Monday, July 31, 2006

This shit's gotta stop

Here’s one of the spokesmodels for the Democrats, Joshua Micah Marshall, writing about the latest massacre at Qana (my emphasis in red):

“Since Hizbullah doesn't broadcast news of their casualties, I think the damage Israel is doing to its fighting strength on the ground is likely being understated. But I don't see how we can argue, at this point at least, that Hizbullah as a movement doesn't seem strengthened by all this. Hopefully there's some way out of this in which the underlying problem here can be solved - Lebanon's lack of control over the belligerent militia controlling its southern border.”

I repeat:  he’s writing about the massacre at Qana and the best he can come up with is that the underlying problem is “Lebanon's lack of control over the belligerent militia controlling its southern border”.  Is it not conceivable that the underlying problem might be that Lebanon needs a militia controlling its southern border because its next-door neighbor is run by psychopathic generals on a neocolonialist land-grabbing spree who don’t hesitate to use the capture to two soldiers as an excuse to destroy an entire country?  Or is that just too much for Marshall to comprehend?  This ‘belligerent militia’ was created to defend Lebanon as a result of the last attack by the psychopathic generals.  Marshall’s stupidity just demonstrates how seriously fucked up American political analysis has become, and demonstrates that the United States, under Republicans or Democrats, will continue to be a dishonest broker in the Middle East.

Qana proves, once and for all, that Israel is beyond hope.  They’ve done it before, they are doing it now, and after a short break, they will do it again.  This is completely obvious to everybody in the world, with the exception of the Israelis (who completely support the campaign of massacres), and the Americans.  This shit’s gotta stop.  But how can the average person do anything about it?  The four biggest Anglophone countries, including the only one that counts, are completely behind Israel, and the generals are completely in control of Israeli politics.  All major political parties in Israel are behind the insanity, and the logic of Zionism means that this aggression won’t stop until we are eventually in World War III, leading to an immense rise in the price of energy and a world-wide economic collapse, which in turn will lead to human suffering all over the world.  This is serious.  Desperate times call for desperate measures. 

I think we need to consider a world-wide boycott of all businesses that do business with Israel or support or promote Israeli aggression (that would include all American media outlets).  This boycott should extend to all Jewish-owned or -controlled businesses.  The diaspora has gotten away with murder over the years, secretly supporting Israeli violence but hiding behind the specter of anti-Semitism in order to avoid being blamed for it.  The situation is now so deadly serious that we can no longer afford to pander to political correctness.  The enablers of Zionism have to start to pay.

Boycotting Jewish businesses sounds entirely unfair, and it is.  There should be a way out.  We need some kind of international body to identify all Jewish-owned or -controlled businesses and allow them to escape the boycott by making a public statement disclaiming Zionism and Israeli violence, preferably coupled with a generous contribution to humanitarian relief for the victims of Zionist violence.  The international body should be able to certify if a business is subject to the boycott or not, and should license a logo which complying businesses can put on their products so that decent human beings can buy them.  The Americans, of course, have made such a boycott illegal, but they can’t prevent every moral person in the rest of the world from doing the right thing, particularly if it is easy to identify which businesses to boycott. 

This issue has become so serious, not just for humanitarian reasons but for self-preservation of the rest of the world, that the most desperate measures to put a stop to Zionism are called for.  The boycott can end when Israel agrees to its 1967 borders, allows the Palestinians to have a full state, and stops killing people and influencing the Americans to kill people on Israel’s behalf.

 

The swimming pool massacre at Qana

The Israeli press release on the massacre at Qana contains the text of the warning given by the IDF to local civilians, in the usual obscene effort to explain the massacre in terms of not obeying the IDF warnings (my emphasis in red):

“To all citizens south of the Litani River

Due to the terror activities being carried out against the State of Israel from within your villages and homes, the IDF is forced to respond immediately against these activities, even within your villages. For your safety! We call upon you to evacuate your villages and move north of the Litani River.

This massacre is part of the ongoing efforts by the IDF to grab the Litani River to fill settler swimming pools.  They are not even trying to hide the connection. 

Condi Rice, who couldn’t think of any possible good reason for a ceasefire (I dunno, but keeping civilians from being killed is one that springs to mind), is now going down in history as one of the great war criminals of all time.  I doubt that she cares, but when you look ‘Condi Rice’ up in a reference work 1000 years from now (if there still are human beings around), there will be a picture of the massacre at Qana, and nothing more.

At the end of the day, Condi will stage-manage a way for the Israeli politicians and generals to withdraw from Lebanon with dignity, leaving behind a husk of a country, and nobody will pay any price, as always.  There seems to be nothing that any normal human being can do to stop them.  Here’s a small suggestion.  Why don’t we reappropriate the term ‘Holocaust’, just as some jokers have reappropriated the term ‘gay’, in order to refer solely to the Zionist attacks on the Arabs, including this most recent massacre at Qana.  They can’t stop us from talking (yet), and the Zionist misappropriation of the perfectly good word ‘holocaust’ has provided one of the chief propaganda weapons of the ongoing colonialist war against Arabs and Muslims.  Whenever you hear the term ‘Holocaust’, assume the speaker is talking about the mass slaughter of Arabs by the Jews, and refuse to accept that it could mean anything else.  ‘Holocaust survivor’, one of the most misused terms of all, will refer solely to those Palestinians, Lebanese and Iraqis who are suffering under the effects of Zionist violence.  Given what the Jewish people are doing – and let’s have no nonsense about who is responsible for these outrages – they have given up the right to use the language for their political propaganda.

 

 

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Offence dressed as defense

The idea that the Israeli soldiers were captured by Hezbollah in Lebanon is starting to make people very nervous.  After all, the whole military history of Israel – a history we’re not supposed to know about – is based on various tricks to make Israeli offensive land-grabbing acts look like defensive acts.  If this ‘defensive’ act with its appalling consequences is shown to be a trick, Israel will have trouble pulling these tricks in the future.   Even a ‘Zionist lite’ like Ran HaCohen now feels the need to ‘refute’ the idea that the attack on Lebanon is based on another such trick.  Of course, critics of Israel don’t need to take a position on where the soldiers were captured in order to maintain that it is not acceptable to destroy a whole country in retaliation for the capture of two soldiers.  Nevertheless, you can see where the Zionist rhetoricians are going with this: 

  • critics of Israel rely on where the capture was made as being important
  • capture is ‘proved’ as being in Israel
  • therefore, what Israel is doing is justified.

This is an old debating trick, and the fact that it does not follow doesn’t mean they won’t try to use it.

If you read HaCohen’s arguments, you will see that he in no way disproves the common assertion that the capture was made in Lebanon.  He has a quibble for each separate source, but no more than a quibble, and the fact that all the sources consistently and independently point to a capture on Lebanese territory seems to conclude the issue. 

Representative Press (found via Cannonfire) argues that one of the sources for the idea that the capture was in Lebanon, AP, is based on a faulty translation of a Hezbollah statement.  Even if that is so – and the fact that the theory is given support from closet Zionist Noam makes me suspicious of it  – it only leaves us with the ambiguous statement that the capture occurred near the border (I note that Hezbollah has an interest in being vague, as a cross-border attack makes it look more heroic), and doesn’t do anything to deal with the other independent sources which all claim the capture was in Lebanon.  What Representative Press does show us is a textbook example of the original pre-spin reporting being gradually modified to fit the official, pro-Israeli, story.

Noam has apparently come out against the attack on Lebanon, which is humorous when you consider that his rejection of the Israel Lobby thesis provided cover which helped the neocons plot the attack with the Israeli generals as recently as June.  Noam can now give a completely useless condemnation of the attack, an attack which his protection for the Lobby helped bring about.  Here’s Wayne Masden on July 28:

“Countering the spin. Hezbollah sources have an entirely different story about the incident that triggered the Israeli attack on Lebanon. The counter-story lends credence to the pre-meditated nature of a plan that was hatched in a three-way meeting between Dick Cheney, Binyamin Netanyahu, and Natan Sharansky at an American Enterprise Institute conference in Colorado last month.

