Les groupes juifs fauteurs de guerres pour Israël ont peur d’être reconnus pour ce qu’ils sont: des fauteurs de guerres pour Israël!
Un article de nouvelles du NY Times a été retouché pas moins de neuf fois afin de cacher le rôle de l’AIPAC dans le lobbying pour une guerre occidentale contre la Syrie pour les intérêts d’Israël (en vue de leurs plans de guerre contre l’Iran):
Le blog de Richard Hétu:
Mardi 3 septembre 2013 | Mise en ligne à 11h03
La Syrie, l’AIPAC et le New York Times
Hier soir, plus de 48 heures après l’annonce de la décision inattendue de Barack Obama de demander l’autorisation du Congrès avant de donner le feu vert à des frappes sur des cibles syriennes, le New York Times a publié ces deux paragraphes sur son site, comme on peut le constater dans une première version parue dans le Boston Globe :
Des responsables de l’administration disent que l’influent lobby pro-israélien AIPAC était déjà à pied d’oeuvre afin de faire la promotion d’une action militaire contre le gouvernement de M. Assad, craignant que si la Syrie échappe à un châtiment américain pour son utilisation d’armes chimiques, l’Iran pourrait être enhardie à l’avenir à attaquer Israël. À la Chambre (des représentants), le chef de la majorité (républicaine), Eric Cantor, l’unique juif républicain au Congrès, s’efforce depuis longtemps à ébranler l’appui traditionnel des démocrates auprès des juifs.
Un responsable de l’administration, qui a requis l’anonymat pour parler de la stratégie de la Maison-Blanche, a qualifié l’AIPAC de «gorille de 800 livres dans la pièce».
Comme le relève MJ Rosenberg dans ce billet, les deux paragraphes ont disparu dans une version ultérieure publiée dans le Times. Reste à voir si la disparition des allusions à l’AIPAC relève d’une décision éditoriale du Times ou découle de pressions exercées par la Maison-Blanche ou l’AIPAC.
Quoi qu’il en soit, Barack Obama a prédit qu’il obtiendrait l’appui du Congrès ce matin avant de rencontrer les dirigeants de la Chambre à la Maison-Blanche. Il a également insisté sur la nature limitée de l’intervention éventuelle en Syrie.
«Ce n’est pas l’Irak. Ce n’est pas l’Afghanistan. Ce que nous envisageons est quelque chose de limité. C’est quelque chose de proportionné. Cela affaiblira les capacités d’Assad», a dit le président.
September 2, 2013 Passage removed, H/T Niqnaq:
Administration officials said the influential pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC was already at work pressing for military action against Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes US retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. House majority leader Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge Democrats’ traditional base among Jews. One administration official called AIPAC “the 800 lb gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying: « If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, we’re in trouble ».
NewsDiffs reports that the article had no less than nine edits:
President Gains McCain’s Backing On Syria Attack (NYT), Change Log
By JACKIE CALMES, MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITT | First archived on September 2, 2013, 1:18 p.m.
- AIPAC is trying to stay out of sight, but it will be worth watching the CPMAJO’s daily alert (niqnaq.wordpress.com)
- Why Is the Israel Lobby Keeping Quiet on Syria Crisis? (alethonews.wordpress.com)
Voyez ce qui reste après les coupures:
Published: September 1, 2013
One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, “If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line” — against catastrophic use of chemical weapons — “we’re in trouble.”
Mise à jour mars 2014:
Mise à jour 19 septembre 2013:
In public shift, Israel calls for Assad’s fall
Israel passait pour un couard qui pousse les autres en guerre à sa place. Maintenant, ils prennent l’avant-scène et affichent publiquement leur rôle de fauteurs de guerres en Syrie, après que la plupart des groupes juifs se soient retirés de cette campagne. On moins les choses seront claires: Israel est l’acteur principal derrière la campagne pro-guerre contre Assad et la Syrie.
Mise à jour 16 septembre 2013:
Lobbying affiché des groupes juifs pour une guerre en Syrie: ils ont peur que ça leur retombe sur le nez:
AIPAC: Stop Lobbying for a US-Syria Attack!
