La Syrie s’est procuré un arsenal chimique précisément parce qu’elle savait qu’Israël a l’arsenal nucléaire! Personne ne mentionne que la Syrie a souvent appelé à la création du « Moyen-Orient sans arme nucléaire », justement parce que cela mettrait de la pression sur Israël.
One of America’s most respected military figures charged publicly that long-standing allegations about the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons may have been, in his words, “an Israeli false flag operation” calculated to stir up opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, long perceived by Israel as a threat to its geopolitical agenda.
And now that the United States seems poised to attack Syria on the basis of new claims about the use of such weapons, what former Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson told Current TV on May 3 bears noting.
Noting “U.S. intelligence sources long have relied on Israel to help provide intelligence about Syria” the Times didn’t mention it was also Israel that previously supplied the Bush administration much of the false data about supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which provided the pretext for the invasion of that Arab republic.
The media carefully suppresses the fact that—as demanded by the Israeli lobby in Washington—U.S. tax dollars (underwriting Israeli covert expertise) instigated the rebellion against Assad that led to the civil war that U.S. blood and treasure are now expected to resolve in a manner satisfactory to Israel.
Although the media suggests the Pentagon is eager for war on Syria, the fact is that—just as before the Iraq war when multiple military leaders werewarning of the dangers of such a venture—top brass are likewise urging restraint vis-à-vis Syria.
Even Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey recently told Congress that U.S. intervention in Syria would not be in America’s interests.
Yet, despite widespread public opposition to war, many Republicans and Democrats alike—bankrolled by pro-Israel campaign contributors—are clamoring for action.
• First real evidence emerges proving U.S. ally behind Syria attack
by Victor Thorn for American Free Press
October 06, 2013 AFP
AMERICAN FREE PRESS is opposed to military interventions and wars that are not in this country’s interest and only benefit the military-industrial-banking complex and Greater Israel.
And with that in mind, this week, AFP examines how doctored intelligence reports, an incoherent foreign policy and powerful special interests have the potential to lead the United States into World War III.
Once restricted merely to conspiracy circles, the term “false flag attack” became part of the popular lexicon during the recent Syrian chemical weapons debacle. Former Representative Ron Paul (R-Tex) referred to allegations that the Syrian government had used sarin gas as a false flag before adding, “The group most likely to benefit from it is al Qaeda.” But even though Muslim revolutionaries were most likely involved in the use of chemical weapons, the source of these heinous attacks can be traced to familiar players.
On September 17, Jason Ditz, news editor of the website “Antiwar.com,” wrote, “Israeli ambassador Michael Oren revealed that the Israeli government has privately been seeking change in neighboring Syria for the past two years since the ongoing civil war began.”
Four months earlier, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s right-hand man during his term in the Bush administration, spoke of an earlier chemical attack in Syria.
“This could have been an Israeli false flag operation,” he said. “You’ve got basically a geo-strategically, geo-political — if you will — inept regime in Tel Aviv right now.” Wilkerson is known for calling intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in October 2005 a “hoax.”
In regard to Syria, respected ex-Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst Ray McGovern averred that so-called evidence presented by the Obama administration “would not stand up in a court of law.” According to McGovern, despite Israel’s attempts at perpetual instability in the Middle East, saner heads prevailed via our military’s top brass.
Scott Baker, senior editor of the liberal website “Op-Ed News,” addressed this issue on September 11. “McGovern says the military got to the president, overriding even the objections of the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff,” wrote Baker on his website.
On September 2, popular news website “The World Tribune” editorialized about the military’s wise request to slow down the path to war in the form of General Martin Dempsey, who showed his reluctance to be a participant in this potential fiasco.
“Dempsey has been unusually blunt in his remarks with both Obama and Vice President Joe Biden,” opined the “Tribune.” “His assessment is that any U.S. war against Assad will involve his foreign allies, and that means Tehran and to a smaller extent, Moscow.”
Already, comparisons between Obama and President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been made, particularly in terms of lies and exaggerations regarding weapons of mass destruction.
For example, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that 1,429 people, including 426 children, died in the August 21 chemical attack just outside Damascus. Yet humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders, which has doctors on the ground in Syria, estimated the total at only 355. Red Cross Operations Director George Kettaneh directly contradicted Obama administration claims that a Syrian man had tested positive for traces of toxic gases in his bloodstream.
