Les groupes juifs fauteurs de guerres pour Israël ont peur d'être reconnus pour ce qu'ils sont: des fauteurs de guerres pour Israël!
Un article de nouvelles du NY Times a été retouché pas moins de neuf fois afin de cacher le rôle de l'AIPAC dans le lobbying pour une guerre occidentale contre la Syrie pour les intérêts d'Israël (en vue de leurs plans de guerre contre l'Iran):
blogues.lapresse.ca/hetu/2013/09/03/la-syrie-laipac-et-le-ny-times/
Le blog de Richard Hétu:
Mardi 3 septembre 2013 | Mise en ligne à 11h03
La Syrie, l’AIPAC et le New York Times
Hier soir, plus de 48 heures après l’annonce de la décision
inattendue de Barack Obama de demander l’autorisation du Congrès avant de donner le feu vert à des frappes sur des cibles syriennes, le New York Times a publié ces deux paragraphes sur son site, comme on peut le constater dans une première version parue dans le Boston Globe :
Des responsables de l’administration disent que l’influent lobby pro-israélien AIPAC était déjà à pied d’oeuvre afin de faire la promotion d’une action militaire contre le gouvernement de M. Assad, craignant que si la Syrie échappe à un châtiment américain pour son utilisation d’armes chimiques, l’Iran pourrait être enhardie à l’avenir à attaquer Israël. À la Chambre (des représentants), le chef de la majorité (républicaine), Eric Cantor, l’unique juif républicain au Congrès, s’efforce depuis longtemps à ébranler l’appui traditionnel des démocrates auprès des juifs.
Un responsable de l’administration, qui a requis l’anonymat pour parler de la stratégie de la Maison-Blanche, a qualifié l’AIPAC de «gorille de 800 livres dans la pièce».
Comme le relève MJ Rosenberg dans ce billet, les deux paragraphes ont disparu dans une version ultérieure publiée dans le Times. Reste à voir si la disparition des allusions à l’AIPAC relève d’une décision éditoriale du Times ou découle de pressions exercées par la Maison-Blanche ou l’AIPAC.
Quoi qu’il en soit, Barack Obama a prédit
qu’il obtiendrait l’appui du Congrès ce matin avant de rencontrer les dirigeants de la Chambre à la Maison-Blanche. Il a également insisté sur la nature limitée de l’intervention éventuelle en Syrie.
«Ce n’est pas l’Irak. Ce n’est pas l’Afghanistan. Ce que nous envisageons est quelque chose de limité. C’est quelque chose de proportionné. Cela affaiblira les capacités d’Assad», a dit le président.
NYT excises AIPAC from Let’s Attack Syria story
September 2, 2013 Passage 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
By JACKIE CALMES, MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITT | First archived on September 2, 2013, 1:18 p.m.
- 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)
POLITICO - N.Y. Times scraps AIPAC from Syria story
New York Times Deletes This Paragraph In Which White House Says AIPAC Is Key To War
‘NYT’ deletes references to AIPAC’s role in pushing strike on Syria
Syria and AIPAC: The “800-pound Gorilla in the Room”
Voyez ce qui reste après les coupures:
NY TIMES - Crisis in Syria: President Seeks to Rally Support for Syria Strike
Published: September 1, 2013
One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee “the 800-pound 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 catastrophic use of chemical weapons — “we’re in trouble.”
Mise à jour mars 2014:
John McCain Thanks AIPAC for Supporting Military Intervention in Syria
Assad aide: Israel sent undercover troops to Syria
Mise à jour 19 septembre 2013:
In public shift, Israel calls for Assad’s fall
Israel passait pour un couard qui pousse les autres en guerre à sa place. Maintenant, ils prennent l'avant-scène et affichent publiquement leur rôle de fauteurs de guerres en Syrie, après que la plupart des groupes juifs se soient retirés de cette campagne. On moins les choses seront claires: Israel est l'acteur principal derrière la campagne pro-guerre contre Assad et la Syrie.
Mise à jour 16 septembre 2013:
Lobbying affiché des groupes juifs pour une guerre en Syrie: ils ont peur que ça leur retombe sur le nez:
AIPAC: Stop Lobbying for a US-Syria Attack!
Le discours de l'Aipac sur la Syrie n'aide pas Israel
Apparemment: ils ont même décidé de tout arrêter... en apparence en tout cas:
With deal struck, pro-Israel groups suspend lobbying for Syria strike
Pro-Israel groups embrace a U.S.-Russia deal on Syria after a launching a full-throttled lobbying push for a military strike.
L'AIPAC, le plus puissant lobby israélien aux États-Unis (qui, comme l'ADL, n'est pas inscrit, alors que la loi l'exige, au registre des lobbys étrangers), ose s'afficher comme un fauteur de guerres occidentales en Syrie et en Iran... Et ce, la veille de Roch Hachana, soit la fête du Jour du Jugement contre les méchants (antisémites)...
dimanche 8 septembre 2013
AIPAC
POLITICO.COM - L’AIPAC presse le Congrès d’accorder au Président le pouvoir qu’il a sollicité
mercredi 4 septembre 2013 - 11h:35 Jonathan Allen – Politico.com
« L’AIPAC presse le Congrès d’accorder au Président le pouvoir qu’il a demandé pour la protection de la sécurité nationale de l’Amérique et dissuader le régime syrien contre d’autres utilisations d’armes non conventionnelles. Le monde civilisé ne peut tolérer l’usage de ces armes barbares, particulièrement contre une population innocente incluant des centaines d’enfants », écrit le groupe dans un communiqué publié mardi après-midi. « En deux mots, il ne doit être donné aucun laissez-passer à la barbarie ».(...)
« Les alliés de l’Amérique, comme ses adversaires, examinent de près en ce moment quel résultat aura ce vote capital. Cette décision cruciale intervient à un moment où l’Iran court après la capacité nucléaire » écrit l’AIPAC. « Le rejet de cette résolution affaiblirait la crédibilité de notre pays à empêcher l’utilisation et la prolifération des armes non conventionnelles et ainsi, de mettre grandement en danger la sécurité et les intérêts de notre pays et ceux de nos alliés régionaux ».
Syrie/Guerre: A qui profite le crime?
Le grand dilemme étasunien. Faut-il sacrifier la Syrie ou Israël ?
Obama va faire une guerre “sioniste” en Syrie (Analyste) Par Press TV
L’AIPAC en faveur de l’intervention en Syrie
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roch_Hachana
Date 2013: du soir du 4 au soir du 6 septembre
VIDEO - L'AIPAC, lobby pro israélien aux USA, appelle à la guerre à la SYRIE
Date 2013: du soir du 4 au soir du 6 septembre
VIDEO - L'AIPAC, lobby pro israélien aux USA, appelle à la guerre à la SYRIE
dimanche 8 septembre 2013
AIPAC
L’AIPAC est sorti de son silence en appelant le congrès à voter en
faveur d’une résolution donnant au président Obama le droit d'intervenir
en Syrie, démontrant qu'Israël désire la chute du régime de Bachar
el-Assad afin de fortifier sa position dans la région.
Les sionistes ont pris l'habitude d'utiliser les peuples parmi lesquels ils vivent pour mener les guerres qu'ils fomentent, comme ce fut le cas pour l'Irak, l'Afghanistan, ou si l'on remonte plus loin la prise de Jérusalem par les Anglais en 1917, accompagnée de la déclaration Balfour pour établir un foyer national Juif en Palestine.
Les sionistes ont pris l'habitude d'utiliser les peuples parmi lesquels ils vivent pour mener les guerres qu'ils fomentent, comme ce fut le cas pour l'Irak, l'Afghanistan, ou si l'on remonte plus loin la prise de Jérusalem par les Anglais en 1917, accompagnée de la déclaration Balfour pour établir un foyer national Juif en Palestine.
POLITICO.COM - L’AIPAC presse le Congrès d’accorder au Président le pouvoir qu’il a sollicité
mercredi 4 septembre 2013 - 11h:35 Jonathan Allen – Politico.com
« L’AIPAC presse le Congrès d’accorder au Président le pouvoir qu’il a demandé pour la protection de la sécurité nationale de l’Amérique et dissuader le régime syrien contre d’autres utilisations d’armes non conventionnelles. Le monde civilisé ne peut tolérer l’usage de ces armes barbares, particulièrement contre une population innocente incluant des centaines d’enfants », écrit le groupe dans un communiqué publié mardi après-midi. « En deux mots, il ne doit être donné aucun laissez-passer à la barbarie ».(...)
