Saturday, 11 July 2009

A pollster's recommendations on how to sell Americans on the idea of Israeli settlements

Link


Dan Ephron in NEWSWEEK, here

How do you sell the American public on the idea that Israel has the right to maintain or even expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank? Be positive. Turn the issue away from settlements and toward peace. Invoke ethnic cleansing.

Those are three of the recommendations made by Frank Luntz, a political consultant and pollster, in an internal study he wrote for the Washington-based group The Israel Project (TIP) on effective ways to talk to Americans about the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The 117-page study, titled The Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary, was commissioned by the nonprofit group, which aims to promote Israel's side of the story, and leaked to NEWSWEEK. It includes chapters with such titles as "How to Talk About Palestinian Self Government and Prosperity" and "The Language of Tackling a Nuclear Iran."

The report is strewn with bolded examples of "Words That Work" and "Words That Don't Work," alongside rhetorical tips such as "Don't talk about religion" and "No matter what you're asked, bridge to a productive pro-Israel message." Taken together, the 18 chapters offer a fascinating look at the way Israel and its supporters try to shape the public debate in their favor.

The full report can be viewed here. ...

The report cites three particularly ineffective arguments Israeli officials often make in defense of settlements:

(1) The religious argument: "Quoting from the Bible in defense of the current settlements will have absolutely the opposite impact. Even your Jewish audiences will recoil at an attempt to use Biblical passages to justify the settlements."

(2) The ownership argument: "Some of those reading this document will reject this advice ideologically but to claim that Israel 'owns' the land that the settlements are on will cause most listeners to reject everything else you say. Semantics does matter, but if we correct Palestinians using the words 'disputed territory' when they say 'occupied territory,' we have to accept that the settlements are disputed territory as well."

(3) The scapegoat argument: "Claiming that Palestinians and other Arab groups are using the settlement issue to gain political advantage may be correct but it does nothing to legitimize Israeli policy."

In the report, Luntz describes the "best settlement argument" as one that draws a parallel between the Arab communities in Israel and the Jewish settlers in the West Bank—and refers to the idea of evacuating Jews as racist. "The idea that anywhere that you have Palestinians there can't be any Jews, that some areas have to be Jew-free, is a racist idea," he suggests saying. "We don't say that we have to cleanse out Arabs from Israel. They are citizens of Israel. They enjoy equal rights. We cannot see why it is that peace requires that any Palestinian area would require a kind of ethnic cleansing to remove all Jews. We don't accept it. Cleansing by either side against either side is unacceptable."

One line of argument that Luntz says actually harms the cause is Israel's policy of restricting Arab housing construction in East Jerusalem: "The arguments about demolishing Palestinian homes because they are not within the Jerusalem building code tested SO badly that we are not even going to dignify them with a Word's That Don't Work box. Americans hate their own local planning boards for telling them where they can and can't put swimming pools or build fences. You don't need to import that animosity into your own credibility issues. Worse yet, talking about 'violations of building codes' when a TV station is showing the removal of a house that looks older than the modern state of Israel is simply catastrophic."


Posted by G, Z, & or B at 5:24 PM

A "Victory" for Iraq, a Defeat for the US

Link

10/07/2009 By Yusuf Fernandez
July 10-07

Al-Manar.com.lb is not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.

On June 30, Iraqis held numerous parties to celebrate the long-waited withdrawal of US troops from their cities, towns and villages. Although this first pullout does not mean that US troops will leave the country -which should take place at the end of 2011-, it is hopefully the first step in a long road to put an end to the hated US occupation. According to the Washington Post, the American army has shut down 150 bases and outposts since January 1. From now on, American troops being locked down in bases will avoid nonessential outings in order to reduce risks.

This joyous sentiment is unanimous in Iraq. The Iraqi government has created a new holiday to mark the end of the US occupation of the country´s urban areas. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called the departure of American troops a “major victory” for Iraq.
Government television quoted the prime minister as describing the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), signed last year, as a framework for the pullout of US forces and the regulation of “their activities within the rest of the time they are here.” Maliki negotiated hard with Washington to include a firm deadline for a withdrawal of the 150,000 US troops in Iraq, something that the former administration of George W. Bush has previously rejected.

Under the pressure of the Iraqi Parliament, the Iraqi government managed to eliminate a clause in the SOFA which explicitly allowed the US to continue its presence in the country beyond the deadline of December 31, 2011 in order to “train” Iraqi forces. Another important addition to the agreement was a clause which says “Iraqi land, sea and air shall not be used as a launching or transit point for attacks against other countries.” This was seen as particularly important in order to reassure Iran and Syria that Iraq would not become a launch pad to launch an aggression against them. Iraq has already stated that it would fight militarily any Israeli attempt to violate its air space in order to attack Iran.

These achievements have permitted Maliki to burnish his Iraqi patriotic credentials in the months before the next year´s parliamentary elections. But his public distancing himself from the United States shows that he thinks that the opposition to the US presence has a strong appeal to a large majority of Iraqis.

The Association of Muslim Scholars, a large and influential Sunni group, and the Sadrist Movement have also welcomed the US withdrawal as a victory of the resistance. Many Iraqis have compared the US pullout with the rebellion against British occupation forces in 1920. For their part, the insurgent groups have promised to continue fighting against US forces until they completely leave Iraq.

Some Iraqis are, however, more skeptical. They point out that the 130,000 US troops are now headquartered in some heavily fortified bases near the Iraqi cities. Moreover, not all the US troops have left the cities. Some of them will remain in them as advisers or trainers. Moqtada al Sadr´s Movement has also stated that a military withdrawal is not sufficient and underlined the continued presence of US intelligence agencies and mercenaries (called “security contractors”) in particular. “We want a withdrawal, and not interference, on all fronts - political, social, economic, judicial, and ministerial. Not only the military front.”

However, Maliki has rejected these claims and has recalled that, according to the SOFA, the last remaining US forces will pull out of Iraq in 2011 and nothing will change that. Some Iraq analysts argue that the withdrawal of the American troops will decisively weaken US influence in Iraq. In this sense, there is no doubt that the US pullout from cities in June has the distinct taste of a end game.

Above all, the withdrawal of US forces from Iraqi cities without achieving any of the goals announced before the invasion means that the United States has failed militarily and politically in Iraq. There is no more clear evidence of this failure than the above mentioned images of thousands of happy Iraqis singing and dancing in the streets to welcome the US pullout.

These images mean a definitive blow to the neocon scheme to destroy and submit the Middle Eastern countries that were seen as hostile to the Zionist entity. US neocons -which are fundamentally Israeli agents working to promote Israel´s interests in the United States- wanted to use US military power to strike at Muslim countries beyond Israeli limited military reach. The real goal of US invasion was to destroy a large Arab country that was seen as an obstacle to Zionist plans for hegemony in the region. Other considerations, such as the Iraqi oil -which is often mentioned as the real reason for the invasion-, were actually completely secondary.

