As Congress tackles urgent issues of reopening government and setting the budget for the country, it takes the time to prioritize a foreign country: H.R.648 contains assurances that Israel will receive $3.8 billion for arms, and funding for refugee resettlement; the bill also includes threats to de-fund the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and any future state of Palestine–if US demands (dictated by the Israel lobby) are not met.
On January 23, the House of Representatives passed an appropriations act billed to ““reopen the government and pay our federal employees.” But buried inside the bill are diverse financial allotments and perks for a foreign country: Israel.
The legislation contains paragraphs and sections far removed from the shutdown, committing billions of dollars in payments to Israel – without the robust debate that usually accompanies big-ticket spending.
The bill has now been placed on Senate Legislative Calendar.
Its sponsor, Nita Lowey (D-NY), was handpicked to be House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman because of her staunch pro-Israel leanings.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who appointed Lowey, asserted, “We have people very well paced to share our values” during a speech at the annual conference of the Israeli-American Council (slogan: “Building a coast-to-coast community with Israel in its heart and Israeliness in its spirit”).
It is not unusual for US legislators to advocate for Israel as soon as a new session begins.
A glance through previous years’ appropriations records indicates that the US Congress has for years included issues related to Israel among the earliest legislation of each session. The Senate’s very first bill of 2019, S.1, “Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East,” would authorize assistance and weapons transfers to Israel – which the Consolidated Appropriations bill would then authorize Congress to spend.
Lowey’s House bill, which scarcely mentions any other country by name, contains assurances that Israel will receive money for refugee resettlement and arms, as well as threats to de-fund the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and any future state of Palestine–if US demands (dictated by the Israel lobby) are not met.
Below are the sections of the bill that discuss Israel, followed by an analysis of each:
Israel: Migration and Refugee Assistance (Title III)
The bill text states: “$35 million shall be made available to respond to small-scale emergency humanitarian requirements [throughout the world], and $5 million shall be made available for refugees resettling in Israel.”
The Migration and Refugee Assistance Act was passed in 1962 to deal with unexpected and urgent needs of refugees, displaced persons, conflict victims, and other persons at risk around the globe.
Israel is the only refugee assistance beneficiary named in the bill.
It’s unclear why Israel is to be the recipient of 14% of the US refugee aid, given that Israel is the sixth wealthiest country in the Middle East-Asia-Pacific region, and therefore would appear to be able to shoulder this itself.
Also, it’s unclear why Israel the U.S. would give Israel so much aid for refugee settlement, given Israel’s unfriendly policies toward refugees.
AFRICA: The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) recently reported on Israel’s practice of detain and deport for African refugees: of an estimated 35,000 Eritrean and Sudanese refugees in Israel, the state recognized only eleven as refugees between 2009 and 2018. The rest bear the label “infiltrator,” and face possible expulsion to countries where their safety is questionable at best.
SYRIA: Syria shares a border with Israel; Syrian refugees, the largest single refugee group in the world today. Yet Israel’s former defense minister Avigdor Lieberman has said Israel “will not accept any Syrian refugee to our territory.”
It is also unclear why Israel is to receive U.S. refugee aid when it is the cause of the longest refugee crisis in the world today: Israel prohibits the return of millions of Palestinian refugees families awaiting their UN-mandated right to return, to their land.
Nuclear nonproliferation (Title IV)
The bill text states: “For necessary expenses for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, de-mining and related programs and activities, $864.55 million, to remain available until September 30, 2020… funds appropriated under this heading may be made available for the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] unless the Secretary of State determines that Israel is being denied its right to participate in the activities of that Agency.”
A former Iranian ambassador to Jordan asserts, “The Zionist regime expects other countries to comply with non-proliferation treaties while it keeps its nuclear arsenal and does not allow nuclear inspectors to monitor its activities.”
The IAEA promotes the use of atomic energy for “peace, health, and prosperity throughout the world” and works to prevent its use “to further any military purpose.”
Israel’s association with the IAEA has always been problematic, as Israel insists on a policy of ambiguity regarding its nuclear capabilities. Israel cites its “unique security needs” as justification for its ongoing refusal to either declare itself a Nuclear Weapon State (NWS) or sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
In addition to its unacknowledged nuclear capabilities, Israel practices the “Begin Doctrine,” a policy of counter-proliferation and preemptive strikes.
Arms Export Controls Act (Title IV)
The bill text states: “For necessary expenses for grants to enable the President to carry out the provisions of section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act, $5.9 billion… [for] the provision of assistance to foreign countries and international organizations… [O]f the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than $3.3 billion [55% of the total] shall be available for grants only for Israel which shall be disbursed within 30 days of enactment of this Act… Provided further, That funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this heading shall be nonrepayable…
The Arms Export Control Act was put in place to ensure that weapons the US sent abroad would be used for legitimate self-defense. Some countries, including Israel, enjoy assistance in the form of grants; others receive loans.
Much of the worlddisagrees strongly with Israel’s claims of self-defense in its strikes against its neighbors (the self-defense assertion also contradict its Begin Doctrine – see above).
Regarding the above clause, “shall be disbursed within 30 days,” Congressional Research Service (CRS) explains:
Israel gets all of its aid money at the start of each year, rather than in quarterly installments like other countries. This is significant: It means that Israel can start earning interest on the money right away – interest paid by the US since Israel deposits these funds into an interest-bearing account at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. In addition, because the US government operates at a deficit, it must borrow money in order to give it to Israel and then pay interest on it all year. Together these cost US taxpayers more than $100 million every year.
Loan guarantees (Title VII, Section 7033)
The bill text states: “Extension of Loan Guarantees to Israel—Chapter 5 of title I of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108–11; 117 Stat. 576) is amended under the heading “Loan Guarantees to Israel”— [giving Israel a 4-year extension].
Jewish Virtual Library explains loan guarantees to Israel in simple terms:
Loan guarantees are essentially the explicit agreements between two people – or two nations – that if one defaults on a loan the other is obligated to pay it back… ideally, the United States will never have to pay out even a single dollar.
The United States is accepting responsibility from international creditors for any loans the Israeli government takes out…the U.S. could be hit with up to a $3.8 billion bill, plus interest, if Israel defaults on their loans…
Congressional Research Services (CRS) adds that money borrowed must not be used for military purposes or settlements.
However, as CRS points out, “U.S. officials have noted that proceeds from the issuance of U.S.-guaranteed debt that are used to refinance Israeli government debt free up domestic Israeli funds for other uses.”
The bill text states: [T]he Arab League boycott of Israel…is an impediment to peace in the region and to United States investment…[The boycott] should be immediately and publicly terminated.. all Arab League states should normalize relations with their neighbor Israel; the President and the Secretary of State should continue to vigorously oppose [the boycott – for example by refusing to sell weapons to boycotting countries…and encourage allies to enact anti-boycott laws].
The Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement explains its existence in the context of seventy years of Israeli denial of Palestinian rights and noncompliance with international law:
Governments fail to hold Israel to account, while corporations and institutions across the world help Israel to oppress Palestinians. Because those in power refuse to act to stop this injustice, Palestinian civil society has called for a global citizens’ response of solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice, and equality.
The US Senate recently passed a federal anti-boycott bill, S.1, which ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Kathleen Ruane critiqued:
The bill, Combating BDS Act, encourages states to adopt the very same anti-boycott laws that two federal courts blocked on First Amendment grounds. The legislation, like the unconstitutional state anti-boycott laws it condones, sends a message to Americans that they will be penalized if they dare to disagree with their government.
Palestinian statehood (Title VII, Section 7036)
The bill text states: “None of the funds appropriated under titles III through VI [e.g. global health programs, disaster assistance, economic support funding, peacekeeping operations] of this Act may be provided to support a Palestinian state unless the Secretary of State determines and certifies [that the Palestinian governing body is committed to peaceful coexistence with Israel, fighting terrorism, renouncing belligerency, etc.,]
None of the funds appropriated under the heading “Economic Support Fund” in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if [Palestinians become full members as a state in the UN or any of its agencies – without direct negotiations with Israel, or] Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court (ICC) judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians.
Israel has officially stated that no Palestinian state should be created apart from direct negotiations with Israel. It views Palestinian efforts at international legitimacy as an attempt by Palestinians to “force their will on Israel through international pressure [which] harms true peace.”
While insisting on negotiations, Israel refuses to participate in talks that include democratically elected Hamas, and calls on Palestinian leadership to “say the simple words: ‘Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and it will stay that way.’”
For their part, Palestinians require a stop to the illegal expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land as a prerequisite to peace talks–a requirement that Israel has historically ignored.
Palestinians also point to UN Security Council Resolution 242, in which they were called upon to recognize Israel’s “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force,” which does not obligate them to acknowledge Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
In addition, Palestinians reference the 1993 Letters of Mutual Recognition – in which they recognized the existence of Israel – as sufficient recognition.
These issues have caused a deadlock in any negotiations, prompting Palestinians to seek out statehood through other means.
Regarding the International Criminal Court, US leaders have claimed that Palestinians bringing a case to the ICC is “not productive” and the US “prefers a negotiated peace process between Israel and Palestine.”
No to Palestinian agency in Jerusalem (Title VII, Section 7037)
The bill text states: “None of the funds appropriated under titles II through VI of this Act may be obligated or expended to create in any part of Jerusalem [a venue for conducting official US Government business with the Palestinian Authority or any Palestinian governing entity].
When President Trump, at the behest of donor Sheldon Adelson, announced the movement of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, he signaled recognition of all of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; Palestinians and most of the world reject this, as East Jerusalem is widely considered occupied, and is the intended capital of a future Palestinian state.
No to “Martyrs’ Fund” (Title VII, Section 7037)
The bill text states: “The Secretary of State shall reduce the amount of assistance made available by this Act…[if a Palestinian governing body pays for] acts of terrorism by individuals who are imprisoned after being fairly tried and convicted for acts of terrorism and by individuals who died committing acts of terrorism…”
Israeli academic Ilan Pappe is one of many who take issue with the notion of a “fair trial” for Palestinians: he describes Israeli military courts as a “humiliating charade” which create the illusion of a fair trial. Pappe insists that the military courtroom houses “a sinister process” and “a bureaucratic self-justification for the system to do what it wants to do.”
Palestinians are prosecuted and judged by Israeli military officials who boast a 99% conviction rate.
The so called “Martyrs’ Fund” or “pay-to-slay” system in the Palestinian territories is actually a fairly typical social safety net, which assists families of Palestinians who are injured or killed in the course of resistance against the Israeli occupation. It also helps to offset the frequent, illegal Israeli practice of demolishing the homes of convicted “terrorists,” a form of collective punishment.
UN Human Rights Council (HRC) (Title VII, Section 7048)
The bill text states: “None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available in support of the United Nations Human Rights Council unless the Secretary of State determines…[that the UNHRC] is taking significant steps to remove Israel as a permanent agenda item…”
The UNHRC created a permanent discussion point for Israel on its agenda in 2007, one year after the council was formed. The United States officially opposes “Agenda Item 7: Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories,” claiming it illustrates an anti-Israel bias: “The continued existence of this agenda item is among the largest threats to the credibility of the Council.”
The HRC has consistently supported the Palestinians and cited Israel for abuses dozens of times.
The United States withdrew from the HRC in 2018 in solidarity with Israel; PM Netanyahu praised the move and called the organization “a biased, hostile, anti-Israel organization.” Then-Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley accused the body of having a “disproportionate focus and unending hostility toward Israel.”
——
H.R.648, “Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019,” is the spending bill Congress needs to pass in order to extricate the US from its damaging government shutdown and pay federal employees. As Congresswoman Lowey stated, other issues would be addressed at a later date.
But the House has prioritized both monetary and policy issues related to Israel, pledging U.S. taxpayer dollars that address Israel’s interests at the expense of Americans.
Kathryn Shihadah is staff writer for If Americans Knew. She blogs at Palestine Home.
Washington D.C. headquarters of NPR, National Public Radio
NPR’s ‘All Things Considered’ segment underreports AIPAC’s finances, uses only Israel partisans as commentators, minimizes power of AIPAC, ignores Palestinians, and fails to inform listeners of the full scope of the Israel lobby
The report is in response to freshman Democratic Congress member Ilhan Omar’s tweet that AIPAC is the cause of U.S. politicians’ support for Israel over U.S. needs and principles. Omar has come under numerous attacks ever since.
NPR’s report, broadcast Wednesday, substantially downplays the power of AIPAC. In doing so, it suggests that Omar’s comments were “antisemitic,” while failing to interview anyone with different views.
The report was on NPR’s All Things Considered, which says it is “the most listened-to, afternoon drive-time, news radio program in the country.”
NPR’s only commentators are Israel partisans
The report largely features comments from two members of the Israel lobby: Josh Block, former AIPAC spokesman and current CEO of the Israel Project, and Ben Shnider, National Political Director for JStreetPAC, which calls itself “the largest pro-Israel PAC in the country.”
No one else is interviewed.
The show does not mention that Block was the center of a scandal several years go when it came out that he had been encouraging neoconservative journalists and pundits on a private email list to smear staffers at two progressive think tanks as supposedly “antisemitic.”
Block’s business partner publicly repudiated Block’s actions, and a Democratic-aligned organization expelled Block for using ‘mischaracterization or character attacks’.”
Wednesday’s NPR report was introduced by host Mary Louise Kelly announcing that Ilhan Omar had “repeated what are viewed as anti-Semitic characterizations” of AIPAC.
Kelly failed to mention that many people consider the accusation unjustified and Omar’s statement valid. Israel partisans regularly try to claim that proponents of Palestinian rights are “antisemitic.” An Israeli Knesset member has said that this is a frequently used “trick.”
Block and Shnider are then brought on as alleged experts on the issue. None of the groups and individuals who support Omar are quoted.
Underreports AIPAC’S budget
In the report, NPR gives AIPAC’s lobbying budget as $3.3 million, but leaves out the fact that AIPAC’s total 2017 income was over $229 million.
Commentator Josh Block emphasizes that AIPAC itself doesn’t directly donate to candidates, but doesn’t mention that AIPAC uses numerous other ways to deploy its millions of dollars to influence politicians.
NPR reporter Peter Overby briefly mentions one non-donation AIPAC activity and glancingly refers to what he terms “a small constellation of political action committees around [AIPAC],” but fails to give the full picture of AIPAC’s influence.
A fuller view of AIPAC’s power
Prominent international relations scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt provide a much fuller description of AIPAC’s importance in their 2008 book on the Israel lobby, and in a London Review of Books article on the subject.
Mearshimer and Walt state: “AIPAC itself… forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it.”
They quote a former AIPAC staff member, who states: “It is common for members of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, committee staff or administration experts.” He says that AIPAC is “often called on to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes.”
AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy from Illinois, a potential presidential candidate.
The authors, senior professors at the University of Chicago and Harvard, state:
“Money is critical to US elections…. AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her political opponents. AIPAC also organises letter-writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates.
“There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had ‘displayed insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns’. Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: ‘All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians – those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire – got the message.’”
AIPAC, de facto agent for a foreign government
Mearsheimer and Walt state: “The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world…….. as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: ‘Help AIPAC. ”
Israeli Prime Minister General Ariel Sharon, known for his brutal military operations.
While today some other pro-Israel organizations are vying with AIPAC for power, American politicians still consider AIPAC so powerful that every top 2016 presidential candidate spoke at its annual convention.
Israel as ally?
During the NPR report, Block refers to the alleged “value” of the “U.S.-Israel alliance,” and Overby fails to challenge Block’s claim.
In reality, the value is on one side only.
Israel receives over $10 million per day from hard pressed American taxpayers (likely to soon to go even higher), and is shielded by the U.S. from international actions to end Israel’s numerous violations of international law and human rights. It also receives numerous trade perks and other benefits, including U.S. legislation that requires NASA to work with Israel’s space agency, despite allegations of Israeli theft of classified U.S. research.
On the U.S. side, the alleged “value” is negative. U.S. support for Israel damages the U.S. in numerous ways: it drains money from the U.S. economy, subsidizes Israeli companies that compete with American companies, creates dangerous hostility to the U.S., pushes the U.S. into tragic and costly wars on behalf of Israel, and funds a foreign nation built on ethnic/religious discrimination that repeatedly spies on the U.S. and steals American technology.
As if that weren’t enough, Israel tried to sink a U.S. Navy ship, killing 34 Americans and injuring over 170, and then “compensated” the U.S. with a sum that was a small fraction of the destroyed ship’s worth.
What Palestinians?
Gaza following Israeli attacks, 2014.
Information about Palestinians and why anyone would oppose AIPAC’S support for Israel is missing from the NPR report. There is no mention of Palestinians’ forced expulsion to make way for a Jewish state, the ongoing Israeli violence against them, or the systemic discrimination inherent in Israel.
In fact, the word “Palestinian” is mentioned only once, when Shnider says that most Jewish Americans support “a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel.” There is no mention about security for Palestinians, or that the “Palestinian state” being proposed consists of a tiny portion of Palestinians’ ancestral land.
AIPAC: tip of the iceberg
During the broadcast, Overby mentions pro-Israel billionaire Sheldon Adelson and a few other pro-Israel groups, implying these are largely the extent of the Israel lobby.
Overby and his guests fail to inform listeners of the full range and power of the Israel lobby in the United States: hundreds of organizations embedded in every state in the union and almost every campus, with a combined revenue of well over $6 billion.
Added to this are pro-Israel billionaire donors who regularly deploy their wealth on behalf of Israel, including Adelson and his Israeli wife Miriam, Israeli-American Haim Saban, Paul Singer, Norman Braman, and Larry Ellison, who have a combined net worth of close to $115 billion.
After Muslim congresswoman Ilhan Omar made an obvious point about Jewish power influencing American foreign policies, she was forced, by that same Jewish power, to recant, thus confirming, to all those who can still think, the awful influence of Jewish power.
Though Jewish power is quite out in the open, as in AIPAC and the existence of a racist state that’s sustained by terror and endless war, one can’t even say “Jewish power” without being immediately branded an anti-Semite, if not a Nazi.
If it wasn’t for Jewish power, Americans wouldn’t have so much Muslim blood on their hands, or being worse than bankrupt, having fought so many wars for Israel.
If not for Jewish power, questioning the Holocaust wouldn’t be a thought crime in 16 European countries. No other event in human history is so fascistically protected from scrutiny. None but the Holocaust, thanks to Jewish power.
Robert Faurisson conclusively dismantled the Nazi gas chamber myth, so Jewish power destroyed his academic career, put him on trial and bankrupted this brave, unflinching man. In 1989, three thugs claiming to be The Sons of the Memory of the Jews attacked the 60-year-old and broke his jaw.
The Holocaust does not explain genocide but enables it, but few dare to say so, for fear of Jewish power.
There are no scientific or even documentary proofs of the Holocaust, so the six million figure is just as much nonsense as the human skin lampshades and human fat soap.
Thanks to the Holocaust, Germany is forever shamed, but there is “an inherent right of every individual to defend the community to which he belongs—that is, his people—from false and wicked accusations including the wickedest,” so states the lawyer for Ursula Haverbeck, a ninety-year-old woman who is imprisoned for questioning the Holocaust.
Even if she’s completely wrong, a raving lunatic, shouldn’t Haverbeck be entitled to her own thoughts? Jewish power emphatically says no.
Proscribing thoughts, Jewish power deforms minds, distorts personalities and turns men into cowardly idiots, and when this happens en masse, as in Germany, an entire society can unravel.
Outside the West, nationalism is embraced as natural and necessary, but in most white countries, it’s become increasingly equated with Fascism, and nowhere is this attitude more salient than in Germany. There, I saw graffiti denouncing Deutschland and even calling for “volkstod,” or “national death.” So many Germans wouldn’t hate themselves so vehemently if it wasn’t for the Holocaust, it’s safe to say.
For several years, I’ve posted reports from a German friend, describing his country in crisis, so below is his latest. Burdened by Holocaust guilts, Germans are shamed into accepting millions of refugees, many of whom are Muslims fleeing from wars triggered by Jewish power.
While still enjoying prosperity, stability, even tranquility (at least in comparison to most countries in the world), there are more signs we are fast approaching the “heart of darkness.”
In Berlin and Hamburg, two German cities with a high and rising percentage of migrants, the news are sobering: In Berlin, a study of 24,000 ten-year-old students shows that about 75% didn’t reach the basic levels of reading, writing and math. The news from Hamburg were equally dismal.
Or take Duisburg. Formerly best known for a TV character (Commissioner Schimanski), it’s now famous for its constant rising percentage of Migrants (and the problems that come with it). A 2017 study shows that only 8% of all first grade students spoke accurate German, while 16% spoke no German at all! Might it have something to do with the fact that in 50% of Duisburg households, German was not the first language spoken?
Lo and behold, the solution is near, for we are told we just have to work harder on integration, and everything will be fine (one wonders where all the jobs for these pupils shall come from…).
A further glimpse into the future is provided by the lovely town of Pforzheim. With about 160,000 people, its percentage of migrants is now roughly 60%. In the last local elections, the conservative AfD reached 26%, which is very uncommon in western Germany. Though similar to American Republicans, the AfD is constantly accused of Nazism and racism by the media, with the effect that many Germans are convinced these evil Nazis must be stopped.
Christiane Quincke is someone who quite eloquently fights “Nazis.” A typical product of western Germany’s reeducation, she feels morally obligated to fight Nazis and to integrate migrants. To achieve these ends, she has allied herself with DITIB, an organisation financed by the Turkish state and accused of having rather revolting stances on women, equality and gender, etc. It doesn’t matter. Progressive Quincke sees no contradictions.
Meanwhile, the media are doing their best to show us the evil face of Germany. In Chemnitz, two Germans were stabbed to death by a group of refugees (a thing which happens now on a weekly basis). A few thousand Germans demonstrated to express their anger and rage, but the crowd was peaceful and no riots took place. Nevertheless, some Neonazis within the demonstration showed the Hitlergruß (the Nazi salute), and this was more shocking to the media than the crime itself.
Even more shocking were news some demonstrators had allegedly chased migrants through the streets. In a video posted on an Antifa channel, two Migrants were chased by some men for a few yards. The entire media came immediately to the same conclusion: It was “Dunkeldeutschland” (the dark Germany, as our former president had called it) or Nazi Germany showing its ugly head.
The deed was unequivocally condemned by all media personalities and politicians, and even Chancellor Merkel jumped on the bandwagon to state that she would not tolerate a mob hunting foreigners. Some media even claimed that a pogrom had taken place. We should keep in mind that during a real pogrom, people not only get beaten up, but often killed, while windows are smashed, houses burnt and the likes. Nothing of the kind took place in Chemnitz.
It’s funny but the media and politicians never said this incident should be thoroughly investigated by the police. Lo and behold, the alternative media finally interviewed the woman who had made the video. In it, she and her husband (who remained anonymous for fear of reprisals) explained that an argument had happened before the incident.
Two young migrants had repeatedly shouted “Piss off” at the demonstrators, who shouted back, “Shut up!” After a moment, some demonstrators started running towards the migrants, who fled. After a few yards, the demonstrators stopped and let the migrants escape. A German shouted after them, “Ihr seid hier nicht willkommen!” (“You are not welcome here!”)
So this was the horrendous incident! This was Nazi Germany, and so horrific that it had to be condemned by all good citizens! The mainstream media paid no attention to the interview with the maker of the video. Furthermore, the Director of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Herr Maaßen, had to resign for simply stating that no pogrom had taken place in Chemnitz.
So we now have two realities: A real one and a fake one. (He who reads Orwell might not be too surprised).
Another funny thing happened some weeks later: A group of young refugees were chasing Germans in the small town of Amberg. Drunk, they punched passersby, some of whom were running away. All in all about 12 Germans were punched and/or kicked, with two hospitalized.
While this was a real violent incident, it caused no media uproar, in contrast to the fake pogrom in Chemnitz. It’s no wonder why all the great newspapers in Germany are failing.
Two other examples to explain the difference between reality and the media’s picture: For years, German Christmas markets were cheerfully attended by many people (Germans and others). People drank glühwein, ate potato pankaces and shared stories. There was no police around, no fences, no guards, nothing.
In 2018, German Christmas markets are surrounded by concrete posts to prevent Islamists from driving into the crowds. Police is often around, sometimes heavily armed and closely watching everything. Yet, we are still told, all is quiet on the Western (and Eastern) front.
Only obscure bloggers bother to paint a different picture of the reality. Vera Lengsfeld is a former politician of the conservative German Christian Democrats. Born in the former East Germany, she was a critic of the Communist regime, so was jailed for speaking her mind.
After the fall of the socialist regime, she joined the Conservative party. As she once put it, she thought that the rest of her life would be spent on “beautiful things” like art, exhibitions, etc., and she would never have to speak out against another unjust regime.
To her great amazement, the Federal Republic of Germany underwent a change from a liberal country to a politically correct state, which began to follow suicidal polices in regards to migration, economics and the environment, etc.
Lengsfeld became one the staunchest critics of Merkel’s open door policy. Since it’s hard to paint her as a racist or a Nazi, the media simply ignores her. Her informative blog paints a rather bleak picture of present day Germany. She shows that during last New Year’s Eve, for example, there was much violence in many German cities, but since these incidents were buried in local news, most Germans did not know about them.
Since the media paint the right wing AfD as a menace, AfD members are most likely to have their cars burned or their offices smashed. They may also face problems at work or have bars and restaurants shun them. In Berlin, a posh restaurant put out a sign indicating it won’t serve members of the AfD.
It’s so funny how these patterns are repeated throughout history: I am quite sure these restaurant owners are convinced of doing the right thing, but doesn’t it rhyme with “don’t buy from the Jew”? Not yet, but we’re only a few steps behind.
The change in political climate can also be seen in the following incident: The boss of the AfD in Bremen, Frank Magnitz, was attacked and badly hurt. You can see the picture of him lying unconsciously in a hospital.
When the media reported about the attack by some thugs (probably Antifa), they were quick to mention that Frank Magnitz had it coming, for he was spewing vicious hatred… I don’t want to imagine the national hysteria had Magnitz been a Social Democrat or Green Party politician. An outcry of historic proportions would have ensued.
We have it coming too. Recently, our Minister of Finance told us that “die fetten Jahre sind vorbei” (“the fat years are over”). He meant that tax revenues will go down and an economic slowdown might ensue.
Danke, Herr Minister! With about 50 billion Euros a year for all the new programs for migrants and refugees, including housing, language and integration courses, social benefits and what-have-you, what shall we do? We must stop relying on the state for everything, that’s what, and get our lazy asses going!
Hmm, wise words, but I smell something fishy here… With taxes already at the highest level in German history, what should we expect? Even higher taxes! And more economic hardship, of course. On and on it goes…
Diesel is the new evil, Trump is evil, the AfD is evil, East Germans are evil, especially Saxons (though they started the uprising against Communism), and refugees are our shiny future, even if 65% of them are still unemployed, and the ones with jobs are overwhelmingly low-skilled.
Two young Germans were just pushed in front of a train and died? Who are the suspects? Ah, some Germans (sigh of relief), but they are of Turkish and Greek origins? The Germans were pushed because they had told the suspects to stop smoking there. Oh, well… It could have been the other way around, no? Unfortunately, statistics tell a different story.
So all in all, we are on our way to the heart of darkness. It will still take many years until we’ll finally get there, but we will, for sure. No revolution will stop this course, no reform, no rationality, no new thinking. Nothing.
Reality will matter still less in the years to come. We will swallow up all our resources until we reach complete pauperization, and on our way to the bottom, we’ll see our liberties vanished and our way of life, too. There will be more taxes, violence, hatred, bigotry, irrational behavior and modern witch hunts.
We are ruled by ideologists, not only in Germany but across the West, and they will not stop chasing paradise on earth as they create hell.
Will we learn from the epic downfall awaiting us? I hope and pray that some of us will hold up the light of rational thinking, the heritage of our forefathers, who gave their lives for freedom and justice. In Berthold Brecht’s Galileo Galilei, Galilei is threatened with torture for his heresy, so recants his observation that the sun is the center of the universe, and not the earth, which prompts a disappointed follower to blurt out, “Pity the country that has no heroes!”
The frail Galilei famously corrects him, “No, pity the country that needs heroes.”
Be that as it may, we will be challenged in the years ahead to become heroes of a true and decent humanity. Good luck to us all.
Caracas – In an interview over the weekend, “interim President” of Venezuela Juan Guaido promised he would work on restoring relations with Israel.
Despite not actually having a government or being in any type of official position of power within Venezuela Juan Guaido is still somehow making big promises. Last week it was the promise to sell oil he doesn’t control to the US and this week he is setting foreign policy for a state, a military, and a diplomatic core that he doesn’t have.
Regardless of Juan Guaido’s material position, Israel has been more than willing to indulge in the US fantasy in Venezuela and was one of the early states to recognize the fraud as “interim President.” Now it seems Guaido is more than willing to repay the favor should he ever actually hold office.
Guaido made this promise in a recent interview with the Israel Hayom newspaper where he told the interviewer that he was “very happy to announce that the process of stabilizing relations with Israel is in full swing.” While what exactly that means when you’re a President with no power is rather ambiguous, for some reason Guaido has said restoring relations “is very important for us.”
Regardless of all these factors, there are still several reasons the new President has made this a high priority. Even without any actual diplomatic staff recognized by the state, Guaidó has still been in contact with Israel and has even discussed opening a new Venezuelan embassy in Israel, saying it “is one of the subjects we are talking about.”
Another reason Guaidó claims he wants to restore relations with the Zionists is due to the fact that there “are many Venezuelans in Israel and many Jews in Venezuela.”
According to Guaidó, this Venezuelan Jewish community “is very active and prosperous” and have expressed to the president their hopes for renewed relations with Israel.
Guaidó says this Jewish community has a friend in him and he wishes to ‘restore their rights’ and has “no doubt that the Jews are afraid.” Now Guaidó has promised to protect this Jewish community should he ever take power.
Relations between Israel and Venezuela were cut off in 2009 under Hugo Chavez, the previous Venezuelan President and mentor of Nicolás Maduro. Chavez knew well that Israel is very active in Latin America in helping the US subvert democracy and didn’t wish to allow the Zionists a base of operations in his country.
Obviously, the reasons cited by Hugo Chavez to justify throwing the Zionists out of Venezuela is perfectly legitimate but this has been a sore point with Washington and imperial media for some time. US media considers the fact that Chavez expelled the Zionists and supported Palestine as proof of the anti-semitism inside the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).
This is all totally ridiculous of course and the Chavistas chose to expel the Israelis in solidarity with Palestine against imperialism. This shift in foreign policy was framed as dangerous and the distrust of Zionism is said to be responsible for the “flight” of Venezuelan Jews to Israel.
But just how big is this important Jewish community?
Before Chavez, the total Jewish population in Venezuela was only estimated at about 22,000 out of over 30 million. Since Chavez took power that population has dwindled down to around 7,000 meaning there are about 15,000 Venezuelan Jews in Israel.
Supposedly restoring the Venezuelan embassy in Israel is very important, just not to more than about 20-30,000 people. Many Venezuelans still oppose any type of outside intervention in their country and it likely wouldn’t matter if it was US or Israeli soldiers but Guaidó is clearly more beholden to his foreign backers than he is to his own people.
With all that said, Guaidó still hopes Israel will invest more in regime change in his country. “Many Western countries have already committed to sending humanitarian aid to Venezuela,” he said adding that he is “confident that Israel will also help us.”
Since Israel is basically a US proxy this likely means Guaidó would like aid from them in the form of firearms like the ones Washington recently tried to smuggle in. Chavez made the correct choice in throwing out the Zionists and their agents of subversion, meaning the best hope for Venezuela to remain independent is for the Chavistas to uphold this legacy of anti-imperialism.
Israel and Arab countries are in talks “in order to advance the common interest of war with Iran”, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said, although the translation from Hebrew was later downgraded to mere “struggle.”
The promise of a major conflict in the Middle East was floated by the Israeli leader during his trip to Warsaw.
“From here I am going to a meeting with 60 foreign ministers and envoys of countries from around the world against Iran,” Netanyahu said as quoted by Jerusalem Post.
“What is important about this meeting – and this meeting is not in secret, because there are many of those – is that this is an open meeting with representatives of leading Arab countries, that are sitting down together with Israel in order to advance the common interest of war with Iran.”
The Israeli PM is in the Polish capital to take part in a two-day international forum on the Middle East, which starts on Wednesday. Representatives from the United States and the European Union are in attendance in addition to Netanyahu and ministers from Gulf kingdoms. The EU representation at the event however is less than impressive, with heavyweights Germany and France choosing not to send their foreign ministers.
The US delegation is headed by Vice President Mike Pence, who is accompanied by vocal Iran hawk Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and advisor. The Anti-Iranian goals of Israel and the US are apparently dominating the agenda of the forum.
“We’re trying to expand the number of nations who are engaged and have a stake in the future of a peaceful and prosperous Middle East,” Brian Hook, the State Department’s special representative for Iran, told Reuters.
The EU is on a shaky ground vis-a-vis Iran as it’s member Poland hosts the meeting. The Europeans are attempting to resist the push for confrontation with Iran coming from Washington, hoping to salvage the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran. The Iranians still stick to the terms of the agreement even after US scrapped it under the Trump administration, but the promise of lucrative business opportunities with the EU, which was a major part of the incentive for Tehran to accept the deal, are nowhere near to materializing under the threat of American sanctions.
“Today, the Iranian people see some European countries as cunning and untrustworthy along with the criminal America. The government of the Islamic Republic must carefully preserve its boundaries with them,” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned ahead of the gathering in Warsaw.
Israel and Iran are already engaged in a proxy war in Syria, where Israeli military regularly attack what they call Iranian military targets encroaching on Israel. Building on the foundation of common hostility with Iran, the Jewish state also entered cozy relations with Saudi Arabia and its Gulf supporters over the past decade.
Whether the regular exchange of threats grows into an open shooting war in the Middle East, as Netanyahu seems to be promising, is anyone’s guess.
You might imagine that a report by a multinational observer force documenting a 20-year reign of terror by Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers against Palestinians, in a city under occupation, would provoke condemnation from European and US politicians.
But you would be wrong. The leaking in December of the report on conditions in the city of Hebron, home to 200,000 Palestinians, barely caused a ripple.
About 40,000 separate cases of abuse had been quietly recorded since 1997 by dozens of monitors from Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Italy and Turkey. Some incidents constituted war crimes.
Exposure of the confidential report has now provided the pretext for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to expel the international observers. He shuttered their mission in Hebron this month, in apparent violation of Israel’s obligations under the 25-year-old Oslo peace accords.
Israel hopes once again to draw a veil over its violent colonisation of the heart of the West Bank’s largest Palestinian city. The process of clearing tens of thousands of inhabitants from central Hebron is already well advanced.
Any chance of rousing the international community into even minimal protest was stamped out by the US last week. It blocked a draft resolution at the United Nations Security Council expressing “regret” at Israel’s decision, and on Friday added that ending the mandate of the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH) was an “internal matter” for Israel.
The TIPH was established in 1997 after a diplomatic protocol split the city into two zones, controlled separately by Israel and a Palestinian Authority created by the Oslo accords.
The “temporary” in its name was a reference to the expected five-year duration of the Oslo process. The need for TIPH, most assumed, would vanish when Israel ended the occupation and a Palestinian state was built in its place.
While Oslo put the PA formally in charge of densely populated regions of the occupied territories, Israel was effectively given a free hand in Hebron to entrench its belligerent hold on Palestinian life.
Several hundred extremist Jewish settlers have gradually expanded their illegal enclave in the city centre, backed by more than 1,000 Israeli soldiers. Many Palestinian residents have been forced out while the rest are all but imprisoned in their homes.
TIPH faced an impossible task from the outset: to “maintain normal life” for Hebron’s Palestinians in the face of Israel’s structural violence.
Until the report was leaked, its documentation of Israel’s takeover of Hebron and the settlers’ violent attacks had remained private, shared only among the states participating in the task force.
However, the presence of observers did curb the settlers’ worst excesses, helping Palestinian children get to school unharmed and allowing their parents to venture out to work and shop. That assistance is now at an end.
Hebron has been a magnet for extremist settlers because it includes a site revered in Judaism: the reputed burial plot of Abraham, father to the three main monotheistic religions.
But to the settlers’ disgruntlement, Hebron became central to Muslim worship centuries ago, with the Ibrahimi mosque established at the site.
Israel’s policy has been gradually to prise away the Palestinians’ hold on the mosque, as well the urban space around it. Half of the building has been restricted to Jewish prayer, but in practice the entire site is under Israeli military control.
As the TIPH report notes, Palestinian Muslims must now pass through several checkpoints to reach the mosque and are subjected to invasive body searches. The muezzin’s call to prayer is regularly silenced to avoid disturbing Jews.
Faced with these pressures, according to TIPH, the number of Palestinians praying there has dropped by half over the past 15 years.
In Hebron, as at Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, a Muslim holy site is treated solely as an obstacle – one that must be removed so that Israel can assert exclusive sovereignty over all of the Palestinians’ former homeland.
A forerunner of TIPH was set up in 1994, shortly after Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli army doctor, entered the Ibrahimi mosque and shot more than 150 Muslims at prayer, killing 29. Israeli soldiers aided Goldstein, inadvertently or otherwise, by barring the worshippers’ escape while they were being sprayed with bullets.
The massacre should have provided the opportunity for Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s prime minister of the time, to banish Hebron’s settlers and ensure the Oslo process remained on track. Instead he put the Palestinian population under prolonged curfew.
That curfew never really ended. It became the basis of an apartheid policy that has endlessly indulged Jewish settlers as they harass and abuse their Palestinian neighbours.
Israel’s hope is that most will get the message and leave.
With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in power for a decade, more settlers are moving in, driving out Palestinians. Today Hebron’s old market, once the commercial hub of the southern West Bank, is a ghost town, and Palestinians are too terrified to enter large sections of their own city.
TIPH’s report concluded that, far from guaranteeing “normal life”, Israel had made Hebron more divided and dangerous for Palestinians than ever before.
In 2016 another army medic, Elor Azaria, used his rifle to shoot in the head a prone and badly wounded Palestinian youth. Unlike Goldstein’s massacre, the incident was caught on video.
Israelis barely cared until Azaria was arrested. Then large sections of the public, joined by politicians, rallied to his cause, hailing him a hero.
Despite doing very little publicly, TIPH’s presence in Hebron had served as some kind of restraint on the settlers and soldiers. Now the fear is that there will be more Azarias.
Palestinians rightly suspect that the expulsion of the observer force is the latest move in efforts by Israel and the US to weaken mechanisms for protecting Palestinian human rights.
Mr Netanyahu has incited against local and international human rights organisations constantly, accusing them of being foreign agents and making it ever harder for them to operate effectively.
And last year US President Donald Trump cut all aid to UNRWA, the United Nations’ refugee agency, which plays a vital role in caring for Palestinians and upholding their right to return to their former lands.
Not only are the institutions Palestinians rely on for support being dismembered but so now are the organisations that record the crimes Israel has been committing.
That, Israel hopes, will ensure that an international observer post which has long had no teeth will soon will soon lose its sight too as Israel begins a process of annexing the most prized areas of the West Bank – with Hebron top of the list.
Americans consistently indicate in opinion polls that they approve of congress less than any other part of the federal government. The approval rating is sometimes in the single digits. As the congress was intended, per the Founders, to serve as the direct link to the American people, there is a certain irony in its being the most despised branch of government.
One can blame the two major parties for much of the negativity, as the process whereby candidates for office rise through the system that seems designed to weed out anyone who has ever expressed any viewpoint that is not approved by the bipartisan establishment. Indeed, many Americans complain that Democratic and Republican congress critters differ only superficially, both being corrupt from top to bottom and largely driven to stay on top so they can continue to benefit personally from the spoils of office.
One of the emptiest of all the empty suits in the Senate is Marco Rubio of Florida. The boyish looking Rubio is, to be sure, ambitious, but his thought processes, if they exist at all, are hard to discern. He is, more than most congressmen, both totally ignorant and completely programed in what he says and how he says it. Anyone who doubts that judgement should watch the February 2016 debate with former New Jersey governor Chris Christie in which Christie totally destroyed Rubio, effectively ending his bid to become the GOP candidate for president. Christie criticized Rubio for memorizing a “25-second speech that is exactly what his advisers gave him.” The two argued, but Rubio seemed stuck with his stump speech, which Christie called him out on every time he launched into it. Christie eventually turned and told the audience “There it is. The 25-second memorized speech.”
Rubio is pretty much straight-line neocon in his pronouncements, his most recent policy statement being that the Venezuelan people have two choices – change their government or starve. He tweeted it with his usual eloquence: “Hunger & desperation is growing inside #Venezuela & people know the only thing standing in the way of $50 million of food & medicine is #Maduro. Military leaders should make a choice, before a choice is made for them. The window for a negotiated exit is closing fast.” Columnist Whitney Webb responded with “Marco Rubio is openly saying that if Venezuela’s military doesn’t turn on Maduro soon, ‘a choice will made for them’ by the United States. Scariest threat for an imminent invasion of Venezuela I have yet to see.”
Rubio, who is Cuban-American, is inevitably hard-line against taking any steps to improve relations with his ancestral homeland, is hostile to “enemies” Russia and China, and wants American soldiers to stay in Afghanistan and Syria forever. It is a formula for continuous conflict worldwide, with the United States paying the tab both in dollars and in casualties.
But Senator Marco Rubio’s greatest affection is reserved for the Jewish state Israel. Why? Because that’s where his money and political support come from, and, for its part, the Israel Lobby sees Rubio as a perfect simple-minded patsy to advance its agenda. Israel’s promoter with the deepest pockets, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, was pursued by Rubio who “… consistently championed Israel in speeches on the Senate floor while also pushing legislation aimed at supporting the cause” during the GOP nomination process. Rubio eventually received Adelson’s endorsement in February 2016.
Before acquiring Adelson’s support, Rubio had “already gained support from Miami billionaire Norman Braman and New York billionaire investor Paul Singer, among others.” Both Braman and Singer are known to be major supporters of Israel. Marco’s affection for both Israel and Florida Jews derives largely from his connection to Braman, a former Philadelphia Eagle’s owner and currently a billionaire Miami resident who owns Florida’s largest network of car dealerships. Braman, an active supporter and funder of the illegal Jewish settlements in the Middle East, has been Rubio’s major financial backer since his early days in Florida state politics and as a quid pro quo whenever Marco expresses his love for both Jews and Israel, he is speaking to and for Braman.
Rubio has recently written, or had written for him, an op-ed in The New York Times entitled “The Truth About BDS and the Lies About My Bill” that seeks to explain why recent legislation to protect Israel that the senator sponsored does not violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
Senate bill S.1 for 2019 finally passed out of the Senate last week on a 77 to 23 vote with Rand Paul as the only Republican Senator to vote against it. The full title of S.1 is the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019, which might be considered a bit of a fraud as it has nothing to do with the United States and is really all about giving Israel money and anything else it might desire, to include destroying the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement that has targeted Israel’s apartheid. In his speech defending the bill, Rubio openly admitted that he was seeking to help Israel. He also registered his opposition to the impending pullout of U.S. troops from Syria because it would, according to him, “endanger” the Jewish state.
Rubio’s op-ed was written before the final vote on February 5th, but it predicted correctly that the bill would receive “a bipartisan supermajority” in the Senate. Anything having to do with Israel normally receives such “supermajorities” from congressmen who are intimidated, or expecting to be raptured shortly or on the Israel Lobby payroll.
The op-ed’s author comes out swinging, declaring that critics have “echoed false claims made by anti-Israel activists and others that the bill violates Americans’ First Amendment rights. That line of argument is not only wrong but also provides cover for supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, who embrace an international campaign of discriminatory economic warfare against Israel, a fellow democracy and America’s strongest ally in the Middle East.”
One supposes that “anti-Israel activists” consist of that increasing number of Americans who want to see Israel held accountable for its war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yes indeed, a boycott is “discriminatory economic warfare” using peaceful and non-threatening means to bring about change. And no, Israel is neither a democracy nor an ally of the United States. Has the Senate approved a treaty of alliance with Israel, Marco? You’re in the Senate and should know the answer to that one.
Rubio goes on to claim that “the goal of the movement is to eliminate any Jewish state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.” Wrong again Marco. Even if some BDS supporters might like to see that, it is not a “goal of the movement.” The movement is non-violent and Israel has a large army that would make such an objective a fantasy.
The author then describes how “While the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to free speech, it does not protect the right of entities to engage in discriminatory conduct. Moreover, state governments have the right to set contracting and investment policies, including policies that exclude companies engaged in discriminatory commercial -or investment- related conduct targeting Israel… That’s why, since 2015, more than 25 states, including Florida, have adopted laws or issued executive orders to divest from or prohibit contracts with companies that wage discriminatory economic warfare against Israel.” Wrong again Marco. Free speech includes supporting discriminatory conduct. The American Civil Liberties Union has addressed the issue succinctly, arguing correctly that “Public officials cannot use the power of public office to punish views they don’t agree with. That’s the kind of authoritarian power our Constitution is meant to protect against.” And several state laws protecting Israel from the First Amendment have already been ruled unconstitutional.
Marco then expands on his argument, “The Combating BDS Act does not infringe on Americans’ First Amendment rights or prohibit their right to engage in boycotts. By design, it focuses on business entities — not individuals — … it focuses on conduct, not speech. Indeed, it does not restrict citizens or associations of citizens from engaging in political speech, including against Israel.” Indeed Marco, but how do you explain the fact that several of the well-publicized cases involving BDS legislation have involved individuals not “business entities” who refused to sign pledges regarding Israel, which, when last I checked, was not even part of the United States and has nothing to do with contracting in this country? Those individuals have been denied government benefits and have been fired from jobs they had held for years.
And then there is the hypocrisy issue for Marco Rubio. If openly and vocally opposing trade with or travel to Cuba should similarly be suppressed, would he and his Cubanos associates consider that to be constitutional or perfectly legal? I think not. And Cuba, as far as I know, does not line up snipers to shoot children and medical workers while also stealing land from its rightful owners. Israel is a racist apartheid state. Cuba, for all its faults, is not.
It would be difficult to find more insipid justifications for S.1 than those provided by Marco Rubio. He does not understand that the “state” at all levels is supposed to be politically neutral in terms of providing government services. It is not supposed to retaliate against someone for views they hold, particularly, as in this case, when those views are part of a nonviolent opposition to the policies of a foreign government that many consider to be guilty of crimes against humanity. Rubio clearly believes that you can exercise free speech but government can then punish you by taking away your livelihood or denying you services that you are entitled to if you do not agree with it on an issue that ultimately has nothing to do with the United States. How such a lightweight came to be a Senator of the United States of America eludes me.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
Following an investigation by the Israeli military into the killing of a Palestinian motorcycle rider on February 5th, and the severe wounding of his passenger, the military was forced to admit that their initial claim that the young man had explosives was a false claim.
Abdullah Faisal Omar Tawalba, 19, was shot and killed by Israeli forces on February 5th, 2019, at an Israeli military checkpoint in Jenin, in the northern part of the West Bank.
His passenger, Omar Ahmad Hanana, 15, was also shot by the Israeli military and badly injured, but is in stable condition at the Jenin Governmental Hospital run by the Palestinian Authority.
Initially, the Israeli military reported to the media that the young men had approached the checkpoint and “tried to plant explosives”.
An investigation by Israeli military police found no evidence whatsoever of any explosives of any kind.
The soldiers claimed that they “heard an explosion,” and were sure “an explosive was thrown at the roadblock, before they opened fire.”
The checkpoint where Abdullah was killed by the soldiers is located near the entrance of the al-Jalama village, northeast of Jenin in northern West Bank. The army’s initial statement claimed that Palestinians were riding a motor cycle and “hurled an explosive at the soldiers”.
There were no injuries of any soldiers.
Mahmoud Sa’adi, the director of the Emergency Department of the Palestinian Red Crescent in Jenin, said the slain Palestinian has been identified as Abdullah Faisal Omar Tawalba, 19, from the al-Jalama village, and added that Omar Ahmad Hanana, 15, was injured but is in a stable condition.
Palestinian medical sources said the medics moved the slain Palestinian, and the wounded teen, to Jenin Governmental Hospital.
They added that Tawalba was shot with several live rounds in the head and legs.
On July 16, 1999, John Fitzgerald Kennedy Junior was flying his private Piper Saratoga II, with his wife Carolyn Bessette and his sister-in-law Lauren Bessette. He was to drop Lauren off at Martha’s Vineyard, then fly on with Carolyn to Hyannis Port for the wedding of his cousin, Rory Kennedy, the following day. At 9:39, as he was approaching Martha’s Vineyard airport, John radioed the control tower for landing instructions, giving no sign of difficulty. At 9:41 p.m., witnesses heard and saw an explosion in the sky, at the precise moment when John’s plane suddenly plummeted into the ocean at the radar-recorded speed of 4,700 feet per minute. The next day, pieces of luggage from the plane were found floating nearly two miles away from the point of last radar contact.
The search and recovery operations were conducted by the Air Force and the Navy under national security conditions, with news reporting controlled from the Pentagon. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded its investigation eleven months later, and announced as “probable cause” of the plane crash “the pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane”, with “haze and the dark night” being possible factors.[1] The corporate media amplified the implication that John was an inexperienced and reckless pilot who ignored the dangerous weather conditions and who is to blame for his own death and the death of his wife and sister-in-law.
But many facts and testimonies inconsistent with that story have been concealed, while some convenient ones seem to have been fabricated. Independent investigators have found enough omissions and contradictions in the official and mainstream narrative to ask the questions: Was JFK Jr., in fact, assassinated? Was he killed by the same cabal that had killed his father 36 years earlier, and for the same motive as his uncle Bobby 5 years later: his plans to conquer the White House and bring his father’s murderers to justice? (On JFK’s and RFK’s assassinations, read my article “Did Israel kill the Kennedys?” on unz.com ). I will examine the evidence of foul play and cover-up in JFK Jr.’s death in the second part of this two-part article. In this first part, let’s see if we can establish the following two things:
1) At age 39, John had made up his mind to launch his political career by seeking an electoral mandate in New York State, and he was about to announce it publicly. He had also expressed to his friends his ambition to ultimately reach for the presidency. Given his personality and his popularity, he had high chances to make it in less than 20 years. He might realistically have become U.S. president in 2008 or 2016.
2) Brought up in the worship of his father, John had taken a keen interest in “conspiracy theories” about his death at least since his late teens. His knowledge deepened in his thirties, made him aware of State and media cover-ups in other affairs, and motivated him to publish, eight months before his death, a cover article by Oliver Stone, director of the groundbreaking film JFK, titled “Our Counterfeit History”.
If those two things can be proven — and they will — they must be connected. John’s quest for the truth about President Kennedy’s assassination cannot be separated from his political ambition to reclaim the White House, anymore than it could be in the case of his uncle Bobby, who, as David Talbot has shown (Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, Simon & Schuster, 2007), was planning to reopen the investigation on the Dallas coup as he was campaigning for the presidency in 1968. These are two sides of the same destiny. The heir and the avenger are one and the same person. Therefore, the deep power network that had decided to eliminate Bobby on the threshold of the White House had every reason to make the same decision about John Junior.
True, John Junior was probably not yet ready for the presidency — although some, like Pierre Salinger, believed he would have run for president in 2000. But on the other hand, for many reasons, he was a more natural candidate than RFK, with more potential. If he had to be stopped, didn’t it make sense to stop him before he made his political ambitions public? July 1999 was the right time; after that, the motive would be harder to conceal. Even for media-brainwashed Americans, a second heir to JFK killed on the road to the White House would be hard to swallow. Not to mention the fact that to let JFK Jr. live longer would be taking the risk of having a JFK III coming into this world: more trouble in perspective. Indeed, Carolyn may have been pregnant when she died with her husband.
John’s life and personality are movingly presented in the film I am JFK Jr. (2016)
John Junior was literally born with the Kennedy presidency, precisely 17 days after his dad won the election. From the minute he came into this world, he had been in the national spotlight. As Americans watched him grow up in the White House, they developed a strong affection for him, which did not displease his father. While Jackie was trying to keep the photographers away from her children, “JFK had another view,” recalls Pierre Salinger, President Kennedy’s Press Secretary. Whenever Jackie was away, “he was in touch with me and told me that now it was time for the media to get some wonderful pictures of John Jr. and Caroline in his office in the White House. I arranged for Jacques Lowe, who had been hired as the photographer of the Kennedys, to do those photos.”[2]
Little “John John” turned three the day of his father’s funeral, and he broke the world’s heart when he solemnly saluted his father’s coffin. That iconic image encapsulated a nation’s grief, and impressed on millions of Americans the dream of seeing him reclaim the Oval Office one day. For in the American collective psyche, the Kennedys represented royalty, and JFK Jr. was the legitimate heir to the throne. He was, wrote the New York Daily News the day after his death, the “charismatic crown prince of America’s royal family.”[3] “He was the closest thing we had to a crown prince,” says Chris Cuomo in I am JFK Jr.
Little “John John” saluting his father’s coffin, on his third birthday
The Kennedys didn’t attain that royal status by just buying media coverage. It was conquered by the patriarch Joe Kennedy, whose philosophy Laurence Leamer has well captured in his great book Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty (2005). Joe Kennedy, he writes:
“believed that in each generation a few powerful men were the rightful leaders of their generation. He thought that he and his sons were part of this natural aristocracy. … Joseph P. Kennedy created one great thing in his life, and that was his family. With acumen as great as his wealth, and limitless purpose, he built a family of sons who sought to reach the peak of American political life. … Joe knew that he had achieved so much in America because of the liberty and opportunities. He believed that sons of privilege and wealth had an obligation to serve their country and to return something of the bounty that they had inherited. Joe taught that blood ruled and that they must trust each other and venture out into a dangerous world full of betrayals and uncertainty, always returning to the sanctuary of family. His sons took on part of Joe’s psychological makeup, the sense of lives without boundaries and ambitions without restrictions.”[4]
After their father’s death, their uncle Bobby played the role of surrogate father for John Jr. and his sister Caroline. When Bobby was assassinated in his turn in June 1968, Jackie said: “If they are killing Kennedys, my kids are the number one targets. I want to get out of this country.”[5] She married shipping magnate Aristotle Onassis, whose assets included a seventy-five-member, machine-gun-equipped security force.
Jackie wanted her son to grow up knowing who his father was. As early as 1967, writes biographer Christopher Andersen in The Good Son,
“Jackie made sure that John was constantly exposed to the people who knew John [President Kennedy] best — from longtime pals like Red Fay, Chuck Spalding, Oleg Cassini, Bill Walton, and his ubiquitous sidekick Dave Powers to such New Frontier stalwarts as Pierre Salinger, Theodore Sorensen, and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. These were the folks ‘who knew Jack well and the things Jack liked to do.’ As long as they were around, she reasoned, ‘each day John will be getting to know his father.’”[6]
And so, although John could hardly have kept real personal memories of his father, he was constantly, so to speak, steeped in the memory of him: “Whenever another child was visiting,” writes Andersen, “he would inevitably ask, ‘Would you like to hear my father?’ Then he turned to a small stack of records and selected one to play.”[7] In 1972, Jackie asked Pierre Salinger to join her and her children for a month: “I want you to spend an hour or an hour and a half a day with John Jr. and Caroline and explain everything about what their father did.” And so Salinger did.[8] John’s craving for information about his father was never quenched. His friend and French biographer Olivier Royant reports that, when running his magazine George, John hired Jacques Lowe, JFK’s official photographer, and kept questioning him about his father for hours.[9]
Even John’s irresistible yearning for flying, despite his mother’s plea not to do so, can possibly be traced back to his childhood, “when he and his mother watched as Daddy’s helicopter took off from the South Lawn in 1962,” or watched him reappear from the sky. When Nanny Shaw announced to little John in the morning of November 23, 1963, “John, your father has gone to heaven to take care of Patrick [JFK and Jackie’s third child, who did not survive his first month],” John asked, “Did Daddy take his big plane with him?” “Yes,” she answered. “I wonder,” John said, “when he’s coming back.”[10] Significantly, John gave his first private plane the registration number N529JK, a reference to his father’s May 29 birthday.
Did John intend to follow his father’s footsteps in politics? John Quinn, a pioneer researcher on his mysterious death, writes:
“Committed to the legacy of his compelling father, there was never any question about where John F. Kennedy Jr. was heading. Is there any doubt about the fact that it was only a matter of time before he claimed his father’s legacy? Anybody who claims that we will never really know, does not know anything about John F. Kennedy Jr.”[11]
We don’t know at what stage in his life John fully endorsed that responsibility. But the thought had certainly been in his mind for many years already when he introduced his uncle Teddy at the 1988 Democratic convention. Like millions of Americans, Salinger was “very excited about that speech”:
“I took John Jr. to meet alone with me for several hours. I was telling him that this speech showed strongly that he should start thinking about going into politics. He said he was interested, but he was still too young. He told me that he had an idea that he should go into politics in the next century.”[12]
Jackie, the guiding spirit in John’s life, definitely saw her son as Camelot’s standard-bearer. In her last letter to him before dying to lymphoma in 1994, she wrote: “You, especially, have a place in history.”[13] According to presidential historian Doug Wead, interviewed in the film I am JFK Jr., Jackie “knew in her heart that, some day, the stars are gonna line up, and he’s gonna be president.” “My mom sort of pressured me to get into politics,” John told Lloyd Howard in 1997. “She expected me to follow in my father’s footsteps, and of course I will. But I don’t think the time is right just yet.”[14]
In 1995, John launched his political magazine George. Under the appearance of superficiality, it engaged in controversial issues of deep politics that reflected John’s interests. His longtime friend Robert Littell wrote, in The Men We Became: My Friendship with John F. Kennedy Jr. (St. Martin’s Press, 2004): “George was also an opportunity for John to build a platform from which he might possibly move into political life.” After all, his father had also pursued a career in journalism before entering politics. George was also a means for John to interact with political actors and thinkers.
John didn’t avoid letting people know his interest for his father’s legacy. The September 1996 cover of George features Drew Barrymore grimed as Marilyn Monroe with the caption: “Happy Birthday, Mister President,” an obvious — and, to some, indecent — reference to Marilyn’ serenade in front of JFK at the Madison Square Garden in 1962. In October 1997, for the 35th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, John travelled to Cuba to meet Fidel Castro (the interview he had wished didn’t materialize, but Castro invited him for dinner and for a swim in the Bay of Pigs, and rumor has that Castro gave him his view on his father’s death).[15]
John’s interest for the presidency also transpired heavily in George, particularly in the recurrent section “If I were president,” in which various personalities were asked for suggestions. For the October 1998 issue, for example, Tony Brown, author of Empower the People: A 7-Step Plan to Overthrow the Conspiracy That Is Stealing Your Money and Freedom, declared that, if he were president, he would repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
In 1999, at age 39, John was trying to sell his magazine. He had new plans. According to Gary Ginsberg, a close collaborator who was with John the night before he died, “That last night he was very focused on two things: finding a buyer for George and his political future.”[16] Christopher Andersen writes in his biography The Good Son :
“There seemed little doubt in the minds of those who knew him that John was on the brink of a bright political future. ‘He was probably a more natural politician than any of the other Kennedys,’ David Halberstam said, ‘and that includes his father. John had all the makings of a political superstar — once he decided that’s what he wanted.’”
In July 1999, his decision was made. His closest friends have testified that he was preparing to enter an election contest. Pierre Salinger, who knew him well, declared on French radio Europe 1, on July 19, 1999:
“I felt that in the coming year John Junior would also become a politician. It’s my point of view. And with other people, we thought he was going to be a Democratic candidate for the next presidential election.”[17]
John Junior and Pierre Salinger in 1997
More plausibly, John Jr. would have started by seeking a political office in New York State, where he had lived since 1963. He loved New York, and New York loved him. A 1997 private poll ranked JFK Jr. as New York’s “most popular Democrat,” giving him 65 percent approval rating among fellow Democrats.[18] John had several options. One he excluded was mayor of New York City. His assistant at George, RoseMarie Terenzio, recounts that when New York Senator Al D’Amato suggested he should run for mayor, John laughed it off. When Terenzio asked him afterward if he would ever consider it,
“He said ‘Well, Rosie, how many mayors do you know that became President?’ I was so shocked I didn’t say anything. Then he smirked as if to say ‘That’s not the road you go down — we’ll see what happens.’”[19]
Terenzio also made the following comment to the news website TheWrap :
“I think he would’ve run for president. I thought he would’ve run in 2008. I had dinner with a friend from George last night who thought for some reason he would’ve waited for 2016. He would be 56.”[20]
Donald Trump and John Kennedy Jr. in 1999: Were they up to something?
According to Gary Ginsberg, JFK Jr.’s close collaborator at George,
“He had been thinking about running for the N.Y. Senate seat — he even had meetings about it that spring — but by July had concluded he would focus his attention on running for governor of N.Y. in 2003. By temperament and interest, John, I think, realized he was far more suited to being a governor than a legislator. He knew from running George that he could be an inspiring, strong chief executive of a state, setting the tone for government and successfully running a complex operation. That idea became very appealing to him at some point that summer. Had the stars aligned over the next couple of years, I’m pretty convinced that’s what he would have pursued.”[21]
Others around John believed he was about to enter the race for the Senate seat that Daniel Moynihan, a former assistant to President Kennedy, was going leave vacant in 2000. This is the seat that Bobby Kennedy had occupied from 1964 to 1968. On July 19, 1999, New York Daily News reporter Joel Siegel interviewed two unnamed friends of JFK Jr., who said “they believed he would have run for office some day. Earlier this year, in one of the best-kept secrets in state politics, Kennedy considered seeking the seat of retiring Sen. Daniel Moynihan (D-N.Y.) in 2000, friends confirmed yesterday.” Democratic Chairman John Marino, also quoted in Siegel’s article, did not believe he would have run for the Senate seat, but had little doubt that, if he did, “It would have been ‘Goodbye, anyone else. This is a guy who everybody recognized who would have had any nomination for the asking.’”[22]
Christopher Andersen supports the view that, after consulting with Democratic leaders, John had made up his mind for the Senate. It clashed with Hillary Clinton’s plan. The Clintons, who were to leave the White House in January 2001, were about to purchase a home in Chappaqua, N.Y., and Hillary was gearing up to run for the Senate as a stepping-stone to the presidency.
“In the end, John was still convinced his best shot was at running for Moynihan’s Senate seat. Hillary Clinton had hesitated to enter the race largely because she feared John, who was being touted behind the scenes as her principal rival for the nomination, would be a formidable foe. John was both heir to the Kennedy magic and People’s ‘Sexiest Man Alive,’ as well as the consummate New Yorker, a resident of the city since the age of three. Although New York had no residency requirements, Hillary, who had never spent more than a few days at a time in New York, would almost certainly be branded a carpetbagger. … As late as the summer of 1999, Hillary actively worried about JFK Jr. and sought assurances from state party officials that he would not be a last-minute entry into the race. … In early July, Hillary finally made her move and formally announced her candidacy. But she was still concerned about the possibility that John might decide to toss his hat into the ring. As it turned out, she was right. John was now more confident than ever that he could easily beat her at the polls. He believed Hillary was vulnerable not only because of the Monica Lewinsky affair, her husband’s subsequent impeachment, and a slew of brewing scandals in the Clinton White House, but mainly because she simply had no connection to the state he loved. As Hillary had feared, young Kennedy planned on making much of Hillary’s carpetbagger status. ‘Wait until she gets here,’ John told his friend Billy Noonan. ‘She’s gonna get her head handed to her.’ He was going to fill Noonan in on the details of his upcoming campaign for the U.S. Senate — how and when he intended to make the announcement, what advice he was getting from Uncle Teddy, the endorsements and backing he was already lining up — when they all got together on Nantucket to celebrate Noonan’s fifth wedding anniversary on July 16. Then they’d be off to attend his cousin Rory’s wedding in Hyannis Port. If, of course, all went according to plan.”[23]
Christopher Andersen’s interview on Eyewitness News:
Andersen relies on the testimony of John’s longtime friend Billy Noonan, who authored in 2006 Forever Young: My Friendship with John F. Kennedy, Jr. (Viking Press). Here is what Noonan writes precisely, referring to the last phone conversation he had with John, whom he was supposed to meet on July 16:
“He had been making vague references on the phone about shutting things down, and starting things up. During the week before our anniversary dinner, he told me that he had something pressing to talk about, but with curious ears in the office, John was cautious. ‘We’ll talk about it this weekend.’ … I asked him now what was up with that [1997] poll, to rib him about how the press was pushing for Hillary Clinton to replace Moynihan. ‘Wait until she gets here,’ John said. ‘She’s gonna get her head handed to her.’ He was in.”[24]
This is the only mention by Noonan of John’s intention to run for the Senate. On one hand, it is not much. On the other, it should be taken very seriously, coming from one of John’s most intimate friends. Given the importance of the issue, there can be no doubt that Noonan weighed every word he wrote. One gets the impression that he wanted to say what he knew for the record, yet felt restrained from saying it too clearly, even when hinting at John’s awareness that his telephone conversations were tapped the day before he died. In his 2009 article, Wayne Madsen quotes an unnamed “close friend of the late John F. Kennedy, Jr.” (who may be Billy Noonan), who said JFK Jr. “was about ready to announce his run for the U.S. Senate from New York. Kennedy was acutely aware of his vulnerability and hired on a personal security team just prior to his announcing for the Senate.”[25]
Noonan and Andersen are not the only ones to think that John was upsetting Hillary’s plans. Andrew Collins writes:
“Approaching the end of two terms in the White House, the Clintons began preparing for their political future. They focused their attention on developing Hillary as a politician (even though she had no actual experience), and selling influence while they had it — buy now, pay later — payable to what would become ‘The Clinton Foundation’. Hillary refused to return to Arkansas, and suggested the purchase of a home in New York which would allow her to run for the Senate in the upcoming election. There was just one obstacle…. JFK Jr. had entered the political scene. New York was electric with word of JFK Jr. reclaiming his father’s legacy! A piece of Camelot was still alive in America, and donors began to line up. She knew she could never defeat the son of JFK in New England.”[26]
April 1999: “Why Hillary won’t be senator”
November 1999: “Hillary Comes Clean”
After reviewing all those testimonies, I feel that no certainty can be reached about John’s immediate plan, other that he was at the dawn of a bright political future and that he had several options in New York State. If we believe Noonan — and why shouldn’t we — then Laurence Leamer, author of Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty (HarperCollins, 2011) is right when writing that “John watched with growing dismay as Hillary subtly insinuated herself into what he considered his state.”[27] It is easy to guess that, in return, Hillary saw John as a serious rival, on the state level in the short term, and on the national level in the long term. She stood no chance if John ever stepped across her way, and that was sure to happen sooner or later.
It is true, as some authors object, that John never frontally attacked the Clintons in his magazine George, perhaps out of Democratic loyalty. But one of the very last issues of George that he oversaw himself (April 1999) was hostile to Hillary’s bid on the Senate seat, posting on the front-page: “Why Hillary won’t be senator.” In April 1996, the cover had: “Why Women Will Dump Hillary.” But with John out of the way, Hillary did win the seat and, disturbingly, the November 1999 issue of George contained an exclusive interview of her, together with — in tragic irony — an article on “How Bobby Kennedy Seduced New York.”
Let’s move on to the next question: how dedicated was John to getting to the bottom of his father’s assassination?
According to testimonies from his friends, John Junior was haunted by the death of his father and quite knowledgeable about independant investigations contradicting the Warren Report. In 1999, he was not a newcomer to JFK conspiracy theories; his quest for truth had started as early as the late 1970s. His old high school girlfriend Meg Azzoni, in her self-published book, 11 Letters and a Poem: John F. Kennedy, Jr., and Meg Azzoni (2007), writes that as a teenager, JFK, Jr. was questioning the official version of his father’s death: “His heartfelt quest was to expose and bring to trial who killed his father, and covered it up.”[28] Don Jeffries, author of Hidden History, claimed that “another friend of JFK, Jr.’s adult inner circle, who very adamantly requested to remain anonymous, verified that he was indeed quite knowledgeable about the assassination and often spoke of it in private.”[29] JFK Jr., said Jeffries in a radio interview, was on “a Shakespearian quest,” “to avenge his father’s death,” like young Hamlet.[30]
October 1998 “Conspiracy Issue” with an article by Oliver Stone
John is the only Kennedy to have shown a serious determination to pursue this truth, besides his uncle Bobby. And he took the risk of making his interest public in October 1998, when he released a special “Conspiracy Issue” of George magazine, which included an article by Oliver Stone titled “Our Counterfeit History,” introduced on the cover as “Paranoid and Proud of It!”
In an article published in 2009, journalist Wayne Madsen claimed that, two weeks after John’s death, “I was scheduled to meet with Kennedy at his magazine’s offices in Washington, DC to discuss hiring on as one of a few investigative journalists Kennedy wanted to dig deep into a number of cases, but most importantly that of his father’s assassination.”[31] (There is no confirmation of Madsen’s claim.)
As many truth seekers who had started with the Kennedy assassination, John had developed an awareness that other events of great historical consequence were the subject of State-orchestrated lies and cover-ups, with corporate media complicity. And so the JFK assassination was not the only “conspiracy issue” explored by George. It is worth taking a look at two others, for they may inform us on the direction John Jr. was taking in his quest for truth.
In December 1996, George delved into the theory claiming that TWA Flight 800, which had exploded on July 17, 1996, soon after leaving JFK International, had been downed by a missile, rather than as the result of a short-circuit near the central fuel tank, as the National Transportation Safety Board concluded. The claim was based on the testimonies of 375 witnesses who saw one or two bright flare objects hit the plane, many of them believing it was a missile (read Ron Unz’s 2016 article on the subject, or watch on YouTube the 2001 documentary Silenced: TWA 800 and the Subversion of Justice). Although I have not been able to read the George article on TWA 800 (I will appreciate a comment from anyone who has), I assume it supported Pierre Salinger, who had been the most prominent journalist arguing that TWA 800 was shot down by a missile fired from a US Navy ship. Salinger was severely attacked by his peers, and his notoriety suffered permanent damage. But in May 27, 1999, he reaffirmed his belief and asked to be vindicated in a Georgetowner column, based on new research confirming his views. In this piece, Salinger mentions that “retired Navy commander William Donaldson has also come out with a new view: TWA 800 was shot down by a missile — fired not from a Navy ship but a terrorist group.”[32] That could explain the presence of a mysterious ship caught on radar while speeding away near where the plane exploded. Details can be read in a piece written by Philip Weiss for the New York Observer in July 1999 (days before JFK Jr.’s death), titled “Radar Shows ‘Getaway Boat’ Fleeing Flight 800 Crash”:
“‘Radar data collected during the last minute of the T.W.A. flight revealed the two closest objects to the plane, both between three and four miles away, as a Navy P-3 airplane and what the exhibit called simply a ‘30-knot target.’ Radar data for the next 20 minutes showed the mystery boat heading on a beeline out to sea, on a south-southwest course, even as other boats rushed to the crash to try to help out. It was nearly 9 o’clock at night, not the usual time for an excursion. … [FBI officer] Lewis Schiliro acknowledged the presence of the mystery boat, which he said was at least 25 to 30 feet long and reached speeds of 35 knots, close to 40 miles per hour. ‘Despite extensive efforts, the F.B.I. has been unable to identify this vessel,’ he said. / The response is somewhat alarming given the F.B.I.’s assurances that it had turned over every stone.”[33]
Alarming, but understandable if the mystery boat was in fact Israeli. Israel’s LAP (LohammaPsichologit, the Mossad’s department of psychological warfare) had been busy blaming Iran from the day of the crash, and “thousands of media stories perpetuated the fiction,” recounts Gordon Thomas in Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad (2009), with the London Times claiming that land-air Stinger missile systems had been smuggled across the Canadian border into the United States by Islamic terrorists. A year later, the FBI’s chief investigator, James K. Kallstrom, would tell his colleagues: “If there was a way to nail those bastards in Tel Aviv for time wasting, I sure would like to see it happen. We had to check every item they slipped into the media.”[34]
Some researchers into JFK Jr.’s plane crash have suggested a connection to the TWA 800 crash, which happened three years earlier almost to the day, and in the same vicinity. Jackie Jura, author of Orwell Today website, wrote:
“I remember when TWA 800 exploded and Salinger was going to give a press conference in Paris to expose the truth. But then he cancelled it. The rumour on the net at the time was that the powers-that-be told him that if he gave the press conference they’d kill John-John, and so he backed down.”
“TWA Conspiracy Theories” (December 1996)
“Who was behind the killing of Yitzhak Rabin?” (March 1997)
Back down he did, but in May 27, 1999, he reiterated his claim, and John Jr. would die 50 days later. I don’t subscribe to that theory, but it is worth mentioning.
In March 1997, three months after the issue featuring the “TWA Conspiracy Theories” cover article, George magazine published a 13-page article by the mother of Yigal Amir, the man convicted of assassinating Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Rabin had offended the Israeli far-right by wanting to trade land for peace. Amir’s mother revealed that her son had operated under the tutelage and training of a Shin Bet agent, Avishai Raviv, working for forces seeking to halt the peace process.[35] Canadian-Israeli journalist Barry Chamish, who investigated the Rabin assassination in his book Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin? (1988), agrees. He also believes that JFK Jr. was determined to “get the full story on the Rabin assassination,” and finds support in several news releases following JFK Jr.’s death:
“Catherine Crier of Fox TV’s The Crier Report, announcing that JFK Jr. was about to meet high ranking Mossad officers. Then the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, reported that Kennedy had met with the deputy chief of the Mossad, Amiram Levine, to get the full story on the Rabin assassination two days before his plane went down. Then Maariv ran an interview with JFK’s chauffeur, who happens to be Israeli. Then people started noting that Ehud Barak was in Washington at the time of Kennedy’s finale in life.”[36]
Barak’s visit to the U.S. around July 16, 1999 — with a battalion of Intelligence and security agents — is a fact, but I have not been able to verify Chamish’ sources in the Crier Report, the Frankfurter Allgemeine or the Maariv. Chamish concluded:
“Yes, I’m sure he [John] was murdered. And yes, the Israeli political establishment had a motive for involvement. The latest Kennedy to die violently was the only American editor to expose (in the March 1997 issue of his magazine George ) the conspiracy behind Rabin’s assassination. And he had every intention of continuing his exposes until he got to the bottom of the matter. We don’t know what drove him to stand alone in seeking the truth, but it may have had much to do with the information contained within Final Judgment.”[37]
There is no confirmation that John Junior read Michael Piper’s book Final Judgment blaming Israel for the Kennedy assassination, and released in 1993. But it is in the realm of possibility, given his personal quest for the truth on his father’s death, and his consideration for the theory that Rabin was assassinated by the Israeli Deep State, rather than by a lone nut.
So, was JFK Jr. himself assassinated? Here is man whose road to the presidency seemed traced. No other man of his age had better chances to reach the White House one day. And no other man in the world had more reasons to want the 1963 Kennedy assassination reinvestigated. He was already trying to educate the public through his magazine, at the risk of exposing his own beliefs, something no other Kennedy had ever done (even RFK had kept his doubt on the Warren report private, and his plan to reopen the case secret). And this man, his best friend Noonan believes, was just about to announce his candidacy for a New York Senate seat, which everyone would have understood as the first step toward the White House. Pierre Salinger and others even believe he would have run for president in 2000. What are the odds that he would die at this precise moment by accident? How lucky for his enemies to be spared the trouble of eliminating him, as they had his uncle in 1968! If that was an accident, then that alone deserves to be called a “Kennedy curse,” doesn’t it! If it was an accident, then the Devil caused it. Or was it Yahweh?
As I have argued in “Did Israel kill the Kennedys?”, John’s uncle Bobby had been assassinated because he was, in his own eyes and in the eyes of most Americans—and therefore also in the eyes of his brother’s killers —, the continuation of his brother, his heir and avenger. Even before David Talbot, Laurence Leamer has shown how close Jack and Bobby had been. He writes in Sons of Camelot:
“Bobby had been the president’s alter ego and protector. He could finish his brother’s sentences and complete a task that Jack signaled with no more than a nod or a gesture. He had loved his brother so intensely and served him so well that within the administration it was hard to tell where one man ended and the other began.”[38]
A bond of blood and spirit of a comparable nature existed between John F. Kennedy and the son that bore his name. Although John Junior could not speak with his father, nor even remember speaking with him, his love and loyalty to his father, nurtured by his mother, was the driving force in his life. From the point of view of JFK’s murderers, JFK Jr. was JFK redivivus, and RFK redivivus at the same time. All three were like one man who had to be killed three times.
Was JFK Jr. assassinated? As we are going to see, the evidence may not be absolutely compelling, but what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that federal authorities and corporate media engaged in a massive cover-up of any facts that contradicted the theory of the accident due to the pilot’s error. And that is enough, I think, to decide between accident and assassination. The transgenerational cabal who had the motive, means and opportunity to murder JFK and RFK (and the power to get away with it) had the same motive, means and opportunity to murder JFK Jr. (and the power to get away with it). We know for sure that, in 1968, RFK had both the ambition to win the White House and the determination to reopen the investigation on the death of his brother (read my article “Did Israel Kill the Kennedys?”). I have now shown that the same can be ascertained about JFK Jr. in 1999. Obviously, that made him a target, the next Kennedy on the list.
According to Wayne Madsen, “JFK Jr.’s Plane Crash Was Originally Treated As Murder Investigation” (the title of his 2009 article):
“The FBI had discovered that there was ‘suspicious boating activity’ in an area of Martha’s Vineyard where Kennedy’s plane was descending to 2000 feet for its final approach to the airport. The ‘suspicious’ boaters claimed to be fishing for striped bass. … after the plane’s wreckage was discovered, investigators found, according to Kennedy’s friend, that every light bulb, including that in the emergency flashlight, had been blown out on the plane and every circuit board, including those in the engine sensors and other electronic equipment, had been literally ‘melted.’ FBI agents on the scene preliminarily concluded that a ‘massive electromagnetic event’ caused Kennedy’s plane to crash. … Before the FBI could begin examining the ocean floor for any ‘special equipment’ that may have been thrown overboard from the fishing boat, their ‘murder’ investigation was abruptly called off by FBI headquarters in Washington.”[39]
Unfortunately, I have found no source supporting Madsen’s claim about an aborted FBI investigation (that’s always the problem with Madsen). But the fact that no news of a criminal investigation ever reached the public is in itself very puzzling, given the history of Kennedy assassinations and the natural assumption that JFK Jr. could be a target. That JFK Jr. had powerful enemies was well-known to the whole world, and the lack of a criminal investigation may be taken as confirmation of their power.
Independent investigators have gathered a fair amount of evidence that JFK Jr.’s death was a criminal act. I will summarize what I hold to be the most solid evidence, based on my reading of all the relevant articles I could find on the Net (including those by early researchers such as John Quinn), and of the following two books: first, chapter 7 of Donald Jeffries’s book Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics (Skyhorse publishing, 2016), which I recommend (you may also want to listen to Jeffries’s one-hour interview); second, John Koerner, Exploding the Truth: The JFK Jr., Assassination (Chronos Books, 2018), which adds little. In addition, John Hankey’s video “Dark Legacy II: the Assassination of JFK Jr” is very useful. However, I advise to skip Koerner’s Part I, meant to exonerate the Clintons and blame the Bushs; for the same reason, I recommend to start Hankey’s video at 15 minutes.
The basic fact that seems firmly established by radar data is that JFK Jr.’s plane suddenly nose-dived into the Ocean at 9:41. That cannot be explained simply by an engine failure, as the Boston Globe correctly asserted:
“Even if the engine died, a federal aviation source said, it is unlikely that the plane would reach such a high rate of descent, because the plane is designed to glide without power at a much slower rate for several miles. And if Kennedy had run out of fuel, it is likely he would have made a distress call.”[40]
The most likely explanation, apart from suicide, is that the plane suffered a structural damage, possibly by explosive, making it impossible to maintain in the air; blowing off a part of a wing or the tail would have been enough, and would have required only a very small device fixed to the plane.
The next element to consider is that, from the early hours of July 17, it was reported that JFK Jr. had made a call to Martha’s Vineyard airport at 9:39 pm, asking for landing instructions in a perfectly calm tone, less than two minutes before his plane suddenly dropped and disappeared from radar. That information was broadcast on Boston WCVB-TV and was relayed by ABC News. A United Press International article dated July 17 said:
“At 9:39 p.m. Friday, Kennedy radioed the airport and said he was 13 miles from the airport and 10 miles from the coast, according to WCVB-TV news in Boston. He reportedly said he was making his final approach. … In his final approach message, WCVB-TV said Kennedy told controllers at the airport that he planned to drop off his wife’s sister and then take off again between 11 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. for Hyannis Airport.”[41]
WCVB-TV repeated that information continuously during their first two days of reporting on the story. They broadcast, at 12:35 p.m. on July 17, a phone interview by anchor Susan Wornick of U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer Todd Burgun, who confirmed the information. Here is a transcript of the footage, which Hankey has included in his valuable film (19:40):
Wornick: “We have been told by the Coast Guard that in fact there is now evidence of a last communication last night with JFK Jr.’s plane as he was making an approach to Martha’s Vineyard airport. Petty officer Todd Burgun joins us from the Coast Guard Base in Boston. He is a Petty officer, and a public information officer. Thank you for being with us, sir. What can you tell us about this last communication with JFK Jr.’s plane?”
Burgun: “All I really know at this time is that it was at 9:39 p.m. and it was with the FAA. And he was on his final approach to Martha’s Vineyard.”
Wornick: “So at 9:39, to the best of your information, JFK Jr. made a contact with the airport, with the flight controllers that he was on his final descent.”
Burgun: “That is correct.”
Todd Burgun’s interview on WCVB-TV Boston, from Hankey’s Dark Legacy (19:40)
That is all that remained of WCVB-TV’s report on the subject, when researchers later obtained archive copies; “hours of time on the tape archive of WCVB’s July 17 broadcast, during which information on Kennedy’s radio contact was continually reported, have been intentionally cut,” complained John Quinn.[42] According to Jeffries, the original interview of Burgun was much longer:
“On the uncut tape, Burgun went on to delineate all the points from the UPI’s article: Kennedy was calm, on approach to the airport, had provided his position and trajectory, and had even made a comment about dropping Lauren Bessette off at the airport. Some five hours of coverage was edited out.”[43]
This crucial information was reported by news services on Saturday July 17 and early Sunday, July 18. By Monday morning, the FAA claimed that there was never a communication from Kennedy to the tower. Todd Burgun became utterly unreachable. According to the Boston Globe, Martin Wyatt, a controller at the Martha’s Vineyard Airport tower the night of Kennedy’s flight “declined comment on whether he had radio contact with Kennedy’s plane.”[44] Simultaneously, on July 18, FAA and NTSB officials produced some “newly found” radar “evidence” which supposedly showed Kennedy’s flight exhibiting signs of difficulties and irregularities long before 9:39; obviously, Kennedy’s perfectly normal call at 9:39 did not fit with that new version of events.
Of course, it is not inconceivable that the crucial piece of information of JFK Jr.’s 9:39 radio call was mistaken, false, or fake. Yet it seems highly implausible that the Coast Guard would charge their spokesman Todd Burgun — whose identity is not in question — to release it to the public without double-checking it. The fact that the news was originally broadcast by a Boston TV station is perhaps significant, as is the fact that, among major newspapers, the Boston Globe was the most critical of the official story (I’ll mention other cases along the way). Since Boston is the Kennedys’ historical stronghold, we can conjecture that an information war of some sort was going on between Boston and Washington, Boston trying to resist the disinformation assault from federal agencies.
The only available photo believed to be of the wreckage of JFK Jr.’s plane
The second element to consider is the testimony of Victor Pribanic, a trial lawyer from White Oak, Pennsylvania, who was fishing for striped bass off Squibnocket Point that night. He gave an interview to The Martha’s Vineyard Times, cited in the New York Daily News, July 21, 1999: “I heard an explosion over my right shoulder. It sounded like an explosion. There was no shock wave, but it was a large bang.” He also said, according to the Daily News, “that just before hearing the noise, he noticed a small aircraft flying low over the water toward the island.”[45] Pribanic repeated his story to filmmaker Anthony Hilder of the Free World Alliance: “I heard a loud impact like a bomb.” The next day, when Pribanic heard the news of the Kennedy crash, he gave his information to Hank Myer of the West Tilsbury Police Department. Myer accompanied Pribanic to the site where he’d heard the explosion, which would turn out exactly where the plane went missing. Police, he was told, forwarded his information to the investigators.[46] Pribanic was apparently not the only witness of the explosion. The July 17 UPI article mentions:
“A reporter for the Vineyard Gazette newspaper told WCVB-TV in Boston that he was out walking Friday night about the time of the crash and saw ‘big white flash in the sky’ off Philbin Beach.”
When John DiNardo contacted the Vineyard Gazette in an attempt to talk with this reporter, a few days later, he was told that the “whole thing” was a mix-up due to some fireworks having been set off at “Falmouth”, and, when he insisted, he was told that the reporter was no longer employed by the paper.[47]
Like the 9:39 radio call, the ear- and eye-witnesses disappeared from news reports from July 18 on. The National Transportation Safety Board initial report, released on July 30, 1999 makes no mention of them. It states that there was no “in-flight break-up or fire, and no indication of pre-impact failure to the airframe,” which excludes an explosion damaging the plane. On June 7, 2000, eleven months after the plane crash, the NTSB released its final report. That report was announced to the press by a short official NTSB news release which included the following statement: “The probable cause of the accident, as stated in the accident report, is: ‘The pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation. Factors in the accident were haze and the dark night.’” A first problem must be pointed out: that statement from the NTSB news release which is supposedly taken from the final report does not appear in the final report. In fact, as I will show, it is hard to see how the full report supports the conclusion of that news release. One gets the impression that the person who wrote the news release didn’t even read the full report.
For example, the sudden drop of altitude from 2,200 feet to 1,100 feet in 14 seconds, stated in the full report, is hard to reconcile with the news release statement. Disorientation implies that the pilot was not aware that he was flying straight into the ocean. But that is impossible, as the NTSB Investigator-in-Charge, Robert Pearce, had admitted as early as July 20, 1999: “They were aware they were going down. With that kind of descent rate, it is going to be noisier than hell in the cockpit.”[48]
Jeb Burnside, commercial pilot and editor-in-chief of Aviation Safety Magazine, did a careful analysis of the NTSB report and radar data and confirms that weather conditions and pilot experience (or lack of) fail to explain the crash:
“On paper, this accident shouldn’t have happened. Despite most of his time being in a training environment, a typical 310-hour instrument-rating student in a well-equipped airplane should have had no problem with this flight.”[49]
The mainstream media hardly paid attention to the full report, and focused on the short news release. But they even distorted it to make its hesitant conclusion (“probable cause”) more assertive and dramatic. “Haze and the dark night,” which are mentioned as “factors in the accident,” were exaggerated and declared totally unsafe for flying. “The pilot’s failure to maintain control … as a result of spatial disorientation,” became proof that JFK Jr. was incompetent to fly in such terrible weather at night. And the implication was that JFK Jr. was reckless and irresponsible to fly that night, especially with his wife and sister-in-law on board.
So, after the first step of crucial omissions in the NTSB report (JFK Jr.’s 9:39 call to the airport and Pribanic’s report of an explosion), the disinformation process continued in two more steps: first, a NTSB news release about the “probable cause” of the “accident” is falsely presented as “stated” in the NTSB final report, whereas it is in reality a far cry from the picture presented in the report; second, that relatively prudent statement is exaggerated and dramatized in mainstream news, while all contradictory details in the full report are ignored. Let’s see out that works for the two following crucial points: 1) weather conditions and visibility, 2) the pilot’s experience and cautiousness. My point is not so much to determine exactly the visibility and the level of JFK Jr.’s skill, but rather to demonstrate a concerted effort to distort credible reports on these matters, with the obvious intention to convince the public that the lack of visibility and John’s inexperience are sufficient explanations for his plane crash, although in fact, they are not.
“At about 6:30 on the night of the accident, the pilot received an Internet weather forecast for flight from Teterboro, New Jersey, to Hyannis, Massachusetts. The report was for VFR (visual flight rules) weather, visibility 6 to 8 miles.”
So two hours before taking off, JFK Jr. received a forecast of very good flying conditions. The NTSB final report also quotes the Martha’s Vineyard tower manager as stating:
“The visibility, present weather, and sky condition at the approximate time of the accident was probably a little better than what was being reported. I say this because I remember aircraft on visual approaches saying they had the airport in sight between 10 and 12 miles out. I do recall being able to see those aircraft and I do remember seeing the stars out that night.”
This tower manager must be Marvin Wyatt, interviewed for the Boston Globe: “Marvin Wyatt, a controller at the Martha’s Vineyard Airport tower the night of Kennedy’s flight, said visibility was good at the airport at Kennedy’s expected arrival time.”[50] Wayne Madsen quotes an unnamed close friend of JFK Jr. (probably Billy Noonan, who was supposed to meet him that night) who said “that visibility around the Vineyard was clear at 9:41 p.m. when the plane disappeared from the sky.”[51]
Mainstream news outlet, however, repeated over and over again, in contradiction even to the NTSB report, that the weather was so bad, the fog so thick, that John should have cancelled his plan to fly, had he been a responsible man. FAA Flight Specialist Edward Meyer, who had prepared for the NTSB the FAA’s official report of weather conditions over Martha’s Vineyard on July 16, 1999, and had determined that they were “at least very good,” was disturbed by the way his conclusions were distorted, and released a public statement:
“Nothing of what I have heard on mainstream media makes any sense to me… The weather along his flight was just fine. A little haze over eastern Connecticut. … I don’t know why the airplane crashed, but what I heard on the media was nothing but garbage.”[52]
One of the most dubious witnesses brought forward by the corporate media to support their claim of fatal visibility was Kyle Bailey. Here is how the Washington Post introduced him on July 21st:
“Kyle Bailey, 25, a pilot with more than a decade of flying experience who also keeps his plane at Essex County Airport and who frequently flies the same route as Kennedy — Fairfield to the Vineyard — took special note of Kennedy that night because Bailey had just decided against making the flight. / Bailey said he feared the combination of darkness and haze could be treacherous, causing him to lose sight of the horizon, lose his bearings, maybe even lose control of his plane. Visibility was four to five miles in Fairfield due to haze, near the margin for flying by visual rules, as opposed to instruments.”[53]
According to the NY Daily News of the same day, Bailey said:
“I saw him taxi [drive the plane on ground to prepare for take off], and I saw him take off. I [later] told my family, ‘I can’t believe he’s going up in this weather.’ At night, you don’t know where the sky ends and the ocean begins. You have no sight of the horizon. It can give you a false sense of flying level.”
“Bailey,” commented the Daily News, “was staggered by what he feared was another ghastly Kennedy tragedy. ‘It never seems to end for this family,’ he said. ‘He’s so young, with a life full of promise.’”[54]
How moving! But who is Kyle Bailey, “the last man to see Kennedy alive at the Fairfield airport”? I had no difficulty to find the answer to that question: it happens that Kyle Bailey later became an aviation analyst regularly working for major network and cable televisions such as Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC. Bailey even appeared in the documentary Curse on the Kennedys? and very recently in the ABC documentary The Last Days of JFK Jr., aired in January 2019, in which he repeats his story. Can you swallow that blue pill?
Kyle Bailey at work
In the same documentary The Last Days of JFK Jr. appears another private pilot by the name of Bob Arnot, who claims to have flown the same night along the same route as John. He declares there was no visibility, to the point that, when approaching Martha’s Vineyard, he could not see any lights at all. Unlike Bailey, who somehow escaped the attention of NTSB investigators, this Bob Arnot is most probably the unnamed pilot mentioned in the NTSB report as follows: “when his global positioning system (GPS) receiver indicated that he was over Martha’s Vineyard, he looked down and ‘… there was nothing to see. There was no horizon and no light. … I turned left toward Martha’s Vineyard to see if it was visible but could see no lights of any kind nor any evidence of the island. … I thought the island might [have] suffered a power failure.’” That testimony completely contradicts Martha’s Vineyard tower manager (Marvin Wyatt), who is quoted in the NTSB report as saying visibility was great. Which shows that the NTSB report is self-contradictory in some areas.
Now, it is a very small world. You can find on Wikipedia that “Dr. Bob Arnot is a journalist, author, former host of the Dr. Danger reality TV series, and previously medical and foreign correspondent for NBC and CBS.” Can you swallow that too? Or do you start to smell a media conspiracy?
Let’s now talk about JFK Jr.’s flying experience and skill. Kyle Bailey’s testimony implies that JFK Jr.’s is solely to blame for his own death and for the deaths of his wife and her sister. That view was reinforced by hundreds of comments on air about how inexperienced JFK Jr. was. Just like on weather conditions, the mainstream media gave a grossly negative view of JFK Jr.’s flying experience and skill, unrelated to the NTSB report and to the real testimonies of flight instructors who knew him. The NTSB report reckoned that JFK Jr. had a flight experience of “about 310 hours, of which 55 hours were at night.” During the last fifteen months, he had made 35 flights between Fairfield airport, N.J., and Martha’s Vineyard, including five at night. Three certified flight instructors (CFI) quoted in the report describe John as an “excellent”, “methodical” and “very cautious” pilot. In the early days, some newspapers echoed that view with their own research. John McColgan, JFK Jr.’s federal licensing instructor from Vero Beach, Florida, was interviewed for the Orlando Sentinel, July 18, 1999, and said: “He was an excellent pilot. … In fact, by now he probably has enough hours to be a commercial pilot.”[55] One the same day, the New York Daily News quoted flight instructors Ralph and Chris describing John as a careful pilot, always checking meticulously “every nut and bolt on the airplane. … He was very safety oriented. … John was a natural in flying.”[56] On July 21, USA Today published an article titled “Pilot Kennedy was ‘conscientious guy,’” whose lead paragraph said: “John F. Kennedy Jr. attended the Harvard of flight schools, may have had far more flight experience than has been reported and was known at his New Jersey airport for prudence in the cockpit.” The article quoted other people who knew Kennedy as a good pilot.[57]
But as days passed, major TV channels and newspapers gave a more and more negative assessment of John’s flying skills and of the weather conditions. They emphasized that he didn’t have the proper license to fly with instruments only, as the absence of visibility would have required. It is true that John’s license was for visual flight only, meaning visibility of at least 4 miles. But although John had not yet obtained the license allowing him to fly by instruments only, he had passed the written test and completed the training for the inflight test. According to the flight instructor who trained him, as quoted in the NTSB report, “the pilot’s basic instrument flying skills and simulator work were excellent.” So even if the visibility had been very bad — which it was not — John could have guided his plane safety to the airport, using his autopilot if necessary. According to Scott Meyers, a foremost expert on the death of JFK Jr. who was interviewed for the program “Encounters with the Unexplained: The Kennedy Curse, JFK, Jr.’s, Death – Accident or Assassination?” aired February 15, 2002:
“The fact that Kennedy knew how to use his plane’s navigational instruments casts serious doubt on the official explanation for the crash, because even if he had gotten lost, his knowledge of the plane’s instruments would have allowed him to flip a switch and allow the autopilot to guide him to a short distance from his runway destination. A little haze should have never stopped him from landing safely.”[58]
One question has been the focus of much attention from independent researchers: was there a flight instructor as co-pilot in the plane? Officially, there wasn’t. No fourth body was recovered in the wreckage. But strangely enough, one seat was also missing, and conspiracy theorists such as John Hankey have speculated that it might have had a flight instructor’s body seat-belted on it, which might have been spirited away for the sake of building up the story of an incompetent and reckless John. For if John had flown with a flight instructor, then the whole argument of his recklessness falls. Again, I am mentioning this issue here, not to make any definite conclusion, but mainly to point out evidence of a concerted effort to close the case and satisfy the public that JFK Jr. died—and killed his wife and sister-in-law—by his own recklessness.
JFK Jr. had owned his Piper Saratoga for a little more than two months, and he had never flown it without a flight instructor. He had flown to Martha’s Vineyard 8 times in the previous month with that plane, always with a flight instructor. Since he had his wife and her sister on board, it doesn’t seem like him to fly without an instructor, especially at night. According to Donald Jeffries, “Early reports, such as the one that appeared in the New York Times on July 17, 1999, indicated that a flight instructor was on the plane. JFK Jr.’s George magazine coeditor Richard Blow recounted that Kennedy had told him he was taking a flight instructor with him during their last lunch together.”[59] Then, from the next day on, any mention of a flight instructor on board disappeared. Different explanations were offered for the fact that John flew without a flight instructor that particular night, for the first time on his new plane. His biographer Christopher Andersen writes:
“On today’s trip up from New Jersey, Jay Biederman, the flight instructor who had recently helped John pass his written instrument test and was preparing him for his instrument flight test, was scheduled to go along as he had several times before. But when Biederman canceled to join his parents on a hiking trip in Switzerland, John made the fateful decision not to find a replacement.”[60]
Curiously, that explanation contradicts a key testimony included in the NTSB final report, of which John Hankey provides a good critical analysis at the end of his film. I quote here the shorter presentation from Donald Jeffries:
“… one of Kennedy’s flight instructors, Robert Merena, told the NTSB, some six months after the crash, that JFK Jr. had turned down his request to fly with him by saying he wanted to “do it alone.” These dramatic, ironic words were reported widely in the establishment press and solidified the image of JFK Jr. as an irresponsible daredevil. Merena’s own lawyer would deny he’d ever made such a statement, and the memorandum produced by the NTSB regarding it was suspiciously irregular, with no date, location, or signature on it. Most crucially, Merena had been interviewed five days after the crash by the NTSB, and he never mentioned anything about this, which would certainly seem to have been a pertinent fact. Merena did tell the NTSB in this early interview, however, that he’d never seen JFK Jr. fly without an instructor.”
The damning story of John rejecting the offer of a flight instructor and stubbornly insisting to pilot alone was included in the NTSB’s final report and became widely quoted.[61] Here it is from ABC News on July 7, 2000: “John F. Kennedy Jr. turned down an offer by one of his flying instructors to accompany him the night of his fatal flight to Martha’s Vineyard, saying he ‘wanted to do it alone,’ federal investigators say.” The same could be read in the Los Angeles Times on the same day, and in TheNew York Times.[62]
I personally feel that the question of whether there was a co-pilot in the plane or not cannot be conclusively answered either way. But the important thing here is the strong probability that Robert Merena’s testimony was fabricated or forced, to hammer in the point that there was no co-pilot and that JFK Jr. acted irresponsibly.
In this whole affair, we cannot prove directly that JFK Jr. was murdered. What we can prove, however, is that federal agencies and mainstream media conspired in a massive fraud, including the concealment of key evidence (the 9:39 call and reports of an explosion), the distortion of facts (visibility and pilot’s ability) and false testimonies (Kyle Bailey and Bob Arnot being the most likely). That can be taken as indirect proof that JFK Jr. was murdered.
Eight hours of video footage taken by recovery divers might have helped to solve the mystery, but the Navy preferred to destroyed them (Sidney Morning Herald, February 13, 2001)
Truth seekers such as Donald Jeffries, John Koerner or John Hankey have raised important questions concerning the 10 hours (they say 15 hours) it took for a search to begin after the plane was reported missing by Bessette and Kennedy relatives, at 10 p.m. on July 16th, and for the 4 or 5 days it took to locate and retrieve the wreckage and the bodies. The plane was equipped with an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT), which sends out a beacon signal in the event of a crash. According to the original UPI article mentioned earlier, “the beacon was heard by the Coast Guard in Long Island, N.Y., at 3:40 a.m. But as the search went on, authorities seemed to discount the relevance of the beacon signal.”[63] Was the search intentionally directed away from the crash site during three days, in order for the perpetrators to secretly destroy the evidence from the cockpit voice recorder (the NTSB report says that “its backup battery was missing, and it had retained no data”), remove the log book which John kept in a waterproof box and, more importantly in Hankey’s view, remove the body of the co-pilot (together with the missing seat reported by the NTSB)? That is a possibility that finds support in the testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Richard Stanley of the Civil Air Patrol, who “would report seeing what he thought were Coast Guard helicopters around the crash site at about 7 a.m., hours before the Coast Guard or anyone else arrived.”[64] For lack of space, I will not dwell on those issues, which are thoroughly discussed by the above-mentioned researchers.
Rather, let’s focus on the tight military control of all procedures following the tragedy, from the search and rescue missions to the news reporting, all conducted under national security standards. The search was done by military planes and vessels. According to John Koerner, “the military immediately instituted in the hours after the crash a 17-nautical mile no-fly zone, and no entry zone, around the crash site. No civilians or media were allowed in this area until the bodies and wreckage were recovered.” On July 20, 1999, we read in the NTSB report, “the airplane wreckage was located by U.S. Navy divers from the recovery ship, USS Grasp.” Why was the Navy, rather than civilian rescue craft, tasked with the retrieval of JFK Jr.’s crashed airplane?[65] More disturbing still, why did the Pentagon take control of news reporting from July 18?
Pentagon Press conference, from Hankey’s Dark Legacy II (24:08)
There are issues also with the autopsies. Joanna Weiss and Matthew Brelis of the Boston Globe wrote on July 23, 1999, in an article headlined “JFK Autopsy Rushed”:
“the autopsies in the Kennedy case were performed especially quickly, pathologists said. The remains were taken to a Bourne hospital at about 7:15 p.m. Wednesday night and released to the victims’ families at 11 p.m., according to the medical examiner’s office and the Cape and Islands district attorney’s office. / Many jurisdictions refuse to perform autopsies at night, said Robert Kirschner, a former deputy chief medical examiner for Cook County, Ill. The haste in this case, he said, could lead to questions about the investigation’s thoroughness. … The timing of the Kennedy investigation, Kirschner said, makes it unlikely that pathologists performed autopsies on Carolyn Bessette Kennedy or Lauren Bessette. ‘You can’t possibly do three investigations in four hours,’ he said.”[66]
But, to me, the most suspicious thing of all is the way the bodies were disposed of after their rushed autopsies: they were cremated in Duxbury’s cemetery crematorium. Then their remains were taken aboard the Navy destroyer Briscoe, and scattered into the sea, near the place where they had found their death.
Why? “The burial for the 35th president’s son,” noted local Duxbury journalist Paula Maxwell, “was reportedly carried out in keeping with his expressed wishes.”[67] The Boston Globe reported on July 22 , “Kennedy’s family requested a burial at sea, and the Pentagon granted that request.”[68] But, the next day, the same newspaper expressed surprise:
“The cremated remains of John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife, and her sister were cast from a warship to the ocean currents in a manner not favored by the Catholic Church and in a ceremony that occurred only after the intercession of Pentagon brass. The Roman Catholic Church prefers the presence of a body at its funeral rites. And the Defense Department rarely accords the honor of burial at sea to civilians.”[69]
Moreover, no other Kennedy had ever been cremated. The reasons given for cremating JFK Jr. body do not make any sense and are contradictory. The New York Times wrote: “Kennedy family members, citing his wishes and hoping to avoid having a spectacle made of Mr. Kennedy’s final resting place, have decided to have his body cremated and his ashes scattered at sea in a Navy ceremony, a family adviser said.”[70] Can we believe that the Kennedy family, who had always showed respect for Catholic traditions, wanted no grave for JFK Jr., by fear that his grave might become a pilgrimage site? And can we believe that John, at age 39, had expressed “his wish” to be cremated? CNN added more bizarre explanations to that already incredible story:
“Sen. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, had requested the burial at sea, saying it was his nephew’s wish to be cremated and his ashes spread on the waves. The request was approved by Defense Secretary William Cohen. / The family of the Bessette sisters requested that the two women be buried in the same ceremony, the Pentagon said. / John Jr., like his father, the late President John F. Kennedy, had a love of the sea. He spent many summers sailing and kayaking the waters where his plane crashed. / Pentagon officials tell CNN there are two grounds for granting permission for a naval burial at sea. First, there is a provision allowing for such burials for people providing “notable service or outstanding contributions to the United States. / Also, protocol allows sea burials for the children of decorated Navy veterans. President Kennedy was a naval officer wounded and cited for heroism in World War II.”[71]
How ridiculous! JFK was a decorated Navy veteran, and he surely loved sailing, yet he was buried in Arlington. It seems to me unconceivable that JFK Jr. would not have wished to be buried near his father. Even Pierre Salinger asked to be buried at Arlington Cemetery, not far from JFK. It is just as unbelievable that the Bessettes, who are said to hold John responsible for their daughters’ death, and to have received 10 million dollars in compensation from the Kennedys, would decide just the same. According to information found in RFK Jr.’s diary, published by the New York Post, Ann Freeman, Carolyn and Lauren Bessette’s mother, “began asking that her two daughters be buried near her home in Greenwich, Connecticut.” It was Edwin Schlossberg, Caroline Kennedy’s wife, who convinced her to have her two daughters cremated and their ashes spread in the ocean. “He bullied, bullied, bullied the shattered grieving mother,” writes RFK Jr., also commenting: “All the Bessette family knows that Ed hated Carolyn and did everything in his power to make her life miserable.” After Carole Radziwill, the wife of Anthony Radziwill, JFK Jr.’s cousin and close friend, complained to RFK Jr. about Schlossberg, RFK Jr. wrote in his diary: “She says she wants to start an ‘I hate Ed Club.’ There would be many, many members. John & Carolyn would have certainly applied.”[72] That surely makes us wonder about Edwin Schlossberg’s interest in the whole affair.
Navy destroyer USS Biscoe, where the funeral ceremony took place
So, have we proven without a reasonable doubt that JFK Jr. was assassinated? Admittedly, no. None of the elements analyzed above is entirely conclusive by itself. Perhaps, after all, Todd Burgun was mistaken about John’s radio call to Martha’s Vineyard airport at 9:39 (but why didn’t he come forward to retract his statement?). Perhaps Victor Pribanic lied, or mistook the sound of John’s plane crashing into the Ocean for an airborn explosion (but what about the other witnesses?). Perhaps, among the conflicting reports about the visibility, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the worst reports. Perhaps Kyle Bailey, the last man to see JFK Jr. alive, was really there, before becoming an aviation analyst expert regularly appearing on Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, MSNBC, CNBC, The Weather Channel, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, CTV, I24 News, and HLN, as his LinkedIn account says. And perhaps we should trust Bob Arnot too. Perhaps flight instructor Robert Merena did suddenly remember in January 2000 that JFK Jr. had rejected his offer to fly with him because “he wanted to do it alone.” Perhaps John Junior, at age 39, did ask to be cremated and his ashes spread into the ocean he loved so much. And so on.
It is the accumulation of such doubtful elements that is hard to accept. It is also the military control over the operations, right down to news reporting from the Pentagon, which is odd. Add the fact that the regional director of the NTSB in charge of the investigation, Robert Pearce, according to his official profile, later “briefed State Department officials and the Egyptian Ambassador in the wake of the EgyptAir Flight 990 crash [the jet plane that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean after leaving JFK airport, with 33 high ranking Egyptian military officers on board, allegedly by the fault of a suicidal Egyptian co-pilot] as well as supported the FBI on scene at the World Trade Center in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001.” I sure wouldn’t trust Robert Pearce to investigate my own plane crash.
In the final analysis, it is the explanation of the crash that is strikingly implausible. As Anthony Hilder put it:
“A finely-tuned, well-kept first-class airplane doesn’t just drop out of the sky and head straight down into the ocean unless it’s blown out of the sky or the pilot deliberately sends it into a dive to kill himself and his passengers.”[73]
There is evidence of an accumulation of deliberate omissions, lies and false testimonies from the NTSB investigation to mainstream reporting, in order to blame the plane crash on the pilot alone, regardless of inconsistencies. And so, between accident and assassination, I lean strongly toward assassination.
Who orchestrated the plot, then? Behind every Kennedy assassination, John Hankey sees the Bushs, heirs to the Nazis, he insists. Hankey belongs to the category of half-truthers who would rather see the hands of Nazis than of the Mossad. He believes JFK Jr. named his magazine George as a way to “tell everyone who he thought killed his father, by hiding the answer in plain sight.” Hankey doesn’t suspect the Clintons at all. Neither does John Koerner, who starts his book Exploding the Truth by a chapter for “exonerating the Clintons”: the Clintons loved the Kennedys so much they would never have done them harm, he wants us to believe.[74]
Donald Jeffries is more rational when suggesting to add John F. Kennedy Jr. to the list of the notorious “Clinton Body Count”, which already includes quite many deaths by plane crash: Victor Raiser, the Clinton presidential campaign’s national finance cochairman (July 30, 1992), Dr. Stanley Heard, a member of Clinton’s health-care advisory committee (September 10, 1993), Hershel Friday, Clinton’s Finance Committee chairman (March 1, 1994). After all, the Navy takeover of the rescue and recovery missions, and the whole national security protocol around the case, can only have been ordered by President Clinton. Roger Stone, a longtime aide to President Richard Nixon and investigator into JFK’s death, believes the Clintons ordered the murder of JFK Jr.’s because he was planning to run for the Senate seat that Hillary coveted.[75]
Yet the Clintons certainly had nothing to do with JFK or RFK’s assassinations. So whatever role they played in the case of JFK Jr.’s assassination, they must have been part of a larger scheme. Even if Hillary had a motive to eliminate JFK Jr. from the New York Senate race, I don’t think she would have gotten away with it without higher protections. Let us not forget also that, in all Kennedy assassinations, the key factor for success is the complicity of the mainstream media for more 50 years. The Clintons don’t own the media.
Like Michael Collins Piper long before me, and like Ron Unz more recently, I believe that Israel assassinated both JFK and RFK. From there follows naturally the hypothesis that Israel also killed JFK Jr., and for the very same reason as they killed RFK: to prevent him from ever reaching the White House and reopening the investigation on his father’s death. When I say “Israel”, I mean it in the broad sense, as including all the Machiavellian crypto-Zionists infiltrated in all layers of the U.S. power structure, including corporate media.
Israel did not just assassinate Kennedys. They keep assassinating their memory, through a constant flow of anti-Kennedy books attacking their character and vilifying their family. This is what JFK researcher James DiEugenio calls “the posthumous assassination of JFK,” the obsession to “smother any legacy that might linger”; for “assassination is futile if a man’s ideas live on through others.”[76] Take for example pseudo-biographer C. David Heymann, who after working for the Mossad in Israel (from his own admission), returned to the U.S. only to write Kennedy biographies, including the salacious Bobby and Jackie: A Love Story, and went on, after JFK Jr.’s death, to claim a ten-year secret acquaintance with him in order to fill the media with rubbish.[77] Why do publishers and mainstream media keep taking Heymann seriously? Why does the New York Post give a positive review of his latest book, American Legacy: The Story of John and Caroline Kennedy (2007), which portrays John Junior as a “novice pilot” who boarded his plane half-drunk and under heavy medication (“Vicodin to relieve the pain of a recently broken ankle, plus Ritalin for attention-deficit disorder and medication for a thyroid problem”), who took off while “the haze had already grown thick and viscous,” and who spent the last 30 seconds of his life “not knowing up from down, frantically pulling at his plane’s controls in a panicked attempt to right its deadly spiral,” “with whirling instruments sending him messages he couldn’t read”?[78]
The Jewish elites have hated the Kennedys ever since Joseph Kennedy, as U.S. ambassador in London, tried to prevent Roosevelt from entering World War II, resigned when he did, and then complained that “the Jews have won the war.”[79] Kennedys must pay for “the sins of the father,” as Ronald Kessler titled his book (The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, 1996), a not-so-subtle reference to Exodus 20:5 asserting Yahweh’s right of vengeance on three generations. The Jewish elites also hated the Kennedys for everything they represented, including a very strong sense of blood kinship that Jews prefer Gentiles not to have.
Paradoxically, in a nation founded on the rejection of monarchy, the Kennedys embodied the idea of royalty, the highest form of a dynastic aristocracy founded not just on the accumulation of wealth and power, but on a patriotic dedication to civil service. It is as if the archetype of royalty had crystallized in the United States on this family, to the point that the name of King Arthur’s court, Camelot, has stuck to their legend. The Kennedys also embodied the Irish Catholic root of the American people, with its deep-seated antagonism to British puritanism, the more Israel-friendly branch of Christianity, which has come to dominate American politics since Lyndon Johnson (“Our First Jewish President” as one American Jewish newspaper calls him).[80] From this point of view, the triple assassination of President Kennedy, his younger brother and his only son are the equivalent in Western Christendom of the extermination of the Romanov family in Orthodox Russia. And I believe that, just like Russia with the Tsar family, America will only be great again when it opens the archives and honors the Kennedys as national martyrs of a foreign power.
But wait: there is still one male heir to John F. Kennedy: Jack Schlossberg, son of Caroline Kennedy and Edwin Schlossberg. Will he become “our first Jewish president,” asks Rabbi Jeffrey Salkin? I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure he won’t be assassinated.
[4] Laurence Leamer, Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty, HarperCollins, 2005, kindle, k. 225-67.
[5] Jackie’s words reported by Pierre Salinger, quoted from Christopher Andersen, The Good Son, JFK Jr. and the Mother He Loved, Gallery Boosk, 2014, kindle, k. 1912-4.
[27] Laurence Leamer, Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty, HarperCollins, 2005, kindle k. 8297, quoted in Keith J. Kelly, “JFK Jr. Mad at Hill Senate Run: Book,” New York Post, March 16, 2004, https://nypost.com/2004/03/16/jfk-jr-mad-at-hill-senate-run-book/
[28] Quoted in John Koerner, Exploding the Truth: The JFK Jr., Assassination, Chronos Books, 2018, kindle k. 540-45.
[29] Quoted in Koerner, Exploding the Truth, op. cit., k. 540-5.
[31] Wayne Madsen, “JFK Jr.’s Plane Crash Was Originally Treated As Murder Investigation,” Wayne Madsen Report, August 12, 2009, on http://www.whale.to/c/jfk_jr5.html. Madsen told more details to Jeffries, who reports them in his book Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics, Skyhorse publishing, 2016, kindle k. 3981.
[43] Donald Jeffries, Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics, Skyhorse publishing, 2016, kindle k. 3908-14.
[46] Anthony Hilder’s article, “The explosive story: a Second Opinion on the Kennedy Crash,” Free World Alliance, was recently accessible at http://netowne.com/conspiracy/konformist/kennedy.htm, from which I secured a copy, but is no more.
[51] Wayne Madsen, “JFK Jr.’s Plane Crash Was Originally Treated As Murder Investigation,” August 12, 2009, on http://www.whale.to/c/jfk_jr5.html
[52] First reported by John Quinn, “Hard Evidence Obtained of Conspiracy, Cover-up in JFK Jr. Death,” on http://www.angelfire.com/wy/1000/HardEvidence.html, reproduced by Donald Jeffries, Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics, Skyhorse publishing, 2016, kindle k. 3956-61, and by John Koerner, Exploding the Truth: The JFK Jr., Assassination, Chronos Books, 2018, kindle k. 1228-46.
[56] Michael Daly, NY Daily News, July 18, 1999, quoted from John Koerner, Exploding the Truth: The JFK Jr., Assassination, Chronos Books, 2018, kindle k. 1211-19.
[57] Alan Levin, Kevin Johnson, and Deborah Sharp, “Pilot Kennedy was ‘conscientious guy,’” USA Today, July 21, 1999, quoted in Koermer, Exploding the Truth, op. cit., k. 1211-19.
[58] Quoted in John Koerner, Exploding the Truth, op. cit., k. 1179-95.
[59] Donald Jeffries, Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics ,Skyhorse publishing, 2016, kindle k. 3879-81.
[60] Christopher Andersen, The Good Son: JFK Jr. and the Mother He Loved, Gallery Books, 2014, kindle k. 141-43.
[76] James DiEugenio, “The Posthumous Assassination of JFK”, in The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X, edited by Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, Feral House, 2003.
French energy giant Total has sparked the anger of Israeli authorities after its chief executive said making investment in the “complex” Israel was not worth the risk.
Total’s chief executive Patrick Pouyanne said in an interview with the Financial Times that it was too “complex” to invest in Israel, noting that his company’s operation in the Middle East was a sticking point.
“We like complex situations … up to a certain point. Let’s be clear,” he said.
Pouyanne further said that the stakes in Israel were not big enough to accept the risks involved, partly due to the competition already in the region.
Israel’s energy minister Yuval Steinitz slammed the stance as “unacceptable,” saying firms that refused to invest in Israel were living in the “past decades.”
“I reject it with two hands, I think this is a miserable view,” Steinitz said, adding “We will consider our reaction to this as it is totally unacceptable, to boycott [Israel].”
Israel relies heavily on gas. The Tel Aviv regime has long been developing a number of offshore gas deposits in the Mediterranean Sea.
Steinitz claimed that other international firms, including Google, Lockheed Martin and Boeing, that had invested in Israel had not faced any problems in the Arab world.
“Companies that were afraid to make investments in Israel in the past because of the Arab Muslim world made the wrong calculation,” Steinitz said, adding he had met many energy ministers from Persian Gulf Arab countries in recent years.
“If somebody is avoiding investing in Israel because it might have interests in Iran then that can be the only reason, because the Arab world is not concerned,” the Israeli minister claimed.
However, a person from the gas industry, said, “It’s not only Total who faces these kinds of realities in the region.”
Texas-based Noble Energy and Israeli company Delek Resources have been the two main operators in Israel. Executives say the largest international operators are still concerned about the fragile politics of the region.
In 2017, Total signed a contract to develop phase 11 of Iran’s multi-billion-dollar South Pars gas project with an initial investment of $1 billion.
However, the French company pulled out of the project in August after it failed to obtain a waiver from the US.
Total is also investing in the eastern Mediterranean basin where Israel and Lebanon are involved in a maritime dispute.
Last year, the Lebanese government announced that it had signed gas exploration and production contracts for two energy blocks, including the disputed Block 9, with a consortium of France’s Total, Italy’s Eni and Russia’s Novatek oil and gas companies.
Total, however, said it would not drill the first well of Block 9 near the disputed sliver of waters, adding that the well would be drilled over 25 kilometers from the maritime border claimed by Israel.
Amid growing tension along the northern border, Israeli and US forces will hold their annual joint exercise next week, to test the level of coordination between the two armies, in the event of future conflicts.
The exercise is part of a long standing agreement, between the US and Israel, to hold bilateral training exercises on a regular basis. An Israeli military spokesperson stressed that it was not associated with a particular threat or world event.
The goal of the drill – known as Juniper Falcon – is to strengthen cooperation, mutual learning, and coordination between the armies. In 2017, 12 American F-15E Strike Eagles and approximately 80 Airmen attached to the 494th Fighter Squadron flew missions with the Israeli Air Force.
The drill is expected to include over 300 US Army soldiers and 400 Israeli soldiers from different units.
The last Juniper drill, which took place in March 2018, was labeled as the largest Israeli and US European Command joint exercise in 2018, with more than 2,500 US troops deployed in Europe, participating alongside 2,000 Israeli troops, logistics units, medical forces, and other units.
On Wednesday, the United States purchased the Iron Dome missile defense system from Israel, for an immediate need of the United States Army. “This is yet another expression of the strengthening of our strong alliance with the US,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said.
Days of Palestine further notes that the American F15 Eagle warplanes were used to kill thousands of Palestinians, during the 3 deadly wars that the Gaza Strip faced, in 2008, 2011 and 2014.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif will pay a visit to Lebanon amid growing tensions between Beirut and Tel Aviv.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi said Zarif will travel to Lebanon at the head of a delegation on Sunday to hold talks with senior officials in the West Asian country.
The trip comes amid reports of a massive military exercise held by the Israeli army to simulate a war on Lebanon. Yiddish News reported on Friday that the drill involved tanks and warplanes.
The maneuver comes days after the secretary general of Lebanon’s Hezbollah resistance movement expressed his readiness to bring defense systems from Iran in order to confront Israeli aircraft.
Syria and Iraq are accepting Iran’s help and benefiting from it, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said, adding, “Whatever the Lebanese Army needs to become the strongest regional army, I am willing to go to Iran and bring it.”
“Why should Lebanon remain afraid to cooperate with Iran?” he asked.
“In the military field, wouldn’t people make an uproar and accuse Hezbollah of dragging Lebanon into war should the party shoot down an Israeli aircraft attacking Lebanon? I’m a friend of Iran, and I’m willing to bring the Lebanese Army air defense systems from Iran to confront Israel.”
Israeli warplanes regularly violate Lebanon’s sovereignty and targets belonging to Hezbollah, which has been successfully helping Syria contain Takfiri militancy.
Israel launched two wars on Lebanon in 2000 and 2006, in both of which Hezbollah inflicted heavy losses on the regime’s military. Israeli officials have even threatened another war on Lebanon.
Lebanese officials have repeatedly complained about Israeli jets’ violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty.
On Friday, Lebanon’s Prime Minister designate Saad Hariri blasted Tel Aviv for its “continued violation of Lebanese airspace and territorial waters.”
He made the remarks at a meeting with Major General Stefano Del Col of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
“The escalation in the Israeli tone towards Lebanon does not serve the interests of the calm that has been going on for more than 12 years,” he said.
The Israeli army enjoys an overwhelming support from the Western countries.
Zarif told Russia’s RT television on Wednesday that the US and EU countries should be held accountable for exports of arms to the Middle East and stoking wars in the region.
“The arms which are daily fired above the heads of ordinary Yemenis and kill many people are not of local production. They were manufactured in the USA, France, the UK as well as in other European countries. They should be held accountable for that,” Zarif said.
By Freddie Ponton | 21st Century Wire | September 5, 2026
Before the killings that helped bring down Ukraine’s president in February 2014, American diplomats were discussing who should enter its government. In a leaked telephone call, senior State Department official Victoria Nuland told US ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, “I think Yats is the guy,” referring to opposition leader Arseniy Yatseniuk. Washington had clear preferences and was working to advance them. Later that month, Yatseniuk became prime minister.
Ivan Katchanovski’s The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine examines the violence that preceded that transfer of power. Drawing on television footage, witness testimony, forensic examinations and Ukrainian court proceedings, he argues that elements of the opposition shot protesters and police in a false-flag operation. His case centres on evidence of protesters being shot from opposition-controlled locations, including Hotel Ukraina, overlooking the killing ground. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.