Saturday, 11 October 2008
Friday, October 10
Toni O'Loughlin in Jerusalem
Saturday October 11 2008
Israel has hired British public image consultants to give the conflict-battered nation a political facelift for its 60th birthday this year.
Acanchi, which has built its reputation on altering international perceptions of nations such as Lebanon and Bahrain, has been contracted to counter anti-Israel "mindsets". "Our research shows that Israel's brand is essentially the conflict," Ido Aharoni, head of the brand management unit within Israel's foreign ministry, told Israeli daily, Haaretz.
"Even those who recognise that Israel is in the right are not attracted to it, because they see it as a supplier of bad news. The conclusion is that it is more important for Israel to be attractive than to be right," he said.
Israel signed the contract with Acanchi six weeks ago but the idea to remake the nation's image was proposed by its New York consulate seven years ago.
In the wake of the September 11 terror attacks, pro-Israel lobbyists hoped the rest of the world would become more sympathetic to their conflict with the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world, which erupted soon after the birth of the Jewish nation in 1948.
But Aharoni told the Guardian that the contract with Acanchi "had nothing to do with public relations".
"Let's just confirm the fact that they are working for us and that's it," he said.
Within the pro-Israel lobby, debate has raged between those who advocate the old approach of managing perceptions of the conflict by promoting the Jewish nation's version of events and those who advocate distracting international attention by telling positive stories.
Even before Acanchi's chairwoman, Fiona Gilmore, visited Israel last week to talk to public figures, businessmen, academics and social activists, the nation had begun selling a slicker image to the rest of the world.
Last year Israel launched a page on MySpace and this year, as part of its 60th birthday celebrations, it lined New York's Fifth Avenue with banners of 60 Israeli faces. But its attempt to generate goodwill abroad backfired at home last year when Israeli politicians objected to a story about Israel's female soldiers who were photographed in their underwear at the behest of Israel's New York consulate.
Acanchi also declined to be interviewed about the project but its website says it aims to "discover and define the optimum brand strategy for a country, city or region". Gilmore says the new brand should be "rooted in the essence of a place". "This is always rooted in the reality and essence of the place," she says on the Acanchi website.
"If a brand is changed or built only on the surface and it's not supported by deeper changes and values within a country, city or region, it will not engage people."
[ 10/10/2008 - 04:54 PM ]
GAZA, (PIC)-- Hamas said, on Friday, that the escalation of assaults by Zionist occupiers against the Palestinian residents of the city of Akka, in northern occupied Palestine, is one of the fruits of the Annapolis conference which stressed the concept of occupied Palestine being the homeland for the Jews.
Dr. Sami Abu Zuhri, spokesman of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, said, in a statement to PIC, that the escalation of attacks against Palestinians in 1948-occupied Palestine, the last of which were the attacks taking place over the past two days in Akka, is a clear indication of the increase in the levels of Zionist racism against Palestinians.
He added that his movement considers these attacks as a fruit of the Annapolis conference, which was held last November and tried to consolidate the concept of 1948-occupied Palestine being the homeland for the Jews, encouraging more racism against 1948-Palestinians who already suffer from being treated as second class citizens.
Abu Zuhri said that instead of the said conference producing a Palestinian state which the conference was marketed as aiming for, it has produces assaults against Palestinians with the aim of uprooting the remaining Palestinians in 1948-occupied Palestine.
“ Mavet le Arabim” or “death to the Arabs” and “Arabs out.”
Haneyya government condemns the assaults on the Palestinians of Akka
The Palestinian government under Prime Minister Ismael Haneyya condemned the assaults by Jewish settlers on the indigenous Palestinian residents of the city of Akka in northern Palestine.
10/10/2008 - 10:17 PM
Islamic Jihad call for popular protests in support of Akka Palestinians The Islamic Jihad movement called for popular protests to support the Palestinian residents of Akka (Acre), in northern Palestine..
10/10/2008 - 08:33 PM
AP photo / Jim Bourg, pool
By Scott Ritter
The war in Iraq has morally crippled the Republican Party, if not all of America. The fact that a conflict which has taken the lives of more than 4,150 Americans to date, wounded tens of thousands more, and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians serves as the centerpiece of the Republican Party platform boggles the mind. As a lifelong registered Republican, I have been torn apart by the immoral embrace of the Iraq war by members of a political movement which at one time seemed to pride itself as being the defender of a strong America built on the ideals and values enshrined in the Constitution.
With such feelings, I found myself headed to the 2008 Republican convention, where I was invited to speak to the Veterans for Peace and other groups, a committed supporter of Barack Obama. I was somewhat surprised at how my opinions and attitudes were changed by the experience.
I landed in Minneapolis in time to watch John McCain introduce his newly selected running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to the United States. Like many other Americans, I was struck by how little I knew of her. I listened intently as she spoke, and was taken aback not by what she said (it was standard political fare) but rather by how the crowd reacted. One moment in particular concerned me: When Palin stated that her eldest son, 19 years of age, had enlisted in the Army and was soon to be deployed to Iraq, the crowd erupted in wild cheers of “USA! USA! USA!,” as if the mother of five had announced that her son just beat the Russians at hockey. That Sarah Palin stood there, taking in the cheers with a smile, only underscored the fact that she herself had no appreciation of the gravity of the situation, and the reality of what her son was getting into. Her son’s service to his nation had been marginalized into little more than a campaign prop, his patriotism debased by a crowd of political supporters who knew little of the reality of war and instead treated it as some perverse form of national sport. One only hopes that Palin will not have to learn how it feels to be the parent of a wounded vet, or worse, a Gold Star Mother. Would she think back on that moment when she allowed her son’s courage to be demeaned by an act of partisan selfishness?
I might have seen this sort of thing coming. In April 2001, at the invitation of Rep. Jack Kingston, I spoke before the Theme Team, a collection of influential Republican congressional representatives. The topic was Iraq, and in particular Iraq’s status as a threat worthy of war. I argued that the United States must exhaust all options, especially resolving the weapons of mass destruction issue through inspections, before there could be any talk of war with Iraq. I provided the assembled Republicans, and their respective staffers, with an in-depth analysis (derived from my June 2000 article, “The Case for the Qualitative Disarmament of Iraq,” published in Arms Control Today) of what I deemed to be the current state of affairs concerning Iraqi WMD, and I warned the Theme Team that any push for war against Iraq based upon the exaggeration of a WMD threat would come back to haunt the Republican Party. As a fellow Republican who had voted for President George W. Bush, I told them, I was loath to see America under Republican leadership head down that path. My advice was not heeded. While Rep. Kingston and his fellow Republicans were receptive, thanking me for my testimony (which they claimed was “enlightening”), the Theme Team backed, and continues to back, President Bush’s disastrous decisions on Iraq.
It is with this consistent support for the Iraq war from the heart of the Republican Party in mind that one must judge John McCain’s stubborn insistence on staying the course. Long deemed a “maverick” for his tendency to run afoul of mainstream politics, on Iraq McCain has been anything but. With the presidency clearly in his sights, McCain has retreated to politically comfortable turf. He has a résumé of military service of such merit that no one dares challenge the former prisoner of war’s status as a “true American hero,” and he has built his campaign and, by extension, his party, around the themes of “military service” and “service to country.” His enthusiasm for the invasion of Iraq has been matched by his support for a continuation of the mission there through to completion and victory. In this, McCain staked out the once-lonely position of supporting a “surge” in U.S. combat strength in Iraq, standing nearly alone in 2006-2007 while most others, Democrat and Republican alike, were considering options for the reduction of U.S. force levels in Iraq, if not their outright withdrawal. McCain has staked his campaign on this support of the “surge,” coupled with the subsequent reduction of violence in Iraq. It is his strongest argument that he is a leader capable of seeing America through these difficult times.
The illusion is almost perfect. Even I, at times, am left wondering, in the face of the policy vacuum coming out of the Obama camp, whether or not McCain has gotten this one right. I have to admit to having a soft spot for John McCain. His story as rebel naval aviator and courageous prisoner of war is well known to anyone who has studied the Vietnam War and its many profiles in courage. As a junior congressman from Arizona, McCain had the courage to confront President Ronald Reagan about the lack of a viable mission for the U.S. Marines in Lebanon, before the Marine barracks were blown up by a suicide bomber. In 1998, it was John McCain who came to my defense during my testimony before the U.S. Senate, following a contemptuous assault on my viability as a witness by none other than Sen. Joe Biden (more on that later). In 2000, I counted myself among the ranks of the “McCainiacs,” infatuated by the “straight-talk express” and hopeful for some real change in Washington, following what I believed to be eight ineffective years of the Clinton administration. In fact, McCain is the only presidential candidate I have ever donated money to (although the $50 check I sent following his victory in the New Hampshire primary almost assuredly went unnoticed). But then came South Carolina, and the debacle at Bob Jones University. The absolute caving in by McCain to the religious right of America, and his unconditional surrender to the presidential ambitions of George W. Bush, left me and other “McCainiacs” feeling empty, and the “straight talk express” nothing more than a mangled wreck on the American political highway. I have never trusted John McCain since, and it is with that opportunism in mind that I so dimly assess his much touted “surge” strategy.
1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE >>>
The choice between McCain and Obama is a choice between a surge in Iraq and a surge in Afghanistan. You get to choose.
Posted by As'ad at 6:43 AM
If you believe in Peace & Justice, you belong to this community
Please Read Our
H O U S E R U L E S
This is YOUR community, however to ensure that everyone enjoys it we ask you to observe some rules. Membership in this group implies acceptance of the following code of conduct:
1. Any reader/member may post any comment or reply to any message as long as these rules are followed. From experience we know that in an online community of this nature, people have different opinions and may not agree with each other. Therefore, a management team of several volunteers has been assigned to keep this place dedicated to the civil exchange of opinions and ideas, in accordance with these rules.
2. The most important rule to be followed is to be civil and polite and avoid rudeness when posting a comment. We welcome input from all readers as long as they address the issues and do not attack or attempt to insult other members.
3. It is preferred that all members provide a valid email address. However, if you are concerned about your privacy, this preference may be waived.
4. This blog is dedicated to the support of independent decmocratic Palestine from river to sea and to the exchange of ideas about Palestine through the posting of relevant information. This is not a place where false or "Zionist" propaganda against Palestinians is welcome (such propaganda is already available on the world-wide "media"), therefore Zionists are not welcome. While larger Middle East issues cannot be avoided in discussing the Palestinian issue, it is requested that members restrict their messages as much as possible to the Palestinian issue.
5. No racist remarks are allowed when discussing issues you disagree with. Also, attacking another member's religious preference is not allowed. A member may be warned first or banned (deleted) outright by any volunteer on the management team when breaking this or any of these rules.
6. No abusive or threatening behaviour, either directly or indirectly, is permitted against any member/reader or any volunteer on the management team. Anyone breaking this rule shall be warned first and will be banned upon repeating the violation.
7. No pornographic, scatological or "adult" material may be posted by any member. Anyone breaking this rule will be banned without warning.
8. This is an international community. Members' first language may not be English. Please do not correct other people's spelling or grammatical errors unless you need clarification or are invited to do so. However, in order to be understood, please try to write proper and complete words and sentences as much as you can.
9. In order to preserve the bandwidth, avoid wasting members' time and effort, and for the sake of everyone's enjoyment and edification, members may not post "spam" or "junk messages." Spam is defined as any attempt to persist in posting irrelevant, distracting or unrelated "replies" in any specific discussion thread. Members may be warned and banned if they persist in posting such irrelevant "replies" which, in the view of the management team volunteers, appear to be deliberately attempting to disrupt the blog.
10. Members/readers are requested not to post unsubstantiated "facts," because this will only lead to more of the same from both sides. Whenever possible, an obviously controversial subject should be accompanied by a backing source, either from the Web or elsewhere.
11. As an alternative to warning or banning members, management team volunteers may delete a specific comment that in their opinion violates any of these rules. They may or may not offer an explanation. A member whose post has been deleted should consider this action a form of warning that the message violates one or more of these rules.
12. We do not wish to be unfair, biased or arbitrary, but we are all human. In the end, the decision of any of the members of the management team shall be final. If you have any problems, opinions or suggestions for the community, tell the management team!
By Stephen FoleyFriday, 10 October 2008
Contributed by Nadia
The late John Kenneth Galbraith attributed the longevity of his book The Great Crash 1929 – published in 1955 and never since out of print – to the tendency of history to threaten a repeat. "Each time it has been about to pass from bookstores," he wrote in a later foreword, "another speculative episode – another bubble or the ensuing misfortune – has stirred interest in the history of this, the great modern case of boom and collapse, which led on to an unforgiving depression."
So here we are again. The financial crisis that has engulfed credit markets over the past year has finally crashed into the public consciousness, and the question of whether the US is headed for a second Great Depression is now a staple of bar-room debate. Little wonder, this has pushed the old Keynesian economist's book back into the Amazon charts.
Almost 80 years ago, a financial crisis led directly to an economic catastrophe. The Great Crash 1929 sets out the five routes by which one became the other. Not all have direct parallels today, but some do. All these years later, Galbraith's book is still essential reading.
The bad distribution of income
The most extreme point for income inequality in the US in the 20th century was 1928, thanks to a financial boom that had handed great wealth to the rich with the funds to play the stock market. Worryingly, we were back at just such an extreme in 2006.
In 1928, the richest 5 per cent of the population took in more than a third of all personal income. They averaged less than a quarter for most of the post-war period, but inequality began to rise sharply from the Eighties. In the past two or three years, the top 5 per cent have again made up to 38 per cent of all personal income, according to US data compiled by Emmanuel Saez, economist at the University of California.
Galbraith argued that an economy that relies on the spending of so few people is less stable, more prone to big swings, than one made up of a broader range of people of more modest means. The rich use their money on consumer luxuries or business investment, which can dry up if they lose a lot of money. The 1929 crash hit the rich hardest; the question today is whether they have shared the same amount of the financial pain from the credit crisis, the plunging stock market and the convulsions in the hedge fund industry.
The bad corporate structure
Galbraith calls it "devastation by reverse leverage". He describes a corporate pyramid, with vast holding companies controlling large segments of the utility, railroad and entertainment business. Because dividends from subsidiaries were passed up to corporate holding companies, which relied on them to pay the interest on giant debts, an interruption in those dividends would threaten bankruptcy. To avoid that, holding company executives demanded a lock-down on investment throughout the whole structure, exacerbating the depression.
Today, public companies outside the financial sector have generally been less highly leveraged and have enjoyed a long period of strong cash generation, and conglomerates have been out of stock market fashion for a generation. The same cannot be said of the private sector, newly swollen by the private equity boom and a slew of multi-billion dollar buy-outs. The question will be, if there is an economic downturn, how will private equity owners respond to the demands of bondholders in their highly leveraged companies, and whether they have the wherewithal to keep their companies' investment taps on.
The bad banking structure
"Since the early Thirties, a generation of Americans has been told, sometimes with amusement, sometimes with indignation, often with outrage, of the banking practices of the late Twenties," Galbraith notes, but surprisingly he absolves most bankers of blame. Many lending practices only looked profligate or foolish when the unprecedented severity of the depression became clear. Rather, the economist blames panicking depositors, who saw the life savings of their neighbours wiped out when one bank collapsed and didn't wait around to see the same thing happen to them. In the first six months of 1929, 346 US banks collapsed, and that was just the beginning of a series of bank runs.
It was precisely this that led to the creation of a federal deposit insurance scheme in 1933, guaranteeing most people's savings – a scheme which has so far prevented further banking runs in the US and even managed to oversee the biggest-ever US banking collapse (of Washington Mutual, last month, whose customers were turned over to JPMorgan Chase) without anyone feeling their money was in danger.
So the banking system now is very different, then, to the 1929 era. Whether this time out, Galbraith would so absolve the bankers is unclear. The financial sector had its own version of the corporate pyramid he railed against, and "devastation by reverse leverage" is an apt summation. The sudden reversal of the US housing market and the rising number of mortgage defaults has cascaded up through the financial system, where trillions of dollars of bonds and other derivatives have relied on that underlying income stream for their value. Now we have the lock-down on bank lending, as financial institutions struggle to assess the damage.
The dubious state of the foreign balance
Since the First World War, the US had been a creditor nation, with a trade surplus that it invested by lending to governments abroad. Many of those loans – some of which were long-standing war debts, others of which were simply corrupt loans to cronies – went into default, exacerbating a budget crisis. Today, the US is in the opposite position as a debtor nation.
Poor state of economic intelligence
"To regard the people of any time as particularly obtuse seems vaguely improper," Galbraith says, "yet it seems certain that those who offered economic counsel in the late Twenties and early Thirties were almost uniquely perverse."
It was the Depression that gave rise to Galbraith's beloved Keynesian economics, which argues governments must stimulate demand in response to an economic downturn, not scale back their activities – a response that made matters worse.
The balanced budget was bipartisan doctrine in this Depression era, taxes were raised and spending cut, and the result was that the government helped shrink the economy when it should have been doing the opposite. Republicans pay lip-service to the balanced budget ideal today, and John McCain promised to freeze all government spending in response to the current financial crisis, but he is proposing tax cuts. On the other side, Barack Obama will raise the tax burden on the economy, but has also promised Keynesian-style spending on infrastructure building projects to keep people in work.
The monetary authorities are also much more savvy in the US today. Whereas Galbraith berates the Federal Reserve of the Twenties and Thirties for keeping interest rates high to keep the dollar on the gold standard, as a way of keeping inflation under control, today's Fed, under Ben Bernanke – a respected scholar and author on the Great Depression himself – has been spraying money into the financial system and cut interest rates repeatedly. Until Wednesday's co-ordinated cuts, the European Central Bank, with its inflation-only mandate, might have been open to Galbraith's criticism of inflation hawks of the Depression ("They were serving only as the custodians of bad memories"). Not today. For all the parallels, it is different this time.
Thursday, 9 October 2008
Hamas: 'Jewish Lobby' in U.S. to blame for global financial crisis
By News Agencies and Haaretz Service
Tags: Israel news, financial crisis
The Palestinian militant group Hamas on Tuesday accused a "Jewish Lobby" in the United States of fomenting the global financial crisis.
The crisis was the result of "bad administrative and financial management and a bad banking system put into place and controlled by the Jewish lobby," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum said in a statement.
Barhum said that despite approving a bailout plan of $700 billion dollars, the U.S. government was ignoring the role of "the Jewish lobby that put the U.S. banking and financial sector into place."
This lobby, said Barhum, "controls the U.S. elections and defines the foreign policy of any new administration in a manner that allows it to retain control of the American government and economy."
The Anti-Defamation League reported last week a major upsurge in the number of anti-Semitic postings on the Internet relating to the financial crisis engulfing the United States.
The Jewish-American organization cited hundreds of posts regarding the bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers and other institutions affected by the subprime mortgage crisis.
The messages railed against Jews in general, with some charging that Jews control the U.S. government and finance as part of a "Jew world order" and therefore are to blame for the economic turmoil.
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, said: "We know from modern history that whenever there is a downturn in the global economy, there will be an upturn in the level of anti-Semitism and bigotry, and that is what we are seeing now."
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
Global Research, October 8, 2008
"Wikileaks has released a sensitive 219 page US military counterinsurgency manual. The manual, Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces (1994, 2004), may be critically described as "what we learned about running death squads and propping up corrupt government in Latin America and how to apply it to other places". Its contents are both history defining for Latin America and, given the continued role of US Special Forces in the suppression of insurgencies, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, history making.
The leaked manual, which has been verified with military sources, is the official US Special Forces doctrine for Foreign Internal Defense or FID.
FID operations are designed to prop up "friendly" governments facing popular revolution or guerilla insurgency. FID interventions are often covert or quasi-covert due to the unpopular nature of the governments being supported ("In formulating a realistic policy for the use of advisors, the commander must carefully gauge the psychological climate of the HN [Host Nation] and the United States.")
The manual directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and (under varying circumstances) the suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates employing terrorists or prosecuting individuals for terrorism who are not terrorists, running false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists. And it repeatedly advocates the use of subterfuge and "psychological operations" (propaganda) to make these and other "population & resource control" measures more palatable.
The content has been particularly informed by the long United States involvement in El Salvador.
In 2005 a number of credible media reports suggested the Pentagon was intensely debating "the Salvador option" for Iraq.. According to the New York Times Magazine:
The template for Iraq today is not Vietnam, with which it has often been compared, but El Salvador, where a right-wing government backed by the United States fought a leftist insurgency in a 12-year war beginning in 1980. The cost was high — more than 70,000 people were killed, most of them civilians, in a country with a population of just six million. Most of the killing and torturing was done by the army and the right-wing death squads affiliated with it. According to an Amnesty International report in 2001, violations committed by the army and associated groups included ‘‘extrajudicial executions, other unlawful killings, ‘disappearances’ and torture. . . . Whole villages were targeted by the armed forces and their inhabitants massacred.’’ As part of President Reagan’s policy of supporting anti-Communist forces, hundreds of millions of dollars in United States aid was funneled to the Salvadoran Army, and a team of 55 Special Forces advisers, led for several years by Jim Steele, trained front-line battalions that were accused of significant human rights abuses.
The same article states James Steele and many other former Central American Special Forces "military advisors" have now been appointed at a high level to Iraq.
In 1993 a United Nations truth commission on El Salvador, which examined 22,000 atrocities that occurred during the twelve-year civil war, attributed 85 percent of the abuses to the US-backed El Salvador military and its paramilitary death squads.
It is worth noting what the US Ambassador to El Salvador, Robert E. White (now the president for the Center for International Policy) had to say as early as 1980, in State Department documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act:
The major, immediate threat to the existence of this government is the right-wing violence. In the city of San Salvador, the hired thugs of the extreme right, some of them well-trained Cuban and Nicaraguan terrorists, kill moderate left leaders and blow up government buildings. In the countryside, elements of the security forces torture and kill the campesinos, shoot up their houses and burn their crops. At least two hundred refugees from the countryside arrive daily in the capital city. This campaign of terror is radicalizing the rural areas just as surely as Somoza's National Guard did in Nicaragua. Unfortunately, the command structure of the army and the security forces either tolerates or encourages this activity. These senior officers believe or pretend to believe that they are eliminating the guerillas.
Selected extracts follow. Note that the manual is 219 pages long and contains substantial material throughout. These extracts should merely be considered representative. Emphasis has been added for further selectivity. The full manual can be found at US Special Forces counterinsurgency manual FM 31-20-3.
George Bush a Bolshevik who wants to begin from scratch
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Fedyashin) - After the shocking failure of the financial stabilization package proposed by the U.S. administration in Congress on September 29, the American financial crisis has started spreading like a tsunami.
The first to have been hit by it was Wall Street; the next day the wave reached the Asian and European exchanges.
The bailout package, called Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, stipulated the allocation of $700 billion for purchases and insurance of troubled bank assets.
The United States will still have to do something to prevent clots in the country's financial veins, and do it quick.
This is why President George W. Bush spent the night in consultation with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke preparing for an address to the nation on a new financial stabilization plan in the morning of September 30.
Negative votes in Congress were one more, and probably the last, humiliation for President Bush. Two-thirds of the Republicans voted against the bailout bill in the House of Representatives, many more than the number of Democrats who voted for it. As the November 4 presidential elections approach, Republicans have apparently decided to jump Bush's sinking ship.
But this will not save them from election troubles, because they will have to approve a stabilization plan, whether they want to or not. The problem will not disappear of its own free will. There are too many clots in the banking arteries, a result of years of eating very rich and unhealthy food.
The package will be reviewed, modified, and probably streamlined and divided into several tranches, and will possibly add more guarantees safeguarding the repayment of a large part of the public's investment, or possibly stipulate state involvement in revenues.
In principle, the proposed allocations can be cut, although not much (if at all), because the advanced stage of illness calls for using potent medicine. The pill may be bitter, but the American economy will have to swallow it because the disease, as Europe describes the American crisis, has reached the Old World.
European governments, from Iceland to Italy, are injecting money into their banks and markets, trying to prevent dehydration and hangover after the riotous American party at which Europe did not drink too much anyway.
Germany's Bundesbank has allocated 71 billion euros to support mortgage companies and banks.
The Bank of England has injected ?40 billion in the form of short-term bank loans into the market. Her Majesty's Cabinet has taken the unprecedented decision to nationalize the country's largest mortgage bank, Bradford & Bingley.
The governments of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg have chipped in to allocate 11.2 billion euros to solve the problem through partial nationalization of Fortis, Benelux's largest bank.
The Icelandic government has nationalized the country's biggest bank, Glitnir, to prevent a financial catastrophe. The homeland of the Icelandic herring has recently been drinking champagne on a beer budget, operating "like one big toxic hedge fund," as one commentator quoted by The Telegraph said. The Icelandic krona has plummeted by 60% since the beginning of this year.
The first shock from Congress's decision has thoroughly shaken up world exchanges. The British pound almost lost consciousness waiting for Congress to approve the $700-billion bailout bill. British market dealers, convinced that Bush would have his way, started selling the pound and buying the dollar, thereby pushing the British currency to the lowest level since 1993. Thank God, the shock wore off by the end of the day.
In the States, developments have taken a completely unpredictable turn, and not only in Congress. Eleven large commercial banks have filed for bankruptcy and this is only the beginning. The U.S. market is falling into incredible somersaults, as seen from the example below.
About two weeks ago, Wachovia Corp., the country's fourth largest banking group, was seen as the potential buyer and saver of Morgan Stanley, the second largest investment bank. But it transpired in the last few days of September that Wachovia has been bought by Citigroup.
The crisis wave, which originated in the U.S., is spreading across the planet and nobody knows when or where it will stop.
Congress will most likely vote for the new plan this or early next week. It has been known to first register a protest (to strengthen congressmen's reputation) and then approve a bill after shallow changes.
Republican candidate John McCain will suffer the most from this, because Bush has put him under such a heavy cloud that he can forget about his plans for the White House. But then, who has it easy these days?
President Bush is suffering too. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., said the bailout is "financial socialism and it's un-American."
Nouriel Roubini, the New York University economics professor, says worse is to come. He said: "Comrades Bush and Paulson and Bernanke will rightly pass to the history books as a troika of Bolsheviks who turned the USA into the USSRA (United Socialist State Republic of America)."
This highly critical statement was apparently made in the heat of the moment, but this knowledge will not make Bush's life easier. He has been accused of being a Bolshevik, not even an unpatriotic socialist. On the other hand, there are reasons for the professor's words.
The non-partisan Cato Institute headquartered in Washington, which has been advocating "the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace" for the past 30 years, has recently published the results of a survey claiming that in 2006 the U.S. administration allocated $93 billion to the largest American industrial, banking and agricultural companies in the form of subsidies, tax benefits, financing of various "development projects" and competitiveness support.
Maybe "friend George" is indeed a Bolshevik who wants to destroy the American economy down to the rock bottom, so as to be able to begin from scratch?
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
NOTICE: Please Read!
By David Hirst, Excerpts from his book: The Gun and the Olive Branch, 1977, 1984, Futura Publications
In July 1954 Egypt was plagued by a series of bomb outrages directed mainly against American and British property in Cairo and Alexandria. It was generally assumed that they were the work of the Moslem Brothers, then the most dangerous challenge to the still uncertain authority of Colonel (later President) Nasser and his two-year-old revolution. Nasser was negotiating with Britain over the evacuation of its giant military bases in the Suez Canal Zone, and, the Moslem Brothers, as zealous nationalists, were vigorously opposed to any Egyptian compromises.
It therefore came as a shock to world, and particularly Jewish opinion, when on 5 October the Egyptian Minister of the Interior, Zakaria Muhieddin, announced the break-up of a thirteen-man Israeli sabotage network. An 'anti-Semitic' frame-up was suspected.
Indignation increased when, on 11 December, the group was brought to trial. In the Israeli parliament, Prime Minister Moshe Sharett denounced the 'wicked plot hatched in Alexandria ... the show trial which is being organized there against a group of Jews who have fallen victims to false accusations and from whom it seems attempts are being made to extract confessions of imaginary crimes, by threats and torture . . .'49 The trade union newspaper Davar observed that the Egyptian regime 'seems to take its inspiration from the Nazis' and lamented the 'deterioration in the status of Egyptian Jews in general'.50 For Ha'aretz the trial 'proved that the Egyptian rulers do not hesitate to invent the most fantastic accusations if it suits them'; it added that 'in the present state of affairs in Egypt the junta certainly needs some diversions'.51 And the next day the Jerusalem Post carried this headline: 'Egypt Show Trial Arouses Israel, Sharett Tells House. Sees Inquisition Practices Revived.'
The trial established that the bombings had indeed been carried out by an Israeli espionage and terrorist network. This was headed by Colonel Avraharn Dar --alias John Darling-- and a core of professionals who had set themselves up in Egypt under various guises. They had recruited a number of Egyptian Jews; one of them was a young woman, Marcelle Ninio, who worked in the offices of a British company. Naturally, the eventual exposure of such an organization was not going to improve the lot of the vast majority of Egyptian Jews who wanted nothing to do with Zionism. There were still at least 50,000 Jews in Egypt; there had been something over 60,000 in 1947, more than half of whom were actually foreign nationals. During the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948, the populace had some times vented its frustration against them, and some were killed in mob violence or by terrorist bombs. In spite of this, and of the revolutionary upheaval which followed four years later, few Jews-including the foreign nationals-left the country, and fewer still went to Israel. A Jewish journalist insisted: 'We, Egyptian Jews, feel secure in our homeland, Egypt.'52
The welfare of Oriental Jewry in their various homelands was, as we have seen, Israel's last concern. And in July 1954 it had other worries. It was feeling isolated and insecure. Its Western friends-let alone the rest of the world-were unhappy about its aggressive behaviour. The US Assistant Secretary of State advised it to 'drop the attitude of the conqueror'.53 More alarming was the rapprochement under way between Egypt, on the one hand, and the United States and Britain on the other. President Eisenhower had urged Britain to give up her giant military base in the Suez Canal Zone; Ben-Gurion had failed to dissuade her. It was to sabotage this rapprochement that the head of Israeli intelligence, Colonel Benyamin Givli, ordered his Egyptian intelligence ring to strike.
Givli's boss, Defence Minister Pinhas Lavon, and the Prime Minister, Moshe Sharett, knew nothing of the operation. For Givli was a member of a powerful Defence Ministry clique which often acted independently, or in outright defiance, of the cabinet. They were proteges of Ben-Gurion and, although 'The Old Man' had left the Premiership for Sde Boker, his Negev desert retreat, a few months before, he was able, through them, to perpetuate the hardline 'activist' policies in which he believed. On Givli's instructions, the Egyptian network was to plant bombs in American and British cultural centres, British-owned cinemas and Egyptian public buildings. The Western powers, it was hoped, would conclude that there was fierce internal opposition to the rapprochement and that Nasser's young r6gime,faced with this challenge, was not one in which they could place much confidence.54 Mysterious violence might therefore persuade both London and Washington that British troops should remain astride the Canal; the world had not forgotten Black Saturday, 28 January 1951, in the last year of King Farouk's reign, when mobs rampaged through downtown Cairo, setting fire to foreign-owned hotels and shops, in which scores of people, including thirteen Britons, died.
The first bomb went off, on 2 July, in the Alexandria post office. On 11 July, the Anglo-Egyptian Suez negotiations, which had been blocked for nine months, got under way again. The next day the Israeli embassy in London was assured that, up on the British evacuation from Suez, stock-piled arms would not be handed over to the Egyptians. But the Defence Ministry activists were unconvinced. On 14 July their agents, in clandestine radio contact with Tel Aviv, fire-bombed US Information Service libraries in Cairo and Alexandria. That same day, a phosphorous bomb exploded prematurely in the pocket of one Philip Natanson, nearly burning him alive, as he was about to enter the British-owned Rio cinema in Alexandria. His arrest and subsequent confession led to the break-up of the whole ring-but not before the completion of another cycle of clandestine action and diplomatic failure. On 15 July President Eisenhower assured the Egyptians that 'simultaneously' with the signing of a Suez agreement the United States would enter into 'firm commitments' for economic aid to strengthen their armed forces.55 On 23 July --anniversary of the 1952 revolution-- the Israeli agents still at large had a final fling; they started fires in two Cairo cinemas, in the central post office and the railway station. On the same day, Britain announced that the War Secretary, Antony Head, was going to Cairo. And on 27 July he and the Egyptians initiated the 'Heads of Agreement' on the terms of Britain's evacuation.
The trial lasted from 11 December to 3 January. Not all the culprits were there, because Colonel Dar and an Israeli colleague managed to escape, and the third Israeli, Hungarian-born Max Bennett, committed suicide; but those who were present all pleaded guilty. Most of them, including Marcelle Ninio, were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. But Dr Musa Lieto Marzuk, a Tunisian-born citizen of France who was a surgeon at the Jewish Hospital in Cairo, and Samuel Azar, an engineering professor from Alexandria, were condemned to death. In spite of representations from France, Britain and the United States the two men were hanged. Politically, it would have been very difficult for Nasser to spare them, for only seven weeks before six Moslem Brothers had been executed for complicity in an attempt on his life. Nevertheless Israel reacted with grief and anger. So did some Western Jews. Marzuk and Azar 'died the death of martyrs', said Sharett on the same day in the Knesset, whose members stood in silent tribute. Israel went into official mourning the following day. Beersheba and Ramat Gan named streets after the executed men. Israeli delegates to the Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission refused to attend its meeting, declaring that they would not sit down with representatives of the Cairo junta. In New York there were bomb threats against the Egyptian consulate and a sniper fired four shots into its fourth-floor window.56
This whole episode, which was to poison Israeli political life for a decade and more, came to be known as the 'Lavon Affair', for it had been established in the Cairo trial that Lavon, as Minister of Defence, had approved the campaign of sabotage. At least so the available evidence made it appear. But in Israel, Lavon had asked Moshe Sharett for a secret inquiry into a matter about which the cabinet knew nothing. Benyamin Givli, the intelligence chief, claimed that the so-called 'security operation' had been authorized by Lavon himself. Two other Ben-Gurion protégés, Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres, testified against Lavon. Lavon denounced Givli's papers as forgeries and demanded the resignation of all three men. Instead, Sharett ordered Lavon himself to resign and invited Ben-Gurion to come out of retirement and take over the Defence Ministry. It was a triumphant comeback for the 'activist' philosophy whose excesses both Sharett and Lavon had tried to modify. It was consummated, a week later, by an unprovoked raid on Gaza, which left thirty-nine Egyptians dead and led to the Suez War of 1956.57
When the truth about the Lavon Affair came to light, six years after the event, it confirmed that there had been a frame-up; not, however, by the Egyptians, but by Ben-Gurion and his young protégés. Exposure was fortuitous. Giving evidence in a forgery trial in September 1960, a witness divulged on passant that he had seen the faked signature of Lavon on a document relating to a 1954 'security mishap'.58 Ben-Gurion immediately announced that the three-year statute of limitations prohibited the opening of the case. But Lavon, now head of the powerful Histradut Trade Union Federation, seized upon this opportunity to demand an inquiry. Ben-Gurion did everything in his power to stop it, but his cabinet overruled him. The investigation revealed that the security operation' had been planned behind Lavon's back. His signature had been forged, and the bombing had actually begun long before his approval --which he withheld-- had been sought. He was a scapegoat pure and simple. On Christmas Day 1960, the Israeli cabinet unanimously exonerated him of all guilt in the 'disastrous security adventure in Egypt'; the Attorney General had, in the meantime, found 'conclusive evidence of forgeries as well as false testimony in an earlier inquiry'.59 Ben-Gurion was enraged. He issued an ultimatum to the ruling Labour party to remove Lavon, stormed out of a cabinet meeting and resigned. In what one trade unionist described as 'an immoral and unjust submission to dictatorship', his diehard supporters in the Histradut swung the vote in favour of accepting Lavon's resignation. Lavon, however, won a moral victory over the man who twice forced him from office. In the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, students demonstrated in his favour. They carried placards reading: 'Bengurion Go to Sde Boker, Take Dayan and Peres with You. We do Not Accept Leaders with Elastic Consciences.'60 The affair rocked the ruling establishment, split public opinion, forced new elections and contributed largely to Ben-Gurion's eventual disappearance from public life.
But Lavon was not the only real victim. There were also those misguided Egyptian Jews who paid with their lives or long terms of imprisonment. It is true that when, in 1968, Marcelle Ninio and her colleagues were exchanged for Egyptian' prisoners in Israel, they received a heroes' welcome. True, too, that when Miss Ninio got married Prime Minister Golda Meir, Defence Minister Dayan and Chief of Staff General Bar Lev all attended the wedding and Dayan told the bride 'the Six-Day War was success enough that it led to your freedom'.61 However, after spending fourteen years in an Egyptian prison, the former terrorists did not share the leadership's enthusiasm. When Ninio and two of her colleagues appeared on Israel television a few years later, they all expressed the belief that the reason why they were not released earlier was because Israel made little effort to get them out. 'Maybe they didn't want us to come back,' said Robert Dassa. 'There was so much intrigue in Israel. We were instruments in the hands of the Egyptians and of others ... and what is more painful after all that we went through is that this continues to be so.' In Ninio's opinion, 'the government didn't want to spoil its relations with the United States and didn't want the embarrassment of admitting it was behind our action'.62
But the real victims were the great mass of Egyptian Jewry. Episodes like the Lavon Affair tended to identify them, in the mind of ordinary Egyptians, with the Zionist movement. When, in 1956, Israeli invaded and occupied Sinai, feeling ran high against them. The government, playing into the Zionist hands, began ordering Jews to leave the country. Belatedly, reluctantly, 21,000 left in the following year; more were expelled later, and others, their livelihood gone, had nothing to stay for. But precious few went to Israel.
49. Jerusalem Post, 12 December 1954.
5O. 13 December 1954.
51. 13 December 1954.
52. Berger, op. cit., p. 14.
53. Love, Kennett, Suez: The Twice-Fought War, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969, P. 71.
54. Ibid., p . 73.
55. Ibid., p. 74.
56. Love, op. cit., P. 77.
57. See p. 198.
58. New York Times, 10 February 1961.
60. Jewish Chronicle, London, 17 February 1971.
61. Ha'olam Hazeh, 1 December 1971
62. Associated Press, 16 March 1975.
Mr Saleh did not say what evidence had been found to show the group's links with Israel, a regional enemy of Yemen.
The arrests were connected with an attack on the US embassy in Sanaa last month which killed at least 18 people, official sources were quoted saying. Israel's foreign ministry has rejected the accusation as "totally ridiculous".
"A terrorist cell was arrested and will be referred to the judicial authorities for its links with the Israeli intelligence services," Mr Saleh told a gathering at al-Mukalla University in Hadramawt province. "Details of the trial will be announced later. You will hear about what goes on in the proceedings," he added.
The 17 September attack was the second to target the US embassy since April. Militants detonated car bombs before firing rockets at the heavily fortified building. Mr Saleh did not identify the suspects, but official sources were quoted saying it was same cell - led by a militant called Abu al-Ghaith al-Yamani - whose arrest was announced a week after the attack.
An Israeli foreign ministry spokesman said the Yemeni president's statement was without foundation.
"To believe that Israel would create Islamist cells in Yemen is really far-fetched. This is yet another victory for the proponents of conspiracy theories," Igal Palmor said in remarks reported by AFP
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
By Nikhil Shah
Global Research, September 29, 2008
ZMag - 2008-09-24
At a time, when the international community has turned a blind eye to Israel's crimes towards the Palestinians, Venezuela has been one of the few nations who has the courage to openly condemn Israel for its crimes and express support for the Palestinian people. Most members of the non-aligned movement professed support for the Palestinian cause during the cold war and severed relations with Israel as they saw the Palestinian struggle as part of the same anti colonial struggle that they were a part of. Other commentators have stated that the non-aligned support for the Palestinian cause was not formed out of any genuine concern for the Palestinian people but as a way to align their foreign policy to that of the former Soviet Union for strategic purposes or to gather favor from several oil producing Arab nations for their development.
After the U.S. imposed Oslo Peace Process began in the early 90's, the international community eagerly resumed diplomatic ties with Israel and immediately started a process of military and technological cooperation with them. May of these nations such as India and China had admired Israel as a nation that was technologically and militarily advanced and desired to have Israel share its expertise in these areas with them. This build up of military cooperation and trade made many nations change their policy on criticizing Israel. These members of the international community turned a blind eye to Israel's practices towards the Palestinians in the years that followed, including a continued displacement of Palestinians, an increase in illegal Jewish settlements, continued expropriation of Palestinian lands, political assassinations, torture, discrimination against non-Jewish residents, and sabotaging the rights of Palestinian refugees displaced by the 1948 Al Nakba genocide. Even after the outbreak of the second intifada, the international community refrained from holding Israel accountable for genocidal policies imposed on the Palestinians such as the forced starvation and economic devastation of over 1.5 million residents in Gaza or for the war crimes it committed during their illegal invasion of Lebanon in 2006. Occasional criticism or concerns would be expressed about Israel's actions but nation-states would refrain from severing diplomatic ties or holding Israel legally accountable for their crimes.
One exception to this diplomatic capitulation to Israel has been Venezuela under the leadership of President Hugo Chavez. Chavez has been outspoken in his criticism of Israeli policies and has undertaken and proposed steps to hold Israel accountable for their actions. Venezuela, like many other Latin American countries traditionally had friendly diplomatic relations with Israel. Since its existence, Israel has maintained military relations with right wing regimes in Latin America including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. Israel has also been active in supporting several right-wing counterinsurgency groups in Latin America (acting as a proxy for the U.S.) with weapons, advice and training in their fight with leftist governments.
Chavez, however, broke with this tradition when he announced in 2006 that he was withdrawing his senior diplomat from Israel in response to their invasion of Lebanon. Chavez chose to take this course not because of any action Israel had taken against Venezuela, but because of Israel's treatment towards Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. Chavez publically compared Israel's actions towards Palestinians and Lebanese to the holocaust stating that "Israel is doing what Hitler did, killing innocent children and entire families."  Chavez went on to stop Venezuela from issuing tourist visas to Israelis and during a trip to Beijing called for Israel to be tried for genocide before the International Criminal Court. Chavez also visited Syria and made a joint statement with the Syrian government calling on Israel to end its illegal occupation of the Golan Heights, abide by UN resolutions and for an end to double standards towards Israel internationally. Chavez also sent a Boeing 707 with 20,000 tons of humanitarian aid to help alleviate the humanitarian crisis caused in Lebanon and Palestine due to Israel's aggressive actions. Chavez has publicly criticized UN Secretary General Ba Ki Moon for not doing enough to strop repression by Israel. These statements and actions have made Chavez one of the most popular leaders in the Arab world and have led opposition political parties in Arab countries to urge their governments to copy Venezuela's actions towards Israel.  Venezuela previously had military ties with Israel but chose to abandon them in favor of standing up for Palestinian rights.
Chavez's actions towards Israel is something that all members of the international community should be emulating to stop the genocidal policies of the Israeli government. Stephen Lendmen in an article about holding Israel accountable for international law violations stated that when nations ignore Israel's crimes such as their violations of UN Resolutions, the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter or tacitly cooperate with it while they are committing these crimes, they are indirectly responsible for aiding their crimes and are "criminal accomplices" under Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter. Unfortunately, most nation states like India have chosen to ignore Israel's crimes during the last decade by continuing to increase military and cultural ties with them thus arguably becoming criminal accomplices in their crimes.
Also unfortunate is that nation state participation and support is required to legally hold Israel accountable for all their crimes against Palestinians and the surrounding Arab countries. The UN General Assembly can act to establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel like they did for Rwanda but this would require General Assembly members to act to bring about this proposal. Additionally, Palestinians can sue Israel for Genocide at the International Court of Justice but this again requires action brought by a nation state or at least consent for the suit by a nation state. Similarly, any attempt to expel Israel from the UN for defying UN resolutions and violating the UN Charter would require the action be brought by a UN member state.
It is for these reasons that citizens of various nation states who are concerned about the plight of the Palestinians must bring pressure to their governments to take Venezuela's lead and take concrete actions to hold Israel accountable for their behavior. Such demands can include breaking diplomatic ties with Israel and consenting to and supporting any suit brought against Israel for genocide in an international tribunal. Many left parties in India and other countries have already taken the lead in the area and must continue to exercise pressure on their respective governments to follow Venezuela's lead with respect to Israel. Noted international lawyer, Francis Boyle, has also followed this strategy and lobbied Iranian officials for state consent to sue Israel for genocide against the Palestinians at the International Court of Justice. Only actions such as these will serve to show the Palestinian people that the world will not turn a blind eye to the genocide that they are facing and will serve to motivate them to continue their anti-colonial struggle.
Nikhil Shah is an attorney in Los Angeles and a board member of the Los Angeles National Lawyers Guild.
 Krieger, Mathew, "Israel-China "water-trade" to rise significantly," Jerusalem Post, November 11, 2000.
 Ravid, Barak, "Israel may downgrade ties with Venezuela," Haaretz, September 30, 2007.
 Khatib, Dima, "Winning Arab hearts and minds," Al Jazeera, 18 August 2006.
 "Chavez Suggests Trying Israel for Genocide," Israel Today, August 27, 2006.
"Syria, Venezuela denounces U.S. "double-standard policy," El Universal, 31 August 2006
 Mather, Steven, "Israel Withdraws its Ambassador for Venezuela," Venezuelaanalysis.com, August 8, 2006.
 for claiming right of defense to justify invasions," March 3, 2008.
 "Syrian Communists urge Arab leaders to Copy Venezuela's protest against Israel," Khaleej Times, August 2, 2006.
 Parma, Alessandro, "U.S. Continues to Block Venezuelan Defense Development," Voltairenet.org, October 26, 2005.
 Lendman, Stephen, "Israel Must be held accountable for its International Law Violations," ZMagazine, August 12, 2006.
 Gelkin, Chris, "Lawyer seeks Iran's help to sue Israel over Gaza Seige," Worldpress, April 25, 2008,
Richard Owen in Rome Pope
Benedict XVI today said that the global credit crisis shows that the world's financial systems are "built on sand" and that only the works of God have "solid reality". Opening a Synod of Bishops in the Vatican the Pope referred to a passage from St Matthew's Gospel on false prophets, saying ''He who builds only on visible and tangible things like success, career and money builds the house of his life on sand''. He added: ''We are now seeing, in the collapse of major banks, that money vanishes, it is nothing. All these things that appear to be real are in fact secondary. Only God's words are a solid reality''.
He was referring to Jesus's words in Matthew Chapter 7, beginning "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Jesus adds: "Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock ?but everyone that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand.” On Sunday the pontiff launched a marathon reading of the Bible on Italian television at the basilica of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in Rome by reading aloud the opening passages of Genesis. More than 1,200 people are reading the entire Old and New Testaments from beginning to end this week, including Church and political figures, actors and volunteers from all walks of life drawn from the ranks of Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims. The Pope was followed among others on the first evening by the actor and film director Roberto Begnini, who said he had been awed at reading the Bible "in the house of the author". However Riccardo Di Segni, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, who was to have been one of the readers, pulled out last month, saying that the arrangements for the marathon were too "rigorously Roman Catholic."
Mark Glenn – The Ugly Truth October 5, 2008
Israel–like a hungry vulture perched high on a tree branch watching as two enemies below go at each other’s throats until their mutual destruction brings her an easy meal–is once again up to her old tricks in keeping the artificial Islamo-Christian war she helped produce on 9/11 at the very top of her agenda.
Not content with the bloodshed (1,000,000 + deaths and counting) she has already orchestrated in Iraq and Afghanistan through her network of spies in America and elsewhere, Israel is demanding this carnage be widened to include Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, or wherever Muslims can be found in high numbers. The fact that such a war involving the industrialized Christian West (with its 1+billion inhabitants) and the oil-rich Islamic world (with its 1+billion adherents) can only end in disaster for the rest of civilization is as they say a ‘no-brainer’, and yet Israel (being the irrational, self-absorbed, obsessed character she is) continues operating under the dictum ‘My way or the highway’.
The reason for the Jewish state demanding such a war take place between the Christian and Islamic worlds is a no-brainer as well, despite the appallingly-low number of persons aware of it these days. Zionism–in contravention to the high-minded rhetoric its supporters use in trying to ‘lipstick’ a pig to 1st place in a beauty contest is not an ideology limited simply to the affairs of some tiny sliver of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean sea. The ideology driving the great experiment in Jewish self-rule is fanaticism as pure and undiluted as ever such a thing existed. Based as it is upon the irrational, dangerous, and chauvinistic Old Testament fantasy that the creator of all plucked one tiny, seemingly insignificant microbe of humans out from the midst of inferior beings, set them apart and conferred upon them royal status and a mandate to rule the world, such a theme would be laughed out of town were it to involve any group of people other than the Jews.
In plainer language, what it means is that there really are nutcases in the post-enlightenment/21st century who (despite what would otherwise be the edifying and therapeutic effects of reason and common sense) nevertheless truly believe in all that nonsense about one small, backwards tribe of people destined by the Almighty to ‘inherit the earth’ and ‘make footstools’ of all their Gentile enemies.
And with these things in plain view then, the ‘reasoning’ behind Israel’s engineering of such a conflict between the Christian and Islamic worlds ceases to be any mystery. It is ‘strictly business’ as Michael Corleone said in the movie The Godfather, a case of Judaism (obsessed with its own messianic destiny and bent on world domination) having two competitors eliminate each other, leaving her the only viable player on the field.
Now, in furtherance of this obsession (and just ahead of the US presidential elections, by the way) Israel has begun ramping up things with an eye towards throwing even more gasoline on an already out-of-control fire consuming the world.
In early September the Jewish state–superficially created as ‘God’s divine remedy’ to the worst crimes mankind is disposed towards committing, (meaning bigotry, intolerance and–lest we forget, the mother of all sins–anti-Semitism) nevertheless announced it was sponsoring an upcoming festival of hatred dedicated to promoting that other form of politically-correct ‘anti-Semitism’ that no one hears anything about these days, and not just any old, run-of-the-mill anti-Semitism, but rather the ‘real McCoy’–meaning against Arabs and Muslims.
Entitled “Facing Jihad: A Lawmaker’s Summit” , the meeting is to be held at (where else?) the Knesset. To date dozens of European parliamentarians–whether for reasons of blackmail or bribery–have promised to attend. Israel–with a straight face and summoning up all the chutzpah she is legendary for possessing–announced that the purpose of the conference is (get ready for this) “the formation of a new Judeo-Christian alliance to confront the spread of Islam and the violence that inevitably follows in its wake.”
To those with eyes to see and with 3 functioning brains cells, several things concerning the upcoming Jewish/Christian kissey-face confab stick out like a whore in a red dress at a first communion ceremony, the first being the hypocrisy of it all. One need not sprain any intellectual hamstrings in imagining the howls that would echo all over God’s green earth if instead of such a conference being held at the Knesset it were held at Ahmadinejhad’s parliament and instead of being ‘Judeo-Christian’ in nature it was Christians and Muslims getting together to discuss the topic of Judaism and its megalomaniacal political arm, Zionism.
Those having difficulty imagining such howling should consider that as it is right now the rest of the Gentile world is already subjected to a daily barrage of shrieking, wailing and gnashing of teeth whenever someone from amongst the self-chosenites stubs a toe in a manner that can be blamed on hatred, prejudice or ‘anti-Semitism’.
The truth of the matter however (although NEVER discussed) is that the Jewish state is the ULTIMATE testimony to ‘anti-Semitism,’ past, present, and (most likely, considering the scope of the war against Islam) future. It is ‘Anti-Semitism Central’, the headquarters of ‘Anti-Semitism Inc’ (and in some respects similar to Ponce De Leon’s mythical spring that brought eternal youth) the fountain from which all poisonous anti-Semitic waters flow. The very existence of the Jewish state is intrinsically bound up with hatred for Semites, so much so that without it she would lose her identity and cease to exist. And lest some think this anti-Semitism on the part of the Jewish state against the native peoples living in the area is a relatively new phenomenon that began with the birth of this Frankenstein child back in the 20th century, a trip down memory lane should clear things up PDQ.
Lest it be forgotten, Israel’s hatred of Semites began with Abraham’s jealous, barren wife Sarah forcing the Semite slave girl Hagar and her son Ishmael (Abraham’s own son) to wander out into the desert in the hopes they would both die of thirst and exposure. From there it moves on to stealing all the gold and silver of the Semitic Egyptians before high-tailing it into the land ‘promised’ to them by their God Yahweh and the subsequent slaughter of every living creature (man, woman, child, sheep, goat, ox, cow, bull, etc) peaceably residing in 31 villages. And last, (but certainly not least) is the drunken, orgiastic mass murder of 75,000 innocent Persian civilians as described in the book of Esther and recounted every year in the Jewish religious festival of Purim.
And absent all of this of course there is recent history to ponder, which, when considering what has been done to the Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis and all the other true Semites in the region (to say nothing of the fact that Israel proudly claims to have developed a form of biological warfare targeting persons genetically Semitic) it can be safely assumed that the official policy of the Jewish state from the beginning is that Semites should die in as high numbers as possible.
Therefore no one should be particularly surprised to learn the Jewish state would host such a gathering of, well, for lack of a better word, Nazis. If it can be said that the despised Hitler was not the originator of racial supremacism (coupled with racial hatred of inferiors) but rather that he borrowed his ideas from someone else and then improved on them, the truth of the matter is that he was but a student and learned his ‘anti-Semitism’ from the real master, meaning the Jews and their historical hatred for the peoples of the desert.
The other facet concerning the conference statement that screams out like a smashed cat is the wording that speaks of the ‘inevitable’ violence of Islam. Besides the fact that it is a deliberate attempt on the part of Jewish interests at mischaracterizing Islam, the more important thing is the (surprise, surprise) hypocrisy of it all. In an age where all persons are expected to be ‘sensitive’ to the beliefs of others (no matter how irrational or obnoxious such beliefs are) Israel and her partisans certainly do not afford Islam or its adherents that same courtesy. Clearly what Israel is trying to affect here is the perception in the mind of the Christian world that the moral resistance the Arabs have waged against a lawless, bloodthirsty Jewish state that murders not only innocent men, women and children, but as well sheep, goat, ox, cow, bull, etc as the Israelites of old did is all a product of ‘Islamo-Fascism’ or some other non-sensical, inane Judaistic construct that cannot bear even the slightest weight of intellectual scrutiny.
And of course, last but certainly not least, is the preposterous idea that there is, was or ever could be anything akin to a ‘Judeo-Christian’ alliance of ANY sort as Israel is proposing. Of all the ‘goyim’ out there, Christians are hated the worst by the Jews and this is no theory. Jewish antagonism towards Jesus Christ, His teachings and His followers was self-evident from the very beginning when a mob of God’s chosen drove Christ to the edge of a cliff and tried to throw him over, continued throughout His 3 years of trying to rehabilitate a basically unregenerate, degenerate people and then culminated in His arrest, sham trial and murder.
Since those heady days, Judaism has taken its organic hatred for all things Christian and run it through a process of distillation and purification the results of which are plain to see today. What other religious group has its leader depicted in the annals of Judaism as a sexual pervert and the product of an illicit encounter between a Roman centurion and a menstruating prostitute named Miriam the hairdresser? Mohammed, Buddha, and the other leaders associated with the world’s greater religions are not depicted as boiling in a mixture of semen and feces as punishment for disobeying the Rebbe, nor are they mocked on a regular basis as Jesus is, both within the pages of the Jewish Talmud or in Israeli society. The very notion that such a thing as this ‘Judeo-Christian’ alliance could exist is so preposterous on its face that a rational person should laugh himself silly at the thought of it. It is like some strange creation cooked up in the lab of a mad scientist, where a wolf and sheep are brought together in the form of some hybrid that is not viable, given the organically-contradictory predator/prey natures of the two animals.
Judeo-Christian alliance? Kindly allow a translation of this strange language and the accompanying fine print for the hearing and learning impaired–
The Jews are going to give the Christian world the honor of fighting and dying for the Jewish state as her personal ‘nigga’ in much the same way as Joshua in the Old Testament decided not to exterminate the Gibeonites in exchange for them becoming ‘hewers of wood and carriers of water’ for God’s chosen people.
Now, fanning the flames of what theologians and historians alike will one day call the battle of Armageddon, Israel has been found right in the thick of furthering this unprecedented disaster. In this case, somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 million DVDs of the documentary “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” were inserted into 70 of the largest newspapers circulating in America and distributed throughout the country. Predictably, given the title of the film, the documentary features (among other things) cherry-picked scenes of Muslim children being encouraged to become suicide bombers interspersed with–surprise, surprise–half century-old footage of Nazi rallies and the obligatory constant references to Hitler and his infamous book Mein Kampf.
No one should be surprised to hear that the film and its mass distribution are the handiwork of Israeli partisans and Mossad assets. The film was written and produced by Israel’s own Rabbi Raphael Shore in 2006 under the auspices of his Mossad-connected group The Clarion Fund, a tax-exempt group linked with other Mossad-connected organizations such as CAMERA, (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) and MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute, founded by former Mossad officer that provides “translations“ of news stories appearing in Arabic-speaking countries. Further underscoring the film’s pro-Israel/anti-Islamic agenda, it features commentary from some of the ‘heavy-hitters’ in the Muslim bashing community including Alan M. Dershowitz, Steven Emerson, Brigitte Gabriel, Martin Gilbert, Caroline Glick, John Loftus, Daniel Pipes, Walid Shoebat, as well as interviews with Israeli officials.
In the event some may have forgotten, Pipes has made a name for himself as an “expert“ on Islam and is quoted saying (among many other things) quite a few memorable gems that would have brought the death sentence were it said by anyone else but a Jew about Muslims such as “All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most. West European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene”, as well as his more recent (but equally infamous) “I worry very much from the Jewish point of view that the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims…will present true dangers to American Jews.”
Again, the hypocrisy and double-standard is so thick that a 747 could be landed on it. Any other person of any other stripe saying such things about Jews would be ‘Mel Gibsoned’ into oblivion, meaning their lives run through the meat grinder. And yet, when it is done to Arabs and Muslims, not a peep, not a whimper, and particularly not since Emperium Judaica (with its comparatively insignificant figure of 12-15 million members) has like some gypsy pick-pocket stolen the term ‘anti-Semite’ solely for itself which its members employ like a well-honed/well-rehearsed/overused fake limp from an injury that never occurred whenever someone dares point out the organic and endemic shortcomings of the Jewish collective as demonstrated both by history and by current events.
Of course, tragically, many who receive the DVD in their newspaper and consume its poison will inevitably succumb to its narcotic and mind-destroying effects. Those found sitting on the fence as it were with regards to who they will vote for come November will most likely find themselves pulling the lever for McCain/Palin as the “most qualified choice” in fighting the non-existent boogey-man Jewish groups refer to as “Islamo-fascism”, not realizing that their action is but a carefully-planned maneuver as much so as a fish biting greedily down on a worm-covered hook.
What people can expect is that the film will not go into a deeper discussion of other factors as well, such as Islam’s reverence for Jesus, who is mentioned dozens of times in the Koran compared to Mohammed who is mentioned only 5. Equally though and more important is the fact that no doubt the film– despite its name, “Obsession”–will fail to explore the truly obsessive, irrational, violent, usurious religion of Judaism and its political offshoot known as Zionism, which teach that non-Jews are animals created in human form to serve the Jews and who may be treated in any manner as befits the betterment of Jewish lives. It will fail to mention that Judaism is the truest, most radical example of ‘Jihad’ that has ever existed throughout history, whether in reality or in the imaginations of obsessive minds and is bent on enslaving the world to its particular brand of “Sharia” that all hear so much about when Islam is being discussed.
And, sadly, like sheep being led to slaughter, a good number of Christians in America–although thinking they are doing “the Lord’s work” by voting for John McCain–will in effect give the vulture Israel what she wanted all along and this will wind up being signatories to their own political, cultural and, tragically, physical destruction.
As much as the ‘strictly business’ reasons for Israel’s obsession with the present Christian/Islamic war can be said to be ugly, the sad truth is that it does not end there. In ‘polite‘ societies, what is not spoken is the ‘personal’ reasons that the Jews want Islam and Christianity destroyed, and it is rooted in plain old, unsophisticated envy.
The ugly truth of the matter is that Judaism–trying to win a beauty contest with the other two beautiful gals on stage, meaning Christianity and Islam–doesn’t stand a chance. As much as the judges have been bribed and threatened to vote her in as Miss Universe, the fact is that no magic spells or potions can undo the fact that a pig in lipstick is till a pig. The religion of the Jews has nothing to show for its 3,000 year history except human misery, both on the part of it followers and its victims. People do not flock to its precepts the way they do to Christianity and Islam. All its monuments are those dedicated to the suffering of innocent people. All its major religious ceremonies deal with evils done to Gentiles. It can point to NO great civilizations and NO great discoveries that led to the betterment of mankind. All it has is a book that details the exploits of its people in robbing, cheating, and killing those who suffered the unenviable lot of living in their vicinity.
On the other hand, go anywhere in the world and the evidence of Islam as a vibrant, thriving ideology is apparent. At one time it was not just A world power, but THE world power. Through its learning and science, it brought Christian Europe out of the dark ages and helped bring forth the much-celebrated Renaissance. Indeed, civilization would not be what it is today were it not for the superior learning and culture of Islam. Dittoes with Christianity, that has over a billion followers worldwide in every country around the world. Out of the three religions originating out of the Middle East, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, the first two have contributed great things to civilization whereas Judaism has as much as possible glommed onto its more productive competitors. The Christians and Muslims do not have as THE source of their identity thousands of years of ‘poisecution’ as do the Jews. They do not have a list a mile long of all the countries where their followers have been kicked out, or, more accurately, vomited out. Not only able to stand on their own 2 feet, but able as well to contribute something to the benefit of fellow man, Judaism cannot make the same claim without some serious twisting of reality. Its followers have never been able to create a stable social system, much less a country due to the fact that it–the religion of the Jews–produces a backwards, contrarian mindset that is not conducive to cooperation, progress or political/social stability. This being the case means that the Christian and Muslim worlds that have collectively existed now for thousands of years are a thorn in the eye of ‘Judaic’ civilization that for the most part is noted only for its infamous ghettos, its organic criminality and now, as in the case of Israel, its radioactive/corrosive character and with it the tendency to make healthy political/social tissue surrounding it sick.
In other words, the pig trying to win the beauty contest–rather than compete on her own merits–instead breaks the legs of one of her competitors and throws battery acid in the face of the other in order to ‘even the odds’ in her favor. In the absence of that, she sets up a fight between the two so that at the end of it all their beauty has been marred with cuts, bruises and contusions.
Perhaps it was said best in an email to this writer a few years ago by an incautious Israeli teenager in an email he sent saying–
”I am a Jew, I am an Israeli, I am a Zionist…I am both racially and intellectually superior to you, the non-Jew. For your lies, your pathetic stupidity, and your anti-Semitism, your people will suffer under the punishment of the world’s future super-power, Israel! Jews are superior to dirty-blooded non-Jews like you. While your ancestors were sleeping with the swine in the forests of Europe, my ancestors were building the city of Jerusalem. Israel will come to be the world’s newest superpower. It is our destiny, written in the prophecies of god, written in our ambitions, written in our blood! Beware, for your kind will come to fear us. The coming 30 years will make your eyes twitch my gentile! I am a Jew, you are not. I have the privilege of having g-d by my side, as well as the world’s supreme nation. Perhaps you do not yet see that the worst is awaiting your kind, in the face of the coming Islamo-Christian War, from which my kind will arise victorious. I am only 14 years old, but I have enough wisdom to see that you are nothing but a piece of gentile filth. No matter, perhaps g-d will find it suitable that a terrorist attack will end your misery. I shall personally pray for it to be so.”
‘Obsession’–Never was there a better word in describing the fanaticism on the part of Israel and her supporters in furthering the clash of civilizations between the Christian and Islamic worlds. Let us all hope that the spell Israel has cast over the Christian world in allowing itself to be used in its own destruction wears off before it is too late, if indeed it is not already. http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/israel%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98obsession%e2%80%99-with-christianislamic-conflict/
Monday, 6 October 2008
The United States military's Northern Command, formed in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, is dedicating a combat infantry team to deal with catastrophes in the U.S., including terrorist attacks and natural disasters. The 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry, which was first into Baghdad, Iraq, in 2003, started its controversial assignment Wednesday. The First Raiders will spend 2009 as the first active-duty military unit attached to the U.S. Northern Command since it was created. They will be based in Fort Stewart, Georgia, and focus primarily on logistics and support for local police and rescue personnel, the Army says.
The People's Voice:
AMERICAN POLICE STATE - the First Combat Troops Hit the Streets In 3 Days.
Pre-election Militarization of the North American Homeland. US Combat Troops in Iraq repatriated to " help with civil unrest".
We Are Under Martial Law! (Video)
About Israel's virtual dictatorship over America
The Jewish Grip on USA´s Media Must Be Broken
"We control America"
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
The Zionist plan to attack Syria
Links to interesting articles on this issue
Israel wants strike on Syria while iron's hot
by Robert Novak, Chicago Sun-Times columnist