« Les alliés de l’Amérique, comme ses adversaires, examinent de près en ce moment quel résultat aura ce vote capital. Cette décision cruciale intervient à un moment où l’Iran court après la capacité nucléaire » écrit l’AIPAC. « Le rejet de cette résolution affaiblirait la crédibilité de notre pays à empêcher l’utilisation et la prolifération des armes non conventionnelles et ainsi, de mettre grandement en danger la sécurité et les intérêts de notre pays et ceux de nos alliés régionaux ».
Syrie/Guerre: A qui profite le crime?
IRIB-
» en fin de semaine dernière, l’AIPAC(American Israel Public Affairs
Comittie) a décidé de mettre ouvertement son influence au service de
Barack Obama et de son projet de frappe contre le régime de Bachar El
Assad – Nous préparons une opération massive de lobbying impliquant 250
activistes qui vont aller à la rencontre des sénateurs et des
représentants – pour les convaincre de soutenir une intervention en
Syrie.Souvenons nous que c’est souvent grâce au pognon du groupe de
pression en question que les sénateurs et autres représentants du peuple
américains sont élus. En France pas besoin d’AIPAC, ils sont au
gouvernement.
Le grand dilemme étasunien. Faut-il sacrifier la Syrie ou Israël ?
Obama va faire une guerre “sioniste” en Syrie (Analyste) Par Press TV
L’AIPAC en faveur de l’intervention en Syrie
JTA - Initial reluctance gone, AIPAC makes big push on Syria response
TIMES OF ISRAEL - Israeli policy statement supports Obama on Syria
Jewish Supremacists Openly Support War against Syria; Admit that “Jewish Lobbying” Reason for Iraq War
JERUSALEM POST - AIPAC says they support US strike on Syria: Influential US pro-Israel groups remained quiet on the topic to avoid being seen as rooting for the United States to go to war.
HAARETZ - U.S. Jewish groups call on Congress to approve use of force against Syria’s Assad: U.S. Ambassador Oren states Israeli support for Obama’s claim that Syria must 'international consequences.' Foxman: Our people’s experience with gas mandates Jewish-moral response.
The American Jewish establishment jumped off the fence on Tuesday and came out in full support of Congressional approval of President Barack Obama’s plans to launch a military strike against Syria’s chemical weapon capacity.
And Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren took the unusual step of expressing support for elements of President Obama's statements on Syria, including his assertion that the Assad regime must be held accountable and that there should be “international consequences” for his use of chemical weapons.
The sudden unified burst of support for Obama’s request for Congressional authorization for a strike against Syria follows almost two weeks in which Jewish organizations have maintained a low profile on the August 21 chemical attack near Damascus and the American response to it.
Jewish leaders told Haaretz that the public support expressed in the past two days by leading Republican figures such as Representatives John Boehner and Eric Cantor, as well as the qualified backing shown by Senator John McCain, allayed concerns that the Jewish groups would be accused of taking sides in a political feud between the two parties. “The dynamics changed overnight,” one source said.
The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations said in a
statement that “failing to take action would damage the credibility of
the U.S. and negatively impact the effort to prevent Iran from achieving
a nuclear weapons capacity.”
The
American Jewish Committee sent a letter to all members of Congress
expressing support for Obama’s request for “limited military action”
against Syria and warning that “acquiescence in the face of the crimes
evidently committed by the Assad regime would doubtless have
wide-ranging consequences for U.S. interests and influence in the Middle
East and around the world.”
The
pro-Israel lobby AIPAC urged Congress to “grant the president the
authority to protect America’s security interests.” The lobby’s
statement said that “barbarism on a mass scale must not be given a free
pass.” And sources said that AIPAC would henceforth lobby Congress to
support the use of force against Bahar Al-Assad.
The
Anti-Defamation League went a step further, lauding Obama’s
“demonstration of U.S. leadership” and calling on Congress to “swiftly
add its voice to hold Assad accountable for the wanton slaughter of his
own citizens.”
ADL
National Director Abe Foxman told Haaretz that from a “moral
perspective” there was “nothing to debate” because of “our own people’s
experience with gas.” In addition, he said, the threat to America’s
national security interests in the Middle East, in which Israel has such
a high stake, “go above and beyond any political consideration.”
Malcolm
Hoenlein, Executive Vice President of the Conference of Presidents,
said yesterday that the statement reflects the “general consensus” of
the American Jewish organizations. He said that some organizations
expressed concerns about taking sides in a political battle, but that
briefings by the Administration helped to forge the Conference’s
statement, which reflects the “middle ground” of various Jewish
opinions.
The
sources said that their support also stemmed from conversations with
Israeli leaders who expressed concern about the negative ramifications
of a Congressional veto on Obama’s proposals both for Israel and for
America’ standing in the Middle East.
ISRAEL YNETNEWS - AIPAC to lobby Congress for Syria strike
AIPAC to deploy hundreds of lobbyists to push for Syria action: Pro-Israel lobby says 250 activists will meet with their senators and representatives in Washington in a bid to win support Congressional support for military action in Syria.
AIPAC Plans “All-Out” Push for Syria Vote as 250 Activists Descend on Capitol Hill
JERUSALEM POST - Report: AIPAC to mount major lobbying blitz for Obama's Syria strike plan: Politico: Lobby to campaign for resolution as the measure to attack Syria was thus far failing to muster sufficient support in House.
Jewish Lobby’s War Incitment Faces First and Historic Defeat as AIPAC Admits “Challenges”
Defeating AIPAC Starts with Syria
TIMES OF ISRAEL - AIPAC admits it got little traction on Syria vote, but stands by push
‘AIPAC must be kept for consensus issues only’: Israeli diplomat slams Israel lobby for engaging on Syria “It is not wise, it is not correct, it is excessive,” said the diplomatic source, “Israel is too often viewed as a country that drags the United States into conflicts and wars. Such a modus operandi should only be employed when we have no choice, and only with regards to a strategic issue that is vital to the very existence of Israel. The fate of the Syrian regime is no such issue.”
JTA - Don’t blame the Jews, Israel edition (and what’s up with that Alon Pinkas quote?) Last week I slapped up a post arguing that even though Jewish groups support action against Syria, it would be a mistake to suggest that they are out front on this issue. Well, on Monday Israeli newspapers reported that President Obama had asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to lobby Congress. And now The New York Times has a report on Israel’s concerns that it will get blamed for U.S. involvement in another Middle East conflict — especially with AIPAC hitting Capitol Hill on Tuesday to press lawmakers to back the president’s call for a strike on Syria.
POLITICO - AIPAC to go all-out on Syria
AIPAC, Defense Contractors Promise to Go ‘All-Out’ Pushing Syria War
AIPAC in Full Court Press on Syria
AIPAC to push Congress to authorize US strikes against Syria
AIPAC comes out for strike on Syria– and mentions Iran more often than Syria
How AIPAC works your Congressperson– using donors, rabbis, and Jewish members The reason Israel (and its lobby) are going all out to push the United States to attack Syria is as a precedent for a much larger attack on Iran.
AIPAC’s Huge Blunder (What If It Loses Syria Vote?)
On Syria, AIPAC, The 800 Pound Gorilla, Risks Looking Like A Chimp!
THE JEWISH WEEK - Jewish Leaders Push Back On ‘Warmonger’ Accusation
‘We have a dog in this fight,’ they say in supporting Obama on Syria strike.
AIPAC Sets Out To Defeat Obama on Iran
AIPAC's Next Fight AIPAC has launched a new drive to frame the debate on the emerging diplomatic thaw with Iran. Will the lobbying group’s abortive push for a strike on Syria undercut the effort?
