xymphora

The ADL: not a complete waste

2008-07-25T09:21:00.002-04:00

The ADL occasionally proves its worth by publishing compendiums of political cartoons which it purports to find anti-Semitic. This collection - which isn't the best I've seen - reflects the world's perception that Zionism has an stranglehold on American politics (another ADL 'best of' is here). Of course, the ADL publishes these collections in order to feign outrage - which, is after all, what it does - but it really secretly flattered that the world knows what Americans aren't allowed to say: that the Supreme Beings run American politics to further the goals of Jewish group supremacy. Supremacists can't help giving themselves away by boating about their obvious advantages (a characteristic shared by both Zionists and many lite Zionists).

Hiding Leviev

2008-07-24T03:17:00.002-04:00

The Village of Bil'in in the West Bank in Occupied Palestine is suing two Canadian corporations in Quebec Superior Court for committing war crimes connected with the construction of illegal settlements. The interesting aspect is that the Canadian companies, Green Mount International Inc. and Green Park International Inc., are allegedly fronts, through an elaborate series of holding companies, nominees and trustees, for none other than our old friend Lev Leviev, the guy who sells blood diamonds and uses the proceeds to fund the building of illegal settlements:

"A Palestinian-rights group, Adalah-NY, now alleges the companies are controlled by Shaya Boymelgreen, a controversial real-estate developer in New York City.

As evidence, they cite Israeli media reports from 2005 and 2006 that identify Boymelgreen as Green Park's principal stakeholder."

and:

"Boymelgreen's name does not appear in Bilin's $2-million lawsuit. Both Green Park and Green Mount list a Montreal woman as their sole director, president and secretary.

But Bilin's Canadian lawyer says he believes the woman - Annette Laroche - is only a figurehead.

'We believe (her) to be simply the secretary at the law firm that incorporated the company with really no knowledge or involvement,' said Mark Arnold.

'I have no evidence that she has done anything wrong. Nevertheless she is liable for the conduct of that company.'

Both companies have Byzantine ownership structures with ties that extend to the African diamond trade.

Quebec government records say Green Park and Green Mount are each controlled by Lexinter Management, which lists a commercial photo studio in Montreal as its address.

Lexinter in turn lists its majority shareholder as F.T.S. Worldwide Corp., a Panama-based company involved in the past with the diamond trade in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

F.T.S. Worldwide was formerly the majority shareholder of Emaxon Inc., which was granted an exclusive deal to market Congolese diamonds in 2003.

Emaxon's sole director, president and secretary is Karen McIntyre, who served the same functions for Green Mount until she was replaced by Laroche in 2007.

Efforts to reach McIntyre and Laroche were unsuccessful.

Repeated calls to Ronald Levy, the lawyer representing Laroche and the two companies in her name, were not returned.

The Montreal offices of Levy's law firm, De Grandpre Chait, also serve as Emaxon's head office, at least for government tax records.

Adalah-NY argues Boymelgreen used Green Park and Green Mount to sub-contract the construction of the settlements near Bilin to Danya Cebus, a subsidiary of Africa Israel Investments.

The conglomerate is headed by Israeli diamond magnate Lev Leviev, who partnered with Boymelgreen in a series of New York real-estate ventures between 2002-2007.

UNICEF, the UN children's fund, cut its ties with Leviev last month after it found 'at least a reasonable grounds for suspecting" that Danya Cebus was involved in settlement building, which is considered illegal by the UN.'

Assassination politics

2008-07-23T09:42:00.003-04:00

Assassination politics:

Tony Blair attempts to visit Gaza, but is informed by Israeli officials of a credible assassination threat against him. It is difficult to conceive of any non-collaborating Palestinian not wanting to have another prominent international witness to the suffering imposed on the Palestinians by the Israelis (the most recent trashing of the infrastructure of normal human life, including schools and orphanages, by the IDF in the West Bank has been compared to Kristallnacht, with the Israeli oppression following the Nazi arc permitted by the same kind of world indifference/ignorance; of course, Gaza is receiving even worse treatment, and the same indifference). The Israelis have learned their lesson from the time they let Condi Rice see the checkpoints. They thought they were being humanitarian to the untermenschen; she saw the Old-South-style segregation and racial oppression. Why do you think the Israelis keep shooting journalists?
McCain accidentally on purpose let slip that Obama was going to be in the Middle East, and when, a big U. S. security protocol no-no, and hardly a mistake. Should McCain get lucky and a Mossad bomb should happen to go off under Obama, the Republicans can blame it on al Qaeda, or Iran, or both (!), and they are back in business, with a new war on terror to fight and the guy who is going to win over McCain dead.
Do you think that Sarko's big splash of reintroducing Syrian President Assad into the international diplomatic fold - including the highly symbolic move of inviting him to the Bastille Day parade - from which he has been completely excluded by USrael, is revenge for the fact that the Israelis tried to blow his head clean off at the the end of Sarko's visit to Israel? A French President being pals with Assad is particularly striking given Chirac's role in playing up the Hariri assassination and blaming it on Assad.

How to lie with forensics

2008-07-22T03:55:00.003-04:00

I've posted on the many problems with the 'science' used to convict people. The process of criminal prosecution is best regarded as a form of theater used to dole out penalties on the appearance of objectivity, befuddling fact finders enough to remove reasonable doubt. Most of the 'science' is crap that wouldn't pass muster in any real field of research.

Now, a crime analyst in Arizona named Kathryn Troyer, doing searches against DNA databases, searches that researchers are usually not allowed to do (and which Troyer was eventually told not to do once officials found out how dangerous her research was!), has found that the nine-loci tests commonly used to convict people do not lead to unique identifications. You know how prosecutors are always spouting off about how there is only a one in so many billion chance that another person could have the same DNA? Bullshit. From the LA Times story:

"In the 1990s, FBI scientists estimated the rarity of each genetic marker by extrapolating from sample populations of a few hundred people from various ethnic or racial groups. The estimates for each marker are multiplied across all 13 loci to come up with a rarity estimate for the entire profile.

These estimates make assumptions about how populations mate and whether genetic markers are independent of each other. They also don't account for relatives.

Bruce Weir, a statistician at the University of Washington who has studied the issue, said these assumptions should be tested empirically in the national database system.

'Instead of saying we predict there will be a match, let's open it up and look,' Weir said.

Some experts predict that given the rapid growth of CODIS, such a search would produce one or more examples of unrelated people who are identical at all 13 loci.

Such a discovery was once unimaginable."

The FBI's research which forms the basis of all the confident proclamations of prosecutors has never actually been tested against the existing databases, and what evidence there is seems to prove that the astronomical certainty commonly used to describe DNA proof is simply untrue.

