Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POtk6G7q4Bw

The submitter has disabled embedding - please watch.

Update: New link!

Find more videos like this on adap2k

Have You Read The Goldstone Report?

I haven't, yet. I'm printing it out to read on the way home. You should, as well.

So...it looks as if we will be spared World War III, if we can go the next handful of hours without a false-flag attack occurring, to somehow be blamed upon Iran. Of course, if the United States continues to support the scumbaggery perpetrated by Israel, there's always Resolution 377. Suck on that, nitwits.

So...how about that "Samson Option", eh? Let's see if you silly bastards really have the balls.

The War Game - David Hirst's account of the Arab-Israeli conflict, The Gun and the Olive Branch, caused a storm 25 years ago. In this edited extract from his new and updated edition he offers a personal and highly controversial view of the current crisis in the Middle East

* The Observer, Sunday 21 September 2003 00.51 BST

By the summer of 2002, George Bush had firmly set his new course: 'regime change' and reform in the Muslim and Arab worlds, and, where necessary, American military intervention to achieve it. Hitherto, it had been assumed that the US could not go to war in one of the two great zones of Middle East crisis - Iraq and the Gulf - before it had at least calmed things down in the other, older and more explosive one, Palestine. But the American administration's neo-conservatives had a very simple answer to that. The road to war on Iraq no longer lay through peace in Palestine; peace in Palestine lay through war on Baghdad.

It was all set forth, in its most comprehensive, well-nigh megalomaniac form, by Norman Podhoretz, the neo-cons' veteran intellectual luminary, in the September 2002 issue of his magazine, Commentary. Changes in regime, he proclaimed, were 'the sine qua non throughout the region'. They might 'clear a path to the long-overdue internal reform and modernisation of Islam'.

This was a full and final elaboration of that project, 'A Clean Break', which some of his kindred spirits had first laid before Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu back in 1996. It was the apotheosis of the 'strategic alliance', at least as much an Israeli grand design as an American one.

Under the guise of forcibly divesting Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, the US now sought to 'reshape' the entire Middle East, with this most richly endowed and pivotal of countries as the lynchpin of a whole new, pro-American geopolitical order. Witnessing such an overwhelming display of American will and power, other regimes, such as Hizbollah-supporting Syria in particular, would either have to bend to American purposes or suffer the same fate.

With the assault on Iraq, the US was not merely adopting Israel's long-established methods - of initiative, offence and pre-emption - it was also adopting Israel's adversaries as its own. Iraq had always ranked high among those; it was one of its so-called 'faraway' enemies. These had come to be seen as more menacing than the 'near' ones, and especially since they had begun developing weapons of mass destruction.

So excited was Israeli premier Ariel Sharon about this whole new Middle East order in the making that he told the Times, 'the day after' Iraq, the US and Britain should turn to that other 'faraway' enemy - Iran. For Israel, the ayatollahs' Iran had always seemed the greater menace of the two, by virtue of its intrinsic weight, its fundamentalist, theologically anti-Zionist leadership, its more serious, diversified and supposedly Russian-assisted nuclear armaments programme, its ideological affinity with, or direct sponsorship of, such Islamist organisations as Hamas or Hizbollah.

Nothing, in fact, better illustrated the ascendancy which Israel and the American 'friends of Israel' have acquired over American policy-making than did Iran. Quite simply, said Iran expert James Bill, the 'US views Iran through spectacles manufactured in Israel'. Impressing on the US the gravity of the Iranian threat has long been a foremost Israeli preoccupation.

By the early 1990s, the former Minister Moshe Sneh was warning that Israel 'cannot possibly put up with a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands'. That could and should be collectively prevented, he said, 'since Iran threatens the interests of all rational states in the Middle East'. However: 'If the Western states don't do their duty, Israel will find itself forced to act alone, and will accomplish its task by any [ie including nuclear] means.' The hint of anti-American blackmail in that remark was nothing exceptional; it has always been a leitmotif of Israeli discourse on the subject.

The showdown with Iraq has only encouraged this kind of thinking. 'Within two years,' said John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, 'either the US or Israelis are going to attack Iran's [nuclear sites] or acquiesce in Iran being a nuclear state.'

To where this Israeli-American, neo-conservative blueprint for the Middle East will lead is impossible to forecast. What can be said for sure is that it could easily turn out to be as calamitous in its consequences, for the region, America and Israel, as it is preposterously partisan in motivation, fantastically ambitious in design and terribly risky in practice.

Even if, to begin with, it achieves what, by its authors' estimate, is an outward, short-term measure of success, it will not end the violence in the Middle East. Far more likely is that, in the medium or the long term, it will make it very much worse. For the violence truly to end, its roots must be eradicated, too, and the noxious soil that feeds them cleansed.

It is late, but perhaps not too late, for that to happen. The historic - and historically generous - compromise offer which Yasser Arafat, back in 1988, first put forward for the sharing of Palestine between its indigenous people and the Zionists who drove most of them out still officially stands. It is completely obvious by now that, without external persuasion, Israel will never accept it; that the persuasion can only come from Israel's last real friend in the world, the US; that, for the persuasion to work, there has to be 'reform' or 'regime change' in Israel quite as far-reaching as any to be wrought on the other side.

Given the partisanship, it is, admittedly, highly unlikely to happen any time soon. But if it doesn't happen in the reasonably foreseeable future, there may come a time when it can no longer happen at all. The Palestinian leadership may withdraw its offer, having concluded, like many of its people already have, that, however conciliatory it becomes, whatever fresh concessions it makes, it will never be enough for an adversary that seems to want all.

The Hamas rejectionists, and/or those, secular as well as religious, who think like them, may take over the leadership. The whole, broader, Arab-Israeli peace process which Anwar Sadat began, and which came to be seen as irreversible, may prove to be reversible after all. In which case, the time may also come when the cost to the US of continuing to support its infinitely importunate protégé in a never-ending conflict against an ever-widening circle of adversaries is greater than its will and resources to sustain it.

That would very likely be a time when Israel itself is already in dire peril. And if it were, then America would very likely discover something else: that the friend and ally it has succoured all these years is not only a colonial state, not only extremist by temperament, racist in practice, and increasingly fundamentalist in the ideology that drives it, it is also eminently capable of becoming an 'irrational' state at America's expense as well as its own.

The threatening of wild, irrational violence, in response to political pressure, has been an Israeli impulse from the very earliest days. It was first authoritatively documented, in the 1950s, by Moshe Sharett, the dovish Prime Minister, who wrote of his Defence Minister, Pinhas Lavon, that he 'constantly preached for acts of madness' or 'going crazy' if ever Israel were crossed. Without a 'just, comprehensive and lasting' peace which only America can bring to pass, Israel will remain at least as likely a candidate as Iran, and a far more enduring one, for the role of 'nuclear-crazy' state.

Iran can never be threatened in its very existence. Israel can. Indeed, such a threat could even grow out of the current intifada. That, at least, is the pessimistic opinion of Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. 'If it went on much longer,' he said, 'the Israeli government [would] lose control of the people. In campaigns like this, the anti-terror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing. I regard a total Israeli defeat as unavoidable. That will mean the collapse of the Israeli state and society. We'll destroy ourselves.'

In this situation, he went on, more and more Israelis were coming to regard the 'transfer' of the Palestinians as the only salvation; resort to it was growing 'more probable' with each passing day. Sharon 'wants to escalate the conflict and knows that nothing else will succeed'.

But would the world permit such ethnic cleansing? 'That depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.'

* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

Oh, The Irony

Xymphora has done a posting in regards to the UN speeches given by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Libyan President Moammar Qaddafi - read it here.

My comment follows:

The best part is that the UN is insisting on doing an inspection on a signatory to the NNTP, insisted upon by a NON-signatory, who just happens to possess nuclear weapons.

Oh, the irony...

Seriously...what kind of Mickey Mouse operation is this?!? Let's put this in perspective: you're a judge; a plaintiff has entered your courtroom with a case against a defendant. Plaintiff states that defendant has the will to make bombs in his apartment, and you're scared, and you wish to halt said activity. You hear the facts of the case; but an interesting exhibit is entered into evidence; namely, that THE PLAINTIFF HAS BOMBS IN THEIR APARTMENT! Would your decision be to attack the entity without the bombs, to the detriment of the entity that DOES possess them?

Back to the main focus of my blog - David Martin has related a tale by Hugh Turley which paints quite a different picture of the fate of United Airlines Flight 93.

Reprinting - Outfoxing the 9/11 Coverup

Gordon Duff - Salem-News.com

With the 9/11 Commission rescinding their own report, 9/11 debunking machine is now our "smoking gun".

(CINCINNATTI, Ohio) - When 9/11 Commission Chief Counsel, John Farmer, released his book, The Ground Truth, debunking his own 9/11 commission report and was supported by Chairman Thomas Kean and commission member Senator Bob Kerrey with no dissent, the cover story of 9/11 died.

This leaves us with these inescapable facts:

* We no longer have an official answer to questions about 9/11.

* Perjured testimony and falsified information given to the original commission is a criminal act and demands a Grand Jury investigation and Special Prosecutor.

* Hundreds of respected leaders of the military, law enforcement, intelligence and scientific communities question the credibility of an investigation now proven beyond a doubt a conspiracy in itself.

* The institutions of government, including all 3 branches, Executive, Judicial and Legislative have combined in an unexplainable way in their failure to respond to circumstances that legally require action.

* The press has continued a pattern of distortion of facts, suppression of news and has engaged in a systematic campaign of deception.

Years have passed and soon 10,000 Americans will have died. Taking into account the epidemic of veterans suicides, we may have already passed that figure now. The cascade of events, financial collapse, government spying, oil price fixing, massive military corruption and a dozen more issues as serious have been able to move beyond our ability of everyday citizens to influence.

In fact, the most corrupt and debased groups involved in the 9/11 cover-up are being actively recruited by the press as a patriotic resistance.

The tone for the coverup is being set by Australian media mogul, Rupert Murdoch, who controls much of the press in the US and United Kingdom. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Murdoch's role in covering up 9/11. His networks created the "9/12ers" who are continuing the coverup and Murdoch employees like Fox funnyman, Glenn Beck, are still a major part of the effort to protect those in government who lied to the commission and may have aided the conspirators.

Murdoch's media has held to "party line" on 9/11 and the Iraq/Afghanistan war since day one, suppressing facts any time they threatened an agenda of broad regional war or supported limiting government power to operate above the law.

Conspiracy theorists, largely proven correct thus far, refer to Murdoch's position as leader of the Israeli ultra-right wing Zionist movement as a rationale for his continued involvement in the cover up. No proof of Israeli involvement in the planning and execution of 9/11 has been offered except for Murdoch's relentless disinformation campaign.

Geopolitical theorists accuse Murdoch of orchestrating a plan for Israel to draw America into a wide set of conflicts in the Middle East, tying down forces for many years, while Israel extends broad economic influence into Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The massive oil and gas reserves of the area, formerly the Jewish Kazhak empire, represent one of the greatest economic prizes in the world.

Only Iran threatens Israel's goals in this area

Over 40 years ago, the US and Israel engaged in a false flag operation against an American warship called the USS Liberty. The plan was for Israel to attack and sink an American ship, kill the crew and the US would blame Egypt, invade and oust Soviets from the Middle East and control the worlds oil supply.

A Russian spy ship observed and filmed the attack. The Israeli pilots went public. American naval officers reported White House involvement in the plot and it failed.

We only know that 9/11 was not what we were told it was and that it is being covered up by propagandists tied to Israeli extremists. Can we make assumptions from this? I say no but we can and should ask questions.

However, anyone asking a question or advocating an investigation is subjected to vicious personal attacks not limited to attempts to influence violence. The 400% increase in threats against the current president can easily be traced to their source in the media industry.

Was the Bush administration trying to repeat the Middle Eastern takeover tried by Lyndon Johnson long ago? Exposure of their plans to invade Iraq, made long before 9/11 need to be added into the equation.

9/11 could be a massive American intelligence failure with NORAD and the DOD melting down for lack of leadership. The lies told afterward could have been the result of embarrassment at total incompetence.

Nothing points to solid proof that 9/11 was staged by the US, with or without Israel. A long string of odd coincidences and a few violations of the laws of physics don't prove a massive conspiracy, not in themselves. They only raise a need for impartial investigation.

One thing can't be explained. Why are lies, known lies, still being broadcast daily, lies orchestrated from one source, meant to suppress an honest accounting of what may have been a series of mistakes?

Why go so far to cover up mistakes if they were only mistakes? With no 9/11 Commission standing behind the report that was meant to clear the Bush administration of responsibility, why is the Murdoch propaganda machine, the Wall Street Journal, Fox, Hannity, Beck and gang so busy burying something that doesn't exist?

To read more of Gordon's work, you can visit: veteranstoday.com

================================================

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and a regular contributor to Veterans Today. He specializes in political and social issues. You can see a large collection of Gordon's published articles at this link: VeteransToday.com.

He is an outspoken advocate for veterans and his powerful words have brought about change. Gordon is a lifelong PTSD sufferer from his war experiences and he is empathetic to the plight of today's veterans also suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to feature Gordon's timely and critical reports on Salem-News.com, a news organization staffed by a number of veterans, particularly former U.S. Marines.

You can send Gordon Duff an email at this address: Gpduf@aol.com

And They Wonder Why Readership And Advertising Revenue Are Dwindling

This story came live a couple of days ago, but I don't believe enough attention has been paid to said story, considering that both New York City free dailies Metro NY and AMNY devoted their second pages to hyping this so-called terror alert.

The FBI on 9/10 alerts the NYPD to an upcoming "terrorist attack." But they went too far with their hype. They tell the NYPD that they are on the trail of something really big, "on the scale of September 11th" or something to that effect. They describe to the NYPD a Denver-based al Qaeda terrorist cell of Afghanis and Pashtuns in the employ of Osama bin Laden who are about to strike, providing some details about the men but little in the way of what they are planning. The important element is the timing and the hype. BIG BIG TERROR ATTACK BY OSAMA BIN LADEN AND AL QAEDA ON 9/11 ANNIVERSARY!!!

The purpose of this false-flag was to stampede public opinion in favor of the disastrous war in Afghanistan, which now requires 40,000 more troops according to General McChrystal. This is why all of the patsies are reported as being Afghanis and Pashtuns.

The NYPD naturally becomes very alarmed by the FBI's information and tells the FBI "we're gonna move on these guys", but the FBI says it wants to wait and gather more evidence, telling the NYPD they know where the men are and have them under around-the-clock surveillance. Here we want to be mindful of the terms "mole", "patsy" and "false-flag," intelligence parlance for an operative burrowed within a law enforcement agency, an innocent dupe, and an intelligence operation masqueradring itself as a terrorist event, respectively. The FBI moles instruct the NYPD to wait because they are protecting their patsies. If the patsies are in jail they can't be scapegoated after the false-flag is carried out.

NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly decides to ignore the FBI and gives an order, raiding three apartments in Queens on 9/14, but they don't find anything and no arrests are made. Probably worth mentioning that the President of the United States is in town on this day.

The FBI is stunned and enraged that Commissioner Kelly ignored their authority and ruined their big false-flag operation. FBI goes ballistic. The tension between the two law enforcement agencies shoots through the roof.

Shortly afterward, the New York Daily News reports some kind of conflict between the NYPD and the FBI because of Commissioner Kelly's decision. Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne says "It is an utter fabrication that the FBI is furious with Kelly or that Kelly fought to shut down the action early", denying that there is any problem. Pay close attention to Browne's words, the truth always surfaces....

The FBI becomes frantic. Their false-flag operation has been blown after they ran all of this BIG HYPE. They have to come up with something and THEY ARE FURIOUS WITH COMMISSIONER KELLY AND THE NYPD...

Amazingly, as these developments are unfolding the New York Daily News somehow became aware of a "confidential five-page FBI document on police corruption" allegedly based upon statements made by John Alite, a Mafia turncoat who is cooperating with the government in it's prosecution of John Gotti Jr. Alite is said by the FBI to have named some very high profile NY police detectives - including the well-known and highly decorated Bo Dietl, whose storied career was made into the film "One Tough Cop" - as corrupt cops who fed information to the NY Mafia. A driver for Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau was also accused, along with Suffolk County police officer Nicholas Tobia, was once honored as "cop-of-the-month" for busting a rapist and another well-known NYPD Detective named Joe Coffey.

So who told the New York Daily News about this "confidential" FBI report?

What the FBI has done to the NYPD here is something similar to what Karl Rove did to John Kerry during the 2004 US presidential race. Rove attacks Kerry's military background, right, his most formidable quality as a candidate. The FBI is doing the same thing in slandering these highly decorated and high-profile NYC/Suffolk County cops.

The FBI moles must have had a bout of temporary insanity or suffered some kind of emotional breakdown. Should we now expect Bo Dietl and all of these other accused gentlemen to face some kind of federal prosecution? Wow.

As of now the FBI is scrambling to produce something, anything for the sake of salvaging their blown operation.

You didn't read this in any newspaper...and you should've; instead, you were presented with a rambling diatribe of maybes, might-haves and non-events.

Speaking of "rambling diatribes", is this really the message America wishes to send abroad - if we cannot enlist you in our coterie of tin-pot dictator, a la Pinochet, Noriega, etc., we will simply denigrate your efforts at mediation as "an address that lasted 96 rambling minutes"? Even worse, before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad began, the U.S. delegation walks out on his speech?

What the hell is this shite? "It's my ball, and you don't play by my rules, I'm taking it and going home?"

I thought the U.N. was a place for adult dialogue, not hissy fits.

I understand that from listening to broadcasts from 1010WINS that some still consider the elections in Iran to have been gamed; yet, there is no word in regards to the elections in Afghanistan, where it was widely reported; albeit, not in "mainstream media"; that not only were ballots pre-marked for Hamid Karzai, but that ballots from precinct known to not have turned out votes for the puppet dictator were helicoptered into a ravine!

You can't make this crap up!

So...having said all that, I want to impress upon the news organizations - your role is NOT as lapdogs for the government; your role is as watchdogs AGAINST government wrongdoing and watching out for WE THE PEOPLE.

When you retake your proper role, you will see your readership return.

Maybe.

Almost forgot - Subverted Nation posted the Good Ole Boy Podcast #2 yesterday! I listened to it last night - hoo boy, are you in for a treat.

The UN Deception

Thanks to Brian for the video.

Oops...looks as if this video was Orwelled...here's a completely treasonous piece by Jeffrey Goldberg in the New York Times on 5/16/2009:

Op-Ed Contributor
Israel’s Fears, Amalek’s Arsenal

By JEFFREY GOLDBERG
Published: May 16, 2009
WHEN the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, visits the White House on Monday for his first stage-setting visit, he will carry with him an agenda that clashes insistently with that of President Obama. Mr. Obama wants Mr. Netanyahu to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state. Mr. Netanyahu wants something else entirely: the president’s agreement that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Mr. Netanyahu, in his first term as prime minister in the late 1990s, earned a reputation for conspicuous insincerity. It is therefore possible to interpret his fixation on Iran — he told me in a recent conversation that it is ruled by a “messianic apocalyptic cult” — as a way of avoiding the mare’s nest of problems associated with the Middle East peace process, especially the escalating pressure from the Obama administration to curb Jewish settlement on the West Bank.
This reading of Mr. Netanyahu holds that he is, at bottom, a cynic (or, if you agree with him, a pragmatist), who will bluff vigorously but bend whenever he thinks it expedient or unavoidable. In his first term, he betrayed the principles of the Greater Israel movement by relinquishing part of Judaism’s second-holiest city, Hebron, to the control of Yasir Arafat. His pragmatism evinces itself, as well, in his apparent belief that the relationship between Israel and Washington is sacrosanct. In other words, Mr. Netanyahu, despite his rhetoric, would never launch a strike on Iran without the permission of Mr. Obama — permission that in no way appears forthcoming.
But this is to misread both the prime minister and this moment in Jewish history. It is true that Mr. Netanyahu would prefer to avoid hard decisions concerning the Palestinian issue, for reasons both political (he is not, let us say, sympathetic to the cause of Palestinian self-determination) and strategic (he believes the Palestinians, divided and dysfunctional, their extremists firmly in the Iranian camp, are unready for compromise).
Nevertheless, the prime minister’s preoccupation with the Iranian nuclear program seems sincere and deeply felt. I recently asked one of his advisers to gauge for me the depth of Mr. Netanyahu’s anxiety about Iran. His answer: “Think Amalek.”
“Amalek,” in essence, is Hebrew for “existential threat.” Tradition holds that the Amalekites are the undying enemy of the Jews. They appear in Deuteronomy, attacking the rear columns of the Israelites on their escape from Egypt. The rabbis teach that successive generations of Jews have been forced to confront the Amalekites: Nebuchadnezzar, the Crusaders, Torquemada, Hitler and Stalin are all manifestations of Amalek’s malevolent spirit.
If Iran’s nuclear program is, metaphorically, Amalek’s arsenal, then an Israeli prime minister is bound by Jewish history to seek its destruction, regardless of what his allies think. In our recent conversation, Mr. Netanyahu avoided metaphysics and biblical exegesis, but said that Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons represented a “hinge of history.”
“Iran has threatened to annihilate a state,” he said. “In historical terms, this is an astounding thing. It’s a monumental outrage that goes effectively unchallenged in the court of public opinion. Sure, there are perfunctory condemnations, but there’s no j’accuse — there’s no shock.” He argued that one lesson of history is that “bad things tend to get worse if they’re not challenged early.” He went on, “Iranian leaders talk about Israel’s destruction or disappearance while simultaneously creating weapons to ensure its disappearance.”
Mr. Netanyahu doesn’t believe that Iran would necessarily launch a nuclear-tipped missile at Tel Aviv. He argues instead that Iran could bring about the eventual end of Israel simply by possessing such weaponry. “Iran’s militant proxies would be able to fire rockets and engage in other terror activities while enjoying a nuclear umbrella,” he said. This could lead to the depopulation of the Negev and the Galilee, both of which have already endured sustained rocket attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah.

You'll need to read the rest at NYTimes.com.

Xymphora has a good analysis of the op-ed - I simply posit that we cannot go on having people with dual-loyalties embedded within our government.

NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS.

Oh...found a alternate version of the video:

What's All The Whining About?

The New York Sun reports: Big Protest Rally Taking Shape To Greet Ahmadinejad at U.N.; Haaretz reports on The speech Palin never gave: Ahmadinejad dreams of Final Solution.

Uhm...what?

This is all a lot of hullabaloo about NOTHING.

Actually, that's not quite true...it is about stifling a voice - that voice belongs to the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - considering the shoddy treatment that he's received at the hands of our Distraction Media, he is owed an opportunity to clear the air.

For example, he never said these words: "Israel must be wiped off the map"; in fact, he has stated that his disagreements are with the policies of Israel, and not with Israelis. That is a very important distinction to make.

There is a lot of rhetoric rebounding within the halls of power: as it currently stands, we have Iran on one hand, being threatened with either invasion or annihilation, being backed by both Russia and China; on the other hand, we have Israel, who maintains that Iran is a threat to their existence, backed by us, the good ol' United States of America.

Pity us.

Let's see how the whole shebang goes tomorrow.