Neocons wanted to transform Iraq into an ally of the Zionist entity and a base for attacking or seeking a regime change in other Muslim states holding an independent and anti-Zionist policy, such as Syria and Iran. Finally, Israel could consolidate its hegemony in the Middle East and force its Arab adversaries to accept its dictated terms for a “peace” in the region. The destruction of Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon was also a part of this scheme. Israel tried to achieve this latter goal in Lebanon in the war of July 2006 but it was defeated by Hezbollah´s fighters who humiliated the Israeli army.

At the beginning of 2004, the Iraqi insurgency had started to increase their activities and the number of casualties of the foreign occupation forces fast increased. Currently, more than 4,300 US troops have died in Iraq and more than 30,000 soldiers are wounded or maimed. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have also lost their lives.

The US invasion plunged the Arab country into chaos and destroyed its infrastructure. So-called “rebuilding projects” have been a complete failure. The scandal of Abu Ghraib and widespread torture in Iraq have tainted the image of the United States in the world. These factors have also fuelled popular support for the insurgency.

The Sadrist movement launched two main rebellions against US troops in April and August 2004. Moreover, Sunni guerrillas were also fighting US foces in several provinces of the country. Therefore, the Bush administration had to forget its plans to invade other Muslim countries in order to hold its positions in Iraq. In spite of its surge, the US was unable to defeat the insurgency and it will never do so. As the Washington Post reported on June 30, “there is little talk among US commanders and diplomats of engineering a victory in the 2½ years they expect to remain here.” In this sense, the Iraqi invasion and occupation has served to probe the limits of US military power.

The war has exhausted the American economy.
US war spending could overcome one trillion dollars. In this sense, the Iraq war is one of the main factors that have fuelled the current recession and increased US public deficits. Many US citizens are now paying with their money and jobs US submission to Zionist plans in the Middle East.

Some in the American Right might blame on President Barack Obama for the defeat of US Army in Iraq. However, it was the Bush Administration who signed the agreement which set the timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from the cities and villages and the total pullout of the country in 2011. Bush wanted an agreement that would have allowed an open-ended US occupation.

However, the Maliki government imposed its demands in order to force the US government to accept a complete US pullout, something that had been rejected by Bush for a long time. In Iraq, as it happened in Vietnam in the 1970s, the US had little choice but to leave.

A referendum on the security agreement is expected to be held this year or at the beginning of the next one. The agreement is likely to lose if the referendum takes place given the widespread popular rejection to this document in Iraq. Although the agreement set a timetable for the end of the American occupation in 2011, many Iraqis believe that it legitimates the US occupation until that date.

According to the latest polls, published in the Brookings Institution, 73% of Iraqis oppose the presence of US forces. If the referendum takes place, US troops may be forced out of the Arab country immediately as they would automatically lose their legal cover. The Obama Administration is doing its best to try to persuade the Iraqi government not to hold this referendum for fear of the consequences.

All this means that the Iraqi government and political parties have resisted US attempts to set up a puppet government in the country. The Shiite-led United Iraqi Alliance is made up by Shiite political parties with strong links with Iran. Maliki, leader of the Dawa Party, and Abdul Aziz al Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, were in exile in Iran during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s and they have also followed the thought of the leader of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini.

Iran, and not Israel, is the new friend of Iraq. The relations between the two countries have enormously developed in recent years and a large number of Iranians visit the two religious Shiite holy places of Najaf and Kerbala every year. Significantly, when the US government has often accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs, Iraqi officials have denied these American claims. For instance, on June 30, the Iraqi Government Spokesman Ali Dabbaq denounced claims by the US military commanders about Iran´s interference in Iraq and underlined that there is no evidence to substantiate such interference. In this way, the far-reaching result of the Iraq war will be the expansion of Iranian influence in the region and particularly in Iraq. The Shiite majority in Iraq is expected to continue strengthening the country´s relations with its powerful neighbour.

Palestinian refugee dies at the Iraqi-Syrian border



Friday July 10, 2009 00:09 by Saed Bannoura - IMEMC
A Palestinian refugee died on Thursday at the Al Waleed camp, on the Iraqi-Syrian border after a sharp decline in her health condition, while stranded along with hundreds of other refugees on the border.


The woman was identified as Suad Abdul-Qader Al Hallaq. The Palestinian refugees who fled Iraq after the war remain stranded in several make-shift refugee camps.


The Union for Palestinian Refugees called on the international community to act and save the lives of the refugees at the Al Waleed refugee camp.

Last Friday, a refugee identified as Shihada Mohammad Abu Hamad, died at the same refugee camp due to the lack of medication and equipment at the make-shift clinic in the camp.

There are nearly 1600 refugees in Al Waleed camp, Some of the refugees were sent to Sweden, Norway and the United States, while Sudan said it would host the rest. 39 refugees are expected to be transferred to Sudan next month.

Several Palestinian refugees were abducted, tortured and killed by armed groups in Iraq after the United States army occupied Iraq.

Increasing attacks, including abductions and bombings in refugee camps, forced the Palestinian refugees to flee Iraq but got stranded on the borders with Jordan and Syria.

Thirty-four thousand Palestinians lived in Iraq before the American invasion in 2003, Many have since faced harassment, threats of deportation, abuse by the media, arbitrary detention, torture and murder, the Palestinian Right to Return Coalition reported.

Several refugee neighborhoods in Baghdad were bombarded and attacked, and many Palestinians were killed, kidnapped, imprisoned and forced out of the country.

The UNHCR reported that nearly 21000 refugees have left Iraq since 2003, and 1300 are still there.

Fact Sheet – The Palestinian Right to Return Coalition

A number of Palestinians who were forced to leave are now stranded in refugee camps on the Syrian and Jordanian borders:

Al-Hol Refugee Camp:

Located on the Syrian side of the border with Iraq.

Originally set up by UNHCR in 1991 to host Iraqi refugees fleeing Iraq after the suppression of the uprisings in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

Currently, 305 Palestinians are stranded in Al-Hol.

Eighteen of nineteen refugees who initially fled Baghdad in October 2005 are now in Al Hol camp. One elderly woman returned to her family in Iraq.

The remaining Palestinians moved to the camp Largely in May-2006.

Legal status - none.


Al-Tanaf Refugee Camp:

Located in no-man's land on the border with Syria.

There are 340 Palestinian refugees who have been stranded in this camp since May 2006. More recently, the camp's population has risen to 437 because Syrian authorities took to the camp 97 Palestinians who had entered Syria from Iraq during the past year with forged documents.

The camp is about 260 kilometers away from the nearest populated area.

About 10% of the refugees need medical treatment, which is not currently available.

The camp residents have so far been taken care of by local area organizations.

The United Nations does not currently provide services to support the residents.

For exclusive photos from Al-Tanaf Refugee camp go to this page.

Al-Walid Refugee Camp:

Located on the Iraqi side of the border with Syria at the al-Walid border crossing.

Established on December 16, 2006, now has 1560 residents, with 30-40 persons arriving on a weekly basis fleeing ongoing threats and attacks in Baghdad.

The camp is located in a remote area not far from al-Tanaf camp.

