Administrator’s Note: Consider that this was written by Israel Shahak on February 24, 1993 and it’s applicability to what we see happening today.
Since the spring of 1992 public opinion in Israel is being prepared for the prospect of a war with Iran, to be fought to bring about Iran’s total military and political defeat. In one version, Israel would attack Iran alone, in another it would `persuade’ the West to do the job. The indoctrination campaign to this effect is gaining in intensity. It is accompanied by what could be called semi-official horror scenarios purporting to detail what Iran could do to Israel, the West and the entire world when it acquires nuclear weapons as it is expected to a few years hence. A manipulation of public opinion to this effect may well be considered too phantasmagoric to merit any detailed description. Still, the readers should take notice, especially since to all appearances the Israeli Security System does envisage the prospect seriously. In February 1993 minutely-detailed anticipations of Iran becoming a major target of Israeli policies became intense. I am going to confine myself to a sample of recent publications (in view of the monotony of their contents it will suffice), emphasizing how they envisage the possibility of `persuading’ the West that Iran must be defeated. All Hebrew papers have shared in advocacy of this madness, with exception of Haaretz which has not dared to challenge it either. The Zionist `left’ papers, Davar and A1 Hamishmar have particularly distinguished themselves in bellicosity on the subject of Iran; more so than the right-wing Maariv. Below, I will concentrate on the recent writings of Al Hamishmar and Maariv about Iran, only occasionally mentioning what I found in other papers.
A major article by the political correspondent of A1 Hamishmar, Yo’av Kaspi bears the title that summarizes its contents: `Iran needs to be treated just as Iraq had been’ (19 February 1993). The article contains an interview with Daniel Leshem, introduced as `a retired senior officer in the [Israeli] Military Intelligence, now member of the Centre for Strategic Research at the Tel Aviv University’. Leshem is known to be involved in forming Israeli strategies. His account of how Iran is going to nuclearize is too dubious to merit coverage here as are his lamentations that `the world’ has been ignoring the warnings of the Israeli experts who alone know all the truth about what the Muslim states are like. However, his proposals for the reversal of the progress of Iranian nuclearization are by all means worthy of being reported. Leshem begins by opining that the Allied air raids had very little success in destroying Iraq’s military and especially nuclear capabilities, but, owing to Allied victory on the ground, UN observers could succeed in finishing the job. Harping on this `analogy’, Leshem concludes: `Israel alone can do very little to halt the Iranians. We could raid Iran from the air, but we cannot realistically expect that our aerial operations could destroy all their capabilities. At best, some Iranian nuclear installations could in this way be destroyed. But we couldn’t reach their major centers of nuclear development, since that development has proceeded along three different lines in a fairly decentralized manner, with installations and factories scattered widely across the country. It is even reasonable to suppose that we will never know the locations of all their installations, just as we didn’t know in Iraq’s case.’
Hence Leshem believes that Israel should make Iran fear Israeli nuclear weapons, but without hoping that it might deter it from developing their own; he proposes `to create the situation which would appear similar to that with Iraq before the Gulf crisis’. He believes this could `stop the Ayatollahs, if this is what the world really wants’. How to do it? `Iran claims sovereignty over three strategically located islands in the Gulf. Domination over those islands is capable of assuring domination not only over all the already active oilfields of the area, but also over all the natural gas sources not yet exploited. We should hope that, emulating Iraq, Iran would contest the Gulf Emirates and Saudi Arabia over these islands and, repeating Saddam Hussein’s mistake in Kuwait, start a war. This may lead to an imposition of controls over Iranian nuclear developments the way it did in Iraq. This prospect is in my view quite likely, because patience plays no part in the Iranian mentality. But if they nevertheless refrain from starting a war, we should take advantage of their involvement in Islamic terrorism which already hurts the entire world. Israel has incontestable intelligence that the Iranians are terrorists. We should take advantage of this by persistently explaining to the world at large that by virtue of its involvement in terrorism, no other state is as dangerous to the entire world as Iran. I cannot comprehend why Libya has been hit by sanctions, to the point that sales of military equipment are barred to it because of its minor involvement in terrorism; while Iran, with its record of guiding terrorism against the entire world remains entirely free of even stricter sanctions.’ In true-blue Israeli style, Leshem attributes this lamentable state of affairs to Israel’s neglect of its propaganda (called `Hasbara’, that is, `Explanation’).
He nevertheless hopes that Israel will soon be able `to explain to the world at large’ how urgent is the need to provoke Iran to a war.
Provoking Iran into responding with war or measures just stopping short of war, is also elaborated by many other commentators. Let me just quote a story published by Telem Admon in Maariv (12 February) who reports that `a senior Israeli’, that is, a senior Mossad agent, `about two weeks ago had a long conversation with the son of the late Shah, Prince Riza Sha’a Pahlevi’ in order to appraise the man’s possible usefulness for Israeli `Hasbara’. In the ‘senior’s’ opinion, `Clinton’s America is too absorbed in its domestic affairs’, and as a result `the prince’s chances of reigning in Iran are deplorably slim. The prince’s face showed signs of distress after he heard a frank assessment to this effect from the mouth of an Israeli.’ Yet the `senior’s’ appraisal of the prince was distinctly negative, in spite of `the princely routine of handing to all visitors copies of articles by Ehud Ya’ari’ (an Israeli television commentator suspected of being a front for Israeli Intelligence). Why? In the first place because `the prince shows how nervous he is. His knees jerked during the first half-hour of the conversation.’ Worse still, his chums `were dressed like hippies’ while `he kept frequenting Manhattan’s haunts in their company and addressing them as if they were his equals’. The `senior’ deplores it greatly that the prince has emancipated himself from the beneficial influence of his mother, `who had done a simply wonderful job travelling from capital to capital in order to impress everybody concerned with her hope to enthrone her son in Iran while she is still alive’. Her valiant efforts look to me as connected, to some extent at least, to the no-less-valiant efforts of the Israeli `Hasbara’ before it had written off her son.
