Posts tagged ‘AIPAC’

The Lobby Is International …….


Israel’s Fifth Column Never Sleeps


by , November 21, 2013


It is hard to believe that even though 64% of the American public favors a negotiated settlement with Iran over its nuclear program fully 37% of those polled also believe that the United States actually needs Israel’s permission before coming to any kind of agreement. To paraphrase the late great Mitt Romney, is that a percentage that we will never be able to reach no matter how good the arguments are for “taking responsibility” and restoring American sovereignty in the area of foreign affairs? One has to suspect that the percentage consists mostly of the Christian-Zionists, who lately have been conducting a large scale “action alert” email campaign directed at Congress and the White House to force the cancellation of talks. They are perhaps heeding the demand of Harvard Professor and professional Israel apologist Alan Dershowitz that the “entire pro-Israel community must unite” to stop any agreement.


Tea Party Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas provided his own explanation for why “a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do” to the House of Representatives last Wednesday saying “There are many who have been aware of Scripture, and it has often been a guide in our relations with Israel. Some of us believe that the Bible is accurate. Certainly, so many prophesies have been fulfilled, and if that is true, this administration, unless they can find a verse that accurately says that those who betray Israel will be blessed, then this country is being dug in a deeper hole by this administration, and its betrayals of Israel’s trust and Israel’s friendship.” Gohmert, for all his sublime ignorance, is unfortunately not alone. By virtue of the evangelism and fine example set by the likes of Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin the scripture thumpers have escaped from the Bible Belt and are now to be found everywhere.


Congress is also doing its bit among the national security crowd, taking its lead from American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which supports “…congressional action to adopt legislation to further strengthen sanctions and there will absolutely be no pause, delay or moratorium in our efforts.” Leading Senators named Kirk, Schumer, McCain, Ayotte, Corker, Graham, and Menendez who have long been close to Israel are undercutting White House efforts to develop a formula that would break through the wall of mutual hostility between Tehran and Washington, insisting on new and harsher sanctions that would devastate the already struggling Iranian economy. Lindsey Graham even explained what we should all know about Iranians: “How do you define an Iranian moderate? An Iranian who is out of bullets and out of money.” Mark Kirk, who denounced a Kerry Senate briefing on the talks with Iran as “anti-Israeli,” apparently was briefed in advance by Israeli intelligence before the committee meeting began.


Even the normally somnolent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seems to be wavering under pressure from AIPAC, saying “I hope we can work something out with Iran, but I am a person who really believes in the State of Israel.” And Senator Rand Paul also appears to know where his bread is buttered, tweeting last Tuesday that “Amidst the chaos of the Middle East we have always had one friend that never leaves our side – Israel. As an ally, Israel has never wavered.”


AIPAC has sent memos and talking points to every congressional office and intends to buttonhole each congressman prior to the resumption of talks. It is also unleashing its media assets, which should surprise no one, but there is also the presence of senior Israeli officials on Capitol Hill, pressuring legislators and providing false information to discredit the White House. Israeli Ambassador Ron Dremer has been leading the charge, supported by Israeli Economy Minister Naftali Bennet, an extreme right-winger even by Israeli standards. They have been using fabricated numbers to demonstrate to congressmen that Obama is seeking to make significant cuts in Iranian sanctions. One might question why a congressmen like Kirk should be favoring information offered by the Israelis over what is being provided by the US intelligence community and even ask why Israelis should be on Capitol Hill at all lobbying to influence US policy. Also, why is the US mainstream media not reporting the story of direct Israeli interference in our political process?


The White House is trying to push back, urging restraint, but it almost certainly will find itself outnumbered when the Senate votes on two bills that will broaden sanctions and will require the US to support Israel militarily if it chooses to attack Iran. Even Secretary of State John Kerry seems mystified by what is occurring, noting that the United States is fully aware of all the issues involved and is not being “stupid” in its willingness to deal with Iran for the first time in 35 years. Clearly stressed after his repeated hours-long sessions trying to explain things to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he is even asking Israel how it can continue to justify stealing Arab land, a hitherto unthinkable rebuke that might possibly cost him his job. The Israeli government is already anonymously indicating that it has lost confidence in Kerry.


Well, Kerry should know better than anyone that he is confronted by a massive disinformation and influence buying campaign that is coordinated by the Israeli government to preserve its ability to deal with the Palestinians as it wishes while simultaneously creating the conditions that will eventually bring about an American attack on Iran. Here in the US we refer to the Quislings as the Israel Lobby, but something similar exists in many countries including France, Britain, Australia and Canada. It consistently and deliberately puts the perceived interests of the Israeli hard right government first before the interests of the countries that it operates in, though of course it always seeks to convince the audience that Israeli and local interests are identical. This is basically the argument being made and repeated ad nauseam about Iran, that the Mullahs are developing a nuclear weapon that will threaten the entire world. It matters not that the argument is a fabrication from start to finish.


On November 8th a desperate Netanyahyu reportedly made last minute appeals to Britain, France, Germany, and Russia to derail the Geneva talks with Iran, presumably under the not unreasonable assumption that he had leverage with their political leadership. The eventual willingness of the French government to carry water for him is only one indication of the power of France’s own formidable Israel Lobby. France is home to the largest diaspora Jewish community after the United States. It is wealthy and well educated and has long been prominent in French politics. The French Jewish organization the Conseil representatif des institutions juives de France (CRIF) is comparable to several American Israel Lobby components, to include AIPAC, in that it works actively on behalf of Israeli interests. It has endorsed every military action taken by Israel to include the bombing of Gaza in Operation Cast Lead in 2009 and the attack on the Mavi Marmara in 2010. One of its prominent members is presidential speech writer Paul Bernard and it even has as a Vice President a delegate in the French Chamber of deputies, Meyer Habib elected to represent French citizens living abroad in the Mediterranean region, most of whom are Israelis. Habib, a dual national and former Likud Party spokesman who divides his time between France and Israel, may have played a role in the French torpedoing of the Geneva talks with Iran when he passed on to Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius information he claimed to have received from his contacts in Israel suggesting that Netanyahu would immediately attack Iran if there were any agreement over its nuclear program.


