the slime pick-off yet another one...

[nikmatdam]

Historical and Investigative Research - 23 November 2007
by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/annapolis_2.htm

1  |  2  |  3

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
2   The Arab League, then and forever

What is the Arab League hoping to achieve in Annapolis?
_________________________________________________________
 

The states of the Arab League are pushing very hard to produce a PLO state on Israel’s flank. They are hoping to get one at the Annapolis Conference. In public, the states of the Arab League say they are looking for justice for the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Arabs. Are these their true intentions? I believe that one can go a long ways toward answering that question by looking at the origins of the Arab League. Before I do that, however, I will justify the validity of this methodology, which actually runs against a popular prejudice.

Many people, I have found, hold the following folk theory about institutions: the passage of time will alter their ideology. As members die or leave and are replaced with others, the institution will change because people have all kinds of different ideologies. Accordingly, the burden of proof is on whoever claims that after 60 years, say, the ideology of an institution will remain the same. I think this is backwards: the burden of proof, in my view, is on whoever affirms that the ideology of an institution has changed. I will defend that the Arab League, like most other institutions, has today the same ideology it had on the day it was founded. What is this ideology? Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, explained it when the League launched a war of aggression against the Israeli Jews in 1948: “This will be a war of extermination...”[1]


First, the general point
______________________

An institution is a network of organized relationships between people whose individual roles are defined by their kind of membership. These individuals will all die, and they may leave the institution even before passing away, but the institution survives because new people are always being recruited to the vacancies. An institution is potentially eternal. The Catholic Church, for example, is 2000 years old.

Now, the question for us is this: If an institution is created around a strongly felt ideology, how will this affect the process of recruitment to the vacancies?

Imagine institution V, created to promote vegetarianism, and run, naturally, by vegetarians. There are 10 people in the executive board. One day, at time = t, one of the board members dies. What kind of a person will the remaining 9 members look for? Another vegetarian. A meat-eater might be recruited to fill relatively low positions that are strongly utilitarian: for example, an expert in marketing might be hired even if he eats meat, because he is a mercenary who will do his contract job. But it would be remarkable for this institution to hire meat eaters to the governing board, where policy decisions are made. Given that at time = t vacancies were filled, and especially in the upper echelons, with vegetarians, the vacancies at time t+1 will also be filled with vegetarians, because once again those doing the selecting are surviving vegetarians. And so forth. There is no reason to expect that the passage of time will turn this vegetarianism-promoting institution into an institution that celebrates meat because the ideology of the institution creates a selection pressure in the recruiting process that works to keep the ideology stable.

Now let’s consider the Arab League. The question we must answer is this one: if we can agree that the Arab League meant, at its inception, to exterminate the Israeli Jews, is it possible that the Arab League, today, means to make peace with the Israeli Jews?


The Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee
________________________________________________

There are different ways of addressing the question of the Arab League’s ideology at its inception. One is to ponder what it means that the Arab League recreated the Arab Higher Committee after World War II.

Avi Shlaim explains that

“In the aftermath of World War II, when the struggle for Eretz Yisrael was approaching its climax, the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazis [he means the Muslims living in British Mandate Eretz Yisrael, a great many of whom were recent immigrants, including many non-Arabs, and none of which called themselves ‘PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazis’ at that time -- FGW] were in a weak and vulnerable position. Their weakness was clearly reflected in their dependence on the Arab states and on the recently-founded Arab League. Thus, when the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was reestablished in 1946 after a nine year hiatus, it was not by the various PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi political parties themselves, as had been the case when it was founded in 1936, but by a decision of the Arab League.”[2]

Shlaim is one of the ‘New Historians’ who have made it a specialty to defend the justice of the ‘PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Arab’ movement, and I have quoted him to show what even defenders of this movement must implicitly concede.

Shlaim explains that the organism created to speak for the Muslims of Eretz Yisrael was the Arab Higher Committee. What was it? According to Shlaim, the AHC had been created in 1936 by “the various PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi political parties themselves” to represent the Muslims in Eretz Yisrael. This, however, is false. It was Hajj Amin al Husseini who created the AHC. Here follows the context in which he did so.