But what might happen if both Israel and Iran have nuclear weapons? This question is being addressed by the Hebrew press at length, often in a manner intended to titillate the reader with anticipated horrors. Let me give a small sample. In Al Hamishmar (19 February), Kaspi interviewed the notorious `hawk’, Professor Shlomo Aharonson, who begins his perorations by excoriating the Israeli left as a major obstacle to Israel’s ability to resist Iranian evildoing. Without bothering about the left’s current lack of political clout, says Aharonson: `The left is full of prejudices and fears. It refuses to be rational on the nuclear issue. The left doesn’t like nuclear weapons, full stop. The opposition of the Israeli left to nuclear weapons is reminiscent of the opposition to the invention of the wheel.’ Profound insights, aren’t they? After spelling them out, Aharonson proceeds to his `scenarios’. Here is just one of them: `If we established tomorrow a Palestinian state, we will really grant a sovereignty to an entity second to none in hostility toward us. This entity can be expected to reach a nuclear alliance with Iran at once. Suppose the Palestinians open hostilities against us and the Iranians deter us from retaliating against the Palestinians by threatening to retaliate in turn against us by nuclear means. What could we do then?’ There is a lot more in the same vein before Aharonson concludes: `We should see to it that no Palestinian state ever comes into being, even if Iranians threaten us with nuclear weapons.
And we should also see to it that Iran lives in permanent fear of Israeli nuclear weapons being used against it.’
Let me reiterate that the Israelis are also bombarded ceaselessly with official messages to the same effect. For example, General Ze’ev Livneh, the commander of recently established Rear General Command of the Israeli Army said (in Haaretz, 15 February) that `it is not only Iran which already endangers every site in Israel’, because, even if to a lesser extent, ‘Syria, Libya and Algeria do too’. In order to protect Israel from this danger, General Livneh calls upon `the European Community to enforce jointly with Israel an embargo on any weaponry supplies to both Iran and those Arab states. The EC should also learn that military interventions can have salutary effects, as proven recently in Iraq’s case.’
Timid reminders by the Hebrew press that Israel continues to have the monopoly of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, were definitely unwelcome to Israeli authorities. In Hodashot of 29 January and 5 February, Ran Edelist, careful to rely only on quotes from the US press, raised the problem of nuclear waste disposal from the rather obsolete Dimona reactor and of other possible risks of that reactor to Israeli lives and limbs. He was `answered’ by numerous interviews with named and unnamed experts, all of whom fiercely denied that any such risks existed. The experts didn’t neglect to reassure their readers that the Israeli reactor was the best and the safest in the entire world. But speaking in the name of `the Intelligence Community’ Immanuel Rosen (Maariv, 12 February) went even further. He disclosed that the said `community’ felt offended `by the self-confident publications of an Israeli researcher dealing with nuclear subjects. This researcher has recently been found by the Intelligence Community to pose “a security risk”, to the point of observing that in some states such a researcher “would have been made to disappear”.’ Ran Edelist reacted in a brief note (in Hadashot, 14 February), confining himself to quoting these revealing ideas of `the Intelligence Community’, and drawing attention to threats voiced there. But apart from Edelist, the press of `the only democracy in the Middle East’ either didn’t dare comment, or was not allowed to.
The press is allowed, and even encouraged, to discuss one issue related to Israeli nuclear policies: to say how clever Peres was in pretending to agree to negotiate nuclear disarmament and then raising unacceptable conditions for entering any such negotiations.
An example of this is Akiva Eldar’s coverage in Haaretz (19 February), of Rabin’s excoriation of Egypt on television a few days earlier. Rabin scolded Egypt for suggesting that a Middle East regional nuclear disarmament agreement would be desirable. Eldar comments that `The Prime Minister is known to loathe anything that relates to Egypt. Aiming at Boutros Ghali, he said [in a public speech]: “What can you expect of him? Isn’t he an Egyptian?” Rabin is particularly averse to Egyptian insistence that the Middle East should be completely denuclearized. Peres, by contrast, favors using Egypt as an intermediary in various diplomatic pursuits, while recognizing that Cairo’s reminders on the subject of Dimona obstruct his real mission, which is to mediate between Egypt and the grand man in Jerusalem.’ Therefore, after `Egypt recently invited Israel to a symposium that “would deal with both conventional and non-conventional armed confrontations”, a high level discussion was held in the Foreign Ministry on how to pretend to accept the invitation and then “to decline it elegantly”. The solution was to communicate to Egypt the Israeli agreement in principle to attend the symposium on three conditions: that it be chaired by the US and Russia; that its agenda be unanimously determined by the chairmen and all the participants; and, most interestingly, that nothing be discussed unless the presence of all other Arab states, not just of Syria and Lebanon, but also – hard to believe – of Libya and Iraq, be assured in advance. In this way, any conceivable discussion of nuclear affairs was effectively precluded.’ I find it superfluous to comment on Eldar’s story.