The residents have so far been taken care of by a local area organization.

The International Committee of the Red Cross and UNHCR have provided relief items such as blankets, stoves, plastic sheets, tents and food.

Al-Ruweished Refugee Camp:

Located on the Jordanian side about 70 kilometres from the border with Iraq. It was set up in 2003 and housed Somalis and Iranian Kurds as well as Palestinians and Iraqis fleeing violence in Iraq.

With the exception of the Palestinians, nearly all the refugees who passed through this camp were relatively quickly resettled in third countries, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Sweden and the United States. In contrast most of the 148 Palestinians had been stranded in al-Ruweished for more than four years, and, only recently, were they moved to Brazil after having been granted asylum by that country. Some of the children had received no formal education during those four years. Canada granted asylum to 54 Palestinians from this camp one year earlier.

This Factsheet was prepared by Al-Awda’s West Coast Regional Refugee Support Committee.

Hamas' Political Impasse: Between Principal and Necessity


Hamas' Political Impasse: Between Principal and NecessityFriday, 10 July 2009 11:50 RamallahOnline

Ramzy Baroud

Much can be said to explain, or even justify Hamas' recent political concessions, where its top leaders in Gaza and Damascus agreed in principle with a political settlement on the basis of the two-state solution.
[ I would call it two stage solution, a stage on the long way for a real one state solution]
On June 25, Damascus-based leader of the Islamic group’s political bureau, Khaled Meshaal reiterated Hamas’ rejection of recognizing Israel as a Jewish State, rightfully dubbing such a designation as “racist, no different from Nazis and other calls denounced by the international community.” However, he did endorse the idea of a two-state solution, which envisages the creation of an independent Palestinian state on roughly 22 percent of the land of historic Palestine.

The announcement was hardly earth shattering, for other Hamas leaders have alluded, or straightforwardly agreed to the same notion in the past. But what was in fact altered is the language used by Hamas’ leaders to endorse the illusive and increasingly unfeasible possibility of two states. Meshaal’s language was largely secular, while past Hamas references to the same principle were engulfed in religious idiom. For example, in past years Hamas agreed to a Palestinian state in all of the occupied territories, conditioned on the removal of Jewish settlements, under the provision of a long-term ‘hudna’, or truce. The term ‘hudna’ is loaded with implicit religious inferences, and was used to present Hamas’ political views as both pragmatic, but also based on time-honored Islamic political tradition.

Ahmed Yousef, chief advisor to the deposed Hamas government in Gaza alluded to the concept of ‘hudna’ in various writings and media interviews. But his calls sounded more like an attempt to find common space between the Islamic movement’s firm religious beliefs and US-led international pressure aimed at forcing Hamas into the same political camp which discredited rival Fatah. But Ahmed Yousef’s variation in rhetoric cannot be understood as synonymous with Meshaal’s recent political revelations.

The boycott of the elected Hamas government in 2006, and the orchestrated violence that led to a Hamas takeover, and subsequent isolation and siege of the Gaza Strip, were all meant to force Hamas to ‘moderate’ its position. Immense collective suffering was endured throughout the Gaza Strip in order for Israel and its backers, including the Palestinian leadership based in the West Bank to force Hamas out of its ideological trenches to join the ‘pragmatic’ camp, which saw little harm in fruitless political compromises.

Hamas’ steadfastness was enough to further demonstrate its revolutionary credence and patriotic credentials to most Palestinians and their supporters around the Middle East and the world. Hamas impressed many, not because of its theological references, but political resilience and refusal to be intimidated. In some way, Hamas achieved the same revolutionary status and recognition as that of Fatah in the 1960’s.
[This comparison is not valid, not fair check my comment on Hamas' political immaturity]
It was not until the Israeli war against largely defenseless Gaza starting December 2008, that Hamas seemed politically self-assured, and for good reason. After all, it was a democratically elected movement representing Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Their rivals’ failure to accommodate the new political reality, and incessant Israeli attempts at destroying the movement and imprisoning scores of its elected parliamentarians were not enough to de-legitimize it. Then Israel unleashed one of its grizzliest campaigns against Palestinians, aimed largely at civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza. The Israeli war was meant to achieve more than the killing of 1,350 (including 437 children) and the wounding of 5,450 others. It was aimed at disturbing the Palestinian psyche that began seeing a world of possibilities beyond the confining and shallow promises of peace infused by the Oslo peace process, which only served to ingrain occupation and entrench illegal settlements.

International solidarity was building up slowly prior to the Israeli attack. As Israeli bombs began raining atop Gaza’s mostly civilian infrastructure, international solidarity exploded throughout the world. Israel’s brutal folly served to legitimize the very group it was meant to crush.
[ check my comment on Palestinian Titanic wtitten by Nadia Hijab - Blood defeated the sword and turned the Magic against the Magicians]

The voices that tirelessly demanded Hamas to live up to fixed conditions, handed down by the so-called Middle East peace quartet, were overshadowed by voices demanding the US and various Western powers to recognize and engage Hamas. A lead voice amongst them is former US President Jimmy Carter, one of the first influential Western personalities to engage Hamas, and to break the news that Hamas “would accept a two-state peace agreement with Israel as long as it was approved by a Palestinian referendum or a newly elected government.” (Guardian, April 22, 2008)

Carter’s insistence on involving Hamas in any future peace arrangement took him from Damascus, to Cairo to the West Bank, then, to Gaza. His recent visit to the Strip on June 16 was more than that of solidarity, but it was aimed at convincing Hamas to agree to the vision of two states and the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. The alternative conditions are meant to present a more dignified exit than the belligerent and one-sided demands of the quartet. It’s unclear whether Hamas would fully embrace his call. But what is clear is that Hamas is sending various signals, such as its willingness to engage in dialogue with the Obama administration, and, again, acceptance of the two-state solution, which according to any reasonable estimation of the Israeli ‘facts on the ground’ created in occupied Jerusalem and the West Bank, is now a far-fetched possibility.
Needless to say, Hamas as a political movement, with an elected government with some jurisdiction over nearly one-third of the Palestinian people has the right, and even more, the obligation to politically maneuver, reposition and even re-brand itself.

Breaking the siege on Gaza requires steadfastness, true, but political ingenuity as well.

That said, Hamas must be wary of the political, and historic price that will be paid if it fails to learn from the experience of the discredited and corrupted Fatah. Palestinian rights are enshrined in international law, and corroborated by the endless sacrifices of the Palestinian people, in Gaza and elsewhere. Therefore, the price of engagement, dialogue and political validation must not happen at the expense of the Palestinian people wherever they are, as stipulated in numerous UN resolutions including 194, pertaining to the right of return of Palestinian refugees.
- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London)

Hamas: no agreement could be reached without clearing PA prisons

[ 10/07/2009 - 11:29 AM ]

RAMALLAH, (PIC)-- Hamas said on Thursday that no agreement could be reached during the forthcoming round of talks in Cairo slated for the 25 July unless PA prisons are cleared of political detainees first and that the 18th July will be decisive date.