Bonus: the FBI is using every dirty trick to prevent exculpatory searches, including in one case bluffing to cut the state of Maryland off from the national CODIS database if it allowed searches in its own state databases that could be used to impugn DNA evidence! The threat was used to allow prosecutors to craft an affidavit to have the court block the search. The FBI even claimed that the search itself could corrupt the entire state database! The judge didn't buy it, the search went forward, the FBI didn't cut Maryland off, the database wasn't corrupted, and the search disclosed:

"In a database of fewer than 30,000 profiles, 32 pairs matched at nine or more loci. Three of those pairs were 'perfect' matches, identical at 13 out of 13 loci."

The FBI tried much the same trick in Illinois, where it also failed, and where the search tuned up lots of matches which were officially impossible. They should empty the jail cells of people convicted solely on the basis of DNA and fill them up with FBI officials, who have been allowed to get away with scientific obfuscation, bluffing, and outright lying, without any punishment at all.

Funny coincidence

2008-07-20T23:09:00.004-04:00

Immediately after the United States announced the new sane - i. e., anti-Zionist - approach to Iran, consisting of actually negotiating with the Iranians and planning to set up a form of diplomatic relations, the price of oil dropped precipitously (the markets appear to have received a day's prior notice of the sanity, as the price started to shift just before the formal announcement). Was there a huge sudden increase in the supply of oil? Did the mysterious speculators who are ludicrously supposed to have cornered the world energy market stop their evil speculating? Nope, and nope. It was the temporary cessation of 'Iran talk' (with their usual circular reasoning, economists said the price drop had to do with 'demand'). When the Jew-controlled media misleadingly stated that the talks 'failed', the price started to creep up again. If you are tired of high gas prices, you had better tell World Jewry to lay off the 'Iran talk'.

It's going to make us sick

2008-07-19T06:07:00.002-04:00

Six months after he leaves the White House, George 'Legacy' Bush will be lauded by the official historians as one of the greatest American Presidents ever, having:

Sorted out the conflict with North Korea;
Achieved an understanding with Iran, ending thirty years of conflict;
Forced a (phony) peace agreement on the Israelis and Palestinians;
Ended the tyranny of Saddam in Iraq, established democracy there, and set the groundwork for the withdrawal of American troops.

It's going to be revolting. The Anerican economy? - er, they may not want to mention that.

Legacy George and the Supremacists

2008-07-17T04:26:00.003-04:00

It is always amusing to consider the prisoner swaps between the Israelis and the Arabs. As the Jews consider that a Jewish toenail is more valuable that the lives of all the gentiles in the universe, the terms of the swaps are usually bizarre, and I imagine the negotiations even more bizarre. The Arab negotiator says: "I've got a Jewish eyelash here and I'd like 10 live prisoners for it." The Israeli negotiator responds: "That's an outrageous insult: we won't give you less than a hundred!"

It is always worth remembering that the greatest strength of the one-issue guys is their supremacism, but it is also their greatest weakness. Note how Tom Friedman struggles to understand world hatred of Americans, falling back on the Dershowitz-style argument that you can't hate the United States as long as there is one regime in the world that is arguably worse. The death of over one million gentiles in Iraq is literally invisible to him, of absolutely no moral consequence. These supremacist blinders are eventually going to cost World Jewry, and its agents like Friedman, the possibility of their Zionist Empire.

As I keep repeating, Iran is a natural ally of the Jews, part of the 'doctrine of the periphery', non-Arab, non-Sunni, and, most importantly, not sitting on any of the land of Greater Israel. The only reason Iran has become an issue for the Israelis is the inability of the supremacists to comprehend that Arabs could actually beat the Supreme Beings, as Hamas did in kicking the Israelis out of Gaza, and as Hezbollah so convincingly did in 2006 in repelling the illegal and immoral attack on the people of Lebanon. Since Arabs can't fairly beat Jews, they must have cheated, and the cheating is regarded by the supremacists as Iranian support. Thus, the phony concern about an Iranian nuclear program: World Jewry knows from experience that the way to an American heart is lying tales about weapons of mass destruction (note the parallels between John Bolton's killer Iranian 'tramp steamer' and the lies told to the American Senate about Saddam's killer drones which apparently convinced it to sign off on the disastrous attack on Iraq!). The Zionist plan is that an American attack on Iran will weaken the Iranian allies that are preventing the planned Jewish theft of land and water.

As I keep repeating, the Old American Establishment has learned its lessons from Iraq, and isn't going to take the bait this time. Bush's father's friends have apparently convinced him that history is not going to smile on his Presidency unless he builds a 'legacy' in the next six months. Thus settling up with North Korea on terms which North Korea has always insisted upon (the neocons must be seething). Thus pushing for at least a phony agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians before January. Thus the current softening - diplomatic approaches and even a permanent diplomatic presence in Iran, at least if World Jewry doesn't manage to use its treason agents (known, misleadingly, as 'dual loyalists') in the American government and media to scupper it - of the approach towards Iran. The much-hyped Israeli visits to Washington to instruct the Americans on what to do to Iran represent a weakness of the supremacists, not a strength. If World Jewry was still running the United States, it would be unnecessary to send representatives from Israel, as the usual traitors could do the job.

Touch detectives

2008-07-09T23:35:00.003-04:00

The Boulder County district attorney announced that the Ramsey family was cleared as a result of a 'touch DNA' test on JonBenet's clothes, which revealed the DNA of another, unidentified male. The press is consistently reporting this emphasizing the idea that the new evidence from new investigatory techniques 'clears' the family. I don't get it. All the touch DNA test proves is that another male may have re-dressed her. We already knew that another male was in the picture, due to the presence of a drop of blood containing male DNA found in her clothes. I don't understand how any such DNA test, even a new one, can possibly 'clear' the family. All it can do is provide additional evidence that somebody else was involved. Since the family controlled the crime scene for a considerable time before authorities were summoned, the family could easily have allowed the mystery male to leave, if indeed the DNA was left as a result of the attack and not at another time. There are too many open possibilities for anybody to be 'cleared'. The Boulder County announcement, and the press coverage, is suspiciously certain when there are so many open possibilities.

Mr. Ramsey wants to be a politician, and this helps him a lot.

FISA Immunity and September 11

2008-07-08T00:05:00.002-04:00

Why is the American political establishment so keen on allowing Bush to grant immunity to telecommunications company wrongdoers who broke the law in helping Bush to fight Bibi's 'war on terror' by running roughshod over the rights of Americans? Even Obama, whose instincts seem top notch, refuses to take what appears to be the obvious politically appropriate position, infuriating many of his core supporters. Could it be because the the American political establishment is afraid that telecom executives, put on trial, will sing a sorry tune in their defense concerning American government foreknowledge of September 11? From the NYT (my emphasis in red):

"The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the company’s lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the former head of the company contends in newly unsealed court filings.

The executive, Joseph P. Nacchio, also asserts in the filings that the agency retaliated by depriving Qwest of lucrative outsourcing contracts.

The filings were made as Mr. Nacchio fought charges of insider trading. He was ultimately convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading and has been sentenced to six years in prison. He remains free while appealing the conviction.