But I do want to make some comments on the incitement of Israelis against Iran. I am well aware that a lot of expert opinions and predictions quoted here will sound to non-Israeli readers like fantasy running amok. Yet I perceive those opinions and predictions, no matter how mendacious and deceitful they obviously are, as politically quite meaningful. Let me explain my reasons. In the first place, I have not quoted the opinions of raving extremists. I was careful to select only the writings of respected and influential Israeli experts or commentators on strategic affairs, who can be presumed to be well acquainted with the thinking of the Israeli Security System. Since militarily Israel is the strongest state in the Middle East and has the monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, strategically doctrines of its Security System deserve to be disseminated world-wide, especially when they are forcefully pressed upon the Israeli public. Whether one likes it or not, Israel is a great power, not only in military but also in political terms, by virtue of its increasing influence upon US policies. The opinions of the Israeli Security System may mean something different from what they say. But this doesn’t detract from their importance.
But there is more to it. Fantasy and madness in the doctrines of the Israeli Security System are nothing new. At least since the early 1950s those qualities could already be noticed. Let us just recall that in 1956 Ben-Gurion wanted to annex Sinai to Israel on the ground that `it was not Egypt’. The same doctrine was professed in 1967-73 with elaborations, such as the proposal of several generals to conquer Alexandria in order to hold the city hostage until Egypt would sign a peace treaty on Israeli terms. The 1982 invasion of Lebanon relied on fantastic assumptions, and so did the 1983 `peace treaty’ signed with a `lawful Lebanese government’ put in power by Sharon. All Israeli policies in the Territories are not just totally immoral, but also rely on assumptions steadily held and advocated without regard for their fanciful contents. It will suffice to recall how Rabin together with the entire Israeli Security System perceived the outbreak of the Intifada first as an Iranian manipulation and then as a fabrication of western television and press. They concluded that if the Arabs are denied opportunities to fake riots in order to be photographed, the unrest in the Territories could be suppressed with ease.
Relevant to this is the fact that Israeli policies bear the easily recognizable imprint of Orientalist `expertise’ abounding in militarist and racist ideological prejudices. This `expertise’ is readily available in English, since its harbingers were the Jewish Orientalists living in English-speaking countries, like Bernard Lewis or the late Elie Kedourie who had visited Israel regularly for hobnobbing on the best of terms with the Israeli Security System. It was Kedourie who performed a particularly seminal role in fathering the assumptions on which Israeli policies rest and who consequently had in Israel a lot of influence. In Kedourie’s view, the peoples of the Middle East, with the `self-evident’ exception of Israel, would be best off if ruled by foreign imperial powers with a natural capacity to rule for a long time yet. Kedourie believed that the entire Middle East could be ruled by foreign powers with perfect ease, because their domination would hardly be opposed except by grouplets of intellectuals bent on rabble-rousing. Kedourie lived in Britain, and his primary concern was British politics. In his opinion the British refused to continue to rule the Middle East, with calamitous effects, only because of intellectual corruption of their own experts, especially those from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at Chatham House, who were misguided enough to dismiss the superior expertise of minority nationals, particularly Jewish, from the Arab world, who alone had known `the Arab nature’ at first hand.
For example, in his first book, Kedourie says that as early as 1932 (!) the British government was misguided enough to grant Iraq independence (it was faked, but never mind) against the advice of Jewish community in Baghdad. On many occasions during his recurrent visits to Israel, from the 1960s until his death, Kedourie would assure his Israeli audiences (one of which I was a member) that Iraq could `really’ be still ruled by the British with ease, under whatever disguises it would be convenient to adopt, provided the grouplets of rabble-rousers would be dealt with by a modicum of salutary toughness. That, the opportunities for education would be restricted so as not to produce a superfluous number of intellectuals, prone to learn the western notions of national independence. True, Kedourie also opposed the idea of exclusive Jewish right to the Land of Israel as incompatible with his imperialistic outlook, but he favored the retention of Israeli permanent rule over the Palestinians. The rather incongruous blend of Kedourie’s ideas with the Land of Israel messianism is already an innovation of Israeli Security System vintage.
The implications of the Kedourie doctrine for Israeli policymakers are obvious. First, Israel always seeks to persuade the West about what its `true’ interests and `moral duties’ in the Middle East are. It also tells the West that by intervening in the Middle East they would serve the authentic interests of Middle Eastern nations. But if the western powers refuse to listen, it is up to Israel to assume `the white man’s burden’.
Another implication of Kedourie’s doctrine, acted upon by Israel since the early 1950s already, is that in the Middle East no other strong state is to be tolerated. Its power must be destroyed or at least diminished through a war. Iranian theocracy may have its utility for the Israeli Hasbara, but Nasser’s Egypt was attacked while being emphatically secular. In both cases the real reason for the Israeli threat to start a war was the strength of the state concerned. Quite apart from the risks such a state may pose to Israeli hegemonic ambitions, Orientalist `expertise’ requires that natives of the region always remain weak, to be ruled always by their traditional notables but not by persons with intellectual capacity, whether religious or secular. Before World War I, such principles were taken for granted in the West, professed openly and applied globally, from China to Mexico. Israeli Orientalism, on which Israeli policies are based, is no more than their belated replica. It continues to uphold dogmas which, say in 1903, were taken for granted as `scientific’ truths. The subsequent `troubles’ of the West are perceived by the Israeli `experts’ as a well-deserved punishment for listening to intellectuals who had been casting doubt on such self-evident truths. Without such rotten intellectuals, everything would have remained stable.