Hajj Amin al Husseini had organized two large Muslim terrorist riots against civilian Jews in British Mandate Eretz Yisrael in 1920 and 1921, after which the British governing authorities -- which had assisted those anti-Jewish attacks -- made him Mufti of Jerusalem, transforming the office so that it had unprecedented power over the Muslim courts, mosques, taxes, schools, etc. They also gave him a generous British subsidy. (The British authorities wanted to derail the Zionist project but they wanted the British public to think that they had nothing to do with it, so they promoted Muslim violence against the Jews). Husseini used his power and British backing to launch jihad: the murder of infidels who refuse to convert to Islam or be the slaves of Muslims. The targets of his jihad were the Jews. There was a much larger terrorist riot in 1929, and then an even bigger and more sustained attack, lasting from 1936 to 1939. The last one was organized with weapons supplied by Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and received much assistance in weaponry and personnel from nearby Arab states. Throughout all these years, Husseini used his terrorists to intimidate and murder any Muslims in Eretz Yisrael who disagreed with him and tried to get along with the Jews, or who tried to sell their land to the Jews (who were paying very good money for it). In this way, Husseini -- from one of the largest feudal landholding families in Eretz Yisrael -- could buy the plots of Muslim smallholders at bargain prices, consolidate them, and then resell them to the Zionists for very high prices, even though in public he accused that selling land to Jews was treason. It was in the context of his attacks against Muslim dissenters, in the so-called ‘Arab Revolt’ of 1936-39, that Husseini created the Arab Higher Committee in order to concentrate all political authority in his hands and destroy all moderate opposition.[3]

The question of whether the Arab Higher Committee created by feudal lord Hajj Amin al Husseini represented the interests of ordinary Muslims in Eretz Yisrael is easily answered: 1) Husseini was using terrorism to steal the land of small-time Muslims and enrich himself; 2) the general strike his terrorist gangsters enforced hurt the Muslim economy especially; and 3) in his efforts to enforce his racism against the Jews, his terrorists in fact murdered many more Muslims than Jews: during the Arab Revolt “the Mufti’s forces killed more than four hundred Jews and several thousand Arabs.”[4] It is true, as Avi Shlaim states, that there were “various political parties” among the Muslims in Mandate Eretz Yisrael, but if they had really all supported Husseini in the creation of the Arab Higher Committee he would not have murdered so many Muslims.

It is quite significant that Hajj Amin al Husseini, in late 1941, moved to Berlin and spent the entire war in Nazi-occupied Europe, organizing massacres of Jews for the Nazis. According to the post-war testimony of Dieter Wisliceny, one of Adolf Eichmann’s top lieutenants in the extermination of the European Jews, it was in fact Hajj Amin al Husseini -- at the time with 20 years experience (much more than the Nazis) murdering innocent Jews -- who convinced Hitler, Himmler, and Eichmann not to expel any Jews from Europe but instead to kill them all. Wisliceny also testified that Husseini had subsequently become an equal partner with Adolf Eichmann in the implementation and administration of the Final Solution, from the time of the fateful decision to kill all the Jews -- in the Wansee Conference of January 1942 (shortly after Husseini met with Hitler on 28 November 1941) -- till the end.[5]

Avi Shlaim tells us that after the World War, the Arab League, whose leading member was Egypt, recreated the Arab Higher Committee. What was the point of this? To give a voice to the Muslims in Mandate Eretz Yisrael? On the contrary. Hajj Amin al Husseini, one of history’s greatest butchers of Jews, and no friend of ordinary Muslims in Mandate Eretz Yisrael, was now living in Cairo under protection of the Egyptian government. What the Arab League was doing was prepare another attack against the Jewish people, using the Muslims in Mandate Eretz Yisrael -- the so-called ‘PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Arabs’ -- as useful pawns in the great game. This was also the British government’s game, for it was the British government that had created Hajj Amin al Husseini,[5] and the British government that had created the Arab League. When the Arab League decided to destroy the new Jewish State in the cradle, during the War of 1948, the British government allied with the Arab League’s attack, and in many ways led it (see below).


The Arab League and the War of 1948
____________________________________

Shortly after the Arab League’s recreation of the Arab Higher Committee in 1946, the United Nations voted to create a state for the Muslims living in Mandate Eretz Yisrael, and another state for the Jews. Today the Arab states holler loudly that a state must be created for the ‘PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Arabs’ in order to do them ‘justice.’ But when this state was approved by the UN in 1947 the entire Arab world rejected it. Their concern was clearly not to create a self-governing state for the Muslims in Eretz Yisrael, but to prevent any opportunity for the Jews to have their own.

And the Arab League would punish Jews everywhere, for soon it had drafted a series of laws which it planned to impose on any Jews living in the Arab States, as we see below.

