Friday, July 30, 2010

Naming names: Civil war brewing in Hollywood between Judeofascism collaborators and Palestinian-rights partisans


From:
Nima Shirazi – 'Hope' Floats: Hey Hollywood, time to put your money where your morality is

(Palestine Think Tank) -- by Nima Shirazi --

...Perhaps, in order to open borders and ship a little bit of hope to suffering Palestinians in the Middle East, US to Gaza organizers should be looking for a lot of financial support from open wallets on the West Coast.

Hollywood has no shortage of outspoken Israel supporters, ethnic cleansing enthusiasts, and racist, right-wing nutjobs. The Zionism, publicly professed or not, of famous musicians and movie stars takes many forms and runs the gamut of willful ignorance to actively insane.

There are those who ignore or condemn the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement and promote Israeli hasbara like Paul McCartney, Elton John, Madonna, Rod Stewart, Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Metallica, Rihanna, Missy Elliot, Adam Sandler, Alex Trebek, Seth Rogen, Robert Duvall, Halle Berry, Lenny Kravitz, Ed Zwick, Chazz Palminteri, Paul Reiser, David Cronenberg, Norman Jewison, Saul Rubinek, Jerry Seinfeld, Lisa Kudrow, Sacha Baron Cohen, Minnie Driver, and Natalie Portman (who was also a proud research assistant of Alan Dershowitz and is thanked in his appalling book The Case for Israel); there are those who oppose resistance to Israeli aggression and expansion and laud Israeli assaults that take the lives of thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians like actors Michael Douglas, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Danny De Vito, Don Johnson, James Woods, Kelly Preston, Patricia Heaton, Doug Liman, Gary Sinise, Kristen Chenowith, Michael Chiklis, Vivica A. Fox, Nicole Kidman, Pat Sajak, and William Hurt, along with filmmakers like Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Michael Mann, William Friedkin, Ivan Reitman, Richard Donner, and Sam Raimi.

There are those, like producer Lawrence Bender, who see Israel as an eternal victim, besieged by oppressive Palestinians, and claim that "Nobody realizes how badly the Israelis are suffering. Obviously the Palestinians are suffering – but people need to understand that Israel needs help" and there are those, like actor Joshua Malina, who are baffled by the suggestion that "somehow Israel is the bully and the Palestinians are the underdog."

There are Zionist zealots like John Malkovich and Bill Maher and there's also Jon Voigt.

There are celebrities who advocate for peace, love, and understanding, like Richard Dreyfuss, yet somehow believe a "Jewish" state isn't inherently discriminatory. There's Jason Alexander, who, despite his work with the two-state promoting OneVoice/Imagine Peace project, was an honored guest at last year's Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces [sic] Fundraising Gala and shill for Jewish television programming that endorses violent, fanatical Zionist settler ideologies. There are fashion designers like Elie Tahari, who donated a whopping $100,000 at this year's IDF love-fest in March.

With friends like these, it's no wonder that the IDF, a foreign military that oppresses and occupies an indigenous population, raised over $20 million in one night at the Waldorf-Astoria in Manhattan. But donors here in the United States don't only fund the Occupation, they also fund illegal Jewish settlements – to the tune of tax-free hundreds of millions over the past decade – that have now aggressively stolen and colonized over 42% of the West Bank.

So where are their anti-occupation, pro-international law counterparts, especially the ones with equally deep pockets? The truth is they're everywhere.

From Alice Walker to Vanessa Redgrave, Harry Belafonte to Viggo Mortensen, Julie Christie, Wallace Shawn, Alan Rickman, Jonathan Demme, Stephen King, Ralph Fiennes, Bill Irwin, Tilda Swinton, Wim Wenders, Uma Thurman, Debra Winger, Tony Kushner, Roger Ebert, Richard Gere, John Cusack, Sally Kirkland, Terry Gilliam, Michael Palin, Danny Glover, Oliver Stone, Ed Asner, Sophie Fiennes, Casey Kasem, and Jeremy Pikser, celebrity support for Palestinian freedom and an end to the Israeli occupation and blockade is widespread in Tinseltown.

Actresses Salma Hayek, Halle Berry, Drew Barrymore, Brooke Shields, Andie MacDowell, Lucy Liu, Whitney Houston and Sharon Stone all had their pictures removed from the website of blood diamond dealer Lev Leviev after being alerted to Leviev's criminal funding of illegal West Bank settlements.

Musicians like Mos Def, Laurie Anderson, Boots Riley, Steve Earle, David Byrne, Neil Young, and Santana, all publicly oppose Israel's systematic oppression and land theft and support the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel. Annie Lennox and Brian Eno spoke out against the 2008-9 Israel slaughter of over 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza and, more recently, Rage Against The Machine's Alex de la Rocha condemned Israel's Gaza blockade on stage during a concert in London. This past Saturday, July 10, for the first time in five years, Pink Floyd's David Gilmour and Roger Waters teamed up to perform at a HOPING Foundation benefit, which raised £350,000 (over $538,000) for Palestinian children living in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The organization was co-founded by fashion designer (and Siggy's great-granddaughter) Bell Freud in 2003.

Megastars Dustin Hoffman and Meg Ryan canceled their attendance at this year's annual Jerusalem Film Festival the day after Israel's bloody raid on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla and recent performances by The Pixies, Elvis Costello, Gorillaz Sound System, The Klaxons, Devendra Banhart, Gil Scott Heron, and Snoop Dogg were also canceled for similar – if not identical – reasons.

All of these well-heeled celebrities should take their courageous boycott of Israeli apartheid and aggression even further by funding more humanitarian aid ships. With their help, supplementing the support of small donors, the illegal blockade can indeed be broken...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Related: Oliver Stone's forced apology for telling the truth validates his premise of hegemonic Jewish power in media

Related: Billionaire Zionist totalitarian and Democrat Party bigwig Haim Saban, along with Rahm Emanuel's spivy Zionist functionary brother in Hollywood, both demand Oliver Stone's Showtime documentary be censored

Jewish demagogues openly brag about hegemonic Jewish power, then call everyone else anti-Semitic for noticing it's true

From:
ADL: 80 MILLION AMERICANS "ANTI-SEMITIC"

(National Prayer Network) -- by Rev. Ted Pike --

ADL director Abe Foxman says that 45 years ago one third of Americans were “seriously infected” with anti-Semitism. Now, he says, 12 to 14 percent are in that category. This, he contends, amounts to 40 million Americans.

However, there are another 40 million who are “mildly” infected. They believe, he says, that Jews are “too powerful in finance,” “control the government,” and “control Hollywood.” Such “mild” anti-Semitism, Foxman claims, includes the belief that “the Jews killed Christ.” (Watch the v ideo of Foxman's comments at ADL.org)

Who most conspicuously asserts that Jews killed Christ? Answer: at least 150 million Bible-believing Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical Christians.

Who most conspicuously asserts that Jews control Hollywood and the US government? Answer: for the moment, veteran Hollywood insider and movie producer Oliver Stone. When asked by Britain's Sunday Times why so much emphasis has been placed on the Holocaust, Stone replied, “The Jewish domination of the media. There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f****d up United States foreign policy for years.”

Here we see ADL making tens of millions of Americans anti-Semitic for simply accepting what Jews tell us about themselves. Many Jewish film historians and reference sources now document how Jews founded the Hollywood movie and Big Three TV industries. Neal Gabler in his classic An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood exhaustively chronicles such control. So does the prestigious Encyclopedia Judaica: “Thus, all the large Hollywood companies, with the exception of United Artists, were founded and controlled by Jews.” ("Motion Pictures," p. 449) The Judaica has separate articles detailing how David Sarnoff, William S. Paley, and Leonard Goldenson founded and controlled NBC, CBS, and ABC.

ADL’s main quarrel is not with anti-Semitism. It’s with reality. It’s with the fact that many people believe what the Jews say and repeat it on the internet, especially the Jewish accomplishment of attaining staggering control in media, government and finance. Such repetition of what Jews have told us, especially if spoken in a critical way, now becomes for ADL “virulent anti-Semitism.”

In ADL’s perfect world, Jews should be able to boast of their incredible emergence from persecution to dominance of the most influential sectors of society, and receive Gentile praise for that, without enduring suspicion or criticism.

To the delight of ADL, such utopia is now realized from tens of millions of evangelicals. Yet ADL, in its Department of Global Anti-Semitism in the US State Department, accuses evangelicals of “classic anti-Semitism” for believing the New Testament account that Jews had Christ killed. (See, Bible is Hate, Says U.S. Government). Nevertheless, "Israel-first" believers abhor any suspicion that ADL is conspiring against them. Believing that any criticism of a Jew will incur divine wrath, most evangelicals and their leaders are theologically sworn to silence against even mentioning the name “ADL” in public...MORE...LINK

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron lashes Jewish state for its sadistic transformation of Gaza into a besieged “prison camp"

From:
Gaza is a prison camp, says David Cameron

(Telegraphco.uk) --

David Cameron has described Gaza as a ''prison camp'' and appealed to the Israeli Government to allow the free flow of humanitarian goods and people in and out of the Palestinian territory.

Mr Cameron's comments came during a visit to Turkey, where relations with Israel have been strained since Israeli troops stormed a flotilla of ships carrying supplies to Gaza in May, killing eight Turks and one Turkish-American.