Let us return to the special case of Iran, though. Anyone not converted to the Orientalistic creed will recognize that Iran is a country very difficult to conquer, because of its size, topography and especially because of fervent nationalism combined with the religious zeal of its populace. I happen to loathe the current Iranian regime, but it doesn’t hinder me from immediately noticing how different it is from Saddam Hussein’s. Popular support for Iran’s rulers is much greater than for Iraq’s. After Saddam Hussein had invaded Iran, his troops were resisted valiantly under extremely difficult conditions. All analogies between a possible attack on Iran and the Gulf War are therefore irresponsibly fanciful. Yet Sharon and the Israeli Army commanders did in 1979 propose to send a detachment of Israeli paratroopers to Tehran to quash the revolution and restore the monarchy. They really thought, until stopped by Begin, that a few Israeli paratroopers could determine the history of a country as immense and populous as Iran! According to a consensus of official Israeli experts on Iranian affairs, the fall of the Shah was due solely to his `softness’ in refraining to order his army to slaughter thousands of demonstrators wholesale.
Later, the Israeli experts on Iranian affairs were no less unanimous in predicting a speedy defeat of Iran by Saddam Hussein. No evidence indicates that they have changed their assumptions or discarded their underlying racism. Their ranks may include some relatively less-opinionated individuals, who have survived the negative selection process which usually occurs within groups sharing such ideologically-tight imageries. But such individuals can be assumed to prefer to keep their moderation to themselves, while hoping that Israel can reap some fringe benefits from any western provocation against Iran, even if it results in a protracted and inconclusive war.
From: Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies
Ed note–It is something that all are subjected to whenever someone DARES suggest that Jews exert undue influence over American foreign policy and that there is a deliberate agenda on the part of these interests to corrupt otherwise healthy societies through their control of media. Let us then take a stroll back in time and consider when Netanyahu suggested that Iran be conquered piecemeal, first by corrupting the youth of her society through American (Jewish) pop culture and media.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) — A former Israeli prime minister Thursday called upon the United States to effect regime change in both Iraq and Iran, prescribing a military invasion to topple the government in Baghdad and the transmission of ribald television programming via satellite into Persia, where he said the influx of pop culture would prove “subversive” to the conservative Islamic regime.
Citing the hundreds of thousands of satellite television dishes in Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu told the House Government Reform Committee that the United States could incite a revolution against the conservative Iranian clergy through the use of such Fox Broadcasting staples as “Melrose Place” and “Beverly Hills 90210″ — both of which feature beautiful young people in varying states of undress, living, glamorous, materialistic lives and engaging in promiscuous sex.
“This is pretty subversive stuff,” Netanyahu told the committee. “The kids of Iran would want the nice clothes they see on those shows. They would want the swimming pools and fancy lifestyles.”
But the more pressing issue to Netanyahu is Iran’s neighbor, Iraq, which he said was dangerously close to developing weapons of mass destruction — and would not be susceptible to subversion.
“We understand a nuclear armed Saddam places Israel at risk,” he said. “But a nuclear armed Saddam also puts the entire world at risk.”
“After Saddam gets a nuclear weapon, it is only a matter of time before the terror networks get nuclear weapons,’ Netanyahu warned. “And they will use them if they get them.”
Netanyahu said that the 1981 attack by Israel on an Iraqi nuclear facility was justified and implied that it’s success hinged on just the kind of unilateralism that President George W. Bush’s Thursday speech to the United Nations appears to abjure.
“Did Israel launch this pre-emptive strike with the coordination of the international community?” Netanyahu asked. “Did we condition such a strike on the approval of the United Nations? Of course not.”
Burton’s statements reflected more respect for the administration’s coalition building efforts than Netanyahu’s, but he did note that in the face of failing to develop such support for an invasion, he too supported a unilateral attack.
“This morning the president made a strong case for taking action. Now we need to see how the world responds,” Burton noted. “I hope that our friends and allies around the world will join us. I hope that we can assemble a strong coalition that will stand up to this dangerous regime. However, if we can’t, my view is that we have to do what’s in our own best interest. If we determine that Saddam Hussein is a serious national security threat, then we have to act — alone if necessary.”
Netanyahu’s rhetoric, at least the military invasion portion of his testimony, found a warm reception from committee Chairman Dan Burton, R-Ind., who said that finishing the war on terror with the occupation of Afghanistan without attacking Iraq would leave the job half done.
“One of the unfinished pieces of business we have is Iraq,” Burton said. “In my opinion, this is a problem we can’t continue to ignore. Saddam Hussein is a menace. He has chemical weapons. He has biological weapons. He’s working hard to acquire nuclear weapons. He’s used chemical weapons in the past. We should have no doubt that he’ll use them again. And if he succeeds in developing nuclear weapons, we could have a catastrophe on our hands.”
But Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich was not as supportive of Netanyahu’s calls for war. In a terse exchange that occurred before the former prime minister laid out his “Iran Strategy,” Kucinich asked him for additional suggestions for places to invade.
“While you’re here, Mr. Prime Minister, are there any other countries besides Iraq that you would suggest that we invade?” he asked.
The president of the United States was recently humiliated in the White House—a symbol of American sovereignty—by Israel’s prime minister for 10 minutes on national and international TV. Benjamin Netanyahu chewed Obama out in the Oval Office, while “the most powerful man on Earth” cowered and dared not defend the honor and dignity of his office.
Obama, it seemed, could barely hold back the tears while the foreign leader who many define as a global bully lectured Obama about “the facts on the ground.”
But if Obama had the courage of any soldier who risks his or her life daily in “AfPak” and Iraq, he would have told Netanyahu to stop insulting the American people.
Obama should have used that 10 minutes—while the world watched—to prove that each of Netanyahu’s “facts” is a big fat lie.
Big Lie No. 1: “Israel can’t go back to 1967 borders.” Peace Envoy George Mitchell once resigned in disgust over the final straw of Netanyahu’s reneging of 1967 borders, when his predecessors—including prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert—proposed and committed to the 1967 borders “as the basis of peace negotiations.”