[Quotation begins here (go to the source)]

Text of the Law Drafted by the Political Committee of the Arab League

Summary

In 1947, the Political Committee of the Arab League (League of Arab States) drafted a law which was to govern the legal status of Jewish residents in all Arab League countries. This law had already been approved by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, provided that, “beginning with a specified date, all Jews -- with the exception of citizens of non-Arab countries -- were to be considered members of the Jewish ‘minority state of Eretz Yisrael,’ and that their bank account be frozen and used to finance resistance to ‘Zionist ambitions in Eretz Yisrael.’ Jews believed to be active Zionists would be interned as political prisoners and their assets confiscated. Only Jews who accept active service in Arab armies or place themselves at the disposal of these armies would be considered ‘Arabs.’”[6]

Excerpts of Direct Quotes of the Law drafted by the Political Committee of the Arab League:

-- “All Jewish citizens…will be considered as members of the Jewish minority of the State of Eretz Yisrael and will have to register [“within 7 days”] with the authorities of the region wherein they reside, giving their names, the exact number of members in their families, their addresses, the names of their banks and the amounts of their deposits in these banks…”[7]

-- “Bank accounts of Jews will be frozen. These funds will be utilized in part or in full to finance the movement of resistance to Zionist ambitions in Eretz Yisrael.”[8]

-- “Only Jews who are subjects of foreign countries will be considered ‘neutrals.’ These will be compelled either to return to their countries, with a minimum of delay, or be considered Arabs and obliged to accept active service in the Arab army.”[9]

-- “Every Jew whose activities reveal that he is an active Zionist will be considered as a political prisoner and will be interned in places specifically designated for that purpose by police authorities or by the Government. His financial resources, instead of being frozen, will be confiscated.”[10]

-- “Any Jew who will be able to prove that his activities are anti-Zionist will be free to act as he likes, provided that he declares his readiness to join the Arab armies.”[11]

-- “The foregoing…does not mean that those Jews will not be submitted to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this law.”[12]

[Quotation ends here]

These laws are quite similar to Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg anti-Jewish laws, and they prompted an article in the New York Times by Mallory Browne with the headline JEWS IN GRAVE DANGER IN ALL MOSLEM LANDS.[13] It was published on 16 May 1948, and in a sense was already outdated because by then the Arab states had launched themselves in war against the newly-created state of Israel. The Arab League explained out loud that they meant to continue Adolf Hitler’s great mass killing, so fresh that Europe still reeked of blood. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League promised: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”[14] This was the War of 1948, the Israeli War of Independence, which might as well be called the War of National Survival.

During this war of attempted extermination, the Arab League was assisted by the British and United States governments.

“The first large-scale assault began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Eretz Yisrael. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back. In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion.

…The Arabs had no difficulty obtaining the arms they needed. In fact, Jordan’s Arab Legion was armed and trained by the British, and led by a British officer. At the end of 1948 and beginning of 1949, British RAF planes flew with Egyptian squadrons over the Israel-Egypt border. On January 7, 1949, Israeli planes shot down four of the British aircraft.”[15]

But that’s nothing: the British government sent captured Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies, as documented by The Nation in 1948, which published documents from British and French intelligence to show it in furious articles.[16]

 
(part 2 to be continued below)... n.
 

[nikmatdam]

What about the United States? It is true that earlier the United States had voted in favor of partitioning the Mandate territory, but the entire State Department was opposed and the US vote in favor happened only after the embarrassment of a passionate UN General Assembly speech by Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko in favor of a state for the persecuted Jews.[16a] The United States did not want to seem less anti-Nazi than the Soviets. But once the Arab League had attacked, with its chances looking good, the US government announced that it no longer recognized the State of Israel and placed an arms embargo on the Israeli Jews.[17]

Despite all this, the Arab League lost the War of 1948. Kudos go to the fighting spirit of the Israeli Jews, and to the Czechoslovaks, who assisted the Israeli efforts with arms shipments.[18]

After the defeat, the member states of the Arab League expelled the Jews who lived in these countries, and a great many took refuge in Israel. This was such a large population that Jews from Arab-speaking countries, overnight, became the majority in the Jewish State.


The Arab League, the PLO, and Al Fatah
_______________________________________

In the 1950s important German Nazi fugitives came to Egypt to improve the deadliness of Gamal Abdel Nasser’s military and intelligence services. These were Hajj Amin al Husseini’s old friends, and some of them had been his subordinates in the Final Solution. Thus, under protection of Arab League leader Egypt, Husseini had his Nazi friends train Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and other adolescent recruits of his, creating the group known as Al Fatah.[19]

What was the purpose of Al Fatah? The same as that which Azzam Pasha explained was the purpose of the parent organization, the Arab League: the extermination of the Israeli Jews. Article 12 of the Fatah Charter calls for the “Complete liberation of Eretz Yisrael, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military, and cultural existence.” How do you eradicate the “economic, political, military, and cultural existence” of the Israeli Jews? Why, by eradicating the Jews themselves. Further clarifying its intentions, Article 17 of the Fatah Charter states that “Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Eretz Yisrael.” In other words, ‘Eretz Yisrael’ can only be ‘liberated’ in the process of murdering Jews (since this method is “inevitable”). If this were not clear enough, Article 19 states that “armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic.” In other words, armed struggle -- killing Jews -- is not a means to an end but the end itself. The same article explains that the killing will not stop “unless the Zionist state is demolished and Eretz Yisrael is completely liberated.”[20]

The Arab League also played a role in the creation of the PLO.