To be sure, the French might also have been thinking of a possible large arms sale to Saudi Arabia, but as is usually the case it appears that the Israel Lobby influence was decisive. There was no genuine French interest that would have been sacrificed in coming to terms with Iran along the lines of a deal that was pretty much worked out and endorsed by the United States and others, but Fabius and President Francois Hollande thought otherwise. Hollande visited Israel on the weekend and addressed the Knesset early this week, promising that France would continue to take a very hard line with Iran, including possible demands that will likely make an agreement impossible.


If you don’t want to believe that there is something that equates to a coordinated Israeli effort to influence opinion by exploiting Diaspora Jewish communities I would refer you to last week’s speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the Jewish Federations General Assembly, which is a quinquennial gathering of representatives of major Jewish organizations from all over the world. The Jerusalem meeting had in attendance many foreign Jews, including Michael Nutter Mayor of Philadelphia. In his keynote speech Netanyahu repeated over and over again that Israel is the “one and only Jewish State of Israel,” telling his audience that Jewish identity and Israel are one and the same thing, a viewpoint that many Jews would contest. He then went on to trot out his usual arguments about Iran’s wanting to destroy Israel and how Israel, always the victim of hateful neighbors, wants nothing but peace but has been rebuffed repeatedly by the Palestinians. He said the Jewish community cannot remain “silent on matter relating to our survival…We are charged with defending ourselves and we are charged with speaking up. And it is time now to speak up – all of us. All of us have to stand up now and be counted.”


Netanyahu’s vision is that world Jewry should and must stand up and support his policies, an interesting prescription that plays into the agenda of genuine anti-Semites who frequently question the loyalties of Diaspora Jews. Israel’s broader efforts to promote its own version of recent events in the Middle East are also coordinated and sustained by the Netanyahu government, frequently being referred to by the Hebrew word for media management, hasbara. Israel has a section of its foreign ministry that is dedicated to spreading its select narrative about Israel’s actions and it also encourages Diaspora Jews to support the effort by challenging critics and even disrupting their websites. Those who are most active and have an actual relationship with the Israeli government are referred to as sayanim. The Israeli government has also supported international efforts to tie up critics in court through the employment of Lawfare while also pressuring national and local governments to delegitimize or even declare illegal all criticism of Israeli government actions.


Canada has possibly the world’s most pro-Israeli government, its Prime Minister Stephen Harper having described Israel as a light that “…burns bright, upheld by the universal principles of all civilized nations – freedom, democracy justice.” He has also said “I will defend Israel whatever the cost,” an interesting proposition though he will likely have to go it alone as Canada has virtually no army and no ability to transport what they do have to the Middle East. The currently active Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism is seeking to define the “new anti-Semitism,” which will include any criticism of the State of Israel, and hopes to introduce legislation that will make it a hate crime and prosecutable. One critic has noted that it will soon be possible for Canadians to criticize their own government but not that of Israel.


Most Jews in the United States and elsewhere quite rightly reject being seen as little more than a political pressure group orchestrated by the extremist government of Benjamin Netanyahu, but one sees again and again how Jewish organizations, for whatever reasons, tend to go along with the program. Perhaps the successful effort to stall and possibly eventually derail negotiations with Iran will be a step too far as the role of the various groups working hand-in-hand with Netanyahu has become highly visible, forcing the lobbying to move out of the shadows where it normally operates. That AIPAC and CRIF and their counterparts in other countries are little more than proxies for the Israeli government is apparent and the people of the United States and France and elsewhere should begin to ask why such powerful organizations are able to operate without any restraint in promoting policies that actually harm local and national interests.



A Zionist Conspiracy ……….

by David Duke

Ben Zygier, RIP ………….

Israel’s international fifth column exposed

by , February 15, 2013

The shocking story of Ben Zygier, a 34-year-old Australian recruited by the Mossad and quite possibly murdered in an Israeli jail cell in 2010, has exposed Israel’s international fifth column to the light of day. This whale surfaces every once in a while. Remember the “passport farm” run by the Israelis in New Zealand back in 2004? Similar operations were uncovered in Australia and in Israel itself: regarding the latter, travelers to the Jewish state had their identities stolen, their passports duplicated and handed out like candy to Mossad agents. Then there were those two FBI raids on the Washington headquarters of AIPAC, the powerful Israeli lobby, during the course of which agents surrounded the building and carted out boxes of documents and computer hard drives as part of the Steve Rosen-Keith Weissman affair, in which two top AIPAC officials were indicted and tried for stealing US secrets from the Pentagon, and only had their case dropped because a trial would have revealed those secrets to the world. And who could forget that 2001 Fox News four-part series reported by Carl Cameron, which concluded there was evidence the Israelis were watching the 9/11 hijackers on American soil and failed to report their movements to US authorities?

This time, however, the story has an unusual twist. It appears that Zygier, a fervent Zionist, discovered something that caused him to turn against his Mossad bosses – something so sensitive, of such importance to the Jewish state, that his incarceration in a Israel’s high security Ayalon prison – in a “suicide-proof” cell originally designed for Yitzhad Rabin’s assassin – was a closely-guarded secret. Prison personnel were not told his identity, and a media blackout was imposed shortly after the story of “Prisoner X” came out in the Israeli media. All mentions of the arrest were scrubbed from Israeli web sites.