Mr. Nacchio said last year that he had refused an N.S.A. request for customers’ call records in late 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks, as the agency initiated domestic surveillance and data mining programs to monitor Al Qaeda communications.

But the documents unsealed Wednesday in federal court in Denver, first reported in The Rocky Mountain News on Thursday, claim for the first time that pressure on the company to participate in activities it saw as improper came as early as February, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks.

The significance of the claim is hard to assess, because the court documents are heavily redacted and N.S.A. officials will not comment on the agency’s secret surveillance programs. Other government officials have said that the agency’s eavesdropping without warrants began only after Sept. 11, 2001, under an order from President Bush.

But the court filings in Mr. Nacchio’s case illustrate what is well known inside the telecommunications industry but little appreciated by the public: that the N.S.A. has for some time worked closely with phone companies, whose networks carry the telephone and Internet traffic the agency seeks out for intercept."

Mr. Nacchio appears to be putting pressure on prosecutors in his insider trading case by threatening to reveal what the NSA was up to prior to September 11. The juicy details are all redacted. We've been led to believe by American authorities like Condi Rice that the sum total of American intelligence was based on scraps of 'chatter' out of the Middle East, with no specific details (". . . I don't think anybody could have predicted . . "). Just what 'improper' activities were resisted by Quest, activities which it saw as similar to the requests to monitor 'al Qaeda' after September 11? Just who was the NSA interested in listening to in the United States at a time months before they - and the American government - were even supposed to be aware there was a plot to attack the United States?

Something besides the t-shirt?

2008-07-06T00:45:00.004-04:00

Americans are starting to suffer from a severe case of buyers' remorse over the multi-trillion dollar cost of the Wars For The Jews. The understanding was that the psychos in the Republican Party would ensure that the average American got cheap oil out of the deal, the nudge-nudge-wink-wink immoral assumption behind at least the attack on Iraq. Now that the United States is circling the drain, can't even begin to pay the cost of the current Wars For The Jews (not to mention the ones that World Jewry has planned!), and is facing ever rising gas prices with seemingly no more levers to pull to do anything about it, we're seeing the beginnings of a full court press from the disgusting American media to try to convince Americans that there was an oil motive after all, mountains of evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

The latest salvo is to play up a relatively inconsequential story about how the State Department assisted some American and British multinationals into obtaining some relatively small technical consultancy contracts in Iraq. Of course, the multinationals didn't actually sign the deals, as the piece-of-the-action revenue sharing agreements that are supposed to prove the subservience of the Iraqi government are being denied by that very same government (remember that oil legislation that also was supposed to prove that the attack was all about the oil?: also not enacted, with no prospect of a Western-multinational-friendly deal in the foreseeable future). Even better, buried in the same story is the lede, the fact that the big development contracts, the real gold in the Iraqi oil fields, is being tendered to many multinational oil companies, including the national oil companies of many countries who aren't either the U. S. or Britain. If anything, this story conclusively proves that the attack on Iraq wasn't about the oil. In fact, looking at the state of world oil markets today, and at the state of the Iraqi oil fields, the very idea that the attack on Iraq was about the oil is in rolling-on-the-floor-laughing territory, a fact which doesn't stop the usual suspects from pushing the same old Chomskean line (is it a coincidence that Chomsky's neo-Marxist analysis of the politics of the American elites, an analysis that discourages consideration of factors like religion or group supremacism, started at just about the same time that the settler movement started to build the Israeli Empire?).

The other method being used to fool Americans into thinking that the Republicans actually got something out of all those trillions is that the Afghanistan gas pipeline deal is supposed to prove that the attacks were about energy. Of course, Afghanistan was, partly, about the gas. It was the training wheel of the Wars For The Jews, and the American Establishment was sold on it based on the promise of a gas pipeline, one that I note has no reasonable prospect of being built until the Americans make peace with what the American media likes to call the Taliban (I also note that American multinationals have no chance of doing business in Iraq without massive protective assistance from the American military, paid for, or course, by American taxpayers, and it will never be possible for an American company to make money in Iraq without protection from the Iraqi people, a fact anticipated by American oil companies explaining why they were never in favor of the attack). A very unlikely Afghanistan gas pipeline in no way proves that the attack on Iraq was about oil. It was a pure War For The Jews, and no amount of spin can change that.

The arrow only points one way

2008-07-04T05:05:00.006-04:00

Bibi Netanyahu's 'war on terror' is a lot more complex than it looks. That's why a Palestinian driving a Caterpillar bulldozer over Jews is a 'terrorist', but when an Israeli Jew drives a Caterpillar bulldozer over an American protester or a Palestinian grandmother, it's the dead person who is the 'terrorist'. There is no way a Martian visiting earth is going to be able to understand this without a considerable amount of explanation, and the fear among American authorities was that the average American could be easily confused by a mixed message. Steven Hatfill wasn't prosecuted/persecuted by American authorities because they thought he was guilty, or even because they are buffoons. They went after him because they knew he was innocent, in lieu of going after the real culprit, a member of the 'Camel Club' whose prosecution would have been confusing to the average American. In the 'war on terror', there are some people who can only be victims.

The paradox of the Republican Party

2008-07-02T00:27:00.004-04:00

Jim Lobe discusses the paradox of the Republicans, who may be headed for a disaster of historic proportions in November, but seem hell bent on continuing with their senseless 'Iran talk'. The price of gasoline has an enormous emotional effect on Americans, not to mention a very real effect in terms of economic hardship considering the American over-reliance on automobiles (with the importance of gasoline being more profound in those areas most likely to vote Republican), and a political party that seems unable or unwilling to do anything to contain rampant increases in the price of gasoline is likely to pay a steep political price. A political party whose actions seem intent on raising the price of gasoline is suicidal.

The Official Story now seems to be that the 'Iran talk' isn't real, but is just the method being used by the Bush Administration to pressure the Iranian government into moderating its actions. If so, this is one of the worst examples of diplomacy in modern history. Bush and the Israelis have made the Iranian nuclear program into a matter of national pride in Iran, and increased support for the hardliners. Even worse, the increase in the price of oil caused in large part by the 'Iran talk' - not forgetting the other large factor, the continuing irritation of the American occupation of Iraq - has staved off economic problems in Iran which were threatening the political future of people like Ahmadinejad. 'Iran talk' has not only increased the price of gasoline, it has gone a long way to promoting the Iranian nuclear program. All this with no obvious American strategic interest in whether the Iranians make electricity out of uranium or not!

Can the Republicans be that stupid? Are we finally seeing the fatal error in their connections with the Christian Zionists, whose desire for an end-of-the-world war appears to be leading directly to the effective destruction of the very successful conservative dominance of American politics for the past thirty years? Two terms of Obama, with the liberal judges he can nominate, and many years of Democrat majorities in both the House and Senate will make Ronald Reagan a very distant memory.