Hezbollah reports that on July 12, two Israeli Defense Force (IDF) troops were captured by Hezbollah after they entered Lebanese territory. Hezbollah put out feelers that they would entertain a prisoner swap, something that had occurred many times in the past. However, already looking for an incident on the Israeli-Lebanese border, the Israeli government dispatched a Merkava-2 tank into Lebanon to retrieve its two captured troops. The tank hit a land mine, killing four Israeli soldiers. Haaretz confirmed that the tank was destroyed by a mine and not in a Hezbollah attack.

The neo-con spin machine, including George W. Bush, claims that Hezbollah entered Israel in an unprovoked attack and kidnapped the two Israelis.”

I return to my original argument.  If Israel had been planning the attack for months, had been plotting it with the neocons as recently as June, and had given its Lebanese spotters a warning to be ready for an attack within four days, how could it possibly have predicted, within a very short time span, a cross-border successful Hezbollah capture of Israeli soldiers?  The only way the Israeli generals could know this was going to happen, and serve as the excuse for the Israeli attack on Lebanon, was to make it happen by sending Israelis into Lebanon on a suicide mission.

   

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Mel's helpful musings

Prison Planet wonders whether Mel Gibson was set up in the recent story about his arrest and subsequent drunken anti-Semitic musings.  I wonder whether it was a reverse set-up.  Gibson is a Christian Zionist.  He hates Jews, but he likes Israel.  He particularly likes the fact that the conflicts in which Israel habitually engages will eventually lead to an apocalypse in the Middle East, leading to the Rapture.  Israel is in a tough propaganda situation right now, as it is difficult to justify destroying a whole country in order to obtain the release of two captured soldiers, particularly when the people you are slaughtering have nothing to do with the capture, and particularly when Israel has held Lebanese civilian hostages in its jails for years.

The obvious distraction is the usual distraction:  make the Jews look like victims of anti-Semitism.  What better way to do it but to have a celebrity’s name in the news, making just the kind of hate-filled statements that Israel has always used to justify its absurd overreactions?  ‘See how they hate us!’  ‘See how what we have to do to defend ourselves is justified!’  The timing of Mel’s outburst – just when Israel needs it the most – is just a little too convenient.

Friday, July 28, 2006

Hezbollah versus the 'experts'

In the early days of the Israeli massacre of the Lebanese people, Professor Martin Kramer, a research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a former director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University, described as a “world-renowned expert on Lebanon”, explained everything to the readers of Ha’aretz:

“Hezbollah's hubris has created an opportunity for Israel.

Since Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, Hezbollah has basked in the illusion that it defeated Israel - that it somehow discovered a path to victory that had eluded Arab governments and the Palestinian movement. It began to puff itself up, as the only force willing and able to stand up to Israel. Hezbollah lost its respect for Israeli power, and began to portray Israel as unable to sustain a protracted conflict.

Nasrallah allowed a personality cult to develop around himself, and Hezbollah marketed him as the only strategic genius in the Arab world. Increasingly, it would seem that the higher echelons in Hezbollah began to believe their own propaganda.

I doubt Hezbollah expected the Israeli reaction to be as swift, extensive and destructive as it has been. Hezbollah probably believed it would score a few points in Arab public opinion by a cross-border operation, and that it would make one more incremental change in the rules of the game.

It was a strategic miscalculation. Hezbollah didn't internalize changes in the broader strategic climate. The top regional issue today is Iran's nuclear drive, not the fate of Hamas or the Palestinian issue. If Hezbollah had understood this fully, it would have laid very low until needed by Iran in a mega-crisis with the United States. At that point, its threats against Israel would have been added to the overall deterrent capabilities of Iran, and might have caused the United States to think twice.

Hezbollah apparently didn't understand this. If Iran was directly involved in the decision, it also shows an erosion of discipline in Iran's own decision-making process. Iran had nothing to gain from this little adventure, and a lot to lose. It may well be that President Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is beginning to cloud judgment in Tehran.

In any case, it is in the interests of Israel and the United States to deal with the Hezbollah threat now, and not later in the midst of a far more dangerous crisis over Iran's nuclear plans. So a war now to degrade Hezbollah is a shared Israel-U.S. interest, which means that Israel can wage it without many constraints.

Hezbollah now finds itself spending all sorts of military assets that were supposed to serve a much more important purpose than freeing a few Lebanese prisoners or winning a few propaganda points. These are assets it probably won't be able to replenish, and their very use exposes them and makes them vulnerable.

In sum, Hezbollah overplayed its hand, and Israel is taking full advantage of its mistake."

This is interesting, as the ‘facts on the ground’, the fact that Israel isn’t defeating Hezbollah and is in fact apparently unwilling to engage Hezbollah out of fear of the political repercussions of the Israeli casualties (and has cravenly decided instead to take the propaganda hit of killing more innocent civilians), disproves what this ‘expert’ said in every way.  It wasn’t Hezbollah which miscalculated and overplayed its hand.  The same article quotes ‘G.’, who retired from the Mossad a few years ago (my emphasis in red):

“The campaign against Hezbollah is over the reshaping of the strategic milieu in which we exist. This is not just a retaliatory raid aimed mainly at restoring the status quo ante and restoring our trampled honor, with minor improvements on this or that hill. We are talking about the substantive reshaping of the overall security doctrine in such a dramatic way that it might generate a tsunami and will have the effect of changing the whole Middle East as far as Iran and even beyond.

This campaign is almost the last chance for the sated and concerned West to deliver a truly powerful blow to the conception of terrorism as a strategic instrument and to one of the most murderous and most dangerous terrorist organizations we have known in the past 30 years. Effectively, the whole Islamic world on one side and the West on the other are sitting in the stands, watching the events and hoping it does not end with penalty shots or with a headbutt, but with a crushing victory, or at least with a small 1-0. That depends on us, on condition that we are able to restrain all thirst for revenge per se.”

Rather than a victory for the neocons, this attempt at creating a ‘new Middle East’ appears to be a manifestation of the fear that Israeli control over the United States is drawing to an end.  The Israeli massacre of Lebanon is an attack of panic, as the neocon perception is that the window of opportunity for stopping the increasing strength of Islamist populism is closing.

You can see how stupid – as usual (is there another group which is as consistently wrong?) – Israeliamerican neocon intellectuals are driving this latest travesty.  They came up with a few ideas:

  • the window of opportunity for Israel is closing as the neocons start to fall out of favor in the United States (Iraq will be their Vietnam);
  • Hezbollah is achieving disturbing success in its charity and educational work, and is building its military capabilities to the point that it could be a dangerous opponent;
  • Hezbollah has an overly high opinion of its ability to fight Israel, and that hubris could be used against it;
  • defeating Hezbollah would, once and for all, end the romantic idea that Islamist populism, fighting with the tools the Israeliamericans like to call ‘terrorism’, represents some solution to the enslavement of Muslims in the Middle East.

It is clear that only the first and second of these ideas is true.  The fourth, that the legitimate fight in the people of the Middle East could be permanently ended by defeating Hezbollah, is laughable, but appears to be the backbone of the apparent tacit agreement of the European and Middle Eastern governments to go along with the Israeliamerican plans.  This miscalculation started with the European agreement to attempt to destroy Hamas by starving the Palestinian people, probably the most cynical – and stupidest – action by Europeans since the Second World War.  The latest dirty deal is simply to sacrifice the entire country of Lebanon in another effort to defeat terrorism, an idea which is so stupid you can actually see European and Middle Eastern leaders falling for it. 