That was two years ago. Now we learn Zygier “committed suicide” in his suicide-proof cell.

The Australians had been on his trail for a while. He and two other Australians who had emigrated to Israel and then returned after changing their names – and applying for Australian passports – were under investigation for engaging in espionage. An Australian journalist had questioned Zygier about his activities, and he furiously denied being involved in any covert activities on Israel’s behalf. There are reports of his interrogation by ASIO, Australia’s intelligence agency.

There seems little doubt Zygier was recruited by Mossad ten to twelve years ago: his friends are now recalling it. The New York Times says he used at least four names: Ben Zygier, Ben Alon, Ben Allen and Benjamin Burrows, traveling to Iran, Syria, and Lebanon on behalf of his Israeli paymasters. The nature of his transgression has yet to be definitively revealed, yet the story is coming out in spite of the Israeli government’s frantic efforts to stop it. The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

“Australian security officials suspect that Ben Zygier, the spy who died in a secret Israeli prison cell in 2010, may have been about to disclose information about Israeli intelligence operations, including the use of fraudulent Australian passports, either to the Australian government or to the media before he was arrested.

“‘[Zygier] may well have been about to blow the whistle, but he never got the chance,’ an Australian security official with knowledge of the case told Fairfax Media yesterday.

“Sources in Canberra are insistent that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) was not informed by its Israeli counterparts of the precise nature of the espionage allegations against Mr Zygier. However, it is understood that the former Melbourne law graduate had been in contact with Australian intelligence.”

There is much speculation surrounding the reasons for Zygier’s arrest: the most popular appears to be that he was about to reveal details of the 2010 Mossad hit job in Dubai, during which an entire team of some 20 Mossad agents succeeded in murdering an Arab arms dealer with links to Hamas.

The problem with this theory is that the facts about that case are pretty much known: the Israelis collected data from travelers to Israel and then used it to create bogus passports, which were then issued to Mossad agents. Photos of these agents appeared in the Kuwaiti media, and were published on the internet. A Kuwaiti paper is now claiming it was Zygier who turned over this information, including the photos, to the Kuwaitis, and that the Israelis kidnapped him in Kuwait. The paper quotes “a former Mossad commander” who contends Zygier was part of the Dubai assassination team until he “switched to the other side.” Yet this tall tale hardly explains why the Israelis would keep the identity of “Prisoner X” such a closely-guarded secret, quashing press reports of his incarceration, and denying his very existence until now. It wouldn’t explain why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called an “emergency” meeting with Israeli editors over their handling of the story. And it wouldn’t account for the fact that Zygier was apparently in contact with the Australian intelligence service prior to his arrest – or have they, too, “switched to the other side”?

I guess it all depends on what one means by “other side.” Because, from the perspective of the increasingly isolated Israeli government – which cultivates a narrative of the Jewish state as besieged on every side – “the other side” means everybody else, including the West.

We don’t know the nature of Zygier’s “crime,” but we know with reasonable certainty what it was not. In all likelihood it had nothing to do with the Dubai assassination, the forging of passports, or any of the other depredations against international law and morality that we already know about. It’s something new – and worse.

There is some speculation it had something to do with the impersonation of CIA officers by Mossad agents who were trying to recruit Jundullah terrorists in their campaign to destabilize Iran, and this may be more credible: after all, according to the report by Mark Perry in Foreign Policy, “The Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives – what is commonly referred to as a ‘false flag’ operation.” (Emphasis added.)

So it isn’t just Australian, New Zealand, and European passports the Israelis are stealing – there’s an Israeli “passport farm” churning out American passports, too. But then again, why would Zygier – reportedly a committed Zionist, who had been recruited by Mossad and emigrated to Israel where he started a family – threaten to expose this type of operation? It doesn’t add up – unless the Israelis were mounting an operation against his native Australia, or other Western countries such as the US.

Israel’s Mossad is notorious for its ruthlessness, and its unwillingness to play by the rules: for example, when it comes to industrial espionage, Israel’s Western “allies” are considered fair game. A GAO report on Israeli espionage in the US concluded the Jewish state “conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any U.S. ally.” Australia presumably merits the same treatment. But Zygier didn’t “switch sides” because of a few stolen gadgets. It had to have been something that aroused his conscience, and perhaps reawakened long dormant loyalty to his Australian homeland – or to the concept of morality itself.

This is not the Israel we once knew, or thought we knew. We are dealing here with Bibi Netanyahu’s Israel, a country veering to the very edge of fundamentalist extremism, increasingly aggressive and impatient to assert itself as the dominant power in the Middle East. Their above-ground lobby is not only hyperactive, it is hyper-potent, strong enough to rule the US Congress with an iron hand – as Chuck Hagel pointed out, to his sorrow – and do much to push the US into a disastrous war in Iraq (as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt showed in their book on The Israel Lobby). Yet what about the clandestine aspect of this phenomenon – the covert complement to Israel’s overt fifth column? The Zygier affair gives us a brief, incomplete glimpse at this sinister subterranean creature, and a scary one it is.

No, we don’t know why the Israelis kept “Prisoner X” locked up in absolute secrecy, and then panicked when word leaked out about his “suicide.” No, we don’t know for sure that he was murdered by his jailers – although his lawyer, who saw him days before his death, has said he seemed rational and not at all suicidal. We can’t know for certain what horror he uncovered, and caused him to rebel. Yet that horror, whatever it was, was no ordinary one: it motivated him to reject the views and actions of a lifetime, and reverse course with stunning abruptness.

