Jewish State

Tel Aviv, Peace and the Obama Prize

The Nobel Committee again piqued the interest of those who marvel at the impact of an annual ritual of global branding that in 1973 labeled Henry Kissinger a peace laureate! As with many aspects of unconventional warfare, what emerges in the foreground often obscures behavior that remains concealed in the background.

Anyone paying attention knows that pro-Israelis manipulated the intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq. That same source is now hoping to expand this war to Iran—without being detected. In an irony of epic proportions, this award may enable that deceit.

Pundits charge that Barack Obama was given the 2009 peace prize for Not Being Bush. The Nobel Committee cited Obama’s multilateralism in contrast to Bush’s unilateralism. Yet the same pro-Israeli networks that deployed phony intelligence to manipulate decision-making in the Bush presidency remain active inside the Obama presidency. At least Bush had the mass murder of 9-11 to rationalize his choices.

The manipulation of consensus beliefs discredited the U.S. when it went to war on fixed intelligence. A similar mental manipulation generated consensus support for trade and financial policies that systematically devastated the U.S. economy. The challenge for Tel Aviv is how best to continue its agenda for Greater Israel now that the manipulation of public opinion has grown more transparent—and when entire communities, reeling from the impact of massive financial frauds, are aware that something fundamental is amiss.

Those consensus-enabled frauds include the savings and loan bust of the 1980s, the dotcom crash of 2000 and the recent subprime mortgage meltdown with its massive bailout of Wall Street’s financial elite. In the mid-1990s, a similar consensus-enabled fraud impoverished tens of millions of Russians while leaving a legacy of oligarchs in its wake.

In a nation whose population, like the U.S., is less than two percent Ashkenazim, six of Russia’s seven richest oligarchs (84%) qualify for Israeli citizenship. Similarly, a list of the top 50 neoconservatives advocating war in Iraq reveals 26 (52%) who are Jewish. Likewise a review of Nobel laureates in economic science confirms that the awards largely honor Ashkenazi “Chicago School” economists.

As financial freedom emerged—by consensus—as a proxy for human freedom, this “Chicago” mindset created oligarchies worldwide, undermining both democracies and markets. The model’s fixation on money, since branded the “Washington” consensus, gained global traction as its advocates were lionized as Nobel laureates—discrediting the U.S. in the process.

Obscuring a Criminal State

Consensus beliefs explain how frauds can progress in plain sight as faith-based psy-ops displace facts with what a targeted public can be deceived to accept as true. Deception works the same regardless whether the fraud is a shared belief in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or a consensus faith in the infallibility of unfettered financial markets. The only modern aspect of this ancient craft is the technological means to defraud on a global scale.

For consensus frauds to become systemic requires lengthy pre-staging and political cooperation. Once a long-deceived public grasps the duplicity at the heart of this mental and emotional manipulation, they will see for themselves its common source—which brings us to this latest Nobel peace prize.

Though Barack Obama conceded he did not deserve it, that misses the point. The primary national security issue he now faces is what strategy to pursue in the quagmire of Afghanistan. His senior military advisers recommend a troop surge to create the stability required for a drawdown of forces.

Others urge a speedy withdrawal. That strategy would leave in place the forces that will reconstitute the Taliban and provide a haven for Al Qaeda there and in neighboring Pakistan. This peace prize complicates the option to escalate. That may well be its purpose.

A quick withdrawal would also help pre-stage a consensus that the next Evil Doer comes from this region. Plus Afghanistan and Pakistan provide a plausible source of serial crises to deflect attention from resolving Israel’s brutal six-decade occupation of Palestine. Thus the enthusiasm for Obama’s award from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

To date, the U.S. has lost ground in every negotiation with this Israeli leader. The issue of settlements was relegated to background noise. At U.S. urging, the U.N. deferred consideration of the Goldstone Report on Gaza despite facts confirming dozens of Israeli war crimes. By pressuring a Palestinian leader to endorse deferral, U.S. diplomats further undermined the prospects for peace. Meanwhile, Jewish extremists are fueling the hostilities required for a third Intifada.

Branding an Asset

With the expansionist goals of Greater Israel yet to be fulfilled, Tel Aviv needs a U.S. president perceived as a mediator akin to peace laureate Mother Teresa. For a laureate to escalate a war conflicts with the Nobel brand. Obama the Peacemaker can now justify the rapid withdrawal sought by pro-Israelis, his political base and Norwegian peaceniks.

