the horror of the Shoah:

“Don’t tell her they’ll kill her. .
Tell her it’s important to be quiet. .
Tell her to curl up as if she’s in bed. .”

and eventually ends up with the Israelis taking the role of the Nazis

“Tell her they (the Palestinians) are animals
living in rubble now, tell her I wouldn’t care if we wiped them out,
. . . . tell her I look at one of their children covered in
blood and what do I feel? Tell her all I feel is happy it’s not her . . .”

As much as Churchill’s reading of Jewish’s recent history as a transformation from innocence into ruthless barbarism is not a revelation, the message is delivered in a rather profound and sensitive manner.

But there is a far deeper layer in Churchill’s play that is hardly discussed or addressed. Churchill, like other commentators engaged in issues to do with Jewish identity, is highly observant of the elastic qualities of Jewish identity, history and reality. Jews can be whatever they want to be as long as it serves one cause or another. The Jewish narrative is obviously neither coherent nor consistent.

“Tell her it’s a game,” as if we (the Jews) are on the top of it all.
“Tell her it’s serious,” as if we are actually going down.
“But don’t frighten her,” as if we are somehow on top of it all again.
“Don’t tell her they’ll kill her,” as if we it all about to end in a matter of seconds.

The Israeli Historian Shlomo Sand elaborated on the phantasmic qualities within the Jewish historical discourse in his recent book ‘When and How The Jewish People Was Invented.’ Sand manages to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the Jewish people never existed as a ‘nation-race,’ they never shared a common origin. Instead they are a colourful mix of groups that at various stages in history adopted the Jewish religion. Similarly, at a certain stage in history they had invented their national identity. As we sadly realise, the phantasmic qualities at the core of Jewish identity politics do not stop Jews from celebrating their aspiration at the expense of the Palestinian people. The reason is simple, as Sand proves in a scholarly way and as Churchill conveys theatrically, Jewish identity is a very flexible realm.

“Tell her her uncles died
Don’t tell her they were killed
Tell her they were killed
Don’t frighten her.”

The Jewish narrative is the art of making a story. It has no commitment to facts or truth. Accordingly, you make sure that you “don’t tell her they were killed,” so she can keep up the cosmopolitan dream. Or maybe, you better “tell her they were killed,” so she can rush back to the Ghetto and stay with us. Alternatively, she may learn the ‘necessary’ lesson and join the IDF so she can spread death amongst the enemies of Israel. Anyhow, make sure you “don’t frighten her,” as if she isn’t frightened enough already.

The Jewish identity is a form of tactical detachment. It is a methodical strategy that creates an imaginary symbolic order with a clear pragmatic agenda.

“Tell her for miles and miles all round they (the Arabs) have lands of their own.” Misleading her to think that Palestinians and Arabs are literally the same thing.

“Tell her again this is our promised land.” As if the Jews are people, as if their origin is in Zion, as if the biblical promise has any legal validity, as if they actually believe in the Torah.

Churchill, like Sand, is eloquently exposing the zero integrity at the core of the Jewish national cause, discourse and narrative. The Jewish historical plot is not about telling the truth. Instead, it is all about the making up a ‘truth’ that would fit the current tribal needs. There is an old joke about Marxist ideologists. It tells that once the facts do not fit into the Marxist determinist textbook, all you have to do is to change the facts. Jewish identity discourse is employing exactly the same strategy. Facts and lies are produced as we move along. In short, all you have to ‘tell her’ is that sometimes we need to be innocent victims, other times we plunder, kill, throw WMD. It all depends what serves our tribal interests best at a given time.

Victimhood -- the birth of the collective

Churchill seems to be very observant tracing the disastrous toll Jewish identity politics achieved in turning the Jewish state into a cold-blooded murderer.

“Tell her I don’t care if the world hates us
Tell her we’re better haters,” as if she has to be told after what she saw in Gaza.
“Tell her we’re chosen people,” as if she doesn’t realise by now.