Speaking in Ankara, the Prime Minister denounced the attack on the flotilla as ''completely unacceptable'' and restated his call for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to deliver a ''swift, transparent and rigorous'' inquiry.

Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip, which has severely limited the movement of people and goods since 2007, has sparked outrage in Turkey, which provided the organisers and the bulk of the participants for the flotilla.

Today Mr Cameron said: ''The situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions.

''Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.''

And he added: ''The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable.

''And I have told PM Netanyahu we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous...

Mr Erdogan said Gaza resembled "a sort of open-air prison" and described the Israeli army assault on the aid flotilla as "piracy".

"The fact that this blockade has not been lifted is a tragedy," said the Turkish PM.

Addressing the raid on the flotilla, he said: "This attack in international waters can only be termed piracy. There is no other word to describe it.

"I hope we can remedy this situation and Israel turns back from this mistake. They must apologise to Turkey and compensation has to be paid and the blockade must be lifted so we can all contribute to regional peace."...MORE...LINK

Monday, July 26, 2010

PC double standard: Maureen Dowd writes in the NY Times that Obama admin has too many Whites, but would never write the more accurate "too many Jews"

From:
Obama’s philosemitic network reflects the new establishment

(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --

Maureen Dowd points out wisely that the Obama administration is too white. There are only two blacks in the administration, she says.
unlike Bill Clinton, who never needed help fathoming Southern black culture, Obama lacks advisers who are descended from the central African-American experience, ones who understand “the slave thing,” as a top black Democrat dryly puts it.

The first black president should expand beyond his campaign security blanket, the smug cordon of overprotective white guys surrounding him — a long political tradition underscored by Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 when she complained about the “smart-ass white boys” from Walter Mondale’s campaign who tried to boss her around.
That "smug cordon" that Dowd astutely describes is also a philosemitic one. Israel lobbyist Mitchell Bard points out all the Jews in the Obama administration.
David Axelrod (2009- ) Senior Advisor to the President; Jared Bernstein (2009- ) Chief Economist and Economic Policy Advisor to the Vice President; Rahm Emanuel (2009- ) Chief of Staff; Lee Feinstein (2009- ) Foreign Policy Advisor; Gary Gensler (2009- ) Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Elena Kagan (2009- ) Solicitor General of the United States; Ronald Klain (2009- ) Chief of Staff to the Vice President; Jack Lew (2009- ) Deputy Secretary of State; Eric Lynn (2009- ) Middle East Policy Advisor; Peter Orszag (2009- ) Director of the Office of Management and Budget; Dennis Ross (2009- ) Special Advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia to the Secretary of State; Mara Rudman (2009- ) Foreign Policy Advisor; Mary Schapiro (2009- ) Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Dan Shapiro (2009- ) Head of Middle East desk at the National Security Council; James B. Steinberg (2009- ) Deputy Secretary of State; Lawrence Summers (2009- ) Director National Economic Council; Mona Sutphen (2009- ) Deputy White House Chief of Staff
I think Bard may be missing a Shapiro (I'm guessing the asst secy of State is Jewish), as well as Stuart Levey, the Iran guy in Treasury, and czar Cass Sunstein. My impression is that Obama's philosemitism outstrips Clinton's and Bush's. And the lesson is that Obama is a conservative person temperamentally who has a keen sense of where American power lies. Originally an outsider from a scattered family in the west, he gravitated unerringly toward the east coast Harvard establishment; and the American establishment today has a prominent Jewish component...MORE...LINK

No surprise here: Obama does an about-face, kowtows to the Jewish Zionists who own him and corrupt Washington

From:
We were right, the US-Israel rift was simply much ado about nothing

(The Daily Star) -- by Diana Buttu --

Many critics are perfectly content to be proven right when their critique of current affairs meets their low expectations. For such critics, being right demonstrates that their criticism and knowledge of political events are sound and well placed. But, for Palestinian critics, there is little joy in being proven right because it means that the political situation is just as grim as predicted.

Such is the case with the much-hyped “row” between Israel and the United States back in March following the announcement that Israel would build 1,600 new housing units in the colony of Ramat Shlomo. While much was made of US President Barack Obama’s subsequent shunning of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House during their last meeting – including the unspeakable decision not to hold a joint press conference or even allow photographers to capture the meeting – critics properly noted that there was much ado about nothing. Alas, the critics were correct.

The latest, cordial, meeting between Netanyahu and Obama a few weeks ago came as little surprise. Palestinians have grown accustomed to seeing Israeli leaders warmly received in the White House, irrespective of the crimes perpetrated by Israel against Palestinians. Broad smiles have always greeted Israeli officials, even when Israel’s insatiable appetite for Palestinian land flies in the face of international demands for a freeze on settlement activity. Indeed, the White House always reminds us of the “unshakeable bond” between Israel and the United States even as Palestinian homes continue to be demolished.