Yossef Bodansky, the senior editor for Defense & Foreign Affairs magazine, took it a step further in a September 1 article published on the news agency’s website, entitled “Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?”
As former director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Bodansky’s sources acknowledged that on August 13, at a Turkish military prison in Antakya, representatives from Qatar, Turkey and the U.S.—including U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford—met with Syrian opposition leaders to unleash a “war changing development.”
Saleh Muslim, overseer of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, agreed with Bodansky’s assessment, asserting that this secret meeting was “aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction.”
The woman whose Wall Street Journal article was cited by Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during congressional hearings about Syria and the prospects for a U.S. attack was recently fired from her job at the Institute for the Study of War for lying about having a Ph.D. from Georgetown, reported Politico. In her article, researcher Elizabeth O’Bagy made the case for attacking the Syrian government, because she alleged it had committed atrocities against its own people. According to Politico, Ms. O’Bagy has also failed to disclose her connections to the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a pro-rebel advocacy group. (American Free Press, Sept 17, 2013)
‘McCainiacs’ Border on Treason
In an interviewwith online news outlet Real News Network, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, said Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (RS. C.) “are bordering on being traitors in my view, because they won’t let this president [Obama] have room to achieve a diplomatic solution [with Iran].” He added: “They’re all angry nowthat [Obama] didn’t bomb Syria . . . and so they’removing on to Iran, with Graham even saying he’s going to move for legislation to authorize the use of military force against Iran in the next four to five months.” (American Free Press, Oct 7, 2013)
Gens détestant le nègre sont nombreux depuis qu’il envahit la France, conformément au souhait des sages de Sion, avec soutien outrancier de Veuve irrégulière. Presse juive est la plus forte dans ce domaine, à commencer par Libération qui publia hier en couverture cette photo du singe métamorphosé en homme Obama, car il ne voulait pas exploser Syrie.
Voyez le truc, Obama était chic type quand il fut élu grâce au soutien de Tikkun. Il devient laid et bestial maintenant qu’il hésite à déclencher guerre absurde dans l’intérêt de Yisraêl. (lire le reste…)
Israel to U.S.: Respond to Syria Prominent Israeli Cabinet ministers are calling for a U.S.-led response to a what appears to have been a chemical attack in Syria last week that the prime minister describes as a “terrible crime.” Benjamin Netanyahu told his Cabinet on Sunday that “this situation cannot continue.”
The Syrian deal – More bad than good for Israel If Assad honors the deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria, then a very deadly weapon will be removed from Israel’s doorstep. The bad news is that Assad would be left standing, leaving Iran with a vital strategic ally.
The Syrian deal – More bad than good for Israel If Assad honors the deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria, then a very deadly weapon will be removed from Israel’s doorstep. The bad news is that Assad would be left standing, leaving Iran with a vital strategic ally.
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.
Jobbik on the conflict in Syria.
Jobbik has always spoken out against the use of weapons banned by international law, therefore, if it is proven that such a case has indeed taken place, our party objects to the use of poison gas in Syria as well.
However, Jobbik is worried to see the sinister events developing in Syria as well as the systematic attempts of the West to find a casus belli for an armed intervention against the Assad government. Jobbik disowns the provocation as well as the anti-Assad stance of the West and the servile attitude of the Hungarian government that runs to rally behind its Western allies. Jobbik also objects to the support provided for the forces being organized against the Assad government which also represent Islam’s most extreme platforms, Wahhabism and Salafism and openly cooperate with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. Not only does the West contradict itself by supporting terrorism, but subordinates the already fragile stability of tension-ridden Middle East to its own short-term goals.
Jobbik firmly believes that the UN Security Council, which represents the interests of the powers that view the Syrian conflict subjectively and in light of their own goals, is unable to conduct a fair investigation of the gas attack. This has already been proven ten years ago, in the case of the shameful Iraqi invasion that was built on a smear campaign and propaganda.
Jobbik stands for the Assad government, which enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people and has built up an economically, culturally and politically stable country during its rule of over half a century in one of the most complex Middle Eastern countries in terms of ethnicity and religion. We hope that the Assad government will soon be able to stabilize the situation and continue its governmental activity in the interest of the Syrian people.