As usual, a lot of bad things are happening as a result of reliance on really, really, really stupid ideas by a small group of Israeliamerican ‘experts’, none of whom has a clue.  What is actually happening?  Hezbollah is holding its own, and has proved to be such a valiant opponent against the Israeli experimental ground forays into Lebanon that the Israeli politicians don’t dare authorize a greater land war.  Instead, they are following the usual craven script of hoping that the air attack on civilians will weaken Hezbollah enough that the ground war will be politically possible (i. e., possible without a massive number of Israeli casualties).  This tactic has never worked in the past, and is in fact, predictably, strengthening Hezbollah.  People who never liked Hezbollah before are now  supporting it, taking the logical position that Hezbollah, in clear contrast to the useless central Lebanese government, is actually doing something to defend Lebanon against its real enemy, Israel.  Middle Eastern leaders who backed the Israeliamerican position – in the vain hopes that defeat of Hezbollah would help delegitimize their own Islamist populist enemies - are now realizing the extent of their mistake.  People across the Middle East are drawing the obvious conclusion that their own governments were conspiring against them to defend their own illegitimate grasp on power, and Hezbollah stands out as a shining light of opposition to Israeliamerican enslavement of all the peoples of the Middle East. The cretins in Europe now see that the Israeliamerican plans have finally led to the squaring of the terrorist circle, with the normally extremely anti-Shi’ite al Qaeda publicly praising Hezbollah.  Is it too much to hope that the ultimate result of this Israeliamerican miscalculation will be some sort of pan-Arab unity against the common enemy of both Sunnis and Shi’ites? [Addendum:  I just saw this article by Jim Lobe:  note to ‘expert’ Michael Rubin:  your ‘cousins’ don’t drop bombs on you]

 

 

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Suicide mission to fill swimming pools

Israel had planned the attack on Lebanon for more than a year, and probably longer.

From the Lebanese daily Assafir, on the rounding up of more of the Israeli spy ring in Lebanon, as reported by SANA (my emphasis in red):

“One of the prominent figures in the network confessed  that Israel has put itself on the alert 4 days before arrest of the two Israeli soldiers and provided its inactive spy cells with directives and technologies regarding targeting centers and headquarters of Hizbullah party in all Lebanese territories particularly in the Beirut's southern suburb.”

Israel uses on-the-ground local spotters to determine where to drop its bombs.  The spotters were told to be ready four days before the Israeli soldiers were captured, meaning that Israel had to have known that they would be captured, and when they would be captured.  If they had been captured in a surprise attack by Hezbollah inside Israel, Israel could not possibly have known that they would be seized, or when.

The captured Israeli soldiers were captured inside Lebanon (summarized here; see also here and here and here).  That means the self-defense pretext is a lie, and the concept that Israel has a right to defend itself, spouted by all its apologists, is irrelevant (the Hezbollah missiles were only sent after the Israeli attack was well under way).  In fact, Hezbollah only poses a military threat inside Lebanon defending it from Israel, and is absolutely no military ‘existential’ threat to Israel itself, meaning that all the discussions by the disgusting apologists for war crimes, fine considerations of when you can murder citizens under the pretext of ‘self-defense’, is immoral bullshit.

The only logical conclusion is that the Israeli generals sent a group of Israeli soldiers into Lebanon on a suicide mission, intending that they be killed and/or captured by Hezbollah.  It would not surprise me if they let Hezbollah know the soldiers were coming by broadcasting the information over signals they knew Hezbollah was monitoring.  The soldiers, of course, wouldn’t know what was planned for them, and would have assumed that this was just another of the many illegal Israeli incursions onto Lebanese territory.  In other words, the Israeli generals sent their young conscripts over the Lebanese border with the intention that they be captured or die, all in order to create the excuse for the pre-planned attack on Lebanon.

I’m sure the relatives of the soldiers are proud of them, on the assumption that their sacrifice was made to protect Israel.  I wonder how they’d feel if they realized that their sacrifice was really made in order to fill the swimming pools of the settlers, and that Israel, as a direct result of this foolishness, is actually much less safe.

 

 

 

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Background on Lebanon

Some good background on the attack on Lebanon:

  1. A profound letter from an activist in Haifa, reprinted in Lenin’s Tomb (which has been particularly good on the entire ongoing crisis):
  2. Deep background on the Israeli relationship to the Palestinians, and how Lebanon fits in, from Alexander Cockburn;
  3. A day-by-day chronology of how Israel worked its way to its most recent attacks on Palestine and Lebanon, by Sharat G. Lin; and
  4. Since, according to Israel, the whole matter is about POW’s (and the bombing of Israel itself, which, of course, started only after Hezbollah received a considerable amount of provocation), some information on Lebanese POW’s – really civilian hostages – still being held by Israel, after 28 years, by akber at the Truth will set you Free.

 

The next trick (in a series of tricks)

Bearing in mind that one of the main points of the exercise was to steal Lebanese water from the Litani River (the military operation wasn’t called ‘Summer Rain’ for nothing!), the next Israeli trick will be to build a ‘security strip’ in southern Lebanon, at least until the world can come up with an international ‘peacekeeping force’.  Of course, participating in such a force would be a political disaster, as the casualties from Hezbollah attacks would be enormous (as would the number of innocent civilians murdered by the ‘peacekeepers’).  As instructed by the Jewish Billionaire’s Club, the usual suspects for the ‘peacekeepers’ will demur, thus leaving the Israeli ‘security strip’ as a permanent feature of south Lebanon (Kurt Nimmo makes the excellent point that the intentional targeting of UN officials – I’m waiting for the inevitable apology of Kofi Annan for having the audacity to point out the obvious truth – is a warning to the international community to stay out).  It will be just wide enough to allow Israel to grab the water!  Once Israel grabs the water, it will rely on it (filling the settler’s swimming pools), and will never return it, as – and you know the drill already – forcing Israel to return what it has stolen is an ‘existential threat’ to Israel, a trick by anti-Semites who just want to force the Jews ‘into the sea’. 

Where have I heard this kind of thing before?  Oh yeah, the settlements in the Occupied Territories, originally a ‘temporary’ measure to ensure Israeli ‘security’.  The Israeli Ratchet – the idea that Israel’s ongoing quest to steal land from its neighbors never stops, except for a few head fakes like the temporary withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza, but continues to build on the lands previously stolen – will continue in Lebanon.  Once part of Lebanon is stolen, the environmental stresses caused by the theft of much of its water will lead to further crises, which will entail further Israeli military interventions, in Lebanon and elsewhere (the destruction of Syria is next on the Zionist Plan), and on and on and on. . . .  When is the world going to wake up and realize that the logic of Zionism – the idea that Israel, the only country in the world without established borders, has a G-d-given right to a great swath of the Middle East, and won’t stop provoking and agitating and conniving to put itself in a position to steal more of this land – is going to lead to more and more serious problems until the world is embroiled in a World War? 

Monday, July 24, 2006

Latuff Lidice

The Brazilian cartoonist who always finds himself in trouble, Carlos Latuff, will no doubt get in trouble again (you can click on it to make it bigger; also here).  The series “I am Palestinian” is here (this one was the subject of a hearing in Switzerland; this is a similar idea), and another cartoon on Lebanon is here.  His mail art blog is here.

Is it wrong to use the Nazi comparison if the people you are comparing to Nazis actually are acting like Nazis?

The feeble stirrings of the American immune system?

Alan Senitt was the British Zionist agent infiltrated into the pre-Presidential campaign of former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, presumably to ensure that Warner stayed on the straight and narrow ultra-Zionist path with respect to the Middle East (note how the Washington Times tries to downplay this connection, a sure sign of shenanigans).  Warner is a possible Democrat presidential candidate should Hillary make everyone sick and Gore stick by his guns and continue to refuse to run.  It is frightening to see the preparation of the International Zionist Conspiracy, already in control of a Presidential campaign months before the campaigning has even begun.  This is how the Lobby works.

