Jeff Gates (voir l'intégrale) analyse le cas de deux pantins notoires d'Israël: John McCain, protégé du crime organisé juif et complice de la dissimulation de l'affaire du USS Liberty, et George W. Bush, ex-alcoolique influençable entouré de sionistes religieux. Voir aussi de Jeff Gates: The Hate Mongers Among Us:
John McCain explains everything wrong with U.S. foreign policy
"So, with you my friends, I see Americans who want our country to be engaged in events beyond our borders, I see Americans who want an internationalist foreign policy, I see Americans who want our country to stand with Israel and our other partners, I see Americans who are willing to spend their hard earned tax dollars on effective foreign assistance and to strengthen the greatest military the world has ever known..." (begins at 13:20 mark)
Rivero comments: Let's check out McCain's claim that Americans WANT their tax dollars spent on foreign wars and a strong military instead of being spent to take care of America and Americans.
John McCain Thanks AIPAC for Supporting Military Intervention in Syria
McCain, Graham call for military action on Syria after chemical-weapons evidence
John McCain wants Syria intervention
McCain says it's 'crazy' not to seek regime change in Syria
CONFIRMED - McCain Posed with Known Terrorists in Syria
McCain calls for strict timeline for Syria chemical weapons handover
McCain: Add monitors to Syria military intervention resolution
John McCain: John Kerry ‘unbelievably unhelpful’
McCain: Syrian rebels need heavy weapons
VIDEO - John McCain Makes Secret Syria Trip, Crosses Borders to Speak With Rebels
John McCain, Lindsey Graham call for no-fly zone
VIDEO - John Roberts Confronts McCain About Getting His Picture Taken With Syrian Kidnappers
John McCain Slips Across Border Into Syria, Meets With Rebels
The leaders of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army told the senator they want the U.S. to provide arms, a no-fly zone, and strikes on Hezbollah. Josh Rogin reports. http://www.thedailybeast.com
Sen. John McCain Monday became the highest-ranking U.S. official to enter Syria since the bloody civil war there began more than two years ago, The Daily Beast has learned. McCain, one of the fiercest critics of the Obama administration’s Syria policy, made the unannounced visit across the Turkey-Syria border with Gen. Salem Idris, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army. He stayed in the country for several hours before returning to Turkey. Both in Syria and Turkey, McCain and Idris met with assembled leaders of Free Syrian Army units that traveled from around the country to see the U.S. senator. Inside those meetings, rebel leaders called on the United States to step up its support to the Syrian armed opposition and provide them with heavy weapons, a no-fly zone, and airstrikes on the Syrian regime and the forces of Hezbollah, which is increasingly active in Syria. Idris praised the McCain visit and criticized the Obama administration’s Syria policy in an exclusive interview Monday with The Daily Beast.
“The visit of Senator McCain to Syria is very important and very useful especially at this time,” he said. “We need American help to have change on the ground; we are now in a very critical situation.”
Fighting across Syria has increased in recent weeks, with new regime offensives in several key areas, such as Damascus and the strategic border town of Qusayr. Thousands of soldiers serving Hezbollah—the Lebanon-based and Iran- and Syria-backed stateless army—have joined the fight in support of the regime, as the civil war there has threatened to ignite a region-wide conflagration and amid new reports of chemical weapons attacks by forces loyal to embattled president Bashar al-Assad this week that might cross President Obama’s “red line” for the conflict.
McCain’s visit came as the Obama administration is once again considering an increase of support to the Syrian opposition, while at the same time pushing the opposition council to negotiate with the regime at an international conference in Geneva in early June.
How do John McCain and his colleagues feel about the war in Syria?
“What we want from the U.S. government is to take the decision to support the Syrian revolution with weapons and ammunition, anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft weapons,” Idris said. “Of course we want a no-fly zone and we ask for strategic strikes against Hezbollah both inside Lebanon and inside Syria.”
There’s no assurance the Obama administration will be able to convince the Syrian opposition to attend the Geneva conference, and Idris said the conference would only be useful if there are certain preconditions, which the regime is unlikely to agree to.
“We are with Geneva if it means that [Syrian President] Bashar [al Assad] will resign and leave the country and the military officials of the regime will be brought to justice,” he said.
“We need American help to have change on the ground; we are now in a very critical situation.”
Prior to his visit inside Syria, McCain and Idris had separate meetings with two groups of FSA commanders and their Civil Revolutionary Council counterparts in the Turkish city of Gaziantep. Rebel military and civilians leaders from all over Syria came to see McCain, including from Homs, Qusayr, Idlib, Damascus, and Aleppo. Idris led all the meetings.
The entire trip was coordinated with the help of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, an American nonprofit organization that works in support of the Syrian opposition. Two leaders of the group attended all of the McCain-Idris meetings and discussed them with The Daily Beast.
The rebel troops are running low on ammunition and don’t have effective weapons to counter the regime’s use of airpower, the FSA and civilian leaders told McCain. They also said there’s a growing presence of Russian military advisers in Damascus as well as growing numbers of Iranian and Iraqi fighters.
Hezbollah has taken over the fight for the regime in Homs, they said. Estimates of Hezbollah’s presence there ranged from four to seven thousand fighters in and around city, outnumbering the approximately two thousand FSA fighters in the area.
The rebels also told McCain that chemical weapons have been used by the regime on multiple occasions.
“This was the start of a really important engagement between various forces in the U.S. government and people in the civilian and armed opposition who are working together to fight for a free Syria,” said Elizabeth O’Bagy, political director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force.
“Senator McCain proved today you can very easily go and meet with these people,” she said. “He’s the first U.S. senator to step foot in free Syria and one of the first government officials to reach out to the FSA officials and that’s a huge step.”
U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford is the only other high-ranking U.S. official to have entered Syria recently. He visited while on a trip to Turkey earlier this month.
The rebel leaders were appreciative of McCain’s visit but took the opportunity to communicate their unhappiness with what they see as a lack of crucial support from the Obama administration at a critical time in their struggle.
“They voiced their frustration at the policy of the U.S., because they believe that it’s in the interest of both the U.S. and Syria for the right people to be armed,” said Mouaz Moustafa, the Task Force’s executive director. “We need to increase the frequency of these types of visits by senior-level policy makers. It’s the best way to know who we are arming and to know who we are really dealing with.”
McCain, who also visited a U.S. Patriot missile site and met with U.S. forces there while in Turkey, declined to comment for this story. In an unrelated interview last week, he told The Daily Beast that he was concerned that the Geneva conference would only serve to give the regime more time to strengthen its military position against the rebels.
"I’ve been known to be an optimist, but here are the Russians sending them up-to-date missiles, continued flights of arms going into Syria, Putin keeps our secretary of State waiting for three hours … It doesn’t lend itself to optimism, all it does is delay us considering doing what we really need to do,” said McCain. “The reality is that Putin will only abandon Assad when he thinks that Assad is losing. Right now, at worst it’s a stalemate. In the view of some, he is succeeding.”
“The visit of Senator McCain to Syria is very important and very useful especially at this time,” he said. “We need American help to have change on the ground; we are now in a very critical situation.”
Fighting across Syria has increased in recent weeks, with new regime offensives in several key areas, such as Damascus and the strategic border town of Qusayr. Thousands of soldiers serving Hezbollah—the Lebanon-based and Iran- and Syria-backed stateless army—have joined the fight in support of the regime, as the civil war there has threatened to ignite a region-wide conflagration and amid new reports of chemical weapons attacks by forces loyal to embattled president Bashar al-Assad this week that might cross President Obama’s “red line” for the conflict.
McCain’s visit came as the Obama administration is once again considering an increase of support to the Syrian opposition, while at the same time pushing the opposition council to negotiate with the regime at an international conference in Geneva in early June.
How do John McCain and his colleagues feel about the war in Syria?
“What we want from the U.S. government is to take the decision to support the Syrian revolution with weapons and ammunition, anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft weapons,” Idris said. “Of course we want a no-fly zone and we ask for strategic strikes against Hezbollah both inside Lebanon and inside Syria.”
There’s no assurance the Obama administration will be able to convince the Syrian opposition to attend the Geneva conference, and Idris said the conference would only be useful if there are certain preconditions, which the regime is unlikely to agree to.
“We are with Geneva if it means that [Syrian President] Bashar [al Assad] will resign and leave the country and the military officials of the regime will be brought to justice,” he said.
“We need American help to have change on the ground; we are now in a very critical situation.”
Prior to his visit inside Syria, McCain and Idris had separate meetings with two groups of FSA commanders and their Civil Revolutionary Council counterparts in the Turkish city of Gaziantep. Rebel military and civilians leaders from all over Syria came to see McCain, including from Homs, Qusayr, Idlib, Damascus, and Aleppo. Idris led all the meetings.
The entire trip was coordinated with the help of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, an American nonprofit organization that works in support of the Syrian opposition. Two leaders of the group attended all of the McCain-Idris meetings and discussed them with The Daily Beast.
The rebel troops are running low on ammunition and don’t have effective weapons to counter the regime’s use of airpower, the FSA and civilian leaders told McCain. They also said there’s a growing presence of Russian military advisers in Damascus as well as growing numbers of Iranian and Iraqi fighters.
Hezbollah has taken over the fight for the regime in Homs, they said. Estimates of Hezbollah’s presence there ranged from four to seven thousand fighters in and around city, outnumbering the approximately two thousand FSA fighters in the area.
The rebels also told McCain that chemical weapons have been used by the regime on multiple occasions.
“This was the start of a really important engagement between various forces in the U.S. government and people in the civilian and armed opposition who are working together to fight for a free Syria,” said Elizabeth O’Bagy, political director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force.
“Senator McCain proved today you can very easily go and meet with these people,” she said. “He’s the first U.S. senator to step foot in free Syria and one of the first government officials to reach out to the FSA officials and that’s a huge step.”
U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford is the only other high-ranking U.S. official to have entered Syria recently. He visited while on a trip to Turkey earlier this month.
The rebel leaders were appreciative of McCain’s visit but took the opportunity to communicate their unhappiness with what they see as a lack of crucial support from the Obama administration at a critical time in their struggle.
“They voiced their frustration at the policy of the U.S., because they believe that it’s in the interest of both the U.S. and Syria for the right people to be armed,” said Mouaz Moustafa, the Task Force’s executive director. “We need to increase the frequency of these types of visits by senior-level policy makers. It’s the best way to know who we are arming and to know who we are really dealing with.”
