Another left-liberal, Jewish "progressive" in MSM unmasked as a serial-warmongering Israel-firster

Liberal Richard Cohen Wants Israel-First War Policy
(Rense.com) -- By Stephen Sniegoski --

While we are explicitly told by anti-war commentators such as Juan Cole that the only type of American Jews pushing for war on Iran are right-wing ones, it is apparent that Jewish liberals such as Richard Cohen are also in the pro-war camp.
See: http://tinyurl.com/JuanColeonIsraelLobby

Now Cohen, just like a number of rightist neocons, does not directly call for an attack on Iran, but rather advocates a policy that certainly would lead in that direction. Specifically, he says that it is time for Obama to start acting "crazy" toward Iran because of the alleged failure of diplomacy.
Iran and the Crazy Factor, Washington Post, February 23, http://tinyurl.com/cohencrazy

Such a recommendation of craziness is predicated on Cohen's belief that Ahmadinejad and the Iranian leadership in general are crazy and that the only way to fight crazy people is by likewise acting crazy: "fight crazy with crazy." Cohen writes: "I have no idea whether Ahmadinejad merely acts crazy or is crazy. I do know, though, that Iran seems intent on getting nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. I also know that nothing the United States and its allies have done has dissuaded Ahmadinejad (or the mullahs or the Revolutionary Guard Corps) from his goal. It may be time for Barack Obama, ever the soul of moderation, to borrow a tactic from Richard Nixon and fight crazy with crazy. The way things are going, it would be crazy not to."

It is rather odd that Cohen would pick Nixon's advocacy of madness as a model for emulation, since Nixon, and especially his bellicosity, were hardly admired by liberals such as Cohen during his presidency. Moreover, Cohen acknowledges that Nixon's crazy strategy "while cunning, didn't work on the North Vietnamese." Desiring the adoption of a previously failed strategy is hard to fathom...

What Cohen does not even make an attempt to show is that in regard to American security the danger of not attacking Iran outweighs the terrible impact of a war in the Middle East, which would be a likely result from his recommendation that Obama act crazy. It would seem to be a general consensus that a war on Iran at the present time would have terrible consequences for the already-battered world economy, which would certainly affect the US. It should be pointed out that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, reflecting what has been the consensus view of the American military leadership, has expressed strong opposition to any military strike on Iran and desires the continuation of peaceful diplomacy.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/513886/admiral_mullen_no_attack_on_i ran

In sum, it would appear that the liberal Richard Cohen does not differ substantially from his co-religionists on the Right in his militant position toward Iran. And there is nothing particularly new about this. Cohen had supported the war on Iraq and only later recanted, after the war had become unpopular, but included Israel in his explanation for his earlier pro-war position: "Saddam Hussein was a beast who had twice invaded his neighbors, had killed his own people with abandon and posed a threat - and not just a theoretical one - to Israel."
"The Lingo Of Vietnam," Washington Post, November 21, 2006, p. A-27)

It would seem therefore that the safety of Israel always looms very large in the minds of even liberal Jews...MORE...LINK

A sketch of the role of nefarious Jewish networks in financial corruption from 18th century Prussia to America's latest economic meltdown

Jews and Money
(Occidental Observer Blog) -- By Edmund Connelly --

Editor Kevin MacDonald has just written about Our Unethical Financial Elite. This is a worthy topic, especially to the extent it openly discusses Jewish involvement.

Two things stand out here: First, the level of deceit and corruption is stunning. Second, the combination of Jews and financial malfeasance has a historical record thousands of years long. In other words, it is part of an old and sordid story, as I related in my essay The Culture of Deceit.

There I wrote how historians, including Paul Johnson (A History of the Jews) and Albert Lindemann (Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews), showed this pattern of Jewish deception and fraud. For example, in 1781 Prussian official Christian Wilhelm von Dohm published a tract claiming, in Johnson’s paraphrase, “The Jews had ‘an exaggerated tendency [to seek] gain in every way, a love of usury.’ These ‘defects’ were aggravated ‘by their self-imposed segregation . . .’ From these followed ‘the breaking of the laws of the state restricting trade, the import and export of prohibited wares, the forgery of money and precious metals.’” In short, von Dohm’s describes traditional Jewish communities as far more resembling a mafia-like group engaged in organized crime than what we think of as a religion.

Lindemann notes that during the 19th century in Eastern Europe there were also persistent complaints about Jewish perjury to help other Jews commit fraud and other crimes. For example, in Russia a neutral observer noted that judges “unanimously declared that not a single lawsuit, criminal or civil, can be properly conducted if the interests of the Jews are involved.” Writing in 1914, American sociologist Edward A. Ross commented on Jewish immigrants to America that “The authorities complain that the East European Hebrews feel no reverence for law as such and are willing to break any ordinance they find in their way. … In the North End of Boston ‘the readiness of the Jews to commit perjury has passed into a proverb.’”

Jewish involvement in financial scandals became a prominent theme of modern anti-Semitism. Johnson writes, “The Union Générale scandal in 1882, the Comptoire d’Escompte scandal in 1889—both involving Jews—were merely curtain-raisers” to a far more massive and complex crime, the Panama Canal scandal, ‘an immense labyrinth of financial manipulation and fraud, with [Jewish] Baron Jacques de Reinach right at the middle of it.’”

Lindemann offers a parallel description of the rise of Jewish power paired with Jewish involvement in major financial scandals. In Germany, Jews “were heavily involved in the get-rich-quick enterprises” of the period of rapid urbanization and industrialization of the 1860s and 70s. “Many highly visible Jews made fortunes in dubious ways . . . Probably the most notorious of these newly rich speculators was Hirsch Strousberg, a Jew involved in Romanian railroad stocks. He was hardly unique in his exploits, but as Peter Pulzer has written, ‘the . . . difference between his and other men’s frauds was that his was more impudent and involved more money.’”

Lindemann offers an account that sounds much like what Americans have been hearing about their own economic woes in the last few years:

In the summer of 1873 the stock markets in New York and Vienna collapsed. By the autumn of that year Germany’s industrial overexpansion and the reckless proliferation of stock companies came to a halt. Jews were closely associated in the popular mind with the stock exchange. Widely accepted images of them as sharp and dishonest businessmen made it all but inevitable that public indignation over the stock market crash would be directed at them. Many small investors, themselves drawn to the prospect of easy gain, lost their savings through fraudulent stocks of questionable business practices in which Jews were frequently involved.

Like Johnson, Lindemann believes that accusations of fraud against many European Jews were not based on mere fantasy. With respect to the Panama Canal scandal of 1888–1892, for instance, Lindemann writes:

Investigation into the activities of the Panama Company revealed widespread bribery of parliamentary officials to assure support of loans to continue work on the Panama Canal, work that had been slowed by endless technical and administrative difficulties. Here was a modern project that involved large sums of French capital and threatened national prestige. The intermediaries between the Panama Company and parliament were almost exclusively Jews, with German names and backgrounds, some of whom tried to blackmail one another . . . .

Thousands of small investors lost their savings in the Panama fiasco. . . . A trial in 1893 was widely believed to be a white-wash. The accused escaped punishment through bribery and behind-the-scenes machinations, or so it was widely believed. The Panama scandal seemed almost designed to confirm the long-standing charges of the French right that the republic was in the clutches of corrupt Jews who were bringing dishonor and disaster to France.

In many cases, the Jewish nexus of the financial scandal includes the idea that Jews involved in financial scandals were being protected by other highly placed Jews: As Lindemann notes, “The belief of anti-Semites in France about Jewish secretiveness was based on a real secretiveness of some highly placed and influential Jews. What anti-Semites suspected was not so much pure fantasy as a malicious if plausible exaggeration, since solid facts were hard to come by.”

Consider, for example, the spectacle of the Wall Street scandals of the 1980s. So much of it was played out on the pages of major newspapers and magazines, so there was no doubt about the identity of the vast majority of culprits—at least for those with eyes to see it.

Two writers who both had the eyes to see it and the talent to write about it intelligently were Connie Bruck—who happens to be Jewish—and James B. Stewart—who is not. Bruck wrote The Predators’ Ball: The Inside Story of Drexel Burnham and the Rise of the Junk Bond Traders. The book has more than enough information to convince the average reader that Jewish financial mischief is rife—and has a massively negative effect on the greater non-Jewish world.

Stewart’s book is even better, beginning with its title, Den of Thieves. For those whose biblical knowledge is sketchy, the title comes from Matthew 21:12–13, where he recounts

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves. And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Stewart goes on to chronicle the misdeeds of Ivan Boesky, Martin Siegel, Dennis Levine, and Michael Milken, the mastermind behind it all. Simply by describing all the Jews involved Stewart makes clear that it was a cabal of Jews that pillaged and destroyed some of the most well-known corporations in America at the time by inventing and peddling “junk bonds” as an advance in capitalist operations. Lindemann was careful to include this in his story as well, writing that it had become clear that “the stock market scandals of the mid-to-late 1980s in the United States saw an overwhelming preponderance of Jews — at least ninety percent was a widely accepted figure.”

Jumping ahead to our own day, one of the best accounts of Jewish financial power—and its relationship to other forms of Jewish power—comes in the writing of retired professor James Petras. He has penned series of books starkly exposing “the Zionist Power Configuration” that includes Jewish dominance in Western finance.

In particular, his book, Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants, focuses on this, but he also addresses it in The Power of Israel in the United States, Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power, and Global Depression and Regional Wars: The United States, Latin America and the Middle East.

Here are some of the observations Petras makes: “Jewish families are among the wealthiest families in the United States” and nearly a third of millionaires and billionaires are Jewish. He also points to similar wealth in Canada, where “over 30 percent of the Canadian Stock Market” is in Jewish hands. Alan Greenspan’s tenure as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is also linked to Zionist power, since Greenspan was “a long time crony of Wall Street financial interests and promoter of major pro-Israeli investment houses.” (Greenspan was succeeded by coreligionist Ben Shalom Bernanke.)

Debunking the “high school textbook version of American politics,” Petras argues that “the people in key positions in financial, corporate and other business institutions establish the parameters within which the politicians, parties and media discuss ideas. These people constitute a ruling class.” Of the two groups cited by Petras—those in control of financial capital and Zioncons—both are so heavily Jewish as to constitute a single “cabal,” a word which Petras uses liberally throughout both books.

Wall Street supplies many of the “tried and experienced top leaders” who rotate in and out of Washington. At the top of the hierarchy, he finds the big private equity banks and hedge funds. Thus, political leadership descends from Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, the Carlyle Group and others. Goldman Sachs is a historically Jewish firm, Stephen A. Schwarzman is co-founder and current head of the Blackstone Group, while David Rubenstein is co-founder of the Carlyle Group and served in the Carter administration as a domestic policy adviser.

To get just a minor sense of the interconnectedness of Wall Street and Washington Petras is discussing—and to see its heavily Jewish ethnic nexus—note that during the second Clinton Administration, Robert Rubin served as Secretary of the Treasury and was succeeded by Larry Summers (also Jewish). Rubin worked his way to Vice Chairman and Co-Chief Operating Officer of Goldman Sachs prior to becoming the Secretary of the Treasury, and later became the Chairman of Citigroup. He is currently co-chairman of the board of directors on the Council on Foreign Relations.

Petras claims that former President Clinton and his economic advisers backed the regimes that allowed the plunder of Russian wealth. Though relegated to an endnote, he names Andrei Shleifer and Jeffrey Sachs as those involved. What is relevant here is the ethnic connections going to the top of American society that validate Petras’s emphasis on the combined power of Zionism, media and financial control.

Petras’s endnote shows that Harvard paid $26.5 million to settle a suit stemming from various improprieties associated with Harvard professors. As Steve Sailer illustrates, however, it is the Jewish aspect of the entire scandal that stands out. The principals of this scandal were Jews, and they were allegedly protected by fellow Jew, Harvard President Lawrence Summers (who had just finished a stint as Secretary of the Treasury). The upshot of the scandal was that the “reform” of the Russian economy “turned out to be one of the great larceny sprees in all history, and the Harvard boys weren’t all merely naive theoreticians.”

Sailer claims that he had not known about the Jewish identity of the “oligarchs” until he read Yale law professor Amy Chua’s book World on Fire (when Chua correctly noted that six out of the seven of Russia’s wealthiest oligarchs were Jews, her Jewish husband quipped to her, “Just six? So who’s the seventh guy?”). These oligarchs had “paid for Boris Yeltsin’s 1996 re-election in return for the privilege of buying ex-Soviet properties at absurdly low prices (e.g., Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky was put in charge of auctioning off Yukos Oil, which owns about 2% of the world’s oil reserves—he sold it for $159 million to … himself).” Meanwhile, Jews in Russia represented about one percent of the population.

Sailer’s further observations only cast more light on the extent and value of these ethnic connections:

As I’ve said before in the context of exploring how Scooter Libby could serve as a mob lawyer for international gangster Marc Rich on and off for 15 years and then move immediately into the job of chief of staff to the Vice President of the United States, the problem is not that Jews are inherently worse behaved (or better behaved) than any other human group, but that they have achieved for themselves in America in recent years a collective immunity from anything resembling criticism [emphasis added].

Petras makes a similar argument when noting that “Political corruption, not economic efficiency, is the driving force of economic empire-building.” As part of this “unprecedented pillage in Russia (1991-99) brought on by Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs’s and others’ “shock therapy” in Russia, at least a trillion dollars was transferred to U.S. and EU parties from Russia and Eastern Europe.

For this so interested, here is a brief bibliography of books dealing with the topic of Jews and money:

Stephen Birmingham, Our Crowd: The Great Jewish Families of New York (New York: Harper and Row, 1967); and The Grandees: America’s Sephardic Elite, (New York: Harper and Row, 1971); Jean Baer, The Self-Chosen: “Our Crowd” is Dead—Long Live Our Crowd (New York: Arbor House, 1982); Judith Ramsey Ehrlich and Barry J. Rehfeld, The New Crowd: The Changing of the Jewish Guard on Wall Street (New York: HarperPerennial, 1989); Richard L. Zweigenhaft and G. William Domhoff, Jews in the Protestant Establishment (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1982); Gerald Krefetz, Jews and Money: The Myths and the Reality (New Haven and New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1982); Dennis B. Levine, An Insider’s Account of Wall Street (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1991); Benjamin J. Stein, A License to Steal: The Untold Story of Michael Milken and the Conspiracy to Bilk the Nation (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992); and J.J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1996).

Finally, there is the promise of a new book on capitalism, with due attention to its Jewish roots, by prolific author E. Michael Jones. His tome The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (order it here), shows the value in honestly discussing Jewish power and behavior. Keep an eye out for his new book. The topic of Jews and money is forever important...LINK

The problem of "genteel" philo-Semitic Judeofascist collaborators

The Genteel Mr. Bradlaugh
(The Occidental Observer) -- By Kevin MacDonald

... It used to be that Jews complained about genteel anti-Semites. Now we have people like Bradlaugh who spout genteel philo-Semitism: He complains about “the antisemitism of the AR followers, which rubs me the wrong way. I fall in line with the long tradition of British philosemitism (Cromwell, Victoria, Lloyd George, Maggie Thatcher), and just have no patience with the other thing.” He could have included Winston Churchill who was philo-Semitic to the point of corruption.

It seems to me that anyone writing on politics has a responsibility to write honestly about the various forces that influence public policy. For Bradlaugh, it’s simply not genteel to discuss embarrassing things like Jewish power. I suppose Mearshimer and Walt rub him the wrong way as well. He reminds me of another conservative philo-Semite, John Derbyshire, about whom I had this to say:

Derbyshire is, apart from some minor irritations, quite uncritical about Jewish motives and influence, even when they conflict with the interests of people like himself. He implies that non-Jews should understand Jewish motivation to break down the ethnic homogeneity of their own societies while advancing the interests of Israel as an ethnostate. … Derbyshire lives in a sort of childlike world in which Jewish interests are legitimate and where Jewish attempts to pursue their interests, though they may occasionally be irritating, are not really a cause for concern much less malice. It doesn’t require an evolutionary theory to realize that good, reasonable people can have conflicts of interest, and that the results of conflicts of interest can be devastating to the side that loses.

I think that Bradlaugh’s problem is that he sees himself as genteel and that being genteel is a very good thing. (Definition: 1. Refined in manner; well-bred and polite. 2. Free from vulgarity or rudeness. 3. Elegantly stylish: genteel manners and appearance. 4. a. Striving to convey a manner or appearance of refinement and respectability. See Synonyms at polite. b. Marked by affected and somewhat prudish refinement.)

He seems very impressed with good manners, a well-rounded education, and being polite. Genteel people simply don’t discuss Jewish power and influence for fear of offending the Jews. In the same way, genteel people would not want to offend others by calling attention to their garish clothes. To do so would make one impolite and vulgar and therefore consign one to a lower order of society.

His gentility is probably also why he doesn’t resonate with AmRen’s “ethos of the South, which I don’t really … get. I wonder if a foreigner ever can get it. It’s as odd and particular, in its own way, as Tibetan Buddhism.”

The reality is that White Southerners are by far the largest identifiable group of White Americans who have held onto their culture and identity in the face of the onslaughts of the last 50 years. The White vote for Obama was nearly in the single digits in three southern states, and lopsidedly Republican in the others. White Southerners understand, at least implicitly, that it’s about racial and ethnic conflict. As the racialization of American politics continues, all Whites will tend even more in this direction. (The recent election in Massachusetts certainly supports this). Conservatives who think they can take back the country without Southern Whites are seriously deluded...

The reality, of course, is that whether or not we talk about it, racial and ethnic conflict will continue. There is no other possible outcome given that 100 million more non-Whites are to be added to the population of the US in the next few decades.

The bottom line is that no one has come up with a formula to get rid of ethnicity as a form of identity and as a vehicle of expressing interests. None seems on the horizon. And in the process of losing the ethnic battle, the society will be less and less committed to Bradlaugh’s cherished principles because, in the end, the principles of free speech, individual liberty, and the rest of the corpus of Western individualism are ethnic creations...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

On the “solving the problem” point, because the insatiable Judeofascists inevitably rise to the top of the Jewish hierarchy, and because the modern Jewish hierarchy is so paranoid, cohesive, shamelessly manipulative and coercive, and effective in quelling internal dissent, Judeofascism inevitably becomes modern organized Jewry’s de facto ethic. The pattern is obvious. We saw this in cohesive Jewish Bolshevism, which later morphed into ongoing cohesive Jewish Zionism and cohesive Jewish Neoconservatism/Neoliberalism. All of them have been violently racist and mass murderous.

Where I disagree with moderate white nationalists is in their belief that they could quell a similar phenomenon within their own hierarchy. True enough, a white nationalist regime would [for a time] be far more equitable than the current Judeofascist regime that has in many important ways taken over power in America for the simple reason that there are far more whites than the total number of Jews + the secular liberal and Christian Zionist [and genteel philo-Semite] Faustian bargainers willing to collaborate with them, but recall that Hitler and the Nazis became as insatiable and destructive as are the American Judeofascists and their collaborators today.

This is why I believe the most reasonable and moral long term solution to the Judeofascist problem is the same solution that “made” Western civilization in the first place, and kept the Judeofascists “down” for centuries without having to resort to wholesale slaughter: Christianity. This can be accomplished through a displacement of Big Government with libertarianism, serious Christianity, and a return to decentralized Christian moral authority.

NYT's Ethan Bronner case is nothing new; Western Jewish Zionist "journalists" have been doing propaganda work for Israel for decades

All in the Family
(CounterPunch) -- By ALISON WEIR --

Recent exposés revealing that Ethan Bronner, the New York Times' Israel-Palestine bureau chief, has a son in the Israeli military have caused a storm of controversy that continues to swirl and generate further revelations. (See my piece for CounterPunch, The NYT's Ethan Bronner's Conflict With Impartiality.)

Many people find such a sign of family partisanship in an editor covering a foreign conflict troubling – especially given the Times’ record of Israel-centric journalism.

Times management at first refused to confirm Bronner’s situation, then refused to comment on it. Finally, public outcry forced Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt to confront the problem in a February 7th column.

After bending over backwards to praise the institution that employs him, Hoyt ultimately opined that Bronner should be re-assigned to a different sphere of reporting to avoid the “appearance” of bias. Times Editor Bill Keller declined to do so, however, instead writing a column calling Bronner’s connections to Israel valuable because they “supply a measure of sophistication about Israel and its adversaries that someone with no connections would lack.”

If such “sophistication” is valuable, the Times’ espoused commitment to the “impartiality and neutrality of the company's newsrooms” would seem to require it to have a balancing editor equally sophisticated about Palestine and its adversary, but Keller did not address that.

Bronner is far from alone

As it turns out, Bronner’s ties to the Israeli military are not the rarity one might expect.

• A previous Times bureau chief, Joel Greenberg, before he was bureau chief but after he was already publishing in the Times from Israel, actually served in the Israeli army.

• Media pundit and Atlantic staffer Jeffrey Goldberg also served in the Israeli military; it's unclear when, how, or even if his military service ended.

• Richard Chesnoff, who has been covering Mideast events for more than 40 years, had a son serving in the Israeli military while Chesnoff covered Israel as US News & World Report's senior foreign correspondent.

• NPR's Linda Gradstein’s husband was an Israeli sniper and may still be in the Israeli reserves. NPR refuses to disclose whether Gradstein herself is also an Israeli citizen, as are her children and husband.

• Mitch Weinstock, national editor for the San Diego Union-Tribune, served in the Israeli military.

• The New York Times’ other correspondent from the region, Isabel Kershner, is an Israeli citizen. Israel has universal compulsory military service, which suggests that Kershner herself and/or family members may have military connections. The Times refuses to answer questions about whether she and/or family members have served or are currently serving in the Israeli military. Is it possible that Times Foreign Editor Susan Chira herself has such connections? The Times refuses to answer.

• Many Associated Press writers and editors are Israeli citizens or have Israeli families. AP will not reveal how many of the journalists in its control bureau for the region currently serve in the Israeli military, how many have served in the past, and how many have family members with this connection.

• Similarly, many TV correspondents such as Martin Fletcher have been Israeli citizens and/or have Israeli families. Do they have family connections to the Israeli military?

• Time Magazine's bureau chief several years ago became an Israeli citizen after he had assumed his post. Does he have relatives in the military?

• CNN's Wolf Blitzer, while not an Israeli citizen, was based in Israel for many years, wrote a book whitewashing Israeli spying on the US, and used to work for the Israel lobby in the US. None of this is divulged to CNN viewers...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Operationally, Zionism is just like Bolshevism/leftism/left-liberalism in terms of subversive media masquarading as "objective" or "neutral"; in fact, the subversive character of each was honed during the Jewish/Communist partnership in the Soviet Bolshevik era -- a partnership that continues on many levels to this day. Little wonder, then, that right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is building a monument to the Bolshevik Red Army.

It just goes to show that statist-totalitarian Communists, Nazis and Zionists really are all birds of a feather. They only sometimes hate each other because they are so much alike -- warped and deranged control freaks.

The real reason Israel wants to bomb Iran? Outstanding legal judgement against Israel for long-ago oil business deal gone bad today worth billions

Inside Intel / The story of Iranian oil and Israeli pipes
(Haaretz) -- By Yossi Melman --

In recent months, Israel and Iran have been playing a game of cat-and-mouse. This is not the predictable game of intelligence, counter-espionage and field security. Such games have been taking place for years. Israel's intelligence community tries to obtain information about the development of Iran's nuclear program, and is preparing in case it has to attack Iran; while Iran tries frustrate these efforts.

But alongside this routine game, Israel and Iran are working feverishly in an entirely different area: Iran is trying to locate property and assets belonging to the Israeli government and three Israeli oil firms abroad, and Israel is trying to thwart it. This affair arises from an international arbitration that determined more than three years ago that the Paz, Sonol and Delek oil companies must compensate the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) hundreds of millions of dollars.

The three companies were government-owned in the 1970s, but since then have been privatized. The oil companies have appealed the arbitration decision and are trying to create a delay, and are succeeding for now. The NIOC has not yet succeeded in enforcing the ruling and in collecting the debt. Parallel to this appeal, legal proceedings are still continuing in another two arbitrations on similar issues.

All these legal proceedings have been taking place in Europe (in Switzerland and Holland) for more than 20 years, and are related to the activity of a legal entity called Trans-Asiatic Oil. This was a top-secret partnership that existed between the Israeli government and the NIOC during the period of the Shah. This partnership operated the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Company, the oil terminals in Eilat and Ashkelon, and a large fleet of giant tankers for transporting oil. After the Shah was expelled from Iran and Khomeini came to power, in February 1979, the Islamic Republic cut off all ties with Israel and stopped shipping Iranian oil.

In 1985, the NIOC filed huge lawsuits (today worth several billion dollars) against Israel and the oil companies. The lawsuits were discussed in three separate arbitrations. The NIOC claims that Israel owes it huge sums for the partnership. Haaretz first reported on the Iranian victory in December 2006, and now Prof. Uri Bialer of Hebrew University in Jerusalem is publishing a study on the circumstances under which Trans-Asiatic Oil was established...MORE...LINK

Russia Today CrossTalk: Finkelstein methodically drives an intellectual tank straight over a flabbergasted, fast-talking Zionist hustler

CrossTalk: Norman Finkelstein vs. Israel
(You Tube) -- By Russia Today

On Peter Lavelle's CrossTalk, Israel critic Norman Finkelstein faces off against a formidable spokesperson of Israel's 'soft power'...LINK

Totalitarian Zionist state to build shrine to totalitarian Bolshevik Red Army

PM: Israel to erect Red Army memorial
(Jerusalem Post) -- BY HERB KEINON --

MOSCOW – Israel will erect a memorial commemorating the Red Army’s crucial role in the victory over the Nazis, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told Russian Prime Minster Vladimir Putin at a photo opportunity before their meeting Tuesday.

Netanyahu said the gesture, which he intends to move forward, is in honor of the 65th anniversary of the victory over the Nazis later this year. This move comes amid growing concern in Russia that their role and sacrifice in the victory over Nazism is increasingly being underplayed.

Putin, saying that it was forbidden to forget the Nazi victims and that the Jews and the people of the former Soviet Union suffered more than anyone else at the hands of the Nazis, said he was currently in discussion with Moscow’s chief rabbi about the possibility of establishing a Holocaust museum in Moscow...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

What an absolute farce. The Red Army was an instrument of mass murder and genocide. Let me string together a few entries from Wikipedia (which, if anything, is soft on both Zionism and Communism) to demonstrate the evil of what Netanyahu and the totalitarian Zionists are celebrating. (Putin is obviously playing along with this for domestic political purposes, although he is playing with fire, because this is going to anger plenty of Orthodox Christians. Like many of his countrymen, he clearly hasn't accepted yet that Soviet Communism was every bit as evil as Nazism, and in fact was largely responsible for the rise of Hitler via a dialectical process).

Wikipedia on the Red Army's role in enforcing state terrorism:

The Red Army often gave support to the NKVD, which had as one of its functions the implementation of political repressions. The main function of the NKVD was to protect the state security of the Soviet Union, which was accomplished by large scale political repressions against "class enemies". As an internal security force and prison guard contingent of the GULag, the Internal Troops played a role in both political repressions as well as war crimes during the periods of military hostilities throughout the Soviet history. Particularly, they were responsible for maintaining the regime in the GULAG, and for conducting the mass deportations and forced resettlement of several ethnic groups that the Soviet regime presumed to be hostile to its policies and likely to collaborate with the enemy (Chechens, Crimean Tatars, or Koreans for example).

Wikipedia on the mass murder and genocide of Soviet Communism (which the Red Army helped carry out and secure) as documented in The Black Book of Communism:

Repressions and famines occurring in the Soviet Union under the regimes of Lenin and Stalin described in the book include:

-the executions of tens of thousands of hostages and prisoners, and the murder of hundreds of thousands of rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922 (See also: Red Terror)
-the Russian famine of 1921, which caused the death of 5 million people
-the extermination and deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920
-the murder of tens of thousands in concentration camps in the period between 1918 and 1930
-the Great Purge which killed almost 690,000 people
-the deportation of 2 million so-called "kulaks" from 1930 to 1932
the deaths of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932 and 1933
-the deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Moldavians and people from the Baltic Republics from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945
-the deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941
-the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1943
-the deportation of the Chechens in 1944
-the deportation of the Ingush in 1944.(p. 9-10) (See also: Population transfer in the Soviet Union)

Comparison of Communism and Nazism
Courtois compared Communism and Nazism as slightly different totalitarian systems. He claims that Communist regimes have killed "approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million victims of Nazis" [5]. Courtois claims that Nazi Germany's methods of mass extermination were adopted from Soviet methods. As an example, he cites Nazi state official Rudolf Höss who organized the infamous death camp in Auschwitz. According to Höss[5],

"The Reich Security Head Office issued to the commandants a full collection of reports concerning the Russian concentration camps. These described in great detail the conditions in, and organization of, the Russian camps, as supplied by former prisoners who had managed to escape. Great emphasis was placed on the fact that the Russians, by their massive employment of forced labor, had destroyed whole peoples".
Courtois argues that the Soviet genocides of peoples living in the Caucasus and exterminations of large social groups in Russia were not very much different from similar policies by Nazis. Both Communist and Nazi systems deemed "a part of humanity unworthy of existence. The difference is that the Communist model is based on the class system, the Nazi model on race and territory." [5]. Courtois stated that [6]

"The "genocide of a "class" may well be tantamount to the genocide of a "race" - the deliberate starvation of a child of a Ukrainian kulak as a result of the famine caused by Stalin's regime "is equal to" the starvation of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto as a result of the famine caused by the Nazi regime".

He also added that "after 1945 the Jewish genocide became a byword for modern barbarism, the epitome of twentieth-century mass terror... more recently, a single-minded focus on the Jewish genocide in an attempt to characterize the Holocaust as a unique atrocity has also prevented the assessment of other episodes of comparable magnitude in the Communist world. After all, it seems scarcely plausible that the victors who had helped bring about the destruction of a genocidal apparatus might themselves have put the very same methods into practice. When faced with this paradox, people generally preferred to bury their heads in sand."

Wikipedia on the Red Army's collaboration with the Nazis:

Per the Nazi–Soviet Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (24 August 1939), the Red Army invaded Poland on 17 September 1939, after the Nazi invasion on 1 September 1939. On 30 November, the Red Army also attacked Finland, in the Winter War of 1939–40. By autumn 1940, after conquering its portion of Poland, the Third Reich shared an extensive border with USSR, with whom it remained neutrally-bound by their non-aggression pact and trade agreements [until Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941].

It doesn't surprise me that the murderous, totalitarian Zionist statists would build a shrine murderous, totalitarian Red Army statists -- particularly given the fact that Zionist and Bolshevik history is so elaborately intertwined.

Israel and its statist allies attempting to overthrow Christian 'Just War Theory,' and international law that emerged from 20th century conflagrations

The Second Battle of Gaza: Israel’s Undermining Of International Law
(The Alternative Information Center) -- by Jeff Halper --

The Israeli attack on Gaza in December 2008/January 2009 was not merely a military assault on a primarily civilian population, impoverished and the victim of occupation and besiegement these past 42 years. It was also part of an ongoing assault on international humanitarian law by a highly coordinated team of Israeli lawyers, military officers, PR people and politicians, led by (no less) a philosopher of ethics. It is an effort coordinated as well with other governments whose political and military leaders are looking for ways to pursue "asymmetrical warfare" against peoples resisting domination and the plundering of their resources and labor without the encumbrances of human rights and current international law. It is a campaign that is making progress and had better be taken seriously by us all.

Since Ariel Sharon was indicted by a Belgian court in 2001 over his involvement in the Sabra and Chatila massacres and Israel faced accusations of war crimes in the wake of its 2002 invasion of the cities of the West Bank, with its high toll in civilian casualties (some 500 people killed, 1500 wounded, more than 4000 arrested), hundreds of homes demolished and the urban infrastructure utterly destroyed, Israel has adopted a bold and aggressive strategy: alter international law so that non-state actors caught in a conflict with states and deemed by the states as "non-legitimate actors" ("terrorists," "insurgents" and "non-state actors," as well as the civilian population that supports them) can no longer claim protection from invading armies. The urgency of this campaign has been underscored by a series of notable setbacks Israel subsequently incurred at the hands of the UN. In 2004, at the request of the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that Israel's construction of wall inside Palestinian territory is "contrary to international law" and must be dismantled - a ruling adopted almost unanimously by the General Assembly, with only Israel, the US, Australia and a few Pacific atolls dissenting. In 2006 the UN Commission of Inquiry concluded that "a significant pattern of excessive, indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force by the IDF against Lebanese civilians and civilian objects, failing to distinguish civilians from combatants and civilian objects from military targets." together with the harsh criticism of the UN's Goldstone report on Gaza accusing the Israeli government and military again of targeting Palestinian civilians and causing disproportionate destruction, has made this campaign even more urgent.

Fortunately, it is an uphill battle. The thrust of just war theory, from which international humanitarian law (IHL) draws,

is to limit warfare, and in particular to regulate its conduct and scope. Wars between states should never be total wars between nations or peoples. Whatever happens to the two armies involved, whichever one wins or loses, whatever the nature of the battles or the extent of the casualties, the two nations, the two peoples, must be functioning communities at the war's end. The war cannot be a war of extermination or ethnic cleansing. And what is true for states is also true for state-like political bodies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, whether they practice terrorism or not. The people they represent or claim to represent are a people like any other (Margalit and Walzer 2009).

Protecting the lives, property and human rights of civilians caught up on warfare from the power and impunity of states is especially relevant in our age when, as British General Rupert Smith (2005) tells us, modern warfare is rapidly moving away from the traditional inter-state model to what he calls a "new paradigm" - "war amongst the people" - in which "We fight amongst the people, not on the battlefield." A more popular term used by military people, "asymmetrical warfare," is perhaps more honest and revealing, since it highlights the vast power differential that exists between states and their militaries and the relative weakness of the non-state forces confronting them.

Now the issue of adapting laws and ethical approaches coming out of traditional inter-state warfare to new forms of "asymmetrical warfare" is a legitimate and vital endeavor. As Judge Richard Goldstone indicated in the report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (2009:5), "The Mission interpreted [its] mandate as requiring it to place the civilian population of the region at the centre of its concerns regarding the violations of international law." Two prime issues of concern arise here: protecting all non-combatants finding themselves caught up in armed conflict, whether from state or non-state adversaries, and the degree to which non-state actors must be held accountable under IHL, no matter how just their cause may be. Thus the Goldstone Report, recognizing the limitations under which non-state actors operate, specified as well the obligation of Palestinian armed groups "to exercise care and take feasible precautions to protect the civilian population in Gaza from the inherent dangers of the military operations."

Common sense and justice argue against a symmetry of responsibility between heavily armed and coordinated state-sponsored armies able to exert enormous force in order to exercise effective control over a territory and its people (Israel over the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in this case) and the military weakness, financial constraints and fundamental difficulties of non-state actors resisting oppression in either protecting their people or creating a neutral "battleground" separate from its civilian populations (as in the case of the Palestinians). Nonetheless, even a certain implied symmetry introduced by the Goldstone committee in which non-state actors possess legitimacy as "a side" is unacceptable to Israeli political and military leaders. This, despite the fact that, in 1960, the UN General Assembly's Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples endorsed the right of peoples to self-determination and, by extension, their right to resist "alien subjugation, domination and exploitation" - again, with the obligations set out by the Goldstone Report. Nor is the notion that states and their armies should be significantly constrained in their military actions by IHL acceptable to Israeli decision-makers, political and military. They seek, therefore, to alter international law in ways that enable them - and by extension other states involved in "wars on terror" - to effectively pursue warfare amongst the people while eliminating both the legitimacy and protections enjoyed by their non-state foes.

This campaign is led by two Israeli figures: Asa Kasher, a professor of philosophy and "practical ethics" at Tel Aviv University, the author of the Israeli army's Code of Conduct, and Major General Amos Yadlin, former head of the IDF's National Defense College, under whose auspices Kasher and his "team" formulated the Code of Conduct, and today the head of Military Intelligence. And, Kasher vigorously asserts, it is completely appropriate and understandable that Israeli should be leading it. "The decisive question," he says,

is how enlightened countries conduct themselves. We in Israel are in a key position in the development of law in this field because we are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism. This is gradually being recognized both in the Israeli legal system and abroad. After the debate before the High Court of Justice on the issue of targeted killings there was no need to revise the document [on the ethics of fighting terrorism] that Yadlin and I drafted even by one comma. What we are doing is becoming the law. These are concepts that are not purely legal, but also contain strong ethical elements.

The Geneva Conventions are based on hundreds of years of tradition of the fair rules of combat. They were appropriate for classic warfare, where one army fought another. But in our time the whole business of rules of fair combat has been pushed aside. There are international efforts underway to revise the rules to accommodate the war against terrorism. According to the new provisions, there is still a distinction between who can and cannot be hit, but not in the blatant approach which existed in the past. The concept of proportionality has also changed (quoted in Ha'aretz, Feb. 6, 2009; italics added)....

Customary international law accrues through an historic process. If states are involved in a certain type of military activity against other states, militias, and the like, and if all of them act quite similarly to each other, then there is a chance that it will become customary international law.... I am not optimistic enough to assume that the world will soon acknowledge Israel's lead in developing customary international law. My hope is that our doctrine, give or take some amendments, will in this fashion be incorporated into customary international law in order to regulate warfare and limit its calamities (Kasher 2009:7)..

In their assault on protections afforded to non-state actors and the populations that support them by IHL, Kasher and Yadlin go after two of the most fundamental principles of IHL: the Principle of Distinction and the Principle of Proportionality.

The Principle of Distinction, embodied in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977, lays down a hard-and-fast rule: civilians cannot be targeted by armies and, on the contrary, must be protected. Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities...shall in all circumstances be treated humanely....To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: violence to life and person...and outrages upon personal dignity."

The Principle of Proportionality, embodied in the 1977 Protocols to the Fourth Geneva Conventions (to which neither the US nor Israel is a signatory, but which nevertheless, as customary law, binds them), considers it a war crime to intentionally attack a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. "The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians," says Protocol I, Article 50 (3), "does not deprive the population of its civilian character."

Undermining these principles is therefore a key to what Kasher and Yadlin (2005) put forward as their "new doctrine of military ethics." It is based on privileging states in their conflicts with non-state actors and on giving them the authority to deem an adversary "terrorist," a term lacking any agreed-upon definition in IHL and one which obviously removes any legitimacy a non-state actors so labeled might otherwise have. Indeed, Kasher and Yadlin's "Just War Doctrine of Fighting Terror" is grounded on a tendentious definition of "terrorism" custom-tailored to legitimizing state policies and actions. We define an "act of terror," they (2005:2) write,

as an act, carried out by individuals or organizations, not on behalf of any state, for the purpose of killing or otherwise injuring persons, insofar as they are members of a particular population, in order to instill fear among the members of that population (‘terrorize' them), so as to cause them to change the nature of the related regime or of the related government or of policies implemented by related institutions, whether for political or ideological (including religious) reasons.

By defining terrorism is defined as "an act" carried out by an individual or organization, Kasher and Yadlin both de-contextualize and de-politicize the protracted struggles of non-state actors, including those of all peoples oppressed by state (and corporate) regimes. Although they admit a certain legitimacy to "guerilla warfare," by reducing a popular struggle to a series of discrete acts they makes it possible to label an entire resistance movement "terrorist" purely on the basis of one or more particular acts, with no regard to its situation or the justness of its cause. Once this is done, it is easy to criminalize non-state resistance, since terrorism is, in Kasher's words, "utterly immoral." When, for example, Palestinians or the Hizbollah attack Israeli soldiers on active duty, Kasher refers to these acts as "kidnapping" rather than "capturing" them.

This very language and approach also has the effect of privileging state actors, since it implies that state actions are by definition legitimate and not "utterly immoral." Even when a country is accused of war crimes, it is often able to justify its actions by "military necessity." It is extremely difficult to actually sanction or punish a country for war crimes even when they are deemed to have occurred, and even when all this takes place, "war crimes" possess a different meaning than the type of criminalization applied to non-state actors. States may be sanctioned, but their existential legitimacy is not removed. Germany was judged as having committed horrendous war crimes during the Nazi era, and paid certain penalties, but that did not prevent it from rejoining the international community immediate after the war. Thus Kasher and Yadlin define an act as terror by its "purpose" of terrorizing a particular population without the slightest thought of applying that principle to Israel's own policies and actions over its occupation of 42 years, despite exhaustive documentation of that terrorization.

Just how self-serving the tendentious use of the concept "terror" can be is evident in Israel's own attempts to have the Iran Revolutionary Guards declared a "terror organization," even though, being an agent of a state, it would not fit into Kasher and Yadlin's own state/non-state dichotomy. What, then, should prevent the international community from naming the IDF and various covert Israeli agencies such as the Mossad or the Shin Beit (the General Security Services) as "terror organizations"? The Goldstone Report itself concluded that Israel's offensive against Gaza during Operation Cast Lead was "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population." Cognizant of this contradiction, Kasher and Yadlin are careful to add a caveat: they define an act of terror as one carried out "not on behalf of any state."

Having de-legitimized state-defined "acts of terrorism," Kasher and Yadlin then go on to further legitimize state actions such as those taken by Israel against Hizbollah, Hamas or, indeed, all Palestinian resistance by invoking "self-defense" - again, a claim which, according to Just War Theory and Article 51 of the UN Charter, only a state can make. In order to do so they begins the narrative of events leading up the attack on Gaza with what the "terrorist" organization alone had done, launching rockets on the town of Sderot and its vicinity. Nothing of the fact that the vast majority of Gazans are refugees from 1948, denied their right of return and deprived of all their properties and assets. Nothing of the occupation since 1967 and the deliberate de-development of the Gazan economy; nothing of the exclusion since 1989 of Gazan workers from the Israel job market upon which they had been made dependent, and thus their subsequent impoverishment; nothing of the years of settlement in which 7000 Israelis lorded it over a million and a half Palestinians at a cost to the Palestinians of much in terms of their lives and livelihoods; nothing of the siege illegally imposed since 2006, or of the transformation of Gaza into the world's largest open-air prison; nothing of the fact that until today much of the land of Gaza - and the sea - are off-limits to Palestinian farmers and fishermen; nothing of the fact that Gazans live in mud and sewage created by Israel's wholesale destruction of their infrastructure; nothing of the wasted lives of the young people; nothing of the fact that Hamas observed an 18 month cease-fire and was willing to extend it, until Israel broke it on Nov. 4, 2008, setting off the rocket attacks. Nothing, in short, which would call into question whether the assault on Gaza was genuinely an act of self-defense.

Indeed, the process of de-contextualization is a prerequisite to the ethics Kasher offers as the basis of international morality, law, political practice and warfare. Rather than taking into account of Israel's four decades and more of occupation over Gaza and the West Bank, in which the Occupying Power may be said to have at least a modicum of responsibility for what transpires, Kasher instead bases his entire moral justification on what Israel has done over the years on a disembodied "double effect" principle, according to which, "when we are seeking a goal that is morally justified in and of itself, then it is also morally justified to achieve it, even if this may lead to undesirable consequences - on the condition that the undesirable consequences are unavoidable and unintentional, and that an effort was made to minimize their negative effects." As if maintaining a belligerent occupation for almost a half century is unavoidable and unintentional, and Israel actually took steps to minimize its negative effects.

This, then, sets up a hierarchy of priorities - indeed, "obligations" on states - that turn IHL on its head. The Principle of Distinction cannot be honored, Kasher and Yadlin argue, because "terrorists do not play by the rules." Nothing less is required than a fundamental "updating the concept of war." "As we sought to try and formulate how to fight terror," Yadlin (2004) writes,

we understood that we were in a different kind of war, where the laws and ethics of conventional war did not apply. It involves not only the asymmetry of tanks... The main asymmetry is in the values of the two societies involved in the conflict - in the rules they obey....

A new model of warfare - the counter-terrorism war - requires a new set of rules on how to fight it. The other side is fighting outside the rules and we have to create new ethical rules for the international law of armed conflict. The duty of the state is to defend its citizens. Any time a terrorist gets away because of concerns about collateral damage, we may be violating our main duty to protect our citizens. We look for alternatives so as not to cause collateral damage, or to cause the minimum amount of collateral damage, but the main obligation is to defend our citizens....

Thus, says Kasher, in an area such as the Gaza Strip in which the IDF does not have effective control, "the responsibility for distinguishing between terrorists and noncombatants is not placed upon [Israel's] shoulders, since it is not the effective ruler." Military commanders must thus place prime importance on achieving their military objectives, since this is what self-defense depends upon. Next in priority is protecting soldiers' lives - indeed, Kasher and Yadlin define soldiers as "civilians in uniforms," thereby eliding the principle of a state's duty to protect its citizens with its deployment of trained and armed combatants sworn to pursue its military aims. Only then does the army have to worry about avoiding injury to civilian non-combatants. "Sending a soldier [to Gaza] to fight terrorists is justified," writes Kasher, "but why should I force him to endanger himself much more than that so that the terrorist's neighbor isn't killed?" asks Kasher. "From the standpoint of the state of Israel, the neighbor is much less important. I owe the soldier more. If it's between the soldier and the terrorist's neighbor, the priority is the soldier. Any country would do the same."

Kasher's introduces a radically new principle of distinction - that in territories where it does not exercise effective control a country does not bear the moral responsibility for properly separating between dangerous individuals and harmless ones (Kasher 2010) - as if simply asserting it lends it the necessary authority. And this is, in fact, the point. "If you do something for long enough," says Colonel (res.) Daniel Reisner, former head of the IDF's Legal Department, "the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries.... International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassinations thesis [that extra-judicial killings are permitted when it is necessary to stop a certain operation against the citizens of Israel and when the role played by the target is crucial to the operation] and we had to push it. Eight years later it is in the center of the bounds of legality" (quoted in Kearney 2010:29). Or, as Kasher (2010) puts it, "The more often Western states apply principles that originated in Israel to their own non-traditional conflicts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, then the greater the chance these principles have of becoming a valuable part of international law."

Even the attempt to distinguish civilians from combatants was abandoned in the assault on Gaza. According to another report in Ha'aretz (3.2.10), "The Israel Defense Forces chose to risk civilians in Gaza in order to protect its soldiers during Operation Cast Lead, a high-ranking Israeli military officer told the British daily The Independent on Wednesday. The IDF officer claimed the traditional ‘means and intentions' engagement principle - stating that a suspect must have both a weapon and a visible intent to use it before being fired at - was discarded during Israel's Gaza incursion in late 2008 and early 2009."

Does that mean that states cannot engage in terrorism? This is a pretty bold claim. In fact, the non-state "terrorism from below" which so concerns Kasher and Yadlin pales in its horror when compared to "terrorism from above," State Terrorism. In his book Death By Government (1994:13), R.J. Rummel points out that over the course of the 20th century about 170,000 innocent civilians were killed by non-state actors, a significant figure to be sure. But, he adds,

during the first eighty-eight years of this [20th] century, almost 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people.

And that doesn't include Zaire, Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, Saddam Hussein's reign, the impact of UN sanctions on the Iraqi civilian population and other state-sponsored murders that occurred after Rummel compiled his figures. It also does not account for all the forms of State Terrorism that do not result in death: torture, imprisonment, repression, house demolitions, induced starvation, intimidation and all the rest.

"We do not deny," Kasher (2009) concedes, that a state can act for the purpose of killing persons in order to terrorize a population with the goal of achieving some political or ideological goal." He then adds another crucial caveat:

However, when such acts are performed by on behalf of a state, or by some of its overt or covert agencies or proxies, we apply to the ensuing conflict moral, ethical and legal principles that are commonly held to pertain to ordinary international conflicts between states or similar political entities. In such a context, a state that killed numerous citizens of another state in order to terrorize its citizenry would be guilty of what is commonly regarded as a war crime [italics added].

Kasher's caveat - "a state that killed numerous citizens of another state in order to terrorize its citizenry" - apparently means that states can neither be accused of terrorism nor held accountable for war crimes arising out of killing or terrorizing civilian populations such as the people of Gaza, since the latter are not citizens of another state.

As for the Principle of Proportionality, that, too, is a casualty of Kasher and Yadlin's assault on IHL. Their alternative is what is known by the IDF as its Dahiya Doctrine. Coming out of the second Lebanon war of 2006, in which Israel destroyed the Hizbollah stronghold of Dahiya in Beirut, the Dahiya Doctrine states attacks against Israel will be deterred by "harming the civilian population to such an extent that it will bring pressure to bear on the enemy combatants [...] through the damage and destruction of civilian and military infrastructures which necessitate long and expensive reconstruction actions which would crush the will of those who wish to act against Israel" (PCATI 2009). According to the Goldstone Report (2009:48),

The tactics used by Israeli military armed forces in the Gaza offensive are consistent with previous practices, most recently during the Lebanon war in 2006. A concept known as the Dahiya doctrine emerged then, involving the application of disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations. The Mission concludes from a review of the facts on the ground that it witnessed for itself that what was prescribed as the best strategy appears to have been precisely what was put into practice.

It then goes on to quote the head of Israel's Northern Command, Gen. Gadi Eisenkott: "What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. [...] We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. [...] This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved." But here again, it is the assertion of a new version of the principle that is important. Thus, declares Kasher, the Principle of Proportionality does not have to do with inflicting civilian injuries clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage, as the international community now thinks, but the exact opposite: "Proportionality is justifiability of the collateral damage on grounds of the military advantage gained" (Kasher 2010).

The upshot of Kasher and Yadlin's "updating the concept of war" was clearly evident in the attack on Gaza. "When senior Israel Defense Forces officers are asked about the killing of hundreds of Palestinian civilians during the fighting in the Gaza Strip," Ha'aretz (Feb.6, 2009) reported,

they almost all give the same answer: The use of massive force was designed to protect the lives of the soldiers, and when faced with a choice between protecting the lives of Israeli soldiers and those of enemy civilians under whose protection the Hamas terrorists are operating, the soldiers take precedence. The IDF's response to criticism does not sound improvised or argumentative.... And it operated there not only with the backing of the legal opinion of the office of the Military Advocate General, but also on the basis of ethical theory, developed several years ago, that justifies its actions.

Prof. Asa Kasher of Tel Aviv University, an Israel Prize laureate in philosophy, is the philosopher who told the IDF that it was possible. In a recent interview with Ha'aretz, Kasher said the army operated in accordance with a code of conduct developed about five years ago for fighting terrorism. "The norms followed by the commanders in Gaza were generally appropriate," Kasher said. In Kasher's opinion there is no justification for endangering the lives of soldiers to avoid the killing of civilians who live in the vicinity of terrorists. According to Kasher, IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi "has been very familiar with our principles from the time the first document was drafted in 2003 to the present."

Kasher's argument is that in an area such as the Gaza Strip in which the IDF does not have effective control the overriding principle guiding the commanders is achieving their military objectives. Next in priority is protecting soldiers' lives, followed by avoiding injury to enemy civilians.... Prof. Kasher has strong, long-standing ties with the army. He drafted the IDF ethical code of conduct in the mid-1990's. In 2003 he and Maj. Gen Amos Yadlin, now the head of Military Intelligence, published an article entitled "The Ethical Fight Against Terror." It justified the targeted assassination of terrorists, even at the price of hitting nearby Palestinian civilians. Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, who was the IDF Chief of Staff at the time, did not make the document binding, but Kasher says the ideas in the document were adopted in principle by Ya'alon and his successors. Kasher has presented them to IDF and Shin Bet security service personnel dozens of times.

Such arguments are also being taken up by "pro-Israeli" critics of IHL. Amichai Cohen (2010), for example, writing in the Global Law Forum of the neo-con Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, sums up Kasher and Yadlin's argument succinctly (though marshalling numerous legal citations just as Kasher mobilizes ethical arguments): "The concept of proportionality permits military personnel to kill innocent civilians, provided that the intended targets of the operation are enemy forces and not civilians."

And yet, when challenged, the philosophy, ethics and principled argumentation of Kasher and Yadlin dissipate, and one is found in the same kind of emotional and half-baked discourse that typifies shouting matches in bars or on the street. When, for example, Uri Avnery (2009) challenges Kasher's reduction of the Gaza operation as merely a justified defensive reaction to "continued rocket attacks on Israel by the terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip," Kasher (2009) retreats from his philosophical argumentation into personal attacks: "Nor is it a surprise," he writes, "that Avnery does not want us to use the term ‘terrorists' to describe the Palestinians - with whom he identifies - because of these negative moral connotations. He himself does not wish to be morally tainted as someone who identifies with terrorists."

From here Kasher abandons intellectual analysis completely and descends into mere personal opinion and unsupportable suppositions. "Some people claim that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians would provide Israeli citizens with the best protection against rockets and missiles, suicide attacks, and other horrors of terrorism," he begins.

It is true that a democratic state is required to seek peace agreements with neighboring states and peoples. However, the idea that it is possible to reach a political settlement with the Palestinians that would be upheld by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations is quite doubtful. Even if we accepted the plausibility of such a claim, it is all but certain that rocket attacks on Israel would continue throughout the negotiations. In fact, they would likely increase. Leaving a state's citizens vulnerable to persistent threat is not morally justified by the mere fact of ongoing negotiations. Nor can the fact that negotiations are taking place justify avoiding the last-resort option after all alternative courses of action have failed.... There are those who call on Israel to engage in direct negotiations with Hamas, in order to rid its citizens of the threats posed to them by rocket attacks and other kinds of terrorist activity. This argument warrants a similar response. From a moral standpoint, demanding that Israel engage in direct negotiations with a terrorist organization that does not recognize its right to exist cannot be justified (Kasher 2009. italics added).

Apparently this method is common when Israelis attempt to alter IHL in order to justify unjustifiable practices. A few years ago (April 15, 2005, p. 34) the Up Front weekend magazine of The Jerusalem Post published an interview with an Israeli "expert in international law" who, tellingly, chose to remain anonymous. This what s/he said:

International law is the language of the world and it's more or less the yardstick by which we measure ourselves today. It's the lingua franca of international organizations. So you have to play the game if you want to be a member of the world community. And the game works like this. As long as you claim you are working within international law and you come up with a reasonable argument as to why what you are doing is within the context of international law, you're fine. That's how it goes. This is a very cynical view of how the world works. So, even if you're being inventive, or even if you're being a bit radical, as long as you can explain it in that context, most countries will not say you're a war criminal.

This is a serious stuff. We are in the midst of the second battle of Gaza, a campaign not only to refute and defame the UN's Goldstone Report and sanitize Israel's actions there but to change international humanitarian law in a way that protects the powerful states and their armies while removing the fundamental rights of the world's poor and downtrodden to resist. The stakes are high. What will happen to the Palestinians - or oppressed peoples everywhere - if Kasher & Co. succeed in striking the Principles of Distinction and Proportionality from international law? Imagine an entire world unprotected against occupation, invasions, exploitation and warehousing, a global Gaza. It would be world that reflects current reality: everyone would be either an Israeli Jew, part of a privileged global minority who main ethical responsibility is towards defending itself against "terrorists," or a Palestinian, part of an impoverished, occupied majority with no control over its resources or its future, which nevertheless carries responsibility for the well-being and security of its violent "zero-tolerant" masters.

Standing on the ramparts of international law to guarantee its integrity should be an integral part of the struggle against oppression everywhere. If the people of Gaza can become fair game, so can any of us. In terms of vulnerability as well as solidarity, we are all, indeed, Palestinians. If IHL needs to be altered to take into account the rise of no-state actors in international conflicts - and here we should note the increased use of "outsourced" private military contractors by states and corporations, the emergence of "failed states," many of which combine state apparatus with criminal activity, and even the role played by NGOs - then it must be done in a way that continues to protect civilians and oppressed peoples against states, often their own. Kasher and Yadlin's assault on IHL, sponsored and legitimized by the Israel government "in the name of" other states engaged in so-called wars of terrorism, threatens to give powerful governments, their militaries and allied corporations a free hand in bringing about a global "order" friendly to their interests at the expense of the world's peoples.

Given what Michael Klare calls "the new landscape of global conflict" - state-initiated resource wars (initiated or fueled, it must be noted, primarily by the powerful democratic states which control the global economic system and account for more than 80 percent of the world's arms trade, whose revenues reached $1.46 trillion in 2008) - the prospect of states free of the constraints of IHL should give us all pause. For, as it turns out, the sites of future wars are largely in the very areas where people - framed as "terrorists" - are resisting the plundering of their resources, neo-colonialism and their own permanent warehousing. These sites, Klare (2001) tells us,

will be places that harbor particularly abundant supplies of vital materials - oil, water, diamonds, minerals, old-growth timber - along with supply routes that connect these areas to major markets around the world. These regions will command attention from the media, dominate the deliberations of international policy makers, and invite the heaviest concentrations of military power.... [They comprise] a wide band of territory straddling the equator.

Israel's attempt to globalize its legal, moral, political and military justifications for what it did - and continues to do - in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon should concern us all. Just as Israel used Gaza as a laboratory for tactics and weapons of "counterinsurgency" and urban warfare, so, too, is it attempting to export its "new doctrines" in a way that fundamentally compromises the well-being of people caught in conflicts worldwide. As (Kasher and Yadlin 2005:4) write explicitly,

the proposed principles are meant to be justified and practically applicable under any parallel circumstances. Moreover, those principles are intended to be universal in an additional crucial sense.... The different defense agencies of a democratic state that faces terror should follow principles that rest on universal moral grounds and on the professional and organizational ethical grounds related to each of those state agencies on its own, be it military, regular police, combat police or preventive intelligence.

In this sense, everyone resisting oppression is a Palestine. The stakes involved in losing this second battle of Gaza are high indeed. Israel's attempt to "globalize" Gaza imperils us all...MORE...LINK

Jeff Halper is the head of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). He can be reached at .)
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

It's pretty ironic that the Jewish state is waging war against the international rule of law that emerged, in part, from 20th Century horrors like the Holocaust. It just goes to show that the Judeofascists value statist warmongering and war-profiteering more than they value the lives of their own extended tribe. That kind of stubborn, deranged fanaticism goes way beyond the realm of mere mental illness and delves well into the sphere of endemic spiritual corruption.

Sadly, their derangement is by no means unusual in the post-Christian West. It's possible that the Communists and Nazis only gave us a small taste of what the Zionists and their leviathan-pimping allies have in store for the world.

Is the Jewish-led, Christian-hating financial sector plundering the U.S. and waging an insidious war on average Americans?

Our Unethical Financial Elite
(Occidental Observer) -- by Kevin MacDonald --

...When the meltdown began, the Internet was full of angry comments blaming Jews, much to the chagrin of the ADL. This is because it is common knowledge that Jews are vastly overrepresented among Wall Street executives. In the 1990s, Benjamin Ginsberg noted that 50% of Wall Street executives were Jewish, and it’s doubtless at least that high now.

As Kevin Phillips has pointed out, since the 1990s, economic expansions have not benefited the middle class; rather, they have benefited the financial elite. Financial services and complex financial products have assumed an ever larger percentage of the American economy, while manufacturing has steadily declined to the point where their relative percentages of the American economy have reversed...

In the public mind, the firm most closely associated with Jewish financial power is Goldman Sachs. Ever since the financial meltdown, GS has been defending itself (e.g., here) against an avalanche of charges focused not only on financial improprieties but also on its ties to the government (e.g., Matt Taibbi and a series of articles in the New York Times, e.g., here.)

A document placed into the Congressional Record by Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA), described in an article on Bloomberg.com strongly suggests corruption at the pinnacle of the financial profession. GS underwrote $17.2 billion of the $62.1 billion in the Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO’s) that were insured by AIG — more than any other firm. Essentially, banks underwrote toxic securities and then bet against them. An observer notes, “It sounds to me a little bit like selling a car with faulty brakes and then buying an insurance policy on the buyer of those cars.”...

GS received $14 billion from the government when AIG was bailed out; the New York Times also reportedthat GS also received substantially more money from the AIG bailout as a result of a prior agreement with Societe Generale, a French bank that also received AIG bailout money from the US government. Finally, the New York Fed promoted a cover-up that prevented this information from coming out sooner.

The article makes clear that there are still many details that remain unknown about these transactions.

David Brooks noted in the NYTimes,

"Fifty years ago, the financial world was dominated by well-connected blue bloods who drank at lunch and played golf in the afternoons. Now financial firms recruit from the cream of the Ivy League. In 2007, 47 percent of Harvard grads went into finance or consulting. Yet would we say that banks are performing more ably than they were a half-century ago?"

Quite clearly they are not. The rise of a Jewish elite in the US is problematic for a great many reasons — most obviously because the Jewish elite remains motivated by ethnic paranoia and hostility toward Western cultural traditions, particularly Christianity. However, the behavior of the financial elite in the case of the recent meltdown is not something one would expect to see in a healthy society. Quite a few of the details remain unknown, so that it is difficult to get a clear image of how individual Jews and Jewish networking contributed to the meltdown. (By all accounts [e.g., here], Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Alan Greenspan were instrumental in getting rid of regulations on trading derivatives that would have prevented the meltdown.) The indications that Goldman Sachs was at the center of the meltdown strongly suggests that the Jewish role was important. GS has not commented on Issa’s document or the Bloomberg article.

Nevertheless, at this point there is a strong suggestion that the financial elite behaved much more like an organized crime syndicate than as an elite with a sense of civic responsibility or commitment to the long term viability of the society. Whereas organized crime stems from the lower levels of society, this meltdown was accomplished at the very pinnacle of society — the Ivy League grads mentioned by Brooks, the wealthy financial firms and investment rating agencies, the strong connections with government that facilitated the bailout and failed to provide scrutiny while it was happening. It seems highly doubtful that all this would have happened with the former elite — the people whom Brooks disdainfully describes as “well-connected blue bloods who drank at lunch and played golf in the afternoons.”...MORE...LINK

The "chosen" state snubs its nose at abiding by international law, then whines of being despised internationally

Mossad’s Murderous Reach: The Larger Political Issues
(Dissident Voice) -- by James Petras --

On 19 January Israel’s international secret police, the Mossad, sent an 18-member death squad to Dubai using European passports, supposedly “stolen” from Israeli dual citizens and altered with fake photos and signatures, in order to assassinate a Palestinian leader, Mahmoud al Mabhouh...

Israel’s policy of overseas assassination raises profound issues that threaten the basis of the modern state: sovereignty, rule of law and national and personal security.

Israel has a publicly-stated policy of violating the sovereignty of any and all countries in order to kill or abduct its opponents. In both proclamation and actual practice, Israeli law, decrees and actions abroad supersede the laws and law-enforcement agencies of any other nation. If Israel’s policy becomes the common practice worldwide, we would enter a savage Hobbesian jungle in which individuals would be subject to the murderous intent of foreign assassination squads unrestrained by any law or accountable national authority. Each and every state could impose its own laws and cross national borders in order to murder other nation’s citizens or residents with impunity. Israel’s extra-territorial assassinations make a mockery of the very notion of national sovereignty. Extra-territorial secret police elimination of opponents was a common practice of the Nazi Gestapo, Stalin’s GPU and Pinochet’s DINA and has now become the sanctioned practice of the US “Special Forces” and the CIA clandestine division. Such policies are the hallmark of totalitarian, dictatorial and imperialist states, which systematically trample on the sovereign rights of peoples.

Israel’s practice of extra-judicial, extra-territorial assassinations, exemplified by the recent murder of Mahmoud al Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel room, violates all the fundamental precepts of the rule of law. Extra-judicial killings ordered by a state, mean its own secret police are judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner, unrestrained by sovereignty, law and the duty of nations to protect their citizens and visitors. Evidence, legal procedures, defence and cross examinations are obliterated in the process. State-sponsored, extra-judicial murder completely undermines due process. Liquidation of opponents abroad is the logical next step after Israel’s domestic show trials, based on the application of its racial laws and administrative detention decrees, which have dispossessed the Palestinian people and violated international laws.

Mossad death squads operate directly under the Israeli prime minister (who personally approved the recent murder).The vast majority of Israelis proudly support these assassinations, especially when the killers escape detection and capture. The unfettered operation of foreign state-sponsored death squads, carrying out extra-judicial assassinations with impunity, is a serious threat to every critic, writer, political leader and civic activist who dares to criticize Israel...MORE...LINK

Sadistic Jewish Zionist "security" patrols get their laughs by framing random Palestinians motorists for terrorism at Israeli checkpoints

A Palestinian reflects on the lifelong experience of Israeli viciousness
(Mondoweiss) -- by Anees of Jerusalem --

Anees in an email: I am still wondering about the criticism of the use of the term genocide by EI in the Martin Kramer flap. I cannot decide if it is unwarranted or hyperbolic. After all, Israel’s blockade of Gaza is in fact directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds (or more?) of Palestinians, and Kramer is adamantly supportive of it in the context of ‘limiting birth rates’. (See Sara Roy’s very recent detailing of such things as Gaza’s infant mortality rate post-blockade.)

Weiss responded: Myself, I don’t like to use the word genocide. It stops conversation. But I think Palestinians who live under these conditions have a different understanding than I do.

Anees: You bet they do. I think we experience and feel Israeli viciousness more than you do because it’s something that shakes one inside and gradually forms ‘an understanding’ over a lifetime. It’s there when you get yelled upon at a checkpoint, get serviced by a racist nurse, get arbitrarily stopped and harassed on the street by bored soldiers, and when you see others get treated like that and much much worse.

The viciousness comes in many flavors, as you know. My friend S—, who studied at Hebrew U and most of whose friends are Jewish Israelis, recently relayed to me a story a Russian Israeli friend of his told him. He (his friend) and other IDF soldiers would be bored patrolling a checkpoint in or around Gaza, and for fun they’d: stop a car, have one of them divert the driver with the usual questioning and ask him to lower all windows, while another throws a few bullets in the back seat from a back window; then they’d ask him if he’s carrying any weapons or ammo for Hamas… and then you know.. "What’s this you have in the back seat?" … the bewildered driver becomes terrified of what the soldier is about to do to him … all the soldiers standing at the rear get a good laugh...MORE...LINK

Neoliberal Brooks claims America's new elite is "meritocracy";in fact, it's entrenched Jewish-supremacist (the phony liberal establishment especially)

Steve Sailer gets it
(Occidental Observer blog) -- By Edmund Connelly --

Now I’ve got more reason to like Steve Sailer...His blog here paints a pretty clear picture again. His column is a coment David Brooks NYTimes column extolling the virtues of the new meritocracy compared to the bad old days when the WASPs ran the country. Brooks claims that “we have opened up opportunities for women, African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics and members of many other groups.”

In reality, however, the big winners from this “meritocracy” are Jews. Sailer points out that

"In 2009, 35% of the Forbes 400 are from one ethnic group that makes up only 2% of the population. So, is “The Power Elite” really that much more diverse today?

"If you break down Brooks’ list — “African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics”– by membership in the 2009 Forbes 400, you come up with:

"African-Americans: 1 (Oprah)
Jews: 141
Italians: 14
Poles (and all other Eastern Europeans): 6
Hispanics: 2

"Similarly, if you look at the 2009 Atlantic 50 ranking of most influential pundits, it’s half Jewish, versus 2% black and 0.5% Hispanic.

"In other words, this increased “meritocratic diversity” among the elites that Brooks is writing about essentially consists of the rise of Jews over the last century."

The fact is that the new order is reasonably seen as less of a meritocracy than a new form of clubbiness where ethnic ties among Jews ease the way into top positions. Ethnic cohesion is certainly the main story of the Jewish academic and intellectual elite that constructed the Culture of Critique in the academic world, and the vast overrepresentation of Jews in the media elite mentioned by Sailer suggests it’s the same story there. Indeed, Jews are vastly overrepresented as students in elite academic institutions even controlling for IQ.

This new elite based on ethnic networking is at least as corrupt as the old WASP elite and its family ties. The new elite reacts with angry aggression and charges of “anti-Semitism” if one even mentions that they are in fact an elite.

The old elite had a sense of civic responsibility and national interest. As Sailer notes, the new elite seems to care nothing about the long term success of the society as a whole:

"The unspoken implication of Brooks’ analyses is that American Jews should start thinking of themselves less as oppressed outcasts who need to go for whatever they can get while the getting is good, and start thinking of themselves more realistically as the core of the New American Establishment. Thus, American Jews should realize that, like the Protestant Establishment of yore, their privileged position as a de facto leadership caste bestows upon them corresponding duties to conserve the long-term well-being of the overall nation rather than to indulge in personal and ethnic profit and power maximization."

But the terrifying reality is that the Jewish ascendancy remains hostile to the traditional people and culture of America. Jews continue to earn like Episcopalians (actually more than Episcopalians) and vote like Puerto Ricans. They are the financial backbone of the Democratic Party and its coalition of non-White ethnic groups. (83% voted for Obama.) The organized Jewish community is a major pillar of support for massive, non-White immigration that will add 100 million non-Whites to the US in the next few decades.

The new elite is definitely not about conserving America for the long term success of the society as a whole. It’s about ethnic paranoia, ancient hatreds, and the desire to completely transform the society at the expense of its traditional people –elite and non-elite alike — at whatever the cost to the society as a whole. Hey, when it falls apart, just take the money and run to Israel...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Another important imbalance (and more proof that post-Christian American "liberalism" is actually Jewish supremacist, and hell bent on perpetuating authoritarian Zionism both at home and abroad) is the hugely disproportionate number of Jewish Democrats in national office in the supposed party of "diversity." In the 111th Congress, there are a total of 257 Democrats in the House. Thirty-one of them are Jewish (all Congressional Jews are Democrats except for Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican). That's nearly 12%. (Again, Jews comprise less than 2% of the country).

And the ratio is even more out of balance in the Senate, where there are a total 57 Democrats, plus two "Independents" that caucus with the Democrats. Of that total of 59 Senators, 13 are Jewish -- an astounding 22%.

How many black U.S. Senators are there? Only one: Roland Burris, the only black in the entire Senate, even though African-Americans comprise over 12% of the country (and a lot higher percentage than that of loyal Democratic Party voters).

So it seems the Jewish supremacist Democrats have pulled a bait-and-switch on the "people of color" who routinely provide a big chunk of their votes, running as the party of diversity, equality and racial justice, yet promoting Jews (every one of which in Congress is a Zionist) in hugely disproportionate numbers to the highest levels of national office, and limiting blacks and Hispanics to the Capitol's service entrances.

And on top of that, the Democrats are "religious" supporters of institutionally racist Zionism in Israel, where Jewish Zionists don't even bother to feign dedication to racial equality.

Which is worse: putting on airs of pro-inclusiveness and promises of "access" and "diversity" in order to get elected, only to stab the racial minorities who vote for you in the back once in office by rigging the game in their own favor (as Jewish and white left-liberal Democrats do with routine), or not putting on phony airs and feigned pretenses of inclusiveness at all, but instead advocating true race-neutrality?

In fact, the whole phenomenon is not unlike Obama's putting on anti-war airs to get elected, and then escalating the wars for Israel being fought in the Mideast once safely in office.

The obvious answer to all this, of course, is to vote out the entire parasitic Zionist-establishment juggernaut of both parties entirely, and refuse to vote for anyone who isn't an authentic, universalist Christian -- which by definition is anti-Zionist, anti-racialist, anti-Judeofascist, anti-Marxist and anti-Neocon/Neolib. Problem solved -- both the Zionist problem, and all the institutional racism, wars, engineered domestic ethnic conflicts, leviathan statism, and Wall Street bankster-ripoff baggage that comes with it.

Patriotic citizen of International Nation of Zion (INZ), Dem Rep. Eliot Engel salutes Israel for snubbing delegation of moderate Americans

Rep. Eliot Engel Salutes Israel For Shunning His Colleagues
(TPM Cafe) -- By M.J. Rosenberg --

Last week, the Israeli government took the unprecedented step of refusing to meet with a group of five Democratic House members who were visiting Israel with J Street, the pro-Israel, pro-peace group.

It was an incredibly stupid move. Israeli officials never refuse to meet with American legislators (1) because that is not how normal nations behave and (2) the American Congress provides Israel with more than $3 billion a year in foreign aid (more money, by far, than we give any country).

But the Netanyahu government is so confident that it is the dog wagging the American tail that it thought it could diss important House members with impunity...

But here is the creepy part. The Israeli decision to boycott the House members was defended by Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and fellow Democrat.

In an incredible break with Congressional tradition - i.e, Congress stands as one in dealing with foreign insults to Congress, Engel said the Israelis were right to shun his colleagues.

Engel told the Jerusalem Post, "It's up to Israeli officials to decide who they will meet with, and who not to meet with."

The Post continues, "He pointed out that a number of the congressmen...vote against Israel on resolutions that generally carry massive support on the House floor." (LIE: They don't vote against Israel. They occasionally vote against AIPAC-drafted Palestinian-bashing resolutions that are mindlessly one-sided and contrary to US government positions}.

"If you look at some of the votes we had in the US Congress pertaining to Israel and the Middle East, there are some people on that [J Street] trip who the government would be unhappy with regarding their votes - and that would be understandable. They probably feel that if people are going to criticize them, they don't have to facilitate the criticism."...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Here are a few items from Engel's biography on Wikipedia relevant to his enthusiastic citizenship in the International Nation of Zion (my comments in bold parenthesis)

(On turning Jerusalem into an ethnocentric Jewish capital to the exclusion of Christianity and Islam):
--Engel is a supporter of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

(On usurious globalizationism and exploitative neoliberal economics):
--Eliot Engel is a member of the New Democrat Coalition and the Democratic Leadership Council.

(On the Iraq war fraud on behalf of Israel, and backtracking once caught):
--Eliot Engel was a strong supporter of the military campaign against Iraq. On October 10, 2002, he was among the 81 House Democrats who voted in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq. As the war dragged on, his position changed. He now responds to questions about his support for the war by saying that had he known then what he now knows, he would have acted differently.

(On overriding the Second Amendment so statist-authoritarian INZ and its collaborators can attain a monopoly on force and undermine individual self-defense):
--Rep. Engel has received an "F" grade from the National Rifle Association

(On Israel-first agitprop):
--Engel has been a vocal supporter of Israel. In 2008, he was the lead Democrat on a resolution condemning Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations.[12] Shortly after entering Congress, he sponsored a resolution declaring Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel.[13] He also wrote the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 12, 2003.[14] This law authorized restrictions on American relations with Syria and penalties for its occupation of Lebanon and for its relationship with terrorist groups.

(On anti-Christian, Balkans warmongering, engineering a pretext for war, and opportunistically exploiting the Muslim cause to swipe at Serbian Christians and advance a "clash of civilizations" agenda):
--In 1996, the Washington Post wrote, “The Kosovo cause has been kept alive in Washington by a small group of congressmen led by Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.)...."While a member of the Subcommittee on Europe and Chair of the Congressional Albanian Issues Caucus, Engel fought ethnic cleansing and genocide in Kosovo in 1999 and voiced support in Congress for independence of the Republic of Kosovo. A street has been named after him in Peć and he was the first foreign dignitary to address the Kosovo parliament.

(On warlike, Armageddon-seeking, Dispensational Christian Zionism):
--Engel was criticized[29] for choosing to attend a July 2008 event hosted by the controversial pastor John Hagee, who has suggested that God sent Adolf Hitler to bring the Jews to Israel.[30]

(On the mindset that only the "little people" pay taxes)
--In March 2009, the AP reported that Engel had been taking an annual tax credit on his Maryland residence for at least ten years, despite the fact that the credit is reserved for people who declare Maryland their primary residence. Engel ran for reelection in the Bronx at least five times while claiming a primary residence credit in Maryland, during which time he received "thousands of dollars" in tax credits. Maryland officials revoked the tax credit.

(On shameless opportunism, careerism and relentless self-promotion)
--Engel can be seen shaking the hands with the president during televised State of the Union addresses.[37] Along with other Members of Congress, Engel shows up to the Capitol early in order to guarantee that he will get an aisle seat. Since 1989, Engel has managed to shake hands with the president at every address and be seen by his constituents on television.

"U.S. Representative" Eliot Engel: Rabid, smirking, racist Zionist. Shouldn't that be an Israeli flag in the background?