Benjamin Netanyahu

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.

Benjamin Netanyahu

What Role Did the U.S.-Israeli Relationship Play in 9-11?

On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: “It’s very good….Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel).”

Intelligence wars rely on mathematical models to anticipate the response of “the mark” to staged provocations. Reactions thereby become foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. When Israeli mathematician Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science, he conceded that “the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel” has turned “Israel into the leading authority in this field.”

With a well-planned provocation, the anticipated response can even become a weapon in the arsenal of the agent provocateur. In response to 9-11, how difficult would it be to foresee that the U.S. would deploy its military to avenge that attack? With fixed intelligence, how difficult would it be to redirect that response to wage a long-planned war in Iraq — not for U.S. interests but to advance the agenda for Greater Israel?

The emotionally wrenching component of a provocation plays a key role in the field of game theory war planning where Israel is the authority. With the televised murder of 3,000 Americans, a shared mindset of shock, grief and outrage made it easier for U.S. policy-makers to believe that a known Evil Doer in Iraq was responsible, regardless of the facts.

The strategic displacement of facts with induced beliefs, in turn, requires a period of “preparing the mindset” so that “the mark” will put their faith in a pre-staged fiction. Those who induced the March 2003 invasion of Iraq began “laying mental threads” and creating agenda-advancing mental associations more than a decade earlier.

Notable among those threads was the 1993 publication in Foreign Affairs of an article by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. By the time his analysis appeared in book-length form in 1996 as The Clash of Civilizations, more than 100 academies and think tanks were prepared to promote it, pre-staging a “clash consensus”–five years before 9-11.

Also published in 1996 under the guidance of Richard Perle was A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). A member since 1987 of the U.S. Defense Policy Advisory Board, this self-professed Zionist became its chairman in 2001. As a key adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Perle’s senior Pentagon post helped lay the required foundation for removing Saddam Hussein as part of a Greater Israel strategy, a key theme of A Clean Break – released five years before 9-11.

A mass murder, articles, books, think tanks and Pentagon insiders, however, are not enough to manage the variables in a “probabilistic” war-planning model. Supportive policy makers are also required to lend the appearance of legitimacy and credibility to an operation justified by intelligence fixed around a pre-determined agenda.

That role was eagerly filled by Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, when they co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Echoing Tel Aviv’s agenda in A Clean Break, their bill laid another mental thread in the public mindset by calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein–three years before 9-11.

The legislation also appropriated $97 million, largely to promote that Zionist agenda. Distracted by mid-term Congressional elections and by impeachment proceedings commenced in reaction to a well-timed presidential affair involving White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton signed that agenda into law October 31, 1998 — five years before the U.S.-led invasion that removed Saddam Hussein.

After 9-11, John McCain and Joe Lieberman became inseparable travel companions and irrepressible advocates for the invasion of Iraq. Looking “presidential” aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in January 2002, McCain laid another key thread when he waved an admiral’s cap while proclaiming, alongside Lieberman, “On to Baghdad.”

By Way of Deception

The chutzpah with which this game theory strategy progressed in plain sight could be seen in the behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, another Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11, in a principals’ meeting at Camp David, he proposed that the U.S. invade Iraq. At that time, the intelligence did not yet point to Iraqi involvement and Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding in a remote region of Afghanistan.

Frustrated that President George H.W. Bush declined to remove Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Wolfowitz proposed a No-Fly Zone in northern Iraq. By 2001, the Israeli Mossad had agents at work for a decade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Intelligence reports of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda also came from Mosul — reports that later proved to be false. Mosul again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the insurgency that destabilized Iraq. That reaction precluded the speedy exit of coalition forces promised in Congressional testimony by senior war-planner Wolfowitz.

The common source of the fixed intelligence that induced America to war in Iraq has yet to be acknowledged even though intelligence experts agree that deception on such a scale required a decade to plan, staff, pre-stage, orchestrate and, to date, cover up. The two leaders of the 9-11 Commission report conceded they were stopped by Commission members from hearing testimony on the motivation for 9-11: the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

The fictions accepted as generally accepted truths included Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and Iraqi purchases of “yellowcake” uranium from Niger. Only the last fact was conceded as phony in the relevant time frame. All the rest were disclosed as false, flawed or fixed only after the war began. An attempt to cover-up the yellowcake account led to the federal prosecution of vice-presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby, another well-placed Zionist insider.

Did game theory-modeled pre-staging also include the Israeli provocation that led to the Second Intifada? An intifada is an uprising or, literally, a “shaking off” of an oppressor. The Second Intifada in Palestine dates from September 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led an armed march to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount – one year before 9-11.

After a year of calm—during which Palestinians believed in the prospects for peace—suicide bombings recommenced after this high-profile provocation. In response to the uprising, Sharon and Netanyahu observed that only when Americans “feel our pain” would they understand the plight of the victimized Israelis. Both Israeli leaders suggested that shared mindset (“feel our pain”) would require in the U.S. a weighted body count of 4,500 to 5,000 Americans lost to terrorism, the initial estimate of those who died in the twin towers of New York City’s World Trade Center—one year later.

The American Valkyrie?

When successful, game theory warfare strengthens the agent provocateur while leaving the mark discredited and depleted by the anticipated reaction to a well-timed provocation. By game theory standards, 9-11 was a strategic success because the U.S. was portrayed as irrational for its reaction — the invasion of Iraq – that triggered a deadly insurgency with devastating consequences both for Iraq and the U.S.

That insurgency, in turn, was an easily modeled reaction to the invasion of a nation that (a) played no role in the provocation, and (b) was known to be populated by three long-warring sects where an unstable peace was maintained by a former U.S. ally who was rebranded an Evil Doer. As the cost in blood and treasure expanded, the U.S. became overextended militarily, financially and diplomatically.

