Print Contact Articles by Subject The Middle East

What is the U.S. Goal in Afghanistan?

June 11, 2016

Fifteen years after 9/11, what is the goal of the U.S. war in Afghanistan? 

On its current path, Afghanistan runs the risk of becoming fifty or more separate kingdoms. Foreign extremists have begun to move in, buying houses and weapons. Afghanistan may become unique in being both a training ground and munitions dump for foreign terrorists and at the same time the world’s largest poppy field.
- Abdul Haq in a letter to Ambassador Peter Tomsen, U.S. Special Envoy to the Afghan Mujahideen, 1992

Why are the Arabs here? The U.S. brought the Arabs to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Washington gave them money, gave them training, and created ten or 15 different fighting groups. The U.S. and Pakistan worked together. The minute the pro-Communist regime collapsed, the Americans walked away – and didn't even clean up their shit. They brought this problem to Afghanistan.
- Abdul Haq to Newsweek, October 26, 2001 (shortly before he was killed)

The undeclared and illegal war that the U.S. and its allies are waging today against the elected government of Syria is very similar to the covert war the U.S. and the same allies waged against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. While that effort succeeded in expelling the Red Army from Afghanistan, it also created a cadre of Islamist militants against which the U.S. is still waging war.

The fifteen-year-old U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, the first act in the Global War on Terror, has utterly failed to produce peace or democracy, but has yielded large increases in terrorism and opium. If the same pattern is now being applied in Syria, would it be logical to expect a different outcome?

In March, after my lecture in Manhattan, an English woman named Lucy Morgan Edwards presented me with a signed copy of her book, The Afghan Solution:  The Inside Story of Abdul Haq, the CIA, and How Western Hubris Lost Afghanistan


Edwards’ book is a hardbound book of 365 pages with a dust jacket and extensive endnotes, which she said was “a labor of love.” Having spent several years in Afghanistan, Edwards worked as a country advisor for the European Union and served in several other similar positions.  During her years in Afghanistan, she became personally acquainted with many of the key players and the multi-faceted political game that has been playing out in that war-torn nation since the Soviet Union withdrew its forces in the late-1980s.

After reading The Afghan Solution the reader is left with one perplexing question:  Why did the CIA give so much support to radical anti-Western mujahideen like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and so little to capable and intelligent men like Abdul Haq, a leader with a sensible Afghan plan to end the fighting?

Much of the book is devoted to this question. As one can see from Edwards’ choice of words she suggests that “Western hubris lost Afghanistan,” i.e. that the quagmire in Afghanistan was not intentional.

Edwards explains how the Pashtun fighter Abdul Haq offered a viable Afghan solution to remove the Taliban and al Qaida factions from power in the aftermath of 9/11 – a plan in which the U.S. military would not play a major role, as it has since 2001.

Unfortunately, the path presented by Abdul Haq was the road not taken. With more than 3,517 American lives lost and 20,000 wounded in nearly fifteen years, Abdul Haq’s Afghan solution certainly looks like it was the wiser choice.  The fifteen-year U.S. war in Afghanistan has cost the American taxpayer more than $737 billion and consumes another $4 million per hour, every day that it continues.

As Ken Guest, former British marine and Afghan observer, wrote to Edwards in 2009:

In 2001 there was a far better option on the table that offered an honest and strong Afghan leader, the use of the tribes, sealing the border to prevent escapes and virtually no U.S. footprint, other than discreet use of Special Forces as observers for report back needs. In effect an Islamic rejection of terrorism as un-Islamic, exactly what we, in the West, should have been looking for and supporting.

In 2001 the West advanced without proper contextual understanding… We favoured wide bombing, often wide of the mark, ever expanding U.S./Allies ground force deployment, installing a weak leader, resulting in no government capacity and massive corruption. What we got is what you see now. It isn’t pretty but it was all perfectly predictable, and it is the sort of thing that happens when we fail to properly consider all the options.

The most obvious question raised by Edwards is why?  Why did the U.S. reject the most sensible path?  It seems obvious that the plan presented by Abul Haq would have been the most prudent and most likely way to succeed, if the U.S. goal really were to remove the Taliban from power and eliminate Al Qaida fighters from Afghanistan. So, why did the U.S. reject the Haq plan?

I wrote to Edwards and asked her if she thought it is possible that the CIA rejected the Abdul Haq plan because they did not want a peaceful Afghanistan, but a weak and destabilized country where opium and terrorism could flourish.


As political journalist and writer Dan Glazebrook told RT recently:

We really have to understand that the key goal of the U.S. in Afghanistan is to keep it weak, destabilized, prevent it from becoming a peaceful stable country at peace with its neighbors. Because if that were to happen, that would mean very likely making agreements with Russia, China. It’s a very important country geo-strategically, potentially being a gas supply route and its geographical proximity to Russia, China, India and so on means that the U.S. doesn’t want to risk it becoming a stable, peaceful country. 

Edwards gives the CIA the benefit of the doubt in concluding that the U.S. agency lost Afghanistan due to hubris and incompetence. The historical record, however, suggests that the CIA rejected the Haq plan because the agency’s real aim, at the highest level, was not to eradicate Islamic terrorist groups, but to foment and support them in order to create an Islamic enemy, the opposition against whom the next war, the War on Terror, would be fought.

Israel in Afghanistan & Ehud Barak's $300 Million Rip-Off

April 29, 2016

In July 2015, in what was described as "a startling move," Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar of Hizb-e-Islami advised his supporters to help Islamic State (ISIS).  Since the 1980s, Hekmatyar's organization has been funded by the C.I.A. and armed and trained by Israel.  Surprise, surprise.

May 1992:  Ahmad Shah Massoud signs agreement with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the most wanted criminal in Afghanistan, in presence of their Pakistani and Arab masters. Now, consider that Hekmatyar's group was armed and trained by Israeli military intelligence.

Israel played a secret, but central role, in the Soviet-Afghanistan war, in particular by arming and training a very radical Islamic Party faction - the Hezb-e Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.  As Wikipedia reports in its "Afghanistan-Israel Relations" entry:

During the 1980s, Israel provided armament and training to mujahideen forces who were fighting the Soviet-backed Afghan government. Thousands of mujahideen fighters, particularly from the Hezb-e Islami faction of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, were trained by Israeli instructors. The head of Pakistan's ISI agency, Akhtar Abdur Rahman, apparently allowed the Israeli trainers into his country.

The details of the Israeli role in arming and training radical Islamic fighters during the Soviet-Afghanistan war are generally not well known. This is largely due to the fact that "of all the members of the anti-Soviet coalition, the Israelis have been the most successful in concealing the details and even the broad traces of a training role," according to John K. Cooley, author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism (2000).

One reason it is important for us today to understand Israel's role then in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran, is because the radical Islamic faction, Hezb-e Islami, which was armed and trained by the Israelis, went on to become al Qaida. It is also important to note that the Israeli covert operation to arm and train Hezb-e Islami was carried out by Ehud Barak, the head of Israel's Military Intelligence Directorate, AMAN (1983–1985).

When Hekmatyar's radical "Islamic Party" lost Saudi support, after it supported Saddam Hussein; and Pakistani support after 1994, "the remainder of Hezb-i Islami merged into al-Qaida and the Taliban," as per The Columbia World Dictionary of Islamism. This is shortly before Al Qaida emerged on the world stage as the alleged source of terror atrocities in Africa and Yemen.

Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister and chief of defense, also happens to be the first person on 9/11 to blame Osama bin Laden and al Qaida, something he did from the London studio of BBC World television - before the towers were even demolished. How very odd, when one considers that it was Barak himself, as head of Israeli military intelligence, who had overseen the arming and training of the Islamist group he blamed on 9/11 for the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C.

BEFORE THE TOWERS FELL - Ehud Barak was in the BBC World studio in London blaming Osama bin Laden and his Islamist group in Afghanistan - the very same radical Islamist group that Barak had armed and trained as head of Israeli military intelligence (AMAN) from 1983 through 1985. One of the last operations Barak's team in Pakistan carried out was double-dealing to Iran a $300 million consignment of weapons paid for by the U.S. and intended for the anti-Soviet Afghan 
mujahideen. Did Vice-President George Bush know that his ally in the Iran-Contra operation was ripping the U.S. off?


In 1985, when Shimon Peres was Israel's prime minister and Ehud Barak was head of the AMAN, the Military Intelligence Directorate, the Israelis pulled a fast one and sold Iran a $300 million consignment of weapons that had already been purchased for the Afghan resistance fighters. Ari Ben-Menashe, the Israeli agent on the ground in Pakistan, said the Israeli weapons were sold twice, creating a surplus in the Israeli account of $300 million.

THE TROIKA OF TERROR - Shimon Peres (left) and Ehud Barak (right) were the key players in the $300 million rip-off as they armed and trained the radical Islamist group in Pakistan that became Al Qaida.

This means that the same Israelis, Peres and Barak, who played key roles in the events of 9/11, had ripped off the U.S. government and its allies in the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan for $300 million in 1985.  No wonder the Israelis have worked so hard to conceal the details of their business in Pakistan. The Israeli military could not have carried out such an outrageous operation without the knowledge and approval of both the head of military intelligence, Ehud Barak, and the prime minister, Shimon Peres.

The best information I have found about the details of Israel's double dealing in Pakistan is in A.Z. Hilali's book, US-Pakistan Relationship: Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (2005).  The following extracts from Hilali's book provide the basics about how Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres ripped off $300 million in 1985:


Support Christopher Bollyn's efforts to expose the deception of our time.
Donate here or by PayPal to

Sources:  "Afghanistan–Israel Relations," Wikipedia, April 29, 2016

"Enemy of enemy: Hekmatyar support for IS stuns observers" by Tahir Khan, Express Tribune (Pakistan), July 7, 2015

The Columbia World Dictionary of Islamism, Olivier Roy, Antoine Sfeir (2007)

Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism by John K. Cooley, Pluto Press (2000) 

US-Pakistan Relationship: Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan by A.Z. Hilali, Aldershot, Ashgate (2005) 

Why is the U.S. Waging War in Syria?

May 4, 2016

On April 25, President Obama announced that the U.S. would send 250 more troops to Syria. But why is the U.S. military engaged in Syria, a nation where we have no national interest and with whom we are not at war?

Why is the U.S. waging war in Syria? Why are U.S. troops in a country where the United States has no national interest? Who are we fighting for? Why is the U.S. training, funding, and arming rebel groups that are fighting to overthrow the democratically elected government of Syria? Why is the U.S. waging war on ISIS, a group that is armed and supported by our allies? 

If you take U.S. policy in Syria at face value it makes no sense whatsoever. To understand what is going on in Syria requires grasping the fact that there is a secret Zionist policy being applied to divide and conquer the nation, but this is an utterly destructive policy that will only increase terrorism and instability in the region. 

Just before President Obama announced that the United States would be sending 250 more soldiers to fight in Syria, he said we are living in the most peaceful time in human history.  “We are fortunate to be living in the most peaceful, most prosperous, most progressive era in human history," Obama said in Hannover, Germany, on April 25.

Obama went on to say that the Islamic State (ISIS) organization, which is openly supported and armed by our allies, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, is the "most urgent threat" facing the West. So, why is the Obama White House playing such a duplicitous game in Syria?

As Obama said:

Right now, the most urgent threat to our nations is ISIL, and that’s why we’re united in our determination to destroy it. And all 28 NATO allies are contributing to our coalition -- whether it’s striking ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq, or supporting the air campaign, or training local forces in Iraq, or providing critical humanitarian aid. And we continue to make progress, pushing ISIL back from territory that it controlled.

And just as I’ve approved additional support for Iraqi forces against ISIL, I’ve decided to increase U.S. support for local forces fighting ISIL in Syria. A small number of American Special Operations Forces are already on the ground in Syria and their expertise has been critical as local forces have driven ISIL out of key areas. So given the success, I’ve approved the deployment of up 250 additional U.S. personnel in Syria, including Special Forces, to keep up this momentum. They’re not going to be leading the fight on the ground, but they will be essential in providing the training and assisting local forces that continue to drive ISIL back.

The first thing to grasp about Syria is that the so-called civil war would be over tomorrow if Obama and his allies were to stop supporting the rebels that are trying to overthrow the Assad government in Damascus. ISIS would also cease to exist if Obama were to demand that the U.S. allies that are supporting it to stop.  If Obama were serious about ISIS (or ISIL) being "the most urgent threat to our nations", why would he allow his regional allies to support it and keep it armed with U.S. weapons?

John Kerry seems completely preoccupied with regime change in Syria, where there is no U.S. national interest whatsoever. "As long as Assad is there, the opposition is not going to stop fighting him, one way or the other," Kerry said on May 3. The opposition he refers to is armed and supported by the U.S.

The war that the U.S. has waged by proxy in Syria has fragmented the nation in line with the Zionist Yinon Plan to "Balkanize" the Arab states, i.e. to break them up into ethnic statelets as was done in Yugoslavia. The Syrian government (red) is currently trying to oust the U.S.-supplied rebels (green) from Aleppo, Syria's largest city and commercial center. ISIS (black) controls a large stretch along the border with Turkey, across which men and weapons freely flow to the terrorist group that is "the most urgent threat" facing the West, according to Obama. ISIS and anti-Assad rebel groups also control Syrian territory along the border with the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

THE YINON PLAN is the Israeli strategy to dominate the Middle East. It was written in the early 1980s when the Likud party came to power. The Yinon plan calls for the "dissolution of all the existing Arab states" by breaking them up into small ethnic enclaves. This is exactly what U.S. military intervention had done to Iraq and Syria.

The U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, as part of the "War on Terror", has resulted in an unprecedented increase in terrorism in all three nations and around the world. This indicates that either the U.S. policy is utterly counter-productive due to incompetence or, more likely, that a secret Zionist policy is at work.

The dissolution of Iraq and Syria is exactly what the Israeli strategy for the region has called for since the early 1980s. If the nations of Iraq and Syria are partitioned into ethnic enclaves, as Israeli military leaders are now calling for, there will no longer be a nation of Syria, which will allow Israel to keep the Golan Heights, which it occupied in 1967. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, recently declared that Israel will never leave the water and mineral-rich occupied Golan Heights.

The Rothschilds own the largest oil company in Iraqi Kurdistan and, along with Rupert Murdoch and others, an oil company in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The legal challenges they face to exploiting the mineral resources of the Golan Heights would vanish if Syria ceased to exist as a nation.

The United States is certainly not waging war in Syria for any noble cause or U.S. national interest. The evidence and results indicate that the U.S. is waging war in Syria in order to advance the Zionist strategy of breaking up the Arab states into weak ethnic statelets, but this is a policy that will only increase terrorism, not defeat it. 

Support Christopher Bollyn's efforts to expose the deception of our time.
Donate here or by PayPal to

Turkey's Planned Provocation of Russia

Updated December 4, 2015 

Russian honor guard carry the coffin with the body of Russian Lt. Col. Oleg Peshkov, after being transported from Turkey, at a mourning ceremony in Chkalovsky military airport outside Moscow. November 30.

“We have serious doubts this was an unintended incident and believe this is a planned provocation.” 
- Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister, November 25, 2015

"There were no warnings. Not via the radio, not visually. There was no contact whatsoever... If they wanted to warn us, they could have shown themselves by heading on a parallel course. But there was nothing. And the rocket hit our tail completely unexpectedly. We didn't even see it in time to take evasive maneuvers."
- Captain Konstantin Murakhtin, flight navigator of the Russian Sukhoi Su-24 bomber shot down by a Turkish fighter

Sergey Rudskoy, a top official with the Russian General Staff, condemned the attack on the Russian bomber in Syrian airspace by a Turkish fighter jet as “a severe violation of international law”. Rudskoy stressed that the Su-24 was downed over Syrian territory. Rudskoy said the Russian warplane did not violate Turkish airspace. According to the Hmeymim airfield radar, it was the Turkish fighter jet that actually entered Syrian airspace as it attacked the Russian bomber.
Russia Today, November 24, 2015

A Russian SU-24, like the plane that the Turkish military shot down over Syria.

The Russian plane after being shot down by Turkish F-16 fighter jets over Syria.

Both Russian pilots parachuted safely from the plane. One was shot by rebels as he fell to the Earth. His crewmate was reported to have been rescued in good condition and returned to the Russian base.

This event is beyond the normal framework of fighting against terrorism. Of course our military is doing heroic work against terrorism... But the loss today is a stab in the back, carried out by the accomplices of terrorists. I can’t describe it in any other way.
- Vladimir Putin, in Sochi, November 24, 2015


The shooting down of a Russian bomber jet is a clear provocation by Turkey against Russia. Turkish military claims that it had warned the Russian plane 10 times in five minutes simply do not make sense when we consider the tiny sliver of Turkish territory that the plane is said to have crossed. 

As the New York Times reported:

The Turkish military did not identify the nationality of the plane but said in a statement on its website that its pilots fired only after repeated warnings to the other warplane.

“The aircraft entered Turkish airspace over the town of Yaylidag, in the southeastern Hatay province,” the statement read. “The plane was warned 10 times in the space of 5 minutes before it was taken down.”

As the Guardian reported:

The Turkish military said it scrambled two F-16 fighter jets after a plane penetrated Turkish airspace in the province of Hatay at 9.20am on Tuesday morning, warning it to leave 10 times in five minutes before it was shot down.

Radar tracks, supposedly from the Russian bomber, reportedly released by the Turkish military, show a track crossing a very small sliver of Turkish territory sticking into Syria.  If this is truly the track of the Russian plane it would have only been in Turkish airspace for a few seconds - nowhere near the five minutes it was supposedly warned by the Turks.  

Furthermore, this data is not complete because we don't see the radar tracks of the Turkish fighters nor do we know where the Russian jet was fired on.  For that matter, we can't even be sure that this is correct data for the Russian jet. The Turkish military is, after all, the party responsible for the downing of the jet.

If the Turkish jets fired on the Russian bomber as it crossed the tiny sliver that juts into Syria it would seem that the Turkish move is more of a provocation than a legitimate act of defense.  Where were the Turkish jets all this time?  Were they in Turkish or Syrian airspace? Where was the Russian jet during the five minutes it was supposedly warned by the Turkish fighters?

"Flight radar track on downed warplane issued by Turkish military"

The data from the Turkish military apparently shows that the Russian plane was shot down as it transited (from East to West; 
giriş means entry; çıkış means exit) a narrow finger of Turkish land less than 2 miles wide. The Russian plane would have crossed this sliver of land in about 12 seconds; nowhere near the five minutes claimed by the Turkish military statement. But did the Russian plane even enter Turkish airspace?

The radar track provided by the Turkish military with a map laid over. The red line is the border between Turkey (above the line) and Syria (below the line). The Turkish military statement, “The aircraft entered Turkish airspace over the town of Yaylidag," does not match the radar data seen here. Yayladağı is the town on the yellow line in Turkey. At no point in this radar track does the Russian plane fly above Yayladağı.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY - Russian radar data from their base in Syria shows a much different story, with the Turkish jet (blue line) firing on the Russian plane (red line) in Syria. According to this radar track the Russian plane never even entered Turkish airspace, which makes sense. Why would Russia violate Turkish airspace? Source (click to view the radar loop):

This graphic from the New York Times compares the two radar tracks of the Russian bomber: the Turkish military track is in purple; the Russian in red. NATO, as one might expect, claims the Turkish radar track is correct, but is it?  Why would Russia violate Turkish airspace?  It makes no sense, like the rest of the Turkish story. If Turkey is lying then NATO is also lying.

The two Russian pilots both ejected from the plane safely.  One was evidently killed by rebels who fired on them as they parachuted to the ground. The other was rescued and returned to the Russian base.

Sergey Rudskoy, a top official with the Russian General Staff, condemned the attack on the Russian plane in Syrian airspace by a Turkish fighter jet as “a severe violation of international law”.  Rudskoy stressed that the Su-24 was downed over Syrian territory. The crash site was four kilometers away from the Turkish border, he said.

Rudskoy said the Russian warplane did not violate Turkish airspace. According to the Hmeymim airfield radar (Russian base), it was the Turkish fighter jet that actually entered Syrian airspace as it attacked the Russian bomber. This is a crucial point. 

The Turkish fighter jet made no attempts to contact Russian pilots before attacking the bomber, Rudskoy added.

“We assume the strike was carried out with a close range missile with an infra-red seeker,” Rudskoy said. “The Turkish jet made no attempts to communicate or establish visual contact with our crew that our equipment would have registered. The Su-24 was hit by a missile over Syria’s territory.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about the incident in the early afternoon:

This event is beyond the normal framework of fighting against terrorism. Of course our military is doing heroic work against terrorism... But the loss today is a stab in the back, carried out by the accomplices of terrorists. I can’t describe it in any other way. Our aircraft was downed over the territory of Syria, using air-to-air missile from a Turkish F-16. It fell on the Syrian territory 4km from Turkey.

Neither our pilots nor our jet threatened the territory of Turkey. This is obvious. They are fighting terrorists in the northern areas around Latakia, where militants are located, mainly people who originated in Russia, and they were pursuing their direct duty, to make sure these people do not return to Russia. These are people who are clearly international terrorists.

Taking into account that we signed an agreement on deconflicting with the US, and as we know Turkey was among the ones that has joined the US coalition. Since Isis has such huge resources of hundreds of millions and billions of dollars coming from illicit oil sales, and they are protected by the armed forces of other states, then it’s clear why they are so brazen, why they are killing people, why they are carrying out terrorist attacks throughout the world including in the heart of Europe.

We will analyse everything, and today’s tragic event will have significant consequences, including for Russia-Turkish relations. We have always treated Turkey as a friendly state. I don’t know who was interested in what happened today, certainly not us. And instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours.
- Vladimir Putin, in Sochi, November 24, 2015

Dear Reader,
If you appreciate my articles, 
please support my research and writing. 
Click here to donate 
or donate via PayPal to:


"Putin calls Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists' after Russian jet shot down" by Matthew Weaver, Guardian (UK), November 24, 2015

"Russia deploys missile cruiser off Syria coast, ordered to destroy any target posing danger," Russia Today (, November 24, 2015

"Sorting Out What Russia and Turkey Say Happened in the Sky," New York Times, November 24, 2015

"Su-24 navigator rules out possibility of plane having entered Turkey" by Igor Rozin, Russia Behind the Headlines, November 25, 2015

"Turkey downs Russian warplane near Syria border," Guardian (UK), November 24, 2015

"Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syrian Border" by Ceylan Yeginsu and Ivan Nechepurenkonov, New York Times, November 24, 2015 

The Zionist War on Terror Creates More Terror

December 3, 2015

If there’s one thing the “war on terror” has excelled at, it is creating more war – and if there is a second, it is creating more terror.
"The entire ‘war on terror’ has been a lie – and these charts prove it" 
Rebecca Sumner,, November 28, 2015

The "War on Terror" has created more war – and more terror...
(Graphics: R. Sumner) 

in Iraq...

in Afghanistan...

and in Syria, among other places.

So, in reality, what is the "War on Terror"?  Where did it come from?

AN ISRAELI WAR STRATEGY - The "War on Terror" is a massive Zionist/Israeli fraud that has been based on lies and deception since it was first conceived by Benjamin Netanyahu and his 'institute of terrorism' in Israel in the 1970s. The "War on Terror" deception is the subject of my Solving 9-11 books.

NETANYAHU'S MISSION - From 1976 to 1978, Benjamin Netanyahu worked for the Boston Consulting Group, a firm connected to the Rothschild family.  In 1979, 
with his father, Benzion, Netanyahu co-founded an institute on terrorism.  They then organized an international conference in Jerusalem that emphasized the need for Western nations to fight terror groups (the groups opposed to Israeli occupation) - and the regimes supporting them.  The terrorism data that Netanyahu used to make his case at the conference was exaggerated and fraudulent.  George H.W. Bush spoke at the conference.

from my 2013 article 
"Obama's Trip to Birthplace of War on Terror"

"In the summer of 1979, a group of powerful and influential people joined to launch an international propaganda offensive to promote and exploit the issue of 'international terrorism'," Philip Paull of San Francisco State University wrote in his 1982 thesis on the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism. "The propaganda 'blitz' originated in Jerusalem. The conspiratorial network included present and former members of the Israeli and United States governments...

"This 'anti-terrorist' propaganda campaign was and is being conducted in a style reminiscent of wartime 'psychological warfare' by journalists serving as conduits and spreaders of misinformation originating in Jerusalem," Paull wrote in his thesis...

As Paull demonstrates in his thesis, "the entire notion of 'international terrorism' as promoted by the Jerusalem Conference rests on a faulty, dishonest, and ultimately corrupt information base." This is equally true of the official versions of the terror attacks of 1993 and 2001. They are nothing more than packs of lies designed to place the blame on Arabs and Muslims.

The American people have been the primary target of the vicious 'psychological warfare' waged by the Israeli government. The purpose of the Israeli psychological warfare is to create fear through false-flag terrorism like 9-11 in order to impose the Zionist fraud known as the "War on Terror". I have done my utmost to provide an antidote to this fear and deception with my book, Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World.


"The heightened global media coverage of 'international terrorism'", Paull wrote, "was for the most part a result of a deliberate, well-financed, international propaganda campaign initiated by the Israeli government."

The theme of 'international terrorism' "was used to portray the 'Free World', including Israel, as essentially on the defensive before a virtual epidemic of terrorism which treatened the very fabric of civilization," Paull wrote. "But in order to transfigure 'international terrorism' into a political bubonic plague, it was necessary to produce false and misleading 'information', or misinformation." Paull's thesis explains how the Netanyahu institute and the Israeli government used misinformation to "deliberately exploit the emotions of fear and anxiety."

MEET THE MILEIKOWSKY'S - Benjamin Netanyahu and his father, Benzion Mileikowsky from Warsaw, Poland. Benzion was the executive secretary for Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism, which calls for the military conquest of all of Palestine and expulsion of the non-Jewish population. His son, Bibi, has furthered these goals. 9-11 was an essential part of the Zionist deception, a terror spectacle designed to change U.S. public opinion and drag the United States military into the Middle East - to fight Israel's enemies. 

NETANYAHU THE ARCHITECT OF TERROR - Netanyahu's first book, International Terrorism: Challenge and Response, is based on the speeches given at the Jerusalem conference in 1979.  Netanyahu has made a career of pushing the Israeli war strategy known as the "War on Terror". It is a strategy of conquest in which the United States and its allies fight wars in the Middle East on behalf of the Zionist state and its war agenda.  Creating a greater state of Israel, a goal of the terrorist groups that created the Likud party in the 1970s, is part of the plan.

This is why Ehud Barak, Netanyahu's former commander in the Sayeret Matkal covert commando force, was ready in the BBC World television studio in London on 9-11 - ready to prompt the world to begin "an operational, concrete, war against terror" before either of the Twin Towers had even collapsed. Co-incidence?  Not a chance.

This is why "Solving 9-11 Ends the War" is the theme of my presentations. This is because when enough people understand that the "War on Terror" is a massive Zionist/Israeli deception that is actually designed to create more war and terrorism, we can put an end to the whole evil madness.  But, we can't end it as long as so many people are deceived and do not understand the real source of the problem. 
Photo: Mike Chickey

Dear Reader,
If you appreciate my articles, 
please support my research and writing. 

Click here to donate 
or donate via PayPal to:


"Despite 14 Years of the US War on Terror, Terror Attacks Have Skyrocketed Since 9/11" by Paul Gottinger, Reader Supported News, September 11, 2015

Mike Chickey, photographs of Bollyn at The Oscars 2015, February 22, 2015 

"Obama's Trip to Birthplace of War on Terror" by Christopher Bollyn, March 19, 2013

"The entire ‘war on terror’ has been a lie – and these charts prove it" by Rebecca Sumner, The Canary, November 28, 2015

Syria: Obama's Criminal Policy on the Ropes

Updated October 18, 2015

Barack Obama during a news conference in which he said that the Syrian government is "not legitimate", October 16, 2015.

And now the Russians have come in, and Iran is going to send more people in.  But it’s also not going to work because they are trying to support a regime that in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people is not legitimate.
- Barack Obama on foreign support for Syrian president Bashar al Assad, October 16, 2015

Bashar al Assad and his wife voting in June 2014. In an election with three candidates, al Assad won 88 percent of the votes.

The high participation rate (73 percent) in June’s presidential elections, despite the war, was at least as significant as the strong vote (88 percent) Bashar received… Participation rates are nowhere as near in the U.S.; indeed no western leader can claim such a strong democratic mandate as this ‘dictator’. The size of Bashar’s win underlines a stark reality: there never was a popular uprising against this man; and his popularity has grown.
- Prof. Tim Anderson, “Why Syrians Support Bashar al Assad”, September 30, 2014

Syrians in Lebanon hold posters of Syrian President Bashar Assad, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, and Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, with Arabic that reads "Lions of the time," during a rally to thank Moscow for its intervention in Syria, in front of the Russian embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, Sunday, Oct. 18, 2015. (AP Photo/Bilal Hussein)

Barack Obama’s comment that Syrian president Bashar al Assad is “not legitimate” is disturbing for two reasons.  First, because it is utterly false; and secondly, because it comes from a politician from Illinois, the “Land of Lincoln.”

As most Americans learn in school, Abraham Lincoln was re-elected in 1864, during the height of the U.S. Civil War, in an election in which the electoral votes of eleven Southern states were not even counted. Lincoln won with 55 percent of the popular vote. Voter turnout was about 74 percent.

President Abraham Lincoln, 1864

One hundred and fifty years later, in the middle of a similar civil war with foreign participants, the people of Syria voted in a multi-candidate presidential election and elected Bashar al Assad in a landslide, with a very similar turnout of 73 percent.

Why then does Obama say that Assad’s rule is “not legitimate”?

To be sure, Obama does not call Bashar al Assad’s rule illegitimate because the Syrian election system lacks legitimacy.  The U.S. election system, in which more than 99 percent of the votes are not even counted by the citizens, is certainly no better - and most likely much worse.

The Obama White House, like the controlled governments in London and Canada, is opposed to the rule of Bashar al Assad simply because the “administrators” are reading from a script they have been handed by their Zionist masters.

The name of the game the Rothschild-controlled governments are playing is “War and Chaos Leads to Regime Change” – but their evil game of regime change has stumbled on a very serious obstacle – Russian and Iranian support for the Assad government.

It now appears most likely that the ‘Islamist’ terrorist armies, trained and supplied by the C.I.A. and financed by Saudi Arabia, will be defeated.  In most cases, the ‘rebels’ will simply disappear into the shadows as the Syrian army, bolstered by Russian and Iranian support, take back the towns and villages they have held. Mercenaries are not willing to sacrifice themselves. They will simply join the flow of refugees to Germany, as many of them already have done.

Where will this leave Obama & Co., the quislings who have waged war, illegally, against the government of Bashar al Assad?

If the Russian intervention succeeds in routing the terrorist forces out of Syria and the war is concluded, Obama will look like a traitorous fool. He supported the overthrow of the government of Syria using illegal means and methods – and he lost. How can he defend his criminal actions in this case?

We can’t say with certainty that this will be the outcome, but it seems to be the most likely at this point.  If it does happen, it will be a huge set-back for the Zionist fraud known as the “War on Terror” with ramifications that could lead to significant changes for the better – in the United States and around the world.


Remarks by President Obama and President Park of the Republic of Korea in Joint Press Conference, The White House, October 16, 2015

“Why Syrians Support Bashar al Assad” by Prof. Tim Anderson, Global Research, September 30, 2014 

Syria: Archbishop calls on West to back President Assad

October 16, 2015

From the land where the Christian church began, the head of the church in Aleppo tells the British (and the Americans) that they are making a huge mistake to be supporting the "jihadis and mercenaries" who are trying to overthrow the government of Syria. So, we should ask, exactly why are London and Washington working so hard to remove the leader of Syria?

Syrian Archbishop Pleads for Britain 
to Stop Backing Anti-Assad Islamist Groups

The Archbishop of Aleppo says the UK is 'investing in jihadis and mercenaries' and bringing about the destruction of the country

by Paul Gallagher, The Independent (UK)

The Syrian Archbishop Jean-Clément Jeanbart, from Aleppo, says it is a 'big lie' to say that the forces opposed to Assad are "moderate" and "in support of freedom". 

A Syrian archbishop has pleaded for the British Government to stop backing Islamist rebel groups who he said were in fact “fundamentalist jihadis who want to kill everyone who is not similar to them”.

Jean-Clément Jeanbart, the Archbishop of Aleppo, said the UK was inadvertently helping to bring about the destruction of Syria by funding such anti-President Assad groups. 

He also said Britain is “investing in jihadis and mercenaries who are killing anyone who is saying anything about freedom, citizenship, religious liberty and democracy”.

It was a “big lie” that moderate rebel forces in support of freedom and democracy were at war with the Assad regime, the Archbishop told MPs at a House of Lords meeting this week organised by Aid to the Church in Need, a charity set up to help persecuted Christians.

He said the four-year civil war was a contest between a modern secular state and jihadis who were destroying its culture and massacring religious minorities.

Archbishop Jeanbart accused the Western media of presenting an inaccurate depiction of the conflict. “Please, I ask you, I beseech you to have another look at our situation to see what is underneath what is happening,” he told a meeting organised by Aid to the Church in Need, a charity set up to help persecuted Christians.

“It is terrible for us to see all the marvellous things we had, destroyed for pretend democracy and freedom,” the Melkite Archbishop said. “Our country was fighting for 50 to 60 years to become a secularist regime, a pluralistic country, to give citizens their rights of religion and freedom of choice . . . and you are destroying this work and pushing on us fundamental jihadis who want to kill everyone who is not similar to them.

“They don’t accept anyone who is different. Anyone who is not a fundamentalist Muslim has no rights: no right to live, no right to be in society, no right to be a citizen.”

“We are suffering because they [the jihadi rebel groups] have destroyed everything — our economy, our industry, our churches, everything. The most important thing we are suffering from is that they are destroying man. They are taking away our right to choose what we want to be.”

The Archbishop said the Syrian representative to the UN had written 258 letters to the UN presidency protesting about the plight of his country without receiving a single reply.

David Cameron is expected to again put his case to Parliament for British military intervention in the Syrian civil war within the next few weeks.


"Syrian archbishop pleads for UK to stop backing anti-Assad Islamist groups" by Paul Gallagher, The Independent (UK), October 16, 2015

"Aleppo Archbishop warns: 'You are arming our enemies'" by Simon Caldwell and Paul Wilkinson,, October 16, 2015

"Archbishop of Aleppo: Save Syria from fundamentalist, jihadist mercenaries" by Florence Taylor,, October 14, 2015

"Syria archbishop calls on West to back President Bashar al-Assad in war against Islamist rebels" by Colin Freeman, The Telegraph (UK), October 13, 2015

Syria: The Russian Move - Changing the Game

October 6, 2015

“Without a doubt, Russia will win this race. I have no doubt at all, and the reason behind that is practical and simple: it’s because Russia is coordinating with the Syrian Arab Army, which is the only force in Syria that is confronting terrorism.”
- Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem, October 5, 2015

“How can the United States and its allies fight terrorism or ISIS in Syria and Iraq while their closest allies in the government of Erdogan and Davutoglu are supporting terrorists and enabling them to cross the borders and bring weapons, money, and volunteers through Turkey?” 
- Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, October 4, 2015

Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach on Russia’s part has been recently used as a pretext for accusing it of its growing ambitions — as if those who say that have no ambitions at all. However, it is not about Russia’s ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world. What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests rather than by ambitions. Relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism.
- Russian President Vladimir Putin speaking at the UN General Assembly, New York City, September 28, 2015

Putin's move in Syria is like a brilliant move in a game against an opponent who doesn't follow the rules.

If we look at the Middle East conflict like a game of chess, we would have to say that Russian president Vladimir Putin’s military intervention to support the government of Syria is a brilliant and perfectly-timed move that could change the whole game. If Putin’s move succeeds it may very well bring an end to the war in Syria in the very near future.

Putin’s move comes very late in the game, after more than four years of war in Syria, but the timing is perfect, coming shortly after U.S. policy in Syria was exposed on Capitol Hill to be a complete and very expensive failure. Furthermore, since the government of Syria requested military support from the Kremlin, Russia’s intervention in Syria is perfectly legal under international law, while U.S. intervention is not.

If Russia succeeds in defeating ISIS and bringing peace to Syria, the game will be over for the C.I.A.-trained mercenaries who are fighting against the Syrian government headed by Bashar Al Assad. A Russian victory over ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria will expose the duplicity of U.S. policy in the fraudulent “War on Terror.”

The ranks of ISIS are primarily foreign mercenaries.

It remains to be seen how the U.S. and other nations supporting the mercenary forces fighting in Syria will respond to the Russian intervention. Unlike chess, this game has no rules.

The question that Americans should be asking is:  Why is the Obama administration fighting a covert and illegal war against Syria and demanding that its leader be removed from power?

Firstly, Barack Obama and his Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, are not acting as Americans who put America’s national interests first. These men are actually working as administrators for the Rothschild family and the Zionist establishment. Ashton Carter has a long history of serving as an administrator for the Rothschild family. Carter, for example, is on the board of the Belfer Center at Harvard, where Nathaniel Rothschild is on the Advisory board.

Carter was also a Senior Partner at Global Technology Partners, LLC, (GTP) "an exclusive affiliate of Rothschild North America, formed to make acquisitions of and investments in technology, defense and aerospace-related companies."

Carter, a long-time agent of the Rothschild family, went on to serve as Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics from April 2009 to October 2011, with responsibility for procurement of all technology, systems, services, and supplies, bases and infrastructure, energy, and environment, and more than $50 billion annually in R&D. He then served as Deputy Secretary of Defense from October 2011 to December 2013, serving as the chief operating officer of the Defense Department, overseeing more than $600 billion per year. 

U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter made his career serving the Rothschild's Zionist agenda.

When he worked for the Rothschild affiliate, GTP, Carter wrote an article, with John M. Deutch and Philip D. Zelikow, entitled "Catastrophic Terrorism." This article appeared in the last issue ofForeign Affairs in 1998. The article begins with the strange subtitle "Imagining the Transforming Event," as if something like 9-11 was actually desired by the authors in order to bring about a transformation of the U.S. government and the way Americans live.

Understanding Carter’s connection to the Rothschild family is essential to understanding his hawkish position on Syria, Iran, and Russia.  He is clearly not acting in America’s best interest; he is simply following orders given by his Zionist patrons, who are the real masterminds of the fraudulent “War on Terror.”

Sources and Recommended Reading:


“Al-Moallem: Russian airstrikes were being prepared for months,” Syrian Radio & TV, October 5, 2015 

Ashton Carter, Wikipedia, October 5, 2015

"President al-Assad: New anti-terrorism coalition must succeed, otherwise the whole region will be destroyed," Syrian Arab News Agency, October 4, 2015

"The Zionist Network behind 9-11" by Christopher Bollyn, December 7, 2006

"Vladimir Putin’s Address to the United Nations Security Council" by Russian President Vladimir Putin,, October 02, 2015

Relevant articles on Syria from 

“9-11 and the War in Syria” by Christopher Bollyn, September 11, 2013

“Obama Has NO Authority to Attack Syria,”, September 10, 2013

“Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothschild: The Oil Barons of Occupied Syria” by Christopher Bollyn, September 2, 2013

“The Massacres in Syria and Israel's ‘War of Terror’” by Christopher Bollyn, June 19, 2012

“UN: Israel Supporting Syrian Rebels” by Christopher Bollyn, December 8, 2014 

Video: The Children of Gaza

July 27, 2014

Jon Snow of Britain's Channel 4 News recounts the scene in Gaza's al-Shifa hospital, where doctors struggle to treat adults and children wounded by Israeli attacks.  This short video of 3 minutes is highly recommended viewing.

Video Link -

Israel Does Not Want Peace - Gideon Levy

July 5, 2014

A Palestinian looks at Har Homa, an illegal Israeli settlement next to Bethlehem. "The single most overwhelming item of evidence of Israel’s rejection of peace is, of course, the settlements project," as Gideon Levy writes. "The builders of settlements want to consolidate the occupation, and those who want to consolidate the occupation do not want peace. That’s the whole story in a nutshell."

Every home built in the territories, every light pole and every road are like a thousand witnesses: Israel does not want peace; Israel wants occupation. Whoever is serious about peace and a Palestinian state does not put up even a shed.

From Oslo through Camp David and on to the road map, Israel has not put an end to the most criminal enterprise in its history. A short memory refresher: In Article 7 of the Oslo Accords, Israel promised that "no party would undertake unilateral steps to alter the situation on the ground, prior to the completion of negotiations for the final status." That really made an impression on Israel. During the 10 years that followed, the number of settlers doubled. What about the heroic peace efforts of Ehud Barak as prime minister? During the 18 months of his government, Israel began the construction of 6,045 residential units in the territories.
- Gideon Levy, "What do you mean when you say 'no'?", Ha’aretz, November 18, 2007

Israel Does Not Want Peace
By Gideon Levy
Ha’aretz (Israel), July 4, 2014

Rejectionism is embedded in Israel's most primal beliefs. There, at the deepest level, lies the concept that this land is destined for the Jews alone.


Gideon Levy (born 1953) is an Israeli journalist who writes for the newspaper Ha’aretz. Levy often focuses on the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. He was awarded the Leipzig Media Award in 2003, the Euro-Med Journalist Prize for Cultural Dialogue in 2007, and the Peace Through Media Award at the eighth annual International Media Awards in 2012.

Israel does not want peace. There is nothing I have ever written that I would be happier to be proved wrong about. But the evidence is piling up. In fact, it can be said that Israel has never wanted peace – a just peace, that is, one based on a just compromise for both sides. It’s true that the routine greeting in Hebrew is Shalom (peace) – shalom when one leaves and shalom when one arrives. And, at the drop of a hat, almost every Israeli will say he wants peace, of course he does. But he’s not referring to the kind of peace that will bring about the justice without which there is no peace and there will be no peace. Israelis want peace, not justice, certainly not anything based on universal values. Thus, “Peace, peace, when there is no peace.” Not only is there no peace: In recent years, Israel has moved away from even the aspiration to make peace. It has despaired utterly of it. Peace has disappeared from the Israeli agenda, its place taken by the collective anxieties that are systematically implanted, and by personal, private matters that now take precedence over all else.

The Israeli longing for peace seemingly died about a decade ago, after the failure of the Camp David summit in 2000, the dissemination of the lie that there is no Palestinian partner for peace, and, of course, the horrific blood-soaked period of the second intifada. But the truth is that even before that, Israel never really wanted peace. Israel has never, not for a minute, treated the Palestinians as human beings with equal rights. It has never viewed their distress as understandable human and national distress.

The Israeli peace camp, too – if ever there was such a thing – also died a lingering death amid the harrowing scenes of the second intifada and the no-partner lie. All that remained were a handful of organizations that were as determined and devoted as they were ineffectual in the face of the delegitimization campaigns mounted against them. Israel, therefore, was left with its rejectionist stance.

The single most overwhelming item of evidence of Israel’s rejection of peace is, of course, the settlements project. From the dawn of its existence, there has never been a more reliable or more precise litmus test for Israel’s true intentions than this particular enterprise. In plain words: The builders of settlements want to consolidate the occupation, and those who want to consolidate the occupation do not want peace. That’s the whole story in a nutshell.

On the assumption that Israel’s decisions are rational, it is impossible to accept construction in the territories and the aspiration to peace as mutually coexisting. Every act of building in the settlements, every mobile home and every balcony, conveys rejection. If Israel had wanted to achieve peace through the Oslo Accords, it would at least have stopped the construction in the settlements at its own initiative. That this did not happen proves that Oslo was fraudulent, or at best the chronicle of a failure foretold. If Israel had wanted to achieve peace at Taba, at Camp David, at Sharm el-Sheikh, in Washington or in Jerusalem, its first move should have been to end all construction in the territories. Unconditionally. Without a quid pro quo. The fact that Israel did not is proof that it did not want a just peace.

But the settlements were only a touchstone of Israel’s intentions. Its rejectionism is embedded far more deeply – in its DNA, its bloodstream, its raison d’être, its most primal beliefs. There, at the deepest level, lies the concept that this land is destined for the Jews alone. There, at the deepest level, is entrenched the value of “am sgula” – God’s “treasured people” – and “God chose us.” In practice, this is translated to mean that, in this land, Jews are allowed to do what is forbidden to others. That is the point of departure, and there is no way to get from there to a just peace. There is no way to reach a just peace when the name of the game is the dehumanization of the Palestinians. No way to achieve peace when the demonization of the Palestinians is hammered into people’s heads day after day. Those who are convinced that every Palestinian is a suspicious person and that every Palestinian wants “to throw the Jews into the sea” will never make peace with the Palestinians. Most Israelis are convinced of the truth of both those statements.

In the past decade, the two peoples have been separated from each another. The average young Israeli will never meet his Palestinian peer, other than during his army service (and then only if he does his service in the territories). Nor will the average young Palestinian ever meet an Israeli his own age, other than the soldier who huffs and puffs at him at the checkpoint, or invades his home in the middle of the night, or in the person of the settler who usurps his land or torches his groves.

Consequently, the only encounter between the two people is between the occupiers, who are armed and violent, and the occupied, who are despairing and also turn to violence. Gone are the days when Palestinians worked in Israel and Israelis shopped in Palestine. Gone is the period of the half-normal and quarter-equal relations that existed for a few decades between the two peoples that share the same piece of territory. It is very easy, in this state of affairs, to incite and inflame the two peoples against one another, to spread fears and to instill new hatreds on top of those that already exist. This, too, is a sure recipe for non-peace.

So it was that a new Israeli yearning sprang up: the desire for separation: “They will be there and we will be here (and also there).” At a time when the majority of Palestinians – an assessment I allow myself to make after decades of covering the territories – still want coexistence, even if less and less, most Israelis want disengagement and separation, but without paying the price. The two-state vision has gained widespread adherence, but without any intention to implement it in practice. Most Israelis are in favor, but not now and maybe not even here. They have been trained to believe that there is no partner for peace – a Palestinian partner, that is – but that there is an Israeli partner.

Unfortunately, the truth is almost the reverse. The Palestinian non-partners no longer have any chance to prove that they are partners; the Israeli non-partners are convinced that they are interlocutors. So began the process in which Israeli conditions, obstacles and difficulties were heaped up, one more milestone in Israeli rejectionism. First came the demand for a cessation of terrorism; then the demand for a change of leadership (Yasser Arafat as a stumbling block); and after that Hamas became the hurdle. Now it’s the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Israel considers every step it takes – from mass political arrests to building in the territories – to be legitimate, whereas every Palestinian move is “unilateral.”

The only country on the planet with no borders is so far unwilling to delineate even the compromise borders it is ready to be satisfied with. Israel has not internalized the fact that, for the Palestinians, the borders of 1967 are the mother of all compromises, the red line of justice (or relative justice). For the Israelis, they are “suicide borders.” This is why the preservation of the status quo has become the true Israeli aim, the primary goal of Israeli policy, almost its be-all and end-all. The problem is that the existing situation cannot last forever. Historically, few nations have ever agreed to live under occupation without resistance. And the international community, too, is one day apt to utter a firm pronouncement on this state of affairs, with accompanying punitive measures. It follows that the Israeli goal is unrealistic.

Disconnected from reality, the majority of Israelis pursue their regular way of life. In their mind’s eye the world is always against them, and the areas of occupation on their doorstep are beyond their realm of interest. Anyone who dares criticize the occupation policy is branded an anti-Semite, every act of resistance is perceived as an existential threat. All international opposition to the occupation is read as the “delegitimizing” of Israel and as a provocation to the country’s very existence. The world’s seven billion people – most of whom are against the occupation – are wrong, and six million Israeli Jews – most of whom support the occupation – are right. That’s the reality in the eyes of the average Israeli.

Add to this the repression, the concealment and the obfuscation, and you have another explanation for the rejectionism: Why should anyone strive for peace as long as life in Israel is good, calm prevails and the reality is concealed? The only way the besieged Gaza Strip can remind people of its existence is by firing rockets, and the West Bank only gets onto the agenda these days when blood is shed there. Similarly, the viewpoint of the international community is only taken into account when it tries to impose boycotts and sanctions, which in their turn immediately generate a campaign of self-victimization studded with blunt – and at times also impertinent – historical accusations.

This, then, is the gloomy picture. It contains not a ray of hope. The change will not happen on its own, from within Israeli society, as long as that society continues to behave as it does. The Palestinians have made more than one mistake, but their mistakes are marginal. Basic justice is on their side, and basic rejectionism is the Israelis’ purview. The Israelis want occupation, not peace.

I only hope I am wrong.

Source:  “Israel does not want peace” by Gideon Levy, Ha’aretz (Israel), July 4, 2014 

How Will the False-Flag Kidnapping Scenario End?

June 27, 2014  

"False flag operations, while not new, are the new norm."
- a reader comments on
 “Is the Israeli Kidnapping Real - or False-Flag?” 

"I am certain that Marwan and Amer were detained by Israeli Special Forces and that the Israeli occupation government will eventually kill them and say the settlers were freed – just to score internal political gains." 
- Omar Abu Eisha, father of Amer Abu Eisha, who along with Marwan Qawasmeh, is accused by Israel’s Shin Bet of kidnapping the three missing Israeli settlers.

Source: “Israel kidnap claim 'stunt,' say families of suspects” by Qais Abu Samra in Ramallah, Anadolu Agency, June 27, 2014  

The terrain around Hebron is rugged and has many caves. Much of the area has been ethnically cleansed of its native Palestinian inhabitants and turned into closed military zones. Will the final scenario of the false-flag kidnapping end in a cave in the rugged hills of Hebron? 
Photo - Campaign for abolition of 'Firing Zone 918' in South Hebron Hills

Two weeks after three Israeli settlers were kidnapped near Hebron on the West Bank, the Israeli Shin Bet announced that two suspects had been identified. These two Palestinian men, said to be members of Hamas, disappeared on the same day as the three Israelis. Were the two Palestinians kidnapped in order to be sacrificed as scapegoats in a false-flag operation? Will the kidnapping scenario end with the deaths of these two men in a cave in the hills south of Hebron?

"HUNDREDS ARRESTED" - Hundreds of Palestinians have been arrested across the West Bank as Benjamin Netanyahu exploited the false-flag kidnapping as an excuse for a massive military crack-down and kidnapping of Palestinian kids.


In what appears to be an Israeli-orchestrated fake kidnapping plot designed to vilify Hamas, the stage is now set for what appears to be its imminent final scene. The setting of the stage came with the announcement on June 26 that the Israeli authorities had identified two suspects from Hebron. This suggests that the climax is near. 

As the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported on June 27:

Israel's defense establishment believes it has narrowed down the identities of the two Hamas militants who kidnapped three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank two weeks ago, it emerged Thursday after a gag order was lifted.

The Shin Bet security service revealed the two militants' names in a statement: Marwan Qawasmeh and Amar Abu Aisha, two known operatives in the Hebron area.

In a statement on Qawasmeh and Abu Aisha, the Shin Bet security service said the two were considered suspects immediately after the abduction, adding that ever since, “the Shin Bet and the Israel Defense Forces have pursued the men, first and foremost in order to locate the kidnapped teens.”

Both men were known to be missing from the day of the kidnapping, two weeks ago. Their homes were raided about three days after the abduction, and many of their relatives were arrested. The Shin Bet said in its statement that both were involved with Hamas in the Hebron area. According to Palestinian sources, both men’s wives — Qawasmeh’s wife is eight months’ pregnant — were arrested and detained briefly.


I have suspected all along that this kidnapping scenario would end in a cave in the hills around Hebron and that the blame would then be fixed on Hamas. I see it happening something like this:  Israeli forces will locate the kidnappers and boys being held in a cave, probably on or near a closed Israeli military zone. A shoot-out between the kidnappers and the Israeli military results in the kidnappers being killed and the three Jewish students being released, perhaps even on the sabbath. The Israeli population is greatly relieved, celebrates the sabbath and sings praises to the military and their brave leader, Bibi Netanyahu.

LIVING IN A CAVE - Some Palestinian families, like this one near Jerusalem, have been forced to live in caves after the Israeli army destroyed their homes. Source - “Palestinian family moves to cave after home demolished,” Times of Israel, August 28, 2013

The dead kidnappers are identified as members of Hamas from Hebron, a Turkish connection may also be found, and Benjamin Netanyahu is praised for having been right about the evil Hamas and its connection to the kidnapping. Netanyahu is vindicated and King Bibi demands Hamas be banned from any future political role in the Palestinian government.


THE SHIN BET (or Shabak) is the Israeli "security" agency that is engaged in "counter-terrorism activities" in both Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

The announcement by the Shin Bet that these two Palestinian men from Hebron have been missing since the day of the kidnapping is "news" that is meant to set the stage for the final scene of the kidnapping scenario.  That final scene could happen today already, which would be a special dose of "good news" for the Israeli public on the eve of the sabbath.

Regardless whether it happens today or tomorrow, something like the scenario I have described is bound to happen soon and the arch-terrorist Benjamin Netanyahu will then be praised as a hero of Israel. That is, after all, one of the reasons for the whole exercise.

If, however, "Netanyahu the psychopath" is exposed as being the political mastermind behind the false-flag kidnapping operation, and if - and when - the Israeli people and others understand that he arranged the whole operation to achieve his strategic and personal goals, it will be "game over" for him and his partners in false-flag terrorism. For the victims of 9-11 and other acts of Israeli terrorism, that day cannot come soon enough.

King Bibi tells Palestinian president Abbas: Break off pact with Hamas terrorists

Video Link -

Sources and Recommended Reading:


“Israel kidnap claim 'stunt,' say families of suspects” by Qais Abu Samra in Ramallah, Anadolu Agency, June 27, 2014 

“Palestinian Cave Culture: Underground Cities and Cave Dwellings in the Mountains of Hebron” by Dr. Ali Qleibo,, March 2011 

“Palestinian family moves to cave after home demolished,” Times of Israel, August 28, 2013

"Rescue units rushed to Hebron, searching wells and caves,", June 21, 2014,7340,L-4532764,00.html

"Shin Bet names two Hamas militants as West Bank kidnappers,"Ha'aretz (Israel), June 27, 2014 

Is the Israeli Kidnapping Real - or False-Flag?

June 22, 2014

"Netanyahu, I can’t stand him. He’s a liar."
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy to Barack Obama, November 2011

The recent unity pact between Hamas and Fatah brought the two long-divided factions together to create a strong and united Palestinian government. The Israeli government, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu of the far-right Likud, a coalition of Zionist terrorists, condemned the new Palestinian government with Hamas as being united with "terrorists".

On June 12, three teenagers from an illegal Israeli settlement on the occupied West Bank disappeared.  Netanyahu blames Hamas, which has denied any involvement.

Based on nothing but unproven allegations, Netanyahu has cracked down across the West Bank, killing at least 4 Palestinians.  Israeli and Palestinian critics alike, however, suspect that Netanyahu has committed another false-flag operation to allow him to wage war on the new Palestinian government. How will this sordid affair end? Will it mean the end for Netanyahu?

It was a major development for the Palestinian people when the two leading Palestinian political parties, Fatah and Hamas, announced a unity pact in late April 2014.  Predictably, the Israeli government and U.S. State Department condemned the unity pact that brought the two factions together after seven years of division.

The Israeli government, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu of the far-right Likud coalition of former terrorist parties, called for the world to reject the united Palestinian government:  "I call on all responsible elements in the international community not to rush to recognize a Palestinian government which has Hamas as part of it and which is dependent on Hamas," Netanyahu told his cabinet, according to Reuters.

Faced with a stronger and more united Palestinian government, Netanyahu desperately sought for ways to convince the international community that Hamas is a terrorist organization that cannot be dealt with.  The reported abduction of three Israeli teens, yeshiva students from illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank, south of Jerusalem, gave Netanyahu the excuse he needed to crack down on Palestinians across the whole expanse of occupied territories.

While Netanyahu blames Hamas for the abduction of the three teens, the Israeli and international press, such as The Economist, point out that “it is unclear who did the deed”:

The abduction of three young Jewish settlers on June 12th near the city of Hebron, in the south of the West Bank, has stirred Israeli emotions as viscerally as the kidnapping of a young Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, by militants of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement, eight years ago. This time it is unclear who did the deed… Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has blamed Hamas, which, to his fury, has recently sealed a Palestinian unity government with its more secular rival, Fatah.

…Israeli politicians and generals say they are certain Hamas is behind the kidnapping. But the movement has denied it.
The Economist, “Stirring bad blood,” June 21, 2014

While Netanyahu blames Hamas, senior Palestinian officials think the kidnapping story may be a fabrication; a false-flag operation designed to vilify Hamas and provide an excuse for Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people.  This line of thinking is supported by well-known Israeli critics like Gilad Atzmon and such skeptical opinions are widely reported in the Israeli and international press:

Senior officials from both the United Nations and the Palestinian Authority on Tuesday suggested that Israel might have fabricated the story that three Jewish youths - Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaar and Naftali Frenkel - were abducted by Hamas terrorists last week.
-  “UN, PA Suggest Israel Made Up Abduction Story” by Ryan Jones, Israel Today, June 18, 2014

It hasn’t been clearly established that the 3 Israeli settler teenagers were abducted. As time has passed, more and more analysts believe that the recent affair may be another Israeli false flag operation. Remember that the Mossad’s motto is ‘By Way of Deception.’ As we review the available evidence, we see that the ‘kidnap’ provides Israel with an opportunity to hit hard at Palestinian civilians and leadership.
- Gilad Atzmon, “Ed Miliband: A Shameless Zionist,” June 19, 2014

"I have no credible information that Hamas was behind the kidnapping.  Does Netanyahu have such information? I do not intend to punish anyone based off suspicions or because Netanyahu claims something.”
- Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, “Abbas to Haaretz: Netanyahu should denounce deaths of three Palestinian teenagers” by Jack Khoury and Barak Ravid, Ha’aretz, June 22, 2014

"Let's think well of the growing possibility that all what's happening is a play that wasn't produced well and that no one was kidnapped in the first place."
- Mahmoud al-Aloul, “Fatah official: Kidnapping of Israeli boys nothing but an Israeli 'play'” by Khaled Abu Toameh, Jerusalem Post, June 18, 2014

"He cannot keep blaming one side without showing evidence. When you go to court if you don't show evidence you lose your case.  Three kids have disappeared, but in exchange for that the Israeli army has taken 300 Palestinians... Their reaction went beyond logic. They have destroyed more than 150 Palestinian homes since last week… if Netanyahu has any evidence, he has to put it on the table."
-Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Malki, “Palestinian FM: Israel overreacting on abducted teens,” AFP, June 20, 2014

If the kidnapping of the three teens is an Israeli false-flag operation designed to allow Netanyahu to crack down on Hamas and the Palestinian people, it certainly would not be the first time.  The way that Netanyahu has exploited the situation to try and force the international community to reject the new Palestinian government suggests that this is the real purpose behind the abduction. 

In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah) asks why Netanyahu does not apologize for the killings of three Palestinian teens during the recent crackdown:

“I said the kidnapping was a crime, but does that justify the killing of three Palestinian teens in cold blood? What does Netanyahu have to say about the killings? Does he condemn it? Look at what’s happened all over the West Bank over the past days, the violence and the destruction of homes. Is that justified?”

Abbas continued that Netanyahu needed to “see how his soldiers behave toward Palestinians. What will I tell the families of the three Palestinian teens who were killed? Why were they killed? We’re human beings, just like you. Can the Israeli government demonstrate the same feelings and say they are human beings and deserve to live? The Palestinian people are frustrated over how they are treated. As if the Israelis were human beings and the Palestinians are not. We don’t want terror and we don’t want war. We want peace.”

The Prime Minister’s 
Office stated in response, “Abu Mazen’s words would have substance if he dissolved his alliance with Hamas, the organization behind this abduction and which calls for the destruction of Israel.”
- Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, “Abbas to Haaretz: Netanyahu should denounce deaths of three Palestinian teenagers” by Jack Khoury and Barak Ravid, Ha’aretz, June 22, 2014

Is the kidnapping of the three teens real or is it a false-flag operation?  There are a number of things that indicate that neither Hamas nor any other Palestinian group is behind the abduction:

1.  After 10 days, Netanyahu has not presented any evidence to support his allegation that Hamas is behind the kidnapping.

2.  Neither Hamas nor any other Palestinian group has taken responsibility for the kidnapping. Hamas, for its part, has officially denied being involved.

3.  No demands, such as an exchange of prisoners, have been presented by any such group. Why would a Palestinian group kidnap Israelis and make no demands while the Israeli army wreaks havoc and kills innocent people in the occupied territories?

If Netanyahu has real evidence that Hamas is behind the kidnapping, why doesn’t he show it?  Why would he hold back with the evidence that would make his allegations credible? 

If this ends with the missing teens being rescued, how will Netanyahu try to convince the world that Hamas was truly behind the kidnapping?  If Netanyahu cannot prove his case against Hamas with solid and indisputable proof that the Palestinian organization was really behind the kidnapping this could very well be the last such hoax that Netanyahu pulls.  

Who is Behind the Chaos in Iraq?

June 18, 2014

The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.
"The Zionist Plan for the Middle East" by Oded Yinon, translated and edited by Israel Shahak

Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Shaam (ISIS) with senior commander Abu Waheeb.  Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has accused U.S. allies, namely Saudi Arabia and Qatar, of funding the Sunni Muslim insurgents.  Who is really behind the chaos in Iraq and what is the goal?  If these men are truly Iraqi fighters, why do they hide their faces?
Photo: The Telegraph

In yesterday's opinion piece in the Washington Post entitled, "Where is the accountability on Iraq?" Katrina vanden Heuvel asks, "Can someone explain to me why the media still solicit advice about the crisis in Iraq from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)?  Or Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)?  How many times does the Beltway hawk caucus get to be wrong before we recognize that maybe, just maybe, its members don’t know what they’re talking about?"

Vanden Heuvel continues:

Certainly Politico could have found someone with more credibility than Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy in the George W. Bush administration and one of the architects of the Iraq war, to comment on how the White House might react to the rapidly deteriorating political situation in Iraq today. Certainly New York Times columnist David Brooks knows what folly it is to equate President Obama’s 2011 troop removal with Bush’s 2003 invasion, as he did during a discussion with me last Friday on NPR?

Just a reminder of what that 2003 invasion led to: Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes authoritatively priced Bush’s war at more than $3 trillion. About 320,000 U.S. veterans suffer from brain injury as a result of their service. Between 500,000 and 655,000 Iraqis died, as well as more than 4,000 U.S. military members.

Yet as Brooks’s words reveal, the prevailing mindset in today’s media is to treat the 2003 invasion as if its prosecution were an act of God — like Hurricane Katrina, an inevitability that could not have been avoided. Seen this way, policymakers can ignore the idiocy of the decision to invade in the first place and can instead direct all of their critical attention to how to deal with the aftermath. It’s almost as though the mainstream media have demoted themselves from a corps of physicians, eager and able to diagnose, prognosticate and prescribe, to one of EMTs, charged instead with triaging, cleaning and cauterizing a catastrophe without investigating its underlying cause. 


So, after decades of disastrous policies that have utterly wrecked the nation of Iraq, why does the media still solicit advice about the crisis in Iraq from war hawks like Sen. John McCain, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Douglas Feith?  

Sen. John McCain is the leading supporter of the Zionist war agenda in the U.S. Congress.  Here he meets with Islamic insurgents in Syria.  If these insurgents were not part of the Zionist war agenda McCain would not support them.

The answer is quite simple:  The big media outlets in the United States give time and space to war hawks like John McCain because he is a leading advocate of the Zionist war agenda.  Like McCain, the big media outlets are also controlled by Zionists who support the war agenda.  They are simply using people like McCain, Graham, and Feith to promote it.

The real question is what is the Zionist war agenda?  Is the current crisis caused by the ISIS insurgency in Iraq part of this agenda?  To answer these questions we need to understand that the Zionist agenda calls for the destruction and "Balkanization" of the large secular Arab states in the Middle East, like Iraq.  Balkanization is the strategy of fomenting sectarian divisions in order to break up nations in the same way that Yugoslavia was divided into a half-dozen poor and weak ethnic statelets. This has been Israel's strategy for the Middle East since the early 1980s when the Zionist Balkanization plan, known as the Oded Yinon paper, was leaked to the media.

The Zionist plan for Iraq (as articulated in Oded Yinon's "Balkanization" paper) is to foment sectarian conflict in order to divide the country into smaller ethnic statelets that would be easy to control and exploit.  Under Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath regime there was no conflict between the various ethnic or religious groups in Iraq.  The ethnic tensions were created by false-flag terrorism - after the U.S. invasion of 2003.

A second part of the Zionist war agenda is to keep the United States military engaged in the region on a permanent basis.  The crisis caused by the Islamist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant or Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIL or ISIS) is meant to bring the U.S. military into Syria and Iraq.

A third goal of the Zionist war agenda (and the media outlets it controls) is to increase fear in the West of Islam, which the current crisis is doing.

A fourth element of the Zionist war agenda is to maintain the highest possible levels of defense spending in order to profit from the war industries and the government borrowing that is required by the increased defense spending.

To help people understand the Zionist plan to create sectarian divisions in Iraq in order to break the country into weak ethnic statelets, I am re-publishing my article, "The Zionist Strategy to Balkanize Iraq" from October 2005. 

The Zionist Strategy to Balkanize Iraq

October 3, 2005

The arrest of two British agents disguised as Shiite "terrorists" with a car full of explosives in Basra suggests that British occupation forces are involved in Iraq's so-called sectarian terror bombings, which, until now, have been mysterious, unclaimed and unexplained acts of senseless violence. The on-going wave of "false flag" terror bombings is the realization of the Zionist strategy and is meant to foment civil strife leading to the Balkanization of Iraq.
After shooting and killing Iraqi police and civilians in Basra, two British agents from the Special Air Service (SAS) or a branch organization of the special forces, disguised as suicide bombers from the Mehdi Army, were caught "red-handed" in a car loaded with explosives. Unable to secure the release of the two disguised terrorists from the local police, British forces took extraordinary action and bulldozed the police compound and jail in Basra and threatened Iraqi police officers at gunpoint until the British agents were turned over.
The front pages of the leading British papers on Sept. 20 carried dramatic photos of a burning tank involved in the first attempt to release the men, but the more significant and largely obscured story was in the details of the two British terror agents "whose arrest set Basra ablaze," as the Daily Mail wrote.
The International Herald Tribune, the American paper published abroad by the New York Times, did not even mention the important events in Basra that have apparently exposed a source of the so-called sectarian terrorism in Iraq. Unclaimed and seemingly random car bombings have claimed hundreds of Iraqi lives in the past month, and thousands have perished in similar senseless bombings in the 30 months since the Anglo American occupation of Iraq began. This wave of apparent "false flag" terror attacks is actually the realization of a long-held Zionist strategy to foment sectarian violence leading to the Balkanization of Iraq into three ethnic statelets.
Many of these car bombings are not carried out by suicide bombers, but are simply parked cars loaded with explosives, like that driven by the two arrested British "soldiers." These car bombs are usually left near crowded areas, such as markets, and kill many innocent civilians. On Sept. 30, for example, a car bomb detonated near a fruit and vegetable market in the town of Hilla, killing 8 and wounding 41. Similar car bombs killed 110 Iraqi Shiite civilians in the two days prior to Sept. 30.
On Sept. 29, three pick-up trucks packed with explosives detonated in quick succession in Balad, 80 km north of Baghdad. The first bomb went off at the open-air market. Ten minutes later, the second car bomb detonated across the street, just as emergency workers were arriving. The third bomb exploded 10 minutes later in a residential area reported to be predominantly Shiite. "There were no police there, no American patrols, only innocent people shopping at the market," a high-ranking Balad police official told the New York Times.
Likewise, on Sept. 18, a car bomb killed 30 people at the market in Nahrwan, about 45 km from Baghdad. "It was not a suicide bomb," a police spokesman said. "A car parked in the middle of the square, and later it blew up." In the week of the Nahrwan market bombing more than 200 Iraqis were killed in bombings and shootings in and around Baghdad.
On Sept. 16, a "suicide" car bomber struck worshippers leaving a Shiite mosque in Tuz Khormato, 130 km north of Baghdad. Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, speaking in New York, said the bomber was a Syrian, without providing any evidence to support his claim.
The Washington Post reported that the two Britons had been accused "of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives." The governor of Basra, Mohammed al-Waili, said the British agents had been arrested after shooting two policemen and killing one. "They were driving a civilian car and were dressed in civilian clothes when a shooting took place between them and Iraqi patrols," an official said. "We are investigating and an Iraqi judge is on the case questioning them."
"The men were said to have had guns and explosives with them," the BBC and British papers reported. Paul Wood of the BBC said the two British agents were probably on a covert mission to get intelligence needed to stop further attacks on British troops. "Their weapons, explosives and communications gear are standard kit for British special forces," Wood said. Wood did not mention if the wigs and Arab disguises are also considered "standard kit" for British special forces.
However, it seems highly unlikely that the two non-Arab British agents wearing black bushy wigs could have gotten past the front door in any infiltration attempt. Their disguises would have failed to fool any Iraqi who got close enough to speak with them.
In a statement, British Brigadier John Lorimer said that under Iraqi law the "soldiers" should have been handed over to coalition authorities. When negotiations failed to secure the release of the British agents, a British armored personnel carrier flattened a wall of the prison. The attack on the prison involved a dozen military vehicles and helicopters. The British command was clearly urgently concerned about what the men might have revealed to Iraqi police under interrogation. Gov. al-Waili called the operation a "barbaric act of aggression."
While the significance of the British terrorists in disguise was not discussed in the mainstream media, it was more fully investigated by Socialist Worker, an on-line news site of the Socialist Party of Britain. Sheikh Hassan al-Zarqani, a Basra-based spokesperson for rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, told the Socialist Worker that the two British agents had been armed with explosives and a remote control detonator. The two bearded British agents had been wearing black wigs and disguised as members of Sadr's militia, the Mehdi Army, when they were caught. This is a commonly employed tactic of "false flag terrorism" often used by the Israeli secret services in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The Arab disguises are meant to provide eyewitness accounts that whatever terror operation the men were involved in would be reported as having been carried out by Iraqis.
The incident in Basra, according to Sheikh Hassan, began when a senior official of Sadr's movement, Sheikh Ahmad Fartusi, was arrested on Sunday, Sept. 18. "We called a protest outside the mayor's office on Monday demanding the Sheikh be released," Hassan said. "This protest was peaceful. But events in our city took a sinister turn when the police tried to stop two men dressed as members of the Mehdi Army driving near the protest. The men opened fire on the police and passers-by. After a car chase they were arrested," Hassan said.
"What our police found in their car was very disturbing - weapons, explosives and a remote control detonator," he said. "These are the weapons of terrorists. We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian targets, and thanks be to God, they were stopped and countless lives were saved.
"The two men were taken to the police station to answer questions about their activities. That afternoon the British army came in tanks and armored cars demanding the two be released. The police refused as they were considered to be planning terrorist attacks, and as they were disguised as members of the Mehdi Army, the police wanted to know who their target was.
"Thousands of people gathered to defend the police station. British troops opened fire and the crowds responded with stones and fire bombs. Why were these men dressed as Mehdi Army?" Hassan asked. "Why were they carrying explosives and where were they planning to detonate their bomb? Were they planning an outrage so that they could create tensions with other communities? Were they going to kill innocent people to put the blame on Al Qaida, who do not have any support in our city?
"The soldiers drove a tank into the police station and threatened to kill the police officers if they did not hand over the two terrorists," Hassan said. "It is only then, to save any further loss of life, that the men were released."
On Sept. 22, Judge Raghib al-Mudhafar, chief of the Basra Anti-Terrorism Court, reissued homicide arrest warrants for the two British soldiers. Britain says its troops, in disguise or otherwise, are not legally bound by Iraqi law or warrants. "All British troops in Iraq come under the jurisdiction of Britain," a defense spokesman said in London.
Five days before the arrest of the two British agents in Basra, Al Jazeera had reported on the growing suspicion that the occupation forces are the real perpetrators of bomb attacks in Iraq in an interview with Iran's top military commander, Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr.
Zolqadr said the United States and Israel were behind the so-called sectarian bombing attacks that have killed thousands of civilians in Iraq.
The occupation forces, Zolqadr told senior officials, need these attacks to justify the continuation of their military presence in Iraq.
"The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies," Zolqadr said. "Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners," Zolqadr said. "If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers".
The U.S. wanted to remain in Iraq to "plunder the country's wealth, bring the Middle East under its control, and create security for Israel, which is on the verge of annihilation," according to Zolqadr.
The most obvious strategy of the "false flag" terrorism is to foment civil strife in Iraq to advance a divide and conquer policy known as Balkanization. This strategy is aimed at dividing Iraq into three ethnic statelets, as was done with the former Yugoslavia. British forces have employed "false flag" terror tactics as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy in other conflicts in the past.
The mainstream news reports of the seemingly senseless terror bombings in Iraq always carry a refrain of explanation pointing to the long-held Zionist strategy of Balkanization in the Middle East, such as: "The overwhelming violence in recent days appeared designed to further split the country along ethnic and religious lines."
The so-called sectarian bombings in Iraq, however, are never claimed by actual Iraqi organizations. The evidence, rather suggests these are outside agencies, such as the Israeli Mossad and British MI6, working closely with the occupation forces.
In 1982, Oded Yinon, an Israeli foreign policy advisor, articulated the Zionist strategy to Balkanize the Middle East by breaking up the Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria," Yinon wrote. "In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."
Yinon's article, "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties," written in Hebrew, appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. The article is considered one of the most explicit and detailed statements of Zionist strategy in the Middle East. The Yinon essay was translated by the late Israel Shahak shortly in 1982 and can be found in Shahak's work entitled "The Zionist Plan for the Middle East."
The Yinon essay "represents the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states," Shahak wrote in his forward to the translated article. The Zionist vision for the Middle East rests on two essential premises: To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states.
An Israeli official was quoted in the July 26, 1982, issue of Newsweek: "Ideally, we'd like to see Iraq disintegrate into a Shi'ite, Kurdish and Sunni community, each making war on the other."
"The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking," Shahak wrote. "For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent for Ha'aretz wrote on June 2, 1982 about the 'best' that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: 'The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part.'"
"The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes," Shahak wrote. "But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the 'defense of the West' from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest."
- See more at:

The Zionist Strategy to Balkanize Iraq
by Christopher Bollyn
October 3, 2005

WHAT A REAL TERRORIST LOOKS LIKE - Two British SAS men dressed as Shiite "terrorists" were caught in Basra, Iraq, in September 2005 after having committed a terrorist act.  They were caught in a car they had loaded with explosives and were prepared to detonate.  The British Army attacked the Iraqi jail to get these terrorists released before they could appear in a court of law. 

The arrest of two British agents disguised as Shiite "terrorists" with a car full of explosives in Basra suggests that British occupation forces are involved in Iraq's so-called sectarian terror bombings, which, until now, have been mysterious, unclaimed and unexplained acts of senseless violence. The on-going wave of "false flag" terror bombings is the realization of the Zionist strategy and is meant to foment civil strife leading to the Balkanization of Iraq. 

After shooting and killing Iraqi police and civilians in Basra, two British agents from the Special Air Service (SAS) or a branch organization of the special forces, disguised as suicide bombers from the Mehdi Army, were caught "red-handed" in a car loaded with explosives. Unable to secure the release of the two disguised terrorists from the local police, British forces took extraordinary action and bulldozed the police compound and jail in Basra and threatened Iraqi police officers at gunpoint until the British agents were turned over. 

The front pages of the leading British papers on Sept. 20 carried dramatic photos of a burning tank involved in the first attempt to release the men, but the more significant and largely obscured story was in the details of the two British terror agents "whose arrest set Basra ablaze," as the Daily Mail wrote. 

The International Herald Tribune, the American paper published abroad by the New York Times, did not even mention the important events in Basra that have apparently exposed a source of the so-called sectarian terrorism in Iraq. Unclaimed and seemingly random car bombings have claimed hundreds of Iraqi lives in the past month, and thousands have perished in similar senseless bombings in the 30 months since the Anglo American occupation of Iraq began. This wave of apparent "false flag" terror attacks is actually the realization of a long-held Zionist strategy to foment sectarian violence leading to the Balkanization of Iraq into three ethnic statelets. 


Many of these car bombings are not carried out by suicide bombers, but are simply parked cars loaded with explosives, like that driven by the two arrested British "soldiers." These car bombs are usually left near crowded areas, such as markets, and kill many innocent civilians. On Sept. 30, for example, a car bomb detonated near a fruit and vegetable market in the town of Hilla, killing 8 and wounding 41. Similar car bombs killed 110 Iraqi Shiite civilians in the two days prior to Sept. 30. 

On Sept. 29, three pick-up trucks packed with explosives detonated in quick succession in Balad, 80 km north of Baghdad. The first bomb went off at the open-air market. Ten minutes later, the second car bomb detonated across the street, just as emergency workers were arriving. The third bomb exploded 10 minutes later in a residential area reported to be predominantly Shiite. "There were no police there, no American patrols, only innocent people shopping at the market," a high-ranking Balad police official told the New York Times

Likewise, on Sept. 18, a car bomb killed 30 people at the market in Nahrwan, about 45 km from Baghdad. "It was not a suicide bomb," a police spokesman said. "A car parked in the middle of the square, and later it blew up." In the week of the Nahrwan market bombing more than 200 Iraqis were killed in bombings and shootings in and around Baghdad. 

On Sept. 16, a "suicide" car bomber struck worshippers leaving a Shiite mosque in Tuz Khormato, 130 km north of Baghdad. Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, speaking in New York, said the bomber was a Syrian, without providing any evidence to support his claim. 


The Washington Post reported that the two Britons had been accused "of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives." The governor of Basra, Mohammed al-Waili, said the British agents had been arrested after shooting two policemen and killing one. "They were driving a civilian car and were dressed in civilian clothes when a shooting took place between them and Iraqi patrols," an official said. "We are investigating and an Iraqi judge is on the case questioning them." 

"The men were said to have had guns and explosives with them," the BBC and British papers reported. Paul Wood of the BBC said the two British agents were probably on a covert mission to get intelligence needed to stop further attacks on British troops. "Their weapons, explosives and communications gear are standard kit for British special forces," Wood said. Wood did not mention if the wigs and Arab disguises are also considered "standard kit" for British special forces. 

However, it seems highly unlikely that the two non-Arab British agents wearing black bushy wigs could have gotten past the front door in any infiltration attempt. Their disguises would have failed to fool any Iraqi who got close enough to speak with them. 

In a statement, British Brigadier John Lorimer said that under Iraqi law the "soldiers" should have been handed over to coalition authorities. When negotiations failed to secure the release of the British agents, a British armored personnel carrier flattened a wall of the prison. The attack on the prison involved a dozen military vehicles and helicopters. The British command was clearly urgently concerned about what the men might have revealed to Iraqi police under interrogation. Gov. al-Waili called the operation a "barbaric act of aggression." 

While the significance of the British terrorists in disguise was not discussed in the mainstream media, it was more fully investigated by Socialist Worker, an on-line news site of the Socialist Party of Britain. Sheikh Hassan al-Zarqani, a Basra-based spokesperson for rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, told the Socialist Worker that the two British agents had been armed with explosives and a remote control detonator. The two bearded British agents had been wearing black wigs and disguised as members of Sadr's militia, the Mehdi Army, when they were caught. This is a commonly employed tactic of "false flag terrorism" often used by the Israeli secret services in the occupied Palestinian territories. 

The Arab disguises are meant to provide eyewitness accounts that whatever terror operation the men were involved in would be reported as having been carried out by Iraqis. 

The incident in Basra, according to Sheikh Hassan, began when a senior official of Sadr's movement, Sheikh Ahmad Fartusi, was arrested on Sunday, Sept. 18. "We called a protest outside the mayor's office on Monday demanding the Sheikh be released," Hassan said. "This protest was peaceful. But events in our city took a sinister turn when the police tried to stop two men dressed as members of the Mehdi Army driving near the protest. The men opened fire on the police and passers-by. After a car chase they were arrested," Hassan said. 

"What our police found in their car was very disturbing - weapons, explosives and a remote control detonator," he said. "These are the weapons of terrorists. We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian targets, and thanks be to God, they were stopped and countless lives were saved. 

"The two men were taken to the police station to answer questions about their activities. That afternoon the British army came in tanks and armored cars demanding the two be released. The police refused as they were considered to be planning terrorist attacks, and as they were disguised as members of the Mehdi Army, the police wanted to know who their target was. 

"Thousands of people gathered to defend the police station. British troops opened fire and the crowds responded with stones and fire bombs. Why were these men dressed as Mehdi Army?" Hassan asked. "Why were they carrying explosives and where were they planning to detonate their bomb? Were they planning an outrage so that they could create tensions with other communities? Were they going to kill innocent people to put the blame on Al Qaida, who do not have any support in our city? 

"The soldiers drove a tank into the police station and threatened to kill the police officers if they did not hand over the two terrorists," Hassan said. "It is only then, to save any further loss of life, that the men were released." 

On Sept. 22, Judge Raghib al-Mudhafar, chief of the Basra Anti-Terrorism Court, reissued homicide arrest warrants for the two British soldiers. Britain says its troops, in disguise or otherwise, are not legally bound by Iraqi law or warrants. "All British troops in Iraq come under the jurisdiction of Britain," a defense spokesman said in London. 

Five days before the arrest of the two British agents in Basra, Al Jazeera had reported on the growing suspicion that the occupation forces are the real perpetrators of bomb attacks in Iraq in an interview with Iran's top military commander, Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr. 

Zolqadr said the United States and Israel were behind the so-called sectarian bombing attacks that have killed thousands of civilians in Iraq. 

The occupation forces, Zolqadr told senior officials, need these attacks to justify the continuation of their military presence in Iraq. 

"The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies," Zolqadr said. "Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners," Zolqadr said. "If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers". 

The U.S. wanted to remain in Iraq to "plunder the country's wealth, bring the Middle East under its control, and create security for Israel, which is on the verge of annihilation," according to Zolqadr. 


The most obvious strategy of the "false flag" terrorism is to foment civil strife in Iraq to advance a divide and conquer policy known as Balkanization. This strategy is aimed at dividing Iraq into three ethnic statelets, as was done with the former Yugoslavia. British forces have employed "false flag" terror tactics as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy in other conflicts in the past. 

The mainstream news reports of the seemingly senseless terror bombings in Iraq always carry a refrain of explanation pointing to the long-held Zionist strategy of Balkanization in the Middle East, such as: "The overwhelming violence in recent days appeared designed to further split the country along ethnic and religious lines." 

The so-called sectarian bombings in Iraq, however, are never claimed by actual Iraqi organizations. The evidence, rather suggests these are outside agencies, such as the Israeli Mossad and British MI6, working closely with the occupation forces. 

In 1982, Oded Yinon, an Israeli foreign policy advisor, articulated the Zionist strategy to Balkanize the Middle East by breaking up the Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria," Yinon wrote. "In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces." 

Yinon's article, "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties," written in Hebrew, appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. The article is considered one of the most explicit and detailed statements of Zionist strategy in the Middle East. The Yinon essay was translated by the late Israel Shahak in 1982 and can be found in Shahak's work entitled "The Zionist Plan for the Middle East." 

The Yinon essay "represents the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states," Shahak wrote in his foreword:

The Zionist vision for the Middle East rests on two essential premises: To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. 

An Israeli official was quoted in the July 26, 1982, issue of Newsweek: "Ideally, we'd like to see Iraq disintegrate into a Shi'ite, Kurdish and Sunni community, each making war on the other." 

"The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking," Shahak wrote. "For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent for Ha'aretz wrote on June 2, 1982 about the 'best' that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: 'The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part.'" 

"The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author's notes," Shahak wrote. "But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the 'defense of the West' from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest."  

Sources and Recommended Reading:

"Exposing the Zionist Hidden Hand Ruling Britain and the United States" by Christopher Bollyn, December 20, 2007

“Greater Israel: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East" by Oded Yinon, translated and edited by Israel Shahak, Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982

"The Zionist Strategy to Balkanize Iraq" by Christopher Bollyn, October 3, 2005

Stopping the War Agenda in Syria

Updated September 17, 2013

Source:, September 17, 2013

The U.S. government insists it has the intelligence to prove it, but the American public has yet to see a single piece of concrete evidence — no satellite imagery, no transcripts of Syrian military communications — connecting the government of President Bashar Assad to the alleged chemical weapons attack last month that killed hundreds of people.
"Lingering doubts over Syria gas attack evidence” by Zeina Karam and Kimberly Dozier, AP, September 8, 2013

Dennis Kucinich Warns of Regional War if Obama Rushes to Strike
Video URL -

U.S. officials have not presented any evidence to the public of scientific samples or intelligence information proving that sarin gas was used or that the Syrian government used it.
 "Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S." by Mark Hosenball, Reuters, September 7, 2013

Our motto is: 'By way of deception, thou shalt do war.'
- “Confessions of an Ex-Mossad Agent” from Victor Ostrovsky's book By Way of Deception

It’s very possible that Obama is trying to provoke a strong reaction from Syria to give the U.S. public a reason to escalate the war. Any attack on Syria also has the possibility of bringing Iran into the conflict, since Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact. And this may be the ultimate goal: to provoke Iran into getting involved militarily, so that the U.S. would have a justification to expand the war into Iran, which has been in the U.S. crosshairs for years.
- “The Lie of ‘Limited War’ in Syria” by Shamus Cooke

Americans are understandably weary after the fiasco in Iraq and over a decade of war.  How can this administration make a guarantee that our military actions will be limited? How can we guarantee that one surgical strike will have any impact other than to tighten the vise grip that Assad has on his power, or allow rebels allied with al Qaeda to gain a stronger foothold in Syria?
- Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico

Public opinion polls in the United States indicate that the public is strongly opposed to the Obama administration’s proposed military strikes against Syria.  The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll found that about 60 percent of the American population is opposed to the use of force.

Source: "Most in U.S. oppose Syria strike, Post-ABC poll finds"
Washington Post, September 3, 2013

It should be noted, however, that about 53 percent of the U.S. population believes there is "clear evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians."  This is, however, an allegation which has not been proven, despite Secretary of State John Kerry’s vociferous claims that he has the evidence. 

Source:  "Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Airstrikes" 
Pew Research, September 3, 2013

What this figure represents is the power of propaganda, for this is what the controlled media wants the U.S. public to believe.  The U.N. inspectors have not yet finished their work and the world has not seen any evidence to prove these serious allegations against the Syrian government, but only one-in-four Americans seem to understand that.

If a larger percentage of the U.S. public understood that we are being deceived about who used chemical weapons in Syria, a larger percentage would certainly be opposed to the Obama proposal to use military force against Syria.  Once again, the U.S. is being deceived into waging war on allegations and fabrications.

There are two very good reasons to oppose any U.S. military action in Syria, the first being that there is no clear and indisputable evidence that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against civilians.  The people who are calling for military action against Syria now are the same people who deceived the U.S. into war with Afghanistan and Iraq. 

In both cases the United States went to war based on a moral outrage and threat – without showing the proof.  Since 9-11, the U.S. has invaded two nations, killed an untold number of innocent people, and ruined the lives of thousands of American families, all based on fabricated evidence.  This is why more than 80 percent of the British population demands that any military strikes against Syria be sanctioned by the United Nations, and 73 percent of those over age 65 is opposed to attacking Syria.  The British remember very well what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq and don’t want to see it happen again.

The second reason is that any U.S. military action against Syria is likely to result in very serious consequences that cannot be predicted.  Syria would be justified to strike back and has advanced weapons systems to do so.  Syria has very powerful allies, including Russia, and has a mutual defense pact with Iran.  This is why the Russians and Iranians are strongly urging the Obama administration not to attack Syria.  They certainly don’t want to become embroiled in a war with the United States and hope that common sense will prevail, as it did in Britain when the Parliament rejected a similar use of force proposal put forward by Prime Minister David Cameron.

Today, Americans have a better understanding of how a small group of Zionist extremists dedicated to a misguided notion of Greater Israel can deceive the United States into waging disastrous and costly wars.  We are at a very crucial point where Americans and Europeans need to stand shoulder-to-shoulder and firmly and openly reject the Zionist deceptions that are designed only to further their insane war agenda.  We must stop the Zionist war agenda before it destroys the world.


"CIA commandos, US special forces entered Syria: Report," PressTV, August 23, 2013

"Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S." by Mark Hosenball, Reuters, September 7, 2013

"Lingering doubts over Syria gas attack evidence” by Zeina Karam and Kimberly Dozier, AP, September 8, 2013

"Most in U.S. oppose Syria strike, Post-ABC poll finds," Washington Post, September 3, 2013

"Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Airstrikes," Pew Research Center, September 3, 2013

"Russia's President Putin warns US over Syria action," BBC News, September 4, 2013

"Syria crisis: The British public has its say as two-thirds oppose strikes," The Independent, September 3, 2013

"The Lie of 'Limited War' in Syria," by Shamus Cooke, The Workers Action, September 2, 2013

"U.S. public opposes Syria intervention as Obama presses Congress," Reuters, September 3, 2013

Syria: Another War for Israel

September 11, 2013

Anthony Lawson has a new video titled "Another War for Israel."

Video Link -

Dankof on the Israeli Role in 9-11 & Egyptian Coup

Updated September 1, 2013

Added link to review of Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World by Robert A. Sungenis, Sr., Ph.D., Culture Wars, May 11, 2012

Let me take 9/11, for example. I will simply quote Dr. Alan Sabrosky, the Jewish professor, by the way, at the National United States Army War College, who says that 9/11, in fact, was an Israeli Mossad operation from start to finish... I would point people to Christopher Bollyn’s work on 9/11 and Dr. Robert Sungenis' review on Mr. Bollyn’s book for E. Michael Jones Culture Wars [July/August & September 2012] so that people can look at all of these sources and see what the evidence actually is. 
Mark Dankof on Press TV, August 18, 2013

Israel... is planning to intensify a diplomatic campaign urging Europe and the United States to support the military-backed government in Egypt despite its deadly crackdown on Islamist protesters, according to a senior Israeli official involved in the effort. Israeli ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels and other capitals planned to advance the argument that the military was the only hope to prevent further chaos in Cairo.
"Court said to order Mubarak's release," International Herald Tribune (New York Times), August 20, 2013

Mark Dankof of San Antonio appeared on Press TV to discuss the Israeli role in the turmoil and bloodshed affecting the Middle East - and 9-11. Dankof debated the subject of Israeli involvement with Jihad Mouracadeh, a Lebanese banker with close ties to Britain and the ruling families of Saudia Arabia and the Gulf States.

The fact that the Israelis are using their diplomats, according to theNew York Timesto support the military coup in Egypt speaks volumes about who is really behind the bloodshed and instability in the region.

Sources and Recommended Reading:

"Egyptian Court Is Said to Order That Mubarak Be Released,"International Herald Tribune, August 20, 2013

"Israel meddling in Mideast affairs: Mark Dankof," Press TV (Iran), August 18, 2013

Jihad Mouracadeh,, accessed August 20, 2013 

Sungenis, Robert, Review of Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the WorldCulture Wars, May 11, 2012

Sungenis, Robert, two-part interview with Mark Dankof regarding Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Based on Sungenis' comprehensive two-part review of Christopher Bollyn's book Solving 911: The Deception that Changed the World

Part One:
Mark Dankof’s America July 11, 2012 « The Ugly Truth

Takfiri (definition), Wikipedia, accessed August 20, 2013

"Turkey's Erdogan sees Israel's hand in Egyptian overthrow," Reuters, August 20, 2013

The Apartheid State of Israel

August 26, 2013

Anthony Lawson has made an excellent video about the apartheid state of Israel and how the institutional racism of "the Jewish state" is defended by hypocritical Jews in high places.

Video URL -


Syria Chemical Mayhem: Another Israeli False-Flag?

August 22, 2013

It would be very peculiar if it was the government to do this at the exact moment the international inspectors come into the country. 
- Rolf Ekeus, a retired Swedish diplomat who headed a team of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq in the 1990s on the latest use of chemical weapons in Syria

On Wednesday - just hours after the massacre of hundreds of Syrians with chemical weapons - Israeli Minister of Military Affairs Moshe Yaalon claimed he knew who did it: the Syrian government…Like Ehud Barak minutes after 9/11, Moshe Yaalon stood up just hours after the Syrian chemical weapons tragedy and provided an apparently pre-scripted narrative.
- Kevin Barrett, "Syria Chemical Mayhem: Another Israeli False-Flag?" PressTV, August 22, 2013

Kevin Barrett has an excellent piece on the latest use of chemical weapons in Syria. It begins with these observations:

Other world leaders, including U.S. President Barack Obama, did not rush to judgment. Instead, they called for a United Nations investigation. Many experts, including the BBC's Frank Gardner, former UN weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus, and Swedish chemical weapons expert, Ake Sellstrom, ridiculed or cast doubt on the notion that Syrian President Assad would launch a chemical attack at the exact moment weapons inspectors arrived in Syria. The Russian Foreign Ministry came right out and called the chemical attack “a provocation planned in advance.”

But planned by whom?

To answer that question, we must ask: How could Israel immediately know who was behind the Syrian chemical attack?

Israeli leaders have amazing powers of clairvoyance. Whenever a huge, history-steering terror attack happens, the Israelis immediately know who did it. Before the dust settles, they stand up and tell the world exactly what it all means - and provide the script for the way they want the world to react.

Barrett's complete article can be read at:

Source:  "Syria chemical mayhem: Another Israeli false-flag?" by Kevin Barrett, PressTV (Iran), August 22, 2013 

Iran and the Zionist-Controlled U.S. Congress

August 3, 2013

As Iran's new president Hassan Rouhani (center in white turban) is inaugurated, the U.S. Congress threatens to impose new sanctions that would economically strangle the nation of 80 million people.  Who is Congress really serving with such belligerent policies - and what will they lead to?

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native criminal class except Congress.
- Mark Twain

Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) is reportedly cooking up a sanctions bill that would make Iran’s transition to a “free and democratically elected government” – in short, regime change – a precondition for sanctions to be lifted. You don’t have to be a historian to know that we followed the same procedure not long ago with Iraq and know how it ends: war.
- Mark Jansson, “The making of an Iraq sequel with Iran” The Hill, July 31, 2013

When it comes to job approval ratings, the U.S. Congress consistentlygets the lowest marks among the three branches of the federal government.  A Gallup report from July 30, 2013, finds that only 15 percent of the American people approve of the job being done by Congress, and that’s a high number.  Other recent polls have found that less than 10 percent of the American population approve of the job Congress is doing.

The fact that Congress gets such low approval ratings from the American people indicates that there is a serious breakdown in the American system of government.  When 85-90 percent of the people consistently don’t think their representatives are doing a good job, there is obviously something wrong with our democratic republic.

When we consider that Congress utterly failed to investigate 9-11, but then passed legislation that allowed the nation to be dragged into two extremely costly and disastrous wars in the Middle East based on a pack of lies about who was responsible for the terror attacks, we can appreciate the depth of the disgust the American people have for the U.S. Congress.  The nation has been bankrupted and tens of thousands of Americans have been killed or maimed in these unnecessary and illegal wars in the Middle East.

A bill concerning Iran, passed in the House of Representatives on July 31 (400-20), shows just how corrupt Congress has become, and how disconnected from the needs and desires of the American people.  The bill calls for tightening the already extremely severe sanctions on Iran, and aims to cut Iran’s oil exports by a further 1 million barrels per day (bpd). 

Iran, however, with the world's fourth largest proven oil reserves, is currently exporting less than 1 million bpd.  In May 2013, for example, Iran’s crude exports fell to 700,000 bpd.  This means that our representatives in Congress want to completely strangle Iran by preventing it from selling any of its oil, which is its most significant export product.  Such severe and punitive measures are a form of economic warfare, and usually lead to war.


About the proposed new sanctions, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said:  “Additional sanctions are actually aimed at the economic strangulation of Iran, but not at solving the problem of non-proliferation.”

The only nation that actually supports increased sanctions on Iran is Israel, which is the not-so-hidden power behind the vote in the U.S. Congress.  When it comes to Iran, the most aggressive Members of Congress are, like Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), those who receive outrageous amounts of money from supporters of Israel.  Sen. Kirk has received more than $1.3 million from “pro-Israel” industries, according to, but that is nothing compared to the cost of his reckless policies to the Iranian and American people.

The burning question facing the American people is this:  Do we want to go to war with Iran in order to support the Zionist war agenda? 

Our supposedly elected representatives are taking us down a path that will surely lead to war and disaster if we let them continue with these belligerent policies.  World War II was preceded by similar sanctions against Germany and Japan.  The B’nai B’rith and world Jewry, for example, imposed sanctions on Germany in 1933, six years before the outbreak of war.  The U.S. imposed severe oil sanctions on Japan long before the attack on Pearl Harbor.  The Iraq War of 2003 was preceded by 12 years of punitive sanctions that caused extreme suffering for the Iraqi people. We need to recognize that sanctions are the prelude to war.

As Americans or Europeans, we need to realize that we cannot allow our politicians to recklessly lead us into an utterly unnecessary conflict with Iran.  Iran is neither a threat nor an enemy of the West.  A normalization of relations with Iran would greatly benefit both nations, economically and otherwise.

We must not allow our foreign policy to be hijacked by Israel, an outlaw state that illegally possesses scores of nuclear weapons.  We need to understand who is really behind the war agenda and must not let the Zionist mini-state drag our nations into a catastrophic war with Iran.  To pursue the Zionist war agenda against Iran would be a foolish mistake with the most severe consequences. 

McCain's Terrorists and Mohammed

Updated June 11, 2013
added link to McCain's visit with gangsters involved in kidnapping

THE PRO-DEMOCRACY PROTESTER Mohammed Qataa, a 14-year-old coffee vendor in Aleppo, was murdered in front of his parents by a gang of foreign terrorists. His parents said Mohammed had taken part in pro-democracy demonstrations.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN visited the leadership of the terrorist gangs and kidnappers during his recent trip to Syria. When asked about their documented record of terrorism and war crimes McCain dismissed these as "Isolated incidents of people who have just gotten … battle-hardened and angry." McCain is either lying or utterly naive about the people he is supporting in Syria.

In an article about the secret surveillance of our phone calls and emails being done by the National Security Agency (NSA) the Associated Press reported on June 10:

Edward Snowden identified himself Sunday as a principal source behind revelations about the National Security Agency's sweeping phone and Internet surveillance programs.... The NSA has been collecting the phone records of hundreds of millions of Americans each day, creating a database through which it can learn whether terror suspects have been in contact with people in the U.S.


So the NSA is collecting all of this data in order to "learn whether terror suspects have been in contact with people in the U.S.?"  This simply doesn't make any sense. Why should the NSA be collecting all the data from our private communications to see if we are talking to terrorists while Sen. John McCain simply goes to Syria at taxpayers expense and openly meets with real-life terrorists who are seeking to overthrow the Assad government in Damascus?

The armed gangs that are trying to overthrow the Syrian government have clearly committed a host of war crimes and atrocities. The latest was the execution of a 14-year-old boy in Aleppo for a comment he made that was seen by the Muslim terrorists as heretical.  

The boy, Mohammed Qatta (or Qataa) sold coffee on the streets of Aleppo.  There are slightly different versions of the story, but it went something like this:

Mohammed Qatta had a dispute and refused to give a customer coffee. “Even if Mohammed comes back to life, I won’t,” the boy said, who was known by his nickname “Salmo.”

Extremist rebels driving past in a black car overheard the comment, according to the opposition Aleppo Media Center. Qatta was taken away by the fighters and when they brought him back, his head was wrapped with his shirt and his body covered with marks from whipping.

The rebels, evidently not from Syria, then read out the boy’s sentence – not in a Syrian accent, but in classical Arabic. They accused the boy of blasphemy and told the crowd – which included the boy’s parents – that anyone who insulted the Prophet would suffer a similar fate.

"Generous citizens of Aleppo, disbelieving in God is polytheism and cursing the prophet is a polytheism. Whoever curses even once will be punished like this."

Rami Abdulrahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the boy's mother had pleaded with the killers, whose Arabic indicated that they were not Syrian, not to shoot her son.

The terrorist then fired two bullets from an automatic rifle in the face of Mohammed. He did this in front of the boy's mother and father and a crowd of people, then got in a car and left.

Qatta had been shot in the mouth and neck. A photo released late Sunday of the dead Mohammed showed that his jaw had been completely destroyed.

It should be noted that the primary sources of this story are media outlets associated with the rebels who are fighting the forces of the Syrian government. The rebels are an army of foreign mercenaries who are being supported by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France, Britain, Jordan, and the United States. As Syrian government forces, supported by Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon, continue their counter-offensive against the rebels in Homs and Aleppo we will see a frantic response on the part of the rebels and their supporters. The Obama administration is reportedly considering supplying weapons to the rebels and imposing no-fly zones over Syria. When they ask us to support the rebels in Syria we should remember what the rebels did to Mohammed in Aleppo.

Sources and Recommended Reading:

"5 things to note about NSA surveillance programs," Associated Press, June 10, 2013

"John McCain meets with kidnappers in Syria," Voltaire Network, June 1, 2013

"NSA, the secret AT&T spy room, and 2 Israeli companies" by Jon Rappoport, June 9, 2013

"Senator John McCain Meets Leaders of Terror Brigade in Syria. The NGOs that Made it Happen" by Phil Greaves, Global Research, June 09, 2013

"Teenager, 14, Executed By Islamist Rebels in Syria" by Alexander Marquard, ABC News, June 10, 2013

How Iranians Vote

May 13, 2013

Iranian elections are transparent and democratic. Here two women show their inked fingers and the stamp on their identity cards showing that they have voted. 

The Islamic Republic of Iran will have a presidential election on June 14, 2013. As an observer of elections in different countries I find that Iranian election procedures are very similar to those of the most democratic elections held in European nations, such as France. Iranians vote on paper ballots that are counted openly in each polling place in the presence of observers. The tally from each polling station is then verified openly and published by the government after the election. These are the most fundamental and essential elements of a transparent and democratic election, and these are exactly the elements that are sadly missing from elections in the United States.

It may come as a surprise but Iranian elections are much more transparent that elections in the United States. The voting process and the counting of the votes in Iran are transparent processes, while most votes in the United States are cast and counted on electronic voting systems run by private companies. The use of computer voting systems in the United States has actually allowed our elections to be stolen because the citizenry has lost its oversight of the crucial vote-counting process entirely. Today, there is virtually no open counting of the votes in polling stations in the United States because nearly all voting "data" is processed in computerized systems - not counted by citizens.

Iranian votes are cast on paper ballots.

After the polls close the ballots are openly counted in each polling station with observers present. This is the most essential element of a democratic election, which is missing in U.S. elections.

I recently read Going to Tehran (2013) by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett. This is an excellent and timely book that calls for the United States to come to terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is highly recommended reading and should help Americans understand why it is in the best interest of our nation to change course and stop trying to overthrow the Islamic Republic with economic sanctions, covert actions, and threats of war.

The Leveretts have served as high-level policy advisors on Iran in various departments and agencies of the U.S. government.  In Chapter 6, “A Controversial Election,” they discuss the 2009 election in Iran.  On page 246 they describe how Iranians vote and how the votes are counted:

Every Iranian aged eighteen or over, including those living abroad, may vote; in 2009, the Iranian government operated polling stations for expatriates in almost a hundred countries, including the United States. To vote, an Iranian must show an official ID with the bearer’s photograph, thumbprint, and a unique number. At the polling station, the voter’s name and ID number are recorded three times: by hand in a register, on a computer, and again by hand on the voter’s ballot stub. Before casting the ballot, the voter must press a purple-ink thumbprint onto the stub, which is then separated from the ballot and dropped into a “stub box.” (Separation of the stub prior to the casting of the ballot ensures the secrecy of the vote.) The voter marks the ballot and drops it into the ballot box; the voter’s ID card is then stamped, to prevent him or her from voting again.

The votes are counted at the polling stations. Before the polls open, observers at each station watch as the ballot boxes are verified to be empty. No votes are counted until after polls close. At that point observers at each station watch as the stubs and ballots are counted and their numbers compared. They then watch as each candidate’s count is recorded on government-issued Form 22; at every station, multiple copies of Form 22 are signed by both officials and observers. Signed forms are placed inside the ballot box, which is sealed and turned over to local officials to hold; signed forms are also sent to the Interior Ministry and copies are given to each observer. In addition, information on these Form 22s is electronically transmitted to district-level offices, where, as candidate observers watch, vote totals from polling stations are aggregated into district-level results and recorded on government-issued Form 28s; these are sent both electronically and physically to the Interior Ministry, which aggregates them into provincial- and national-level results. In 2009, for the first time, data from polling stations were also transmitted directly to the ministry.

Source:  Going to Tehran: Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, Metropolitan Books, New York, 2013 

Beware the Ides of May: U.S. Navy Exercise near Iran

April 10, 2013

During the month of May, the U.S. Navy will carry out a 25-day exercise with mines and "underwater improvised explosive devices" off the coast of Iran on both sides of the Straits of Hormuz. Such an exercise presents an opportunity for a false-flag attack by those who want to instigate a military conflict with Iran. 

Naval exercises are meant to be as realistic as possible.
- Olivier Schmidt, author of The Intelligence Files: Today's Secrets, Tomorrow's Scandals

The easiest way to carry out a false-flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out.
- Captain Eric H. May, former U.S. Army military intelligence officer

War games and military exercises near a hostile nation can lead to serious consequences, even war, which is why it is important for the public to understand the risks involved. Next month, from May 6 to May 30, the U.S. Navy will be conducting a large-scale naval exercise involving mines and drones very close to the territorial waters of Iran. This is an extremely risky exercise because the current Israeli regime, which is known for its expertise in terror attacks, is pushing hard for the United States to take military action against Iran. Given the chance, there can be little doubt that the Israelis would carry out a false-flag attack to instigate a war with Iran. This is a very real danger that has to be understood.

The U.S. Navy will be engaged in the International Mine Countermeasures Exercise (IMCMEX 13) in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman during the month of May 2013.  The 25-day exercise will involve personnel from the navies of 30 nations, according to a press release from the U.S. Navy:

Representatives from more than 30 nations will gather May 6-30 in Bahrain and waters of the Gulf region for International Mine Countermeasures Exercise (IMCMEX) 13.

The largest exercise of its kind in the region, IMCMEX 13 will exercise a wide spectrum of defensive operations designed to protect international commerce and trade; mine countermeasures, maritime security operations (MSO) and maritime infrastructure protection (MIP).

Source:  “Nations to Gather for IMCMEX 13” April 8, 2013, U.S. Navy

Since the U.S. Navy does not identify the thirty nations involved in the exercise, it may be that the Israeli navy is one of the participants. In any case the exercise will bring U.S. naval vessels and others very close to Iranian waters, if not into them, which presents an opportunity ripe for treachery. Those who want to instigate hostilities with Iran could do so by carrying out some sort of provocative false-flag action, such as an attack on a vessel from either side. The Israelis have modern stealthy German-built submarines and could provoke hostilities by attacking a vessel - or even Iran - during the exercise, for example.

In last year's exercise, IMCMEX 12, the operations included "underwater improvised explosive devices," like the hidden bombs of unknown origin that have killed and maimed so many Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan:

In the second phase, ships, crews and observers got underway to conduct training in at-sea maneuvers, mine hunting operations, helicopter mine countermeasures (MCM) operations, and international Explosive Ordnance Disposal operations. Small boat operations focused toward underwater improvised explosive devices.

Source: "IMCMEX12 Military Exercise Concludes," U.S. Navy, September 27, 2012


It was during exactly such a naval exercise by NATO and other navies that the Baltic ferry Estonia was sunk in September 1994, taking the lives of about 1,000 civilians. The Russian submarine Kursk sank during another. An anti-terror drill was being conducted in London when bombs went off in July 2005 - in exactly the same places the drill had prepared for. Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was actually on the scene for that false-flag terror event.

The false-flag terror attacks of 9-11 occurred during several military drills, one of which simulated an aircraft smashing into a military building near the Pentagon, the National Reconnaissance Office. Another exercise actually involved fake hijacked aircraft, which completely confused air traffic controllers who had no idea what was real and what was fake when the exercise became reality.

The attacks of 9-11 were exploited by the Zionist war party to bring the U.S. into two extremely costly and disastrous wars in the Middle East.  It is wise to be prudent and constantly aware of the very real possibility of more false-flag treachery being used to start another.

Sources and Recommended Reading: 

“IMCMEX12 Military Exercise Concludes,” U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs, September 27, 2012 

“Nations to Gather for IMCMEX 13,” U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs, April 8, 2013 

“The Terror Drills That Became Real: 9/11, the London Bombings & the Sinking of Estonia,” by Christopher Bollyn   

“U.S. Allies Plan Big Gulf Naval Exercise In May,” Reuters, April 9, 2013 

Goading Gullible America Into War

March 23, 2013

Although there were no "suicide bombers" in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem during President Obama's visit to Israel there were a couple unusual "missile attacks" and a terror bombing of a mosque in Syria, which may have been staged, i.e. false-flag attacks.  There were two small missiles that are said to have been fired at Israel from Gaza and then there was an attack in Syria that is alleged to have involved a chemical weapon - a "red line" incident for the United States.

Then there was the so-called "suicide bombing" at a Syrian mosque, which killed a senior cleric and supporter of the ruling regime. As we have clearly seen in Iraq and Vietnam, foreign military intelligence agencies are often the true culprits in such terror bombings.

WHO WOULD BOMB A MOSQUE?  Mohammed al Buti - the 84-year-old imam of the historic Ummayyad Mosque - was killed when a bomber blew himself up during packed evening prayers at the Iman Mosque in Damascus. The bombing occurred during Obama's visit to Israel.

The Syrian health ministry said 42 people died in the bombing and 84 were injured.  The following report reveals that neither the culprits nor the cause of the blast are known:  It is unclear if the explosion was caused by a car bomb or a mortar shell.

It is important to keep in mind that some or all of these may have been false-flag attacks.  The attack in Syria, for example, may have been carried out by Israel to give the impression that the Syrian government, or the rebels, are using chemical weapons. The result would be to draw the United States into the civil war in Syria. The United Nations is reported to be investigating the incident in Syria. Because there is so much deceit in such matters, and so much at stake, I recommend reading Pat Buchanan's latest article:

Goading Gullible America Into War 
By Pat Buchanan, March 21, 2013

   As President Obama departed for Israel, there came a startling report. Bashar Assad's regime had used poison gas on Syrian rebels.

Two Israeli Cabinet members claimed credible evidence. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said, "It's clear for us that (gas is) being used. ...This... should be on the table in the discussions."

Yet, 72 hours later, the United States still cannot confirm that gas was used, and Syria and Russia have called on U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to investigate whether it was used, and if so, by whom.

What's going on here?

It does not require Inspector Clouseau to surmise this may be a fabrication to stampede the ever-gullible Americans into plunging into Syria to win the war for the al-Qaida-saturated Syrian rebels.

But sucking America into Syria's civil war is only a near-term goal for the War Party, which is after larger game -- greasing the skids for a U.S. war on Iran.

And lest we underestimate the War Party, the likelihood is they will get their war. For they have already gotten Obama to make concessions that are steering us inexorably toward such a war.

First, Obama was persuaded to declare it U.S. policy that, where Iran's uranium-enrichment program is concerned, "All options are on the table!" Translation: Absent major concessions by Iran, proving she is not seeking a nuclear weapon, war against Iran is in the cards.

Yet, even as Obama parrots the mantra, "All options are on the table," he has been persuaded to take off the table the option that won the Cold War, the George Kennan option of containment and deterrence.

Obama has been goaded into proclaiming that though America contained an evil empire that spanned 13 time zones and possessed thousands of nukes, containment cannot work with Iran.

Why not? Because the Ayatollah, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, we are solemnly instructed, are religious fanatics who could easily opt for committing collective suicide should they get a bomb -- by using that bomb on us.

This, of course, is to attribute to Iran's leaders an insanity they have never exhibited. Not in memory has Iran started a war. Saddam attacked Iran, not the other way around. When the Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner, Ayatollah Khomeini himself ordered the Iraq war ended for fear America was about to intervene on Baghdad's side.

Now we come to the sinister role of the U.S. Senate in setting the table for war. Consider what Senate Joint Resolution 65, crafted at AIPAC, the Israeli Lobby, and now being shopped around for signing by Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Robert Menendez, does.

SR 65 radically alters U.S. policy by declaring it to be "the policy of the United prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy."

Obama's policy -- no nuclear weapons in Iran -- is tossed out. Substituted for it in SR 65 is Bibi Netanyahu's policy -- "no nuclear weapons capability" in Iran.

Now, as Iran already has that "capability" -- as does Germany, Japan, South Korea and other nations who have forsworn nuclear weapons -- what SR 65 does is authorize the United States to attack Iran -- to stop her from what she is doing now. Yet, according to all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, Iran does not have a nuclear bomb program.

Critically, SR 65 goes further and "urges that if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States Government should ... provide diplomatic, military and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people and existence."

Translation: Should Bibi attack Iran, the Senate urges the U.S. military to join in that attack. SR 65 is a blank check to Bibi to go to war with Iran, with a U.S. Senate commitment to join him.

Coupled with House Resolution 850, which calls for crushing new sanctions, SR 65 is designed to so enrage and humiliate Iran that her delegates walk out of negotiations -- and war inevitably ensues.

Here then is War Party calendar and countdown.

First, rule out containment and deterrence of Iran, though that policy won the Cold War. Second, rule in a U.S. war on Iran if Tehran does not yield to all our demands in nuclear negotiations.

Third, ensure the negotiations fail by repeated insults, threats, sanctions, and intolerable demands that so humiliate the Iranians that, enraged, they say "to hell with it" and walk out of the talks.

Then, by default, the last "option" left for dealing with Iran--even if she still has not tested a bomb or enriched uranium to bomb grade -- will be U.S. air strikes on Fordow and Natanz, cheered on by a War Party that dreams of this day and that war.

Preventing another generation of war dead delivered to Dover should be the first priority of American patriots.

Ron Paul - How to End the Tragedy in Gaza

November 28, 2012

"To me, I look at it like a concentration camp."
- Ron Paul on Gaza

THE WORLD'S LARGEST CONCENTRATION CAMP - Nearly two million Palestinians, mainly dispossessed refugees forced from their homes and villages in Israel, are confined within the 5-mile wide Gaza Strip like prisoners in a concentration camp.  The Israeli military controls all movements into and out of the camp.

THE CAMP WARDEN - The Israeli military forbids the inmates of the Gaza Strip from coming within 300 meters of the fence.  Israeli soldiers routinely fire on those who cross into the Israeli-declared no-go zone on the Palestinian side of the fence.

TAUNT - Israeli troops taunt Palestinian inmates who approached the fence on November 23.  

AIM, FIRE - Israeli troops aim before shooting 20 Palestinians, killing one on November 23.  Such incidents are not uncommon.  On Sunday, November 4, for example, Israelis shot an un-armed Palestinian man in the no-go zone in the evening and then denied permission for emergency medical workers to go to his aid until Monday morning.  By the time help reached him the man had bled to death.

How to End the Tragedy in Gaza
by Rep. Ron Paul

As of late Friday the ceasefire in Gaza seems to be holding, if tentatively. While we should be pleased that this round of fighting appears temporarily on hold, we must realize that without changes in U.S. foreign policy it is only a matter of time before the killing begins again.

It feels like 2009 all over again, which is the last time this kind of violence broke out in Gaza. At that time over 1,400 Palestinians were killed, of which just 235 were combatants. The Israelis lost 13 of which 10 were combatants. At that time I said of then-President Bush’s role in the conflict:

It's our money and our weapons. But I think we encouraged it. Certainly, the president has said nothing to diminish it. As a matter of fact, he justifies it on moral grounds, saying, oh, they have a right to do this, without ever mentioning the tragedy of Gaza…. To me, I look at it like a concentration camp.

The U.S. role has not changed under the Obama administration. The same mistakes continue. As journalist Glen Greenwald wrote last week:

For years now, U.S. financial, military and diplomatic support of Israel has been the central enabling force driving this endless conflict. The bombs Israel drops on Gazans, and the planes they use to drop them, and the weapons they use to occupy the West Bank and protect settlements are paid for, in substantial part, by the U.S. taxpayer…

The bombs dropped on Gaza with lethal precision are all made in the U.S.A.

The 9/11-like devastation of Gaza is a genocidal project supported by U.S. taxpayers.

Last week, as the fighting raged, President Obama raced to express U.S. support for the Israeli side, in a statement that perfectly exemplifies the tragic-comedy of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. supported the Israeli side because, he said, "No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.” Considering that this president rains down missiles on Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and numerous other countries on a daily basis, the statement was so hypocritical that it didn’t pass the laugh test. But it wasn’t funny.

U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton traveled to Tel Aviv to meet with Israeli prime minister Netanyahu, but she refused to meet with elected Palestinian leaders. Clinton said upon arrival in Israel, “America's commitment to Israel’s security is rock-solid and unwavering.” Does this sound like an honest broker?

U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton met with the Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu as Israeli bombers destroyed the government buildings in Gaza.  Bill and Hilary Clinton have received tens of millions of dollars from Israeli agents like Haim Saban as payola to support the terrorism of the Likud.  Ms Clinton should be tried for treason as an agent of a foreign state.

At the same time Congress acted with similar ignobility when an unannounced resolution was brought to the House floor after the business of the week had been finished; and in less than 30 seconds the resolution was passed by unanimous consent, without debate and without most Representatives even having heard of it. The resolution, House Resolution 813, was so one-sided it is not surprising they didn’t want anyone to have the chance to read and vote on it. Surely at least a handful of my colleagues would have objected to language like, “The House of Representatives expresses unwavering commitment to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders...”

U.S. foreign policy being so one-sided actually results in more loss of life and of security on both sides. Surely Israelis do not enjoy the threat of missiles from Gaza nor do the Palestinians enjoy their Israel-imposed inhuman conditions in Gaza. But as long as Israel can count on its destructive policies being underwritten by the U.S. taxpayer it can continue to engage in reckless behavior. And as long as the Palestinians feel the one-sided U.S. presence lined up against them they will continue to resort to more and more deadly and desperate measures.

Continuing to rain down missiles on so many increasingly resentful nations, the U.S. is undermining rather than furthering its security. We are on a collision course with much of the rest of the world if we do not right our foreign policy. Ending interventionism in the Middle East and replacing it with friendship and even-handedness would be a welcome first step.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.


“How to End the Tragedy in Gaza,” by Rep. Ron Paul,, November 27, 2012  

“Gaza crowds surge at Israel border fence, 1 dead,” by Karin Laub and Sarah El Deeb, Associated Press, November 22, 2012

“IDF fires on Palestinian approaching Gaza fence,” Jerusalem Post, November 5, 2012

“Palestinians: IDF fire kills man near Gaza fence,” by Yaakov Lappin,Jerusalem Post, November 23, 2012 

Israel Commits Atrocities in Gaza with U.S. Weapons

Updated November 22, 2012

DAVID AND GOLIATH - The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians pits the un-armed native population of Palestine against an army of foreign Zionist invaders equipped with advanced weapons provided by the United States - and paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.  As in the biblical story of David and Goliath, it is the shepherd boy with the sling who is the true king and champion of the God of Israel.

THE DEAD CHILDREN OF GAZA - Due to the huge disparity of firepower between the two sides and the advanced U.S. weapons in the hands of the Israelis, the death toll on the Palestinian side is always many times higher than that of the Israelis.  In the 8-day conflict that ended on November 21, more than thirty times as many Palestinians were killed.  More than 158 Gazans were killed, including 30 children, while Israel suffered 6 deaths:  two soldiers and four civilians, none of which were children. 

GAZA IS 5,000 YEARS OLD - one of the oldest cities in the world.  Its inhabitants today are primarily displaced Palestinians whose homes and land were taken by force by Zionist settlers from Poland and Russia in 1948.  The Israeli "troika of terror" - Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak, are all from families of Zionist settlers who changed their names to sound more authentic.  Shimon Peres, for example, was born Szymon Perski in Wiszniew, Poland, in 1923.  Netanyahu’s father was Mileikowsky from Warsaw, and Ehud Barak was a Brog from Lithuania - until he changed his name in 1972.  How can Rothschild-funded Zionist settlers from Russia and Poland claim to be the legitimate owners of Palestine?  This is the massive hoax at the core of the 'David and Goliath' conflict in which the Israeli army uses the most advanced American-made weapons to bomb the defenseless civilian population of Gaza - and the world does nothing.

BOMBED GOVERNMENT OFFICES IN GAZA - Israel fired more than 100 U.S.-made bombs at Gaza overnight, destroying a cluster of government buildings on November 21 - as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dined with Benjamin Netanyahu. "The rocket attacks from terrorist organizations inside Gaza on Israeli cities and towns must end and a broader calm restored," Clinton said, showing utter and willful ignorance of the immorality and illegality of Israel’s aggression against Gaza.  It should come as no surprise that the Clinton family wealth comes from the tens of millions of dollars it was given by Israeli agents such as Haim Saban.  Please note, the people of Israeli-occupied Gaza have no military or defense against the high-tech U.S. weaponry given to the Israeli criminal regime.  So, who are the real terrorists? (Reuters photo: Mohammed Salem)

OWNED BY ISRAEL - The Clintons have received more than $10 million from the Israeli agent Haim Saban (right).  Why is it allowedfor U.S. officials to be bribed by foreign agents?  Is the foreign policy of the United States something to be bought?  Saban, the Israeli agent and Clinton benefactor, also happens to be a close friend and partner-in-crime of Ehud Barak, one of the Israeli masterminds of 9/11. 
(Source: "Afghanistan - Obama's War for Israel" )

"Question [being] asked here is: If Israel can kill a man riding on a moving motorbike (as they did last month) how did Jihad’s son get killed?"
- BBC Middle East bureau chief Paul Danahar writing from Gaza

"We never deliberately target civilians.”
- Major Guy Spigelman of the Israeli army after confirming that Israeli jets bombed a home in which 11 members of one family were killed. 

Jihad Misharawi, a BBC Arabic journalist who lives in Gaza, carries the body of his 11-month old son, Omar, through al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City. (AP)

Ehud Barak, the Israeli military chief and senior terrorist suspected of being one of the high-level planners of the 9-11 terror atrocity, is once again committing war crimes in Gaza, as he did during the lame duck period after the U.S. elections in 2008.  The Israeli air force uses precision guided missiles made in America to bomb civilian targets in Gaza.  

Using these targeted bombs, Barak has already destroyed the homes and offices of the Hamas political leader and killed the head of its military by striking his car.  Because the Israeli bombs are precision guided, the question being asked is why was a bomb dropped on the house of Jihad Misharawi, the BBC's local cameraman?  Did Israel target the BBC journalist's home on purpose?

Israeli precision guided bombs provided by the U.S. government and taxpayers are being dropped on the homes of Hamas officials and journalists wiping out entire families.  How can any civilized person support such criminal atrocities?  Why are Israeli war criminals never prosecuted?  (Photo:  Yasser Gdeeh/Reuters) 

Eleven members of one family were killed on November 18 when a U.S.-made precision guided missile fired from a U.S.-made F-16 jet, paid for by U.S. taxpayers, hit the El Dallo home in Gaza. Everyone in the house was killed, all women and children, including the four youngest: Sara, 7, Jamal, 6, Yusef, 4, and Ibrahim, 2. Mr. Dallo, who was not at home, survived.  Americans cannot turn a blind eye to the egregious crimes committed with weapons paid for with their tax dollars.

The flag of Palestine was proudly raised in the midst of the Israeli-made rubble of Gaza...

as the U.S. flag was raised in the rubble of the World Trade Center.


The answer to the question of whether Israel was intentionally targeting journalists became evident when Israeli bombs struck two Gaza City media buildings, wounding six journalists and damaging facilities belonging to Hamas's Al-Aqsa TV as well as Britain's Sky News. An employee of Beirut-based al Quds television station lost his leg in the attack, medics said.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said the strike had targeted a rooftop "transmission antenna used by Hamas to carry out terror activity."  International media organizations demanded further clarification.  

Barak is clearly bombing journalists and media facilities in order to prevent the world from seeing what his forces are doing - and will be doing - to the defenseless people of Gaza. Had Barak been punished for his previous war crimes and terrorist atrocities, as international law demands, he would not be able to continue his criminal conduct.  President Obama, who was president-elect when Barak launched his criminal aggression against Gaza in 2008-2009, has utterly failed to uphold international law where Israel is concerned.  Why is it that Serbs, Croats, and Africans are the only ones who are ever charged with war crimes?  Why is Israel allowed to kill journalists with impunity?

Omar Misharawi was killed when the Israeli air force targeted his home.

The Misharawi home was hit with a guided missile that seems to have been an incendiary rather than an explosive bomb.  

The contents of the house were badly burned.

The Israeli military’s targeting of journalists is a blatant war crime and Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu should be condemned for their crimes against humanity.  It is wrong and immoral for the governments of the United States and Germany to support the criminal bombing and aggression against the defenseless population of Gaza with weapons they have provided to the rogue state of Israel.

Steve Bell of the Guardian (UK) depicts Israel's Likudnik prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the controller of British puppet politicians.  If our political leaders were not controlled by Zionist gangsters, why would they support Israel's outrageous war crimes and terror atrocities?  This is the same faction of Zionist terrorists that is behind the terrorism of 9-11 and the fraudulent "War on Terror."  It is high time for them to be charged and prosecuted for their many crimes against humanity.

Saeb Erekat of the Palestinian government on the West Bank condemned the lsraeli attacks against media outlets and journalists in the Gaza Strip.  In a press release, Erekat said that it is not the first time Israel has deliberately targeted journalists or buildings used by local and international media.

Smoke rises from an Israeli missile hitting the media building in Gaza on November 18.

“This latest attack against our people in Gaza has been permitted by the impunity granted to Israel by the international community,” he added.

At least six Palestinian journalists were injured, including Khader Zahar, who lost one of his legs, while most of the radio stations broadcasting from Gaza have been forced off air by Israeli bombardments of their antennae and equipment.

“Last Thursday, the Israeli Government Spokesperson said that there is no free media in Gaza, which is an insult to the brave journalists covering the situation from there. It would now seem that some Israelis want to make sure that there is no free media in Gaza,” Erekat said.

He called upon the international community to “take an active role in protecting Palestinian civilians, affirming that this attack on journalists and freedom of expression reflects Israel’s disdain for international law and the little value it affords the lives of Palestinians.

Jihad Misharawi mourns his son.


“Erekat Condemns Israeli Attacks against Journalists in Gaza,” Palestinian News and Information Agency, November 18, 2012 

“Gaza family wiped out by Israeli bomb,” The Telegraph (UK), by Phoebe Greenwood, November 18, 2012

“The story behind the photo: Journalist’s 11-month-old son killed in Gaza strikes,” by Max Fisher, Washington Post, November 15, 2012 

“What did my son do to die like this?” BBC News, November 15, 2012  

Israel - Apartheid Without Shame or Guilt

October 23, 2012

The hideous Israeli wall separates Palestinians from Jews and divides the Holy Land.

Israeli checkpoints prevent Palestinians from moving freely in their own country.  Jews, and cars with Jewish license plates, however, are allowed to pass without stopping.  Here a typical Israeli checkpoint near Nablus on the West Bank.  Most Americans have no idea of the brutal Israeli system of apartheid their politicians and tax dollars support. 

It's good to live in this country, most Israelis say, not despite its racism, but perhaps because of it. If such a survey were released about the attitude to Jews in a European state, Israel would have raised hell. When it comes to us, the rules don't apply.
- Gideon Levy, "Apartheid without shame or guilt"

According to a recent Israeli opinion poll:

More than two-thirds of Israeli Jews say that the 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank should be denied the right to vote if the area were to be annexed by Israel.

Three out of four Israelis support the use of segregated roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank.

A third to half of Jewish Israelis want to live in a state that practices formal, open discrimination against Israeli citizenswho are not Jewish.  An even larger majority wants to live in an apartheid state if Israel annexes the territories. 

Fifty-eight (58%) percent of the Israeli population is of the opinion that Israel already practises apartheid against Palestinians.

Only 31 percent objected to calling Israel an "apartheid state" and said "there's no apartheid at all." 

We're racists, the Israelis are saying, we practice apartheid and we even want to live in an apartheid state. Yes, this is Israel. 
Source: Ha'aretz

By Gideon Levy, Ha'aretz (Israel), October 23, 2012

As elections draw near, the season of public opinion surveys is upon us. But here is a survey that is more disturbing and significant in its revelations than those informing us whether Yair Lapid is taking off or Ehud Barak is crashing in the polls.

This one lays bare an image of Israeli society, and the picture is a very, very sick one. Now it is not just critics at home and abroad, but Israelis themselves who are openly, shamelessly, and guiltlessly defining themselves as nationalistic racists.

We're racists, the Israelis are saying, we practice apartheid and we even want to live in an apartheid state. Yes, this is Israel.

Among its terrifying results, the survey discovers a certain innocent candor. The Israelis admit this is what they are and they're not ashamed of it. Such surveys have been held before, but Israelis have never appeared so pleased with themselves, even when they admit their racism. Most of them think Israel is a good place to live in and most of them think this is a racist state.

It's good to live in this country, most Israelis say, not despite its racism, but perhaps because of it. If such a survey were released about the attitude to Jews in a European state, Israel would have raised hell. When it comes to us, the rules don't apply.

The "Jewish" part of "Jewish democracy" has won big time. The "Jewish" gave "democracy" a knockout, smashing it to the canvas. Israelis want more and more Jewish and less and less democracy. From now on don't say Jewish democracy. There's no such thing, of course. There cannot be. From now on say Jewish state, only Jewish, for Jews alone. Democracy - sure, why not. But for Jews only.

Because that's what the majority wants. Because that's how the majority defines its state. The majority doesn't want Arabs to vote for the Knesset, Arab neighbors at home or Arab students at school. Let our camp be pure - as clean of Arabs as possible and perhaps even more so.

The majority wants segregated roads in the West Bank and does not flinch in the face of the implications. Even the historic connotation does not bother it in the slightest. It wants discrimination in the workplace and it wants transfer. Enough with the whitewashing and pretense. This is what we want. Because that's the way we are.

The right will probably attack the New Israel Fund for commissioning the survey. Gevalt! It will screech. Leftists, Israel-haters. But the right's hollering will not change the result. This was done by a reliable, well-known polling firm. Besides, what's wrong with the survey? What didn't we know before, apart from the loss of shame? Let the right prove that this is not the way we are, that most Israelis want to live with Arabs. That most of them see Arabs as people like themselves, their equals in rights and opportunities. Let's see them prove it wrong. That would be a true cause for celebration.

The survey does not only confront Israelis with their present, but with their future as well. This appears to be the survey conductors' main goal. It tells them: You wanted settlements, you wanted occupation, you want Netanyahu and you've done nothing for the two-state solution, and it's died. Now let's see what's the alternative.

The alternative, as every infant knows, is one state. One state? Most Israelis say it will be an apartheid state, yet are doing nothing to prevent it. Some of them even want it. They don't even ask, Where are we going? Where are we being led? What's the vision for the next 10, 20 years? Well, if all goes well, if all continues they way it is now, the Israelis know the answer and it's a bitter one indeed.

Until then, the image of Israel 2012 is this: We don't want Arabs, don't want Palestinians, don't want equality, and the hell with all the rest.

Values-shmalues, morals-shmorals. Democracy and international law - those are matters for anti-Semites, not us. We will vote for Netanyahu again, recite that we're the only-democracy-in-the-Middle-East and wail that the whole world is against us.

The same cabal of Zionist criminals that is behind building Israel's "apartheid wall" is behind the false-flag terrorism of 9-11 and the "War on Terror."  The sooner we reject them and their monstrous ideology, the better off we will all be.

A U.S. Army soldier carves his "War on Terrorism" body count of Afghan resistance fighters his mortar team has killed as of March 9, 2002.  Most Afghans, who do not watch CNN or FOX News, do not know that the U.S. invaded their nation because of 9-11.  Do wereally know why we are there?  Source: Reuters


"Apartheid without shame or guilt," by Gideon Levy, Ha'aretz (Israel), October 23, 2012

"Israeli poll finds majority in favour of 'apartheid' policies," by Harriet Sherwood, The Guardian (UK), October 23, 2012

"Survey: Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel," by Gideon Levy, Ha'aretz (Israel), October 23, 2012 

"The Long War," slide show on the war in Afghanistan, Reuters, October 23, 2012

Iraq’s Radiation: Not Going Away

May 5, 2012

One among an unusually high number of children in Basra fighting leukemia.  A study by the University of Baghdad found that birth defects had increased tenfold in Basra two years before the invasion in 2003. The trend is still on the rise. 
Photo: Karlos Zurutuza - IPS

According to Al Jazeera, the Pentagon used more than 300 tons of depleted uranium in Iraq in 1991. In 2003, the US military used more than 1,000 tons. In 2010, depleted uranium contamination was reported to be the highest on record, yet by 2012 continuing documentation has still not resulted in any action by the US or any other responsible party towards environmental clean-up.

An April 13, 2012 article written by Karlos Zurutuza from Fallujah, Iraq, quotes hospital spokesman Nadim al-Hadidi saying:  “At Fallujah hospital they cannot offer any statistics on children born with birth defects – there are just too many. Parents don’t want to talk. Families bury their newborn babies after they die without telling anyone. It’s all too shameful for them.”

"We recorded 672 cases in January but we know there were many more," says Hadidi. He projects pictures on to a wall at his office: children born with no brain, no eyes, or with the intestines out of their body.

Facing a frozen image of a child born without limbs, Hadidi says parents’ feelings usually range between shame and guilt. "They think it’s their fault, that there’s something wrong with them. And it doesn’t help at all when some elder tells them it’s been ‘God’s punishment’."

The pictures are difficult to look at. And, those responsible for all this have closed their eyes.

"In 2004 the Americans tested all kinds of chemicals and explosive devices on us: thermobaric weapons, white phosphorous, depleted uranium...we have all been laboratory mice for them," says Hadidi, turning off the projector.  

Sources and Recommended Reading:  

Bollyn, Christopher, Series of six articles on Depleted Uranium, including "How Depleted Uranium Particles Damage Human Health," January 7, 2005

Friedemann, Karin, "Iraq’s Radiation: Not Going Away," The Muslim Observer, May 3, 2012

Zurutuza, Karlos, "Those Laboratory Mice Were Children," Inter Press Service, April 13, 2012 

The Myth of Limited Warfare with Iran

April 7, 2012

James Petras has written an excellent article, which should be read by all Americans, about the serious and likely consequences of Israeli-American aggression against Iran.  Dr. Petras’ article is entitled“U.S.-Israel War on Iran: The Myth of Limited Warfare”

I have copied a few extracts from the article below. I recommend reading this important article in its entirety. The very same Zionist madmen who brought us 9-11, e.g. Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, and Shimon Peres, are now trying to bring us World War III. 

The soon-to-be released film Battleship, produced by the Zionist-owned Hasbro company, aims to prime the public with the cinematic ideation that we are heading for an era of naval battles - and losses at sea.  The subtitle of the Zionist produced film is "The battle for Earth begins at sea."  This film is clearly meant to prepare the public for a major war - with severe losses - to be largely waged at sea by the U.S. Navy.  In reality, the alien combatant will be the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Battleship movie is a Zionist war propaganda film disguised as entertainment.  The film is produced by Hasbro, a Zionist-owned company.  For more on Alan Batkin, the Zionist agent running Hasbro, read my articles "The Zionist Gang that Bankrupted General Motors" and False Flag Alert - Will a U.S. Navy Ship be Attacked in the Persian Gulf? 

A war with Iran would pit the U.S. Navy against Iranian military forces from Day One and could result is U.S. ships being sunk with huge losses.  The U.S. Fifth Fleet is based on the tiny Persian Gulf island of Bahrain, which is politically unstable.

MOSSAD THE PROPHET - Arnon Milchan, Mossad's senior agent in Hollywood, produced The Medusa Touch, a film in which he depicted a passenger airliner crashing into a skyscraper - in 1978.  Later, in 2000, Milchan's business partner Rupert Murdoch used Milchan's idea in a very similar film made for television, The Lone Gunmen, in which a remotely-controlled hijacked airliner was flown into the World Trade Center.  Such prophetic films are designed to create the ideation and prime the public for a plot that is already in the works.  Arnon Milchan is another senior Israeli agent who should be arrested and interrogated about his prior knowledge of the 9-11 plot.

Dr. Petras is certainly not exaggerating when he describes the serious consequences of an ill-advised attack on Iran.  Here are some extracts from Dr. Petras latest article:

When the US and Israel talk of war, prepare for war and engage in pre-war provocations – they intend to go to war – just as they did against Iraq in 2003…

American and Israeli strategic policy makers do not agree on the consequences of Iran’s retaliation against an attack. For their part, the Israeli leaders minimize Iran’s military capacity to attack and damage the Jewish state, which is their only consideration. They count on their distance, their anti-missile shield and protection from US air and naval forces in the Gulf to cover their sneak attack. On the other hand, US military strategists know the Iranians are capable of inflicting substantial casualties on US warships, which would have to attack Iranian coastal installations in order to support or protect the Israelis…

Washington and Tel Aviv claim and appear to believe that their planned assault on Iran will be a “limited war”, targeting limited objectives and lasting a few days or weeks – with no serious consequences. We are told Israel’s brilliant generals have identified all the critical nuclear research facilities, which their surgical air strikes will eliminate without horrific collateral damage to the surrounding population. Once the alleged ‘nuclear weapons’ program is destroyed, all Israelis can resume their lives in full security knowing that another ‘existential’ threat has been eliminated. The Israeli notion of a war, limited in ‘time and space’, is absurd and dangerous – and underlines the arrogance, stupidity and racism of its authors…

The first wave of US-Israeli attacks will lead to ferocious retaliation, which will not be confined to the original areas of conflict, nor will any such act of Israeli aggression end when and if Iran’s nuclear research facilities are destroyed and some of its scientists, technicians and skilled workers are killed. The war will continue in time and extend geographically…

Given Israeli-US supremacy in long and medium range sea and air power, Iran will probably rely on short-range objectives. These would include the highly valued US military facilities and supply routes in adjoining terrain (Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan) and Israeli targets with missiles launched from Southern Lebanon and possibly Syria. If a few Iranian long-range missiles escape the Jewish State’s much vaunted ‘anti-missile dome’, Israeli population centers may pay a heavy price for their leaders’ recklessness and arrogance…

Iran, faced with imminent destruction of its entire economy and infrastructure (which occurred in neighboring Iraq with the unprovoked US invasion of 2003), would retaliate by blocking the Straits of Hormuz and sending short range missiles in the direction of the principle oil fields and refineries of the Gulf States including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, a mere 10 minute distance, crippling the flow of oil to Europe, Asia and the United States and plunging the world economy into deep depression…

Israel’s pathological ‘superiority complex’ results in its racist leaders consistently overestimating their own intellectual, technical and military capabilities, while underestimating the knowledge, capacity and courage of their regional, Islamic (in this case Iranian) adversaries. They ignore Iran’s proven capacity to sustain a prolonged, complex multi-front defensive war and to recover from an initial assault and develop appropriate modern weaponry to inflict severe damage on its attackers…

War, especially an Israeli-US war against Iran is indissolubly linked to the asymmetrical US-Israeli relationship, which sidelines and censors any critical US military and political analysis. Because Israel’s Zionist power configuration in the US can now harness US military power in support of Israel’s drive for regional dominance, Israeli leaders and most of their military feel free to engage in the most outrageous military and destructive adventures, knowing full well that in the first and last instance they can rely on the US to support them with American blood and treasure. But after all of this grotesque servitude to a racist, isolated country, who will rescue the United States? Who will prevent the sinking of its ships in the Gulf and the death and maiming of hundreds of its sailors and thousands of its soldiers? And where will the Israelis and US Zionists be when Iraq is overrun by elite Iranian troops and their Iraqi Shia allies and a generalized uprising occurs in Afghanistan?

… How cheap has it become to ‘buy a war’ in the US? For a mere few million dollars in campaign contributions to corrupt politicians, and through the deliberate penetration of Israel-First agents, academics and politicians into the war-making machinery of the US government, and through the moral cowardice and self-censorship of leading critics, writers and journalists who refuse to name Israel and its agents as the key decision makers in our country’s Mid East policy, we head directly toward a war far beyond any regional military conflagration and toward the collapse of the world economy and the brutal impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people North and South, East and West.

Sources and Recommended Reading:

Bollyn, Christopher, "False Flag Alert - Will a U.S. Navy Ship be Attacked in the Persian Gulf?" January 27, 2012

Bollyn, "The Zionist Gang that Bankrupted General Motors," June 16, 2009

Bollyn, "Arnon Milchan - 'Mr. Israel' and 9/11," October 4, 2011

"U.S.-Israel War on Iran : The Myth of Limited Warfare" by Prof. James Petras,, April 5, 2012

Israeli General's Son on the Demise of the Zionist State

March 9, 2012

Miko Peled, the son of the famous Israeli general Mattiyahu Peled, has continued his late father's struggle to find a way for Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace with justice.  Miko Peled has recently written a book entitled The General's Son

Miko Peled has made a very good video, about 29 minutes long, in which he explains the three fundamental myths of the modern Israeli state.  Peled's father, a member of the general staff during the 1967 war, realized the need for the creation of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza after the war.  The hard-line extremist Zionists, however, rejected General Peled's sage advice in 1967 and Israel has followed a rejectionist path ever since; a path that is leading to the demise of the Zionist state, as his son explains.  Since 1977 Israel has been ruled primarily by the Likud, a political party created by Menachem Begin and the former terrorists of the Irgun and other radical groups.  The fact that Israel is ruled by a political party created by terrorists is seldom discussed in the tightly-controlled U.S. media.

I highly recommend viewing this excellent video on the myths and demise of the Zionist state as explained by an intelligent Israeli who knows what he is talking about.


Recommended Reading:

Obituary of General Matti Peled, The Independent (UK), March 16, 1995 

False Flag Alert - Will a U.S. Navy Ship be Attacked in the Persian Gulf?

January 27, 2012

"False flag terrorism" occurs when elements within a government stage a secret operation whereby government forces pretend to be a targeted enemy while attacking their own forces or people. The attack is then falsely blamed on the enemy in order to justify going to war against that enemy. 
"False Flag Terrorism",

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that US aircraft carrier USS Enterprise would be returning to the Middle East next month and would position itself in the Persian Gulf after sailing through the Strait of Hormuz. He also stressed that currently there were two other US warships in the Persian Gulf and added that the Enterprise's addition carries a "clear message" to the Islamic republic of Iran.
"Continuation of US Presence in the Persian Gulf: Islamic Republic Retreats from Strategy of Threats" , Payvand Iran News, 24 January 2012

Ships entering the Persian Gulf pass through Iranian waters in the Strait of Hormuz.  The U.S. 5th Fleet is based in the Persian Gulf on the island state of Bahrain, which is ruled by a brutal dictatorship of the Al Khalifa family.

Video Link -

There is surely a very real - and increasing - danger of a false-flag attack on a U.S. Navy vessel in the waters around Iran.  As the two-minute video above explains, a false-flag attack on the USS Enterprise, or any other U.S. ship, could be carried out and blamed on Iran in order to garner public and international support for a pre-planned U.S./Israeli military action against Iran.  Because the risk of such a deceptive false-flag attack is currently very high, it is extremely important for the public to understand the possibility of such an attack in the hope that greater public awareness could prevent it from occurring.  

Is the release of the sci-fi film Battleship , the source of the scenes in the video, a C.I.A./Israeli psy-op on the public?  I wouldn't doubt it for a minute.  The film is produced by Hasbro Studios, a subsidiary of Hasbro.  Alan R. Batkin, the former vice chairman of Kissinger Associates and treasurer of PEC Israel Economic Corp., is on the board of directors of Hasbro - and the Recanati family's Israeli-run Overseas Shipping Group (OSG).  Oudi Recanati, who is on the OSG board with Alan Batkin, is the primary donor and chairman of the board of the Mossad's Inter-Disciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya.  Such high-level connections with Israeli military intelligence are anything but coincidental when false-flag terror attacks are being planned. 

Alan Batkin's friend Oudi Recanati...

is chairman and primary donor of Mossad University - the IDC.  

Sources and Recommended Reading:

"Continuation of US Presence in the Persian Gulf: Islamic Republic Retreats from Strategy of Threats", by Bahram Rafiei, Payvand Iran News, 24 January 2012

"End of the year interview with Oudi Recanati", IDC Herzliya

"Enterprise underway for final qualifications", The Florida Times-Union, 25 January 2012 

"False Flag Terrorism",, 27 January 2012 

"Panetta Touts Carrier’s Agility in Visit to Enterprise", by Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Scott Pittman, American Forces Press Service, 22 January 2012

Gilad Atzmon vs The Elders of Zion

November 24, 2011

People like Nick Griffin and Gilad Atzmon have no place on our campuses. They may pose as champions of free speech, but their presence only serves to whip up hatred and divide student communities. 
- Dan Sheldon, Union of Jewish Students (UJS) Campaigns Director, U.K. 

We feel that it is very irresponsible of the Friends of Palestine to invite this man to speak, and completely unacceptable that they did not respond to our objections. We have invited all members of the society to join us in our protest, as well as all rational students who oppose racism and hatred. We hope our protest will help prevent future events like this from being permitted at Exeter University.
- Ben Salamon, President of Exeter J-Soc

Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born writer ( author of The Wandering Who ) and jazz musician who examines issues surrounding Jewish identity, the so-called "Jewish State of Israel", and Zionism.  Recently, Atzmon was invited to speak at Exeter University in England where he was met by a group of Jewish students who protested against his speaking at the university.  On his arrival, Atzmon asked to speak to the group of protesters.  He began by asking if any of them had read his work.  Amazingly, as the video below shows, not one of the university students engaged in the protest could say that they had read his books or essays.  Why would Jewish university students protest against an Israeli author whose work they had not even read? 

Video Link -


The anti-Atzmon protesters at Exeter University are not protesting against Gilad Atzmon because they know anything about his writings.  The Jewish students are not even thinking for themselves.  They are simply protesting because they belong to a Jewish student organization and were told to protest and given signs to hold.  These students belong to a Jewish student cell, known as a J-Soc, which is part of the Union of Jewish Students (UJS)/Hillel, a subsidiary organization of the B'nai B'rith, the international order of Zionist Jewish Freemasons. 

The UJS/Hillel is the organization behind the anti-Atzmon protest at Exeter...

Hillel is part of the B'nai B'rith, an exclusive "brotherhood" of Jewish Freemasons.
Source:  B'nai B'rith International

It is important to understand that the B'nai B'rith, the real-life Elders of Zion, is the secret organization of Jewish Freemasons behind the student protests against Gilad Atzmon and other voices critical of Zionism and Israeli policy.  The B'nai B'rith is the Zionist parent organization of Hillel on college campuses around the world.  But it should be noted that the B'nai B'rith is a secret organization of Jewish Freemasons and certainly can not claim to represent all Jews or even all Zionists.  

As the Hillel webpage says about its relationship with UJS: 

UJS Hillel works closely with the UK’s Union of Jewish Students (UJS), providing UJS both financial and administrative support. Together, UJS Hillel and UJS ensure that every Jewish student has access to a warm and welcoming space to explore their Jewish identity and programs to inspire meanginful Jewish experiences.

Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli intellectual who was born in Jerusalem and raised in the Jewish state, is clearly a voice that is not welcome in that "warm and welcoming space" that UJS Hillel seeks to provide every Jewish student exploring their Jewish identity in Britain.  This is because Atzmon examines the racist and chauvinistic attitudes that Zionism is based on.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is another important subsidiary of the B'nai B'rith.  While Hillel focuses on promoting Israel and censoring anti-Zionist voices on college campuses, the ADL carries out the same agenda in the media and society.  The ADL actually indoctrinates local police departments across America and uses defamation tactics to smear citizens who speak out against Israeli policies.  I have been vilified and persecuted by such ADL tactics since 2001.  

The parent organization behind Hillel and the ADL, the International Order of the B'nai B'rith, is a secret organization of Jewish Freemasons founded in New York City in 1843.  This is the core group of powerful Zionists that operates behind the scenes for its own benefit.  This is the hidden hand that ordered Jewish students to protest against Gilad Atzmon at Exeter.  This is also the same powerful secret cabal that through its control of the media and politicians is demanding tougher sanctions and military action against Iran.  In these heady times it is essential for Jews and non-Jews to perceive the hidden power that is beating the drums of war and which is behind the censoring of anti-Zionist voices at college campuses.


Bollyn, Christopher, "B'nai B'rith - The Secret Society of Jews", 22 November 2009

"Free from hate: Jewish students stand up against Finkelstein, Atzmon and Griffin, and all in the same week!",, 9 November 2011

"Hillels Around the World",, 23 November 2011

Is Syria Next?

Updated November 21, 2011

Whether you're Democrat or Republican, if you're an American you ought to be concerned about the strategy of the United States in this region. What is our aim? What is our purpose? Why are we there? Why are Americans dying in this region? That is the issue.
- General Wesley Clark on the U.S./Zionist war policy in the Middle East, October 2007

Is Syria the next nation targeted by the West for regime change? Will the United States and its NATO allies use military force to remove Bashar al-Assad from power? Is there a long-standing plan to use force to change the regime of every nation in the Middle East that is opposed to the U.S./Zionist hegemony in the region?

Syria has actually been in the Neo-Con crosshairs since 9/11 when a "policy coup" occurred at the Pentagon, according to General Wesley Clark. The fact that Syria has been targeted by the United States and Israel was made clear by their blatant attempts to wrongly blame Syria for the assassination of Rafik Hariri. When that scheme failed the same powers sought to exploit the Arab Spring protests to foment regime change in those nations that are among the target nations: Syria, Iran, and Libya.

The Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri, who did so much to rebuild Beirut, was murdered in a mysterious bombing on February 14, 2005. With no evidence to support the accusation, the Zionist-controlled media blamed Syria for the killing - a good indication that this was yet another Israeli false-flag terror attack/targeted killing.

Bahrain, on the other hand, under the rule of King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, is most certainly not a target nation - because it is an ally of the United States. The United States supports the tyrannical Khalifa regime in Bahrain because it hosts the U.S. 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf. This means that the anti-regime protest movement in Bahrain has not received any moral support from the United States government or media. In Bahrain, the U.S. government has actually supported the violent crackdown on the protesters. Today, Martin Chulov of the Guardian reports that some 20 Bahraini medics who provided medical help to protesters during the uprising in Bahrain have been sentenced to up to 15 years in jail. Will the U.S. government come to the defense of these doctors who have been punished for helping the injured?


The Zionist Neo-Con agenda articulated by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon post-9/11 was to overthrow the regimes of 7 nations in five years. 9/11 was a false-flag terror attack designed and carried out in order to usher in this radical policy change. Wesley Clark described his shock at discovering this imperialist agenda during a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in October 2007.

The Huffington Post had asked Clark in January 2007 what made him so sure that the United States is headed in the direction of attacking Iran, and he replied: “You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”

It is certainly true that "New York money people" are leading the push to use U.S. military force to aggress Iran. The very same "money people" were also involved in both 9/11 and the trillion dollar bail-out of A.I.G., Goldman Sachs, and other corrupt investment banks. Two former bosses of Goldman Sachs, Jon Corzine and Bradley Abelow, are behind the latest financial fraud - the missing $600 million from MF Global. The people behind the criminal network that is destroying America are known, but because our law enforcement agencies are also corrupt and controlled there is no action taken to stop them. How can we stop a criminal organization that controls the White House, Congress, the U.S. Department of Justice - and the FBI? This is the question that needs to be answered if we are to avoid a major war in the Middle East - with Iran and Syria.

"What happened on 9/11... We didn't have American understanding of it and we had instead a policy coup in this country. A coup. A policy coup. Some hard-nosed people took over the direction of American policy and they never bothered to inform the rest of us."
- General Wesley Clark, 3 October 2007

Video Link -

The following video explains the current situation in Syria and provides insights into how the protest movement may have been exploited to create an armed conflict, bringing the nation to the verge of a civil war:

Video Links -

Sources and Recommended Reading:

Bollyn, "Syria Wrongly Blamed for Hariri Murder", 9 September 2010

Bollyn, "The Revolution Spreads to Bahrain - Home of U.S. 5th Fleet", 17 February 2011

Bollyn, "The Crackdown in Bahrain and American Opposition to War on Terror", 17 March 2011

Bollyn, "The Fleecing of America: 9-11 and the Crisis on Wall Street", 26 September 2008

Bollyn, "Ptech, 9/11 and the Financial Collapse", 13 March 2009

Guttman, Nathan, "Top Dem Wesley Clark Says ‘N.Y. Money People’ Pushing War With Iran", 12 January 2007

Meyssan, Thierry, "The Plan to Destabilize Syria",, 19 June 2011

Hillary Clinton & the Murder of Moammar Gadhafi

October 24, 2011

"We came, we saw, he died."
- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the murder of Moammar Gaddafi, 20 October 2011

Hillary Clinton and her gang from the State Department unexpectedly arrived in Libya on October 18, carrying millions of dollars in cash and announcing to the world that the hunt for Moammar Gaddafi was on.

"WE HOPE HE CAN BE CAPTURED OR KILLED SOON" - Clinton said in Tripoli on 18 October 2011 - only two days before Gaddafi was murdered - after being captured alive. Was Clinton announcing the opening of the hunt for Moammar Gaddafi? Was the cash she brought - some $11 million - the bounty?

Clinton was jubilant over the murder of Moammar Gaddafi. This is very telling behavior. Was Clinton involved in state-sponsored assassination? It certainly appears she has broken U.S. law, which is quite clear: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."
Video Link -

I would not be surprised if the French and Americans are actually targeting Gaddafi personally. He knows too much for them to let him live - and talk about it.
- Christopher Bollyn, March 2011

I would have loved to have seen Gaddafi appear in front of the International Criminal Court both to answer charges against his gross treatment of his own people and of citizens murdered abroad by his thugs. But I would also have loved to have heard about what Gaddafi knew about the Lockerbie atrocity.
- Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the Lockerbie bombing, Daily Mail, 21 October 2011

Moammar Gadhafi was captured alive - and then executed.
(Source: The Independent)

Moammar Gadhafi, the former leader of Libya, was executed after being captured alive near his hometown of Sirte. Video footage shows a bloodied Qaddafi pleading for his life before asking the fighters who captured him, "Do you know what's right or wrong?"

Press reports indicate that he was targeted by French and U.S. aircraft and drones shortly before being captured. Why was Gadhafi summarily executed? Who wanted him dead before he could be put on trial? What does this say about NATO and the people who will take control of Libya?

Video images show that Gadhafi was captured alive, before being shot at close range in his left temple, reportedly with a 9 mm pistol. "Don't shoot!" are reported to have been his last words. Who shot him - and why? (Graphic - Daily Mail)

Two days before Gadhafi was murdered, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton openly called for his death speaking in Tripoli during a surprise visit to the war ravaged nation:

"We don't know where he is, but we hope he can be captured or killed soon so that you don't have to fear him any longer, and then you have to move forward."
- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking to students at the University of Tripoli, 18 October 2011

A video clip on the murder of Moammar Gaddafi:

Video Link -

Sources and Recommended Reading:

Bollyn, Christopher, "Gaddafi's Ties to Rothschild & Jewish Oligarchy", 26 March 2011

Bollyn, "The Zionist (NATO) War for Libya", 29 August 2011

Bollyn, "Gaddafi, Mossad, and the Looting of Libya", 7 September 2011

Bollyn, "Video of NATO's Use of Cluster Bombs in Libya", 27 September 2011"

Gaddafi's death - who pulled the trigger?" by Tim Gaynor and Taha Zargoun, Reuters, 20 October 2011

"Hillary Clinton Wants Gaddafi Killed" by Shirin Sadeghi,, 19 October 2011

The Freed "Hiker" Josh Fattal's Israeli Roots

Updated September 27, 2011

"The only reason we have been held hostage is because we are American," Josh Fattal (left) said after he was released from Iranian custody. Although Fattal is also an Israeli national with an Israeli father, a connection which most likely played a role in his bizarre decision to "hike" across the Iraqi border into Iran, it is never mentioned in the controlled media.

Joshua Fattal (left) with his father, mother, and brother Alex. His father, Jacob S. Fattal, is an Israeli citizen and Josh visited Israel just before he went "hiking" in Iraq near the Iranian border. Did his Israeli connection play a role in his decision to hike near the Iranian border?

After the Iranian authorities released Joshua Fattal and Shane Bauer, two of the three American "hikers" who were arrested after allegedly crossing into Iranian territory while hiking in Iraq in 2009, the Jewish Exponent of Philadelphia felt the time was right to release the story about Joshua's hidden Jewishness. See "The Untold Story of Josh Fattal"

This is what the Jewish Exponent wrote about his father's Israeli roots:

But one aspect of the story that has largely gone unreported is the fact that Fattal is Jewish.

Josh's father, Jacob Fattal, was born in Iraq and moved to Israel before ultimately settling in the United States. Josh Fattal became a Bar Mitzvah at Rodeph Shalom's suburban campus. He traveled to Israel several times, the last time just before meeting up with his friends in Syria and going on to Iraqi Kurdistan, where they crossed the border to Iran and were arrested.

The fact that Joshua Fattal is Jewish is not as important as the fact that his father Jacob is an Israeli who was born in Basra, Iraq in 1947*. This would make Joshua an Israeli national by virtue of the fact that his father is an Israeli citizen. (The Fattal family name is well known in Israel. Fattal's hometown of Elkins Park also happens to be the hometown of Douglas Feith and Benjamin Netanyahu, when he lived in the United States.)

Joshua also travelled to Israel immediately before he went to Damascus to meet his fellow hikers. This raises the question whether Fattal's Israeli connection played a role in his ill-advised decision to hike in a war zone on the border of Iran? Was it part of a Zionist plan to provoke a reaction that would put Iran in a bad light? How could his Jewish/Israeli parents let him go off hiking in a war zone? Whose stupid idea was this foolish and provocative act?

Joshua Fattal and his mother, Laura Felleman Fattal.

Iran was criticized for having arrested the "hikers" who entered Iran illegally. How would the U.S. have treated Iranians in a similar situation?

Video Link -
Joshua Fattal - Israeli/American rapper in Kurdistan 2 days before "hiking" to Iran

* Jacob Fattal's Israeli roots are no secret. has the following information about him from his father-in-law, Carrol A. Felleman (my notes in parentheses):

Name: Jacob FATTAL
Sex: M
Birth: 28 DEC 1947 in Basra, Iraq
Occupation: Publisher of an electronics trade paper 1
ADDR: 405 Shoemaker Road / Elkins Park, Pennsylvania 19027 /
Death: in Israeli 1 (this is confusing, perhaps it means previous citizenship)
Marriage 1 Living FELLEMAN (Laura Rachel Felleman Fattal)
Living FATTAL (Alexander)
Living FATTAL (Joshua)
Title: Personal Correspondence from Carroll Alfred Felleman to Robert Teitelbaum, 27 Febuary 2003


"The Untold Story of Josh Fattal" by Bryan Schwartzman, The Jewish Exponent, 22 September 2011

Obama, Palestinian Statehood, and International Law

Updated September 24, 2011

“We are choking on the American double standard. America supported the movements for freedom in Egypt, Tunis, Libya and Yemen, but this stops when it comes to the Palestinian people. We are asking, why?”
- Palestinian engineer, Muhammad Ali in Ramallah, Washington Post, 23 September 2011

President Mahmoud Abbas hands the application for recognition of an independent Palestinian state and for full membership of the United Nations to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

It is a moment of truth and my people are waiting to hear the answer of the world. Will it allow Israel to continue its occupation, the only occupation in the world? Will it allow Israel to remain a State above the law and accountability? Will it allow Israel to continue rejecting the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice and the positions of the overwhelming majority of countries in the world? ...

I say: The time has come for my courageous and proud people, after decades of displacement and colonial occupation and ceaseless suffering, to live like other peoples of the earth, free in a sovereign and independent homeland.
- Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to UN, 23 September 2011

Mahmoud Abbas was met by a standing ovation at the UN headquarters when he held up the Palestinian application for full membership as a state. The American delegation, grim-faced, sat on their hands. The Obama administration had been working very hard, and to no avail, to persuade the Palestinians not to apply. (Source: BBC)

Meanwhile Israeli snipers took aim with American-supplied weapons at Palestinians at the Qalandia checkpoint between occupied Jerusalem and Ramallah on September 23, 2011. (L.A. Times)


"One year ago, I stood at this podium and called for an independent Palestine. I believed then – and I believe now – that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own."
- President Barack Obama, Speech to UN General Assembly, 21 September 2011

Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law, on the bid for Palestinian statehood:

This week, President Obama has attacked the Palestinian UN membership bid as a 'distraction' and Secretary of State Clinton has claimed the U.S. 'strongly supports' the two-state solution but that the 'way of getting a lasting solution is through direct negotiations between the parties.'

Negotiations with the Israelis were Plan A, but as I have advised the Palestinian leadership since 1987, Plan B would be to get UN full membership. The Israelis have refused to negotiate in good faith for all these years, so the Palestinians have now implemented Plan B. Far from being a distraction, a Palestinian UN bid would greatly enhance Palestinian rights. A UN member state of Palestine would be in a perfect position to bring Israeli officials before the International Criminal Court for their criminal attacks on Palestinians and illegal settlement activity. And every Palestinian living around the world would automatically become the citizen of a UN member state that is recognized by almost every state in the world. Palestinians would no longer be considered ‘stateless.’

Many have claimed that if the U.S. does indeed veto the Palestinian UN bid, the only option would be for the Palestinians to pursue upgrading Palestine’s current observer status at the UN. This is incorrect. As Palestinian diplomats have recently noted, they can get the U.N. General Assembly to admit Palestine as a UN member state pursuant to the terms of its Uniting for Peace Resolution 377 (1950). So Obama’s veto at the Security Council can be circumvented by the General Assembly through the Uniting for Peace Resolution, which was actually pioneered by the U.S. during the Korean War.

-Francis A. Boyle, Professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign

Francis Boyle was legal advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Chairman Yasser Arafat on the Palestinian Declaration of Independence of November 15, 1988, as well as to the Palestinian delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations and its Chair Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaffi from 1991 to 1993.

Francis A. Boyle is the author of Palestine, Palestinians and International Law

"We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines..."
- President Barack Obama, 19 May 2011

What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace...

The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

...the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. And now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.

- President Barack Obama, 19 May 2011

Source: "U.S. Vetoing Palestinian State It Claims to Support", 16 September 2011

Video of NATO's Use of Cluster Bombs in Libya

September 27, 2011

The following video clip is said to be raw video of a massive and terrifying cluster bomb dropped on Brega, Libya by NATO forces. Some have claimed it was a strike on an ammunition depot.

Video Link -

Use of cluster bombs in Libya presents a clear legal challenge for those nations that have ratified the Convention on Cluster Weapons. Many of the members of NATO have ratified this treaty which specifically prohibits their participation in any activity that uses these banned weapons. Some NATO member states that are taking part in the bombing of Libya, such as Denmark, France, Norway, and the United Kingdom, have ratified the treaty. For such States Parties to the Convention to participate in a NATO military campaign using cluster bombs clearly violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the treaty.*

The Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) prohibits the use, transfer, and stockpile of cluster bombs, which scatter "bomblets" over a large area. The CCM went into force on 1 August 2010. Currently, 63 states have ratified it (purple) including Britain, France, Norway and Denmark, NATO member states that are participating in the bombing of Libya. States that have signed the Convention but have not yet ratified it are in blue.

States that have ratified the Convention on Cluster Weapons are legally bound to this obligation:

Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:

(a) Use cluster munitions;

(b) Develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, cluster munitions;

(c) Assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.

It should be noted that Denmark, Norway, France, and Britain are among the NATO member states participating in the aerial bombardment of Libya. These states are therefore assisting in an illegal "activity", i.e. the use of cluster weapons, which is prohibited to them as States Parties to the Convention.

The current Secretary General is Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former prime minister of Denmark. Because Rasmussen is currently the head of NATO, Denmark is clearly obliged to charge Rasmussen, as a citizen of Denmark bound to its laws, under Article 9 of the CCM:

Each State Party shall take all appropriate legal, administrative and other measures to implement this Convention, including the imposition of penal sanctions to prevent and suppress any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention undertaken by persons or on territory under its jurisdiction or control.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Secretary General of NATO

* Note: The CCM provides the following legal loophole for States Parties to violate the spirit of the treaty when engaged in illegal NATO "gang activity":

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1 of this Convention and in accordance with international law, States Parties, their military personnel or nationals, may engage in military cooperation and operations with States not party to this Convention that might engage in activities prohibited to a State Party.

Source: Convention on Cluster Munitions, Dublin, 30 May 2008

Gaddafi, Mossad, and the Looting of Libya

Updated - September 7, 2011

Colonel Gaddafi has reportedly left Libya in a convoy of trucks loaded with gold and cash.  Burkina Faso is a country with very close ties to the Mossad, Israel's foreign secret service.  The president of Burkina Faso, Blaise Compaoré, is a Honorary Member of the Raoul Wallenberg Foundation, a Mossad operation where Yosef Maiman is one of the directors.  Burkina Faso is one of Israel’s most loyal friends in Africa, according to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Daily Mail (UK) is reporting that Colonel Gaddafi fled Libya during the night of September 6-7 in a 250-strong armed convoy including lorries full of gold and cash.  The deposed tyrant, who ruled Libya for 42 years, was reported to be travelling towards the impoverished west African state of Burkina Faso, which has said it would give him sanctuary, in a deal brokered by South Africa. 

U.S. military officials said one of the Libyan convoys numbered between 200 and 250 vehicles and was escorted by Niger army personnel, according to a news report in The National of the Arab Emirates.


According to the Daily Mail report, "intelligence officials suggested an extraordinary agreement had been brokered by South Africa and France, acting on behalf of Nato, to ‘prevent further widespread bloodshed’ by allowing Gaddafi and his family to leave. Libya’s new leaders from the National Transitional Council refused to confirm the deal but were said to have ‘signed off’ on the agreement which allowed the toppled dictator to spend no more than 72 hours in transit passing through Niger, a poor and landlocked former French colony to the south of Libya. Gaddafi’s son and one-time heir apparent, Saif al-Islam, is said to have accompanied his father, together with lorries laden with gold and cash."
- "Has Gaddafi fled with looted gold? Tyrant and his son 'cross Libyan border with lorries full of cash'", by David Williams, Daily Mail (UK), 7 September 2011
If the convoy of looted Libyan gold and cash reaches Burkina Faso it is very likely that it will only be the conduit through which it will soon be on its way to France and Israel.  The president of Burkina Faso is an "honorary member" of the Raoul Wallenberg Foundation, an Israeli Mossad organization "founded" by the Argentinian Israeli Boruj (Baruch) Tenembaum.  Burkina Faso is one of the poorest nations in the world, where half the population lives on less than $1 per day.  Gold is its main export.

Baruch Tenembaum (left), founder of the Raoul Wallenberg Foundation, with Peter Zvi Malkin, the renowned Mossad agent who kidnapped Adolf Eichmann in Argentina. 

Another photo of Tenembaum with Zvi "Peter" Malkin (left), a high-level Mossad agent based in New York City.  Malkin played an architectural role in the planning of the false-flag terror attacks of 9/11.  To understand the role of Zvi Malkin in preparing the ground for 9/11 read "The Architecture of Terror".  Source: Raoul Wallenberg Foundation

Documents found in the office of Libya's secret service show that the regime of Moammar Gadhafi worked very closely with the C.I.A. and Britain's MI6. The Libyan secret service received individuals kidnapped by the C.I.A., interrogated, and tortured them -- for the C.I.A.

Video Link - 

"Libya - Year Zero" reads the headline of Liberation on September 1, the day of the Paris conference on the future of Libya.

The paper reports on a secret agreement with the rebels to allow France to exploit 35 percent of Libya's oil sector, a deal that was obtained last April, in return for France's recognition and support.  Three days ago, Italy, another partner in the anti-Gaddafi NATO coalition, announced an agreement with the rebels on a gas pipeline deal. Libyan oil output was about 1.3-1.4 million barrels per day before the conflict but could soon reach 1.6 million b/d of high-quality, light crude.  What secret deals were made with the other partners: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Britain and the USA?  Now we can see the real motivation for the NATO war in Libya, and their haste to wrap it up...

Video Link -

WANTED BY NATO - NATO has ordered all available surveillance aircraft, including British spy planes, to focus on tracking Gaddafi. NATO actions in support of the rebels have clearly exceeded the mandate of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, the resolution which authorized military intervention in Libya.

The rescue of Benghazi mutated, as did the Iraq venture, into a wider war to remove a regime no longer to Britain's liking. Aid of every sort was given to the rebels, from political and diplomatic support to training, logistics and reportedly battlefield leadership in the attack on Tripoli.

Throughout the campaign, the British government has said it is "for the Libyan people to decide their own fate" and its involvement would end once a tyrant had departed the scene. That was naive. Britain has, with Nato, most emphatically decided the fate of the Libyan people. It has brought anarchy in the place of order, hoping that anarchy will be brief. It cannot disown the consequences.
- "Libya is not an advertisement for intervention", Guardian (UK), 26 August 2011

NATO’s top commanders may have acted under color of international law but they are not exempt from international law. If members of the Gaddafi Regime are to be held accountable, NATO’s top commanders must also be held accountable through the International Criminal Court for all civilian deaths resulting from bombing. Otherwise we will have witnessed the triumph of a new international gangsterism.
- Dennis Kucinich, "Libya and beyond: How did we get there and what happens next?", 26 August 2011

Presently, ZATO is performing mass murder upon the people of Libya, who don’t have the proper banking scheme and whose leader wanted to organize the African nations to protect their resources and reject the debt enslavement, visited upon them by London bankers and assorted true vampires in search of plunder, death and destruction, in any order; it doesn’t matter. ZATO is the Zionist Alliance for Total Occupation. It has been misidentified for a long time as The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Even a casual observation of their activities over recent times will disabuse you of the notion that they work for anyone but the central bankers of London and Tel Aviv. New York City is a secondary location that is controlled by the aforementioned.
- "ZATO and the Wannabe Whores of Babylon", 22 August 2011

Libya’s rebel National Transitional Council (NTC) is ready to recognise Israel, according to French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who says he has passed the message on to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
- "Libyan rebels will recognise Israel, Bernard-Henri Lévy tells Netanyahu", 2 June 2011

Thierry Meyssan, founder of the Voltaire Network, was among the foreign journalists reporting from the Rixos Hotel in Tripoli.  Meyssan was interviewed by Russia Today earlier in the week.  In the RT interview Meyssan says that U.S. and British intelligence agents were posing as journalists among those staying at the Rixos.  He also described how intense NATO aerial attacks have been carried out during the night to open the way for the rebel fighters in the NATO-led war against Moammar Gaddafi.  Meyssan reported that the NATO-supported rebels tried to arrest him when he was evacuated from the Rixos Hotel by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The journalists who had been trapped since Sunday inside the hotel Rixos were evacuated in the evening of 24 August 2011.

Video Link -

The British media has reported that British special forces (SAS) are on the ground and are assisting the coordination between NATO and the rebels.  Defence sources have confirmed the SAS has been in Libya for several weeks, and played a key role in coordinating the battle for Tripoli.  Only six of the member nations of NATO are reportedly participating in the war for Libya.  In what must be a first, Danish and Norwegian fighter jets have been involved in the bombing of Tripoli.  Sweden, a secret member of NATO, sent fighter jets to support the NATO bombing effort and prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said on August 22 that he is ready to discuss the possibility of sending Swedish troops to Libya. 

Besides Sweden, the seven official NATO members involved in the military intervention are the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Denmark, and Norway.  NATO's Arab allies in the war effort include Jordan, Qatar, and the Emirates.

The Zionist agent Bernard Henri Levy (left) has played a key role in managing the NATO war for Libya.  Here Levy is seen with Libyan rebel leader Mahmoud Jibril

A "Friends of Libya" conference has been organized by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron. The high-level conference will be held in Paris on September 1 to discuss the future of Libya.  The following video, entitled "The Libyan Rebels and the Israeli Connection", focuses on the role played by the French Zionists Bernard Levy and Nicolas Sarkozy in NATO's war for Libya.

Video Link -

Sources and Recommended Reading:

Bollyn, Christopher, "Gaddafi's Ties to Rothschild & Jewish Oligarchy", March 26, 2011

Jenkins, Simon, "Libya is not an advertisement for intervention", Guardian (UK), 26 August 2011

Kucinich, Dennis, "Libya and beyond: How did we get there and what happens next?", 26 August 2011

Libya Dossier,

"Libyan rebels will recognise Israel, Bernard-Henri Lévy tells Netanyahu", 2 June 2011, RFI (France)

"Libya Updates: The suffering of CNN's Matthew Chance ends after 3 days without caviar" by Les Blough, Axis of Logic, 25 August 2011 

Nasser, Nicola, "Sarkozy's U-turn on Franco-Arab ties", 31 May 2007

Thorne, John, "Qaddafi's inner circle flee to Niger", The National, 7 September 2011

Williams, David, "Has Gaddafi fled with looted gold? Tyrant and his son 'cross Libyan border with lorries full of cash'", Daily Mail (UK), 7 September 2011

Willsher, Kim, "Libya: Bernard-Henri Lévy dismisses criticism for leading France to conflict", The Observer (UK), 27 March 2011

"ZATO and the Wannabe Whores of Babylon", 22 August 2011

U.S. Troops Executed Iraqi Civilians

September 2, 2011

This cell phone photo by a resident of Ishaqi from 15 March 2006 shows the bodies of Iraqi children executed by U.S. troops. The bodies of the five children are wrapped in blankets and laid in a pickup. A State Department cable quotes the U.N. investigator saying an autopsy showed the residents of the house had been handcuffed and shot in the head, including children under the age of 5.

"This is where the monsters come from. The same monsters who will be policing our streets if martial law ever comes to America." (They already are.* CB)
- Reader response to "WikiLeaks cable: U.S. troops handcuffed, shot Iraqi children in raid"

From a report by Matthew Schofield of McClatchy Newspapers:

A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi...

The cable also backs the original report from the Joint Coordination Center, which said U.S. forces entered the house while it was still standing. That first report noted: "The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 persons, including five children, four women and two men. Then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed their animals."

* One of the comments below the Raw Story piece about this massacre talked about the "monsters" that have been created by this war.  Two of the Hoffman Estates undercover cops who brutally attacked me at my home in 2006 were Iraq War veterans (Military Police) who acted like they were on a military mission, not a police task.  The first question I asked when I addressed the police chief the day after I was assaulted was:  "What is the military background of these men?"  Just imagine what American society will be like when 200,000 more of these traumatized vets come home.  We will undoubtedly see many more family tragedies like the mass murder by a vet in Virginia and Pennsylvania last week.  Many of these vets will become COPS because that is the kind of training they received in the military.  This is a loss that can not be counted.

Capt. Leonard Egland killed his estranged wife and three others before committing suicide on August 27. Captain John Leonard Egland was an 18-year U.S. Army veteran who had served extended missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. 

A reader comments: 

Spot on.  Men faced with the brutality of unjust conflicts suffer unquantifiable psychological damage.  My older brother was Marine Special Forces.  His job was to dig out the Vietcong from their wormlike caverns.  When he finally returned home intact (feeling guilty about his brethren shipped in pine boxes) I was instructed as a teenager to awake him for breakfast.  When he didn't answer calls and door knocks I entered his room.  He immediately leapt from his bed and pinned me to the ground.  His fist was inches from my face and his other hand was choking me as I tried to remind him I was his brother,not his enemy.  He came to his senses finally and simply uttered that I should never awake him again. 

I've seen what false wars do to good men. You have my support.  B.K.


Ferguson, David, "WikiLeaks cable: U.S. troops handcuffed, shot Iraqi children in raid",, 1 September 2011

King, Larry, "Army veteran's violent breakdown bucks demographics", Philadelphia Inquirer, 30 August 2011

Schofield, Matthew, "WikiLeaks: Iraqi children in U.S. raid shot in head, U.N. says", McClatchy Newspapers, 31 August 2011  

Why the Israelis Reject Peace

May 20, 2011

Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu are two of the chief architects of the false-flag terror attacks of 9/11.  They should be arrested on charges of terrorism and mass murder in the United States.  Barak was Netanyahu's commander in the Sayeret Matkal.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud party is in Washington to meet President Obama and address the AIPAC conference, which begins on May 22.  As Netanyahu meets U.S. politicians and speaks to the media, there is one clear statement from his party's platform that must be kept in mind:

“The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

This sentence is from the official platform of Netanyahu’s party, the Likud.  Scroll down to the section called "Self-Rule" to see for yourself.  The meaning is very clear:  Likud and its political leaders are fundamentally opposed to peace because all of the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel are “west of the Jordan river.”  Why is the Israeli government's categorical rejection of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan not discussed in the U.S. media?  This is certainly not a new position by the Likudniks.  Why does Obama pretend to be seeking a peace settlement with a party he knows will reject any Palestinian state out of hand?  Why are we even talking with these people?  The Likudniks are the real terrorists.  Is that not clear to everyone?

The platform of Netanyahu's Likud government rejects a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.  This uncompromising position shows that the real obstacle to peace is the Israeli government.

While in Washington, Netanyahu is likely to repeat his demand that all Palestinian factions recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which is tantamount to national suicide for Palestinians because it means throwing their legitimate claims and rights into the garbage.  What will it take for Netanyahu and his Likud party to acknowledge the right of Palestinians to live free of Israeli military occupation?  Why don't American politicians demand that Likud change its platform, which rules out any territorial compromise with the Palestinians for peace?

For all the money that U.S. taxpayers give Israel, isn’t it time that American voters learned about the Likud's political platform that prevents Israel from making peace with the Palestinians?  Isn't it time Americans realized that Netanyahu and his party of terrorists are the real culprits behind the false-flag terrorism of 9/11?

The Likud party was created by the notorious terrorist Menachem Begin in 1973.  The Likud was formed with his former terrorist comrades from the Irgun militia, which bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946.  When Begin came to power in 1977 he began his secret plan to bomb the World Trade Center.  The former Mossad chief Isser Harel was already talking about the 9/11 terror plan in 1980. 

Michael D. Evans is a Zionist Jew who poses as a Christian missionary. Here Evans meets with Menachem Begin, the former terrorist head of the Irgun who ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel. Evans was told by Mossad chief Isser Harel of the plan to bomb the World Trade Center in 1980, about the time of this photo.  Osama Bin Laden was only 20 years old when Begin became prime minister of Israel. 
See:  "America the Target: 9-11 and Israel's History of False Flag Terrorism"


A State for Palestine

July 19, 2011

If Israel does not like the two-state solution, they must treat the historic Palestine as one single state and give the vote to all the people of that state, including in Gaza and the West Bank.
Mikael Grut to The Guardian, July 7, 2011

Will the United States vote to accept a Palestinian state when the question comes before the United Nations in September?  How can the U.S. government claim to accept a two-state solution in Palestine if it does not even recognize the sovereign rights of the Palestinian people?  Why are the Palestinians forced to accept Israel as a Jewish state when the United States and Britain do not accept the national rights of the native non-Jewish population?  A recent letter by Mikael Grut in The Guardian, entitled "A State for Palestine" puts this crucial question in the clearest of terms:

I do hope that the UK representative to the UN will vote for Palestinian statehood if the matter comes up there in September, and that the UK itself will then also recognise the Palestinian state (Israel warns Palestinians over UN bid, June 24). Hamas is blamed for not recognising Israel, and yet we have not yet recognised Palestine, although the Palestinians declared their state already in 1988, and it has been recognised by some 130 countries, including all the Brics countries. So let's join the world and not slavishly follow Israel and America. 

I can't think of a single reason why the Palestinian state should not be recognised. When the UN gave away 55% of Palestine to the Zionists in 1947, surely the intention was that two states would result from that? When we talk of the "two-state" solution, surely we mean that Palestine should be one of those states?

If Israel does not like the two-state solution, they must treat the historic Palestine as one single state and give the vote to all the people of that state, including in Gaza and the West Bank.

Mikael Grut
London, UK

Israelis Leaving the Promised Land

June 28, 2011

Instability and difficult living conditions in the Zionist state of Israel have caused a growing exodus of Jews from the Promised Land.  One out of five Russian immigrants to Israel have already returned to Russia, and many thousands of Israelis live permanently in the United States.  Russia Today aired a 3 and a half minute video on 25 June 2011 on the increase among Israelis seeking to obtain foreign passports and emigrate from Israel to Europe and the United States. 



Petition for No-Fly Zone over Gaza

April 28, 2011

Due to YouTube censoring of the video, two new links are posted.

Anthony Lawson made the following short video to urge people to sign the petition calling for the U.N. Security Council to Establish a "No Fly Zone" over Gaza under the United Nations' principle of "Responsibility to Protect." 

I did not see anything offensive or objectionable about Lawson's video and do not understand why they have censored it. 

Anthony Lawson uploaded his video, "No-Fly Zone over Gaza — Petition" at:

I had found an alternative link, which is posted below.

Gaddafi's Ties to Rothschild & Jewish Oligarchy

Updated - March 26, 2011

Saif Gaddafi, left, son of Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi and friend of Nat Rothschild talks to Oleg Deripaska at an exhibit of Libyan art in Moscow, 28 June 2010.  Why has the Gaddafi family invested billions of dollars with Zionists such as Rothschild and Deripaska?

Meeting place: Oleg Deripaska's yacht is moored outside the Rothschild estate on August 24, 2008, in Corfu, Greece. (Source - "Brown denies Mandelson 'did a final favour for Russian oligarch Deripaska'", Daily Mail, 27 October 2008)

Jacob Rothschild's villa on Corfu. Britain's Business Secretary Lord Mandelson reportedly stayed on Deripaska's yacht because there was no place for him at the Rothschild mansion.

Why has Muammar Gaddafi, the mercurial dictator of Libya, invested in Zionist-run companies with the likes of Nat Rothschild, Oleg Deripaska, and Marc Rich?  Is Gaddafi truly the pro-Arab strongman he pretends to be - or is his image all just a facade? 

Gaddafi business partner Oleg Deripaska

If we follow the money we find that Gaddafi, said to be "Libya's last Jew", is a close business partner with the biggest Jewish/Israeli oligarchs of Russia and Europe.  These odd connections may explain Vladimir Putin's criticism of the allied military intervention against the Madman of Tripoli, calling it a "crusade" to defend the people of Libya from Gaddafi's guns.  Putin is a close friend of Oleg Deripaska, owner of RusAl, the metal giant in which Gaddafi is invested.  Why would an Arab leader, who claims to be an anti-Zionist, invest billions of dollars in Zionist-owned companies?

 Vladimir Putin with Oleg Deripaska, said to be the richest man in Russia and a member of the Kremlin elite.


It has now been revealed that Muammar Gaddafi of Libya has at least 1 billion Euros invested in Sweden, some of it in a Russian-owned aluminum company named Kubal, which is owned by Oleg Deripaska, one of Russia's wealthiest oligarchs.  Swedish public radio (SR) reported on March 22 that Kubal of Sundsvall is one of the Swedish companies that Gaddafi's Libyan Investment Authority is invested in.

Svenska Dagbladet reported on March 21 that Gaddafi owns 1.5 percent of Kubal, which is actually called Kubikenborg Aluminium.  Kubal is Sweden's only aluminum smelter and is owned by the Russian steel company Rusal.  Gadaffi has about 1.5 percent ownership stake in Rusal, which is controlled by the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

Dejan Lucic of the former Yugoslavia has posted an article entitled "The Rothschild Octopus" by Vlada Sindjelic that explains how the Rothschild family and Oleg Deripaska have colonized Montenegro and acquired its most valuable mineral assets.  Montenegro shares a border with both Albania and Kosovo.  Kosovo is the landlocked NATO statelet where the rich Trepca mine is located.   

See "Goodbye Monaco, Hello Montenegro" in The Sunday Times (2008) and "The £5 billion reason Rothschild knifed his friend George in the back", London Evening Standard (2008)

Sindjelic claims that Deripaska is a Khazar (Ashkenazi Jew from Khazaria):

Montenegro - Terra Rothschildiana

The arrival of Rothschilds’ delegation soon after the referendum (which was carried out
by those very Rothschilds), meant the branding of one of the oldest Serb countries with “colonized”. Jacob and Nathaniel Rothshild thus obtained another colony. Today, Montenegro is completely owned by Khazar companies run by the Rothshilds. The pattern is the same. As elsewhere in the region, colonization is carried out by the Rothschilds. Next to them are “Russian” businessmen, Soros...
There are ports to be appropriated, and natural resources, metallurgical plants, tourist capacities...

An important role in the colonization of Montenegro was played by Oleg Deripaska, a Khazar multimillionaire from Russia. Nathaniel Rothschild himself has boasted of having excellent relations with him. As one of Rothschild branches, Deripaska’s company Rusal bought KAP (The Aluminium Plant Podgorica). Through its affiliate Salamon, it took over the bauxite mine in Niksic. It should be mentioned that Rusal and Glencore often act together. The Austrian company Strabag, in which Deripaska has a lare part, has bought over the Crnagoraput company. Tourist premises are being purchased as well as attractive pieces of seaside land, building land... 

Gaddafi's investment in Kubal and Rusal is most likely a result of the Gaddafi family's close connection with Nathaniel "Nat" Rothschild (see below).  As the New York Times reported in its 9 March 2007 article entitled "The Man Who May Become the Richest Rothschild":  "Mr. Rothschild is a principal adviser to Oleg Deripaska, one of the richest oligarchs in Russia and the owner of the aluminum giant Rusal, which recently merged with two other companies to create the world’s largest aluminum company."

British politico George Osborne, left, Oleg Deripaska, and his business adviser Nat Rothschild, the source of the claim that the Russian billionaire was approached for an illegal £50,000 donation.
Source - "Osborne fights for survival as Rothschild defends bombshell letter that put Tory in hot water", Daily Mail, 22 October 2008

Nat Rothschild is a shadow director at Rusal, where Israeli/South African Ivan Glasenberg sits on the board of directors.  Glasenberg, who has worked for Marc Rich since 1984, has been CEO of Glencore since 2002.  Two of Glencore's Israeli/Belgian metal traders came to New York in 1999 to create an international trading division at Hugo Neu, the Rothschild/Mossad-linked metal trading company that managed the destruction in Asian smelters of the steel (evidence) from the World Trade Center. 

SUAL CEO Viktor Vekselberg, left, RUSAL's Oleg Deripaska, center, and Glencore's Ivan Glasenberg after signing the 2006 agreement merging the assets of RUSAL, SUAL, and Glencore.  Why has Gaddafi, who claims to be opposed to Israel, invested untold billions of dollars from Libya's oil fund with Jewish and Israeli oligarchs who support Israel's Mossad?  Is he really crazy or is it all an act? 


The intervention by French, British and U.S. military forces comes too late for many people in Libya, especially those who have been killed and wounded by forces loyal to the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.  The rebels in Libya have been strenuously calling for support from the United Nations and the Western democracies since their revolt against Gaddafi began.  In this video a Libyan civilian points out that the weapons being used by Gaddafi against his people came from Western democracies.  "All the world - the Americans, the French, Italy - all the world helped Gaddafi.  Gave him guns, from all the world.  For what, oil?" 

Why were Western democracies selling weapons to the dictator who, they all agreed, had bombed PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988?  Why were they supporting a terrorist?  How much sense does it make for Western democracies to arm a tyrant who has bombed their planes and civilians?  What was Gaddafi doing for them to earn such treatment?



President Nicolas Sarkozy was on very friendly terms with Muammar Gaddafi until the Libyan dictator began his violent attacks on pro-democracy rebels.  Sarkozy then began to support the Libyan revolutionaries and led the call for military intervention.  Saif Gaddafi, the dictator's son, claims that Libyan money funded Sarkozy's 2007 presidential campaign.

Saif Gaddafi, the son of the Libyan dictator, said in a recent interview with EuroNews that Muammar Gaddafi had funded the election campaign of Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France.  Gaddafi's claims were made in response to a question about Sarkozy's call for a no-fly zone in Libya. 


Gaddafi’s son, who has lied to the press before, had been asked for his opinion of Sarkozy, who has recognized the revolutionary national council of the rebels based in Benghazi and called for military intervention in Libya: 

Sarkozy must first give back the money he took from Libya to finance his electoral campaign.  We funded it and we have all the details and are ready to reveal everything. The first thing we want this clown to do is to give the money back to the Libyan people. He was given assistance so that he could help them. But he’s disappointed us: Give us back our money. We have all the bank details and documents for the transfer operations and we will make everything public soon.

Nicolas Sarkozy's former presidential election campaign head has rejected claims by Muammar Gaddafi's son that they received funding from Libya.  French Interior Minister Claude Gueant, the president's chief adviser for four years, told French radio station Europe 1 that if the Libyans had such incriminating material about Sarkozy's campaign funding, instead of "saying it all the time, they should just go ahead and do it".


This Islamist card proved to be quite a handy tool for most Arab dictators and for the west as well; whenever things ran unexpectedly out of hand or when danger of political unrest or domestic opposition loomed...
- Dr. Ashraf Ezzat, "ARAB UPRISINGS: Time to Quit Playing al Qaeda’s Card"

"It is obvious now that this issue is run by al-Qaeda."
- Muammar Gaddafi on the popular uprising in Libya.

“One of our biggest concerns is Libya descending into chaos and becoming a giant Somalia...It's right now not something that we see in the offing, but many of the al-Qaeda activists in Afghanistan and later in Iraq came from Libya and came from eastern Libya, which is now the so-called free area of Libya.”
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 2 March 2011
"Clinton's Biggest Fear: Al Qaeda Rising In Libya"

"Al Qaeda commander calls for Islamic rule in Libya"
The Washington Times published an article on March 13 about the "top Libyan al Qaeda commander" urging Libyans to overthrow Col. Gaddafi’s regime and establish Islamic rule. The video and translation were provided to the U.S. press by the Israeli disinformation outfit "SITE Intelligence Group" headed by Mossadnik Rita Katz. The image is said to be Abu Yahya al-Libi, an official in al Qaeda's Shariah Committee, addressing Libyans in a video speech released on jihadist forums on Saturday, March 12, 2011. (AP Photo/SITE Intelligence Group)

Mossad's Rita Katz runs SITE Intelligence Group, an Israeli Mossad disinformation source that lets one "Monitor Jihadist Threats & Trends", for only $29.99 per month.  I discovered that several entries in the U.S. Public Records Index for the Israeli agents Rita and Ari M. Katz had been pulled from the index, which is extremely unusual. The purged public records for Rita and Ari Katz in Potomac and Gaithersburg, Maryland, are found at the bottom of this article.

As U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Paris to discuss possible responses to the anti-Gaddafi revolt in Libya, notice how the controlled media seeks to frame the choice facing Western leaders in Libya.  Clinton says she fears Al Qaeda coming to power in Libya while the Israeli disinfo outfit "SITE Intelligence Group" provides a video supposedly showing a "top Libyan al Qaeda commander" calling for Islamic rule in Libya.  The choice is made easy:  Either Libya becomes a terror state run by Al Qaeda or we accept the continued dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi.  The Washington Times article, entitled "Al Qaeda commander calls for Islamic rule in Libya", included this plug for the brutal dictator: "Col. Gadhafi also has helped the United States track al Qaeda and other terrorist suspects in the region."

While the U.S. and NATO allies dally and dither about the need to have a legal basis to impose a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from using aircraft to kill Libyan rebels, we should recall that they had absolutely no problem imposing no-fly zones in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia without any such legal basis.  Why are they now suddenly so circumspect and slow to act in Libya?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secretary general of NATO, said the organisation has agreed to do nothing to support the rebels in Libya.  NATO's position is reported to be a victory for the U.S. and Germany, which are opposed to any military intervention. The European Union's foreign policy chief Baroness Ashton of Britain warned EU leaders against backing a no-fly zone over Libya.

The following article sheds some light on why Zionist-controlled politicians dither on the crisis in Libya and reveals some of Gaddafi's most powerful allies -- and they include the Rothschild family and their state of Israel.

*   *   *   *   *


Muammar Gaddafi is a Jew, according to his Israeli relatives.  This would explain his close connections to the Rothschild family and the Mossad.

During a discussion on Israel Radio they just dropped this little tidbit. There is a Jew left in Libya.  His name is Muammar Gadhafi.
- "You won't believe this...Gadhafi's mother was Jewish", Carl in Jerusalem, 22 February 2011

Of his early life little is known, and even less is certain. He was born, it is said, in Sirte, a desert town, the son of a goatherd. Other versions suggest that his real father may have been French, and his mother Jewish.
- "Colonel Gaddafi is turning into a mellow megolamaniac" (comments), The Telegraph, 13 June 2009

Colonel Gaddafi's close ties to the Rothschild family and the Mossad make complete sense when we consider the fact that he is a Jew, the son of a Jewish mother, according to a report aired on Israeli television.  How much oil money has the brutal Libyan dictator secretly stashed away in Israeli banks?

When an Arab journalist told me that Muammar Gaddafi was Jewish and that his mother's relative lived in Israel and had been on Israeli television, I thought it must be some kind of joke.  But it's not.  Here is the Israeli program in which his second cousin and another relative explain that the "Madman of Libya" is actually a Jew.  According to the relatives' testimony on this show, there is no question that Gaddafi is a Jew under Jewish - and Israeli law.  Gaddafi's Jewish blood explains his very close connection to the Rothschilds and their preferred intelligence agency - the Mossad.  Now it all makes sense.  This is also what my Algerian friends have been saying for years about the rulers of Algeria; both Libya and Algeria are oil-rich Jewish dictatorships that oppress the people and steal the wealth.

An Israeli television program in which Gaddafi's Jewish roots are discussed, by his second cousin in Israel.  "With a Jewish Grandma, and a Jewish Mother, Gaddafi may seek refuge in Israel", according to Israel Insider.

The Israeli television program discusses Gaddafi's Jewish mother and grandmother.  This is how Israel Insider explains the connection:

Israel’s Channel 2 News last year interviewed two Israeli women of Libyan origin who claimed to be relatives of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Israel Today's Ryan Jones reminds us.

The older of the two interviewees, Guita Brown, claimed that she is Gaddafi’s second cousin: her grandmother was the sister of Gaddafi’s grandmother. The younger of the two women, Rachel Saada, Brown's granddaughter , explained in more detail: “The story goes that Gaddafi’s grandmother, a Jewess, was married to a Jewish man at first. But he treated her badly, so she ran away and married a Muslim sheikh. Their child was the mother of Gaddafi.” While Gaddafi’s grandmother converted to Islam when she married the sheikh, according to Jewish religious law (and common sense), she was ethnically still Jewish. And that makes Gaddafi's mother a Jewess. And if Gaddafi's mother is a Jewess, what does that make Gaddafi?

At that point in the news report, the anchor exclaimed, “So, the point is that Gaddafi doesn’t just have Jewish relatives, he is Jewish!”

That may come in handy. According to Israel's Law of Return, anyone with a Jewish grandparent is entitled to become a citizen, no questions asked.


Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who is seen as the Libyan dictator's most likely successor, was also a guest of billionaire financiers Jacob and Nat Rothschild at their Corfu villa where the Business Secretary stayed a week...days before it emerged that the Lockerbie bomber was to be freed.
"Mandy and the Lockerbie bomber and ANOTHER 'coincidence' in Corfu", Daily Mail, 18 August 2009

Swinging London is but one hub of Gadhafi Inc. - a useful networking site where the Rothschilds were able to point Saif Gadhafi to investment opportunities in marina complexes in Montenegro.
"Gadhafi's stolen billions stashed in London" Daily Telegraph, 25 February 2011

The evidence indicates that Muammar Qaddafi, who controls the largest oil reserves in Africa, works closely with the Rothschild family and the Mossad.  This makes complete sense, if, as the Israeli television program reported, Qaddafi is actually a Jew.

"Fighter aircraft were bombing civilians on the streets of Tripoli, this is unprecedented violence."
- Ali al-Essawi, Libyan Ambassador to India, 22 February 2011

Gaddafi’s youngest son Khamis was reportedly bringing mercenaries from African countries to fight against anti-regime protestors.  Identity cards from Guinea, Niger, Chad, Mauritania and Sudan were found on individuals wearing Libyan uniforms and killed in the eastern city of Benghazi and other locations.
- Using Mercenaries to Quell Libya Revolution

A video image of one of Qaddafi's mercenaries who was killed...

...while other suspected African mercenaries stand in a room in a court in Benghazi as they are held by anti-Qaddafi protesters, February 24, 2011.

The Qaddafi family is closely tied to and invested with the Rothschild family, which raises the question:  Is Muammar Qaddafi, the brutal and mercurial Libyan dictator, working with Israel's Mossad?  The evidence suggests that he is.  We need to remember that the Mossad works hand-in-hand with the Rothschild family, which controls global mining and oil production operations.  Libya has the largest proven reserves of oil in Africa and exports about 1.5 million barrels per day and has important refineries that supply essential petroleum products to Europe. 

Major pipelines of Libya - Green lines are oil, red are gas

Let's look at the evidence that Qaddafi is working with the Rothschild family and their intelligence agency, the Mossad.

First, Libya invested a reported $500 million into Allen Stanford's money laundering operation that was exposed two years ago this month to be a scam in which some $8 billion disappeared.  Stanford's operation, based in Antigua and Houston, was one in which senior Mossadniks were both investors and recipients of investments from Allen Stanford.  The Israeli venture capital funds which received millions of dollars from Stanford are all closely linked to the Mossad.  Yair Shamir, the son of the infamous terrorist leader Yitzchak Shamir, was one of the investors in Stanford's "bank" in Antigua.  

Yair Shamir (inset), the son of the notorious Zionist terrorist Yitzchak Shamir, is chairman and managing partner of the Catalyst Fund, a Mossad venture capital fund that received tens of millions of dollars from the Allen Stanford money-laundering operation.  Shamir was also an investor in the Stanford bank. 

Qaddafi invested the $500 million in Stanford's operation three weeks before the fund collapsed owing investors some $8 billion.  The Stanford bank was reportedly a Mossad money-laundering operation funded with illegal drug profits.  Libya, however, has never made a claim for the lost $500 million.  Why would Qaddafi invest half a billion dollars in a Mossad-linked scam and not ask for the money back? 

Secondly, there is the Rothschild connection to Qaddafi, through his son Saif.  As the Daily Mail reported on February 24:

The friendship of oddball financier Nat Rothschild, 39, scion of one of Europe’s most distinguished Jewish families, with Colonel Gaddafi’s epicene son, Saif, is remarkable.  Colonel Gaddafi confiscated all Jewish property in Libya when he came to power. All debts to Jews were cancelled and emigration legally prohibited.  But in 2004 – the year Tony Blair befriended the Libyan madman – Gaddafi said he would discuss compensating Jews stripped of their possessions.  It’s said Saif – who hoped to succeed his father – was behind these moves.  A sop to Nat Rothschild?

Nat Rothschild works closely with the Qaddafi family.


The Daily Telegraph published an article entitled "Gadhafi's stolen billions stashed in London" that points out the Gadhafi family ties with the Rothschilds:

This was painfully revealed when Saif, a supposed friend of the West, spoke on Libyan television this week. Saif took the awkward manner of an international plutocrat, forced only by circumstances out of his usual exalted milieu of Blairs, Deripaskas, Mandelsons and Rothschilds, to address Libya's "little people"...Swinging London is but one hub of Gadhafi Inc. - a useful networking site where the Rothschilds were able to point Saif Gadhafi to investment opportunities in marina complexes in Montenegro.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan dictator

In a profile piece on Saif Gaddafi, The Observer provides more details about the Gaddafi family's close ties to the Rothschild family:

Saif is an acquaintance of Lord Mandelson and met the former Labour minister at a Corfu villa [of Jacob Rothschild] the week before it was announced that the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, would be released from a Scottish prison. The two men met again when they were guests at Lord Rothschild's mansion in Buckinghamshire.

Rothschild's son and heir, Nat, also a close friend of Mandelson, held a party in New York attended by Saif in 2008. Saif in turn invited Nat Rothschild to his 37th birthday party in Montenegro, where the financier is investing in a luxury resort.

Saif Gaddafi met with Lord Mandelson (left) and Jacob (4th Baron) Rothschild (center) at Rothschild's villa in Corfu in August 2009, one week before it was announced that the "Lockerbie bomber" would be released from prison.  Rothschild's father (Victor, the 3rd Baron Rothschild) worked in British intelligence during World War II in disinformation and espionage. Victor is alleged to have been a Soviet spy, which led him to state in December 1986, "I am not, and never have been, a Soviet agent."

Then there is the fact that Tony Blair serves as an adviser to Muammar Qaddafi. But who is Blair serving? It is well known that Blair is a Zionist-controlled politician who has sacrificed hundreds of British lives in the criminal fraud known as the "War on Terror". The Daily Mail reported in July 2010 that Blair had secret talks with Qaddafi in Tripoli:

Tony Blair was flown to Libya for secret talks with Colonel Gaddafi just days after denying he was an adviser to the dictator.  Mr Blair was 'entertained as a brother', a senior Libyan government source has revealed.  He told the Daily Mail that the former prime minister had offered Gaddafi, with whom he is on first-name terms, 'a great deal of invaluable advice'.

Mr Blair is said to be on first-name terms with the Libyan dictator and was treated like a 'brother' on his visit, according to the Daily Mail (U.K.)...

...although Britain officially blamed Qaddafi for the terror bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. "There was, however, nothing remotely real or convincing (let alone any kind of pattern) in the case against Megrahi", Paul Foot concluded in his special report Lockerbie:  The Flight from Justice about the flawed process that convicted Abdelbasset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi, an official in Libyan intelligence, for the bombing.

Tony Blair is just one of the many Zionist-controlled politicians who have embraced the madman of Tripoli.  Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, for example, who is very close to Qaddafi, was given the "Distinguished Statesman Award" by the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith in September 2003.  If Qaddafi were really the terrorist behind Pan Am 103, would Berlusconi and all these other Zionist-controlled western leaders be allowed to embrace him as a friend?

Lastly, there is the claim made by Victor Ostrovsky in his books about the Mossad that Israeli agents based in Tripoli had sent messages that appeared to have been sent by Qaddafi's government.  These counterfeit messages were picked up by American intelligence and were used to build their case against Libya.  If Mossad was running such sophisticated intelligence operations in Libya in the 1980s it is more than likely that their penetration of Qaddafi's government had deepened in the 25 years since.  The evidence strongly indicates that is the case.


The revolt and bloodshed in Libya will certainly lead to the end of the 42-year-old regime of Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi and his thugs.  There is very little television footage coming from Libya, but the BBC Newhour program (of February 20) had an excellent telephone interview with a young Libyan woman named Sarah, in Tripoli.  This is a very powerful and moving interview that helps one understand what is really happening in Libya.  The interview with "Sarah in Tripoli" begins shortly after minute 26 and 30 seconds into the program.  One can use the time button and begin listening at 26:30.

The interview can be heard on the BBC World Service website here:

Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi has been dictator of oil-rich Libya since 1969

Gaddafi and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy are quite close.  Libya has many investments in Italy, the Guardian reported, "These include a stake of about 2% in Fiat, 7.5% of Juventus football club, a 2% stake in – and joint venture with – Italian aerospace and defence group Finmeccanica and 7.5% in UniCredit, the bank."

Britain's Tony Blair, who is controlled by Zionist money, was quite willing to embrace the madman of Libya - the same Arab tyrant who is said to have been behind the terror bombing over Lockerbie.  How much sense does this make?

Qaddafi with Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France.  Qaddafi's son claims that Libyan money bankrolled Sarkozy's election campaign.

Gaddafi and President Obama shaking hands

Hillary Clinton with Mutassim Gaddafi, one of his sons.

Notes:  Public Records Index entries for Israeli agents Rita and Ari M. Katz were evidently pulled from the index in 2008, which is extremely unusual. The public records for Rita and Ari Katz that were removed are the following: 

Name: Rita Katz
Birth Date: 1964
Street address: 11803 Tifton Dr
City: Potomac
County: Montgomery
State: Maryland
Zip Code: 20854
Phone Number: 301-299-3409
Record Number: 445536393

U.S. Public Records Index
about Ari M Katz
Name: Ari M Katz
Street address: 11803 Tifton Dr
City: Potomac
County: Montgomery
State: Maryland
Zip Code: 20854
Phone Number: 301-299-3409
Record Number: 445537115

U.S. Public Records Index
about Rita Katz
Name: Rita Katz
Birth Date: 1964
Street address: 23 Saddleview CT
City: Gaithersburg
County: Montgomery
State: Maryland
Zip Code: 20878
Phone Number: 301-610-9499
Record Number: 579987357

Sources and Recommended Reading:

"You won't believe this... Gadhafi's mother was Jewish",, 22 February 2011

Facts on Libya: Oil and Gas, International Energy Agency, 21 February 2011

Lockerbie:  The Flight from Justice, by Paul Foot, Private Eye Magazine, London 2001

By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer, by Victor Ostrovsky, St. Martin's Press 1990

Who Really Controls Our Political Parties?, by Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9/11

"Lord Mandelson runs the country - from Corfu", The Telegraph, 7 August 2009

Dovkants, Keith, "The £5 billion reason Rothschild knifed his friend George in the back", London Evening Standard, 24 Oct 2008

"Mandy and the Lockerbie bomber and Another 'coincidence' in Corfu", by Tim Shipman and Sam Greenhill, The Daily Mail, 18 August 2009

"Saif al-Islam Gaddafi: The new face of Libyan defiance", by Jamie Doward, The Observer,, 26 February 2011

"Oddball banker's friendship with Gaddafi's son is remarkable," by Ephraim Hardcastle, Daily Mail Online, 24 February 2011

"Allen Stanford: A Libyan Connection?" by Matthew Goldstein, Business Week, 30 March 2009

Campbell, Matthew, "Goodbye Monaco, hello Montenegro", 31 August 2008

"Stanford International Bank became a new BCCI,", 25 July 2010 

"Libya's oil money has made it major world shareholder", The Guardian, 21 February 2011

"The Rothschilds and their 200 years of political influence", by Andy McSmith, The Independent (U.K.), 23 October 2008

Sindjelic, Vlada, "The Rothschild Octopus",

The Crackdown in Bahrain and American Opposition to "War on Terror"

Updated - March 17, 2011 - U.S. Support for Bahrain Crackdown

Bahraini protesters man makeshift roadblocks in Manama. Bahraini and foreign troops used lethal force on March 16 to remove protestors from Manama's financial district, killing at least 6.  (AFP-James Lawler Duggan)

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is escorted by Bahrain's Minister of State for Defense Mohammad bin Abdullah Al-Khalifa, upon arrival in Manama, Bahrain on 11 March 2011.  Three days later the crackdown on the pro-democracy protestors began in earnest.

The brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protestors in Bahrain's Pearl Square left some 300 injured.  Government troops besieged the hospital where the injured were being treated and reportedly beat several doctors.  

Key U.S. allies in the "War on Terror", Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, and Libya are all dictatorships, like Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, that continue to use lethal force against pro-democracy protestors with nary a word of protest coming from the Obama administration.  Is this how the United States supports pro-democracy movements in the Middle East? 

It is quite clear, judging by the actions of the Obama administration, that the U.S. does not really support democratic change or governments in the Middle East; quite the contrary.

When, for example, the Palestinians held free and fair elections in January 2006 -- the winner was Hamas, who won 74 seats in the 132-seat Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). The second place winner was Fatah with only 45 seats. This gave Hamas the majority and the ability to form a majority government on their own.  The results did not suit the Israelis, who ordered the United States to ignore the election results, ban Hamas, and support the unelected Palestinian Authority.  This is what the U.S. has done for the past five years.

It should be abundantly clear that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with creating democracies in the region.  This is simply the lie that is fed to the American people who are forced to fight and support these costly and illegal wars of conquest and occupation.

What is the real reason for Obama's war in Afghanistan?  Why does he continue to wage a costly and unpopular war against the wishes of the American and Afghan people -- and the government of Afghanistan?  What kind of democracy wages war against the will of its people?   

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting, the highest proportion yet opposed to the conflict, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say President Obama should withdraw a “substantial number” of combat troops from Afghanistan this summer, the deadline he set to begin pulling out forces. Only 39 percent of respondents, however, say they expect him to withdraw large numbers.

Why is there such a huge gap between what Americans want their government to do and what they expect it will do?  How is it that a representative democratic government can wage costly foreign wars of conquest and occupation against the will of the people?  With such a disconnect between the will of the people and the government can it still be said that the United States of America is truly a functioning democratic republic?   

The U.S.-led military presence in Afghanistan has also come under sharp criticism from the Afghan government. Over the weekend, after a NATO bombing killed nine children, Afghan President Hamid Karzai demanded that international troops “stop their operations in our land.”  

The overwhelming majority of Americans are now opposed to the 10-year-old war and the president of Afghanistan demands that U.S. forces "stop their operations in our land."  In the face of such strong opposition, why does this war go on?  Who is President Obama serving? 

Nearly three-quarters of the public thinks a substantial number of U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Afghanistan this summer. But fewer than four in 10 think it will happen.  How can there be such a disconnect in a representative democracy?

Sources and Recommended Reading: 

"Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say Afghan war isn’t worth fighting"
Washington Post, 15 March 2011

Bollyn, Christopher, "Dying in Vain - Why Afghanistan?", 8 February 2010

Bollyn, "TAPI Pipeline - The Real Reason for 4 More Years of War", 20 December 2010

Bollyn, "Obama's Deception - 9-11 and Afghanistan", 5 June 2009

Bollyn, "The Spoils of War: The Minerals of Afghanistan", 7 January 2002

Bollyn, "Afghanistan - Obama's War for Israel", 6 July 2010


The Revolution Spreads to Bahrain - Home of U.S. 5th Fleet

February 17, 2011

Manama, Bahrain: Without warning, hundreds of heavily armed riot police officers rushed into Pearl Square Manama early on Thursday, firing shotguns, tear gas and concussion grenades at the thousands of demonstrators who were sleeping there as part of a widening protest against the nation's absolute monarchy.

At least five people died, some of them reportedly killed in their sleep with scores of shotgun pellets to the face and chest, according to a witness and three doctors who received the dead and at least 200 wounded at a hospital here. The witness and the physicians spoke in return for anonymity for fear of official reprisals.

The U.S. Ambassador to Bahrain is J. Adam Ereli, an Israeli national who I have written about in previous articles.  Ambassador Ereli fled to Washington in January 2011 as the pro-democracy protests rocked Tunisia and Egypt.  Ereli knew that Bahrain was ripe for a popular revolution and he decided to retreat to the United States.  It is difficult to imagine that the police crackdown on the peaceful and sleeping pro-democracy protestors was not approved by the U.S. Ambassador to Bahrain.  Attacking peaceful people while they sleep in the middle of the night is a cowardly police action typical of the Israeli military.  It will come as no surprise to find that the U.S. Ambassador to Bahrain is actually an Israeli whose father was a Zionist terrorist in the Haganah.  A democratic government in Bahrain would threaten the U.S. military presence in Bahrain and jeopardize the Zionist hegemonic plans for the region.

U.S. Ambassador to Bahrain Joseph Adam Ereli (right) is an Israeli and the son of a Hagana terrorist.  Ereli acts as Israel's point man in Iraq, where he oversees U.S. policy in the region.

As I wrote about Joseph Ereli in my article "The Israeli Who Runs the Obama White House" in November 2008 (confiscated by agents of U.S. military intelligence in March 2009):

Ereli oversees U.S. policy in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. Why do Americans allow Israelis to hijack U.S. foreign policy? Why is Ereli's Israeli nationality not considered a threat to national security? Why does the controlled media ignore the many Israeli dual-nationals in positions of power in the U.S. government?  Ereli's father, Eliezer Kaplan (changed to Ereli) fought with the Zionist terrorist organization, the Hagana.  This son of an Zionist terrorist has been controlling U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East for two decades.  Like the other Israelis I have exposed: Rahm Emanuel, Michael Chertoff, and Daniel Samuel Senor, this U.S. official is an agent produced by the Israeli military intelligence network that was sent to the United States in the 1950s. These people are Zionist agents who were raised to control the U.S. government. This is very serious infiltration that cannot be ignored by real Americans.  We can't allow foreign agents in high places to destroy our country.

The U.S. Ambassador to Yemen, where there have been strong pro-democracy protests, is another Zionist Jew, Gerald Feierstein.  Yemen is a nation where the Israeli Mossad has long run a false-flag terror operation known as Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.  Feierstein has served as Principal Deputy Assistant Coordinator and Deputy Assistant Coordinator for Programs in the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism from 2006-2008. He also served as Desk Officer for Nepal, Pakistan, and Egypt; Deputy Director in the Office of Arabian Peninsula Affairs; Director of the Office of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh Affairs; and as Director of the Office of Regional Affairs in the Near East Bureau. 

Gerald M. Feierstein, U.S. Ambassador to Yemen


"Crackdown on protesters in Bahrain's Pearl Square; 5 dead", by Michael Slackman and Nadim Audi, New York Times, 17 February 2011

"Bahrain anti-government protesters clash with police – in pictures", The Guardian, (U.K.) 17 February 2011

Embassy of the United States, Manama, Bahrain

"The Israeli Who Runs the Obama White House" by Christopher Bollyn, 6 November 2008 (originally posted on the now defunct, my website that was confiscated and destroyed by agents of U.S. intelligence in March 2009)

"Pro-American Monarch - King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifaa", Embassy Row, by James Morrison, The Washington Times, 15 February 2011

Biography of U.S. Ambassador Gerald Feierstein, U.S. State Department, 17 February 2011

Mubarak - U.S. Funded Dictator Falls

Updated - February 13, 2011 

The writing on the wall is clear - the many long years of Hosni Mubarak's brutal tyranny are over.
- Christopher Bollyn, 27 January 2011

After 18 days of steadfast protests against the U.S.-backed Mubarak regime, the 30-year-old dictatorship of Egypt ended on February 11...

giving great hope to the long-suffering people of Egypt.

We aim to achieve reform and rights for all: not just for the Muslim Brotherhood, not just for Muslims, but for all Egyptians.
- Essam El-Errian, "What the Muslim Brothers want", New York Times, 9 February 2011

Neither the United States nor Europe, not to mention Israel, will easily allow the Egyptian people to make their dream of democracy and freedom come true...The Arab world is awakening with dignity and hope. The changes spell hope for true democrats, and trouble for those who would sacrifice democratic principle to their economic and geostrategic calculations.
- Tariq Ramadan,
"Whither the Muslim Brotherhood?"

Obama's double-dealing in Egypt was reported first on

Only after President Obama's "personal envoy" openly admitted that he went to Egypt to support Mubarak did the BBC and other news outlets pick up on the "deliberate abiguity" of the Obama administration's deceptive Egypt policy.  Sending Frank Wisner of the C.I.A. to support the Mubarak dictatorship while Obama and Hillary Clinton pretended to be supporting "democratic change" in Egypt is more than ambiguous - it's downright deception.  Obama was caught deceiving the American people and the world.  This is what Robert Fisk of The Independent (U.K) reported on February 7:

Oddly, not a single journalist raised this extraordinary connection with US government officials – nor the blatant conflict of interest it appears to represent.
- Robert Fisk on Frank Wisner's connections to Mubarak in
The Independent (U.K) on 7 February 2011

Readers of, however, were well aware of this "blatant conflict of interest" and the policy of deception behind it since it began on January 31.  While the controlled media did not discuss Wisner's connections, I did - a week before the BBC or Robert Fisk.  The controlled press, including the BBC, was reporting that Wisner had been sent to urge Mubarak to leave office - a complete falsehood - up until February 5, when Wisner admitted that it was "crucial" to preserve the Mubarak regime. 

The mask has slipped from the two-faced Obama administration.  One can now clearly see how Obama and Hillary Clinton practice the art of deceit.  I have been reporting on the duplicity of the U.S. policy in Egypt since January 31 when President Obama sent Frank Wisner, a high-level C.I.A. man, as his personal envoy to manage the crisis in Cairo. 

The envoy's father was Frank Wisner Sr., the infamous C.I.A. boss behind the overthrow in the 1950s of presidents in Iran and Guatemala.  Frank Wisner Jr., Obama's "personal envoy" to Egypt, admitted on February 5 that he supported the Mubarak dictatorship staying in power - while Obama has been telling the world that he wanted immediate change.  This blatant duplicity reveals the true character of the Obama administration.


Julian Marshall of the BBC program Newshour questioned U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley about the "deliberate ambiguity" in how the U.S. has handled the popular revolt in Egypt and the egregious conflict of interest in sending Frank Wisner, a lawyer with Patton Boggs, a law firm that does a great deal of business representing the Egyptian government and military to advise the Mubarak dictatorship.  Marshall's excellent five-minute interview with Crowley begins at minute 4:00 and lasts until minute 9:45.  

The BBC program from February 7 can be heard here: 

Frank Wisner works for a law firm that works for Mubarak.  Frank Wisner and his son Graham are lawyers with Patton Boggs, who represents the Egyptian government and military. The Wisner's law firm is engaged in an effort to privatize the schools of Egypt. 

Graham G. Wisner of Patton Boggs

This is what Wisner's law firm says about its business in Egypt:

Patton Boggs has been privileged to represent such sovereign governments as those of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait. Our corporate representation includes servicing the needs of many of our U.S.-based Fortune 500 clients doing business in the region, as well as foreign multinationals who require international corporate advice…Patton Boggs has been active in Egypt for 20 years. We have advised the Egyptian military, the Egyptian Economic Development Agency, and have handled arbitrations and litigation on the government’s behalf in Europe and the US. Our attorneys also represent some of the leading Egyptian commercial families and their companies, and we have been involved in oil and gas and telecommunications infrastructure projects on their behalf. One of our partners also served as the Chairman of the US-Egyptian Chamber of Commerce, promoting foreign direct investment into targeted sectors of the Egyptian economy. We have also handled negotiation of offset agreements and managed contractor disputes in military sales agreements arising under the US Foreign Military Sales Act.



“What is clear — and what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak — is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.” - President Obama, 2 February 2011 



Pro-Mubarak thugs on horseback attacked the peaceful protestors. 

U.S. Pursues Dangerous Two-Faced Policy
Violence Erupts After Obama's C.I.A. Man Advises Mubarak
Mubarak Appoints "C.I.A. Partner" Suleiman Vice President 
Broadcasting Equipment Confiscated from Foreign Journalists
Links to Cairo are Cut as Egyptians Demand End of U.S.-Supported Dictatorship

"I'm extremely concerned, I mean this is yet another symptom, or another indication, of a criminal regime using criminal acts. My fear is that it will turn into a bloodbath."
- Mohamed ElBaradei, Egyptian opposition leader

"To the people of Egypt, particularly the young people of Egypt, I want to be clear: We hear your voices. I have an unyielding belief that you will determine your own destiny and seize the promise of a better future for your children and your grandchildren."
- U.S. President Barack Obama
, 1 February 2011 

CAIRO, February 1 - Egyptian women join thousands of protestors at Tahrir Square demanding the end of the U.S.-supported Mubarak dictatorship.

More than 100,000 protesters had massed in the square by midday.

February 1 - Mubarak speaks on national television saying he will step down on - in September...

while Obama says Egypt’s change of leaders must start immediately.  "The status quo is not sustainable," Obama said in comments given after Mubarak's speech.  "An orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now,” Obama said.  The Egyptian dictator has been America’s most reliable (read pro-Israel) ally in the Middle East for 30 years.  Mubarak has blocked much-needed relief from reaching the besieged Palestinians of Gaza, who share a mostly closed border with Egypt.  Photo - Barack Obama and Hosni Mubarak at the White House, 1 September 2010.

Mubarak has appointed his intelligence chief, C.I.A. "partner" Omar Suleiman, as vice president.  Suleiman is clearly the man who the C.I.A. hopes will replace Mubarak.  A senior U.S. intelligence official described Suleiman as deeply involved in every aspect of the diplomatic relationship between the two countries, as well as a C.I.A. partner in sensitive programs, including transfers and interrogations (read kidnap and torture) of prisoners captured in counterterrorism operations. As the C.I.A. point man in Egypt, Suleiman meets often Israeli leaders.  Here he shakes hands with Ehud Barak, the war criminal who killed 1,400 civilians in Gaza as Barack Obama became president in January 2009.  At the time, Obama said he would have plenty to say about Israeli war crimes in Gaza - but has said nothing ever since.


President Barack Obama sent Frank Wisner of the C.I.A. (Vice Chairman of A.I.G. and director of Enron) to Egypt on January 31 to advise the besieged dictator Hosni Mubarak, who is quickly losing control of the nation.  Shortly after Obama's "special envoy" arrived in Cairo, broadcasting equipment was confiscated from foreign journalists (including the BBC) and all roads and rail links to the capital were cut. This is a very dangerous game and reveals the two-faced nature of the Zionist-controlled Obama administration.  While Obama talks about supporting "democratic change", he sends a "dirty tricks" man in a last-ditch effort to prevent the U.S.-funded dictatorship from falling.  This desperate and deceitful action by the Obama administration can only harm future relations with Egypt.

A protester looks at a burnt Egyptian Army armoured vehicle in downtown Cairo 28 January 2011.  (Reuters)

The Israeli war criminal and terrorist Ehud Olmert with Hosni Mubarak, the detestable 82-year-old tyrant of Egypt known for his support of U.S. and Zionist criminal policies against the Palestinian - and Egyptian people.

Mubarak and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister from the extreme right-wing Likud Party.  The Zionist state depends on corrupt leaders in the Middle East (and the United States) for its survival.  Despite its claims to support democracy in the region, the prospect of a democratic state in Egypt is seen as a great threat to Israel.

This video shows the Egyptian police shooting a teenage protestor in cold blood.

The uprising in Tunisia has spread to Egypt, the most populous and important nation of the Arab world.  Massive protests with tens of thousands of people have also broken out in Yemen.  Having followed the developments in Tunisia closely on the BBC World Service, I noticed an attitude of unusual concern by the BBC toward the popular uprising that overthrew the Tunisian dictator Ben Ali.  When similar uprisings have happened in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, China, or Burma they have invariably been praised and promoted as a sign of the progress of western democracy.  This supportive attitude, however, was conspicuously lacking in the BBC coverage uprising in Tunisia.  The first question asked (with obvious concern) of every commentator was always, "Will the unrest in Tunisia spread to Egypt and other Arab nations?" 

One got the distinct impression that the BBC is somehow afraid of democracy in the Arab world.  Their attitude seems to be that the people of the Middle East do not have the same right to demand democratic governments as the people of Europe.  Decades of U.S. (and British) support for dictators like Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak and the refusal of the U.S. and the "international community" to accept the democratically elected Hamas government of Palestine are proof (if any were needed) that the U.S. government does not really support democracy in the Arab world.  Dictators are,
after all, so much easier to control.  Having fostered and supported virtually every dictator in the Middle East, the U.S. regime now finds itself wrong-footed and in an increasingly weakened position in the region.  These popular uprisings will have profound consequences on U.S. stature and policies in the region.

Protestors tear down an image of the Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak in Alexandria on 25 January 2011.

The naysaying pundits on the BBC notwithstanding, the growing intifada in Cairo and across Egypt has shown that the popular revolt is spreading and will not be put down by Mubarak and his security forces.  The writing on the wall is clear - the many long years of Hosni Mubarak's brutal tyranny are over.  The dictators across the region are now planning their own escapes.  A new day is dawning in the Middle East and there will be no going back to the darkness of the days of the dictators.  The protests that are rocking the Middle East today will eventually result in great changes for the people of the entire region by ending the decades of tyranny imposed on their nations by the Zionist-controlled regimes of the United States, Britain, and Israel.


The overthrow of the Mubarak dictatorship puts Israel in "a state of strategic distress", according to Aluf Benn of Ha'aretz:  "The fading power of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's government leaves Israel in a state of strategic distress. Without Mubarak, Israel is left with almost no friends in the Middle East; last year, Israel saw its alliance with Turkey collapse."  Israel's strategic distress at the possibility of a democratic Egypt emerging from the overthrow of Mubarak led the Zionist-controlled Obama administration to take desperate and deceitful measures to support the dictatorship the U.S. has funded with billions of dollars every year - for 30 years.

Central to Washington's relationship with Cairo has been the massive amount of financial aid given to Egypt every year as compensation for having signed a peace agreement with Israel. The U.S. has provided Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815 million a year in economic assistance. All told, Egypt has received over $60 billion from the U.S. government since 1975.

"Aid offers an easy way out for Egypt to avoid reform," Edward Walker, the former U.S. ambassador to Egypt said in 2004. "They use the money to support antiquated programs and to resist reforms." Rather than helping, American aid was "depressing the need for reform," Walker said.

Ted Rudow of Menlo Park asked why the U.S. was supporting the Mubarak regime in his February 11 letter to the New York Times:

Despite its public criticism of the Egyptian regime, the Obama administration has yet to publicly leverage billions in annual U.S. aid to Egypt to increase pressure on President Hosni Mubarak. In the name of what, exactly, has Washington backed an ally whose contempt for the law and fake democracy flouts everything for which America stands?

The tens of billions of dollars given to Egypt since 1979 are compensation for Anwar El Sadat having signed the Camp David Accords with Israel and U.S. President Jimmy Carter in 1978.  This agreement resulted in the United States committing to several billion dollars worth of annual subsidies to the governments of both Israel and Egypt, subsidies which continue to this day.  The U.S. taxpayer pays billions of dollars every year to give Israel a peace deal with Egypt.


The Obama administration sent Frank Gardiner Wisner 2nd, the son of one of the founders of the C.I.A.'s propaganda and special operations branch to control the critical situation in Egypt.  In 1947-48, Frank Wisner Sr. established the C.I.A.'s Operation Mockingbird, a program to influence the domestic and foreign media.  "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles," Deborah Davis wrote in her 1979 book entitled, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and The Washington Post.

Sending Wisner Junior to Egypt indicates that the United States is engaged in a dangerous and dirty operation against the Egyptian protestors, who massed in Cairo's Tahrir Square on February 1.
  If the U.S.-backed dictatorship resorts to violence, as it did with the orchestrated attacks on the protestors by men on horseback, the U.S. will be seen as responsible because it sent Wisner, a veteran "dirty tricks" agent with a long history of counter-revolutionary actions. 


Wisner reportedly left the country the day after Mubarak sent hordes of paid thugs and plain-clothes police into the square to attack the peaceful protestors with Molotov cocktails and weapons.  It is not believable that Mubark would take such drastic actions against the wishes of Obama's special envoy.  The controlled media has reported that Obama sent Wisner to Cairo to urge Mubarak to step aside, but that is clearly false.  Wisner's arrival coincided with a pronounced change in tactics against the protestors.  The crack down tactics advised by Wisner culminated in the violent attacks against the protestors in Tahrir Square and other places on February 2.  When we consider that the United States is controlled by a highly deceitful and criminal regime, which is actually protecting the real culprits of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we can understand that the U.S. government shares the same criminal nature as those it supports in Egypt and Israel.  As Jesus said, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Wisner's father became the head of the C.I.A.'s Directorate of Plans (DPP) in 1952 and Richard Helms was his chief of operations. The DPP, formed by the merger of the Office of Policy Coordination and the Office of Special Operations (the espionage division) accounted for three quarters of the C.I.A. budget and 60 percent of its personnel.  In the early 1950s, Wisner orchestrated the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.

This is a very dangerous move because it shows that the Obama White House is pursuing a two-faced policy of trying to keep Mubarak in power while it pretends to be supporting democratic change in Egypt.  Shortly after Wisner arrived in Cairo the Egyptian authorities began confiscating broadcasting equipment from foreign journalists, including the BBC - on arrival at the airport.  As millions of Egyptians prepared for a huge rally in Cairo's Tahrir Square on February 1, roads and rail links to Cairo were cut.  These actions were clearly being taken on orders given by Wisner.  This shows that the United States has actually been working to support the Mubarak dictatorship in the face of massive protests by the Egyptian people.  This is an extremely ill-advised and dangerous game to be playing while the Obama administration pretends to support "democratic change."

Frank Gardiner Wisner was on Enron's board of directors since 1997 and was Vice Chairman of Maurice Greenberg's fraudulent American International Group (A.I.G.) through 2009, after A.I.G. had received hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to support its criminal enterprise.  Both Enron and A.I.G. were engaged in criminal fraud operations that cost the U.S. taxpayer dearly.  Wisner has also been involved in C.I.A. activity since the early years of the Vietnam War.  As reported in a news piece entitled "CIA: Frank G. Wisner arrived in Cairo":

Frank G. Wisner Jr. is not known to the U.S. public either as a diplomat or as a master spy, but as an unscrupulous financier. He was part of the Enron power elite involved in the fraudulent bankrupcy of the corporation that ruined countless small investors and, later, as Vice Chairman of American International Group whose share prices plummeted by 95% during the 2008 financial crisis, prior to its bailout with taxpayers’ money.

Although not at all known in France, Wisner Jr. has nevertheless played a major role in that country’s recent history. He married Christine de Ganay (Pal Sarkozy’s second wife) and, in that capacity, reared Nicolas Sarkozy during his New York years. It was he who introduced then-teenage Sarkozy to CIA insiders and facilitated his entry into French political circles. One of Wisner’s sons was Sarkozy’s English-speaking political campaign spokesman; another one of his children became one of the pillars of the Carlyle Group, the asset management firm controlled by the Bush and Bin Laden families.

Sources and Recommended Reading:

"Whither the Muslim Brotherhood?" by Tariq Ramadan, International Herald Tribune, 8 February 2011

"What the Muslim Brothers want", by Essam El-Errian, New York Times, 9 February 2011

"CIA:  Frank G. Wisner arrived in Cairo",, 2 February 2011

"U.S. envoy's business link to Egypt", Obama scrambles to limit damage after Frank Wisner makes robust call for Mubarak to remain in place as leader, by Robert Fisk in Cairo, Independent (U.K.), 7 February 2011

"US playing a 'two-faced deception' game in Egypt", Bollyn on U.S. role in Egypt, PressTV (Iran) 3 February 2011

"Frank Gardiner Wisner - Commander, United States Navy; Central Intellignce Agency," ArlingtonCemetery.Net

"The Empire's Bagman: Frank Wisner in Cairo," by Vijay Prashad, 2 February 2011

"Frank Wisner, the Diplomat Sent to Prod Mubarak," by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, 2 February 2011

“Obama says an orderly transition 'must begin now'”, by Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, 2 February 2011

“Without Egypt, Israel will be left with no friends in Mideast”, by Aluf Benn, Haaretz, 29 January 2011

"The Power Elite: Enron and Frank Wisner", People's Democracy, 16 November 1997 

“Egypt's intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, could be called on to smooth turmoil,” by Joby Warrick and Greg Miller, Washington Post, February 1, 2011 

"$50 billion later, taking stock of US aid to Egypt," by Charles Levinson, Christian Science Monitor, 12 April 2004

20 Years of War Against Iraq

January 17, 2011

U.S. war planes flying over burning oil wells during Desert Storm, 1991

The U.S. war against Iraq, fought largely under the command of two presidents from the Bush family and Dick Cheney (Secretary of Defense 1989-1993), is now twenty years old.  Michael T. McPhearson, a veteran of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, who later served as executive director of Veterans for Peace, wrote this piece about the 20-year-war in Iraq.

A New Jersey veteran's hope for Iraq
Michael T. McPhearson
Star-Ledger, 16 January 2011

Twenty years ago this month, I sat in the vast wilderness of the Arabian desert as a captain in the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division, waiting to invade Iraq. That campaign — which was to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait — began on Jan. 16, 1991.
I remember wondering how many of us would die, how many would return home scarred or broken. Would I ever see my wife and 5-year-old son again? I never imagined U.S. troops would still be fighting there — 11 years into the next century.
After I left the Army in 1992, I paid little attention to U.S. activities in Iraq, although I knew that our forces never ended military operations there. Containment was the policy.
Operation Southern Watch, begun in August 1992 to enforce a no fly-zone over southern Iraq, did not officially end until 2003. There were Operations Vigilant Warrior in 1994 and Desert Strike in 1996, which expanded the no fly-zone to parts of northern Iraq. There was Operation Desert Fox, a four-day bombing campaign launched on Dec. 16, 1998.
One summer day in 2001, I saw activists in New York City holding a sign reporting that half a million Iraqi children had died, due in part to U.S.-led economic sanctions. I began to feel some responsibility. Then, 9/11 happened and the drum beat for more war on Iraq began anew. By that time, the United States had been dropping bombs on Iraq for 10 years.
Today, when most Americans think of Iraq, the March 20, 2003, invasion is the date they remember. That is far from reality.
In December of that year, as part of a peace delegation of military families and veterans, I visited Baghdad. The city was bustling with people going about their lives, yet bombed-out buildings served as a backdrop and access to basics such as water and electricity was unpredictable. Sectarian violence had not yet exploded, but many people — especially women — feared for their safety.
The delegation met with an Iraqi human rights activist who, through an interpreter, shared the perspective of many Iraqis. The man, who appeared to be in his late 50s, told us that “… all the Iraqi suffering is because of the Americans.” He explained that Saddam Hussein’s Baath party cronies, who came to power via a 1968 coup, boasted back then of having U.S. help. He went on to remind us of the 1991 invasion and the following decade of misfortune under U.S.-led economic sanctions. He spoke of the March 2003 invasion and occupation mounted by the United States to remove the dictator it helped put into power. Our nation, he said, has meddled in his country’s affairs for more than 40 years. His feelings were reiterated by many other Iraqis I spoke with over the course of my visit.
Since then, I have returned to Iraq seeking peace, my 5-year-old son grew up and, like his father, served a tour waging war in Iraq. In 2009, the Obama administration declared the end of U.S. combat missions in Iraq, U.S. troop levels have been reduced to 50,000 and the United States has pledged to remove all troops by the end of this year.
We helped place Saddam Hussein into power and supported him, expecting him to act in our interest, and the Iraqi people have paid a high price for his removal. Today, unemployment in Iraq is estimated as high as 30 percent. Electricity continues to be sporadic and, in many parts of the country, clean water is not readily available. Birth defects in areas of heavy fighting, such as Fallujah, have increased due to the use of uranium munitions by U.S. forces. Sectarian violence, while low compared to 2004, continues to take lives and destroy families.
Forty years of meddling and 20 years of war are enough. We must not allow the Obama administration to drag its feet or back out of leaving Iraq.
Freedom is the ability to chart one’s own destiny, not have it decided by a power thousands of miles away. We owe it to the Iraqi people. They have suffered enough.

Michael T. McPhearson was a field artillery officer in the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division during Desert Shield/Desert Storm, also known as Gulf War I.  A resident of Newark, New Jersey, McPhearson is the co-convener of United for Peace and Justice, and former executive director of Veterans for Peace. 

Source:  "A New Jersey veteran's hope for Iraq" by Michael T. McPhearson, Star-Ledger (N.J.), 16 January 2011 

This article was first published on 8 January 2011 at the

The Palestinian Right of Return

December 11, 2010

The Returning Issue of Palestine's Refugees

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.
- United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, 11 December 1948

It's 62 years since the UN passed a resolution on the rights of Palestinian refugees – rights Israel must recognise for peace

By Saeb Erekat

Before his murder in 1948, Lord Folke Bernadotte, the first UN mediator to the Arab- Israeli conflict, stated: "It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent [Palestinian] victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes, while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine." Lord Bernadotte paid for his candour with his life as Jewish militants assassinated him under the direction of Yitzhak Shamir, the man who would later become prime minister of Israel.  

Less than three months after his death, as the war of 1948 ground to a close, and nearly three-quarters of the entire indigenous Palestinian population had been displaced by Israeli forces, the UN passed general assembly resolution 194, calling for the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes and to be awarded compensation for their losses.  

On Saturday, 62 years will have passed without this historic resolution being implemented despite being upheld by the UN with nearly universal consensus ever since. In fact, Israel's own admission as a member to the United Nations was contingent on its adherence to the principles of UNGA 194, something it proceeded to disregard once membership was granted.  

Contrary to what Israeli political figures would like the world to believe, the issue of Palestinian refugees is not an academic matter, the solution of which is somehow rendered moot by the passage of time and by the creation of Israeli "facts on the ground." Palestinian displacement continues to this day through the revocation of residency cards, land confiscation, home demolitions and evictions. At the same time, Israel has barred Palestinians displaced between 1947 and 1949, and again in 1967, from returning to their homes or receiving restitution for their lost property, making Palestinian refugees the oldest and largest refugee community in the world today.  

The fact that Israel bears responsibility for the creation of the refugees is beyond argument. Even if the state still claims amnesia for its deeds, Israeli historians have debunked the traditional Zionist mythology and shown how Zionist leaders prior to 1948 formulated plans to displace the indigenous Palestinian population in order to create a Jewish majority state. Such a state would have been impossible without the mass expulsion of Palestinians, given that Palestinians constituted a majority in every district of historic Palestine prior to 1948 and also owned over 90% of the land.  

Even if we accept the Israeli narrative that refugees left voluntarily – which has been proven false for the vast majority – there is no doubt about the fact that when refugees attempted to return according to their legal right, they were blocked by newly drafted Israeli legislation and declared infiltrators on their own property.  

This period of dispossession, known to Palestinians as al-Nakba or "the catastrophe", is the seminal Palestinian experience and source of our collective identity. In fact, the current Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is himself a refugee displaced from the city of Safed during the 1948 war when he was only 13-years-old.  

Today, Palestinian refugees constitute more than 7 million people worldwide – 70% of the entire Palestinian population. Disregarding their legitimate legal rights enshrined in international law, their understandable grievances accrued over prolonged displacement, and their aspirations to return to their homeland, would certainly make any peace deal signed with Israel completely untenable.  

In accordance with past Israeli-Arab agreements based on UN resolutions – most significantly the Egypt-Israeli Camp David Accords based on UN resolution 242's formula of land-for-peace – resolution 194 must provide the basis for a settlement to the refugee issue.  

Return and restitution as the remedy of choice has a strong international precedent. For example, in the context of the Dayton Accords, concluded under the auspices of the United States, the return of Bosnian refugees to their homes and restitution of their property was considered a "non-negotiable" right that was critical to crafting a durable solution. American leaders such as Madeleine Albright, then the secretary of state, openly called on Bosnian Muslim refugees to return en masse to their former places of residence.  

In Bosnia and in Palestine, the return of refugees has been considered absolutely necessary for the stability of peace. Any deal that does not respect the rights of refugees has been viewed as bearing the seed of its inevitable failure.  

When negotiations resume once again, the world must not abandon the refugees of Palestine, nor attempt to coerce their representatives to do so either.  

Israel's recognition of Palestinian refugee rights and its agreement to provide reparation and meaningful refugee choice in the exercise of these rights will not change the reality in the Middle East overnight, nor will it lead to an existential crisis for Israel. What it will certainly do is mark the beginning of a new reality that will no longer be rooted in repression, denial of rights, and discrimination. In other words, it will lead to a lasting peace – the kind of peace envisaged by Lord Bernadotte and hoped for by Palestinians and Israelis alike.

Published in The Guardian, 10 December 2010 

Sex, Lies, Iran, Israel and WikiLeaks

December 13, 2010

Anthony Lawson has produced another excellent video, entitled "Sex, Lies, Iran, Israel and WikiLeaks", which I recommend viewing.  



Tariq Aziz Sentenced to Hang

Updated November 1, 2010

We are a proud nation, and we are not going to bow down in front of the new tyrants of the world... Isn't this arrogance?  Are they being cheered in Afghanistan? They are deceiving themselves and the whole American nation. America is taking over the world, you see, and an American soldier is not going to be cheered when he enters our country -- he is going to be killed.
- Tariq Aziz, October 2002

Tariq Aziz was Iraq's Foreign Minister when the U.S.-led war began in 1991.

The inspectors will find that all the talk of Iraq stockpiling weapons of mass destruction is simply a lie, and put by Bush and Blair as a pretext for staging a war.
- Tariq Aziz, New York Times, October 22, 2002

In an interview with the British Guardian newspaper earlier this year, Aziz said the U.S. invasion of Iraq had "killed" his homeland.
- Former Iraqi Foreign Minister to Hang, VOA News, October 26, 2010


The U.S.-led war against Iraq will soon be twenty years old.  Those who remember the lead-up to the war in the summer of 1990 will certainly remember the face and words of Tariq Aziz, then foreign minister of Iraq. His was a voice of reason and intelligence that sought to avoid the war that led to the destruction of Iraq - and hundreds of thousands of lives.  Today, just a few days after the release of hundreds of thousands of documents that detail a very long list of war crimes committed by U.S. forces and their army of Iraqi quislings, Tariq Aziz was sentenced to death.  This is a very black day for Iraq and the Iraqi people.

Mikhail Yuhanna, more widely known as Tariq Aziz, was Iraq’s Christian foreign minister when President George H.W. Bush began the Zionist-designed war against Iraq in 1991. Today, nearly twenty years later, Aziz was sentenced to die by hanging.  Why now?  What prompted this decision?  The timing is extremely suspect, coming less than four days after the release of thousands of documents revealing a host of war crimes committed by the U.S. and their allies in Iraq.

Aziz, an Assyrian and Chaldean Catholic, (born April 28, 1936) has served as Iraq’s Foreign Minister (1983 – 1991) and Deputy Prime Minister (1979 – 2003). He was a close advisor of former President Saddam Hussein.  Their association began in the 1950s when both were activists for the then-banned Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party.

What the United States wanted in 2002, he said, was not "regime change" in Iraq but rather "region change". He summed up the Bush Administration's reasons for war against Iraq tersely: "oil and Israel"

''North Korea has admitted to having a secret nuclear program. The United States is not asking that North Korea be inspected in the way they are asking for Iraq to be inspected. Why? Because there are two things absent in North Korea: oil and Israel. The reason for this warmongering policy toward Iraq is oil and Israel.''
''The inspectors will find that all the talk of Iraq stockpiling weapons of mass destruction is simply a lie, and put by Bush and Blair as a pretext for staging a war.”

Mr. Aziz, a Chaldean Christian, compared Mr. Hussein's decision to the forgiveness shown by Jesus toward the Roman centurions who crucified him.

''That's our way of dealing with the people,'' he said. ''If you are a good Muslim or a good Christian, you will pardon. Aren't you a believer? Jesus Christ pardoned those who crucified, then executed, him.''

''Let them do it, if they can,'' he said. ''Invade Iraq, because at that time the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi leadership and the Iraqi people will fight to the last bullet, and it will be very costly. We are a proud nation, and we are not going to bow down in front of the new tyrants of the world.''

As for suggestions by President Bush and other American officials that American troops would be cheered by crowds if they entered Baghdad, Mr. Aziz gave a mocking laugh.

''Isn't this arrogance?'' he said. ''Are they being cheered in Afghanistan? They are deceiving themselves and the whole American nation. America is taking over the world, you see, and an American soldier is not going to be cheered when he enters our country -- he is going to be killed.''

- Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, New York Times, October 22, 2002
Sources and Recommended Reading: 

"Save Tariq Aziz", by Robert Dreyfuss, Middle East Online, November 1, 2010

“Former Iraqi Foreign Minister to Hang”
,, October 26, 2010

“Threats and Responses, Baghdad’s View; Citing North Korea, an Iraqi Aide Says 'Oil and Israel,' Not Weapons, Spur the U.S.” by John F. Burns, New York Times, October 22, 2002

Double Vendetta - The Insanity of the Iran Confrontation

August 11, 2010


The United States has waged war in Afghanistan for nearly 9 years based on a pack of lies that Osama Bin Laden, based in Afghanistan, carried out 9/11, while the U.S. government ignores the proof that the World Trade Center was pulverized using an extremely advanced nano-composite form of Super-Thermite.

The chips of super-thermite found in the dust of the World Trade Center are scientific proof that the government explanation of what happened on 9/11 is nothing but a pack of treasonous lies designed to get public opinion behind a pre-planned war to occupy mineral rich Afghanistan.

The pulverization of the concrete floors of the World Trade Center - and everything on them - was clearly not caused by a fire-induced collapse, as the government investigators claim.  The chips found in the dust are proof that an advanced explosive coating was responsible for the complete disintegration of the 220 concrete floors and their metal pans.  Nobody from Al Qaida or Afghanistan had anything to do with the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers.

The United States has waged war against Iraq since January 1991.  The 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq is just the final phase of a twenty-year old war to occupy and control the oil-rich nation.  The invasion of Iraq was based on blatant lies and fabrications foisted on the world by George W. Bush and Tony Blair, acting as the front men for the House of Rothschild and their Zionist criminal network.

On February 5, 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented a litany of lies and fabrications to the United Nations to try to gain legal cover for the pre-planned invasion and occupation of Iraq.  As Dr. Hans Blix wrote later, "Powell’s presentation helped to build U.S. support for launching a war that should not have taken place--and that has had terrible consequences."


Continuing the deception of the previous administration, President Barack Obama has adopted  the false premise of the illegal war in Afghanistan and escalated the effort to conquer the Central Asian nation.  Meanwhile, at the behest of his Zionist masters and based on a new pack of lies, Obama is beating the Zionist drums for war against Iran, a nation that has not aggressed any other nation in living memory.  How can we stop the madness?

President Barack Obama signs the Iran Sanctions Bill on July 1, 2010, imposing new tough sanctions against Iran.  As lawmakers looked on, Obama called the new law the "toughest sanctions against Iran ever passed by the United States Congress."

Anthony Lawson sent me a video he has put together about the Zionist and Anglo-American campaign against Iran.  "How long can we allow the maniacs who are driving us to the brink of World War Three to stay in power?" Lawson asks, adding, "We'd better do something soon, or we will all be done for."

The Lawson video of less than 10 minutes presents the essential and relevant history of the relationship between Iran and the United States, Britain, and Israel.  It is recommended viewing: 

Double Vendetta — The Insanity of the Iran Confrontation


Is Israel Doomed?

June 11, 2010

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"It is clear the United States is not against nuclear bombs because they have a Zionist regime with nuclear bombs in the region. They are trying to save the Zionist regime, but the Zionist regime will not survive. It is doomed."
- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 11 June 2010 in Shanghai

Is the Zionist regime doomed, as the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on June 11 during a trip to China?  Will the state of Israel survive? 

If the Zionist regime were to cease to exist tomorrow, would the world be a better, safer place?  These are the real questions that Ahmadinejad's statement raises.

First, it should be remembered that unpopular political regimes fail and go out of business all the time.  Scores of regimes have passed from the scene during the past thirty years and very few are lamenting their passing.  About half the nations of Europe have seen complete regime changes since the late 1980s and the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Very few people were hurt during this political earthquake that changed the government regimes of some 150 million people.

The United States is currently engaged in two extremely costly and drawn out wars of occupation, in Afghanistan and Iraq (on both sides of Iran) in which the goal of the U.S. military is exactly that - regime change.  The regime changes in Baghdad or Kabul, however, have clearly not been for the better.  The populations of Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered immensely as a result of the U.S.-led regime changes.  If the U.S. military were to withdraw from these countries there would certainly be another regime change very quickly as the U.S. quislings were ousted.  If Israel were to lose the support of the United States it too would be unable to survive.  The Israeli Jews would be forced to leave Palestine, just like Helen Thomas said they should. 

As the World Cup kicks off in South Africa, much of the celebration is really for the fact that the apartheid regime of South Africa was ousted and replaced by a government headed by its former enemies - people it had imprisoned for decades. 

President Ahmadinejad certainly knows all about regime change.  The Shah of Iran, supported by the C.I.A. and Israel's Mossad, was removed from power in 1979 and the revolutionary movement, which Ahmadinejad was part of, took power in Tehran.  These things happen all the time. 
Why should the oppressive and criminal Zionist regime of Israel, based on an ideology of Jewish supremacism and racism, be any different?  Why should we fret the passing of another unjust regime of racist fanatics from the face of the Earth?

Like so many other crusader states and occupation regimes, the Zionist state will pass from the scene.  Israel's hideous "wall of separation" cannot protect a regime of terrorists that is detested by the rest of the world. 

U.S. Military Video of Massacre in Baghdad

April 7, 2010
Edited May 9, 2010

The following video clip is a shocking military video footage showing a massacre by U.S. Apache helicopters of a group of about 10 people in Baghdad, including two Reuters news reporters on July 12, 2007. The video was released to Reuters on April 5, 2010 by WikiLeaks, a Swedish-based group that promotes leaking to fight government and corporate corruption. Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40, were killed in the attack. The helicopter initially opens fire on the small group. Minutes later a van comes by, and starts assisting the wounded, and the helicopter opens fire on the van.

This is a very disturbing video of an atrocity in an illegal war.  In the video, seen below, the U.S. helicopters shoot the people who are clearly trying to aid the dead and wounded.  In firing on the vehicle that is acting as an ambulance, two children in the front seat are shot.  This is sickening.  When will the people who planned and conspired to invade Iraq be held accountable for starting a war of aggression in which countless atrocities such as this have been committed?  Is the United States a nation that abides by the rule of law - or is it not?  How is the U.S. occupation of Iraq any better than the regime of Saddam Hussein?

WikiLeaks has the complete video evidence at
 "Collateral Murder"  and  the transcript at:

The video clip of 17 minutes showing the helicopter attack on first responders with comment follows:


Two Decades of Genocide in Iraq

January 20, 2010

The American and British populations are comfortably cushioned from reality by the controlled media which censors news and images of the horrendous humanitarian catastrophe that has befallen the Iraqi people as a result of the Anglo-American war of aggression against the oil-rich nation, a military crusade now in its 20th year.  (The recent Dutch judicial report from The Hague on the legal questions surrounding the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 indicates that the war in Iraq can be legally defined as a "War of Aggression", which is a "Crime Against the Peace" under the Nuremberg Charter.)

The Anglo-American war against Iraq, which began on January 17, 1991, is now entering its 20th year.  The British have been trying to occupy Iraq for more than one hundred years.

Denis Halliday, the former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations and Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq (1997-98) explains the true nature of the military campaign against the people of Iraq.  As Halliday writes, he was compelled to resign from his position on moral grounds.  To participate in the UN program that had imposed "genocidal sanctions on the innocent of Iraq" would have "implied my complicity in human catastrophe," Halliday wrote.
In the same newsletter, I also recommend reading the comments of Abdul Ilah Albayaty:
Instead of ending the occupation, handing Iraq to its people and punishing those responsible for this tragedy, instead of listening to the Iraqi people’s rights and demands, the Obama administration adopted the same strategy as Bush: trying to create a client state in Iraq by depending on the same corrupted backward forces that supported the occupation against the Iraqi people. The only difference is that it tries to change the faces of its puppet government. The plunder, the corruption, the repression and the attempts to divide Iraq continue as before. Following one year of the Obama administration no change has taken place, despite the declarations and promises.

Why have the wars in the Middle East continued and increased under President Obama?  One year ago, Obama appointed Richard Holbrooke, Henry Kissinger's right-hand man and partner-in-crime, to run the "War on Terror" as his envoy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The killing of innocent civilians has increased greatly under Holbrooke.  Kissinger is a key player in the Zionist shadow government behind the Obama administration.  Note the expression on Obama's face.

Kissinger and Holbrooke gave "The Kissinger Prize" to George H.W. Bush at the American Academy in Berlin, which they run together.  The elder Bush started the war in Iraq in 1991 and was the first president to use the expression "New World Order."

*  *  *
900 Iraqi Prisoners Face Summary Execution: Stop the Death Penalty in Iraq!

A message from Denis Halliday
From the
Brussels Tribunal Newsletter
January 10, 2010

Accepting the Gandhi International Peace Award in 2003, I explained my resignation from the United Nations as head of the UN Humanitarian Programme in Iraq at end 1998. I indicated that resignation was necessary because of my refusal to accept Security Council orders that continued to impose genocidal sanctions on the innocent of Iraq. My continuation would have implied my complicity in human catastrophe. And, in addition, my innate sense of justice was outraged — as yours would have been in my position — by the violence that UN sanctions had brought upon the lives and wellbeing of children, families, and the many loved ones of Iraq. There can be no justification for killing the young, the aged, the sick, the rich, the poor anywhere, under any circumstances, least of all by the United Nations.

Some will tell you that the Iraqi leadership was punishing the Iraqi people. That was not my perception or experience when living in Baghdad in 1997-98 and traveling throughout the country. And were that to be the case, how could that possibly justify collective punishment — that is sanctions, by the United Nations? The UN Charter and international law have no provision for the murderous consequences of a UN embargo, over 12 long years in the case of the people of Iraq.

After leaving, sometimes I explained the impact of sanctions to the media, and to university and public meetings by describing Iraqi children as being on death row without hope of reprieve. By the end of 1998, we — the UN — had killed hundreds of thousands without any apparent hesitation on the part of the permanent member states of the Security Council.

The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 has only worsened the overall situation for Iraqi children, women and men. Contrary to what the mainstream media has been and is reporting, a whole nation is being terrorized, killed, driven into exile. The humanitarian situation in Iraq is catastrophic according to the ICRC (The Red Cross) and other international organizations. American imposition of “democracy and freedom” has failed as law, order and economic and social wellbeing is increasingly elusive. Health and educational systems are about to collapse; the human rights situation is disastrous; human security and opportunities have vanished; the fearful, the refugees and the displaced outnumber those enjoying normal lives. 
Since the Iraqi government reintroduced capital punishment in 2004, an unknown number of people have been hanged. None of the condemned appears to have had a fair trial. Sadly, the Iraqi judicial system has been deemed by responsible international agencies and human rights organizations to be corrupt, dysfunctional and plagued by sectarianism.
And now the Presidential Council of Iraq has reportedly ratified the death sentences of some 900 detainees languishing on death row. Some 17 of them are confirmed to be women. The apparent collapse of justice in Iraq today needs to be seen in the context of an almost total breakdown of law and order since the US/UK invasion, including the war crimes, atrocities, killing of civilians by invading and occupying US mercenaries and military forces.
I oppose the use of the death penalty wherever it occurs on the grounds that it is contrary to fundamental human rights. The international community that has already totally failed the Iraqi people has a compelling obligation to condemn the appalling human consequences of illegal invasion and occupation, and condemn — surely the Iraqis have suffered enough — one of the highest rates of execution in the world.
Without your voice the deadly increasing spiral of killing will continue. That’s why I join the BRussells Tribunal in denouncing executions. I would very much appreciate it if you would read the following statement against the imminent hanging of 900 detainees: and sign the call to stop these executions and request that the Iraqi government impose a moratorium on the death penalty.
Thank you on behalf of the BRussells Tribunal and all of us who care about justice and human life.
Denis J. Halliday
Former UN assistant secretary general and UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, 1997-98
Recipient of the 2003 Gandhi International Peace Award — Ireland

Source: Brussels Tribunal Newsletter, January 10, 2010 

The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty - Dead in the Water

14 May 2009

There's a straight line from JFK's murder on November 22, 1963 to the brutal and savage Israeli attack on the USS Liberty to the 1983 attack on that marine compound in Lebanon, to the USS Cole bombing -- to 9/11.
-- "Dead In The Water - The Sinking of the USS Liberty" on Goon Squad, May 2, 2009

There is indeed a very clear and obvious "straight line" from the JFK assassination and attack on the USS Liberty (June 8, 1967) to 9-11.  This is the very essence of the thesis I have described in detail in the 6 or 7 chapters I wrote in 2007-2008 for the first part of my forthcoming book, Solving 9-11, An Independent Investigation of the Crime of the Century

I highly recommend viewing and saving the BBC television program, "Dead In The Water - The Sinking of the USS Liberty," which was made in 2003. 

This link takes you to a webpage that has the BBC program in 7 10-minute Youtube videos.  The 42nd anniversary of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty is just a few weeks away.  If unsolved crimes are allowed to go unpunished the criminals will only get stronger and commit more crimes.  This is the most important lesson to be learned from the unpunished criminal attack on the USS Liberty, which was committed by the same people who planned and carried out the "false flag" terror attacks of 9-11.

With the publication of the Dr. Steven E. Jones (et al) peer-reviewed paper that proves that super-thermite was used to pulverize the twin towers on 9-11 we can no longer be called "conspiracy theorists" -- we have proof of a conspiracy and it wasn't Osama bin Laden and his 20 thieves who put super-thermite in the World Trade Center.  Now is the time for Americans to take action and demand that their local media, political leaders, police, representatives in Congress, and senators address the evidence of super-thermite in the dust of the WTC.  

Dead In The Water - The Sinking of the USS Liberty

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
--Winston Churchill

The USS Liberty after the being pounded by Israeli planes, napalm, and torpedo in 1967

Recommended Reading: 

Bollyn, Christopher, "AMERICA THE TARGET" - 9-11 and Israel's Use of Terrorism to Coerce the West, 2008

The Goldstone Report and the Israeli Crimes in Gaza

October 31, 2009 

BERLIN - The Obama administration and U.S. Congress have joined the Zionist campaign to condemn the Goldstone report, a United Nations fact-finding report on the evidence of war crimes committed in Gaza during the Israeli offensive against the largely defenseless civilian population of the Gaza Strip.  The overwhelming majority of the Gaza population is Palestinian refugees who were driven from their homes and villages during the Zionist ethnic cleansing of 1948-49.

The Israeli offensive, which began during Christmas last year, involved a large number of egregious war crimes being committed by the Israeli military, which was headed by Ehud Barak, a friend and supporter of President Barak Hussein Obama II.  Barak would be the first one to be put on trial for the war crimes committed in Gaza.  The Washington Post is reporting that Congress will vote to condemn the Goldstone report on Tuesday, November 3.  President-elect Obama said he would have plenty to say about the Israeli assault on Gaza once he became president.  Thus far he has said nothing.

To understand the actions of the Obama administation one has to be aware of the fact that the Obama White House is run by his Zionist handlers, primarily Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, who are controlled by more senior criminals in the organization.  Candidate Obama was created by Chicago's arch-Zionist, Philip M. Klutznick, his daughter Betty Lu Salzman, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod.  Axelrod's mother was a communist journalist who wrote for the PM newspaper that pushed for the United States to enter the war against Germany in the early 1940s.  President Obama will do nothing to cross his Zionist masters, and that includes the war criminals running the state of Israel.

Candidate Obama with Ehud Barak the Israeli defense minister in July 2008.  Barak is a war criminal of the worst kind according to the UN fact-finding report on the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip written by Richard Goldstone, a South African judge who happens to be both Jewish and a Zionist.  Barak would be the first person to be arrested for war crimes.

Congress to Vote to Condemn U.N. Report on Israeli War Crimes

The Washington Post of October 31 is reporting that the House of Representatives will vote on Tuesday on a nonbinding resolution condemning a controversial U.N. report on alleged Israeli war crimes in the Gaza Strip that has become a major complication in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's diplomacy in the Middle East this weekend.

Clinton told the BBC that the report is biased and one-sided.  This is a very clear indication that the Obama administration is working to further the Zionist agenda regardless of how many crimes are committed or lives are lost.

The Berlin Wall fell in November 1989

While the world celebrates the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Obama administration is helping build the Israeli wall.  Two thousand U.S. troops are currently training in Israel to help fortify the fascist militaristic Jewish ghetto in Palestine, which is surrounded by an outrageous separation wall -- paid for and financed by the good people of the United States.  To celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall while supporting the apartheid state of Israel is nothing but hypocritical -- and racist.

The U.S. government and the West finance and support the racist and extremist Israeli government that built an outrageous wall across the Holy Land. 

Richard Goldstone, author of the UN report accusing Israel of serious war crimes and crimes against humanity during its assault on Gaza, has openly challenged the Obama administration to justify its claims that his findings are flawed and biased. 


The UN fact-finding mission headed by Goldstone concluded that the Israeli assault on the civilian population of the Gaza Strip was "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability."

Israel's criminal use of white phosphorus on civilian areas was blatant and obvious to television viewers around the world.

The Israeli government is particularly worried because the Goldstone report concluded that the Israeli military, headed by Ehud Barak, committed serious war crimes that constitute a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions:

From the facts gathered, the Mission found that the following grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention were committed by the Israeli armed forces in Gaza: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. As grave breaches these acts give rise to individual criminal responsibility. The Mission notes that the use of human shields also constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The Goldstone fact-finding report is extremely important because it puts every law-abiding government on notice that they are obliged under international law to consider the leadership of the Israeli government and military as criminal.  This means that people like Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak should be arrested as soon as they arrive in any country that upholds international law.  In the same way that Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland, the Israeli political and military leaders should be arrested and held for a war crimes trial.  This is what international law demands.  If these individuals were to be arrested and interrogated we would also find the truth about who carried out the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11.

Wanted for war crimes:  Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert (center) and defense minister Ehud Barak (right) with foreign minister Tzipi Livni, daughter of an Irgun terrorist.  Barak and Olmert are also senior architects of the 9-11 attacks in the United States.

The UN report on Israeli war crimes during the assault on Gaza is in three parts and can be read by clicking on the following links:

Executive Summary   Conclusions   Complete Report 

The Goldstone report verifies and validates what I have been saying since the Israeli assault on Gaza began in December 2008:  The Israeli military, headed by defense minister Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, as prime minister, was committing serious war crimes.  These crimes, which were witnessed by millions of television viewers, would force the incoming Obama administration to choose between supporting international law on war crimes or the criminal Zionist regime based in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.  With Rahm Emanuel, the son of a Zionist terrorist running the White House, it appears that the Obama administration is siding with the criminals Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, and Shimon Peres.

The Israelis used white phosphorus as a weapon of terror.

Sources and Recommended Reading (Note:  My articles on Israeli war crimes were stolen when my website was hijacked in March 2009.  The Rebel website has copies of the original articles with the photos.)

Kessler, Glenn, "Congress to weigh in on U.N.'s Gaza report," Washington Post, October 31, 2009

Ehud Barak - Architect of 9-11, September 11, 2009

How Will the World Respond to Israeli Crimes in 2009?, January 9, 2009

Why is Obama Silent about Israeli War Crimes?, January 7, 2009

Three Atrocities of Ehud Olmert, January 2, 2009


Ignoring Israel's Iron Wall

November 5, 2009


The Berlin Wall lives on in Israel, seen here in Bethlehem.  The Israeli wall of separation is some 12 meters (37 feet) high.  The hideous Israeli wall across occupied Palestine has underlined the fortress state and Jewish ghetto mentality in Israel.  But is this the kind of state that a person would want to live in?

Bollyn in Berlin Wannsee, 30 October 2009

The Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago on November 9-10, 1989.  Jewish-owned Music TV (MTV), Bono, and his band U2 will be celebrating along with millions of others the fall of the Berlin Wall while the entire world ignores its hideous cousin, the Israeli "Iron Wall" of separation. 

Israel's Iron Wall is much higher and longer than the Berlin Wall and has been built on illegally occupied land yet no U.S. president has called on the Israeli leaders to "tear down this wall."  The hideous wall was built with the support and approval of the U.S. Congress and presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.  Many millions of American taxpayer dollars were used to build this wall.

Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism (which became the Likud Party of Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and Bibi Netanyahu) wrote an article entitled "Iron Wall" in 1923, which called for "Iron Wall" in occupied Palestine:

Settlement can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an IRON WALL which they will be powerless to break down.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's father was Jabotinsky's executive secretary.  Likudnik Prime Ministers Sharon, Olmert, and Netanyahu are the builders of Israel's "Iron Wall." 

So, why do so-called "political" singers like Bono ignore the very real suffering of millions of Palestinians and the new Berlin Wall that divides the Holy Land?  Why does the music industry ignore the crisis in the Middle East, the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the illegal occupation of Palestine by Zionist Jews who desecrate the Holy Land?  Where has the music gone?

Bono, a friend of presidents Bush and Clinton, will be giving a "free" concert at the Brandenburg Gate, the famous 18th Century portal to the city of Berlin.  Today, 20 years after reunification, Berlin is the most modern, clean, and civilized metropolis in the world.  It is the capital of the most prosperous nation in Europe and the Number One exporter in the world.  It's easy for MTV and Bono to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years later -- but if they really cared about freedom and equality for all men why don't they do a free concert in occupied-Bethlehem or Jerusalem in front of the wall of the Zionist fortress state of Israel?  Why doesn't President Barack Hussein Obama II call on the Israeli leaders to tear down this wall, as President Reagan did to the Soviet leadership?  Neither Obama nor Bono would dare to speak out against Israeli apartheid policies or Zionist war crimes because they are owned and controlled by the Zionist Jews who made them what they are.

This is why the music has gone into the gutter and why there is no anti-war music or resistance music today.  The Zionist Jews have taken over the entire music industry, lock, stock, and barrel.  It is the same with the press media, the television networks, and the film industry.  The whole shebang is completely controlled by Zionist Jews.  The Zionist masters own the big record labels and send the musicians they own to Israel to try and improve the image of the criminals who run the Zionist state.

Madonna with arch-terrorist Shimon Peres, father of Israel's illegal nuclear arsenal

Bono of U2, who is proud of his Jewish roots, embraces Tzipi Livni, a war criminal and daughter of a terrorist leader.

Bono flashed the peace symbol with George Bush in March 2002 as the U.S. waged a war of aggression and occupation in Afghanistan based on blatant lies about who was behind the false flag terror attacks of 9-11.  Bono doesn't mind bolstering the image of real war criminals -- he is paid well to do so.

Bono continued to support Bush in 2007 as he waged two wars of aggression in support of the Zionist deception known as the "War on Terror".  Bono works for his label, Universal Music Group, which is owned by Jean-Bernard Levy of Vivendi.

Bono is also very proud of his Jewish roots...

Born Paul David Hewson, Bono wrote about his mother's Jewish roots in his book U2 by U2

Jack was a travelling salesman, as many of my uncles were, and they come from a long line of travelling salesmen.  And in fact I am a travelling salesman.  I sell songs for U2, door to door, city to city, and I promote ideas like debt cancellation or fair trade at the market, and I reckon I must have got if from the Rankins -- which, by the way, is usually a Jewish name. They all looked Jewish too.  I've heard it said that the Rankins were Jewish at one point when they were based in Scotland, then they came over to Ireland and they weren't Jewish any more, which I think used to happen a lot.  I don't know if that is true, but I'd like it if it were.  (Source: U2 by U2, p. 15)

...and Bono absolutely adores the Jewish media moguls who made him rich and famous.  Bono shows his affection for Lucian Grainge, the Jewish head of Universal Music Group (International) at Doug Morris's Grammy party in Los Angeles in 2009.  Morris and Grainge, both Jews, work for Jean-Bernard Levy, head of Vivendi and owner of Universal Music.  Don't expect Bono to protest Israeli war crimes or sing protest music to support Palestinian rights any time soon.

Bono and U2 in Israel, on the Jewish side of the wall, but of course.

A mime artist works at the Brandenburg Gate  where the Berlin Wall divided the German capital for nearly three decades.

A small section of the wall has been saved.  It was painted with the Palestinian and German flags and the Israeli flag superimposed in a "peace action" in 2004.  The Palestinian flag, however, was only temporary.  Usually it is just the German flag with the same Israeli motif.  It suggests that Zionism dominates occupied Germany as it does occupied Palestine.

The painting by Gunther Schaefer, a German Jew from Frankfurt am Main, has been defaced more than 44 times by Germans who are deeply offended by the desecration of the German flag with the kabbalistic hexagram.

Wolfgang Schaefer is a co-founder of the East Side Gallery and his provocative painting is protected by the German state as "an historical monument." 

Schaefer has been honored by President Johannes Rau in the Bellevue Palace for his offensive painting which desecrates the German flag.  In 2007, Schaefer met the Pope, Benedict XVI, in St. Peter's Cathedral at the Vatican.  Although average Germans find his painting to be highly offensive and disgusting, it is protected by law.  It should be remembered that Germany is still occupied and does not have a peace treaty or a real constitution.  The Grundgesetz (the basic law) written by the Allied occupiers, considered as temporary when it was written in 1945, is still in effect. 

German lands stolen by Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, and Russians are still illegally occupied.  The Czech Republic, which just ratified the E.U. Lisbon Treaty, was allowed an "opt out" which permitted the Czech state to maintain the racist Benes Decree which prohibits displaced ethnic Germans from returning to their homes, farms, and property that were stolen during the "ethnic cleansing" of Czechoslovakia after the war.  Would a European state be allowed to have laws that prohibit Jews from regaining their property?  How can the European Union accept laws that discriminate against Germans?  The Zionist ethnic cleansing of the Baltic region and the Sudetenland resulted in the deaths of more than 2 million innocent German civilians.  All German property was confiscated and the rightful owners were forced onto boxcars -- or shot.  Jews, like Madeleine Albright's father, wound up with the German treasures that had been stolen.  The German refugees are the Palestinians of Europe. 

Israel Iron Wall -- Understanding the complete Zionist control of our media and government(s) is essential to understanding our political predicament.


Five Dancing Israelis

 9-11 Mossad Agents Admit Mission:
"Our Purpose Was To Document The Event"

By Christopher Bollyn

Three of the five "dancing Israelis" appeared on an Israeli television show to explain that they were sent to document the event. See an excerpt of them: 

ForBollynsSpeech11Nov2006_DancingIsraelis.wmv 2.4MB


The jubilant Israeli intelligence agents caught photographing the attacks on the World Trade Center were allowed to return to Israel where they divulged the purpose of their mission on a radio program: “Our purpose was to document the event."




The explosive story of the 5 suspicious Israelis seen celebrating while filming the attacks on the World Trade Center was first reported nationally in American Free Press shortly after September 11. ABC News recently reported on this story and added a comment that deserves attention.

The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported that at least two of the men were Israeli intelligence (Mossad) agents. The Israeli agents were first seen filming the attack on the WTC while kneeling on the roof of a white van in the parking lot of a New Jersey apartment building across the river from lower Manhattan.

"They seemed to be taking a movie," the resident who noticed them said. The men were taking video or photos of themselves with the World Trade Center burning in the background, she said. What struck her were the expressions on the men's faces. "They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange," she said.

She found the behavior so suspicious that she wrote down the license plate number of the van and called the police. The FBI was soon on the scene and a statewide bulletin was issued on the van.

The van belonged to a Mossad front company called Urban Moving Systems. Around 4 p.m. on Sept. 11, the van was pulled over, and five Israelis: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari, all between 22 and 27 years old, were arrested at gunpoint. One had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock while another carried two foreign passports. Box cutters were found in the van.


According to the police report, one of the men said they had been on the West Side Highway in Manhattan "during the incident" — referring to the World Trade Center attack. Sivan Kurzberg, the driver, said, "We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem."

The case was turned over to the FBI's Foreign Counterintelligence Section because the FBI believed Urban Moving Systems was a “cover for an Israeli intelligence operation,” ABC reported.

While the FBI searched the company’s Weehawken, N.J., offices, removing boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives, the owner of the company, Dominic Suter, was allowed to flee the country. When FBI agents tried to interview Suter a second time they discovered that he had cleared out of his New Jersey home and fled to Israel.

When ABC reporters visited Urban Moving Systems, “it looked as if it had been shut down in a big hurry. Cell phones were lying around; office phones were still connected; and the property of dozens of clients remained in the warehouse.”

The Israelis had been held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, for overstaying their tourist visas and working in the United States illegally. Two weeks after their arrest, an immigration judge ordered them to be deported, however, FBI and CIA officials in Washington put a hold on the case, according to ABC.

The five men were held in detention for more than two months. Some of them were placed in solitary confinement for 40 days and given as many as seven lie-detector tests. One of them, Paul Kurzberg, refused to take a lie-detector test for 10 weeks and then failed it, according to his lawyer.


A deal was struck between Israeli and U.S. government officials after 71 days and the five Israelis were put on a plane, and deported to Israel.

The detained Israelis discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home. One of the men said: "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."

See also:

More evidence on Five Dancing Israelis

Why was Kobi Alexander Allowed to Flee?

The Israeli Fugitive, Odigo, and the Forewarning of 9/11

Photo: Jacob "Kobi" Alexander, an Israeli military officer connected to the Odigo instant messaging company whose employees and users received an early warning of the 9/11 attacks, has recently become a fugitive from U.S. justice and taken refuge in Israel along with other prime suspects of the terror attacks.

The case of the Israeli criminal Kobi Alexander is like the proverbial "tip of the iceberg." While Alexander's crimes, through which he became immensely wealthy, are now evident, they are but a very small piece of a much larger Zionist criminal network – connected to the 9/11 terror attacks – which remains hidden beneath the surface.

Alexander, former head of the Israel-based Comverse Technology, was, until his crimes were discovered, one of the highest paid executives in the United States.

In the year 2000, for example, he reportedly earned some $102.5 million, with $93 million coming from the "exercise of options." We now know that most of Alexander's money was made through the fraudulent "exercise of options."

Comverse Technology, the U.S.-based "parent company" of an older and much bigger Israel-based company with the same name, is the owner of the Verint, Ulticom, Starhome, Mercom and Startel companies. The key positions in these companies are all held by Israeli nationals.

Alexander, was recently allowed to flee the United States after he and two other former Comverse executives were charged with securities, mail and wire fraud by U.S. prosecutors in Brooklyn, New York. A warrant has been issued for his arrest.

While a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York told AFP on August 15 that he "expected" that Alexander would turn himself in, The New York Times was rather less optimistic. "It will be a long time – if ever – before Alexander explains himself in a courtroom," the Times wrote on August 21.

Alexander's lawyer, Robert Morvillo, said he "believed" that Alexander and his family were on vacation in Israel. Alexander, an Israeli citizen and a former military officer, wired $57 million to an account in Israel at the end of July and was evidently allowed to flee the United States.

"Given Alexander's stature and military service," the Times reported, quoting unnamed law professors, "Israel might be reluctant to readily hand him over." One might reasonably ask, "What does the 54-year old Alexander's "military service" have to do with Israel refusing to extradite him for crimes committed in the United States?"

While Alexander is obviously connected with Israel's military intelligence apparatus and George Soros through the mutually owned investment fund ComSor, what is not widely reported is his company's close links with Odigo, the Israeli-run instant messaging company that received – and conveyed – urgent warning messages about the imminent terror attacks on the World Trade Center, several hours before the first plane hit.

The New York Times certainly must be well aware of the personal and business connection between Alexander and Odigo since they did an extensive interview with Avner and Maskit Ronen, the founders of Odigo, for their Sunday magazine in September 2000.

The magazine article about the Ronen's, titled "Immigrants with an I.P.O." could have been titled "Immigrants on a Mission." The Ronens, both with military backgrounds in computer science, "put down few roots," during their first years in New York City, the Times reported.

"They made no friends outside the office and had no taste at all for networking at Silicon Alley parties," the NYT Magazine wrote. "They sought neither driver's licenses nor a local physician." The bizarre photograph in the article showed two silhouetted figures hidden in the dark. These were the Ronens, Israeli military officers on a mission in New York.


There is ample evidence that many Israelis were forewarned of the attacks through an Israeli instant messaging service called Odigo. This story, which presents the clearest evidence of Israeli prior knowledge of the attacks, was reported only very briefly in the U.S. media – and then completely forgotten and deleted.

According to the news reports, at least two Israel-based employees of Odigo reported having received warnings of an imminent attack in New York City hours before the first plane hit the WTC.

Odigo, an Israeli-owned company had its U.S. headquarters only two blocks from the World Trade Center, yet Odigo failed to pass the warning it had received on to the authorities in New York, a move that would have saved thousands of lives.

Two weeks after 9-11, Alex Diamandis, Odigo's vice president, said, "The messages said something big was going to happen in a certain amount of time, and it did – almost to the minute."

"It was possible that the attack warning was broadcast to other Odigo members, but the company has not received reports of other recipients of the message," Diamandis said.

Based on the Israeli government figure that some 4,000 Israelis were expected to be in the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks, it seems evident that many Israeli Odigo users got the message.

Odigo, which offers real-time messaging, has a feature called "People Finder" which allows a user to send an instant message to a large group based on a common characteristic, such as Israeli nationality. "People Finder" allows Odigo users to search for online "buddies," with filters like Israeli nationality, while maintaining user privacy at all times.

The Internet address of the sender of the warning was reportedly given to the FBI. Two months later it was reported that the FBI was still investigating the matter. Since then there have been no further media reports about the Odigo warning of 9/11.

As AFP has previously reported, Odigo, like Comverse and other Israel-based software companies, is really headquartered in Herzliya, Israel, the suburb of Tel Aviv where Israeli military intelligence headquarters are located.

Typically, with these Israeli-intelligence linked outfits, the company's research and development, and any manufacturing, such as the "black box" computer surveillance equipment produced by Comverse, is all done in Israel. The U.S. offices merely function as distribution, marketing, and financial centers.

In the case of Comverse, for example, the real parent company was Alexander's Tel Aviv-based Efrat Future Technology Ltd., which carried out "all research, development, and manufacturing," for Comverse, according to a 1992 article in The Jerusalem Post.

Shortly after 9-11, Odigo was completely taken over by Comverse Technology, which had been part owner of Odigo since early 2000, if not earlier. Shortly after 9/11, five executives from Comverse were reported to have profited by more than $267 million from "insider trading."

Avner Ronen, the "founder" of Odigo, was Vice President of Business Development of Comverse Technology in October 2005. This indicates that Ronen and Alexander, both Israeli military officers with computer backgrounds, have been close business partners since early 2000.

"Comverse and Odigo have had a long-standing partnership and together have developed instant communications products and services that we have recently begun to offer to operators around the world," Zeev Bregman, CEO of the Israel-based Comverse Ltd., told The Jerusalem Post in May 2002.

Vanunu Speaks to Bollyn

July 31, 2004

Israeli Nuclear Whistleblower Risks Jail to Talk to Christopher Bollyn

Mordechai Vanunu in the garden of St. George's Cathedral in Jerusalem

Mordechai Vanunu, Israel’s most famous dissident free after 18 years in prison, is ready to defy the severe restrictions imposed upon him by the Israeli military and tell the western media everything he knows about the Middle East’s largest secret arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. However, because the hidden stockpiles belong to Israel, no American news outlet is interested in discussing this, except American Free Press.

“I have sacrificed my freedom and risked my life in order to expose the danger of nuclear weapons, which threaten this whole region,” Vanunu said in an exclusive interview with American Free Press on July 28.

Vanunu spent 18 years in an Israeli prison—11 and a half of them in solitary confinement—for providing evidence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal to a British newspaper in 1986. “I acted on behalf of all citizens and all of humanity,” said Vanunu.

In October 1986, Vanunu, a nuclear technician who had worked at the Dimona Nuclear Power Plant in the Negev Desert for 10 years, traveled to London and gave photographic evidence to The Sunday Times that Israel was secretly developing nuclear weapons. Two months earlier he had converted to Christianity while traveling in Australia.

After having learned about the secret production of plutonium for nuclear weapons at Dimona, in 1985 Vanunu believed it was his responsibility to inform the citizens of the world that an arsenal of nuclear weapons was being created in Israel.

Vanunu provided evidence and described how Israel had built an arsenal of over 200 nuclear bombs and neutron bombs. Before The Times’s story was even published, however, Vanunu had been lured to Rome and kidnapped by Israeli secret service agents. A secret trial followed, and Vanunu was locked in a tiny, windowless cell for more than a decade.

When Vanunu was released from an Israeli prison on April 21, the Israeli military authorities imposed severe restrictions on his freedom. He is banned from leaving the country, confined to an assigned residence and denied the right to be in contact with journalists or foreigners.

The human rights organization Amnesty International (AI) protested the restrictions imposed on Vanunu saying on April 19: “Vanunu must not be subject to arbitrary restrictions and violations of his fundamental rights on the basis of pretexts or suspicions about what he may do in the future.”

The restrictions on Vanunu’s movement, speech and association violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Israel has ratified and is obliged to uphold, according to AI.

While Israeli officials contend the restrictions are to prevent Vanunu from divulging information about Israel’s nuclear arsenal, AI sees it differently:

“Israel’s determination to curtail Vanunu’s freedom and contact with the outside world seem to be intended to prevent him from revealing details of his abduction by Israeli secret service agents 18 years ago in Rome in what was clearly an unlawful act,” AI said.

According to Jonathan Cook of The Guardian in Britain, Vanunu’s brother, Meir, who lives with him at St. George’s, says there is another motive for the restrictions and confinement of Israel’s most famous dissident: Vanunu’s release brings attention to Israel’s nuclear arsenal at precisely the moment when the justification for attacking Saddam Hussein’s Iraq—his possession of weapons of mass destruction—is shown to have been hollow.

“If Vanunu were free to talk, he might remind the world that the greatest threat to Middle East peace comes not from Baghdad but from Tel Aviv,” Cook wrote. “That is a message neither America nor Britain wants to hear right now.”

The same controlled U.S. media networks that sent embedded reporters into combat in Iraq and published false reports about that nation’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, are seemingly afraid to go to St. George’s Cathedral in East Jerusalem and interview Vanunu, Israel’s most famous dissident and peace activist, for fear of crossing a line drawn by the Israeli military.

American Free Press, however, and the London-based Arabic language newspaper Al Hayat have interviewed Vanunu recently from St. George’s, where he has sought asylum in the Anglican church compound a short distance from the U.S. Consulate in East Jerusalem.


Comments made by Vanunu during an interview with Al Hayat’s weekly magazine Al Wassat, published on July 25, made headlines around the world but were completely ignored in the United States, where they could have caused immense political damage to Israel. As The Jerusalem Post’s article headline read, “Vanunu: Israel behind JFK assassination.”

Russia’s Pravda article of July 27 began: “Israel may be implicated in the biggest crime of the past century, which took place in Dallas in 1963.”

Iran’s Tehran Times, writing from Jerusalem, said: “In a startling accusation, nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu has alleged that Jerusalem was behind the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, who was exerting pressure on the then Israeli head of state to shed light on the Dimona nuclear plant.”

Similar articles appeared in newspapers around the world, but in the United States this explosive news was only reported by wire services and in Jewish newspapers.

Vanunu’s comments that there are “near-certain indications” that Israel was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy support the thesis of Michael Collins Piper, presented in his book Final Judgment, that Israeli agents played a key role in the murder.

AFP asked Vanunu to explain his comments about Israeli involvement in the murder of President Kennedy.

“My view is that Kennedy was assassinated because of his strong opposition to [Israeli prime minister] Ben Gurion,” Vanunu said.

At the time, Ben Gurion was working to create a nuclear arsenal for Israel.

The group that was involved with Ben Gurion in developing and protecting Israel’s nuclear arsenal “was behind the assassination of Kennedy,” Vanunu said.

As Piper documents in Final Judgment, Kennedy’s resistance to Israel becoming a nuclear-armed state led to increasing hostility between the two leaders until Ben Gurion resigned in June 1963. Kennedy had realized that the Israelis were producing illegal nuclear weapons from the nuclear reactor given to Israel in 1959 under the “Atoms for Peace” program.

In the Al Wassat interview, Vanunu said: “Israel possesses between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons, including a neutron bomb and hydrogen bombs, which are tenfold in their effect. If an atomic bomb can kill 100,000 people then the hydrogen bomb can kill a million.

“We do not know which irresponsible Israeli prime minister will take office and decide to use nuclear weapons in the struggle against neighboring Arab countries,” The Jerusalem Post reported Vanunu having said. “What has already been exposed about the weapons Israel is holding [is that they] can destroy the region and kill millions.”


Vanunu also warned of the environmental dangers of nuclear leaks at Israel’s antiquated nuclear facility at Dimona. An earthquake or nuclear accident at Dimona could result in the “leaking of nuclear radiation, threatening millions of people in neighboring countries,” Vanunu said.

Jordan, in particular, was mentioned as being in danger of nuclear contamination. “Dimona’s chimneys do not operate unless the winds blow in the direction of Jordan,” Vanunu said.

A Jordanian government spokesman, Asma Khader, responded promptly to Vanunu’s claim, saying, “The kingdom is free of radiation.”

Vanunu also criticized the recent visit to Israel of Mohamed El Baradei, head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“I am very disappointed by Mr. El Baradei because I expected him to go and inspect the Dimona reactor,” Vanunu said. “The job of Mr. Baradei is to go and see if what I said . . . if it’s true.”

Vanunu stressed to AFP his strong desire to speak with the media despite the restrictions, and provide them with information and his views on the need for peace—and a nuclear-free Middle East.

Asked if the U.S. media was interested in meeting him, Vanunu said “not one” American or British newspaper or television network had visited him at St. George’s since his release from prison.

“Why are they in silence?” Vanunu asked AFP about the U.S. media. “Why is the press not coming to see me? The media should bring my case to the people and the politicians. This case must be heard.”

Linda Rothstein, editor of the Chicago-based Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, however, showed little interest in Vanunu’s story, saying that Vanunu has his supporters and that the Bulletin is not an advocacy group.

Likewise, Kay Seok of Human Rights Watch said that there was nothing they could do. “Nobody at HRW is working on Israel right now,” she said.


Vanunu desperately wants to leave Israel, where he is viewed as a traitor, and seek political asylum in the United States. Nick and Mary Eoloff of St. Paul, Minnesota, have formally adopted Vanunu and are ready to provide him sanctuary.

Mrs. Eoloff told AFP that Vanunu’s life is in danger in Israel.

“I want to go abroad and start my life as a free man,” Vanunu said after Israel’s high court upheld the military’s restrictions on his movement and freedom. “If Israel is a democracy, it should allow me to do it.”

Asked if he had been tortured during his 18 years in prison, Vanunu said, “Of course.”

He said he had been subjected to “mental and psychological torture” that was “cruel and barbaric.”

Because he had converted to Christianity he had received worse treatment than Jewish prisoners, he said. Vanunu said he had been treated like a Palestinian and that his captors had tried to “destroy” him.

“I am a symbol of the will of freedom,” he said. “You cannot break the human spirit.”

Asked about his supporters in the United States, Vanunu said: “I need their support to get me out. Americans should raise their voices with their congressmen and ask them in a loud voice to visit me and bring attention to my case.

“My country is not Israel,” Vanunu said. “I want to be free and to leave Israel.”

“Israel does not respect my basic human rights,” Vanunu said. “I am denied the freedom of movement and freedom of speech—like all Palestinians. I want peace and freedom from all nuclear weapons in the Middle East.”

Source:  American Free Press, July 31, 2004

The Great Game


The War For Caspian Oil And Gas
By Christopher Bollyn

October 2001

President Bush's "crusade" against the Taliban of Afghanistan has more to do with control of the immense oil and gas resources of the Caspian Basin than it does with rooting out terrorism.


Once again an American president from the Bush family is leading Americans down an oil-rich Middle Eastern warpath against enemies of freedom and democracy.

President George W. Bush, whose family is well connected to oil and energy companies, has called for an international crusade against Islamic terrorists, who he says hate Americans simply because we are "the brightest beacon of freedom."

The focus on religion-based terrorism serves to conceal important aspects of the Central Asian conflict. President Bush's noble rhetoric about fighting for justice and democracy is masking a less noble struggle for control of an estimated $5 trillion of oil and gas resources from the Caspian Basin.

One of the material results of the elder Bush's Desert Storm military campaign in 1991 was to secure access to the huge Rumaila oil field of southern Iraq, which was accomplished by expanding the boundaries of Kuwait after the war. This allowed Kuwait, a former British protectorate where American and British oil companies are heavily invested, to double its prewar oil output.

The Trepca mine complex in Kosovo, one of the richest mines of Europe, was seized last year by George Soros and Bernard Kouchner, two Jewish members of the New World Order gang who devastated Serbia.

A similar geopolitical strategy, influenced by Zionist planners, to control the valuable mineral resources of the Caspian Basin underlies the planned aggression against Afghanistan, a Central Asian nation that occupies a strategic position sandwiched between the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent.

Central Asia has enormous quantities of undeveloped oil resources, including some 6.6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, waiting to be exploited. The former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are the two major gas producers in Central Asia.

Today, the only existing export routes from the area lead through Russia. Investors in Caspian oil and gas are interested in building alternative pipelines to Turkey and Europe, and especially to the rapidly growing Asian markets.

India, Iran, Russia, and Israel, are working on a plan to supply oil and gas to south and southeast Asia through India but instability in Afghanistan is posing a great threat to this effort.

Afghanistan lies squarely between Turkmenistan, home to the world's third-largest natural gas reserves, and the lucrative markets of the Indian subcontinent, China and Japan. A memorandum of understanding has been signed to build a 900-mile natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan, but the ongoing civil war and absence of a stable government in Afghanistan have prevented the project from going forward.

Afghanistan was at the center of the so-called "Great Game" in the 19th century when Imperial Russia and the British Empire in India vied for influence. Today, its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas pipelines, makes Afghanistan an extremely important piece of a global strategy by energy magnates to obtain control over these precious resources.

Enron, a Texas-based gas and energy company, together with Amoco, British Petroleum, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil and Unocal are all engaged in a multi-billion dollar frenzy to extract the reserves of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan, the three newly independent Soviet republics that border on the Caspian Sea.

On behalf of the oil companies, an array of former cabinet members from the elder Bush administration have been actively involved in negotiations with the former Soviet republics. The dealmakers include James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Dick Cheney, and John Sununu.

Turkmenistan and Azerbijan are also both closely allied with Israeli commercial interests and Israeli military intelligence. In Turkmenistan, a former Israeli intelligence agent, Yosef A. Maiman, president of Merhav Group of Israel, is the official negotiator and policy maker responsible for developing the energy resources of Turkmenistan.

"This is the Great Game all over," Maiman told The Wall Street Journal about his role in furthering the "geopolitical goals of both the U.S. and Israel in Central Asia. "We are doing what U.S. and Israeli policy could not achieve," he said, "Controlling the transport route is controlling the product."

"Those that control the oil routes out of Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of flow and the distribution of revenues from new production," said energy expert James Dorian recently in Oil & Gas Journal on September 10, 2001.

Foreign business in Turkmenistan is dominated by Maiman's Merhav Group, according to The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA). Maiman, who was made a citizen of Turkmenistan by presidential decree, serves as Turkmenistan's official negotiator for its gas pipeline, special ambassador, and right-hand man for the authoritarian President Saparmurad Atayevich Niyazov, a former Politburo member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

The Merhav Group of Israel officially represents the Turkmen government and has brokered all of the energy projects in Turkmenistan, contracts worth many billions of dollars.

Merhav has been contracted to modernize existing natural gas infrastructure and will build new facilities in an oil refinery in the city of Turkmenbashi on the Caspian Sea. Merhav refuses to disclose its sources of financing.

In keeping with Israeli political interests, Maiman's planned pipelines bypass Iran and Russia. Maiman has said that he would have no objection to dealing with Iran, "when and if Israeli policy allows it."

Iran has accused the U.S. of trying to keep regional pipelines from passing through Iran. Creating a counterbalance to Iran's regional influence was a cornerstone of the Clinton administration, which was concerned that Iran could gain too much control over Caspian exports.

"This is a common interest for the U.S. and Israel," said Dr. Nimrod Novik, vice president of Merhav, "The primary interest is to prevent the development of Turkish strategic dependence on Iran, given the unique emerging strategic relationship between Turkey and Israel."

Russia and Turkmenistan are in a battle to conquer the Turkish gas market, the supplier that offers the best price for its gas will emerge as the winner. "This is a great race," Maiman says, "Whoever takes Turkey first wins. Whoever comes second will have lean years."

Although the U.S. needs Russian assistance in its campaign against Afghanistan, when AFP asked Alex Chorine of Caspian Investor what kind of relationship existed between the Russian and Western/Israeli energy companies doing business in the Caspian Basin, Chorine said, "They act as enemies."

One of Maiman's proposed pipelines would bring Turkmenistan's gas and oil to Turkey via Azerbaijan and Georgia. Maiman's Merhav Group is also involved in a $100 million project that would reduce the flow of water to Iraq by diverting water from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to southeastern Turkey.

Israeli officials boast of having excellent relations with Azerbaijan, where an Israeli company, Magal Security Systems, has a contract to provide security at Baku airport. Magal is one of several Israeli companies that will turn Israel into a major player in Azerbaijan by providing security for the 1,200 mile pipeline taking oil from the Caspian to the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean Sea.

Enron, the biggest contributor to the Bush campaign of 2000, conducted the feasibility study for a $2.5 billion Trans-Caspian gas pipeline, which is being built under a joint venture agreement signed in February 1999 between Turkmenistan and two American companies, Bechtel and General Electric Capital Services. Maiman acted as the intermediary between the Turkmenis and the U.S. firms, but won't discuss his cut or whether he will receive a stake in the pipeline.

The Merhav Group has hired a Washington lobbying firm, Cassidy & Associates, and spent several million dollars to encourage U.S. officials to push for the Trans-Caspian pipeline. During the Clinton administration, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson and special adviser to the president, Richard Morningstar promoted the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, calling it "critical to the economic survival of Turkmenistan."

The relationship between Israel, Turkey, and the U.S. is the major factor for the selection of the Baku-Ceyhan route, which could be extended to bring oil directly to energy deficient Israel, however, energy experts question the wisdom and cost of this route. Companies are under pressure from the U.S. and Israel to invest in east-west pipelines, although most companies would prefer cheaper north-south pipelines through Iran, according to WRMEA.

The U.S. firm Unocal was leading a pipeline project to bring Turkmenistan's abundant natural gas through Afghanistan to the growing markets of Pakistan and India, until the turmoil in Afghanistan led them to withdraw from the project in 1998. The planned pipeline would carry gas from the Turkmen Dauletabad fields, among the world's largest, to Multan in Pakistan, with a planned extension to India. The line from Dauletabad through Afghanistan is planned to transport 15 billion cubic feet of gas per year for 30 years. This pipeline is on hold until the political and military situations in Afghanistan improve.

There is a second Unocal project to build a 1,030 mile oil pipeline called the Central Asian Oil Pipeline Project, which would start at Chardzhou in Turkmenistan linking Russia's Siberian oil field pipelines to Pakistan's Arabian coast. This line could transport 1 million barrels a day of oil from other areas of the Former Soviet Union. It would run parallel to the gas line route through Afghanistan and branch off in Pakistan to the Indian Ocean terminal in Ras Malan.


Niyazov, the authoritarian president of the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic was elected in 1990, and remained in power when Turkmenistan declared independence in October 1991. In May 1992, Niyazov oversaw the passage of a new constitution giving the president extraordinary powers.

Under the new constitution, the president is head of government as well as head of state, and can appoint a prime minister at any time. The president can also appoint and remove all judges.

Niyazov's leadership became increasingly authoritarian during the 1990s. In September 1993 he defended his policy of tight censorship of the press as a prerequisite for stability and peace in the country. In a referendum held in January 1994, nearly 100 percent of the voters endorsed Niyazov's leadership, allowing him to extend his presidency until 2002.

Niyazov renamed himself Turkmenbashi (father of the Turkmen) and presents himself as a prophet and messiah. Every morning, state radio and television (no independent broadcasters exist) transmit the words of a prayer that includes an oath of allegiance to the president along with the traditional appeal to Allah.

Like Turkmenistan, the other Central Asian nations of Uzbekistan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan are all ruled by former Communists who came to power under the Soviet system. All five have been re-elected to their posts without opposition, garnering over 90 percent of the votes and securing comfortable lives in the national palaces.

In each of the Central Asian countries a strange and officially imposed dichotomy between "official" and "unofficial" Islam has appeared. Official Islam refers to religious institutions under the control of the state authorities. Unofficial Islam includes all other Muslims, especially those who believe that Islam cannot be controlled by the state power. They are accused of being extremists.

The strength of Islamic fundamentalist movements like the Taliban in Afghanistan and the anti-Russian Chechen rebels threatens the Soviet style dictatorships and their control of the region's immense mineral wealth.


Before the sun had set on the apocalyptic day that New York's gleaming twin towers collapsed, the U.S. government had already determined to affix the blame for the kamikaze attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born guerilla leader, and the Taliban government of Afghanistan which harbored him.

Although the U.S. government did not present its evidence in support of its case against bin Laden, Secretary of State Colin Powell said on September 23, "I think in the near future, we will be able to put out a paper, a document, that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack."

When it was reported that the Taliban might turn bin Laden over to face justice, the Bush administration said that surrendering bin Laden would not prevent an American-led attack on Afghanistan.

An international plan to remove the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban from power has been a subject of international diplomatic discussions for months and was reportedly raised by India during the Group of Eight summit in July in Genoa, Italy.

The Indian press reported in June 2001 that, "India and Iran will facilitate, U.S. and Russian plans for limited military action, against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime."

The invasion plans described in the Indian press in June may come to pass in October: Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will lead the ground attack with a strong military back up of the U.S. and Russia. Vital Taliban installations and military assets will be targeted.

The economic reasons for the multi-national assault against the Taliban were explained: Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan are threatened by the Taliban that is aiming to control their vast oil, gas, and other resources by bringing Islamic fundamentalists into power.

What was not explained in the Indian press is how these four predominantly Islamic Central Asian nations would be threatened by having Islamic fundamentalists in power.

  • See also:

    The Sudden Death of Niazov
    By Christopher Bollyn
    21 December 2006

    The sudden death of President Saparmurat A. Niyazov of Turkmenistan opens up a new chapter in the Great Game for control of the mineral wealth of Turkmenistan - and the Caspian Basin.


Photo: In May 2005, President Bush and Laura Bush joined President Saparmurat A. Niyazov of Turkmenistan and the Ukrainian president, Viktor A. Yushchenko, to mark a World War II anniversary in Moscow.

It should be remembered that Niyazov was a totalitarian dictator "for life" not unlike Stalin. Bush did not seem to mind marching alongside a dictator like Niyazov in 2005 as American boys died for "democracy" in Iraq and Afghanistan. This photo reveals just how shallow and false that claim really is.

What matters most to Bush and his cronies is control of Central Asia and its mineral assets.

Niyazov's death may have been natural or caused by poison or doctoring. What matters most is what comes next. Turkmenistan is a neighbor to Afghanistan and has a long border on Iran's northeastern frontier.

This is key. The border of Turkmenistan is very close to Tehran.

The Israelis have long played a key role in Turkmenistan and their strategy has been to find ways to export the immense oil and gas reserves of Turkmenistan to the West without passing through Russia or Iran.

©2018 Christopher Bollyn | Sitemap | christopher at bollyn dot com