Márton Gyöngyösi, deputy leader of Jobbik’s Parliamentary Group
Les groupes juifs fauteurs de guerres pour Israël ont peur d’être reconnus pour ce qu’ils sont: des fauteurs de guerre pour Israël!
Administration officials said the influential pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC was already at work pressing for military action against Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes US retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. House majority leader Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge Democrats’ traditional base among Jews. One administration official called AIPAC “the 800 lb gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying:
If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, we’re in trouble.
NewsDiffs reports that the article had no less than nine edits:
President Gains McCain’s Backing On Syria Attack (NYT), Change Log
By JACKIE CALMES, MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITT | First archived on September 2, 2013, 1:18 p.m.
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.”
In his phone conversation with Foxman, Clark stressed that his remarks were not directed at the American Jews.
Last Tuesday, Clark sent Foxman a letter attempting to clarify his remarks. “I will not tolerate antisemitic conspiracy webs to permeate the honest debate Americans must have about how best to confront Iran,” Clark wrote.
In the letter, he also emphasized the need to engage in dialogue with Iran before turning to military options. “It has been my experience,” Clark wrote, “that diplomacy has always been America’s most effective tool and that force should be used only as a last resort.”
The Republican Jewish Coalition described Clark’s alleged comments as “blatantly antisemitic” and claimed that they were part of a larger trend of antisemitism seeping into mainstream Democratic political discourse. “Wesley Clark owes American Jews an apology,” said the RJC’s executive director, Matthew Brooks.
New York money is not only playing a big part in 2008 presidential campaign politics, but it’s also a driving force behind the ongoing push by pro-Israel fanatics at the highest levels of U.S. policy-making to force the United States into a senseless war against Iran.
That’s the only conclusion that can be reached based on a survey of multiple and wide-ranging news reports—circulating largely within publications in Israel and in the American Jewish community—that have not been brought to the attention of most Americans through the aegis of the so-called « mainstream media. »
It’s almost as if the major media in America is simply determined to prevent average Americans from knowing that there are some people who believe that Israel and its well-heeled backers in the United States are the primary advocates for U.S. military action against Iran.
Perhaps the most explosive comments in this regard came from Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), who was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 and who—until then, at least—was considered a likely candidate for the Democratic nod in 2008. In an interview with columnist Arianna Huffington, Clark said that he believed that the Bush administration is determined to wage war against Iran. When asked why he believed this, Clark said:
You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.
In short, Clark was saying that powerful New York-based financial interests (those whom he called « the New York money people ») are putting pressure on political candidates and incumbent politicians to support a war against Iran.
In fact, Clark was correct. Jewish community newspapers have indeed noted, time and again over the past several years, that many in the American Jewish community and in Israel are urging U.S. military action against Iran. And in Israel, of course, the bellicose talk of Israel itself attacking Iran is commonly and publicly discussed with free abandon. All of this is little known to the American public.
Despite this, Clark came under fire and was accused of « anti- Semitism » or otherwise charged with lending credence to what are dismissed as « anti-Israel and anti- Jewish conspiracy theories, » which—Clark’s angry critics said—suggest that Israel and its supporters are prime movers behind the drive for war.
Because Clark is the son of a Jewish father (although he didn’t know that until several years ago, having been raised by a Christian mother and a Christian step-father who never told Clark of his Jewish heritage), some Jewish leaders were pulling their punches, recognizing that it sounded somewhat outlandish to call Clark « anti-Jewish. » But the word is definitely out in the Jewish community: « Clark can’t be trusted. »
On Jan. 12,2007, the New York-based Jewish newspaper, Forward, carried a front-page story zinging Clark for his remarks, noting that, »The phrase New York money people’ struck unpleasant chords with many pro- Israel activists. They interpreted it as referring to the Jewish community, which is known for its significant financial donations to political candidates. »
The fact that Jewish leaders and publications were attacking Clark for using the term « New York money people » was ironic, inasmuch as just the week before the furor over Clark’s comments, the same Forward, in its own Jan. 5, 2007 issue, had a front-page story announcing that pro-Israel stalwart U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had lined up significant financial support for his own 2008 presidential campaign from those whom—in its own headline—Forward called « New York money men. »
In that revealing article, describing McCain’s « heavily Jewish finance committee, » Forward announced that, in recent weeks, « McCain has been signaling that an attention to Jewish issues will remain on his agenda as his campaign moves forward. » The Jewish newspaper did not mention whether McCain will direct any attention to Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu issues—or any other issues of concern to other religious groups.