Big Lie No. 2: “Conditions on the ground have changed.” Imagine if hordes of illegal aliens from all over the world crossed over our borders, murdered Americans who had developed the land for generations, bulldozed or dynamited the homes of Americans, stole their lands, illegally occupied their properties and forced the homeless Americans to pass through checkpoints in order to travel within America. Imagine such a brutal police state denying you all the rights you once took for granted, refusing you all respect and dignity due you as a human being, much less mercy, in what was once your homeland.
In 1948 there were “officially” only 2,810 Jews who were illegal aliens in Palestine. After half of the land was partitioned, illegal immigrants, in what was left of Palestine, were practically zero. After the 1967 war the takeover of the remaining Palestinian lands began slowly. By 1972 there were 10,608 illegal aliens. They increased 10-fold by 1983 to 106,595; by 1993 they doubled to 281,800. They doubled again by 2004 to 441,165. In three years they increased to 484,862 by 2007. In less than two years, 2009, the flood rose to 516,569 gun-toting illegal aliens. Yes, conditions on the ground have changed—and they must not remain that way.
Big Lie No. 3: “The Palestinians deserve whatever they get. They started the war in 1967.” The Palestinians were victims of that war—refugees driven out of their homes, with more than 300,000 exiled who never returned. Houses were destroyed, “not in battle, but as punishment . . . in order to chase away the inhabitants. . . .” wrote Gen. Moshe Dayan in his memoirs. Many were forced out by the Israeli troops in panic and fear. There is evidence of Israeli soldiers going around with loudspeakers ordering West Bankers to leave their homes and cross the Jordan River.
The media constantly regurgitate the Big Lie that “Arabs attacked Israel,” but Israel’s leaders admit they started the war in 1967—and they are proud of it. At dawn, on June 5, 1967, Israel launched a Pearl Harbor-like sneak attack against the air forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Their air defenses lay in smoking ruins, never getting off the ground. By noon, Israel had essentially won the -Six Day War—in six hours. Inevitably, the fact that so many hundreds of Arab planes were trapped in their parking areas was evidence that Israel struck the first blow.
Menachem Begin admitted: “In June 1967, we had a choice. . . . We decided to attack,” as recorded by author Noam Chomsky in The Fateful Triangle.
“There was ‘no threat of destruction [of Israel]’,” the Israel’s ex-defense minister, Moshe Dayan, who gave the order to attack Syria to seize the Golan Heights, boasted that many of the fire-fights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the “greedy” kibbutz residents were less concerned for security than with grabbing the land (The New York Times, May 11, 1997).
Big Lie No. 4: “It was only a miracle that gave us a marvelous victory.” That is baloney. Actually, the war was premeditated, for at least two years, with precise plans between the Israeli high command and the 303 Committee, directly out of LBJ’s White House, under Operation Frontlet 615, involving a “live-bait,” “false-flag” plot to sink an American ship—with the death of all hands on board—blaming this shameful war crime on the Egyptians.
“Every person in that room knew . . . that it was an American ship and that it was the USS Liberty. . . . But General Dayan ordered the attack anyway. We Israelis were guilty of an outrage.” (Maj. Seth Mintz, AMERICAN FREE PRESS, Aug. 4, 2003)
The real blessing from God, the miracle of the Six Day War, was that the USS Liberty did not sink in spite of being hit with Israeli rockets, napalm and torpedoes— and gunboats machine-gunning life rafts—aided by treachery in the highest places.
That is only a summary of some of the Big Lies. Instead of demanding an apology, Obama groveled. Given Obama’s cowardice and that of Congress to face the truth and right the many wrongs, we all need to proclaim, “Remember the Liberty!”
Subscribe to American Free Press. Online subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus you get a BONUS ELECTRONIC BOOK – HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR – By Michael Piper.
Print subscriptions: 52 issues crammed into 47 weeks of the year plus six free issues of Whole Body Health: $59 Order on this website or call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS .
TWF.org The War on Islam: Over 250,000 sold and/or downloaded — get your’s FREE
9/11 Unveiled: Over 40,000 sold and/or downloaded— get your’s FREE
Listen to Dr. Kevin Barrett’s radio show. Kevin just returned from a 9/11 speaking tour in Turkey. He is a member of the Board of Directors of The Wisdom Fund. by John Pilger
May 28, 2011
Award winning author, film-maker John Pilger’s articles appear worldwide in newspapers such as the Guardian, the Independent, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Mail & Guardian (South Africa), Aftonbladet (Sweden), Il Manifesto (Italy).
When Britain lost control of Egypt in 1956, Prime Minister Anthony Eden said he wanted the nationalist president Gamal Abdel Nasser “destroyed murdered I dont give a damn if theres anarchy and chaos in Egypt.” Those insolent Arabs, Winston Churchill had urged in 1951, should be driven “into the gutter from which they should never have emerged.”
The language of colonialism may have been modified; the spirit and the hypocrisy are unchanged. A new imperial phase is unfolding in direct response to the Arab uprising that began in January and has shocked Washington and Europe, causing an Eden-style panic. The loss of the Egyptian tyrant Mubarak was grievous, though not irretrievable; an American-backed counter-revolution is under way as the military regime in Cairo is seduced with new bribes and power shifting from the street to political groups that did not initiate the revolution. The western aim, as ever, is to stop authentic democracy and reclaim control.