Benign dominoes

2008-06-28T04:49:00.004-04:00

Within the context of a spat between Joe Klein and Max Boot over whether the neocons suffer from what is known as 'dual loyalties' - an outrageous slur, as there has never been the slightest evidence that the neocons had any loyalty to any country other than Israel - Klein writes:

"You want evidence of divided loyalties? How about the 'benign domino theory' that so many Jewish neoconservatives talked to me about - off the record, of course - in the runup to the Iraq war, the idea that Israel's security could be won by taking out Saddam, which would set off a cascade of disaster for Israel's enemies in the region? As my grandmother would say, feh! Do you actually deny that the casus belli that dare not speak its name wasn't, as I wrote in February 2003, a desire to make the world safe for Israel? Why the rush now to bomb Iran, a country that poses some threat to Israel but none - for the moment--to the United States...unless we go ahead, attack it, and the mullahs unleash Hezbollah terrorists against us? Do you really believe the mullahs would stage a nuclear attack on Israel, destroying the third most holy site in Islam and killing untold numbers of Muslims? I am not ruling out the use of force against Iran - it may come to that - but you folks seem to embrace it gleefully."

It is a shame, but not a great surprise, that Klein decided not to share the 'benign domino theory' with his readers at a time when Americans could have used the information. It smacks of the conspiracy of a secretive cabal. Of course, the benign domino theory is what I like to call the Zionist plan for the Middle East, and was in full force and effect amongst the neocon conspiracy which tricked Americans into the disastrous attack on Iraq. Iraq was just step one, and had the Old American Establishment not come to its senses and kicked most of the neocons out of the American government, we would now be witnessing their attempts at carrying out the greater plans of the cabal, all intended to lead to the building of Greater Israel. As Josh Marshall notes discussing the same spat, he described Boot's views as far back as 2003 (my emphasis in red):

"The hawks' other response is that if the effort to push these countries toward democracy goes south, we can always use our military might to secure our interests. 'We need to be more assertive,' argues Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 'and stop letting all these two-bit dictators and rogue regimes push us around and stop being a patsy for our so-called allies, especially in Saudi Arabia.' Hopefully, in Boot's view, laying down the law will be enough. But he envisions a worst-case scenario that would involve the United States 'occupying the Saudi's oil fields and administering them as a trust for the people of the region.'

What Boot is calling for, in other words, is the creation of a de facto American empire in the Middle East. In fact, there's a subset of neocons who believe that given our unparalleled power, empire is our destiny and we might as well embrace it. The problem with this line of thinking is, of course, that it ignores the lengthy and troubling history of imperial ambitions, particularly in the Middle East. The French and the English didn't leave voluntarily; they were driven out. And they left behind a legacy of ignorance, exploitation, and corruption that's largely responsible for the region's current dysfunctional politics."

Far from being a worst-case scenario, occupying the Saudi oil fields is the culmination of the Zionist plan for the Middle East (step 10 in my list), finally depriving the Arabs of the 'oil weapon' which constituted the main barrier to the creation of Greater Israel.

The funniest thing about all this is that the plans of the neocon cabal were never a secret, and it should have been common knowledge that the neocons never had American interests at heart. Imperial confusion - for which I blame people like Chomsky - allowed the neocons to clothe their completely Zionist goals in words which looked like plans of the American Empire. It is too bad it took an attack which will end up destroying that empire to teach Americans a lesson.

Like Rabin

2008-06-26T23:39:00.004-04:00

Israel Insider considers the incident that occurred at Ben Gurion International Airport:

"Yet the mystery remains: a distinguished soldier with no proclivity for suicide, without leaving a note, standing at a vantage point with a long-range rifle n line of sight of the VIPs, should at the absolutely most ideal moment for an assassination at once shoot himself in the head with a rifle and somehow find a way to fall off the roof? What an odd simultaneous set of coincidences!"

We have two additional pieces of evidence to consider. First, the clumsy way in which the Official Story was produced indicates that this wasn't an official Israeli government operation. Had this been a government operation, we can expect that a plausible Official Story would have been immediately at hand for each eventuality. Officials were obviously not ready for this, and the very weak cover story feels ad libbed.

Secondly, it is very unlikely that Olmert was the target, for the simple reason that Olmert himself boarded the plane to explain to Sarkozy what happened. You can bet that if this was an assassination attack on Olmert, Israeli officials wouldn't have allowed him to stay behind, waiting for another shot from a second planted shooter. He would have been whisked away from the scene.

The most likely explanation, particularly given the Realist Zionist contents of Sarkozy's statements and actions, was that this was an assassination attempt by the Israeli right on someone who they regarded as a supporter-turned-traitor. Like Rabin.

Crazy Jewish billionaire

2008-06-26T01:19:00.007-04:00

Sheldon Adelson comes across as the real-life version of a fictional character the Nazis would have featured in a propaganda movie. From the long New Yorker article (my emphasis in red):

"When Adelson was merely rich, he wrote checks for causes that he favored and for politicians whom he supported. Occasionally, he demanded to be heard. But he did not expect to play a significant role in U.S. foreign policy, or in Israel’s strategic decisions, or in the fate of a sitting Israeli Prime Minister. That was before he acquired many billions of dollars. (He has assets of twenty-six billion dollars, according to a Forbes list published in March.) His political expenditures and his expectations have increased proportionately. Not long after Bush’s encounter with Adelson last October, an Israeli government representative said that Bush, describing it to another Israeli official, had remarked wryly, 'I had this crazy Jewish billionaire, yelling at me.' (The Israeli official does not recall the conversation; the White House said that it had no comment.)"

and (while the Israelis may be the victims of the American Jewish Billionaires, they bear a lot of responsibility for falling prey to the one-issue guys):

"During the celebration of Israel’s sixtieth birthday, in mid-May, Shimon Peres wanted to hold a conference that would be attended by leaders from around the world. 'I know they had difficulties raising the money,' a former Israeli official told me. 'And time was short. So they realized they should talk to Sheldon.' Adelson agreed to provide three million dollars; after that, conference organizers were able to raise the rest. That Adelson was supporting an event led by Peres - the man he had helped Netanyahu defeat in the momentous 1996 election - made him appear more ecumenical. He and Miriam were named honorary conference chairs, and a photograph of them was featured in the program for the Peres event, along with a message from them. Throughout the conference, Adelson was treated with deference, reflected in his place in the receiving line, his addressing the conference, and his seat next to President Peres. (He was also one seat away from Prime Minister Olmert; they shook hands but did not exchange a word.) At a formal dinner attended by more than a hundred senior officials of various Israeli and Jewish organizations, guests were offered the opportunity to tell Peres what they considered the biggest challenge facing the Jewish people. Adelson, according to Ha’aretz, declared, 'I think Jews should have lots of sex. That is the solution to our demographic problem.'