AIPAC gears up for war with Obama
Jewish Supremacists Try to Deflect Attention away from Their Demands for New War
Selling War: White House Says Attack Will ‘Protect Israel’ Attack Might Conceivably Intimidate Iran
TIMES OF ISRAEL US is ‘floundering’ over Syria, says ex-Mossad chief
JERUSALEM POST - 'High price for WMD use will deter other leaders weighing attack on Israel' Former MI chief Yadlin says a US strike on Syria will reinstate American deterrence in the region and will dissuade other leaders contemplating an unconventional attack on Israel; argues it is vital for Israel that "Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis" not win in Syria.
JPOST- Pro-Israel groups in United States scramble to save Syria strike resolution
Top Israeli Intelligence Chief Confirms Israeli Interest in Toppling Syrian Government Institute for National Security Studies, Amos Yadlin has confirmed in a new study paper that it is “vital for Israel” that the Syrian government be toppled.
Lindsey Graham–’If we don’t attack Syria, Iran will nuke us’
Pro-Israel groups mix Iran into Syria debate
US Jewish leaders petition Congress to authorise Syria strike Change.org petition evokes memories of Holocaust and urges leaders to act to deter future atrocities in 'Syria and elsewhere'
JTA - Jewish groups back Obama on Syria, but downplay Israel angle
Increasingly Desperate Jewish Lobby Openly Plays “Support Israel” Card against Syria
Ambassador Oren: Israel has wanted Assad ousted since Syria war began
JTA - Rabbis urge Congress to back Obama on Syria
[Jewish Neocon PNAC King] Kristol : Is President Obama going wobbly on Syria?
Pro-Israel, warmongering Zionist Jew Sen. Carl Levin– ‘Public opinion can’t guide decision on striking Syria’s Assad’
JTA - Republican Jewish Coalition endorses Obama’s Syria call In forcefully backing the president’s call for a strike on Syria, the Republican Jewish Coalition goes against its partisan instincts in two ways.
"As a Jew," Wasserman Schultz invokes Holocaust in making case for bombing Syria
BLOOMBERG - Lobbying on Syria has inspired coalitions of the unlikely, aligning President Barack Obama with Sheldon Adelson, the Republican billionaire who spent about $70 million trying to defeat him last year, in the push for a military response to the use of chemical weapons
Jewish Supremacy’s “Israel First and Only” Policy Revealed as Adelson backs Obama Jewish Supremacist and casino billionaire Sammy Adelson–who poured $53 million into Mitt Romney’s...
American Jews Push Obama to War
AFP WEB EXCLUSIVE: Syria, Just Another War For Israel
No More War for Israel? The People Against the 800 Pound Gorilla
TIMES OF ISRAEL - US Senators McCain, Graham: Cannot imagine worse signal to send to Iran
VIDEO - American support for Syrian rebels: Israeli defense chiefs in Washington to discuss Syria options Toujours ces experts sionistes israéliens pour nous envoyer dans le bourbier... Experts aussi pour nous empêcher de sortir de ce bourbier dans lequel ils nous empêtrent.
Tel Aviv regime backs Syria militants
London "terrorism experts" have strong links to Israeli establishment
Israelis Flying Aid to Syrian Rebels Under the Cover of Humanitarianism
Charles Krauthammer (Jew from Montreal) says "incompitent" not to attack Syria immediately
'Expert' US analyst on Syria cited by McCain and Kerry fired for being a complete fraud
WSJ PRO WAR op-ed writer Elizabeth O’Bagy fired for resume lie
Kerry and McCain’s Fake PhD Syria ‘Expert’ O’Bagy is Neocon and Israeli-linked Operative
How to Start a War
The woman whose Wall Street Journal article was cited by Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during congressional hearings about Syria and the prospects for a U.S. attack was recently fired from her job at the Institute for the Study of War for lying about having a Ph.D. from Georgetown, reported Politico. In her article, researcher Elizabeth O’Bagy made the case for attacking the Syrian government, because she alleged it had committed atrocities against its own people. According to Politico, Ms. O’Bagy has also failed to disclose her connections to the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a pro-rebel advocacy group. (American Free Press, Sept. 17, 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
Syrian “Intelligence” Dubious and of Israeli Origin, warn Analysts
Dubious Intelligence and Iran Blackmail: How Israel is driving the US to war in Syria
Ex-UK Envoy: US Deceived by Mossad’s Fabricated Intelligence on Syria
Le rôle d’Israël dans l’annonce de l’attaque contre la Syrie
Voltairenet: Israel’s role in the announcement of the attack against Syria
Israeli intelligence 'intercepted Syrian regime talk about chemical attack' Information passed to US by Israeli Defence Forces' 8200 unit, former official tells magazine
Obama’s ‘source’ on Syrian gas attack–Israel’s Unit 8200
Former CIA Analyst Exposes Jewish Supremacist Syrian War Lobbyists Historian and former CIA Intelligence Officer and analyst Michael Scheuer has openly identified the Jewish...
Syrie: pour la presse, la guerre d'Irak rattrape les dirigeants occidentaux - L'EXPRESS
"Nous sommes entrés en guerre cinq fois en 20 ans au Moyen-Orient pour sauver des vies musulmanes, et à chaque fois que nous le faisons nous ne recevons rien d'autre que de l'ingratitude en retour"
— Jonah Goldberg, Fox News.
VIDEO - Mark Glenn on Press TV: Al-Qaeda–a US and Israeli tool to further Greater Israel Project
Syria opposition leader praises Benjamin Netanyahu ÇA C'EST UN NOUVEAU CLASSIQUE!
Benjamin Netanyahu Tells AIPAC To Put Its Head In a Noose
Israel Support to Al Qaeda Rebels: New Free Syrian Army (FSA) Commander Trained in Israel
Seven Israelis in Syria OPCW Chemical Weapons Team?
‘Syria army confiscates Israeli-made missiles’
New Syria “CW Initiative”: But What About Israel’s Stockpile?
Israel worried it may be pushed to join chemical weapons ban
If Syria is scrutinized over chemical weapons, so must Israel
Zionists Panic as Assad Move Outsmarts them on Chemical Weapons
HAARETZ - Israel adamant it won't ratify chemical arms treaty before hostile neighbors
Talk of deal to eliminate Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons sends jitters through Jerusalem; will Israel be next?
With Moscow and Washington now discussing a diplomatic deal that would rid Syria of its chemical weapons, officials in Jerusalem are preparing for the possibility that Israel will be asked to submit to supervision of the chemical weapons that foreign reports say it possesses.
In the past few days, Foreign Ministry officials note, senior Russian officials have repeatedly drawn a connection between Syria’s chemical weapons and Israel’s military capabilities. President Vladimir Putin, for instance, told Russian media outlets that Syria’s chemical weapons exist as a response to Israel’s military capabilities, while Russia’s ambassador to Paris told Radio France that Syria’s chemical weapons were meant to preserve its balance of deterrence against Israel, “which has nuclear weapons.”
Israel signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993, but never ratified it. Consequently, it hasn’t agreed to submit itself to international inspections or to refrain from steps that would violate the convention.
Syria, which has one of the largest chemical weapons arsenals in the world, has never even signed the convention, nor has Egypt, which also has a chemical weapons program. Iran, which suffered chemical weapons attacks from Iraq during their war in the 1980s, signed the convention in 1993 and ratified it in 1997. Nevertheless, senior figures at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem claim that Iran secretly maintains a large stash of chemical weapons.
Both Syria and Egypt used Israel as their excuse for not signing the convention. In various international forums over the years, Syrian and Egyptian officials have said their countries would agree to sign only if Israel signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and opened its nuclear reactor in Dimona to international inspectors.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told Haaretz on Wednesday that Israel would not ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention as long as other states in the region with chemical weapons refuse to recognize Israel and threaten to destroy it.
“Unfortunately, while Israel signed the convention, other countries in the Middle East, including those that have used chemical weapons recently or in the past, or are believed to be working to improve their chemical capabilities, have failed to follow suit and have indicated that their position would remain unchanged even if Israel ratifies the convention,” Palmor said in a written statement. “Some of these states don't recognize Israel's right to exist and blatantly call to annihilate it. In this context, the chemical weapons threat against Israel and its civilian population is neither theoretical nor distant. Terror organizations, acting as proxies for certain regional states, similarly pose a chemical weapons threat. These threats cannot be ignored by Israel, in the assessment of possible ratification of the convention.”
