'Mossad behind Egypt riots' Following clashes in Cairo between Christian Copts and Muslims, chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee in Egypt's People's Assembly says Israel 'wants to undermine security and stability in country'.
Ainsi, après le rabbin Ovadia Yossef, qui a appelé Cheikh Al-Azhar à déclarer l'amnistie pour Moubarak, voici le rabbin Ephraïm Melvovic qui annonce sur une vidéo diffusée sur YouTube, que la chute de Moubarak après 30 années au pouvoir, est un prélude à l'approche de l'émergence de Christ Sauveur, qui va construire un grand royaume aux Juifs et leur octroyer le plein contrôle du monde !!
Le rabbin Melvovic affirme que l'âge du Christ Sauveur est de trente ans d’après le Talmud, et le Christ Sauveur apparaîtra au moment où les peuples seront confrontés à des crises et des difficultés, ce qui se passe actuellement dans la région en Syrie, au Yémen et en, Libye, selon les termes.
Nous rappelons que la religion juive ne reconnaît pas que Jésus comme étant le Christ, au contraire elle croit que le Christ apparaîtra avant la fin du monde. Déstabilisation du Proche-Orient : la réalisation d’un plan sioniste conçu dans les années 80
Par Savoisien le mercredi, 2 mars 2011
LETTRE D’INFORMATIONS ECONOMIQUES STRATEGIQUES INTERNATIONALES
Extrait du numéro 225 du 28 février 2011
...
En réalité, deux logiques s’affrontent. D’un côté, il y a les tenants d’un plan conçu par les Etats-Unis et Israël, datant de 1984 et fondé sur le principe « diviser pour régner ». Les tenants de ce plan visent le contrôle de toutes les richesses du Moyen-Orient. De l’autre, le plan d’une Troisième Guerre mondiale, exécuté par le Comité X et qui marquera l’échec cuisant du premier.
Les événements d’Egypte : application d’un plan « rédigé par les sionistes »
En 1982, on pouvait lire ces lignes dans la revue sioniste Kivounim : « En tant que corps centralisé, l’Egypte est déjà un cadavre, surtout si l’on tient compte de l’affrontement de plus en plus dur entre musulmans et chrétiens. Sa division en provinces géographiques distinctes doit être notre objectif politique pour les années 1990, sur le front occidental. Une fois l’Egypte ainsi disloquée et privée de pouvoir central, des pays comme la Libye, le Soudan, et d’autres plus éloignés, connaîtront la même dissolution. L'accord de paix (de Camp David en 1978 NDLR) est pour l'instant un obstacle à la division de l'Etat Egyptien mais celle-ci ne saurait tarder avec la formation d'un Etat copte en Haute-Egypte. En dépit des apparences, le front Ouest présente moins de problèmes que celui de l’Est. La partition du Liban en cinq provinces... préfigure ce qui se passera dans l’ensemble du monde arabe. L’éclatement de la Syrie et de l’Irak en régions déterminées sur la base de critères ethniques ou religieux doit être, à long terme, un but prioritaire pour Israël, la première étape étant la destruction de la puissance militaire de ces Etats. Les structures ethniques de la Syrie l’exposent à un démantèlement qui pourrait aboutir à la création d’un Etat chi’ite le long de la côte, d’un Etat sunnite dans la région d’Alep, d’un autre à Damas, et d’une entité druze qui pourrait souhaiter constituer son propre Etat – peut-être sur notre Golan – en tout cas avec l’Houran et le nord de la Jordanie... Un tel Etat serait à long terme une garantie de paix et de sécurité pour la région. C’est un objectif qui est déjà à notre portée. Riche en pétrole et en proie à des luttes intestines, l’Irak est dans la ligne de mire israélienne. Sa dissolution serait pour nous plus importante que celle de la Syrie, car c’est lui qui représente à court terme la plus sérieuse menace pour Israël ». Cette lecture donne encore plus de crédit aux multiples sources assurant l’implication des réseaux sionistes dans les événements du 11-Septembre, ainsi que la falsification des « documents » ayant servi d’alibi à l’attaque de l’Irak.
Programmation d’une passation de pouvoir à Israël ?
Imran Hosein est un philosophe islamique très connu dans le monde musulman, spécialiste de la politique mondiale. En 2003, lors d’une interview, il parle du futur effondrement de la devise américaine mais il évoque surtout un plan conçu par l’establishment israélien, en 1984, en vue de régler les problèmes du Proche-Orient ! « L’empire américain, qui a hérité du pouvoir de l’Angleterre, va s’écrouler. Un autre pays, Israël, est appelé à remplacer les Etats-Unis et à jouer son rôle de leader. Les attentats du 11-Septembre marquent le début de la déstabilisation des Etats-Unis. Avant qu’Israël domine le monde, deux choses doivent encore être faites. Premièrement, l’économie américaine et le dollar doivent s’écrouler. L’effondrement futur du dollar entraînera avec lui toutes les monnaies papier. Alors, une grande guerre commencera dans laquelle Israël sera impliqué. Suite à cela, l’Etat d’Israël deviendra le leader incontesté et le problème de la Palestine se réglera de lui-même.
Pour obtenir un pouvoir hégémonique, Israël doit être en mesure de contrôler le pétrole. Les rédacteurs de ce plan affirmaient cependant qu’il n’était pas question de toucher au pétrole iranien.
Le jour où Israël exercera ce contrôle sur la majorité du pétrole régional, tout changera. Dans cette projection, Israël ne jouera pas un rôle d’agresseur. Il sera celui qui se défend. Il y aura des provocations jusqu’à ce que de plus en plus d’Arabes commencent une Intifada. La télévision arabe Al-Jazeera a été créée exprès pour diffuser dans tous les pays arabes. Les Arabes pensent encore que l’émetteur est libre. En fait, Al-Jazeera a pour vocation de transmettre des images accentuant la colère contre Israël. Dans ces pays, les gouvernements sont proaméricains. Ils trembleront quand le peuple se mettra en colère. Mais Israël contrôlera bien la colère. Israël a une alliance militaire avec les Etats-Unis. Quand la colère sera suffisammen intense, alors les Etats-Unis auront l’accord d’Israël pour une intervention. Quand les gens iront dans les rues, les régimes pro-américains seront attaqués. Le but recherché sera de faire tomber quelques-uns de ces régimes à l’aide de protestations antiaméricaines et anti-israéliennes.
