Tuesday, February 26, 2008

The Neocons' Ties to the 9/11 Commission's Report

William Hughes
Media Monitors Network
Tue, 26 Feb 2008

There was little chance that the 9/11 Commission was going to establish the full truth. One reason why: Its Executive Director, the Neocon-loving Philip D. Zelikow, had his own agenda, to wit: protecting the interest of the Bush-Cheney Gang and linking "Al-Qaeda to Iraq." Zelikow had previously written a book with Condi Rice, authored a paper used to justify the preemptive attack on Iraq and worked on Bush's presidential transition team in 2000/2001.

Philip Shenon's insightful "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation," is a book that I found hard to put down. An investigative reporter for the NY Times, he gives a detailed history of the so-called "official" inquiry, authorized by the U.S. Congress, into the tragedy of September 11, 2001. One of the central characters in this compelling saga is a master manipulator, Philip D. Zelikow. He ran the Commission as its Executive Director. The idea that this guy, who had close ties to Condi Rice, was interested in revealing the full truth about 9/11 is simply preposterous. Why? Because, he had co-authored a book with Rice, worked on President Bush's transition team in 2000/2001, and wrote a Neocon-like policy paper, which was used to justify the horrific Iraq War. Zelikow should have had the words "Conflict of Interest" branded on his Neocon-loving forehead!

Mr. Shenon underscored that in mostly every government commission, like the one for 9/11, it is the Executive Director, who is the key player in shaping the ultimate findings of that body. The author put it this way: "It is a polite fiction in Washington that the reports of blue-ribbon federal commissions are written by the commissioners themselves. In truth, most of the reports are written by a professional staff led by a full time director."

Zelikow denied that he had any conflict of interest in accepting his czar-like role. This was so even after it was disclosed, that as the Executive Director, he made and received numerous telephone conversations from Karl Rove, "Bush's Brain," and that he had several visits with Rice, in the White House.

On another front, Zelikow supposedly had such an "abrasive" personality, that even Henry Kissinger, himself, was leery of him! According to the author: "Zeiklow...had...[an] outsize ego and fierce temper; his anger was a thing to behold, his face growing bright red, his well chosen insults flying in every direction."

The Commission's charter was to establish that the Bush-Cheney Gang's "9/11 Mythology" was holy dogma. [1] Any evidence, no matter how persuasive, showing a differing point of view was outside of the scope of its limited, narrowly focused inquiry. For example, the fact that a structural steel-framed skyscraper, WTC-7, a 47-story office building structure, collapsed in 6.5 seconds, (free fall speed), even though it wasn't struck by any jet airplane, didn't raise an eyebrow for the 9/11 Commission. [2] Also, the highly suspicious conduct of those "Five Dancing Israelis," over in New Jersey, who were caught joyfully taping the WTCs destruction, didn't show up on its monitor either. [3] Experts have submitted that there are aspects of 9/11, many with probative value, that the Commission chose not to investigate. [4]

Prior to 9/11, the Bush-Cheney Gang was given plenty of explicit warnings of an "imminent terrorist attack" inside the U.S. Take one: On July 12, 2001, Thomas Pickard, the acting director of the FBI, met with the then-Attorney General, John Ashcroft. Pickard told him: "We're at a very high level of chatter that something 'big' is about to happen. The CIA is very alarmed..." Ashcroft, a political has-been from Missouri, barked back at the veteran FBI man: "I don't want to hear about that anymore. There is nothing I can do about that." The author emphasized how the White House had also "done so little in response to [the CIA's George] Tenet's repeated warnings of an al-Qadea attack." Which brings me to the proverbial "smoking gun," the crux of the matter, the "Presidential Daily Briefing," (PDB), of Aug. 6, 2001.

Keep in mind, that leading up to that critical period of time, i.e., just before 9/11, that it was Rice who was in charge of the powerful National Security Council (NSC). It was her primary duty to keep Bush informed about any possible terrorist attack in the U.S.

Enter Richard Clarke. He was an expert on counter-terrorism and an important member of the NSC team. He attempted in early 2001, to repeatedly warn the White House about al-Qaeda. Instead of listening to Clarke, however, the author pointed out: "Rice moved Clarke off center stage, in part at THE URGING OF ZELIKOW and the transition team." In any event, the PDB of Aug. 6, 2001, prepared by the CIA, and based on its latest Intel, including Intel from the FBI, specifically warned Bush, V. P. Dick Cheney, Rice, among others, that the threat of a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda, in the U.S., was "CURRENT AND SERIOUS." This crucial document was entitled: "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE U.S."

On Sept. 4, 2001, Clarke warned Rice yet again. Here is how he put it: "Are we serious about dealing with the Al Qaeda threat? Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future date when the CSG is not successful in stopping Al Qaeda attacks and hundreds of American lay dead in several countries, including the U.S. What would those decision makers wish they had done earlier? That future day could happen at any time." On top of Clarke's memo, the Commission revealed that "more than 40 PDBs presented to Bush from January 2001 through September 10, 2001, included references to bin Laden." Some of the family members of the 9/11 victims--the author called them, "the Jersey Girls"--regularly referred to Rice as: "Kinda-lies-a-lot" Rice!

As an aside, also in Shenon's book, Sen. John McCain was mentioned in a favorable light. He was one of the first members of the U.S. Congress to insist on an "independent" probe of 9/11. The author then reported how Sen. McCain "despised [President] Bush, and the people around him, especially [Karl] Rove," He blamed the Bush-Cheney Gang for supposed "dirty tricks" that they pulled on him, during the 2000 presidential election. Now, if Sen. McCain would only come clean about the cover-up of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, on June 8, 1967. [5]

Getting back to Clarke. When he heard on Jan. 27, 2003, that Rice's crony, Zelikow was appointed as director for the Commission, he said: "THE FIX IS IN!" The author explained: "Clarke understood that with Zelikow--Zelikow of all people--in charge, there there was 'no hope' that the commission would carry out an "impartial" investigation of the Bush's administration's bungling of terrorist threats in the months before September 11. Could anyone have a more obvious conflict of interest than Zelikow?"

To show Zelikow had his own agenda, he arranged for Abe Sofaer to testify at the Commission first public hearing on March 31, 2003, in NYC. The author wrote: "It seemed odd that he was the Commission's very first expert witness. Sofaer had no special expertise on the events of 9/11. He appeared there, mostly, as an advocate for the American invasion of Iraq--the invasion had been launched a week earlier--and a champion of the [Neocon] concept of 'preemptive defense' or 'preemptive war.'"