Zygier was reportedly offered a plea bargain by the Israeli authorities, and turned it down because he was determined to clear his name. Was he an Israeli Bradley Manning, intent on exposing the crimes of the Jewish state – crimes we can only imagine?


The Republican filibuster of Chuck Hagel reared its head too late for me to comment, and I’ll save my remarks for Monday, when the dust has cleared. Suffice to say here that I was far too optimistic to shout “How Sweet It Is!” — the title of my last column on the Hagel nomination. That’ll teach me to jump the gun when it comes to declaring victory over the Lazarus-like neocons. I have to take some grim satisfaction, however, in pointing out that the Senate vote underscores my political acuity when it comes to another topic I’ve been dealing with this week – the politics of Sen. Rand Paul, a.k.a. Paul the Lesser.

Sen. Paul voted “no,” giving the Hagel-haters the one-vote margin they needed to delay the confirmation for another ten days. Phil Klein, neoconnish political reporter over at the Washington Examiner, tweeted “Rand Paul, neocon hero!” To which I can only say – with absolutely no relish – didn’t I tell you so? Heck, I nailed the Lesser Paul back in 2010, before he even made it to the Senate.

Yes, but my prescience – however much I brag and carry on about it – is really no fun at all: remember Cassandra, of Greek mythology, who offended the gods and was punished in a unique manner? The poor thing was granted the gift of prophecy, but cursed with the proviso that no one would ever believe her. These days I often recall the poet Robinson Jeffers’s conjuration of this ancient tale:

“The mad girl with the staring eyes and long white fingers
Hooked in the stones of the wall,
The storm-wrack hair and screeching mouth: does it matter, Cassandra,
Whether the people believe
Your bitter fountain? Truly men hate the truth, they’d liefer
Meet a tiger on the road.
Therefore the poets honey their truth with lying; but religion –
Vendors and political men
Pour from the barrel, new lies on the old, and are praised for kind
Wisdom. Poor bitch be wise.
No: you’ll still mumble in a corner a crust of truth, to men
And gods disgusting – you and I, Cassandra.”

A final note: In case you haven’t seen the front page, our fundraising drive is still in full swing – but we haven’t allowed it to take over practically the entire page, as per usual – we’re waiting to see if subtlety works. If it doesn’t we’ll go back to hitting our readers and supporters over the head with the works. I just hope it doesn’t come to that and for a very good reason: there’s too much going on. These are unusually active times in the world of foreign policy, and the question of war and peace is at the top of the national agenda. The debate has never been fiercer. And it has never been more important for us to carry out our primary mission: to keep our readers fully educated and up-to-date on matters dealing with America’s relationship with the rest of the world.

In short: please don’t make us devote 2/3rds of the front page to a freaking fundraising appeal. Please make your fully tax-deductible donation today – nay, right now. Before I go crazy.

I’m on Twitter quite a bit these days: you can follow me here.

Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Forward by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).

Buy my biography of the great libertarian thinker, An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books,2000), here.


US House Stealthily Passes Extreme Pro-Israel Legislation ……………..

June 10th, 2012

(VeteransToday) – The House bill basically provides Israel with a blank check drawn on the U.S. taxpayer to maintain its “qualitative military edge” over all of its neighbors combined.

Go to Google and type in “H.R. 4133.” You will discover that, apart from a handful of blogs and alternative news sites, not a single mainstream medium has reported the story of a congressional bill that might well have major impact on the conduct of United States foreign policy.

H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012, was introduced into the House of Representatives of the 112th Congress on March 5 “to express the sense of Congress regarding the United States-Israel strategic relationship, to direct the president to submit to Congress reports on United States actions to enhance this relationship and to assist in the defense of Israel, and for other purposes.” The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) reportedly helped draft the bill, and its co-sponsors include Republicans Eric Cantor and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Democrats Howard Berman and Steny Hoyer. Hoyer is the Democratic whip in the House of Representatives, where Cantor is majority leader. Ros-Lehtinen heads the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The House bill basically provides Israel with a blank check drawn on the U.S. taxpayer to maintain its “qualitative military edge” over all of its neighbors combined. It requires the White House to prepare an annual report on how that superiority is being maintained. The resolution passed on May 9 by a vote of 411–2 on a “suspension of the rules,” which is intended for non-controversial legislation requiring little debate and a quick vote.

A number of congressmen spoke on the bill, affirming their undying dedication to the cause of Israel. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas was the only one who spoke out against it, describing it as “one-sided and counterproductive foreign policy legislation. This bill’s real intent seems to be more saber-rattling against Iran and Syria.” Paul also observed that “this bill states that it is the policy of the United States to ‘reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.’ However, according to our Constitution, the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country.” Paul voted “no” and was joined by only one other representative, John Dingell of Michigan, who represents a large Muslim constituency.

It is interesting to note what exactly the bill pledges the American people to do on behalf of Israel. It obligates the United States to veto resolutions critical of Israel, to provide such military support “as is necessary,” to pay for the building of an anti-missile system, to provide advanced “defense” equipment (including refueling tankers, which are offensive), to give Israel special munitions (i.e., bunker-busters, which are also offensive), to forward deploy more U.S. military equipment to Israel, to offer the Israeli air force more training and facilities in the U.S., to increase security- and advanced-technology-program cooperation, and to extend loan guarantees and expand intelligence-sharing (including highly sensitive satellite imagery). Actually, there’s even more included, and I may have missed the kitchen sink. But the objective is to provide Israel with the resources to attack Iran, if it chooses to do so, while tying the U.S. and Israel so closely together that whatever Benjamin Netanyahu does, the U.S. “will always be there,” as our president has so aptly put it.