These comments were made after a meeting that ended late Thursday evening between Hamas lawmakers in the West Bank and an Egyptian security delegation to discuss ways of furnishing the atmosphere for talks slated for the end of this month.

Dr. Mahmoud al-Ramahi, secretary of the Palestinian Legislative Council, told PIC on Friday that four core issues were discussed during the meeting with special emphasis on the political prisoners' issue.

He also said that the Hamas MPs who participated in the meeting besides him were Dr. Aziz Dweik, the PLC speaker, Dr. Omar Abdel Razzaq, Samira Halyka and Abdel Rahman Zeidan and that the Egyptian delegation was headed by General Nuhammad Ibrahim.

Dr. Ramahi added that the Egyptian delegation talked about their mission and the Egyptian efforts to reunite the Palestinian factions, adding that the issues discussed during the two hour meeting were: political detainees, elections, the joint reconciliation committee and the rebuilding of security agencies.

He said that the MPs told the Egyptian delegation that what is happening in the West Bank is not an isolated kidnapping of two or three persons, but a systematic attempt to destroy the resistance and Hamas and pointed out that the Israeli occupation with all its power and terroristic tendencies failed to do that and no one else will succeed in such a mission.

The Egyptian delegation was also told that the PA's actions were in fact making Hamas more popular pointing out that the Beir Zeit university students elections the Islamic Bloc got 20% more votes this year than last year.

Abbas's security rounds up four Hamas supporters
Nasr: The PA leadership in Ramallah is building repressive regime in the W. BankRaja: The PA in Ramallah has no political will to meet with resistance
PRC: Political detainees should be immediately released

Hammad: We are ready to release Fatah criminals to make the dialogue succeed


Out of all above titles in PIC Hamas Basher found Hammad's statement worth reading, though he knows that its nothing more that pulplic relations:


Breaking News.....Breaking News......The "Dialog".....The "Dialog"....BARF!


"COMMENT:

What a sacrifice for the sake of PRINCIPLE! Hamas is willing to free criminals and those, "closely coordinating with the Israeli security departments," all to make the "dialog" succeed!
This is political prostitution.


How can Palestinians take these "leaders" seriously?"

I (TONY) NOMINATE HUWAIDA ARRAF TO BE THE REAL PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT,

She, Huwaida, inspired by "Adam Shapiro" who has done more for Palestine than you (You - not me = A reader who spent 4 years in Israeli Prisons). "And caring for Darfur (even if Zionists have co-opted the cause) does not make one a Zionist. "molly 06.30.09 - 6:56 pm #
Thus said Molly who started the whole thing for Tony, and would jumb to help whenever required.
"Anon, if you don't like it here, you are free not to visit. And other Palestinians and Arabs share his view that the only possible solution is a one state solution such as Ali Abunimah, As'ad Abu Khalil, etc.
They don't want most Israelis on the future state either but have figured that when that happens most Jews will leave anyway. "
[ SO RELAX, "most Israelis.... when that happens most Jews will leave anyway". It's going to happen, thus said Zolly. TONY And "other Palestinians and Arabs" such as "Ali Abunimah, As'ad Abu Khalil, etc. shall force Nazi, racist Israelis to accept "the only possible solution" which "is a one state solution" ]
"The only ones who will stay are the ones that don't mind living with Arabs and the psycho-settler types, who will probably be killed pretty quickly. "
[Why to kill them if they are leaving? and if they don't who is going to kill them "Prety quickly"?]
Oh, and the reason he refers to Arabs as sheep is probably because those are his brothers who have let him down, which is even more infuriating than when your enemies have hurt you.
"He doesn't have to refer to Zionists as sheep, their behavior as shown in the articles he posts daily speaks for itself as much worse. "
[Zionists are the "Chosen" he refers to arab as cheep, because Arabs are goyem, sub-humans created in human form]
If Tony was measuring his words to be PC, I don't think he would have voiced support for the Afghan resistance/Taliban and many other fighters the US attacks.
[They are fighting US, not the "Chosen"]
Either you are a brand new reader of the blog, or you are being dishonest. I don't mean to speak for him, this is just my opinion.
[ Besides we are good happy secular family]
molly 07.09.09 - 9:31 pm #
Finally, Hamas bashers are more dangerous than Abbas, they mocked Hamas and ignored Hamas's red line for accepting the two state solution,
Its Hamas, who by resistance gave momentum to the International solidarity movement, may pave the way for an independent state on 1967 land as a stage on the long way towards one state solution.

'This Is How They Tortured Me'

Link

* First Nations and the Pacific Northwest: Change and Tradition
* Jacqueline Windh and Alfred Hendricks

Book Review By Christine McLaren

July 08, 2009 "
Tye Books" -- Most of us know there was a time in Canada when aboriginal children where taken from their homes, their families and communities, and forced to attend residential schools.

There, we have been told, children were beaten for speaking their own language, and many were physically and sexually abused by the priests and nuns that ran the schools.

Most of us know that the lasting effects in many First Nations communities have manifested themselves as poverty, addiction and abuse.

Canadians learned at least that much from Stephan Harper's apology one year ago to the survivors of those schools.

But very few of us have looked into the eyes of one of those children now grown up, many of them now parents or grandparents, and heard them tell their stories -- the raw details of what really happened behind the doors of those schools.

That is why Jacqueline Windh fought hard for her book, First Nations and the Pacific Northwest: Change and Tradition, to be released this month in Canada.

The volume was originally published in Germany to accompany a gallery exhibit in Westfalian Museum of Natural History in Muenster. The first part of the book, by museum director Prof. Alfred Hendricks, explains historical facts about the First Nations of North America for the exhibition. The second part of the book, by Windh, delves into the deeply personal and disturbing stories of 16 residential school survivors from Vancouver Island, told in their own words. For some, it was the first time in their lives they'd talked about their experiences.

The stories force the reader to imagine what it would be like to learn about suicide for the first time when a 10-year-old boy hangs himself in the basement of your school. Or for nuns to come into your room at night to rape you, or to strangle you and the other kids until you black out, just for entertainment.

The stories force the reader to reflect upon how it would feel now, decades later, to see those same nuns in the grocery store of your tiny community. And then to go home to your family only to beat them and pass on the abuse you learned as a child, because it's the only thing you knew growing up.

'They were trained not to talk'

Windh grew up in Ontario, and did not lay eyes on a First Nations person until she was an adult. Not until she was in her 30s, after having moved to Tofino, British Columbia, did Windh really get to know an Aboriginal person. She had known only vaguely about the residential schools and what went on there. Slowly, she developed friendships in the First Nations community, eventually dating a First Nations man, and began to learn about the dark history that shrouded the families she was meeting.

It was years before she earned the trust and respect in the community necessary in order for people to open up and tell her their stories. Now, she says, many residential school victims are realizing it is time that people hear those stories so they can begin to understand the horror that lies in Canada's past, and how it has shaped the present.

"People can have more empathy if they know the truth. If you're walking in downtown Vancouver and you see a drunken Indian passed out on the side of the road, instead of just thinking, 'Why don't they get a job?' you can have a little more empathy about the whole history that brought that person to that situation."