If Sofaer wasn't off point enough, Zelikow followed up with another doozy of a witness at the Commission's hearing, in July, 2003. It was Laurie Mylroie of the Neocon-infested "American Enterprise Institute." The author said that Mylroie promoted the dubious idea that "Iraq and Al-Qaeda were effectively one." Who do you think in the Bush-Cheney Gang was the biggest "booster" of Mylroie? If you answered the Neocon Paul Wolfowitz, a "key architect of the Iraqi invasion," you would be right. Her book, "Study for Revenge," was fulsomely praised by him. Mylroie also thanked another Neocon, Irv "Scooter" Libby, then V. P. Cheney's top lag dog, for his help on her book. Libby was later convicted of perjury by a federal jury in the Valeri Plame/CIA-related matter. [6]

As the 9/11 staff prepared its "interim" report for the Commission, Zelikow attempted to rewrite it to "link Al-Qaeda to Iraq." Some of the staffers rebelled and Zelikow, despite being an ultra pushy character, backed off. A few of the staffers considered him a "White House mole." The Commission also refused to buy V.P. Cheney's yarn of "an Iraqi link to 9/11."

The bottom line is: 9/11 didn't have to happen, no matter who really orchestrated the monstrous deed. The Commission's Report basically found "no fault" as far as the Bush-Cheney Gang's role in the tragedy was concerned. [7] Its Report also helped to "reelect Bush as president." The clever Zelikow, with his ties to the Neocon ideologues, got what he wanted, but the country didn't. The full truth about 9/11 has yet to see the light of day.

Finally, Zelikow ended up with a government sinecure--Counselor to the U.S. Secretary of State--Condi Rice! It's all enough to make you want to throw up!

[1] http://911Review.com/myth/index.html
[2] http://www.wtc7.net/index.html
[3] http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
[4] http://www.911truth.org and
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org and
http://911Review.com and
[5] http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004
[6] http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin
[7] http://www.9-11commission.gov

Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11: Official Account of 9/11: "Flawed", "Absurd", "Totally Inadequate", "a Cover-up", by Alan Miller, 04 Jan 2008

U.N. Official Calls for Study Of Neocons' Role in 9/11, April 10, 2008, NEW YORK SUN

Un rapporteur spécial de l'ONU demande une enquête internationale sur le 11 septembre

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Le gouvernement britannique a caché l'implication d'Israël dans le dossier des armes irakiennes

Report: U.K. gov't hid reference to Israel on Iraq weapons dossier

The British newspaper The Guardian reported Thursday that the Foreign Office in London had successfully managed to conceal a reference to Israel in a September 2002 document on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, fearing harm to bilateral ties.

The Guardian says that the word "Israel" was handwritten next to a statement in the "now discredited" dossier which said that "no other country [apart from Iraq] has flouted the United Nations' authority so brazenly in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction."

According to The Guardian, "a senior Foreign Office official" says that the move was aimed at preventing any damage to relations between Israel and the United Kingdom.

The Guardian report also says the Foreign Office made no effort to conceal handwritten notes listing other countries such as the U.S., Japan and Germany in sections dealing with Iraqi belligerence.

According to The Guardian, the decision to remove Israel from the dossier was made by a body called The Information Tribunal, which "adjudicates on disputes involving the Freedom of Information Act." The tribunal heard the case after the Foreign Office reportedly appealed the decision to release the dossier in its entirety.

The newspaper quotes a statement to the tribunal by Neil Wigan, head of the Foreign Office's Arab, Israel and North Africa Group, in which he reportedly said "he did not know who had referred to Israel in the margin."

The Guardian quotes Wigan as saying that, "I interpret this note to indicate that the person who wrote it believes that Israel has flouted the United Nations' authority in a manner similar to that of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein."

According to The Guardian, Wigan said that the revelation that Israel is mentioned in the dossier "would seriously damage the U.K.'s relations with Israel."

The Guardian also quotes Wigan as saying that comparing Israel to Saddam Hussein and the "implied accusation of a breach of the UN's authority by Israel are potentially very serious."

He also reportedly said that, "Unfortunately, there is perception already in Israel that parts of the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] are prejudiced against the country."

A spokeswoman for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown would not comment on the document itself but said: "Our position in terms of encouraging all signatories of the [nuclear] non-proliferation treaty to abide by that remains the same."

"But we also recognize Israel's position needs to be looked at in a regional context, bearing in mind they have neighbors such as Iran who deny the right of Israel to exist."

Succumbing to three years of pressure from freedom of information campaigners, the British government released the once-secret draft document on Monday.

The 32-page document, written by a former director of communications at the Foreign Office, cites intelligence sources to state that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and could easily use them since it had done so before.

The document, amended in the margins, makes no mention of Saddam Hussein being capable of launching weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, a false claim later used in another government dossier to make the case for going to war.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Documentaire Le jeu de l'argent

Le Jeu de l'argent - Partie 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

LES ARCHIVES OUBLIÉES - Documentaire Canadien: Le controle et la création du dollar américain est effectué, non pas par le gouvernement, mais par une banque privée "la réserve fédérale" (FED) qui détient le monopole. - 46min -

Conférence The Host and The Parasite (Part 1), par Greg Felton, auteur de The Host and the Parasite

Zionist Psychopaths

Duke: No war for Israel

Jewish supremacism (1-2)

Russian Mafia is in fact Jewish (part 1)

Jewish Zionist Media Control 1/3

Info Underground 2008-04-02 Nathanael Kapner pt.1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6

Judeo Bolshevik Mass Genocide Killer Lazar Kaganovich

The Golem: The Story of Israel's Nuclear Arsenal

The Nuclear Jewish State of Israel

The role of Zionism in the Nazi Holocaust

Before Hitler Came: The Jewish Role in German Nazism

Kosher Nazis: Jewish American Neo-Nazis

The Coming Zionist Attacks On America

New 9/11 Truth Film Preview

Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11

The jewish role in the african slave trade

The Zionist Crypto-Jewish Sabbatean/Frankist illuminati

Zionists Were Behind The Armenian Genocide

John McCain: The NeoCons Kosher Candidate, http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=103
see: (McCain Bought By Jews Via Rothschilds!)

Michael Chertoff's North American Union Plan

Mossad’s Secret Spys & Jewish Neocon’s Control Of US Policy! &
America Is Run By Jews!