Despite not having ratified the convention, Israel does have observer status at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that monitors the convention’s implementation, and participates in many of its meetings.
In early 2010, then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman sent a letter to the OPWC’s director general saying that Israel was interested in increasing its cooperation with the organization. But he also stressed that Israel wouldn’t sign the convention until it has signed peace treaties with all its neighbors and is no longer threatened by its neighbors’ chemical weapons.
U.S. State Department cables leaked to WikiLeaks reveal that the American administration held lengthy talks with Israel about the possibility of ratifying the convention, including at a February 2007 meeting in Jerusalem between senior State Department officials and their Israeli counterparts.
An American cable summing up the meeting said that U.S. officials urged the Israelis to move forward on this issue, stressing that Israel is one of only five countries that haven’t yet ratified the convention, with the others being North Korea, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
Alon Bar, then director of the Foreign Ministry’s arms control department, responded that Israel signed the convention in the early 1990s, when the peace process was at its height, and that since then, the situation had changed.
Israel’s chemical weapons policy is overseen by a Defense Ministry panel comprising about 20 senior representatives from the defense establishment and the intelligence community. The committee was established in 1991, dismantled in 2007 and reconstituted in 2009. It meets every few months, but in recent years it has spent very little time discussing chemical weapons.
Israel Adamant it won’t Ratify Chemical Arms Treaty as Hypocrisy abounds on Syria
YNETNEWS ISRAEL - Assad: Israel should be first to disarm
TIMES OF ISRAEL Assad says US must stop military threats, and Israel must sign WMD treaties
Des documents de la CIA révèlent des réserves israéliennes d’armes chimiques
Israel’s chemical weapons under the spotlight
JERUSALEM POST Report: CIA believes Israel acquired chemical weapons decades ago
Israel's Chemical Weapons Stockpile Highlights Western Hypocrisy
Israel’s Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons Threaten World Peace
La condamnation par les États-Unis de l’usage des armes chimiques ne s’applique pas à Israël
U.S. media suppressed 2009 UN report showing Israel using chemical weapons against Palestinians
Russia: UN inspectors ignored evidence on Syria chemical attacks
Putin: Syria’s chemical arms are response to Israel’s alleged nukes
UN shoots down Arab push to condemn Israeli nuclear policy
Et si on parlait des stocks d’armes chimiques en Israël ?
Un document de la CIA récemment découvert révèle qu’Israël a mis aussi en place son propre arsenal d’armes chimiques
Des documents de la CIA révèlent des réserves israéliennes d’armes chimiques
Israel amassing WMD due to US backing
Israel's History of Chemical Weapons Use
Israel keeps mum on its chemical weapons
Israel Silent on Chemical Weapons
Les armes secrètes nucléaires, biologiques et chimiques d’Israël
Poutine : "Israël n’a pas besoin de l’arme nucléaire"
NYTimes Op-Ed Never Appeared in US Edition - Let’s Be Honest About Israel’s Nukes
Egypt foreign minister calls for a nuclear-free Middle East
A “Nuclear-Free Zone” in the Middle East? Why Israel will not Join the Non-Proliferation Treaty
WMD Double Standards: 51 UN Member States Vote to Keep Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal Hidden from Public View
Le secret des gaz israéliens Ce sont les recherches israéliennes sur les armes chimiques et biologiques qui ont poussé historiquement la Syrie à rejeter la Convention interdisant les armes chimiques. C’est pourquoi la signature par Damas de ce document risque de mettre en lumière l’existence, et éventuellement la poursuite, de recherches sur des armes sélectives destinées à tuer les seules populations arabes.
BLOOMBERG - Lobbying on Syria has inspired coalitions of the unlikely, aligning President Barack Obama with Sheldon Adelson, the Republican billionaire who spent about $70 million trying to defeat him last year, in the push for a military response to the use of chemical weapons
Jewish Supremacy’s “Israel First and Only” Policy Revealed as Adelson backs Obama Jewish Supremacist and casino billionaire Sammy Adelson–who poured $53 million into Mitt Romney’s...
American Jews Push Obama to War
AFP WEB EXCLUSIVE: Syria, Just Another War For Israel
No More War for Israel? The People Against the 800 Pound Gorilla
TIMES OF ISRAEL - US Senators McCain, Graham: Cannot imagine worse signal to send to Iran
VIDEO - American support for Syrian rebels: Israeli defense chiefs in Washington to discuss Syria options Toujours ces experts sionistes israéliens pour nous envoyer dans le bourbier... Experts aussi pour nous empêcher de sortir de ce bourbier dans lequel ils nous empêtrent.
Tel Aviv regime backs Syria militants
London "terrorism experts" have strong links to Israeli establishment
Israelis Flying Aid to Syrian Rebels Under the Cover of Humanitarianism
Charles Krauthammer (Jew from Montreal) says "incompitent" not to attack Syria immediately
'Expert' US analyst on Syria cited by McCain and Kerry fired for being a complete fraud
WSJ PRO WAR op-ed writer Elizabeth O’Bagy fired for resume lie
Kerry and McCain’s Fake PhD Syria ‘Expert’ O’Bagy is Neocon and Israeli-linked Operative
How to Start a War
The woman whose Wall Street Journal article was cited by Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during congressional hearings about Syria and the prospects for a U.S. attack was recently fired from her job at the Institute for the Study of War for lying about having a Ph.D. from Georgetown, reported Politico. In her article, researcher Elizabeth O’Bagy made the case for attacking the Syrian government, because she alleged it had committed atrocities against its own people. According to Politico, Ms. O’Bagy has also failed to disclose her connections to the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a pro-rebel advocacy group. (American Free Press, Sept. 17, 2013)
‘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
Syrian “Intelligence” Dubious and of Israeli Origin, warn Analysts
Dubious Intelligence and Iran Blackmail: How Israel is driving the US to war in Syria
Ex-UK Envoy: US Deceived by Mossad’s Fabricated Intelligence on Syria
Le rôle d’Israël dans l’annonce de l’attaque contre la Syrie
Voltairenet: Israel’s role in the announcement of the attack against Syria
Israeli intelligence 'intercepted Syrian regime talk about chemical attack' Information passed to US by Israeli Defence Forces' 8200 unit, former official tells magazine
Obama’s ‘source’ on Syrian gas attack–Israel’s Unit 8200
Former CIA Analyst Exposes Jewish Supremacist Syrian War Lobbyists Historian and former CIA Intelligence Officer and analyst Michael Scheuer has openly identified the Jewish...
Syrie: pour la presse, la guerre d'Irak rattrape les dirigeants occidentaux - L'EXPRESS
"Nous sommes entrés en guerre cinq fois en 20 ans au Moyen-Orient pour sauver des vies musulmanes, et à chaque fois que nous le faisons nous ne recevons rien d'autre que de l'ingratitude en retour"
— Jonah Goldberg, Fox News.
VIDEO - Mark Glenn on Press TV: Al-Qaeda–a US and Israeli tool to further Greater Israel Project
Syria opposition leader praises Benjamin Netanyahu ÇA C'EST UN NOUVEAU CLASSIQUE!
Benjamin Netanyahu Tells AIPAC To Put Its Head In a Noose
Israel Support to Al Qaeda Rebels: New Free Syrian Army (FSA) Commander Trained in Israel
Seven Israelis in Syria OPCW Chemical Weapons Team?
‘Syria army confiscates Israeli-made missiles’
New Syria “CW Initiative”: But What About Israel’s Stockpile?
Israel worried it may be pushed to join chemical weapons ban
If Syria is scrutinized over chemical weapons, so must Israel
Zionists Panic as Assad Move Outsmarts them on Chemical Weapons
HAARETZ - Israel adamant it won't ratify chemical arms treaty before hostile neighbors
Talk of deal to eliminate Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons sends jitters through Jerusalem; will Israel be next?
With Moscow and Washington now discussing a diplomatic deal that would rid Syria of its chemical weapons, officials in Jerusalem are preparing for the possibility that Israel will be asked to submit to supervision of the chemical weapons that foreign reports say it possesses.