And yet, one may wonder, who is that young innocent girl whom Caryl Churchill referring to. Who is the protagonist at the receiving end of the text, who is the hidden ‘her’ that is referred to in each line of this interesting play?

The image of an innocent young female victim is one of the pillars of the Jewish identity and the post-Shoah Jewish victim self-image. Anne Frank is probably the most famous literary character within that very genre. As much as Frank is an innocent victim, she is also very effective in inflicting guilt on the Goyim.

As we know, Anne Frank tragically perished at the end of WW2. She didn’t make it to the newly born ‘Jews only’ state. Yet, within the context of Jewish identity politics Anne Frank had been adopted as a Jewish cultural icon by means of collective transference. In practice, she had successfully settled in the heart of every subject who identifies as a Jew. Those who succumb to the notion of Jewish identity insist upon regarding themselves as innocent and blamelessness. From a Jewish identity political perspective, the Jewish nation is a tribe of very many innocent Anne Franks.

I allow myself to guess that Churchill’s little girl refers metaphorically to the ‘people of Israel.’ The newly born Jewish nation is indeed a very young concept that is submerged with righteousness and innocence. The little girl at the receiving end of the play is there to convey an image of naivety and blamelessness. But it is also that little girl’s metaphorical innocence that makes Israel’s crimes so sinister. In the light of the Israeli propaganda that presents the Jewish state as a vulnerable innocent blameless entity, the devastating reality of Israeli brutality leads towards the inevitable cognitive dissonance.

The reality of the racist ethnic cleansing ‘Jews only state’ together with the images of the Israeli war machine pouring tons of white phosphorous on Gazans does not leave much room for doubt. Israel has nothing to do with the phantasmic self-image of a ‘little blameless girl.’ If anything, the image of the naïve girl makes things worse for the Israeli Hasbara project. We are dealing here with a horribly naughty child who was despised first then ‘she’ turned into a bully and soon after proved to be ruthless, sadistic and monstrous with no comparison.

“Tell her we’re the iron fist now,
tell her it’s the fog of war.
Tell her we won’t stop killing them till we’re safe,

tell her I laughed when I saw the dead policemen . . .
tell her I wouldn’t care if we wiped them out.”

Seemingly, we are dealing here with a uniquely and seriously disturbed immature nation. We are dealing with a self-loving narcissistic child who is terrorised by ‘her’ own cruelty. It is the sadistic youngster who is horrified by the demons ‘she’ finds in herself. The more the Israelis love themselves and their delusional phantasmic innocence, the more they are frightened that people out there may be as sadistic as they themselves proved to be. This behavioral mode is called projection.

“Tell her we love her.
Don’t frighten her.”

So ends Churchill’s play. Seemingly, Jews have a very good reason to be frightened. Their national state is a racist genocidal entity.

After the Shoah, Jews had an opportunity to transform their fate, to turn a new page. They could even explore collectively the notion of forgiveness and mercy. A few Jewish intellectuals insisted that Jews must locate themselves at the forefront of the battle against racism and oppression. As it happened, it took just six decades for the Jewish national state to establish its primacy as the ultimate racist nation-state that employs the ultimate sadistic ruthless oppressive tactics. ”Don’t frighten her,” says Churchill. To be honest, the young girl must be frightened for a very good reason. If she ever would be courageous enough to look in the mirror, she would be gravely devastated....

Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin and philosopher Asa Kasher, two respected men around here, published an article entitled: "A just war of a democratic state," (Haaretz, April 24, Hebrew).

A remark about the first part: There are wars that are necessary for self-defense or to fight injustice and evil. But the expression "just" is problematic when speaking of war itself - which involves killing and destruction and leaves women, children and old people homeless, and sometimes even kills them.

Our sages have said: "Don't be overly righteous." And there is absolutely no question that dropping cluster bombs in an area populated by civilians, as we did in the Second Lebanon War, does not testify to great righteousness. The same thing can be said of using phosphorus bombs against a civilian population.