Libya is the immediate opportunity. The NATO attack on Libya, with the UN Security Council assigned to mandate a bogus “no fly zone” to “protect civilians”, is strikingly similar to the final destruction of Yugoslavia in 1999. There was no UN cover for the bombing of Serbia and the “rescue” of Kosovo, yet the propaganda echoes today. Like Slobodan Milosevic, Muammar Gadhafi is a “new Hitler”, plotting “genocide” against his people. There is no evidence of this, as there was no genocide in Kosovo. In Libya there is a tribal civil war; and the armed uprising against Gadhafi has long been appropriated by the Americans, French, and British, their planes attacking residential Tripoli with uranium-tipped missiles and the submarine HMS Triumph firing Tomahawk missiles, a repeat of the “shock and awe” in Iraq that left thousands of civilians dead and maimed. As in Iraq, the victims, which include countless incinerated Libyan army conscripts, are media unpeople.
In the “rebel” east, the terrorizing and killing of black African immigrants is not news. On 22 May, a rare piece in the Washington Post described the repression, lawlessness and death squads in the “liberated zones” just as visiting EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, declared she had found only “great aspirations” and “leadership qualities.” In demonstrating these qualities, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the “rebel leader” and Gadhafis justice minister until February, pledged, “Our friends will have the best opportunity in future contracts with Libya.” The east holds most of Libyas oil, the greatest reserves in Africa. In March the rebels, with expert foreign guidance, “transferred” to Benghazi the Libyan Central Bank, a wholly owned state institution. This is unprecedented. Meanwhile, the US and the EU “froze” almost US$100 billion in Libyan funds, “the largest sum ever blocked”, according to official statements. It is the biggest bank robbery in history.
The French elite are enthusiastic robbers and bombers. Nicholas Sarkozys imperial design is for a French-dominated Mediterranean Union (UM), which would allow France to “return” to its former colonies in North Africa and profit from privileged investment and cheap labor. Gadhafi described the Sarkozy plan as “an insult” that was “taking us for fools.” The Merkel government in Berlin agreed, fearing its old foe would diminish Germany in the EU, and abstained in the Security Council vote on Libya.
Like the attack on Yugoslavia and the charade of Milosevics trial, the International Criminal Court is being used by the US, France and Britain to prosecute Gadhafi while his repeated offers of a cease-fire are ignored. Gadhafi is a Bad Arab. David Camerons government and its verbose top general want to eliminate this Bad Arab, like the Obama administration killed a famously Bad Arab in Pakistan recently. The crown prince of Bahrain, on the other hand, is a Good Arab. On 19 May, he was warmly welcomed to Britain by Cameron with a photo-call on the steps of 10 Downing Street. In March, the same crown prince slaughtered unarmed protestors and allowed Saudi forces to crush his countrys democracy movement. The Obama administration has rewarded Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes on earth, with a $US60 billion arms deal, the biggest in US history. The Saudis have the most oil. They are the Best Arabs.
The assault on Libya, a crime under the Nuremberg standard, is Britains 46th military “intervention” in the Middle East since 1945. Like its imperial partners, Britains goal is to control Africas oil. Cameron is not Anthony Eden, but almost. Same school. Same values. In the media-pack, the words colonialism and imperialism are no longer used, so that the cynical and the credulous can celebrate state violence in its more palatable form.
And as “Mr. Hopey Changey” (the name that Ted Rall, the great American cartoonist, gives Barack Obama), is fawned upon by the British elite and launches another insufferable presidential campaign, the Anglo-American reign of terror proceeds in Afghanistan and elsewhere, with the murder of people by unmanned drones a US/Israel innovation, embraced by Obama. For the record, on a scorecard of imposed misery, from secret trials and prisons and the hounding of whistleblowers and the criminalizing of dissent to the incarceration and impoverishment of his own people, mostly black people, Obama is as bad as George W. Bush.
The Palestinians understand all this. As their young people courageously face the violence of Israels blood-racism, carrying the keys of their grandparents stolen homes, they are not even included in Mr. Hopey Changeys list of peoples in the Middle East whose liberation is long overdue. What the oppressed need, he said on 19 May, is a dose of “Americas interests [that] are essential to them.” He insults us all.
Watch the New RememberBuilding7 Television Ad:
What is Building 7?
Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was part of the World Trade Center complex. It would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states. It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.
Video compilation of Building 7‘s destruction (no sound):
Building 7 in relation to the rest of the World Trade Center complex:
To learn more about Building 7, visit “7 Facts about Building 7”, which includes photos of Building 7 before, during and after its destruction.
Prime numbers are the key
Quran and Prime Numbers
Quran and Structure
Quran and Primalogy
2012 Event Dates
2012 Event Types
Urgent: How To Survive
Sheikh Imran Hosein discussed with Wakeup Project Team (the creators of Arrival Series) about how we can survive the events going to unfold in not more than next 2 years. This is very important that we spare an hour from our routine and listen to this critically important analysis about the current geopolitics in the light of Quran and Bible. It’s time to wake up and prepare for what is coming.
Watch all 6 parts
The first ever Urdu documentary made on the topic of 2012 aired on Express News show “Bhaid” recently.
Video: The End time prophecies
This documentary produced by a Turkish Scholar which proofs that all major prophecies by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) have been fulfilled and we are living in the last age where we will witness the arrival of Mehdi and Jesus Christ (pbuh)
The evidence and arguments presented in this lecture on Gog and Magog succeeded in convincing many that we now live in a world dominated by Gog and Magog.
As well as joining a barbecue for American and British troops in the prime minister’s haunts, in the gardens of Number 10 Downing Street, the two potentates called for continuing to bomb Libya back to the Paleolithic Age.