The article in Forward made it clear that support from these « New York money men » is critical in the forthcoming presidential campaign and that it could be pivotal, whether that money stays in McCain’s camp or ultimately goes elsewhere.
This information could prove a surprise to grass-roots Republicans all over America who think (apparently incorrectly) that they are the ones who actually pick their party’s presidential nominee.
In addition, in light of the fact that Jewish groups attacked Clark for suggesting that « New York money people » were pressuring political candidates to push for war against Iran, it is interesting to note that Forward pointed out that one of the key « New York money men » supporting McCain cited the issue of Iran as one of the reasons why he was boosting the Arizona senator.
Dr. Ben Chouake, who is president of the pro-Israel NORPAC, a political action committee, and a member of McCain’s finance committee, was cited as having remarked that Iran is « an immense threat to the United States, and this is an immense threat to Israel, » and that « the person that is the most capable, most experienced, most courageous to defend our country, would be John McCain. »
Clearly, the « New York money people » are playing a major part in the American political arena, throwing their weight behind who gets elected— and who doesn’t—and whether or not America goes to war.
That’s something that Americans need to know about, but they had better not count on the mass media to tell them about it.
Extraits d’un article de la revue Kivounim (Orientation), publié par l’« Organisation Sioniste mondiale » à Jérusalem (n° 14, février 1982). Ils présentent un plan de démembrement des États arabes qui constitue la référence du projet de « remodelage du Proche-Orient » de l’administration Bush.
Archives de février 1982
« La reconquête du Sinaï, avec ses ressources actuelles, est un objectif prioritaire que les accords de Camp David et les accords de paix empêchaient jusqu’ici d’atteindre (…) Privés de pétrole et des revenus qui en découlent, condamnés à d’énormes dépenses en ce domaine, il nous faut impérativement agir pour retrouver la situation qui prévalait dans le Sinaï avant la visite de Sadate et le malheureux accord signé avec lui en 1979.
La situation économique de l’Égypte, la nature de son régime, et sa politique panarabe, vont déboucher sur une conjoncture telle qu’Israël devra intervenir…
L’Égypte, du fait de ses conflits internes, ne représente plus pour nous un problème stratégique, et il serait possible, en moins de 24 heures, de la faire revenir à l’état où elle se trouvait après la guerre de juin 1967. Le mythe de l’Égypte « leader du monde arabe » est bien mort (…) et, face à Israël et au reste du monde arabe, elle a perdu 50% de sa puissance. À court terme, elle pourra tirer avantage de la restitution du Sinaï, mais cela ne changera pas fondamentalement le rapport de force. En tant que corps centralisé, l’Égypte est déjà un cadavre, surtout si l’on tient compte de l’affrontement de plus en plus dur entre musulmans et chrétiens. Sa division en provinces géographiques distinctes doit être notre objectif politique pour les années 1990, sur le front occidental.
Une fois l’Égypte ainsi disloquée et privée de pouvoir central, des pays comme la Libye, le Soudan, et d’autres plus éloignés, connaîtront la même dissolution. La formation d’un État copte en Haute-Égypte, et celle de petites entités régionales de faible importance, est la clef d’un développement historique actuellement retardé par l’accord de paix, mais inéluctable à long terme.
En dépit des apparences, le front Ouest présente moins de problèmes que celui de l’Est. La partition du Liban en cinq provinces (…) préfigure ce qui se passera dans l’ensemble du monde arabe. L’éclatement de la Syrie et de l’Irak en régions déterminées sur la base de critères ethniques ou religieux, doit être, à long terme, un but prioritaire pour Israël, la première étape étant la destruction de la puissance militaire de ces États.