Mitchell Bard writes that “the Arab League created the Eretz Yisrael Liberation Organization (PLO) in Cairo in 1964 as a weapon against Israel.”[21] Is he right? Yes. The PLO’s founding purpose was not really to ‘liberate’ ‘Eretz Yisrael’ but to kill Israeli Jews -- as many as possible.

This is easily demonstrated.

The 1964 PLO Covenant or Charter in fact explicitly states that the West Bank, Gaza, and Himmah -- which Jordan, Egypt, and Syria respectively had occupied during the War of 1948 and were still sitting on -- were not part of ‘Eretz Yisrael.’ These lands had all been part of British Mandate Eretz Yisrael. And yet it was quite all right, the PLO stated, for Jordan, Egypt, and Syria to have those three territories, even though the PLO was defining ‘Eretz Yisrael’ as British Mandate Eretz Yisrael. But this made perfect sense: the PLO was an Arab League creation, and the states of the Arab League would not have the PLO contesting their control of the parts of ‘Eretz Yisrael’ that they had occupied. Which ‘Eretz Yisrael’ did the PLO mean to ‘liberate,’ then? Answer: whatever land the Jews were living on: Israel. This was conclusively demonstrated in the rewritten 1968 PLO Charter. In this document the PLO removed the clause concerning the West Bank and Gaza and from this point onwards did lay claim now to a ‘Eretz Yisrael’ that includes the West Bank and Gaza.[22] What happened? The Six-Day War of 1967. In that war, provoked by the Arab League members who once again did their best to try and exterminate the Israeli Jews, the Israelis managed to capture Judea and Samaria (‘West Bank’) and Gaza, among other territories, and subsequently Jews returned to live there (Jews had been living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza before they were massacred or forced to flee in the War of 1948). This demonstrates that there is no reality to ‘Eretz Yisrael’; its boundaries are arbitrarily redrawn so that the territory to be ‘liberated’ will correspond to the one that Jews live on.

And by the word ‘liberate’ the PLO means the same thing that Al Fatah means: kill Jews. This, too, is easily demonstrated.

The 1968 PLO Charter states the objectives of the PLO as follows. Article 9 says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Eretz Yisrael.” This could be rewritten like so: “it is required that Eretz Yisrael be liberated in the act of killing people.” Killing which people? Article 15 of the PLO Charter states that it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Eretz Yisrael”; and article 22 declares that “the liberation of Eretz Yisrael will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence.” In other words, the PLO, which organization asserts that ‘Eretz Yisrael’ may be ‘liberated’ only in the act of killing people, explains that its goal is purging and liquidating the presence of “Zionists.”[23] Like its parent organization (the Arab League), the PLO means to exterminate the Israeli Jews.

Shortly after the PLO rewrote its charter in 1968, Al Fatah took it over. By 1970, writes historian Howard Sachar,

“the PLO had experienced less a revival than a total reincarnation of membership and purpose under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. Consisting ostensibly of representatives of all guerilla organizations, the PLO in its resurrected form was almost entirely Fatah-dominated, and Arafat himself served as president of its executive. In this capacity he was invited to attend meetings of the Arab League, and won extensive subsidies from the oil-rich governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf.”[24]

As this was happening, during the years 1967-70, Arab League leader Egypt launched a sustained series of attacks against Israel that have been called the War of Attrition. It couldn’t defeat Israel. So,

“On October 6, 1973 -- Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar -- Egypt and Syria opened a coordinated attack against Israel. The equivalent of the total forces of NATO in Europe were mobilized on Israel’s borders. On the Golan Heights, approximately 180 Israeli tanks faced an onslaught of 1,400 Syrian tanks. Along the Suez Canal, fewer than 500 Israeli defenders were attacked by 80,000 Egyptians.”[25]

The Arabs received assistance from the Soviet Union. When this happened, the US, which had been resisting Israeli calls for help, airlifted military supplies.[26] This was atypical: in previous conflicts the US had not helped, or had taken measures against Israel, but with Cold War prestige at stake, and given the popularity of Israel with the US population, the US government decided it could not afford to stay on the sidelines.

Israel won.

