Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1167 (since 2009-08-04 17:51:08)

Jeffrey Blankfort

Showing comments 1167 - 1101
Page:

  • Report: Israel to give US only 12-hour warning before attacking Iran because Netanyahu doesn't trust Obama
    • That the leak was published in the London Times, a Murdoch owned publication, may be part of an effort by the Netanyahu government to undermine the Obama administration's campaign to portray the Israel-US relationship as being tighter than ever.

      Think about it. Twelve hours would give the US plenty of time to do something to stop that attack if it so wished, a fact that would not be lost on the international community.

    • Winnica,

      In so many words, you are full of it. The holocaust survivors who arrived in Israel, and I am speaking of those from the camps, were treated like shit by the smug Zionists in Palestine after the war as Tom Segev describes in all the ugly details in "1949: The First Israelis," a story which has been buried as deep as the history of the Zionists' earlier collaboration with the Nazis. Is it not curious that not a single survivor from the camps, to my knowledge--and I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong with their names--ever reached a high political office in Israel?

      I was there in 1983 when the terrorist and and war criminal Begin resigned and was replaced by his fellow terrorist, Shamir (nee Yezernitsky), a group of survivors sent a petition to the government protesting Shamir's appointment claiming that it was a sacrilege that this man who offered to collaborate with Hitler while with the Stern Gang should become the country's prime minister. Their petition, of course, was ignored and received only a brief paragraph in the Jerusalem Post.

      About a decade or so ago, a group of survivors sent a letter to the government with another telling complaint, that Israel was treating the Palestinians similar to how they were treated by the Nazis. That story, like the protest against Shamir, never made it to the Western press and received short shrift from the Israeli government.

  • Publisher of the 'Atlanta Jewish Times' suggests Mossad should assassinate Obama
    • David, if those words were written by a critic of the Iranian government, they would have been passed over without notice, but when an American Jew who believes that Obama has sold out Israel writes that Mossad might consider assassinating him that is quite different.

      Atlanta Jewry, BTW, had about as sorry a record in the Jim Crow period as did its counterparts in apartheid South Africa and the way they went after Cynthia McKinney showed that nothing has changed.

      I recall sometime in the 50s, when I was in my teens, a prominent Atlanta rabbi and his wife and daughter came to dinner at our home. After we had begun to eat, and the dinner table discussion turned to life in the South, the rabbi began spewing racist garbage from his mouth that would have brought smiles if not applause from the KKK.

      My father, who was very much involved in battling discrimination in the film industry, quickly interrupted him, and told him if he said one more word like that he would throw his butt out of the front door. The rabbi, who was a relative of a good friend of my parents, then shut up.

      That he was not just an ordinary member of Atlanta's Jewish community, but a prominent religious leader should be seen as an indication that the Atlanta's Jewish community was no less racist than their fellow non-Jewish white Georgians.

    • David, Adler writes this as an admitted die-hard supporter of Israel who views Obama not through the eyes of a "loyal American" but of an Israel-Firster and any form of government action against him would send a much needed message to those of his brethren who share his sentiments--and to judge from the comments on Jewish press websites they are legion--to watch their step.

      One can imagine how this will play in Atlanta's black community.

    • No need to exaggerate, Brooks. The number is closer to 494. And many of those are not bought and paid for, just frightened into keeping their mouths shut.

    • You beat me to it, Mikesailor. When I reread these lines:

      "Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies,"

      it occurred to me that this may have been the thinking behind the JFK assassination, not only because of Kennedy's steadfast opposition to Israel obtaining nuclear weapons but because he supported Res. 194, the Palestinian right of return, and through brother RFK at the Justice Dept., was seriously attempting to get the American Zionist Council, AIPAC's name at birth, to register as a foreign agent which the AZC's lawyers were able to stymie until JFK was out of the way. Had the AZC/AIPAC been forced to register as a foreign agent--which it was then and remains as much so today--it not would have been able to function as it does today in the nation's capitol and in the halls of Congress.

      These were three red lines that Israel could not allow to be crossed and it is worth noting that no president since has attempted to cross even one of them. Cui bono? You got it.

      MW readers should check out Grant Smith's Foreign Agents: "The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal" available at IRmep, WRMEA, or online. Two years ago, Smith presented 360 pages of evidence at a two-hour meeting with the Justice Dept.'s Foreign Agents Registration unit, requesting that it re-open the case to get AZC-now-AIPAC to register begun by RFK in 1963 but in Israeli Occupied Washington, even though members of the unit seemed sympathetic, it didn't stand a chance. The paper trail, however, hasn't gone away. See Smith's Israel Lobby Archive at irmep.org/ila/

    • This explains why Obama has not paid a visit to Israel. It is not the Mossad that Obama, Israel's great benefactor, needs to fear but Jews like this human excrement in Atlanta who exist in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands, in Israel, and who would be considered heroes, like Baruch Goldstein, if they did the job. They exist in such numbers and in the Israeli military that it would be impossible to protect him.

  • Why did Ehud Barak postpone joint US-Israeli military exercise?
    • Dan, I read the original article and while I don't pretend to be an oil expert, I have seen no convincing argument that the petrodollar is about to be replaced as "the all-purpose currency of exchange." There was, understandably, a belief as well as the hope on the part of many that it would be replaced by the euro but with that currency shakier than ever that's off the table. Given China's control over the value of the yuan or renminbi, that is not likely to replace it and certainly not the Russian ruble or British pounds. Swiss francs?

      When Escobar writes that "India is already using the yuan with China, as Russia and China have been trading in rubles and yuan for more than a year, as Japan and China are promoting direct trading in yen and yuan," he obviously is referring to commerce other than oil.

    • Pepe Escobar has written that Iran is being targeted because it wants to stop dealing in petro-dollars and that the Chinese, who own at least a trillion in US debt, wish to do so, as well, but he offers no suggestion as to what currency exists to replace the dollar. This idea was first floated when the euro was strong but now a switch to the euro is out of the question and Iranian rials were never a consideration. We heard this argument first when it was raised as the reason we attacked Iraq. Then we were told that Qaddafi's threat to establish some sort of a gold standard within Africa was seen as threat to the oil economy as if the late colonel and Libya had such power and that any African state would challenge US hegemony.

      The current state of the US-Israel-Iran triangle raises more questions than it does definitive answers. What has been obvious is that the Israeli leadership and its agents in the US Jewish establishment and Congress have been pressing the US to launch a military attack on Iran, not willing to publicly recognize that through economic sanctions, the US war on Iran has already begun.

      It would seem, for solid economic reasons, that the Obama administration is NOT looking for it to escalate into a shooting war but his power seems to be limited. Given the undeniable influence of the Jewish establishment over Congress--in which members of his own party vote against his wishes whenever Israel's demands are on the table--he may no longer be the "decider" when it comes to going to war.

      The meaning of what is going on at the moment we can only speculate because none of us has all the pieces to the puzzle, nor do we know how many are missing. What we can and must do is make it abundantly clear that should the US sanctions escalate to a fighting war, that war will be for Israel.

      In 1990, while Iraq was still occupying Kuwait and the neocons were pressing Bush Sr. to stop hesitating and go after Saddam, a friend who owned a large truck and a Chinese junk with a large sail, knocked on my door at 1 am, telling me that he wanted to make an anti-war banner out of the sail and display it on the side of his truck which he planned to park on a major overpass of Hwy 1o1 leading out of San Francisco.