Les structures ethniques de la Syrie l’exposent à un démantèlement qui pourrait aboutir à la création d’un État chiite le long de la côte, d’un État sunnite dans la région d’Alep, d’un autre à Damas, et d’une entité druze qui pourrait souhaiter constituer son propre État —peut-être sur notre Golan— en tout cas avec l’Houran et le Nord de la Jordanie. (…) Un tel État serait, à long terme, une garantie de paix et de sécurité pour la région. C’est un objectif qui est déjà à notre portée.
Riche en pétrole, et en proie à des luttes intestines, l’Irak est dans la ligne de mire israélienne. Sa dissolution serait, pour nous, plus importante que celle de la Syrie, car c’est lui qui représente, à court terme, la plus sérieuse menace pour Israël. Une guerre syro-irakienne favoriserait son effondrement de l’intérieur, avant qu’il ne soit en mesure de se lancer dans un conflit d’envergure contre nous. Toute forme de confrontations inter-arabe nous sera utile et hâtera l’heure de cet éclatement. (…) Il est possible que la guerre actuelle contre l’Iran précipite ce phénomène de polarisation.
La Péninsule arabique toute entière est vouée à une dissolution du même genre, sous des pressions internes. C’est le cas en particulier de l’Arabie saoudite : l’aggravation des conflits intérieurs et la chute du régime sont dans la logique de ses structures politiques actuelles.
La Jordanie est un objectif stratégique dans l’immédiat. À long terme, elle ne constituera plus une menace pour nous après sa dissolution, la fin du règne de Hussein, et le transfert du pouvoir aux mains de la majorité palestinienne.
C’est à quoi doit tendre la politique israélienne. Ce changement signifiera la solution du problème de la rive occidentale, à forte densité de population arabe.
L’émigration de ces Arabes à l’Est —dans des conditions pacifiques ou à la suite d’une guerre— et le gel de leur croissance économique et démographique, sont les garanties des transformations à venir. Nous devons tout faire pour hâter ce processus.
Il faut rejeter le plan d’autonomie, et tout autre qui impliquerait un compromis ou une participation des territoires, et ferait obstacle à la séparation des deux nations : conditions indispensables d’une véritable coexistence pacifique.
Les Arabes israéliens doivent comprendre qu’ils ne pourront avoir de patrie qu’en Jordanie (…) et ne connaîtront de sécurité qu’en reconnaissant la souveraineté juive entre la mer et le Jourdain. (…) Il n’est plus possible, en cette entrée dans l’ère nucléaire, d’accepter que les trois quarts de la population juive se trouve concentrée sur un littoral surpeuplé et naturellement exposé ; la dispersion de cette population est un impératif majeur de notre politique intérieure. La Judée, la Samarie, et la Galilée, sont les seules garanties de notre survie nationale. Si nous ne devenons pas majoritaires dans les régions montagneuses, nous risquons de connaître le sort des Croisés, qui ont perdu ce pays.
Rééquilibrer la région sur le plan démographique, stratégique et économique, doit être notre principale ambition ; ceci comporte le contrôle des ressources en eau de la région qui va de Beer Sheba à la Haute-Galilée et qui est pratiquement vide de juifs aujourd’hui. »
Nationalism, Not ‘Exceptionalism’ the Proper Course for America
by Michael Collins Piper
During the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney spoke of “American exceptionalism.”
The rhetoric sounded patriotic. In reality, this is a modern-day propaganda mask for old-fashioned Trostkyite communism: rapacious imperialism and internationalism. Though wrapped in the American flag, there’s nothing American about it.
Rather than standing for American nationalism, this philosophy—quite the contrary—is a 21st century manifestation of the age-old dream of a global government under the rule of an elite few. Many call it the New World Order.
While some still fear the UN as the mechanism advancing the agenda, the fact is that the would be rulers of this global plantation now seek to utilize the U.S. as their vehicle for achieving that end.
The grand wizards who conjured up American exceptionalism are those infamous “neo-conservative” high priests of war who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq and who now seek to contrive a war against Iran. They crave U.S. military meddling all over the world—not just in the Middle East.
Perhaps the foremost intellectual proponent of this warmongering madness is Yale professor David Gelernter. Defining “Americanism” as an incarnation of biblical Zionism with “a divine mission to all mankind,” he says the United States is the base of “American Zionism,” charged with a God-given duty to remake the world.
“Americanism,” he asserts, is the “creed” of what is the “fourth great Western religion,” the driving force behind—and which must establish—a new planetary regime.