It was immediately after this, in the Arab League summit convened in Algiers on 26-28 November 1973, that “the heads of state present... recognized the Eretz Yisrael Liberation Organization (PLO) as the only representative of the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi people.”[27] Given the trajectory of the Arab League up to here, the obvious hypothesis is that the Arab League decided to try a ‘Trojan Horse’ pseudo-diplomatic approach, promising peace in exchange for getting the PLO into the Jewish State, the better to exterminate the Israeli Jews (since direct military attacks always failed to bring about this result). Indeed, a diplomatic effort to create a PLO state ensued, and this push intensified in the second half of the 1980s. This new strategy was in fact led by US President Jimmy Carter,[28] who has been quite consistent over the years, and recently has launched a defense of PLO/Fatah and simultaneous attack against Israel that has been widely interpreted to be antisemitic.


Since then…
_____________

From this point onwards, the main strategy would be to get the PLO -- really, Hajj Amin al Husseini’s Al Fatah, and therefore the continuation of the German Nazi Final Solution -- into the Jewish State.

The United States has continued to play a leading role in this. In 1982, when Israel invaded Lebanon to put an end to the PLO/Fatah’s attacks against civilians in northern Israel, the US government saved the PLO/Fatah from destruction by stopping the Israelis and giving the PLO/Fatah a military escort to its new base in Tunis.[29] Later, the US government began making policy statements that a PLO/Fatah state had to be created in Judea and Samaria.[30] And soon after that the US government threatened the Israelis with the loss of all assistance if they did not attend the Madrid ‘Peace’ Conference, which became the platform for the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process, whose purpose was, precisely, to bring the PLO/Fatah into Israel and to give it ever more power inside the Jewish State.[31] With this accomplished, the US intelligence services began arming and training PLO/Fatah.[32]

Now the US and British governments are pushing very hard for this process to conclude with the creation of a PLO/Fatah state, cleansed of Jews, in Judea and Samaria, territories that the US military in 1967 concluded are strategic territories without which Israel cannot survive.[33]


And now…
___________

In a few days, the Annapolis Conference is scheduled to begin, and it is expected that the Israeli government, with close to zero support from Israeli citizens (as of May 2007 “[Olmert’s] approval rating hovers around 3%,”[34] and I suppose that has a margin of error), will make a commitment to give Judea and Samaria to PLO/Fatah. In anticipation of this, some US congressmen have introduced a resolution calling for Mahmoud Abbas to Change the Fatah Charter so that it no longer calls for the extermination of the Israeli Jews.[35] Please resist the urge to cheer this. If these congressmen succeed, they will have given Al Fatah the opportunity to appear ‘well-intentioned’ in the context of the final handover negotiations. But there would be absolutely no reason to believe such a Fatah statement if it was made. Years ago, Mahmoud Abbas, from his perch as president of the Eretz Yisrael National Council, the governing body of the PLO, authored the current PLO/Fatah ‘Trojan Horse’ strategy, which is to promise peace in exchange for land in order to get into Israel and murder the Jews.[36] In other words, he means to lie now so that he can kill Jews later. This strategy is sometimes called the Plan of Phases:

“Shortly after signing the Declaration of Principles and the famous handshake between [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat and [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, Arafat was declaring to his PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi constituency over Jordanian television that Oslo was to be understood in terms of the [PLO’s] Eretz Yisrael National Council’s 1974 decision. This was a reference to the so-called Plan of Phases, according to which the Eretz Yisrael Liberation Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.”[37]

The argument I defended at the top, about the stability of the founding ideology of an institution despite changes in personnel, naturally applies to Al Fatah. But in fact I need not invoke it, because Al Fatah is still run by one of the people who founded it: Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. as Abu Mazen): “Abu Mazen is... one of the founders of Fatah, one of the original Arafat band of brothers.”[38] As noted above, he was trained by Hajj Amin al Husseini, the great architect of the German Nazi Final Solution.


Conclusion
___________

The passage of time has changed nothing. The Arab League has the same ideology that it had at its inception, and it is being supported, as it was back then, by powerful Western sponsors. The same goes for the organizational offshoots of the Arab League which are tools of its policies. What is being prepared is another genocide of the Jewish people. If the Israeli government continues to participate in this process, it will happen. And it appears that the Israeli government is in fact in something of a hurry: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has just approved equipping PLO/Fatah with sophisticated Russian APC's (Armored Personnel Carriers)! [39]

The Oslo Process has allowed the Arab League to place its tool, PLO/Fatah, in a highly strategic highland position from which to attack the Jews, who are trapped in a very narrow lowland with their backs against the sea, as can be appreciated in the following two maps:

 

 Click to enlarge

PLO/Fatah, itself, is admittedly perhaps not the greatest military danger to the Israeli Jews, but the same cannot be said for the Arab League as a whole, and behind PLO/Fatah is the Arab League. Since the 1970s especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been armed to the teeth by the United States. And there is also Iran, which will soon have a land corridor going all the way to the northern border of Israel, once the US troops leave. Why? Because the US invasion of Iraq has given that country to Iran, which controls the Iraqi shiites now in power, and Iran already holds sway over Syria, Lebanon, and Hezbollah. Given that the Israeli government uses Israeli troops to expel Jews from their homes rather than to defend them from attack, the next all-out attack against Israel may well succeed where others have failed, and the Arab League will achieve its goal: extermination.