Apparemment: ils ont même décidé de tout arrêter… en apparence en tout cas:
With deal struck, pro-Israel groups suspend lobbying for Syria strike
Pro-Israel groups embrace a U.S.-Russia deal on Syria after a launching a full-throttled lobbying push for a military strike.
L’AIPAC, le plus puissant lobby israélien aux États-Unis (qui, comme l’ADL, n’est pas inscrit, alors que la loi l’exige, au registre des lobbys étrangers), ose s’afficher comme un fauteur de guerres occidentales en Syrie et en Iran… Et ce, la veille de Roch Hachana, soit la fête du Jour du Jugement contre les méchants (antisémites)…
dimanche 8 septembre 2013
L’AIPAC est sorti de son silence en appelant le congrès à voter en faveur d’une résolution donnant au président Obama le droit d’intervenir en Syrie, démontrant qu’Israël désire la chute du régime de Bachar el-Assad afin de fortifier sa position dans la région.
Les sionistes ont pris l’habitude d’utiliser les peuples parmi lesquels ils vivent pour mener les guerres qu’ils fomentent, comme ce fut le cas pour l’Irak, l’Afghanistan, ou si l’on remonte plus loin la prise de Jérusalem par les Anglais en 1917, accompagnée de la déclaration Balfour pour établir un foyer national Juif en Palestine.
mercredi 4 septembre 2013 – 11h:35 Jonathan Allen – Politico.com
« L’AIPAC presse le Congrès d’accorder au Président le pouvoir qu’il a demandé pour la protection de la sécurité nationale de l’Amérique et dissuader le régime syrien contre d’autres utilisations d’armes non conventionnelles. Le monde civilisé ne peut tolérer l’usage de ces armes barbares, particulièrement contre une population innocente incluant des centaines d’enfants », écrit le groupe dans un communiqué publié mardi après-midi. « En deux mots, il ne doit être donné aucun laissez-passer à la barbarie ».(…)
« Les alliés de l’Amérique, comme ses adversaires, examinent de près en ce moment quel résultat aura ce vote capital. Cette décision cruciale intervient à un moment où l’Iran court après la capacité nucléaire » écrit l’AIPAC. « Le rejet de cette résolution affaiblirait la crédibilité de notre pays à empêcher l’utilisation et la prolifération des armes non conventionnelles et ainsi, de mettre grandement en danger la sécurité et les intérêts de notre pays et ceux de nos alliés régionaux ».
Syrie/Guerre: A qui profite le crime?
HAARETZ – U.S. Jewish groups call on Congress to approve use of force against Syria’s Assad: U.S. Ambassador Oren states Israeli support for Obama’s claim that Syria must ‘international consequences.’ Foxman: Our people’s experience with gas mandates Jewish-moral response.
AIPAC to deploy hundreds of lobbyists to push for Syria action: Pro-Israel lobby says 250 activists will meet with their senators and representatives in Washington in a bid to win support Congressional support for military action in Syria.
JERUSALEM POST – Report: AIPAC to mount major lobbying blitz for Obama’s Syria strike plan: Politico: Lobby to campaign for resolution as the measure to attack Syria was thus far failing to muster sufficient support in House.
‘AIPAC must be kept for consensus issues only’: Israeli diplomat slams Israel lobby for engaging on Syria “It is not wise, it is not correct, it is excessive,” said the diplomatic source, “Israel is too often viewed as a country that drags the United States into conflicts and wars. Such a modus operandi should only be employed when we have no choice, and only with regards to a strategic issue that is vital to the very existence of Israel. The fate of the Syrian regime is no such issue.”
JTA – Don’t blame the Jews, Israel edition (and what’s up with that Alon Pinkas quote?) Last week I slapped up a post arguing that even though Jewish groups support action against Syria, it would be a mistake to suggest that they are out front on this issue. Well, on Monday Israeli newspapers reported that President Obama had asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to lobby Congress. And now The New York Times has a report on Israel’s concerns that it will get blamed for U.S. involvement in another Middle East conflict — especially with AIPAC hitting Capitol Hill on Tuesday to press lawmakers to back the president’s call for a strike on Syria.
How AIPAC works your Congressperson– using donors, rabbis, and Jewish members The reason Israel (and its lobby) are going all out to push the United States to attack Syria is as a precedent for a much larger attack on Iran.