      Without a moment's hesitation, I said, "No War for Israel!," and we got another friend who had made posters for the Fillmore in the 60s, to make the letters for the 17 ft banner. Our effort was a major success, although it didn't stop the war. We heard many sympathetic honks and only one loudly shouted , "F--k you!," which, incredibly, could be heard above the din of traffic. At nightfall, after being told by the highway patrol that we were creating a traffic hazard, we drove the truck into the Mission District where it became the head of an anti-war march. (For those who don't believe this was a war for Israel, see Eric Alterman's "Sound and Fury," Harper-Collins, 1992).

      I next used the banner in 2003 on the overpass and at anti-war protests and I am planning to drape it on my old Toyota pickup and drive down to SF and do it again. I would encourage MW readers here in the states to make your own signs with the slogan of the day: "No War for Israel! Given the tenor of the times, it needs to be done soon, very soon.

  • US Congress stomps on Palestinian 'Sesame Street' but funds Israeli version
    • Excellent comment, Harry, and about something extremely important that is rarely noted. Not only did Arafat sell out the Palestinians at Oslo by approving their keeping their hands on Palestinian land while providing Israel with security against "terrorists," he relieved them of the responsibility for paying for the continuing occupation. Thus, it was not surprising to learn from the Jewish weekly Forward that Israel was depositing $8 million a month into Arafat's personal bank account. Hey, he earned it.

  • 'Corporate Watch' publishes guide on targeting Israeli apartheid
    • Whatever else it may do, the release of this document has certainly disturbed MW's Israeli trolls enough for them to make a desperate effort to quickly turn the conversation elsewhere. Maaleh Adumim, Winnica was built as part of Israel's plan to establish "facts on the ground," to use the term made infamous by the late terrorist and war criminal, Menachem Begin, to make sure that the West Bank would never be taken from Jewish hands.

      Perhaps, Winnica (are you originally from California?) should write her comments to those journalists on Ha'aretz who have on occasion written about Israel's theft of water from the OT which is one, among several reasons, that Israel will not allow the Palestinians to take control of the West Bank or its key aquifer.

      The notion that Israel will be energy independent in 2014 on the basis of its offshore natural gas claims must be pleasant to contemplate although the Lebanese claim some of that gas is below its waters. When it comes to the production of hot air, of course, the Lebanese will have to defer to their Southern neighbors who are, without question, full of it.

  • Chris Matthews pitches Israel lobby. Ted Koppel keeps bat on shoulder
    • Back in 1991 when theIsraels and their US lackeys were demanding $10 billion in loan guarantees and GHW Bush, the last president who showed some spine against Israel was refusing to go along them, Koppel hosted a debate on the subject on Nightline between Stuart Eizenstat, a former Carter White House staff member and uberZionist, and Rep. David Obie, a relatively independent Democrat from Michigan.

      When Eizenstat defended Israel's credit, noting that every year they paid back to the US exactly what Israel owed us, Obie quickly shot back, saying, 'that's not surprising since we give them the money to pay us back.'

      If he was any kind of a journalist and not a pro-Israel talking doll, Koppel should have loudly exclaimed, "What, we give them the money to pay us back?" But, of course, he didn't and changed the subject.

      What Obie was referring to was Public Law 184, originally known as the Cranston Amendment, named after its sponsor, Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) that guaranteed to Israel each year, at the very minimum, a sufficient amount of aid to cover its debt to the US.

      This was just one of many important items, I must say, that the toothless Palestine Solidarity Movement of that time, under the deadening influence of groups like Socialist Action, Line of March, and Worker's World (today known as International ANSWER), all headed by self-declared "anti-Zionist" Jews, totally ignored along with the whole question of aid to Israel itself. As the late Israel Shahak used to say and write, "history is important."

    • Back in 1991 when the Israelis and their US lackeys were demanding $10 billion in loan guarantees and GHW Bush, the last president who showed some spine against Israel was refusing to go along them, Koppel hosted a debate on the subject on Nightline between Stuart Eizenstat, a former Carter White House staff member and uberZionist, and Rep. David Obie, a relatively independent Democrat from Michigan with a significant Arab constituency.

      When Eizenstat defended Israel's credit, noting that every year they paid back to the US exactly what Israel owed us, Obey quickly shot back, saying, 'that's not surprising since we give them the money to pay us back.'

      If he was any kind of a journalist and not a pro-Israel talking doll, Koppel should have loudly exclaimed, "What, we give them the money to pay us back?" But, of course, he didn't and quickly changed the subject.

      What Obey was referring to was Public Law 184, originally known as the Cranston Amendment, named after its sponsor, Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) that guaranteed to Israel each year, at the very minimum, a sufficient amount of aid to cover its debt to the US.

      This was just one of many important items, I must say, that the toothless Palestine Solidarity Movement of that time, under the deadening influence of groups like Socialist Action, Line of March, and Worker's World (today known as International ANSWER), all headed by self-declared "anti-Zionist" Jews, totally ignored along with the whole question of aid to Israel itself. As the late Israel Shahak used to say and write, "history is important."

    • I am not one who has bought into the belief that the Israelis murdered Arafat, unless, like the Mafia, they wanted the money back that they had been paying him for his betrayal at Oslo, $8 million a month into his personal bank account which at one point, added up to $375 million. link to mitchellbard.com

  • A regular commenter on this site seeks a more temperate comment board
    • I can only shake my head after watching that clip, three times. It must have stimulated some editorial comment at the time or .... Thanks for posting it, Avi!

    • First, my appreciation to those who in my brief absence from this thread have responded to the several posts of Bruce who seems to have taken it upon himself to discredit me.

      This Bruce, whose name I don’t recall seeing on Mondoweiss before this post, has written that he has “now read enough of Blankfort here to feel comfortable saying that a main component of his strategy is to discredit Zionism in all ways possible, including going all the way back to its formation in the late nineteen hundreds.”

      Bruce, one thing you should have realized by now and that you don’t tells me where you are coming from and what agenda you are pursuing: there is nothing that I can write, say, or do, that can discredit Zionism more than those who espouse it have done themselves.

      You question my comment:
      “Whether there would have been a Jewish holocaust without the existence of political Zionism which openly postulated that Jews were not like other human beings and that antisemitism was an understandable reaction on the part of gentiles who were forced to live with them, is a question that we can never answer…

      “If it’s a 70 year-old question that cannot be answered, why raise it on MW? “
      Since I did not make up what the Zionists openly postulated, which you do not deny, is it not a reasonable subject for inquiry?

      You continue:
      “Maybe Blankfort cannot answer this question, but most historians who are not of the persuasion that cannot be mentioned can answer it. To still suggest today that “political Zionism” or certain Zionist views might have been a necessary cause for the Nazis murderous assault on the Jews is quite amazing. Please show any historical studies making such a broad claim.”

      First of all Bruce, I have never postulated that the Zionist views were or might have been a “necessary cause for the Nazis murderous assault,” you are making that up. What I am saying is what is only logical, that those views were quite likely a contributing factor, as, for example, “The Birth of a Nation,” DW Griffith’s film glamorizing the Ku Klux Klan, was to the forming of racist stereotypes of African-Americans in this country. The movie did not invent anti-black racism but it certainly contributed to it.