 


__________________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
__________________________________________________________

[1] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.333)

[2] Shlaim, A. 1990. The Rise and Fall of the All-Eretz Yisrael Government in Gaza. Journal of Eretz Yisrael Studies 20:37-53.

[3] Everything in this paragraph is documented in detail in the following two pieces:

“HOW DID THE ‘PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

and

“Did the Zionist Jews take something away from the Arabs in British Mandate ‘Eretz Yisrael’?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 02 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.}
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov3.htm

[4] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.219)

[5] To see a detailed documentation of this, please consult:

“HOW DID THE ‘PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm#final_solution

[6] Memorandum Submitted to the U.N. Economic and Social Council by the World Jewish Congress. (Jan. 19, 1948) Section I. (2) a. June 2, 1948. [ZIIC - This reference is in the document prepared by JJAC and is probably incorrect]

[7] Text of the Law drafted by the Political Committee of the Arab League. Paragraph 1.

[8] ibid. Paragraph 2.

[9] ibid. Paragraph 3.

[10] ibid. Paragraph 5.

[11] ibid. Paragraph 6.

[12] ibid. Paragraph 7. (Paragraph 1 & 2 indicate all Jews must register and disclose personal and banking information and that bank accounts will be frozen and utilized for anti-Zionist resistance.)

[13] JEWS IN GRAVE DANGER IN ALL MOSLEM LANDS; By MALLORY BROWNE; Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES; New York Times; May 16, 1948; pg. E4
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/mallory_browne.pdf

[14] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.333)

[15] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (pp.38, 42)

[16] Two pieces:

1)  “The British Record on Partition”; The Nation; 8 May 1948.
http://www.tenc.net/history/nbr.pdf

(to read the above in text format, visit:
http://emperors-clothes.com/history/br.htm )

2) “Nazi Prisoners in Egypt’s Army”; The Nation; 22 January 1949; p.89.
http://emperor.vwh.net/history/pris.htm

[16a] For the full text of Andrei Gromyko's speech, 14 May 1947, to the UN General Assempbly, visit:
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/d41260f1132ad6be
052566190059e5f0?OpenDocument

[17] Wrote the New York Times in April 1948: “...a crowd estimated at more than 100,000 persons jammed Madison Square Park and surrounding streets yesterday in a mass protest against the United States reversal of its position on partition of Eretz Yisrael.”

Actually, the crowd was larger. Further down in the same article we read:

“The sidewalks of Fifth Avenue were lined solidly by a crowd estimated by the police at 250,000. The streets surrounding the speakers' stand, on the east side of the park, were packed so tightly that many of the parade spectators could not crowd in. Loudspeakers carried the talks to all corners of the square.”

SOURCE: 100,000 JAM RALLY IN JEWISH PROTEST; New York Times (1857-Current file); Apr 5, 1948; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times; pg. 1.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/apr.pdf

The mayor of Tel Aviv at the time, Israel Rokach, explained the impact of the embargo:

“The embargo is working a terrible hardship on the Jews of Eretz Yisrael. It is the Arab followers of the Mufti [Hajj Amin], and not the Jews, who are engaged in a war of aggression, and who are defying the United Nations.”

SOURCE: U.S. ASKED TO LIFT EMBARGO ON ARMS; Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES; New York Times; Jan 17, 1948; pg. 4.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/embargo.pdf

[18] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.42)

[19] To see the documentation on the Nazi origins of Al Fatah, consult the following two pieces:

“HOW DID THE ‘PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

and

“PLO/Fatah's Nazi training was CIA-sponsored”; Historical and Investigative Research; 22 July 2007; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/cia-fatah.htm

[20] http://www.mideastweb.org/fateh.htm

[21] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.69)

[22] Article 24 of the 1964 Charter states: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.”
http://www.un.int/Eretz Yisrael/PLO/PNA2.html

In the 1968 Charter, the above renunciation of sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza was removed:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/plocov.htm

[23] Translation of the PLO Charter articles by: The Associated Press, December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip.

[24] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.698)

[25] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.74)

[26] The Yom Kippur war of 1973 was a joint surprise attack by Egypt and Syria that caught the Israelis unprepared. They were facing catastrophe, and turned to the US. The Americans at first were reluctant, but “Washington’s reluctance to help Israel changed rapidly when the Soviet Union launched its own resupply effort to Egypt and Syria.”