Apparently, according to the Yadlin and Kasher definition of justice, in order to eliminate terrorists it is just to destroy, kill, expel and starve a civilian population that has no connection to the acts of terror and no responsibility for them. Perhaps had they adopted a more decent and less arrogant approach they would have tried to explain the reasons for the fury and intensity that brought about the shocking killing and destruction, and even apologized for the fact that these exceeded any reasonable necessity.

But after all, we are always right; moreover, these things were done by "the most moral army in the world," sent by the "democratic" Jewish state - and here is the meeting point of the two concepts in the title of Yadlin and Kasher's article.

As for the army's morality, it would have been better had they remained silent and thereby been considered wise. This is because the statistics on the destruction and harm to civilians in the Gaza Strip are familiar to everyone, and not divorced from the oh-so-moral behavior of our army in the occupied territories. In the context of this behavior, for example, the army operates with great efficiency against farmers who demonstrate against the theft of their lands, even when the demonstrations are not violent.

The long-term evidence of abuse by soldiers against civilians at the checkpoints - including repeated instances of expectant mothers who are forced to give birth in the middle of the road, surrounded by armed soldiers who laugh wickedly - is no secret either. Day after day, year after year, the most moral army in the world helps to steal lands, uproot trees, steal water, close roads - in the service of the righteous "Jewish and democratic" state and with its support. It's heartbreaking, but the State of Israel is no longer democratic. We are living in an ethnocracy under "Jewish and democratic" rule.

In 1970 it was decided that in Israel religion and nationality are one and the same (that is why we are not listed in the Population Registry as Israelis, but as Jews). In 1992 it was determined in the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty that Israel is a "Jewish state." There is no mention in this law of the promise that appears in the state's formative document, the Declaration of Independence, to the effect that "The State of Israel will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race or sex." The Knesset ratified the law nonetheless.

And so there is a "Jewish state" and no "equality of rights." Therefore some observers emphasize that the Jewish state is not "a state of all its citizens." Is there really a democracy that is not a state of all its citizens? After all, Jews living today in democratic countries enjoy the full rights of citizenship.

Democracy exists in the State of Israel today only in the formal sense: There are parties and elections and a good judicial system. But there is also an omnipotent army that ignores legal decisions that restrict the theft of land owned and held by people who have been living under occupation for the past 42 years. And since 1992, as we mentioned, we also have the definition "Jewish state," which means an ethnocracy - the rule of an ethnic religious community that strictly determines the ethnic origin of its citizens according to maternal lineage. And as far as other religions are concerned, disrespect for them is already a tradition, since we have learned: "Only you are considered human beings, whereas the gentiles are like donkeys."

From here it is clear that we and our moral army are exempt from concerns for the Palestinians living in Israel, and this is even more true of those living under occupation. On the other hand, it is perfectly all right to steal their land because these are "state lands" that belong to the State of Israel and its Jews.

That is the case even though we have not annexed the West Bank and have not granted citizenship to its inhabitants, who under Jordanian rule were Jordanian citizens. The State of Israel has penned them in, which makes it easy to confiscate their land for the benefit of its settlers.

And important and respected rabbis, who are educating an entire generation, have ruled that the whole country is ours and the Palestinians should share the fate of Amalek, the ancient tribe the Israelites were commanded to eradicate. At a time when a "just war" is taking place, racism is rife and robbery is called "return of property."

We are currently celebrating the 61st anniversary of the State of Israel. We fought in the War of Independence out of a great hope that we would build a "model society" here, that we would make peace with our neighbors, work the land and develop the Jewish genius for the benefit of science, culture and the value of man - every man. But when a major general and a philosopher justify - out of a sense of moral superiority - our acts of injustice toward the other in such a way, they cast a very heavy shadow on all those hopes.

Security services are utterly devious through the nexus of evil CIA/MOSSAD/MI6

The SIS building at Vauxhall Cross, London, seen from Vauxhall Bridge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI6

Are the security services stupid or devious or both?

Is there a cabal within the security services which pulls the strings?

Nigel Inkster was deputy director of Britain's MI6 at the time that Saddam was toppled.

On 3 May 2009, The Telegraph (a UK newspaper allegedly used to spread MI6 disinformation) told us that Inkster, in a speech at the Institute for Public Policy Research, has claimed (Former MI6 chief says Britain was 'dragged' into Iraq war - Telegraph):

Britain was "dragged into a war in Iraq which was always against out better judgment."

MI6 was blamed for producing a dossier which claimed that Iraq was ready to use weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

The dossier was said to have been "sexed up" by the cabal surroundingTony Blair.

Inkster 'was passed over as the head of MI6 in favour of Sir John Scarlett', who took responsibility for the dodgy dossier.

So, is there a group within MI6 and within the government which can pull the strings and take us into war?

On 9 November 2003, Richard Norton-Taylor, the Guardian's security affairs editor, wrote:

"What has already emerged ... is the existence of a dark, almost Jacobean, cabal at the core of the Blair administration.

"It is a group of powerful, unelected people few would have heard of were it not for the evidence given to Hutton: Sir David Manning, the prime minister's foreign policy adviser; Sir David Omand, his security coordinator; and John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee..." (There is a dark cabal around Blair) (aangirfan: A secret cabal within the security services?)

Stephen Dorril's book 'MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations' reveals that MI6 has gone in for:

Attempted assassinations (Egypt, Libya), coup d'états (Albania, Iran, Oman), forging Swiss bank account documents (East Germany) and psychological warfare (planting of false information, secret funding of propaganda and smearing opponents). (Guardian Unlimited Archive Search)

Is MI6 stupid?

MI6 appears to have got it wrong over the Suez invasion. The USA ordered the UK to get out of Suez because the USA was backing Nasser, who was then their asset.

MI6 appears to have failed to see that Argentina was going to invade the Falklands. The USA seemed to like the Argentine generals and may not have bothered to warn the UK of what was happening.

Angleton

Is MI6 run by a secret CIA cabal?

In 1965 the CIA's James Angleton, and President Johnson, decided to commission a report on Britain's secret services.

This report recommended sending more spies to Britain. It seemed that the CIA was going to treat Britain like Indonesia or Pakistan.

In order to ensure that there was an elite which would support US interests, the CIA would try to gain control of MI5 and MI6, use dirty tricks to get rid of anti-American politicians, and place pro-American puppets into positions of power.

In 1996, in the Guardian, Martin Kettle suggested that New Labour was all about Britain being in with the Americans.

MI6 gradually seems to have become dependent on the CIA, which has far more money and people.

MI6 and the CIA jointly toppled Mossadeq in Iran in 1953. And reportedly they both worked to topple the Shah. The Ayatollahs and the militant Moslems were seen as being the best people to use to weaken Russia and other powers.

MI6, in 1965, worked with the CIA to topple Indonesia's president Sukarno.

MI6, in the 1980's, working with the CIA, used militant Moslems in Afghanistan to weaken Russia.

Is MI6 devious?

In the book 'The Fifth Man', (by Roland Perry, Pan Books London 1994) Roland Perry puts the case that Ted Rothschild was a major spy for Israel.

Rothschild was a key figure within the British security services.

According to ex-KGB Colonel 'F' and KGB officer Yuri Modin, Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring's penetration of British Intelligence.

According to Perry, "Burgess, at MI6 (and still on a retainer from Rothschild) recommended Philby for a job in Section D of MI6. Rothschild, who had helped nudge Burgess into his position before the war, had been in turn recommended to MI5 by Burgess."

'Rothschild had the contacts,' Modin noted. 'He was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart, the Permanent Under-secretary of State in the Foreign Office, who controlled MI6.'

In 1957, French engineers began building a nuclear reactor at Dimona on the edge of the Negev Desert.

Perry believes that while "MI5 inventions and technical advances went on, Rothschild kept in contact with the key figures and digested the reports.

"This, coupled with his close contact with Dick White, other intelligence chiefs, Wright and the heads of the key research facilities in everything from weapons to radar, meant that Rothschild understood better than anyone in MI6 or MI5 every aspect of British Intelligence, from technical developments to their application in the field......"