Anyway, Senitt, is dead, allegedly as a result of a botched robbery in the ritzy Washington neighborhood of Georgetown (where break-ins are common but murders are extremely rare, no doubt because of a large and visible police presence).  Needless to say, things are already strange:

“Detectives investigating a series of robberies in Georgetown had the address of two of the suspects now connected to the slaying of Alan Senitt three weeks before he was attacked.

The information came from a 24-year-old Georgetown woman who was held up June 11 - three blocks from the place where Senitt later would be slain. She said she provided the address on Robinson Place SE after learning that her credit card was used to make a purchase that was shipped there.”

The police had the address for three weeks, and didn’t even bother to look.  And what kind of robber uses a stolen credit card to have something delivered to his own residence?  It sounds like a set-up.

“Homicide detective Douglas Carlson testified Wednesday that after the attack, police took Senitt's companion to a street in Southeast Washington where they believed the attackers may have lived.

They saw a shirtless Piper outside and approached him because he fit the victim's description of a bald, stocky black male. The woman was at first unsure if Piper was her attacker because she remembered her attacker as even stockier. Police then had the victim look at Piper again after he put a shirt on, and this time she positively identified him.

She was later asked to identify Rice, who repeatedly shouted ‘She can't identify me!’ as she and police approached, Carlson said. The victim said at first that Rice looked like one of the attackers and his hostile manner was similar to what she observed during the attack. She later said she is ‘90 percent sure’ that Rice was one of the attackers.”

So the police drive the witness to a street “where they believed the attackers may have lived” (huh?), point out the suspects, get the wrong answer, and then insist on the witness looking again until they get the right answer.  What happened to all the extreme care taken over police line-ups, line-ups that American cop shows keep telling us can be tainted by even the slightest impropriety? 

  • From the same article (my emphasis in red):

“According to the victim's account, it would have been Rice who slashed Senitt because Piper was attacking and robbing her while Rice and a 15-year-old, who has been charged as a juvenile, had Senitt in a chokehold.”

The problem is that Senitt was killed by having his throat slashed.  How do you have your throat slashed when the person restraining you has you in a chokehold?

  • I don’t know what to make of this, originally from the Wayne Madsen Report:

“According to State Department sources, a meeting of top U.S. Defense Department psychological operations (PSYOPs) officials had been taking place at the Georgetown home in front of which British neo-conservative activist Alan Senitt was brutally murdered early in the morning of July 9. Senitt and a female companion were reportedly retrieving something from the trunk of their car when they were attacked. Four assailants, all residents of Washington, DC, were arrested in connection with the Senitt murder. Senitt's throat was slit in the incident. The home where the PSYOPs meeting took place was located near the corner of Q Street and 31st Street in an otherwise quiet neighborhood in the wealthy Georgetown area of Washington.”

Is it just possible that this entire story was concocted in order to cover up a political assassination?  Were Senitt and his companion attending the meeting?  The fact that the alleged perps appear to be in the process of being framed makes one wonder.

Senitt was an up-and-coming Zionist politician in Britain (not to mention well connected to the neocons).  He led an organization now called The Co-Existence Trust, a group dedicated to using the anti-Semitism slur as a weapon in Israel’s ongoing war against Arabs (note that the list of directors, officers and patrons, with the notable exception of Bishop Tutu, is very dodgy).  To add insult to injury, this organization is being depicted as one that “aims to bring Muslims and Jews together to fight Islamophobia and anti-semitism.”

Senitt is not the only foreign ultra-Zionist to die in the United States in recent months under mysterious circumstances.  Jason Korsower, a young and healthy Israeli who worked for Steve Emerson’s group stirring up American hysteria and hatred against Muslims, died in his sleep, with no apparent cause of death.

Zionism itself is a virus that is leading the United States to a slow and painful death.  Like AIDS, it attacks the immune system, by subverting the press and corrupting the politicians, leaving the victim unable to put up a fight.  Are we now seeing the slight stirrings of the American immune system, making a last-minute attempt to fight off this debilitating sickness?  If so, it is probably too late.

 

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Reassessing the Hariri assassination in the light of recent events

Reassessing the Hariri assassination in the light of recent events:

  1. The Hariri assassination, immediately blamed on Syria (with no evidence other than the lies promoted by Mehlis), led directly to Syria being forced to withdraw its troops from Lebanon.  It is obvious that that step was a necessary precondition of Israeli involvement in Lebanon.
  2. The huge mystery of the current Israeli adventures is why Israel is sacrificing so much international goodwill in murdering innocent Lebanese civilians, when its stated goal is ‘self-defense’ against Hezbollah.  In fact, Israel is spending an inordinate amount of time destroying Lebanese infrastructure and making direct attacks against the Lebanese army, the latter particularly odd if Israel really wants the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah.  Israel’s actions are actually strengthening the position of Hezbollah, which isn’t so odd when you consider the fact that Israel has long helped to create its own enemies in order to have an excuse for colonialist attacks against them.  In this case, attacks against the central Lebanese government and army appear to be leading to an argument that Lebanon – newly destroyed Lebanon – is incapable of living up to its international obligations to disarm Hezbollah, leading directly to the necessity of Israel entering Lebanon to do the job itself. 
  3. Israel has another motive in wanting to destroy Lebanese civil society, as such destruction is part of the Zionist Plan for the Middle East.  Ideally, Lebanon will end up fractured on ethnic lines, following the Yinon plan of breaking all of Israel’s potential enemies into tiny statelets.  A peaceful and tolerant and wealthy Lebanon is bad publicity for the general Zionist line that Arabs are incapable of such progress.
  4. Hariri was one of the main architects of the reconstruction of Lebanon, and would not have stood for its re-destruction.  He had a lot of powerful friends around the world, and would probably have been able to prevent the current Israeli attacks.  Even if the attacks had done damage, he would have been able to lead the re-reconstruction, thwarting Israeli long-term plans.  It was thus necessary to remove him as a precondition of the current Israeli attacks.
  5. The original Official Story of the Hariri assassination was that it was an underground explosion of a type that only the Syrian intelligence services could have handled.  When it turned out that the evidence indicated a truck bomb, the propaganda machine turned 180 degrees and declared that it was the work of an ‘al Qaeda’ group hired by the Syrians (odd given the fact that the Syrian government is probably the biggest enemy of al Qaeda).  We have recently seen that the Israeli spy ring in Lebanon had very curious connections to al Qaeda organizations in Lebanon.  It is not difficult to see how Israel managed to cloak the Hariri assassination, now clearly part of the current attack on Lebanon, in such a way as to direct blame towards Syria, thus leading directly to the removal of Syrian troops.
  6. Israel has a number of goals in its current attacks, the ultimate one being fooling the Americans into another war for Israel, this time against Syria.  The most feasible goal, however, is water.  With the connivance of the Americans, Israel is resisting calls for any kind of ceasefire or negotiated settlement, as that would prevent Israel from achieving its real goal of seizing southern Lebanon, including control over the water in the Litani river (some of which is already being stolen by the Israelis).  UN peacekeepers would make such a goal impossible, and so UN involvement must be resisted.  The plan is to take over southern Lebanon under the guise of creating a Hezbollah-free buffer zone to protect Israel from Hezbollah rocket attacks.  Of course, we’re supposed to forget the fact that the dangerous rocket attacks – the ones that haven’t been faked by the IDF – only occurred after the Israeli attack on Lebanon, and the fact that a buffer zone will have no effect on Hezbollah’s ability to send rockets into Israel.  The real goal of the buffer zone will be to allow Israel to begin to siphon off greater quantities of Lebanese water. 