La Jordanie tombera. Un régime islamique sera installé. Les Israéliens attendent patiemment. Les télévisions montreront alors un scénario dans lequel les gouvernements arabes tombent comme des dominos. L’Islam va grandir et menacer Israël. Ce sera le moment le plus dangereux, Israël pouvant être attaqué par des fanatiques. Ce sera du grand cinéma. Quand la détresse d’Israël sera grande, il y aura alors un coup de semonce. L’attaque fera pâlir les Etats-Unis de jalousie. Pour impressionner la planète, une technologie sera utilisée, que les Etats-Unis ne possèdent pas. Le pouvoir passera alors des Etats-Unis à Israël. Les puits de pétrole seront pris, mais ni les Etats-Unis ni l’Angleterre n’enverront de troupes. L’ONU devra stopper tout cela, parce que l’Europe et le Japon sont dépendants du pétrole.
Le moment où Israël contrôlera le pétrole du Moyen-Orient pourrait coïncider avec la chute finale du dollar.
D’aucuns pensent alors que l’islam disparaîtra et qu’une espèce de gouvernement mondial serait instaurée. Après la chute du dollar, le gouvernement mondial aura le pouvoir financier et économique sur les peuples ».
La lecture de ce plan (publié en 2003, soit il y a huit ans), explique l’actuelle déstabilisation de nombreux pays du Proche-Orient, riches en pétrole ou d’autres matières premières, par la coalition Etats-Unis/Israël. Par la guerre et la libération démo(n)cratique des peuples du Soudan et du Niger, de Côte d’Ivoire et du Nigeria, etc., un réseau de mondialistes met la main sur les principales voies de transport du gaz et du pétrole au Moyen-Orient et en Afrique. ( D'où la farouche censure et oppression contre les énergies gratuites )
La suite de ce numéro sur abonnement :
The Piper Report Feb 2, 2011
Posted by michaelcollinspiper
Egypt--the real deal or another Israeli operation? MCP discusses the likelihood that the current turmoil taking place in the land of Israel's ancient enemy is as much deliberate as spontaneous and the long term Zionist reasons for doing it.
Dans les émissions du 2 et du 4 février, de même que dans son plus récent article, Michael Collins Piper commente le rapport intitulé "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties", écrit par Oded Yinon pour la World Zionist Organization. Ce document parlait déjà, à l'époque, de trahir et faire tomber le gouvernement égyptien, en vue de la réalisation du "Grand Israël" (Greater Israel). Commentant ce programme sioniste, l'auteur antisioniste Ralph Schoenman écrivait dès 1988, dans The Hidden History of Zionism (pdf), que Mubarak allait vraisemblablement être trahi ("double-crossed") par les sionistes et que ceux-ci prévoyaient de "faire tomber l'Égypte". Il en est question au 12e chapitre. Le contenu de A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties se retrouve dans le document Clean Break, produit par l'administration Netanyahou en 1996 et incluant parmi ses signataires le juif sioniste néoconservateur Richard Perle. Il indiquait ce qu'il restait à faire après la guerre du Golfe: éliminer Saddam Hussein et renverser les états arabes du Moyen Orient. Ce que les néocons n'ont pu concrétiser sous l'administration Clinton, ils se sont empressés de le concrétiser sous les deux mandats de Bush, tout juste après les incidents du 11 septembre.
The Piper Report Feb 4, 2011
Posted by michaelcollinspiper
Is a "Greater Israel" now a greater possibility than ever before? MCP continues with his discussion of Egypt and how the situation there reflects Israel's long-term geo strategic goals.
Egypt: What a Mess
Is the Revolution Legitimate Populist Rebellion, or Part of a Plan to 'Balkanize' Egypt
From Michael Collins Piper
If there is anything that can be said about the crisis in Egypt—which is reverberating throughout the Middle East—it is that it is ultimately open to multiple interpretations. Any “expert” who purports to give you “the last word” on the topic is deceiving you and himself. Geopolitical strategists, armchair pundits and conspiracy theory devotees are competing to tell the world “what’s really happening and why,” but there is no single truth to the matter.
First of all, consider the issue of popular unrest in Egypt. All serious evidence indicates the Mubarak regime has sustained itself through force and oppression and, not surprisingly, support from the Egyptian military. In addition, Mubarak has maintained a close relationship with the United States and, thus, with Israel, with which it entered a controversial peace agreement in 1979 that remains today. These factors have preserved Mubarak’s rule—at least until now.
However, within Egypt, there has been long, widespread discontent among a variety of domestic sources, ranging from Islamic fundamentalists in the Muslim Brotherhood to more “Western”-oriented young people to working families struggling to pay food bills to peasants in poverty.
In short, to suggest, as some have, that the Egyptian rebellion was orchestrated solely by the United States and/or Israel would ignore genuine grassroots Egyptian concerns. Israel and the American supporters of Israel know that many Egyptians of all political stripe and religious persuasion have never been comfortable with the U.S.-Israeli-Egyptian relationship and that an element of Egyptian opposition to the Mubarak regime has b een its cozy concert with Israel.
As a consequence of this, many pro-Israel elements are taking a firm stand against “democracy” in Egypt precisely because they fear a popularly elected regime replacing Mubarak could be hostile to Israel, no matter what the new regime’s religious flavor—if any at all.
Note, too, that one of the leading critics of the Mubarak regime is Nobel-Prize-winning former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei. Supporters of Israel consider ElBaradei to be problematic because he was a critic of the Bush administration’s campaign against Saddam Hussein of Iraq, raising questions about Bush claims that Saddam was engaged in building nuclear weapons. Likewise, ElBaradei has stood in the way of Israeli and American efforts to provoke a confrontation with Iran over its efforts to engage in nuclear development.
In the meantime, despite all of this, it is not a stretch of the imagination t o believe that Israel could nonetheless stand to benefit from turmoil in Egypt. The average and perhaps less informed observer might find this difficult to understand.
A carefully crafted “think piece” entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” featured in the February 1982 edition of the World Zionist Organization’s Jerusalem-based publication Kivunim: A Journal for Judaism and Zionism, candidly put forth an Israeli strategy to wreak havoc in the Arab world, dividing the Arab states from within. The author was Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist with close ties to Israel’s Foreign Ministry.
The program—which amounted to “balkanizing” the various Arab republics, splitting them into religious enclaves in which, for example, Shiite Muslims or otherwise Sunni Muslims would predominate—was an agenda which Israeli dissident Israel Shahak said, quite simply, was designed “to make an imperial Israel i nto a world power,” by disrupting the Arab states and thereby setting the stage for Israeli dominance in the Middle East. Israel would then emerge as a major global force all its own.
Such gamesmanship by Israel is part of a philosophy known as “catastrophic Zionism,” a term used almost exclusively by Israel and Jewish writers and little known to even many otherwise well-read students of the Middle East.