But what many had not expected was the over-the-top nature of the reception Obama afforded Netanyahu in the face of Israel’s actions toward US citizens. Perhaps Obama forgot that just a month earlier Israel carried out a brutal raid on a Gaza-bound humanitarian aid flotilla attempting to break the illegal Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. Perhaps he forgot that a young American citizen was killed, execution-style, on board the lead ship, with one bullet to the chest and four, at close range, to the head. Perhaps he missed that the next day another young American, Emily Henochowicz, had her eye shot out by an Israeli-fired tear gas canister as she peacefully protested the flotilla raid. Perhaps he also forgot that, days later, a Palestinian man married to an American woman was executed after what appears to have been a traffic accident at an Israeli checkpoint.

Obama did not demand accountability for these acts of violence. Instead, he greeted Netanyahu with the usual broad smile, strong handshake and warm words that every US president has offered every Israeli leader, irrespective of Israel’s actions. The message: Israel will never be held accountable for its actions, whether toward Palestinians or toward any individual trying to protect Palestinians...MORE...LINK

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Case study in how Jewish Zionists in mainstream media police debate to their own advantage, always with the anti-Semitism card at the ready


From:
Jacob Weisberg throws his weight behind the boycott
(War in Context) -- by Paul Woodward --

“Don’t boycott Israel,” says the headline in Newsweek.

Jacob Weisberg, editor-in-chief at Slate and author of the piece calls a boycott a “repellent idea” with consequences that are “intrinsically vile.” But pointing out the “sheeplike, liberal opinion” of celebrities like Meg Ryan is unlikely to break up the flock. Indeed, Weisberg must vastly overestimate his own degree of influence in Hollywood if he imagines that his protestations will have more effect than do celebrities influence each other.

His appeal is perhaps not an effort to shepherd celebrity opinion but a reflex expression of alarm as he witnesses the boycott movement rapidly acquiring critical mass. Support from politically uninformed but socially influential celebrities is important because it signals the point at which the Palestinian cause rises above its regional, ethnic, religious and historical boundaries, and is being adopted as a humanitarian cause.

Weisberg, in a chaotic effort to marshall his arguments claims:
The stronger case against a cultural boycott of Israel is based on consistency, proportionality, and history. That supporters of this boycott seldom focus on China or Syria or Zimbabwe — or other genuinely illegitimate regimes that systematically violate human rights — underscores their bad faith.
The bad faith that proponents of an Israel boycott are supposedly exhibiting is that they are singling Israel out; that Israel as a target of a boycott is a target of victimization. Any fair-minded person would see how much Israel, China, Syria and Zimbabwe have in common and treat them similarly… Oh, but maybe that isn’t exactly what Weisberg’s trying to say.

As a good liberal, Weisberg isn’t eager to play the anti-Semitic card and he doesn’t see an anti-Semitic trend in Hollywood, but he goes ahead and makes the accusation anyway by saying that the boycott movement “is hard to disassociate from anti-Semitism — even if Ryan and Costello intend nothing of the kind.”

There is an issue here that I suspect touches a raw nerve for Weisberg and many others and it’s not thinly disguised anti-Semiticism; it’s the power of social exclusion.

The boycott — at least a particularly ugly form of boycott — is the Israel lobby’s favorite weapon. Attacks on critics of Israel are invariably ad hominem attacks — the campaign against Judge Richard Goldstone being among the most vociferous of such denunciations. This isn’t about vigorous opposition to ideas; it’s about the effort to destroy people — their reputations, their careers, and their social standing.

Weisberg sees the same spirit in the boycott movement:
What they’re saying is, “We consider your country so intrinsically reprehensible that we are going to treat all of your citizens as pariahs.”
...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

And not only Israelis will be treated as pariahs, no doubt Weisberg fears, but the larger "Jewish nation" comprised of diaspora Jewish Zionists like himself who utilize their supremacist network to advance their own social, economic and political agenda in the same way that Jewish Zionists in the Levant have done (if not quite in such a blatantly bigoted manner, as being a minority means they have to tread more carefully than the Judeofascist belligerents that love nothing better than to crush Palestinian skulls, and spit in the face of anyone who objects).

Isn't that really the only moral difference between a thug like Abe Foxman and a thug like Bibi Netanyahu -- that is, the context of what they recognize they can get away with in their respective abodes?

Don't ever bother making moral appeals to Judeofascist sociopaths; there is something missing in them, conscience perhaps, hence all they can understand are the moral restraints of context (in the diaspora, fear of getting caught and held accountable by some Gentile authority) and force (in Israel, fear of being terrorized for their aggression).

Petite, fledgling Judeofascist like Weisberg are merely miniature versions of Abe Foxman. If he were to move to Israel, he would likely become a petite version of Natanyahu, and still sans conscience, although at least there he and his ilk can eventually be isolated and contained, whereas hear they can remain under the radar as warmongering Zionist operatives while still passing themselves off as good liberals.

Israeli "rape by deception" case has turned the spotlight on institutional racism of the Jewish state

From:
Saber Kushour: 'My conviction for "rape by deception" has ruined my life'

Saber Kushour, an Arab Israeli convicted of 'rape by deception' of a Jewish woman, gives his side of the story in an exclusive interview
(The Observer) -- by Harriet Sherwood -- in Jerusalem

Saber Kushour apologises as he asks his guests to move the plastic chairs on his breeze-block balcony a little closer to the door to his house. If he were to sit where they are now, he explains, the electronic tag attached to his ankle would set off an alarm.

Kushour's edginess is understandable – he is recalling a 15-minute encounter almost two years ago which he says "has destroyed my life".

Last week the married father of two from east Jerusalem was sentenced to 18 months in jail for the "rape by deception" of a Jewish woman who claimed she would not have had sex with him had she known he was an Arab. What might have been a tawdry episode – casting neither Kushour nor the woman in a favourable light – exploded into a debate in Israel about racism, sexual mores and justice.

"I am paying the price for a mistake that she made," Kushour, 30, told the Observer. "I was shocked at the sentence – it shows a very vivid and clear racism." The message from the judge, he says, was that "because you are an Arab and you didn't make that clear, we are going to punish you".

In his verdict, Judge Zvi Segal conceded that it was not "a classical rape by force". He added: "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have co-operated. The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls."

At his home in Sharafat, where he is confined while awaiting an appeal, Kushour tells a different story. The woman has not been identified and has not gone public with her account.

Kushour was buying cigarettes in September 2008 when an unexpected opportunity presented itself for a casual sexual encounter. "Any person in my shoes would have done the same thing," he says.

A woman in her 20s struck up a conversation as he left the shop to return to his job delivering legal papers around Jerusalem by scooter. "She said 'you have a nice bike' and other things which I don't remember." Within minutes, he says, he realised that her interest was not confined to small talk.

Kushour speaks fluent, unaccented Hebrew, as do many Palestinians living and working in Jerusalem. The woman asked his name and Kushour replied "Dudu" – a common Israeli name. "Since I was a kid everyone calls me Dudu – even my wife calls me Dudu. It's a nickname." At no point, he says, did the woman – who gave her name as Maya – ask if he was Jewish, although he has acknowledged that he said he was single.

The pair went to a small roof area in a nearby office block. "When we were having sex, she was worried that someone would see us, but she never told me to stop. She was more than willing – she initiated it."

It has been suggested that Kushour presented himself as a bachelor interested in a long-term relationship. If that had been Maya's concern, Kushour points out, she might have asked him more about his background. After the brief encounter, Kushour tapped Maya's mobile number into his phone and left. "I didn't treat her like garbage – this is what she wanted."

Unknown to him, Maya contacted the police after the encounter to lodge a complaint. Kushour says he doesn't know how or when she realised he was not Jewish. The woman was given a medical examination, presented in court, which showed, according to Kushour, no signs of force or injury.

Six weeks later Kushour was idly flicking through numbers in his mobile's address book. "I saw 'Maya' and I thought 'who is Maya?' I had already forgotten about her. I rang the number to see who it was, and then I realised it was the girl. I said 'Can I see you?' and we arranged to meet."

Maya didn't show up and didn't respond to Kushour's calls and texts. But, crucially, she now had a vital piece of information for the pursuit of her complaint – his contact details.

Three days later Kushour received a phone call from the police. "They told me I had a problem and to come to the police station." He was interrogated for five to six hours, without a lawyer.

In the final hour of questioning, the police began to mention a rape claim. Eventually Kushour was handcuffed and taken to a cell. Over three days the questioning continued. "This was the hardest moment of my entire life," says Kushour. "I didn't have a clue what they were going to do." On the third day, Kushour was taken to court – by this time represented by a lawyer found by his brother – and charged with rape. He spent the next two months in prison and since then has been electronically tagged and confined to his home. The case came to court last week. His lawyer has told him that, because of the publicity surrounding the case, the appeal may be expedited. In the meantime, says Kushour, "I can't leave the house, I can't work, I can't feed my children."

Kushour's conviction has transfixed Israel. Some see echoes of a primeval – and racist – instinct to protect "our" women against outside marauders. Others are outraged at what they see as a blatant injustice, pointing to a backdrop of widespread, systematic and – some say – growing discrimination against Arabs who make up 20% of Israel's population.

"This is a most amazing decision by the court," says Tamar Hermann of the Israel Democracy Institute. "Deception is one thing – but to be convicted of rape?" It has, she says, "struck a sensitive chord in the Israeli mainstream of Arabs pretending to be Jews."

The issue of identity is paramount in a land where both communities regard each other with suspicion and hostility.

Yuval Yonay, a sociology professor at Haifa University, in one of Israel's few mixed cities, says Kushour's behaviour "might be improper but it is not rape".

He says that in 16 years of teaching at a university where 20-25% of the student population is Arab, he has "never even heard of a mixed relationship". Discrimination against Arabs is, he says, evident at all levels...MORE...LINK

President Johnson’s treason against USS Liberty crew on behalf of Israel set disastrous precedent repeated time and again by Washington to this day

From:
Israel destroyed the USS Liberty, OK. But what was the motive?
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --

The USS Liberty is in the news. A former Navy signalman on the spy ship bombed to hell by the Israelis in 1967 was on the Gaza freedom flotilla, and John Mearsheimer has argued that the Liberty case shows that when the Israelis kill Americans, nothing happens. (Mearsheimer also cited Rachel Corrie's killing in Rafah in 2003 and Furkan Dogan's killing on the Mavi Marmara on May 31).

I like the Liberty story because it's so grotesque: 34 Americans killed and dozens wounded in daylight on the Mediterranean during the Six-Day War in a savage and repeated attack on an intelligence vessel. Officially described as a mistake, but few of the survivors believe it. Didn't the Israelis know what they were doing?

But if it was deliberate, what was the motive?

Lately I've been reading The Passionate Attachment, by the late former under secretary of State George W. Ball and his son Douglas Ball, and it argues that the Israelis were fearful that the U.S. would report on continued Israeli hostilities at a time when the U.N. had voted for a ceasefire. On June 8, 1967, the fourth day of the war, they say, Israel still wanted to conquer the Golan Heights.

"[T]he United Nations had adopted a cease-fire resolution and they [the Israelis] feared there might not be enough time to accomplish this objective without, as it were, going into overtime.

"The Liberty's presence and function were known to Israel's leaders. They presumably thought it vital that the Liberty be prevented from informing Washington of their intentions to violate any cease-fire before they had completed their occupation of the Golan. Their solution was brutal and direct. Israeli aircraft determined the exact location of the ship and undertook a combined air-naval attack...

[B]y permitting a cover-up of Israel's attack on the Liberty, President Johnson told the Israelis in effect that nothing they did would induce American politicians to refuse their bidding. From that time forth, the Israelis began to act as if they had an inalienable right to American aid and backing.
...MORE...LINK

American aid and sustenance to Israel an absurdly one-sided relationship that does huge damage to U.S. interests

From:
Israel: Strategic Asset or Liability?

(Pulse) -- Speech by Ambassador Chas Freeman, Jr. --

Is Israel a strategic asset or liability for the United States? Interesting question. In my view, there are many reasons for Americans to wish the Jewish state well. Under current circumstances, strategic advantage for the United States is not one of them. If we were to reverse the question, however, and to ask whether the United States is a strategic asset or liability for Israel, there would be no doubt about the answer.

American taxpayers fund between 20 and 25 percent of Israel’s defense budget (depending on how you calculate this). Twenty-six percent of the $3 billion in military aid we grant to the Jewish state each year is spent in Israel on Israeli defense products. Uniquely, Israeli companies are treated like American companies for purposes of U.S. defense procurement. Thanks to congressional earmarks, we also often pay half the costs of special Israeli research and development projects, even when — as in the case of defense against very short-range unguided missiles — the technology being developed is essentially irrelevant to our own military requirements. In short, in many ways, American taxpayers fund jobs in Israel’s military industries that could have gone to our own workers and companies. Meanwhile, Israel gets pretty much whatever it wants in terms of our top-of-the-line weapons systems, and we pick up the tab.

Identifiable U.S. government subsidies to Israel total over $140 billion since 1949. This makes Israel by far the largest recipient of American giveaways since World War II. The total would be much higher if aid to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and support for Palestinians in refugee camps and the occupied territories were included. These programs have complex purposes but are justified in large measure in terms of their contribution to the security of the Jewish state.

Per capita income in Israel is now about $37,000 — on a par with the UK. Israel is nonetheless the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, accounting for well over a fifth of it. Annual U.S. government transfers run at well over $500 per Israeli, not counting the costs of tax breaks for private donations and loans that aren’t available to any other foreign country.

These military and economic benefits are not the end of the story. The American government also works hard to shield Israel from the international political and legal consequences of its policies and actions in the occupied territories, against its neighbors, or — most recently — on the high seas. The nearly 40 vetoes the United States has cast to protect Israel in the UN Security Council are the tip of iceberg. We have blocked a vastly larger number of potentially damaging reactions to Israeli behavior by the international community. The political costs to the United States internationally of having to spend our political capital in this way are huge.

Where Israel has no diplomatic relations, U.S. diplomats routinely make its case for it. As I know from personal experience (having been thanked by the then Government of Israel for my successful efforts on Israel’s behalf in Africa), the U.S. government has been a consistent promoter and often the funder of various forms of Israeli programs of cooperation with other countries. It matters also that America — along with a very few other countries — has remained morally committed to the Jewish experiment with a state in the Middle East. Many more Jews live in America than in Israel. Resolute American support should be an important offset to the disquiet about current trends that has led over 20 percent of Israelis to emigrate, many of them to the United States, where Jews enjoy unprecedented security and prosperity.

Clearly, Israel gets a great deal from us. Yet it’s pretty much taboo in the United States to ask what’s in it for Americans. I can’t imagine why. Still, the question I’ve been asked to address today is just that: what’s in it — and not in it — for us to do all these things for Israel.

We need to begin by recognizing that our relationship with Israel has never been driven by strategic reasoning. It began with President Truman overruling his strategic and military advisers in deference to personal sentiment and political expediency. We had an arms embargo on Israel until Lyndon Johnson dropped it in 1964 in explicit return for Jewish financial support for his campaign against Barry Goldwater. In 1973, for reasons peculiar to the Cold War, we had to come to the rescue of Israel as it battled Egypt. The resulting Arab oil embargo cost us dearly. And then there’s all the time we’ve put into the perpetually ineffectual and now long defunct “peace process.”

Still the US-Israel relationship has had strategic consequences. There is no reason to doubt the consistent testimony of the architects of major acts of anti-American terrorism about what motivates them to attack us. In the words of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is credited with masterminding the 9/11 attacks, their purpose was to focus “the American people … on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people….” As Osama Bin Laden, purporting to speak for the world’s Muslims, has said again and again: “we have … stated many times, for more than two-and-a-half-decades, that the cause of our disagreement with you is your support to your Israeli allies who occupy our land of Palestine….” Some substantial portion of the many lives and the trillions of dollars we have so far expended in our escalating conflict with the Islamic world must be apportioned to the costs of our relationship with Israel.

It’s useful to recall what we generally expect allies and strategic partners to do for us. In Europe, Asia, and elsewhere in the Middle East, they provide bases and support the projection of American power beyond their borders. They join us on the battlefield in places like Kuwait and Afghanistan or underwrite the costs of our military operations. They help recruit others to our coalitions. They coordinate their foreign aid with ours. Many defray the costs of our use of their facilities with “host nation support” that reduces the costs of our military operations from and through their territory. They store weapons for our troops’, rather than their own troops’ use. They pay cash for the weapons we transfer to them.

Israel does none of these things and shows no interest in doing them. Perhaps it can’t. It is so estranged from everyone else in the Middle East that no neighboring country will accept flight plans that originate in or transit it. Israel is therefore useless in terms of support for American power projection. It has no allies other than us. It has developed no friends. Israeli participation in our military operations would preclude the cooperation of many others. Meanwhile, Israel has become accustomed to living on the American military dole. The notion that Israeli taxpayers might help defray the expense of U.S. military or foreign assistance operations, even those undertaken at Israel’s behest, would be greeted with astonishment in Israel and incredulity on Capitol Hill...MORE...LINK

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Assets, Agents and Sayanim: Evidence John McCain and many other top Washington insiders are Israeli operatives

From left, "U.S." Senators Graham, McCain and Lieberman, displaying Zionist bouquet (of shame) "honorarily" conferred upon those willing to betray their own countries on behalf of Israel. The Jerusalem ceremony, undergone by many smug-yet-clueless American politicians under sway of the Israel lobby, is thick with irony that escapes them, as evidenced by the smirking rabbi in the background.

From:
Sayanim — Israeli Operatives in the U.S
(Criminal State) -- by Jeff Gates --

Americans know that something fundamental is amiss. They sense—rightly—that they are being misled no matter which political party does the leading.

A long misinformed public lacks the tools to grasp how they are being deceived. Without those tools, Americans will continue to be frustrated at being played for the fool.

When the “con” is clearly seen, “the mark” (that’s us) will see that all roads lead to the same duplicitous source: Israel and its operatives. The secret to Israel’s force-multiplier in the U.S. is its use of agents, assets and sayanim (Hebrew for volunteers).

When Israeli-American Jonathan Pollard was arrested for spying in 1986, Tel Aviv assured us that he was not an Israeli agent but part of a “rogue” operation. That was a lie.

Only 12 years later did Tel Aviv concede that he was an Israeli spy the entire time he was stealing U.S. military secrets. That espionage—by a purported ally—damaged our national security more than any operation in U.S. history...

The Sayanim System

Sayanim (singular sayan) are shielded from conventional legal culpability by being told only enough to perform their narrow role. Though their help may be essential to the success of an Israeli operation, these volunteers (sayanim also means helpers) could pass a polygraph test because their recruiters ensure they remain ignorant of the overall goals of an operation.

In other words, a sayan can operate as an accomplice but still not be legally liable due to a lack of the requisite intent regarding the broader goals—of which they are purposely kept ignorant. Does that intentional “ignorance” absolve them of liability under U.S. law? So far, yes.

Much like military reservists, sayanim are activated when needed to support an operation. By agreeing to be available to help Israel, they provide an on-call undercover corps and force-multiplier that can be deployed on short notice.

How are sayanim called to action? To date, there’s been no attempt by U.S. officials to clarify that key point. This may explain why Pollard was again in the news on July 13th with a high-profile Israeli commemoration of his 9000th day of incarceration.

To show solidarity with this Israeli-American traitor, the lights encircling Jerusalem were darkened while an appeal was projected onto the walls of the Old City urging that President Obama order Pollard’s release from federal prison.

Pollard has long been a rallying point for Jewish nationalists, Zionist extremists and ultra-orthodox ideologues. In short, just the sort of people who would be likely recruits as sayanim. The news coverage given this Day of Adoration may help explain how Israel signals its helpers that an operation is underway and in need of their help.

Are pro-Israelis once again playing Americans for the fool?

When not aiding an ongoing operation, sayanim gather and report intelligence useful to Israel. This volunteer corps is deeply imbedded in legislative bodies, particularly in the U.S.

Thus far, this Israeli operation has advanced with legal impunity as the Israel lobby—though acting as a foreign agent—continues even now to pose as a “domestic” operation.

Morris Amitay, former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, explains how this invisible cadre aids the Israel lobby in advancing its geopolitical agenda:

“There are a lot of guys at the working level up here [on Capitol Hill]…who happen to be Jewish, who are willing…to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness…These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators…You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.”...

Assets, Agents and Sayanim

Assets are people profiled in sufficient depth that they can be relied upon to perform consistent with their profile. Such people typically lack the state of mind required for criminal culpability because they lack the requisite intent to commit a crime.

Nevertheless, assets are critical to the success of Israeli operations in the U.S. They help simply by pursuing their profiled personal needs—typically for recognition, influence, money, sex, drugs or the greatest drug of all: ideology.

Thus the mission-critical task fulfilled by political assets that the Israel lobby “produces” for long-term service in the Congress—while appearing to represent their U.S. constituents.

Put a profiled asset in a pre-staged time, place and circumstance—over which the Israel lobby can exert considerable influence—and Israeli psy-ops specialists can be confident that, within an acceptable range of probabilities, an asset will act consistent with his or her profile.

Democrat or Republican is irrelevant; the strategic point remains the same: to ensure that lawmakers perform consistent with Israel’s interests. With the help of McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform,” the Israel lobbyattained virtual control over the U.S. Congress.

The performance of assets in the political sphere can be anticipated with sufficient confidence that outcomes become foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. How difficult was it to predict the outcome when Bill Clinton, a classic asset, encountered White House intern Monica Lewinsky?

Senator John McCain has long been a predictable asset. His political career traces its origins to organized crime from the 1920s. It was organized crime that first drew him to Arizona to run for Congress four years before the 1986 retirement of Senator Barry Goldwater.

By marketing his “brand” as a Vietnam-era prisoner of war, he became a reliable spokesman for Tel Aviv while being portrayed as a “war hero.” No media outlet dares mention that Colonel Ted Guy, McCain’s commanding officer while a POW, sought his indictment for treason for his many broadcasts for the North Vietnamese that assured the death of many U.S. airmen.

As a typical asset, it came as no surprise to see McCain and Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, a self-professed Zionist, used to market the phony intelligence that took us to war in Iraq. McCain’s ongoing alliance with transnational organized crime spans three decades.

His 1980’s advocacy for S&L crook Charles Keating of “The Keating 5” finds a counterpart in his recent meetings with Russian-Israeli mobster Oleg Deripaska who at age 40 held $40 billion in wealth defrauded from his fellow Russians.

McCain conceded earlier this month in a town hall meeting in Tempe, Arizona that he met in a small dinner in Switzerland with mega-thief Deripaska and Lord Rothschild V.

For assets such as McCain to be indicted for treason, the American public must grasp the critical role that such pliable personalities play in political manipulations. McCain is a “poster boy” for how assets are deployed to shape decisions such as those that took our military to war. In the Information Age, if that’s not treason, what is?...MORE...LINK