Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

4 Ways the Crime Lab Can Frame You

corbettreport | May 4, 2018

Television has taught us that the crack CSI experts and their state-of-the-art technology can solve any crime through the power of science. In reality, more often than not the crime-detection technology of the past has turned out to be pseudoscience at best, and outright fraud at worst. And, of course, it has been used to put innocent people in jail. Here are 4 Ways The Crime Lab Can Frame You.

TRANSCRIPT AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/crimelab/

May 5, 2018 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Israel’s Murderous Strikes on Syria (via “Pacified” Lebanon)

By Andre Vltchek | New Eastern Outlook | May 1, 2018

On April 9, 2018 at least 14 people were killed during the murderous strike by the Israeli air force on the Syrian T-4 airfield at Homs.

Israeli F-15 fighter jets flew over Lebanese airspace, as they have done on many previous occasions, in total disregard of international law.

Both Israel and Lebanon are still technically at war, and the latest action could easily be considered as yet another shameless provocation. Apparently, whatever terror Western allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel decide to spread throughout the region, their actions will always go unpunished.

To add insult to injury, instead of condemning Israel, the Western mass media outlets began their predictable and embarrassing servile howling against the government in Damascus, some ‘correspondents’ even calling President al-Assad an “animal” (The Sun, 9th April, 2018).

This time, Lebanon, which in the past suffered from several brutal Israeli invasions, and where Israel is commonly referred to as ‘Palestine’, decided not to protest too loudly against the violation of its airspace. There were some statements made by individual Lebanese politicians, as well as a statement by the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which objected to the attack against Syria, claiming that Lebanon will file a complaint to the UNSC. Most of the statements, however, appeared only in the Arabic language. There was definitely no robust national response, as one would have expected.

Ms. Zeinab Al-Saffar, an Iraqi educator and television anchor based in Beirut, Lebanon, shared her thoughts on the subject:

It is not the first time that this is happening.  Israeli forces have been violating the airspace of Lebanon, as well as the land and sea belonging to Lebanon. Violation of the territory of Lebanon [by Israel] became something ‘regular’. What happened recently is a flagrant intrusion which should not go unanswered, as they were using Lebanese air space in order to attack the Syrian land. I believe this is the right time for the U.N. to do something more than just to make the reports and write numbers. This is an extremely serious situation; to use the territory of a neighboring country in order to attack a third nation; it is a barefaced crime.

*****

Why do Lebanon’s protests not resonate louder?

There are several reasons. One: the country recently ‘secured’ an enormous package of mostly loans from the West, at a ‘Paris conference’, amounting to more than 11 billion dollars.

Two: A great percentage of the ‘elites’ of Lebanon is accustomed to taking orders from the West. The West is where their villas are, where their relatives live, and their permanent residency cards issued.

A much greater war may be nearing; both the U.S. and Europe are now attacking Syria directly. In this decisive time, the Lebanese rulers are opportunistically showing where their allegiances lie: not with the people of the devastated Middle East, but with Paris, London, Riyadh and Washington.

But back to the first point – to money. As reported by Reuters on April 6, 2018:

“The pledges include $10.2 billion in loans and $860 million in grants, France’s ambassador to Lebanon Bruno Foucher said on Twitter…”

Donors in turn want to see Lebanon commit to long-stalled reforms. In a nod to those demands, Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri pledged to reduce the deficit of the budget as a percentage of GDP by 5 percent in the coming five years.

Macron told Hariri in a news conference the aid aimed to give Lebanon a fresh start, adding that it put “an unprecedented responsibility” on authorities there to carry out reforms and preserve peace in the country.

“It is important to continue reforms in the coming months,” Macron said, adding: “We’ll be by your side.” …

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told the conference: “… Lebanon needs major reforms of its economy, structural and sectoral.””

‘Structural reforms’ is a key term. This shameful package of loans which will further tie the hands of Lebanon could insure the complacency of the country: both economic and political obedience at the time when the West is ready to unleash a new wave of its military onslaught in the region.

There is hardly any transparency in Lebanon, and therefore almost no guarantee that the loans will be used to improve the standard of living of the suffering population. Corruption in Lebanon is endemic – it is institutionalized – to the point that it is often not even called ‘corruption’ anymore.

Social services are almost non-existent. Here, the contrasts are truly appalling. Ferraris and Lamborghinis, as well as outrageously expensive sailing boats, co-exist side-by-side with absolute misery and lack of social services, such as, at least periodically, garbage collection.

Hezbollah, a movement which is on the so-called terrorist list of many Western countries, is often the only reliable source of social services in the country.

The West will now demand more and more neo-liberal ‘reforms’. Almost nothing social will be built. Funds will disappear into the deep pockets of the shameless Lebanese ‘elites’ and ‘leaders’. It will be the poor, who will be expected to service the loans, as the rich in Lebanon hardly pay taxes.

In exchange for their booty, many Lebanese politicians will be further obliged to follow the Western line towards the region, including the neo-liberal and increasingly neo-colonialist policy of Washington and France (Lebanon’s former colonial master) towards Syria and the rest of the region.

******

And across the border line, the war is still raging. Washington and London fulfilled their shameful promises to perform ‘punitive actions’; to ‘chastise Syria’ for something that was clearly invented/manufactured just in order to justify an invasion, destabilization and in the end, the destruction, of this small but strong and proud nation.

A Syrian intellectual, who lives in both Beirut and Damascus, offered his analyses for this article. However, he requested not to be identified by his name, afraid of repercussions from both Lebanon and the West:

The Israeli attack comes at a time when the Syrian army is winning its fight against terrorist groups in Damascus suburbs, and it could be read as an indirect answer to these wins. It is also a dangerous move since the T4 airbase is heavily involved in the fight against the remaining of ISIS in Syria. This attack is unacceptable aggression against a sovereign nation and it is a violation of international laws. It also shows that Israel is helping directly and indirectly various terrorists groups operating on the Syrian territory.

*****

However, the commentaries that are being spread by the Western mainstream press are increasingly defying all logic. They are progressively turning out to be racist, supremacist. Well, actually now they are what they have always been earlier, throughout the centuries of European and then North American colonialism.

In Damascus, shelling a park right next to the Four Seasons Hotel, the UN accommodation from East Ghouta

Just read The Guardian article from April 9th, 2018- “Israel has launched countless strikes in Syria. What’s new is Russia’s response”:

Israel has launched many previous strikes into Syria, mainly to protect its borders from a buildup of Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces and armaments on the Golan Heights. Israel, has not, as a rule, attacked al-Qaida or Islamic State positions in Syria.

On all previous occasions, Russia – which has controlled Syrian air space since it sent troops to defend the regime of Bashar al-Assad in 2015 – has turned a blind eye. There had been an understanding that Israeli interests in Syria would be preserved by Russia, primarily by limiting the presence of Iranian-backed troops in Syria’s south-west. The Israeli fear is that access to the Syrian side of the Golan Heights allows Hezbollah to launch attacks into Israel.

At least The Guardian does not pretend that it believes in the Western fabrications that President Assad is poisoning his own people…

But the article is clearly trying to justify and find logic behind the Israeli terrorist attacks against the independent nation.

‘Poor Israel – it is worried about ‘Hezbollah forces and armaments on the Golan Heights.’

Spy-surveillance base on the hill overlooking Syria

But the Golan Heights is by international law an inseparable part of Syria. I repeat: by all international norms! Including, the United Nations Security Council UN Resolution 497. Golan Heights had been attacked, occupied and forcefully (and it looks like indefinitely) annexed by Israel, during the so-called ‘Six-Day War’ in 1981.

I visited the Golan Heights. I worked there, for several days, clandestinely, some 5 days ago. What I encountered there was true horror: ancient villages were totally destroyed, most of the original population deported from their land, Israeli-paid spies and provocateurs approaching and scrutinizing random visitors. All around – scattered rich Israeli agricultural enterprises protected by barbed wire and tall concrete walls. It all felt like working in Angola or Namibia, during the South African apartheid, or perhaps even worse; divided communities, stolen land, electric wire, and omnipresent fear and oppression.

Horrid border at Majdal al-Shams

But it is Israel which now has the right to ‘worry’ and to murder people in the name of its ‘security’. That is precisely what the tone of the Western mainstream periodicals clearly suggests.

Israel had stolen more than a thousand kilometers square of the Syrian territory in 1981, and now it is mercilessly bombing its victim; from Lebanese territory, in order to assure its ‘safety and security’. It is doing so from the territory of Lebanon, a country which was invaded by the Israeli military, on several occasions.

And the West is cheering.

*****

Of course, Israel is acting with total impunity, because it enjoys both the support and encouragement from its allies: The United States, the U.K. and Macron’s France.

Lebanon is panicking. Its’ ‘elites’ are trying to both survive, and not to anger the West.

Syrians have, it often appears, nerves of steel.

They worry but are determined not to give one single inch of their land to the invaders.

My friend in Damascus wrote to me, just a few hours before I submitted this report:

People are worried and they constantly follow up the news. My brother asked us to go to Safita for one month, as it is safer there. I’m not sure if we do it, but we are closely monitoring the situation.

My colleagues and comrades on the ground in Syria are angry, very angry. They can clearly see through the lies, which are being spread by the West.

Israel is repeatedly bombing heroic Syria.

On April 29, 2018, the Israeli attacks killed 26 Syrians and Iranians, just before Midnight, near Hama and Aleppo.

The U.S. and Europe are bombing and threatening to cause even more damage.

But this is 2018, not those dark years when the West could murder and rape without any consequences. If these attacks continue, there will be a counterpunch: fully justified, determined and powerful.

Then even the tiny Lebanon would have to decide where it stands.

• Photos by Andre Vltchek

May 5, 2018 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | 2 Comments

De-Briefing Academics: Unpaid Intelligence Informants

By James Petras • Unz Review • May 1, 2018

Introduction

Over the past half-century, I have been engaged in research, lectured and worked with social movements and leftist governments in Latin America. I interviewed US officials and think tanks in Washington and New York. I have written scores of books, hundreds of professional articles and presented numerous papers at professional meetings.

In the course, of my activity I have discovered that many academics frequently engage in what government officials dub ‘de-briefing’! Academics meet and discuss their field-work, data collection, research finding, observations and personal contacts over lunch at the Embassy with US government officials or in Washington with State Department officials.

US government officials look forward to these ‘debriefings’; the academic provided useful access to information which they otherwise could not obtain from paid, intelligence agents or local collaborators.

Not all academic informants are very well placed or competent investigators. However, many provide useful insights and information especially on leftist movements, parties and leaders who are real or potential anti-imperialist adversaries.

US empire builders whether engaged in political or military activities depend on information especially regarding who to back and who to subvert; who should receive diplomatic support and who to receive financial and to military resources.

De-briefed academics identify ‘moderate’ and ‘radical’ adversaries, as well as personal and political vulnerabilities. Officials frequently exploit health problems or family needs to ‘turn’ leftists into imperial stool pigeons.

US officials are especially interested in academic gate-keepers who exclude ‘anti-imperialist’ critics, activists , politicians and government officials.

At times, US State Department officials claim to be sympathetic ‘progressives’ who oppose ‘Neanderthals’ in their institution, in order to elicit inside information from leftist academic informants.

Debriefing is a widespread practice and involves numerous academics from major universities and research centers, as well as non-governmental ‘activists’ and editors of academic journals and publications.

Academic participates in debriefing frequently do not publicize their reporting to the government. Most likely they share their reports with other academic informers. All claim they are merely sharing research and diffusing information for ‘science’ and to further ‘humane values’.

Academic informers always justify their collaboration as providing a clear and more balanced picture to ‘our’ policymakers, ignoring the predictable destructive outcomes likely to ensue.

Academics in the Service of Empire

Academic informants never study, collect research and publicize reports on US covert, overt and clandestine policies in defense of multi-nationals and Latin American elite which collaborate with empire builders.

US officials have no interest in ‘debriefing’ academics conducting anti-imperialist research.

US officials are keen to know any and all reports on ‘movements from below’: who they are, how much influence they have, their susceptibility to bribes, blackmail and invitations to the State Department, Disneyland, or the Wilson Center in D.C.

US officials fund academic research on militant trade unions, agrarian social movements, feminist and ethnic minorities engaged in class struggle, and anti-imperialist activists and leaders, as they all serve as targets for imperial repression.

The officials are also keen on academic reports on so-called ‘moderate’ collaborators who can be funded, advised and recruited to defend the empire, undermine the class struggle and split movements.

Academic informants are especially useful in providing personal and political information on Latin American leftwing intellectuals, academics, journalists, writers and critics which allows US officials to isolate, slander and boycott anti-imperialists, as well as those intellectuals who can be recruited and seduced with foundation grants and invitations to the Kennedy Center at Harvard.

When US officials have a difficult time understanding the intricacies and consequences of ideological debates and factional divisions within leftist parties or regimes, ex-leftist academic informers, who collect documents and interviews, provide detailed explanations and provide officials with a political roadmap to exploit and exacerbate divisions and to guide repressive policies, which undermine adversaries engaged in anti-imperialist and class struggle.

The State Department works hand and glove with research centers and foundations in promoting journals which eschew all mention of imperialism and ruling class exploitation; they promote ‘special issues’ on ‘class-less’ identity politics, post-modern theorizing and ethnic-racial conflicts and conciliation.

In a study of the two leading political science and sociological journals over a period of fifty years they published less than .01% on class struggle and US imperialism

Academic informants have never reported on US government links to narco-political rulers.

Academic informants do not research widespread long term Israeli collaboration with death squads in Colombia, Guatemala, Argentina and El Salvador, in cases because of their loyalties to Tel Aviv and in most cases because the State Department is not interested in debriefings which expose their allies and their joint complicity.

Academic Informants: What do they want and what do they get?

Academic informers engage in debriefing for various reasons. A few do so simply because they share the politics and ideology of the empire builders and feel it is their ‘duty’ to serve.

The great majority are established academics with ties to research centers who inform because it fattens their CV– which helps secure grants, prestigious appointments and awards.

Progressive academics who collaborate have a Janus face approach; they speak at Leftist public conferences, especially to students and in private they report to the State Department.

Many academics believe they can influence and change government policy. They seek to impress self-identified ‘progressive’ officials with their inside knowledge on how to ‘turn’ Latin critics into moderate collaborators. They invent innocuous academic categories and concepts to attract graduate students to further collaboration with imperial colleagues.

The Consequence of Academic Debriefing

Former leftist academic informers are frequently cited by the mass media as reliable and knowledgeable ‘experts’ in order to slander anti-imperialist governments, academics and critics.

Ex-leftist academics pressure rising scholars with a critical perspective to adopt ‘moderate’ reasonable critiques, to denounce and avoid anti-imperialist ‘extremists’ and to disparage them as ‘polemical ideologues’!

Academic informants in Chile helped the US Embassy identify neighborhood militants who were handed over to the secret police (DINA) during the Pinochet dictatorship.

US academic informants in Peru and Brazil provided the Embassy with research projects which identified nationalist military officials and leftist students who were subsequently purged, arrested and tortured.

In Colombia, US academic informers were active in providing reports on rural insurgent movements which led to massive repression. Academic collaborators provided detailed reports to the [US] embassy in Venezuela on the grass roots movements and political divisions among Chavista government and military officials with command of troops.

The State Department financed academics working with NGOs who identified and recruited middle class youth as street fighters, drug gangsters and the destitute to engage in violent struggles to overthrow the elected government by paralyzing the economy.

Academic reports on regime ‘violence’ and ‘authoritarianism’ served as propaganda fodder for the State Department to impose economic sanctions, impoverishing people, to foment a coup. US academic collaboraters enlisted their Latin colleagues to sign petitions urging rightwing regimes in the region to boycott Venezuela.

When academic informers are confronted with the destructive consequences of imperial advances they argue that it was not their ‘intention’; that it was not their State Department contacts who carried out the regressive policies. The more cynical claim that the government was going to do their dirty work regardless of the debriefing.

Conclusion

What is clear in virtually all known experiences is that academic informers’ de-briefings strengthened the empire-builders and complemented the deadly work of the paid professional operatives of the CIA, DEA and the National Security Agency.

May 5, 2018 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 1 Comment

While Facebook gets all the hate, Verizon continues to show it’s no better, and potentially much worse for privacy

By Karl Bode | TechDirt | May 2, 2018

Facebook certainly deserves ample criticism for its lax privacy standards and its decision to threaten news outlets that exposed them. That said, we’ve noted a few times now that the uneven press fixation on Facebook obscures the fact that numerous industries routinely engage in much worse behavior. That’s particularly true of broadband providers (and especially wireless carriers), who routinely treat consumer privacy as a distant afterthought, with only a fraction of the total volume of media hyperventilation we saw during the Facebook kerfuffle.

Facebook’s casual treatment of your data isn’t some errant tech industry exception, it’s the norm, making #quitFacebook an arguably pointless gesture if you still own a stock mobile phone. In the telecom industry, a disdain for consumer privacy is a cornerstone of their entire business model(s). Companies like AT&T and Verizon aren’t just bone grafted to our government’s domestic surveillance apparatus, they collect and sell everything from browsing to location data to absolutely anyone and everyone–with little to no real oversight, and opt out tools that may or may not actually work.

Verizon has been particularly busy on the anti-privacy front. You’ll recall that the company was fined by the FCC for modifying wireless user data packets to track users around the internet without telling them. The company was engaging in this behavior for two years before security researchers even discovered it, and it took another six months of media criticism for Verizon to offer a simple opt out. Despite the wrist slap, a more powerful variant of this technology is still very much in play at Oath (AOL & Yahoo), Verizon’s effort to compete with Google and Facebook in the media advertising wars.

Not long after that, Verizon played a starring role in gutting modest FCC privacy rules protecting consumers (spurred in part by Verizon’s tracking tech). Those rules, which Verizon lobbyists dismantled last year, simply required that ISPs be transparent with what data they’re collecting and who they’re selling it to. When California tried to mirror the FCC’s discarded privacy policies, Verizon, Facebook and Comcast lied to lawmakers, falsely claiming that modest privacy protections would harm children, increase internet popups, and embolden extremism. None of it was true.

More recently, Verizon has been facing numerous lawsuits over Yahoo hacks that exposed the data of roughly three billion consumers. And while this was before Verizon’s ownership (Verizon wasn’t informed of the hacks during negotiations, netting it a $350 billion discount), the company has since been actively trying to prevent customers from suing Oath (Yahoo) or Verizon over future breaches by using fine print to mandate binding arbitration:

“The new Oath terms of service “contain a binding arbitration agreement and class action and jury trial waiver clauses…, which are applicable to all US users,” the terms say.

Congress has considered legislation to ban many mandatory arbitration clauses, but it hasn’t followed through yet and the practice remains legal.

The AOL terms already contained a binding arbitration clause and class-action waiver before Verizon bought that company. But the Yahoo terms didn’t previously contain such clauses.”

Thanks to AT&T’s Supreme Court victory in 2011 using contract fine print to erode consumer legal rights is now something we view as the norm. And while everybody can agree that the class action system has numerous problems, the system of binding arbitration is a terrible solution. Under binding arbitration, the arbiter rules for the company they work for the vast majority of the time, leaving consumers shit out of luck. While class actions often only net lawyers a nice new boat, they at least occasionally result in substantive change. Arbitration, in turn, is often more like consumer theater than justice.

The reality is that informed and empowered consumers are more likely to opt out of efforts to monetize their online behavior. And however breathlessly companies like Verizon and Facebook pretend to be dedicated to consumer privacy or policy solutions, they’re going to fight tooth and nail against any policies — even reasonable ones — that could potentially hamstring that revenue. But however bad Facebook is and has been on privacy, Verizon routinely offers a master class when it comes to undermining efforts at anything even vaguely resembling a solution.

May 5, 2018 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , , | 1 Comment

US Dispatches More Military Gear to Kurds in Syria – Reports

Sputnik – 05.05.2018

The US sent a new military convoy to the Kurdish militants’ bases in the Tal Beidar region, between the towns of Qamishli and Tal Tamr in northeastern Hasaka, the Lebanese al-Manar TV network reported.

The convoy included ten trucks full of arms and ammunition.

Local sources said that the Kurdish fighters have detained a number of civilians southwest of the town of Ra’as al-Ein in Northwestern Hasaka in order to train them in military camps.

Earlier this week, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) informed Sputnik that there is a growing French military presence in the area of Manbij in Syria.

Sputnik received a photo showing two armored vehicles with military personnel in the area of the Sajur River in the territory of Manbij. One vehicle has a US flag on it, while the other has a French flag.

A senior member of the Military Council of Manbij told Sputnik that about 50 French soldiers are stationed on duty in the area. While in the north of Manbij work is currently underway to establish a French military base.

​Al-Manar further confirmed the reports saying that three military vehicles under French flags had entered a Kurdish militia base in the al-Aliyeh region, south of the town of Ra’as al-Ein in northwestern Hasaka.

The network went on quoting field sources as seeing the US convoy of armored vehicles moving towards al-Shadadi from a military base north of the Khabour Dam.

Another Arabic media outlet, the Moraseloun news website, also reported today that the US Army has set up a new military base in Hasaka province, despite Donald Trump’s claims that Washington is set on withdrawing its forces from Syria.

The latest information adds to several other reports on the US’ alleged establishment of new military bases in Al-Hasakah, as well as in eastern Deir ez-Zor last month.

The US military presence in Syria has been dubbed an “aggression” by Damascus, as it has neither been approved by the government nor has it received a UN mandate.

May 5, 2018 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, War Crimes | , , | 3 Comments

The Warmakers

The Saker • Unz Review • May 5, 2018

Between the US strikes on Syria in April and the recent developments on the Korean Peninsula, we are in somewhat of a lull in the Empire’s search for a new war to start. The always helpful Israelis, in the person of the ineffable Bibi Netanyahu, are now beating the drums for, well, if not a war, then at least some kind of false flag or pretext to make the US strike at Iran. And then there is the always bleeding Donbass (which I won’t address in today’s analysis). So let’s see where we stand and try to guesstimate where we might be heading. To be honest, trying to guess what ignorant warmongering psychopaths might do next is by definition a futile exercise, but since there are some not negligible signs that there are at least a few rational people still left in the US White House and/or Pentagon (as shown by the mostly “pretend strikes” on Syria last month), we can assume (hope) that some residual degree of sanity is still present. At the very least Americans in uniform have to ask themselves a very basic and yet fundamental question:

Do I want to die for Israel? Do I want to lose my job for Israel? How about my pension? Maybe just my stock options? Is it worth risking a major regional war for such a “wonderful” state?

A lot depends on whether the US military leaders (and people!) will have the courage to ask themselves this question and, if they do, what their reply will be.

But, first, let’s begin with the good news:

The DPRK and ROK are in direct talks with each other.

This is indeed a truly great development for at least two reasons. First, of course, the main and objective one: anything which lowers the risks of war on the Korean Peninsula is good. But there is a second reason which we should not discount: Trump can now take all the credit for this and claim that his (empty) threats are what brought the North Koreans to the negotiating table. I say – let him. In fact, I hope that they organize a parade for Trump somewhere in the US, with confetti and millions of flags. Like for an astronaut. Let him feel triumphant, vindicated and very, very manly. MAGA, you know?!

Yeah, that will be sickening to the thinking (not to mention counter-factual), but if a little bit of intellectual nausea is the price to pay for peace, I say let’s do it. If Trump, Bolton, Haley and the rest of them can feel that they “kicked ass” and that their “invincible military” is what brought “Rocket Man” to “give up his nukes” (he never said any such thing, but never mind that) then I sincerely wish them a joyful and highly ego-pleasing celebration. Anything to stop them from looking for another war to start, at least for a now.

Now the bad news.

The Israelis are at it again

Amazing, isn’t it? The Israelis have been whining about “imminent” Iranian nukes for years [decades], and they are still at it. Not only that, but these guys have the nerve to say “Iran lied”. Seriously, even by the already unique Israeli standards, that is chutzpah elevated to a truly stratospheric level. If it were just Bibi Netanyahu, then this would be comical. But the problem is that Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The US is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.

So what are these guys really up to? Listen to the one man who knows them best, and whose every single word you can take to the bank, Hezbollah General Secretary Nasrallah (ever wondered why Hezbollah, which has not committed anything even remotely looking like a terrorist attack since the 1980s is called the “A-Team of terrorists”? Just saying…):

The first event is the Israeli blatant and manifest aggression against the T-4 base or airport on the outskirts of Homs, that targeted Iranian forces from the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution of Iran who were present there, hitting them with a large number of missiles, causing 7 martyrs among its officers and soldiers and wounding others. This was a new, significant and important event. Maybe some people do not pay attention to its importance and magnitude. In this operation, Israel has deliberately killed (Iranian soldiers). This is an unprecedented event. In the past, Israel has struck us [Hezbollah] for example in Quneitra, and it turned out that coincidentally Guardians [of the Islamic Revolution] officers were with us. Israel declared hastily that they did not know it, and thought that all (targeted soldiers) were Hezbollah’s. This is an event that has no precedent since 7 years, it is unprecedented since 7 years, that Israel openly targets the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution in Syria, killing deliberately, in an operation that caused a number of martyrs and wounded (…) I want to tell the Israelis that they must know – I wrote that statement accurately and I read it to them – they must know that they have committed a historic mistake. This is not a simple blunder. They committed an act of great stupidity, and by this aggression, they entered in a direct confrontation with Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran. And Iran, O Zionists, is not a small country, it is not a weak country, and it is not a cowardly country. And you know it very well. As a comment on this incident, I stress that it constitutes a turning point in the situation of the region. What follows will be very different from what preceded it. This is an incident that cannot be considered lightly, contrary to what happens with many incidents here. It is a turning point, a historic turning point. And when the Israelis committed this stupid act, they had some assessment (of the situation), but I tell them that their evaluation is false. And even in the future, since you have opened a new path in the confrontation, (you should ensure) not to be wrong in your evaluations. In this new path you opened and initiated, don’t be wrong in your assessment, when you are face to face, and directly (in conflict) with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I can only agree with this evaluation. As does The Jerusalem Post, NBC News, and many others. Regardless of how crazy this notion might sound to rational people (see below), there are all the signs that the Israelis are now demanding that the US start a war against Iran, either by choice or more likely, to “stand by our Israeli allies and friends” after they attack Iran first.

Israel is truly a unique and amazing country: not only does it openly and brazenly completely ignore international law, not only is it the last overtly racist country on the planet, not only has it been perpetuating a slow-motion genocide against the Palestinians for decades, it also constantly uses its considerable propaganda resources to advocate for war. And in order to achieve these goals, it does not mind allying itself with a regime almost as despicable and evil as the Zionist one – I am talking about the Wahabi nutcases in the KSA. And all that under the high patronage of the United States. Some “Axis of Kindness” indeed!

What is their plan? Actually, it is fairly straightforward.

The Israeli plan “A” (failed)

Initially, the plan was to overthrow all the secular (Baathist) regimes in power and replace them by religious nutcases. That would not only weaken the countries infected by that spiritual rot, it would set them backwards for many decades, some of them would break up into smaller entities, Arabs and Muslims would kill each other in large numbers while the Israelis would proudly claim that they are a “western country” and the “only democracy in the Middle-East”. Even better, when the Daesh/ISIS/al-Qaeda/etc types commit atrocities on an industrial scale (and always on camera, professionally filmed, by the way), the slow-motion genocide of Palestinians would really be completely forgotten. If anything, Israel would declare itself threatened by “Islamic extremism” and, well, extend a couple of “security zones” beyond its borders (legal or otherwise), and do regular bombing runs “because Arabs only understand force” (which would get the Israelis a standing ovation from the “Christian” Zionist rednecks in the US who love the killing of any Aye-rabs and other “sand niggers”). At the end of all this, the Zionist wet dream: unleashing the Daesh forces against Hezbollah (which they fear and hate since the humiliating defeat the IDF suffered in 2006).

Now I will readily agree that this is a stupid plan. But contrary to the propaganda-induced myth, the Israelis are really not very bright. Pushy, arrogant, nasty, driven – yes. But smart? Not really. How could they not realize that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would result in Iran becoming the main player in Iraq? This is a testimony of how the Israelis always go for “quick-fix” short-term “solutions”, probably blinded by their arrogance and sense of racial superiority. Or how about their invasion of Lebanon in 2006? What in the world did they think they would achieve there? And now these folks are taking on not Hezbollah, but Iran. Hassan Nasrallah is absolutely correct, that is a truly stupid decision. But, of course, the Israelis now have a “plan B”:

The Israeli plan “B”

Step one, use your propaganda machine and infiltrated agents to re-start the myth about an Iranian military nuclear program. And never mind that the so-called “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” was agreed upon by all five of the UNSC Permanent Members, and Germany (P5+1) and even the European Union! And never mind that this plan places restrictions on Iran which no other country has ever had to face, especially considering that since 1970 Iran has been a member in good standing with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while Israel, of course, is not. But the Zionists and their Neocon groupies are, of course, quite exceptional people, so they are constrained by neither facts nor logic. If Trump says that the JCPOA is a terrible deal, then this is so. Hey, we are living in the “post-Skripal” and “post-Douma” era – if some Anglo (or Jewish) leaders say “highly likely” then it behooves everybody to show instant “solidarity” lest they are accused of “anti-Semitism” or “fringe conspiracy theories” (you know the drill). So step one is the re-ignition ex nihilo of the Iranian military nuclear program canard.

Step two is to declare that Israel is “existentially threatened” and therefore has the right to “defend itself”. But there is a problem here: the IDF simply does not have the military means to defeat the Iranians. They can strike them, hit a couple of targets, yes, but then when the Iranians (and Hezbollah) unleash a rain of missiles on Israel (and probably the KSA) the Israelis will not have the means to respond. They know that, but they also know that the Iranian counter-attack will give them the perfect pretext to scream “oy vey!! oy, gevalt!!” and let the dumb Americans fight the Iranians.

You might object that the US does not have a mutual defense treaty with Israel. You are wrong. It does, it is called AIPAC. Besides, last year the US established a permanent US military base in Israel, making it a “tripwire”: just claim that “the Ayatollahs” tried to attack the US base with “chemical weapons” and, bingo, you now have a pretext to use all your military forces in retaliation, including, by the way, your tactical nuclear forces to “disarm” the “genocidal Iranians who want to wipe Israel off the map” or some variation of this nonsense.

You might wonder what the point of all that would be if Iran does, as I say, not have any military nuclear program?

My answer would be simple: do you really think the Syrians have been using chemical weapons?!

Of course not!

All this nonsense about Saddam’s WMD, the Iranian nuclear program, the Syrian chemical weapons or, for that matter, Gaddafi’s “Viagra armed raping soldiers”, and before that the “Racak massacre” in Kosovo or the various “Markale market” atrocities in Sarajevo for that matter: these were just pretexts for aggression, nothing more.

In Iran’s case, what the Israelis fear is not that they will be “wiped off the map” (that is a mistranslation of words originally spoken by Ayatollah Khomenei) by Iranian nukes; what really freaks them out is to have a large, successful Muslim regional power like Iran openly daring to denounce Israel as an illegitimate, racist state. The Iranians are also openly denouncing the US imperialism and they are even denouncing the Wahabi dictatorship of the House of Saud. That is Iran’s real “sin”: to dare defy openly the AngloZionist Empire and be so successful at it!

So what the Israelis really want to do is:

  1. inflict a maximum amount of economic damage upon Iran
  2. punish the Iranian population for daring to support the “wrong” leaders
  3. overthrow the Islamic Republic (do to it what they did to Serbia)
  4. make an example to dissuade any other country who dares to follow in Iran’s footsteps
  5. prove the omnipotence of the AngloZionist Empire’s

To reach this objective, there is no need to invade Iran: a sustained cruise missile and bombing campaign will do the job (again, like in Serbia). Finally, we just have to assume that the Zionists are evil, arrogant and crazy enough to use nuclear weapons on some Iranian facilities (which they will, of course, designate as “secret military nuclear research” installations).

The Israelis hope that by making the US hit Iran really hard, they will weaken the country enough to also weaken Hezbollah and the other allies of Iran in the region sufficiently and break the so-called “Shia crescent”.

In their own way, the Israelis are not wrong when they say that Iran is an existential threat to Israel. They are just lying about the nature of this threat and why it is dangerous for them.

Consider this:

If the Islamic Republic is allowed to develop and prosper and if the Islamic Republic refuses to be terrified by Israel’s undisputed ability to massacre civilians and destroy public infrastructure, then the Islamic Republic will become an attractive alternative to the kind of repugnant Islam embodied by the House of Saud which, in turn, is the prime sponsor of all the collaborator regimes in the Middle-East from the Hariri types in Lebanon to the Palestinian Authority itself. The Israelis like their Arabs fat and corrupt to the bone, not principled and courageous. That is why Iran must, absolutely must, be hit: because Iran by its very existence threatens the linchpin upon which the survival of the Zionist entity depends: the total corruption of the Arab and Muslim leaders worldwide.

Risks with Israel’s plan “B”

Think of 2006. The Israelis had total air supremacy over Lebanon – the skies were simply uncontested. The Israelis also controlled the seas (at least until Hezbollah almost sank their Sa’ar 5-class corvette). The Israelis pounded Lebanon with everything they had, from bombs to artillery strikes, to missiles. They also engaged their very best forces, including their putatively ‘”invincible” “Golani Brigade”. And that for 33 days. And they achieved exactly *nothing*. They could not even control the town of Bint Jbeil right across the Israeli border. And now comes the best part: Hezbollah kept its most capable forces north of the Litany river so the small Hezbollah force (no more than 1,000 men) was composed of local militias supported by a much smaller number of professional cadre. That’s a 30:1 advantage in manpower for the Israelis. But the “invincible Tsahal” got it’s collective butt kicked like few have ever been kicked in history. This is why, in the Arab world, this war is since known as the “Divine Victory”.

As for Hezbollah, it continued to rain down rockets on Israel and destroy indestructible Merkava tanks right up to the last day.

There are various reports discussing the reasons for the abject failure of the IDF (see here or here), but the simple reality is this: to win a war you need capable boots on the ground, especially against an adversary who has learned how to operate without air-cover or superior firepower. Should Israel manipulate the US into attacking Iran, the exact same thing will happen: CENTCOM will establish air superiority and have an overwhelming firepower advantage over the Iranians, but other than destroying a lot of infrastructure and murdering scores of civilians, this will achieve absolutely nothing. Furthermore, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is no Milosevic, he will not simply surrender in the hope that Uncle Sam will allow him to stay in power. The Iranians will fight, and fight, and continue to fight for weeks, and months and then possibly years. And, unlike the “Axis of Kindness” forces, the Iranians do have credible and capable “boots on the ground”, and not only in Iran, but also in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan. And they have the missiles to reach a very large number of US military facilities across the region. And they can also not only shut down the Strait of Hormuz (which the USN would eventually be able to re-open, but only at a cost of a huge military operation on the Iranian coast), they can also strike at Saudi Arabia proper and, of course, at Israel. In fact, the Iranians have both the manpower and know-how to declare “open season” on any and all US forces in the Middle-East, and there are plenty of them, mostly very poorly defended (that imperial sense of impunity “they would not dare”).

The Iran-Iraq war lasted for eight years (1980-1988). It cost the Iranians hundreds of thousands of lives (if not more). The Iraqis had the full support of the US, the Soviet Union, France and pretty much everybody else. As for the Iranian military, it had just suffered from a traumatic revolution. The official history (meaning Wikipedia) calls the outcome a “stalemate”. Considering the odds and the circumstances, I call it a magnificent Iranian victory and a total defeat for those who wanted to overthrow the Islamic Republic (something which decades of harsh sanctions also failed to achieve, by the way).

Is there any reason at all to believe that this time around, when Iran has had almost 40 years to prepare for a full-scale AngloZionist attack the Iranians will fight less fiercely or less competently? We could also look at the actual record of the US armed forces (see Paul Craig Roberts’ superb summary here) and ask: do you think that the US, lead by the likes of Trump, Bolton or Nikki Haley will have the staying power to fight the Iranians to exhaustion (since a land invasion of Iran is out of the question)? Or this: what will happen to the world economy if the entire Middle-East blows up into a major regional war?

Now comes the scary part: both the Israelis and the Neocons always, always, double-down. The notion of cutting their losses and stopping what is a self-evidently mistaken policy is simply beyond them. Their arrogance simply cannot survive even the appearance of having made a mistake (remember how both Dubya and Olmert declared that they had won against Hezbollah in 2006?). As soon as Trump and Netanyahu realize that they did something really fantastically stupid and as soon as they run out of their usual options (missile and airstrikes first, then terrorizing the civilian population) they will have a stark and simple choice: admit defeat or use nukes.

Which one do you think they will choose?

Exactly.

Going nuclear?

Here is the paradox: in purely military terms, using nukes on Iran will serve no pragmatic purpose. Nuclear weapons can be used in one of two ways: against military assets (“counterforce”) or against civilians (“countervalue”). The point is that by the time the Neocons and their Israeli patrons come to the point of considering using tactical nuclear forces against the Iranians, there won’t be a good target to hit. Iranian forces will be dispersed and mostly in contact with allied (or even US forces) and nuking an Iranian battalion or even a division won’t fundamentally alter the military equation. As for nuking Iranian cities just out of savagery, this will only serve one purpose: to truly get Israel wiped off the map of the Middle-East. I would not put it past the Neocons and their Israeli bosses to try to use a tactical nuclear weapon to destroy some Iranian civilian nuclear facility or some underground bunker with the very mistaken hope that such a show of force and determination will force the Iranians to submit to the AngloZionist Empire. In reality, this will only infuriate the Iranians and strengthen their resolve.

As for the currently “macronesque” Europeans, they will, of course, first show “solidarity” on the basis of “highly likely”, especially Poland, the Ukies and the Baltic statelets, but if nuclear weapons start going off in the Middle-East, then the European public opinion will explode, especially in Mediterranean countries, and this might just trigger yet another major crisis. Israel wouldn’t give a damn (or, as always, blame it all on some totally mysterious resurgence of anti-Semitism), but the US most definitely does not want the Anglo grip on the continent compromised by such events.

Maybe a Korean scenario?

Is there a chance that all the huffing and puffing will result in some kind of peaceful resolution as what seems to be in the works in Korea? Alas, probably not.

A few months ago it sure looked like the US might do something irreparably stupid in Korea (see here and here) but then something most unexpected happened: the South Koreans, fully realizing the insanity of Trump’s reckless threats, took the situation in their own hands and began making overtures to the North. Plus all the rest of the regional neighbors emphatically and clearly told Trump & Co. that the consequences of a US attack on the DPRK would be apocalyptic for the entire region. Alas, there are two fundamental differences between the Korean Peninsula and the Middle-East:

  1. On the Korean Peninsula, the local US ally (the ROK) does not want war. In the Middle-East it is the local US ally (Israel) which pushes the hardest for a war.
  2. In Far-East Asia all the regional neighbors were and are categorically opposed to war. In the Middle-East most regional neighbors are sold out to the Saudis who also want the US to attack Iran.

So while the risks and consequences of a conflagration are similar between the two regions, the local geopolitical dynamics are completely different?

What about Russia in all this?

Russia will never *choose* to go to war with the US. But Russia also understands that Iran’s security and safety is absolutely crucial to her own security, especially along her southern borders. Right now there is a fragile equilibrium of sorts between the (also very powerful) Zionist lobby in Russia and the national/patriotic elements. In truth, the recent Israeli attacks in Syria have given more power to the anti-Zionist elements in Russia, hence all the talk about (finally!) delivering the S-300s to Syria. Well, we will see if/when that happens. My best guesstimate is that it might already have happened and that this is simply kept quiet to restrain both the Americans and the Israelis who have no way of knowing what equipment the Russians have already delivered, where it is located or, for that matter, who (Russians or Syrians) actually operate it. This kind of ambiguity is useful to placate the pro-Zionist forces in Russia and to complicate AngloZionist planning. But maybe this is my wishful thinking, and maybe the Russians have not delivered the S-300s yet or, if they have, maybe these are the (not very useful) S-300P early models (as opposed to the S-300PMU-2 which would present a huge risk to the Israelis).

The relationship between Russia and Israel is a very complex one (see here and here), but if Iran is attacked I fully expect the Russians, especially the military, to back Iran and provide military assistance short of overtly engaging US/Israeli/NATO/CENTCOM forces. If the Russians are directly attacked in Syria (and in the context of a wider war, they very well might be), then Russia will counter-attack regardless of who the attacker is, the US or Israel or anybody else: the Zionist lobby in Russia does not have the power to impose a “Liberty-like event” on the Russian public opinion).

Conclusion: Accursed are the warmakers, for they shall be called the children of Satan

The Israelis can eat falafel, create “Israeli kufiyeh” and fancy themselves as “orientals”, but the reality is that the creation of the state of Israel is a curse on the entire Middle-East to which has only brought untold suffering, brutality, corruption and wars, wars and more wars. And they are still at it – doing all they can to trigger a large regional war in which many tens or even hundreds of innocent people will die. The people of the US have now allowed a dangerous cabal of psychopathic Neocons to fully take control of their country and now those, who Papa Bush used to call the “crazies in the basement” have their finger on the nuclear button. So now it all boils down to the questions I opened this article with:

Dear US Americans – do you want to die for Israel? Do you want to lose your job for Israel? How about your pension? Maybe just your stock options? Because make no mistake, the US Empire will not survive a full-scale war against Iran. Why? Because all Iran needs to do to “win” is not to lose, i.e. to survive. Even bombed out and scorched by conventional or nuclear strikes, if Iran comes out of this war still as an Islamic Republic (and that is not something bombs or missiles will change) then Iran will have won. In contrast, for the Empire, the failure to bring Iran to its knees will mean the end of its status as the world Hegemon defeated not by a nuclear superpower, but by a regional conventional power. After that, it will just be a matter of time before the inevitable domino effect breaks up the entire Empire (check out Richard Greer’s excellent book “Twilight’s Last Gleaming” for a very plausible account on how that could happen)

Okay, unlike Russia, Iran cannot nuke the US or, for that matter, even reach it with conventional weapons (I don’t even think that the Iranians will successfully attack a US carrier as some pro-Iranian analysts say). But the political and economic consequences of a full-scale war in the Middle-East will be felt throughout the United States: right now the only thing “backing” the US dollar, so to speak, are USN aircraft carriers and their ability to blow to smithereens any country daring to disobey Uncle Sam. The fact that these carriers are (and, truly, have been for a long while) useless against the USSR and Russia is bad enough, but if it becomes known urbi et orbi that they are also useless against a conventional regional power like Iran, then that’s it, show over. The dollar will turn into monopoly money in a very short span of time.

Wars often have “Nietzschean consequences”: countries which wars don’t destroy often come out even stronger than before they were attacked, even if it is at a horrendous price. Both the Israelis and the Neocons are too dialectically illiterate to realize that by their actions they are just creating increasingly more powerful enemies. The old Anglo guard which ran the US since its foundation was probably wiser, possibly because it was better educated and more aware of the painful lessons learned by the British (and other) Empire(s).

Frankly, I hope that the ruling 1%ers running the US today (well, they are really much less than 1%, but never mind that) will care about their wealth and money more than they care about appeasing the Neocons and that the bad old Anglo imperialists who built this country will have enough greed in themselves to tell the Neocons and their Israeli patrons to get lost. But with the Neocons controlling both wings of the Uniparty and the media, I am not very hopeful.

Still, there is a chance that, like in Korea, somebody somewhere will say or do the right thing, and that awed by the potential magnitude of what they are about to trigger, enough people in the US military will follow the example of Admiral William Fallon and CENTCOM commander at the time who told the President “an attack on Iran will not happen on my watch”. I believe for his principled courage, the words of Christ “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt 5:9) can be applied to Admiral Fallon and I hope that his example will inspire others.

May 5, 2018 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | 9 Comments

Atlantic Council Explains Why We Need to Be Propagandized for Our Own Good

By Caitlin JOHNSTONE | Rogue Journalist | May 4, 2018

I sometimes try to get establishment loyalists to explain to me exactly why we’re all meant to be terrified of this “Russian propaganda” thing they keep carrying on about. What is the threat, specifically? That it makes the public less willing to go to war with Russia and its allies? That it makes us less trusting of lying, torturing, coup-staging intelligence agencies? Does accidentally catching a glimpse of that green RT logo turn you to stone like Medusa, or melt your face like in Raiders of the Lost Ark ?

“Well, it makes us lose trust in our institutions,” is the most common reply.

Okay. So? Where’s the threat there? We know for a fact that we’ve been lied to by those institutions. Iraq isn’t just something we imagined. We should be skeptical of claims made by western governments, intelligence agencies and mass media. How specifically is that skepticism dangerous?

Trying to get answers to such questions from rank-and-file empire loyalists is like pulling teeth, and they are equally lacking in the mass media who are constantly sounding the alarm about Russian propaganda. All I see are stories about Russia funding environmentalists (the horror!), giving a voice to civil rights activists (oh noes!), and retweeting articles supportive of Jeremy Corbyn (think of the children!). At its very most dramatic, this horrifying, dangerous epidemic of Russian propaganda is telling westerners to be skeptical of what they’re being told about the Skripal poisoning and the alleged Douma gas attackboth of which do happen to have some very significant causes for skepticism.

When you try to get down to the brass tacks of the actual argument being made and demand specific details about the specific threats we’re meant to be worried about, there aren’t any to be found. Nobody’s been able to tell me what specifically is so dangerous about westerners being exposed to the Russian side of international debates, or of Russians giving a platform to one or both sides of an American domestic debate. Even if every single one of the allegations about Russian bots and disinformation are true (and they aren’t), where is the actual clear and present danger? No one can say.

No one, that is, except the Atlantic Council.

In an absolutely jaw-dropping article that you should definitely read in its entirety, Elizabeth Braw took it upon herself to finally answer the question of why Russian propaganda is so dangerous, using the following hypothetical scenario:

What if Russia suddenly announced that its Baltic Fleet had dispatched an armada towards Britain? Would most people greet the news with steely resolve in the knowledge that their governments would know what to do, or would constant Kremlin-influenced reports about the incompetence of British institutions make them conclude that any resistance was pointless?

I mean, wow. Wow! Just wow. Where to even begin with this?

Before I continue, I should note that Braw is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, the shady NATO-aligned think tank with ties to powerful oligarchs whose name comes up when you look into many of the mainstream anti-Russia narratives, from the DNC hack to the discredited war propaganda firm Bellingcat to Russian trolls to the notorious PropOrNot blacklist publicized by the Washington Post. Her article, published by Defense One, is titled “We Need a NATO for Infowar”, and it argues that westerners need to be propagandized by an alliance of western governments for our own good.

Back to the aforementioned excerpt. Braw claims that if Russian propaganda isn’t shut down or counteracted, Russia could send a fleet of war ships to attack Britain, and the British people would… react unenthusiastically? Wouldn’t cheer loudly enough as the British Navy fought the Russians? Would have a defeatist emotional demeanor? What exactly is the argument here?

That’s seriously her only attempt to directly address the question of where the actual danger is. Even in the most cartoonishly dramatic hypothetical scenario this Atlantic Council member can possibly imagine, there’s still no tangible threat of any kind. Even if Russia was directly attacking the United Kingdom at home, and Russian propaganda had somehow magically dominated all British airwaves and been believed by the entire country, that still wouldn’t have any impact on the British military’s ability to fight a naval battle. There’s literally no extent to which you can inflate this “Russian propaganda” hysteria to turn it into a possible threat to actual people in real life.

It gets better. Check out this excerpt:

Such responses to disinformation are like swatting flies: time-consuming and ineffective. But not addressing disinformation is ineffective, too. “Western media still have this thing where they try to be completely balanced, so they’ll say, ‘the Russians say this, but on the other hand the Americans say this is not true,’ They end up giving a lie and the truth the same value,” noted Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the former president of Estonia.

I just have so many questions. Like, how desperate does a writer have to be for an expert who can lend credibility to their argument that they have to reach all the way over to a former president of Estonia? And on what planet are these people living where Russian narratives are given the same weight as western narratives by western mainstream media? How can I get to this fantastical parallel dimension where western media “try to be completely balanced” and give equal coverage to all perspectives?

Braw argues that, because Russian propaganda is so dangerous (what with the threat of British people having insufficient emotional exuberance during a possible naval battle and all), what is required is a “NATO of infowar”, an alliance of western state media that is tasked with combatting Russian counter-narratives. Because, in the strange Dungeons & Dragons fantasy fairy world in which Braw penned her article, this isn’t already happening.

And of course, here in the real world, it is already happening. As I wrote recently, mainstream media outlets have been going out of their minds churning out attack editorials on anyone who questions the establishment narrative about what happened in Douma. A BBC reporter recently admonished a retired British naval officer for voicing skepticism of what we’re being told about Syria on the grounds that it might “muddy the waters” of the “information war” that is being fought against Russia. All day, every day, western mass media are pummeling the public with stories about how awful and scary Russians are and how everything they say is a lie.

This is because western mass media outlets are owned by western plutocrats, and those plutocrats have built their empires upon a status quo that they have a vested interest in preserving, often to the point where they will form alliances with defense and intelligence agencies to do so. They hire executives and editors who subscribe to a pro-establishment worldview, who in turn hire journalists who subscribe to a pro-establishment worldview, and in that way they ensure that all plutocrat-owned media outlets are advancing pro-plutocrat agendas.

The western empire is ruled by a loose transnational alliance of plutocrats and secretive government agencies. That loose alliance is your real government, and that government has the largest state media network in the history of civilization. The mass media propaganda machine of the western empire makes RT look like your grandmother’s Facebook wall.

In that way, we are being propagandized constantly by the people who really rule us. All this panic about Russian propaganda doesn’t exist because our dear leaders have a problem with propaganda, it exists because they believe only they should be allowed to propagandize us.

And, unlike Russian propaganda, western establishment propaganda actually does pose a direct threat to us. By using mass media to manipulate the ways we think and vote, our true rulers can persuade us to consent to crushing austerity measures and political impotence while the oligarchs grow richer and medicine money is spent on bombs. When we should all be revolting against an oppressive Orwellian oligarchy, we are instead lulled to sleep by those same oligarchs and their hired talking heads lying to us about freedom and democracy.

Russian propaganda is not dangerous. Having access to other ways of looking at global geopolitics is not dangerous. What absolutely is dangerous is a vast empire concerning itself with the information and ideas that its citizenry have access to. Get your rapey, manipulative fingers out of our minds, please.

If our dear leaders are so worried about our losing faith in our institutions, they shouldn’t be concerning themselves with manipulating us into trusting them, they should be making those institutions more trustworthy.

Don’t manipulate better, be better. The fact that an influential think tank is now openly advocating the former over the latter should concern us all.

May 5, 2018 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , | 2 Comments

A Bucketful of Novichok

By Rob Slane | The Blog Mire | May 5, 2018

In my last piece, I wrote that one of the downsides of the probable D-Notice slapped on the Skripal Case was that we may well be deprived of our daily dose of farcical nonsense, such as whether the poison was administered in the restaurant, the car, the cemetery, the flowers, the luggage, the bench, the porridge, the door handle or – and I’m surprised nobody has thought of it yet – perhaps the cat. There is no doubt an FSB manual waiting to be found which explains how cats can be safely used as conduits for “Novichok”, and it has almost certainly been put together by the dashingly handsome, astonishingly intelligent, but inexplicably bitmapped ruthless ex-KGB assassin, “Gordon”, who was apparently a suspect a couple of weeks ago, but is no longer deemed a person of interest.

But despite the D-Notice, on the morning of 5th May it seemed that the torrent of patent absurdities was actually not about to cease anytime soon. In an interview with the New York Times, the Director General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Ahmet Uzumcu, said the following:

“For research activities or protection you would need, for instance, five to 10 grams or so, but even in Salisbury it looks like they may have used more than that, without knowing the exact quantity, I am told it may be 50, 100 grams or so, which goes beyond research activities for protection.”

My immediate reaction was to ask why only 50-100 grams (which the New York Times helpfully tells its readers is between about a quarter-cup to a half-cup of liquid)? Why not a whole bucketful of Novichok, splashed indiscriminately over the front door of Mr Skripal’s house?

It is testimony to the truly uninquisitive minds of the dutiful stenographers at the New York Times and the rest of the media which ran with the same story, that none of them appear to have wondered to themselves something along these lines:

“Huh? 100 grams of military-grade nerve agent? Of a type said to be 5-8 times more lethal than VX, which itself has a median lethal dose of 10 milligrams. And we’re now apparently talking about 100,000 milligrams! And yet not only are the Skripals alive (well at least they were when last Yulia got hold of a phone) but the population of Salisbury seems to be doing okay as well. In fact no-one died (apart from the cat and the guinea pigs). Does Mr Uzumcu know what he’s talking about?”

My next reaction was to wonder whether actually he knows exactly what he’s talking about. But I’ll come back to that in a moment.

Anyway, later in the day, the OPCW issued a Statement on Amount of Nerve Agent Used in Salisbury, which read as follows:

“In response to questions from the media, the OPCW Spokesperson stated that the OPCW would not be able to estimate or determine the amount of the nerve agent that was used in Salisbury on 4 March 2018. The quantity should probably be characterised in milligrams. However, the analysis of samples collected by the OPCW Technical Assistance Visit team concluded that the chemical substance found was of high purity, persistent and resistant to weather conditions.”

As an aside, I’d love to know which media asked the questions. My guess is that it wasn’t any of those organisations who had repeated the claims made in the New York Times.

But what of the statement itself? Taken at face value, along with Mr Uzumcu’s original statement, it is very odd for a number of reasons:

1. Firstly, it says that the OPCW would not be able to estimate or determine the amount of the substance used. But of course this is exactly what Mr Uzumcu did appear to say, when he mentioned the quantities 50 and 100 grams.

2. Secondly, the statement says that the quantity should probably be characterised in milligrams. Not bucketfuls then? But of course the problem with this is that it does appear to leave Mr Uzumcu looking rather stupid, as if he:

a) Doesn’t know his grams from his milligrams and

b) Doesn’t realise that a cupful of military grade nerve agent 5-8 times more toxic than VX would kill people – like, lots and lots and lots of people

3. And thirdly, the milligrams for grams exchange completely undercuts the whole point Mr Uzumcu was making. He was saying that it appeared from the amount used that it could not have been produced in any old laboratory, as he had admitted a week before when he had said it could be produced “in any country where there would be some chemical expertise.” Rather, the point he was making was that quantities like 50-100 grams could only point to military production of the agent, rather than simply for research purposes.

This is all very bizarre. That’s hardly surprising, though, since there is almost nothing about this case that has not been extremely odd. From what I can tell, there are only really two possible explanations for this latest bout of strangeness.

One possible explanation is that Mr Uzumcu is simply incompetent, and so lacking in knowledge that he doesn’t know his grams from his milligrams, nor that half a cup of deadly nerve agent would wipe out hundreds, if not thousands, of people (not to mention being impossible to put on a door handle in the first place, at least not without the kind of protection that might just draw attention). However, this seems to me fairly unlikely. I assume that you don’t become Director General of the OPCW and remain in the position for eight years if you really are that inept.

But is there another more revealing explanation?

If you go back and read Mr Uzumcu’s statement, it is very noticeable that he does not actually state that he personally believes the quantity of the poison used in Salisbury was 50 or 100 grams. What he actually said is:

“For research activities or protection you would need, for instance, five to 10 grams or so, but even in Salisbury it looks like they may have used more than that, without knowing the exact quantity, I am told it may be 50, 100 grams or so, which goes beyond research activities for protection” [my emphasis].

It looks like they may have used more than that? From what does it look like that? From the months long, multi-million pound clean up job being undertaken, by any chance?

And of the quantity, he says he was told this. But the question is, who told him?

I can’t be sure, but my hunch is that he does know his grams from his milligrams; that he is well aware that 50-100 grams of the stuff would be enough to have killed the Skripals outright, along with hundreds or possibly thousands of others in the surrounding area; and also that he understands full well that the current multi-million pound clean up operation in Salisbury, which is precisely intended to give the impression that there was so much of the stuff that it might make up half a cupful, or perhaps even a whole bucketful, is something of a farce.

And so even though his original statement at first seems absurd, I’m fairly convinced that it was not a display of incompetence on his part. Rather, together with the subsequent clarification, it was very likely a signal that he believes his source for the claim to be either incompetent or – shall we say – economical with the actualité. And it may be that his real aim was – as diplomatically as possible – to let certain folks in Britain know that he’s not as convinced by some of their claims as they might like him to be.

May 5, 2018 Posted by | Fake News, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 1 Comment

Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions Everywhere

By Diana Johnstone | Consortium News | May 4, 2018

I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed.

The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS).

Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution.

A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism goes wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset.

McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out”. The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies.

But this raises the issue of sources. It is certain that there are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamic prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness.

This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia.

“Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna.

Whose “ideological lynchpin”? Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamic extremism.

Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamic extremism with Wahhabi roots.

In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks.

It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).”

No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to.

Only one, innocuous mention of Israel! But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times!

And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamic groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility.

Clearly, the Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times.

This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria.

This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events which are not the Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong.

The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse?

Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened?

For the Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness.

In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted.

Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong rule.

McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries.

If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar.

“In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.”

The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”.

This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization?

McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?”

One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “if we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?”

The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war.

For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business.


Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary ClintonCounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western DelusionsPluto Press (2002).

May 5, 2018 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Rogue State Israel Withdraws Bid For UN Security Council Seat

RT | May 5, 2018

Seeing little support amid international criticism over its violent crackdown on Palestinian protesters, Israel has announced it will not be seeking a rotating two-year non-permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council.

“After consulting with our partners, including our good friends, the State of Israel has decided to postpone its candidacy for a seat on the Security Council,” the Israeli delegation to the UN said.

At the same time, the diplomatic mission stressed that the country will remain “active” in the United Nations to exercise the country’s rights in the decision-making processes of the world body. “This includes the Security Council as well as an emphasis on areas related to development and innovation,” the statement added.

The State of Israel, which has never been a member of the UNSC, decided to throw in the towel after realizing that it had little chance of beating Germany and Belgium in the upcoming United Nations General Assembly vote, which is set to choose the rotating members of the Council on June 8, a source at the UN told Reuters.

Earlier, the Palestinian Authority noted that the Arab states would prevent Tel Aviv from obtaining enough votes to assume a seat at the Council. “We are doing everything possible to convince as many countries as possible to block the vote on Israel’s bid for a seat at the Security Council,” Riyad al-Maliki, Foreign Affairs Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, noted earlier.

“A country that violates international laws and conventions, that violates UN resolutions and principles, cannot sit down to dictate the fate of security and peace around the world,” he added.

The Jewish state’s decision to withdraw its bid comes amid massive international criticism over its use of lethal force to suppress the so-called ‘Great March of Return’ protests along the Gaza border which have been ongoing weekly since March 30. According to the Palestinian Health Ministry, the Israeli crackdown has resulted in at least 45 deaths, inclusive of two journalists, who were shot despite wearing jackets marked ‘PRESS’. More than 6,700 others have been injured in the ongoing rallies, set to conclude on May 15.

Brussels and Berlin will now run uncontested in the Western European and Others group at next month’s vote in the UN General Assembly when the 193-member body will decide on five new members for a two-year term, starting on January 1, 2019. Belgium and Germany, however, still need to secure a two-thirds majority to be elected.

The UNSC, in which the five permanent members –the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia– hold veto powers, is the only UN body that can make legally binding decisions. In addition to permanent members, there are five seats for African and Asian states, two for the Latin American and Caribbean states, two for Western European and other states, and one for Eastern European states. The rotation system was devised to ensure geographical representation on the Council.

May 5, 2018 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , , | 4 Comments

JFK and the Inconceivable Doctrine, Part 2

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | May 4, 2018

Three years ago, I wrote an article entitled “JFK and the Inconceivable Doctrine,” in which I pointed out how many lone-nut theorists in the JFK assassination have reached their conclusion based not on an examination of the circumstantial evidence in the case but instead simply on the notion that it is inconceivable that the U.S. national-security establishment would have carried out a domestic regime-change operation by assassinating an American president.

I would invite readers to read or review that article. The purpose of this article is to elaborate on this theme.

A lone-theorist might say, “Jacob, it is just inconceivable that the CIA and the Pentagon would engage in assassination.”

Yet, the evidence is overwhelming that both the Pentagon and the CIA have assassinated people and, in fact, continue to assassinate people.

The circumstantial evidence indicates that as far back as 1953 the CIA was specializing in the art of assassination. That fact is demonstrated by the discovery in the 1990s of a top-secret CIA assassination manual that was being developed as part of the U.S. national-security state’s regime-change operation against Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz. Entitled “A Study of Assassination,” the manual not only details methods to assassinate people, it also examines ways to prevent people from discovering that the CIA was behind the assassination. For example, the manual recommends tossing a person out of a high-story building and making it look like a suicide, so that people wouldn’t suspect that the CIA has assassinated the victim.

The CIA’s assassination manual was not simply an intellectual or theoretical exercise. It was an actual manual for assassinating people. In fact, the CIA actually developed a list of people to be assassinated as part of its 1954 regime-change operation against Guatemala.

A lone-nut theorist might say, “Jacob, fair enough. By the time of the Kennedy assassination, the CIA was specializing in the art of assassination. But it is simply inconceivable that the CIA would assassinate an innocent person.”

But the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the CIA was assassinating innocent people. For example, before Kennedy became president, the CIA targeted Congo leader Patrice Lumumba for assassination. He was innocent in the sense that he had never initiated any act of violence against the United States.

As part of the CIA’s 1954 regime-change operation against Guatemala, the CIA developed a top-secret list of Guatemalan officials who were to be assassinated as part of the operation. We are still not permitted to see the names of the people on that top-secret list but there is little doubt that Arbenz was at the top of the list. Fortunately for him, he escaped from the country before they could assassinate him. Arbenz was innocent in the sense that he and his government had never initiated any act of violence against the United States. In fact, the only reasons he was targeted for regime change were because of his socialist-communist proclivities and his desire to establish friendly and peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, including Russia.

There was also the CIA’s top-secret assassination partnership in the early 1960s with the Mafia, the world’s premier criminal and heroin-running organization at that time. The purpose of that partnership was to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro, notwithstanding the fact that neither Castro nor the Cuban government had ever initiated any act of violence against the United States. Like Arbenz, Castro was considered to be a legitimate target of assassination because of his devotion to socialism and communism and his desire to have normalized, friendly, and peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, including Russia.

In the early 1970s, there was the CIA’s plot to kidnap and assassinate Gen. Rene Schneider, the overall commanding general of Chile’s armed forces. What had Schneider done to deserve kidnapping and assassination? He opposed the U.S. national-security establishment’s desire for a military coup that would oust Chile’s president, Salvador Allende. That was it. That’s why he was murdered.

A lone-nut theorist might say, “Okay, fair enough, Jacob. They do assassinate innocent people, that is people who have never initiated any act of violence against the United States. But it is simply inconceivable that they would assassinate a democratically elected leader of a country.”

Once again, however, the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly supports the contrary. Arbenz, after all, was the democratically elected president of Guatemala. Lumumba was the democratically elected prime minister of the Congo. Allende was the democratically elected president of Chile. (While the evidence indicates that Allende committed suicide rather than be taken prisoner by his national-security establishment during the coup, there is no doubt that the U.S.-supported Chilean military was trying to assassinate Allende during the coup by firing missiles from jet planes into his position in the national palace.)

A lone-nut theorist might say, “Okay, Jacob, I am willing to acknowledge that they do assassinate democratically elected leaders. But it is simply inconceivable that they would murder an American citizen.”

Yet, the circumstantial evidence indicates otherwise. During the Chilean coup, for example, two Americans, Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi, were executed by the Chilean national-security establishment. A top-secret State Department investigative report concluded that U.S. intelligence had played a role in those murders. The report didn’t detail the exact role but it had to be that U.S. intelligence simply requested their Chilean counterparts to execute Horman and Teruggi. The report recommended further investigation but, not surprisingly, that recommendation went nowhere.

Why did U.S. intelligence officials want Horman and Teruggi dead? Three reasons. One, the two men believed in socialism and were supporters of Allende, who, like Arbenz and Castro, was a socialist. Two, Horman had discovered U.S. national-security state complicity in the coup, something U.S. officials were determined to keep absolutely top secret. Three, Teruggi was considered a traitor because he opposed U.S. intervention in the Vietnam War.

There is also the case of Frank Olson, an American civilian working for the U.S. national-security establishment. He had a crisis of conscience regarding the U.S. national-security establishment’s top-secret MKULTRA program and its illegal use of germ warfare against the North Korean people during the Korean War. As detailed in the book A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Cold War and the Netflix series Wormwood (both of which I highly recommend), Olson was thrown out of high-story hotel in New York City, but it was made to look like suicide from an MKULTRA drug experiment against him that had supposedly gone awry. That, of course, was precisely one of the methods of assassination that were recommended in that top-secret 1953 CIA assassination manual.

I should also mention the U.S. national-security state assassinations of Mary Pinchot Meyer and Dorothy Kilgallen, both of whom were Americans, as detailed in the excellent books Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace by Peter Janney and The Reporter Who Knew Too Much by Mark Shaw.

And of course, there are the recent assassinations of American citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, along with the entire formal assassination program that has now become an open and permanent program within the U.S. government.

A lone-nut theorist might say, “Okay, Jacob, I will acknowledge that they are willing to assassinate American citizens if they are convinced that “national security” requires it. But it is simply inconceivable that they would assassinate a democratically elected president of our country.”

But what if the president of the United States is perceived to be an even greater threat to “national security” than, say, Patrice Lumumba, Fidel Castro, Jacobo Arbenz, and Salvador Allende?

Indeed, as Douglas Horne details in FFF’s ebook JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated, there was a vicious war that was being waged below the radar screen between Kennedy and the Pentagon and the CIA over the future direction of the United States, something they kept secret from the American people for decades.

Kennedy was determined to establish peaceful and friendly relations with the Soviet Union, including Russia, Cuba, and the rest of the communist world, which, needless to say, would have removed the justification for converting the federal government to a national-security state in the first place.

The U.S. national-security establishment, not surprisingly, considered Kennedy’s actions to be akin to surrender or defeat at the hands of the communists. As far as they were concerned, peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union, Russia, and the rest of the communist world was impossible. For them, this was a fight to the finish, even if that meant nuclear war.

The Pentagon and the CIA considered Kennedy to be a naïve, incompetent, treasonous president who was placing America in much greater danger than foreigner leaders like Arbenz, Castro, and Lumumba were doing and like Allende would later do.

For his part, Kennedy considered people with that type of mindset to be nut-balls. That’s why after seeing an advertisement accusing him of treason in the Dallas Morning News on the morning of the assassination, he turned to his wife Jackie and remarked, “We are headed into nut country today.”

Notwithstanding the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence pointing toward a national-security domestic-regime change operation carried out on November 22, 1963, many lone-nut theorists continue to hew to the notion that it is just inconceivable that the U.S. national-security establishment would act to protect America from a president whose policies were perceived to constitute a grave threat to “national security.” To actually explore the evidence in the case is still just too frightening for them.

For more information:

The Kennedy Autopsy by Jacob Hornberger
JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne
Regime Change: The JFK Assassination by Jacob Hornberger
The CIA, Terrorism, and the Cold War: The Evil of the National Security State by Jacob Hornberger
CIA & JFK: The Secret Assassination Files by Jefferson Morley
The National Security State and JFK,” a FFF conference featuring Oliver Stone and ten other speakers
Altered History: Exposing Deceit and Deception in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence,” a five-part video by Douglas P. Horne
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass

May 5, 2018 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | 2 Comments

The Israel lobby: A List

Hollywood gala on November 2, 2017 to raise funds for “Friends of the IDF”, which supports Israeli soldiers. The event raised $54 million. Since FIDF has been made tax exempt in the U.S, donors were able to write their donations to soldiers for a foreign military off their U.S. taxes.
If Americans Knew | May 4, 2018

The pro-Israel special interest group is one of the most significant and pervasive special interest groups in the United States. It consists of numerous institutions and individuals that work to influence Congress, the president, academia, the media, religious institutions, and American public opinion on behalf of Israel. It has been active in the U.S. for many decades.

Below is a partial list, in no particular order, of groups and individuals that publicly support Israel. Some of these are official lobbying groups whose primary purpose is to lobby governmental officials for pro-Israel policies. Others are groups or individuals that work to influence the media, academia and/or others in a pro-Israel direction. Some do this full-time; others as one portion of a diverse array of activities. While they span the political spectrum and range from hardcore supporters of the Israeli right to liberal critics of some Israeli policies, all support Israel.

We will continue to update and add entities to this very incomplete list as staffing and time allow. (Also, we have been creating this roster for a number of years, so some links below may now be broken and some information may need to be updated; we will work to fix these as soon as possible.)

Below this list are some recommended books and additional resources on the Israel lobby. 

• The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC): AIPAC is the most prominent governmental lobbying organization on behalf of Israel. Fortune Magazine typically rates it as the second most powerful lobby in the U.S. AIPAC frequently writes legislation for members of Congress, which extraordinarily large majorities of both parties typically endorse. It has a $100 million endowmentand annual revenue of about $60 million and spends about $2-3 million each year in lobbying Congress. AIPAC’s annual conventions are typically a who’s who of high government office from both parties pledging their loyalty to Israel. Some years ago an AIPAC official announced that they planned to take over student governments.

• Pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs): AIPAC does not give campaign contributions itself but instead uses a campaign finance network consisting of around thirty Pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs), which AIPAC is constantly signaling. Only four of these PACs have names that indicate their true agenda, such as ‘Allies for Israel’ or ‘World Alliance for Israel.’ The rest have innocuous names like ‘National Action Committee’ or ‘Heartland PAC.’ Constituents usually don’t realize their candidates are receiving money from PACs that advance the interests of a foreign government. (More info below)

• Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CoP): This group of 51 Zionist organizations also advocates on behalf of Israel, including a focus on Iran. It had revenues of over $2.2 million in 2011. All members of the CoP sit on AIPAC’s executive committee. The Conference of Presidents focuses on lobbying the Executive branch while AIPAC concentrates on Congress.

• The American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF): AIEF is a subsidiary of AIPAC that takes Congressional Representatives on all-expense-paid trips to Israel. In August 2011, 81 members of Congress from both parties took trips to Israel with the AIEF. Its annual budget is over $26 million, and its executive director, Richard Fishman, is officially “not compensated,” but he receives $395,000 annually from affiliates. Roll Call reports that in 2012 “The American Israel Education Foundation spent more than $650,000 last year — more than any other group — to send more than 60 lawmakers and staffers to Israel for tours of Jerusalem, seminars on Israeli politics and discussions of asymmetric warfare, according to congressional travel filings.”

• The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP): WINEP is a highly influential think tank that pushes Israel-centric Middle East policies. It was founded by a former AIPAC employee, and while it claims to promote a “balanced and realistic” understanding of the Middle East, it is “funded by individuals deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda.” It is frequently called upon by both the government and the media to provide “expert” analysis on Middle East issues. Its 2010 revenues were $9.4 million, and its net assets total $23.5 million. Former AIPAC member MJ Rosenberg stated: “I was working at AIPAC and it was Steve Rosen who cleverly came up with the idea for an AIPAC controlled think-tank that would put forth the AIPAC line but in a way that would disguise its connections.” More information is here.

• Anti-Defamation League (ADL): The ADL bills itself as a civil rights institution devoted to stamping out anti-Semitism. But in practice, it regularly works to promote Israeli interests and attacks virtually any prominent person who criticized Israel and labels them “anti-Semitic.” It has also been involved in a large spying operation against American citizens who opposed the policies of Israel and the Apartheid regime in South Africa. It is an architect of “hate crimes legislation” that may effectively criminalize criticism of Israeli policies. The ADL is a member of the CoP with revenues of around $68 million and as of 2008 had net assets of over $185 million. Abe Foxman, its former national director, made $688,280 per year. When he retired he took a position at an Israeli think tank. The current director is Jonathan Greenblatt.

• International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (aka Stand for Israel): Founded in 1983 by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein “to promote understanding between Jews and Christians and build broad support for Israel,” it promotes advocacy for Israel among mostly right-wing Christians. It has annual revenues of nearly $100 million.

• Central Fund of Israel, based in Manhattan,  says it funds “over 250 charitable causes in Israel.” A Ha’aretz investigation found it funneled much of its money to settlements; it has sent money to an extremist Israeli organization in which the “rabbis heading the yeshiva published a book that discussed the circumstances in which non-Jews can be killed.” It has received “tens of millions of dollars” in donations. In 2015 its revenue was $20 million.

It also sponsors Reservists on Duty, established in 2015 by Israeli soldiers to travel to US college campuses to advocate for Israel and to train American Jewish students to speak on behalf of Israel.

The Gideon Project was created by Reservists On Duty “to give students fluent in English a chance to represent and defend Israel internationally after their service.” Soldiers speak on campuses throughout the U.S. Video here.

• Christians United for Israel (CUFI): CUFI is a right-wing Evangelical Christian organization run by David Brog, a Jewish American attorney who previously practiced corporate law in Tel Aviv, Israel. He’s the author of  Reclaiming Israel’s History. In 2007, the Forward newspaper listed Brog in its “Forward 50” most influential Jews in America. The titular founder of CUFI is John Hagee. CUFI, which distorts Biblical teachings, has high-level contacts with the Israeli government. Despite a budget of $7 million, it may be losing ground as more evangelicals learn the facts about Israel. It has a lobbying arm, called CUFI Action Fund, first reported in The Washington Post, run by Gary Bauer, one of the signers of the Statement of Principles of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) on June 3, 1997. Bauer also serves on the board of the Emergency Committee for Israel. In 2010 he received the Defender of Israel Award from the Zionist Organization of America. CUFI Action Fund’s Communications Director is Ari Morgenstern, an Israeli citizen who previously served at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. The fund, Bauer said, will have a multimillion-dollar budget and a dozen staffers who will focus on pro-Israel lobbying among members of Congress and presidential candidates. In 2017 it began a scorecard of legislators’ every vote and comment about Israel.

• Simon Wiesenthal Center: According to its website: “The Simon Wiesenthal Center is a global Jewish human rights organization that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism, promotes human rights and dignity, stands with Israel, defends the safety of Jews worldwide, and teaches the lessons of the Holocaust for future generations.” It has “a constituency of over 400,000 households” in the US. It is headquartered in Los Angeles, with offices in New York, Toronto, Miami, Chicago, Paris, Buenos Aires, and Jerusalem.” It gave its “Humanitarian Award” to Harvey Weinstein in 2015 despite the open secret of Weinstein’s assaults on women.  In 2011 it had an annual budget of $24 millionand net assets of $67 million.

• The Israel Project: Founded in 2003, the Israel Project specializes in pro-Israel propaganda targeting the press and the American public. In 2009, a secret handbook commissioned by The Israel Project and written by Republican pollster and strategist Frank Luntz, “The Global Language Dictionary,” was exposed by two Newsweek reporters. The handbook crafts language and talking points for Israel advocates in simplistic, diversionary, and dishonest ways. The organization has 70 employees and an $11 million annual budget. In 2011 it opened additional bureaus in India and China and launched a website in Arabic.

• Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces (FIDF): This American organization supports the Israeli armed forces. It hosts lavish fundraisers and has fourteen regional offices in the U.S. and one in Latin America. FIDF also brings hundreds of Israeli soldiersto the U.S. every year to lecture at synagogues, universities, and schools in order to increase American support for Israeli policies. It has annual revenues of around $60 million and net assets of $80 million.

• Hadassah (Women’s Zionist Organization of America): Founded in 1912, Hadassah is “a volunteer organization that inspires a passion for and commitment to its partnership with the land and people of Israel.” It has chapters across the U.S. and “more than 330,000… Members, Associates and supporters.” It regularly advocates on behalf of Israel and is currently pushing anti-Iran legislation. It has annual revenues of nearly $100 million and $400 million in net assets.

• America’s Voices in Israel (AVI): A project of the Conference of Presidents, AVI works to “strengthen American understanding of and support for Israel by inviting U.S.-based radio talk show hosts to see Israel and broadcast their programs live from Jerusalem.” It also brings celebrities and other “opinion makers” on guided tours of Israel.

• The Jewish Agency for Israel: The name is often shortened to just “The Jewish Agency.” According to its website, founded in 1929, this links “Jews around the world with Israel as the focal point… ” Major activities include Jewish Zionist education and building a global Jewish community. “In addition to extensive programs in Israel, it operates in close to 80 countries on five continents through a network of over 450 emissaries, including hundreds of formal and informal educators. The world Jewish community participates in the Jewish Agency’s decision-making process through the Assembly, its supreme governing body, and its Board of Governors, which is responsible for policy making and oversight.” The Jewish Federations of North American are a fundraising partner, with individual Jewish Federations from numerous American cities listed.

  • James S. Tisch: Chairperson of the Jewish Agency Board of Governors. According to its website, Tisch is President and Chief Executive Officer of Loews Corporation, chairman of the Board of Directors of Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., a member of the Board of Directors of CNA Financial Corporatio, a director on the board of the General Electric Company, Chairman of the Board of WNET, parent of WNET Channel 13 and WLIW Channel 21, a member of the Board of Directors of The New York Public Library, serves on the Executive Committee of the Partnership for New York City, a Trustee of the Mount Sinai Medical Center, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, President and Chairman Emeritus of Federation Employment and Guidance Service (F.E.G.S.), past Chairman of the Board of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, past Chairman of the Board of United Jewish Communities, past President of UJA-Federation of New York, and a former director on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

• Young Judaea:  According to its website, the organization was founded in 1909 and is “the oldest Zionist youth movement in the United States.” It brings young people to Israel and also has numerous summer camps in the US that serve to “instill a lifelong love” of  Israel. It’s annual budget is approximately $200,000.

• American Friends of Likud: According to its website, AFL “has developed unparalleled relationships with the Likud [a right-wing Israeli political party] Ministers and Members of Knesset as well as other Israeli dignitaries and policy and opinion makers. Our programs feature these individuals as guest speakers, lecturers and educators. Our special relationships with Israel’s leaders, dignitaries, journalists, etc. have been developed over the years and are based on a mutual belief in a right-leaning Likud philosophy.” Based in New York City, it is a has an annual budget of approximately $300,000. AFLis reported to be “one of hundreds of ‘Friends of’ Israel organizations in the US – all 501c3 tax-exempt charities raising funds to send to their parent organizations in Israel.”

• American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) [Jewish Virtual Library]: This nonprofit organization was established in 1993, according to its website, in order to “strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship.” Its principal publication is Myths & Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. It also works to fight “the delegitimization of Israel,” producing materials to oppose the BCS campaign and publishing the StopBDS.com website. There seem to be a number of AICE branches. The one in Chevy Chase assets of almost $11 million as of 2013. Its leader is Mitchell Bard. The organization sometimes funds professorson US campuses.

• The Israel Allies Foundation: Its website states: “Pioneered by MK Rabbi Binyamin Elon, the Israel Allies Foundation (IAF) works with Congress and parliaments around the world to mobilize political support for Israel based on Judeo-Christian values.” Officially titled International Israel Allies Caucus Foundation, it coordinates similar caucuses in 35 countries and has approximately $2 million in resources. 

• Americans United with Israel: The American branch of the international organization United with Israel, which states that it is “a global community comprised of individuals who are deeply committed to the success and prosperity of Israel. Our primary mission is to build a massive network of pro-Israel activists and to educate and promote unity with the People, Country and Land of Israel.” It is a tax-exempt organization. 2014 revenue was $590,000. It’s head is Kaylene Ladinsky, associate publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times.

• The Jewish Policy Center: Its website says it provides timely perspectives and analysis of foreign and domestic policies by leading scholars, academics, and commentators” and “passionately supports … U.S.-Israel security cooperation, and missile defense. We support Israel in its quest for legitimacy and security.” The JPC also says: “We also support U.S. efforts to spread democracy in the Middle East. We believe it is critical to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. We support Washington’s efforts to deter dangerous states from acquiring nuclear weapons. Finally, we lend our full support to Israel in its long war for security in the Middle East.”

• The Haym Salomon Center: According to its website, The Haym Salomon Center is a news and public policy group that produces content that often appears in mainstream and new media outlets. Its articles have been published in USA Today, the New York Daily News, Fox News, The Hill, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc. Many of its articles focus on Israel, the dangers of “political Islam,” and”antisemitism,” which frequently means opposition to Israeli human rights violations. It operates under Over the Horizon nonprofit organization, which in 2014 had approximately a quarter of a million dollars.

• The Foundation for Jewish Camp: This nonprofit foundation states on its website that in in Jewish camps “Israeli culture is celebrated through song, food, art, and dance,” and reports, “The magic of Jewish camp is rooted in its 24/7 atmosphere” and says that “connection to Israel” is “entwined with basketball, arts and crafts and swimming.” It notes that some camps are particularly “focused on Zionism and the role of Israel in Jewish life.” It reports that in one of these, CAMP INC., “Israel education will be embedded in the program as campers learn about Israel through the lens of their entrepreneurial sector. Campers will learn from high-level mentors, teachers, and business pioneers. Camp Inc., under the direction of Josh Pierce, will be operated by the Boulder JCC.” Another, URJ 6 POINTS SCIENCE ACADEMY “will immerse them in a vibrant Jewish community filled with Jewish music, Shabbat experiences, and living connections to Israel.” It states that the Academy, the 14th in the Union for Reform Judaism’s camp system, will be located in the Boston, MA area. Funding comes from a grant of $8.6 million jointly funded by The Jim Joseph Foundation and the AVI CHAI Foundation.

• The Jim Joseph Foundation: This is a DBA of the Shimon Ben Joseph Foundation, which faqs.org reports has assets of $837,220,914. Its website reports that among the activities its sponsors is “Israel Education,” which includes “twinning day schools with schools in Israel; integrating Israel education with learning taking place in general studies courses; and showcasing Israel’s arts and culture so students and teachers are in direct contact with what is happening in Israel today.”

• The Avi Chai Foundation: According to its 2010 form 990 report it had total assets of $614,997,808. One of its primary North American focuses, according to its website, is “Promoting Jewish Peoplehood and Israel.” It states: “Israel studies and Israel advocacy have become centerpieces of AVI CHAI’s peoplehood efforts in North America. All of the day schools receiving support from AVI CHAI have agreed to include in their materials, as an expression of their own philosophy, the following statement: “The creation of the State of Israel is one of the seminal events in Jewish history. Recognizing the significance of the State and its national institutions, we seek to instill in our students an attachment to the State of Israel and its people as well as a sense of responsibility for their welfare.”

JTA reports: “The Avi Chai Foundation, one of the leading supporters of Jewish day schools, includes on its website a section on Israel Education and Advocacy. It requires all schools receiving its support to abide by a statement saying that they ‘seek to instill in our students an attachment to the State of Israel and its people as well as a sense of responsibility for their welfare.’ It provides books on defending against anti-Israel campaigning on college campuses.”

• Stand with Us: Stand with Us has headquarters in Los Angeles and chapters in Israel, Europe, Britain, Australia, and South Africa. Its annual budget is at least $4 million, though this may only cover the U.S. section. It has a number of divisions, including StandWithUsCampusStandWithUs InternationalUnited4FreedomStand4FactsLearnIsraelLibrarians for Fairness, and Emerson Fellows. Student leaders are trained to advocate for Israel on campuses around the country. The organization has erected numerous pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian billboards around the U.S. “Israelis invested $57 billion in U.S. Companies” is one of them. For a deconstruction of this billboard go here.

• Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI): The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports:

Washington observers may feel there is no obvious shortage of pro-Israel lobbyists in the city—but a group of leading American conservatives thinks otherwise and has set up a new campaign group to attack President Obama over his ‘anti-Israel’ stance. The Emergency Committee for Israel presents a potent combination of Republican Party neoconservatives and Evangelical Christians. The new group’s board includes Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol and Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate who leads the group American Values, as well as Rachel Abrams, a conservative writer and activist.

Its website says: “The Committee for Israel is committed to mounting an active defense of the US-Israel relationship by educating the public about the positions of political candidates on this important issue, and by keeping the public informed of the latest developments in both countries. Join us to help support Israel and her many friends here in the United States.” The group makes his videos,  Its board is here.

The Committee produced an advertisement against Ron Paul that ran in South Carolina because of Paul’s opposition to U.S. aid to Israel and other countries, and another one against Rush Holt, who was defeated by Cory Booker, whose largest donor was a pro-Israel PAC. ECI funded tens of thousands of dollars worth of anti-Obama advertising.

• Leona M. and Harry B Helmsley Charitable Trust: The trust fund is valued at between $4 billion and $8 billion. Among the main areas its grants support are programs focused on “the security and development of Israel.” According to Jewish Week:

“[Leona Helmsley] left instructions for her charitable trust fund… to benefit dogs. But the courts ruled that the Leona and Harry Helmsley Trust Fund she had established after her husband’s death was not legally bound to fund animals only, and that its grants should be directed solely at the discretion of the trustees she had appointed. Fortunately for the State of Israel, Mrs. Helmsley chose Sandor (Sandy) Frankel, 69, a local Jewish attorney who worked closely with her the last 18 years of her life, to be one of the four trustees who now oversee that major trust. Frankel, who is married to an Israeli and has visited Israel frequently since he was a teenager, is proud to say that he has a passion for the Jewish state.

Among the projects receiving its multi-million grants was a new press center in Israel. At its opening Frankel announced: “Our hope is that with the opening of the club’s doors, the press will flock here, and will accurately report” on the country and its people.

• AMIT: According to its website: “Founded in 1925, AMIT is the world’s leading supporter of religious Zionist education and social services for Israel’s children and youth, nurturing and educating Israeli children to become productive, contributing members of society.” It has numerous chapters throughout the U.S. It sponsors lectures about Israel, holds screenings of Israeli films, participates in pro-Israel parades, etc. In 2011 its annual expenses were over $8 million and its net assets were $11,705,151. Its executive vice president was paid $120,292.

• Aaron and Marie Blackman Foundation, Inc: Net assets of about $7 million (see also here and here). Distributes grants to various Israeli organizations and other organizations with relationships with Israel.

• Jewish Day Schools: Many of these schools work to “instill in our students an attachment to the state of Israel.” (they sometimes use this version: “we seek to instill in our students an attachment to the State of Israel and its people as well as a sense of responsibility for their welfare.” They frequently have school trips to Israel (e.g. the Jewish Day school in Seattle), and include it in curricula, e.g. in Sacramento: “sixth-graders pursue a curriculum centered on Israel.” Their mission statements note that they teach “the centrality of the State of Israel” (see Contra Costa Jewish Day School). These are usually tax exempt institutions, which means they are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. JTA reports: “In April 2002, day schools throughout the country — Block Yeshiva High School in St. Louis, the Ramaz School in New York and the Ida Crown Jewish Academy in Chicago, to name a few — sent students by bus or plane to a pro-Israel rally in Washington, D.C.  “’They drove us to every single rally,” said Shira Galston, a 2004 graduate of Ramaz. “There was no question [of] do you want to go to the rally. We’re going to the rally. Whenever there was something that happened, there was never a question of what side the school was on.’” The Frisch school (Jared Kushner is an alum) hosts training sessions for a project in which teens carry out social media missions assigned from Israel. The Avi Chai Foundation, one of the leading supporters of Jewish day schools, includes on its website a section on Israel Education and Advocacy. It requires all schools receiving its support to abide by a statement saying that they “seek to instill in our students an attachment to the State of Israel and its people as well as a sense of responsibility for their welfare.” It provides books on defending against anti-Israel campaigning on college campuses. See this statement by Avi Chai. (It is important to note that such support for Israel came only after years of pro-Israel efforts to obtain this. The American Jewish population did not originally support Zionism, and there are many groups and individuals today who oppose this ideology, both in the U.S. and in Israel itself.)

• Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA): The Jewish Council for Public Affairs acts as an umbrella for many smaller organizations. One of its three goals, as announced in its mission statement, is to work for “the safety and security of the State of Israel.”  Its annual funding is $3,128,795 and comes primarily from private individuals. 

• Jewish National Fund (JNF): The Jewish National Fund is an international organization founded at Basil Switzerland by Theodore Herzl in 1901. The fund was originally created with for the purpose of purchasing land in Palestine for a future Jewish state. Today the main focus for the JNF is land “reclamation” and forestry. However, the group also serves to fund IDF military installations. The organization is well funded by donors with total assets of $1.15 billion dollars.

• Zionist Organization of America (ZOA): The Zionist Organization of America was established in 1887, making it the oldest pro-Israel organization in the US. Their goal is to spread the Zionist message wherever in all aspects of American life. Their objectives include spreading Zionism on American campuses, work to advance the interests Israel and Jewish people within the American legal system. They also engage in pro-Israel lobbying, with expenditures totaling$299,900 in 2009. Their finances include over $8 Million in assets and $2.5 million from donors.

• American Jewish Committee (AJC): The American Jewish Committee, founded in 1906, is based is San Francisco. In its mission statement, the AJC espouses support for leftist values, such as “shared democratic values” and “energy independence of the US,” while also advocating the right of Israel to exist as an exclusionary Jewish state. Its annual income is about $49,525,000 and comes largely from private individuals, with its assets totaling$132,310,000. It played a major role in creating the new Israel-centric definition of antisemitismthat is being embedded around the world.

• World Jewish Congress: The World Jewish Congress is an international organization representing Jews in 100 countries. Supporting Israel is one of the key components of its mission. Although its global finances are unknown, its US offices have an annual revenue of $5,521,674.

• Friends of Aish Hatorah:  Aish Hatora, Hebrew for “fire of the Torah,” is an Orthodox Jewish organization founded in 1974 and headquartered in Jerusalem. The group is known for a number of pro-Israel programs, including The Theodore Herzl Mission, which brings heads of state to Israel for one week each year. They also have a program called the Hasbara Fellowship, where people can come from around the world to learn how to effectively engage in pro-Israel propaganda. The group has also been linked to the distribution of an anti-Islamic propaganda film during the 2008 American presidential campaign. Because Aish Hatora is based in Jerusalem with various global branches, the details of their funding are unknown.

• Chabad: Chabad-Lubavitch, based on an 18th century Hasidic movement, is one of the the largest Jewish organizations in the world. It is a fervent supporter of Israel. One Chabad Rabbi has encouraged Jewish people to kill “Arab men, women, and children.” Chabad sometimes openly teaches that “the soul of the Jew is different than the soul of the non-Jew.” The group has a reported net worth of $1 billion dollars.

• Republican Jewish Coalition: The Republican Jewish Coalition Jewish is a lobbying group whose mission statement includes the “embrace of pro-Israel foreign policy.” The RJC maintains close links to the Likud party of Israel. They also control a Super Pac, which has upward of 2 million dollars in their war chest. Their Annual revenue is $10,067,507. The vast majority of their funding comes from various organizations.

• National Jewish Democratic Council: The National Jewish Democratic Council is a group dedicated to maximising Jewish support for the Democrat party, increasing support for “Jewish domestic and foreign policy priorities,” and “secur[ing] a democratic Jewish state in Israel.” NJDC supports Likud policies and pushes for a hawkish stance against Iran, urging the President of the United States to “stand with Israel.” Its annual income is $1,161,195 and is funded by private individuals.

• Foundation for Defense of Democracies: The Foundation for Defense of Democracies is an international organization whose claimed goal is “fighting terrorism and promoting freedom” and “defend[ing] free nations from their enemies.” It developed from the educational initiative Emet, which was created to “win American sympathy for Israel’s response to the Palestinian intifada.” While its mission may appear neutral, the organization is dedicated to promoting the security of Israel. Among its other projects is the Iran Project, which revolves around “supporting energy sanctions.” It is funded largely by private individuals’ donations. Its annual income is$7,267,839.

JINSA: JINSA is a non-profit organization whose mandate includes promoting a “a strong U.S. military, a robust national security policy, and a strong U.S. security relationship with Israel…” Their total revenue is $3,332,140 from contributions and program services.

• Saban Center at Brookings: The Saban Center for Middle East Policy is part of the Brookings Institute. Its mission statement includes a two-state solution for Israel/ Palestine. “Ardent Zionist” Haim Saban, a former AIPAC official, funds the institute.

• Center for Security Policy: Founded and led by neoconservative Frank Gaffney, a longtime Israel partisan, CSP works to promote a close US-Israelrelationship and to position Israel’s enemies as allegedly US adversaries. It’s annual budget is approximately $4 million and Gaffney himself earns over $288,000 yearly. The Institute for Policy Studies states: “…(CSP) is a prominent member of the neoconservative advocacy community that has promoted extravagant weapons programs, an Israel-centric view of Middle East peace, and a broad “war on terror” against ‘Islamofascists.’……A primary target of CSP’s work is Iran.”

• MEMRI: The Middle East Media Research Institute is an organization founded in the US in 1998. It’s stated objective is to “inform the debate over US foreign policy in the Middle East.” However, MEMRI is a shadowy organization that does not disclose names of staff members nor office locations. Analysts have commented that MEMRI appears to function as a propaganda organization that circulates biased translations in order to portray Arabs in the most negative possible light. One of the organization’s founders worked as an Israeli military intelligence officer. MEMRI has full non-profit status in the US and receives donations and grants amounting to $4,872,208 annually.

• Hillel: Hillel is a Jewish international student organization. According to its web page, Hillel “fosters an enduring commitment to Jewish life, learning and Israel.” Its president has stated: “We are a pro-Israel organization. It is part of our mission to encourage students to build an enduring commitment to Israel as a Jewish and democratic homeland.” Hillel sponsors and promotes free “birthright” trips to Israel. These trips position Israel as the “homeland” for European and American Jews. Hillel collects annual revenue of $25,920,017, primarily from gifts, grants, and contributions. Hillel has had a program to try to expand its reach by  “paying students to attract other students” to Hillel.

In 2014 some students launched an Open Hillel to challenge the Hillel establishment and work to allow campus groups “to adopt policies that are more open and inclusive than Hillel International’s, and that allow for free discourse on all subjects within the Hillel community” and that represent “a Jewish community where the full diversity of Jewish views on Israel-Palestine is accepted and celebrated.”

• Birthright Israel: Birthright Israel is an organization that provides free ten-day holidays to Israel for young Jewish adults, age 18 to 26. Their objective is to, “strengthen Jewish identities, Jewish community, and solidarity with Israel…” Their web page strongly emphasizes support for Israel.Philanthropists, along with 14,000 individual donors, fund Birthright Israel. Their total revenue is $101,960,863.

• David Project: The David Project is a non-profit educational program for the dissemination of pro-Israel propaganda in schools. Their primary goal is justification for Israeli actions, which is often referred to in the Hebrew term, “hasbara” (explaining). Their objective is, “work[ing] directly with students and Israel groups to help them reach out to their peers and talk about Israel.” The David Project has annual income of $2,824,763. However, the source of this income is unclear.

• Amcha Initiative: The Amcha Initiative is a group whose stated objective is to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism. Their definition of anti-Semitism is broad and encompasses virtually any criticism of Israel, including criticism of Israel’s human rights abuses. The group also lists the Boycott Divest and Sanction movement as an example anti-Semitism. Their annual income is $199,155. The source of this income is unclear.

• Young Israel: The National Council of Young Israel is a group of  146 Orthodox Jewish congregations. Starting in 1912, Young Israel’s web page claims that the group has always been “fiercely Zionist” and even boasts the acquisition of arms for the Jewish terror group Haganah. Young Israel currently offers material support to the Israeli Defense Force as it engages in attacks on Palestinians in Gaza. Because Young Israel is an umbrella for over 100 individual non-profit organizations, it is difficult to ascertain the amount and sources of the group’s income.

• Ateret Cohanim: American Friends of Ateret Cohanim is a non-profit organization based in Jerusalem. The purpose of the organization is the urban renewal of Jerusalem through Jewish gentrification. Their web site boasts of a new Jewish presence in the Christian and Muslim quarters of the Old City, and proclaims Jerusalem to be a city belonging to every single Jew, in spite of the fact that Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem is still not recognized under international law. The group maintains an office in New York with annual revenue of $1,054,618.

• Elad: The Ir David foundation (Amutat EL-AD) is a non-profit organization established in 1986 by David Be’eri, a former elite military commander of the IDF. According to their web page, the group “is dedicated to the preservation and development of the Biblical City of David and its environs.” However, the Ir David foundation is best known for its policy of “Judaization of east Jerusalem” through forced evictions and housing purchases. In recent years, their activity in East Jerusalem has been linked to violent clashes between Palestinians and the new Jewish residents. Ir David has a US auxiliary in New York called Friends of Ir David with total annual revenue of $5,884,950.

• BBYO (formerly B’nai B’rith Youth Organization)Its website says: “BBYO is the leading pluralistic teen movement aspiring to involve more Jewish teens in more meaningful Jewish experiences. For 90 years, BBYO has provided identity enrichment and leadership development experiences for hundreds of thousands of Jewish teens.” It pridesitself on its “unwavering commitment to the State of Israel.” The site says: “BBYO’s history is closely tied to that of the State of Israel. As the future leaders of the global Jewish community, it is our responsibility to learn about, appreciate and advocate for Israel.” Its 2015 annual budget was $27 million.

• Israeli-American Council: According to the Jewish Daily Forward, the Israeli American Council (IAC) aims to establish the Israeli expatriate community living in the U.S. community “as a ‘strategic asset’ for Israel in the U.S.” The goal is to be a “a potent political force in the future.”  IAC was established in Los Angeles in 2007, but expanded dramatically in 2013 when  casino mogul Sheldon Adelson’s began to serve as its main funder. About 700 expatriate Israelis participated in the “first-ever national political conference exclusively devoted to the expat Israeli community” in Nov. 2014. It has an annual budget of $17.5 million.

According to a 2013 report, “Current IAC programs include: Tzav 8 (recruiting thousands for pro-Israel rallies); Financing the Israeli “Shlichim” at all major campuses in Southern California; Organizing and funding the Los Angeles Independence Day Festival – the largest Jewish festival in North America, as well as dozens of ceremonies, holidays and mass events for the community; Sifriyat Pijama B’America, through which 10,000 families nationwide enjoy Hebrew bedtime books sent to their kids by mail, free of charge on a monthly basis; IAC-BINA club, consisting of approximately 1,500 Israeli and American Jewish young adults who convene discussions and activities relating to Jewish identity and support for Israel; establishing and funding the IAC-Care project in which thousands of the community members volunteer and organize large scale drives; and Mishelanu (the leadership program for Israeli-Americans students). More information is available on its website.

• America-Israel Chamber of Commerce Chicago: An American 501(c)6 tax-exempt organization founded in 1958 that facilitates trade and investment between the US and Israel, promotes Israeli goods and services, trade delegations and business match-making events, and works closely with the Government of Israel to advance bilateral trade. It is a sponsor of the website BuyIsraelGoods.org. The organization, which is tax deductible in the U.S., urges people to buy goods from a foreign country.

This is just one of a dozen such tax-exempt America-Israel Chambers of Commerce in the U.S. listed by the The Association of America-Israel Chambers of Commerce.

Influential Pro-Israel Individuals

• Daniel Shapiro, past US Ambassador to Israel, gave a speech in which he detailed his extremely close, life-long ties to Israel, concluding: “[A]s a committed Jewish American, with deep roots in the American Jewish community and warm bonds of affection with Israel, I will have an opportunity to draw on those associations to help make the U.S.-Israel relationship, strong as it is, even stronger in the years ahead.” He stated that “ensuring Israel’s future” drives all US policies. See “US Ambassador: Support for Israel drives all US policies

According to Wikipedia: Shapiro served as a professional staff member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, he was a legislative assistant and senior foreign policy adviser to Senator Dianne Feinstein, he sat on the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton, he was deputy chief of staff (primarily on foreign policy issues) for U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, he was vice president of the Washington, D.C., lobbying firm Timmons & Company, served as an advisor to then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama on Middle East and Jewish community also assisting as strategist and fundraiser, accompanied Obama on his July 2008 trip to Israel; In January 2009, Shapiro was appointed senior director for the Middle East and North Africa of the U.S. National Security Council. Focusing on Israel, he attended every Israel-related meeting, and met with every senior Israeli diplomat and military officer who visited Washington, D.C. Shapiro often accompanied U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George J. Mitchell on his trips to the region, and played a central role in talks regarding the Middle East Peace Process and the strengthening of military cooperation between the U.S. and Israel. He maintained close relations with Benyamin Netanyahu, in spite of tensions between the Israeli prime minister and President Obama.[14] Shapiro took leave of the President of IsraelReuven Rivlin, on January 17, 2017 before holding his final meeting with Netanyahu two days later, which one newspaper described as a “terse farewell.”After concluding his service as ambassador to Israel, Shapiro became a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (Israel) at Tel Aviv University.

• Howard Berman, Democratic Congressman from California, acknowledged in a 2008 interview with the Forward, “Even before I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist.” He went on to explain that “an interest in the Jewish state” was one of the main reasons he first sought a seat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, where he is the top Democrat. Berman, who is known as “the Congressman from Hollywood,” also told the Forward, “He is particularly keen on getting the House more involved in Iran-related issues.”

• Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel (he was naturalized as an American citizen before being nominated for this position); currently Special Envoy for Israeli Palestinian Negotiations. At one point he had his security clearance revoked, the only time this has happened to a U.S. ambassador. See video.

• Haim Saban, multimedia mogul whose net worth is over $3 billion dollars, has said, “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” In 2010, he told New Yorker magazine that his greatest concern is to protect Israel by strengthening the United States-Israel relationship. Saban has bluntly outlined his formula for gaining influence in American politics: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets. He tried to buy Time and Newsweek magazines, and has made repeated bids for the Los Angeles Times because he considers the paper to be pro-Palestinian. He donated $9 million to Democrats in the 2002 election cycle alone.

• Sheldon Adelson, a businessman and casino magnate, is worth over $28 billion dollars. He owns a number of resorts as well as the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom, the most largely circulated paper in Israel. Adelson set a new record in political donations by giving $70 million (to Republicans) in the 2012 elections, nearly triple the previous highest amount. He also funds pro-Israel organizations such as Birthright Israel, which takes thousands of young Jewish Americans on recruiting visits to Israel.

• Rahm Emanuel, powerful Democratic politician, was a Congressman, chair of the House Democratic caucus, mayor of Chicago (despite allegations that he had not been a Chicago resident), in Bill Clinton’s administration (had been Clinton’s main fundraiser), White House Chief of Staff under President Obama, etc. Volunteered with the Israeli military during the first Gulf War (his father had served in the pre-Israel terrorist group the Irgun), was Israeli citizen until age of 18. Jeffrey Goldberg says Emanuel “is deeply and emotionally committed to Israel and its safety. We’ve talked about the issue a dozen times; it’s something he thinks about constantly.” See video.

• Stuart Weitzman, shoe designerdonated $1 million to Maccabi USA. The Maccabiah is an Olympics-style competition held every four years in Israel.

• David Satterfield, U.S. diplomat who holds the rank of “Career Minister” who has worked on Middle East issues for over 40 years.. Among his positions have been second-highest diplomat at the US Embassy in Baghdad. In 2002 Satterfield discussed secret national security matters in two meetings with Steven J. Rosen, a top AIPAC official.

Other individuals include:

Journalists

NYT’s Ethan Bronner’s son was in the Israeli army; more info on NY Times)

Pundits like Jeffrey Goldberg Kenneth Pollack, Daniel Pipes, Bill Kristol, Irving Moskowitz (more)

The Islamophobia Industry: Institutions and individuals who promote Islamophobia, including Aubrey and Joyce Chernick, Frank Gaffney, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz, Stephen EmersonDavid Yerushalmi, and others. (more)

Eric Weider, publisher of American History, Civil War Times, Military History, and eight other history magazines.

Hollywood tycoon Arnon Milchan, who produced Pretty Woman, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, and Fight Club, worked for the  Mossad.

Politicians

(we have just begun compiling this category)

Charles “Chuck” Schumer, top Democraatic leder in the Senate


There’s no card to carry that says one is part of the Israel lobby. But taken as a whole, this sampling of powerful pro-Israel organizations demonstrates how information is systematically skewed before it reaches the American public. Politicians and journalists are systematically harassed, often losing jobs, if they step out of line.

There is no comparable pressure from the Arab-American side, much less from stateless Palestinians, who have no army, little money, and very little cultural influence or PR savvy. By contrast to the $3 million given by pro-Israel PACs in 2010, the two Arab-American PACs—Arab American Leadership Council PAC and Arab American Political Action Committee—gave a total of $36,500.

Many members of the lobby have promoted policies against Iran and Iraq.


* PACs: Usually a PAC can only donate $5,000 for a primary and $5,000 for general elections. But with thirty “unaffiliated” PACs marching in lockstep behind AIPAC, this can balloon up to $300,000 for any given candidate. The extent of this influence remains hidden from view. They also use “bundling,” which means taking various individual donations and handing them over en masse to a candidate, so that on the books it shows up as several individual donations, but everyone except the FEC understands who’s really controlling the money.

A 1996 book called Stealth PACs reports that “in 1988, Israel’s lobby had 78 PACs spending more than $5.5 million to bribe Congress to vote more aid for Israel. That was more than total contributions together of the two next largest special interests in the United States—the real estate lobby and the teamsters.”

During the 2010 elections, Israel-affiliated contributions were the third highest of any special interest at nearly $3 million (with almost equal amounts given to Democrats and Republicans). But because that number was broken into pieces and hidden behind unrelated names, pro-Israel contributions didn’t “officially” make the top twenty.

One example is Washington Pac, founded by Morris Amitay, former head of AIPAC. Its website states: “…over three million dollars has been carefully distributed on a bipartisan basis to Senators, Representatives, and candidates… Its Capitol Hill location enables the PAC to meet with Representatives and Senators on an almost daily basis. The Advisory Board holds regular luncheons with U.S. Senate candidates, and the PAC’s newsletter has earned an esteemed reputation for its analysis of the U.S. Senate races.”

• Teva: Not all PACs with connections to Israel are included in the pro-Israel list. For example, the parents company of the Teva PAC Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, is Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, an Israeli company, the world’s largest generic drug maker. It has achieved its astronomical sales by at times infringing on patents (although Judge Sidney Stein just rejected a similar claim – Stein also rejected a freedom of speech law suit related to the Palestinian issue ). Teva’s website states, “Teva Government & Public Affairs seeks to provide legislators and policy makers with both policy and political assistance on issues of importance to patients, the company, its customers, and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reports on PACs frequently. For example, see their list of pro-Israel PAC contributions to candidates in 2010..


Recommended books:

They Dare to Speak OutThey Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, by Paul Findley

The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy, by Edward Tivnan

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, by Alison Weir

Alfred Lilienthal’s books

Additional resources

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

The Link

Council for the National Interest

Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy

We also recommend subscribing to the If Americans Knew news blog, where we post new items on this category frequently, as well as on Israel-Palestine in general.

May 5, 2018 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , | 1 Comment