The theme of “catastrophic Zionism,” sometimes called “war Zionism,” suggests that Israel—as a state—relies on crisis and the potential of war with its neighbors as a foundation of its very existence. This has actually has been the belief of many hard-line “right wing” elements going back to the earliest days of Israel.
In light of the crisis in Egypt, the question remains: Is Israel willing to take the gamble again, splitting its presumed ally, Egypt, as part of a longer-term plan for Mid dle East expansion, to further underscore “catastrophic Zionism” as a foundation for Israel’s survival?
From Michael Collins Piper
If there is anything that can be said about the crisis in Egypt—which is reverberating throughout the Middle East—it is that it is ultimately open to multiple interpretations. Any “expert” who purports to give you “the last word” on the topic is deceiving you and himself. Geopolitical strategists, armchair pundits and conspiracy theory devotees are competing to tell the world “what’s really happening and why,” but there is no single truth to the matter.
First of all, consider the issue of popular unrest in Egypt. All serious evidence indicates the Mubarak regime has sustained itself through force and oppression and, not surprisingly, support from the Egyptian military. In addition, Mubarak has maintained a close relationship with the United States and, thus, with Israel, with which it entered a controversial peace agreement in 1979 that remains today. These factors have preserved Mubarak’s rule—at least until now.
However, within Egypt, there has been long, widespread discontent among a variety of domestic sources, ranging from Islamic fundamentalists in the Muslim Brotherhood to more “Western”-oriented young people to working families struggling to pay food bills to peasants in poverty.
In short, to suggest, as some have, that the Egyptian rebellion was orchestrated solely by the United States and/or Israel would ignore genuine grassroots Egyptian concerns. Israel and the American supporters of Israel know that many Egyptians of all political stripe and religious persuasion have never been comfortable with the U.S.-Israeli-Egyptian relationship and that an element of Egyptian opposition to the Mubarak regime has b een its cozy concert with Israel.
As a consequence of this, many pro-Israel elements are taking a firm stand against “democracy” in Egypt precisely because they fear a popularly elected regime replacing Mubarak could be hostile to Israel, no matter what the new regime’s religious flavor—if any at all.
Note, too, that one of the leading critics of the Mubarak regime is Nobel-Prize-winning former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei. Supporters of Israel consider ElBaradei to be problematic because he was a critic of the Bush administration’s campaign against Saddam Hussein of Iraq, raising questions about Bush claims that Saddam was engaged in building nuclear weapons. Likewise, ElBaradei has stood in the way of Israeli and American efforts to provoke a confrontation with Iran over its efforts to engage in nuclear development.
In the meantime, despite all of this, it is not a stretch of the imagination t o believe that Israel could nonetheless stand to benefit from turmoil in Egypt. The average and perhaps less informed observer might find this difficult to understand.
A carefully crafted “think piece” entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” featured in the February 1982 edition of the World Zionist Organization’s Jerusalem-based publication Kivunim: A Journal for Judaism and Zionism, candidly put forth an Israeli strategy to wreak havoc in the Arab world, dividing the Arab states from within. The author was Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist with close ties to Israel’s Foreign Ministry.
The program—which amounted to “balkanizing” the various Arab republics, splitting them into religious enclaves in which, for example, Shiite Muslims or otherwise Sunni Muslims would predominate—was an agenda which Israeli dissident Israel Shahak said, quite simply, was designed “to make an imperial Israel i nto a world power,” by disrupting the Arab states and thereby setting the stage for Israeli dominance in the Middle East. Israel would then emerge as a major global force all its own.
Such gamesmanship by Israel is part of a philosophy known as “catastrophic Zionism,” a term used almost exclusively by Israel and Jewish writers and little known to even many otherwise well-read students of the Middle East.
The theme of “catastrophic Zionism,” sometimes called “war Zionism,” suggests that Israel—as a state—relies on crisis and the potential of war with its neighbors as a foundation of its very existence. This has actually has been the belief of many hard-line “right wing” elements going back to the earliest days of Israel.
In light of the crisis in Egypt, the question remains: Is Israel willing to take the gamble again, splitting its presumed ally, Egypt, as part of a longer-term plan for Mid dle East expansion, to further underscore “catastrophic Zionism” as a foundation for Israel’s survival?
By Michael Collins Piper
If there is anything that can be said about the crisis in Egypt—which is reverberating throughout the Middle East—it is that it is ultimately open to multiple interpretations. Any “expert” who purports to give you “the last word” on the topic is deceiving you and perhaps himself. Geopolitical strategists, armchair pundits and conspiracy theory devotees are competing to tell the world “what’s really happening and why,” but there is no single truth to the matter.
First of all, consider the issue of popular unrest in Egypt. All serious evidence indicates Hosni Mubarak’s regime has sustained itself through force and oppression and, not surprisingly, support from the Egyptian military. In addition, Mubarak has maintained a close relationship with the United States and, thus, with Israel, with which Egypt entered a controversial peace agreement in 1979 that remains in effect today.
These factors have preserved Mubarak’s rule—at least until now.
However, within Egypt, there has long been widespread discontent among a variety of domestic sources, ranging from Islamic fundamentalists in the Muslim Brotherhood to more “Western”-oriented young people to working families struggling to pay food bills.
So while there is breadth and apparent depth to the opposition, the critics of Mubarak are by no means united across a wide range of issues. However, the economic turmoil plaguing Egypt in recent months seems to have been a critical factor in helping spark the rebellion.
In short, to suggest that the Egyptian rebellion was orchestrated solely by the United States and/or Israel would ignore genuine grassroots Egyptian concerns.
Israel and the American supporters of Israel know that many Egyptians of all political stripes and religious persuasions have never been comfortable with the U.S.-Israeli-Egyptian relationship and that an element of Egyptian opposition to the Mubarak regime has been its cozy concert with Israel.
As a consequence of this, many pro-Israeli elements are taking a firm stand against “democracy” in Egypt precisely because they fear a popularly elected regime replacing Mubarak could be hostile to Israel, no matter what the new regime’s religious flavor—if any at all.
Note, too, that one of the leading critics of the Mubarak regime is Nobel Prize-winning former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei. Supporters of Israel consider ElBaradei to be problematic because he was a critic of the Bush administration’s campaign against Saddam Hussein of Iraq, raising questions about Bush claims that Saddam was engaged in building nuclear weapons. Likewise, ElBaradei has stood in the way of Israeli and American efforts to provoke a confrontation with Iran over its efforts to engage in nuclear development.
However, there are more than a few observers who perceive ElBaradei as a ubiquitous double-dealer whose agenda is uncertain In the meantime, despite all of this, it is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that Israel could stand to benefit from turmoil in Egypt. The average observer might find this difficult to understand.
First of all, consider the issue of popular unrest in Egypt. All serious evidence indicates Hosni Mubarak’s regime has sustained itself through force and oppression and, not surprisingly, support from the Egyptian military. In addition, Mubarak has maintained a close relationship with the United States and, thus, with Israel, with which Egypt entered a controversial peace agreement in 1979 that remains in effect today.
These factors have preserved Mubarak’s rule—at least until now.
However, within Egypt, there has long been widespread discontent among a variety of domestic sources, ranging from Islamic fundamentalists in the Muslim Brotherhood to more “Western”-oriented young people to working families struggling to pay food bills.
So while there is breadth and apparent depth to the opposition, the critics of Mubarak are by no means united across a wide range of issues. However, the economic turmoil plaguing Egypt in recent months seems to have been a critical factor in helping spark the rebellion.
In short, to suggest that the Egyptian rebellion was orchestrated solely by the United States and/or Israel would ignore genuine grassroots Egyptian concerns.
Israel and the American supporters of Israel know that many Egyptians of all political stripes and religious persuasions have never been comfortable with the U.S.-Israeli-Egyptian relationship and that an element of Egyptian opposition to the Mubarak regime has been its cozy concert with Israel.
As a consequence of this, many pro-Israeli elements are taking a firm stand against “democracy” in Egypt precisely because they fear a popularly elected regime replacing Mubarak could be hostile to Israel, no matter what the new regime’s religious flavor—if any at all.
Note, too, that one of the leading critics of the Mubarak regime is Nobel Prize-winning former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei. Supporters of Israel consider ElBaradei to be problematic because he was a critic of the Bush administration’s campaign against Saddam Hussein of Iraq, raising questions about Bush claims that Saddam was engaged in building nuclear weapons. Likewise, ElBaradei has stood in the way of Israeli and American efforts to provoke a confrontation with Iran over its efforts to engage in nuclear development.
However, there are more than a few observers who perceive ElBaradei as a ubiquitous double-dealer whose agenda is uncertain In the meantime, despite all of this, it is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that Israel could stand to benefit from turmoil in Egypt. The average observer might find this difficult to understand.
 |
While most rational people would assume that Israel would prefer to have neighboring states that are stable, successful participants in the region, this is not necessarily the case.
In fact, a carefully crafted “think piece” entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” featured in the February 1982 edition of the World Zionist Organization’s Jerusalem-based publication Kivunim: A Journal for Judaism and Zionism, candidly put forth an Israeli strategy to wreak havoc in the Arab world, dividing the Arab states from within. The author was Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist with close ties to Israel’s Foreign Ministry.
The program—which amounted to “balkanizing” the various Arab republics, splitting them into religious enclaves in which, for example, Shiite Muslims or otherwise Sunni Muslims would predominate—was an agenda
that Israeli dissident Israel Shahak said, quite simply, was designed “to make an imperial Israel into a world power,” by disrupting the Arab states and thereby setting the stage for Israeli dominance in the Mideast.
The formula was founded on the idea of creating chaos among Israel’s Arab neighbors, hardly a policy any decent, well-meaning neighbor could be credited for fostering. In fact, the current-day political and religious divisions and devastation in Iraq—the consequence of the American invasion of Iraq demanded by the pro-Israel lobby in Washington—mirrors precisely what the Zionist position paper laid forth as the ideal state of affairs for Iraq, from an Israeli point of view, that is.
But where does Egypt fit into all of this? Reflecting on the Zionist strategy paper, Ralph Schoenman—an eminent American Jewish critic of Zionism—writing in 1988 in his book, The Hidden History of Zionism, pointedly noted the paper’s intent of “double-crossing Mubarak” and emphasized that the Yinon paper hoped for “the downfall and dissolution of Egypt,” despite the 1979 Camp David peace agreement.
This is geopolitics at its best—or worst—and demonstrates the kind of gambles Israel has historically been willing to take.
After all, Israel helped subsidize and nurture the fledgling Hamas faction within the Palestinian statehood movement, as a means to counter and undermine the secular Fatah faction led by senior Palestinian statesman Yassir Arafat. But Hamas got out of control, grew in popularity, and now stands as one of Israel’s chief rivals.
Such gamesmanship by Israel is part of a philosophy known as “catastrophic Zionism,” a term used almost exclusively by Israeli and Jewish writers.
The theme of “catastrophic Zionism,” sometimes called “war Zionism,” suggests that Israel—as a state— relies on crisis and the potential of war with its neighbors as a foundation of its very existence. This has actually been the belief of many hard-line “right wing” elements going back to the earliest days of Israel.
In short, there are many Zionists who believe such crisis is vital—fundamental—to Israel’s survival. And for this reason, the believers in “catastrophic Zionism” will never lend their support to any policy, domestic or international, that could lead to a final solution of the conflict between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.
In actual fact, this notion—that peace could be dangerous to the survival of Israel—is a governing concept in the minds of many Israelis and their supporters worldwide.
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP.
Subscribe to American Free Press. Online subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus you get a BONUS ELECTRONIC BOOK - HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR - By Michael Piper.
Print subscriptions: 52 issues crammed into 47 weeks of the year plus six free issues of Whole Body Health: $59 Order on this website or call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS . Sign up for our free e-newsletter here - get a free gift just for signing up!
(Issue # 7, February 14, 2011)
| ||
The Winds of Change in the Arab World: Aborting the Palestinian State
February 18, 2011
“This national ethnic minority picture extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey points to the absence of stability and a rapid degeneration in the entire region. When this picture is added to the economic one, we see how the entire region is built like a house of cards, unable to withstand its severe problems.”
–1982, World Zionist Organization.
When approaching (and hopefully better understanding) the situations in Egypt, Tunisia and other parts of the Middle East, it is important to consider the above statement, as it summarizes the thinking and–more importantly, the intentions of Zionist strategists in the 1980’s vis-à-vis the future of Israel and its enemy, the “Arab World”.
Israel understands it can never destroy its enemies by conventional means because of the sheer number of the Arabs compared with that of the Jews and the size of the Arab territories that would have to be directly occupied by Israel,–an impossible task to accomplish given the relatively small army Israel possesses. Therefore the only way to conquer the “Arab enemy” is to do it from within and, better still, to use his strength against him. Israel has identified certain fault lines within each of the Arab (and non-Arab) states that by virtue of their Islamic character, represent the greatest threat to her eventually becoming the regional superpower she envisions herself. Long ago she planned to use these fault lines, represented by religious, cultural, linguistic and ethnic differences between the various peoples, and what must be remembered when forming an understanding of the present situation is that it is akin to planting a tree in that it takes time before the fruits are harvested.
Israel wants to accomplish two things in the next 30 year–(1) that “Eretz Y’Israel–the “land of Israel” as it is referred to by Jews–eventually encompass the area west of the river Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, and (2) it wants to be a super power with imperial aims. The Zionists made this clear back in 1980 when they wrote in the very prescient essay “Israel’s Strategy for the 1980s” that –
“Dispersal of the (Arab) population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country which was not theirs anyhow, and in which they were foreigners to begin with. Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today. Taking hold of the mountain watershed from Beersheba to the Upper Galilee is the national aim generated by the major strategic consideration which is settling the mountainous part of the country that is empty of Jews today. Prof. Yuval Neeman, “Samaria–The Basis for Israel’s Security,” Ma’arakhot 272-273, May/June 1980
In the 1980s the mountains of the West Bank (referred to by Israel as “Judea and Samaria”) were empty of Jewish settlements. Therefore plans were put in motion starting in the late 1970’s to accelerate the building of settlements in the mountains of the West Bank. Today Israel has over 600,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank, up from a mere 1100 settlers in 1972. The settlement issue has always been a sticking point in all negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. During the George H. W. Bush administration, particularly from 1990-92, tensions over settlements so severely strained ties between Israel and its American ally that direct communication between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel ground to a halt. A war of words between George H.W. Bush and then-Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir was the norm on the evening news worldwide to the point that Bush declared the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank an “obstacle to peace” and threatened withholding $10,000,000,000.00 in loan guarantees promised to the Jewish state. When asked about this by a reporter, Shamir’s reaction was prophetic– “I will have his job” meaning that G. H.W. Bush–at the time running for re-election against Bill Clinton–would not stand a chance. In doing so, Shamir made it clear to the world who really is in charge of America’s political system, and he was proven correct when Bush lost to Clinton, even though he was just coming out of a victorious war against Iraq with 87% approval of the American people.
Shamir himself warned the Arab delegates to the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference that talks will not succeed if they focused primarily on territory. Shamir came to the conference with the intention of keeping the West Bank and Gaza forever under Israel’s control. He admitted to a Ma’ariv reporter that he planned to drag negotiations on for 10 years and “in the mean time we would have settled one-half million souls in Judea and Samaria.” Remember that this was in 1992 as reported by the LA Times when the Israeli settlers in the West Bank were around 10,000. It is clear that no matter who is in control of the Israeli government from the Right or the Left they are all committed to carrying out the same plan of populating the “Mountains of Judea and Samaria” as their Zionist plan has suggested.
Fast forward now to November 15, 2010 with a U.S. President Obama makes Israel on offer she cannot refuse–the U.S. taxpayer subsidized “sale” to Israel of 20 F-35’s stealth bombers, a deal providing Israel with unmatched capability of striking anywhere in the region. However, contingent upon this was the stipulation that Israel must freeze West Bank settlement expansion for 90 days, and what was an offer too good to turn down became exactly that, as Israel refused the offer. The lesson learned from this is that building the settlements is more important to Israel and their national interests than getting the F-35’s to strengthen their offensive capacity. Keep in mind that this stipulation on the part of the U.S. was not for a permanent freeze, but only for a mere 90 days.
It is clear that Israel will not allow a Palestinian State West of the River Jordan and–given the fact that the rest of the civilized, enlightened world is day by day increasingly recognizing a Palestinian State West of the Jordan, therefore Israel must have a plan of action–now, and not tomorrow, but yesterday. Furthermore, given that America obviously can no longer drag negotiations out with Israel and play the role of designated bodyguard for the Jewish state, therefore the Zionist strategy in the 1980’s must go into action before the Palestinians get a chance to go through with their plans of having the world recognize their state West of the Jordan.
Let’s look at the footprints of that strategy in 2011. “The best that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq is the dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Again, remember that this was written was in 1982 in one of Israel’s biggest newspapers and was a mere repitition of the menu outlined in various Zionist strategy papers, including “Israel’s Strategy for the 1980s”. The picture in Iraq today is not some accident, coincidence or happenstance, for–just as a house is built according to the blueprints drawn up well-ahead of the first nail being driven by a construction worker, what we see in Iraq today it is exactly what was planned not just years ago, but decades. Can anyone dispute that picture?
Now, let us look at Egypt. Although not discussed in mainstream (i.e. Zionist controlled) news, Egypt was the strongest ally to the Palestinian Authority and the main mediator between it and Israel any time help was needed. Egypt was the only Arab regime that can talk to Hamas on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. In terms of putting pressure on the only substantive Palestinian negotiating body–the Palestinian National Authority–Israel would love to see a regime in Egypt not as friendly to Israel as Mubarak was and at the same time more sympathetic to Hamas, thus placing the PNA between the jaws of the pincer to force them back to the negotiating circus for another 10 years. Better yet, to force the PNA out of power in order to start the next phase in annexing the West Bank. Then comes the all-too-predictable–regime or policy change in Jordan, which would inevitably halt the push for Palestinian statehood and thus stall talks and drag out the status quo for another 10 years, during which time Israeli settlers in the West bank increase their numbers to over a million and a half, making it impossible for a Palestinian state to be viable because of the constantly-heard rational concerning “facts on the ground”. Thus, a different solution altogether is then required in which the most plausible and acceptable solution to the problem would be population transfer from West Bank of the river Jordan to the East Bank, where the future “Palestinian State” would then be setup.
Those who doubt such a scenario is part of Israel’s blueprint for the region should take another look at what the aforementioned “Strategy for the 1980’s” has to say about it–
“There is no chance that Jordan will continue to exist in its present structure for a long time, and Israel’s policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority. Changing the regime east of the river will also cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely populated with Arabs west of the Jordan. Whether in war or under conditions of peace, emigration from the territories and economic demographic freeze in them are the guarantees for the coming change on both banks of the river, and we ought to be active in order to accelerate this process in the nearest future. It is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan.”
In short, Israel planned this in the 1980’s but never had the opportunity to implement it. Conditions were never ripe (as they are now) for the execution of this plan. So far they are succeeding accordingly, but will the revolution in Egypt delay their plans or accelerate them? It is all dependent upon the way the regime in Egypt treats Hamas and the PNA. If Al Jazeera, which has scored many points with the young people of Egypt and the Arab street, continues to be used in advancing the agenda of the other side and continues its incitement f the Arab street (and especially with the continuation of its attacks on the PNA) then the Israel’s Strategy for the 1980’s will indeed accelerate. The incitement of the Arab Street has caused the majority of Arab intellectuals and so-called “thinkers” to join in on the hysteria because no one wants to be seen as if they were against the “winds of change”. Israel can create a lukewarm atmosphere with Egypt which may serve both governments’ interests of the “changing” times which would allow Israel more time to continue its settlement building because no one on the Arab side would dare push for negotiations with Israel. Therefore Israel can cry to the world that it doesn’t have a “peace partner” on the Arab side. In the mean time “facts on the ground” will continue to be on Israel’s side until there comes a time when the Arab street will be ready to accept Israel’s plan for the Middle East after it has been broken-in like a wild horse.