But the scariest bit of the bill is its call for “an expanded role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises.” If Israel becomes part of NATO, which is clearly Congress’s intent, the U.S. and other members will be obligated to come to the aid of a nation that is expanding its borders and is currently engaged in hostilities with three of its neighbors. Israel has also initiated a series of regional wars. Whether NATO membership for Israel would benefit anyone is questionable, but it is something the neocons have been seeking for years, to turn Israel’s wars into a new crusade against the Muslim world.

And then there is the congressional propensity to conceal additional spending in legislation that is normally passed without a great deal of debate. It is perhaps no coincidence that on May 7 the Republican spokesman, the redoubtable Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, released his party’s proposal for increased defense spending (yes, increased) for 2013. McKeon, who has never served in the military and who was holds a bachelor of science degree in animal husbandry from Brigham Young University, is an uber-hawk who relies heavily on campaign contributions from the defense industry. Perhaps “Buck” should consider changing his sobriquet to “Warbucks,” but as he probably lacks a sense of humor, it would be wasted on him.

Included in the proposed defense bill is a cool $1 billion for Israel to upgrade its missile defenses. Money for Israel inserted in the U.S. defense budget suggests that Congress believes that defense of the U.S. and defense of Israel are pretty much conjoined at the hip. That’s on top of the $3 billion Tel Aviv already receives and the numerous defense co-production programs that it benefits from, which will clearly be expanded if 4133 is any indication. The media predictably underreported the largesse for Israel with a couple of lines hidden away in a story in The Washington Post about overall defense spending.

Many who follow the issue have known for some time that Congress, generally speaking, will unhesitatingly do anything to benefit Israel and its supporters, be damned the consequences for the rest of us. That they do it without any public scrutiny is unforgivable and is as much the fault of the media as it is of the devious ways of America’s legislature. If Congress wants to give Israel the type of guarantees that would require Washington to support Tel Aviv’s foreign and security policy, there should be a free and open debate with the American people understanding clearly what such a commitment means in terms of costs and consequences, not a “suspension of rules” stealth legislative package.

If Buck McKeon and his friends on the House Armed Services Committee want to give Israel a billion dollars and actually believe it serves the U.S. national interest, why do they hide it in a procurement bill for the defense of the United States? If historians 100 years from now seek to explain how a great power committed seemingly intentional national suicide, they will have to look no further than the voting record of the U.S. Congress.

Original Source: Council for the National Interest

Source: Veterans Today


Kourosh Ziabari: Satisfying the Zionists, Obama’s first priority

Kourosh Ziabari

By Kourosh Ziabari / STAFF WRITER

When Barack Obama entered the oval office with his luminous and glowing slogan of “change” which appealed to millions of frustrated Americans who couldn’t tolerate the hawkish and warmongering policies of George Bush anymore, it was hardly predictable that he would be going to simply present a moderated example of his aggressive predecessor who owed his legitimacy and power to the Zionist lobby in the United States.

Barack Obama had deceitfully convinced the world that the United States under his presidency would start a new era of dialogue and friendship with the oppressed nations, refrain from intervening in the internal affairs of other countries, take care of its black human rights record, pull out its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and hand over the administration of these countries to their people, draw an end to the atrocities of the Zionist regime, bring about wellbeing and peace for the Palestinian nation and engage in peaceful diplomacy with Iran; that was why more than 130 political leaders from around the world jubilantly sent him congratulatory messages upon his election as the president of the United States. However, all of these politicians recognized that they were shrewdly tricked by the “snowman of change” as soon as he made his first trip to Israel and announced his sincerest commitment to the security of Israel and implicitly made us understand that pleasing his Zionist bosses is his first priority. That was where all of us realized that Obama is another Israel agent put in the place of the executive administrator of the United States to satisfy the needs and demands of the Zionist lobby.

In a January 2010 article in Huffington Post, journalist and activist Steve Sheffey presented a detailed record of Obama’s pro-Israeli decisions and statements during his first year in office as the U.S. President, elaborately arguing that Obama has been one of the most loyal and faithful people to the cause of Israel and the Zionist lobby.

According to Sheffey, Obama is the first U.S. President who has ever hosted a “Seder” in the White House. Seder is a Jewish ritual service and ceremonial dinner for the first night or first two nights of Passover, a major spring festival which commemorates what the Zionists claim is the liberation of the Israelites from Egyptian servitude.

On December 21, President Obama signed a defense spending bill that includes $202 million in funds for Israel’s missile defense programs. “We are tremendously pleased with the ongoing cooperation between the United States and the State of Israel in the area of missile defense,” an Israeli official said after Obama signed the bill.

Sheffey adds that “no Administration in history has come into office with a Vice President, Secretary of State, and Chief of Staff with stronger pro-Israel credentials than this one.”

On June 4 in Cairo, President Obama told the Arab and Muslim world that America’s connection with Israel is “unbreakable.” He told the Arab and Muslim world that to deny the Holocaust is “baseless, ignorant, and hateful.” He told them that threatening Israel with destruction is “deeply wrong.” He said that “Palestinians must abandon violence” and that “it is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus.” And he said that “Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.”

All of these actions and statements which are purely directed at gratifying the Zionist regime and the active Zionist lobby in the United States indicate that President Obama is no different than George W. Bush and those before him who considered the security and stability of Israel their vital and crucial commitment.

Today, it’s almost clear to everyone that no politician with an anti-Zionist mindset could ever dream of living in the White House. This is what Prof. Naseer Aruri, the renowned political scientist and author has mentioned in his recent interview published on Veterans Today: “the American political system has institutional and constitutional barriers against anti-Zionists winning the U.S. presidency. Take for example the Electoral College by which Americans elect their presidents. The EC stipulates that a candidate to the presidency must gain plurality and the winner takes all. These two factors (plurality and winner takes all) tend to polarize the system and promote the two party system. In that setting, there is no place for a minority, which is likely to be the anti-Zionist mindset.”