THE JEWISH WEEK – Jewish Leaders Push Back On ‘Warmonger’ Accusation
‘We have a dog in this fight,’ they say in supporting Obama on Syria strike.
AIPAC’s Next Fight AIPAC has launched a new drive to frame the debate on the emerging diplomatic thaw with Iran. Will the lobbying group’s abortive push for a strike on Syria undercut the effort?
Selling War: White House Says Attack Will ‘Protect Israel’ Attack Might Conceivably Intimidate Iran
JERUSALEM POST – ‘High price for WMD use will deter other leaders weighing attack on Israel’ Former MI chief Yadlin says a US strike on Syria will reinstate American deterrence in the region and will dissuade other leaders contemplating an unconventional attack on Israel; argues it is vital for Israel that « Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis » not win in Syria.
Top Israeli Intelligence Chief Confirms Israeli Interest in Toppling Syrian Government Institute for National Security Studies, Amos Yadlin has confirmed in a new study paper that it is “vital for Israel” that the Syrian government be toppled.
US Jewish leaders petition Congress to authorise Syria strike Change.org petition evokes memories of Holocaust and urges leaders to act to deter future atrocities in ‘Syria and elsewhere’
JTA – Republican Jewish Coalition endorses Obama’s Syria call In forcefully backing the president’s call for a strike on Syria, the Republican Jewish Coalition goes against its partisan instincts in two ways.
BLOOMBERG – Lobbying on Syria has inspired coalitions of the unlikely, aligning President Barack Obama with Sheldon Adelson, the Republican billionaire who spent about $70 million trying to defeat him last year, in the push for a military response to the use of chemical weapons.
Jewish Supremacy’s “Israel First and Only” Policy Revealed as Adelson backs Obama Jewish Supremacist and casino billionaire Sammy Adelson–who poured $53 million into Mitt Romney’s…
VIDEO – American support for Syrian rebels: Israeli defense chiefs in Washington to discuss Syria options Toujours ces experts sionistes israéliens pour nous envoyer dans le bourbier… Experts aussi pour nous empêcher de sortir de ce bourbier dans lequel ils nous empêtrent.
How to Start a War
The woman whose Wall Street Journal article was cited by Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during congressional hearings about Syria and the prospects for a U.S. attack was recently fired from her job at the Institute for the Study of War for lying about having a Ph.D. from Georgetown, reported Politico. In her article, researcher Elizabeth O’Bagy made the case for attacking the Syrian government, because she alleged it had committed atrocities against its own people. According to Politico, Ms. O’Bagy has also failed to disclose her connections to the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a pro-rebel advocacy group. (American Free Press, Sept. 17, 2013)
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)
Israeli intelligence ‘intercepted Syrian regime talk about chemical attack’ Information passed to US by Israeli Defence Forces’ 8200 unit, former official tells magazine
Former CIA Analyst Exposes Jewish Supremacist Syrian War Lobbyists Historian and former CIA Intelligence Officer and analyst Michael Scheuer has openly identified the Jewish…
Syrie: pour la presse, la guerre d’Irak rattrape les dirigeants occidentaux – L’EXPRESS
« Nous sommes entrés en guerre cinq fois en 20 ans au Moyen-Orient pour sauver des vies musulmanes, et à chaque fois que nous le faisons nous ne recevons rien d’autre que de l’ingratitude en retour »
— Jonah Goldberg, Fox News.
Syria opposition leader praises Benjamin Netanyahu ÇA C’EST UN NOUVEAU CLASSIQUE!
HAARETZ – Israel adamant it won’t ratify chemical arms treaty before hostile neighbors
Talk of deal to eliminate Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons sends jitters through Jerusalem; will Israel be next?
With Moscow and Washington now discussing a diplomatic deal that would rid Syria of its chemical weapons, officials in Jerusalem are preparing for the possibility that Israel will be asked to submit to supervision of the chemical weapons that foreign reports say it possesses.
In the past few days, Foreign Ministry officials note, senior Russian officials have repeatedly drawn a connection between Syria’s chemical weapons and Israel’s military capabilities. President Vladimir Putin, for instance, told Russian media outlets that Syria’s chemical weapons exist as a response to Israel’s military capabilities, while Russia’s ambassador to Paris told Radio France that Syria’s chemical weapons were meant to preserve its balance of deterrence against Israel, “which has nuclear weapons.”