In the past few days, Foreign Ministry officials note, senior Russian officials have repeatedly drawn a connection between Syria’s chemical weapons and Israel’s military capabilities. President Vladimir Putin, for instance, told Russian media outlets that Syria’s chemical weapons exist as a response to Israel’s military capabilities, while Russia’s ambassador to Paris told Radio France that Syria’s chemical weapons were meant to preserve its balance of deterrence against Israel, “which has nuclear weapons.”
Israel signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993, but never ratified it. Consequently, it hasn’t agreed to submit itself to international inspections or to refrain from steps that would violate the convention.
Syria, which has one of the largest chemical weapons arsenals in the world, has never even signed the convention, nor has Egypt, which also has a chemical weapons program. Iran, which suffered chemical weapons attacks from Iraq during their war in the 1980s, signed the convention in 1993 and ratified it in 1997. Nevertheless, senior figures at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem claim that Iran secretly maintains a large stash of chemical weapons.
Both Syria and Egypt used Israel as their excuse for not signing the convention. In various international forums over the years, Syrian and Egyptian officials have said their countries would agree to sign only if Israel signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and opened its nuclear reactor in Dimona to international inspectors.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told Haaretz on Wednesday that Israel would not ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention as long as other states in the region with chemical weapons refuse to recognize Israel and threaten to destroy it.
“Unfortunately, while Israel signed the convention, other countries in the Middle East, including those that have used chemical weapons recently or in the past, or are believed to be working to improve their chemical capabilities, have failed to follow suit and have indicated that their position would remain unchanged even if Israel ratifies the convention,” Palmor said in a written statement. “Some of these states don't recognize Israel's right to exist and blatantly call to annihilate it. In this context, the chemical weapons threat against Israel and its civilian population is neither theoretical nor distant. Terror organizations, acting as proxies for certain regional states, similarly pose a chemical weapons threat. These threats cannot be ignored by Israel, in the assessment of possible ratification of the convention.”
Despite not having ratified the convention, Israel does have observer status at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that monitors the convention’s implementation, and participates in many of its meetings.
In early 2010, then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman sent a letter to the OPWC’s director general saying that Israel was interested in increasing its cooperation with the organization. But he also stressed that Israel wouldn’t sign the convention until it has signed peace treaties with all its neighbors and is no longer threatened by its neighbors’ chemical weapons.
U.S. State Department cables leaked to WikiLeaks reveal that the American administration held lengthy talks with Israel about the possibility of ratifying the convention, including at a February 2007 meeting in Jerusalem between senior State Department officials and their Israeli counterparts.
An American cable summing up the meeting said that U.S. officials urged the Israelis to move forward on this issue, stressing that Israel is one of only five countries that haven’t yet ratified the convention, with the others being North Korea, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
Alon Bar, then director of the Foreign Ministry’s arms control department, responded that Israel signed the convention in the early 1990s, when the peace process was at its height, and that since then, the situation had changed.
Israel’s chemical weapons policy is overseen by a Defense Ministry panel comprising about 20 senior representatives from the defense establishment and the intelligence community. The committee was established in 1991, dismantled in 2007 and reconstituted in 2009. It meets every few months, but in recent years it has spent very little time discussing chemical weapons.
Israel Adamant it won’t Ratify Chemical Arms Treaty as Hypocrisy abounds on Syria
YNETNEWS ISRAEL - Assad: Israel should be first to disarm
TIMES OF ISRAEL Assad says US must stop military threats, and Israel must sign WMD treaties
Des documents de la CIA révèlent des réserves israéliennes d’armes chimiques
Israel’s chemical weapons under the spotlight
JERUSALEM POST Report: CIA believes Israel acquired chemical weapons decades ago
Israel's Chemical Weapons Stockpile Highlights Western Hypocrisy
Israel’s Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons Threaten World Peace
La condamnation par les États-Unis de l’usage des armes chimiques ne s’applique pas à Israël
U.S. media suppressed 2009 UN report showing Israel using chemical weapons against Palestinians
Russia: UN inspectors ignored evidence on Syria chemical attacks
Putin: Syria’s chemical arms are response to Israel’s alleged nukes
UN shoots down Arab push to condemn Israeli nuclear policy
Et si on parlait des stocks d’armes chimiques en Israël ?
Un document de la CIA récemment découvert révèle qu’Israël a mis aussi en place son propre arsenal d’armes chimiques
Des documents de la CIA révèlent des réserves israéliennes d’armes chimiques
Israel amassing WMD due to US backing
Israel's History of Chemical Weapons Use
Israel keeps mum on its chemical weapons
Israel Silent on Chemical Weapons
Les armes secrètes nucléaires, biologiques et chimiques d’Israël
Poutine : "Israël n’a pas besoin de l’arme nucléaire"
NYTimes Op-Ed Never Appeared in US Edition - Let’s Be Honest About Israel’s Nukes
Egypt foreign minister calls for a nuclear-free Middle East
A “Nuclear-Free Zone” in the Middle East? Why Israel will not Join the Non-Proliferation Treaty
WMD Double Standards: 51 UN Member States Vote to Keep Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal Hidden from Public View
Le secret des gaz israéliens Ce sont les recherches israéliennes sur les armes chimiques et biologiques qui ont poussé historiquement la Syrie à rejeter la Convention interdisant les armes chimiques. C’est pourquoi la signature par Damas de ce document risque de mettre en lumière l’existence, et éventuellement la poursuite, de recherches sur des armes sélectives destinées à tuer les seules populations arabes.
Reid compares Assad’s attacks to Nazi gas chambers Senate majority leader tries to drum up support in Congress for American military actions against Syria
British PM cites Holocaust as a reason for military action in Syria
U.S.: Singling out Israel at UN would harm efforts for nuclear-free Middle East
En fait c'est précisément l'inverse qui est vrai: s'attarder sur le cas d'Israel est la clé pour faire du Moyen-orient une zone sans nucléaire! Car c'était précisément à cause de l'Arsenal nucléaire israélien que les pays voisins ont senti la nécessité de se procurer des armes chimiques!
U.S. media suppressed 2009 UN report showing Israel using chemical weapons against Palestinians Obama ignores Israel's chemical weapons abuse while targeting Syria
‘Should there be a need’: The inside story of Israel’s chemical and biological arsenal
Haaretz - Israel should be more than Yad Vashem with an air force
Ten
years after the Israel Air Force flyby over Auschwitz, the awareness of
the Holocaust and the dread of its recurrence are consciously and
deliberately blended into the air force's policy, and into the IDF and
defense establishment's policy in general.(...)
The great value that senior air force officers attribute to the
Auschwitz flyby - whose photographs were distributed to every air force
squadron commander and base commander - points to the Gordian knot
between the Holocaust trauma and the perception of security and army in
Israel. This knot has been preserved to this day. The people in charge
of the attacks in Syria and Lebanon (according to foreign sources) and
of preparing the air force for a future attack in Iran, see the
September 2003 flyby as one of the most important flights of their
lives.
This
means that the awareness of the Holocaust and the dread of its
recurrence are consciously and deliberately blended into the air force's
policy, and into the IDF and defense establishment's policy in general.
At the same time, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frequently compares
the Iranian nuclear threat to the murderous outcome of the Nazis' rule,
and warns time and again that the Jewish people can trust no one but
themselves to prevent another tragedy of the Holocaust's proportions.
Journalist
Thomas Friedman wrote years ago that "Israel is Yad Vashem with an air
force." Not only is this provocative statement not denied by Israel's
policy makers and military top brass, it is defiantly adopted by them.
Israel
today is a strong, independent entity that has been accepted by the
international community. The Holocaust's memory is a historical
obligation, a monument to human brutality that must not be forgotten.
But it cannot constitute a strategic or security consideration that
statesmen and army chiefs must deal with today. They must outline
Israel's strategy and its diplomatic and military way, while focusing on its future and on the needs of its people, who want to live not as
captives of past traumas.
It's perfectly legitimate for Israel to recognize the Holocaust as a key
factor in formulating its defense policy, despite the liberal polemics
seeking a 'post-Holocaust' Israel
Israeli students at Auschwitz in May.
Many
years ago, I asked a senior French official to explain the strategic
logic of France's independent nuclear capacity, its force de frappe.
The Soviet Union, after all, had immeasurably greater and more powerful
nuclear capacities. There was no question of mutual destruction or
mutual deterrence.