While she originally set out to educate non-natives about the horrors of the residential school system through telling the stories, she quickly learned that many aboriginal people themselves, especially youth, were starved for information as well. What happened in the schools is rarely talked about, even in the family.

"Their parents and grandparents who went to the residential schools were so severely abused that it's a thing they don't talk about. And they were also trained there not to talk. They were really trained not to talk about stuff, so they've been raised in this culture of not talking," says Windh.

'I just want a better life'

The stories in the book are accompanied by portraits photographed by Windh. The last thing Canada needs, she believes, is another faceless Indian.

One of these photos shows a man, Brian Lucas, not older than 50. He stands on a porch overlooking Tofino's shoreline and mountains, twisting a blue towel around his neck:

"We were tortured by the Brothers, getting hit by a big stick four feet long and two inches wide. Thirty whacks on my bare ass, I couldn't even sit down, but I was still forced to sit down. Then I had to get another ten more because I smiled at my friend. I got my ear twisted because they said I wasn't listening. I had my hair pulled by the Sisters, four of them. They tortured me by putting a towel around my neck. This is how they tortured me, they made me black out.

"I want my picture taken of me with a towel around my neck, to show what they put me through. It did something to my brain, that's why I'm always this way."

Brian was five or six when he entered Christie Residential School in Kakawis on Vancouver Island. He has six children of his own now who, though not attending residential school themselves, live with the consequences while their father still fights to move on.

"Nine of those Brothers and Sisters abused me -- physical, emotional, the works. Sexual, I seen them doing it right in front of me. It affected me, and made me say "Hey, that's all right for me to do too." I'm not ashamed to say it, that's where I learnt it from.

"It is hard to live with. I have to see them still, in Tofino. Some of the Brothers and Sisters still live there. Right away I get scared when I see them, I feel "I want to do the same thing to you guys." But I know that's not going to help me.

"Now I hear myself saying those same things to my own kids, 'You're stupid, you're never gonna learn anything.'

"It's a tough life. There are triggers every day, right in front of me. It's hard to get away from it. I'm trying to teach my kids now, so they don't do the same things I did. I feel from my heart, trying to do the right thing so I don't hurt anybody. But I'm teaching them the same things I learnt at residential school, and now they are living it too.

"I just want a better life. It's hard to live a good life when you have this inside of you."

Time for healing running out

Since October 2008, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a formal inquiry intended to give voice to and document the experiences of residential school survivors, has lay in shambles after the commissioners resigned over internal disputes. Earlier this month, however, the government welcomed new commissioners, promising the commission will be up and running soon.

If done properly, Windh says, obeying the strict cultural rules she learned herself about communication within the First Nations community, the commission could begin on a large scale the healing that Change and Tradition has helped bring to one small community. But it needs to happen fast.

"People are dying. Of the 16 people I interviewed, two of them have died already, and one of them is not doing very well at all and might not be with us much longer." She says the victims deserve to be heard.

"Every Canadian should hear these to find out, I guess, the horror or what happened... There are so many things these days for us to think about being focused on, and we get so overloaded by information. But I think sometimes it's easier to understand something on the emotional level."

"It's a way of honouring them, to just hear them. And for native people that's a really important thing. Just to be listened to."

Friday, 10 July 2009

"Opposition Awaits Completion of Hariri’s Consultations to Give Final Answers"

"Opposition Awaits Completion of Hariri’s Consultations to Give Final Answers"

10/07/2009 Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem urged all rival Lebanese political camps to realize that neither of them can build the country by itself, regardless of their influence and popularity.

"The country cannot be built by the efforts of a single team. And not one side can monopolize (power) or deny the role and popularity of the other side," he added.

"We presented what we have and said we are prepared to take part in a national unity government. We behaved in a completely positive manner to ensure … that Lebanon remains a country of resistance and that it rejects any form of foreign tutelage."

During an event in the Ghobeiry neighborhood in the Southern Suburb on Friday, Sheikh Qassem said that the Lebanese national opposition’s position is politically strong, and that its parties are awaiting the proposals of Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri to decide on its future steps “and give our final answers.”

His eminence held Hariri as responsible for creating proposals and formulas that “serve the concept of partnership.” “We welcomed the inter-Arab understanding, and we see that it is important and positive, whether the understandings were Syrian-Saudi or Egyptian-Syrian,” Sheikh Qassem added.

The Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General also denounced the “foreign meddling of countries that are trying to impose their conditions on Lebanon,” adding, “Only what the opposition and the majority agree on will be implemented, and that will be the basis on which the future of the country will be built.”

His eminence pointed out to the Zionist threats saying it is nothing more than a show of power. “You have heard what the Israeli leaders’ declarations and their bullying against Lebanon in case Hezbollah entered the government saying that they would bomb the country and held it responsible, yet Israel is powerless and exposed.”

Newt Gingrich: Sabotage Iran’s Oil Infrastructure


Link

Al Jazeera
July 10, 2009

The former speaker of the US House of Representatives has said that the US should “sabotage” Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure as part of its efforts to bring down the government.

In an interview with Al Jazeera’s Avi Lewis for the Fault Lines programme, Republican Newt Gingrich said targeting Iran’s refinery would spark an economic crisis that would destabilise the government in Tehran.

He said the US should “use covert operations … to create a gasoline-led crisis to try and replace the regime”.

“I think we have a vested interest, the world has a vested interest, in a responsible Iranian government, just as we have a vested interest in a responsible North Korean government,” he said.

While Barack Obama, the US president, has attempted diplomatic engagement with Iran following years of icy relations, some of his administration’s critics have been calling for destabilization instead.

But Gingrich qualified that such a tactic to destabilise would only be “one piece out of many”.

“I think that the Reagan strategy in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s is the right strategy: we use economic, diplomatic, psychological pressures to try to change the regime.”

Media Disinformation: "Saudis give nod to Israeli raid on Iran"

Link


Contrary to Times accounts relations between Ahmedinejad and Saudi King Abdullah seem to be cordial

by F. William Engdahl
Global Research, July 9, 2009

The world-renowned Times newspaper of London published a report in its July 5th edition titled, “Saudis give nod to Israeli raid on Iran.” The story, were it true, would imply a dramatic change in Saudi foreign and military policy whose consequences potentially could lead to a World War III. A more serious investigation reveals that there are nasty elements of what military psychologists and intelligence specialists term “disinformation” at work trying to foster discord across the Muslim oil-producing world. The question is Qui Bono? Who ultimately benefits from such disinformation?

According to the London Times, the flagship paper of the giant media group owned by naturalized American citizen, Australian media mogul, Rupert Murdoch, “The head of Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence service, has assured Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, that Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over the kingdom during any future raid on Iran’s nuclear sites.”

The London paper went on to report to allege that Meir Dagan, the head of Israeli’s Mossad intelligence service, had held secret meetings early this year with leading Saudi officials and that as well former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had held such secret talks. Citing an unnamed “diplomatic source” from an unnamed country, the Times went on to quote, “The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.”

Were that report accurate, it would be, excuse the expression, a bombshell of a nuclear dimension. The story suggests that war preparations against Iran are very advanced in the wake of the tumultuous elections in Iran last month in which the conservative Mahmud Ahmedinejad was declared the victor against massive opposition protests, protests fanned actively from outside at a certain point by US Government-linked NGOs and by the US State Department.

A recent statement by Obama’s Vice President, Joe Biden with ABC's George Stephanoupolos, where he said in answer to a question: "Look, Israel can determine for itself — it's a sovereign nation — what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else." Whether we agree or not? The interviewer asked. "Whether we agree or not," said the vice president.” That suggested that the Obama Administration had changed its earlier reported “veto” over potential Israeli military strike in Iran. It was the first time a senior Obama administration official left Israeli the military option against Iran's nuclear sites.

British intelligence disinfo?

Because the Times story was so important and because the implications of a “Saudi nod” to Israeli military over-flight en route to bomb Teheran or Iranian targets could potentially unleash a Holy War within the one-billion strong Muslim world, I decided to probe more deeply. What emerged was quite different from the Times account.

I contacted very reliable sources with extensive involvement in Saudi Arabia and who have been reliable in the past, to ask whether the Times story of a secret agreement with Israel over bombing Iran was accurate. The answer I got back was revealing.

The Times itself cited a denial statement from the Saudi Government, but in a way to leave the impression it was not serious, merely covering up the truth of the Times story of collusion between Israeli intelligence and the Saudi Kingdom.

According to this Saudi inside confidential source, however, “not only have we denied it, it would be absolute political suicide to even contemplate letting the Israelis cross our airspace!”

That corresponded with my knowledge of years of quiet diplomatic dialogue between, yes, even Ahmedinejad and the Saudi Royal family. Indeed, it was reportedly largely due to agreement between Iran’s Ahmedinejad and the Saudi King Abdullah, during a personal meeting in Riyadh in March 2007, that agreement was reached to try to create lessening of tensions between Sunni and Shiite muslim groups in Iraq. Those talks had more to do, according to on-the-ground reports, with the dramatic falloff in killings in Iraq than General Petraeus’ infamous “surge” strategy.

Who is behind the Times?

The Times of London is one of the world’s best known newspapers. In its better times, during the First and even Second World Wars, it was the newspaper of record of Britain, comparable to what the New York Times also once was in the United States. The Times in those days was one of the most influential propaganda instruments of a little-known and extremely influential elite group that called itself the Round Table, as in King Arthur’s legendary Knights of the Round Table. The Round Table group, initially created out of the will of British mining magnate and inciter of the 1899 Boer War, Sir Cecil Rhodes, played a key role in manipulating British pubic opinion into going to war in 1914 against the German “Hun,” in a fruitless attempt to save the “English way of life” as they saw it, to save the declining British Empire.

Since the newspaper came into financial difficulties in the early 1980’s, its then-owners, the Astor family, sold it and Australian media czar Rupert Murdoch bought it, placing it under his News Corporation International which also owns the New York Post, the San Antonio Star, the Hollywood 20th Century Fox studios, the right-wing neo-conservative Fox News TV network and until recently the flagship of US neo-conservative William Kristol, the Weekly Standard. In 2007 Murdoch added the prestigious Wall Street Journal to his stable.

The Board of Directors of Murdoch’s News Corp. holding company, owners of the Times of London, is also interesting. It includes, in addition to Murdoch as Chairman and CEO, also former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, the very conservative and very controversial friend of Britain’s Tony Blair, who split EU opposition to the 2003 Iraq War by backing Blair and Bush. Murdoch’s board also includes Andrew Knight of J. Rothschild Capital Management, the financial holding of Jacob Lord Rothschild, the head of the British branch of the legendary financial family. It also includes Viet D. Dinh who served as an Assistant Attorney General of the United States from 2001 to 2003, under George W. Bush, and who was the chief architect of the USA PATRIOT Act.

To put it mildly, Murdoch’s News Corp. has a distinct political or geopolitical profile. It is clearly in the neo-conservative war hawk camp. It clearly backed Tony Blair, who according to London sources, owed his job to the backing of Murdoch’s Sun tabloid newspaper in the UK, a paper better known for sensational stories than for serious analysis. That puts the “impartiality” of Blair today as official “Envoy of the Quartet” on the Middle East, the Quartet being the motley combination of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States, and Russia.

The controversial John Bolton

It is also notable that in its story of the “Saudi nod to Israel,” Murdoch’s Times chose to cite the infamous former Bush UN “acting” Ambassador, neo-conservative John Bolton, who told the Times that it was “entirely logical” for the Israelis to use Saudi airspace. The Times wrote, “Bolton, who has talked to several Arab leaders, added: ‘None of them would say anything about it publicly but they would certainly acquiesce in an over-flight if the Israelis didn’t trumpet it as a big success.’ Arab states would condemn a raid when they spoke at the UN but would be privately relieved to see the threat of an Iranian bomb removed, he said.”

John Bolton was one of the founding members of the pro-war Project for the New American Century think-tank along with Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld and most of the prominent neo-conservative hawks of the Bush Administration. As well, Bolton is alleged to be a member of the ultra-secretive Council for National Policy which brings the Rev. Moon cult, the Church of Scientology and the ultra-religious Christian Right under one neat political umbrella, the heart of the George W. Bush right-wing political machine. As Bush Administration State Department official, Bolton was accused by his associates of helping fake intelligence on Niger yellowcake uranium sales to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a faked intelligence report, aided by Tony Blair’s good offices, that was falsely cited by Secretary of State Colin Powell as justification for the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

This time it seems that the same Bolton and Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London are again in bed together, this time in an effort to drive a wedge of distrust across the Muslim oil-producing world by planting disinformation about an agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israeli military intelligence that never existed.

Cui Bono? By planting a false story that Saudi Arabia’s worst opponent, Israel, is now its closest friend, allied with the Netanyahu government against Iran, the false story spreads and sows distrust that functions along the classic lines of Roman military strategy: divide and conquer. Whatever internal disagreement in foreign policy between the regime of Iran’s Shiite President, Ahmedinejad and the Sunni Saudi Kingdom, more likely the case is that the Saudis – no matter how much they disapproved of Iran—would always side with a fellow Muslim before they would side with Israel or the US. The Iranian leaders come to Saudi Arabia often; they don’t hate each other according to well-informed reports from the region.

There appears to be a split within the Obama Administration over Iran policy. However if Biden represents the hawk faction that finds an Israeli military strike an “option” the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen has just warned on national TV, notably on Murdoch’s Fox News TV that any attack against Iran would be "very destabilizing.” Mullen was quoted by AFP as saying, “I've been one who has been concerned about a strike on Iran for some time, because it could be very destabilizing, and it is the unintended consequences of that which aren't predictable."