Now, Barack Obama has launched his electoral campaign for the 2012 presidential elections and faces a painstaking mission to accomplish. From one hand, he has lost the confidence of the ordinary American citizens who had come to believe that his slogan of change was a genuine and authentic one. On the other hand, he should seek the indispensable vote of the American Jews who have always played a vital role in determining the results of the presidential elections in the United States.

Obama has recently encountered a quandary which the Zionist Jews in the United States has created for him. According to the Agence France Presse Israel’s chief Ashkenazi rabbi Yonah Metzger on Sunday called on U.S. President Barack Obama to free Jewish-American spy Jonathan Pollard if he wants Jews to vote for his reelection.

Metzger warned Obama that he would do well to free Pollard if he wanted another term in the White House. “I’m not making a prophesy, but rather echoing the frustrations of numerous American Jews who voted for him and are disappointed by his lackadaisical approach to the numerous appeals for Pollard’s released,” he said.

However, the emancipation of Pollard is not the only order of the Zionist lobby for Barack Obama. The U.S. House of Representatives introduced the resolution 1734 on December 15, 2010 in which it was categorically demanded from President Obama to refuse to recognize an independent Palestinian nation. Former BBC Panorama presenter Alan Hart believes that this resolution was drafted by AIPAC and is considered to be the Zionist lobby’s new order for Obama. The resolution has expressively called upon the Administration “to affirm that the United States would deny any recognition, legitimacy, or support of any kind to any unilaterally declared “Palestinian state” and would urge other responsible nations to follow suit, and to make clear that any such unilateral declaration would constitute a grievous violation of the principles underlying the Oslo Accords and the Middle East peace process.”

Anyway, Barack Obama will be facing a serious dilemma in his path toward the 2012 Presidential Elections. Satisfying the Zionist lobby, regaining the confidence of the American public and compelling the international community that he deserves to be a Nobel Peace Prize laureate are all the responsibilities which seem to be quite unachievable and far-fetched for the so-called man of change.

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian journalist and media correspondent. Read more about him here


US : AIPAC’s newest strategy

MJ Rosenberg

AIPAC is a useful tool when you want to predict the future of any peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. 

March 15, 2011



Prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu is being heavily criticised in Israel for his blatant exploitation of the murder of five members of one family (including three children) at the Itamar settlement near Nablus. Particularly egregious has been Netanyahu’s demand that president Mahmoud Abbas personally appear on Palestinian radio and television to condemn the killings, although Abbas had issued an unusually strong statement as soon as he heard of the tragedy.

Forget for a minute that no one knows who committed the crime and that certainly no one believes that the killer was associated with Abbas. Also, lay aside the fact that Netanyahu has never condemned or even expressed remorse over the killing of 300 plus Palestinian children by the IDF during the Gaza war. (In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any Israeli government that ever even criticised the killing of Palestinian children by the IDF, although many hundreds have been killed over the last decade).

None of that is anything new. What is new is Israel’s decision to libel the Palestinian Authority (and not just Hamas) which until very recently has been praised by Israel as its partner. That change became evident during the last month when AIPAC (Israel’s lobby in America) started attacking Abbas and the PA, returning to the style of the bad old days when the lobby viewed all Palestinians as one and the same: as enemies of Israel.

There are three reasons why monitoring AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is a valuable use of time for anyone following events in the Middle East.

The first is that AIPAC faithfully reflects the positions of the Netanyahu government (actually it often telegraphs them before Netanyahu does).

The second is that AIPAC’s policies provide advance notice of the positions that will, not by coincidence, be taken by the United States Congress.

And third, AIPAC provides a reliable indicator of future policies of the Obama administration, which gets its “guidance” both from AIPAC itself and from Dennis Ross, former head of AIPAC’s think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and now the president’s top adviser on Middle East issues.

The next few months, as AIPAC prepares for its annual conference (May 22-24), will be especially fruitful for AIPAC watchers. The conference is a huge event, attended by most members of the House and Senate, the prime minister of Israel, and either by the president or vice president of the United States. It is also attended by thousands of delegates from around the country and by candidates for Congress who raise money for their campaigns at the event. This year, the leading Republican candidates for president will also be in attendance, all vying for support by promising undying loyalty to the AIPAC agenda.

The conference or the egg?

The conference actually begins long before it convenes at the massive Washington Convention Centre. Right now, AIPAC’s top officials are deciding which policies are the most important to be conveyed to the hundreds of officials who will be in attendance. Those policies will constitute AIPAC’s agenda not just for the conference but for the next 12 months (see last year’s AIPAC policy book here[PDF]).

In recent years, AIPAC’s main message has been about Iran and its view of the dangers posed by the Iranian nuclear programme. Speaker after speaker at various AIPAC conferences over the past decade (including, most histrionically, prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu) has invoked the Holocaust when discussing the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

These speakers laid the groundwork for AIPAC’s presentation of legislation imposing “crippling sanctions” on Iran – along with the declaration that the military option remained “on the table” if sanctions failed to end Iran’s nuclear program. Most of the sanctions legislation enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president originated at AIPAC.

But this year Iran will have to compete for attention with AIPAC’s worries about the democratic revolutions that are sweeping the Arab world. For AIPAC, as for Netanyahu, those revolutions have already turned 2011 into an annus horribilis and the year is not even half over.