The Golem: The Zionist Israeli Nuclear Apocalyptic Monster (review)

Ron Paul & “Jewish” Democracy & Jews Of Fox News Hate Ron Paul! Will Jew-Owned Fed Reserve Bank Kill Ron Paul? & The Jewish Media Blackout Of Ron Paul’s Campaign

(see here)

Jews Own The Federal Reserve Bank

(see here)

US State Department Is Run By Jews! & Jews Seize The U.S. Supreme Court!

The Jewish Mafia & Their USA Bankers

The Rothschild-Israel Occult Connection

Putin Takes On USA Jews!

How The Jews Prompted a German Backlash

Do Jews Dominate in American Media? And So What If We Do?

Philip Weiss
18 Feb 2008

At least a half dozen times in recent months, the suggestion has come from serious people that Jews predominate in the American media--that if we are not dominant, we are a major bloc. In a Yivo event on Jews in journalism I've blogged about, a questioner said that Jews' outsize proportion in the media has granted us "a large influence over power." In his groundbreaking paper on the New York Times's role in shaping American policy toward Israel, Jerome Slater spoke of "religious beliefs and identifications" that affected the Times, and cited former executive editor Max Frankel's admission in his memoir (one also cited by Walt and Mearsheimer): "I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert."

Lately broadcast reporter John Hockenberry related that he wanted to do a piece on the hijackers' motivation after 9/11 but that NBC executive Jeff Zucker scotched the notion:

"Maybe," Zucker said, "we ought to do a series of specials on firehouses where we just ride along with our cameras. Like the show Cops, only with firefighters."... [H]e could make room in the prime-time lineup for firefighters, but then smiled at me and said, in effect, that he had no time for any subtitled interviews with jihadists raging about Palestine. [Weiss's emphasis]

Then last month at a forum at the Nixon Center, former Bushie Dov Zackheim said, Jews don't dominate the policy-making process, but the media is a different story...

I don't know that anyone has visited the simple question raised by these statements: Do Jews dominate the media? This is something I know about personally. I've worked in print journalism for more than 30 years. I've worked for many magazines and newspapers, and for a time my whole social circle was editors and writers in New York. I don't know television. I don't know Washington journalism well. I don't know the west coast. My sample is surely skewed by the fact that I'm Jewish and have always felt great comfort with other Jews. But in my experience, Jews have made up the majority of the important positions in the publications I worked for, a majority of the writers I've known at these place, and the majority of the owners who have paid me. Yes my own sample may be skewed, but I think it shows that Jews make up a significant proportion of power positions in media, half, if not more.

Before considering what this means, let me make my experience concrete:

My serious journalism began at the Harvard Crimson in the 70s. A friend said the paper was a Jewish boys club; it was dominated by middle class Jews-- as apparently today there are a lot of Asians. Many of these Jews are now powerful presences in the media. Zucker is one of them. My first paying job was in Minneapolis. Five Harvard guys started a weekly; four of them were Jewish, including the publisher paying our meager salaries. I remember our editor walking the halls parodying the jingle we had on the radio. The jingle went: "We've got the news, we've got the sports..." He sang it as "We've got the Jews, we've got the sports." Funny.

I was hired by a Jewish editor at my next job, the Philadelphia Daily News in 1978, and when I started freelancing in 1981, Jewish Harvard friends got me work at the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Monthly. A gentile brought me in at Harper's and the New Republic. It was at the New Republic, a launching pad for any number of highly-successful journalists, that I briefly associated with Marty Peretz, and did a story for him mocking the United Nations, whose judgment he seeks at every turn to nullify because the U.N. is critical of Israel.

Fast forward. In New York, I have worked for a dozen magazines. Most of my editors have been Jewish. Both my book publishers were Jewish. At one point at one publishing house, the editor, his boss, and her boss were all Jewish, and so was the lawyer vetting the work - I remember her saying she would never travel to Malaysia because of the anti-Semitic Prime minister. Oh--and the assistant editor was half-Jewish.

I should point out that I have worked with many gentile editors and writers, and I have never been aware of any employment discrimination against them (though I may not be the best source). In fact, at Spy, the three top editors were all non-Jews and when I used the epithet WASP it was removed from my copy. But that is the exception. Generally it's been Jews Jews Jews. When I hear NPR do a piece with its top political team and both are Jews... when a Jewish friend calls me and gossips about lunches with two top news execs at major publications who are both Jewish and who I've known for 20 years... when a Jewish editor friend tells me that Si Newhouse would be disturbed if Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter-- who has done such courageous work against the Iraq war-- did anything to expose the Israel lobby... and when I say that my income has been derived overwhelmingly from Jewish-owned publications for years - this is simply the ordinary culture of the magazine business as I know it.

I have some ideas why Jews have predominated, but that's not the purpose of this posting. Last year Senator Russ Feingold, buttonholed on CSPAN about why so many speakers on air were Jewish, said, "Well, we're good at talking..." That'll do for now.

The real issue is, Does it matter? Most of my life I felt it didn't. It's just the way it is, at this point in history. It will change (as Clyde Haberman pointed out at that Yivo event). Jews are the latest flavor of the establishment. In his landmark book, The Jewish Century, Slezkine reports that Jews were the majority of journalists in Berlin and Vienna and Prague, too, in the late 1800s, if I remember correctly.

Now I think it does matter, for two reasons. Elitist establishment culture, and Israel. As to elitism, I worry when any affluent group has power and little sense of what the common man is experiencing. I feel the same discomfort with my prestige-oriented "caste" that E. Digby Baltzell did with his calcified caste, the WASPs--when he called for an end to discrimination against Jews in the early '60s. The values of my cohort sometimes seem narrow: globalism, prosperity, professionalism. In Israel the values are a lot broader. None of my cohort has served in the military, myself included. A lot of our fathers did; but I bet none of our kids do. Military service is for losers--or for Israelis.

So we are way overrepresented in the chattering classes, and way underrepresented in the battering classes. Not a great recipe for leadership, especially in wartime.

Then there's Israel. Support for Israel is an element of Jewish religious practice and more important, part of the Jewish cultural experience. Even if you're a secular Jewish professional who prides himself on his objectivity, there is a ton of cultural pressure on you to support Israel or at least not to betray Israel. We are talking about a religion, after all, and the pressures faced by Jews who are critical of Israel are not that different from what Muslim women who want greater freedom undergo psychically or by evangelical Christians who want to support gay rights. It is worth noting that great Jewish heretics on the Israel question suffer anger or even ostracism inside their own families. Henry Siegman talked about this on Charlie Rose once, I recall--that even close family were not speaking to him over Israel. And I have seen this for myself on numerous occasions. There is not a lot of bandwidth on this issue. Conversations about Israel even inside the liberal Jewish community are emotionally loaded, and result in people not speaking to one another. I lost this blog at a mainstream publication because the editor was Jewish and conservative on Israel and so was the new owner, and the publisher had worked for AIPAC. And all of them would likely call themselves liberal Democrats.

As former CNN correspondent Linda Scherzer has said, "We, as Jews, must understand that we come with a certain bias ...We believe in the Israeli narrative of history. We support the values that we as Americans, Westerners, and Jews espouse. Thus, we see news reporting through our own prism."

There are many American Jewish journalists who have done great independent work re Israel/Palestine. Richard Ben Cramer and the late Robbie Friedman leap to mind. But both these guys are exceptional, and had to overcome/ignore a ton of pressure that most of us would quail under. They had to step outside the Jewish family to do their work...

The result is that Americans are not getting the full story re Israel/Palestine. Slater says this dramatically in his paper--that the Times has deprived American leadership of reporting on the moral/political crisis that Israel is undergoing, one that Haaretz has covered unstintingly. At Columbia the other night, Jew, Arab and gentile on a panel about the human-rights crisis in Gaza all said that Americans are not getting the full story. Ilan Pappe has marveled in his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, that the Nakba is all but unmentioned in the U.S.--while Haaretz has sought at times to document it, for instance a former officer saying in 2004 that if he had not helped to destroy 200 villages in southern Israel in '48, there would be another million Palestinians in Israel. To repeat Scherzer's admission: "We believe in the Israeli narrative of history..."

Why does the American press behave differently from the Israeli press? I think the answer is guilt. The Jewish cohort of which I am a part has largely accepted the duty that Max Frankel felt, of supporting Israel. This duty is rarely interrogated, and yet consciously or not we all know that American public opinion/leadership is critical to Israel's political invulnerability; and we think that if we take their fingers out of the dyke, who knows what will happen. That is a ton of responsibility. This responsibility is not executed with special care. Generally, my cohort hasn't been to Israel, hasn't seen the West Bank. But they do feel kinship with Israeli Jews, and--above all--have guilt feelings about the Holocaust, or the American Jewish silence about it during the event, the Jewish passivity; and they are determined not to be passive during Israel's neverending existential crises. And thus they misunderstand Israel and fail to serve their readers.

Jewish Leader Says American Jewish Community Is 'Directed' by Israeli Foreign Ministry


Sunday, February 17, 2008

Nicolas Sarkozy, la France et Israël

La rupture
Nicolas Sarkozy, la France et Israël
par Thierry Meyssan

Nicolas Sarkozy a présenté aux responsables et aux invités du CRIF la nouvelle politique israélienne de la France. L’année 2008, qui est celle du 60 ème anniversaire de la création unilatérale de l’État d’Israël, sera aussi celle d’un rapprochement spectaculaire entre Paris et Tel-Aviv en complète opposition avec la politique traditionnelle de la Ve République, observe Thierry Meyssan. L’importance du propos a échappé aux éditorialistes français, mais pas aux chancelleries étrangères qui s’interrogent sur les fondements idéologiques et les conséquences d’un tel bouleversement.

17 février 2008

Nicolas Sarkozy était le 13 févier 2008 l’invité d’honneur du dîner annuel du Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France (CRIF). À cette occasion, il a prononcé un discours particulièrement important précisant sa conception du rôle des religions et fixant les grandes lignes de la nouvelle politique israélienne de la France.

Le contenu central de cette intervention a été éclipsé par une polémique sur sa lubie du jour. En effet, en conclusion de son allocution, Nicolas Sarkozy a annoncé qu’il avait solitairement décidé d’associer chaque enfant de CM2 à la mémoire d’un enfant français victime des nazis. Laissons de côté cette conception autocratique de l’exercice du pouvoir et cette volonté d’embrigadement des enfants de dix ans, même si elles sont révélatrices du tournant brutalement anti-démocratique du fonctionnement des institutions françaises, et revenons-en au dîner du CRIF et au fond du propos du président de la République.

Contrairement à son intitulé, le Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France (CRIF) n’est pas —ou plutôt n’est plus— représentatif de tous les juifs de France. Si, à l’époque où il était présidé par l’avocat Théo Klein, il apportait un soutien critique à l’État d’Israël, il s’est aujourd’hui transformé en simple courroie de transmission du mouvement sioniste. Désormais, il lutte contre la République française, accusant d’« assimilationnisme » les juifs républicains héritiers de la Révolution et de l’abbé Grégoire. Il agit comme un lobby à l’américaine et entretient d’ailleurs des liens étroits avec l’AIPAC et l’AJC aux États-Unis. De 2001 à 2006, il était présidé par le banquier Roger Cukierman, secrétaire général de la financière Rothschild, qui en a considérablement durci ses positions. Il est aujourd’hui présidé par le cardiologue Richard Prasquier, également lié à la dynastie Rothschild.

Le dîner annuel du CRIF s’est progressivement imposé comme un événement mondain parisien. S’y montrer, c’est manifester son soutien à Israël et laisser entendre que l’on bénéficie soi-même de l’appui de ce lobby. Compte tenu de l’influence supposée de cette organisation, tout ce qui compte d’opportunistes en politique fait donc des pieds et des mains pour y être invité, quitte à payer chèrement sa place, car cette soirée de gala n’est pas gratuite.

Si des parlementaires et des membres du gouvernement s’y bousculent, le président de la République ne s’y rend jamais car sa fonction lui interdit d’apporter un soutien ostensible à quelque groupe de pression que ce soit. François Mitterrand a cependant dérogé une fois à cette règle (en 1991) pour des motifs électoralistes qui ne sont pas à son honneur. Nicolas Sarkozy, quant à lui, revendique au contraire d’user et d’abuser de sa fonction de président de la République pour favoriser ses amis. Ayant déjà honoré de sa présence les réunions de divers lobbys, il pouvait bien participer à celle du CRIF.

C’est donc devant un millier d’invités acquis au sionisme, ou feignant de l’être, dont la quasi-totalité de son gouvernement, que Nicolas Sarkozy a défini la nouvelle politique israélienne de la France. L’événement était retransmis en direct sur la chaîne parlementaire et sur la chaine d’opinion Guysen TV. En effet en vertu du principe du deux poids deux mesures, alors qu’Al-Manar a été interdite en France par crainte de voir importer dans le pays les conflits du Proche-Orient, Guysen TV —qui a les mêmes caractéristiques, mais au service de l’occupation israélienne— a par contre été autorisée.

* * *

Pour comprendre l’enjeu de ce qui va suivre, un bref retour en arrière est nécessaire.

Historiquement, la France s’est appuyée sur la population juive d’Afrique du Nord pour contrôler la population musulmane d’Algérie (décret Crémieux de 1870), puis sur la colonie juive israélienne pour lutter contre la souveraineté de l’Égypte indépendante sur le canal de Suez et contre les réseaux internationaux du FLN algérien. Mais lorsqu’en 1961, privilégiant ses principes sur ses intérêts, la France rompit avec la colonisation, elle prit ses distances avec Israël.

Ce que Charles De Gaulle résumait dans sa conférence de presse du 27 novembre 1967 en déclarant : « une fois mis un terme à l’affaire algérienne, nous avions repris avec les peuples arabes d’Orient la même politique d’amitié, de coopération, qui avait été pendant des siècles celle de la France dans cette partie du monde et dont la raison et le sentiment font qu’elle doit être, aujourd’hui, une des bases fondamentales de notre action extérieure (…) À la faveur de l’expédition franco-britannique de Suez, on avait vu apparaître en effet un État d’Israël guerrier et résolu à s’agrandir. Ensuite, l’action qu’il menait pour doubler sa population par l’immigration de nouveaux éléments, donnait à penser que le territoire qu’il avait acquis ne lui suffirait pas longtemps et qu’il serait porté, pour l’agrandir, à utiliser toute occasion qui se présenterait. C’est pourquoi, d’ailleurs, la Ve République s’était dégagée vis-à-vis d’Israël des liens spéciaux et très étroits que le régime précédent avait noués avec cet État et s’était appliqué, au contraire, à favoriser la détente dans le Moyen-Orient ». Plus encore, lors de la même conférence, il exprimait l’inquiètude que « les Juifs, jusqu’alors dispersés, mais qui étaient restés ce qu’ils avaient été de tout temps, c’est-à-dire un peuple d’élite, sûr de lui-même et dominateur, n’en viennent, une fois rassemblés dans le site de leur ancienne grandeur, à changer en ambition ardente et conquérante les souhaits très émouvants qu’ils formaient depuis dix-neuf siècles ».

De 1961 à 2007, la France de De Gaulle, de Pompidou, de Giscard d’Estaing, de Mitterrand et de Chirac se pensa tant bien que mal en champion de l’indépendance et de la souveraineté des États ; une idée qui culmina avec son opposition à la colonisation de l’Irak. Cette œuvre grandiose permit à la France d’acquérir un prestige et d’exercer une influence bien supérieurs à sa puissance économique et militaire.

Nicolas Sarkozy, quant à lui, opère une rupture avec ses cinq prédécesseurs. Il imagine restaurer le parti colonial, non plus dans une rivalité entre Français et Anglo-Saxons, mais au sein d’un empire transatlantique en formation, où la classe dirigeante commune aux États-Unis et à l’Union européenne ambitionne d’exercer collectivement une domination globale.

Dans cette perspective, l’année 2008, qui correspond au 60ème anniversaire de la proclamation unilatérale d’indépendance de l’État d’Israël, devrait être celle d’un rapprochement spectaculaire entre Paris et Tel-Aviv
. Qu’on en juge par le programme :
- 13 février : participation du président de la République française au dîner du CRIF ;
- 10 au 14 mars : première visite d’État d’un chef d’État étranger en France depuis l’élection de Nicolas Sarkozy consacrée à la réception du président d’Israël, Shimon Peres ;
- 23 au 27 mars : Salon du livre de Paris avec l’État d’Israël comme invité d’honneur et la réception de 89 écrivains israéliens exclusivement de langue hébraïque (aucun russophone, ni arabophone) ;
- Mai : voyage de Nicolas Sarkoy en Israël avec dépôt de gerbe au Mémorial Yad Vashem et discours devant la Knesset ;
- 1er juillet : à l’occasion de la prise par la France de la présidence semestrielle tournante de l’Union européenne, relance des divers programmes de coopération euro-israéliens.
- 13 juillet : sommet préparatoire de l’Union méditéranéenne, sorte de Cheval de Troie permettant de contourner le Processus de Barcelone pour faire entrer Israël dans l’Union européenne.
- 14 juillet : invitation des Forces armées israéliennes et de la Garde présidentielle palestinienne à défiler lors de la fête nationale française (Pour la première fois depuis 1945, une armée d’occupation et une milice collaborationniste défileront sur les Champs-Élysées).

Ceci étant posé, le président de la République a longuement expliqué aux responsables et invités du CRIF la position de la France face au conflit israélo-arabe. Elle repose avant tout sur un principe : « La France ne transigera jamais sur la sécurité d’Israël », lequel n’empêche évidemment pas de dialoguer et de faire des affaires avec les États arabes. Il fixe toutefois une limite : « Moi, je ne rencontrerai pas et je ne serrerai pas la main à des gens qui refusent de reconnaître l’existence d’Israël » (une limite qui vise des partis politiques comme le Hamas et le Hezbollah et des États comme la Syrie et l’Iran, mais qu’il a oublié lors de la libération des infirmières bulgares et de la visite en France du président Khadafi).

Là n’est pas le plus important. Le président de la République a surtout affirmé que, dans la foulée de la Conférence d’Annapolis, la France soutient désormais « la solution à deux États », c’est-à-dire qu’elle renonce à l’application du plan de partage de la Palestine de 1948 et à la création d’un État binational ; une option qui est discutée depuis l’Accord d’Oslo mais qui laissait jusqu’à présent ouverte la définition de ce que serait un État palestinien.

Cette position n’a pas été adoptée à la demande des deux parties concernées, mais « dans l’intérêt même d’Israël, pour sa sécurité et sa pérennité ». Elle a été approuvée par le president de l’Autorité palestinienne, mais rejetée par le Hamas. Aussi, peut-on parler à propos de cette évolution d’un « tournant historique que nous devons au courage du président Mahmoud Abbas et du Premier ministre Ehud Olmert » (le lecteur du site Internet de la présidence française, remarquera que, dans la transcription de ce discours, les noms patronymiques sont tous écris en capitales, sauf celui du président Abbas qui est en minuscules. On a les symboles que l’on peut).

Dans cette perspective, la France attend d’Israël « la levée de barrages, la réouverture de points de passage à Gaza pour faciliter l’acheminement de l’aide humanitaire, la libération en plus grand nombre de prisonniers, la réouverture des institutions palestiniennes à Jérusalem-Est. [De plus] les Palestiniens doivent pouvoir disposer de leur territoire et le mettre en valeur ».

Autant de mesures qui sont présentées par le président Sarkozy comme des exigences que la France impartiale énonce avec fermeté. « Je le dis parce que je le pense et je n’ai que faire de ces discours d’amitié qui ne disent jamais ce qu’ils pensent (…) Il y a déjà eu assez de souffrance et c’est maintenant qu’il faut trouver un accord et j’irai d’ailleurs le dire auprès de l’autorité Palestinienne au mois de mai et je le dirai à la Knesset. Un ami, c’est quelqu’un qui vous dit ce qu’il pense ».

En réalité ces « exigences » sont des cadeaux faits à Israël, car elles sont très en-deça des résolutions pertinentes de l’ONU. Il n’est aucunement question de restitution des territoires conquis, ni de retour des réfugiés. Ces pseudo-exigences se bornent à quelques aménagements de l’occupation, tel que l’État d’Israël lui-même en prend régulièrement l’initiative.

De manière toute diplomatique, le parti pris est d’ailleurs énoncé par défaut : « La France, n’interfèrera pas dans les négociations en cours, mais la France apportera tout l’appui nécessaire pour encourager l’ensemble des parties à avancer car il s’agit d’une occasion exceptionnelle. Et la France sera au côté du peuple israélien et sera au côté des Palestiniens pour les aider à construire ensemble un avenir de réconciliation ». Notez : pour résoudre le conflit de territoire, le président français parle d’un « peuple israélien » qu’il oppose aux « Palestiniens » —qui, eux, ne forment pas un peuple—, reprenant implicitement à son compte le slogan de Zeev Jabotinsky de la « terre sans peuple pour un peuple sans terre ».

Il existe toutefois une condition à laquelle les Palestiniens pourraient former un peuple. Elle a été énoncée à la veille de la Conférence d’Annapolis par le ministre israélien de la Défense, Ehud Barak : il faudrait que l’Autorité palestinienne reconnaîsse qu’« Israël est la patrie du peuple juif et l’État palestinien la patrie du peuple palestinien ». Une formule qui bouleverse la donne puisqu’elle autorise le nettoyage ethnique de la region : les citoyens israéliens non-juifs se verraient déchus de leur nationalité et naturalisés palestiniens.

Cette surenchère israélienne avait été écartée à Annapolis, mais avait finalement été approuvée par George W. Bush, le 10 janvier 2008, lorsqu’il déclara : « L’accord doit établir la Palestine comme patrie du peuple palestinien, de même qu’Israël est la terre du peuple juif ».

La France s’y rallie à son tour : « J’ai proposé un nouveau concept qui est celui de deux États-Nations et pas simplement de deux États, ce qui résoudrait le problème des réfugiés, parce que je sais parfaitement qu’il y a deux façons de détruire Israël, l’une de l’extérieur et l’une de l’intérieur ». Traduction : la France substitue au projet d’État unique binational dans lequel chaque citoyen serait libre et égal, un projet de deux États ethniquement homogènes car la poussée démographique des citoyens israéliens non-juifs ferait perdre à terme à Israël son caractère d’État juif.

Une autre conséquence de cette position avait déjà été annoncée par le président Sarkozy lors de la Conférence internationale des donateurs pour l’État palestinien, le 17 décembre 2007. Il avait évoqué, dans son discours d’ouverture « un État palestinien indépendant et démocratique, dans lequel les Palestiniens, où qu’ils se trouvent, se reconnaîtront ». Ainsi, les millions de Palestiniens actuellement déplacés dans la région passeraient du statut d’apatrides à celui d’émigrés car ils seraient juridiquement rattachés à un État palestinien souverain. Ce faisant, ils perdraient tout droit sur les terres et les biens qu’ils ont été contraints d’abandonner en Israël.

Hind Khoury, déléguée générale de la Palestine, présente à cette soirée n’a pas fait de commentaires.

* * *

Il serait tentant d’expliquer la rupture prônée par Nicolas Sarkozy en fonction de sa personnalité. En conflit avec son père, auquel il a intenté un procès, il voudrait « tuer le père » en détruisant l’œuvre de ses prédécesseurs. Ou encore, il se comporterait comme un zélote depuis la découverte tardive, à l’adolescence, de son origine juive. Mais la politique d’un État de cette dimension ne peut être réduite à la psychologie d’une seul homme. La restauration du parti colonial s’accompagne d’ailleurs de nominations et de réformes structurelles qui laissent entrevoir la profondeur du changement.

Nicolas Sarkozy a choisi comme ministre des Affaires étrangères Bernard Kouchner, l’homme qui publicisa le principe d’« ingérence humanitaire ». Or, loin d’être une idée neuve, l’ingérence humanitaire est un argument inventé par la Couronne britannique au XIXe siècle pour coloniser les territoires de l’Empire ottoman. En 1999, cet argument fut utilisé par les Anglo-Saxons pour bombarder le Kosovo… dont Bernard Kouchner devint gouverneur, et qui vient d’être placé sous administration de l’Union européenne à l’occasion de sa pseudo-indépendance.

Par ailleurs, Nicolas Sarkozy a créé un secrétariat d’État aux Droits de l’homme rattaché au ministère des Affaires étrangères. Ce faisant, la France a officiellement rompu avec la Déclaration des Droits de l’homme et du citoyen de 1789 pour adopter l’idéologie des Droits de l’homme (tout court) dans sa version anglo-saxonne de « bonne gouvernance ». Il ne s’agit plus de promouvoir la souveraineté populaire, mais uniquement de lutter contre les excès de pouvoir. L’opposition entre les deux définitions des Droits de l’homme est connue depuis longtemps et a été théorisée au XVIIIe siècle par Thomas Paine, l’essayiste britannique qui déclencha la guerre d’indépendance des États-Unis avant de devenir député à la Convention française.

Au demeurant, ce secrétariat aux Droits de l’homme a deux activités principales. La première consiste à populariser la guerre des civilisations, par exemple en mettant en scène la biographie imaginaire de l’ex-députée néerlandaise Ayaan Hirsi Ali, une employée des néoconservateurs états-uniens (elle est salariée de l’AEI de Richard Perle et Paul Wolfowitz). La seconde activité, de loin la plus importante, est de préparer le sabotage de la conférence de suivi des Nations Unies contre le racisme et la xénophobie (Durban II). La secrétaire d’État, Rama Yade, veille à ce que cette conférence n’examine pas la question du sionisme et ne requalifie pas cette idéologie coloniale de « racisme ». Au besoin, elle coordonne un possible boycott de la conférence par les États membres de l’Union européenne et les États-Unis.

En politique étrangère, la rupture sarkozyenne est donc beaucoup plus vaste qu’on ne le perçoit. Elle remet en cause les idéaux de la Révolution française. Il n’est pas sûr que les Français l’acceptent car il est des ruptures qui sont des trahisons.

Sarkozy nomme ambassadeur spécial un lobbyiste pro-israélien
21 février 2008

Le socialiste François Zimeray a été nommé par Nicolas Sarkozy « ambassadeur pour les droits de l’homme », un poste mal défini, mais qui semble lié à la préparation du sabotage de la Conférence de suivi des Nations unies contre le racisme et la xénophobie (Durban II). Tel-Aviv et Paris craignent en effet que cette conférence ne re-qualifie le sionisme de racisme.

Avec Willy de Clercq, François Léotard et Marco Panella, François Zimeray a créé Medbridge, le lobby israélien au Parlement européen. Il a également créé le Cercle Léon Blum, le lobby israélien au Parti socialiste français.

Pour François Zimeray Israël est la patrie des juifs tandis que la Palestine serait la patrie des Palestiniens ; une position récemment adoptée par le président Sarkozy qui implique le nettoyage ethnique de la région et un strict apartheid.

Pérès : «Aucun pays n'a aidé Israël autant que la France» 09 mars 2008

Sarkozy won't attend Israel's Independence Day, 03/11/2008

In show of love for Israel, Sarkozy makes Peres his first official visitor

At state dinner with Sarkozy, Peres sees 'unparalleled' French-Israel relationship

Israel and France enjoy a second honeymoon as Peres visits Sarkozy, 14/03/2008

Sarko et son gouvernement au Dîner du CRIF 2008 (Congrès Sioniste Français)

Sarko Roi des Sionistes (aux USA)

Estrosi : sioniste sans faille

Sarkozy: agent du mossad?

Libby inculpé suite à une plainte à MSNBC

A White House complaint about a talk-show host's perceived emphasis on Jewish involvement in planning the Iraq war led to a conversation critical to the criminal case against Lewis Libby.

Jewish Telegraph Agency

A White House complaint about a talk-show host's perceived emphasis on Jewish involvement in planning the Iraq war led to a conversation critical to the criminal case against Lewis Libby.

In 2003, Adam Levine, a White House spokesman, called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews to complain that he was "sounding anti-Semitic" by constantly mentioning in his critiques Iraq war architects who were Jewish, according to a Washington Post profile of Matthews published Thursday.

Levine, who was once employed by Matthews, did not believe the fast-talking host was deliberately targeting Jews, but faulted him for constantly citing Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Libby, then a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby followed that up with a complaint about what he believed to be Matthews' excessive Iraq war criticism to Tim Russert, NBC's Washington bureau chief and higher up the network food chain than Matthews.

Libby claimed in depositions that it was in that conversation that Russert revealed to him Joseph Wilson, a prominent Iraq war critic, was married to Valerie Plame, a CIA operative. At Libby's obstruction of justice trial last year, Russert denied it, and his testimony was critical in obtaining Libby's conviction.

Prosecutors suggested Libby was part of a broader White House conspiracy aimed at discrediting Wilson.

La sécurité nucléaire au coeur du scandale d'espionnage à l'AIPAC

Le procès de deux espions Israéliens pourrait être encore reporté

Top prosecutor in AIPAC case quits: 02/28/2008

AIPAC Spy Trial to Offer Look at Back Channel Information Gathering by Israel from Top US Officials: 03/03/2008

AIPAC case: DC grapevine or espionage?

Experts testifying for the defense in the classified information case against two former AIPAC staffers include the two most recent U.S. classification czars.
Top classifiers testify for Rosen-Weissman, 03/15/2008

Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, convicted of lying to investigators in Plame case

Government will appeal Rosen-Weissman, 03/21/2008

Latest on AIPAC Espionage Case, 24 mars 2008

Israel Lobby Spy Trial Postponed - Indefinitely. Government's Case May Be in Disarray
, By JOSH GERSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun, March 27, 2008

The Espionage Trial Of Weissman And Rosen

Prosecutors in the classified information case against two former AIPAC staffers want to keep the defense's most potentially damaging expert witness from testifying, JTA, 5 april 2008

US Attorney in AIPAC spy trial going to work for a Holocaust reparations firm, April 5, 2008

AIPAC Spy Case: New Ruling May Lead to Acquittal
Feb 2009

U.S. loses key appeal in AIPAC staffers’ case
Feb 2009

AJC, ADL urge AIPAC prosecution to reconsider
Mar 2009

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Neocon Godfather Podhoretz Trying to Re-Ignite Fires of War Against Iran

by Mark Glenn

Just as American Free Press predicted over a month ago with the release of the National Intelligence Estimate (stating that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons) the Neocons–as irrational and uncontainable as sharks in blood-tainted water–would not be deterred from getting the war they demand. Since the release of the NIE in early December, Israel’s supporters–both in the Jewish state and in the US–have made it clear by their collective rhetoric that the NIE should be ignored as if it were an issue of Reader’s Digest or a Marvel comic book and that a nuclear Iran ruled by fanatical Mullahs will result in Armageddon.

Now, one of the most dangerous, irrational and power-mad gangsters operating within the Neocon mafia–Normon Podhoretz–is again bringing his gruff, threatening voice to bear on the necessity of going to war against Iran for Israel’s sake. In a recent piece he penned for Commentary Magazine (the printed voice of the American Jewish Committee) entitled Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands the ‘former’ Communist-Trotskyite and unregistered agent for a foreign country makes it clear–Bush needs to bomb Iran, sooner rather than later, and if not Bush, than certainly the next guy (or gal).

In the same typical haughtiness that characterizes all things coming from the Jewish state and its mouthpieces, Podhoretz begins beating the war drum by calling into question the reliability of the world’s most sophisticated intelligence gathering organizations in the US. Citing the fact that the CIA did not foresee 9/11 and the fact that they ‘got it wrong’ with regards to Saddam Hussein’s WMD program, he all but labels the NIE and its authors as wet-behind-the-ears schoolchildren who couldn’t predict cold weather in winter.

Of course, in typical Zionist obfuscatory fashion what he fails to mention is the fact that Israel knew well in advance of 9/11 what was to transpire that day as evidenced by all the Mossad agents arrested in the days and weeks following the event. It should be remembered that some of them were in circumstances as incriminating as filming the Twin Towers coming down and cheering and who, on a television program in Israel, stated that they were sent to America to ‘document the event’. Furthermore, with regards to Iraq’s WMD program and the fact that America’s intelligence services ‘got it wrong’, he conveniently fails to mention that again it was Israel’s intelligence services funneling false information to the US government through official sources and its surrogate agencies including the Pentagon’s ‘Office Of Special Plans’ and Zionist agents such as Richard Pearle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.

Engaging in the predictable business of fear-mongering that is the main ingredient in all gruesome dishes cooked up in the Zionist witch’s cauldron of war and suffering, Podhoretz depicts an apocalyptic future with a nuclear-armed Iran under the throes of religious fundamentalism. Continuing with the shameless misquoting of Ahmadinejhad that began some time ago, Israel, the apple of God’s eye, would be ‘wiped off the map’. He again fails to mention that Iran, a relatively short distance away and armed to the teeth with missiles of the latest Russian design capable of defeating any anti-missile defense system could in all likelihood achieve that now if it wanted and yet has not.

Following in the tradition of former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban who (giddy as a giggling schoolboy who had just been kissed by the class beauty) was once quoted saying during the first Gulf War that ‘Never before did Israel have the privilege of having 500,000 foreigners fight for her, until now’, Podhoretz dismisses the idea of Israel fighting her own war against Iran. No, the danger to Israel, both physically as well as in the court of world-wide public opinion, would be too great. America must do it, despite the fact that without question horrible events would ensue. Without a hint of reservation or concern for the fact that America is already hated worldwide and her economy is on life-support, he speaks of ‘vast’ increases in the price of oil leading to ‘catastrophic consequences’ for every economy in the world, including America’s, concluding with his acknowledgement of the world‘s backlash against the ‘inescapable civilian casualties’. What he fails to mention but about which he must certainly be aware is that war with Iran means war with nuclear-armed Russia as well, something which does not seem to phase him.

As much as some may be tempted top dismiss Podhoretz and his recent piece as the scribblings of a lunatic with no real power, reality should be allowed to weigh in. Yes, he is a lunatic, but not of the variety normally seen in one of America’s larger cities pushing a shopping cart around and talking to himself. This is the man who predicted with all the cockiness and confidence of a seasoned gangster that Bush would bomb Iran before he left office and for which Podhoretz said he ‘prayed with all his heart’ as a Jew. Besides his own deluded fantasies of death, Jewish world domination and mayhem, as demonstrated on too many occasions Podhoretz is on a first-name basis with the recovering-alcoholic-turned-born-again-Apocalyptic-Christian named George Bush and can at anytime pick up the phone, call the White House and announce he is ‘dropping by for a chat’ and be ushered in with no delay. He has a direct line to the highest echelons within the Israeli government and its intelligence services and is often used by them as an asset in formulating and marshalling American Jewish opinion and activism at appropriate times.

Podhoretz’ latest piece demonstrates without question that he and all who think like him are not just mad, but wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing and traitors to America. As they have demonstrated on too many occasions–from Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty, the theft of America’s most sensitive defense secrets by Jewish spy Jonathon Pollard, 9/11 and the debacle in Iraq they are the most dangerous enemies America has ever had. As much as they may choose their words carefully in trying to appear as allies to the US, the fact is that they are Israelis first, second and third, and care nothing about how the demands of the Jewish state are quickly dragging the once-Christian nation known as America towards the abyss.

If indeed there is anything that Americans better realize soon before all is lost, it is not the religious fundamentalists in Iran or any other Muslim country that should frighten them as much as the religious nutcases in Israel and America who have openly declared themselves to be the physical incarnation of God on earth and who have promised to destroy mankind in a fiery Armageddon should their plans of world-wide domination fail.

Correspondent and Contributing Editor–American Free Press Newspaper

Podhoretz: "En tant qu'Américain et Juif, je prie pour que Bush bombarde l'Iran"

The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend "The Western Way of Life"

Jewish Advocates of Pre-Emptive War with Iran Come Under Increasing Criticism,

PNAC founder predicts US-China war

Who leaked the details of a CIA-Mossad plot against Iran?

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Wall Street Journal vote pour Netanyahou

Wall Street Journal Votes for Netanyahu
February 3rd 2008
by Jim Lobe

It will be interesting to see what Rupert Murdoch does to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, particularly if long-standing rumors that he intends to distance itself at least a little from its thinly veiled Likudist line. This week’s op-ed by Shalem Center senior fellow Michael Oren entitled “Israel’s Lebanon Disaster” was particularly – extravagantly, embarrassingly – transparent in its implied championship of former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who is predictably calling for the resignation of the Olmert government and new elections. An unsparing indictment of Olmert’s performance during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, the op-ed apparently anticipated a much more damning verdict in the long-awaited Winograd Commission report than what the Commission actually produced, one day after Oren’s screed. Oren, whose bizarre comparison last September (also published in the Journal) of George W. Bush to the Old Testament prophet Jonah as part of the neo-conservative campaign to rally support for the Surge I noted in a September post, even blames the fact that his rifle fell apart during Israel’s eleventh-hour ground offensive in Lebanon on Olmert.

An Israeli nationalist historian who was born and raised in the U.S., is a protege of Natan Sharansky, the director of the Shalem Center’s Adelson Institute, named for its founder-funder, casino multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who reportedly is also the biggest financial backer of Freedom’s Watch, which launched its own campaign to save the Surge at the same time that the Journal published Oren’s Jonah article. It’s really all part of the same Netanyahu network: the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, the Shalem Center, Freedom’s Watch, and you can add the Middle East specialists at the American Enterprise Institute, Sharansky’s One Jerusalem, etc. etc. Aside from the fact that Oren clearly failed to anticipate the Commission’s exculpatory findings, what’s remarkable about this most recent column is the Journal’s willingness to be so openly partisan in Israel’s internal politics. Is Bret Stephens, who, before becoming the Journal’s “Global View” columnist, served as editor of the Conrad Black-owned Jerusalem Post, responsible? Will Murdoch retain him when he assumes full control?

Amnesty International: Israelis Killed Hundreds of Children in Lebanon in 2006
Haaretz, Feb 2 2008