I will never
forget his gobsmacking reply. "Our force de frappe's not aimed at
Russia; it's aimed at Germany." The previous century had been an intermittent saga of Franco-German wars, he continued, all of them the results of German militarism and aggression. Even though they were allies and partners now (with West Germany), France still needed to keep its guard up.
[C'est un paradigme évident quand on sait qui détient le pouvoir en France.]
In other words, its recent historical experience was the basis for a central part of France's defense policy.
And that was sans a Holocaust. There had "just" been bombing, shelling, invasion, trench warfare, tank warfare, and periods of occupation.
What's wrong with that? Why should a nation not rest its policy upon its recent collective experience? I ask this in connection with the latest welling up of 'anti-Holocaust' sentiment among the Israeli intelligentsia following interviews in Haaretz with top Air Force officers who took part in the symbolic fly-past over Auschwitz exactly ten years ago. IAF Commander Amir Eshel said he considered that fly-past, by three F-15s which he led, the flight of his life. Photographs of the IAF planes over the notorious – and notoriously unbombed – rail lines adorn many military and civilian offices in Israel's governing establishment. Men like Eshel keep mementos of that fly-past with them as they contemplate and plan today a possible strike in Syria or a possible strike in Iran.
All this seriously worries liberal opinion. In Haaretz's own editorial two weeks ago, "Israel today is a strong, independent entity that has been accepted by the international community. The Holocaust's memory is a historical obligation, a monument to human brutality that must not be forgotten. But it cannot constitute a strategic or security consideration that statesmen and army chiefs must deal with today. They must outline Israel's strategy and its diplomatic and military way, while focusing on its future and on the needs of its people, who want to live not as captives of past traumas."
Arguably though, what's wrong is not the IAF's memorable demonstration a decade ago nor Eshel's legitimate and proud memory of it, but rather the unremitting inability of left-liberal Israelis to assimilate the Holocaust into their Zionist ethos – and hence into our national history and policy. The Yishuv, they insisted before and after 1939, comprised New Jews, to be distinguished, if not dissociated, from the millions writhing under Hitler's jackboot. If Rommel defeated the British and swept through Egypt, they would fight him from the Carmel (…!)
This sad and complex reaction, which had ramifications beyond the establishment of the State in 1948, has been amply documented and debated by some of our best historians.
Later, Menachem Begin's incessant rhetorical hyperbole exploiting the Holocaust achieved precisely the opposite effect than he intended, at least among left-liberal opinion. His tasteless analogies – Arafat in Beirut to Hitler in Berlin for instance – triggered an almost instinctive spurning of any Holocaust analogy as demagogic and devaluing.
But arguably this instinctive reaction has itself become polemic and hyperbolic. Such reactions become outright irrationality when Prime Minister Netanyahu proclaimed his own Holocaust analogy, pointing out that Iran, pursuing the Bomb, was threatening to incinerate Israel and was denying the Holocaust.
This, of course, is the sub-text of the criticism of Eshel and the other IAF generals. They are accused, in effect, of reinforcing Netanyahu's analogy by referring back to their dramatic fly-past over Auschwitz.
Well, it certainly works with me. Whenever I see that photograph of the IAF at Auschwitz my eyes tear. When I saw on Mossad Chief Meir Dagan's wall, next to the government's instructions to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, the photograph of his grandfather, on his knees, about to be shot, the tears flowed.
Granted, as Haaretz asserts, Israelis "want to live not as captives of past traumas." But, as the French official helped me understand, many people find it natural and unavoidable to live – and make policy – as captives of their past traumas. Our trauma was the worst of all.
FREE EBOOK: The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes
By Avraham Burg, 2009
One of America’s most respected military figures charged publicly that long-standing allegations about the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons may have been, in his words, “an Israeli false flag operation” calculated to stir up opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, long perceived by Israel as a threat to its geopolitical agenda.
And now that the United States seems poised to attack Syria on the basis of new claims about the use of such weapons, what former U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson told Current TV on May 3 bears noting.
A longtime military intimate of U.S. General Colin Powell, and later his chief of staff when Powell was secretary of state under “W” Bush, Wilkerson said his intelligence sources dismissed claims at that time that Assad’s military had used chemical weapons against terrorist forces.
Having loomed over Assad for months, that charge has been reinvigorated and the media revels in the possibility the U.S. will now attack Syria. However, the Los Angeles Times reported August 27 that Germany’s Focus magazine—citing a former Israeli intelligence official—said Israel was the primary source for current charges about Syria’s alleged use of chemical warfare.
Noting “U.S. intelligence sources long have relied on Israel to help provide intelligence about Syria” the Times didn’t mention it was also Israel that previously supplied the Bush administration much of the false data about supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which provided the pretext for the invasion of that Arab republic.*
The mainstream media carefully suppresses the fact that—as demanded by the Israeli lobby in Washington—U.S. tax dollars (underwriting Israeli covert expertise) instigated the rebellion against Assad that led to the civil war that U.S. blood and treasure are now expected to resolve in a manner satisfactory to Israel.
Although the media suggests the Pentagon is eager for war on Syria, the fact is that—just as before the Iraq war when multiple military leaders were warning of the dangers of such a venture—top brass are likewise urging restraint vis-à-vis Syria. Even Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey recently told Congress that U.S. intervention in Syria would not be in America’s interests.
Yet, despite widespread public opposition to war, many Republicans and Democrats alike—bankrolled by pro-Israel campaign contributors—are clamoring for action.
* See THE GOLEM: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb and the Road to Global Armageddon for more data on this little-known scandal.
Michael Collins Piper Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.
[C'est un paradigme évident quand on sait qui détient le pouvoir en France.]
In other words, its recent historical experience was the basis for a central part of France's defense policy.
And that was sans a Holocaust. There had "just" been bombing, shelling, invasion, trench warfare, tank warfare, and periods of occupation.
What's wrong with that? Why should a nation not rest its policy upon its recent collective experience? I ask this in connection with the latest welling up of 'anti-Holocaust' sentiment among the Israeli intelligentsia following interviews in Haaretz with top Air Force officers who took part in the symbolic fly-past over Auschwitz exactly ten years ago. IAF Commander Amir Eshel said he considered that fly-past, by three F-15s which he led, the flight of his life. Photographs of the IAF planes over the notorious – and notoriously unbombed – rail lines adorn many military and civilian offices in Israel's governing establishment. Men like Eshel keep mementos of that fly-past with them as they contemplate and plan today a possible strike in Syria or a possible strike in Iran.
All this seriously worries liberal opinion. In Haaretz's own editorial two weeks ago, "Israel today is a strong, independent entity that has been accepted by the international community. The Holocaust's memory is a historical obligation, a monument to human brutality that must not be forgotten. But it cannot constitute a strategic or security consideration that statesmen and army chiefs must deal with today. They must outline Israel's strategy and its diplomatic and military way, while focusing on its future and on the needs of its people, who want to live not as captives of past traumas."
Arguably though, what's wrong is not the IAF's memorable demonstration a decade ago nor Eshel's legitimate and proud memory of it, but rather the unremitting inability of left-liberal Israelis to assimilate the Holocaust into their Zionist ethos – and hence into our national history and policy. The Yishuv, they insisted before and after 1939, comprised New Jews, to be distinguished, if not dissociated, from the millions writhing under Hitler's jackboot. If Rommel defeated the British and swept through Egypt, they would fight him from the Carmel (…!)
This sad and complex reaction, which had ramifications beyond the establishment of the State in 1948, has been amply documented and debated by some of our best historians.
Later, Menachem Begin's incessant rhetorical hyperbole exploiting the Holocaust achieved precisely the opposite effect than he intended, at least among left-liberal opinion. His tasteless analogies – Arafat in Beirut to Hitler in Berlin for instance – triggered an almost instinctive spurning of any Holocaust analogy as demagogic and devaluing.
But arguably this instinctive reaction has itself become polemic and hyperbolic. Such reactions become outright irrationality when Prime Minister Netanyahu proclaimed his own Holocaust analogy, pointing out that Iran, pursuing the Bomb, was threatening to incinerate Israel and was denying the Holocaust.
This, of course, is the sub-text of the criticism of Eshel and the other IAF generals. They are accused, in effect, of reinforcing Netanyahu's analogy by referring back to their dramatic fly-past over Auschwitz.
Well, it certainly works with me. Whenever I see that photograph of the IAF at Auschwitz my eyes tear. When I saw on Mossad Chief Meir Dagan's wall, next to the government's instructions to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, the photograph of his grandfather, on his knees, about to be shot, the tears flowed.
Granted, as Haaretz asserts, Israelis "want to live not as captives of past traumas." But, as the French official helped me understand, many people find it natural and unavoidable to live – and make policy – as captives of their past traumas. Our trauma was the worst of all.
FREE EBOOK: The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes
By Avraham Burg, 2009
Modern-day Israel, and the Jewish community, are strongly influenced by the memory and horrors of Hitler
and the Holocaust. Burg argues that the Jewish nation has been
traumatized and has lost the ability to trust itself, its neighbors or
the world around it. He shows that this is one of the causes for the
growing nationalism and violence that are plaguing Israeli society and
reverberating through Jewish communities worldwide. Burg uses his own
family history--his parents were Holocaust survivors--to inform his
innovative views on what the Jewish people need to do to move on and
eventually live in peace with their Arab neighbors and feel comfortable
in the world at large.
Israeli False Flag?
War Crimes Investigator Censored,
War Crimes Investigator Censored,
Claims Rebels Using Poison Gas;
Message to Obama from Congress:
No War on Syria Without Our OK
Message to Obama from Congress:
No War on Syria Without Our OK
By Michael Collins Piper
September 09, 2013
for American Free Press (Issue 36, 2013)
for American Free Press (Issue 36, 2013)
• ‘No smoking gun’ evidence that Syria used chemical weapons
• Israel the source for current charges of sarin gas use by Assad
And now that the United States seems poised to attack Syria on the basis of new claims about the use of such weapons, what former U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson told Current TV on May 3 bears noting.
A longtime military intimate of U.S. General Colin Powell, and later his chief of staff when Powell was secretary of state under “W” Bush, Wilkerson said his intelligence sources dismissed claims at that time that Assad’s military had used chemical weapons against terrorist forces.
Having loomed over Assad for months, that charge has been reinvigorated and the media revels in the possibility the U.S. will now attack Syria. However, the Los Angeles Times reported August 27 that Germany’s Focus magazine—citing a former Israeli intelligence official—said Israel was the primary source for current charges about Syria’s alleged use of chemical warfare.
Noting “U.S. intelligence sources long have relied on Israel to help provide intelligence about Syria” the Times didn’t mention it was also Israel that previously supplied the Bush administration much of the false data about supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which provided the pretext for the invasion of that Arab republic.*
The mainstream media carefully suppresses the fact that—as demanded by the Israeli lobby in Washington—U.S. tax dollars (underwriting Israeli covert expertise) instigated the rebellion against Assad that led to the civil war that U.S. blood and treasure are now expected to resolve in a manner satisfactory to Israel.
Although the media suggests the Pentagon is eager for war on Syria, the fact is that—just as before the Iraq war when multiple military leaders were warning of the dangers of such a venture—top brass are likewise urging restraint vis-à-vis Syria. Even Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey recently told Congress that U.S. intervention in Syria would not be in America’s interests.
Yet, despite widespread public opposition to war, many Republicans and Democrats alike—bankrolled by pro-Israel campaign contributors—are clamoring for action.
* See THE GOLEM: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb and the Road to Global Armageddon for more data on this little-known scandal.
Michael Collins Piper Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.
AUDIO - AMERICAN FREE PRESS Editors Roundtable, Sep. 12, 2013 AMERICAN FREE PRESS newspapers editors and reporters discuss the weeks top stories. Michael Collins Piper discusses his latest article on Syria being framed.
The Ugly Truth Broadcast Sept 6, 2013
The whole world has come to understand that Netanyahu is a criminal and as such, Israel faces deeper and deeper diplomatic and political isolation. Therefore, in order to save Israel, it is necessary to take down the mad dog.
We are joined tonight by the one and only Michael Collins Piper to discuss this and other topics related to the war build-up against Syria.Download Here
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM
The Piper Report Broadcast Sept 24, 2013
Download Here
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM
ISRAEL ALLIED WITH
AL QAEDA IN SYRIA
• Israelis admit they prefer U.S. enemies over Assad regime
• Now is the time to end American aid to Israeli terror state
By Michael Collins Piper
for American Free Press (Issue 39, 2013)
Israel has finally admitted publicly (what has long been known): Israel would prefer rebels aligned with the al Qaeda terror network seize control in Syria, rather than the secular regime of Bashar al-Assad retaining power.
Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, told The Jerusalem Post why Israel supports the al Qaeda-aligned forces.
While noting—of the rebels loyal to al Qaeda—that while Israel understands “they are pretty bad guys,” Oren told the Post for an article published on Sept. 17 that Israel views Assad’s regime as “the keystone” in “the strategic arc” between Lebanon and Iran, the nation Israel is eager to destroy.
“We always wanted Assad to go,” he said. “We always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”
So Israel believes al Qaeda-allied forces are useful for its own ends, America’s interests in the “war on terrorism” notwithstanding.
This eye-opening revelation will shock those who perceive Israel as America’s closest ally, particularly in the “war on terror” aimed at al Qaeda waged in the 12 years following the 9-11 attacks which the U.S. government claims were al Qaeda’s doing, despite profound evidence to the contrary.
Returning American troops—who fought against al Qaeda—and families of the dead will now rightly have some serious doubts about Israel. And troops still abroad will surely ask why they are fighting al Qaeda if America’s “best friend” supports that terror network’s ambitions in Syria.
From an American perspective, the toll in the Afghan and Iraqi wars has been staggering: 2.5 million Americans were deployed, about half of them more than once. Some 6,650 died. Another 106,000 were wounded in action or evacuated for injury or disease. Some 675,000 veterans of the war on terror applied for disability. Suicides and other deaths among returning troops—drug overdoses, car crashes etc—are unusually high.
Academic estimates say the wars will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers some $5 trillion. And that figure does not include untold trillions Americans give Israel, much of it for purported assistance in the “war on terror” that is being waged against al Qaeda.
Now that Israel has betrayed America and supports al Qaeda, the U.S. should cut off relations with Israel, expel its diplomats and citizens from the United States, and henceforth consider Israel an enemy in the war on terror.
Syrian Crisis Exposes Israeli Lobby
• The reason Syria developed bio-weapons in the first place was for defense against Israeli nukes
by Michael Collins Piper
for American Free Press (Issue 39, 2013)
for American Free Press (Issue 39, 2013)
Although Syria’s weapons of mass destruction—
in this instance, chemical
weapons —are now the focus of global
media attention, what is largely suppressed
in the mainstream media is the “back
story” as to why Syria even has chemical weapons
in the first place.
On April 17, 2003 veteran Washington Post correspondent Walter
Pincus, who happens to be Jewish,
acknowledged in a story relating to angry
claims by the George W. Bush administration—relating
to Syria’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction”—
that Syria had built its arsenal as an
“equalizer” and that “Israel’s arms spurred [Syria’s]
fears.”
Although, at the time of Pincus’s story, Syria had
asked for a United Nations resolution calling for
nuclear arms inspections all across the Middle
East—including Israel—few expected the United
States would support Syria’s request.
And, of course, the United States did not, despite
the official U.S. position that, according to
then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, the United
States wanted to see the entire Middle East free of
weapons of mass destruction.
Pincus’s article regarding Syria’s drive for amilitary
arsenal designed to counter Israel’s nuclear
weapons cache was instructive. Pincus wrote:
Syria’s current arsenal of chemical warheads and Scud missiles to deliver them was started more than 30 years ago to counter Israel’s development and possession of nuclear weapons, according to present and former U.S. intelligence officials.“They have been developing chemical weapons as a force equalizer with the Israelis,” a former senior intelligence analyst said yesterday. “Hafez al-Assad, the present president’s father, saw chemicals as a way to threaten the Israelis and an equalizer for their nuclear program.” Assad knew, the former analyst said, that “military aid from the Soviets would never be able to match what Israel developed in the nuclear field and received from the U.S.”Syria’s possession of chemical weapons was an important part of the Bush administration’s recent, week-long verbal offensive against Damascus. But it also has brought attention briefly to another highly sensitive issue: the impact that Israel’s nuclear arsenal has had on its enemies in the Middle East.The consensus from Middle East experts is that almost every country in the region has pursued weapons of mass destruction programs— and they have done so primarily because of the arsenal that Israel has built up, said Joseph Cirincione, head of the non-proliferation programof the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.“You can’t get rid of chemical or biological or nuclear programs in Arab countries unless you also address the elimination of Israel’s nuclear and chemical programs,” Cirincione said.