As “the mark” (the U.S.) emerged in the foreground, the agent provocateur faded into the background. But only after catalyzing dynamics that steadily drained the U.S. of credibility, resources and resolve. This “probabilistic” victory also ensured widespread cynicism, insecurity, distrust and disillusionment along with a declining capacity to defend its interests due to the duplicity of a game theory-savvy enemy within.

Meanwhile the American public fell under a regime of oversight, surveillance and intimidation marketed as “homeland” security. This domestic operation even features rhetorical hints of a WWII “fatherland” with clear signs of a force alien to the U.S. with its welcome embrace of open dissent. Is this operation meant to protect Americans or to shield those responsible for this insider operation from Americans?

By manipulating the shared mindset, skilled game theory war-planners can wage battles in plain sight and on multiple fronts with minimal resources. One proven strategy: Pose as an ally of a well-armed nation predisposed to deploy its military in response to a mass murder. In this case, the result destabilized Iraq, creating crises that could be exploited to strategic advantage by expanding the conflict to Iran, another key Israeli goal announced in A Clean Break—seven years before the invasion of Iraq.

Which nation benefitted from the deployment of coalition forces to the region? Today’s mathematically model-able outcome undermined U.S. national security by overextending its military, discrediting its leadership, degrading its financial condition and disabling its political will. In game theory terms, these results were “perfectly predictable”—within an acceptable range of probabilities.

In the asymmetry that typifies today’s unconventional warfare, those who are few in numbers must wage war by way of deception—non-transparently and with means that leverage their impact. Which nation—if not Israel—fits that description?

Treason in Plain Sight?

Game theory war-planners manipulate the shared mental environment by shaping perceptions and creating impressions that become consensus opinions. With the aid of well-timed crises, policy-makers fall in line with a predetermined agenda—not because they are Evil Doers or “imperialists” but because the shared mindset has been pre-conditioned to respond not to the facts but to manipulated emotions and consensus beliefs. Without the murder of 3,000 on 9-11, America’s credibility would not now be damaged and the U.S. economy would be in far better shape.

By steadily displacing facts with what “the mark” can be induced to believe, the few-within-the-few amplify the impact of their duplicity. By steady manipulation of the public’s mindset, game theory war-planners can defeat an opponent with vastly superior resources by inducing those decisions that ensure defeat.

Intelligence wars are waged in plain sight and under the cover of widely shared beliefs. By manipulating consensus opinion, such wars can be won from the inside out by inducing a people to freely choose the very forces that imperil their freedom. Thus in the Information Age the disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence in media, pop culture, think tanks, academia and politics—domains where Zionist influence is most rampant.

Induced beliefs act as a force-multiplier to wage intelligence wars from the shadows. At the operational core of such warfare are those masterful at anticipating the mark’s response to a provocation and incorporating that response into their arsenal. For those who wage war in this fashion, facts are only a barrier to overcome. For those nations dependent on facts, the rule of law and informed consent to protect their freedom, such insider treachery poses the greatest possible threat to national security.

America is far less safe than before 9-11. Tel Aviv clearly intends to continue its serial provocations, as evidenced by its ongoing expansion of the settlements. Israel has shown no sign of a willingness to negotiate in good faith or to take the steps required to make peace a possibility. To date, Barack Obama appears unwilling to name senior appointees who are not either Zionists are strongly pro-Israeli. The greatest threat to world peace is not terrorists. The greatest threat is the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

In the same way that a decade of pre-staging was required to plausibly induce the U.S. to invade Iraq, a similar strategy is now underway to persuade the U.S. to invade Iran or to support and condone an attack by Israel. The same duplicity is again at work, including the high profile branding of the requisite Evil Doer. From its very outset, the Zionist enterprise focused on hegemony in the Middle East. Its entangled alliance with the U.S. enabled this enterprise to deploy American might for that purpose.

Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence required to take the U.S. to war in the Middle East while also making it appear that Islam is the problem. If Barack Obama continues to defer to Tel Aviv, he can rightly be blamed when the next attack occurs in the U.S. or the European Union featuring the usual orgy of evidence pointing to a predetermined target. Should another mass murder occur, that event will be traceable directly to the U.S.-Israeli relationship and the failure of U.S policy-makers to free America from this enemy within.

See also:

How Israel Controls US

How Israel Wages War in Plain Sight

Appeasing Israel – At What Cost?

Benjamin Netanyahu

The ADL Thought Police

When sociology Professor William Robinson stared down the Anti-Defamation League, it looked like a victory for academic freedom. Yet was it? Robinson was portrayed as an anti-Semite because he sent an email to students featuring a photo essay critical of Israel that had circulated online for weeks. While University of California administrators dallied, the ADL and its international network turned up the heat—signaling academics worldwide they could be next.

It looked like progress when the faculty at UC Santa Barbara urged “changes in procedures to avoid improprieties and abuses in the future….” But was it? By then the ADL campaign had created the intended chilling effect. This silencing campaign was featured news for five time-critical months while a newly elected U.S. president was reassessing U.S.-Israeli relations. How can anyone calculate the full extent of the damage—not only to Robinson’s reputation and to the stature of the University of California but also to national security?

So where’s the victory? Clearly Robinson deserves acclaim for resisting pressure as the ADL deployed its most seasoned operatives, including Marvin Heir, a rabbi at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. Only an investigation can identify who mobilized the donor community that threatened UCSB Chancellor Henry Yang with the withdrawal of funds.

What was the motivation for this high profile intimidation campaign? Was the ADL driven simply by the discomfort that two students voiced on their receipt of his email criticizing Israeli policy? Or did the ADL network have its sights on a broader strategic goal?

Facts have since proven it was largely pro-Israelis who fixed the intelligence that manipulated the U.S. to invade Iraq. That same network has now mobilized to expand that war to Iran. A key barrier: the global condemnation of Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza. How does Tel Aviv limit the public relations fallout? On what leverage points should Israel focus to contain the censure while continuing to obscure Israel and pro-Israelis as the common source of this manipulation?

Aiding An Enemy Within?

The Founders faced a similar challenge during the Revolutionary War. How could they distinguish patriots from those loyal to a foreign nation? Knowing the vast risks that accompany betrayal, they lowered the evidentiary standard for treason. Guilt still required proof beyond a reasonable doubt but a conviction only required evidence of “adhering” to an enemy or giving them “aid and comfort.” To remove all doubt about the gravity of this capital offense, they even included those relaxed standards in Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

Fast-forward two centuries to the Information Age and consider the challenge of distinguishing friend from foe. With a new president sworn into office on a platform promising change, how should Tel Aviv continue to conceal the fact that it was pro-Israelis who deceived the U.S. to wage war in Iraq for the expansionist goals of Greater Israel?

During the Democratic presidential primaries, Senator Barack Obama promised no change in U.S.-Israeli relations. But that pledge was made while he and Hillary Clinton were vying for the pro-Israeli vote. What about now—particularly now that he knows Israel scheduled its assault on Gaza between Christmas and the Obama inaugural—knowing that interval would ensure Tel Aviv could operate largely free of official criticism?

Campaigning for president is one thing. Serving as commander in chief is another. What became of the prospects for change after this professor of constitutional law took a constitutional oath that obliged him to defend the U.S. from all enemies—both foreign and domestic?

Based on the success of pro-Israelis in inducing the U.S. to invade Iraq, how does this international network best expand this war to Iran? To succeed again, how can Tel Aviv best control the risk that facts unhelpful to its agenda find their way into the marketplace of ideas?

How about this for a psyops strategy: launch an intimidation campaign on a high-profile campus and portray a critic as an anti-Semite for sharing photos that had been circulating for weeks on the Internet. Then threaten his job, smear his reputation, put him in fear of his physical safety and threaten to withhold critical funding. Then see if on-campus critics still dare to speak out.

While the Faculty Senate should be commended for its stance, one must ask: what took so long? And what will be done to ensure that never again is a professor on any University of California campus subjected to such abuse with the complicity of university administrators? What steps will be taken to ensure this conduct does not recur on campuses nationwide?

Where was UC President Mark Yudof as this intimidation campaign progressed with such well-timed success? What role was played by the pro-Israeli bias of his wife, Judith, the immediate past president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism representing 760 synagogues?

Where was the Board of Regents while this silencing campaign advanced between the invasion of Gaza and President Obama’s White House meeting with Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? Did Board of Regents chairman Richard Blum harbor an undisclosed bias that precluded him shutting down this ADL operation? How about his wife, pro-Israeli U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee? What role did bias play in a community-wide smear campaign led by Arthur Gross-Schaefer, a Santa Barbara rabbi?

Was this only an offense against a courageous professor who fought on while university administrators retreated? Or was this assault more strategic? The Faculty Senate cannot on its own correct these wrongs because key offenders remain beyond their reach. What they can—and must—do is dismiss any faculty member complicit in this operation, condemn any university administrator who failed to act promptly and rebuke complicit operatives in the community.

The reputation of Prof. Robinson was only grist for the same mill that churned out the phony intelligence required to induce the U.S. to war in Iraq. That same network of deceit now seeks to catalyze war with Iran. Robinson was not the target. His reputation was collateral damage. The target was the mindset of academics that—because of this assault—hesitated to criticize Israel.

Until steps are taken to deter future offenses, these psychological operations (psyops) will continue and the reputation of the U.S. will continue to be collateral damage. Most ominous of all, those who wage war “by way of deception” (the motto of the Israeli Mossad) will continue to displace the facts on which self-governance depends. Progress must be measured by how many educators grasp that what was done to one could be done to all.

Benjamin Netanyahu

Must the U.S. Remain a Tool To Be Exploited by Other Nations?

The election crisis in Iran began May 18th when President Obama granted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a White House press conference. From that high profile pulpit, this Likud Party leader announced that Iran was Israel’s top priority and that Israeli settlements would continue to expand despite U.S. objections.

By providing that opening to right-wing Israeli interests, Obama enabled a geopolitical manipulation that would not mature until a month later when a post-election crisis in Iran provided an opportunity to vilify Tehran while proceeding with the settlements.

The catalyst for this crisis was a social network “Twitter attack” in Iran that began June 13th, the day after the election. “IranElection” was the most popular keyword for tens of thousands of tweets, half of them featuring the same profile photo. Over 40% of the Twitter.com users came from the U.S., lending plausibility to the charge that this was not an Israeli but a U.S. operation meant to destabilize Iran by spreading charges of election fraud.

Mainstream media declined to mention that pre-election polling showed President Ahmadinejad a two-to-one favorite. Nor was there any reference to his opponent’s plans to privatize the oil and gas industry. Aware of how that path led to an entrenched oligarchy in Russia, it’s easy to see why mainstream Iranians rejected that future.

Asked about Tehran’s response to the protests, Netanyahu said “the true nature of this regime has been unmasked….this is a regime that oppresses its people.” The crisis also enabled him again to portray Iran’s nuclear program as “an international danger” that “should be dealt with by an international effort led by the United States.”

For those concerned at Israeli influence over U.S. foreign policy, Obama’s comment on June 23rd offered hope. In assessing this multi-front crisis, he noted that the U.S. “is not a tool to be exploited by other nations.”

If not Israel, what nation can exploit the U.S.—from the inside? What nation benefits from this crisis? If not Tel Aviv, what government has the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence to conduct such operations?

If the U.S. is induced to invade Iran, no plausible outcome would be successful at preventing the conflict from spreading—lending plausibility to the widely touted Clash of Civilizations. Just as Israel seeks to delegitimize and vilify Iran, so too an attack on Iran would see the U.S. discredited and despised for allowing itself—yet again—to be exploited by Israel.

For Tehran to enrich uranium poses no threat to U.S. interests. President Kennedy saw the real threat. He sought in June 1963 to ensure that Israel did not develop nuclear weapons. His assassination brought to office a president with different priorities.

Citing an “existential threat” from Iran, a nuclear-armed Israel now deploys increasingly transparent efforts to exploit its “special relationship” with the U.S. to advance its interests. Yet war game strategists agree that an attack—any attack—would ignite a wave of anti-Americanism, further weakening us financially, militarily and diplomatically. That outcome is well known both in Washington and in Tel Aviv. These same pro-Israeli exploiters induced the U.S. to invade Iraq with the allure of a quick victory more than six years ago.

By June 23rd, Netanyahu was sufficiently emboldened to announce that even arguing about the settlements was “a waste of time.” Meanwhile Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak gave the green light for a settlement covering 212 acres of Palestinian farmland far from the main settlement blocs and several miles inside the West Bank.

While insisting “our hand is extended for peace,” Tel Aviv once again insisted on conditions certain to preclude peace. For veterans of this duplicity, this behavior is all too familiar. During the 1956 Sinai war, a captured Egyptian colonel conceded that his troops were put on high alert every time David Ben-Gurion insisted “our hands are extended for peace.”

To his credit, Obama has not—as yet—allowed himself to be drawn deeply into the fray in Iran. It’s unclear how much of the credit is due to a national security team familiar with how Tel Aviv exploits its allies to wage wars for Greater Israel. The Joint Chiefs may well stand united in their opposition, hardened by their experience with pro-Israelis who fixed the intelligence that induced our invasion of Iraq.

Barack Obama enabled this behavior by granting an Israeli leader a global platform. Is this ‘candidate of change’ advising Americans to no longer view Israel as an ally? That’s the change Tel Aviv most fears. Is he signaling what the facts confirm: Israel is neither friend nor ally but a deceiver and an enemy within? Is this president prepared to put a priority on holding accountable those who gave aid and comfort to these exploiters?

Benjamin Netanyahu

Did Obama Blink—Again?

Barack Obama’s June 4th speech in Cairo addressed a global population of 1.3 billion Muslims long outraged at the abuse that Israel has inflicted on its neighbors—with U.S. support. The potential positive impact of that speech was offset when he appeared the next day in Germany at the Buchenwald death camp. The timing of that Holocaust photo-op resolved all doubts about who stage-manages his presidency.

Attention then turned back to newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In mid-May, Obama’s handlers allowed this right-winger to proclaim—from the White House—that peace with the Palestinians was a distant second to Israeli concerns about Iran. In a mid-June speech, an emboldened Netanyahu grudgingly mentioned a “two state solution.” Obama quickly portrayed his use of that phrase as an “important step forward.”

In truth, that speech announced several giant steps backward. Rather than agree to negotiate a two state solution, he insisted on preconditions certain to preclude two states, leaving nothing to negotiate. Obama again countered the positive impact from Cairo when he praised a speech that directed Palestinians to recognize Israel as a “Jewish state” where Jerusalem as “Israel’s capital will remain united.”

Those remarks also proclaimed Israel’s right to continue its colonization of Palestinian land by expanding the very settlements that preclude a viable Palestinian state. By applauding Netanyahu’s defiant speech, a U.S. president helped inflame the very conditions that have precluded peace in the Middle East for more than four decades.

Anticipating pressure to change, Tel Aviv opened a three-front assault. Foreign Minister Avignor Lieberman (from Moldova) began talks in Moscow (in fluent Russian) to show that Israel could—and readily would—turn elsewhere for a “special relationship.” Second, the Israel lobby opened a domestic assault on Obama by announcing, “Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives.” The lobby also reminded this political product of Chicago-Ashkenazi money where his presidential bread is buttered.

Third, as soon as Middle East envoy George Mitchell opened talks with Syria, the first since the U.S. withdrew its ambassador in 2005, Netanyahu gave a speech with no mention of the Golan Heights and with terms certain to ensure that peace would remain beyond reach.

With no need to cite the Holocaust photo-op, the official Syrian newspaper noted simply, “This is the principle that always guides Israel when approaching the Zionist-Arab conflict. The Israelis see themselves as victims rather than the aggressor.”

By again failing to stand up to Tel Aviv and its U.S. lobby, Obama enabled the very conduct that most endangers national security. While his words in Cairo promised a “new beginning,” his actions signaled business-as-usual. If this Chicago politician continues to appease Israeli extremists, his behavior may well induce another terrorist attack.

Should that happen, recent history suggests that an orgy of evidence will plausibly point to “Islamo” fascists while Israel again portrays itself as the perennial victim in need of protection in a hostile neighborhood. Absent Obama’s proven resolve to expunge “special” from this relationship, this entangled alliance will continue to make the U.S. look guilty by its association with Israel’s extremist behavior. There lies the greatest peril to national security.

With his unrepentant remarks, Netanyahu turned a two state solution back into a bargaining chip. By his insistence on terms that preclude a final settlement, he reconfirmed Tel Aviv’s commitment to sustain this conflict. Obama’s propensity to blink at time-critical moments suggests he will continue to encourage a course that invites more terrorism—either by Israelis or those provoked by their behavior.

Any objective ranking of this presidency would reveal its disproportionate pro-Israeli staffing. Democrat Harry Truman, a Christian-Zionist, offered nation-state legitimacy to this Zionist enclave. Republican G.W. Bush, also a Christian-Zionist, staffed his presidency the same as Democrat Obama.

This transpartisan insider operation shares an allegiance neither to party nor president but to a common covenant whose faith-based obligations take precedence over U.S. interests. The depth and duration of this disabling bias suggests that the only way to restore national security is to withhold funding for Israel, withdraw our diplomats and reshape our foreign policy around U.S. interests.

Should this president, like his predecessors, continue to perform inconsistent with the national interest, an informed citizenry must remind him why the Framers set a low evidentiary standard for proving treason, requiring only that the accused “adhere” (or grant “aid and comfort”) to an enemy—whether domestic or foreign.

Should Dennis Ross, a reliably pro-Israeli diplomat, be removed as U.S. envoy to Iran, that would be the first sign that Barack Obama may yet perform consistent with his constitutional oath to defend this nation. By his repeated refusals to stand up to the Israel lobby—and by reliably blinking under pressure from a tiny minority, this president risks not only U.S. national security but also a personal charge of treason.

Benjamin Netanyahu

Who Are The Real Terrorists?

On May 18, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu assured President Obama that Iran posed a greater threat to peace in the Middle East than Israel’s six-decade occupation of Palestine. Three days later, headlines reported a “Jihad plot” to bomb synagogues in New York. Despite the repetitive pattern of such well-timed threats, few dare suggest a common pro-Israeli motive.

Criminal State readers will recall that on June 2, 2007, global headlines reported a “JFK Bomb Plot” featuring a “suspected Muslim terrorist cell.” According to U.S. Attorney Rosalyn Mauskopf, daughter of a Holocaust survivor, that threat was “one of the most chilling plots imaginable” that would “cause greater destruction than the Sept. 11 attacks.”

Suspects in that “homegrown terrorist plot” against New York’s JFK airport were motivated by “hatred toward the West” by those “eager to bring death to Jews.” The four suspects, closely monitored by an FBI informant, never obtained any explosives. Only one lived in the U.S.

May 21, 2009 saw a similar headline-grabbing arrest featuring the requisite “suspected Muslim terrorist cell.” According to assistant U.S. attorney Eric Snyder, “It’s hard to envision a more chilling plot” involving a “homegrown terrorist plot” motivated by “hatred of the West and Jews.” A FBI informant provided four suspects with inert explosives and a deactivated missile.

Both plots involved an informant whose role in provoking and facilitating the plot remains unclear. In the “JFK Bomb Plot,” the ringleader was a former baggage handler who had retired from his job. Airport security had since been significantly tightened and his knowledge of airport operations was severely outdated. Two other suspects were arrested in Trinidad.

In the “New York Synagogue Bomb Plot,” an informant began appearing at a mosque in 2007. He quickly aroused the iman’s suspicions with talk of violence and jihad. Claiming links to a Pakistani terror organization, he offered substantial funds to at least one of four arrested “jihadists.” None of the “Muslim men” were active in the mosque. All four were down-and-out ex-convicts. The first media interview featured a Holocaust survivor.

When it became clear that the “JFK Bomb Plot” was baseless, media coverage was minimal. We can only wait to see how this latest plot plays out. The four “Muslim jihadists” face a life sentence if convicted as charged with conspiracy to deploy (inert) weapons of mass destruction.

This latest chilling plot emerged during the same news cycle as Netanyahu’s latest ploy to shift the focus off Israel and shine it instead on Iran and the threat to the Jewish state of “Islamo” fascism. Writing for The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss accused a “government agent-provocateur” working to “reinforce the very fear that Dick Cheney is trying to stir up” by strengthening “the narrative that the ‘homeland’ is under attack. It’s not.”

Nowhere was there even a hint in mainstream media that only Israel and its supporters have the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence to mount such false flag operations—with impunity—inside the U.S. As the repetitiveness of such well-timed operations becomes apparent, their common source is becoming transparent. To accuse a “government” agent-provocateur misses the mark.

Whether liberal or conservative, pro-Israeli analysts are consistent in creating doubt about the ability of America’s leaders to protect the nation. So long as U.S. foreign policy is filtered through pro-Israeli interests, lawmakers will continue to encourage well-timed “plots” that associate U.S. national security with the security of Israel.

As the “global war on terrorism” loses its appeal, domestic extremism is being marketed as the threat. A recent report by the Department of Homeland Security sought to link returning Iraq War vets to extremism. Forced to backpedal on veterans as a source of homegrown terrorism, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano found her job in jeopardy. Less than 48 hours later, she announced the swine flu pandemic as the latest threat.

The greater the transparency, the greater the need for a plausible plot that features national security at risk from Muslim jihadists and domestic extremists. As “Islamo” fascism loses its allure and “jihadist” terrorism loses its credibility, a form of homegrown fascism is becoming transparent.
Modern-day fascism succeeds by displacing facts with what the public can be induced to believe. Thus the key role of complicit media—whether the deceit is Iraqi WMD, phony ties to Al Qaeda or a “Muslim jihadist” attack on New York synagogues. Facts are irrelevant. When waging war by way of deception, plausible associations are the goal.

To restore national security requires a reappraisal of the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship.” So long as this entangled alliance remains intact, the real terrorists will have every incentive to continue such opinion-shaping operations. And U.S. foreign policy will continue to be shaped by those skilled at provoking the U.S. to deploy its military in pursuit of Israeli goals.

Benjamin Netanyahu

The Obama Presidency’s War in Iran

President Obama’s decision to release top-secret torture memos was reached in the office of Rahm Emanuel over protests from the Director of Central Intelligence. Former Vice President Dick Cheney defended the practice, claiming America is safer for it. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi then sought to defend her criticism despite early knowledge of it.

Caught lying, Pelosi attacked the CIA. Director Leon Panetta defended Agency briefers and their detailed records of what Pelosi was told. Needing the Speaker’s help to spearhead his ambitious legislative agenda, Obama’s team brokered a peace between Democrats Pelosi and Panetta.

Why did both Republican Cheney and Democrat Pelosi support the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on one particular “high value” detainee? Answer: the case for war required a plausible “high-level link” between the secular Saddam—who hated religious fundamentalists—and the religious fundamentalists of Al Qaeda—who hated him. After 83 waterboardings, the link emerged in a confession.

Akin to the Inquisition, this detainee was “put to the question.” When proposing to wage a global crusade on false pretenses (The Clash of Civilizations), war-planners required One True Faith in that linkage. As in the Dark Ages, the confession was later recanted and the case collapsed—but only after the war in Iraq was well underway.

Even now that link remains an article of faith—alongside weapons of mass destruction, meetings in Prague and mobile biological weapons laboratories. All were bogus. But without this key link, the case would have been exposed as phony, even treasonous. However, the worst was yet to come—a November 18 White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In a two-hour Oval Office encounter with this hawkish right-winger, an untested U.S. commander in chief met his Monica Lewinsky. Distracted by a promiscuous White House intern, Bill Clinton found himself embroiled in impeachment proceedings when he should have been keeping a closer eye on Al Qaeda. The allure of Netanyahu differs in kind but not in its impact on national security—and potentially on the Obama presidency.

The day before their meeting, Netanyahu met with an ebullient American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee. Obama’s Justice Department had not only withdrawn its espionage case against two AIPAC spies, the lobby had also silenced Obama while they savaged Charles Freeman, forcing him to withdraw his acceptance as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. A known skeptic of Israeli designs on the region, Freeman would have overseen the National Intelligence Estimate, coordinating the views of all 16 intelligence agencies.

By the time Netanyahu appeared alongside Obama, a U.S. president looked like he was a visitor in the office of the Israeli Prime Minister. Rather than issue photographs of their meeting as he did days earlier with Israeli president Shimon Peres, Obama granted Netanyahu a widely reported press conference in which he failed to press Israel’s new prime minister to end the four-decade occupation of Palestine as the top priority for achieving peace in the region.

Instead, he allowed the Israeli leader to use the White House as a pulpit to announce that peace with the Palestinians was a distant second to the risks posed by Iran. Romanced by Netanyahu and the pro-Israelis who populate his presidency, Obama once again fulfilled AIPAC’s wish list. By allowing pro-Israelis to control the White House agenda and Israelis to control the message, Obama signaled a go-ahead to those long determined to expand to Iran the war in Iraq.

While Netanyahu met with Obama, Israelis were pouring the foundations for settlement expansion, that conduct sent a clear signal to those waiting to see who controls foreign policy in the Obama administration. Only the next day did Secretary of State Clinton call for a halt to the settlements.

When Israeli jets bombed Gaza the next day, that conduct reconfirmed who controls U.S. policy. Only after their meeting did CIA Director Panetta urge that Israel not attack Iran. By then it was too late. America’s commander-in-chief had tipped his hand: what AIPAC wants, Israel gets.

Within 24 hours of their meeting, a letter was delivered to Obama by 76 Senators warning, “We must take into account the risks (Israel) will face in any peace agreement.” Within 48 hours, a 90-6 Senate vote denied Obama the funds required to close detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay. In a resounding rebuke, both Democrats and Republicans decried his inexperience in national security—making the militaristic Netanyahu look “presidential” by comparison.

The vote tally was known well beforehand by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, Obama’s top political strategist. Both played key roles in producing this presidency. Both Obama and national security were victims of this sophisticated operation.

In stage-managing this series of back-to-back political debacles, Obama’s pro-Israeli advisers worked hand-in-glove with the Israel lobby to ensure he was left with few options but to support Israel’s designs on the region. Forced to prove his mettle, the commander-in-chief will find he has no hope of managing his way through the crises now awaiting him—except to back Israel’s expansionist agenda for the Middle East, ensuring more hatred for the U.S. while fueling The Clash. In the pursuit of Israel’s agenda, the Obama presidency is proving itself the missing link.

Benjamin Netanyahu

Is Benjamin Netanyahu Waging War By Way of Deception?

May 18, 2009 marks the first meeting between Israel’s new prime minister and America’s new president. Israeli behavior suggests that the pre-staging for a terrorist attack may be underway to advance indirectly what Tel Aviv cannot achieve directly.

In the diplomatic shadow boxing that precedes such meetings, Benjamin Netanyahu took a page from the playbook of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In 2002, the hawkish Sharon assured the U.S. that peace was achievable if only the U.S. would remove Saddam Hussein. The hawkish Netanyahu now assures the U.S. that the barrier to peace is Iran.

In practical effect, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq handed that dominantly Shiite nation to Shiite Iran on a silver platter. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz assured Americans they would be welcomed with flowers and sweets. Yet anyone familiar with the region knew that a violent overthrow of the Iraqi dictator—particularly if led by a nation allied with Israel—would create political dynamics certain to favor the Shiites and Iran.

If Barack Obama fails to comply, Israel has signaled its intention to continue this six-decade conflict. That would only further undermine U.S. national security as America would continue to be portrayed as guilty by its association with Israel’s thuggish behavior.

Citing the Jewish state’s “very close friendship” with the U.S., Defense Chief Ehud Barak declared Israel “ready for a process.” He proposes three years to hammer out an agreement between “two peoples” (versus two states) and another five years for implementation. That “process” puts peace safely beyond the reach of even a two-term U.S. president.

Though Netanyahu will press Obama to pressure Tehran, the “existential” threat he cites to justify an Israeli attack on Iran can be addressed by the Israelis themselves. Palestinian statehood has long been key to keeping Iran’s nuclear program peaceful.

Better yet would be a nuclear-free Middle East. President John F. Kennedy pressured Israel not to start a nuclear arms race in the region. In a June 1963 letter to David Ben Gurion, he insisted on knowing “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Tel Aviv was not building a nuclear arsenal. Before the letter could be delivered, Ben Gurion resigned. With Kennedy’s assassination, the Zionist state found in Lyndon Johnson a far more compliant president.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that the U.S. may provide Israel with support “vis a vis Iran.” If President Obama in any way links the two-state solution to concessions on Iran, he is inviting a terrorist attack. If history is any guide, that attack will be accompanied by an orgy of evidence implicating Hezbollah, with Iran the plausible Evil Doer.

Nation state terrorism is a real threat. The problem lies in the misplaced focus. The U.S. was taken to war in Iraq by those skilled at displacing facts with what “the mark” could be deceived to believe: Iraqi WMD, substantive ties to Al Qaeda, mobile biological weapons, meetings in Prague and so forth. All were false. Yet all were widely believed.

No one has yet identified the stable nation state intelligence required to perpetrate 911 or to continue to run such a fact-displacing psy-ops program in plain sight almost eight years later. Who has the means, motivation and opportunity to operate inside the U.S. with such impunity? “Islamo” fascists?

More than 92 months have passed since the terrorist attack of 911 was cited by U.S. war-planners as a rationale to invade Iraq. The beneficiary of that attack was not the Arab world but Israel. Yet the chairman and vice-chairman of the 911 Commission reported overwhelming opposition to hearings on the motivation for that mass murder.

The barrier to peace in the Middle East is not Iran. The barrier is the false belief that Israel is (a) a democracy and (b) an ally of the U.S. The obstacle to peace is six decades of ongoing warfare waged by way of deception. The problem is a nuclear-armed theocratic people committed to an expansionist foreign policy and an apartheid domestic policy.

The threat is not to the Jewish state. The existential threat is the danger to world peace posed by the U.S.-Israeli relationship. And by those pro-Israelis who produced Barack Obama’s political career and now shape his policies.

If this U.S. president fails to insist on a peace that only the U.S. can force, he will be allowing foreign interests to shape U.S. foreign policy. By that decision, he will be inviting a terrorist attack. And for that decision he will be seen as advancing the interests of an enemy within—a treasonable charge.

Benjamin Netanyahu

Jane Harman and Haim Saban—Their Treason May Not Be What You Think

April 21, 2009 – an article in today’s New York Times implicates Congresswoman Jane Harman and Zionist media mogul Haim Saban in treason. Reporting on a Jeff Stein article in Congressional Quarterly, the Times notes that Saban offered in 2005 to withhold campaign contributions to Nancy Pelosi, an aspirant for House Speaker, unless Pelosi would help Harman become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The quid pro quo? Harman agreed to intervene in an espionage case in which two executives for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee were indicted for transferring to the Israeli embassy classified Defense Department intelligence on Iran with the help of a Pentagon analyst (already convicted) who worked for Bush-era war-planners Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. AIPAC is the most visible component of a transnational network known as the Israel lobby.

The articles report that the National Security Agency “inadvertently” monitored Harman’s phone call with Saban. Harman’s concluding comment in their discussion concedes her apparent criminal intent: “This conversation doesn’t exist.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/us/politics/21harman.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

The reported facts suggest not only political corruption but also outright treason. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales declined to pursue Harman, allegedly because the Bush Administration needed her support for a domestic eavesdropping initiative. If the facts are correct, the criminality is clear, including treason proposed by Saban and advanced by Harman with Saban’s help.

There may be more at work here. Why did Jeff Stein report this four-year old story NOW? Why did the New York Times consider this account newsworthy NOW?

With the oft-delayed AIPAC spy trial soon to begin, President Obama is being lobbied to dismiss the case by the same network of pro-Israelis that funded his career, influence his schedule and inform his political priorities. Why release top-secret memos revealing CIA torture techniques NOW? Why report them NOW in New York Times Review of Books?

While Stein reported the Harman-Saban treason in Congressional Quarterly, Obama visited the CIA. Why would Obama claim NOW that the release of top-secret torture memos may not result in liabilities for CIA employees? What “associative” strategy is at work here? What’s the intended correspondence? For those adept at waging war by way of deception, what is the strategic goal?

The best defense is a good offense. The timing suggests that pressure is being applied to the intelligence agencies and the FBI to support dismissal of an espionage case that implicates the Israel lobby. A Federal District Court gave clearance for the former AIPAC executives to subpoena in their defense testimony from senior national security personnel.

The Harman/Saban/AIPAC affair increased the perception that even more sensitive intelligence may yet be exposed if this spy case proceeds. The cumulative impact signals “the mark” that a dismissal may be preferred if the case: (a) exposes “sources and methods” that could damage national security, (b) hampers relationships with foreign intelligence services, and (c) creates potential liabilities—such as for those who “inadvertently” monitored Harman’s phones.

The “mark” is the Office of the President. The commander-in-chief must be persuaded that dismissal of an espionage case is in the interest of the United States. Those pro-Israelis around Obama may be assuring him that, with dismissal, right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can be persuaded to support a two-state solution, enabling Obama to be perceived as the president who brought peace to the Middle East.

Jeff Stein is also the reporter who claimed that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was “getting tough” with Netanyahu. The son of an Irgun terrorist who twice volunteered to serve in the Israel Defense Forces, Emanuel and chief White House strategist David Axelrod could lose their jobs if, as expected, this case confirms espionage by pro-Israelis collaborating with Iraq war planners Wolfowitz and Feith in an alliance with Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff.

The timing requires that one also question the purpose of last week’s announcement by Homeland Security that our Iraq war veterans are a threat to national security due to their susceptibility to right-wing extremism. Why was this report, a product of the Bush administration, released NOW?

If, as anticipated, the spy case were to result in convictions for two senior officials of the Israel lobby, will veterans have a court-confirmed reason for their concerns about just which nation’s interests were served by their fighting in this war? If veterans resort to their Second Amendment rights to express their grievances, would that make them extremists or patriots?

Is what we now see unfolding another case of misdirection by those masterful at waging war by way of deception? Is the Harman/Saban duplicity obscuring a more systemic treason imbedded in the U.S.-Israeli relationship?

Is another president being deceived to make decisions not in the national interest but in the interest of those who helped make him president? If the case is dismissed against spies working for the Israel lobby, will that decision show how treason can proceed in plain sight and, to date, with impunity?

Benjamin Netanyahu

Is Israel Pre-Staging War with Iran?

Is Israel Pre-Staging War with Iran?

credited to Savannah Red

Visitors to the Criminal State website know how well-timed crises are deployed by those skilled at displacing facts with what people can be induced to believe. Thus the use of staged crises linked to fixed intelligence as a way to influence decision-makers. That behavior was on display when policy-makers were persuaded to invade Iraq in response to the mass murder of 9/11—buttressed by an induced belief in Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, mobile biological weapons laboratories, meetings in Prague, and so forth.

Fast-emerging events suggest pre-staging meant to make an attack on Iran appear reasonable, even desirable. Agent provocateur operations require the staging of collateral events to induce the intended main event. Does that suggest the US and the EU should expect another crisis on the scale of 9/11 as a means to catalyze that attack?

Throughout history, dedicated groups have seen their beliefs manipulated to serve the interests of others. Thus the need to consider the possibility that seemingly unrelated incidents are being staged to create a critical mass of opinion in support of war with Iran.

Consider the cumulative impact of incidents over the past 14 months:

• December 2007 saw the assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Mark Siegel, her biographer and lobbyist, assured U.S. diplomats that Bhutto’s return to Pakistan was “the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact.” President Pervez Musharraf had earlier announced that resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict was the key to solving conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

• During her two terms as prime minister, Bhutto funded the Taliban as a means to wield influence in Afghanistan and catalyze conflicts in Kashmir, fueling tension with India. Meanwhile Israel allied with India and sent an emergency shipment of artillery shells during Islamabad’s armed conflict with New Delhi over the Kirpal region of Kashmir.

• In August 2008, General David Kezerashvili returned to Georgia from Israel to lead an assault on South Ossetia backed with Israeli arms and training. That crisis ignited Cold War tensions between the U.S. and Russia, key members of the Quartet (along with the EU and the UN) committed to resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.

• The murder of Benazir Bhutto facilitated the replacement of Musharaff with Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s notoriously corrupt husband.

• In late November 2008, a terrorist attack in Mumbai, India’s financial center, renewed fears of nuclear tension between India and Pakistan. When the attackers struck a hostel run by an ultra-orthodox Jewish sect from Brooklyn, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced from Tel Aviv: “Our world is under attack.” By early December, Israeli journalists urged that we “fortify the security of Jewish institutions worldwide.”

As “India’s 9/11” was proven to originate from Pakistan’s western tribal region, Zardari announced an agreement with the Taliban to allow Islamic (Sharia) law to govern a large swath of the North West Frontier Province where Al Qaeda leaders have free rein. With anti-Americanism on the rise, Islamabad’s capitulation to Islamic extremists endangered U.S. interests and made U.S. allies more vulnerable, including member countries of the EU.

With the Taliban and Al Qaeda allowed to operate freely in a nuclear-armed nation, Tel Aviv gained traction for its claim that a nuclear Tehran poses an “existential threat.” With the increased political clout gained by a nationalist-religious coalition in Israel’s February 10th elections, any chance of resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict became remote.

That political development is destined to fuel more Islamic extremism and gain more traction for those marketing the “global war on terrorism.” As Tzipi Livni argued in the aftermath of the murderous assault on Mumbai: “Israel, India and the rest of the free world are positioned in the forefront of the battle against terrorists and extremism.”

In Barack Obama’s first presidential press conference, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas asked which nation in the Middle East has nuclear weapons. Side-stepping any mention of Israel, Obama spoke instead of the need for nuclear non-proliferation. As Islamic extremists were portrayed as gaining access to nuclear weapons, the case for Israeli compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty lost ground. With tensions heightened between a nuclear India and extremist-riddled Pakistan, the case for a global war on “Islamo” fascism gained ground—along with the thematic Clash of Civilizations.

Meanwhile Israel’s brutal incursion into Gaza—staged between Christmas and the Obama inaugural—drew criticism worldwide as Israeli troops killed more than 1,300 Palestinians. Student activists at Hampshire College, a leader in ending apartheid in South Africa, urged the College to divest its interest in companies complicit in Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

Harvard-Zionist law professor Alan Dershowitz portrayed the students as a “rabidly anti-Israel group” and “anti-Semitic.” That same day the Jerusalem Post cited Martin Luther King for the premise that to be “anti-Zionist” is “anti-Semitism.” Those statements followed an announcement that Israel had formed “an army of bloggers” to combat anti-Zionist websites.

Questions that can only be answered by future events include the following:

• Were the murders in Mumbai a form of geopolitical misdirection that served both the tactical goals of the Muslim attackers and the strategic goals of the Jewish state?

• When Bhutto’s murder, Musharraf’s removal, and the attack on Mumbai drew Pakistani forces to the border of India—and away from its western tribal region—did the response to those incidents heighten the risk of nuclear-armed extremism?

• As another extremist government gains influence in Tel Aviv, will these incidents be cited to again postpone settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict?

• Is Israel’s four-decade delay in ending the occupation of Palestine—despite repeated assurances it will do so—part of Tel Aviv’s agent provocateur strategy?

• Was Israel’s preemptive Six-Day War (in 1967) the provocation required to pre-stage the region-wide outrage now directed at the U.S. due to this entangled alliance?

In retrospect, each of these incidents advanced the Zionist state’s expansionist goals for Greater Israel. Is it possible that these murderous events trace their agent provocateur origins to a common source: those marketing the next main event—war with Iran?

Was the public’s intuitive grasp of this recurring behavior accurately reflected in an October 2003 poll of 7,500 people in EU member nations? That 15-country survey found that Israel is viewed EU-wide as the top threat to world peace. Is terrorism a tool limited to Islamo-fascists? Or is it also a means of geopolitical manipulation deployed from the shadows by what Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt described as “Jewish fascists”?

February 18, 2009

MP George Kaufman re Israeli Nazis

« Previous Page