      Those “most historians” to whom you refer without naming them, know better than to touch the subject or to even lightly suggest that the Zionists may have, unwittingly, helped the Nazi cause through their own form of what, in the mouths or writings of others, would be considered “anti-Semitic propaganda.” One only needs to look at what happened to Prof. Finkelstein for writing a book describing the “Holocaust Industry.” How many other professors do you think are ready to touch that subject?

      You then challenge my statement that “the Zionists were feeding whatever anti-Semitic sentiments their fellow Germans already harbored. No, I am not blaming the Zionists for the holocaust–they couldn’t have imagined it– but that they helped to poison the atmosphere which allowed it to happen is indisputable,” by writing that “there were at least four of five competing parties in the Zionist movement. They did not unite around the above antisemitism trope.”

      That was the basic Zionist stance first advanced by Herzl, then echoed by Weizmann and the leading spokespersons for Zionism at the time which is why Hitler allowed the Zionist organizations to function and their publications to publish when every other Jewish institution and publication had been shut down. Did the Zionists object to that or were they only too happy to accept the privileges that their version of anti-Semitism afforded them? If you have statements by prominent Zionists of the time contradicting me, please provide us with references.

      Then you ask, “since by Blankfort’s own admission, most German Jews were not even Zionists, why did their fellow Germans end up letting themselves be ‘fed’ on the writings of these particular Zionists?”

      Even though the majority of Germany’s Jews were assimilated they still largely socialized among themselves as is true, I suspect, of major segments of Jewish communities in the US, Europe, South Africa and Canada today. In addition, they were, as a group, far wealthier than were the non-Jewish Germans and at a time when many of the latter were struggling to economically survive, those economic differences also contributed to anti-Jewish attitudes. The Zionists’ anti-Semitic propaganda didn’t start the fire but I would argue that they fed it.

      Time out for some anecdotal evidence. When Hitler came to power, one Jewish family owned 22 blocks of downtown Berlin. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the unification of the two Germanys, families of those whose homes had been taken over by the GDR demanded that they be returned and photographs of those “homes” occasionally appeared in the pages of the NY Times and the International Herald Tribune. They were massive things, with dozens of rooms, looking more like apartment houses or hotels and in most instances, as I recall, the GDR, had turned them into schools and hospitals. Such ostentation in the midst of their poverty obviously would not have gone down well with their gentile neighbors.

      Back to your comment: You ask what does “feeding sentiments” even mean? If that isn’t clear to you it certainly is to those reading these comments who don’t share your tribal encapsulation and for whom my response is intended.

      You write that “After Hitler’s takeover, the German media was completely censored by the Nazis with severe punishment for those who disobeyed Nazi edicts. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the Nazis exploited any statements or ideas of the Zionists that matched their own ideology and enhanced their own designs?”

      Indeed, Bruce, that’s just what I was trying to say but do not the Zionists have some responsibility for putting those ideas out there in the first place? It should be recalled that the Nazi program at that time was not extermination but “population transfer,” something that within a little more than a decade, the Zionists, with their own version of blut und boden, would become proficient at themselves.

      Finally, you ask, “Would the history of Nazi Germany been in any way different if the Zionists had not existed? I argue not.” I don’t know and neither do you but that does not make our examination of their behavior at the time any less appropriate.

    • Indeed, I am the same Jeffrey Blankfort. I was planning on writing a new book about the Lobby but it became impossible to do that while at the same time monitoring new and important information about it that was occurring on almost a daily basis. I am planning to put a book together of writings, published and pre-internet that will cover events since the mid-80s including the largely unknown and undicussed role that otherwise progressive groups, even those claiming to be "antizionist" played in providing protective cover both for Israel and the Lobby, some of which I wrote about in that article you referred to.

    • I read Donald's piece early this morning before any comments had arrived but didn't have the time to post my thoughts. My first reaction to it remains unchanged. What Donald proposes is to recreate the very same stultifying atmosphere through which I and others waded in dealing with this issue over the years with folks such as Donald in which protecting Jewish sensibilities took precedence over justice for Palestine.

      And, frankly, when there are probably more racist attacks committed in a single day against African-Americans and Latinos in this country than against Jews in a single year, I don't want to hear from someone who doesn't know what he's talking about that antisemitism is a problem.

  • Bombshell: Israeli intelligence posed as CIA to recruit terror group for covert war on Iran
    • Sorry, Keith, but I don't see how an Israeli victory over Hezbollah would have been seen as a success for Bush or enhanced the US position in the region and simply because Finkelstein or Wayne Madsen say that the US was involved in the planning does not make it so.

      When there was fighting at the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Barad near Tripoli in northern Lebanon in 2007, Madsen stated as fact that the attack on the camp was part of a US plan to set up an air base there which anyone who understood the situation in Lebanon, which Madsen apparently did not, would know that was nonsense.

      Apparently, Debka was his source as it is for a number of the mistakes that Chussodovsky routinely makes. Debka is a website with close ties to Israeli intelligence and it specializes in putting out a mix of fact with disinformation, much like does Gordon Duff at Veterans Today.

      Thanks to the influence of the Zionist establishment in Washington, Hezbollah has been described as a "terrorist" menace to the US and was even once described as the "A team of terrorism" by Richard Armitage. It should be noted that the US and Israel and its lackeys in Canada are unique in viewing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

      Despite the best efforts of their respective Zionist establishments to classify them that way, all of the European countries and the rest of the world have refused to do so.. Avnery acknowledges that in the article you cited in which he notes that shortly after the ceasefire, Hezbollah was invited by Sarkosy to attend an all-Lebanon conference designed to settle the country's problems.

    • Go back and read the USS Liberty article. It seemed to be he was accepting Israel's tale which I had never heard before because, as I suspect, Duff created it out of whole cloth. I could go on with more about him but not publicly.

    • Keith, you ask, "Why the rancor over my comment that Israel has historically performed covert operations for the US which the empire didn’t want to be associated with?" Because, Keith, there is no evidence that these were done "for the US," and not for Israel's own interests.

      You continue the same misreading of reality when you buy into the Chomskyist line that Israel attacked Lebanon in 2006 because it was "encouraged" to do so by the US. Israel launched that war for its own reasons and did not need the US to encourage it although, the administration, through Condi Rice, was publicly cheerleading for it in the fine tradition of Washington's bending over to kiss Israel's behind.

      As for Chussodovsky, when someone plays fast and loose with the facts, as he does, I don't pay much attention to his analysis. I have heard him interviewed a number of times of KPFA in Berkeley and for me he has come to define the term, "bloviator." He is even more full of himself than Tom Friedman.

      PNAC, BTW, was a neocon operation from the getgo and I should have no need to tell you who were its prime movers and what country's interests they represented. Their control over the US media might explain why PNAC's existence was hidden from Americans and had to be revealed by the Scottish Morning Herald, thanks, apparently, to anti-Zionist activists in Glasgow who have gone beyond the kind of disinformation that Chomsky has been peddling and that, like Koolaid, you are still happily imbibing. (If Chomsky has ever mentioned PNAC, the Washington Inst. for Near East Policy, or the American Enterprise Inst., and their influence over US Middle East policy, I am not aware of it. )

      You do seem to be making some progress at the end when you admit that US policy is "heavily influenced by Israel," so there is still hope that you may come to see that while both countries have evil agendas, they are not identical.

    • PS, Keith, whereas I once had respect for Chussodovsky and some years ago interviewed him, I now consider him a shaky source for anything and the Global Research website which I also once respected has become, IMHO, a welcome mat for unsubstantiated conspiracies (as opposed to the other kind) which included one article by a LaRouchie claiming that Wikileaks was a CIA operation.