Must the Zionist plan for the Middle East succeed? Of course not, but it requires an Arab plan to fight it, which–unfortunately there is none at this time. It also requires a Palestinian plan to combat the Israeli plan, but Palestinian politicians and their Arab counterparts continue down the road mapped out for them by Israel and its tool, the USA.
We must learn one thing in this game, and without it there can be no possibility of victory: We cannot win by playing THEIR game by THEIR rules. Rather, we must adopt our own rules of engagement, forcing them to change theirs.
Dr. Hesham Tillawi
USA February, 2011
source–http://heshamtillawi.wordpress.com
The PNACers who pushed for “democratic change” in Egypt
leave a comment »
From the New York Times:
Considering how deeply concerned PNAC was about Israel’s security, could Mubarak’s ouster really not be in the Jewish state’s strategic interest, as so many seem to believe? Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Kagan looked positively sanguine about the prospects for a post-Mubarak Egypt. Like George Soros, he seems confident that Israel has “much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East.”
Update I: Arianna Huffington, who praised Kagan for his prescience on ABC’s This Week, was prescient herself in a December 13, 2010 op-ed in Lebanon’s Daily Star titled “Social media will help fuel change in the Middle East.” The “progressive” media entrepreneur, who has enjoyed very profitable business ties to the Israeli arms industry, once dated Mortimer Zuckerman, the pro-Israel media magnate.
Update II: The New York Times article also quotes someone else with a passionate attachment to Israel:
“[Obama] got on the right side of this thing when a lot of the foreign policy establishment was cautioning otherwise,” said Robert Kagan, a Brookings Institution scholar who long before the revolution helped assemble a nonpartisan group of policy experts to press for democratic change in Egypt. “And he got it right. This may strengthen his confidence the next time this kind of thing happens.”Kagan, who co-founded the Project for a New American Century with William Kristol in 1997, was joined on that “nonpartisan group” by PNAC founding member Elliott Abrams and PNAC deputy director Ellen Bork. Bork is currently “democracy and human rights” director at PNAC’s successor, Foreign Policy Initiative, where Kagan and Kristol are directors. Not surprisingly, Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard on January 29 that he was “in complete agreement” with his fellow PNACers’ Working Group on Egypt in its demands that the U.S. suspend aid to Mubarak.
Considering how deeply concerned PNAC was about Israel’s security, could Mubarak’s ouster really not be in the Jewish state’s strategic interest, as so many seem to believe? Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Kagan looked positively sanguine about the prospects for a post-Mubarak Egypt. Like George Soros, he seems confident that Israel has “much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East.”
Update I: Arianna Huffington, who praised Kagan for his prescience on ABC’s This Week, was prescient herself in a December 13, 2010 op-ed in Lebanon’s Daily Star titled “Social media will help fuel change in the Middle East.” The “progressive” media entrepreneur, who has enjoyed very profitable business ties to the Israeli arms industry, once dated Mortimer Zuckerman, the pro-Israel media magnate.
Update II: The New York Times article also quotes someone else with a passionate attachment to Israel:
“The stirring events in Egypt and Tunisia should reinforce what has always been a bipartisan ambition because they are vivid reminders of universal democratic aspirations and America’s role in supporting those aspirations,” said Kenneth Wollock [sic], president of the National Democratic Institute, a government-financed group affiliated with the Democratic Party that promotes civil society abroad.From 1973 to 1980, Wollack served as legislative director of AIPAC. He’s not to be confused with Kenneth Pollack, the former National Security Council member who passed classified information to former AIPAC staffers Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.
Written by Maidhc Ó Cathail
March 1, 2011 at 5:11 pm
March 1, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Lavage de cerveau anti-musulman: dites 'NON à l'intolérance religieuse'
Paul Balles / Veterans Today
Aujourd'hui, j'ai entendu au moins sept fois des présentateurs télé référer aux musulmans comme des extrémistes islamiques.La quantité et l'importance de ce genre de manoeuvres de suggestions frauduleuses augmente presque chaque jour.Je l'appelle frauduleuse parce que l'auditoire qui entend à répétition cet amalgame entre musulmans et extrémistes subit un lavage de cerveau et finit par penser que tous les musulmans sont des extrémistes.De telles références à des extrémistes islamistes est souvent faite sur Fox News par Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly et Sean Hannity.Un titre sur MMTV affirme que "O'Reilly soutient les audiences du représentant King portant sur l'islamisme extrémiste: "Il faut savoir la maîtriser". Les mots extrémistes islamiques ont infecté le Congrès américain.Pendant des années, depuis qu'il est à CNN, Glenn Beck a fait de fausses déclarations extravagantes, comme par exemple «l'extrémisme islamique est la plus grande menace pour notre mode de vie depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale et nous ne serons jamais capables d'y résister - si nous pouvons le voir. "Or, comme propagandiste en chef de FOX, Glenn Beck implique l'aile gauche américaine dans sa vision paranoïaque: «Croyez ce que vous voulez, mais la gauche travaille main dans la main avec les Frères musulmans et les extrémistes musulmans ... main dans la main." ...Sean Hannity n'est pas bien mieux, en disant des choses comme, "Il me semble que l'extrémisme islamique est la grande menace au 21e siècle que (le communisme) représentait au siècle dernier ..."Des références islamophobes semblables ont été entendues sur CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC et d'autres réseaux aux États-Unis. Même les journalistes de la chaîne très libérale MSNBC se sont avérés coupables d'avoir amalgamé l'Islam avec l'extrémisme.L'Associated Press dit: "Un