After Adelson addressed the conference, Nahum Barnea wrote in his column in Yedioth Ahronoth, 'I saw a gambling tycoon from Las Vegas who bought my country’s birthday with three million dollars. I thought with sorrow: Is the country worth so very little? Were the champagne, wine and sushi that were given out for free in the lobby - breaking convention for such events - worth the humiliation?' Barnea went on:

Adelson is a Jew who loves Israel. Like some other Jews who live at a safe distance from here, his love is great, passionate, smothering. It is important to him that he influences the policies, decisions, and compositions of the Israeli governments. He is not alone in this, either; even back in the days of Baron Rothschild, wealthy Jews from the Diaspora felt that this country lay in their pocket, alongside their wallet. Regrettably, in the latest generation, we are being led by politicians who look at these millionaires with calf’s eyes.

In Israel, where political, academic, and business leaders tend to be outspoken, there is a striking reticence at the mention of Sheldon Adelson. Even people who are diametrically opposed to his politics refuse to be interviewed. 'There is a discernible amount of self-censorship going on,' the liberal Israeli-American writer Bernard Avishai said. 'There is no ideological justification for what Sheldon is doing among the Israeli intelligentsia - and a revulsion at an American weighing in so heavily on Israeli politics, in such a crude, reactionary way. But they won’t speak.'"

Suicide or thwarted false-flag assassination attempt?

2008-06-25T05:11:00.003-04:00

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Jewish and supposedly a friend to Zionism, went to the Knesset and told Israel that it had to return part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, accept that Jerusalem would be the capital of two states, stop all settlement activity, lift all the checkpoints in the West Bank, and end the blockade of Gaza. Has any foreign politician ever said anything so radical in the Knesset? He met with the Palestinians, and said that the "creation of a viable, democratic, modern state for the Palestinians" is a "priority" for France ('viable' is a dangerous code-word). Can you imagine how furious the Zionists and the Jewish Billionaires must have been? So they decided to teach him a lesson by blowing his head clean off, the same lesson they are planning for Obama.

There are Realist Zionists in Israel who have come to accept that the current Zionist plans are ruinous for the State of Israel. Zionist plans will inevitably lead to an apartheid state with an Arab majority, and eventually the world will use sanctions to require one person-one vote, thus leading to the end of a Jewish ethnic state. Realist Zionists are totally different than lite Zionists, who are Americans who pretend to want to see a Palestinian state. This is just a tactic on the road to the eventual total ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and the beginnings of the road to Greater Israel across the Middle East. Realist Zionists - and Olmert may be one - really have given up the dream of Greater Israel, accepting that there is no way to obtain it without destroying what the Israeli Jews already have.

The Realists appear to have thwarted an assassination attempt on Sarkozy, an attempt which, if successful, would have been blamed on some Palestinian patsy. The cover story took a while to concoct, with the authorities eventually settling on the ludicrous idea that a guard decided to kill himself with a rifle in the middle of his guard duties connected with the grand departure of Sarkozy from Israel. He then fell from a roof! This has to be a new high point in the ongoing history of ridiculous cover stories.

What's the point?

2008-06-23T03:04:00.002-04:00

Bill Kristol proliferates the Pipes fantasy that Bush will attack Iran if Obama is elected. Why are the Zionists gossiping about things they know have no chance of happening? The 'anti-Semites' have retaken control, and there is no chance for an imminent new War For The Jews, so World Jewry has reverted to Plan B, the use of the 'strategy of tension' in the Middle East. The idea is to use the fears of war to further Israeli goals by forcing the Sunni states to fall into line with Zionist wishes. Crazy as it sounds, this strategy has worked. 'Iran talk' increases the strength of hardliners in Iran, which increases fears in the Sunni-ruled states, which forces them into falling for Israel's diplomatic tricks.

Obviously, World Jewry is not concerned about the price of gas (the irony is that 'Iran talk' is greatly enriching the enemies of Israel, many of which were in economic dire straits before the Wars For The Jews and 'Iran talk' boosted the price of oil). As the truth of who is behind rising oil prices is unpleasant, we've been hearing lots of lies and bafflegab about shortages and the machinations of those very mysterious speculators. You can't read the truth anywhere, but this is better than most:

"But the Administration's greatest contribution to the rising oil prices is its steady stream of threats to attack Iran if it does not back down on the nuclear issue. The Iranians have made it plain that they would retaliate by attempting to block the flow of Gulf oil and otherwise cause turmoil in the energy market. Most analysts assume, therefore, that an encounter will produce a global oil shortage and prices well over $200 per barrel. It is not surprising, then, that every threat by Bush/Cheney (or their counterparts in Israel) has triggered a sharp rise in prices. This is where speculators enter the picture. Believing that a US-Iranian clash is at least 50 percent likely, some investors are buying futures in oil at $140, $150 or more per barrel, thinking they'll make a killing if there's an attack and prices zoom over $200."

Obviously, the investors don't believe that "a US-Iranian clash is at least 50 percent likely", a ludicrous suggestion. The idea isn't to making a killing, it is to cover one's ass in the extremely unlikely chance of an event which would have catastrophic consequences. It's the ass covering that causes the price to continue to rise, and the 'Iran talk' is what prompts the ass covering.

It is nothing short of tragic that fear of the slur - not to mention those liars misleading us in order to protect the guilty - is causing people to hide from the truth, especially considering the real economic hardship being caused by World Jewry and its never-ending desire to steal land.

Cause and effect

2008-06-21T22:42:00.003-04:00

A Michael Gordon article in the inimitable - thank God! - Michael Gordon/Judy Miller style (my emphasis in red; it's like shooting fish in a barrel!):

"Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said."

Note that it took the 'American officials' two full weeks to pipe up about this development and what it signified. Gordon continues:

"A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.

One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.

'They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know,' the Pentagon official said. 'There’s a lot of signaling going on at different levels.'

Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent."

And guess what?:

"At the same time, reports about possible military action against an OPEC state was also contributing to the rise in crude. The New York Times carried an article saying that Israel conducted 'a major military exercise' earlier in June that U.S. experts believe had the makings of preparations for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities."

The Toronto Zero

2008-06-21T04:35:00.002-04:00

The Toronto Eighteen, reduced to the Toronto Eleven, should now be the Toronto Zero, with the prosecution reduced to cross-examining its own witness in order to challenge his credibility. Since he is not only their chief witness - in fact the only witness they have dealing with the criminal intention of the accused - he is also their chief agent provocateur, and is therefore more than a witness, he is their entire case. The prosecution is admitting he can't be trusted. How can any court find these defendants, or the later group of adult defendants who have yet to be tried on the same basic evidence, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

The prosecution really has only one honorable out: drop the whole case for lack of evidence. This kind of embarrassment would have come out at the preliminary hearing the prosecution should have had, but decided to skip as part of the propaganda message being sent by the trial. The prosecutors shamefully got onto Bibi Netanyahu's 'war on terror' bandwagon, and should resign, or be fired, for prosecutorial misconduct if they continue with this shameful ideologically-driven persecution. There is an an additional ethical problem, with the revelation that there is even a third agent provocateur, and the possibility that the prosecution is withholding evidence from the lawyers for the defendants, something which in Canada usually results in a very angry judge throwing the whole case out. This is a political show trial, and a travesty of justice.