It is only in the light of the ongoing crimes being committed by Israel in Lebanon that we can come to a full understanding of the real reason for the assassination of Rafik Hariri.  Like Hollis Mulwray in the movie Chinatown, Hariri died so that water could be stolen.

Friday, July 21, 2006

American 'progressives' support war crimes

If you want to be sick to your stomach and subject yourself to the morally reprehensible bullshit of the American ‘left’ – Middle East is too complicated, everybody is to blame, sit this one out, blah, blah, blah, the general Cutler/Chomsky disguised Zionism – read this by Patrick O'Heffernan (is that a pseudonym for Bill Kristol?).  Do American ‘progressives’ ever wonder why they are completely alone in the world, why their political ideas are considered e-x-t-r-e-m-e right-wing ideas anywhere else?

Outlaw state

It’s a given . . . part of the intellectual scenery . . . to preface every article about Israel by words to the effect that, of course, Israel has a right to defend itself.  For right wingers, that’s the sum total of the discussion.  Everybody else writes:  ‘Israel has a right to defend itself, but . . .’

I’m starting to have grave doubts about whether this is true.  Every single crime committed by Israel – and there have been so many – has been committed on the pretense of self-defense.  The standard m. o. of Israel has been to engage in provocation after provocation, elicit a response, and then massively overreact to the response, all on the basis of ‘self-defense’.  The lying media aid and abet these crimes by failing to even note the provocations.  The latest crimes against Gaza and Lebanon follow exactly the same pattern (for Gaza, see here and here; Jonathan Cook is an important writer).  There is absolutely no reason to believe that Israel will ever be able to stop this pattern, and its crimes based  on the ‘self-defense’ lie continue to mount and mount.

Is it not time to put an absolute stop to this by declaring Israel the first Outlaw State?  All the writings about Israel, and in particular the bloviations of groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, claim that both sides are equally to blame.  In fact, Israel consistently uses the claim of self-defense as an offensive weapon, enabling it to commit massive crimes under public relations cover.  In fact, the attacks of Israel’s enemies are always – always  – a response to some hidden provocation, or probably years of hidden provocations.  The only way to put a stop to this is the most radical one:  declare that Israel has no right to self-defense, and all Israeli officials can be prosecuted for their crimes, while simultaneously removing any threat of sanction from any country or group that commits what would otherwise be crimes against humanity or war crimes against Israel.  It’s a radical solution, but apparently the only way to knock some sense into Israelis is to give them a dose of their own medicine.  Israel could receive the protections of international law again once it demonstrates that it will no longer abuse those protections to hide criminal acts.

 

Thursday, July 20, 2006

The advantages

I’ve been relatively quiet in writing about the current Israeli crimes, as I find it difficult to compete with the eloquence of the IDF – shouldn’t that be IOF? – in painting a picture of what I feel about Israel.  We have long passed the point at which any ‘case’ can be made for Israel, and long passed the point at which the cost of Israel to the world exceeds any possible benefit of its continued existence (for example, which taxpayers do you think will pay for the reconstruction of all the Lebanese infrastructure destroyed by Israel?).  The colonialist logic of Zionism means that the Lebanon/Gaza example is the ongoing model for Israeli adventurism.  Oh sure, they’ll back off for a while, regroup, take the plaudits of the international media and politicians on how reasonable and balanced their response has been, and then set out again with a new set of outrages.  The plan has always been the ratchet:  they never fall back, but keep pushing the boundaries of what is politically acceptable, with each step along the path more and more violent.  Who would have thought that they would ever be able to get away with another attack on civilians in Lebanon, Lebanon being the model of rebuilding after years of sectarian violence, much of it caused by Israel? The worst the world can say about it is that it is ‘disproportionate’, as if Israel has miscalculated how many civilians it is allowed to murder, as if collective punishment is OK as long as we don’t notice it too much.  The Nazis had exactly the same problem:  killing all the residents of a village is ‘disproportionate’.  They should have killed half, and we could call them humanitarians.

On the other hand, and not forgetting all the dead people, the results of these latest adventures are not all bad:

  1. Hezbollah has greatly increased its popularity in Lebanon, as people who were afraid it was too radical now see it as the only group strong enough to defend Lebanon, with the official Lebanese government embarrassingly ineffective.  Hezbollah invited this attack, seeing a weakness in Israel with its overreaction to the capture of one Israeli soldier.  The Israelis have complied by attacking the legitimacy of the central government, Hezbollah’s enemy (how dumb is that?)  Hezbollah wants Israel to attempt to attack it on Lebanese soil, knowing that Israel will fail just as it did the last time.
  2. Hezbollah has conclusively demonstrated that it has the best of both worlds:  an insurgency which cannot be defeated by a traditional army, but which is capable of operating the most sophisticated military equipment (missiles, shaped anti-tank charges, drones).  The Israeli generals are still cluelessly treating it like a regular army, assuming that they can defeat it by destroying infrastructure.  Israelis now will always have the knowledge that they can be hit by real missiles from a real enemy at any time.
  3. The IDF has shown not the slightest discomfort in using high technology weapons directed at obvious civilian targets.  This disproves the thesis of Martin van Creveld (of all people), who felt that such attacks would be destructively demoralizing to an army.  Van Creveld, coming from a completely racist country, failed to take into account the power of racism as a motivational factor for those committing war crimes.
  4. The Israeli generals and the neocons would like to turn this into WW III, but it ain’t going to happen.  The Americans are clearly signaling the boundaries, which are limited in time and limited to Lebanon.  The timing of the Israeli crimes was particularly stupid, as Bush had to wander around the G-8 meeting getting the skunk eye from everybody – except Harper, who is now making a big show of participating in the evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon as his handlers realized that Harper’s Israel-über-alles stance actually led directly to the slow Canadian evacuation response, as Harper had tried to pretend nothing bad was happening - while incoherently muttering that Israel has the right to defend itself (the Jewish Billionaires Club is so far up the asses of Bush and Harper that they fart in Hebrew).  It is clear to the Bush Administration that there is no appetite anywhere, including in the American heartland, for another disastrous war, particularly one that would directly lead to a massive world recession – one that could be directly blamed on the Bush Administration - due to energy prices. 
  5. Arabs can now clearly see that they have no friends, not in North America, not even in Europe, and certainly not amongst the leaders in the Middle East (with the exception of Iran and Syria, who obviously have to keep a low profile).  It is useful to know that you are on your own, and have to defend yourself on your own.
  6. On the other hand, world opinion, by which I mean the opinion of human beings, rather than corporations and politicians, is clearly with the real victims, the Palestinians and Lebanese.  The truth is getting through.  The current set of Israeli crimes is so over-the-top outrageous, indefensible by any standards except for mad-dog blood-dripping-from-fangs Zionist standards, that even the massive efforts of the disgusting American media to hide it are failing.  When you force people to defend the indefensible, you permanently destroy their reputation.
  7. While the neocons are still very powerful, it is clear that the Israel Lobby thesis has weakened them considerably.  Who would have thought that milquetoast Juan Williams would have the balls to speak truth to power against the increasingly unhinged Bill Kristol?  Who would have thought Lou Dobbs would dare write an article criticizing American support for Israel?  Who would have thought that the Americans would be backing away from war?
  8. Israel had absolutely everything going for it before its recent attacks.  The never-ending support of the world’s only superpower, full control of all American politicians through the Israel Lobby, and full control of the disgusting American media (still continuing, as anyone observing the American media would think that the entire confrontation was caused by an unprovoked series of rocket attacks by Hezbollah against poor innocent Israeli civilians!).  Every day, the Israelis increased the size of illegal settlements, uprooted more centuries-old olive trees, extended the illegal Apartheid Wall, separated more farmers from their land, and ground the Palestinians down with starvation and checkpoints and poverty.  The long-term Plan was to eventually cage the Palestinians in such suffering that they would ‘voluntarily’ leave (just like in the 1940’s, when they ‘voluntarily’ left due to violence and the threat of violence!), and thus achieve the Greater Israel goal without obvious ethnic cleansing.  At the same time, Syria was being slowly set up for a war by the Americans using the same steps that led to the Zionist war against Iraq:  sanctions led by the United Nations (which is the sole reason why Bolton is there), followed by a ‘coalition of the willing’ covering for another Zionist trick of an American attack on a sovereign country.  Everything was proceeding as planned, except the generals and the neocons got impatient.  If nothing else, the latest Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity represent the unilateral abandonment of a lot of Israel’s advantages while demonstrating that its geopolitical planners aren’t so smart after all. 

Monday, July 17, 2006

Win

Bill Clinton’s (possible) half-brother, Arkansas Lt. Gov. Win Rockefeller, has died of a mysterious blood disease.  This illness forced him to withdraw from the race for Governor, leaving the race open for the sleazy Asa Hutchinson (see the amazing Fortress America story).  In 1973, it was Win who announced that his father, Winthrop, the black sheep of the Rockefeller family (largely because he wasn’t evil enough), was withdrawing from his race to be reelected governor, as Winthrop had contracted pancreatic cancer. 

In even more Rockefeller-ish news, a usually highly unreliable Russian source is reporting that the mysterious explosion of a doctor’s house in New York, attributed in all the media to the doctor’s wish to commit suicide in the house and destroy it to spitefully deny it to his divorced wife (and complete with a crazy email which, of course, no one can prove actually came from the doctor, and with the complication that the explosion will likely increase the amount that the ex-wife gets!), was actually an attempt on the life of one of the doctor’s patients, Henry Kissinger.  This isn’t as crazy as it seems.  The doctor was a cardiologist (although almost always described in the media as an emergency medicine specialist), and apparently was regarded as one of the best doctors in New York.  Despite being portrayed in the media as a crazed misanthrope, those who knew him only had good things to say about him, and don’t feel he would do anything to hurt anybody.  In the divorce proceedings, the court accepted the fact that the partly Jewish doctor, who himself fled execution by the Nazis, liked to torment his Jewish wife by posting swastikas around the house (it was in fact the swastikas that formed the main basis for the court’s decision).  The court made the unusual ruling that the doctor’s interest in the house, left by the doctor’s parents to the doctor and his daughters, would form part of the assets to be shared by the wife, a decision which eventually led to the upcoming sale of the house.

Saturday, July 15, 2006

The suicide parade

It’s funny how assassinations tend to occur in clusters.  We have recently seen the obvious assassination of Philip Merrill, likely related to what he knew about billions of dollars stolen in Iraq.  Now we have the odd ‘suicide’ – by shotgun, again, along with killing the twelve-year-old autistic son to whom he was devoted - of William H. Lash III.  Lash had the same type of information as Merrill (my emphasis in red):

“Lash took a leave from the law school in 2001, when President Bush appointed him assistant secretary of commerce for market access and compliance. Among his duties at the Commerce Department, Lash headed a task force on the reconstruction of Iraq, in which he dealt with businesses seeking contracts.”

The Lash story has been set up specifically to make it clear that it had to be a murder-suicide, like a ‘locked room’ murder mystery:

“But shortly before 10 p.m. Thursday, police said, Lash and Zackula had a dispute and Zackula ran from the house and called police. Zackula was not hurt, but the dispute was physical enough that police later obtained a warrant charging Lash with domestic assault, Officer Richard Henry said.

Lash never knew about the warrant. When three or four officers arrived at 9:55 p.m., Henry said, they knocked on several doors but got no answer. Within 10 minutes, while trying to decide their next move, the officers heard two gunshots from inside the house, Henry said.

Not knowing who was shooting - and who was being shot at - the officers called for help. Teams of tactical officers and hostage negotiators were summoned, Henry said. Black-clad officers with rifles darted across front lawns, a command post bus was brought in, and police dispatchers phoned neighbors with urgent instructions: Turn off all lights and get in the basement, neighbors said.

After phone calls failed, a police negotiator began circling the house with a bullhorn, two neighbors said. The negotiator gently pleaded with Lash, ‘Bill, we need to know you're okay,’ the neighbors said. ‘Please give us a sign. Answer the phone. Turn on a light.’

The negotiator tried to reach Lash for more than two hours. ‘He was incredibly compassionate,’ said one neighbor, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

After 1 a.m., police released a remote-controlled robot, equipped with a video camera, so police could gauge what was happening inside. The neighbor said the robot rolled slowly down Pathfinder Lane, up the Lash driveway and into the house.

Finally, at 3:50 a.m., officers went inside and found Lash and his son, both dead from gunshots to the upper body.”

So by 10:05 p. m., the police knew that two shots had been fired in a house containing a possibly violent man with a gun and his young autistic son, a man who they knew had barricaded himself in the house (by the way, apparently a completely out of character move), and they wait almost six hours before entering the house?  The ‘incredibly compassionate’ negotiator had to know he was talking to a dead man. The boy could have been bleeding to death during this time.  I find the story far too convenient a way to prove that it had to be suicide.

Someone is making sure that there is no one left alive to disclose the names of the guilty.  Look for a few more ‘suicides’ and ‘accidents’ before this is done.

Friday, July 14, 2006

Israel's incompetent strategy

I am not as pessimistic about the current Israeli misadventures as I might be.  The Israeli leadership seems to have completely lost the strategic thread (Olmert is in way over his head), and actually has done considerable harm to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East.  The pre-planned attack on the civilians of Gaza was intended to destroy the political leadership of Hamas, and, as usual, further demoralize the Palestinians.  As is always the case, the racism of the Israelis caused them to completely underestimate the ability of the Palestinians to tolerate war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the brutality against Palestinian civilians has increased the legitimacy of Hamas, and solidified the will of the Palestinian people to obtain something of value for the captured prisoner of war.

Hezbollah saw the overreaction to the capture of one soldier, and decided to up the ante by capturing two (employing “operational prowess, daring, and inventiveness”).  Israel was thus forced to go crazy in Lebanon, and I mean crazy.  How does bombing the Beirut airport have anything to do with Hezbollah?  It doesn’t even make sense on the Israeli’s own doctrine that Hezbollah has no legitimacy in Lebanon, and clearly doesn’t fit Israel’s assertion that it is tackling Hezbollah, and not the Lebanese (this parallels the confusion in goals in attacking the civilians of Gaza while simultaneously blaming the whole thing on Syria).  Part of the Zionist Plan is to destabilize Lebanon, a goal being achieved through covert means (including the recently uncovered spy ring), but this insane attack has simply rallied Lebanon against a common enemy (it also makes fools of the Americans, whose professed love of Lebanese state integrity – remember the ‘Cedar Revolution? – now looks like a hypocritical joke).

Sharon’s unilateralist plans were unfolding smoothly (under the new branding of ‘convergence’), with the full support of the Americans and the tacit support of the Europeans (even though it made a mockery of the ‘Road Map’;  btw, what are the Europeans going to say to their ‘disproportionate’ politicians when they are scraping each other off the sidewalks as a result of the terrorist attacks caused by the completely legitimate anger raised by the inability of European politicians to make any serious complaint about what the Israelis are doing?).  Israel was simply going to keep seizing big chunks of the West Bank, and with the aid of the Wall carve what was left of Palestine into an ungovernable mess.  It would then wait for the Palestinians to give up and leave, and seize the whole thing. 

What happened?  One possibility is that the Israeli generals have given up hope on further American military help in the near future, and are trying to force the Americans into new Middle East wars (the generals were prepared – or here –  for an attack on Lebanon).  If so, this appears to have been a big tactical mistake.  If the United States were interested, we’d be seeing a huge propaganda build-up, and we’re not seeing anything.  Rice even went so far as to scold Israel (a little; she also bizarrely scolded the Syrians, just to prove her Zionist bona fides), an unheard of bit of effrontery.  Israel has achieved no strategic goals, shown its main weaknesses, and strengthened its enemies.  It has stepped over the Wall – the symbol of unilateralism – and stepped over the notional wall with Lebanon.  What is the point of walls if you are on both sides of them? Unilateralism is dead.

Many of us have been saying that this kind of escalation is the inevitable result of the grim racist logic of Zionism, and have, for our prescience, been called names like ‘anti-Semite’.  Everyone ought now to be giving the apologists for Israel all the disdain they so richly deserve.  These outrages were predictable, and predicted, and flow directly from the lies told by those who try to make the case for Israel.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Apollo 11 tapes missing

The original high-quality video tapes of Apollo 11, which were apparently sent by NASA to the National Archives and then were returned to the Goddard Space Flight Center, have gone missing (see the pdf by John M. Sarkissian).  The quality of the video broadcast to the world on television was of much, much lower quality than the video originally received – or manufactured! - by NASA.  Obviously, if you were going to fake the moon landing, you might have a motive to ‘lose’ the high-quality tapes, where artifacts of faking could be seen.  This was by far the biggest moment in the American space program.  You’d think they would care about hanging on to the evidence.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

The very strange saga of Adam Gadahn

From The Blotter (see also here):

“For the first time, a former Orange County, Calif. teenage rock music fan has revealed his role as a top al Qaeda leader.

Adam Gadahn, who disappeared from California seven years ago, appeared unmasked on an al Qaeda tape made public on the internet today. 

As previously reported by ABC News, the FBI had concluded that the masked man was Gadahn based on voice analysis of previous al Qaeda tapes.  On today's tape, Gadahn is bearded, wearing a turban.

He denounces U.S. soldiers in Iraq and their alleged murder and rapes of Iraqi citizens.”

Whatreallyhappened writes (I’ve removed links that are in the original):

“The FBI lists Gadahn's aliases as Abu Suhayb Al-Amriki, Abu Suhayb, Yihya Majadin Adams, Adam Pearlman, and Yayah.

But Adam Pearlmen is his REAL name! Adam is the grandson of the late Carl K. Pearlman; a prominent Jewish urologist in Orange County. Carl was also a member of the board of directors of the Anti-Defamation League, which was caught spying on Americans for Israel in 1993, much as AIPAC has been caught up in the more recent spy scandal.”

I think this information came originally from David Irving, so we should look into it in detail.  The man now known as ‘Azzam the American’, and definitely associated with top al Qaeda leaders, was born Adam Pearlman, the son of semi-prominent hippie musician Phil Pearlman.  Pearlman had converted to Christianity and changed the family name to Gadahn.  Phil Pearlman’s father was in fact prominent urologist Carl Kenneth Pearlman.  From Carl Pearlman’s obituary (scroll down):

“He devoted much time to YMCA in Santa Ana. In an effort to aid the plight of world Jewry in the post-war years, he became the first chairman in Orange County of the Bonds for Israel and served as chairman for the United Jewish Welfare Fund.
He served with the Jewish Family Service and the Nursing Home Advisory Committee. He was a member of the board of directors of the Anti-Defamation League and was an honoree of the National Conference of Christians and Jews (now known as the National Conference for Community and Justice).”

The Los Angeles Times is characteristically coy (original story no longer available but it is reprinted here; coy word is in red):

“In 1995, at 17, Adam Gadahn moved out of the family's Winchester home, his father said, because ‘he wanted out of the country and wanted to be in the city,’ where he lived with relatives in Garden Grove.”

Actually, the detail comes from the Washington Post:

“While living with his grandparents in suburban Santa Ana, he made his first trip to the nearby mosque in 1995. He introduced himself as Yahya - the Arabic name for John the Baptist, revered as a great prophet in Islam.”

It’s an old pattern.  Teenaged son rebels from hippie parents, then flees the countryside – and the hippie lack of electricity or indoor plumbing - to live with grandparents.  Grandfather is on the board of directors of the Anti-Defamation League, so he almost immediately decides to join a mosque.  He then assaults the director of the mosque, and is seen hanging out with ‘radical’ Muslims (and note this extremely odd parallel story, stemming out of the same Garden Grove mosque).  He also becomes a bit famous for an internet essay “Becoming Muslim”, which is itself rather odd:

“On the left, conspiracy theorists – no less energized than their right-wing counterparts – got busy, too. They thought it strange, they said, as if the government stitched the story together from scratch. Some kid who never before posted to the Internet drops a deeply personal revelation onto a USC website, a diatribe that is chock full of anti-government, anti-Christian sentiments, and then pretty much disappears from cyberspace. A person doesn’t just post his entire life story on the Web and never post again, they say. You’d think someone like that would have been on the Web all the time; at least you could find him on Islamic faith newsgroups, chatting about the Qur’an.

But Gadahn’s online presence is scant. Since stuff tends to hang around in cyberspace forever, it does raise questions that, other than “Becoming Muslim,” and a few news articles he’s appeared to have edited about jihad, why is Gadahn nowhere to be found?

There are other odd occurrences about “Becoming Muslim,” such as Gadahn’s statements that the U.S. government considered Muslims to be “bloodthirsty, barbaric terrorists.” This is a mostly inaccurate conclusion to have drawn in 1995; though anti-Muslim sentiments in America rose after 9/11, the U.S. government had not previously taken such a hard-line position.”

Gadahn has become a cause célèbre for the American right, a made-to-order American traitor from central casting.  What if he really was manufactured?  His confused background, with a detour through heavy metal, his moving in with his grandparents (grandfather on the ADL board), his rare internet essay anachronistically written from a Zionist perspective and not the perspective of the American government in 1995 (as if the Zionists had already written the post-September 11 script), his immediate ‘conversion’ to Islam and association with ‘radical’ Muslims – it’s all just a bit too contrived.  We have seen other examples of how Israel has infiltrated Islamist organizations (most recently in Lebanon).  Have the Zionists infiltrated al Qaeda at its highest levels?  Or is it more accurate to look at al Qaeda as a ‘false flag’ Zionist organization? 

 

 

Monday, July 10, 2006

The Syrian deal

From a recent interview with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (originally published here; my emphasis in red):

“Al-Hayat: If we return to the topic of Syrian-American relations, Washington says that it doesn't want to change the regime in Syria, but wants a change in behavior; in your opinion, where is the problem? Is it Iraq, or Lebanon, relations with Hamas or Islamic Jihad? Where is the problem?

President al-Assad: I prefer to discuss a fact, and not an opinion. An opinion might involve analysis, but a there actual things being asked of Syria. First, we were asked to participate in the Iraq war, and we refused. Then, we were asked to disarm the Palestinians in Lebanon and Hizbullah, especially during the period between the issuing of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 and the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. This phase involved bargaining, so that Syria could remain in Lebanon, but it would have to do this and that.

Al-Hayat: Who requested this? The Americans?

President al-Assad: The Americans, of course. (UN Envoy Terje-Roed) Larsen. Some Europeans, in the form of mediation, would relay American messages to us.

Al-Hayat: So that Syria could remain in Lebanon?

President al-Assad: This was the meaning of the proposal, also during a later phase. After the war, Syria was requested to promote the Road Map. Syria didn't oppose it, but didn't agree to it either. They wanted Syria to give them the cover, to say that the process was good, and that the proposal was good. We weren't mistaken. At the least, in terms of Syria the proposal wasn't good. We were asked to lay siege to Hamas, strike at Hamas, this was the change in behavior requested of Syria.