rapport du Sénat sur le tournage de Fort Hood a fortement critiqué l'incapacité du FBI à reconnaître les signes d'alerte qu'un psychiatre de l'armée était devenu un extrémiste islamiste ..."Les fous qui commettent des massacres gratuits doivent-ils être identifiés selon leur appartenance religieuse? Si oui, pourquoi les tueurs de Columbine et celui de l'Arizona évoqué récemment n'ont-ils pas été identifiés comme des extrémistes chrétiens? [note du traducteur: les tireurs de Columbine étaient juifs, pro-juifs et fanatiquement anti-nazis. La tuerie de Columbine était un geste haineux anti-chrétien: en effet ils associaient les peuples chrétiens européens aux nazis.] Mais c'est en supposant qu'ils étaient chrétiens. Les médias semblent intéressés à faire le lien avec l'appartenance religieuse seulement lorsque le tueur fou se trouve également être un musulman.Un comité du Sénat, présidé par Joe Lieberman, a affirmé que "L'ennemi - les extrémistes islamistes - doivent être étiquetés correctement et explicitement ... pour que les militaires luttent contre l'extrémisme."Récemment, en commentant les manifestants en Egypte, plusieurs journalistes ont visé les Frères musulmans comme étant des extrémistes.Le professeur Sami Hamod dit que les Frères musulmans étaient à l'origine un instrument des États-Unis. Comment peuvent-ils être des extrémistes?Il semble que les membres des groupes opposés à l'ingérence des États-Unis au Moyen-Orient se font étiqueter d'extrémistes islamiques.Les Palestiniens qui cherchent à protéger leurs biens se font qualifier d'extrémistes musulmans, même quand ils sont chrétiens.Pour les radiodiffuseurs de l'Ouest, tous les membres du Hamas et du Hezbollah sont automatiquement qualifiés d'extrémistes islamistes.La population entière de l'Iran semble avoir été qualifiée d'extrémistes islamiques parce que l'Iran refuse de suivre derrière Israël et les États-Unis.La Syrie et le Liban, en dépit de leurs populations non-musulmanes, ont été qualifiés d'extrémistes islamistes, car ils n'ont pas pu signer de traité de paix avec Israël.Les soi-disant extrémistes islamiques ont forcé le roi de Jordanie à quitter son cabinet. Au Yémen, ils ont poussé Ali Abdulla Saleh à annoncer qu'il ne se présenterait pas pour une réélection. Les deux cas sont évidemment destinées à éviter les rébellions populaires.Malgré le fait que Hosni Moubarak et Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, le président de la Tunisie qui vient de quitter ses fonctions, aient été deux dictateurs haïs du public, les rébellions ont été perçues comme étant l'oeuvre de terroristes islamiques.Récemment, Tony Blair a mis en garde l'Occident qu'il doit renoncer à sa "misérable posture excusant" l'extrémisme islamique.Présentateurs, journalistes, commentateurs, politiciens et dirigeants, infectés par l'intolérance religieuse, ont besoin urgent d'une cure de désintox.
Copyright @ Paul J. Balles
VIDEO - Michael Scheuer commente la crise en Égypte: "Israel is such an enormous detriment to the United States"
PressTV: Zionist Omar Soleiman sworn as Egypt's new vice president
L’entité sioniste appelle Moubarak à mater la révolte égyptienne des Jeunes
Israeli embassy staff evacuate Egypt
VIDEO - George Galloway - Why these Arab Revolutions are so important against Israel
WHAT MIGHT THE THE EVENTS IN EGYPT MEAN TO ISRAEL/PALESTINE?
Israel fears radical takeover in Egypt Extremist takeover in Egypt would put Israel in ‘wholly different position,’ security official warns.
Craintes sionistes et dilemme égyptien des Etats Unis
Israël et les USA contribuent à la répression du soulèvement des Egyptiens
Nasrallah met en garde les Tunisiens contre le complot US
Pro-Democracy Revolutions a Big Problem for US
Report: US Gave Material Support to Pro-Democracy Groups in Egypt
PM Netanyahu: Israel will monitor but not comment on Egypt protests
Tel Aviv protesters demand regime change outside Egyptian Embassy
Israel Fears Regime Change in Egypt
Egyptian governor: Israel trying to harm tourism Northern Sinai's governor says Israel has been publishing false terror warnings since 2004 attacks in order to wreak havoc on Egyptian economy. Meanwhile, Nuweiba mayor says 40% of tourists currently in Sinai are Israeli.
Maghreb: L’Occident craint un déséquilibre dans la région au préjudice d'Israël…
VIDEO - When Egypt Goes, Israel Goes Into Gaza?
Dernières évolutions en Egypte : le ministre de l’Intérieur égyptien a été arrêté
Des commandos israéliens se seraient infiltrés au Caire.
Révolution d’Égypte: Silence israélien suspect, spectre de l’islamisme brandi
PressTV: Zionist Omar Soleiman sworn as Egypt's new vice president
Egypt protests: America’s secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising
Répressions en Égypte : Le Parti Anti Sioniste dénonce la complicité de l'Europe et des États-Unis!
No Longer Caring About Democracy, Bolton Disparages Egypt Protests and Defends Mubarak
Amnesty: Israeli Inquiry Into Gaza Flotilla a ‘Whitewash’
RADIO - Mark Glenn On Israel, Egypt, and the Zionist Takeover of America
WILL ISRAEL INVADE THE EGYPTIAN SINAI?
'Israel provides weapons for Egypt'
U.S. role in Egypt crisis “shameful”-Chavez
Haaretz Editorial: The West should encourage the new order of Mideast
ISRAEL un exemple de démocratie appelle l'occident à soutenir le régime dictatorial de Moubarak
Egypte : Hosni Moubarak est sur le point de tomber
Israeli PM Says Ties With Egypt Must Be Preserved
Israel rallying support for Mubarak
Netanyahu to World: Lay Off Mubarak
La CIA ne doute pas de Hosni Moubarak
Israël prône la "retenue" face à la situation en Egypte
Neocons Attack Egyptian Dissident Mohamed ElBaradei, Again
Israël appelle à mater la rebellion égyptienne
L’entité sioniste appelle Moubarak à mater la révolte égyptienne des Jeunes
Netanyahu Concerned Islamists May Exploit Egyptian ‘Chaos’
Révolution du monde arabe : Compte à rebours pour la disparition d’Israël…Il s’agit pour eux d’infiltrer le mouvement afin de le dévoyer, jusqu’à ce que l’on trouve des remplaçants « acceptables », plus présentables que les vieux dictateurs qui ont fait leur temps. Ils avouent eux-mêmes que l’essentiel n’est pas la justice pour les peuples arabo-musulmans, mais la « sécurité d’Israël » !
Les marchés votent Moubarak, comme DSK
Égypte : Israël craint « une évolution à l’iranienne » et livre des armes à Moubarak !