Israel signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993, but never ratified it. Consequently, it hasn’t agreed to submit itself to international inspections or to refrain from steps that would violate the convention.
Syria, which has one of the largest chemical weapons arsenals in the world, has never even signed the convention, nor has Egypt, which also has a chemical weapons program. Iran, which suffered chemical weapons attacks from Iraq during their war in the 1980s, signed the convention in 1993 and ratified it in 1997. Nevertheless, senior figures at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem claim that Iran secretly maintains a large stash of chemical weapons.
Both Syria and Egypt used Israel as their excuse for not signing the convention. In various international forums over the years, Syrian and Egyptian officials have said their countries would agree to sign only if Israel signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and opened its nuclear reactor in Dimona to international inspectors.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told Haaretz on Wednesday that Israel would not ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention as long as other states in the region with chemical weapons refuse to recognize Israel and threaten to destroy it.
“Unfortunately, while Israel signed the convention, other countries in the Middle East, including those that have used chemical weapons recently or in the past, or are believed to be working to improve their chemical capabilities, have failed to follow suit and have indicated that their position would remain unchanged even if Israel ratifies the convention,” Palmor said in a written statement. “Some of these states don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist and blatantly call to annihilate it. In this context, the chemical weapons threat against Israel and its civilian population is neither theoretical nor distant. Terror organizations, acting as proxies for certain regional states, similarly pose a chemical weapons threat. These threats cannot be ignored by Israel, in the assessment of possible ratification of the convention.”
Despite not having ratified the convention, Israel does have observer status at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that monitors the convention’s implementation, and participates in many of its meetings.
In early 2010, then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman sent a letter to the OPWC’s director general saying that Israel was interested in increasing its cooperation with the organization. But he also stressed that Israel wouldn’t sign the convention until it has signed peace treaties with all its neighbors and is no longer threatened by its neighbors’ chemical weapons.
U.S. State Department cables leaked to WikiLeaks reveal that the American administration held lengthy talks with Israel about the possibility of ratifying the convention, including at a February 2007 meeting in Jerusalem between senior State Department officials and their Israeli counterparts.
An American cable summing up the meeting said that U.S. officials urged the Israelis to move forward on this issue, stressing that Israel is one of only five countries that haven’t yet ratified the convention, with the others being North Korea, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
Alon Bar, then director of the Foreign Ministry’s arms control department, responded that Israel signed the convention in the early 1990s, when the peace process was at its height, and that since then, the situation had changed.
Israel’s chemical weapons policy is overseen by a Defense Ministry panel comprising about 20 senior representatives from the defense establishment and the intelligence community. The committee was established in 1991, dismantled in 2007 and reconstituted in 2009. It meets every few months, but in recent years it has spent very little time discussing chemical weapons.
Le secret des gaz israéliens Ce sont les recherches israéliennes sur les armes chimiques et biologiques qui ont poussé historiquement la Syrie à rejeter la Convention interdisant les armes chimiques. C’est pourquoi la signature par Damas de ce document risque de mettre en lumière l’existence, et éventuellement la poursuite, de recherches sur des armes sélectives destinées à tuer les seules populations arabes.
U.S.: Singling out Israel at UN would harm efforts for nuclear-free Middle East
En fait c’est précisément l’inverse qui est vrai: s’attarder sur le cas d’Israel est la clé pour faire du Moyen-orient une zone sans nucléaire! Car c’était précisément à cause de l’Arsenal nucléaire israélien que les pays voisins ont senti la nécessité de se procurer des armes chimiques!
Israel today is a strong, independent entity that has been accepted by the international community. The Holocaust’s memory is a historical obligation, a monument to human brutality that must not be forgotten. But it cannot constitute a strategic or security consideration that statesmen and army chiefs must deal with today. They must outline Israel’s strategy and its diplomatic and military way, while focusing on its future and on the needs of its people, who want to live not as captives of past traumas.
It’s perfectly legitimate for Israel to recognize the Holocaust as a key factor in formulating its defense policy, despite the liberal polemics seeking a ‘post-Holocaust’ Israel
[C’est un paradigme évident quand on sait qui détient le pouvoir en France.]