F. William Engdahl is author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order.



After 30 Months, US Grudgingly Frees Iranian Officials in Iraq

Link

Iraq Compelled US to Free Detainees Under SOFA

by Jason Ditz, July 09, 2009

On January 11, 2007 US forces attacked an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil, seizing computers and files and capturing five Iranian officials, which it claimed were secretly terrorists. The Iraqi government insisted that the consulate had been operating legally for years, and seemed baffled by the US raid.

The captive officials have been held ever since as “security detainees,” never formally charged with any crimes and held with virtually no official comment regarding their detention. That silent detention ended today when the Iraqi government requested the detainees be handed over to them. They were sent to a brief meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and promptly released to the Iranian embassy.


The US military reportedly didn’t like it, and believes the detainees remain a danger. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly says that the US has “made our concerns known to the Iraqi government” regarding the release. But at the end of the day, there was no legal recourse for the US. Under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) once the Iraqi government requested it, the US had no basis to continue extralegal detention.


Though the US government has been on a hostile footing with Iran, which it continues to blame for its woes in the ongoing Iraq war, the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Maliki is actually on very friendly terms with their Shi’ite neighbor, and given that, the release isn’t much of a surprise, it seems curious that it didn’t happen before today.

Related Stories

Source

Zionist Racism~It's Everywhere, It's Everywhere

Link


Shaking my head in disbelief, as I begin to comprehend the fact that the inherent Racism of Zionists seems to infiltrate and infest even the most mundane things in our everyday lives. Always lurking where you least expect it, poised ready to always deliver the bigoted blow, the smear, the racist propaganda and the gross de-humanization of Muslims. But even I was astounded by this one folks.
You may be used to seeing fireworks with names like 'Seaside Garden,' 'Burst and Bloom,' or 'Red, White, and Boom.'

Some of the novelties sold at Fireworks City in Baldwin, Wis. are sparking controversy in the Arab and Muslim communities.

On one side of the packaging for 'Run Hadji Run' fireworks, men of Middle Eastern decent are riding on camels with a bomber plane flying above them. On the other side is an angry-looking Uncle Same yanking the beard of what looks like a Muslim man.

"This is just outrageous," said Kenya McKnight. What comes in my mind, is that people will get idea to pop fireworks at Muslims."

The fireworks were being sold for $30. While the owner didn't want to comment on camera, customers had a lot to say.

"To me it sends a clear message that Muslims are terrorists. ‘Run Hadji Run’—I’m going to throw some fireworks and I want to see you run," McKnight said.

The Council of American-Islamic Relations of Minnesota issued issued a statement about the fireworks, explaining "Hadji is an honorific term for those who have completed the pilgrimage to Mecca, but has been often used as a derogatory term by U.S. Soldiers during the Iraq War."

After 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS visited the store and brought attention to the offensive fireworks Friday, they were pulled off the shelves.

CAIR-MN also wrote a letter to the company's president, asking for him to offer an apology to the Muslim and Arab community. source
Now, here's the letter CAIR-MN wrote to the Zionist promoting company selling these racist potential weapons PDF FILE HERE


Posted by irish4palestine at 1:04

Israel's Agenda of Control and Death in Gaza: Coming Soon to an American Neighborhood Near You

Link

Former U. S. Congresswoman and Green Party Presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, has been sitting in an Israeli prison as one of the Free Gaza 21. She is now known as Israeli prisoner #88794. Her crime and that of her compatriots? In her own words, ". . .trying to take medical supplies to Gaza [by boat], building supplies–and even crayons for children."
As McKinney tells it, her own involvement with the Free Gaza movement, was precipitated by Israel’s Operation Cast Lead aerial assault on Gaza, which was launched in December of 2008. American taxpayers will be delighted to know that their conscripted monies on behalf of the Zionist State, funded unrestrained Israeli F-16 airstrikes on a captive population in Gaza, employing white phosphorus munitions, depleted uranium shells, robotic technology, DIME weapons, and cluster bombs. Word has it that Gaza has served as the laboratory testing ground for an entirely new generation of Israeli aerial weaponry, to be used at Tel Aviv’s discretion and with total disregard for international law or world political opinion.
And Mr. Obama, like his predecessors, is engaging in a silence that is comprehensively deafening. Hugh Galford’s piece on Israeli PAC money in American elections, in the May/June Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA), provides the oh-so-familiar bottom line on why.
But take heart, America. What is happening in Gaza, is coming to a community near you. Bet on it. Your own political and economic freedoms are in the crosshairs of the same folks. A totalitarian state is just around the corner in the United States, courtesy of the marriage of the Israeli intelligence apparatus and homeland security structures with their counterparts in this country, aided and abetted by the media and the U. S. government. This is the bottom line.
The latest evidence of what has–and what will be--transpiring in the continental United States may be found in the current newsstand edition of Counter Terrorism: The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security International (Volume 15, No. 2, Summer 2009), in an article entitled, "International Corporate Profiles: Israeli Counterterrorism Institutes and Firms." The magazine is published by SecureWorldnet of Arlington, Virginia, in cooperation with the International Association for Counterterrorism and Security Professionals, and the Counterterrorism and Security Education and Research Foundation.
The article profiles 6 Israeli research institutes and commercial firms, representing only a sample of the total number of such organizations in existence. The reader will become acquainted with The International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), and its commercial arm, Counter Terrorism Solutions (CST); The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), part of the NGO known as the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center (IICC); the Shurat HaDin–Israel Law Center; Chameleon Associates LLC [formerly known as the Chameleon Group]; the Sdema Group; and The Institute of Terrorism Research and Response (ITRR).
Of particular note to the American reader are the tentacles of these shadowy organizations in the continental United States, and the American institutions working with them on a public basis. These include the Syracuse University Maxwell School of Government’s Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism (INSCT); the University of Pennsylvania; Boeing; SAIC; Hewlett-Packard; and Texas A+M University. American cities, especially Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, figure prominently as hosts for these Mossad and Shin Bet front groups. No American political figure of significant prominence has said a word about the existence and operations of the Israeli intelligence nexus within the continental United States, even subsequent to the Pollard, Ben-Zvi, and Rosen/Weissman AIPAC spy cases. Why?
Those of us on the authentic American Right will have special interest in the Shurat HaDin–Israel Law Center, headed up by Ms. Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, an Israeli attorney. According to CounterTerrorism, Shurat HaDin "models itself on the groundbreaking work of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the American civil rights organization dedicated to bankrupting the Klu Klux Klan (KKK), neo-Nazis, and other White Supremacist extremist groups in the United States. Like SPLC, the law center’s goal is to economically cripple extremist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere. . . ."
This is clearly ominous. The Southern Poverty Law Center and its partner in the predictive profiling of legitimate American citizens, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith (ADL), have a working definition of extremism which simply demonizes anyone who opposes Israeli governmental atrocities, Zionist ideology, or the left-wing political and social agenda of the majority of Jews in the United States. The Constitution Party candidate for President in 2008, my good friend Chuck Baldwin, chronicles the notoriously illegal and outrageous character of the infamous Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report, and the American Department of Homeland Security (DHS) missal, entitled, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."
The latter piece of trash reveals that DHS is warning law enforcement in the United States, to be on guard against anyone who:
". . . opposes illegal immigration, same-sex marriage, ‘free trade agreements,’ gun control, the ‘New World Order,’ ‘One World Government,’ the outsourcing of American jobs, the ‘perceived’ threat to U.S. sovereignty by foreign powers, abortion, ‘declarations of martial law,’‘the creation of citizen detention camps,’ ‘suspension of the U.S. Constitution,’ or the abridgement of State authority. Also branded are people who believe in ‘end times’ prophecies, and who ‘stockpile’ food, ammunition, or firearms."
Baldwin goes on to say that the sources of information for the report are The Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith. (Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ron Paul were among the 3rd party Presidential candidates libelously depicted in these profiling reports as attracting the support of "extremists." )
Why is the mainstream American conservative movement and the Republican Party mute on what is happening, both in Gaza and in the destruction of the Old American Republic?
As documented by Dr. E. Michael Jones in the April 2007 Culture Wars (pages 40-47) in an essay titled, "The Death of Conservatism," it all began with the Jewish cooptation of William F. Buckley and National Review. Jones notes that the late Jew, Murray Friedman, proved it in his posthumously published magnum opus on Jewish influence in American politics, "The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Foreign Policy" [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, 303 pages]. According to Friedman, the Jewish activists who formed National Review and ran Buckley as their goyische front man, included Frank Meyer, Frank Chodorov, Morrie Raskin, and Willi Schlamm. Jones notes that:
"What conservatism lacked in philosophical coherence, however, it made up for in effective political organizing techniques which its founding Jewish fathers’ remembered from their days in the Communist Party. Or from their days in Zionist terrorist organizations. In terms of organization, the most influential of Buckley’s ‘circle of Jews’ was a former communist who came to conservatism via Zionism, in particular via the terrorist organization known as Irgun Zvai Leumi. His name was Marvin Leibman and in addition to serving as publisher of National Review, he created the fund-raising technique known as direct mail, which would play a major role in the political movements surrounding Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. In 1946, Leibman was captured trying to smuggle Jews into Palestine and held in a British detention camp in Cyprus for 15 days."
Thus, once Buckley and National Review were on board with their logistical and financial handlers, other Israeli front men subsequently served their Zionist masters in the infiltration of the American Right, including such frauds as Jack Kemp, Bill Bennett, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ralph Reed. The endgame? Clearly it has proven to be the takeover of the American foreign policy and governmental establishments by Israel, the buyout of the American media, the destruction of this country’s once formidable manufacturing-based economy, and the continued declension of a sewage-seeped culture as embodied in the Jewish Hollywood establishment’s recent lionization of the late pedophile, Michael Jackson. Where does it end in this culture of death?
My continued prediction: those who have financed the culture of death in America’s abortion industry, and who finance the continued extermination of Palestinians and Gazans with state-of-the-art American/Israeli military and surveillance technologies, will only be happy when a wider war with Iran is launched, courtesy of a false flag incident spun by the media moguls to fan the flames of public thirst for more Middle Eastern adventurism and mass murder.
As Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse, "Watch."