McCain, who also visited a U.S. Patriot missile site and met with U.S. forces there while in Turkey, declined to comment for this story. In an unrelated interview last week, he told The Daily Beast that he was concerned that the Geneva conference would only serve to give the regime more time to strengthen its military position against the rebels.
"I’ve been known to be an optimist, but here are the Russians sending them up-to-date missiles, continued flights of arms going into Syria, Putin keeps our secretary of State waiting for three hours … It doesn’t lend itself to optimism, all it does is delay us considering doing what we really need to do,” said McCain. “The reality is that Putin will only abandon Assad when he thinks that Assad is losing. Right now, at worst it’s a stalemate. In the view of some, he is succeeding.”
VIDEO - Putin tells McCain to f*ck off you war criminal
VIDEO - Le sénateur américain McCain reconnaît avoir des relations constantes avec l’État Islamique
"I KNOW THESE PEOPLE: I'M IN CONTACT WITH THEM ALL THE TIME."
VIDEO - Comment la CIA prépare les révolutions colorées: entretien avec John McCain
VIDEO - Le sénateur américain McCain reconnaît avoir des relations constantes avec l’État Islamique
"I KNOW THESE PEOPLE: I'M IN CONTACT WITH THEM ALL THE TIME."
VIDEO - Comment la CIA prépare les révolutions colorées: entretien avec John McCain
Did an Israel lobby front group organize McCain’s trip to Syria?
Maidhc Ó Cathail
The Passionate Attachment
June 6, 2013
The Passionate Attachment
June 6, 2013
In an attempt to dispel embarrassing reports that Senator John McCain’s “surprise”
trip to Syria featured a meeting with kidnappers — including Mohammad
Nour of the Northern Storm rebel group — behind the 2012 abduction of 11
Lebanese religious pilgrims, The Daily Beast’s Josh Rogin cited Mouaz Moustafa, the executive director of a little-known organization called The Syrian Emergency Task Force:
“Nobody self-identified as Nour, and none of the guys who were standing outside were in the meeting with McCain,” said Mouaz Moustafa, executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, an American nonprofit that helped organize the McCain trip. Moustafa is in the picture and was also inside McCain’s meeting with the rebel commanders, along with Task Force political director Elizabeth O’Bagy.
Rogin’s defense of McCain, of course, rests on the perceived
independence of Moustafa’s “NGO.” The Syrian Emergency Task Force,
however, appears to have close ties to one foreign government and its
powerful American lobby. Not only is Mouaz Moustafa listed as one of the
Washington Institute’s “experts,” he recently addressed the AIPAC-created think tank’s annual Soref symposium on the theme of “Inside Syria: The Battle Against Assad’s Regime.”
Even more intriguingly, one
of the web addresses for Moustafa’s nonprofit is
“syriantaskforce.torahacademybr.org.” The “torahacademybr.org” URL
belongs to the Torah Academy of Boca Raton, Florida whose academic goals
notably include “inspiring a love and commitment to Eretz Yisroel.”
Of course, none of this will come as any surprise to those familiar
with John McCain’s lifelong service to the Land of Israel, a commitment
that has invariably been at the expense of U.S. interests.
Update: Asked by a social media friend for his thoughts on my piece, Moustafa tweeted:
“utter BS I was born in a refugee camp denied entry to Palestinian territories by Israel even with American passport”
Perhaps his friends in the lobby can put in a good word for him.
After all, he helped organize their leading American asset’s trip to Syria; he’s a contributor to WINEP’s forum for Arab democrats;
and for a dispossessed Palestinian refugee bears remarkably few
grudges. “The Jewish American community here has always supported
humanitarian causes and has always stood by the right thing,” he
recently told the Jewish Daily Forward, “and I hope they’ll continue to do so.”
Maidhc Ó Cathail is an investigative journalist and Middle East analyst. He is also the creator and editor of The Passionate Attachment blog, which focuses primarily on the U.S.-Israeli relationship. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter @O_Cathail.
In the second part of the interview Wilkerson confirmed what many
political commentators have been saying for years, that Israel is
engaged in a divide and conquer strategy in the Middle East to pave the
path for their grand vision of a “Greater Israel”. Israel intends to
weaken and undermine all of its regional competitors by instigating and
fomenting internal conflict in those countries — just as they did in
Lebanon in the 1980s.
Wilkerson recently stated that the chemical attack in Syria that took
place in late August of this year was likely an Israeli false-flag
operation.
‘McCainiacs’ Border on Treason
In an interviewwith online news outlet Real News Network, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, said Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (RS. C.) “are bordering on being traitors in my view, because they won’t let this president [Obama] have room to achieve a diplomatic solution [with Iran].” He added: “They’re all angry nowthat [Obama] didn’t bomb Syria . . . and so they’removing on to Iran, with Graham even saying he’s going to move for legislation to authorize the use of military force against Iran in the next four to five months.” (American Free Press, Oct 7, 2013)
In an interviewwith online news outlet Real News Network, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, said Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (RS. C.) “are bordering on being traitors in my view, because they won’t let this president [Obama] have room to achieve a diplomatic solution [with Iran].” He added: “They’re all angry nowthat [Obama] didn’t bomb Syria . . . and so they’removing on to Iran, with Graham even saying he’s going to move for legislation to authorize the use of military force against Iran in the next four to five months.” (American Free Press, Oct 7, 2013)
Sen. John McCain: I'm "very sad" over U.N. resolution on Syrian weapons
Syria researcher dismissed for falsifying credentials hired by Senator McCain
McCain Hires Disgraced Syria ‘Expert’ Elizabeth O’Bagy
La manipulation du Monde sur les armes chimiques en Syrie
White House: No role for Assad in transitional Syrian government
EU to relax banking sanctions to help Syrian rebels
UK govt. ready to go it alone on arming terrorists in Syria
European Union Debates Arming Syrian Rebels
Syrie : la CIA "entame" les livraisons d’armes aux rebelles via la Jordanie
Russian inquiry to UN: Rebels, not Army, behind Syria Aleppo sarin attack
Syrie : Les autorités russes affirment avoir la preuve que les « rebelles » ont utilisé du gaz sarin
Syrian Rebels Massacre Christian Village
Syrian Christians: ‘Why Is America at War with Us’
Armed Rebels Massacre Entire Population of Christian Village in Syria
Syrian Orthodox bishop and his assistant, beheaded by militants logistically protected by Israel and armed by NATO/EU/USA
Western backed Syrian terrorists behead Christians for helping military, as CIA ships in arms
"Splitting Syria is the best possible outcome" – Henry Kissinger
Hezbollah Commits to an All-Out Fight to Save Assad
Israel Media Report: We Will Assassinate Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”
Israeli Jeep Used by Free Syrian Army Terrorists Found
European Union Debates Arming Syrian Rebels
Syrie : la CIA "entame" les livraisons d’armes aux rebelles via la Jordanie
Russian inquiry to UN: Rebels, not Army, behind Syria Aleppo sarin attack
Syrie : Les autorités russes affirment avoir la preuve que les « rebelles » ont utilisé du gaz sarin
Syrian Rebels Massacre Christian Village
Syrian Christians: ‘Why Is America at War with Us’
Armed Rebels Massacre Entire Population of Christian Village in Syria
Syrian Orthodox bishop and his assistant, beheaded by militants logistically protected by Israel and armed by NATO/EU/USA
Western backed Syrian terrorists behead Christians for helping military, as CIA ships in arms
"Splitting Syria is the best possible outcome" – Henry Kissinger
Hezbollah Commits to an All-Out Fight to Save Assad
Israel Media Report: We Will Assassinate Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”
Israeli Jeep Used by Free Syrian Army Terrorists Found
Ten Years After US Invades Iraq, Israel Eager to Take the US Into Round Two
‘Israel used depleted uranium shells in air strike’ – Syrian source
Iraq Then, Syria Now? New York Times, sarin and skepticism
Bashar al-Assad Interview: Israel Supports Al Qaeda Terrorists
Assad: Israel is helping Syrian rebels
Assad aide: Israel sent undercover troops to Syria
La Syrie révèle Israël
VIDEO - Syrie : Les "rebelles syriens" tirent sur des réfugiés palestiniens
Syrie: des militaires israéliens découverts parmi les rebelles
Un fonds juif israélo-américain pour financer les mercenaires en Syrie
VIDEO - Israel is aware of Assad's superiority
Fabius: "Derrière la question syrienne, il y a la question iranienne"
France pushes for talks on arming Syria rebels
Syrie : Fabius appelle à arrêter la progression des forces d'Assad
Leading Jewish Supremacist Confirms: Zionist Interests Served by Chaos in Syria
Syria rebels ‘beheaded a Christian and fed him to the dogs’ as fears grow over Islamist atrocities
Reports in Syria: Israel attacked another airport
VIDEO - Israel is aware of Assad's superiority
Fabius: "Derrière la question syrienne, il y a la question iranienne"
France pushes for talks on arming Syria rebels
Syrie : Fabius appelle à arrêter la progression des forces d'Assad
Leading Jewish Supremacist Confirms: Zionist Interests Served by Chaos in Syria
Syria rebels ‘beheaded a Christian and fed him to the dogs’ as fears grow over Islamist atrocities
Reports in Syria: Israel attacked another airport
'Assad's fall good for Israel' Ex-Mossad chief Dagan slams PM's comments that Israel must 'instill fear of death' in Syria
US Senator Carl Levin [JEW] calls for military strikes on Syria
Israeli Intelligence News: Syria Rebels Possess Chemical Weapons, US-NATO Delivering Heavy Weapons to the Terrorists Michel Chossudovsky
Israel ‘Angered’ by U.S. Leaks of Submarine Missile Attack on Syria
The Ghosts of Interventions Past Impede U.S. War for Israel in Syria
‘Saudi Arabia signs deal with Israeli army to buy weapons for militants fighting Syria govt.’
Israël au cœur de la guerre contre la Syrie
Israel behind mystery attack on Syrian port – US sources
VIDEO - Roland Dumas : les Anglais préparaient la guerre pour ISRAËL en Syrie deux ans avant les manifestations en 2011
Roland Dumas: "Israël contrôle la France, elle se trompe à l’égard d’Assad"
Voir aussi: Roland Dumas, ancien ministre français des affaires étrangères: "Israël contrôle le service de renseignement français"
VIDEO - BHL essaie de convaincre les américains
VIDEO - L'AIPAC, lobby pro israélien aux USA, appelle à la guerre à la SYRIE
Video shows Israeli special forces in Syria
‘US meddling in Syria at behest of Israel’
LOL!!! Israel is ‘not seeking to topple Assad,’ top defense official says
Israel's Anti-Syrian Propaganda stop being suckers for it
Israel publicly warns Assad: If you attack us, we will topple your regime
Israel ‘will bring down Assad’ if he retaliates for future airstrikes
FLASHBACK 2012: John McCain–’Shameful’ that US is not arming Syrian thugs
FLASHBACK 2012 : US senators McCain, Lieberman urge arming Syrian opposition
Top Warmonger Joseph Lieberman Calls for
‘Robust Internationalism’
Michael Collins Piper - Just when Americans hoped they had heard the last of recently retired Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)—who had been widely touted as a possible secretary of state in a Mitt Romney presidential administration — Lieberman joined another fervent disciple of the New World Order, former Senator John Kyl (R-Ariz.), in co-chairing the so-called American Internationalism Project, a division of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Michael Collins Piper - Just when Americans hoped they had heard the last of recently retired Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)—who had been widely touted as a possible secretary of state in a Mitt Romney presidential administration — Lieberman joined another fervent disciple of the New World Order, former Senator John Kyl (R-Ariz.), in co-chairing the so-called American Internationalism Project, a division of the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Assad adviser: Israel orchestrating Syrian rebels
Israeli Officials: We’d Prefer Al-Qaeda-Run Syria to an Assad Victory
Netanyahu alludes to Israeli military action on Syria border
Report: Assad aims for ‘lasting’ resistance against Israel
Former CIA Analyst Exposes Jewish Supremacist Syrian War Lobbyists Historian and former CIA Intelligence Officer and analyst Michael Scheuer has openly identified the Jewish...
By Maidhc Ó Cathail
Press TV Interview
June 1, 2013
The recent statement by the White House that it does not see any role for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a potential political transition in Syria is “a reflection of the dominance of Israeli thinking over American policy making,” an analyst says.
“Israel has long had it in its mind to destabilize Syria,” Maidhc Ó Cathail, an editor at The Passionate Attachment said by phone on Saturday.
“If you look at any of the Israel lobby websites [in the U.S.], the think tanks such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Foreign Policy Initiative, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and the AIPAC-created think tank, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, it’s very clear that Israel has a major stake in the conflict in Syria,” Ó Cathail said.
“[Israel] is pushing White House policy to destabilize Syria and…as usual, when they follow Israeli policy it doesn’t work out for U.S. interests.”
Listen to the interview.
Maidhc Ó Cathail is an investigative journalist and Middle East analyst. He is also the creator and editor of The Passionate Attachment blog, which focuses primarily on the U.S.-Israeli relationship. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter @O_Cathail.
Press TV Interview
June 1, 2013
The recent statement by the White House that it does not see any role for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a potential political transition in Syria is “a reflection of the dominance of Israeli thinking over American policy making,” an analyst says.
“Israel has long had it in its mind to destabilize Syria,” Maidhc Ó Cathail, an editor at The Passionate Attachment said by phone on Saturday.
“If you look at any of the Israel lobby websites [in the U.S.], the think tanks such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Foreign Policy Initiative, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and the AIPAC-created think tank, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, it’s very clear that Israel has a major stake in the conflict in Syria,” Ó Cathail said.
“[Israel] is pushing White House policy to destabilize Syria and…as usual, when they follow Israeli policy it doesn’t work out for U.S. interests.”
Listen to the interview.
Maidhc Ó Cathail is an investigative journalist and Middle East analyst. He is also the creator and editor of The Passionate Attachment blog, which focuses primarily on the U.S.-Israeli relationship. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter @O_Cathail.
Logo_of_the_Syrian_Social_Nationalist_Party
Turkey, Kazakhstan in NWO Crosshairs
• U.S. covertly promoting regime change in any Eurasian nation that resists New World Order
By Ronald L. Ray for American Free Press
Themilitary-industrial-banking
complex has made “perpetual war for perpetual peace” such an integral
part of America’s way of life that some people speculate that returning
to peaceful ways would result in economic collapse. This immoral state
of affairs means that our government, in concert with Great Britain and
Israel, constantly is preparing new wars years in advance of when they
break into the open. Now, thanks to recent reports in the German weekly,
National Zeitung by Dr. Bernhard Tomaschitz, we are in a position to
determine where the next deadly blows will fall. Once American armed
forces establish the Israeli empire fromEgypt to Iran, it appears that
the United States will turn its sights on Turkey and Kazakhstan.
Both
nations possess great geo-political significance, sitting as they do at
key crossroads of Europe and Asia. Kazakhstan is rich in oil, natural
gas and minerals needed bymuch of theworld, and Turkey—apart from
ambitions of restoring the Ottoman empire—hopes to profit by
transporting Kazakhstan’s natural wealth to buyers in Europe. In
accordance with these national interests, both are drifting from the
Zionist-American colonial orbit: Kazakhstan toward Russia, and Turkey
toward China.
This sort of independent activity, of course, petrifies
political and corporate leaders inWashington, London and Tel Aviv, and
they are determined to make an example of the “uppity natives” asserting
their independence. These “Western” governments seek for themselves
control of the region’s natural resources and trade, while pursuing
their goal of encircling both Russia and China, which are the only two
major powers that so far have eluded the hegemony of the
Zionist-Anglo-American rulers.
Consequently, the CIA and Jewish front
organizations, following their standard tactics, have been active for
some time in subverting the stability and sovereignty of both Turkey and
Kazakhstan, through “educational” endeavors and recruitment of
government opponents.
The National Endowment for Democracy has been
funneling large sums ofmoney to opponents of the governments in both
countries, primarily through the International Republican Institute
(IRI) and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs
(NDIA). Chairman of the board of IRI is the perpetual warmonger and
Zionist mouthpiece, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). His counterpart at NDIA
is former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, who became more
entranced with Zionism when she “discovered” Jewish ancestry. A
tellingly disproportionate number of Jews serves on both boards.
Additionally,
Zionist billionaire George Soros’s Foundation for an Open Society has
used its Central Eurasia Project to fund opponents of the government in
Kazakhstan. And Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute
worried recently that Turkey’s support for other regional Islamic
countries, including beleaguered Palestine, was leading to a “collapse”
of relations with the U.S. and Israel.
In Turkey, these activities
have resulted in the recent popular uprisings against Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ostensibly triggered by the building of a shopping
center in an Istanbul park. While NATO is concerned about a loss of
military secrets through the Turkish approach to China and Russia,
Turkey’s key location guarantees it will remain a member of the
“defense” organization. The intention appears to be not to topple
Erdogan but to tie him down with civil unrest so that he cannot pursue
foreign policy objectives, which would free his land from the
U.S.-Israeli cage.
In Kazakhstan, however, things do not look so
rosy. Western warmongers are attempting to use political parties,
non-governmental organizations and military aid to push the country
toward one of the infamous color revolutions, or even regime change. So the carnage will continue.
The Weird World of John Hagee
• “HAGEECON” 2013: Bevy of Christian And Jewish Zionists want more war with Islam in Mideast
Along
with a host of American politicians—mostly Republicans—known for their
fealty to Israel, the assembled masses gathered at the Washington
Convention Center under the auspices of Texas evangelist John Hagee’s
Christians United for Israel (CUFI), which claims to have 1 million
members.
While the corpulent Hagee surrounds himself with a
contingent of Israeli bodyguards, CUFI’s operations are directed by an
American Jew, David Brog, who is a cousin of former Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Barak.
New York-based Jewish newspaper Forward reported
enthusiastically about the conference, noting that “Christian
evangelical supporters of Israel sent a strong message of opposition to
President Obama on Iran and the renewal of Mideast peace talks.”
However,
what did take place during this gathering reflects a bizarre and
inflammatory worldview on the part of the participants.
Rabbi Aryeh
Sheinberg’s invocation slammed Obama and Secretary of State John
Kerry—who is of Jewish extraction on his father’s side and whose brother
is a practicing Jew, having abandoned the Catholic faith in which he
was raised—saying their proposals for a Middle East settlement would
reinstate what some Israelis call “the Auschwitz borders”— that is,
Israel’s borders before it expanded into Arab lands after the 1967 war.
TV
personality Glenn Beck, a Mormon, gave the keynote address, trashing
Obama. He concluded: “Our government is on the wrong side, and we are
entering terrible, terrible days if we don’t wake up and turn around.”
Beck
delighted his audience by explaining the real reason America’s founding
fathers staged the revolution against Britainwas so conservative
Christians could ultimately help usher Israel into being in 1948.
Giving
a tangled description of symbolism on the one-dollar Federal Reserve
note—which is otherwise the subject of well-founded debate—Beck said
this was proof of his thesis.
Beck failed tomention that American
Jewish millionaires bribed several Latin American delegates to the UN,
whose votes were critical to UN recognition of Israel, not to mention
that supporters of Israel have now cheerfully bragged that a special
blackmail-and-coercion intelligence operation was utilized to further
influence other delegates.
Beck also displayed—of all things—a napkin he
claimed was on a table next to Hitler when the German leader survived
an assassination attempt on July 20, 1944. He also brandished a whip he
alleged had been used in the Auschwitz camp in Poland to punish Jewish
prisoners during World War II.
And, just for the record, Beck
declared how evil Islam happens to be—a favorite mantra often heard
today, a major tool in the effort by Israel and its supporters to engage
America inwar against the Muslim world.
Unfortunately, a lot of
patriots who should know better are echoing this same kind of rhetoric,
promoting the poison of the Israeli propagandists.
An array of politicians, mostly conservative Republicans, who showed up to declare their alliance with Israel included:
- Newly elected Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a 2016 presidential aspirant whose wife is a banker with Goldman Sachs, the powerful international Jewish investment house;
- House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (RVa.)—an Orthodox Jew much of whose campaign money comes from Wall Street and gambling and liquor interests; and
- Retiring Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) who once famously said, “I am a Christian, but I consider my heritage Jewish, because it is the foundation, the roots of my faith as a Christian.”