In other words, its recent historical experience was the basis for a central part of France’s defense policy.
And that was sans a Holocaust. There had « just » been bombing, shelling, invasion, trench warfare, tank warfare, and periods of occupation.
What’s wrong with that? Why should a nation not rest its policy upon its recent collective experience? I ask this in connection with the latest welling up of ‘anti-Holocaust’ sentiment among the Israeli intelligentsia following interviews in Haaretz with top Air Force officers who took part in the symbolic fly-past over Auschwitz exactly ten years ago. IAF Commander Amir Eshel said he considered that fly-past, by three F-15s which he led, the flight of his life. Photographs of the IAF planes over the notorious – and notoriously unbombed – rail lines adorn many military and civilian offices in Israel’s governing establishment. Men like Eshel keep mementos of that fly-past with them as they contemplate and plan today a possible strike in Syria or a possible strike in Iran.
All this seriously worries liberal opinion. In Haaretz’s own editorial two weeks ago, « Israel today is a strong, independent entity that has been accepted by the international community. The Holocaust’s memory is a historical obligation, a monument to human brutality that must not be forgotten. But it cannot constitute a strategic or security consideration that statesmen and army chiefs must deal with today. They must outline Israel’s strategy and its diplomatic and military way, while focusing on its future and on the needs of its people, who want to live not as captives of past traumas. »
Arguably though, what’s wrong is not the IAF’s memorable demonstration a decade ago nor Eshel’s legitimate and proud memory of it, but rather the unremitting inability of left-liberal Israelis to assimilate the Holocaust into their Zionist ethos – and hence into our national history and policy. The Yishuv, they insisted before and after 1939, comprised New Jews, to be distinguished, if not dissociated, from the millions writhing under Hitler’s jackboot. If Rommel defeated the British and swept through Egypt, they would fight him from the Carmel (…!)
This sad and complex reaction, which had ramifications beyond the establishment of the State in 1948, has been amply documented and debated by some of our best historians.
Later, Menachem Begin’s incessant rhetorical hyperbole exploiting the Holocaust achieved precisely the opposite effect than he intended, at least among left-liberal opinion. His tasteless analogies – Arafat in Beirut to Hitler in Berlin for instance – triggered an almost instinctive spurning of any Holocaust analogy as demagogic and devaluing.
But arguably this instinctive reaction has itself become polemic and hyperbolic. Such reactions become outright irrationality when Prime Minister Netanyahu proclaimed his own Holocaust analogy, pointing out that Iran, pursuing the Bomb, was threatening to incinerate Israel and was denying the Holocaust.
This, of course, is the sub-text of the criticism of Eshel and the other IAF generals. They are accused, in effect, of reinforcing Netanyahu’s analogy by referring back to their dramatic fly-past over Auschwitz.
Well, it certainly works with me. Whenever I see that photograph of the IAF at Auschwitz my eyes tear. When I saw on Mossad Chief Meir Dagan’s wall, next to the government’s instructions to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the photograph of his grandfather, on his knees, about to be shot, the tears flowed.
Granted, as Haaretz asserts, Israelis « want to live not as captives of past traumas. » But, as the French official helped me understand, many people find it natural and unavoidable to live – and make policy – as captives of their past traumas. Our trauma was the worst of all.FREE EBOOK: The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes
By Avraham Burg, 2009
War Crimes Investigator Censored,
Message to Obama from Congress:
No War on Syria Without Our OK
for American Free Press (Issue 36, 2013)
One of America’s most respected military figures charged publicly that long-standing allegations about the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons may have been, in his words, “an Israeli false flag operation” calculated to stir up opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, long perceived by Israel as a threat to its geopolitical agenda.
And now that the United States seems poised to attack Syria on the basis of new claims about the use of such weapons, what former U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson told Current TV on May 3 bears noting.
A longtime military intimate of U.S. General Colin Powell, and later his chief of staff when Powell was secretary of state under “W” Bush, Wilkerson said his intelligence sources dismissed claims at that time that Assad’s military had used chemical weapons against terrorist forces.
Having loomed over Assad for months, that charge has been reinvigorated and the media revels in the possibility the U.S. will now attack Syria. However, the Los Angeles Times reported August 27 that Germany’s Focus magazine—citing a former Israeli intelligence official—said Israel was the primary source for current charges about Syria’s alleged use of chemical warfare.