In other words, the piously stated American concern for Lebanese sovereignty could be thrown out in a minute if Syria would agree to arrange for more pressing Israeli concerns.  Can there be any doubt who is really pulling the American strings?

Zidane metaphor

The most gifted football player, an Arab, is manipulated into being thrown out of the most important game, thus possibly costing his team the championship, by the mere words of some clever European.  Is this some kind of metaphor for the relationship between the Arab world and the West, where the natural gifts, oil, are squandered by the Arab inability to avoid being manipulated by the clever words of Europeans and Americans?

Why did they murder Philip Merrill?

With the notable exception of Dick Cheney, the American ruling elites don’t shoot people in the head for pleasure, if only as they wish to avoid taking unnecessary risks.  In particular, they don’t shoot those of their own kind, with one major exception.  Like any organized crime group, they keep omerta, and punish those who breach the code of silence.  The two classes of murders are those made to look like accidents, reserved for those who are going to be forced to testify, and the more ignominious group of murders made to look like suicides, reserved for those who it is feared will rely on their consciences and testify voluntarily (it is thus much more honorable to be ‘suicided’ than to be ‘accidented’).  The fake suicide is always contrived to be good enough to look like a suicide to a coroner, but, like two shots to the head, is obviously a murder to anyone with any sense.  The obviousness is part of the warning to others that the code of silence will be enforced.

Sploid describes the ‘suicide’ of Philip Merrill:

“On Tuesday, the family claimed in a statement that the 72-year-old Merrill was distraught over a heart condition - so he bought a shotgun, took his beloved boat out on a sunny Saturday, tied the anchor around his feet, took his wallet out and left it inside the boat, shot himself in the face with a shotgun, and managed to neatly fall out of the craft and float for 11 miles and 11 days, upstream, with the anchor of a 41-foot-long sailing vessel tied to his ankles and dozens of search-and-rescue teams scouring the bay for his body.”

If suicide were an Olympic sport, the old and ill Merrill, who managed not only to shoot himself in the head with a shotgun but then leap off the boat, but did so with the handicap of tying his legs up to an anchor first (and brought a cell phone and a wallet containing a lot of money, which he considerately left behind on the boat, on the theory that you can take it on the boat, but you can’t take it with you), would win a Gold Medal.  Obviously a murder, with the light anchor intended to submerge the body for only a few days (they wanted the family to have the body for a funeral).

What was Merrill going to talk about that he needed to be suicided?  Merrill was President of the Export-Import Bank from 2002 until 2005.  The Bank provided trade finance insurance to the Coalition Provisional Authority, and later to the Interim Government of Iraq.  Merrill was a True Believer in the importance of foreign trade and foreign investment, facilitated by American institutions like the Export-Import Bank, in reviving the Iraq economy.  Instead, much of the money provided by American taxpayers, and probably almost all of the oil revenues from Iraq itself, were stolen.  This is just now becoming an American political issue, but the focus is on amounts stolen in the last year or so.  The major thefts were from the time that the Coalition Provisional Authority was in charge of the money, the time when Merrill, who appears on all accounts to have been a straight shooter, would have had insider knowledge.

Bush used one of his famous signing statements to ensure that the Congress-mandated inspection of corruption in Iraq would not consider any contracts involving the Pentagon, effectively removing most of the point from having an inspector.  The major thefts were from the ‘Development Fund for Iraq’, set up by Paul Bremer and originally managed by the Coalition Provisional Authority.  At least nine billion dollars is missing from this fund.  The slush find could have been raided perfectly legally, if not morally, by using it to fund ‘legitimate’ reconstruction contracts to American firms.  Instead, this method of lifting of money from the Iraqi people wasn’t corrupt enough, so they simply stole it (i. e., they didn’t even bother to pretend to be providing a service for the money that was taken, possible because of the way in which the Coalition Provisional Authority managed the money).  As there is no effective monitoring of the specifics of the corruption (thanks to Bush’s signing statement), people like Merrill are the only officials who could put the blame on the friends of the Bush Administration who walked off with the billions of dollars.  Therefore, Merrill is dead.

 

 

More uncovered history of the Israel Lobby

Harry Clark analyzes the very early history of the Israel Lobby, going back to its roots in the Truman Administration, with lots of details on how it operated, and continues to operate (see also Jeffrey Blankfort’s latest outstanding summary of the Lobby arguments, published at the necessary website Ziopedia.org).  He is particularly good at the end (he refers to Michael Cohen and Cohen’s book, Truman and Israel, a book well-known for emphasizing some anti-Semitic remarks by Truman; my emphasis in red):

“Cohen attributes Truman's susceptibility to Zionist influence to a ‘unique set of circumstances that converged to determine the fate of Palestine,’ including Jewish friends, White House advisors, key Jewish Democratic Party fundraisers, and Zionist military prowess, which ‘should not be expected ever to repeat themselves.’ The circumstances were not at all unique, but have been practically a recipe for quasi-sovereign Jewish influence on foreign policy in Democratic administrations. By institutionalization throughout the political culture, this influence extends to Republican administrations as well; Eisenhower was an exception. Such influence is not sinister or conspiratorial, but the overt working of US-style capitalist democracy, albeit on behalf of racism, war and genocide, and with a paralyzing effect, in this case, on the liberal circles which usually oppose such matters.

The chauvinism of US organized Jewry is a distinctive feature of US society and history, comparable in importance to classic US singularities like slavery, and the absence of a socialist left, and their crippling legacies. Jewish influence in the Democratic Party, and its impact on foreign policy, notably on the inability of Democrats to mount a critique of the Iraq war and Middle East policy, is comparable to the influence of the Dixiecrats, the segregationist Southern Democrats, on civil rights, labor law and other issues. The moral antipode to organized Jewish power is not an orthodoxy which misattributes Jewish influence to ‘strategic interest,’ but anti-Zionism. Left internationalism, in which Jews were prominent, and classical Reform Judaism, once the dominant Jewish creed, emphatically rejected Zionism as a reactionary ideology, rejected modern Jewish nationality, and affirmed the Jewish place as a minority in liberal or revolutionary society. Anti-Zionism need not mean, immediately, a secular democratic state in Palestine, but the moral and intellectual framework which rejects Zionist claims on Jewish identity and gentile conscience, and asserts liberal and revolutionary values against radical nationalism.

It is curious that Clark’s quick analysis is much more in line with classic progressive thinking than even the great Chomsky was able to muster.  What makes Chomsky so dumb on this one issue?  Is his tribe so important to him that he has lost his mind?  The reason it is so easy to make the Chomsky mistake is that ‘strategic interest’ and current Zionism are both extreme manifestations of late capitalism.  In fact, Zionism, with its ties to ultra-nationalism, racism (conclusively proven with the latest attacks on the civilians of Gaza), and worldwide extreme right-wing politics (for which Israel is a leading organizer), is the highest – or, if you like, lowest – stage of late capitalism.   That’s why Chomsky’s failure to acknowledge the reality of Lobby power is so damaging to his entire life’s work.  Chomsky reveals himself to be just another agent of capitalism. 

It is not an accident that the Likudniks are extreme right-wingers.  People of Chomsky’s generation seem to have missed the radical change which has occurred in Israel in the last few years.  In fact, many people saw the Kibbutzim movement as one of the best hopes for social anarchy in action.  That hope is dead, and Israel’s turning right is the logical conclusion to a society based on expressly racist grounds, rising out of its reliance on ideas from 19th century ethnic nationalism.  Why Israel can make this work, when all the successful countries in the world have turned away from this model, is a mystery.

Is it just a coincidence that every single progressive person in the world who isn’t Jewish vehemently opposes the violent racism of the state of Israel?  Or are we to accept the Zionist explanation that every progressive person in the world is an anti-Semite?