NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL! PLUS JAMAIS DE GUERRES POUR ISRAËL! Prévisible false flag israélien pour une guerre en Syrie

ZCF: My Thoughts on Syria and the “Chemical Weapons” Charge

The latest allegations by the intrepid servants of International Zionism that the Syrian government launched a “chemical attack” on its own civilians in Damascus is just more desperate hogwash to justify Western intervention, terrorism and genocide of the Syrian people. This latest ploy is just another psychological warfare operation designed to demonize Assad and provide the West with a pretext to remove him from his rightful place as the head of the Syrian government. There is absolutely no reason why an intelligent and decent man like Assad would ever commit such a heinous act that would essentially hand his enemies the excuse they were looking for to invade and conquer his nation on a silver platter. This suggestion is not only idiotic, it is an insult to our intelligence.

All of the evidence shows that the rebel-terrorists are the ones who are using chemical weapons on civilians in a propaganda effort to blame these atrocities on the Syrian government. The rebel-terrorists most likely committed this latest atrocity too, with the help of their American, British and Israeli sponsors. The foreign-backed insurgents and terrorists who are tearing Syria apart are of the same foul, sadistic ilk that dismembered the nation of Libya several years ago. This madness and chaos is all part of a long-standing Zionist plan to reconfigure the middle east in the Zionists favour by eliminating all strong Arab leaders who refuse to submit to Israeli domination of the entire region and by fragmenting their nations into smaller, weaker states.

 

Oded Yinon, a rather puerile Jewish supremacist, authored a strategy paper in 1982 entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s” in which he laid out the framework of a plan to undermine and weaken all of the Arab nations surrounding Israel by instigating internal ethnic and religious conflicts. This is exactly what has transpired since the Israeli attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. About one hour after the Twin Towers were detonated with Israeli explosives, the Israeli war criminal Ehud Barak appeared on the BBC in which he listed one by one all of the countries that have since fallen victim to Western terrorism and aggression. Barak called for “immediate military action” against all of the States and resistance groups that pose a threat to Israeli hegemony. In his traditional manner of unfettered arrogance, Barak attempted to trick the viewers into believing that these countries were somehow a threat to the United States.

 

The Zionist plan for a “Greater Israel.”

 

It is nothing short of disgusting to see every major Western country doing the bidding of Zionist imperialism with such ferocious, passionate enthusiasm. The U.S., England, Germany and France have all threatened to attack Syria if this chemical weapons charge is “confirmed”. There is no doubt that these Western schemers will find a way to “confirm” Assad’s guilt using the usual methods of subterfuge and deception.

The sickening hypocrisy and sensational arrogance of American leaders regarding “chemical weapons” and the killing of civilians has reached ludicrous proportions. The United States has bombed and killed more civilians in the past twenty years than all other nations on earth combined. The U.S. military sprayed Agent Orange chemicals all over the place during the Vietnam war; a war that was initiated on the basis of an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin that never even happened. The U.S. military has used Depleted Uranium weapons in its genocidal war against Iraq, causing the cancer rates in certain Iraqi cities to skyrocket. Many Iraqi children are now being born with terrible birth defects and unbearable deformities. After the first Gulf War, which was initiated on the basis of an invented story of pure propaganda now known as the “Kuwaiti Incubator Baby Hoax,” the U.S. government imposed brutal sanctions on Iraq which caused the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children. Lest we forget, the United States dropped two nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War, incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians in a matter of seconds.

The United States supports Israel, a nation that was established through terrorism and ethnic cleansing; a nation which not only possesses some of the most deadly and dangerous chemical weapons and biological agents of destruction, but has used white phosphorous chemical bombs on Palestinian civilians. There were of course no Western government leaders condemning these crimes when they were happening. In fact, for the most part Western leaders supported these actions, defending the Israeli murderers with incorrigible conviction.

The inescapable conclusion of all of this is that our world is being run by psychopaths who may very well cause the extinction of the human species and the end of all life on earth as we know it.

Zander Fuerza

 

VIDEO – Syria and the Greater Israel Project“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle EastYinon’s Revenge? A Panorama of Chaos in the Arab WorldThe Crises in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt: The Plan to ‘Divide and Conquer’ the Middle East and Why All Roads Lead to Tehran

VIDEO – BHL essaie de convaincre les américains

VIDEO – L’AIPAC, lobby pro israélien aux USA, appelle à la guerre à la SYRIE

VIDEO – John McCain se fait dire ses 4 vérités

VIDEO – War is a Racket by Smedley Butler

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.

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.

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, spoke to Clark shortly after the former general made his remarks. “He is a friend of Israel and is not an antisemite,” Foxman told the Forward, “but some of the things he said are very, very unfortunate.”