Noting “U.S. intelligence sources long have relied on Israel to help provide intelligence about Syria” the Times didn’t mention it was also Israel that previously supplied the Bush administration much of the false data about supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which provided the pretext for the invasion of that Arab republic.*
The mainstream media carefully suppresses the fact that—as demanded by the Israeli lobby in Washington—U.S. tax dollars (underwriting Israeli covert expertise) instigated the rebellion against Assad that led to the civil war that U.S. blood and treasure are now expected to resolve in a manner satisfactory to Israel.
Although the media suggests the Pentagon is eager for war on Syria, the fact is that—just as before the Iraq war when multiple military leaders were warning of the dangers of such a venture—top brass are likewise urging restraint vis-à-vis Syria. Even Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey recently told Congress that U.S. intervention in Syria would not be in America’s interests.
Yet, despite widespread public opposition to war, many Republicans and Democrats alike—bankrolled by pro-Israel campaign contributors—are clamoring for action.
* See THE GOLEM: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb and the Road to Global Armageddon for more data on this little-known scandal.
Michael Collins Piper Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.
AUDIO – AMERICAN FREE PRESS Editors Roundtable, Sep. 12, 2013 AMERICAN FREE PRESS newspapers editors and reporters discuss the weeks top stories. Michael Collins Piper discusses his latest article on Syria being framed.
The whole world has come to understand that Netanyahu is a criminal and as such, Israel faces deeper and deeper diplomatic and political isolation. Therefore, in order to save Israel, it is necessary to take down the mad dog.
We are joined tonight by the one and only Michael Collins Piper to discuss this and other topics related to the war build-up against Syria.Download Here
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM
Syrian Crisis Exposes Israeli Lobby
• The reason Syria developed bio-weapons in the first place was for defense against Israeli nukes
for American Free Press (Issue 39, 2013)
Syria’s current arsenal of chemical warheads and Scud missiles to deliver them was started more than 30 years ago to counter Israel’s development and possession of nuclear weapons, according to present and former U.S. intelligence officials.“They have been developing chemical weapons as a force equalizer with the Israelis,” a former senior intelligence analyst said yesterday. “Hafez al-Assad, the present president’s father, saw chemicals as a way to threaten the Israelis and an equalizer for their nuclear program.” Assad knew, the former analyst said, that “military aid from the Soviets would never be able to match what Israel developed in the nuclear field and received from the U.S.”Syria’s possession of chemical weapons was an important part of the Bush administration’s recent, week-long verbal offensive against Damascus. But it also has brought attention briefly to another highly sensitive issue: the impact that Israel’s nuclear arsenal has had on its enemies in the Middle East.The consensus from Middle East experts is that almost every country in the region has pursued weapons of mass destruction programs— and they have done so primarily because of the arsenal that Israel has built up, said Joseph Cirincione, head of the non-proliferation programof the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.“You can’t get rid of chemical or biological or nuclear programs in Arab countries unless you also address the elimination of Israel’s nuclear and chemical programs,” Cirincione said.
‘Back Story’ on Putin-Obama Deal: Plug Pulled on Israel, Warmongers
• Zionists up in arms that peaceful solutions to Mideast problems being considered
By Mark Glenn
“Worries about the Rouhani phone call.” And The New York Times printed this bizarre story: “Iranians Welcome Home Rouhani With Protest.”
However, Obama’s gesture in reaching out to Rouhani and intimating that a deal could be struck between the two nations to resolve the difficult diplomatic situation only makes sense when the events of the lastmonth involving Syria and Russia are factored in.
By all appearances, this is exactly what has taken place. An out-of-control America, firmly in the grip of the Israeli lobby and its voracious appetite for war, would not restrain itself on principles of the Constitution, the rule of law or even thebasic tenets of right versus wrong. The U.S. establishment would only stop the drive to war if it were trapped in a cave with a large, angry bear that was standing in its way.
Mark Glenn is a commentator and activist fluent in several languages. He is currently based in Idaho. See more from Glenn at www.crescentandcross.com.
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.
(…)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.(…)
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.
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.
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. »
(Just another 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.’