SOURCE: "The decline of Labour dominance: The Yom Kippur War" "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 23 Nov, 2003
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507

[27] 1973. The Algiers Summit Conference. MERIP Reports 23:13-16.

[28] 1977 -- Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a 'government in exile,' and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1977

[29] 1982-83 -- The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1982

[30] 1989 -- With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1989

[31] 1991 -- Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1991

[32] 1994 -- Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1994

[33] This Pentagon document was apparently declassified in 1979 but not published until 1984. It was published by the Journal of Eretz Yisrael Studies:

"Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense"; Journal of Eretz Yisrael Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2. (Winter, 1984), pp. 122-126.
This file is especially useful because it shows a map with the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes."
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pentagon.pdf

It is also republished as an appendix in:

Netanyahu, B. 2000. A durable peace: Israel and its place among the nations, 2 edition. New York: Warner Books. (APPENDIX: The Pentagon Plan, June 29, 1967; pp.433-437)

[34] “Olmert Under Fire”; Time; Thursday, May. 03, 2007
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1617518,00.html

[35] “American Jewry: Fatah Charter Calls to 'Eradicate' Israel”; Israel National News; 11 Kislev 5768, November 21, '07; by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124315

[36]  2005 -- Mahmoud Abbas is who invented the strategy of talking ‘peace’ the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#2005

[37] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.ix)

[38] SOURCE: THUS FAR AND NO FATAH FOR MR Eretz Yisrael; Resistance is growing within the PLO over Yasser Arafat and the Israeli peace process, The Guardian (London), November 12, 1993, THE GUARDIAN FEATURES PAGE; Pg. 24, 1204 words, DAVID HIRST

[39] DEBKAfile Reports: Overriding IDF and Shin Bet objections, Olmert approves arming PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi West Bank forces with 50 Russian APCs, 1000 rifles and 2 million bullets; November 21, 2007, 9:38 PM (GMT+02:00).
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4793
 

[nikmatdam]

Understanding Annapolis
An HIR Series

Historical and Investigative Research - 13 December 2007
by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/annapolis_3.htm

1  |  2  |  3

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
3   Annapolis: The strategic aftermath

What is being prepared for the Israeli Jews (and the Christians)?
_________________________________________________________
 

Table of Contents
( hyperlinked < )

This piece examines the various aspects of Israel's developing strategic predicament in the wake of the Annapolis Conference. The points in soft-grey will be added in the next few days.

< Is the Israeli government allying with PLO/Fatah and Hamas against the Jews in Judea and Samaria?

< What portends the new US stance on Iran's rush to acquire nuclear weapons?

< A US-Russian alliance against Israel?

< Weapons of Mass Destruction in Syria?

__________________________________________________________



Is the Israeli government allying with PLO/Fatah and Hamas against the Jews in Judea and Samaria?
___________________________________

At Annapolis the Israeli government and the ‘PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Authority’ (PLO/Fatah plus Hamas) announced that they would negotiate a two-state solution by the end of 2008. To this end, announces one headline, “ISRAEL FREES PRISONERS TO BOOST ABBAS.” The freed prisoners, the article explains, are almost all members of Al Fatah.[1] Al Fatah is Mahmoud Abbas’s (Abu Mazen’s) organization, and it was created by the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al Husseini, a man who during World War II made his home in Nazi-occupied Europe and became a top leader of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution. In the 1950s Husseini oversaw, directly, the training of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas by escaped German Nazis who were in Egypt to train Gamal Abdel Nasser's forces.[2]

That’s who the Israeli government means to “boost.”

But that’s not all. At the same time that the Israeli government strengthens the Nazis, it means to weaken the Jews. Israel National News reports that “the IDF is conducting a large scale operation to confiscate weapons from the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, according to Channel 10 TV. The purpose of the operation is described as ‘putting the settlers’ gun permits in order.’” One of the residents, Hillel Reinus of Yitzhar, said: “I have no idea who is giving the order, it seems to be coming from up high, but they’ve decided to take the weapons away from everyone.” The same article explains the reaction of Knesset member Aryeh Eldad:

MK Aryeh Eldad (NU/NRP) wrote a letter to Defense Minister Ehud Barak following the report, saying, “Army representatives have recently informed the military security coordinators that they intend to collect most of the weapons which the residents of Judea and Samaria use for self-defense. When a move such as this is made along with the release of hundreds of terrorists, the deployment of PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi policemen in Shechem (three of whom were involved in the murder of Ido Zoldan) and the arming of these policemen with weapons, ammunition and armored personnel carriers, this amounts to making the settlers fair game and sending the terror organizations a clear message that they may murder Jews.”