In return, he can be portrayed as heroic—for advancing their agenda. Meanwhile Israel can justify a unilateral preemptive attack on Iran using U.S.-provided bunker-buster bombs, plausibly citing self-defense now that the Peace President is conflicted. That attack will ensure the crises required to help obscure the common source of this systemic criminality. Should the U.S. military object, critics can point to a recent record of dissent on troop strength in Afghanistan and on a policy shift on gays in the military.

Any attack in the U.S. or the E.U. will be blamed on crises in the Middle East, enabling critics to charge that Obama capitulated to Europeans who embrace peace at any price. Though Obama is now being lionized, he will then be demonized. The result will discredit his presidency, endanger the U.S. and pave the way for a more militant successor, a strategic victory for Tel Aviv as the next presidency is likewise staffed with Zionists and pro-Israelis.

Barack Obama is a political product of Chicago Ashkenazim who trace directly to Jewish organized crime of the 1920s. This prize may embolden a trans-generational criminal syndicate for whom peace is an obstacle to the perpetual warfare required to advance Colonial Zionist goals.

This award was announced soon after Obama described Israel as “the Jewish state.” That code phrase outraged Muslims worldwide, particularly those whose lands are occupied by an apartheid government. Only America’s first African-American president could endorse racist policies certain to push the parties closer to war. Instead of being denounced, he was awarded a Nobel peace prize.

This award is welcome news for a global syndicate scrambling to obscure the common source of the manipulated beliefs that induced war in Iraq—and the common source of the consensus beliefs that enabled financial frauds in the U.S., Russia and worldwide.

To a dispirited public looking for hope, has this Chicagoan been positioned to raise those hopes only to dash them? The facts suggest that this inexperienced commander-in-chief has unwittingly allowed his office to be manipulated by those who mean to make a bad situation worse—possibly far worse.

How can any nation trust that U.S. policy is crafted in Washington and not Tel Aviv? Barack Obama could concede that those who produced his political career are the source of this consensus manipulation. Only with that concession will this prize become deserved.

Jeff Gates is author of Guilt By Association, Democracy at Risk and The Ownership Solution. See www.criminalstate.com.

Jewish State

Will Tel Aviv Take the U.S. to War – Again?

Tel Aviv long ago proved its mastery at waging war “by way of deception” – the operative credo of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence and foreign operations directorate. Yet its latest operation reveals a need to freshen up its repertoire of dirty tricks. As Israel’s patron, those of us who live in the U.S. are painfully familiar with such duplicity. Yet the recent frequency of its frauds renders their latest treachery remarkably transparent.

Consider the similarities. First a network of pro-Israelis fixed the intelligence that induced us to invade Iraq in support of an expansionist agenda for Greater Israel. Who can forget Iraqi WMD, scary images of mushroom clouds and secret meetings in Prague? Who can fail to recall the yellowcake uranium from Niger and those ominous warnings of “high-level contacts” between secular Baghdad and the religious fundamentalists of Al Qaeda?

Even Colin Powell was duped when pro-Israelis in the G.W. Bush administration associated his credibility with false U.N. testimony avowing Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories. Though all was deception, it had the intended effect. To others, it looked like the U.S. was at fault. Yet our policy-makers are no better than the information on which they must rely—and the allies they are persuaded to trust.

The same old Israeli duplicity is back but with a new twist. And, importantly, ably aided by a new commander-in-chief. As with the deception that induced the invasion of Iraq, war in Iran also requires weaving a web of consensus beliefs from threads of deceit.

This time there is less emphasis on fixed intelligence than on false impressions—albeit with the same goal: to advance an Israeli agenda. Though Tel Aviv’s goals for Iran are now within reach, the success of this latest operation is not yet assured.

The Cast

The stage-managing of this presidency has been a wonder to behold—even when compared with G.W. Bush. This latest production involves two key insiders, both Jewish. Rahm Emanuel, son of an Irgun operative and the most influential chief of staff in decades, served in the Israel Defense Forces during the 1991 Gulf War. Communications Director David Axelrod oversaw a campaign strategy that garnered 78% of the Jewish vote.

It’s not difficult to imagine the source of the chutzpah that flew Obama from a speech in Cairo—meant to mollify Muslims—directly to a Holocaust photo-op at a death camp in Germany. Communication-wise, which event left the deeper impression? Was that trip meant for the 1.3 billion Muslims miffed at six decades of U.S. support for Israel’s occupation of Palestine? Or did these presidential image-makers aim to please the American Ashkenazim that fondly refer to Barack Obama as “the first Jewish president”?

Who but pro-Israeli insiders could insert in a U.N. speech by the first Black president a racist reference to “the Jewish state of Israel”? That code phrase was certain to provoke Muslims worldwide, particularly those whose lands Israel occupies. Even Harry Truman, a political product of Kansas City’s corrupt Pendergast political machine, deleted that theocratic and racist reference when, in May 1948, he extended U.S. recognition to an enclave of violent Jewish extremists soon after they ethnically cleansed 400-plus Palestinian villages.

The Plot

So now comes a new twist on an old trick. First Barack Obama was persuaded by his advisers to lambast Iran for a covert nuclear site—days after it was revealed by Tehran. So already it looks to the public like yet another U.S. president is relying on flawed intelligence. When Iran promised cooperation with international inspectors, Tel Aviv quickly countered that Israel may well attack anyway. Why not? After all, the U.S. attacked Iraq. And clearly U.S. intelligence is no better now than then, right?

So what if Iran, like Iraq, has no WMD? That misses the point. A nuclear-armed “Jewish state” of five million can still attack a Muslim nation of 75 million using U.S.-provided, laser-guided bunker-buster bombs. Tel Aviv can then point to the similarity of its patron’s conduct when the U.S. launched a preemptive attack based on false intelligence.

Winning is not the point. There is no military solution in the Middle East. The point is to create yet another crisis and yet another provocation. And, importantly, to once again make the U.S. appear guilty by association. Absent another crisis that misdirects attention and consumes scarce intelligence resources, Americans will soon enough be forced to confront an uncomfortable fact: Israel, its lobby and its supporters deceived us to wage its wars.

Americans are not stupid. We are, however, perilously misinformed. Yet that too traces to pro-Israelis in mainstream media. Absent another crisis, Americans may well awaken to the essential role played by a complicit media in these serial deceptions.

The Consequences

Iran is not about nuclear weapons. Neither was Iraq. Iran is about the need for serial well-timed crises to advance Israel’s expansionist agenda. No one dares bring that agenda to a vote. Or even mention it. Thus the treachery required of those whose numbers are few but whose ambitions are great. What choice do they have but to wage war by way of deception?

Yet this time Americans are more aware of how such duplicity can progress in plain sight. They have access to Internet news. Wade through the online clutter and the analyses found there can expose the common source of this deceit, including its media support.

Plus Americans are hurting. They know something is fundamentally amiss. Yet they are understandably wary of conspiracy theories. They want facts. As the facts point to a common source for much of what is wrong, those complicit are scrambling to obscure that source. That scrambling, in turn, is making that source steadily more transparent.

To date, this political product of Chicago’s Ashkenazim has been a catastrophe for national security.  And for an economy poised to decline at an accelerating pace. Yet he’s ideal for those skilled at waging war on nations from within. And for those proficient at inducing us to freely embrace the very forces that now imperil our freedom.

We Americans may persist on this path, seduced by the allure of empty eloquence. Or we could awaken. If so, this latest president could find that, like recent predecessors, his legacy is relegated to infamy. Given the course Obama has set, Americans may yet take matters into their own hands to protect what he is allowing this purported ally to imperil.

Jewish State

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.

Jewish State

Identity Politics and Israel’s Agenda

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court brings identity politics sharply into focus. Senate Judiciary Committee members are rightly concerned that bias and personal sympathies not take priority over the law. Those concerns provide a useful portal to assess a strategy deployed to undermine national security.

The use of identity to shape judicial decisions creates precedents unintended by lawmakers. In practical effect, those sympathies become law. Once precedents appear in court opinions, they can be expanded—again without support from legislators. Judicial activism relies on the steady expansion of precedent to broaden its impact. In similar fashion, the steady deepening of U.S.-Israeli relations reflects the impact of identity politics based on bias and personal sympathies.

But for the Holocaust, Harry Truman would likely not have recognized an enclave of Jewish extremists as a nation state. Opposition arose on all fronts, including strong objections from his Secretary of State, General George C. Marshall. Yet Truman’s bias as a Christian Zionist and his sympathies from a fundamentalist upbringing in rural Missouri led him to identify with the Jews’ return to Palestine as a means to hasten the Second Coming of the Christian Messiah.

While Truman conceded that the Zionists proclaimed a Jewish state, that is not what he recognized on May 14, 1948. Instead, he crossed out “Jewish state” and wrote the “State of Israel.” In the lead-up to that date, Truman was repeatedly assured by Zionist leaders that Israel was not intended to become a theocratic state. Yet sympathetic White House aides prepared for his signature a proclamation that would have established that precedent.

How do sympathy and empathy—whether of presidents, judges or members of Congress—alter what lawmakers intend? Is this a natural process? Or can identity politics also be deployed to manipulate? In the case of Israel, history points to historic and ongoing emotional exploitation.

Dangers of Identity Politics

Truman was a product of Kansas City’s Pendergast political machine. After the National Crime Syndicate was formed at a 1929 meeting in Atlantic City, that machine evolved into a key node in the node-and-network system of organized crime. In 1931, the syndicate’s nationwide operations were formalized in a Jews-only conclave at the Franconia Hotel in Manhattan where 24 exclusive territories were sanctioned, including five in and around New York City.

Truman was profiled, picked and “produced” to be placed in office—where he then behaved consistent with his profile. Known as “assets,” such pliable operatives do not have the state of mind that consciously connects them to what the “producers” seek to achieve. That leaves assets innocent of the intent required for criminal wrongdoing—yet complicit in the underlying objective.

Assets need only possess the requisite personality for the position. Those qualifications for office include the sympathies required to support the goals of Jewish organized crime. Thus the key role played by a Christian Zionist president in granting nation state status to a Zionist enclave. Thus, more recently, the key role of another Christian Zionist president in enabling the provocation of 911 to lead the U.S. to war in Iraq—in pursuit of Zionism’s Greater Israel policy.

But for their personal sympathies and that perceived identity of interest, would these two assets have embraced policies helpful to Jewish extremists and harmful to the national interest? Therein lies the danger when the U.S. was induced to embrace—with its post-WWII sympathy—an entangled alliance with what Barack Obama in mid-June described as a “Jewish state.”

How did an Illinois state senator with two years experience in the U.S. Senate become president at this key juncture? Two of his top-three campaign funders from Westside Chicago—Pritzker and Crown (né Krinsky)—trace their family histories to Jewish syndicates of the 1920s. The third, Hungarian-Ashkenazi George Soros, made his billions from hedge funds.

What role does identity politics play in the decision-making of the nation’s first African-American president? Did his minority status provide Tel Aviv a sympathetic ear that induced his refusal to take a firm stance on settlements in the West Bank? Did his empathy for protests in Tehran change his mind about talks with Iran, a diplomatic initiative opposed by Israel?

Was Barack Obama profiled, picked and produced to assume this position? Are his personality—and his personal history—being exploited to advance an agenda of which he is not consciously aware? As organized crime in the U.S. grew in scope and scale, its operations became more sophisticated. As this Jewish syndicate gained more power, its influence became subtler.

Those closest to this latest president are using identity politics to shape an agenda consistent not with U.S. interests but with the goals of the theocratic state that Truman feared Israel would become. One of Barack Obama’s top two aides (both are Jewish) served with the Israeli Defense Forces during the Gulf War.

The sensitivities—and sympathies—surrounding identity politics have thus far kept such analyses beyond the scope of inquiry. Yet national security requires that the use of such sophisticated psy-ops now be assessed based on the consistency of this strategy from Truman to today.

Judiciary Committee member Charles Schumer, third-ranking in the Senate leadership, quizzed Judge Sotomayor to show that bias, sympathy and empathy played no role in her decisions. Yet not once did Schumer, a key advocate of U.S. identity with Israel, mention the role played by pro-Israeli bias and sympathies in reshaping U.S. law and jeopardizing national security

Identity politics help explain how Jewish organized crime can operate in plain sight and, to date, with impunity. As “Chosen,” those complicit view sympathy and empathy as emotions to be manipulated, not reciprocated. Only in this broader strategic context can a jurist’s support for identity politics be properly assessed.

Jewish State

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.