      As for Chusso and his partner stating, as if it was a fact that “Iran is the target of US-Israel-NATO war plans. [that]Advanced weapons systems have been deployed. US and allied Special Forces as well as intelligence operatives are already on the ground inside Iran" is the typical of the mixture of fact and fiction that now characterizes the site and makes it, for me, no longer worth checking out.

      Granted that the US, Israel and the NATO countries would love to see a regime change in Iran, the notion that the three entities have a joint plan to attack Iran is simply nonsense on its face. Israel has it own agenda which does not take into account the rest of the planet while the NATO countries, currently in economic quicksand, are not about to launch a war that almost surely would suck them under. The same could be said for the US.

      He says that US Special Forces are on the ground in Iran. What is his source? He said the same thing about Libya. Did we ever see them? What were they doing there? Advanced weapons have been deployed? Where, exactly?

      One of the problem with sites such as Global Research, Wayne Madsen, etc., is that they end up being like tabloids of cyberspace, competing for scoops without taking the time to research the facts. Both of them apparently believe Debka, an Israeli intelligence operation, is a solid source. Seriously.

      Hence, Madsen, writing about the fighting at the Palestinian refugee camps in Northern Lebanon a couple of years ago, said it was all about the US setting up a major base on the site. Now, anyone who knows anything about Lebanon would have dismissed that as nonsense, which it was.

      Stick with Mondoweiss where if something is up in the air that shouldn't be, someone will most assuredly bring it down.

    • Keith, I am well aware of what Israel has done in Latin America and South Africa and 25 years ago, in fact, I organized a large demonstration in front of the Israel Consulate in San Francisco, protesting Israel's role as a"surrogate" for the US. My subsequent investigations disabused me of the notion that Israel was acting at Washington's behest and not on its own with Washington's approval.

      You might see there is little difference but when we have seen Israel, acting on its own, selling arms to China, the US has been quick to express its displeasure. Israel was selling arms to El Salvador, the Contras, and to Guatemala, where they also provided uniforms and military training because it benefited its arms industry and gained them allies in the international arena.

      Israel could also count on its friends not only in Congress, but in the non-intervention movement, who screamed about the US providing arms to those countries but almost totally silent when Israel was doing it. link to leftcurve.org.

      The situation was different in all three countries. In El Salvador, Israel was providing 83% of the weaponry before the US stepped in to replace it. In Guatemala, Israel took over when Carter stopped US aid and was responsible for making the Guatemalan army more efficient killers of the country's highland Indians who were no threat to the US. The word for rifle there is still "Galil." The notion that assisting in the massacres in Guatemala was done as a service to the Carter administration is not even worth debating.

      Regarding the Contras and Nicaragua, the Israelis felt an obligation to the Somoza family since during the 1948 war, Somoza senior had provided substantial financial assistance Israel.. When Israel sent a shipment of arms to help Somoza Jr. fight off the Sandinistas, Carter forced the Israeli government to call it back .In the end it was the Israelis who helped him escape. Given that the Sandinistas and the PLO had close ties, Israel was only too happy to provide AK-47s captured in the Lebanon war to the Contras, for a price.

      Israel's ties with apartheid South Africa were qualitatively different. The two countries, almost from the very beginning of the Jewish state which happened to be the same year in which So. African apartheid was formalized, saw themselves in a similar position, namely, as superior Europeans surrounded by dangerous sub-human dark skinned peoples who threatened their existence.

      In South Africa, there was also a very wealthy and influential Jewish community which allied itself with the apartheid regime up until the end and had helped to facilitate the lucrative commercial between the countries which wenr well beyond their join development of nuclear weapons and other weapons systems. The two countries were so close that each found the other to be a welcome tourist destination. (What was rarely mentioned at the time was that when the Achille Lauro was hijacked and Klinghoffer was thrown overboard, he and his family had been vacationing in Sun City, which was the Israel's favorite vacation destination.) Moreover, the Israeli Zim shipping lines made regular calls to the ports of Durban and Capetown. To suggest that Israel was doing this on the behalf of the US is, again, not worth debating.

    • Walid, I have seen an Israeli hand in it from the beginning as well as others that have followed since neither Syria nor Hezbollah stood to gain from his assassination. That it was an outside plot, perhaps involving infiltrators, seems even more likely when one considers that the UN set up a court that was without precedent in order to find the murderer of a person, Hariri, who was nothing more than an ordinary individual, albeit a wealthy and influential one, at the time of his death. No one seems to have questioned that anomaly.

      In the past two years, Hezbollah, as well as the Lebanese government, have exposed and arrested a number of Lebanese who were working as Israeli agents and it is quite possible that it was these Lebanese in Israel's employ who carried out not only that assassination but the others that followed, as well. I am not aware that any of those other murders have been solved.

      When I was in Lebanon in 1983 and saw the results of the car and truck bombs I came away with the feeling that I was witnessing the future of a certain kind of warfare in which outsiders play the same role that the FBI played in the US in the 60s with COINTEL. There have been too many strange bombings in Iraq and Syria for example, in which there has been no definitive attribution. At one point, early in the Iraq occupation, two British soldiers were arrested and found to be carrying explosives and disguises. It was a one day story.

      Back to Hariri. When something like that happens we need to ask, cui bono? In that case it was clearly Israel.

    • MRW, one more thing, before even the first document was released, he claimed that Wikileaks was a Mossad operation and he wrote a couple of articles in which not a single thing he wrote was backed by the facts. The most comical? That Julian Assange and Bradley Manning had a homosexual relationship when there is no record of the two ever having met one another.

      Why did he do that? Because Wikileaks' main target was the US government and its wars on Iraq and Afghanistan and Duff's "job," as I see it, was to discredit it from the very beginning.

    • Gordon Duff is not a reliable source for anything, MRW, because he has a tendency to mix truth with fiction that ends up delegitimizing the former. When I have called him on some of his nonsense, his response was to accuse me on the Kevin Barrett radio program of being "a spokesperson for Israel. Duff openly brags of his close ties with both US and British intelligence and admits to having "defense contracts" in Afghanistan.

      In December, 2010, he wrote an article justifying Israel's attack on the USS Liberty on the basis that Israel justly feared that Pres. Johnson was about to attack its Dimona nuclear facility. Just think about that for a moment. Here was the most pro-Israel president yet, in the pocket of the Israel Lobbyists of the time, reportedly sharing a bed with a beautiful former Mossadnik, Matilda Krim, wife of big Jewish donor, Arthur Krim, maybe even the night of the attack--he supposedly awakened her to tell her about it, and if he had wanted to bomb Israel, the attack on the Liberty would have justified it.

      Early last year he wrote an article in which he confused Hamas with Hezbollah which was a major good because his article was based on "the fact" that Hamas didn't need tunnels to get their weapons since they got them from Syria right across the border. When I wrote him a friendly note telling him of his error, he sloughed it off, saying it would keep his readers on their toes. That kind of "mistake" is not acceptable on the part of a "former" intelligence operative.

      I could go on but you get the idea.

    • Indeed, iamuglow, Obama went so far to punish Israel for Cast Lead when he came into office that he sent it a carton of bunker buster bombs that Bush had refused to do. Believe me, it wasn't him and I am sure he is upset about it...the leak, that is, more than what the Izzies did.