Another stalwart voice for Israel, Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)—who never went to war but who is always an
advocate of U.S. military ventures on behalf of Israel—pranced andminced
to the podium and told the cheering audience he plans to introduce a
resolution in Congress authorizing the use of force—American blood and
treasure—against Iran.
Using reasoning reeking of the provocative
logic utilized in rabbinical reasoning and commemorated in the Jewish
holy works known as the Talmud, Graham explained: “My goal is to avoid
war, and the best way to avoid war is to let the Iranians know they’re
going to face one and lose.”
The only thing Graham and his GOP
colleagues didn’t say—at least publicly—was “Onward, Christian
Soldiers,” although that certainly is their philosophy.
Hagee himself
said he wants the United States to “turn the Israeli Defense Forces
loose and have a total victory in the Middle East for peace that will
last.” In other words: all-out war against the Arab and Muslim
nations—financed, of course, by American taxpayers and underscored by
the implicit promise American soldiers will come to Israel’s support as
necessary.
And making it all too clear Israel really isn’t so poised
for peace with the Palestinian Christians and Muslims as many Americans
are led by the media to believe, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Ron
Prossor, said any talk of a so-called two-state solution is actually a
“euphemism for the destruction of the state of Israel.”
Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was on hand to warn, or so he said, that
Iran doesn’t just plan to destroy Israel. Iran has missiles intended to
hit the U.S. and “that could happen very soon.”
As a humorous but
not-so-subtle reminder that the power of Jewish media, money and
mischief is a force in America today, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice
president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish
Organizations, told the crowd: “The Jewish lobby is a myth. It’s our job
to make it a legend!”
Finally, he warned anybody who dared stand up to Israel and its supposedly mythical lobby: “Don’t bet against the Jews.”
Bibi: the 1967 lines are ‘Auschwitz Borders’ By Frank Dimant CEO, B’nai Brith Canada
Once again, the United States is applying significant pressure on
Israel to advance the Middle East peace process. Not satisfied with
Israel’s freeing of over a hundred Palestinian terrorists with blood on
their hands, Israel is called upon, once again, to accept the 1967
armistice lines, better known to informed Mideast observers as the
“Auschwitz Lines”, as the basis for a starting point to the peace talks.
Ceux
que le PDG de la B'nai Brith appelle "des observateurs informés", c-à-d
ceux qui qualifient les vieilles frontières israéliennes de 1967 de
"frontières d'Auschwitz", ce sont LES POLITICIENS ET ANALYSTES SIONISTES
ISRAÉLIENS LES PLUS EXTÉMISTES!
C'est connu dans la société israélienne que ceux qui tiennent ce
discours en Israël ce sont les politiciens les plus à droite (incluant
également plusieurs analystes qui se disent "de gauche" mais qui
suivent quand même les idées radicales pro-colonisation normalisées par
la droite).
Insider Tells the Truth About the Cover-up of the Attack on the USS Liberty
American Treachery in the Attack on the USS LIBERTY Much Deeper Than Previously Assumed
VIDEO - Israel’s deadly attack on USS Liberty emerges from the past
VIDEO - Gates and RY full interview
The Ugly Truth Broadcast June 10, 2013
In commemoration of Israel’s deliberate
and pre-meditated attack on the USS LIBERTY June 8, 1967, we offer here a
reading of the first 6 chapters of LIBERTY survivor Phil Tourney’s book
‘What I Saw That Day’
Youtube
Youtube
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM
The Ugly Truth Broadcast June 11, 2013
A continuation of the reading of USS LIBERTY survivor Phil Tourney’s book ‘What I Saw That Day’, chapters 7-12.
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM
The Ugly Truth Broadcast June 12, 2013
Continued reading from USS LIBERTY survivor Phil Tourney’s book ‘What I Saw That Day’Youtube
Download Here
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM
The Ugly Truth Broadcast June 15, 2013
Tonight–the latest ‘Obama is spying on
Americans’ scandal as an Israeli operation meant to pressure a reluctant
and recalcitrant American president into moving forward with the next
phase of Eretz Israel–the destruction of Syria. 2nd
hour–continued reading of USS LIBERTY survivor Phil Tourney’s book ‘What I Saw That Day’.
Youtube
Download Here
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM
The Propheter Principle June 28, 2013
Hour 1–WWZ–the new pro-Israel movie
meant to seduce Americans into further supporting the Jewish state and
all the wars being fought for her benefit.
Hour 2–the final reading from USS LIBERTY survivor Phil Tourney’s book ‘What I Saw That Day’.
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM
New Syria “CW Initiative”: But What About Israel’s Stockpile?
Israel’s chemical weapons under the spotlight
Report: CIA believes Israel acquired chemical weapons decades ago
Les groupes juifs fauteurs de guerres pour Israël craignent d'être reconnus pour ce qu'ils sont: des fauteurs de guerres pour Israël!
VIDEO - Greenwald contre les interventionnistes qui disent qu'il faut remplacer les "régimes théocratiques"
New Syria “CW Initiative”: But What About Israel’s Stockpile?
Israel’s chemical weapons under the spotlight
Report: CIA believes Israel acquired chemical weapons decades ago
Les groupes juifs fauteurs de guerres pour Israël craignent d'être reconnus pour ce qu'ils sont: des fauteurs de guerres pour Israël!
Un article de nouvelles retouché pas moins de neuf fois afin de cacher le rôle de l'AIPAC dans le lobbying pour la guerre contre la Syrie...
NYT excises AIPAC from Let’s Attack Syria story
September 2, 2013Passage removed, H/T Niqnaq:
Administration officials said the influential pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC was already at work pressing for military action against Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes US retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. House majority leader Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge Democrats’ traditional base among Jews. One administration official called AIPAC “the 800 lb gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying:
If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, we’re in trouble.
NewsDiffs reports that the article had no less than nine edits:
President Gains McCain’s Backing On Syria Attack (NYT), Change Log
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/syria.htmlBy JACKIE CALMES, MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITT | First archived on September 2, 2013, 1:18 p.m.
Related articles
- AIPAC is trying to stay out of sight, but it will be worth watching the CPMAJO’s daily alert (niqnaq.wordpress.com)
- Why Is the Israel Lobby Keeping Quiet on Syria Crisis? (alethonews.wordpress.com)
FLASHBACK 2007:
Jewish Groups Fear Public Backlash Over Iran
By Forward Staff
Published February 02, 2007, issue of February 02, 2007.
While Jewish communal leaders focus most of their
current lobbying efforts on pressing the United States to take a tough
line against Iran and its nuclear program, some are privately voicing
fears that they will be accused of driving America into a war with the
regime in Tehran.
In early advocacy efforts on the issue, Jewish organizations stressed the threat that a nuclear Iran would pose to Israel in light of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s calls to “wipe Israel off the map.”
Now, with concerns mounting that Israel and its supporters might be blamed for any military confrontation, Jewish groups are seeking to widen their argument, asserting that an Iranian nuclear bomb would threaten the West and endanger pro-American Sunni Muslim states in the region.
Jess Hordes, Washington director of the Anti-Defamation League, said that the strategy of broadening the case against Iran was not an attempt to divert attention from the threats to Israel. “It is a fact that Iran is a danger to the whole world,” Hordes said. “We are not just saying it to hide our concerns about Israel.”
Yet many advocacy efforts, even when not linked to Israel, carry indelibly Jewish fingerprints. Last week, Jewish groups claimed victory when the United Nations approved a resolution denouncing Holocaust denial, with Iran’s regime as the obvious target. Additionally, numerous Jewish activists are pressing in advertisements and Internet appeals for Ahmadinejad to be indicted in The Hague for incitement to genocide.
In warning of possible scapegoating, insiders point to the experience of the Iraq War. Since the initial invasion in 2003, antiwar groups have charged, with growing vehemence, that the war was promoted by Jewish groups acting in Israel’s interest — even though the invasion enjoyed bipartisan backing and popular support, and was not at the top of most Jewish organizations’ agendas. The Iraq backlash prompted former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to order in 2005 that his ministers keep a low profile on Iran.
Now, however, Jewish groups are indeed playing a lead role in pressing for a hard line on Iran. The campaign comes at a time when President Bush’s popularity has reached record lows and members of both parties are cautioning against a rush toward war.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, addressed the fears head-on last week in an address to Israel’s prestigious Herzliya Conference. Lamenting what he called “the poisoning of America,” Hoenlein painted a dire picture of American public discourse turning increasingly anti-Jewish and anti-Israel in the year ahead.
Hoenlein dated the trend to the 2005 arrest of two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, on charges of passing classified national security information. Hoenlein argued that the Jewish community made a major mistake by not forcefully criticizing the arrests. Speaking via video, Hoenlein listed several events that had occurred since then: the release of the essay criticizing the “Israel Lobby” by two distinguished professors, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer; the publication of former president Jimmy Carter’s best-selling book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”; the suggestion by former NATO supreme commander and Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark that “New York money people” were pushing America into war, and claims by former U.S. weapons inspector Scott Ritter that Israel is pushing the United States to attack Iran.
“In the beginning of the Iraq war they talked about the ‘neocons’ as a code word,” Hoenlein said. “Now we see that code words are no longer necessary.” He warned that the United States is nearing a situation similar to that of Britain, where delegitimization of Israel is widespread.
“This is a cancer that starts from the top and works its way down,” he said. “It poisons the opinions among elites which trickle down into society.”
According to Hoenlein, such critics tend not only to delegitimize Israel but also to “intimidate American Jews not to speak out.” He called on American Jews to take action against this phenomenon, saying that Christian Zionists seemed at times more willing than Jews to fight back.
Another instance of casting blame, less widely reported, was attributed to former secretary of state Colin Powell. In a new biography, by Washington Post writer Karen De Young, Powell is said to have put at least some of the blame for the Iraq war on Jewish groups. The book, “Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell,” claims that Powell used to refer to the pro-war advisers surrounding former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld as the “Jinsa crowd.” Jinsa is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a hawkish think tank that supported the Iraq war.
Thomas Neumann, Jinsa’s executive director, said he was not offended by Powell’s reference, although he was surprised that the former secretary of state would single out a Jewish group when naming those who supported the war. “I am not accusing Powell of anything, but these are words that the antisemites will use in the future,” Neumann said.
Whatever worries exist about a negative backlash over Israel, they have not deterred Jewish and pro-Israel activists from publicly pressing for tough U.S. action against Tehran or invoking concern for Israel.