Foxman argued that while he does not accuse Clark of believing in conspiracy theories that paint the Jews and Israel as pushing the United States into war, the former general “fueled the flames and gave credibility to these theories.”

Michael Collins Piper, The Golem

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:

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.

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.

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.

Riche en pétrole, et en proie à des luttes intestines, l’Irak est dans la ligne de mire israélienne. Sa dissolution serait, pour nous, plus importante que celle de la Syrie, car c’est lui qui représente, à court terme, la plus sérieuse menace pour Israël. Une guerre syro-irakienne favoriserait son effondrement de l’intérieur, avant qu’il ne soit en mesure de se lancer dans un conflit d’envergure contre nous. Toute forme de confrontations inter-arabe nous sera utile et hâtera l’heure de cet éclatement. (…) Il est possible que la guerre actuelle contre l’Iran précipite ce phénomène de polarisation.

La Péninsule arabique toute entière est vouée à une dissolution du même genre, sous des pressions internes. C’est le cas en particulier de l’Arabie saoudite : l’aggravation des conflits intérieurs et la chute du régime sont dans la logique de ses structures politiques actuelles.

La Jordanie est un objectif stratégique dans l’immédiat. À long terme, elle ne constituera plus une menace pour nous après sa dissolution, la fin du règne de Hussein, et le transfert du pouvoir aux mains de la majorité palestinienne.

C’est à quoi doit tendre la politique israélienne. Ce changement signifiera la solution du problème de la rive occidentale, à forte densité de population arabe.

L’émigration de ces Arabes à l’Est —dans des conditions pacifiques ou à la suite d’une guerre— et le gel de leur croissance économique et démographique, sont les garanties des transformations à venir. Nous devons tout faire pour hâter ce processus.

Il faut rejeter le plan d’autonomie, et tout autre qui impliquerait un compromis ou une participation des territoires, et ferait obstacle à la séparation des deux nations : conditions indispensables d’une véritable coexistence pacifique.

Les Arabes israéliens doivent comprendre qu’ils ne pourront avoir de patrie qu’en Jordanie (…) et ne connaîtront de sécurité qu’en reconnaissant la souveraineté juive entre la mer et le Jourdain. (…) Il n’est plus possible, en cette entrée dans l’ère nucléaire, d’accepter que les trois quarts de la population juive se trouve concentrée sur un littoral surpeuplé et naturellement exposé ; la dispersion de cette population est un impératif majeur de notre politique intérieure. La Judée, la Samarie, et la Galilée, sont les seules garanties de notre survie nationale. Si nous ne devenons pas majoritaires dans les régions montagneuses, nous risquons de connaître le sort des Croisés, qui ont perdu ce pays.

Rééquilibrer la région sur le plan démographique, stratégique et économique, doit être notre principale ambition ; ceci comporte le contrôle des ressources en eau de la région qui va de Beer Sheba à la Haute-Galilée et qui est pratiquement vide de juifs aujourd’hui. »

The rhetoric sounded patriotic. In reality, this is a modern-day propaganda mask for old-fashioned Trostkyite communism: rapacious imperialism and internationalism. Though wrapped in the American flag, there’s nothing American about it.

Rather than standing for American nationalism, this philosophy—quite the contrary—is a 21st century manifestation of the age-old dream of a global government under the rule of an elite few. Many call it the New World Order.

While some still fear the UN as the mechanism advancing the agenda, the fact is that the would be rulers of this global plantation now seek to utilize the U.S. as their vehicle for achieving that end.

The grand wizards who conjured up American exceptionalism are those infamous “neo-conservative” high priests of war who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq and who now seek to contrive a war against Iran. They crave U.S. military meddling all over the world—not just in the Middle East.

Perhaps the foremost intellectual proponent of this warmongering madness is Yale professor David Gelernter. Defining “Americanism” as an incarnation of biblical Zionism with “a divine mission to all mankind,” he says the United States is the base of “American Zionism,” charged with a God-given duty to remake the world.

“Americanism,” he asserts, is the “creed” of what is the “fourth great Western religion,” the driving force behind—and which must establish—a new planetary regime.

Real American nationalists reject the idea the United States should be the world’s policeman. Instead, nationalists believe in developing and strengthening their nation from within, maintaining the integrity of its cultural heritage and sovereign borders, placing their own nation’s interests first. Nationalists do not start wars of imperialism. They respect the nationalist instincts of others.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen

The War Against the Terror Masters, by Michael Ledeen, 2003, p.212-213

(neocon ideologue trying to sell the lie of American Exceptionalism to justify more wars for Israel!)

« 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. »

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.’