Early indications are that the main theme that will dominate the conference will be that Israel, once again, has “no partner” to negotiate with. This is an old theme, but one that receded as the Israeli right came to view the Palestinian Authority (led by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad) as not only partners but as collaborators in maintaining the status quo.

As Al Jazeera’s “Palestine Papers” demonstrated, Abbas and Fayyad rarely said “no” to the Netanyahu government – which made them the only kind of partners acceptable to the Netanyahu-Lieberman-Barak troika.

But, fearing that it might be next to fall to democracy, the PA started showing some spine recently. It refused to yield to US and Israeli demands that it shelve the United Nations Security Council resolution condemning settlements. It absolutely refuses to negotiate with Israelis until Israel stops gobbling up the land they would be negotiating over. And, most disturbing of all to Netanyahu and company, it says that it intends to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state this summer.

Netanyahu, who needs the illusion of movement to ensure that there isn’t any, is suddenly feeling the heat. Even Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor and a staunch Israel backer, both supported the UN resolution condemning settlements and told Netanyahu, in a well-publicised February 24 phone call, that the Europeans are sick and tired of him. Haaretz reported:

Netanyahu told Merkel he was disappointed by Germany’s vote…. 

Merkel was furious. “How dare you,” she said….”You are the one who disappointed us. You haven’t made a single step to advance peace.”

A shaken Netanyahu immediately put out the word that he is getting ready to announce his own plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He told political allies that he has to act fast to deter pressure from the so-called Quartet (composed of the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and Russia). It is due to meet later this month to set out the parameters for a final agreement. In advance of that meeting, British Foreign Minister William Hague said that the territorial basis for any agreement must be the pre-’67 borders, the last thing Netanyahu wants to hear.

Reports from Israel indicate that Netanyahu’s plan rules out any withdrawal to the ’67 lines, offering instead a Palestinian state within temporary borders and only a very partial settlement freeze (no freeze in East Jerusalem at all).

Knowing that the PA can no longer afford to even consider such an offer, Netanyahu has decided to preemptively label Israel’s old friends in the Palestinian Authority as extremists, with the goal of ensuring that both Congress and the Obama administration back his plan. His hope is that with the United States safely in his corner, any Quartet initiative will be blocked. As always, his goal is to maintain the status quo, which requires US acquiescence in his schemes. Thus far, the tactic has worked.

Smear tactics

Hence, the new AIPAC approach: smear the PA. By the time the AIPAC conference ends, the “there is no partner” mantra will have returned to its position as one of Israel’s greatest hits – a true golden oldie.

Check out a few of the messages AIPAC has sent out over Twitter these past few days (the message is old but the technology is new):

AIPAC: PA doesn’t want a terrorist organisation to be called a terrorist organisation, instead wants unity gov with it 

AIPAC: PA seeks to isolate Israel to gain statehood; Obama admin plans to block the effort, calling it a “strategic mistake”

AIPAC: Palestinian Authority to Israel: NO.

By contrast, this is a typical AIPAC tweet before the Palestinian Authority started pushing back.

AIPAC: Can direct talks with PA President Abbas lead to a peace agreement in a year? “Yes, I think so,” says Israeli PM Netanyahu

The bottom line is this. The Europeans, the United Nations, and, it is safe to say, the entire world (except the United States) fear that the Palestinian Authority is on the verge of collapsing and, along with it, the whole notion of a peace process. These same forces are determined to re-start negotiations, which will require seeing Israel actual freeze settlements, at the very least. It seems to understand that a PA that is perceived as Israel’s lackey (which is precisely how it is perceived) will not survive. It has no faith whatsoever in the good intentions of the Netanyahu government.

Deflecting the issue

The Israeli government, understanding all this, is determined to put the onus back on the Palestinians to forestall any pressure. Most important of all, it is terrified that the Palestinian Authority will go ahead with its plan to unilaterally declare a state this summer, the only PA plan in years that actually has real momentum.

It needs the United States to block that plan by any means necessary, including a full cut-off of US (and even international) aid to the Palestinians (this at a time when defence minister Barak is requesting another $20 billion in aid to Israel from the United States). Stopping a Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence dead in its tracks is now Netanyahu’s number one goal. And getting Obama to go along with him (which shouldn’t be too difficult with the 2012 election looming) is the way he intends to do it.

That is why we are about to see a new Netanyahu plan. It is why AIPAC is busy denigrating the PA. And it is why AIPAC will soon have the United States Congress saying, practically in unison, that “there is no Palestinian partner”. That will be followed by the demand that the Obama administration support the Netanyahu plan, which will be labelled the most generous offer in history.

At this rate, the Israeli government and its lobby will soon be back to its old mantra (1948-1977) that “there is no such thing as the Palestinian people” at all.

All this to preserve an ugly and deadly status quo. So far, this tactic has worked every time. Don’t bet against it winning again. As so often, a winning strategy for AIPAC and Netanyahu is a losing strategy for Israel and the United States.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, would do well to work on achieving some kind of unified strategy and to stick with the idea of a unilateral declaration. As David Ben-Gurion would tell them, self-determination often requires going it alone.

MJ Rosenberg is a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network. The above article first appeared in Foreign Policy Matters, a part of the Media Matters Action Network.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

:: Article nr. 75896 sent on 16-mar-2011 06:20 ECT


:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.
The section for the comments of our readers has been closed, because of many out-of-topics.
Now you can post your own comments into our Facebook page:




Italian Parliament finger four forgers – Ahmad Chalabi , Francis Brookes, Dewey Clarridge, and Michael Ledeen.