      There are others in the Pentagon and the CIA who are outraged at Washington's subservience to Israel but who can't "come out" as did Baer, Giraldi, the Christisons, McGovern, et al, when they left the agency and it is more likely that it was one of them, not one of that cowering crowd in the White House.

    • Got it, Avi. I admit your post was surprising. Given that different people are posting at the same time we are, we never are sure exactly where our post is going to land,

    • Avi, I have been studying and documenting the Israel-US relationship for many years and I have more than enough information in my files to back up every allegation I make about that relationship. If you disagree with my analysis, fine, but please tell me where what I wrote to Keith was wrong. Yes, you do need to elaborate.

    • Keith, that is an excuse that has been offered for years to justify the mistaken notion that Israel serves as a "policeman on the beat" for the US as Chomsky described it. Israeli agents have been carrying out assassinations and terror bombings over the years that were not connected with US foreign policy. One might say that in recent years, as the control of Israel and its domestic agents aka The Zionist Establishment over Washington has been impossible to deny, the US has adopted Israel's enemies as its own and instead of Israel doing services for the US it has been the other way around, whether it is launching a war on Iraq, coming up with the strongest ever sanctions against Iran (over the wishes of Obama and Geitner), and, as is quite possible, backing up Israel in an attack on Iran if it does not bend over and do the attacking itself. In other words, your theory is not only pure BS, it has been used to keep the Palestine solidarity movement from protesting against the Zionist establishment and its stranglehold on Congress. Me? I'm suspicious of anyone who keeps peddling it.

  • What power will Paul have over Romney? (JJ Goldberg and Krauthammer ask)
    • The National Jewish Democratic Council is having a field day with this:

      "The results out of New Hampshire are yet another indication, as if one was needed, that these candidates are trying to do everything they can to repel Jews from the GOP. Mitt Romney—a serial flip flopper who has courted Pat Robertson and considers the anti-Israel Ron Paul a viable Republican nominee—finished in first even as he flees from his past policy positions. But the most alarming result from today’s primary is that Ron Paul, a member of Congress with a truly anti-Israel record—one who even empathizes with Iran, finished right behind Romney. Paul’s strong performance and momentum indicates that he is increasingly now the ‘anti-Romney,’ a true GOP force to be reckoned with who will have a major impact on the GOP’s nominating process." link to njdc.org

    • While Krauthammer has significant influence in Republican party circles, a similar statement by legendary Republican éminence grise, Grover Norquist, on yesterday's Newsmax site will carry far more weight and must by now must have the Zionist establishment figuring what they can do to stop the most important challenge yet to its hegemony over Washington. Here's Norquist:

      "However, Ron Paul is the only candidate for the Republican nomination whose endorsement will matter to Mitt Romney. It is the only endorsement that will bring votes and the only endorsement, if withheld, that could cost Romney the general election.

      "If Ron Paul speaks at the GOP convention (as he was not invited to do in 2008), the party will be united and Romney will win in November 2012. If Ron Paul speaks only at his own rally in Tampa, Florida (as happened at the 2008 GOP convention in Minnesota) the party will not be at full strength." link to newsmax.com

    • pabelmont,

      It was Jim Zogby who played Judas at the 1988 Democratic convention and had the pro-Palestinian resolution which had been passed in at least seven states pulled from going to the floor because preserving the unity of the party came first.

  • Israel is trying to hook us into a war with Iran-- Matthews and Baer speculate
    • I should have added that Zbiggy and I are only dreaming. The reason that, at least at the moment, the US is unable to act militarily against Israel, even if the president and the Pentagon believed it would be in its and the world's best interests (such as keeping the US and the world out another major war) is because its hold over the US Congress is impregnable and that pack of traitors would start screaming immediately and in unison. It's hold and that of its agents over the mainstream media, while strong ,is somewhat less so, otherwise we would not have heard Robert Baer say what he did to Chris Matthews. We should watch for the fallout from that, however. It may be some time before we see and hear Baer again and expect Dore Gold, Daniel Pipes, Kenneth Pollack, or Martin Indyk to be Matthews' guest in the very, very near future. Indyk is the most likely, given his mezmerizing Australian accent.

    • Notice how Witty and eeek have cleverly shifted the thrust of the article away from the subject, namely, that Baer, like a number of former CIA analysts and agents who have served in the Middle East, have had Israel's number for some time and are in agreement that it is Israel and their "lobby" in the US is driving for an armed confrontation with Iran. They may disagree on other issues but they are united on that one.

      I am, frankly, against the US armed intervention anywhere, but I would make an exception in this case, happily seconding Zbigniew Brzezinski's suggestion a year or so ago that Israel should be told that any of its aircraft heading toward Iran would be shot down by the US. That's the kind if "national security advice" I could get behind. I wouldn't object to them doing the same to any Israeli plane that entered Lebanese or Gaza air space but I guess that's asking for too much.

  • WINEP official says U.S. strategy is aimed at provoking 'Pearl Harbor' that justifies war with Iran
    • Israel pretty much has done whatever it wants up to now--with the exception of the GHW Bush administration--knowing that it has Congress in its pocket. It isn't generally known but in Gulf War One, after some Scuds had hit Israel, Israeli pilots were sitting in their planes ready to bomb Baghdad but the Bush administration wouldn't give them the coordinates or the go-ahead.

      Attacking Iran will present enormous difficulties for Israel which is why they prefer that the US do it but, as you say, not a single expert supports it. Unlike its attack on the Osirak reactor and the one reportedly in Syria which presented few risks that it would not be able to handle on its own, Iran would be something else and the US is the only country that it could count on to give it sufficient back-up.

      How much Washington's reassurances to Israel, with Panetta's day to day flip flops, make an attack by Israel more or less likely is difficult to know with any certainty but what we do know is that if Israel does attack Iran in 2012 the US Congress will, initially, at least, stand and applaud it as it did its invasion of Lebanon in 1982. That's the "window of opportunity" Israel is looking at, not how far along Iran may be with building a bomb.

      The Israelis, I believe, are fairly sure that even if Iran had the bomb they wouldn't use it but what Iran's having the weapon would do is rob Israel of its present hold over the region by being its lone nuclear power.

    • Paul Craig Roberts, the author of the article Dan cites, tends to exaggerate situations that are admittedly difficult and to make predictions that rarely prove to be correct. I say rarely although I cannot remember one that has. He has been telling his readers for several years now that the US is about to attack Iran, but of course, he is not alone.

      I have had for the same amount of time an uncashed from a former CIA analyst with whom I made a $10 bet that the US would not attack Iran and I still believe that to be the case since there are enough wise individuals in the Pentagon and our intelligence agencies, not to mention the oil companies, who believe that to launch such an attack is lunacy and, as Jimmy Carter told BBC the other morning, would produce a far greater catastrophe than the war on Iraq.

      One of the reasons that the US is holding such a massive exercise with Israel is not, as Roberts and others surmise, to prepare for an attack on Iran, but to give Israel enough assurances of US support that it won't do it which would, more than likely, oblige Washington to come in on its side when Iran retaliates with attacks on nearby US and Saudi targets.

      The danger is that during this last year of the four-year presidential marathon Israel will launch an attack on Iran, confident, with good reason, of the support not only of the Israel Occupied Congress but of all the candidates still in the race for the presidency including the incumbent. It would have to be in 2012 because it is in the actual election year that the US Zionist establishment reaches its most fecund point.

  • Killing of nuclear scientist in Tehran heightens threat to American's life -- says 'Washington Post' Iran bureau chief
    • This assassination has Israel's prints all over it. After all, among its achievements were the introduction of the car bomb, the letter bomb, and the package bomb (which required additional postage). In fact, assassination of people perceived to be Israel's enemies has been one of the hallmarks of the state going back to the murder of UN envoy Count Folk Bernadotte (who had worked with Raoul Wallenberg in rescuing Jews in WW2 and Britain's Lloyd Moyne by the Stern Gang of which Yitzhak Yezernitsky., later to be called Yitzhak Shamir, was a leading member. No one was prosecuted for either murder but everyone in the Yishuv knew who had done them,

      Throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, Israeli agents continued to murder people across Europe and the Middle East that its government didn't like with car bombs being one of the more favored methods. Arab or German scientists were a common target. In only one case were they prosecuted and that was when, in Lillehammer, Norway, Mossad agents murdered a Palestinian waiter who they mistakenly thought was the mastermind of the attack on the Israeli Olympians in Munich in 1972.

      Israel is simply a country that does not think it needs to be accountable to international law because, as many Israelis have said from time to time, the international community did not come to the rescue of Jews in WW 2 as if the world revolves around the needs and wants of Jews. It is a society that is sick to the core and growing sicker by the minute

  • Just wars-- and civilian casualties
    • I am curious, Werdine, if you have ever served in the military or have seen bodies blown to bits? I ask that because, sitting comfortably behind a desk as I imagine, you seem to have no qualms about the taking of the lives of innocent civilians, like the neocon chicken hawks in Washington and NY who are ready to sacrifice the lives of others on the altars of their ideology but whose sphincter muscles would no doubt quiver beyond their control if they were deposited in an actual battlefield.

      By coincidence, I was just reading a tattered copy of the August 16th, 1945 edition of the Daily Express of Christchurch, New Zealand, the other day which my brother-in-law who is from Christchurch had preserved and brought with him to the US and found within the paper's extraordinary reporting on the war the very statement that you quoted above from Hirohito:

      “The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but it would also lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

      While there was no doubt a widespread belief that the Japanese would not surrender, based on cable intercepts, etc., that did not necessarily apply to all the troops in the field. That was the way the US military approached them in the aftermath of the surrender, however, as a story told me years ago by a friend of mine who flew fighters for the Navy in the Pacific, exemplifies.

      He and and several other pilots were in their planes over one of the Pacific Islands after Japan's surrender and were surprised to see the Japanese soldiers who were stationed on the island rush out to the beach with their arms raised in surrender.My friend Bill's commanding officer told him and his fellow pilots over the wireless, "You can't trust those Japs, go in and get them," and so they did and soon the beach was littered with the dead bodies of Japanese soldiers who had tried to surrender. Bill broke into tears as he told that story.

    • Actually, eee, it was being forced into the diaspora that may have saved Jews from the same fate. Now, with Israel moving ever rightward and facing increasing international criticism and isolation, the future of your state does not look bright. Should its version of the Tea Party launch a war against Iran this year, assured of support from both US political parties it will be even dimmer.

      No doubt, had a Jewish state had been established in a location that did not require the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population its history would have been different. However, if one viewed the Arab Middle East as an organism, the violent injection of a European implant was bound to be one that the organism would reject regardless of the religion or ideology of that implant. Note: the Crusaders weren't Jewish.

      Quite apart from that, is it not curious that, as Boas Evron wrote more than 20 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the world's Jews outside of Israel who have the means to do so have not elected to live there or claim its citizenship and most have not even visited there, preferring the fleshpots of Paris, London, and Berlin etc to those in Israel when choosing their vacations?

    • Lance T,

      The notion of being superior is not limited to the ultraorthodox or orthodox, but seems to be a general tenet of secular Zionists who view Jews as a people apart from the religion which happens to be Judaism and tend to defend their right to the land of Palestine on the basis that it was Jewish land 2000 years ago, applying a retroactive property law that applies only to them. It is one of the perks that goes along with being superior.

    • eee, Why do you separate Jewish history from the general history of humankind? One would think from what you and those like you write that Jews are the only ones who have been singled out for repression and expulsion when the history of the rest of the planet is replete with the record of peoples whose existence has been totally eliminated with few traces left behind.

      As for your question, I don't know what you mean by "a simple Jew" but my mother's parents emigrated from early 20th century Russia as did many of their Jewish neighbors and became American citizens. Should they have waited for a Jewish state to arise instead?

    • What both ideologies had in common was the belief in their own inherent superiority although I have seen no report that the largely secular Zionists considered the Germans to be sub-human as the Nazis did the Jews.

    • In 1982, Israel launched an unprovoked war on Lebanon which was far more deadly and devastating than was Cast Lead with 18,000 mostly civilian casualties in the first few weeks. If there was a case for "humanitarian intervention" that was it but, as most of us know, there is really no such thing, that the term is as empty of meaning as the word, democracy, and is merely used as a cover for imperial aggression with future profits in mind.

    • In 1937, Alfred Rosenberg, in his book, "The Trail of the Jews in the Changing Ages," expressed his support for settling Jews in Palestine, writing, "Zionism must be vigorously supported so that a certain number of German Jews is transported annually to Palestine or at least made to leave the country." (p. 153) It helped, of course, that the Zionists were themselves anti-communist as well as against the anti-Nazi boycott.

    • Walid, Hillary is the most bloodthirsty of the lot and had she been president it is not unlikely that, Thatcher-like, she would have given the go-ahead for an attack on Iran.

      One of the reasons for some of the virulence against Qaddafi stems from the fact that Clinton, like Zarkosy, Blair and Berluconi, had become very cozy with the colonel and believed they needed to show the appropriate level of hostility in order to make people forget how chummy their relationship had become.

      Sorry, the initial protest was legitimate as is any uprising against a dictatorship of 42 years in which the attempt to exercise the rights we take for granted in the West, such as free speech and the right to publish and politically organize resulted in torture, imprisonment, and death.

      It should not be forgotten that the protests against Qaddafi were launched by the families of some of the 1200 prisoners he had murdered in 1996 at Tripoli's Abu Salim prison when they were demanding better conditions. Photographs of the prison, after it has been liberated, make Guantanamo look like a Boy Scout camp in comparison.

      The colonel also willingly became Bush's, then Obama's ally in the "war on terror," collaborating with the CIA and its rendition operations up until the time of the first protests. May he not rest in peace.

    • Phil, I am not trying to blame all the ills of the 20th century on the Zionists but to dismiss as irrelevant with regard to the holocaust what they were saying and writing starting with Herzl and what they were putting out in their publications in Germany that pre-dated Hitler is to put your head in the sand and that's not like you.

      This is in no way to blame them for what was later to happen to those Jews who considered themselves to be German and had no interest in a Jewish state but it should be quite clear that what the Zionists were saying and writing met with Hitler's approval . Otherwise, he would not have allowed only their organizations and their publications to continue functioning when all the other Jewish institutions had been shut down. Calling that statement "reductive" is absurd.

    • Werdine, you're a puzzlement. It is not just that we disagree about almost every point discussed on this site but you seem so obsessed with proving that Israel's criminal behavior is unimpeachable that you apparently spend an excessive amount of time delving for supporting data that you believe no one can challenge.

      Sorry to say, it comes out as if you were engaged in "a blending scheme where you mix kerosene with diesel fuel, charge the customers the fuel tax, but do not report or remit the taxes on the kerosene." Others on this thread may not understand the connection but you do get what I'm driving at, don't you?

    • Phil, I don't know who that message about Jewish bolshevism is addressed to but it may as well be me. While it was true that the first target of the Nazis were the communists and that many of the communists were Jewish, it would appear that this was just further proof for him how alien Jews were from the Aryan race.

      The facts of the matter are that both the Nazis and Zionists came to similar conclusions about the both the ability and the desirability of Jews to assimilate with non-Jews and had they not spoken by Jews, many of the pronouncements of the early Zionists, including those in Germany, would be labeled as antisemitic had they been uttered by non-Jews.

      After all, Herzl, very early in his diaries, blamed antisemitism on the inability of Jewish capitalists to learn how to live with non-Jews after the "emancipation" and that it would have been better, he wrote, had the emancipation process been slowed down in order for them to acclimate themselves to world of the gentiles.

    • Thanks, Cliff. That was a photograph I took at a hospital in the hills overlooking Jerusalem in November, 1983, on the afternoon of the morning I had spent visiting Yad Vashem.

    • eee, I spent two years in the US infantry between the Korean and Vietnam wars where I twice won an expert rifleman badge. When I was in Lebanon in 1983, when one of your fellow Israeli sadists fired a bullet that creased my hair while I was taking photos, had some group, even before that, asked me to join the armed resistance against Israeli occupation I would have done so.

    • Risked your life. eee? How so, occupying someone else's land? Humiliating an old man twice your age? Arresting a kid for throwing stones? The very thought of going up against Hezbollah, someone who can actually fight back, makes your bowels quiver. I saw your ilk in Lebanon in 1983; they were a bunch of sadistic cowards who eventually were taught a lesson and forced to retreat with their tails between their legs.

    • eee, since you are a confirmed Jewish tribalist I do not expect you to care for anyone who is not an MOT. I suppose it's important when we set limits. Too bad you aren't either capable or willing to set your bar a bit higher.

    • Slater, you continue to expose yourself by comments such as these. Even up to the beginning of WW2, the majority of Jews, including those in Germany, did not support the establishment of a Jewish state. So your argument is without foundation. One of the most frequently stated reasons was that it would put into question the loyalty of Jews wherever they lived and reinforce already existing prejudices that Jews were "cosmopolitan," which was a code word for being loyal only to their own.

      Along came the Zionists who reinforced this notion in spades, who made a point about saying it openly, not only to Jews but to Gentiles, that the only place for Jews was in a Jewish state and in Nazi Germany, leading Zionists used such terms as "blut und bloden," blood and soil, to give the appearance that Zionism was to Jews as Nazism was to the Germans.

      I have been called an antisemite by both you and your new ally, Werdine, for writing that the Zionists' propaganda was a contributing factor to the Nazi crackdown on its Jewish population since it fed into the Nazi propaganda and already existing anti-Jewish prejudices of the German population which was additionally heightened by the relative prosperity of its Jewish minority compared to that of its non-Jewish majority.

      I know you don't want to hear about that since it doesn't fit into your vision of Jewish victimhood which places Jewish history outside of human history unless that outside history impacts on Jewish history and your only response is to smear me with your antisemitic brush.

      Now, if I have understood you correctly, you believe the US should have militarily intervened to save the Jews of Europe and of Germany before that. At the time there was a large minority in this country the skin of whose members happened to be black that were living in an apartheid situation in whatever city or town they happened to be, both North and South, and in the latter (and occasionally the former) were routinely being lynched and murdered by cops, the KKK, or just some good ol' boys who wanted to have some fun.

      These descendants of African slaves were not being murdered in large numbers or threatened with genocide but would not their liberation have been a legitimate goal of some country whose moral values were higher than ours, considering they had been suffering under this system not for less than a decade but for several centuries?

      Do you think that racist America which I have described here, upon hearing of Hitler's Nuremberg Laws, should have immediately mobilized its citizenry, white and black, ordered its auto manufacturers to start making tanks, its aircraft industry to start making fighters and bombers (as it would later do), and sent its young men over to Germany to fight and die in order to save the Jews of Europe?

      Or is that not what you meant? Not so simple is it?

    • I just read Werdine's entire screed having only focused on what he wrote about me the first time around. I suspect that Slater doesn't exactly appreciate having the likes of Werdine beating the war drums on his behalf. But the three W's--Werdine, Woody and Witty--are the most he's likely go get here.

    • eee, I don't go to my relatives graves since both of my parents elected to be cremated but that question is irrelevant. What I am saying is that the only victims from WW2 that are studied in the schools of the United States of America just happen to be the Jews and that there is as much space devoted to the Jewish holocaust in many of the textbooks as there are to the entire war in Europe.

      In California schools every 7th grader reads Anne Frank but gets to know next to nothing about the massacres of native Americans that quite likely took place on or near to the very grounds where their schools sit. Teaching about the holocaust is mandatory; teaching about the far greater genocide of native Americans isn't. (Curiously, the word "genocide" did not exist before WW2, as if mass exterminations of people had never previously occurred.)

      As someone who opposed and protested against the Vietnam war from the very beginning I do honor the Vietnamese dead and they are hardly less important than the misguided Americans who died attempting to kill a people who had never attacked them or their country. That's the history of war.

      I say this having been a high school history teacher

    • Agreed, Phil, except it wasn't Begin's big mouth but the guns and knives of his "freedom fighters" that did the trick and the word of that massacre quickly spread among the Palestinian Arab population, particularly when, in a singular sign of his inherent humanity, he had survivors of Deir Yassin dragged through the streets of nearby Jerusalem as a warning to the Palestinians of what was yet to come. Could anyone question the need for a Jewish state after that performance? Would anyone dare?

      I don't think there was any question about Qaddafi's ruthlessness after he had at least 1200 political prisoners murdered in Tripoli's main prison in 1996, an event that was largely ignored by his backers on the Left who automatically defend anyone seen to be in Washington's cross hairs. They also ignored the fact that Qaddafi had been collaborating with the CIA in the "war on terror" since 9-11 including do his part in the rendition program.

    • Werdine, you are hardly one to judge what is or isn't moral or who is honest or dishonest.
      I wrote that Balfour was a reward from the Brits to the Zionists for what the Brits perceived as the Zionists' efforts to achieve their victory in World War One and provided, as evidence, the words of the British Secretary of State to his cabinet in 1923, explaining why, after the Zionists had come to the aid of Britain and had been suitably rewarded (with Palestine), Britain could not, in the postwar period, when it was now safe and secure, renege on the deal.

      We know, from the words of at least one American Zionist who participated in the months of negotiations about the exact wording of the Balfour Resolution (it hadn't gone as far as the Zionists had wanted) about the lobbying of the Wilson administration by his friends, the leading Zionists, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Bernard Baruch.

      There were real questions that remain unanswered about the Zimmerman telegram that been sent to Mexico without the authorization of the Kaiser or the German high command, calling on Mexico to go to war against the US with Germany as its ally that was sent at a time when German policy was to keep the US out of the war. Here, in what our Zionist apologist Werdine claims to the "virulently anti-Israel" Washington Rept. on the Middle East is one compilation of what happened. link to scribd.com

      Whatever one thinks of that article, however, it is clear from the Earl of Cavendish's remarks to his cabinet, that the British believed that the Zionists had greatly assisted in the war effort and thus earned for themselves Palestine, posted here on the discussion of Hannah Arendt and Werdine, predictably does not mention it. link to mondoweiss.net

      As for his claim that my statement that Zionist propaganda designed to "out" assimilated Jews contributed to the anti-Jewish sentiments in Germany that were already being inflamed by the Nazis is somehow evidence of antisemitism on my part is pure hogwash. It is only antisemitic if the truth is antisemitic and it seems for both Slater and Werdine, as for most Zionist apologists, it is.

    • 60 million people died in WW2, eee, 20 million of them Russians. Do you think their lives were of any less value than the Jews who perished? Why do you think we never hear about them?

    • I am curious, Slater how do you view Israel's wars, whether they were just or unjust and on what basis? 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1978, 1982, and 2006. I do not include Cast Lead because that was not a war, it was a massacre.

    • Walid, I would disagree that Libya's was America's show while I also question Slater's assumption as if it were fact that had there been no NATO intervention that there would have been deaths at the hands of Qaddafi than at the hands of NATO and the internecine war that ensued on the ground. That intervention was largely pushed by France, the UK and Italy to insure that their investments in Libya's oil which had been negotiated with Qaddafi would not be jeopardized and the US, as their NATO ally, was obliged to contribute despite the reluctance of War Secretary Gates and Obama who, politically, did not need another US war at that moment.

      There has been a great deal of hyperbole about the attack on Libya being the first step in the "recolonization" of Africa and the re-establishment of a US base in the country but the fact of the matter is that outside of its oil and given its relatively small population, Libya was a minor player in the region, geopolitically, despite the meglomaniacal colonel's best efforts and lavish expenditures to make himself "King of Africa."

      While there seems to be no question that the majority of the Libyans supported the overthrow of a dictator of 42 years, there was a considerable number who benefited from his largesse that supported him to the end. If, as it appears, the country is headed for a civil war that number is likely to increase.

      Qaddafi, with his big mouth, opened the door for intervention, of course when he publicly threatened to wipe out the rebels, who he characterized as Al Qaeda even if it meant going "house to house, door to door and room to room."

      As is the case with Syria,a far. far, more important country geopolitically, what began as legitimate protests against a ruthless dictatorship provided the opening for players, mostly with Western addresses and/or Western backing, to enter the struggle in pursuit of interests that had nothing to do with the well being of the country's inhabitants or bringing them anyone other than the neocons' version of democracy.

  • Gingrich got $5 million for saying Palestinians are invented people (lord, why am I so cynical?)
    • Jeffrey Blankfort January 8, 2012 at 9:35 pm

      Back in 2002, when it was revealed that in a taped White House conversation, Rev. Billy Graham told Richard Nixon that if re-elected he needed to break the Jewish "stranglehold" on the media, Graham, who at the time was the nation's mostly widely know and respected cleric, was forced to tearfully apologize for his "antisemitic" remarks while efforts made to get Nixon to do the same were stymied by the fact that he was no longer able to do so.

      What no one, at least publicly, suggested in their defense was that since both of these men were in a position to know, personally, who was in control of America's media, that what they had to say about it in private was, at a minimum, worth looking into.

      On my own, I decided to see if what they said had any relation to the truth so I began compiling a list of Jews in the media, at every level, exempting those who had consistently taken positions critical of Israel which didn't amount to more than a handful.

      Using the pages of the Jewish weekly Forward, the financial pages of the NY Times, and my own prior knowledge I soon had 11 pages of names double spaced in 12 point Times Roman--proving Graham and Nixon's point beyond the shadow of a doubt-- which I sent to email list and which ended up on Al Jazeera.

      The list only contained a couple of errors. I had included Rupert Murdoch who was reputed to have a Jewish mother but was never able to verify that--although, while publicly denying it, has shown himself to be an uberZionist, and Howard Stringer, the head of Sony.

      I was accused, of course, of "making a list," as if I was the reincarnation of Joe McCarthy, and as if making lists was not an American past time, the Fortune 500 (a quarter of whom happen to Jewish) being a classic example.

      Their names being on my list did not mean that all who made it were active Zionists but it did mean that when a story having to do with Jews or Israel came across their respective desks they were not likely to treat it as just another story, the treatment of the Adelson contribution to Gingrich being a typical example, and they were subject to pressures from the organized Jewish community represented by groups like CAMERA and HonestReporting not to stick their necks out.

      One might consider the Catholic Church to be the most powerful religious group in the country but it has been unable to put a halt to the reporting of child molesting cases that have been reported with a predictable regularity by the main stream media.

      When was the last time any readers of Mondoweiss saw similar reports about the haredi rabbis who have been doing the same thing to their young charges while being protected by the leadership of those communities who claim that molestation cases should be reported to the rabbis rather than to the police? Only, it seems, readers of the very secular Forward that keeps a watchful eye on the machinations of the haredi, not just the misadventures of some of its rabbis with young boys but how its various sects have consistently scammed the taxpayers of the state of New York for Pell grants and school funding, stories you will almost never find in the NY Times national edition or any other US newspaper. Something to think about.

      Here's the Graham-Nixon report from the Chicago Tribune:

      Nixon, Billy Graham make derogatory comments about Jews on tapes

      BY JAMES WARREN
      Chicago Tribune, Feb. 28, 2002

      CHICAGO - (KRT) - Rev. Billy Graham openly voiced a belief that Jews control the American media, calling it a "stranglehold" during a 1972 conversation with President Richard Nixon, according to a tape of the Oval Office meeting released Thursday by the National Archives.

      "This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain," the nation's best-known preacher declared as he agreed with a stream of bigoted Nixon comments about Jews and their perceived influence in American life.

      "You believe that?" says Nixon after the "stranglehold" comment.

      "Yes, sir," says Graham.

      "Oh, boy," replies Nixon. "So do I. I can't ever say that but I believe it."

      "No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something," replies Graham.

      Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they "swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he confides to Nixon, "They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country."

  • Ron Paul's antiwar position is simpleminded
    • There was a plan in the works to attack Afghanistan, as well, before 9-11, and it has nothing to do with the evils of the Taliban or of Al Qaeda but with the prospect of establishing an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and this has been well documented. The US has never launched a war for humanitarian reasons; no country has ever done that and anyone who believes otherwise is a bloody fool.

      After defeating the US, the victorious Vietnamese launched a war against the Khmer Rouge which resulted in the liberation of Cambodia from the murderous Pol Pot regime but that was not their reason for doing so. They attacked the Khmer Rouge in response to a series of attacks across their border initiated by the Khmer Rouge at the instigation of the Chinese who had launched their own attacks on the Vietnamese in 1978 which the Vietnamese had repulsed.

      Yugoslavia was attacked and dismembered, not because of the actions of the Serbs against the Bosnians, as bloody as they may have been, but because the government in Belgrade was pursuing policies independent of the US and NATO and that was not to be tolerated.

    • Thanks for excellent comment, anonymouscomments. What we see in Slater is the personification of the problem that liberal Zionists have created for the struggle for Palestinian rights in the US where, speaking with "fork in tongue," they have proven to be far more damaging to that struggle than have the main institutions of the Jewish establishment or the loudmouths like Alan Dershowitz with whom Slater clearly has much in common.

Showing comments 1167 - 1101
Page: