Saturday, July 31, 2010

Ethnic cleansing of harmless, dirt poor Bedouin in Negev puts lie to Israeli claims its belligerence is out of defense against terror

Ethnic cleansing in the Israeli Negev
The razing of a Bedouin village by Israeli police shows how far the state will go to achieve its aim of Judaising the Negev region
( -- by Neve Gordon --

A menacing convoy of bulldozers was heading back to Be'er Sheva as I drove towards al-Arakib, a Bedouin village located not more than 10 minutes from the city. Once I entered the dirt road leading to the village I saw scores of vans with heavily armed policemen getting ready to leave. Their mission, it seems, had been accomplished.

The signs of destruction were immediately evident. I first noticed the chickens and geese running loose near a bulldozed house, and then saw another house and then another one, all of them in rubble. A few children were trying to find a shaded spot to hide from the scorching desert sun, while behind them a stream of black smoke rose from the burning hay. The sheep, goats and the cattle were nowhere to be seen – perhaps because the police had confiscated them.

Scores of Bedouin men were standing on a yellow hill, sharing their experiences from the early morning hours, while all around them uprooted olive trees lay on the ground. A whole village comprising between 40 and 45 houses had been completely razed in less than three hours.

I suddenly experienced deja vu: an image of myself walking in the rubbles of a destroyed village somewhere on the outskirts of the Lebanese city of Sidon emerged. It was over 25 years ago, during my service in the Israeli paratroopers. But in Lebanon the residents had all fled long before my platoon came, and we simply walked in the debris. There was something surreal about the experience, which prevented me from fully understanding its significance for several years. At the time, it felt like I was walking on the moon.

This time the impact of the destruction sank in immediately. Perhaps because the 300 people who resided in al-Arakib, including their children, were sitting in the rubble when I arrived, and their anguish was evident; or perhaps because the village is located only 10 minutes from my home in Be'er Sheva and I drive past it every time I go to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem; or perhaps because the Bedouins are Israeli citizens, and I suddenly understood how far the state is ready to go to accomplish its objective of Judaising the Negev region; what I witnessed was, after all, an act of ethnic cleansing.

They say the next intifada will be the Bedouin intifada. There are 155,000 Bedouins in the Negev, and more than half of them live in unrecognised villages without electricity or running water. I do not know what they might do, but by making 300 people homeless, 200 of them children, Israel is surely sowing dragon's teeth for the future...MORE...LINK

Corrupt Republicans trying to peel off Jewish Zionist money currently being used to buy off corrupt Dems

Why did a Democratic congressman’s aide speak of ‘Jewish money’?
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --

This is interesting. Mike McMahon, a first-term Democratic congressman from New York, fired a staffer after she said that McMahon's Republican challenger was getting a lot of out-of-state donors and "Jewish money." NY Observer:

The file, labeled "[Mike] Grimm Jewish Money Q2," for the second quarter fundraising period, shows a list of over 80 names, a half-dozen of which in fact do hail from Staten Island, and a handful of others that list Brooklyn as home.

"Where is Grimm's money coming from," said Jennifer Nelson, McMahon's campaign spokeman. "There is a lot of Jewish money, a lot of money from people in Florida and Manhattan, retirees."
Haaretz details the wrath that came down on Nelson:
Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matthew Brooks said on Friday in a statement that "in more than 25 years in politics I have never seen anything more despicable and offensive than this”...

"Congressman McMahon has fired his communications director, but what about the other staff involved? Who asked for that list to be compiled? Who approved that action? Congressman McMahon needs to do more than apologize for 'inappropriate comments' - he must be held accountable for actions that his campaign staff took to count Jews supporting his rival," Brooks said. “I don't think this is something that should be swept under the rug. Seeing such bigotry from a sitting congressman's campaign is deeply troubling."

Even the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) President and CEO, David Harris, had to denounce the McMahon campaign’s lapse.

”It is never acceptable to 'count Jews' in this way or to perpetuate age-old stereotypes about the Jewish community”, he said.
But if Jewish money is a stereotype, god knows it's one that many political people employ. It is often noted that more than half of Democratic campaign-giving comes from Jews; and just the other day, Martin Indyk raised the "Jewish factor" in campaign spending with that same Haaretz reporter, to explain Obama's collapse on confronting Israel: "American Jews...provide a good deal of funding for political campaigns. So the Jewish factor is always a critical factor for Democratic candidates. I don't think it's telling any secrets that there are a lot of people who have been upset with President Obama. And I think that the White House came to the understanding that they have a real problem there and they are going out of their way trying to show they are friendly to Israel and committed to peace. Republicans will try to exploit the anger."

Exactly: Republicans like Mike Grimm. So I don't think Jennifer Nelson is an anti-semite, a lot of people in American politics think hard about this question. Despite their claims, the NJDC and RJC both count Jews; and they do so because the Jewish community is still monolithic on the Israel question, big Jewish givers tend to be extremely conservative on the question; and these organizations can use the idea of Jewish money just as Indyk does, to try and impose a pro-Israel line on all candidates...MORE...LINK

Friday, July 30, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

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

Gaza is a prison camp, says David Cameron

( --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, July 26, 2010

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

Obama’s philosemitic network reflects the new establishment

(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, July 25, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Moore comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But if it was deliberate, what was the motive?

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

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

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

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

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

Israel: Strategic Asset or Liability?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sayanim System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assets, Agents and Sayanim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Wall Street rackets, corrupt regulatory "oversight," and the Jewish Zionist establishment

Is the Madoff Scandal Paradigmatic?

(Occidental Observer Blog) -- by Kevin MacDonald --

The current TOO article by John Graham and me, “Is the Madoff Scandal Paradigmatic?,” reviews 8 books on the Bernie Madoff scandal. From the beginning, there was a pronounced Jewish angle to the media coverage of the scandal—mainly emphasizing that Madoff was a Jew who stole from other Jews. However, this review (for which the lion’s share of the credit goes to Mr. Graham), explores the far greater depth of Jewishness apparent in the incident. Here I review several important themes.

Contrary to the image in the media, the scandal in fact was a large scale transfer of wealth from non-Jews to Jews. The big money that entered the fund beginning in the 1990s was predominantly from non-Jews, and especially from Europe. In the end, according to whistle blower Henry Markopolos,the European losses were “substantially more than losses in the United States.” We suggest that the attraction of wealthy, aristocratic Europeans may have been an example of the “court Jew” phenomenon: “For centuries it was customary for aristocratic landowners, particularly in Eastern Europe, to delegate the task of managing the businesses operations on their estates to Jews, sometimes using the same families for generations.”...

Interestingly, quite a few of Madoff’s Jewish clients seem to have believed that it was a fraud or at least based on illegal activity such as “front-running” (trading ahead of client orders). “Many Madoff accounts thought they were safely benefitting from illegal activity — and did not care.” They seem to have thought of themselves as benefiting from Jewish ethnic networking where there has been a long tradition of failing to report illegal activities of other Jews— an offence known as Mesirah (informing).

Perhaps most explosively, we suggest that Madoff was protected because of the power of the Jewish community:
The Bernard Madoff matter was one about which a significant segment of Jewish America cared very much — some for financial reasons, others, perhaps, because of community pride and loyalty. Challenging this group was well known to be extremely dangerous. As in other matters, they awarded themselves a veto, and they used it — as it happened in this case, to their cost. All in all, the Madoff affair and the cover-up is another indication of Jewish power in America.
For example, Henry Markopolos, in his aptly titled No One Would Listen, comments
In my mind, at least, I was convinced that someone high up at the [Wall Street] Journal had decided it was too dangerous to go after Bernie Madoff. … I was finally beginning to consider the possibility that Bernie Madoff was untouchable — that he was simply too powerful to be brought down.
Madoff was investigated eight times by the SEC, but each investigation was inexplicably stopped. Sen. Charles Schumer seems to have been part of the power structure protecting Madoff. Madoff and his sons maxed out their contributions to Schumer. Schumer phoned the SEC on Madoff’s behalf, and he treated Markopolos with incredible rudeness during Senate hearings — not exactly the expected treatment toward someone who was right all along.

What has been portrayed as SEC incompetence now looks quite a bit like corruption. “We submit that the SEC failed to stop Madoff not because it was incompetent, but because it was afraid — of the Jewish Establishment.” It seems likely that even greater corruption was involved in the financial collapse that has been such an ongoing disaster for the country. The fact that Goldman Sachs managed to settle its involvement in one particular deal with a slap on the wrist...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

Others are starting to pick up on the story that there is corrupt racketeering going on between Wall Street, the “regulatory” agencies and the political establishment.

The Washington Examiner:
The SEC’s fishy deal with Goldman

Everyone with half a brain knows that the Jewish Zionist establishment is neck deep in all this corruption that is destroying the country. So many Jewish Zionists exist with one foot in America and one foot in Israel that it becomes nearly impossible for them to resist the temptation of swindle, confident in the knowledge that if ever detected freedom from prosecution is just a plane ride away in Israel.

I think a lot of goy politicians have simply given up and concluded “If you can’t beat, join ‘em,” and probably a lot of other everyday Wall Street types that would otherwise play (more or less) by the rules, too.

The corruption phenomenon is yet another in the growing laundry list of scurrilous influences and criminal actions that Jewish supremacists perpetrate against their host societies whenever given an inch of daylight or breathing room. With one eye perpetually on the door and their hearts in Israel, they couldn’t care less if the entire country falls to pieces and turns completely lawless because they’ll always have immunity, refuge, and plenty of ill-gotten gains to enjoy once they’ve made aliyah to their primary loyalty…nay, their only loyalty, really.

How could the post WWII generations have been so stupid and naïve as to allow Jewish nationalism to run amok in America? There can be no more irresponsible and criminally negligent country-destroying mistake than that.

Monday, July 19, 2010

The Jewish engine dragging us down the road towards totalitarianism is revving up yet again

Kevin MacDonald: Chapter 22 of 200 Years Together: “From the End of the War to Stalin’s Death”

A few separate paragraphs from the above linked piece by Prof. Kevin MacDonald seemed to fit together somewhat seamlessly and chillingly jumped out of the page at me.
“Anti-Jewish attitudes [in the Soviet Union] remained strong, fueled in large part because of the role of Jews as agents of oppression during the pre-war decades...”

“Jews complained about these attitudes as well as the fact that other groups were indifferent to Jewish suffering, but Solzhenitsyn notes the irony, quoting another Jewish observer who stated “that in the years of our terrible disasters, the Jewish intellectuals did not raise their voices in defense of the deported nations of Crimea and the Caucasus.” The example is a testimony to Jewish ethnocentrism–focused on their own suffering but never seeing, much less acknowledging, their indifference to the suffering of others or their role in causing it during the height of their power...”

“Stephen Holmes describes Strauss’s solution to the Jewish dilemma as follows: “The good society … consists of the sedated masses, the gentlemen rulers, the promising puppies, and the philosophers who pursue knowledge, manipulate the gentlemen, anesthetize the people, and housebreak the most talented young” — a comment that sounds to me like an alarmingly accurate description of the present situation in the United States and elsewhere in the Western world…”
It’s clear that influential elements of Jewry think and organize criminally with the worst and most murderous of totalitarian intentions and economic treachery. For all their rhetoric and claims to being “a light unto nations,” once the layer of artifice is penetrated and the mask is forced down, the essence of this group is that it seeks to find elaborate means to imprison or kill anyone who might oppose its agenda and sociopathy. There is not an iota of good will or good intentions in this group, hence “reasoning” or “bargaining” or “dialoguing” with it is pointless.

I think previous generations of European elites realized this, and helped establish Israel for this very purpose — as a means of containing Jewish sociopathy without having to resort to wholesale slaughter. This plan went awry because Jewish nationalism has been allowed to infiltrate and co-opt the world’s only superpower, and maneuver it into doing Zionism’s criminal bidding.

As in other political areas, the “compassionate” and “liberal” who have indulged and coddled criminal Jewry, and acted out their assigned, sappy role as wailing Schindler’s (”Boo-hoo, we always need to do more for the poor, suffering Jews”) turn out to be the least compassionate and liberal, because they are enabling and encouraging the Trojan horse for vicious and murderous totalitarianism.

The criminal strain of organized Jewry, which today pulls the string of the American elite, is totally incompatible with the freedom and liberty that those same American elites professes to hold in such high regard. If you don’t listen to what they say, but rather watch the policies the pursue, its clear that the whole rotten bunch of them are anti-American, and at war with the Constitution, and we’re again quickly approaching a tipping point on the road to totalitarianism that their Jewish partners inexorably pursue.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Jewish rackets took over the movie industry just as they have taken over Congress and the Levant; but that's all starting to change

Walt Disney versus The Hollywood Jews
(fourwinds10) --

Chris Moore comments:

The above is a fascinating, detailed article on how an ethnocentric network of Jewish supremacists (Zionists) conspired to illegally take over the movie industry from its WASP originators like Edison, and then engaged in ethnic racketeering to monopolize the industry, and subordinate wholesome Gentiles in Hollywood like Walt Disney to Jewish hegemony.

The article makes clear that in addition to Jewish supremacy, rank greed drives these Judeofascist sociopaths. There’s literally nothing they won’t do for money.