Are They Really Oil Wars? No

2008-06-19T01:19:00.002-04:00

From "Are They Really Oil Wars?" by Ismael Hossein-zadeh:

"It is true that for a long time, from the beginning of Middle Eastern oil exploration and discovery in the early twentieth century until the mid-1970s, colonial and/or imperial powers controlled oil either directly or through control of oil producing countries - at times, even by military force. But that pattern of colonial or imperialist exploitation of global markets and resources has changed now. Most of the current theories of imperialism and hegemony that continue invoking that old pattern of Big Oil behavior tend to suffer from an ahistorical perspective. Today, as discussed earlier, even physically occupying and controlling another country’s oil fields will not necessarily be beneficial to oil interests. Not only will military adventures place the operations of current energy projects at jeopardy, but they will also make the future plans precarious and unpredictable. Big Oil interests, of course, know this; and that’s why they did not countenance the war on Iraq: 'The big oil companies were not enthusiastic about the Iraqi war,' says Fareed Mohamedi of PFC Energy, an energy consultancy firm based in Washington D.C. that advises petroleum firms. 'Corporations like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco want stability, and this is not what Bush is providing in Iraq and the Gulf region,' adds Mohamedi.[20]

Big Oil interests also know that not only is war no longer the way to gain access to oil, it is in fact an obstacle to gaining that access. Exclusion of U.S. oil companies from vast oil resources in countries such as Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and a number of central Asian countries due to militaristic U.S. foreign policy is a clear testament to this fact. Many of these countries (including, yes, Iran) would be glad to have major U.S. oil companies invest, explore and extract oil from their rich reserves. Needless to say that U.S. oil companies would be delighted to have access to those oil resources. But U.S. champions of war and militarism have successfully torpedoed such opportunities through their unilateral wars of aggression and their penchant for a Cold War-like international atmosphere."

and:

"During the past few decades, major oil companies have consistently opposed U.S. policies and military threats against countries like Iran, Iraq, and Libya. They have, indeed, time and again, lobbied U.S. foreign policy makers for the establishment of peaceful relations and diplomatic rapprochement with those countries. The Iran-Libya Sanction Act of 1996 (ILSA) is a strong testament to the fact that oil companies nowadays view wars, economic sanctions, and international political tensions as harmful to their long-term business interests and, accordingly, strive for peace, not war, in international relations.

On March 15, 1995 President Clinton issued Executive Order 12957 which banned all U.S. contributions to the development of Iran’s petroleum resources, a crushing blow to the oil industry, especially to the Conoco oil company that had just signed a $1 billion contract to develop fields in Iran. The deal marked a strong indication that Iran was willing to improve its relationship with the United States, only to have President Clinton effectively nullify it. Two months later, sighting “an extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the U.S.,” President Clinton issued another order, 1259, that expanded the sanctions to become a total trade and investment embargo against Iran. Then a year later came ILSA which extended the sanctions imposed on Iran to Libya as well.

It is no secret that the major force behind the Iran-Libya Sanction Act was the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the main Zionist lobby in Washington. The success of AIPAC in passing ILSA through both the Congress and the White House over the opposition of the major U.S. oil companies is testament to the fact that, in the context of U.S. policy in the Middle East, even the influence of the oil industry pales vis-à-vis the influence of the Zionist lobby.[24]

ILSA was originally to be imposed on both U.S. and foreign companies. However, in the end it was the U.S. companies that suffered the most due to waivers that were given to European companies after pressure from the European Union. In 1996 the EU pursued its distaste of ILSA by lodging complaints with the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the U.S. and through adopting 'blocking legislation' that would prevent EU companies from complying with ILSA. Meanwhile, the contract that Iran had originally signed with Conoco was awarded to TotalFinaElf of France for $760 million; the deal also left the door open for Total to sign an additional contract with Iran for $2 billion in 1997 with their partners Gazprom and Petronas.

In May of 1997 major U.S. oil companies such as Conoco, Exxon, Atlantic Richfield, and Occidental Petroleum joined other (non-military) U.S. companies to create an anti-sanction coalition. Earlier that same year Conoco’s Chief Executive Archie Dunham publicly took a stance against unilateral U.S. sanctions by stating that 'U.S. companies, not rogue regimes, are the ones that suffer when the United States imposes economic sanctions.' Texaco officials have also argued that the U.S. can be more effective in bringing about change in other countries by allowing U.S. companies to do business with those countries instead of imposing economic sanctions that tend to be counterproductive.

Alas, Washington’s perverse, misguided and ineffectual policy of economic sanctions for political purposes - often in compliance with the wishes of some powerful special interests - continues unabated. 'Even with the increased pro-trade lobbying efforts of the oil industry and groups like USAEngage, whose membership ranges from farmers and small business owners to Wall Street executives and oilmen, the lack of support from Washington and the Bush administration could not allow them [major oil companies and other non-military transnational companies] to overtake or counteract the already rolling momentum of AIPAC’s influence on Middle East policy or the renewal of ISLA.'[25]"

and (note how Noamian analysis follows the wishes of the real perpetrators by hiding their real motives):

"The widely-shared but erroneous view that recent U.S. wars of choice are driven by oil concerns is partly due to precedence: the fact that for a long time military force was key to colonial or imperialist control and exploitation of foreign markets and resources, including oil. It is also partly due to perception: the exaggerated notion that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney were 'oil men' before coming to the White House. But, as noted earlier, George W. Bush was never more than an ineffective minor oil prospector and Dick Cheney was never really an oil man; he headed the notorious Halliburton company that sold (and still sells) services to oil companies and the Pentagon.

But the major reason for the persistence of this pervasive myth seems to stem from certain deliberate efforts that are designed to perpetuate the legend in order to camouflage some real economic and geopolitical special interests that drive U.S. military adventures in the Middle East. There is evidence that both the military-industrial complex and hard-line Zionist proponents of 'greater Israel' disingenuously use oil (as an issue of national interest) in order to disguise their own nefarious special interests and objectives: justification of continued expansion of military spending, extension of sales markets for military hardware, and recasting the geopolitical map of the Middle East in favor of Israel.

There is also evidence that for every dollar’s worth of oil imported from the Persian Gulf region the Pentagon takes five dollars out of the Federal budget to 'secure' the flow of that oil! This is a clear indication that the claim that the U.S. military presence in the Middle East is due to oil consideration is a fraud .[26]

While anecdotal, an example of how partisans of war and militarism use oil as a pretext to cover up the real forces behind war and militarism can be instructive. In the early stages of the invasion of Iraq, when the anti-occupation resistance in Iraq had not yet taken shape and the invasion seemed to be proceeding smoothly, two of the leading champions of the invasion, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, often boasting of the apparent or pre-mature success of the invasion at those early stages, gave frequent news conferences and press reports. During one of those press reports (at the end of an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore in early June 2003), Wolfowitz was asked why North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found. Wolfowitz’s response was: 'Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.'[27]

Many opponents of the war jumped on this statement, so to speak, as corroboration of what they had been saying or suspecting all along: that the war on Iraq was prompted by oil interests. Yet, there is strong evidence - some of which presented in the preceding pages - that for the last several decades oil interests have not favored war and turbulence in the Middle East, including the current invasion of Iraq. Nor is war any longer the way to gain access to oil. Major oil companies, along with many other non-military transnational corporations, have lobbied both the Clinton and Bush administrations in support of changing the aggressive, militaristic U.S. policy toward countries like Iran, Iraq and Libya in favor of establishing normal, non-confrontational trade and diplomatic relations. Such efforts at normalization of trade and diplomatic relations, however, have failed time and again precisely because Wolfowitz and his cohorts, working through AIPAC and other war-mongering think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) oppose them.

These think tanks, in collaboration with a whole host of similar militaristic lobbying entities like Center for Security Affairs (CSA) and National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP), working largely as institutional façades to serve the defacto alliance of the military-industrial complex and the pro-Israel lobby, have repeatedly thwarted efforts at peace and reconciliation in the Middle East - often over the objections and frustrations of major U.S. oil companies. It is a well established fact that Wolfowitz has been a devoted champion of these jingoistic think tanks and their aggressive unilateral policies in the Middle East. In light of his professional record and political loyalties, his claim that he championed the war on Iraq because of oil considerations can be characterized only as demagogic: it contradicts his political record and defies the policies he has been advocating for the last several decades; it is designed to divert attention from the main forces behind the war, the armaments lobby and the pro-Israel lobby.

These powerful interests are careful not to draw attention to the fact that they are the prime instigators of war and militarism in the Middle East. Therefore, they tend to deliberately perpetuate the popular perception that oil is the driving force behind the war in the region. They even do not mind having their aggressive foreign policies labeled as imperialistic as long as imperialism implies some vague or general connotations of hegemony and domination, that is, as long as it thus camouflages the real, special interests behind the war and political turbulence in the Middle East.

The oil and other non-military transnational corporations’ aversion to war and military adventures in the Middle East stem, of course, from the logical behavior of global or transnational capital in the era of integrated world markets, which tends to be loath to war and international political convulsions. Considering the fact that both importers and exporters of oil prefer peace and stability to war and militarism, why would, then, the flow of oil be in jeopardy if the powerful beneficiaries of war and political tension in the Middle East stopped their aggressive policies in the region?

Partisans of war in the Middle East tend to portray U.S. military operations in the region as reactions to terrorism and political turbulence in order to 'safeguard the interests of the United States and its allies.' Yet, a close scrutiny of action-reaction or cause-effect relationship between U.S. military adventures and socio-political turbulence in the region reveals that perhaps the causality is the other way around. That is, social upheavals and political convulsions in the Middle East are more likely to be the result, not the cause, of U.S. foreign policy in the region, especially its one-sided, prejudicial Israeli-Palestinian policy. The U.S. policy of war and militarism in the region seems to resemble the behavior of a corrupt cop, or a mafia godfather, who would instigate fights and frictions in the neighborhood or community in order to, then, portray his parasitic role as necessary for the safety and security of the community and, in the process, fill out his deep pockets."

One of the myths floating around is that the attack on Iraq was part of an operation intended to 'seize the oilfields'. This is preposterous from the point of view of oil company interests. Past experience, and the current situation in Iraq, prove that the only sensible way to obtain access to the oil is to have local officials run the situation. 'Seizing the oilfields' is a pure Zionist notion, first suggested by covert Zionist Henry Kissinger in the early 1970s, and is intended not to obtain American corporate access to the oil, but to remove the 'oil weapon' from the Arabs.

The article is inaccurate in putting responsibility for the attack on both Zionists and military contractors. Of course, military contractors want war. They always want war. If the desires of military contractors were determinative, we would always have war. There needs to be another, primary, reason for war. Military contractors just latch onto, and reinforce, the primary motivators. I reject all conspiracy theories based on some kind of James-Bond-style, super-Evil villains, running the world in order to arrange for a war of everybody against everybody. The world doesn't work in this cartoon fashion. There was one and only one reason for the attack on Iraq: Zionism.

Urban Moving Systems

2008-06-18T23:33:00.003-04:00

Via whatreallyhappened, Urban Moving Systems Inc received almost $500,000 in a loan from the American government in fiscal year 2001. The loan was a small business loan from the Small Business Administration and was made on June 22, 2001. Urban Moving Systems Inc is most famous now as the employer of the 'dancing Israelis', who videotaped and celebrated the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. They arrived at the scene - somehow knowing in advance that there would be something interesting to videotape - in a van marked 'Urban Moving Systems'. Curiously, 'Middle Eastern' men, who turned out to be called Moshe Elmakias and Ron Katar, were detained (or here) and turned over to the INS (!) for acting suspiciously and having video footage of the Sears Tower, and were driving a tractor-trailer marked 'Moving Systems Incorporated'. There was another incident near York, Pennsylvania on September 12, another police stop of suspicious persons, involving another Urban Moving Systems vehicle. One of the drivers was a former Israeli paratrooper. The other "is given polygraph tests and claims to have satisfied his questioners except on the issue of who sent him to the US." (my italics) Dominick Suter (whose name is misspelled in some of the whatreallyhappened postings), the 'owner' of the company, immediately fled to Israel.

What was Urban Moving Systems? Christopher Ketcham (my emphasis in red):

". . . two days after the men were picked up, the owner of Urban Moving Systems, Dominik Suter, a 31- year-old Israeli national, abandoned his business and fled the United States for Israel. Suter's departure was abrupt, leaving behind coffee cups, sandwiches, cell phones and computers strewn on office tables and thousands of dollars of goods in storage. Suter was later placed on the same FBI suspect list as 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and other hijackers and suspected al-Qaeda sympathizers, suggesting that U.S. authorities felt Suter may have known something about the attacks. The suspicion, as the investigation unfolded, was that the men working for Urban Moving Systems were spies. Who exactly was handling them, and who or what they were targeting, was as yet uncertain.

It was New York's venerable Jewish weekly The Forward that broke this story in the spring of 2002, after months of footwork. The Forward reported that the FBI had finally concluded that at least two of the men were agents working for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and that Urban Moving Systems, the ostensible employer of the five Israelis, was a front operation. Two former CIA officers confirmed this to me, noting that movers' vans are a common intelligence cover. The Forward also noted that the Israeli government itself admitted that the men were spies. A 'former high-ranking American intelligence official', who said he was 'regularly briefed on the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials', told reporter Marc Perelman that after American authorities confronted Jerusalem at the end of 2001, the Israeli government 'acknowledged the operation and apologized for not coordinating it with Washington'. Today, Perelman stands by his reporting. I asked him if his sources in the Mossad denied the story. 'Nobody stopped talking to me', he said.

In June 2002, ABC News' 20/20 followed up with its own investigation into the matter, coming to the same conclusion as The Forward. Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA, told 20/20 that some of the names of the five men appeared as hits in searches of an FBI national intelligence database. Cannistraro told me that the question that most troubled FBI agents in the weeks and months after 9/11 was whether the Israelis had arrived at the site of their 'celebration' with foreknowledge of the attack to come. From the beginning, 'the FBI investigation operated on the premise that the Israelis had foreknowledge', according to Cannistraro. A second former CIA counterterrorism officer who closely followed the case, but who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me that investigators were pursuing two theories. 'One story was that [the Israelis] appeared at Liberty State Park very quickly after the first plane hit. The other was that they were at the park location already'. Either way, investigators wanted to know exactly what the men were expecting when they got there.

Before such issues had been fully explored, however, the investigation was shut down. Following what ABC News reported were 'high-level negotiations between Israeli and U.S. government officials', a settlement was reached in the case of the five Urban Moving Systems suspects. Intense political pressure apparently had been brought to bear. The reputable Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported that by the last week of October 2001, some six weeks after the men had been detained, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified 'prominent New York congressmen' were lobbying heavily for their release. According to a source at ABC News close to the 20/20 report, high-profile criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also stepped in as a negotiator on behalf of the men to smooth out differences with the U.S. government. (Dershowitz declined to comment for this article.) And so, at the end of November 2001, for reasons that only noted they had been working in the country illegally as movers, in violation of their visas, the men were flown home to Israel."

It appears to be Mossad protocol to help finance Israeli spy operations by taking out government loans. By June 2001, the Mossad would have been aware that the Urban Moving Systems operation was going to be over in a matter of a few months, meaning that it was intended that the 'loan' was never going to be paid back. To add insult to injury, American taxpayers are not only spied upon by a foreign country, they have to pay for the privilege.

The fox is guarding the chicken coop

2008-06-18T23:18:00.003-04:00

Who is in charge of ensuring that an Israeli sniper hired by the Jewish Billionaires doesn't blow the head of way-out-in-front Presidential candidate Barack Obama clean off?: Israeli citizen - with a substantial Zionist background he doesn't like to talk about - Michael Chertoff (again, via Cryptome).

The next six months in Iraq

2008-06-18T23:07:00.002-04:00

Via Cryptome, Wired's Danger Room blog reports that the U.S. government, which has 60,000 Iraqis in detention, expects a 'surge' in that number by 15,000 in the next six months.

The crucifixion of Christ, and the attack on Iraq

2008-06-17T04:02:00.002-04:00

Pontus Pilate didn't want to kill Jesus. He was a local bureaucrat, and feared the political implications of having the Roman Empire involved in the death of Jesus, implications which might have included insurrections which would have reflected badly on Pontus Pilate in the eyes of his bosses in Rome. There was no Roman imperial reason to seek the death of Jesus, other than appeasing local Jewish religious leaders. He thus set up the situation to allow for Jesus to get off the hook, replaced on the cross by some local thug. Unfortunately, the 'mob' demanded the death of Jesus, and Pontus Pilate had to wash his hands of the matter, hoping that by so doing he might avoid the blame for what happened. Of course, the mob didn't arrive at their antagonism for Jesus on their own. They were put up to it by the local Jewish religious leaders, the ones for whom Jesus represented a threat, and the ones really behind the crucifixion. As it happened, the crucifixion caused no immediate problems for the Roman Empire, but allowed Peter, the first 'self-hating Jew', to base much of the propaganda message for the selling of the new church on the idea that 'the Jews' killed Jesus, an idea that has caused a fair amount of trouble for the Jewish people over the centuries, and one that is still part of official Catholic teaching. Had the local Jewish leadership not forced the crucifixion, Jesus would have died in obscurity, just another religious fruitcake produced by an area of the world that produces a lot of religious fruitcakes, Christianity would never have gotten off the ground, and the Jewish people would arguably have had a much easier time of it.

You can probably see where I am going with this. The crucifixion is the attack on Iraq, the 'mob' is the American Jewish community - those well-meaning people who 'stand for' Israel - and the local Jewish religious leaders are the Jewish Billionaires who fund the neocons on the basis of ideology supplied by the Settler movement, part of which ideology required the destruction of Iraq. The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot emotionally support Israel in any way whatever without accepting the 'facts on the ground', most notably that Israel is a military dictatorship consisting of a combination of a small number of very rich families and the military, all run according to the dictates of a group of religious zealots. If you 'stand for' Israel you of necessity 'stand for' the violent and racist ideology of the Settler movement, which includes a program of genocide and wars that will cover the entire Middle East. The Israelis tend to understand this much better than American Jews, who remain mired in their destructive combination of deception and self-deception. The same American Jews who will attend an anti-war rally in the morning will go home in the afternoon and write a check to fund a think-tank in Israel or the United States which will churn out the most vile ideology ever produced, ideology which has led, and will lead, to the same wars which the well-meaning American Jewish community will claim it would never support.

There was no American imperial reason for the attack on Iraq, an attack which has destroyed the American economy, weakened American access to energy supplies, ruined the international reputation of the United States, and probably ended the American Empire. There were a few American Pontus Pilates who attempted to stop the folly, but they were powerless in the face of the 'mob', the wider American Jewish community with its disproportionate financial and political strength (including its influence over the American media), and the Jewish Billionaires and their many influential employees. The crucifixion of the Iraqi people has not only had dire effects on the United States, it has also had very negative effects on Israel and the Jewish people, with a much stronger Iran (with a leadership which currently despises Israel), and the good possibility of the eventual resurgence of a new unified Iraq run by people who really, really hate Israel, and with much more power than Saddam had.

If Jesus died for our sins, for whose sins did the over one million (and counting) Iraqis die?

Apologies and parks

2008-06-15T04:21:00.006-04:00

Uri Avnery's reflections (I can't access the Gush Shalom link) on the Canadian apology to its aboriginals, illustrated with a photo of trees planted by the Jewish National Fund on land taken by Israel in 1948 during the Nakba, might have gone further and referred to the fact that Canadian taxpayers have effectively paid for another park built over destroyed Palestinian villages, this time villages destroyed as recently as June 1967. That park, called, to Canada's great shame, 'Canada Park', was built and is maintained by the Jewish National Fund, a registered charity in Canada. Donations to the Fund are tax deductible, making the park partly funded by Canadian taxpayers. Since the Fund clearly engages in partisan political acts (most of which would be illegal if conducted in Canada), it is not eligible to be a registered charity, but political considerations, by which I mean the malign power of the Lobby in Canada, mean that this outrage continues. The tax status of the fund should be revoked, and all deductions disallowed retroactively. Canada should also apologize to the Palestinian people for aiding and abetting the ongoing crimes of the Jewish National Fund.