A particularly forceful argument for a hard line against Iran appeared this week in The New Republic, a Washington insider journal widely viewed as a bellwether of pro-Israel opinion. The lengthy article, written by two respected Israeli writers, Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi, both fellows at the Shalem Center, a hawkish Jerusalem think tank, names Iran as the main threat to Israeli survival, regional stability and to the entire world order. This theme has been echoed in publications and press releases put out by most major Jewish groups, including Aipac and the Conference of Presidents.
In early advocacy efforts on the issue, Jewish organizations stressed the threat that a nuclear Iran would pose to Israel in light of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s calls to “wipe Israel off the map.”
Now, with concerns mounting that Israel and its supporters might be blamed for any military confrontation, Jewish groups are seeking to widen their argument, asserting that an Iranian nuclear bomb would threaten the West and endanger pro-American Sunni Muslim states in the region.
Jess Hordes, Washington director of the Anti-Defamation League, said that the strategy of broadening the case against Iran was not an attempt to divert attention from the threats to Israel. “It is a fact that Iran is a danger to the whole world,” Hordes said. “We are not just saying it to hide our concerns about Israel.”
Yet many advocacy efforts, even when not linked to Israel, carry indelibly Jewish fingerprints. Last week, Jewish groups claimed victory when the United Nations approved a resolution denouncing Holocaust denial, with Iran’s regime as the obvious target. Additionally, numerous Jewish activists are pressing in advertisements and Internet appeals for Ahmadinejad to be indicted in The Hague for incitement to genocide.
In warning of possible scapegoating, insiders point to the experience of the Iraq War. Since the initial invasion in 2003, antiwar groups have charged, with growing vehemence, that the war was promoted by Jewish groups acting in Israel’s interest — even though the invasion enjoyed bipartisan backing and popular support, and was not at the top of most Jewish organizations’ agendas. The Iraq backlash prompted former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to order in 2005 that his ministers keep a low profile on Iran.
Now, however, Jewish groups are indeed playing a lead role in pressing for a hard line on Iran. The campaign comes at a time when President Bush’s popularity has reached record lows and members of both parties are cautioning against a rush toward war.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, addressed the fears head-on last week in an address to Israel’s prestigious Herzliya Conference. Lamenting what he called “the poisoning of America,” Hoenlein painted a dire picture of American public discourse turning increasingly anti-Jewish and anti-Israel in the year ahead.
Hoenlein dated the trend to the 2005 arrest of two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, on charges of passing classified national security information. Hoenlein argued that the Jewish community made a major mistake by not forcefully criticizing the arrests. Speaking via video, Hoenlein listed several events that had occurred since then: the release of the essay criticizing the “Israel Lobby” by two distinguished professors, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer; the publication of former president Jimmy Carter’s best-selling book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”; the suggestion by former NATO supreme commander and Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark that “New York money people” were pushing America into war, and claims by former U.S. weapons inspector Scott Ritter that Israel is pushing the United States to attack Iran.
“In the beginning of the Iraq war they talked about the ‘neocons’ as a code word,” Hoenlein said. “Now we see that code words are no longer necessary.” He warned that the United States is nearing a situation similar to that of Britain, where delegitimization of Israel is widespread.
“This is a cancer that starts from the top and works its way down,” he said. “It poisons the opinions among elites which trickle down into society.”
According to Hoenlein, such critics tend not only to delegitimize Israel but also to “intimidate American Jews not to speak out.” He called on American Jews to take action against this phenomenon, saying that Christian Zionists seemed at times more willing than Jews to fight back.
Another instance of casting blame, less widely reported, was attributed to former secretary of state Colin Powell. In a new biography, by Washington Post writer Karen De Young, Powell is said to have put at least some of the blame for the Iraq war on Jewish groups. The book, “Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell,” claims that Powell used to refer to the pro-war advisers surrounding former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld as the “Jinsa crowd.” Jinsa is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a hawkish think tank that supported the Iraq war.
Thomas Neumann, Jinsa’s executive director, said he was not offended by Powell’s reference, although he was surprised that the former secretary of state would single out a Jewish group when naming those who supported the war. “I am not accusing Powell of anything, but these are words that the antisemites will use in the future,” Neumann said.
Whatever worries exist about a negative backlash over Israel, they have not deterred Jewish and pro-Israel activists from publicly pressing for tough U.S. action against Tehran or invoking concern for Israel.
A particularly forceful argument for a hard line against Iran appeared this week in The New Republic, a Washington insider journal widely viewed as a bellwether of pro-Israel opinion. The lengthy article, written by two respected Israeli writers, Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi, both fellows at the Shalem Center, a hawkish Jerusalem think tank, names Iran as the main threat to Israeli survival, regional stability and to the entire world order. This theme has been echoed in publications and press releases put out by most major Jewish groups, including Aipac and the Conference of Presidents.
FLASHBACK 2007:
Top Dem Wesley Clark Says ‘N.Y. Money People’ Pushing War With Iran
By Nathan Guttman
Published January 12, 2007, issue of January 12, 2007
The flap comes as Israeli politicians in the
government, as well as the opposition, have been lobbying more publicly
for an international hard line against Iran’s pursuit of nuclear
weapons. Until the middle of last year, Israel focused its efforts on
more behind-the-scenes international diplomacy, making its intelligence
information available to world powers in order to convince them that
Iran is becoming a growing threat to the entire region. Lately, Israel
decided to take the Iranian issue to the public arena, as well, making
it the leading issue on the agenda in public speeches and press
briefings.
(...)Clark made his alleged remarks to liberal blogger Arianna Huffington in response to a United Press International column by Arnaud de Borchgrave. The column described the efforts of Israeli opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud — to compare Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler, and the current geopolitical situation to pre-World War II Europe. The article quotes Netanyahu’s call to “immediately launch an intense, international, public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons.”
Netanyahu has positioned himself in recent months as a leading voice outside Israel, calling the world’s attention to the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb. Though as leader of the opposition he does not speak for the government, Israeli sources have said in recent weeks that Netanyahu’s approach is in line with the strategy of the Olmert government.
Huffington quoted Clark as saying that the idea of bombing Iran before exhausting diplomatic avenues was “outrageous.” According to Huffington, she then asked Clark what made him so sure that the United States is headed in the direction of attacking Iran, and he replied: “You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”
(...)Clark made his alleged remarks to liberal blogger Arianna Huffington in response to a United Press International column by Arnaud de Borchgrave. The column described the efforts of Israeli opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud — to compare Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler, and the current geopolitical situation to pre-World War II Europe. The article quotes Netanyahu’s call to “immediately launch an intense, international, public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons.”
Netanyahu has positioned himself in recent months as a leading voice outside Israel, calling the world’s attention to the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb. Though as leader of the opposition he does not speak for the government, Israeli sources have said in recent weeks that Netanyahu’s approach is in line with the strategy of the Olmert government.
Huffington quoted Clark as saying that the idea of bombing Iran before exhausting diplomatic avenues was “outrageous.” According to Huffington, she then asked Clark what made him so sure that the United States is headed in the direction of attacking Iran, and he replied: “You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”
Michael Collins Piper, The Golem
Chapter Twenty-Three
"New York Money People":
Jewish-Born American General
Points the Finger at the Warmongers
New
York money is not only playing a big part in 2008 presidential campaign
politics, but it's also a driving force behind the ongoing push by
pro-Israel fanatics at the highest levels of U.S. policy-making to force
the United States into a senseless war against Iran.
That's
the only conclusion that can be reached based on a survey of multiple
and wide-ranging news reports—circulating largely within publications in
Israel and in the American Jewish community—that have not been brought
to the attention of most Americans through the aegis of the so-called
"mainstream media."
It's almost as
if the major media in America is simply determined to prevent average
Americans from knowing that there are some people who believe that
Israel and its well-heeled backers in the United States are the primary
advocates for U.S. military action against Iran.
Perhaps
the most explosive comments in this regard came from Gen. Wesley Clark
(ret.), who was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination
in 2004 and who—until then, at least—was considered a likely candidate
for the Democratic nod in 2008. In an interview with columnist Arianna
Huffington, Clark said that he believed that the Bush administration is
determined to wage war against Iran. When asked why he believed this,
Clark said:
You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.
In
short, Clark was saying that powerful New York-based financial
interests (those whom he called "the New York money people") are putting
pressure on political candidates and incumbent politicians to support a
war against Iran.
In fact, Clark
was correct. Jewish community newspapers have indeed noted, time and
again over the past several years, that many in the American Jewish
community and in Israel are urging U.S. military action against Iran.
And in Israel, of course, the bellicose talk of Israel itself attacking
Iran is commonly and publicly discussed with free abandon. All of this
is little known to the American public.
Despite
this, Clark came under fire and was accused of "anti- Semitism" or
otherwise charged with lending credence to what are dismissed as
"anti-Israel and anti- Jewish conspiracy theories," which—Clark's angry
critics said—suggest that Israel and its supporters are prime movers
behind the drive for war.
Because
Clark is the son of a Jewish father (although he didn't know that until
several years ago, having been raised by a Christian mother and a
Christian step-father who never told Clark of his Jewish heritage), some
Jewish leaders were pulling their punches, recognizing that it sounded
somewhat outlandish to call Clark "anti-Jewish." But the word is
definitely out in the Jewish community: "Clark can't be trusted."
On
Jan. 12,2007, the New York-based Jewish newspaper, Forward, carried a
front-page story zinging Clark for his remarks, noting that,"The phrase
New York money people' struck unpleasant chords with many pro- Israel
activists. They interpreted it as referring to the Jewish community,
which is known for its significant financial donations to political
candidates."
The fact that Jewish
leaders and publications were attacking Clark for using the term "New
York money people" was ironic, inasmuch as just the week before the
furor over Clark's comments, the same Forward, in its own Jan. 5, 2007
issue, had a front-page story announcing that pro-Israel stalwart U.S.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had lined up significant financial support
for his own 2008 presidential campaign from those whom—in its own
headline—Forward called "New York money men."
In
that revealing article, describing McCain's "heavily Jewish finance
committee," Forward announced that, in recent weeks, "McCain has been
signaling that an attention to Jewish issues will remain on his agenda
as his campaign moves forward." The Jewish newspaper did not mention
whether McCain will direct any attention to Christian, Muslim, Buddhist
or Hindu issues—or any other issues of concern to other religious
groups.
The article in Forward made
it clear that support from these "New York money men" is critical in the
forthcoming presidential campaign and that it could be pivotal, whether
that money stays in McCain's camp or ultimately goes elsewhere.
This
information could prove a surprise to grass-roots Republicans all over
America who think (apparently incorrectly) that they are the ones who
actually pick their party's presidential nominee.
In
addition, in light of the fact that Jewish groups attacked Clark for
suggesting that "New York money people" were pressuring political
candidates to push for war against Iran, it is interesting to note that
Forward pointed out that one of the key "New York money men" supporting
McCain cited the issue of Iran as one of the reasons why he was boosting
the Arizona senator.
Dr. Ben
Chouake, who is president of the pro-Israel NORPAC, a political action
committee, and a member of McCain's finance committee, was cited as
having remarked that Iran is "an immense threat to the United States,
and this is an immense threat to Israel," and that "the person that is
the most capable, most experienced, most courageous to defend our
country, would be John McCain."
Clearly,
the "New York money people" are playing a major part in the American
political arena, throwing their weight behind who gets elected— and who
doesn't—and whether or not America goes to war.
That's something that Americans need to know about, but they had better not count on the mass media to tell them about it.
Nationalism, Not ‘Exceptionalism’ the Proper Course for America
by Michael Collins Piper
During the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney spoke of “American exceptionalism.”
The
rhetoric sounded patriotic. In reality, this is a modern-day propaganda
mask for old-fashioned Trostkyite communism: rapacious imperialism and
internationalism. Though wrapped in the American flag, there’s nothing
American about it.
Rather than standing for American nationalism,
this philosophy—quite the contrary—is a 21st century manifestation of
the age-old dream of a global government under the rule of an elite few.
Many call it the New World Order.
While some still fear the UN as
the mechanism advancing the agenda, the fact is that the would be rulers
of this global plantation now seek to utilize the U.S. as their vehicle
for achieving that end.
The grand wizards who conjured up American
exceptionalism are those infamous “neo-conservative” high priests of war
who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq and who now seek to contrive a
war against Iran. They crave U.S. military meddling all over the
world—not just in the Middle East.
Perhaps the foremost intellectual
proponent of this warmongering madness is Yale professor David
Gelernter. Defining “Americanism” as an incarnation of biblical Zionism
with “a divine mission to all mankind,” he says the United States is the
base of “American Zionism,” charged with a God-given duty to remake the
world.
“Americanism,” he asserts, is the “creed” of what is the
“fourth great Western religion,” the driving force behind—and which must
establish—a new planetary regime.
“We are the one and only biggest boy [in the world today],” he wrote. “If there is to be justice in the world, America must create it. . . .We must pursue justice, help the suffering and overthrow tyrants. We must spread the creed.”
Real
American nationalists reject the idea the United States should be the
world’s policeman. Instead, nationalists believe in developing and
strengthening their nation from within, maintaining the integrity of its
cultural heritage and sovereign borders, placing their own nation’s
interests first. Nationalists do not start wars of imperialism. They respect the nationalist instincts of others.
Michael Collins Piper
Une
fois l’Égypte ainsi disloquée et privée de pouvoir central, des pays
comme la Libye, le Soudan, et d’autres plus éloignés, connaîtront la
même dissolution. La formation d’un État copte en Haute-Égypte, et celle
de petites entités régionales de faible importance, est la clef d’un
développement historique actuellement retardé par l’accord de paix, mais
inéluctable à long terme.
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 États.
Les structures ethniques de la Syrie l’exposent à un démantèlement qui pourrait aboutir à la création d’un État chiite le long de la côte, d’un État sunnite dans la région d’Alep, d’un autre à Damas, et d’une entité druze qui pourrait souhaiter constituer son propre État —peut-être sur notre Golan— en tout cas avec l’Houran et le Nord de la Jordanie. (…) Un tel État 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. Une guerre syro-irakienne favoriserait son effondrement de l’intérieur, avant qu’il ne soit en mesure de se lancer dans un conflit d’envergure contre nous. Toute forme de confrontations inter-arabe nous sera utile et hâtera l’heure de cet éclatement. (…) Il est possible que la guerre actuelle contre l’Iran précipite ce phénomène de polarisation.
La Péninsule arabique toute entière est vouée à une dissolution du même genre, sous des pressions internes. C’est le cas en particulier de l’Arabie saoudite : l’aggravation des conflits intérieurs et la chute du régime sont dans la logique de ses structures politiques actuelles.
La Jordanie est un objectif stratégique dans l’immédiat. À long terme, elle ne constituera plus une menace pour nous après sa dissolution, la fin du règne de Hussein, et le transfert du pouvoir aux mains de la majorité palestinienne.
C’est à quoi doit tendre la politique israélienne. Ce changement signifiera la solution du problème de la rive occidentale, à forte densité de population arabe.
L’émigration de ces Arabes à l’Est —dans des conditions pacifiques ou à la suite d’une guerre— et le gel de leur croissance économique et démographique, sont les garanties des transformations à venir. Nous devons tout faire pour hâter ce processus.
Il faut rejeter le plan d’autonomie, et tout autre qui impliquerait un compromis ou une participation des territoires, et ferait obstacle à la séparation des deux nations : conditions indispensables d’une véritable coexistence pacifique.
Les Arabes israéliens doivent comprendre qu’ils ne pourront avoir de patrie qu’en Jordanie (…) et ne connaîtront de sécurité qu’en reconnaissant la souveraineté juive entre la mer et le Jourdain. (…) Il n’est plus possible, en cette entrée dans l’ère nucléaire, d’accepter que les trois quarts de la population juive se trouve concentrée sur un littoral surpeuplé et naturellement exposé ; la dispersion de cette population est un impératif majeur de notre politique intérieure. La Judée, la Samarie, et la Galilée, sont les seules garanties de notre survie nationale. Si nous ne devenons pas majoritaires dans les régions montagneuses, nous risquons de connaître le sort des Croisés, qui ont perdu ce pays.
Rééquilibrer la région sur le plan démographique, stratégique et économique, doit être notre principale ambition ; ceci comporte le contrôle des ressources en eau de la région qui va de Beer Sheba à la Haute-Galilée et qui est pratiquement vide de juifs aujourd’hui. »
Publié le 12/09/2013 à 12:03 par konigsberg
Extraits d’un article de la revue Kivounim (Orientation), publié par l’« Organisation Sioniste mondiale »
à Jérusalem (n° 14, février 1982). Ils présentent un plan de
démembrement des États arabes qui constitue la référence du projet de
« remodelage du Proche-Orient » de l’administration Bush.
Archives de février 1982
« La
reconquête du Sinaï, avec ses ressources actuelles, est un objectif
prioritaire que les accords de Camp David et les accords de paix
empêchaient jusqu’ici d’atteindre (…) Privés de pétrole et des revenus
qui en découlent, condamnés à d’énormes dépenses en ce domaine, il nous
faut impérativement agir pour retrouver la situation qui prévalait dans
le Sinaï avant la visite de Sadate et le malheureux accord signé avec
lui en 1979.
La
situation économique de l’Égypte, la nature de son régime, et sa
politique panarabe, vont déboucher sur une conjoncture telle qu’Israël
devra intervenir…
L’Égypte, du fait de ses conflits internes, ne représente plus pour nous un problème stratégique, et il serait possible, en moins de 24 heures, de la faire revenir à l’état où elle se trouvait après la guerre de juin 1967. Le mythe de l’Égypte « leader du monde arabe » est bien mort (…) et, face à Israël et au reste du monde arabe, elle a perdu 50% de sa puissance. À court terme, elle pourra tirer avantage de la restitution du Sinaï, mais cela ne changera pas fondamentalement le rapport de force. En tant que corps centralisé, l’Égypte 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.
L’Égypte, du fait de ses conflits internes, ne représente plus pour nous un problème stratégique, et il serait possible, en moins de 24 heures, de la faire revenir à l’état où elle se trouvait après la guerre de juin 1967. Le mythe de l’Égypte « leader du monde arabe » est bien mort (…) et, face à Israël et au reste du monde arabe, elle a perdu 50% de sa puissance. À court terme, elle pourra tirer avantage de la restitution du Sinaï, mais cela ne changera pas fondamentalement le rapport de force. En tant que corps centralisé, l’Égypte 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’Égypte ainsi disloquée et privée de pouvoir central, des pays
comme la Libye, le Soudan, et d’autres plus éloignés, connaîtront la
même dissolution. La formation d’un État copte en Haute-Égypte, et celle
de petites entités régionales de faible importance, est la clef d’un
développement historique actuellement retardé par l’accord de paix, mais
inéluctable à long terme.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 États.
Les structures ethniques de la Syrie l’exposent à un démantèlement qui pourrait aboutir à la création d’un État chiite le long de la côte, d’un État sunnite dans la région d’Alep, d’un autre à Damas, et d’une entité druze qui pourrait souhaiter constituer son propre État —peut-être sur notre Golan— en tout cas avec l’Houran et le Nord de la Jordanie. (…) Un tel État 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. Une guerre syro-irakienne favoriserait son effondrement de l’intérieur, avant qu’il ne soit en mesure de se lancer dans un conflit d’envergure contre nous. Toute forme de confrontations inter-arabe nous sera utile et hâtera l’heure de cet éclatement. (…) Il est possible que la guerre actuelle contre l’Iran précipite ce phénomène de polarisation.
La Péninsule arabique toute entière est vouée à une dissolution du même genre, sous des pressions internes. C’est le cas en particulier de l’Arabie saoudite : l’aggravation des conflits intérieurs et la chute du régime sont dans la logique de ses structures politiques actuelles.
La Jordanie est un objectif stratégique dans l’immédiat. À long terme, elle ne constituera plus une menace pour nous après sa dissolution, la fin du règne de Hussein, et le transfert du pouvoir aux mains de la majorité palestinienne.
C’est à quoi doit tendre la politique israélienne. Ce changement signifiera la solution du problème de la rive occidentale, à forte densité de population arabe.
L’émigration de ces Arabes à l’Est —dans des conditions pacifiques ou à la suite d’une guerre— et le gel de leur croissance économique et démographique, sont les garanties des transformations à venir. Nous devons tout faire pour hâter ce processus.
Il faut rejeter le plan d’autonomie, et tout autre qui impliquerait un compromis ou une participation des territoires, et ferait obstacle à la séparation des deux nations : conditions indispensables d’une véritable coexistence pacifique.
Les Arabes israéliens doivent comprendre qu’ils ne pourront avoir de patrie qu’en Jordanie (…) et ne connaîtront de sécurité qu’en reconnaissant la souveraineté juive entre la mer et le Jourdain. (…) Il n’est plus possible, en cette entrée dans l’ère nucléaire, d’accepter que les trois quarts de la population juive se trouve concentrée sur un littoral surpeuplé et naturellement exposé ; la dispersion de cette population est un impératif majeur de notre politique intérieure. La Judée, la Samarie, et la Galilée, sont les seules garanties de notre survie nationale. Si nous ne devenons pas majoritaires dans les régions montagneuses, nous risquons de connaître le sort des Croisés, qui ont perdu ce pays.
Rééquilibrer la région sur le plan démographique, stratégique et économique, doit être notre principale ambition ; ceci comporte le contrôle des ressources en eau de la région qui va de Beer Sheba à la Haute-Galilée et qui est pratiquement vide de juifs aujourd’hui. »
par Hélios
Michael Ledeen: Un néoconservateur adepte de la théorie du « Grand Moyen-Orient »
Aujourd'hui,
il est l'un des plus ardents défenseurs de la doctrine Bush et de la
théorie du Grand Moyen-Orient, partisan de renverser non seulement le
régime irakien du dictateur Saddam Hussein, mais aussi les régimes
d'Iran, de la Syrie, voire de l'Arabie saoudite (ou du moins l'empêcher
de "financer le terrorisme").
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen
The War Against the Terror Masters, by Michael Ledeen, 2003, p.212-213
(neocon ideologue trying to sell the lie of American Exceptionalism to justify more wars for Israel!) 
'CREATIVE DESTRUCTION' OF THE ARAB WORLD
(Excerpt from THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR, by Michael Collins Piper)
Lest anyone chalk up these comments to "Arab paranoia,"
or "anti-Israel bigotry," note that one of Israel's most
consequential advocates in official Washington — veteran pro-Israel intelligence
community bureaucrat Michael Ledeen, a longtime close friend and associate
of Richard Perle — has put out a propaganda screed titled The War
Against the Terror Masters in which he writes of what he calls "creative
destruction."
Ledeen says that this "creative destruction" is
"entirely in keeping with American character and the American tradition" —
an assertion that will surprise many Americans. Ledeen says that Iraq, Syria,
Saudi Arabia and — for good measure — the non-Arabic Islamic Republic of
Iran — should all be targets of "creative destruction" by
U.S. military might.
"Creative destruction," writes Ledeen, is
"our middle name," — the term "our" referring to Americans, whether or not
they share his imperialist views. According to Ledeen:
"We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law.Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence — our existence, not our policies — threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
While his rhetoric is stilted and ponderous, what Ledeen is
promoting is the idea that it is not U.S. support for Israel that
engenders Arab hatred for the United States. Instead, he claims, it is the
very existence of the United States — the "American way of life" —
that inflames Arab passions. (What utter lies! What nonsense!)
Yet, these words are the propaganda line of the Israeli
lobby which hopes to distract the attention of the American people away
from the causes of Arab hostility to the United States stemming from
unswerving U.S. support for Israel. Ledeen goes on to suggest that
anyone who stands in opposition to all-out war against the Arab world
needs to be removed from positions of authority. He writes:
The president has to rid himself of those officials who failed to lead their agencies effectively, along with those who lack the political will to wage war against the terror masters.The top people in the intelligence community need to be replaced, and those military leaders who tell the president that it can't be done, or they just aren't ready, or we need to do something else first, should be replaced as well, along with the people in the national security community who insisted that we must solve the Arab-Israeli question before the war can resume and the top people in agencies like the FAA, the INS, and so forth.'
In fact, aside from other political considerations,
President George W. Bush had good personal reason to do the bidding of the
hard-line hawks in promoting their imperial schemes on behalf of Israel.
In the Feb. 1992 edition of The Washington Report on Middle
East Affairs, former Rep. Paul Findley (R-Ill.) revealed that in
1991 former Israeli intelligence officer Victor Ostrovsky had blown the
whistle on a plot by a right-wing faction within Israel's Mossad to kill
then-President George H. W. Bush who was perceived as a threat to Israel.
After Ostrovsky provided the details to another former
member of Congress, Pete McCloskey (R-Calif.), McCloskey conveyed a
warning to the U.S. Secret Service. In his 1994 book, The Other Side of
Deception, Ostrovsky revealed the specifics of what he had learned of
the plot: the Mossad planned to assassinate Bush during an international
conference in Madrid.
The Mossad had captured three Palestinian
"extremists" and leaked word to the Spanish police that the terrorists were on their
way to Madrid. The plan was to kill Bush, release the "assassins"
in the midst of the confusion — and kill the Palestinians on the spot. The crime
would be blamed on the Palestinians — another Mossad "false flag."[...]
U.S. should be the world’s policeman
When there is no effective alternative, democratic countries have an ethical and humanitarian duty to threaten to use military force and, if there is no other option, to actually use it.
U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc., September 21, 2013.
Photo by AFP
The United States should not be the world's policeman, or so U.S. President Barack Obama
argued in his address to the nation on September 10, in which he
explained his position on military intervention in the Syrian civil war.
The president is wrong. In light of the history and doctrine of the use
of force and military intervention, the United States, along with other
enlightened democracies in possession of military might, should and
must be the world's policeman.
The horrors of World War II taught us certain lessons. One led to the formation of the United Nations, for the purpose of preserving world peace and creating a mechanism for dialogue among states. Another resulted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which eventually gave rise to binding international treaties meant to protect human rights. But some questions remain: Do the lofty goals that inspired the establishment of the United Nations mean that the international community has a duty to intervene and raise the alarm in the event of the commission of war crimes or the use of weapons of mass destruction? (...)
It is legitimate to question whether intervention might lead to international escalation. Nevertheless, isolationism in cases where intervention is a moral necessity is supposed to be a thing of the past, of a time when states did not want to get bogged down in distant countries even in the event of war crimes. If this attitude becomes prevalent once again, it will be to the detriment of the entire world. It goes without saying that diplomacy, itself a form of intervention, is preferable as long as it is effective and not a kind of Munich Pact, as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry noted in reference to Syria.
At the end of the day, America, together with other strong democratic countries, is indeed supposed to be the world's policeman - insofar as it is acting on behalf of the fundamental principles on which the United Nations was founded, even when political exigencies preclude obtaining UN approval. When there is no effective alternative or pressure must be exerted to kick-start diplomacy, democratic countries have an ethical and humanitarian duty to threaten to use military force and, if there is no other option, to actually use it. Proportionally, of course, but also effectively, in compliance with the two leading criteria of military law.
The writer is a former legal adviser to the Defense Ministry.
The horrors of World War II taught us certain lessons. One led to the formation of the United Nations, for the purpose of preserving world peace and creating a mechanism for dialogue among states. Another resulted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which eventually gave rise to binding international treaties meant to protect human rights. But some questions remain: Do the lofty goals that inspired the establishment of the United Nations mean that the international community has a duty to intervene and raise the alarm in the event of the commission of war crimes or the use of weapons of mass destruction? (...)
It is legitimate to question whether intervention might lead to international escalation. Nevertheless, isolationism in cases where intervention is a moral necessity is supposed to be a thing of the past, of a time when states did not want to get bogged down in distant countries even in the event of war crimes. If this attitude becomes prevalent once again, it will be to the detriment of the entire world. It goes without saying that diplomacy, itself a form of intervention, is preferable as long as it is effective and not a kind of Munich Pact, as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry noted in reference to Syria.
At the end of the day, America, together with other strong democratic countries, is indeed supposed to be the world's policeman - insofar as it is acting on behalf of the fundamental principles on which the United Nations was founded, even when political exigencies preclude obtaining UN approval. When there is no effective alternative or pressure must be exerted to kick-start diplomacy, democratic countries have an ethical and humanitarian duty to threaten to use military force and, if there is no other option, to actually use it. Proportionally, of course, but also effectively, in compliance with the two leading criteria of military law.
http://www.haaretz.com/culture/books/.premium-1.548974
Who was the most pro-Jewish U.S. president? Woodrow Wilson, obviously
A new biography of the 28th American president depicts him as an idealist Democrat whose moral and political influence still reverberates today. Haaretz talks to its author, A. Scott Berg.
(...)
Obama's
address included more than faint echoes of another principled Democrat
intent on transforming American society and the world beyond it: Woodrow
Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, and the man who led
his country into the First World War.
(...)
However, in A. Scott Berg's biography, "Wilson" (Putnam Press), the book's namesake emerges as a formidable statesman, one who has influenced the decision-making of every American president since his tenure.
Berg, the Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Charles Lindbergh and Hollywood producer Samuel Goldwyn, sat down with Haaretz to discuss Wilson's legacy and its effect on modern politics and the Obama administration's policies – and why Wilson is what he calls the most pro-Jewish president in American history.
Why is the Wilson presidency so relevant to the Obama presidency?
"Wilson is the father of America's modern foreign policy. For 125 years, the U.S. was an introverted nation that clung on to its isolationism. Wilson posed the question: What is America's role in the world? And the answer he gave, in his speech to Congress on April 2, 1917, asking the legislature to declare war on Germany, was that it is America's duty to ensure "the world must be safe for democracy." This credo has been espoused, for good and bad, by every president since Wilson, most recently by Barack Obama.
"Wilson was the most idealistic of America's presidents. He spoke often and eloquently about America's moral obligation. He wed idealism with interventionism. He urged his countrymen to fight preemptively for principles, instead of retaliating for attacks against them. And he obliged the U.S. to assist all peoples in pursuit of freedom and self-determination. Obama has fully embraced this moralism, most recently, when he sought congressional approval to punish Syria for its deadly use of chemical weapons. In fact, listening to his speech [on Syria], I thought Obama's ideas and phraseology were ripped right out of Wilson's playbook."
(...)
In late 1917, the British Government asked President Wilson to support a declaration of sympathy with the Zionist movement.
"And he did. Wilson supported the Balfour Declaration – 'the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.' He did so despite the advice of his most trusted confidante, Col. Edward House, who acted as America's first national security adviser. You must remember that, at the time, the U.S. was an extremely anti-Semitic country,so expressing support for the Balfour Declaration was a very courageous act.
"Wilson was the most Christian president the U.S. has ever had. He was the son and grandson of Presbyterian ministers; he prayed on his knees twice a day and read the Bible every night. But he was also the most pro-Jewish president the U.S. has ever had. He appointed the first Jew to the Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, a fervent Zionist, who counseled Wilson about the Balfour Declaration, and who would go on to champion an individual's right to privacy and free speech. He brought the financier Bernard Baruch into government, and he appointed Henry Morgenthau as the ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the First World War.
"Earlier, as president of Princeton University, Wilson appointed the first Jew to the faculty, and as governor of New Jersey, prior to becoming president, he appointed the first Jew to the state's Supreme Court."
Historic Defense Cuts
However, in A. Scott Berg's biography, "Wilson" (Putnam Press), the book's namesake emerges as a formidable statesman, one who has influenced the decision-making of every American president since his tenure.
Berg, the Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of Charles Lindbergh and Hollywood producer Samuel Goldwyn, sat down with Haaretz to discuss Wilson's legacy and its effect on modern politics and the Obama administration's policies – and why Wilson is what he calls the most pro-Jewish president in American history.
Why is the Wilson presidency so relevant to the Obama presidency?
"Wilson is the father of America's modern foreign policy. For 125 years, the U.S. was an introverted nation that clung on to its isolationism. Wilson posed the question: What is America's role in the world? And the answer he gave, in his speech to Congress on April 2, 1917, asking the legislature to declare war on Germany, was that it is America's duty to ensure "the world must be safe for democracy." This credo has been espoused, for good and bad, by every president since Wilson, most recently by Barack Obama.
"Wilson was the most idealistic of America's presidents. He spoke often and eloquently about America's moral obligation. He wed idealism with interventionism. He urged his countrymen to fight preemptively for principles, instead of retaliating for attacks against them. And he obliged the U.S. to assist all peoples in pursuit of freedom and self-determination. Obama has fully embraced this moralism, most recently, when he sought congressional approval to punish Syria for its deadly use of chemical weapons. In fact, listening to his speech [on Syria], I thought Obama's ideas and phraseology were ripped right out of Wilson's playbook."
(...)
In late 1917, the British Government asked President Wilson to support a declaration of sympathy with the Zionist movement.
"And he did. Wilson supported the Balfour Declaration – 'the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.' He did so despite the advice of his most trusted confidante, Col. Edward House, who acted as America's first national security adviser. You must remember that, at the time, the U.S. was an extremely anti-Semitic country,so expressing support for the Balfour Declaration was a very courageous act.
"Wilson was the most Christian president the U.S. has ever had. He was the son and grandson of Presbyterian ministers; he prayed on his knees twice a day and read the Bible every night. But he was also the most pro-Jewish president the U.S. has ever had. He appointed the first Jew to the Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, a fervent Zionist, who counseled Wilson about the Balfour Declaration, and who would go on to champion an individual's right to privacy and free speech. He brought the financier Bernard Baruch into government, and he appointed Henry Morgenthau as the ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the First World War.
"Earlier, as president of Princeton University, Wilson appointed the first Jew to the faculty, and as governor of New Jersey, prior to becoming president, he appointed the first Jew to the state's Supreme Court."
Historic Defense Cuts
"Countries
in the Middle East will likely think about following the recent example
of the Egyptian government in moving closer to Russia at the
expense of their ties to the United States. Israel’s neighbors, in
addition to the Palestinians and Hizbullah, will make what they will of
an America no longer able to provide Israel with the kind of qualitative and quantitative military backing the Israelis and their enemies have come to take for granted. (...) But equally at issue here is the kind of robust presence the U.S. will maintain around the world, as well as the responses the military would be able to muster given any number of potential crises. (...) But we cannot help but be uneasy with a White House that seems to be signaling a weariness with America’s traditional role in the world and a wish to unburden itself of the responsibilities of leadership. "
Bref, l'article se termine sur la peur des juifs que les USA abandonnent leur rôle de POLICE MONDIALE...AMERICAN FREE PRESS
Obama Should Listen to Harry Elmer Barnes
by Paul Craig Roberts
Does President Barack Obama realize that he is leading the U.S. and its puppet states to war with Russia and China, or is Obama being manipulated into this disaster by his neoconservative speechwriters and government officials? World War I was the result of the ambitions and mistakes of a small number of people. Only one head of state was actually involved—the president of France.
In 1926, historian Harry Elmer Barnes* wrote that WWI was the product of four or five people.
Three stand out: President of France Raymond Poincaré, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Sazonov and Russian Ambassador to France Alexander Izvolski. Poincaré wanted Alsace-Lorraine from Germany, and the Russians wanted Istanbul and the Bosphorus Strait, which connects the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. They realized that their ambitions required a general European war and worked to produce the desired war.
Barnes’s reward for confronting the corrupt court historians with the truth was to be accused of being paid by Germany to write his history. Eighty-six years later historian Christopher Clark in his book The Sleepwalkers** comes to essentially the same conclusion as Barnes.
In the history I was taught the war was blamed on Germany for challenging British naval supremacy
by building too many battleships. The court historians who gave us this tale helped to set up World War II.
We are again on the road to world war. One hundred years ago the creation of a world war by a few had to be done under the cover of deception. Germany had to be caught off guard. The British had to be manipulated and, of course, people in all the countries involved had to be propagandized and brainwashed.
Today the drive to war is blatantly obvious. The lies are obvious, and the entire West is participating, both media and governments.
Obama, or his handlers and programmers, are relying on the total historical ignorance of Western peoples. The ignorance and gullibility of Western peoples allows the American neoconservatives to fashion “news” that controls their minds.
Washington is the government that invaded and destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq on the basis of lies.
Washington is the government that financed and organized the overthrow of the Libyan and Honduran governments and that is currently attempting to do the same thing to Syria and Venezuela. Washington is the government that attacks with drones and bombs populations in the sovereign countries of Pakistan and Yemen. Washington is the government that has troops all over Africa. Washington is the government that has surrounded Russia, China and Iran with military bases. It is this warmongering collection of Washington war criminals that now asserts that it is standing up for international ideals against Russia.
The position of the government in Washington and its puppet states (Eastern andWestern Europe, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Georgia, Japan) and other allies purchased with bagfuls of money is that Washington’s violation of international law by torturing people, by invading sovereign countries on totally false pretenses, by routinely overthrowing democratically elected governments that do not toe the Washington line, is nothing but the “indispensable and exceptional country” bringing “freedom and democracy to the world.” But Russia’s acceptance of the self-determination of Crimean people to return to their home country is “a violation of international law.”
Just what international law has Washington, D.C. and its puppets not violated?
Who can possibly believe that Obama, whose government is responsible for the deaths of people every day in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya and Syria, cares a whit about democracy in Ukraine?
—— *For a sample copy of the magazine dedicated to the memory and work of Harry Elmer Barnes, please send a request to TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. Also available: Who Started WWI by Dr. Barnes. Softcover, 64-page booklet. $11 ppd. in U.S. Order fromabove address or call TBR toll free at 1-877-773-9077 to charge. Add $17 outside U.S. You can also pick the booklet up at www.BarnesReview.com.
**The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 (softcover, 697 pages, #683, $20 minus 10% for TBR subscribers plus $5 S&H inside the U.S.) is available from TBR BOOK CLUB at the above address.
Call 1-877-773-9077 toll free. NOTE: Expect delivery in 2-4 weeks.
——
Paul Craig Roberts is a former assistant undersecretary of the U.S. Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He is the author of many books including The Tyranny of Good Intentions, Alienation and the Soviet Economy, How the Economy Was Lost and others
Special Subscription offer from Willis A. Carto, TBR publisher:
We are so pleased to see that columnist Paul Craig Roberts is aware of the work of historian Harry Elmer Barnes, the man I named my history journal after back in 1994. If you will subscribe to THE BARNES REVIEW magazine for one year at $46 (U.S. offer) fromthis ad, I will authorize the staff to send you a free copy of Dr. Barnes’s booklet Who Started World War I: An Unbiased Analysis of the Mitigating Factors of World War I. We’ll start your subscription out with the first two issues of this year, January/February (“In Defense of Adolf Hitler”) and March/April (The Gunpowder Plot: 17th-Century False Flag?”). You’ll get four more issues this year—the May/June through November/December issues, as they come off the presses. Order by calling 1-877-773-9077 toll free. Mention you saw the ad in the April 14, 2014 issue [#15] of AFP and I’ll also send you a free copy of my booklet on World War II! Note: Each TBR issue is 64 pages of factual, politically incorrect information.
Michael Collins Piper, The
Caiaphas Complex---An Unsettling, Unexpurgated Exploration of the Dark
Side of the Power Structure That Misrules Our World Today, p. 199-212:
Michael Collins Piper, YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH
(...)
Sur ce blog:
L'utilisation d'armes chimiques en Syrie pourrait être un false flag israélien, selon l'ancien chef de cabinet de Colin Powell sous l'administration Bush
Al-Qaïda et Israël (Joe Lieberman): même combat contre la Syrie
John McCain et les leçons de la Libye: "Bombardez la Syrie!"
McCain et Lieberman: "bombardez la Libye"
Pourim 2011 (19 et 20 mars) et l'attaque atlanto-sioniste en Libye
L'American Jewish Committee derrière les mensonges humanitaires qui ont rendu possible la guerre en Libye
Un esclave des Bronfman-Rothschild, John McCain, menace Poutine: "Cher Vlad, le #printemps arabe s'en vient dans un quartier près de chez vous"
La soif de sang frénétique de John McCain: après la mort de Kadhafi, les "dictateurs" comme Assad, Poutine, les Chinois doivent avoir peur...
McCain Family Secret : Cover Up of the USS Liberty Attack
Nader tackles McCain on Most Covered Up Event in US History
Les médias cachent les liens de McCain avec le crime organisé
John McCain: représentant par excellence des intérêts d'Israël
The Jewish Crew That Helped Pave the Way to John McCain’s Nomination
Rabbin: La guerre en Irak n'était pas seulement pour Israël. ... mais aussi pour la paix dans le monde!
La guerre en Irak était une célébration de Pourim
Ron Paul explique le non-interventionnisme dans les affaires étrangères
Michael Scheuer explique le non-interventionnisme