I contend that in addition to Jewish supremacy, Judeofascist greed was also a main motive behind the Jewish Bolsheviks, as they sought to utilize a totalitarian State to transfer the resources of Russia (and resources of the world over, really) to themselves, under the guise of “egalitarian” Communism, and to murder en masse anyone who opposed them. And with their Gentile gangster partners like Stalin, for a time, they certainly succeeded, until Stalin threw them under the bus — hence Judeofascist-Bolshevik flight to the West, where it joined the existing Judeofascist rackets and has become a tour de force.

Sadly (for them) the Judeofascist rackets here have again reached their apex, and the West is quickly catching on to their innate destructiveness, corrosiveness and corruption (which even many Jews are now acknowledging).

The good news is that the world is on the cusp of defanging and isolating these timeless, bloodless frauds and murders (and their treasonous goy collaborators) forever in their Judeofascist Israeli ghetto, and the West is on the cusp of a renaissance that will almost certainly flower in their absence.

Hallelujah! The national nightmare is finally coming to an end!


Had the criminal Jewish ethnic racket that controlled the movie industry been trust-busted as other industries in America have historically been, imagine the extent to which the industry would have flowered with more jobs, more inclusiveness and a more wholesome product (and one that would not have putrefied the culture in the way that subversive, Gentile-hating Jewish-controlled Hollywood has).

Unfortunately, Left or Right, Gentile or Jew, Jewish supremacists are all the same. Everything the Jewish collective does is positive. They support Judeofascist hegemony and ethnic cleansing in the Levant as “making the desert bloom” in the same way that it “made Hollywood bloom” and “made Las Vegas bloom.”

But there are certain scurrilous rackets and ideologies that are simply so debased, corrosive and degenerative, they are utterly ruinous, and no matter how much money they make, they are unjustified.

Unfortunately, that’s a concept that is so alien to the Judeofascist mindset that for them, it’s totally unfathomable.


Those who doubt that the Jewish rackets still control Hollywood need to read this 2008 article from the Los Angeles Times by Jewish supremacist Joel Stein:

“How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah..."

"The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish...As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood... But I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.",0,4676183.column

We’ll never know what might have been if the Jewish rackets had only been broken years ago, but because Western Civilization has such a rich, dynamic and edifying cultural heritage, we can deduce that the product would have been superior in all ways to the guttural trash that so much of Jewish dominated Hollywood turns out.

The only way we’ll ever really know is to break the Jewish stranglehold over mass media once and for all and let the natural beauty and grace of Western Civilization run free. And yes, that will mean running roughshod over the monopolistic and authoritarian Judeofascist scoundrels and criminals, but that’s the only way we can ever truly be free.

Run Like Hell: The West is finally wise that Zionist treason in high places compels the Mideast imbroglio

David Hirst interviewed
(Pulse) --

Veteran Middle East correspondent David Hirst, author of the seminal work on the Palestinian plight The Gun and the Olive Branch, has a new release: Beware of Small States, an equally important book on Lebanon’s complex tragedy. The Electronic Intifada contributor Robin Yassin-Kassab interviewed Hirst on his work and views...

RYK: The subtitle of your 1977 book The Gun and the Olive Branch is “The Roots of Violence in the Middle East.” Would you agree that yours was one of the first books (of those widely-available in the Anglo-Saxon world) to contextualize Palestinian violence against the backdrop of Zionist violence and Palestinian dispossession? What was the response to your book back then?

DH: I guess so. But that this should have been so is basically a measure of just how far that Western orthodoxy about the nature and moralities of the Arab-Israeli conflict parted company with historic truth and essential fairness. It is not as if my book discovered or vouchsafed anything really new. All the research had been done for me by earlier scholars. But it seems that I was at that time one of the few Westerners to put the history together in the form of a straightforward narrative setting Palestinian violence against Zionist/Israeli violence, a narrative whose basic conclusion was that the Zionists essentially pioneered the violence in pursuit of their political purposes — at their most dramatic and premeditated the ethnic cleansing of the territory they coveted — whereas Palestinian violence and terror has been essentially reactive.

RYK: Why has the West, in media and cultural production as well as in its geostrategy, tended to be partial to the Zionist narrative of the Middle East?

DH: For all the well-known reasons that have been rehearsed a thousand times. Biblico-Christian sentiment, Western guilt complex, admiration for the rugged, idealistic early Zionist settlers and their achievement in “making the desert bloom” and all that, highly effective Jewish/Zionist propaganda and influence within the corridors of Western power. On the geostrategic level, I don’t agree with the idea that Israel has been a valuable asset or ally in the service of an “imperial” or “neo-imperial” America. Quite the contrary, nothing has been historically more damaging than Israel itself to America’s interests, legitimate or otherwise, and its image in the region.

It is basically a measure of the quite extraordinary, disproportionate influence of the “friends of Israel” — AIPAC and company — that they get American politicians to buy the thesis that Israel deserves the support that the US lavishes on it not only because it shares Western “values” (which it increasingly doesn’t), or it is “the only democracy in the Middle East” (which it increasingly isn’t), but because it is to the strategic and political benefit of the US itself. This is not to say that Israel cannot in certain circumstances render services to the US — a classic example would be Israel’s readiness to rescue King Hussein in Black September 1970 — but that begs the question: who created the circumstances in which such a service was necessary in the first place? And the essential, underlying, perennial answer is that Israel itself, and its behavior towards the Arab region in which it implanted itself, is the principal cause of these kinds of crises and emergencies; and that they constitute threats to US interests because, in its deference to all things Israeli, it allows its interests get inextricably mixed up with those of its proteges. Even before Israel came into being the Zionists and their friends felt the need to promote a “strategic” argument for the creation of a Jewish state — that it would protect the British imperial life-line to the East — that was as spurious as its American descendant is today.

RYK: How have Western perceptions of the Israel-Palestine issue and the wider Israeli-Arab conflict shifted in the years since The Gun and the Olive Branch was published? Why?

DH: Public opinion is clearly changing at an accelerating pace, and will continue to do so the more obviously the nature and characteristic activities of Israel collide at variance with Western “values” and interests. In general governments and political classes lag behind their publics in their perception of this, or, at least, fearful of having to “take on” Israel, they are loath to acknowledge it in public. Hence their continued reluctance to adopt the truly impartial or “even-handed” attitude toward the Arab-Israeli conflict that alone could bring about the “Middle East peace” they so solemnly proclaim they want.

RYK: Do you think the greater visibility of the Israel lobby in the West, partly because of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, partly as a result of changes in the American Jewish community, will have a positive effect on Western policy?

DH: The extraordinary outrage, hysteria almost, that greeted the publication of their book — sober, scholarly, unassailably objective presentation of its topic though it was — and the manifest reluctance of the mainstream media and of course the US political establishment to be seen to endorse its conclusions, is just another demonstration of how very powerful — and spoiled — that lobby is, but also, I think, how eventually vulnerable it is too. I just don’t think AIPAC and the like can go on like this for ever, with their bigotry on Israel’s behalf, their specious arguments and their disdain for America’s true interests in the region, as opposed to those which they define for it; they are pushing their luck and the harder they do so the stronger will be the eventual backlash against themselves and the foreign state they promote.

RYK: Should we believe that US President Barack Obama’s different tack on peace-making will go anywhere? Is a two-state solution still a realistic possibility?

DH: Only if Obama summons up the determination to “impose” a solution along the lines I suggest in my book. Though more promising than any other American president in recent times, I don’t think he will. The “friends of Israel” in America are still too strong...MORE...LINK

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

An advocate of Stalinist deprivation tactics for purposes of social engineering, Democrat Schumer synthesizes Zionism and Jewish Bolshevism

Schumer Says It ‘Makes Sense’ To ‘Strangle [Gaza] Economically’ Until It Votes The Way Israel Wants

(Think Progress) -- By Zaid Jilani --

...During one point of his speech, Schumer turned his attention to the situation in Gaza. He told the audience that the “Palestinian people still don’t believe in the Jewish state, in a two-state solution,” and also that “they don’t believe in the Torah, in David.” He went on to say “you have to force them to say Israel is here to stay.”

New York’s senior senator explained that the current Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip — which is causing a humanitarian crisis there — is not only justified because it keeps weapons out of the Palestinian territory, but also because it shows the Palestinians living there that “when there’s some moderation and cooperation, they can have an economic advancement.” Summing up his feelings, Schumer emphasized the need to “to strangle them economically until they see that’s not the way to go”:

SCHUMER: The Palestinian people still don’t believe in the Jewish state, in a two-state solution. More do than before, but a majority still do not. Their fundamental view is, the Europeans treated the Jews badly and gave them our land — this is Palestinian thinking [...] They don’t believe in the Torah, in David [...] You have to force them to say Israel is here to stay. The boycott of Gaza to me has another purpose — obviously the first purpose is to prevent Hamas from getting weapons by which they will use to hurt Israel — but the second is actually to show the Palestinians that when there’s some moderation and cooperation, they can have an economic advancement. When there’s total war against Israel, which Hamas wages, they’re going to get nowhere. And to me, since the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas, while certainly there should be humanitarian aid and people not starving to death, to strangle them economically until they see that’s not the way to go, makes sense...MORE...LINK

Holocaust and Holodomor (Origins of Anti Semitism)

...A particularly relevant parallel to the Nazi holocaust is the Ukrainian holodomor of 1932-33, a state-created famine—not a crop failure—that killed an estimated five million people in the Ukraine, one million in the Caucasus, and one million elsewhere after the Soviet state confiscated the harvest at gunpoint. Throughout the famine, the state continued to export grain to pay for industrialization...

According to Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine, pp. 261-62 (1967):

"In 1932-3, the years of the great famine which followed the forced collectivisation of the land, I travelled widely in the Soviet Union, writing a book which was never published. I saw entire villages deserted, railway stations blocked by crowds of begging families, and the proverbial starving infants. . . . [T]hey were quite real, with stick-like arms, puffed up bellies and cadaverous heads. I reacted to the brutal impact of reality on illusion in a manner typical of the true believer. I was surprised and bewildered—but the elastic shock-absorbers of my [Communist] Party training began to operate at once. I had eyes to see, and a mind conditioned to explain away what they saw. This “inner censor” is more reliable and effective than any official censorship."...

Some Ukrainian accounts, and that of Muggeridge, who covered the holodomor for the Manchester Guardian, take the trouble to say that this mass starvation was imposed largely by Jews. Lazar M. Kaganovich is often identified as an architect of the policy. A photograph in Montefiore, Red Tsar, above, shows him personally searching a farm for concealed food. In Muggeridge’s novel Winter in Moscow (1934) he appears as Kokoshkin, “a Jew” and “Stalin’s chief lieutenant.”

In 2003 Levko Lukyanenko, the first Ukrainian ambassador to Canada, was said to have made an anti-Semitic embarrassment of himself on this subject. But see Orest Subtelny, Ukraine: A History, p. 363 (2d ed. 1994)(“Jews were . . . disproportionately prominent among the Bolsheviks, notably in their leadership, among their tax- and grain-gathering officials, and especially in the despised and feared. . . secret police [emphasis added]”); Montefiore, Red Tsar, above, p. 305 (as late as 1937, Jews accounted for only 5.7 percent of Soviet party members, but “formed a majority in the government” [emphasis added]); Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century, p. 254 (Princeton University Press, 2004)(the secret police was “one of the most Jewish of all Soviet institutions”); and Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?, p. 60 (1988)(“As of the late twenties . . . [a] disproportionate number of Jews came to hold high posts in the secret police and to serve as political commissars in the armed services. They. . . were. . . appointed to high-level and conspicuous positions which called for unimpeach-able political loyalty. . . ”). Mayer, a professor emeritus of history at Princeton, is himself Jewish, and had to flee the Nazis as a refugee.

The Israeli writer Boas Evron says the leaders of the Soviet revolution were scarcely less Jewish than the Zionists. See his book Jewish State or Israeli Nation?, p. 107 (English tr., Indiana University Press, 1995): “The backgrounds of the two groups were much the same. . . . Only differences of chance and temperament caused the one [individual] to be a Zionist and the other a revolutionary socialist.”...LINK

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Israel-first, billionaire Jewish Zionist media mogul wrote speech for puppet Obama

Bilderberg Corporate Media Mogul Wrote Obama Speech

(Prison -- by Paul Joseph Watson --

The fact that Barack Obama is nothing more than a corporate sock puppet, a completely hollow vassal being used and manipulated by his globalist controllers to carry out their agenda, has once again been emphasized with the revelation that corporate media mogul and Bilderberg luminary Mortimer Zuckerman wrote one of Obama’s political speeches.

“Well I voted for Obama, I helped write one of his speeches,” Zuckerman told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto yesterday.

Asked which speech he helped write, Zuckerman responded, “I’d rather not go into that.”

Zuckerman is listed as the 147th wealthiest American. He is the owner and publisher of the New York Daily News and is also the current editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report...

Zuckerman was identified by John Mearsheimer, political science professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, as a a member of the media wing of the “Israeli lobby” in the United States. Zuckerman responded to the charge by stating he was “proud” to be part of the Israeli lobby.

Mearsheimer and Walt’s work revealed that Zuckerman was part of “a vast network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials” who “have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq.”

The fact that one of the most powerful globalists in America helped write one of Obama’s political speeches goes to the heart of how Obama is, in the words of author John Pilger, “a corporate marketing creation,” who is being used by his controllers because of his race to act as a conduit for “seductive tools of propaganda” in selling the globalist agenda...

Obama is exalted and idolized by the media as a powerful icon of change, and yet he is perhaps the most servile and obedient stooge ever to take residence in the Oval Office. Obama knows who his masters are and he knows his job amounts to nothing more than employing his slick acting skills and being skilled in reading a teleprompter.

Obama’s complete fealty to the globalists who control him explains why the agenda for world government is racing ahead at lightening pace, and only through seeing he men behind the curtain who pull his strings can we ever come to grips with the real enemy...LINK

Institutionally racist Jewish Zionists have a lot of chutzpah to railroad Mel Gibson for using the N-word -- but it's really because he's a Christian

James Edwards on Mel Gibson

(Occidental Observer Blog) -- by Kevin MacDonald --

James Edwards’ current TOO article (“On the crucifixion of Mel Gibson“) emphasizes themes that have been a staple here: Jews adopting very different strategies and attitudes in Israel than in the Diaspora and Jews making alliances with other minorities against the White majority. It reminds us once again that, unlike the old WASP elite, the new elite in America will not be principled.

Ari Emanuel is horrified that Gibson would use the N-word but he comes from a long line of racial Zionists–followers of Vladimir Jabotinsky who believed that Jews were shaped by their long history as a desert people and that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state would allow the natural genius of the Jewish race to flourish. For example Jabotinsky stated, “These natural and fundamental distinctions embedded in the race are impossible to eradicate, and are continually being nurtured by the differences in soil and climate.” As Geoffrey Wheatcroft recently pointed out, at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.” On the other hand, as soon as they move to the US, the family adopts the leftist, pro-multicultural, anti-White attitudes typical of American Jews. His mother was a civil rights worker in the US, and of course his brother Rahm Emanuel is a major power in the Obama administration and its left-leaning multicultural, anti-White agenda. Edwards shows that Emanuel’s talent agency also represents several White-hating rappers. Of course, Jews have their own grudges against the people and culture of the West, epitomized by the hostility toward Gibson’s The Passion of Christ...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

I’d love to get all those now condemning Gibson for using the N-word on the stand and under oath, and grill them on if they’ve ever used the N-word in private conversation. We all know that most of them have, including Jews and Blacks.

Jewish Zionists are the biggest racists on the face of the earth — and institutional racists at that. They have no right to sit in moral judgment on anyone in this area, or any other.

Of course, they know that, and laugh about it. And laugh at all the gullible dupes who put them on a pedestal as champions of civil rights.

In fact, they’ve turned the entire concept of “civil rights” into a racket and a scam to be exploited and milked for all its worth. These people literally have no decency and no shame. They’re clearly sociopaths.

Dulles and the Eisenhower administration were the last to stand up to "the Jews" on Mideast foreign policy; it's been obsequious weakness ever since

Why I’m voting for Eisenhower over Obama

(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --

Below is a riveting story about Eisenhower and Ben Gurion. But first a comment.

If you read the history of the special relationship, the same patterns of political pressure exerted by the Israel lobby to nullify national policy re Israeli expansionism that we see today with Obama's capitulation on Jerusalem and the West Bank occurred 50 and 60 years ago over other borders-- Partition's and Egypt's-- and the return of the refugees, too. And the resistance to this simple political understanding on the left is one of our greatest obstacles to doing anything about it in the U.S. discourse, indeed why the same story has repeated itself over and over for decades of Palestinian dispossession.

The story about President Eisenhower's insistence that Israel withdraw from Egypt, which it had invaded in 1956, comes from The Passionate Attachment (1992) by the late George W. Ball, a former Under Secretary of State, and Douglas Ball. Eisenhower was of course a Republican; which brings up one more point about the discourse on the left: I grew up in a Democratic household, being told that John Foster Dulles was a bastard and maybe an anti-Semite, too. In fact, his position below is a stirring one; but I have had to overcome a lot of cultural/political programming to say as much.

Jewish American organizations tried hard to generate congressional resistance to Eisenhower's position. On February 1, [1957] Senator William Knowland, the Republican minority leader, protested to [Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles against the administration's stand. Knowland agreed that the policy might be right in theory, but pointed out to Dulles the domestic political implications and threatened to revolt. Dulles answered Knowland by noting, "We cannot have all our policies made in Jerusalem," and he justified the American position on the following grounds:

"First, sanctions would be necessary to compel Israel's withdrawal and a withdrawal was needed to maintain the American position among the Arabs...

"[Second] I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy not approved by the Jews. [Former sec'y of state under Truman George] Marshall and [first Defense Secretary James V.] Forrestal learned that. I am going to try to have one.

"That does not mean I am anti-Jewish, but I believe in what George Washington said in his Farewell Address that an emotional attachment to another country should not interfere."

On February 20, Eisenhower called a meeting of the congressional leadership. When the lawmakers, ever sensitive to the pro-Israeli lobby, refused to help, Eisenhower resorted to television that same night.

Eisenhower did more than talk. He issued an ultimatum to Ben Gurion to pull Israel's forces back to the Israeli border. He also laid plans with Dulles that, if the Israelis did not comply, the United States would cut off the flow of all aid to Israel, including not only development assistance but technical assistance and shipments of agricultural products under Public Law 480. He would also delay the disbursement of an already arranged Export-Import Bank loan and terminate all forms of military assistance, including those in the pipeline. He canceled export licenses for the shipment of munitions or other military goods. Finally, he ordered Secretary of the Treasury George Humphrey to draft a change in U.S. tax regulations so that the Jewish American organization benefactors would no longer be entitled to a federal income tax deduction for contributions that benefited Israel.

In spite of further efforts by Israel's supporters to deflect White House pressure from the Jewish state, Eisenhower did not cave in; so, as the Israeli government began to run out of money, Ben Gurion, on March 5, 1957, grudgingly capitulated. On March 16, Israel withdrew from almost all the territory it had occupied in the Suez offensive.

Monday, July 12, 2010

In relentless quest for war, Israel-first networks devise all manner of neocon fronts and arrange them megaphone coverage in mainstream media

Former Bush Administration Official Heads Up Latest Astroturf Group Pushing For Attack on Iran

(Lobelog) -- by Eli Clifton --

No sooner did I write about the growth industry in astroturf groups promoting a U.S. or Israeli military attack on Iran than a new one sprung up on CNN. Surprisingly, the partisan connections behind this group are so thinly veiled that a two-minute examination of their domain name registration uncovered ties to the Republican Party and the George W. Bush administration.

The new group, The Emergency Committee for Israel, appears to have made its public debut on July 6th when Campbell Brown—who ironically is married to Dan Senor, who serves on the four-man board of the neoconservative The Foreign Policy Initiative—hosted Noah Pollak, its “executive director,” to discuss Obama’s recent meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the threat allegedly posed by Iran’s nuclear program. A transcript of their discussion can be found here.

A look at the group’s website tells us that it’s “coming soon,” but an examination of the domain name’s registration is quite telling.

The domain is registered to:

Hoover, Margaret
Margaret Hoover & Associates, LLC
590 Madison Avenue
New York City, New York 10022
United States
(212) 521-4181 Fax –

Margaret Hoover’s bio at Margaret Hoover & Associates reads:
Ms. Hoover held a White House appointment in the Bush Administration where she served as the Associate Director in the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. A veteran of two Presidential efforts, Ms. Hoover worked on President Bush’s re-election campaign and for Rudy Giuliani’s presidential bid. Other political experience includes working in the White House Office of Management and Budget, as a senior adviser to the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and deputy press secretary for Florida Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart on Capitol Hill.
Hoover’s front man, Pollak, who writes for Commentary Magazine and has served as the assistant editor of the Jerusalem-based, Shalem Center’s Azure magazine, made it abundantly clear where his, and presumably Hoover’s, political views on Israel and Iran lie.

Pollak repeated the talking points that the recent meeting between Obama and Netanyahu represented the end of the White House’s “tough love” toward Israel and suggested that the Palestinian leadership’s “fractiousness and powerlessness [!]” made progress toward any kind of peace process unlikely.
On Iran, Pollak went straight for the recent money quote delivered last week by the UAE ambassador to the US:
BROWN: Noah, Netanyahu did seem pleased with the administration’s efforts to go after Iran’s nuclear program. In his words, he said these efforts have teeth, they bite. But are the U.S. and Israel really, in your view, on the same page when it comes to Iran?

POLLAK: I would suspect not, although this is one of those issues where there is a huge amount of private discussion that goes on, although it was very interesting to see today in a story that just came out the ambassador of to [sic] the UAE came out and openly advocated for military attacks on the Iranian nuclear program.

So, I think there is a developing consensus that something needs to be done and that it would be very, very bad if the Iranians went nuclear.
The UAE foreign minister has said that the ambassador’s comments were taken out of context and didn’t represent the views of his government, but that hasn’t stopped various foreign policy hawks from jumping on the remarks as a green light from the Arab world for a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

It’s pretty clear that Pollak and Hoover, along with the people behind Keep Israel Safe and Stop Iran Now, are part of the extensive neoconservative echo chamber which seeks to create the appearance of a diverse coalition of grassroots groups calling on the US to prevent Iran from going nuclear by any means necessary...MORE...LINK