Original french at

July 22, the democratic group of the American Senate held a capital hearing to evaluate the extent of the political implications and of safety caused by the disclosure with the press of the identity of the secret agent Valerie Plame. They also examined the behavior of the White House and president Bush which, while refusing to seek and sanction the persons in charge, worsened the damage.

Hearing was chaired by the deputy Henry Waxman and the senator Byron Dorgan, director of Senate Democratic Policy Committee. For Waxman, the revelation of the identity of Limes constitutes not only “one treason and an affront indefensible in its opposition and towards those which work on the lines of face to protect America”, but also “an indefensible violation of our national safety”. Deputy, which had voted in favour of the invasion of Iraq on the basis of what proved to be lies and half-truths as for the weapons of destruction massive (ADM) Iraqi, clearly implied that the Plame scandal is also a history of lie “Today, says it, we know the truth. I was misled, as the American people were misled, and it is the husband of Valerie Plame, the ambassador Joe Wilson, who contributed to restore the truth.

“Until now, the White House did not provide any credible proof of an agreement of uranium sale between Iraq and Niger”, which however constituted one of the key parts of is saying Iraqi threat nuclear “It seems rather than the advisers of the President launched a smear campaign (…) We have only one partial information on what occurred in the hours and the days which followed [ the publication of the article of Wilson bringing back the conclusions of its mission to Niger ] (…) but we know that a secret memorandum of the State Department exposing the identity of Valerie [ Limes that Karl Rove, to advise nearest of the President, spoke about the identity of Mrs. Wilson with the chronicler Robert Novak and the journalist of the magazine Time Matthew Cooper; and that Lewis Libby, head of cabinet of the office of the vice-president, also spoke about Mrs. Wilson with at least a journalist “According to Waxman, the White House gave a report on eleven escapes on the subject.

Various former analysts of the services of information deposited in front of the senators and all underlined at which point it is serious to reveal the identity of a secret agent. That endangers not only the agent, but all the network of people with whom it is in contact, clandestinely, in foreign countries where the information is collected.

“the consequences are much more serious than I imagined it at the beginning”, declared the deputy John Conyers. Appointed the Louise Slaughter asked the witnesses if they had already intended to say, during their professional life, that the White House had revealed the identity of a secret agent. Larry Johnson, former analyst with the CIA, was categorical: “With large never! It is without precedent. ”

The former officer of the military information (DIA) Patrick LANG insisted on the importance of the factor confidence in the recruitment of foreign citizens to become advisors of the CIA In the event of escape, it is all their confidence towards the United States which is blamed “When not only community of the information, but the elected government (…) of the first country in the world decides, deliberately and apparently for transitory political reasons and without interest, to reveal the identity of a secret agent, the new one makes the effect of a shock in the whole world (…)” One cannot make confidence with the Americans”, is said one never does it. ”

Larry Johnson contradicted the assertions of the republican Party according to which Plame was not really a clandestine agent since it worked at the HQ of the CIA with Langley, or that it is it which had organized the mission of her husband in Niger. These untrue assertions were repeated by various republican members of Parliament.

For the former treating officer of the CIA Jim Marcinkowski, the refusal of high persons in charge for the government to take their responsabilities following this rupture for confidence, created large a faintness with the power station “They played hide-and-seek with the truth and to semantic plays for more than two years, at the expense of the safety of the American people”, he has said.

While were held these hearings, one learned in the New York Times that the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald considers the possibility of accusing of perjury Karl Rove and Lewis Libby because of contradictions in their testimonys and of obstruction of justice.

The White House hopelessly tries to bury the business of uranium native of Niger

EIR learned from several sources in Washington that the White House makes its possible to prevent three bodies of press from revealing the origins of the falsified documents of the government native of Niger, intended to make believe that Saddam Hussein sought to obtain significant quantities of uranium native of Niger to produce nuclear weapons. After having taken knowledge of these documents, appeared in Italy at the end of 2001, Dick Cheney asked the information agencies to check information, which was to lead to the mission of the Wilson ambassador in Niger in February 2002.

A news service, a chain of American television and a newspaper have each one surveyed into the origin of the forgeries. Last year, the emission of CBS, “60 minutes”, cancelled at the last minute the diffusion of a special sequence on the business of uranium native of Niger to cover the “scandal” which had just burst concerning the military service of George W Bush. The two other media are about to finish their investigations, and according to our sources, the White House exerts pressures so that they extinguish the business.

In Italy, the Parliament comes to conclude a study on the origins and the consequences from the forgeries, and according to certain sources, the report/ratio mentions among the principal suspects Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi and Francis Brookes.

Let us recall that Ledeen works like “consultant” near the service of Italian information SISMI since long years (since the beginning of the Eighties and the bursting of the scandal around the P2 cabin). To December 2001, at the time where the documents natives of Niger were transmitted to the SISMI, it went to Rome in company of Harold Rhode and of Lawrence Franklin of the Pentagon, officially to meet Manucher Ghorbanifar, large protagonist of the Business Iran-Countered. Franklin is at the present time accused to have transmitted secret information to the AIPAC like with a person in charge for the embassy of Israel.

The fact that Clarridge, Chalabi and Brookes (related to Iraqi National Congress (Inc)), are mentioned is particularly interesting. With the end of the year 2001, the tsar of the counter-terrorism of the White House was the General (Cr) Wayne DOWNING. He proposed to take Clarridge for assistant. Brookes came from Rendon Group, a cabinet of “public relations” that the Pentagon engaged to promote Chalabi and the Inc.

Which is the role of the White House in these forgeries? Did the government only exploit the information to arrive to its ends, or a group of néo-conservative around Cheney it took part in their manufacture? No one will not be astonished by the current efforts of the White House to prevent this business from bursting at the great day.


%d bloggers like this: