Comments on: Larry Franklin says Justice Department was gunnin for Feith

By: Joachim Martillo

Joachim Martillo — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:52:06 +0000

Martin Luther probably did not know very much about the local German Jewish community at the start of the Reformation. The Jewish corporate structure was nowhere near as large or as wealthy as that of the Catholic Church at this time period. Hypocrisy of the upper Jewish mercantile elite was far less visible than the hypocrisy of the upper Church elite, and there was a confusion in the minds of gentile critics of Jewish behavior between duplicity (espionage) and perfidy (refusal to convert). The gentiles did not realize how much Jewish livelihood depended on access to business networks that would become inaccessible upon conversion.

By: Luther Rules

Luther Rules — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:19:42 +0000

Why would Martin Luther attack the Catholic Church for its hypocritical lack of morality and universal ethics–and not also attack the Jewish Establishment? The Jewish Establishment has since then always agreed with his attack of the Catholic Church, but has always characterized his attack on the Jewish Establishment as "anti-semitic." A clear historic case of which way the wind always blows.

By: JoachimMartillo

JoachimMartillo — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:35:21 +0000

We live in a world that was probably created by Jewish espionage: Wikipedia, Hummus, Falafil, WWI, Dolchstoßlegende. If one looks at complaints about Jews from both Catholic and Protestant Germans during Martin Luther's later anti-Jewish phase, one quickly gets the impression that anger is developing over profiteering and Jewish trading in information, to with, free-lance espionage. BTW, the wars of the Reformation were a great boon for Jewish merchants because suddenly a lot of gentile competition was eliminated when Christians stopped trading with each other on sectarian grounds.

By: JoachimMartillo

JoachimMartillo — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:16:30 +0000

Joseph Massad and Yeshiva Slurs

By: Ira Schwartz

Ira Schwartz — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:44:27 +0000

As the graduate of a yeshiva where Israeli students were derided and picked on, I can tell you that the proper slurs for Israelis are "dibs" and "fishes."

By: Sin Nombre

Sin Nombre — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:03:03 +0000

It's really appalling that a guy who seems so addled got the job he did. In the first place he said that the reason he passed on the info/materials to the AIPAC guys was because he wanted to get it not to Israel but … to the U.S. National Security Council! And thus he says he was just shocked that gee, these Israel lobby guys would pass it on to Israel. Of course this might not be true, although if so it still shows that he believes everyone else is just stupid beyond words. However there's good evidence that it's Franklin that stupid beyond words: After all what's he saying now after confessing that he believed that the "Zionist" approach to him about a fake suicide was really going to be a cover for killing him? Well, he's slamming the U.S. *Intell* community for being paranoid about Zionist operaters. Yeesh, what a maroon.

By: ismail

ismail — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:53:55 +0000

No one will ever take an antisemite like Ed seriously.

By: Citizen

Citizen — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:20:56 +0000

And here's the rest: IPS: Obama has repeatedly mentioned talking to Iranian leaders and bringing change to U.S. foreign policy. How could the designation of Dennis Ross as a key advisor on Iran policy contribute to his promises? RB: Dennis Ross – the important thing is the Israelis are comfortable with him. If a dialogue with Iran occurs, they know he won't betray them. I mean they have had years and years of testing this guy. He's Jewish, he's been honest with the Israelis; he's gone along with their projects, even the crazy ones. If a dialogue is open, the Israelis know they won't be surprised. If Obama had brought someone new in, some professor from Harvard that the Israelis didn't know, they would immediately freeze him out and there would be huge political blowbacks. IPS: Regarding Ross's positions on certain issues in the Middle East and particularly Iran over the past decade, how will Obama be able to adopt a new foreign policy path in the region? RB: Well, he [Obama] needs the backing of the Democratic Party to get these things through politically, and that's why he has brought in people like Dennis Ross and Denny Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, simply because he needs that political backing. He cannot bring in untried people and run them against the Democratic Party, because if there is an opening with Iran, there will be a connivance of Israel, maybe a silent one, simply because the Israelis have to go along. In American politics, you can't do anything in the Middle East without the approval of Tel Aviv, at least on some level. It's impossible. I mean, I cannot think of a country that is so beholden to a small country like this, even a superpower, in all of history. I can't even think of it. IPS: And why is that? RB: Look at New York City. Look at the major newspapers. They have a Zionist agenda. They do. I'm not Jewish. I'm not anything. I don't care about the Israelis. And I'm not anti-Semitic. It's just a fact. I suggested to my publisher writing a book on Israel, and he said forget it. You can't talk about the reality of Israel. The only place you can talk about the reality of Israel is in Israel. They tell you things you will never hear in the United States. IPS: Like what? RB: For instance, why are people on Gaza so unhappy? Well, if you had to live in a prison, wouldn't you be unhappy? You would never get that in the New York Times. Look at the New York Times; it's almost an extension of Israel. IPS: What is the impact of the Gaza conflict on the future of Iran-Israel and United States relations? Have the recent attacks destroyed Hamas entirely? RB: No, it's impossible. Hamas is an idea. Hamas is not an organisation. Hamas is an idea, and unless the Israelis go in and force 1.5 million people into Egypt, they will never subdue Gaza. They can go in and they can slaughter the leadership and put 10,000 people in jail, and Hamas will come out stronger. The losers in this will be Fatah. IPS: What are the main characteristics of Hamas and Hezbollah's military and political behaviour? RB: They redefined the idea of warfare in geography. The fact that Hezbollah dug into caves or the fact that they use fiber optics to communicate shows enormous sophistication and primitive warfare in combination. I mean, what army in the world uses fiber optics except Hezbollah? You can't intercept fiber optics. There is nothing you can do. You look at [Hebollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah, and he has redefined Islamic politics because he's gone into an alliance with a Christians. Bin Laden wants to kill Christians; I'm going to reduce it to that. Nasrallah is looking at them as allies. (END/2009)

By: Citizen

Citizen — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:17:45 +0000

Well, I'll take the liberty of posting this–straight from a US intelligence man's horsy mouth: Q&A: "U.S. and Iran Share an Equal Monopoly on Violence" Omid Memarian interviews former CIA operative ROBERT BAER Robert Baer Credit:Hossam el-Hamalawy BERKELEY, California, Jan 23 (IPS) – "Obama is going to have continuous pressure from Israel to attack Iran and, in some way, their nuclear facilities, and this is going to be tied up with Gaza and Lebanon," according to Robert Baer, a former top Central Intelligence Agency operative and the author of "The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower." In an interview with IPS, Baer discussed the regional implications of the Gaza conflict and his take on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Hamas and Hezbollah, three major groups in the Middle East which have been called terrorist organisations. Excerpts from the interview follow. IPS: Some analysts believe that attacking Hamas in Gaza, two years after the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah, is a part of a bigger plan which will end with attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Is Israel walking this path? Robert Baer: No. I think that there is a military veto in attacking Iran. It's just not possible. IPS: Why is that impossible? RB: Well, for one thing, we know there will be an Iranian reaction in the Gulf. Iran will not be attacked like Hamas and just respond locally. It will respond internationally. It has no choice. This is their deterrence power. In Iran, it is very important to understand a lot of lessons. If you look on the IRGC [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps] website, you see the lessons they learned from the Iran-Iraq War. These wars are wars of attrition; they go on forever. You just can't win them, especially against the United States. So they have developed secondary asymmetrical warfare ability, guerilla warfare, which is very effective. You know some of the best minds in Iran went into the Pasdaran [Revolutionary Guards], and they weren't necessarily fanatics. In a sense, they were much more nationalists. And in my experience, these people in the Pasdaran, in the operational level, are probably the most capable, intelligent/guerilla force/political thinkers in the Middle East, including Israel and Jordan. And they knew exactly what they were doing. And they do not clearly fit in to any political definitions in Iran. IPS: Is the possibility of a limited attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by Israel also out of question? Especially given what we learned in a recent New York Times article that last year, Israeli leaders asked President Bush to carry out such an attack, though the president did not accept. RB: Totally out of the question. Even Bush understood this. The New York Times is right when it says that Bush vetoed an Israeli attack, simply because there is a balance of power in the Middle East between the U.S. and Iran, and it's a fairly even balance of power. I mean not in terms of aircraft tanks or submarines, but in a monopoly of violence, there is equality. There is no question there is equality. We could bomb Tehran, but what does that get you? Nothing. It's sort of like bombing the U.N. compound in Gaza by Israel. What does that give the Israelis? Nothing. Yeah they could destroy it, but what does that give them? Hamas still is going to exist. You can bomb all military bases in Iran over a period of two weeks, but Iran is still there – it still has the ability to project power, project its will and maybe even come out of that type of conflict even stronger. And Iran's power is so economical, the price of oil is not going to make any difference, simply because the idea of arming Hezbollah or supporting Hamas in Damascus is nothing in terms of money. I mean the price of oil could go down to 10 dollars, and it's still an affordable defence for Iran.

By: Poggen

Poggen — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:22:35 +0000

Does anyone hold the short list to what Jews are planning to run in the next national senate cycle? Newly chosen Al Franken was an equal exchange, and Frank Lautenberg was also challenged by his own ilk and kept his seat. I know Steve Israel is hot to spend his cash for NY.