Posted by kramfoknad 16:31

Was The CIA Hiding Cheney's "Executive Assassination Ring"?

Link


Sam Stein in the Huffington Post, here

" .....But the dates don't line up. In their letter, the lawmakers note that members of Congress were "misled" for "a number of years, from 2001 to this week." Pelosi, however, contended that the CIA lied to her about the use of harsh interrogation techniques during the fall of 2002.

And in a conversation with the Huffington Post, Rep. Anna Eshoo, (D-Calif.), one of the letter's signatories, said that Panetta "stopped the program the day after he was informed." Waterboarding was ended as a practice during the Bush years.

So what are the "significant actions" that these seven lawmakers insist were kept from Congress? Another theory being bandied about concerns an "executive assassination ring" that was allegedly set up and answered to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, building off earlier reporting from the New York Times, dropped news of the possibility that such a ring existed in a March 2009 discussion sponsored by the University of Minnesota.

"It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," Hersh said. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...

Asked if this was the basis of her letter to Panetta, Eshoo said she could not discuss what was a "highly classified program." She did, however, note that when Panetta told House Intelligence Committee members what it was that had been kept secret, "the whole committee was stunned, even Republicans." A Republican committee member told Who Runs Gov's Greg Sargent it was something they hadn't heard before..."


Panetta himself was kept in the dark about the program -- whatever it was -- having only been told about the classified activity on June 23. "His own top leadership didn't even brief him that this program existed," said Eshoo. ..."

Posted by G, Z, & or B at 11:47 AM

His Zionist Butt Has Been BANNED!!

Link


Vice Chair of the ZIONIST FEDERATION banned from Event in England.

SCORE:
GOOD PEOPLE=ONE
ZIONISTS=0

A prestigious local community venue in east London was set to host an event on Thursday night organized by a charity that supports and funds a boycott of Israel and accuses Israel of being an apartheid state.

Moreover, the charity made it clear to the co-vice chair of the Zionist Federation, Jonathan Hoffman, that he would not be allowed to attend.

War On Want's executive director, John Hilary, told the Post: "The event is designed to draw public attention to the gross abuse of human rights in Palestine. My colleagues and I have just returned from there last week, and we will be sharing our experiences of the situation alongside Ben White's presentation of his book."

Asked why Hoffman had been banned from attending the meeting, Hilary said: "War on Want welcomes all members of the public to our events. Mr. Hoffman alone has been told he will not be welcome on Thursday because he is known for causing serious disturbances at public events on this issue." more
Posted by irish4palestine at 6:58 PM

Israel considering' a special PA squad to carry out hits against Resistance


Israel may allow PA counter-terror force

The IDF is considering allowing the Palestinians to establish a specially trained counterterror squad qualified to carry out pinpoint operations against Hamas terrorist cells in the West Bank, The Jerusalem Post has learned.


Such a force would be able to carry out special operations against Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank more effectively than could existing Palestinian security forces. The French have already offered to train such a team.

The decision to consider the establishment of such a team was made following the Palestinian Authority's operation against a Hamas cell in Kalkilya last month, during which five Hamas terrorists and four members of the US-trained Palestinian security force were killed.

The four Palestinian battalions trained by the United States in Jordan and already deployed in the West Bank were taught how to enforce law and order and conduct regular police-like operations, but were not given military training. Their equipment consists of pistols and Kalashnikov rifles, and the content of their training is approved by Israel.

The IDF is therefore considering allowing the establishment of a small, elite Palestinian squad that would be capable of conducting operations like the one in Kalkilya more effectively and with fewer casualties.

The army recently vetoed a PA request to receive explosives training. The Palestinians also asked Israel for permission to set up an advanced military communication system. This too was denied by the army, due to concern that the Palestinian system would interfere with IDF communications.

While the IDF Central Command, under the direction of Maj.-Gen. Gadi Shamni, has succeeded in dramatically reducing the level of terrorist activity in the West Bank, a top officer warned on Thursday that the army fears that Hizbullah will activate terrorist cells and have them attack Israel.•