“We are the one and only biggest boy [in the world today],” he wrote. “If there is to be justice in the world, America must create it. . . .We must pursue justice, help the suffering and overthrow tyrants. We must spread the creed.”
Real American nationalists reject the idea the United States should be the world’s policeman. Instead, nationalists believe in developing and strengthening their nation from within, maintaining the integrity of its cultural heritage and sovereign borders, placing their own nation’s interests first. Nationalists do not start wars of imperialism. They respect the nationalist instincts of others.
Michael Collins Piper
Michael Ledeen: Un néoconservateur adepte de la théorie du « Grand Moyen-Orient »
Aujourd’hui, il est l’un des plus ardents défenseurs de la doctrine Bush et de la théorie du Grand Moyen-Orient, partisan de renverser non seulement le régime irakien du dictateur Saddam Hussein, mais aussi les régimes d’Iran, de la Syrie, voire de l’Arabie saoudite (ou du moins l’empêcher de « financer le terrorisme »).
(neocon ideologue trying to sell the lie of American Exceptionalism to justify more wars for Israel!)
‘CREATIVE DESTRUCTION’ OF THE ARAB WORLD
(Excerpt from THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR, by Michael Collins Piper)
Lest anyone chalk up these comments to « Arab paranoia, » or « anti-Israel bigotry, » note that one of Israel’s most consequential advocates in official Washington — veteran pro-Israel intelligence community bureaucrat Michael Ledeen, a longtime close friend and associate of Richard Perle — has put out a propaganda screed titled The War Against the Terror Masters in which he writes of what he calls « creative destruction. »
Ledeen says that this« creative destruction » is « entirely in keeping with American character and the American tradition« — an assertion that will surprise many Americans. Ledeen says that Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and — for good measure — the non-Arabic Islamic Republic of Iran — should all be targets of « creative destruction » by U.S. military might.
« Creative destruction, » writes Ledeen, is « our middle name, » — the term « our » referring to Americans, whether or not they share his imperialist views. According to Ledeen:
« We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law.
Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.
They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence — our existence, not our policies — threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission. »
While his rhetoric is stilted and ponderous, what Ledeen is promoting is the idea that it is not U.S. support for Israel that engenders Arab hatred for the United States. Instead, he claims, it is the very existence of the United States — the « American way of life » — that inflames Arab passions. (What utter lies! What nonsense!)
Yet, these words are the propaganda line of the Israeli lobby which hopes to distract the attention of the American people away from the causes of Arab hostility to the United States stemming from unswerving U.S. support for Israel. Ledeen goes on to suggest that anyone who stands in opposition to all-out war against the Arab world needs to be removed from positions of authority. He writes:
The president has to rid himself of those officials who failed to lead their agencies effectively, along with those who lack the political will to wage war against the terror masters.
The top people in the intelligence community need to be replaced, and those military leaders who tell the president that it can’t be done, or they just aren’t ready, or we need to do something else first, should be replaced as well, along with the people in the national security community who insisted that we must solve the Arab-Israeli question before the war can resume and the top people in agencies like the FAA, the INS, and so forth.’
In fact, aside from other political considerations, President George W. Bush had good personal reason to do the bidding of the hard-line hawks in promoting their imperial schemes on behalf of Israel.
In the Feb. 1992 edition of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, former Rep. Paul Findley (R-Ill.) revealed that in 1991 former Israeli intelligence officer Victor Ostrovsky had blown the whistle on a plot by a right-wing faction within Israel’s Mossad to kill then-PresidentGeorge H. W. Bush who was perceived as a threat to Israel.
After Ostrovsky provided the details to another former member of Congress, Pete McCloskey (R-Calif.), McCloskey conveyed a warning to the U.S. Secret Service. In his 1994 book, The Other Side of Deception, Ostrovsky revealed the specifics of what he had learned of the plot: the Mossad planned to assassinate Bush during an international conference in Madrid.
The Mossad had captured three Palestinian « extremists » and leaked word to the Spanish police that the terrorists were on their way to Madrid. The plan was to kill Bush, release the « assassins » in the midst of the confusion — and kill the Palestinians on the spot. The crime would be blamedon the Palestinians — another Mossad « false flag. »[…]