Displaying what passes for sophisticated humor in the contemporary deadened age, Cameron told the press, “It was…probably the first time in history, as we stood behind that barbecue, that I can say a British prime minister has given an American president a bit of a grilling.”
Correspondents chuckled as Libyan, Afghan and Pakistani civilians writhe in their death throes from the bombs and Hellfire missiles delivered by Cameron’s and Obama’s warplanes.
Waxing as reflective as he is capable of doing, the British prime minister added: “Barack and I came of age in the 1980s and ’90s. We saw the end of the Cold War and the victory over communism. We saw the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein and the world coming together to liberate that country. Throughout it all, we saw presidents and prime ministers standing together for freedom.”
Standing shoulder-to-shoulder in triumphalism and unbridled militarism, more like.
British, French, Italian, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, Qatari and United Arab Emirate warplanes have flown over 8,000 sorties and more than 3,000 combat missions against Libya since NATO took control of the war on March 31, before which the U.S. and Britain fired at least 160 cruise missiles into the nation. Hours before Cameron and Obama enjoyed their barbecue, NATO warplanes launched a one-hour bombardment of the Libyan capital of Tripoli, the most ferocious attack in more than two months, killing 19 people and injuring over 130 others.
The third plenipotentiary of Anglo-American global power projection, the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland – who succeeded former NATO secretary general Javier Solana in the post – was in Washington last week to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and plan more onerous joint sanctions against Syria, with Clinton stating “we discussed additional steps that we can take to increase pressure and further isolate the Assad regime,” exemplifying the diplomatic finesse the world has come to expect from the foreign policy executrix of the world’s sole military superpower.
A week before, the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), whose six member states – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman, to a one hereditary monarchies, emirates and theocracies, but accounting for 45 per cent of the world’s proven oil reserves – are the West’s main allies and proxies in the Arab world and the Persian Gulf, issued a joint declaration demanding that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi abdicate power in favor of the rebel Transitional National Council financed and armed by NATO and GCC nations and advocating the easing out of Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh in favor of a more pliant and reliable client.
The EU and GCC, with not a scintilla of apparent irony given the above, also demanded that Iran “play a constructive role and stop interfering in the internal affairs of GCC member states and other countries in the region.” On March 14 the first of 1,500 troops from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the other GCC states entered Bahrain, two days after U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates left the kingdom, to back up the Al Khalifa dynasty against opponents of the religious minority-dominated autocracy.
The following week Kuwait deployed naval forces off Bahrain “to protect the territorial waters of the kingdom” as part of the GCC’s Peninsula Shield Force military intervention.
In announcing the penultimate round of sanctions against Syria in late April, President Obama included Iran, claiming “Iran’s actions in support of the Syrian regime place it in stark opposition to the will of the Syrian people.” The will of the Bahraini people is another matter.
Since April the GCC, of which Yemen is not a member, has been pressuring the Yemeni government to accept its alleged mediation efforts to effect a change of regime, an initiative backed by the U.S. and its NATO allies. As German foreign ministry spokesman Andreas Peschke recently informed the press, “We call on President Saleh not to seek to wait out the situation, and to seriously consider and accept the mediation offer made by the Gulf Cooperation Council.” He added that “The European Union might take new measures to up pressure on the regime ‘should President Saleh stubbornly hang on.’” 
During his meeting with Prime Minister Cameron on the same day, President Obama chimed in by stating, “We call upon President Saleh to move immediately on his commitment to transfer power.”
On May 23 European Union foreign ministers levied more stringent sanctions against Belarus, Iran, Libya and Syria, four nations – hardly surprisingly – also targeted by the U.S. for regime change.
Neither the U.S. nor its NATO allies in the European Union have breathed a word about introducing sanctions against the kings and emirs of the GCC states.
Qatar and its GCC partners were the prime movers behind the action by the Arab League, of which they constitute barely a quarter of the members, to call for a United Nations resolution against Libya on March 12. A week later the U.S., Britain, France and their NATO allies began the bombardment of the country.
Diminutive Qatar, an absolute monarchy with a population under 1.7 million, was the first country to recognize the rebel regime in Libya, the first Persian Gulf state to join a NATO combat mission by supplying French-made Mirage fighter jets and U.S.-origin C-17 Globemasters for the war effort, and set up a satellite television channel – Ahrar TV – as the mouthpiece for the Transitional National Council, as well as providing it with French-made MILAN missile launchers. Qatar is also managing oil exports from rebel-controlled Libya.
A news source in Azerbaijan published the following account on March 28, nine days after the war against Libya was launched:
“NATO’s operation, worth about $300-500 million a day, on sweeping the sky over Libya opens a new historical era: the beginning of colonial conquests by the Persian Gulf states. At the same time NATO acts as a ‘soldier of fortune’ – a professional mercenary, ensuring colonial conquest itself.
“The defeat of Colonel Qaddafi’s ground forces by NATO aviation has opened possibilities for the opposition for restoration of oil exports from Libya. As a result, according to a representative for the economy and oil of the ‘transitional government’ of the opposition, Ali Tarkhuni, the opposition has already reached an agreement on oil exports under the supervision of Qatar.” 
On April 14 President Obama hosted the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, at the White House and praised his guest for “the leadership” he demonstrated in promoting “democracy in the Middle East,” particularly in Libya, adding:
“Qatar has not only supported [the campaign against Libya] diplomatically but has also supported it militarily and we are very appreciative of the outstanding work that the Qataris have done side by side with other international coalition members.” The emir responded by thanking Obama for “the position the U.S. has taken in support of the democratization process that has taken place in Tunisia and in Egypt and what is attempting to take place in Libya.”
The United Arab Emirates (UAE), which is one of 49 official Troop Contributing Nations supplying forces for NATO’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (Bahrain, though not in that category, also has military personnel assigned to NATO in the war zone), announced last week that it will be the first Arab nation to send an ambassador to NATO headquarters in Brussels. The UAE is also the only other Arab state providing warplanes for the now 68-day attack against Libya.
Along with its fellow GCC member states Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, the UAE is a member of the NATO Istanbul Cooperation Initiative military partnership established in 2004. NATO has conducted conferences, sent leading military commanders and deployed warships to all six GCC nations, including Saudi Arabia and Oman, not yet full members of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. The Alliance’s ever-expanding role in the Persian Gulf is designed to contain and when the opportunity arises confront Iran.
Two years ago French President Nicolas Sarkozy travelled to the UAE to open his nation’s first military base in the Middle East, in the Abu Dhabi emirate, where he stated to his host: “Be assured that France is on your side in the event your security is at risk.”
In the middle of April, starting on the day Obama met with Qatar’s Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, NATO foreign ministers met in Berlin to plan the intensification of the war against Libya, with Hillary Clinton stating that the bloc’s members were “sharing the same goal, which is to see the end of the Gaddafi regime in Libya.” The NATO foreign ministers signed a declaration pledging continuation of the war which was also signed by representatives of Jordan, Qatar, Morocco, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates, all members of NATO partnership programs: The Mediterranean Dialogue, Partnership for Peace and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.
Ten days ago Moroccan Foreign Minister Taieb Fassi Fihri announced that his nation intends to join the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the GCC reciprocated by confirming that it was considering the request and a parallel one by Jordan. Neither country is near the Persian Gulf but both are monarchies.
At the Congress of Vienna in 1815 after the final defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo, the monarchies in Russia, Austria and Prussia created what became known as the Holy Alliance to unite the European continent under a coalition of kings, czars and emperors exploiting a patina of religiosity to forever fend off the reappearance of republicanism. Of forces they couldn’t control.
The self-proclaimed champions of Euro-Atlantic values gathered under the banner of NATO have now found their fitting complement: The kingdoms and emirates of Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. A kinship indeed exists, as the majority of nations bombing Libya on both sides are monarchies: Belgium, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as well as NATO partner Sweden which has assigned eight Gripen warplanes for the war and Canada once removed.
Last September the Financial Times reported that Washington planned to sell $123 billion worth of arms to GCC states – $67.8 billion to Saudi Arabia, $35.6 billion to the United Arab Emirates, $12.3 billion to Oman and $7.1 billion to Kuwait – in addition to incorporating the Gulf states into the global U.S. missile shield system.
The White House later confirmed a $60 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, the largest foreign arms transaction in American history.
The U.S., Britain, France, Italy and their NATO allies have revealed their plans for control of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf: A comprehensive military alliance with the royal families of the Arab world.
1) Agence France-Presse, May 25, 2011
2) NATO conquered from Gaddafi control over Libyan oil for Qatar
Azerbaijan Business Center, March 28, 2011
Officials engaged in recollection of information from the scene of incident have learnt that at least three of the attackers appeared to be from Uzbekistan had full knowledge the area and technically updated in urban warfare.
Leaders of the Group of 8 industrialized countries are set to issue a provocative call for stronger Internet regulation, a cause championed by the host of the meeting, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, but fiercely opposed by some Internet companies and free-speech groups.
A new national alert system is set to begin in New York City that will alert the public to emergencies via cell phones.
It’s called the Personal Localized Alert Network or PLAN. Presidential and local emergency messages as well as Amber Alerts would appear on cell phones equipped with special chips and software.
Billed as part of an effort to reduce obesity and improve eating habits, small cameras are programmed to take snapshots of lunch trays before and after each student eats. Each child is uniquely identifiable via a barcode attached to the tray. The amount of calories and nutrients that each child has consumed is then calculated via a database containing 7,500 different varieties of food.
The TSA has announced its intention to expand the VIPR program to include roadside inspections of commercial vehicles, setting up a network of internal checkpoints and rolling out security procedures already active in airports, bus terminals and subway stations to roads and highways across the United States.
To be in public is to be on camera, but most video footage is discarded, as only so much can be sorted and analyzed — until now. DARPA has created a technology that can index and analyze video in real-time, marking the end of anonymity in public places.
The Metropolitan Police has bought Geotime, a security programme used by the U.S. military which tracks suspects’ movements and communications and displays them on a three-dimensional graphic.
The software aggregates information gathered from social networking sites, GPS devices like the iPhone, mobile phones, financial transactions and IP network logs to build a detailed picture of an individual’s movements.
The devices, sold by a company called Cellebrite, can download text messages, photos, video, and even GPS data from most brands of cell phones. The handheld machines have various interfaces to work with different models and can even bypass security passwords and access some information.
Once upon a time, the Internet was a bastion of liberty and freedom, but now nation after nation is cracking down on it. In fact, legislation has been introduced once again in Congress that would give the president of the United States an “Internet kill switch” that he would be able to use in the event of war or emergency. Of course there would be a whole lot of wiggle room in determining what actually constitutes a true “emergency”. The members of Congress that are pushing this “Internet kill switch” bill want the U.S. to become more like China in this regard.
The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a 73-year-old Virginia resident who was allegedly ordered by a park ranger to remove his car from a national military park in South Carolina because of political messages attached to his vehicle. Jack Faw, whose ancestors fought in the historic battle memorialized at Kings Mountain National Military Park, contacted The Rutherford Institute after being told by a park ranger that the decal promoting a political organization associated with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), which was displayed on the back window of Faw’s car, was not allowed in the park.