Now, in recent days—despite overwhelming
American popular opposition to an attack on Syria
in retribution for its purported use of chemical
weapons—we have seen the Jewish lobby in
America loudly banging the drum for a U.S. military
attack on Syria.
On Sept. 4 The Washington Post bared the truth
in a story quite candidly headlined: “Pro-Israel and
Jewish Groups Strongly Back Military Strike
Against Syria.”
The Post article noted that the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Conference
of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations,
the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon
Wiesenthal Center had all endorsedmilitary action
against Syria.
Noting that, theretofore, there had been “intense
discussion” among pro-Israel partisans about
whether they should be open about their concerns,
the Post pointed out that that many in the Jewish
lobby were “worried” that critics of the proposed
attack on Syria were casting it “as a move to protect
Israel’s interests rather than an action to defend
U.S. credibility.”
One pro-Israel activist, who spoke in what the
newspaper described as “the condition of anonymity”
admitted to the Post, “There is a desire to not
make this about Israel.” In other words, the Jewish
lobbywould prefer the public not knowIsrael does
indeed have an interest in seeing Syria subjected
to American military might.
Later—even after President Obama’s address to
the nation in which polls show he failed to convince
Americans of the need to strike Syria—the
Post reported on Sept. 10 that AIPAC had nonetheless
mobilized its traditionally influential lobbying
team—some 300 strong—to continue to besiege
members of the House and the Senate demanding
they support the attack.
However, despite the infamous Capitol Hill
clout of the well-funded Jewish lobby groups, the
good news is that public pressure on Congress
against another Middle East war is so overwhelming
that even the pro-Israel forces are being beaten
back.
Now, with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s
energetic intervention setting the stage for an
agreement which seems to be undercutting the
Jewish lobby’s push for war, it appears that for the
first time in many years, that powerful lobby will
be defeated.
Nonetheless, many people are still concerned
that an angry Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu,
may engage in some covert measure such as a
“false-flag” terrorist attack on America—to be
blamed on Syria or Iran or groups friendly to Syria
and Iran—designed to redirect American public
opinion.
The bottom line is that recent events have
brought into widespread attention the fact that the
Jewish lobby in America stands in opposition to
the vast majority of the American people, who are
saying, “No more U.S. intervention in the Middle
East.” And many are beginning to see that those interventions
have, in fact, been on behalf of Israel—
not America.
-----
Michael Collins Piper is a world-renowned author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and, of course, the United States. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth: Huey Long vs Wall Street, The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Target: Traficant and The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397 or calling FAB direct at 202-547-5585 to inquire about pricing and Shipping and Handling fees
‘Back Story’ on Putin-Obama Deal: Plug Pulled on Israel, Warmongers
• Zionists up in arms that peaceful solutions to Mideast problems being considered
By Mark Glenn
NEW
YORK, N.Y.—To say it has been a month of political roller coasters
powerful enough to give even the most seasoned veterans a case of severe
whiplash is an understatement. This all culminated when the U.S.
president, for the first time in three-and-a-half decades, telephoned
the newly elected Iranian president on Sept. 27 to discuss firsthand the
future of the two countries they lead.
September began with the
possibility of yet another military disaster in the Middle East for
Israel’s benefit. By all appearances, a nagging Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu had finally gotten on President Barack Obama’s last
nerve and pushed him into doing what he had resisted doing for the last
four years—war with Syria.
The calls for war were built around
circumstantial evidence implicating the Syrian government led by Bashar
al-Assad in a chemical weapons attack that took place in a suburb of
Damascus on Aug. 21. Secretary of State John Kerry was out in front,
accusing the Syrian military of gassing its own people. Ghastly videos
of children dying were quickly posted to the Internet for the world to
see, and estimates of the death toll escalated to more than 1,400
Syrians.
It was Iraq all over again. In spite of weak proof that the
Syrian military was actually behind the attack, it looked as
thoughWashington had made up its mind and was going to war whether or
not the Assad regime was responsible or not.
With up-to-the-minute
news reports featuring U.S. military assets steaming toward the Syrian
coast, the drama was breathlessly reported by the mainstream media.
And
then, almost as quickly as it all started, the shouts for war ended
abruptly. Suddenly, Obama announced there would be nomilitary action
without Congress being brought in, just as the Constitution demands.
Of
course, even themost politically naive would have a hard time leaving
out of this curious political equation the fact that a few days before
Obama had suddenly became a conscientious constitutionalist he and other
world leaders met in St. Petersburg, Russia for the G20 conference.
Equally difficult would be dismissing the possibility of Obama having
discussed the messy business of Syria with Russian President Vladimir
Putin, who up to this point had made it clear that, when it came to a
war with Syria, “nyet” means “nyet” and that his country was not going
to sit by as another Middle Eastern country was bombed into oblivion by
the United States.
However, even the most optimistic watchers of
politics found it hard to believe that the Russian president could rein
in the lawless America. After all, Putin does not control the U.S.
Congress, the U.S. media or the U.S. financial system like Netanyahu’s
kith-n-kin. Jewish groups around the globe have made it clear that wars
in the Middle East are vital for the continued survival of Israel.
It
was against this backdrop that the crazy notion of an American
president calling his Iranian counterpart on the phone actually took
place on the last Friday in September, despite 34 years of silence
between the two offices.
Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (third from right; shown with members
of the Israeli delegation), addressed the UN secretary general (not
shown) during
the UN General Assembly in New York on Oct. 1. Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s belief
that only tough sanctions and a “credible
military threat” would force Iran to bow
before Israel’s will. He also
said Israel was not afraid to bomb Iran alone if he felt
it necessary.STAN HONDASTAN HONDA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
The mainstream media
was in an uproar over the phone call. Fox News headlined its report:
“Netanyahu decries Iran’s Rouhani as ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing.’” The
Washington Post titled its article:
“Worries about the Rouhani phone call.” And The New York Times printed this bizarre story: “Iranians Welcome Home Rouhani With Protest.”
However, Obama’s gesture in reaching out to Rouhani and intimating that a deal could be struck between the two nations to resolve the difficult diplomatic situation only makes sense when the events of the lastmonth involving Syria and Russia are factored in.
By all appearances, this is exactly what has taken place. An out-of-control America, firmly in the grip of the Israeli lobby and its voracious appetite for war, would not restrain itself on principles of the Constitution, the rule of law or even thebasic tenets of right versus wrong. The U.S. establishment would only stop the drive to war if it were trapped in a cave with a large, angry bear that was standing in its way.
——
Mark Glenn is a commentator and activist fluent in several languages. He is currently based in Idaho. See more from Glenn at www.crescentandcross.com.
“Worries about the Rouhani phone call.” And The New York Times printed this bizarre story: “Iranians Welcome Home Rouhani With Protest.”
However, Obama’s gesture in reaching out to Rouhani and intimating that a deal could be struck between the two nations to resolve the difficult diplomatic situation only makes sense when the events of the lastmonth involving Syria and Russia are factored in.
By all appearances, this is exactly what has taken place. An out-of-control America, firmly in the grip of the Israeli lobby and its voracious appetite for war, would not restrain itself on principles of the Constitution, the rule of law or even thebasic tenets of right versus wrong. The U.S. establishment would only stop the drive to war if it were trapped in a cave with a large, angry bear that was standing in its way.
——
Mark Glenn is a commentator and activist fluent in several languages. He is currently based in Idaho. See more from Glenn at www.crescentandcross.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.”
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.(...)(...)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.
Une stratégie pour Tel Aviv dans les années 80
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.
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. »
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. »
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
(Just another 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. (...)
http://joelecorbeau.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/BHL_Guerre-6-JLC2.jpg
Plus d'infos:
