Distorted Media

White House Correspondent Helen Thomas—A Casualty of Zionist Duplicity

by James M. Rockefeller

Zionist operatives ambushed veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas, a friend and a great American. When they won, America lost.

When reviewing the unedited video of her “interview,” what you see is a rabbi rephrasing her answers to a question about Israel. Her response: “They should get the hell out of Palestine.“ The United Nations long ago endorsed that stance.

It was not Thomas but the rabbi that offended the Jewish community. Language cited as “anti-Semitic” came not from her but from responses that the rabbi restated as leading questions. She simply spoke the truth: Jewish settlers should leave the occupied territories and, as she rightly said: “go home.”

The rabbi, an operative for the Anti-Defamation League, knew what he was doing when he ensnared this frail and distinguished 89-year old journalist. The ADL and other Zionist strategists have long sought her removal from this influential position.

This operation was carried out as part of Jewish Heritage Week, a first in White House history. Nothing was said about the perils to which America has long been subjected due to its entangled alliance with the Jewish state.

The campaign to force Thomas’ removal was led by former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. Recall that Fleischer is the Zionist insider who repeatedly insisted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

How did those seeking recognition for their “Jewishness” repay the trust of a nation and its people? Zionist operatives targeted the only reporter who challenged Israel’s nuclear weapons program. By bushwhacking her on the White House lawn, Zionists reconfirmed that they are, in fact, in control.

No one dared mention how Zionist Heritage has ravaged America from within. Or how Zionism was aided by a series of pathetic presidents and advisers offering their unflinching support for an increasingly unstable Israeli leadership.

The Tel Aviv Two-Step

In the same news cycle when the current White House press secretary portrayed Thomas’ remarks as “reprehensible,” nothing was said about the Turkish-American teenager shot in the head when Israeli forces boarded a Gaza relief flotilla. As “our” media fixated on Ms. Thomas, the public’s attention was diverted from that murder.

What is reprehensible is this: no U.S. journalist has shown the courage to challenge a U.S. president on Israel.  When President Obama gave his first news conference, it was Helen Thomas who asked which country in the Middle East has nuclear weapons. Rather than reply, he did the Tel Aviv Two-Step and avoided her question.

That’s a key reason an ADL operative targeted her. The strategic objective: to serve notice that NO ONE can pose honest questions about the many perils that the U.S.-Israel “special relationship” poses to the security of the U.S. and other nations.

Why Now?

When the latest “terrorist incident” fizzled in Times Square, the U.N. was then advancing an agenda pursued by President John F. Kennedy in the 1960s: a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. In a historic U.N. vote, even the U.S. agreed—over Israeli objections—to make the Middle East a Nuclear Free Zone.

That treaty would mandate that Israel dismantle its nuclear arsenal. An idealistic young U.S. president was vigorously pursuing that goal when his life was brought to an abrupt end. As the first woman to serve as a White House correspondent, Helen Thomas knew Kennedy as the first of ten presidents she covered over five decades.

This history was well known to those who brought her truth-seeking career to an abrupt end. That’s why she was ambushed.  She was the last mainstream American journalist who dared question a U.S. President about Israel’s nuclear weapons.

Had Zionists not removed her, they knew she would have asked President Obama: “When is the U.S. going to pressure its ally to give up a nuclear arsenal estimated to be in excess 200 nuclear warheads?”

Zionists won this round. No remaining White House correspondent is likely to ask the hard questions about Israel’s impact on America’s national security interests. ADL operatives, acting on behalf of a foreign government, made sure of it.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama’s love fest with the Jewish state continues while Zionist policies persist in undermining America’s credibility and endangering U.S. troops abroad.

Today’s White House resident resembles previous occupants in his inability to say no to Zionist demands. By his silence, he enabled an agent of a foreign government to silence one of America’s most trusted voices covering the White House.

Helen Thomas knows the scope and scale of Zionist operations inside the U.S. She saw it firsthand through ten presidencies from both major U.S. political parties.

By silencing this voice of truth, Israel’s goals were advanced. Now the American public can once again be denied the facts they require to make informed choices.

An international businessman, Mr. Rockefeller resides in Arizona

Is the Times Square Terrorist an Asset of Organized Crime?

When waging modern warfare, often the loudest sound is the one you don’t hear

Why is no one reporting that “Faisal the Fizzler” is tied to Israeli-American Leon Black and Israel-dominated organized crime syndicates dating back to the 1920s? Why is no one reporting the ties to junk bond king and Israeli-American Michael Milken? How can Americans make informed choices without access to the real facts?

Faisal Sharzad—AKA The Times Square Fizzler—reportedly was trained by the “Pakistan Taliban” for a deadly deed that went horribly wrong.

Not only did he lock his keys in the car, including his apartment key, his Rube Goldberg contraption of alarm clocks, Walmart propane tanks and firecrackers failed to explode.

Apparently he was also expertly trained to purchase fertilizer that could not possibly explode.

Happily, Pakistani Evil Doers did not train him to drive. He could have ended up in New Jersey.

Somehow he found his way to one of the busiest streets in midtown Manhattan just as the United Nations—in midtown Manhattan—was preparing to debate a treaty to create a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.

Was that part of the story missing from the Fox News coverage you saw of this incident? In truth, for non-coverage any mainstream source would suffice.

That U.N. treaty, first proposed in 1995, would force Israel to forfeit its nuclear weapons, a goal first sought by President John F. Kennedy in June 1963. We know how that worked out.

What’s become of this Muslim Evil Doer after he miraculously found his way to Times Square—after miraculously eluding airport security during his 16 trips abroad to train with the Pakistan Taliban? Did he come and go through the same airports where security was provided by ICTS, the Israeli firm that played host to the dreaded “Christmas Day Bomber“?

Though Faisal refreshed a flagging storyline—The Global War on Terrorism—the Fizzler’s storyline has since become problematic. Let’s take a closer look.

News You Can Trust

CNN briefly showed a photo of Apollo Management, Sharzad’s employer. That photo appeared on CNN for about a second. End of story and no mention since. Why?

Here’s the online Newsweek account of where the Fizzler worked from 2006-2009:

May 4 (Bloomberg) — Faisal Shahzad, charged with attempting to bomb New York’s Times Square, worked for three years at a company controlled by Leon Black’s private-equity firm, Apollo Management LP.

Who is Leon Black? What is Apollo? And why isn’t his three years of employment there newsworthy?

Remember Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood Shooter? His job history provided key clues to his bizarre behavior. Is that why Hasan too has disappeared from the news?

Are the Clues Hidden in Plain Sight?

Imagine this: what if the intelligence that induced the U.S. to war in Iraq was “fixed” around a preset goal. What if the common source of that treachery is poised to become transparent?

If you were complicit in a deception of that magnitude—a clear act of treason—how would you obscure the facts? What measures would you take to sustain the storyline?

If you are the Evil Doer, how would you maintain a Muslim Evil Doer narrative? What would be required to advance a storyline built on a belief in the threat of Islamo fascism?

What happens to the storyline if the pre-war intelligence is proven a fiction traceable to a common source? What then for the storytellers?

For those marketing The Clash of Civilizations, Major Hasan’s psychotic break at Fort Hood in Texas was a well-timed blessing. Likewise for the Christmas Day Bomber and the Times Square Terrorist.

See if you can detect a common thread in this marketing of the Hasan threat by Family Security Matters:

• President Carol Taber described this incident as “the Ft. Hood terrorist attack” by an “Islamist gunman.”
• Editor Pam Meister promoted “the shocking TRUTH (sic) behind these attacks so that we might ward off those yet to come.”
• Executive Vice-President Linda Cohen, a trustee of the Anti-Defamation League, offered this advice: “No one is safe now. Not you, not the military, not your children, not office workers nor subway riders, nor anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Why was the Times Square Fizzler at just the right place at just the right time?

Advancing the Narrative

Is there a precedent for combining aberrant personal behavior and “terrorism” to advance a preset agenda? Do you recall the sniper attacks around Washington, D.C. in October 2002?

That murder spree began one day before debate commenced on Senate Resolution 46 proposed by Senator Joe Lieberman to authorize the use of U.S. forces in Iraq.

In the immediate aftermath of 911, Lieberman and Arizona Senator John McCain urged that the U.S. focus its forces not on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan but on regime change in Iraq.

Meanwhile the nation’s capital became a city under siege as those random attacks created widespread insecurity and heightened anxiety as serial murders left ten dead and three wounded over a 10-day period.

Those murders quickly transformed the emotionally wrenching terror of 911 into a personal reality for Washington residents, including U.S. lawmakers pondering whether to invade Iraq.

Meanwhile Lieberman and McCain—citing phony intelligence—promoted a U.S. military invasion of a nation that had no hand in that mass murder.

Assets and Transnational Treason

Was Faisal Sharzad a Pakistani patsy? In the psy-ops parlance, was he an “asset”?

An asset is term from psy-ops used to describe someone whose personality has been profiled in great depth. A reliable asset can be catalyzed to act out known personality traits in ways that advance an agenda based on the time, place and circumstances of that catalyst. While an asset’s behavior is never 100% foreseeable, it is reliable within an acceptable range of probabilities.

Walk Monica Lewinsky in front of Bill Clinton, what was the probability of his response. If a U.S. official orders that an American Muslim be held for 18 months in solitary confinement in a jail in Yemen, what’s the probability that Anwar al-Aswlaki would emerge radicalized and bearing a grudge against the U.S.?

The facts suggest that Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan was such an asset. Don’t expect to find this analysis on the Rupert Murdoch-controlled Fox News or in his many newspapers. Or on CNN despite its branding as “News You Can Trust.”

Assets are typically profiled and developed over lengthy periods of time. Their potential to act out a known personality disorder is held in reserve in much the same way that a military commander holds troops in reserve for deployment at an opportune time.

How is an asset developed in plain sight and “tasked” at the opportune time? Only a careful investigation can identify those influences particular to Dr. Hasan. Or to Faisal Sharzad. A good faith investigation would includes the decisions that led to Dr. Hasan’s transfer to Ft. Hood and the circumstances there that triggered his behavior.

That’s also true for The Times Square Fizzler. While obviously not the brightest light in the shed, he was sufficiently competent to drive a car. And apparently he was bright enough to do financial analysis for Leon Black even though he apparently bought the wrong fertilizer at Walmart.

God only knows where he bought the fireworks. Perhaps in New Jersey.

A similar history of befuddled behavior surrounds the comically inept Christmas Day Bomber, a young Nigerian whose failed “terrorist incident” mirrors that of Sharzad. An unidentified Indian gentleman led The Crotch Bomber through Amsterdam airport security without a passport where he board a flight to the U.S.

Here’s an experiment. Try entering Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport without a passport. Then try boarding an international flight. Did it help that airport security was managed by ICTS, an Israeli firm. What’s the common component in each of these well-timed “incidents?”

Who had the means, motive, opportunity and insider intelligence to perpetrate this “terrorist” act in midtown Manhattan? What role was played by Leon Black and Apollo management?

Is The New York Times correct in its May 22^nd editorial: “As the aborted Times Square and Christmas Day bombings proved, militant groups are determined to strike here again.” Is that what these incidents “proved”? Really?

Is it sufficient to report that this latest incident is traceable to the “Pakistan Taliban”? Does that alone—and in isolation—explain how such operations are pre-staged and orchestrated?

As a combat-stress psychiatrist, Dr. Hasan dealt daily with injured and mentally troubled veterans at Walter Reed Hospital where the most grievously wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan are sent for treatment. Many of them are amputees, burned, disfigured, brain-damaged or otherwise handicapped for life. Their care—or lack thereof—is a national scandal.

While coping with that vicarious trauma, Dr. Hasan was taunted for his Muslim beliefs. He was also harassed and ridiculed for his Middle Eastern heritage even though he was born, raised and educated in the U.S.

What happened to Faisal Sharzad during his three years at Apollo? Did he encounter an experience similar to Hasan? Is that why the Leon Black connection disappeared so quickly?

To answer that question required a look at the curious history of Mr. Black, his investment banking firm and a deeper inquiry into the question of what is “proven” by this latest in a series of well-timed, high profile ‘terrorist incidents.’

The Mental Environment

The National Crime Syndicate convened its first nationwide conference in Atlantic City in 1929. That’s where the U.S. component of transnational organized crime divided the U.S. into 24 exclusive markets in order to put an end to the political problems that accompanied murderous disputes over territory.

Those territories were finalized in 1931 at a Jews-only conclave at the Franconia Hotel in Manhattan. Five of the 24 markets were established in and around New York City.

The Outfit has long been a source of pop culture narratives, including The Godfather movies starring Marlon Brando and Al Pacino and The Sopranos, a popular television series. Those storylines branded organized crime as Italian or Sicilian with Jews playing only a minor role.

This is Hollywood after all, home of the skilled storyteller and the master myth-maker.

To say Sicilian or Italian organized crime will not unleash the hounds. To say “Jewish” organized crime assures a snarling charge of anti-Semitism—unless you’re Jewish. In that case, the offense is downgraded to “self-hating Jew.” Those remain the only two alternatives for anyone willing speaking candidly—and factually—about organized crime.

Estonian Kalle Lasn saw firsthand how myth could displace facts in plain sight by psy-ops specialists skilled at targeting the mental environment. In March 2004, he published an article inAdbusters, a Vancouver-based magazine that he founded. First he cited key facts: less than three percent of Americans are Jewish (1.7% according to most sources). Yet when you examine a list of the top 50 neoconservatives advocating war in Iraq, 26 are are Jewish (52%).

Noting the wildly disproportionate numbers, he titled the article: “Why Won’t Anyone Say They’re Jewish?” He soon found out. He was attacked as an “anti-Semite” for asking the question.

Don’t ask. Don’t tell.

Yet the facts remain indisputable—both for the Neocons and for those who dominate transnational organized crime. The bulk of those who “fixed” U.S. intelligence to invade Iraq were either Jewish or “assets” whose careers were nurtured by pro-Israelis.

Lasn’s subtitle for Adbusters: The Journal of the Mental Environment. Could that environment be the target of this series of well-timed “terrorist” incidents? Were these incidents stage to advance reinvigorate a faltering storyline with “incidents” that could plausibly be blamed on Muslim Evil Doers? Is Faisal the Fizzler part of an ongoing psy-ops? What about Fox News? CNN?

Only a good faith investigation can answer that question. The answer may require a closer look at Leon Black and a glimpse into the “fields within fields…within fields” of relationships through which organized crime operates across time and distance.

Discrediting and Disabling the U.S.

Leon Black first appeared on the national scene in 1975 when his father “fell” to his death from the 44^th floor of Manhattan’s Pan Am Building. Two years later, the son emerged as head of mergers and acquisitions and co-head of corporate finance at Drexel Burnham Lambert where he worked closely with Michael Milken, the firm’s “junk bond” specialist in Beverly Hills.

In the 1970s, Cincinnati’s Carl Lindner and his American Financial Group began investing in United Fruit. To escape the firm’s notorious past, its name was changed to United Brands and then Chiquita Brands International. After the death of CEO Eli Black, Lindner assumed control.

United Fruit became a key conduit for moving Israeli arms into covert wars throughout Latin America, culminating in the Iran-Contra scandal of 1987. That scandal discredited the presidency of Ronald Reagan when he was forced to concede that his administration sold arms to Iran, an avowed enemy, and used the funds to arm Nicaraguan rebels despite a Congressional ban.

The term “Banana Republic” traces to the corrupting influence of United Fruit. The U.S. was discredited throughout Latin America and the Caribbean by the firm’s multi-decade bribery of foreign officials and its use of force to control and impoverish indigenous peoples.

Lindner’s American Financial Group was an early investor in Drexel’s high-yield (“junk”) securities packaged by Milken in deals coordinated with Leon Black in midtown Manhattan. Other early junk bond investors included insurance firms owned by Saul Steinberg and Meshulam Riklis.

Riklis’ Rapid-American Corp. became an acquisition vehicle for Lerner Shops, Playtex and RKO film studios, previously owned in part by bootlegger and stock swindler Joseph P. Kennedy, the politically ambitious father of John F. Kennedy. JFK was murdered five months after he sought to end Israel’s nuclear weapons program to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

In 1967, in one of the first junk bond-financed leveraged buyouts (Michael Milken was still an undergraduate at the University of California Berkeley) Riklis acquired Lewis Rosenstiel’s shares in Schenley Industries based in Cincinnati, Lindner’s hometown.

The Istanbul-born Riklis paid for Schenley with junk bonds issued by Rapid-American, a firm partly owned by Lindner. Under Lindner’s leadership, United Fruit’s purchase of 40% of Rapid-American reportedly provided majority owner Riklis and his colleagues with resources to purchase for Israeli General Ariel Sharon his ranch in Israel’s Negev Desert where the Jewish state’s nuclear arsenal was developed at the Dimona reactor facility.

Fields within Fields

Rosenstiel’s wife, Leonore, left him to marry Walter Annenberg, Ronald Reagan’s “best friend for 50 years” according to Nancy Reagan. Annenberg also served as Richard Nixon’s ambassador to Great Britain. Son of Chicago mobster Moses “Moe” Annenberg, Walter laundered profits from the family’s racing-wire service through Triangle Publications, publisher of T.V. Guide andSeventeen.

As the National Crime Syndicate was being formed, 1929-31, the Annenberg-inspired racing wire service provided the sinew that bound together organized crime’s gambling operations dispersed across the U.S. and Canada and into Mexico and Cuba. As Walter Annenberg steadily distanced himself from organized crime beginning in the late 1940s, he steadily gained legitimacy and influence in Republican Party politics through his ownership of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Leonore Annenberg was raised by her uncle, Harry Cohn, head of Columbia Pictures. First married to Belden Kattleman, a Las Vegas businessman, she then married Rosenstiel. During Prohibition, Rosenstiel bootlegged liquor from England, Europe, and Canada via Saint Pierre and then by truck into Cincinnati, building what became Schenley Distillers.

One of Rosenstiel’s closest colleagues (and competitors) was Canadian Sam Bronfman whose Distillers Corporation made a fortune in bootlegging during Prohibition in collaboration with organized crime, including Chicago’s fabled Al “Scarface” Capone. Bronfman (Yiddish for “liquor man”) acquired in 1928 what became Seagram Co. Ltd. From that fortune emerged the World Jewish Congress.

Prohibition and gambling capitalized organized crime. The combination of the Annenberg racing wire and high-profit bootlegging created a nationwide distribution network with those 24 territories still operating as key nodes in this network. The political corruption from that era identified pliable and reliable assets whose careers could be nurtured along with their successors, a key role assume by the Israel lobby as the syndicate became more sophisticated and its operations moved more deeply into government operations.

Johnny Lazio was a key participant in the 1929 Atlantic City conference as the representative of the Pendergast political machined in Kansas City that was then nurturing the political career of Harry Truman. Two decades later, this asset was persuaded to extend state recognition to this syndicate when its operatives established a post-WWII beachhead in the oil-rich Middle East.

Enabling the Networks

In 1989, Annenberg liquidated $3 billion of his wealth, including The Racing Form, in a sale to Rupert Murdoch. With those proceeds, he donated $150 million to Annenberg communication schools at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Southern California.

Annenberg’s friend Ronald Reagan traces his political career to Chicago when Annenberg, Chicagoan Jules Stein and Cleveland’s Lew Wasserman helped “brand” him in the early days of television as the friendly face of General Electric Theater. It was during his presidency of the Screen Actor’s Guild (and with Nancy on the board) that the Guild extended a “special exemption” toe the Stein/Wasserman-run Music Corporation of America, providing MCA a competitive advantage that gained them disproportionate influence in music, television and film-making.

While president, Ronnie and Nancy routinely spent their New Year’s vacation at Sunnylands, Annenberg’s extensive estate in Rancho Mirage, California near Palm Springs. Walter’s father also gravitated to sunnier climes. After double-crossing a partner in Chicago, Moe fled to south Florida to seek the protection of National Crime Syndicate “Chairman” Meyer Lansky until he and his son relocated to Pennsylvania.

The Annenberg political savvy found its way back to Chicago to nurture the political prospects of an articulate young political activist whose work there with the Annenberg Education Challenge gained him statewide and then nationwide political exposure. When elected president in 2008, Barack Obama appointed as Eric Holder as his Attorney General, former counsel to Carl Lindner.

As the Holder-led Department of Justice began to brand Faisal the Fizzler as evidence of Pakistani Evil Doing, Senator Kit Bond, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee complained that Holder had “executed a hostile takeover of the intelligence community.”

Fields Within Fields…within Fields

Why take you down this circuitous route in an account of the “Times Square Terrorist”? Read on to close the circle.

In the mid-1950s, former Phoenix mobster Gus Greenbaum managed and then sold the Riviera Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, one of the premier properties controlled by the Chicago Outfit. The buyer was Cincinnatian Riklis, a former member of the Haganah, a paramilitary outfit active in terrorizing Palestinians from 1920 to 1948 when it became the Israel Defense Forces.

Riklis tutored Milken, then a young bond broker, and reportedly was Milken’s first customer as Milken morphed into a major figure in the boom of leveraged buyouts that emerged during the Reagan era. Fellow Cincinnatian Carl Lindner emerged as a father figure to Milken who oversaw a massive  “control fraud” at Lincoln Savings and Loan in Phoenix, Arizona.

The face on this fraud was Charles Keating who previously served as general counsel to the Linder-controlled, Cincinnati-based American Financial Group.

Arizona Senator John McCain led a group of five Senators known as “the Keating Five” whose delay of needed reforms raised the taxpayer cost of that nationwide fraud by an additional $50 billion, to exceed $150 billion.

Lindner boasts on the firm’s website that he is the “largest non-Jewish contributor to Jewish causes in the U.S.” Alan Greenspan, then working for J.P. Morgan, was retained by Keating to help recruit the Keating Five.

To succeed with that task, Greenspan deployed the goodwill and political capital he amassed as chairman of a the Social Security Commission (“the Greenspan Commission”). Its 1983 recommendation: Americans should work longer and pay higher payroll taxes.

A confidante of radical free market theorist Ayn Rand (Russian Alisa Rosenbaum), Greenspan reemerged as the Reagan-appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve where over the next 18 years he enabled the subprime mortgage fraud with sustained low interest rates and enthusiastic support for what this Rand disciple described as “financial innovation.”

John McCain wrote to Keating in 1983 after his first Congressional victory: “Of the many things to be grateful for in this world, the friendship of the Keating family is certainly among the most meaningful.” McCain’s top supporters included Keating and father-in-law Jim Hensley.

Here begins the closing of the circle connecting the savings and loan fraud of the 1980s and the subprime mortgage fraud two decades later. And, the facts suggest, the role of misdirection aided by this latest in an ongoing series of well-timed “terrorist” incidents by Muslim Evil Doers.

Murder Inc.

Notorious mobster Bugsy Siegel is widely credited with founding Las Vegas as a National Crime Syndicate haven for gambling and prostitution when he built The Flamingo, an early casino named after Virginia Hill, his mob courier girlfriend from Alabama who used Flamingo as her showgirl name.

The syndicate maintained discipline through Murder, Inc., a cadre of hit men. When Siegel was discovered stealing from the mob, his murder in 1947 required that the syndicate relocate Gus Greenbaum to Las Vegas from Phoenix, leaving Kemper Marley in charge of statewide corruption in Arizona. Marley hired Jim and Gene Hensley.

After two close scrapes with federal liquor violations for which the Hensley brothers reportedly took the heat, Jim Hensley emerged with a beer distributorship that has since grown to the fifth largest in the nation—owned by Cindy Hensley McCain. Hensley’s Arizona lawyer, William Rehnquist, was appointed by Reagan as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

McCain met Hensley, then 24, when he was the married 42-year old U.S. Navy liaison to the U.S. Senate. Soon divorced, remarried and relocated to Arizona, he worked on public relations for his father-in-law while the Marley machine positioned this classic asset for election to the Congress—four years before Arizonan Barry Goldwater’s pending retirement from the Senate

After 911, Republican Senator McCain emerged alongside Democrat Joe Lieberman as the most insistent high-profile voices for the invasion of Iraq—selling that war with intelligence now known to be false. Lieberman soon chair of the Senate Committee handling Homeland Security. In that position, he collaborated with Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, a former governor of Pennsylvania and a product of the Annenberg political machine.

Ridge stepped in when New York Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik, the initial appointee of G.W. Bush, withdrew after reports were leaked of his close ties to organized crime. Ridge was succeeded by Michael Chertoff, a rabbi’s son and a former senior official in the Criminal Division of the Justice Department on 911. With the election of Chicagoan Obama, who former Clinton White House counsel Abner Mikva described as our “first Jewish president,” the Secretary of Homeland Security became Janet Napolitano, a former governor from mobbed-up Arizona.

Are these complex webs of relationships coincidental? Or is this typical of the overlapping links common to syndicate operations? Is this how organized crime is sustained through fields-within-fields of relationships that stretch across time, distance and, as here, both major political parties?

What does this have to do with the Fort Hood Shooter, the Crotch Bomb Sizzler and the Faisal the Fizzler? Are such “terrorist incidents” typical of how war is waged in the mental environment by creating—and constantly refreshing—a narrative? If so, who would have the motivation to do so?

Does a renewed fear of terrorism help divert attention away from the latest massive financial fraud? And from the need for reforms that are not yet forthcoming—from either party? Meanwhile our financial institutions remain “too big to fail.”

Are these insecurity-inducing “incidents” a form of marketing? Are they akin to selling us a product?

Do they ensure defense spending is sustained while social services are sliced? Is it coincidental that Israel is the world’s third largest arms exporter?

Are these “incidents” clues to how we are persuaded to assume more debt to wage more wars with no end in sight? Are these incidents just business-as-usual for transnational organized crime?

Was the same criminal syndicate involved in the S&L fraud also active in the Enron fraud? The Dotcom crash? The subprime fraud? The half-a-loaf “financial reform” legislation?

Did these massive financial “incidents” just happen? Or were they stage-managed from the shadows in an alliance between policy-making assets and transnational organized crime?

As counsel to the Senate Finance Committee (1980-87), I witnessed firsthand the embrace of debt-financed “supply-side economics” during the first year of the Reagan presidency. Its primary financial result was to dramatically increase the “free cash flow” essential to LBOs (leverage buyouts). At a time when the securitized debt of the U.S. hovered around $900 billion, this “fiscal conservative” championed a bill that authorized us to borrow $872 billion.

While those deficit-funded subsidies were cut back slightly in future years, their impact was certain to concentrate wealth and income and thereby undermine both democracy and markets—all in the name of enhancing our freedom. As a colleague rightly concluded, we got the mortgage (the deficits) while they got the house, the assets financed with that “free cash flow.”

Is it coincidence that private equity/LBO firms most enriched by this debt-financed change in policy are also best positioned to recapitalize the banks most devastated by this latest round of debt-financed excess? Throughout history, debt has always been the prize for those adept at inducing nations to war. Is this all too familiar? Are these firms our Wall Street Dons?

Whose Agenda?

In 1948, the Joint Chiefs of Staff cautioned Harry Truman against granting sovereign recognition to an extremist enclave that was already using ethnic cleansing to terrorize the indigenous population and occupy lands adjoining the Muslim-dominant Middle East.

Their rationale: Palestinian land was rightly theirs as The Chosen because it was long ago given to them—by a God of their own choosing.

Truman was warned by U.S. military leaders about the “fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders” and their plans for “Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.” Truman chose not to follow their advice nor that of his Secretary of State, former WWII General George C. Marshall who viewed recognition as a geopolitical disaster.

Did our military leaders fail to grasp the scope and scale of the threat posed by these extremists? Did these “fanatical concepts” include a plan to deceive the U.S. so that we would deploy ourmilitary to pursue their agenda for dominance in the region? Is that why a Democratic president’s policy in the Middle East is little changed from that of Republican G.W. Bush?

Working as a transnational criminal syndicate, did these extremists collaborate to damage the U.S. economy with disabling debt and discredit the U.S. abroad with an endless war? Could the presence of this syndicate help explain why the U.S. continues to dig itself deeper into debt regardless which political party is in power?

Could the criminal roots of this operation explain why we hear nothing about Leon Black’s employment of the Times Square Fizzler?

Is the sound of silence speaking to us with an eloquence we do not yet understand?

What’s Next from Israel: Entropy or Outrage?

Israeli war-planners face a dilemma. After more than six decades of duplicitous behavior, their playbook is pretty well played out. Not that Tel Aviv will  not deceive again. Or at least try. Odds are we’ll see another round of either entropy or outrage or some lethal combination.

Their outrage tactics are well understood. This serial agent provocateur has long shaped events from the shadows by provoking well-profiled targets to respond to well-planned provocations.

With in-depth profiling, the response becomes a matter of probabilities. Thus Israel’s well-deserved reputation as the master of mental manipulation based on their use of game theory algorithms that anticipate reactions to provocations along with the reactions to those reactions.

Control enough of the variables and the desired outcome becomes foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. Therein lies the genius (others say the psychopathy) of those for whom conflicts serve as a profitable sideline while they pursue broader geopolitical goals.

In game theory war planning, the reaction of “the mark” emerges in the foreground while the agent provocateur disappears into the background. The response to that reaction then enables the provocateur to slip even deeper into the shadows, further obscuring the genius of the instigator.

Game theory modeling is a useful skill for a nation that built much of its economy on arms sales. Much of the rest is reliant on information technology. Those technologies enable Israelis to operate undetected in that invisible domain where data is the most critical form of capital. That includes financial markets where timely information has long been the most valuable asset.

Game Theory and 911

When provoked by a mass murder on American soil, we had elected to office a president with a known array of easily profiled dysfunctions. With phony intelligence, he was induced to order the U.S. military to invade a nation that had no hand in that event. From a game theory perspective, that is genuine genius.

Consistent with game theory war planning, that invasion advanced an Israeli strategy for “securing the realm” while expanding its sphere of influence well beyond its borders.

Not only was the U.S. induced to discredit itself by that (easily modeled) reaction, our response over-extended our military, destroyed our credibility and further weakened our already debt-weakened economy. All these effects are consistent with game theory modeling.

Even a cursory review of history confirms that debt is always the prize for those skilled at catalyzing serial conflicts. Some commentators might call that financial genius.

According to Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz, the fiscal cost may reach $3 trillion, all of it borrowed—a first. At the end of WWII, the U.S. had half the world’s productive power.

That financial strength ensured our bonds would remain dominant for at least two generations. Look at us now. The interest expense alone for this conflict could cost us $700 billion.

These game theory-foreseeable results suggest how war can be waged on a nation from within that nation—while the instigators fade into the mist. That too is a form of genius.

Entropy and Presidential Longevity

The next step in this game theory warfare may involve an entropy operation. Though less well known than run-of-the-mill provocations, this component also suggests applied genius.

As with the source of the outrage from provocations, the instigators of entropy strategies seek refuge in the shadows. That era may soon come to a close as “the mark” (the American public) grasps the regularity—and the lengthy premeditation—with which such duplicity is deployed.

For instance, 47 years ago, President John F. Kennedy sought to halt in its infancy a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In June 1963, he wrote the last in a series of insistent letters to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Each of those letters sought what Israel now demands of Iran: international inspections of its nuclear facilities.

The key difference: JFK knew for certain that Israeli officials, while insisting the Zionist enclave was a loyal friend and ally, lied to him about their nuclear weapons program at the Dimona reactor facility in the Negev Desert. We now know the Israelis were then secretly shipping highly enriched uranium to Dimona from at least one U.S. nuclear facility in Pennsylvania.

Best estimates date to sometime between 1962 and 1964 when Israel produced its first weapon. Their nuclear arsenal is now estimated at 200-600 warheads plus possibly hundreds of “dirty” devices and other nuclear-related weaponry.

Kennedy’s letter to Ben-Gurion was not cordial. The words chosen were drawn not from diplomacy but from the instructions that a judge provides a jury to assess criminal culpability.

In that brusque letter, a U.S. commander-in-chief demanded proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Zionists were not developing nuclear weapons. His insistence left no room for this purported ally to maneuver—except to deploy entropy as a means to avoid accountability.

The day after that June 15^th letter was cabled to Tel Aviv for delivery by the U.S. ambassador, Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned citing undisclosed personal reasons. Because his resignation was announced before the cabled letter could be physically delivered, Israeli authors claim that Kennedy’s message failed to reach Ben-Gurion.

That interpretative gloss ignores what we now know about Israeli operations inside serial U.S. presidencies. And about Tel Aviv’s routine intercept of White House communications, particularly those most critical to our national security.

That duplicity has only rarely been made public. Typical was the behavior of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard who provided Tel Aviv more than one million pages of classified materials. This Israeli operation—run from inside our government—compromised the entirety of our national security apparatus in which U.S. taxpayers had invested trillions of dollars.

When Ben-Gurion deprived President Kennedy of an Israeli government with which to negotiate, the resulting entropy denied the U.S. a critical strategic advantage. That entropy also set in motion the nuclear dynamics that JFK and his advisers feared a half-century ago.

When assessing the cost of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, what cost in dollars, lives and foregone opportunities should Americans put on this trans-generational deceit?

The consistency of Israel’s duplicitous conduct raises difficult questions about the ability to hold such religious extremists accountable—particularly a nuclear-armed enclave that considers its people Chosen by God and accountable only to God.

The Khazars vs. the Kennedys

During this same 1962-63 period, Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council. The AZC received funds from the Jewish Agency, the predecessor to the state of Israel.

As a recipient of U.S. funds, the Agency used those funds to lobby for more funds. Under U.S. law, that conduct required the AZC to register as a foreign agent.

In seeking that registration, Fulbright was joined by Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Their effort was delayed by the fledgling Israel lobby and then ended with JFK’s assassination.

Concerns about Zionist influence on U.S. policy continued to grow among well-informed legislators. By 1973, Senator Fulbright could announce with confidence: “Israel controls the U.S. Senate.” In 1974, he lost his Senate seat.

Fast-forward to today and imagine a Middle East without an enclave of nuclear-armed Zionist extremists. The threat that JFK posed to their arsenal—and to their geopolitical goals—was resolved five months after Ben-Gurion’s resignation.

When Vice President Lyndon Johnson was sworn in as Kennedy’s successor, he immediately increased the U.S. budget for arms to Israel.

Imagine the Zionist influence on U.S. policy had Fulbright and the Kennedys succeeded in requiring that the lobby register as what it was and remains: a foreign agent.

See: How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy.

Following John Kennedy’s removal in November 1963, Johnson appointed Nicholas Katzenbach as his Attorney General to replace Robert Kennedy who LBJ loathed. Soon thereafter, the AZC evaded registration as it morphed into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and began the pretense, still ongoing, that AIPAC operates in the U.S. as a domestic lobby.

[AIPAC and dozens of affiliate organizations coordinate a transnational network of pro-Israeli political operations commonly known as “the Israel lobby.”]

The Kennedy-Fulbright threat to the Zionists’ geopolitical goals reemerged five years later when Robert Kennedy announced his candidacy for the presidency during the height of an unpopular war. That war was vastly expanded under Johnson’s leadership.

Resolving the Kennedy Problem

From a game theory perspective, a second Kennedy presidency presented Tel Aviv with at least four troubling variables to manage.

First, Robert Kennedy’s peace candidacy offered the possibility of a speedy end to the war in Vietnam. Less war meant not only less debt but also less ability to arm Israel with U.S. weapons.

Second, his election so soon after the Six-Day War presented the possibility that a U.S. commander-in-chief might inquire into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that left 34 Americans dead and 175 wounded. Covered up by Johnson with the help of Admiral John McCain, Jr., an open inquiry threatened the carefully orchestrated perception that Israel was a victim rather than an aggressor in taking land that fueled outrage throughout the region.

Third, RFK’s global perspective on peace suggested that he might pursue his brother’s agenda and target Israel’s nuclear arsenal in order to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Fourth, with Fulbright still wielding substantial influence on U.S. foreign policy, a second Kennedy administration revived concerns about renewed restrictions on the domestic activities of the expansive Israel lobby.

When this charismatic presidential contender surged in nationwide political polls, those strategic variables were transformed from possibilities into probabilities. All four were resolved on June 5, 1968 at a campaign event held in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.

Robert Kennedy’s death at the hand of Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian émigré, coincided with the first anniversary of the Six-Day War.

The assassin later cited as his motive Kennedy’s campaign pledge to provide more fighter jets to Israel. That claim was used by Tel Aviv to argue its case for more U.S. arms.

With that second high-profile murder, the road to the presidency was cleared for former Vice-President Richard Nixon. When lobbied by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, he agreed to embrace the “ambiguous” status that the Zionists sought for their nuclear arsenal.

When waging game theory warfare, uncertainty is often a powerful persuader and a force multiplier.

Were these assassinations part of an entropy strategy? Was murder used to manage variables that posed a threat to a non-transparent geopolitical goals? Though the evidence remains murky, the outcome is consistent with an oft-recurring game theory modus operandi.

Neither U.S. national security nor federal law enforcement recovered from that entropy. The Israeli nuclear arsenal has grown steadily larger and far more lethal while the Israel lobby has grown steadily larger and far more influential.

Precluding Peace at Any Price

Entropy often emerges as part of a broader game theory strategy. After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Bill Clinton realized the terms that he and Israel offered the Palestinians were unacceptable. In December, he proposed “parameters” that both sides accepted with reservations.

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators then met in Taba, Egypt in January 2001 to resolve their differences. As progress was being made, Tel Aviv canceled the negotiations, ending official progress. Unofficial discussions led to the Geneva Accord in 2003 that Israel rejected.

Were these developments part of an entropy strategy that remains ongoing?

As progress became detectible on the Road Map to Peace [proposed by the Quartet comprised of the U.S., the European Union, Russia and the U.N.], the coalition government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert collapsed citing a long-brewing scandal that brought his resignation in July 2008.

After negotiations were put on hold for eight months, the right-wing coalition government of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promptly disavowed even the tentative progress made by the Olmert government. That stance not only ensured more delay, that entropy ensured an opportunity to stage more provocations and catalyst more conflict.

Should the Netanyahu government detect that progress toward peace is possible, watch for the collapse of yet another Israeli coalition. One possible scenario: the Shas Party will withdraw citing its unhappiness that the status of Jerusalem is raised as part of a final agreement.

Of course everyone knows that Jerusalem must be at the center of any final status agreement. The Shas Pary stance suggests a pending entropy maneuver. Note also that the possibility of this next game theory tactic makes transparent a critical element in game theory math.

The math enables those who are few in numbers to operate with a force-multiplier that remains opaque to analysts unfamiliar with how Zionist warfare is waged “by way of deception.” That’s the motto of the Israeli Mossad, Israel’s intelligence and foreign operations directorate.

To succeed, deception must be hidden in plain sight. In this case, the central deceit is Israel’s “special relationship” with the U.S. For this duplicity to work, the U.S.-Israeli relationship must be sustained.

Over the past two weeks, pressure applied by the Israel lobby resulted in letters to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from four-fifths of the U.S. Congress. Those letters urged that the Obama administration restate an “unbreakable bond” between the U.S. and Israel.

That entangled relationship enables the game theory math that becomes the force-multiplier. By that bond, the U.S. agrees to maintain an Israeli government with which to negotiate. If another Israeli government collapses, progress toward peace stalls—to the detriment of our interests. Thus it becomes in our interest to keep the coalition intact—regardless of its policies.

That bond provides Israel with strategic leverage because even the potential for entropy is a force-multiplier in the hands of savvy game theory strategists. The relationship itself provides Tel Aviv with the indirect power it deploys to shape U.S. foreign policy.

When framed in game theory terms, who controls our policy in the region? At present, does the U.S. commitment to sustain this relationship (an unbreakable bond) enable the Shas Party to shape our options?

Who wields the real influence in this relationship? Who has the leverage—a U.S. president residing in Washington or Zionist extremists and religious fundamentalists living in Israel?

In practical effect, is U.S. foreign policy dominated by the goals of the most right-wing element of the most right-wing coalition in the most consistently right-wing government that the world community has endured since the defeat of WWII fascism?

Guilt By Association

By proclaiming an “unbreakable bond’ with this extremist enclave, American legislators enabled the very forces that undermine our security and put endangered our troops in the region.

Note that the Israel lobby did not ask that the Knesset pledge its allegiance to us. In this special relationship, loyalty flows in only one direction. If Israelis were loyal to us, why would their lobby insist on a loyalty oath from us?

U.S. diplomats have long defended Israel’s indefensible and lawless behavior. And we have done so in the world’s most high profile legal forum: the United Nations. By associating America’s goodwill with Zionism’s geopolitical goals, we enabled others to portray us as a fascist state.

By our own choice, we branded and discredited ourselves. There lies the genius in game theory.

Game theory warfare succeeds in plain sight. To betray, one must first befriend. To defraud, one must create a relationship based on trust. The relationship itself induced us to freely embrace the very forces that now jeopardize our freedom—from the inside out.

That’s why such deceit can only proceed in plain sight. And can only survive through a committed relationship—an “unbreakable bond” that the target freely chooses.

The challenge for Israel has suddenly turned deadly serious. Its trans-generational duplicity has become transparent not only to U.S. officials but also to a long-deceived American public. The Zionist state teeters on the brink of losing not only U.S. support but also its legitimacy as a state.

The U.S. Military vs. Zionism

Here’s the Big Question: what happens when the U.S. military grasps how their senior officers were deceived to wage war in Iraq? Obliged by a sworn oath to defend the nation from all enemies—both foreign and domestic—what conduct accompanies that oath of office?

From Tel Aviv’s perspective, what happens to Israel’s credibility as the “Jewish state” as this duplicity becomes transparent to the broader Jewish community? What happens when Jews grasp that they too were deceived? What conduct accompanies that realization?

Like many naïve Americans, naive Jews believed their interests were aligned with Israel. Yet since well before its founding Zionists consistently advanced what the Joint Chiefs in 1948 portrayed as “fanatical concepts.” Those concepts include efforts—still ongoing—to exert what the Pentagon then described as “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.”

That assessment remains accurate. Thus the need for a U.S.-Israeli “bond” founded on deception. With applied game theory duplicity, our military could be induced to wage Zionist wars.

What happens when U.S. military leaders realize that the people in their command were put in harm’s way pursue the fanatical concepts of religious extremists?

Who then does their oath of office require them to obey in the chain of command?

Who then becomes the enemy?

Zionist fanatics duped commander-in-chief Harry Truman into extending to them the nation state status that Israeli operatives have since deployed to catalyze serial conflicts in plain sight. That duplicity includes waging war on the very nation that enabled this deceit.

The perception of nation state legitimacy was critical to the game theory-enabled warfare that can now be drawn to a close.

For those long deceived by this sophisticated treachery, it is difficult to imagine that such a devious mindset can survive in the Age of Transparency. In truth, it cannot.

Ensuring the earliest possible end to this treachery is the goal of these analyses: to sound the death knell for a trans-generational enterprise that never merited recognized as a state.

Israel has no place in a community of nations committed to the rule of law. Only an enemy within would suggest an “unbreakable bond” that undermines our national security. Though this form of treason remains ongoing, the forces are now coalescing to expose it and drive it out.

As both an enabler and a target of game theory warfare, Americans must grasp the mindset of these complicit. We must also acknowledge that this treachery is not traceable to a people; this is the work of an aberrant few within a broader community. Note the descriptors in bold:

psychopathy n. A mental disorder roughly equivalent to antisocial personality disorder, but with emphasis on affective and interpersonal traits such as superficial charm, pathological lying, egocentricity, lack of remorse, and callousness that have traditionally been regarded by clinicians as characteristic of psychopaths, rather than social deviance traits such as need for stimulation, parasitic lifestyle, poor behavioral controls, impulsivity, and irresponsibility that are prototypical of antisocial personality disorder. Whether psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder share a common referent is an open question.

The Lethal Combination

The facts and analyses required to restore national security are available. If our analysts are on top of their game (in game theory terms), they are monitoring how events are staged in real-time to advance a non-transparent agenda by deploying both entropy and outrage.

Tel Aviv just leaked intelligence suggesting that Syria transferred Scud missiles to Iran-backed Hezbollah. Intelligence agencies, including ours, doubt the reliability of Israeli intelligence.

Nevertheless, this story injected into the geopolitical mind space a combination of both outrage (“How dare they?”) and entropy as Israel continues its efforts to expand this latest conflict from Iraq to Iran as the next in a series of “plausible” Evil Doers.

Consistent with an attempt to gain traction for this latest Evil Doer narrative, Haaretz published an article on April 30^th with the title, “Syria’s provocations may plunge Middle East into war.”

Note the “associative” component that indicts Iran due to its support of Hezbollah. The story also challenges Iran’s credibility as a partner for peace, at least among those who ascribe credibility to Israeli intelligence. Such reports often appear in the Israeli press and spread from there into mainstream media.

Rare are reports that challenge the prevailing narrative. Despite their relevance, almost no media outlet reported the off-the-cuff comment of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, in a February 14^th forum in Doha, Qatar, conceded “[Iran] doesn’t directly threaten the United States.”

Yet this game theory fact remains: if Tel Aviv can catalyze a conflict in Iran, the resulting entropy will help obscure the facts confirming who catalyzed the conflict in Iraq.

Note throughout the motivation for the Israel lobby to pressure Congress for a statement avowing an “unbreakable bond” while also ptomoying a conflict with Iran (or Pakistan) as the next Evil Doer.

Note too the April 29^th statement of Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin. In the course of urging a dramatic shift in focus for Israel-Palestine peace talks, Rivlin conceded that he saw no point in Israel signing a peace agreement. Instead he proposed making Israeli citizens of the Palestinians rather than dividing Israel and the West Bank as part of a two-state solution to peace.

Is this a sincere step in the direction of a one-state solution? With each passing day, more analysts realize that a single state is the only solution consistent with sustainable peace and a genuine democracy.

Or is this yet another entropy strategy to delay yet again resolution of the Israeli occupation while game theorists stage yet another provocation to evoke more outrage?

The manipulations continue in plain sight. In March, the Netanyahu government announced plans to build 1,600 housing units in an ultra-orthodox neighborhood of East Jerusalem. Several analysts argue that peace talks have actually regressed over the past eight years.

Should the next round of negotiations gain traction, look for them to be disrupted either by violence or by another decision by Israel to build more housing on contested land.

With the tools for seeing how game theory works, those targeted by this duplicity can see for themselves who and why. With transparency will come accountability. With accountability will come the peace and stability that Zionist war planners must preclude—at any price.

Sustainable peace will come only when the nuclear arsenal now in the hands of religious fanatics is secured and when those responsible for this deceit are held accountable. Until then, both peace and the Palestinians will continue to be held hostage by those chronicled in this account.

Dual Loyalty Revisited

Four-fifths of the U.S. House and Senate recently declared in correspondence to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the U.S. must reaffirm its “unbreakable bond” with Israel. What persuaded our Congress to proclaim their loyalty to Israel while our military is waging war in the Middle East based on fabricated intelligence?

Any sober assessment of this bond must concede a need to reappraise its cost in blood and treasure. Yet the Congress—our Congress—opposed that reassessment even as our commander-in-chief seeks to end a brutal Israeli occupation of Palestine that has provoked worldwide outrage for more than six decades.

The Congress and the president are sworn to the same oath of office. That oath obliges them to protect the U.S. from all threats, both foreign and domestic. The facts confirm a common pro-Israeli source of the phony intelligence that took our military to war in Iraq. All the evidence points to Israel or its surrogates, including those in the Congress. Is that why the Israel lobby pressed the Congress for a pledge of allegiance to Israel?

Giving Aid and Comfort

The U.S.-Israeli relationship has proven itself a consistent threat to our national security. That peril has only worsened with time. Tel Aviv’s massive land grab in 1967 was not “defensive”— as Israeli leaders have since conceded. That assault on its neighbors was a long-planned seizure of territory that Zionists see as rightly theirs as part of Greater Israel.

That attack provoked precisely the reaction that any competent war-planning game theorist could foresee as Israeli conduct outraged everyone in the region. As Israel’s loyal ally, the U.S., was widely perceived as guilty for our unfailing support of an expansionist agenda that the Pentagon urged we shut down in 1948.

In advising President Harry Truman against recognition of this extremist enclave as a legitimate state, the Joint Chiefs detailed the Zionists’ “fanatical concepts” including their plans for “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.” Our military was correct.

Facing a decline in his approval ratings and depleted campaign coffers in the lead-up to his 1948 presidential race, Truman put his signature on a two-sentence note that on May 14^th gave the Zionists what they sought: U.S. recognition. That decision began a “special relationship” that has proven consistently harmful to U.S. interests.

The Truman campaign train was then “refueled” with $400,000 from grateful Zionists ($3.6 million in 2010 dollars). As editorial support from pro-Israeli media shifted in Truman’s favor, his approval surged long enough for him to prevail in November over New York’s Tom Dewey.

Absent the Holocaust, Truman could not have recognized Zionism as a lawful basis for a sovereign state in Palestine over intense opposition from Secretary of State George Marshall, the Pentagon, the State Department Policy Planning staff and the Central Intelligence Agency. All were adamantly opposed, as were members of the U.S. diplomatic corps. They knew better.

While the politics of campaign finance clearly played a role, Truman also acted out of humanitarian and religious concerns informed by his Christian Zionist upbringing in rural Missouri where he famously read the Bible cover-to-cover five times by age 15.

His decision was also shaped by sentiments developed as a youngster steeped in a fundamentalist Baptist theology that revered the Jews’ “return to Zion” as a prerequisite for the return of the Christian messiah.

Fast forward to 2001 when, in reaction to the provocation of a mass murder on U.S. soil, another Christian Zionist (G.W. Bush) was predisposed to support a military response that coincided with an expansionist agenda long sought by those our military earlier described as fanatics.

The Six-Day Land Grab

In the minds of those who comprise the Jewish Diaspora, the Six-Day War of 1967 reactivated the mental and emotional insecurity associated with the fascists of WWII. In combination, those two events catalyzed a worldwide “internal Diaspora” based on:

• Nationalism—a shared emotional bond among those persuaded they share an identity of interest between themselves and a piece of real estate on which they may never set foot. After the Six-Day War, the state of Israel became the Land of Israel based on the more expansive area it occupied and the additional territory it has yet to seize.

• Insecurity—a shared sense of vulnerability and victimhood as Jews saw themselves pitted against a widely marketed and steadily shifting threat. After September 2001, the 1967 “Arab Ring of Steel” morphed into the threat of “Islamo-fascism.” When, as now, Israeli policies come under attack, media campaigns claim an outbreak of “anti-Semitism.”

Throughout this saga, certain facts have been taken for granted that are now being questioned. The Zionist premise of the Right of Return relies on an historical account now under scholarly assault. In The Invention of the Jewish People, Israeli historian Shlomo Sand challenges the factual accuracy both of the Exile and the Exodus, thereby putting in question the legitimacy of the Return, the moral foundation for Israeli statehood in Palestine.

As Egyptologists point out, this ancient civilization records little of an Exodus even though Egyptian kings were meticulous in documenting details of their monarchies. How then did such a cataclysmic event as the parting of the sea and the drowning of a mighty king along with his army pass undocumented by the Egyptians while filling an entire chapter of the Torah? Where does fact end and fiction begin?

Christians and Muslims were weaned on similar oral histories. Both faiths are derived from Judaism, an earlier religion also “of the book.” Yet the two derivatives were induced to wage war with each other by those long skilled at displacing facts with what a targeted populace can be deceived to believe—as with the fabricated “facts” about Iraq WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi mobile biological weapons labs and so forth. All were false. Yet all were widely believed.

A Promised Land of Myth-Makers and Story Tellers

Bound by a shared anxiety and the allure of a Promised Land offering refuge through a Right of Return, Israel initially emerged as a shared mental state. In 1948, that mental state emerged as a physical “homeland” in Palestine offering residency for those it considered “Jewish.”

In combination, the Holocaust and the Six-Day War made Zionism a geopolitical possibility. Without the fascist abuses of WWII, Truman’s recognition of Zionism as a legitimate state would have proven impossible. Absent the 1967 war, moderate Jews would have continued their opposition to a “Jewish state” as a barrier to assimilation and contrary to their values.

By regarding an enclave of religious fanatics as an entity on a par with other sovereign nations, forces were set in motion that were destined to discredit and endanger the U.S. Anti-Zionist Jews rightly worried that this expansion-seeking “state” would imperil the broader faith tradition by enabling all Jews to be portrayed as foreign agents of an aggressor nation.Moderate Jews saw that charges of “dual loyalty” could be deployed to impugn by association even those Jews appalled at what Israel was destined to become—as the Pentagon predicted.

Meanwhile pressure from the Israel lobby discredited the U.S. worldwide by ensuring Congressional indifference to six decades of Palestinian suffering. Adding insult to injury, the lobby again prevailed by persuading Congress to proclaim this “unbreakable bond.”

Turning Fiction to Fact

Tel Aviv’s 1967 land grab also enabled the “Israelites”—with support from their Christian Zionist allies—to occupy territory that Jewish Zionists consider theirs—because they are Jewish.

Thus the strategic necessity to oppose anyone who challenges either Israel’s retention of occupied land or its seizure of more territory for a more expansive Land of Israel. Or, as Jewish fundamentalists argue, the “redemption” of land that is rightly theirs as The Chosen of God because the land they occupy was given to them—by a god of their own choosing.

Thus also the need to maintain an aggressive strategy that seeks to discredit, isolate, ostracize or marginalize anyone critical of Tel Aviv’s expansionist policies – even when those policies undermine the prospects for peace essential to protect U.S. interests in the region. Thus the perilous timing of this Congressional pledge of allegiance to an “unbreakable bond.”

Israel’s treatment of its Muslim neighbors has long been appalling. Yet it is clear to all but the willfully blind that Israeli behavior is enabled by its “special relationship” with the U.S. This latest pledge makes it appear that Israeli conduct is condoned and even welcomed by Americans—with precisely the effect on U.S. troops that the Israel lobby could anticipate. The perilous impact of this pledge on U.S. national security makes the lobby’s conduct reprehensible.

Americans who want to restore our national security must hold accountable under the law those pro-Israelis who conspired to displace the facts essential to informed choice with the false beliefs that took us to war in Iraq. We also must ensure that never again are foreign interests allowed to exert such control over what little remains of “our” representative government.

The Israel lobby should be forced to register as foreign agents subject to all the restrictions that implies, including a dramatic reduction in the funding it provides to Congress.

In practical effect, those Senators and Representatives who recently pledged their loyalty to Israel gave aid and comfort to an enemy within. Those who led this latest dual loyalty effort are adhering to an enemy and should rightly be indicted for treason while this nation is at war.

That crime, for good reason, was made a capital offense by those who founded this nation to protect our freedom as Americans from those who manipulate beliefs to influence behavior.

This behavior—traceable to a common source—has long undermined our national interest and endangered our military. Those elected to the Congress face a stark choice: either defend this nation and support our troops or resign.

Those who do not resign risk a charge of treason when a long-deceived American public grasps that this pledge of allegiance was made while our military remains at risk based on intelligence fabricated by those to whom Congress just pledged an unbreakable bond.

An informed public will see the signatories of this pledge as prime suspects when federal law enforcement turns to identifying and indicting those complicit in enabling this ongoing treason.

Any American not outraged is not yet fully informed. Members of the military, both active duty and retired, should let an ill-informed public know what is being done in their name.

Was Israel Ever Legitimate?

The history of Israel as a geopolitical fraud will fill entire libraries as those defrauded marvel at how so few deceived so many for so long. Those duped include many naive Jews who—even now—identify their interests with this extremist enclave.

Israeli leaders are wrong to worry about “de-legitimization.” They are right to fear that a long-deceived public is fast realizing that Israel’s founding was key to an ongoing deception.

The Invention of the Jewish People did not begin with Shlomo Sand’s 2009 bestseller by that title. There was no Exile says this Jewish scholar. Nor was there an Exodus. So how could there be a Return, the core premise of Israeli statehood?

If this patch of Palestinian land never rightly belonged to a mythical Jewish People, what then for the legitimacy of the “Jewish homeland.” And for that depiction by British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour in his November 1917 letter to Lord Rothschild?

Were Christians likewise seduced by Sunday school teachings reliant on the phony findings of Biblical archeologist William Albright? Shlomo Sand chronicles how in the 1920s Albright interpreted every excavation in Palestine to “reaffirm the Old Testament and thereby the New.”

In 1948, President Harry Truman, a Christian Zionist, was advised by Secretary of State George Marshall not to recognize this enclave as a state. This WWII general assured Truman that he would vote against him—and did.

That military tradition resurfaced in January 2010 when General David Petraeus dispatched a team to brief Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the perils that Israel still poses to U.S. national security. Mullen was reportedly shocked. See: The Petraeus Briefing.

He should not have been surprised. Such insights are hardly new. More than six decades ago the Joint Chiefs of Staff cautioned Truman about the “fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders” and their plans for “Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.”

In December 1948, Albert Einstein and 27 prominent Jews urged us “not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.” They warned that a “Leader State” was the goal of the “terrorist party” that has governed Israel over all but a handful of the past 62 years.

The Joint Chiefs foresaw the “Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the U.S.] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.”

Soon after Truman recognized Israel, his presidential campaign train was “refueled” by Zionist Jews with $400,000 in contributions ($3.6 million in 2010 dollars). Soon thereafter, Israel betrayed the U.S. by allying with the British and the French to invade Egypt.

Though London and Paris soon abandoned the operation, months more were required to dissuade Tel Aviv from pursuing their expansionist agenda then—as now—for Greater Israel.

Outraged by Israeli duplicity, Eisenhower sought help to rein them in.  He soon found that even then (as now) the Israel lobby dominated Congress. Thus the former Supreme Allied Commander appeared on television with an appeal directly to the American people. Then—unlike now—a U.S. Commander in Chief threatened to reduce assistance to Israel.

To revamp Israel’s tattered image, New York public relations expert Edward Gottlieb retained novelist Leon Uris to write Exodus. Jewish Zionists have routinely proven themselves skilled storytellers and masterful mythmakers.

This 1958 bestseller was translated into dozens of languages and quickly made into a movie for the 1960 Christmas season starring Paul Newman and featuring Peter Lawford, brother-in-law of the just-elected President John F. Kennedy. See: Time for an American Intifada?

The Myth of a Loyal Ally

Phil Tourney survived the June 8, 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that left 34 Americans dead and 175 wounded. The region-wide dynamics accompanying that provocative Six-Day land grab guaranteed the conflicts that remain so perilous to U.S. national security.

It was during this Israeli operation that Tourney gave a one-fingered salute to armed Israeli troops as they hovered in helicopters over the USS Liberty while preparing to rappel to the deck and, he surmises, kill the survivors and sink the ship.

Just then the captain aboard a nearby U.S. carrier scrambled jets to assist a vessel under attack by an “ally.” When Israeli intelligence intercepted the transmission, the helicopters fled only to have President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara recall our fighters.

Soon thereafter, Israeli torpedo boats pulled alongside the USS Liberty to inquire if those aboard needed assistance. Those same boats had just blown a hole in the hull, killing 25 Americans. Israeli machine-gunners had then strafed stretcher-bearers, firemen, life rafts and even the fire hoses—all clear war crimes. Only then did this ally display the chutzpah to ask if our servicemen required assistance.

Had that notorious land grab failed to advance the narrative of Israel as the victim, what might be the condition of U.S. national security today? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently conceded the duplicity that continues to typify this “special relationship.”

As he confessed: “Our policy on Jerusalem is the same policy followed by all Israeli governments for 42 years, and it has not changed. As far as we are concerned, building in Jerusalem is the same as building in Tel Aviv.”

In other words, the 1967 war was neither defensive nor preemptive but an outright taking of land that, one year later, Tel Aviv acknowledged as precisely what concerned the Pentagon 62 years ago.

In effect, Netanyahu confirmed that this relationship reflects multi-decade premeditation. The U.S. has since discredited itself by protecting this “ally” from the rule of law for its taking and brutal occupation of land that rightly belongs to others.

Even now, few know that Mathilde Krim, a former Irgun operative, was “servicing” our Commander-in-Chief in the White House the night the 1967 war began. Her husband, Arthur, then chaired the finance committee for the Democratic National Committee.

Even now, few Americans know the role in that cover-up played by Admiral John McCain, Jr. Or the role still played in this sordid history by his son, Republican Senator John McCain III. See: McCain Family Secret.

Are those who champion this “state” the same belief-makers responsible for the myth of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Iraqi meetings in Prague? Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories? High-level Iraqi contacts with Al Qaeda? Iraqi yellowcake uranium from Niger?

Was any of that intelligence legitimate? Whose interests were served by deceiving the U.S. to wage war in the Middle East? By the Suez Crisis? By the Six-Day War? By covering up the attack on the USS Liberty?

Adhering to an Enemy?

How are U.S. interests served by treating Israel as a legitimate state? When was Israeli behavior anything other than duplicitous? At what point do we concede the common source of the storylines foisted on an imperiled global public?

Who created the narrative that saw us segue seamlessly from a global Cold War to a global War on Terrorism? Remember the promise of a post-Cold War “peace dividend”? Who induced the U.S. to wage a war whose costs could total $3 trillion, including $700 billion in interest?

Why is debt always the prize? At the end of WWII, the U.S. was home to 50% of the world’s productive power. Were we induced to hollow out our economy by the same consensus-shapers that induced us to wage war in the Middle East?

Do these devastating dynamics trace to a common source?

Who benefits from the “Islamo” fascist narrative? Whose storyline—really—is The Clash of Civilizations? Who has long spied on the U.S. and routinely transferred to other nations our most sensitive defense technologies?

Who had the means, motive, opportunity and, importantly, the stable nation state intelligence required to perpetrate such a debilitating fraud from inside the U.S. government? And from inside other governments that joined the “coalition of the willing”?

If not Israel and its supporters—who? In effect, are those now advocating an “unbreakable bond” with Israel giving aid and comfort to an enemy within?

Israel is right to worry. It was never legitimate. As both an enabler and a target of this fraud, the U.S. has an obligation to concede its source—and to secure the weapons of mass destruction now under the control of this enclave.

Anti-Semitism – What is it?

Several of us among the incurably curious asked ourselves a simple question: what is anti-Semitism? That it must be written with a capital “S” says a lot.

Then we realized it also morphs. To that feature I can attest. In November 2002, I met a “John Doe” in London who proposed a research challenge. While meeting that challenge, I encountered various versions of anti-Semitism.

A colleague advised against this challenge. First he fretted at the criminal nature of what the research has since confirmed. Then he inquired about my safety. That said a lot.

The colleague was M.I.T. Professor Noam Chomsky. For his criticism of Israeli policy, he was attacked as a self-hating Jew. Were he not Jewish, doubtless he would have been an anti-Semite. For critics of Israel, those are the only two options. He cautioned me:

You’ll get the same thing: anti-Semitic, Holocaust denier, want to kill all the Jews, etc. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Bear in mind that you are dealing with intellectuals, that is, what we call ‘commissars’ and ‘apparatchiks’ in enemy states.

Is anti-Semitism a geopolitical strategy? If so, for what purpose? Character assassination?

Ten months ago, I met with Professor William Robinson on the University of California Santa Barbara campus. We met soon after he was attacked by the Anti-Defamation League and its network.

Robinson had read Guilt By Association, the first release based on this research. His question mirrored Prof. Chomsky’s concern: “Are they going to kill me?” he asked. Who are They? Those who attack anyone critical of Israeli policy.

Anti-Semitism—A License to Kill?

For his class on globalization, Robinson provided an email link to a photo essay critical of Israeli policy. The essay had been circulating online for weeks. When two students complained to the ADL, its attack troops insisted on Robinson’s removal while its national network urged alumni to threaten the withholding of gifts and bequests to the university.

Word quickly spread among academics nationwide. That time-critical ADL strategy silenced on-campus criticism of the Israeli assault on Gaza. Is it anti-Semitic to suggest that’s how anti-Semitism works?

When the Anti-Defamation League intimidates on a national scale, does anti-Semitism morph into something even more sinister? The Gaza assault killed 1,400, including 400 Palestinian children. That slaughter was scheduled during America’s political and media “down time”—between Christmas 2008 and the January 2009 inaugural of Barack Obama.

Is it anti-Semitic to suggest a strategic motive behind the timing of Israel’s latest savagery?

Then there’s the motive for 911. Is it anti-Semitic to raise that taboo subject? Ask those members of the 911 Commission who objected—successfully—when the chair and vice-chair proposed hearings on the motivation for that high-profile provocation.

Instead, Americans were left to cope with the results of an overwrought reaction to an unexplained mass murder too quickly blamed on “Islamo” fascism. Only now can we see the full costs in blood and treasure of a war waged on fixed intelligence and false pretenses.

The fiscal tab alone is projected to total $3 Trillion. That includes the future costs of military pensions, disabilities, record-level post-traumatic stress, suicides and so forth.

All that money is borrowed, a first for an American war. The interest cost could reach $700 billion. Is it anti-Semitic to mention here that debt is always the prize?

At the end of WWII, the victorious U.S. was home to 50% of the world’s productive power. Our bonds were gilt-edged and remained so for two generations. Now we are widely hated, our credibility is shot, our credit rating is slipping and our economy teeters on a meltdown.

Is it anti-Semitic to ask, “What happened?”

Is it anti-Semitic to report that the so-called “mastermind” behind 911 cited as his motive the U.S.-Israeli relationship?

Would it be anti-Semitic to ask for an accounting of the “but for” costs of this relationship?

But for this “special relationship” what would be the current condition of the U.S.—financially, militarily, diplomatically, geopolitically? Would the computation of those costs be an exercise in anti-Semitism? How about future costs?

Is it Anti-Semitic to call for a New 911 Commission?

America was misled to wage war in Iraq. Who had a relationship with us privileged enough to succeed with such duplicity in plain sight?

Who had the means, motive, opportunity and—importantly—the stable nation state intelligence to deceive us from inside our own government? Is that question anti-Semitic?

We were betrayed. Does that betrayal trace to those who befriended us?

We were defrauded. Does that treason trace to those we were induced to trust?

As counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee (1980-87), I crafted federal tax law governing funds under management. Those funds surged from $800 billion in 1980 to more than $17,000 billion by the spring of 2007.

Those tax policies created a vast pool of “money-on-autopilot.” Today’s consensus belief can be simply put: money should be allowed to pursue more of itself—freely.

The unspoken assumption is that money is smarter than people. That’s the generally accepted truth behind the finance-fixated obsession we now know as “economics.”

Legions of consensus-touting consultants insist that this One True Faith guide lawmaking worldwide. By law, financial freedom became a proxy for personal freedom. Tribunals under the World Trade Organization may yet enforce that worldview globally.

How did such a narrow perspective become a widely agreed-to mindset? How were we induced to set America’s course by those values peculiar to money?

Rather than the civil rights refrain, “Let my people go,” the consensus refrain is “Let my money go.” Were we induced by a subculture within a subculture…within a subculture to freely embrace the very money myopic mindset that now endangers our freedom?

This mindset first surfaced as the “Chicago model” before morphing over decades into the “Washington” consensus.

How were we as a nation induced to brand democracy with a point of view that, by law, displaces those values not denominated in money? Is that an anti-Semitic question?

Shutting Down Debate

Early on in this challenge, I included the noun “Jew” in a Google search. I received in return an automated response from the Anti-Defamation League implying I was an anti-Semite.

Why?

More importantly, how did a Google response appear in my email inbox—automatically—from the Anti-Defamation League?

The ADL network conducts trainings for law enforcement under recently enacted federal hate crimes legislation. By my use of a common noun in an online search, am I now identified in a database as wanting to kill all the Jews?

Mark Yudoff, president of the University of California, could have intervened in the on-campus events that caused Professor Robinson to fear for his life. He declined. Richard Blum, chair of the state’s Board of Regents, could have intervened. He too declined.

Judith Yudoff is the immediate past international president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism representing 760 synagogues. Blum’s wife, U. S. Senator Diane Feinstein, chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Is it anti-Semitic to report these facts?

My apologies. Clearly I don’t yet grasp what anti-Semitism is. Thus I throw the challenge to you the reader: what is it? Together perhaps we can sort this out.

Time for an American Intifada?

During the 1960 Christmas season, Americans flocked to the theaters to see Exodus, a 3-1/2 hour epic film featuring handsome freedom fighters and a riveting romance amidst the heroic triumph of Jewish Destiny over Arab Evil Doers. Set against a Yuletide backdrop of Biblical prophecy, moviegoers marveled as exiled Jews returned to their fabled promised land, a staple of popular culture to which Americans are first exposed as children in “Sunday school.”

Many moviegoers failed to realize that Exodus was not fact but fiction. Even now, few Americans realize the storyline was adapted for the screen from a 1958 novel by Leon Uris. The biggest bestseller since Gone with the Wind—a novel set during the Civil War of the 1860s—the film adaptation was directed by Hollywood icon Otto Preminger. The blockbuster’s stars included a young Paul Newman with his leading lady a blond Eva Marie Saint.

The cast included character actor Lee J. Cobb and Peter Lawford, married to Pat Kennedy, a sister of John F. Kennedy who was elected president the same year. By then, Lawford was a famous member of pop culture’s high profile “Rat Pack” that included singer Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis, Jr. and Joey Bishop. Italian crooner Sal Mineo, then a teen heartthrob, received an Academy Award nomination for his portrayal of a Jewish émigré.

An Oscar should have been awarded to Israel and its supporters for portraying this extremist enclave as a legitimate nation-state when, in reality, its founding traces to an alluring storyline. Forty-five years after the release of Exodus, American naiveté was again targeted by Jewish storytellers to induce the U.S. to war in the Middle East—only this time for real.

Then as now, Americans are easily swayed by sympathetic portrayals of an enclave granted nation-state recognition by President Harry Truman, a Christian-Zionist. The Missouri Democrat had famously read the Bible cover-to-cover five times by age 15. Truman was a True Believer in the same way that fundamentalist Christians believe—truly believe—that their Messiah will not return until the “Israelites” recover their ancestral home.

Preying on similar beliefs, Republican George W. Bush, another Christian-Zionist president, was induced with phony intelligence to wage war in Iraq. The false intelligence was traceable to Israelis, pro-Israelis or assets developed for that purpose. That invasion had long been a priority goal of those who believe—truly believe—in their right to an expansionist Greater Israel.

Yet as Shlomo Sand chronicles in The Invention of the Jewish People (2009), the historical evidence is scant either for an exile or an “exodus.” As with the movie, the return of a “Jewish People” to a Jewish homeland is “a conscious ideological composition” meant “to claim a higher cultural lineage” than what can be supported by the facts.

In lieu of the novel-writing skills of Leon Uris, the Zionist narrative featured Biblical archeologists such as William F. Albright who, in the 1920s, traveled to the Holy Land to excavate artifacts that would, as Sand puts it: “reaffirm the Old Testament and thereby the New.”

By interpreting his finds in Christian-Zionist terms, Albright and his colleagues not only unearthed Biblical “facts” that shaped the Sunday school curriculum, they also helped pre-stage the perceived legitimacy of a Jewish people returning from exile to a Jewish homeland. As Sand points out, if there was no exodus, how can there be a return? If there is no “Jewish People,” how can there be a homeland?

Yet these widely held beliefs remain the premise underlying Israel’s expansionist agenda and its rationale for heaping six decades of abuse on Palestinians who have lived there for centuries.

Political Expedience or Biblical Prophecy?

White House counsel Clark Clifford cautioned Truman that his reelection was unlikely absent the funding that Jewish-Americans—with Israel’s recognition—were eager to provide. In early May 1948, General George C. Marshall, Truman’s Secretary of State, argued vigorously against recognition. Strong objections were also heard from the diplomatic corps, the fledgling Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Marshall, the top-ranked U.S. military officer in WWII, was outraged that Clifford put domestic political expedience ahead of U.S. foreign policy interests. Marshall told Truman that he would vote against him if he extended sovereign status to an enclave of Zionist terrorists, religious fanatics and what Albert Einstein and Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt called “Jewish fascists.” Marshall insisted that State Department personnel never again speak to Clifford.

In March 1948, a Joint Chiefs paper titled “Force Requirements for Palestine” predicted the “Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the U.S.] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.” Those objectives included an expansionist agenda for Greater Israel that envisioned the taking of Arab land, ensuring armed clashes in which the U.S. was destined to become embroiled.

The Joint Chiefs listed Zionist objectives as:

• Initial Jewish sovereignty over a portion of Palestine,
• Acceptance by the great powers of the right to unlimited immigration,
• The extension of Jewish sovereignty over all of Palestine,
• The expansion of “Eretz (Greater) Israel” into Transjordan and portions of Lebanon and Syria, and
• The establishment of Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.

Akin to the fictional portrayal in Exodus, those Zionists lobbying Truman assured him they would remain within the initial boundaries. We now know that was a lie. They also promised that the Zionist state would not become what it quickly became: a theocratic and racist enclave—albeit widely marketed by pro-Israeli media as the “only democracy in the Middle East.”

To remove all doubt as to the extremist goals of the Zionist project, the Joint Chiefs assessment added ominously:

“All stages of this program are equally sacred to the fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders. The program is openly admitted by some leaders, and has been privately admitted to United States officials by responsible leaders of the presently dominant Jewish group–the Jewish Agency.”

Deceit from the Outset

A beguiling combination of Hollywood fiction, manipulated beliefs and outright lies remain at the core of this entangled alliance and the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship.” The deceit deployed to advance the hegemonic goals of the Zionist project remains obscured by an undisclosed media bias reinforced by a widespread pro-Israeli influence in popular culture. As with the 1960 film, the ongoing manipulation of thought and emotion lies at the core of this duplicity a half-century later.

In The Persuasion Explosion (1985), author Art Stevens reports that Exodus was a public relations ploy launched by Edward Gottlieb who sought a novelist to improve Israel’s image in the U.S. The name Uris originates with Yerushalmi, meaning “man of Jerusalem.” The film rights to Exodus were sold in advance of the book’s publication. Translated into dozens of languages, this masterpiece of mental and emotional manipulation quickly became a global phenomenon as it created favorable impressions of Israel.

The rewards are real for those who offer aid and comfort to this trans-generational deceit. When Truman’s campaign train traversed the nation as part of a 1948 whistle-stop tour, grateful Jewish nationalists refueled his campaign coffers with a reported $400,000 in cash ($3.6 million in 2010 dollars). Those funds helped transform his anticipated loss into a victory with support from pro-Israeli editorial boards that—after recognition—boosted Truman’s sagging popularity.

The Creation of Reliable Assets

Clark Clifford was rewarded with his career goal when he emerged as a top-paid Washington lawyer. After proving himself a pliable personality, he remained a reliable asset. During the G.H.W. Bush presidency, his combination of political prominence and perceived credibility provided cover for a massive bank fraud involving the Bank of Credit and Commerce International aided by Roger Altman, his Ashkenazi law partner.

In 2009, Hollywood released an action thriller (The International) starring Clive Owen and featuring a similar storyline involving the International Bank of Business and Credit. Neither Clifford nor Altman had experience in banking when their law firm enabled what prosecutors charged was a global criminal operation.

Media reports described the BCCI scheme as the largest bank fraud in history. This $20 billion transnational operation even featured the requisite Hollywood component: Clifford’s protégé was married to Lynda Carter, the star of Wonder Woman, a 1970s fantasy-adventure television series.

The real fantasy in this long-running geopolitical fraud lies in why U.S. lawmakers continue to befriend and defend a “nation” that has for so long—and so consistently—deceived and betrayed its most loyal ally. As a badly miscast Eva Marie Saint asked in her most memorable line in Exodus: “When will it ever end?”

The greatest wonder will be if, based on facts confirming the depth and duration of this duplicity, those lawmakers urging continued support for Israel are not charged with treason. [See: How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy.]

To restore its national security, the U.S. must shake off its entangled alliance with this extremist enclave. “Shaking off” is the literal translation of “intifada.” Those who know the true facts behind this trans-generational deception are quickly reaching the conclusion that the recognition of this enclave as a legitimate state was key to this ongoing fraud. Others may be waiting for the movie, American Intifada.

Lawful Treason?

Winning wars in the Information Age largely depends on winning the battle for public opinion. Thus the opinion-shaping role of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) when it attacked a high profile California professor for his criticism of Israeli policy in Palestine.

That ADL intimidation campaign successfully chilled debate on campuses nationwide during several time-critical months while a new president, promising the hope of change, reassessed U.S.-Israeli relations. His only change—endorsing more Israeli settlements on Palestinian land—quashed any hope of peace.

This ADL silencing strategy offers a microcosm of how the U.S. was induced to war in Iraq based on false intelligence. From the provocation of September 11, 2001 until the invasion of March 2003, war-planners ignored, dismissed or sought to silence anyone critical of the spurious premises offered for war.

Only later did we discover that the intelligence was fixed around a preset agenda. Even now, Americans are unaware that the U.S.-led invasion had long been an Israeli goal.

In similar fashion, an ADL campaign silenced on-campus criticism of Israel’s December 2008 assault on Gaza. At the University of California Santa Barbara, ADL-initiated charges were lodged against sociology Professor William Robinson. The disciplinary action dragged on until June 24^th when 100 professors and 20 department heads demanded an end to all proceedings.

By then the damage was done—to the reputation of Professor Robinson, to academic freedom at the University of California and to national security as this campaign silenced academics countrywide. While Robinson’s reputation can be restored, the damage to national security is irreparable.

Manipulating Thought

The ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles coordinated the assault on Robinson after he shared with students from his globalization website a photo essay critical of Israel. The essay had circulated for weeks on the Internet.

Aaron Ettenberg, a member of the Faculty Senate Charges Committee, collaborated with Santa Barbara Rabbi Arthur Gross-Schaefer who reviled Robinson in the local community and urged—along with the ADL—that he be disciplined by the university for his “anti-Semitic” behavior.

Chancellor Henry Yang was subjected to threats to withhold funding featuring a campaign led by ADL National Director Abe Foxman and Rabbi Marvin Heir from the Wiesenthal Center.

Professor Ettenberg had served the previous two years as president of the local chapter of B’nai B’rith, an ADL affiliate. Rabbi Gross-Schaefer was director of the local chapter of Hillel, an on-campus ADL affiliate.

Mark Yudof, president of the University of California, opted not to intervene even as this silencing campaign attracted international attention. Yudof’s wife, Judith, is the immediate past international president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism representing 760 synagogues. She is also a director of Hillel.

As with the dominance of Jewish Zionists among neoconservative war-planners, the pro-Israeli bias was all-pervasive. Richard Blum chairs the statewide Board of Regents for the University of California. His wife, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. What was their reaction as this professor was silenced? Silence.

Coincidence or Faith-Based Coordination?

Would a professor and a local rabbi have risked their careers and their reputations absent their confidence that—based on the shared bias of university administrators and government officials—they could intimidate with impunity? Absent such implied support, would this silencing operation have dragged on for so long?

Absent their silence—with its tacit approval—what might have been the impact of campus criticism when Israel’s assault on the captive population of Gaza left 1300 dead, one-third reportedly women and children? Those complicit in this silencing campaign knew the impact on public opinion of student protests against the Vietnam War—particularly on California campuses.

Those concerned about anti-Semitism must explain how this broadly coordinated intimidation campaign was allowed to succeed. In the same way that public opinion was manipulated prior to an invasion that launched the Global War on Terrorism, this campaign sought to deny students the facts required to understand Israel’s role in provoking that terror.

Absent access to facts, how can the U.S. preserve a system of self-governance founded on the premise of informed consent? Without facts, how can national security be protected from those who “fix” intelligence in order to deploy the U.S. military for the interests of a foreign nation?

Unless those complicit are held accountable, how will American youth learn the essential role of free and open debate on topics of direct relevance to their lives?

In a representative system of government, the greatest threat to liberty is manipulation of the facts required for informed citizen participation. Anyone who cherishes freedom should be alarmed at the ongoing success of such manipulation and outraged that its common source traces to a purported ally.

Psychological warfare targets knowledge as a means to manipulate thought, opinion and emotion (the “hearts and minds”) and thereby influence behavior. At the center of such disinformation is the displacement of facts with false beliefs meant to prod decision-making toward a preset goal.

Thus the false reports of Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and so forth. Thus the high profile assault on a high-profile center of learning to silence a professor who threatened to replace manipulated beliefs with confirmed facts.

Where U.S. policies toward Israel are at stake, facts are routinely suppressed to shape debate. Such strategic deceit systematically undermines U.S. national security.

Treason in Plain Sight

Intimidation campaigns have long been a key tool for organized crime and for those whose undisclosed agenda can succeed only when shielded from public scrutiny. Those complicit in such “psy-ops” know their agenda could not prevail in an open debate. They also know that if their treachery is detected they face charges of treason, a capital crime.

That’s why this form of treason instead targets knowledge to corrupt the facts required for informed choice. That focus denies those targeted a meaningful choice while leaving intact the appearance of open debate. Meanwhile the perpetrators seek refuge behind the very freedoms they undermine—freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion.

In this case, pro-Israeli operatives silenced on-campus criticism of Israel while Israel committed dozens of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Evidence of those crimes was depicted in the Internet-posted photo essay that the ADL attacked as “anti-Semitic.”

What was the strategic result? That assault on Gaza marked yet another violent provocation guaranteed to catalyze a violent reaction (aka “terrorism”), adding plausibility to the narrative of “militant Islam.” The result made the U.S. appear guilty by its association with this criminality.

We then compounded our complicity by covering up the facts when the Congress, dominated by the Israel lobby, overwhelmingly approved a resolution portraying as “irredeemably biased” a chronicle of those war crimes in “The Goldstone Report,” a comprehensive account by an eminent Jewish jurist. [See How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy.]

The U.S. was doubly damaged. We not only discredited ourselves, we also endangered our national security by condoning criminality destined to provoke more violence directed at our troops.

When such psy-ops campaigns are detected, defenders of democracy must fight back by making the perpetrators transparent and their common motivation apparent. This is how Israel wages war on the U.S. from inside the U.S.—by deceiving us to wage its wars and by provoking others to hate us due to our alliance with religious extremists and their apartheid policies.

Duplicity has long been a weapon deployed to “wage war by way of deception.” That’s the operative motto of the Mossad, the intelligence and foreign operations branch of the Jewish nationalists who have dominated Israeli politics since a Christian-Zionist president erred in 1948 by recognizing as a legitimate “state” this enclave of Jewish extremists and ultra-nationalists.

Israel specializes in what the Pentagon calls unconventional warfare. Such warfare is only “unconventional” for the targeted population (us). For militant Zionists, this is how war is waged. When your numbers are few and your ambitions vast, deceit becomes an essential force-multiplier.

In the Information Age, why would anyone expect war to be waged in any way other than by deception? Where else but in plain sight could such warfare be waged?

For freedom to prevail against such psy-ops requires a shift in strategic focus. A robust defense would make this manipulation transparent in real time before deception can work its intended impact on public opinion.

The dominance of pro-Israelis in mainstream media complicates that task. Media complicity was essential to succeed in the deceit that took the U.S. to war and that now seeks to obscure Israeli war crimes.

A Special Relationship with Fanatics

The Pentagon warned six decades ago that Jewish extremists sought military and economic dominance over the entire Middle East. As the Joint Chiefs of Staff cautioned Harry Truman:

“All stages of this program are equally sacred to the fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders. The program is openly admitted by some leaders, and has been privately admitted to United States officials by responsible leaders of the presently dominant Jewish group—The Jewish Agency.”

Other than religious fanatics, who would deny Americans—including college students—the facts required to make informed choices on an issue as critical as taking the U.S. to war in the Middle East? Other than pro-Israeli publishers and broadcast media owners, who would have the motivation to report as “facts” the phony intelligence that was fixed around Israeli goals?

If not Israel and its Zionist advocates—both Christians and Jews—who would have the means, motive, opportunity and, importantly, the stable nation state intelligence required to corrupt the intelligence that took the U.S. to war? Or to silence academic critics just when those who induced the invasion of Iraq intensified their efforts to expand this war to Iran and now Pakistan?

If the behavior described is not treason, what is? If this is treason, why have those complicit not been charged? Is Professor Ettenberg still employed by the university? If so, why? Have rabbis Gross-Schaefer and Heir been dismissed from their positions of influence? If not, why not?

Why hasn’t the ADL’s Abe Foxman been indicted? Did he confer with the Yudoffs during this silencing campaign? Has a federal grand jury been impaneled to consider charges of treason? Foxman was invited to the White House for the October 28^th signing of the ADL’s “model hate crimes” bill. Will that federal legislation now be deployed to lawfully intimidate critics?

Have mainstream publishers and media owners been investigated for their complicity in this national scale fraud on public opinion? If not, why not? Is the Federal Communications Commission moving to revoke the broadcast licenses of those who used the public airwaves to deceive the public?  If not, why not?

Are news reports correct that an investment firm run by Richard Blum made more than $100 million on the rising value of its stock in a top defense contractor? Did his firm also invest in media outlets that sold us this war?

In an irony of epic proportions, ADL’s amendment to federal hate crimes law was tacked onto an appropriations bill for the Department of Defense. Will the ADL now seek to portray as “anti-Semitic” those who document for a long-deceived military the common source of the psy-ops that took U.S. forces to war in the Middle East?

Will those who repeat the Joint Chiefs’ warning about religious fanatics be targeted for federal prosecution? Will allegations of hate be deployed to silence debate? Is treason now lawful?

At What Cost the Israel Lobby?

More than 46 years ago, President John F. Kennedy sought to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In June 1963, he wrote the last in a series of insistent letters to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Those letters sought what Israel now demands of Iran: international inspections of its nuclear facilities. The key difference: Kennedy knew for certain that Israel, while portraying itself a friend and ally, repeatedly lied to Kennedy about its nuclear weapons development at the Dimona reactor in the Negev Desert.

Best estimates point to sometime between 1962 and 1964 when Israel produced its first weapon in what is now a vast nuclear arsenal estimated at 200-400 warheads. Kennedy’s letter to Ben-Gurion was anything but friendly. The words he chose were drawn not from diplomacy but from the instructions that a judge gives a jury on criminal culpability. In that brusque letter, the U.S. commander-in-chief insisted that this purported ally prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the Zionist enclave was not developing nuclear weapons.

One day after that June 15^th letter was cabled to Tel Aviv for delivery by the U.S. ambassador, Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned citing undisclosed personal reasons. As his resignation was announced before the letter could be physically delivered, Jewish authors routinely claim that Kennedy’s message failed to reach Ben-Gurion. Nonsense. That interpretative gloss ignores what we now know about Israeli operations inside serial U.S. presidencies—and about Tel Aviv’s routine intercept of White House communications.

Deprived of an Israeli government with which to negotiate, Kennedy was denied a national security victory that may well have spared the world a problem he foresaw almost a half-century ago. In retrospect, that Israeli conduct raises topical questions about the ability of the U.S.—or any nation—to hold Zionist extremists accountable.

The Khazars vs. the Kennedys

During this same 1962-63 period, Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council. The AZC received funds from the Jewish Agency, a predecessor to the state of Israel. As a recipient of U.S. taxpayer funds, the Jewish Agency used those funds to lobby for more funds. Under U.S. law, that conduct required the AZC to register as a foreign agent.

Attorney General Robert Kennedy joined Fulbright in that quest. That effort was thwarted by the Israel lobby and then by the death of President Kennedy. Thereafter, concerns about the impact of Zionist influence on U.S. policy making continued to grow. By 1973, Fulbright could announce with confidence: “Israel controls the U.S. Senate.” In 1974, he lost his Senate seat. [See: “How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy.”]

Fast-forward to today and imagine the Middle East without an enclave of nuclear-armed Zionist extremists. The threat that Kennedy posed to Tel Aviv’s arsenal was eliminated five months after Ben-Gurion’s strategically well-timed resignation. When Vice President Lyndon Johnson was sworn in as his successor, LBJ quickly increased the arms budget for Israel. Imagine today’s Zionist influence on U.S. policy had Fulbright and the Kennedys succeeded in requiring that the lobby register as what it is: a foreign agent.

Following the Kennedy assassination in November 1963, Nicholas Katzenbach replaced RFK as Attorney General. Soon thereafter, the AZC evaded registration as it morphed into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC now oversees a transnational network of pro-Israeli political operatives commonly known as “the Israel lobby.”

The Kennedy/Fulbright risk to Zionist influence reemerged five years later when Robert Kennedy announced his candidacy for the presidency during the height of an unpopular war that was vastly expanded under the leadership of the Texan who replaced his brother as president. Another Kennedy presidency posed for Tel Aviv a two-fold threat.

First, Robert Kennedy’s peace candidacy revived the possibility that he would pursue his brother’s agenda and target Israel’s nuclear arsenal in order to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Second, with Fulbright still wielding influence on U.S. foreign policy, a Kennedy administration revived concerns about restrictions on the Israel lobby.

When this charismatic contender surged in the political polls, that threat was eliminated June 5, 1968 at a campaign event in Los Angeles. His death at the hand of Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian émigré, coincided with the first anniversary of the Six-Day War. The assassin later cited as his motive Kennedy’s campaign pledge to provide more fighter jets to Israel.

With that murder, the road to the presidency was cleared for Richard Nixon. When lobbied by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, Nixon readily agreed to endorse an “ambiguous” status for Israel’s nuclear arsenal, akin to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Special Standard for a Special Friend

Due to its “special relationship” with the U.S., Tel Aviv remains a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its Dimona facility has never been subjected to the inspections it now seeks for Iran. But for photographs taken inside the Dimona facility in 1986 by nuclear technician Mordecai Vanunu, that “ambiguity” might well remain intact.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly certified that Iran is not enriching uranium beyond the 3.5% required for nuclear energy. Tehran has agreed to send its uranium abroad for the further enrichment required for medicine (19.5%), a level still well below the 90% required for nuclear weapons.

In mid-September, the U.S. intelligence agencies reported to the White House that their assessment since the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007 remains unchanged. They still do not believe that Iran has resumed nuclear weapons development work

What about Israel? What has their lobby been doing? Answer: lobbying. As during the Kennedy era, Tel Aviv remains focused on a single goal: ensuring that its ally and patron continues a six-decade policy ensuring that Israel is not held accountable—for anything.

At what cost has the U.S. acted as if the Israel lobby is not a foreign agent? The strategic issue faced by Fulbright and the Kennedys remains unresolved: how best can the U.S. eliminate Israeli influence as a threat to national security? Since that fateful letter of June 1963, what has been the cost of this lobby to U.S. interests? What costs have been imposed on others by this special relationship? At what point will Americans say: Enough!

U.S. Interests vs. The Jewish State

Barack Obama’s recent conduct at the U.N. removed all remaining doubt as to Israeli influence inside this latest U.S. presidency. When he uttered the phrase “the Jewish state of Israel,” he provided precisely the provocation required to ensure that peace in the Middle East will continue to be deferred.

When, in May 1948, Christian-Zionist Harry Truman agreed to recognize an enclave of Jewish-Zionist extremists as a nation state, he struck out “Jewish state” and wrote the “state of Israel.” Despite assurances from Zionist lobbyist Chaim Weizmann that Israel would be a democracy, Truman feared the Zionist state might become what it became: a racist theocracy committed to an expansionist agenda that endangers U.S. interests in the region.

Barack Obama is a political product of Chicago’s West Side Jewish community and the nation’s “first Jewish president” according to former Clinton White House counsel Abner Mikva. Though branded an agent of change, when the zeitgeist of his campaign suggested that change might encompass a shift in the U.S.-Israeli relationship, those Ashkenazim who produced this presidential phenomenon let their displeasure be known.

The candidate of change quickly made the requisite rounds of pro-Israeli venues where he promised his benefactors there would be no change in an entangled alliance that, in retrospect, is the primary reason the U.S. finds itself at war in the Middle East. His U.N. performance thrilled those colonial Zionists whose duplicity troubled Truman. Meanwhile his “Jewish state” comment was guaranteed to inflame tensions in the region.

In the lead-up to this speech, Israelis told Obama what they intended to do—and then did it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he would use agreed-to terms of the Road Map to trade for stronger action against Iran. When Obama blinked and failed to insist that Israel comply with the agreed-to freeze on settlements, Netanyahu got what he sought—an emphasis on war with Iran rather than peace with the Palestinians.

Rather than announcing progress in negotiations, Obama announced only his hope that negotiations could soon resume—maybe. When Tel Aviv saw how easily they outwitted this novice negotiator, their agenda became more audacious. Obama’s mention of the code phrase “Jewish state” confirmed the ongoing role of the same stage managers who flew him directly from his speech in Cairo to a photo-op at Germany’s Buchenwald death camp.

Confirming the Zionists’ insider influence, Rahm Emanuel, widely described as the most powerful Chief of Staff in decades, assumed a prominent position in the U.N. chamber alongside the Secretary of State, the U.N. Ambassador and the National Security Adviser.

As with Cairo, Obama not only missed another opportunity to build goodwill, he missed a chance to restore the tattered credibility of the U.S after eight years of a Christian-Zionist president. Instead of progress toward peace, he offered yet another photo-op featuring Israeli and Palestinian leaders in yet another handshake signifying … nothing.

At what point will Americans realize they’ve been played for the fool by a purported ally? At what point does presidential conduct become culpable complicity?  Why would The New York Times report a decline in Barack Obama’s approval ratings in Israel?

Pundits put a positive spin on this foreign policy disaster by suggesting that Obama boxed Netanyahu in by finessing the settlements issue and forcing the Israeli leader to mention final status negotiations. That analysis misses the point. For Tel Aviv, there is no final status. The point of this six-decade process is more process—to avoid resolution.

Should Washington maneuver Israel into a box, Tel Aviv will collapse yet another coalition government. Or announce a resignation. That was Ben-Gurion’s ruse in June 1963 when John F. Kennedy insisted on inspections to stop Israel’s nuclear arms program. Ehud Olmert used the same negotiating tactic when it appeared that the Road Map could lead to a final status agreement. His well-timed resignation brought back Netanyahu.

The only party in a box is the U.S. The way out is to end this entangled alliance and the perils to U.S. interests that this “special relationship” was certain to create. In practical effect, in order to keep an Israeli government intact with which to negotiate, the U.S. must satisfy the most right-wing elements of the most right-wing political party of an infamously right-wing foreign government. How can that be in America’s interest?

Harry Truman’s recognition of this enclave as a legitimate state was an overwrought reaction to a unique combination of domestic and international circumstances that were manipulated to the advantage of violent religious extremists. Their ethnic cleansing of Palestine has yet to be either acknowledged or addressed.

After six decades of occupation and oppression, the best a U.S. president could offer Palestinians was an assurance that a U.S. ally—should negotiations resume—would come to the table with “clear terms of reference.” What greater insult could a U.S. president inflict on the Arab world than such an empty promise?

Obama’s performance was pathetic. Also, in effect, he gave the green light for another mass murder in the U.S. or in the European Union. As part of the pre-staging of another plausible rationale for the invasion of yet another Middle Eastern nation, mainstream U.S. media misrepresented remarks to the U.N. by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, giving credence to Iran as a nuclear threat. That Evil Doer portrayal is consistent with the pre-staging of other operations by which the U.S. was induced to war on false pretenses.

The next incident could be nuclear. While Obama was conceding to Israeli demands, Defense Minister Ehud Barack was meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates to assure him that Tel Aviv may yet attack Iran. In yet another signal to a worldwide audience about just who shapes U.S. foreign policy, the Pentagon chief was accompanied by Dennis Ross who joined Obama’s Iran advisory team from a think tank affiliate of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

For the first time in history, a U.S. president chaired a meeting of the U.N. Security Council. Presented with an occasion to caution an ally not to aggravate the nuclear arms race that Kennedy sought to halt in its infancy, Obama focused instead on Iran, forgoing a warning to the one nation in the Middle East known to have a nuclear arsenal. And the only nation able to deliver on the threat of deployment.

As an additional insult to Arab nations, the U.S. negotiating team urged—despite no sign of good faith by Tel Aviv—that those nations offer diplomatic gestures of goodwill. Or make “substantive concessions” as Netanyahu put it. No reason was offered why, after enduring more than sixty years of nonstop duplicity, they should agree to do so.

For anyone to assume or suggest that Israel is operating in good faith reflects a perilous misreading of history. What we just witnessed at the U.N. is how warfare is waged in the Information Age. This was neither the behavior of a U.S. ally nor a nation deserving U.S. support, friendship, arms or even recognition. Any further appeasement of this extremist enclave and Obama can rightly be charged with breach of his oath of office to defend the U.S. from all enemies, both domestic and foreign.

Next Page »