Monday, August 29, 2005
Evidence of early Zionists' murderous refusal of a peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians is perhaps the most dramatic when it involves the killing of Jewish civilians. It wasn't just Arabs that were being murdered, Zionists were even killing Jews who didn't accept the Zionist ideology. Killing Jews on the hit list composed by the terrorist groups of Irgun and LEHI was the ruthless Zionist way of "settling internal accounts." [ source: Chomsky, Fateful Triangle pp. 164-165]
One of the victims on the list was Jacob de Haan, a Dutch Jew, killed for the "crime" of attempting to work out a peaceful solution between the new settlers and the local Palestinians in 1921. Their own records reveal them saying "another reason for assassinating him was that he was a homosexual."
In another ruthless and cruel example, they drowned one of their own members because they worried the man might give information to the police if he was caught.
The Zionists did not restrict their killings to Jews, they killed Palestinian civilians as well.
There were large numbers of Jews who were opposed to Zionism and some of the
Zionists continued the assassinations of Jews who didn't conform to the Zionist agenda. In June 1924, a religious Jew was killed by Zionist terrorists, killed as he was leaving a hospital's small synagogue. The Zionist killers rationalized the murder by insisting that the man's anti-Zionist activities were evidence of a "pathological character."
"Powerful and thoroughly documented."
Author Noam Chomsky added chapters, a new preface, and there is
a new foreword from Palestinian author and activist Edward W. Said.
It has new material on the Intifada, the ongoing Israeli-PLO "peace
process" (including the Oslo and Wye accords), and Israel's
war against Lebanon.
Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the
Palestinians with Amazon
Buy Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel,
and the Palestinians with Powell's
Saturday, August 27, 2005
You are in a position to call for taking away the terrorists' motives for attacking the US, why are you not doing so? Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives, are you OK with that?
You seem to be OK with Bush and others lying to us about why we were attacked since you never point it out and you never call for ending the specific foreign polices that make us targets. Why are you willing to have us spend billions and curtail our freedoms yet ending these policies is off limits with you?
The 9/11 Commission is avoiding the MAIN MOTIVE for why we were attacked, why are you doing that as well? Did you not see this man trying to get the Commission to deal with the main motive?
You should know that the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel.
Mohamed Atta, the ring leader of the September 11th suicide hijackers also held the same grievance.
Why are you OK with Lee Hamilton and others suppressing the main motive for the attack?
Philip Zelikow admits "we don't really discuss American polices toward Israel in the report." Why in God's name are you not demanding that the 9/11 Commission deal with Israel? Why are you willing to have politicians put our lives at risk for Israel? Why are you willing to suffer the consequences of supporting Israel and allowing people to deceive the public about why people are motivated to attack us? Zelikow admits, "it's a fact that American policies in the Middle East have consequences and that you have to weigh those consequences. And that American support for the state of Israel has consequences in the Muslim world and fuels a lot of Arab and Muslim grievances toward the United States."
We don't deserve to be lied to, why are you playing along with the lie and helping these liars?
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
We the people of America should have more of our lives to ourselves and not be worked so hard. We work our asses off while people in many other countries get much more vacation time to live their lives. We get about 14 days at most while other countries have vacations of up to 5 weeks.
The US business propaganda and manipulations have played us for fools.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Pat Robertson says KILL KILL!!
Pat Robertson calls for the Killing of the President of Venezuelan, Hugo Chavez; Covets Their OilReverend Pat Robertson Says US Should Kill Venezuelan President
Pat Robertson calls for assassination of Hugo Chavez
"We have the ability to take him (Chavez) out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,' Robertson said.
I was flipping through the channels and actually saw him say it. I could not believe it. Pat Robertson is calling for an extremist action, a totally unchristian and illegal act. Robertson want the US to act like a gangster. This is a "reverend"? "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop." Why am I always shocked by guys like Robertson?
Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's total exports.
Of course people like Pat Robertson, basically a political operative, want Hugo Chavez dead. Chavez helps the poor.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, popular with the poor at home, offered to help needy Americans with cheap supplies of gasoline. CNN
Chavez and Castro offered to give poor Americans free health care and train doctors free of charge.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Telling Us to Attack IranIn a 2002 article in The Jerusalem Post, Netanyahu wrote: “ The United States must now act .... against the other terror regimes–Iran, Iraq, Arafat's dictatorship, Syria, and a few others. Some of these regimes will have to be toppled, some of them punished and deterred.” - Bush and Sharon send a message
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen."- Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria
US Intelligence About Iraq Didn't Really Fail, It Was Manipulated
"Never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.'" - General Zinni
The Bush Administration wanted war and didn't care about the truth or the law.
Not one mainstream media outlet has reported the truth:
Bush's War Violates International Law
Remember the weapons declaration that Saddam had submitted?
Saddam was telling the truth, it was Bush who was lying!
Did any of you figure that out yet?
Oh Saddam killed people? Yes, with the help of the US. The US was involved in Saddam's gassings! The US helped Saddam gas people. Scott Ritter and Richard Butler confirm this fact.
(Donahue help expose these kinds of facts on his show, that is why his show was canceled )
How did Saddam get into power in the first place? Who helped him?
The US Mainstream media didn't report this.
"The coup that brought the Ba'ath Party to power in 1963 was celebrated by the United States.
The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition.
US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them".
"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.
"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly
communists so that didn't bother us".
"So just why did Bush choose war? From the evidence before us today, there is no one single reason. Rather, there are three converging and tightly interwoven reasons: oil, Israel and military transformation. The Cheney energy strategy required Iraqi oil; AIPAC and the Christian right wanted to weaken the Arab world to strengthen Israel;
and Don Rumsfeld wanted to expedite the transformation of the U.S. military." - Bush's Real Rationale for War by Patrick Doherty
Sunday, August 21, 2005
"Never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.'" - General Zinni"General Zinni was alarmed that day to hear Cheney make the argument for attacking Iraq on grounds that Zinni found questionable at best:
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
Cheney's certitude bewildered Zinni. As chief of the Central Command, Zinni had been immersed in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. He was all too familiar with the intelligence analysts' doubts about Iraq's programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.'"
Though retired for nearly two years, Zinni says, he remained current on the intelligence through his consulting with the CIA and the military. "I did consulting work for the agency, right up to the beginning of the war. I never saw anything. I'd say to analysts, 'Where's the threat?' " Their response, he recalls, was, "Silence."
Zinni's concern deepened as Cheney pressed on that day at the Opryland Hotel. "Time is not on our side," the vice president said. "The risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action."
Zinni's conclusion as he slowly walked off the stage that day was that the Bush administration was determined to go to war. A moment later, he had another, equally chilling thought: "These guys don't understand what they are getting into." - For Vietnam Vet Anthony Zinni, Another War on Shaky Territory (washingtonpost.com)
The Bush Administration didn't care, they wanted their War on Iraq, they ignored CIA warnings. C.I.A. Warns That a U.S. Attack May Ignite Terror
"There have also been questions about the public portrayal of intelligence by senior policymakers. Preliminary reviews indicate that public statements did not always portray the detailed caveats about Iraqi WMD that intelligence reports generally provided. In addition, questions about possible pressure on analysts to alter their judgments and about possible suppression of alternative assessments must be a central part of a thorough and detailed review."- Opinion from Congresswoman Jane Harman representative from California, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. WMD: What Went Wrong?
"Nuances, qualifications and caveats were dropped; a slam-dunk was the assessment relative to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The CIA was telling the Administration and the American people what it thought the Administration wanted to hear." - Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Sources for the Israeli/Palestinian situation 1947-1948Reader email:
Greetings:No problem Tracy, here are some sources:
I am doing some research into the Israeli/Palestinian situation. I came across your site and was hoping to obtain bibliographic information supporting the following statement copied from: http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html .
NOTE: This is a critical fact often omitted when the history is presented and this leads to a very distorted view of what happened in 1948. The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked." The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State.
Your assistance is appreciated,
"The Zionists were by far the more powerful and better organized force, and by May 1948, when the state of Israel was formally established, about 300,000 Palestinians already had been expelled from their homes or had fled the fighting, and the Zionists controlled a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish state that had been proposed by the UN. 62 Now it's then that Israel was attacked by its neighbors - in May 1948; it's then, after the Zionists had taken control of this much larger part of the region and hundreds of thousands of civilians had been forced out, not before." pp. 131-132 Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky * See Footnote 62 belowZionist forces had been planning their conquest of the Palestine for years and had the military advantage over the native inhabitants. Even before Zionists declared their "Jewish State of Israel" in May of 1948, Zionist armies had already seized land within areas of what the UN proposed for the Palestinian state and had already carried out terrorist attacks (including killing children) in order to ethnically cleanse areas. Writing about a December 18, 1947 terrorist attack killing civilians carried out by the Palmach - the kibbutz-based strike force of the Haganah (the Defense Force of the Jewish settlemetn in Palestine, the precursor of the IDF), Chomsky quotes Israeli military historian Uri Milshtein who wrote that Moshe Dayan justified the attack on the grounds that it had a "desirable effect." Chomsky writes, "Sykes [ author of Crossroads to Israel] suggests that this opperation, three weeks before the first Arab irregulars entered the country, may have "percipitated the next phase of the war." p95 Fateful Triangle The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians The footnote for this says: "For a contemporary record of Irgun-LEHI terrorism in December 1947, see Peace in the Middle East?, pp.64-5, citing a report by the Council on Jewish-Arab Cooperation, which concludes that these actions were undertaken to create conflict in peaceful areas. See Towards a New Cold War pp. 464-5 and referances cited for additional examples of Zionist terrorism, including major masssacres. Little of this is known here; information appears in standard Israeli (Hebrew) sources.
"By May, its armies had taken over parts of the territory assigned to the Palestinian state. The Irgun-LEHI Deir Yassin massacre in April had already taken place, one major factor in causing the flight of much of the Arab population. This fact was reported with much enthusiasm in official statements of Irgun and LEHI, specifically, by the terrorist commander Menachem Begin, who took pride in the opperation in which some 250 defenseless people were slaughtered, including more than 100 women and children, with 4 killed among the attacking forces.
Recently discovered personal testimonies of the leaders of the operation reveal that the majority favored eliminating whoever stood in their way, including women and children, and proceeded to do so, murdering captured and wounded." p95 Fateful Triangle The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians
The rest of this post below is from Chapter Four Footnote 62Footnote 62. On the extent of the Zionist-controlled territory and the number of Palestinian refugees through May 1948, see for example, David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, London: Faber and Faber, 1977, pp. 123-143. An excerpt (pp. 136, 138-139, 142):
Benny Morris, "The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: the Israel Defence Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948," Middle Eastern Studies (London), January 1986, pp. 5-19. An excerpt (pp. 5, 6-7, 9-10, 14, 18):
The rise of the State of Israel -- in frontiers larger than those assigned to it under the Partition Plan -- and the flight of the native population was a cataclysm so deeply distressing to the Arabs that to this day they call it, quite simply, al-nakba, the Catastrophe. . . . Deir Yassin was, as Begin rightly claims, the most spectacular single contribution to the Catastrophe.
[Deir Yassin, an Arab town that had in fact refused to be used as a base for operations against the Jewish Agency by the foreign Arab volunteer force, was the site of a massacre of 250 innocent Arabs by the Jewish terrorist groups Irgun and the Stern Gang in April 1948.] In time, place and method it demonstrates the absurdity of the subsequently constructed myth [that Arab leaders had called on the Palestinian refugees to flee]. The British insisted on retaining juridical control of the country until the termination of their Mandate on 15 May; it was not until they left that the regular Arab armies contemplated coming in. But not only did Deir Yassin take place more than five weeks before that critical date, it also took place outside the area assigned to the Jewish State. It was in no sense a retaliatory action. . . .
In reality, Deir Yassin was an integral part of Plan Dalet, the master-plan for the seizure of most or all of Palestine. . . . Nothing was officially disclosed about Plan Dalet . . . although Bengurion was certainly alluding to it in an address [on April 7, 1948] to the Zionist Executive: "Let us resolve not to be content with merely defensive tactics, but at the right moment to attack all along the line and not just within the confines of the Jewish State and the borders of Palestine, but to seek out and crush the enemy where-ever he may be. . . ." According to Qurvot (Battles) of 1948, a detailed history of the Haganah and the Palmach [the Zionist fighting forces], the aim of Plan Dalet was "control of the area given to us by the U.N. in addition to areas occupied by us which were outside these borders and the setting up of forces to counter the possible invasion of Arab armies." It was also designed to "cleanse" such areas of their Arab inhabitants. . . .
When the war ended, in early 1949, the Zionists, allotted 57 per cent of Palestine under the Partition Plan, had occupied 77 per cent of the country. Of the 1,300,000 Arab inhabitants, they had displaced nearly 900,000.
A great deal of fresh light is shed on the multiple and variegated causation of the Arab exodus in a document which has recently surfaced, entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948. . . ." Dated 30 June 1948, it was produced by the Israel Defence Forces Intelligence Branch during the first weeks of the First Truce (11 June-9 July) of the 1948 war. . . . Rather than suggesting Israeli blamelessness in the creation of the refugee problem, the Intelligence Branch assessment is written in blunt factual and analytical terms and, if anything, contains more than a hint of "advice" as to how to precipitate further Palestinian flight by indirect methods, without having recourse to direct politically and morally embarrassing expulsion orders. . . . On the eve of the U.N. Partition Plan Resolution of 29 November 1947, according to the report, there were 219 Arab villages and four Arab, or partly Arab, towns in the areas earmarked for Jewish statehood -- with a total Arab population of 342,000. By 1 June, 180 of these villages and towns had been evacuated, with 239,000 Arabs fleeing the areas of the Jewish state. A further 152,000 Arabs, from 70 villages and three towns (Jaffa, Jenin and Acre), had fled their homes in the areas earmarked for Palestinian Arab statehood in the Partition Resolution, and from the Jerusalem area. By 1 June, therefore, according to the report, the refugee total was 391,000, give or take about 10-15 per cent. Another 103,000 Arabs (60,000 of them Negev beduin and 5,000 Haifa residents) had remained in their homes in the areas originally earmarked for Jewish statehood. (This figure excludes the Arabs who stayed on in Jaffa and Acre, towns occupied by Jewish forces but lying outside the 1947 partition boundaries of the Jewish state.) . . . [The report] stress[es] that "without doubt, hostile [Haganah/Israel Defense Force] operations were the main cause of the movement of population. . . ." Altogether, the report states, Jewish -- meaning Haganah/I.D.F., I.Z.L. and L.H.I. -- military operations . . . accounted for 70 per cent of the Arab exodus from Palestine. . . . [T]here is no reason to cast doubt on the integrity of I.D.F. Intelligence Branch in the production of this analysis. The analysis was produced almost certainly only for internal, I.D.F. top brass consumption. . . . One must again emphasize that the report and its significance pertain only up to 1 June 1948, by which time some 300,000-400,000 Palestinians had left their homes. A similar number was to leave the Jewish-held areas in the remaining months of the war.The article also explains how this Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Branch report "thoroughly undermines the traditional official Israeli explanation' of a mass flight ordered or 'invited' by the Arab leadership for political-strategic reasons" (p. 17). See also, Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1987; Benny Morris, 1948 And After: Israel and the Palestinians, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Since Morris's early publications, he has noted that later declassified documents have strengthened his conclusions. See Benny Morris, "Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948," in Eugene L. Rogan and Avi Shlaim, eds., The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 37-59.An excerpt (pp. 49, 38):
The documentation that has come to light or been declassified during the past ten years offers a great deal of additional information about the expulsions of 1948.The departure of Arab communities from some sites, departures that were described in The Birth as due to fear or I.D.F. [Israel Defense Force] military attack or were simply unexplained, now appear to have been tinged if not characterized by Haganah or I.D.F. expulsion orders and actions. . . .This means that the proportion of the 700,000 Arabs who took to the roads as a result of expulsions rather than as a result of straightforward military attack or fear of attack, etc. is greater than indicated in The Birth. Similarly, the new documentation has revealed atrocities that I had not been aware of while writing The Birth. . . .These atrocities are important in understanding the precipitation of various phases of the Arab exodus. . . .See also, Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World,
Above all, let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants' fear of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities, and rumors of atrocities -- and by the crucial Israeli Cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return.
New York: Norton, 2000. An excerpt (p.31):
Ilan Pappé, The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-51, London: I.B. Tauris, 1992, chs. 2 and 3, especially pp. 76-99.An excerpt (pp. 85, 96):
Plan D, prepared by the Haganah chiefs in early March, was a major landmark in the development of this offensive strategy.During the preceding month the Palestinian irregulars, under the inspired leadership of Abdel Qader al-Husseini, cut the main road between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and started to gain the upper hand in the fighting with the Haganah. After suffering several defeats at the hands of Palestinian irregulars, the Haganah chiefs decided to seize the initiative and go on the offensive.The aim of Plan D was to secure all the areas allocated to the Jewish state under the U.N. partition resolution as well as Jewish settlements outside these areas and corridors leading to them, so as to provide a solid and continuous basis for Jewish sovereignty.The novelty and audacity of the plan lay in the orders to capture Arab villages and cities, something the Haganah had never attempted before.Although the wording of Plan D was vague, its objective was to clear the interior of the country of hostile and potentially hostile Arab elements, and in this sense it provided a warrant for expelling civilians.By implementing Plan D in April and May, the Haganah thus directly and decisively contributed to the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem. . . .
Plan D was not a political blueprint for the expulsion of Palestinian Arabs: it was a military plan with military and territorial objectives. However, by ordering the capture of Arab cities and the destruction of villages, it both permitted and justified the forcible expulsion of Arab civilians. By the end of 1948 the number of Palestinian refugees had swollento around 700,000. But the first and largest wave of refugees occurred before the official outbreak of hostilities
on 15 May.
The Jews moved from defense to an offensive, once Plan D was adopted. The plan, inter alia, aimed at extending Jewish rule in Palestine. . . . from 1 April 1948 to the end of the war, Jewish operations were guided by the desire to occupy the greatest possible portion of Palestine. . . . By 15 May 1948, about 380,000 Palestinians had become refugees. By the end of the war the number was doubled and the U.N. report spoke of 750,000 refugees.Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, New York: Pantheon, 1987, pp. 81-118. An excerpt (pp. 42, 83-84, 132):
In April 1948, forces of the Irgun penetrated deep into Jaffa, which was outside the borders of the proposed Jewish state. . .Jon Kimche, Seven Fallen Pillars: The Middle East, 1945-1952, New York: Da Capo, 1976 (eyewitness report by a Zionist historian, also recounting the fact that well before May 1948 the Jewish guerrilla group Irgun and the Zionist military organization Haganah had driven most of the Arab population from Jaffa and from large areas of the proposed Palestinian state by force). An excerpt (pp. 226-227):
. Ben-Gurion, despite harsh pronouncements against the dissidents [i.e. the Irgun and other terrorist squads], waited until after the establishment of the state to force them to disband. He could have done this earlier had it suited his purposes, but clearly it did not. The terrorists were very successful in extending the war into areas not officially allocated to the Jews. . . .
Between 600,000 and 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were evicted or fled from areas that were allocated to the Jewish state or occupied by Jewish forces during the fighting and later integrated de facto into Israel. During and after the exodus, every effort was made -- from the razing of villages to the promulgation of laws -- to prevent their return. . . . According to the partition plan, the Jewish state would have had well over 300,000 Arabs, including 90,000 Bedouin. With the Jewish conquest of areas designated for the Arab state (western Galilee, Nazareth, Jaffa, Lydda, Ramleh, villages south of Jerusalem, and villages in the Arab Triangle of central Palestine), the Arab population would have risen by another 300,000 or more. Zionist leaders feared such numbers of non-Jews would threaten the stability of the new state both militarily -- should they become a fifth column for Arab armies -- and socially -- insofar as a substantial Muslim and Christian minority would challenge the new state's Jewish character.
Thus the flight of up to 700,000 Arabs from Palestinian villages and towns during 1948 came to many as a relief. . . .
It wasn't until April 30, 1948, two weeks before the end of the [British] Mandate, that Arab chiefs of staff met for the first time to work out a plan for military intervention. Under the pressure of mounting public criticism, fueled by the increasingly desperate situation in Palestine -- the massacre of Dir Yassin, the fall of Tiberias, the evacuation of Haifa, the collapse of the Palestinian forces, the failure of the A.L.A. [Arab Liberation Army], and the mass flight of refugees -- the army chiefs of the Arab states were finally compelled to discuss the deployment of their regular armies.
The battle of Mishmar Haemek [in the first half of April 1948] was an obvious sign of the turning tide, but the Jews were at the same time developing another tactic which, as we now know, made a far greater impact on the Arab population of Palestine. . . . Marching at night, they penetrated to Arab villages far in the heart of Arab-held territory. Occasionally they blew up a house occupied by an active Arab nationalist or by foreign Arab volunteers; in other villages they confiscated arms or plastered the village with warning notices. The effects of such nightly visitations soon made themselves felt throughout the Arab hinterland. They caused great disturbances and started an exodus from the areas lying near to Jewish districts. . . .And see Benny Morris, "Operation Dani and the Palestinian Exodus from Lydda
Plans were now laid for a crucial attempt to seize the ports of Haifa and Jaffa, and to open communications with the north by the occupation of Tiberias and Safed. On April 21st I noted in my diary: "Arabs increasingly leaving Jewish state area. Almost half have left Haifa. Villages in the coastal plains are being evacuated. Crowded boats also leaving Jaffa" (a predominantly Arab city).
and Ramle in 1948," Middle East Journal, Winter 1986, pp. 82-109 (on the expulsion of the Arab populations of Lydda and Ramle in July 1948); Erskine Childers, "The Other Exodus," in Walid Khalidi, ed., From Haven to Conquest: Readings in Zionism and the Palestine Problem Until 1948, Washington: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1987, pp. 795-803 (refuting as thoroughly baseless the claim that the Palestinian refugees fled on orders from Arab leaders); Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, New York: Pantheon, 1987, pp. 81-118 at p. 85 ("recent publication of thousands of documents in the state and Zionist archives, as well as Ben-Gurion's war diaries, shows that there is no evidence to support Israeli claims" that Arab leaders called for the exodus of Palestinian refugees. "In fact, the declassified material contradicts the 'order' theory, for among these new sources are documents testifying to the considerable efforts of the A.H.C. [Arab Higher Committee] and the Arab states to constrain the flight").
Here is another Jewish writer exposing myths and propaganda:
"If there ever is to be real peace between Israel and the Palestinians, we have to understand the conflict without the myth and propaganda. ... Not surprisingly, or in fact quite naturally, when Israeli historians debunk Israeli myths they receive no press coverage and are completely ignored. It is much easier for us to go on living our myth instead of facing hurtful facts. ... One of the greatest Israeli myths is that most Arabs left their homes on orders from the Arab High Command. To support this myth, the oft-quoted scandalous canard "their leaders told them to leave" was concocted. Assiduous research has shown this to be false. ... The myth of the radio broadcast was important to us because, if followed to its logical conclusion, it allowed all the blame to be placed on the refugees themselves. Since the 750,000 refugees simply left, we had no obligation to let them back. ... We must reevaluate the myths we have created because, while they ease our conscience, they obfuscate our ability to analyze the situation from a political perspective." - "The Palestinian Problem: A Historical Review" by Jeff Bander - article from "The Commentator," the official undergraduate newspaper of Yeshiva University.
By the way, the myth had been debunked decades ago by scholars like Erskine Childers. "they found, on the contrary, that Arab and Palestinian authorities had repeatedly called on the people to stay put." David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, p626
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Philip Zelikow Executive Director for the 9/11 Commission on C-SPAN
Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director for the 9/11 Commission, says it's a fact that American polices toward Israel fuels a lot of Arab and Muslim grievances toward the United States but he deceitfully claims "it makes very little difference." Zelikow also admits he made statements that the War on Iraq was really about the threat against Israel but claims it was supposedly taken "out of context."C-SPAN 7/23/2004: WASHINGTON, DC: 18:59 (Caller's question starts at 14:40)
A caller to C-SPAN asks Zelikow about comments Zelikow made at the University of Virginia Law School on Sept. 10, 2002.
Zelikow said: "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?" Philip Zelikow explains, "I'll tell you what the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dares not speak its name because...the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically because it's not a popular sell."
Caller: Mr. Zelikow, you had said that the war in Iraq was for Israel, like James Bamford says in the Pretext for War could you elaborate on that please? You said that it would be a tough sell but that the war on Iraq was for Israel, could you elaborate? We would like to hear it. And what about the dancing Israelis on 9/11, in the Forward, Jewish publication out of New York?
Brian Lamb: Got that earlier. Any comment on what he just said?
Philip Zelikow: Uh, there's uh, um, um. I think the caller is referring to, uh, something bouncing around the Internet about me that has to do with my being pro-Israeli. Um, it takes some things I said or wrote in an earlier occasion out of context and it, it's uh, it would take a long time to discuss it.
Brian Lamb: We checked this morning and, with word search, and found Israel mentioned 26 times in your report, most of those are footnoting, about 7 of them are substantive mentions. Did you sit around as a commission and talk about the impact that our support of Israel might have had on all of this?
Philip Zelikow: Yes, we did talk about that. It uh, we don't really discuss American polices toward Israel in the report. But, um, -- first it's a fact that American policies in the Middle East have consequences and that you have to weigh those consequences. And that American support for the state of Israel has consequences in the Muslim world and fuels a lot of Arab and Muslim grievances toward the United States. That's point one. But, and you have to remember point two, is that, for the hard core, the bin Laden's and their followers, it makes very little difference. These people were trying to kill us when the Middle East peace process was going great, uh, during the period of the Oslo accords in the early 90's.*(not true, see below) When it goes well, when it goes badly, it makes no difference in their plans. Their objections to the United States have to do with who we are in the world and are not significantly affected by the ups or downs of the Middle East peace process.
First note that Zelikow does not deny that he said the war on Iraq was really about Israel's security and not about US security. Zelikow actually acknowledges the fact that he said it but he tries to explain it it away by claiming his words were "out of context." He then avoids telling us what the context supposedly was by claiming that "it would take a long time to discuss it."
Also note that Zelikow admits the "fact that American policies in the Middle East have consequences" and that "American support for the State of Israel has consequences in the Muslim world and fuels a lot of Arab and Muslim grievances toward the United States."
But Zelikow is at his most devious when he denies the significance of US support of Israel with a dismissal of " it makes no difference." Zelikow wants you to think that changing the policy of US support of Israel will make no difference. He is trying to decieve us about polices that threaten our very lives. He is lying, obviously, because he doesn't want the policy of US support of Israel to be changed.
* Zelikow has the audacity to lie to us about the recent history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Zelikow lies about the Oslo accords, he is lying when he says the "Middle East peace process was going great." Zelikow is saying that "these people", the "ones trying to kill us", shouldn't have seen the Oslo accords as a grievance! It was great for the Israelis but it was not great for the Palestinians or anyone that cares about their rights. Zelikow is denying the real grievances, violations of the rights of the Palestinian people during the early 1990's.
For some details about the reality of the Oslo accords and how they were so grotesquely unfair to the Palestinians, buy "Pirates and Emperors, Old and New : International Terrorism in the Real World"
"The essential meaning of the Oslo peace process is well understood by prominent Israeli doves. Just before he joined the Barak government as Minister of Internal Security, historian Shlomo BenAmi observed in an academic study that "in practice, the Oslo agreements were founded on a neocolonialist basis, on a life of dependence of one on the other forever." With these goals, the Clinton-Rabin-Pores agreements were designed to impose on the Palestinians "almost total dependence on Israel," creating "an extended colonial situation," which is expected to be the "permanent basis" for "a situation of dependence." Ben-Ami went on to become the chief negotiator and architect of the Barak proposals." p180 Pirates and Emperors, Old and New : International Terrorism in the Real World Noam Chomsky
Get the book if you want to have a handle on what the US has been doing to the Middle East. Chomsky's book is composed of incredible chapters like "The U.S. Role in the Middle East", "The World after September 11", "U.S./Israel-Palestine" and the revealing chapter called "Thought Control: The Case of the Middle East" which details how influential writers like Thomas Friedman deceive the public about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On page 169 of Hegemony or Survival, Chomsky points out, "The wording of the Oslo agreements made it clear that they were a mandate for continued Israeli settlement programs, as the Israeli leadership (Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres) took no pains to conceal." (These settlements are illegal according to International Law!) Because of the Israeli insistence on continuing to build the illegal settlements, the man who headed the Palestinian delegation at the Madrid conference, a man "known for his integrity and one of the most respected Palestinian figures, refused to have anything to do with Oslo." Oslo was not "going great" for the Palestinians, regardless of what Zelikow wants you to believe.
But the kicker is, Zelikow admits, "we don't really discuss American polices toward Israel in the report." The 9/11 Commission didn't really discuss American polices toward Israel in their report!?! This is TOTALY OUTRAGEOUS because American polices toward Israel is the prime motive for the 9/11 attack! (also see Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks)
Please don't let Zelikow and others get away with this. I want to run a big campaign to get these facts out to the American people and I need some funds to work with. Please Donate. I would like to print up material to distribute it on a large scale.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
"The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem." - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0825-03.htm
Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon’s government "views the pipeline to Haifa as a ‘bonus’ the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq," according to Haaretz.
On Sunday, August 24, Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky vowed to discuss the issue with the U.S. secretary of energy during his envisaged visit to Washington next month.
He asserted that the whole project depends on Jordan's consent, adding that the kingdom would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to flow through its territory. http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20030825102843473
Note that he didn't say "the whole project depends on the Iraqi people's consent"
U.S. and Israeli policy makers don't plan on true democracy for Iraq. Sending their oil to Israel is not what the average Iraqi would want to do. (these facts are kept from the American public. The plans for this "bonus" have gone unreported in US mainstream media. Reporters know what is "proper" to report and they know that facts like these should not be told to the American public. An example of how extreme US TV suppression is the fact that TV news has not been reporting that the Israeli settlements have been illegal all along. US TV news has adopted Israel's definition of what is legal! )
American media play along with the idea that U.S. policy makers intend on allowing true democracy in Iraq.
Cheney has said that Israel will benefit from the Iraq War. "Vice President Dick Cheney defended the Bush administration's war in Iraq to a Jewish group on Friday, declaring that Israel would benefit from a new democratic government in the region.'' - War will benefit Israel, Cheney tells Jewish Community in Boca Raton
Philip Zelikow on "Iraq threat" and Israel: The Threat That Dares Not Speak Its Name"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?" Philip Zelikow explains, "I'll tell you what the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dares not speak its name because...the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically because it's not a popular sell." - Philip Zelikow forum at the University of Virginia Law School on Sept. 10, 2002
The Philip Zelikow quote checks out. Good research by David Peterson. Peterson wites, "So I ran a quick search of the Nexis database, under the all-News category (i.e., the most comprehensive), using the following combination of terms:
* 'Zelikow' and 'threat against Israel' or 'threat that dare not speak its name' or 'why would Iraq attack America' or 'use nuclear weapons against us' or 'American Government doesn't want to lean too hard on it' or 'because it is not a popular sell'
According to Nexis, parts of all of this incredibly damning passage from Zelikow have been quoted in only four different places within the English-language media archived by Nexis. Namely:
1. IPS-Inter Press Service, March 29, 2004, Tuesday, 1396 words, U.S.: IRAQ WAR IS TO PROTECT ISRAEL, SAYS 9/11 PANEL CHIEF, By Emad Mekay, WASHINGTON, Mar. 29
2. United Press International, March 30, 2004 Tuesday, 702 words, UPI Hears..., WASHINGTON, March 30 (UPI)
3. New Straits Times (Malaysia), April 2, 2004, Friday, Editorial; My notebook; Pg. 10, 1023 words, Can this be a safer world despite increased killings?, By Hardev Kaur
4. Business Week Online, April 15, 2004 Thursday, DAILY BRIEFING, 960 words, Blame Bush for What Came After 9/11; The real issue isn't why the U.S wasn't ready for the attack, but why the Administration used the tragedy to invade Iraq, Ciro Scotti
But that's it. A rather embarrassing---if typical---performance by the U.S. media, I'm sure you'll agree.
FYA ("For your archives"): See below, where I've deposited copies of all four them." see link: PHILIP D. ZELIKOW Posted by David Peterson at April 16, 2004 05:34 PM
One of the Reasons for the War on IraqAlthough not the exclusive reason for attacking Iraq, Israel is very clearly one of the reasons for the war on Iraq. The major reason is control of the Middle East because of the oil. In fact, support of Israel is also part of the strategy for control in the region and we pay a price for that.
It would be wrong to say that no Americans died in Iraq because of Israel because we know, although mainstream US media basically suppressed it, that the four US contractors who were killed in Iraq were killed in retaliation for Israel's "targeted liquidation" of wheelchair-bound 75 year old Sheikh Yassin.  Seven other people not targeted were also killed by Israel's "targeted liquidation."
Israel's killing of Yassin was condemned by many in the world including Kofi Annan, and by European leaders, including British foreign minister Jack Straw.
Israel's "targeted liquidations" are war crimes. Two leading Israeli civil rights attorneys have written, "It greatly pains us to say the following, but we do not have any choice, because the legal and moral truth obligates us to present these facts, in their full severity, before the honorable court: liquidation is a war crime, the consistent, widespread policy of targeted liquidations bounds on a crime against humanity and the State of Israel has turned its pilots into war criminals" - Haaretz 'One day in five, the IDF attempts assassination' By Aryeh Dayan quoted in Hegemony or Survival p26
Condoleeza Rice, speaking for the Bush administration, refused to criticize Israel's killing of Yassin.
 "The assassination of Sheikh Yassin certainly harmed the US in Iraq, quite directly. Though the media are keeping pretty quiet about it , the murder of the four US security contractors in Fallujah appears to have been retaliation for the Yassin assassination ; responsibility was taken immediately by a previously unknown group in Iraq called "Brigades of Martyr Ahmed Yassin." - Noam Chomsky
It has been pointed out by several people that one of the reasons for the war on Iraq is serving Israel's interests. Senator Ernest Hollings, Wesley Clark and Philip Zelikow are some of the people that have explained this and again the media has been reluctant to report these facts.
"With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel." - Senator Ernest Hollings
"Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." - Wesley Clark
In reference to Iraq, Philip Zelikow said during a war-on-terror forum at the University of Virginia Law School on Sept. 10, 2002: "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?" he asked a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002", Philip Zelikow explains, "I'll tell you what the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dares not speak its name because...the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically because it's not a popular sell." - Philip Zelikow
"So just why did Bush choose war?
From the evidence before us today, there is no one single reason. Rather, there are three converging and tightly interwoven reasons: oil, Israel and military transformation. The Cheney energy strategy required Iraqi oil; AIPAC and the Christian right wanted to weaken the Arab world to strengthen Israel; and Don Rumsfeld wanted to expedite the transformation of the U.S. military." -
Bush's Real Rationale for War by Patrick Doherty
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
More Zionist Myths about Israel ExposedYou wrote, "As I recall from history, it was the Grand Mufti who told the Muslims to leave, so that the five Arab armies that were going to attack Israel could slaughter the Jews without hitting any Muslims. After all the Jews were dead, or driven into the sea, the Muslims could then return and take back all of Israel."
That myth was exposed over 40 years ago by British writer Erskine Childers. Israeli archives, available since the the 80's, also expose this as a myth.
"The myth of the radio broadcast was important to us because, if followed to its logical conclusion, it allowed all the blame to be placed on the refugees themselves." --Yeshiva University Commentator
It is another self-serving myth, just like the "land without a people, for a people without a land" myth. The bottom line is the Zionists wanted to ethnically cleanse Palestine in order to achieve an overwhelming majority population of Jews to establish a Jewish supremacist state and this was the plan going back to the father of Zionism who insisted that "Immigration is consequently futile unless based on an assured supremacy "
And what about the thousands of non-Jews who didn't leave and yet still had their homes and land stolen? In the first 8 years, the Jewish State took away a staggering 50% of all the land owned by Palestinians remaining in Israel. The shocking fact is some 39,000 Palestinians who never left were robbed anyway! "Israel seized property and land from some 39,000 Palestinians who escaped expulsion and remained in Israel. It was never retuned, and these individuals never received compensation although they are citizens of Israel." (see endnote 67 of The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace by Cheryl A. Rubenberg )
Israel was accepted into the United Nations on condition that it accept the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees. Israel stated it agreed to comply with the Right of Return but after it got itself into the UN it refused to honor it.
We know it is hard to accept emotionally, but in this case the Jewish people are in the wrong. We took most of Palestine by force from the Arabs and blamed the victims for resisting their dispossession. Jews for Justice
Monday, August 15, 2005
Solomon, did it ever occur to you that you are wrong? This constant leap to the charge of "anti-semitism" has got to stop. Did it ever occur to you that wrongs could be committed by Jews? OJ Simpson was a brutal double murderer, it isn't "anti-Black" or "racist" to point this out.
Discriminating against people because of their religion is wrong. That is what Israel is. Israel is a system of discrimination. Pointing that fact out is not "anti-Semitism"
You have a distorted view of MANY of the basic facts. To take just one, it is a very extreme and dishonest position to claim that Zionists were sitting there peacefully in 1948 and "were attacked". The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked." The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State. After the massive ethnic cleansing and expansion beyond the UN suggested boarders, Arab states responded INTO THE AREAS THAT WERE TO BE FOR THE UN PROPOSED PALESTINIAN STATE. Also, Jordan had an agreement with Israel to prevent a Palestinian State so Jordan invaded the West Bank.
"The Zionists were by far the more powerful and better organized force, and by May 1948, when the state of Israel was formally established, about 300,000 Palestinians already had been expelled from their homes or had fled the fighting, and the Zionists controlled a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish state that had been proposed by the UN. Now it's then that Israel was attacked by its neighbors - in May 1948; it's then, after the Zionists had taken control of this much larger part of the region and hundreds of thousands of civilans had been forced out, not before." p132 Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
The fact that the rights of the majority, 67% of the population, were violated is suppressed in the media. Why in the world would you think it is legitimate for 33% of a population to seize land and carve up the land into 7 parts? Why in the world should 67% of a population ever accept that? These population stats, which highlight just how undemocratic the UN proposal really was, are almost never mentioned in US media.
It is totally delusional to declare that Israel wasn't the one that attacked in 1956 and 1967. Solomon, there is something VERY wrong if you honestly believe that Israel did not start those wars.
Sadat offered peace in 1971, Israel refused. This facts is basically suppressed in the United States. "February 1971, when President Sadat of Egypt offered Israel a full peace treaty in return for Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian territory, with no mention of Palestinian national rights or the fate of the other occupied territories. Israel's Labor government recognized this to be a genuine peace offer, but rejected it, intending to extend its settlements to northeastern Sinai; that it soon did, with extreme brutality, the immediate cause for the 1973 war."
I submitted a follow up post over at Solomon's blog but he may not add it. Here it is: More Zionist Myths about Israel Exposed
Sunday, August 14, 2005
The Arab-Israeli conflict"For us," said Mohamed El-Sayed Said, a columnist of Egypt's leading newspaper Al-Ahram, "the West always preferred control to democracy. Now, 90 per cent of the problem flows from the Arab-Israeli conflict, that continuous reminder of our colonised past." Never, in Arab eyes, has the US acted so blatantly, so subserviently, in favour of its Israeli protégé, and for domestic reasons -- the triple alliance of Jewish lobby, neo-conservative ideologues, and Christian fundamentalist right -- that take little or no stock of rights or wrongs on the ground. A new, post-9/11, Middle East article by David Hirst
David Hirst is author of the excellent book The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East It is worth buying for the new section "9/11-Never Ask Why" alone. Hirst's undated 2003 edition adds 130 pages to his myth-breaking history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the book, Hirst writes about the power of "The Lobby" which he explains is "a loose network of some fifty-odd organizations of which the two most influential are the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Both, along with such bodies as the World Zionist Organization and the Anti-Defamation League, are more hawkish than many of the others" p42 The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Able Danger"The Sept. 11 commission was warned by a uniformed military officer 10 days before issuing its final report that the account would be incomplete without reference to what he described as a secret military operation that by the summer of 2000 had identified as a potential threat the member of Al Qaeda who would lead the attacks more than a year later, commission officials said on Wednesday."
"The briefing by the military officer is the second known instance in which people on the commission's staff were told by members of the military team about the secret program, called Able Danger. "
- 9/11 Commission's Staff Rejected Report on Early Identification of Chief Hijacker By DOUGLAS JEHL and PHILIP SHENON New York Times August 11, 2005
"More than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress.
In the summer of 2000, the military team, known as Able Danger, prepared a chart that included visa photographs of the four men and recommended to the military's Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the congressman, Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, and the former intelligence official said Monday. "
"The account is the first assertion that Mr. Atta, an Egyptian who became the lead hijacker in the plot, was identified by any American government agency as a potential threat before the Sept. 11 attacks. Among the 19 hijackers, only Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been identified as potential threats by the Central Intelligence Agency before the summer of 2000, and information about them was not provided to the F.B.I. until the spring of 2001." - Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00 By DOUGLAS JEHL New York Times August 9, 2005
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Cindy Sheehan, Mother of Spc Casey Austin Sheehan KIA 04/04/04, Sets the Record Straight or Not?
Sheehan says someone else made up the "my son died for Israel" quote that has been attributed to herCOOPER: You were also quoted as saying, "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism." How responsible do you believe Israel is for the amount of terrorism in the world?
SHEEHAN: I didn't say that.
COOPER: You didn't say that? OK.
SHEEHAN: I didn't -- I didn't say -- I didn't say that my son died for Israel. I've never said that. I saw somebody wrote that and it wasn't my words. Those aren't even words that I would say.
I do believe that the Palestinian issue is a hot issue that needs to be solved and it needs to be more fair and equitable but I never said my son died for Israel.
COOPER: OK, I'm glad I asked you that because, you know, as you know, there's tons of stuff floating around on the Internet on sites of all political persuasions.
SHEEHAN: I know and that's not -- yes.
COOPER: So, I'm glad we had the opportunity to clear that.
SHEEHAN: Yes, and thank you because those are not my words. Those aren't -- that doesn't even sound like me saying that.
COOPER: OK. I'm very glad we got that...
SHEEHAN: And I have read it. I have read it. I'm glad you did too.
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES One Woman's Protest Aired August 15, 2005
This is a quote that was attributed to her on the Internet, it is false according to Sheenan: "Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, because the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq...in fact it has gotten worse."
UPDATE: Sheehan is charging the person who she asked to send the email with "anti-Semitism"*
"Sheehan now says she never wrote that, insisting her e-mail was "doctored" by a "former friend who is anti-Israel and wants to use the spotlight on me to push his anti-Semitism." In fact, the man who sent Sheehan's letter to ABC, James Morris, has posted his own messages on-line, condemning the war in Iraq as "all about Israel." But Morris says Cindy Sheehan's letter was "in no way doctored." - Brit Hume Fox News
"The email that Cindy Sheehan sent to me (which included a request to forward it to ABC's 'Nightline' on her behalf) was in no way doctored. I forwarded the original email (as received from Cindy this past March)to Emily Lenzner (who is handling the matter for ABC News) as she confirmed that she received it yesterday." - James Morris
"Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them." - - Patrick J. Buchanan The American Conservative
Sheehan's denial doesn't change the facts about the motives for attacking Iraq. In reference to Iraq, Philip Zelikow said during a war-on-terror forum at the University of Virginia Law School on Sept. 10, 2002: "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?" he asked a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002", Philip Zelikow explains, "I'll tell you what the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dares not speak its name because...the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically because it's not a popular sell." Good research by David Peterson and William Blum
Philip Zelikow, was executive director of the September 11 commission. He also served on the National Security Council. He was on the Bush transition team, and was a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2003. - Business Week Online ("Blame Bush for What Came After 9/11; The real issue isn't why the U.S wasn't ready for the attack, but why the Administration used the tragedy to invade Iraq," April 15). "Therein, the author, Ciro Scotti, quotes a speech that the 9/11 Commission's Executive Director, Philip D. Zelikow, delivered at the University of Virginia Law School on September 10, 2002---several months before the Bush regime empanelled the 9/11 Commission, and therefore several months before it appointed Zelikow to be its Executive Director." - David Peterson
Zelikow ADMITS that he said the war on Iraq was really about Israel's security and not about US security. See link: Philip Zelikow Executive Director for the 9/11 Commission on C-SPAN
"The Israeli lobby
Philip Zelikow is of the type of whom it is customarily said: "He has impeccable establishment credentials". He is currently executive director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Between 2001 and 2003 he served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. Before his appointment to PFIAB he was part of the Bush transition team in January 2001. And in 1995 he co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice.
It's recently been revealed that in 2002 he publicly stated that a prime motive for the upcoming invasion of Iraq was to eliminate a threat to Israel." The Anti-Empire Report, No. 9, April 3, 2004 by William Blum
*Was Sheehan pressured into denying what she originally wrote about the motive for the War on Iraq or is she under so much pressure that she doesn't remember correctly? Why isn't the media exploring if powerful individuals influenced our government to attack a country that didn't attack us, didn't threaten to attack us and had no connection to 9/11? Are Sheehan's PR people (Fenton Communications) the reason she is now backpedaling about writing the letter?
"Sheehan subsequently implied, through a spokesperson at Fenton Communications, that Morris had hacked into her e-mail. Later, Fenton Communications and Sheehan backed off the hacking claim, but both maintain that the words in the letter about Israel are not her own." — Blake Wilson Slate.com
"There is other proof that Sheehan wrote the whole letter. After she sent the letter to Morris, Sheehan also e-mailed it to several other people, including Tony Tersch, a retiree living in Thailand, and Skeeter Gallagher. Both belong to a small Internet bulletin board called Bull Yard. Tersch had become her correspondent after contacting her out of personal and political sympathy. At Gallagher's request, Tersch posted Sheehan's letter to Bull Yard on March 17. Here is the letter as it appears there. This is the version that has been circulating, and from which Slate quoted. Tersch has confirmed that he received the letter from Sheehan directly and has stated that he did not doctor the e-mail before posting it.
Unless Sheehan is the victim of an elaborate Morris-Tersch conspiracy quietly put in motion on March 17, months before she became famous, those are her words." — Blake Wilson Slate.com
"I believe Pat Buchanan's comment is right on track and useful. The late Ambassador George Ball said on several occasions that Israel lobby's most powerful instrument in intimidating critics of Israel is the reckless charge of anti-Semitism. Cindy is now under that reckless charge and trying to escape. I feel sorry for her. I hope I live long enough to see the day when the news media and the public at large permit unintimidated free speech in discussing U.S. policy in the Middle East. It is a sad but clear fact that Israel's lobby--consisting of both ultra-Orthodox and secular Jews as well as fundamentalist Christian elements--has a tight grip on U.S. policy in that region. It's the proverbial elephant in the room. Everyone knows the elephant is Israel, but hardly anyone is willing to mention it. Today, no one, not even a Gold Star mother, can note the gross pro-Israel bias in U.S. policy and its dreadful cost to the American people without being accused of anti-Semitism. Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the rare exceptions. He identified the elephant publicly and stood his ground." - Paul Findley 08/20/2005
Paul Findley served 22 years as an Illinois congressman and was a senior member of the House Middle East Committee. Findley points out that there is an unwillingness for open debate among politicians with regard to U.S. policy in the Middle East and blames AIPAC. He points out the cause and effect of US support of Israel and the anger around the world because of this unjust support and the violent reactions to US support of Israel like the attacks on 9/11.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Special White heritage and programs to benefit whites and to preserve the white character of the United States. Non-whites should not have the same rights as whites."
Pretty disgusting isn't it? No one should support a system of discrimination that sets up a nation state that violates the rights of so many people. Think it would be fair to tell a black person that he will now live under the White United States of America? Imagine even asking Americans if they think blacks should have full equal rights! The very question is offensive, but in Israel, the question is not only asked, the majority of Jews say NO to equal rights for non-Jews!
Fact is, this is the kind racism that Zionists insist we support in Israel!
Fact is, America is more white than Israel is Jewish!
The large minority of non-Jews in Israel should not be discriminated against any more than the large minority of non-whites should be discriminated against in America.
America is 81.7% white, Israel is 80.1% Jewish.
More than half the Jewish population of Israel - 53 percent - is opposed to full equal rights for Israeli Arabs, according to a survey conducted last month by the Israel Democracy Institute.
Survey: Israel yet to grasp concept of democracy
Now that I have pointed out these facts, perhaps Zionists can finally see how extreme their racist agenda is, abandon their racism and live as we expect decent people to live.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel.
Lee Hamilton insults the American people at a "9/11 Public Discourse Project" Q&A. At the August 2, 2005 "public event," Hamilton quickly tries to silence someone who asks why US support for Israel isn't being addressed since it is what drove the plotter of 9/11 to attack us.Questioner: Mr. Hamilton? I had a quick question for you sir.
I had spoken with you on C-SPAN about a month ago ...
Hamilton (interrupting the questioner): I think we'd uh ...
Questioner: ... yeah, we talked about Israeli policy ...
Hamilton (interrupting the questioner): I think we would like to address sir .. we would like to address
Questioner: Yeah, why aren't we addressing the gorilla in the room? The gorilla in the room is US support for Israel.
You had made a mistake earlier. You had said that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute wasn't addressed
in the 9/11 Commission Report. I beg to differ with that, on page 147, it is stated that ...
Questioner: ... the plotter of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was driven to attack us -not because of "radical ideologies" as ...
Hamilton (interrupting the questioner): OK, uh ...
Questioner: ... Prime Minister Blair -
(Grumbling from someone in the crowd)
Questioner: ... Because of US support for Israel.* Why aren't we addressing that sir?
Hamilton: Alright sir.
Questioner: You got Mr. Bamford's book from me, James Bamford's A Pretext for War book
Hamilton (interrupting the questioner): OK ...
Questioner: ... which conveys why we were attacked and then you have Mr. Ross
up here who is basically affiliated with the Israeli lobby AIPAC ...
Hamilton: Alright sir ...
Questioner: You ...
(Man from back of the room walks over and stops the questioner)
Hamilton: Alright, this is a conversation you and I ought to have.
Let's not take up the time of our resource people. May we go to the next question please? Thank you very much.
** See the video here: What motivated the 9/11 hijackers to attack the US? See testimony most didn't **
* He is correct, on page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report, it says "By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel."
Also See Video at C-SPAN: RESPONSE TO TERRORISM Terrorism & Foreign Policy
U.S. Foreign Policy The 9/11 Public Discourse Project
The 9/11 Public Discourse Project holds another meeting, this one looking at foreign policy towards Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and their relationships with terrorism. FROM TUESDAY, AUGUST 2 Question at about 1:39
Suppressing the Motives for the 9/11 Attack is Disgraceful. We need funds to promote the truth. Please Click on the Link and Donate so We Can Free Ourselves from this Hell. Please Donate to Representative Press with Amazon.US reporters are not reporting these things, there were reporters in the room, I haven't seen any reports about this question being raised. Please Donate and give us the power to fight for the truth.