Egypte: Israël soutient le dictateur atlantiste Moubarak
ISRAËL A LA TROUILLE
Israelis Slam Obama for ‘Betrayal’ of Mubarak
Gazans hope Egyptian upheaval may unlock border
UN Human Rights Chief: 300 Reported Dead in Egypt Protests
La nomination d’Omar Souleiman par Moubarak : une dangereuse provocation
Mubarak’s new deputy linked to CIA rendition program
Israeli Death Squads to Infiltrate Egyptian Protests
Neocons Attack Egyptian Dissident Mohamed ElBaradei, Again
Israël appelle à mater la rebellion égyptienne
Atzmon - The Global Intifada
Israel allows Egypt troops in Sinai for first time since 1979 peace treaty
Israel raise security concerns - Al Jazeera
Zionist Agents Provocateur Target Egyptians
Israël ressent avec amertume la « trahison » des États-Unis
L’aide des Etats-Unis à l’Egypte est destinée à bloquer Gaza
VIDEO - ISRAEL RUSHING TO AID OF MUBARAK
Peres Warns That Democracy in Egypt Will Bring Islamists to Power
Mubarak Supporters Pledge to ‘Liberate Tahrir Square With Blood’
Egypte: presque personne ne soutient Moubarak... sauf Israël
Mubarak Defies a Humiliated America, Emulating Netanyahu
Pro-Mubarak rioters chase reporters in Cairo hotels
'Mossad used me in Egypt' Egyptian woman claims sent to Qatar, trained by 'Israelis and Jews' to topple Mubarak regime
Israel allows Egypt troops in Sinai for first time since 1979 peace treaty
Israel raise security concerns - Al Jazeera
Zionist Agents Provocateur Target Egyptians
L’aide des Etats-Unis à l’Egypte est destinée à bloquer Gaza
Israël ressent avec amertume la « trahison » des États-Unis
How About a Clean Break – with Israel?
The Internet Kill Switch: Made by Israeli security!
RADIO - L'AUTRE MONDE (avec François Marginean), émission du 3 février 2011 (mp3)
RADIO - L'AUTRE MONDE (François Marginean) émission du 7 février 2011 (mp3) maintenant le LUNDI!!
ALAN HART: NETANYAHU AND MUBARAK
Pro-Mubarak supporters target journalists as ‘Jews’
Des commandos israéliens se seraient infiltrés au Caire
Mubarak 'servant' of Zionists, US: Khamenei
Israeli Spy Arrest in Egypt Points to High Stakes for Washington and Tel Aviv
Cantor, Hoyer Urge Anti-Israel Resolution Veto
‘West trying to manipulate Egypt uprising’
Egypt stock market shut amid protests
Egypt holds gas supply to Israel and Jordan after pipeline explosion
Gaza feeds hungry Egyptian troops in role reversal
Iran offers Lebanon defense assistance
Alan Hart : Netanyahu et co. doivent être fiers de Moubarak et de ses casseurs
Netanyahu: Egypt could fall into hands of radical Islamists
Israel Supports Democracy – Except in the Case of Egypt
Israeli Students Cancel Speech by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: “She is Anti-Semitic”
Unlike Egyptians, Israelis support restricting expression
Proche-Orient : Le CRIF ne veut pas de démocraties non contrôlées par Israël…!
“Holocaust” historian says massacre of Egyptian protestors is desirable
Suleiman: The CIA’s Man in Cairo
WikiLeaks: Israel long viewed Egypt VP as preferred Mubarak successor
WikiLeaks: Israel’s secret hotline to the man tipped to replace Mubarak
Washington rappelle tous les ambassadeurs US pour une réunion extraordinaire.
Adler, BHL et Finkielkraut anxieux face à la perspective d’une Egypte démocratique
CIA AND MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD VERSUS MUBARAK
Report: Egypt used Israeli technology to disable state’s internet
Suleiman: Egypt ‘Not Ready for Democracy’
Les Palestiniens interdits d’entrée en Egypte
Suleiman Told Israel He Would ‘Cleanse’ Sinai of Palestinians
Israel keeping low profile on Egypt uprising (Ils voudraient pas qu'on découvre qu'ils sont derrière ça, alors ils gardent un profil bas et défendent officiellement le statu quo. Or, la chute de l'Égypte fait partie du plan pour un "Grand Israël")
Creative Destruction for a ‘Greater Middle East’? (Le Grand Moyen-Orient, c'est la variante américaine du même concept sioniste)
Ex-Israeli Official: Mideast Dominoes Point to War
L'amiral Mullen, en Jordanie et Israël après la chute de Moubarak
Mubarak helping Israel starve Gaza Palestinians
Les Palestiniens interdits d’entrée en Egypte
UN DEMOCRATE PUR ET DUR … COMME ON LES AIME EN ISRAËL « Israël fonde tous ses espoirs sur Omar Souleiman »
Mubarak slammed U.S. in phone call with Israeli MK before resignation
Ahmadinejad: No Israel in new Mideast "In spite of all the satanic schemes, with the help of God and the people's resistance, the new Middle East will turn into a region without the United States and the Zionist regime, and the arrogant powers will have no place in this Middle East. Soon, the entire world will experience the sweet taste of a world without Zionists and thugs."
Reports: Mubarak in Coma, Near Death
Egypt: Is the revolution being co-opted?
Les Rothschilds seraient derrière les révolutions tunisienne et égyptienn Le but serait de se débarrasser de la finance islamique qui se développe. [LA FINANCE ISLAMIQUE INTERDIT LE PRËT USURAIRE!]
Obama: Israel will ultimately benefit from recent Egypt uprising
The Ugly Truth Podcast Jan 29, 2011
The revolution in Egypt--a genuine uprising on the part of oppressed people but will it be used to further Israel's interests? Internationally-esteemed journalist Dahr Jamail and co-host Mark Dankof join the program to explore this question.
Please check out the brand new book detailing Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS LIBERTY here
The Ugly Truth Podcast Feb 11, 2011
Jonathon Azaziah of www.maskof zion.com returns to the program to discuss his latest article dealing with the Zionist plan to fragment Egypt and thus prevent a true “people’s revolution”.
Please check out the brand new book detailing Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS LIBERTY here
Please check out the brand new book detailing Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS LIBERTY here
Download Here
Israel’s Fission Field Warfare: Pakistan, Iraq and Egypt, by Jonathon Azaziah
The Ugly Truth Podcast Feb 15, 2011
Zaid Hamid of www.brasstackstv.pk returns to the program from Pakistan to discuss the latest events in Egypt and how they are more than likely part of the century-old plan of breaking up the larger states of the Middle East into smaller ones as a precursor to Israel expanding her borders to encompass her 3,000 year old dream of owning all the land between the Nile and Euphrates rivers.
Download here
The High Priests of War: The Secret History of How America's Neo-Conservative Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire, par Michael Collins Piper
Sur ce blog:
Quelques jours avant l'attentat du nouvel an survenu devant une église copte, un réseau d'espions israéliens venait d'être découvert
Rappel: Le monde est passé à deux doigts d'une guerre nucléaire mondiale à cause de l'attaque du USS Liberty