“When all this is done against the backdrop of your announcement that you are joining the ‘expulsion/compensation’ plan, this amounts to blackmail. You are trying to encourage Jews to run away from Judea and Samaria, and in order to prod them along you are taking away their weapons and urging terrorists to attack them,” he wrote.

“With this letter,” Eldad concluded, “I wish to inform you that the settlers of Judea and Samaria will hold you personally responsible for any casualties among the Jews in Judea and Samaria from now on, unless you immediately put an end to the process of collecting the settlers’ weapons.”[3]

The Israeli government seems to be pulling all the stops to assist Mahmoud Abbas. It is almost as if Mahmoud Abbas himself were in control of the Israeli government, isn’t it? And what does Abbas do in return? First: “Just one day after the Annapolis conference at which the PA recognized the State of Israel's right to exist in peace and security, the PA's official television station screened a map that shows a PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi state in place of Israel.”[3a] And then,

“The PA legislature has passed the first reading of a law forbidding any concessions in, or even negotiations regarding, Jerusalem.

Ahmed Bahar, a leading Hamas member and the Deputy Speaker of the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Authority parliament, announced Thursday that the body had passed a first reading of a ‘Jerusalem bill.’  The legislation, proposed by Hamas parliament member Ahmed Abu Hilbiya, absolutely bans giving up any part of Jerusalem.

The bill states that Jerusalem, according to its ‘borders recognized during the period of the Islamic Khalifate,’ is ‘PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi, Arab, Islamic land.’  It further avers that all of Jerusalem, ‘including its archaeological sites and the sites that are holy to Islam and Christianity, are waqf (dedicated in sanctity) for PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi, Arab and Islamic generations.’  This would appear to include not only the Temple Mount, but also the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter, and the City of David.

The new PA bill also states that it is forbidden to discuss, cede, or negotiate over any part of Jerusalem, or hold a referendum on this matter - and that if such negotiations or votes are held, they are null and void in advance.  Anyone who violates the above provisions on behalf of the PA will be considered guilty of treason, the bill states, and will be liable to the relevant punishments.

The PA legislature will convene ‘soon,’ Bahar said, to pass the law’s second reading, after which it will be passed on to PA chairman and Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas for his signature.”[4]

What is the real meaning of this? In my opinion, it is a piece of theater. By laying claim to all of Jerusalem -- a city that has been majority Jewish since the mid-19th c., before the Zionist movement even began -- the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Authority can be represented by the international media as making a great concession when it agrees, later, to just East Jerusalem as its capital. Any Israeli resistance to divide Jerusalem will be represented as ‘intransigence.’ This pressure will give Ehud Olmert the political cover he needs to divide Jerusalem, something he has signaled already that he means to do: the above article explains that as far back as July 1980, “the Knesset approved the Jerusalem Law, determining that ‘complete and united Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.’ However, current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said last week that ‘the Government of Israel has a sovereign right to negotiate anything on behalf of Israel.’” Like a true Orwellian character, Olmert will negotiate against the wishes of most Israelis but “on behalf of Israel.” The PA ‘concession’ on Jerusalem, naturally, will be compensated with the evacuation of the Jews living in Judea and Samaria, and the ceding of these territories to PLO/Fatah and Hamas.

The behavior of the Israeli government is putting other in danger, too, besides the Jews. Christians in Israel should also be asking themselves what Muslim rule will mean for them. Above we see that Muslims would like to have control of all archaeological sites, including Jewish and Christian holy places. The town of Bethlehem, believed to be the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth, is a microcosm of what lies in store for Christians as PLO/Fatah acquires more and more power. Writing in her 2003 book The Israelis, Donna Rosenthal explained that,

“Since assuming control in 1995, Arafat changed Bethlehem’s demography by expanding municipal boundaries to include three refugee camps and encouraging thousands of Muslims to move in. In 1948, on mosque served the greater Bethlehem area; today there are more than ninety. Since Israel gave Arafat control over Bethlehem in 1995, hundreds of Arab Christian families have left town. The majority of Bethlehem’s Christians were engaged in the tourist industry; since the second intifada destroyed tourism, most closed their shops, hotels, and restaurants. Many of those who haven’t fled plan to. In 1990, Bethlehem was 60 percent Christian; today it is less than 20 percent.”[5]

Nazareth is Israel’s largest Christian city. Here is a Nazareth scene from Donna Rosenthal’s 2003 book:

“A cashier in a sweets shop on Casanova street grows tense as he watches hundreds of bearded men stream into a green canvas tent-mosque next to the Basilica. Another fiery sermon by the young imam Sheik Nazim Abu Salim, who holds a degree in biochemistry from Ben-Gurion University [useful for making bombs], blasts from the loudspeakers: ‘Anyone who does doesn’t get on the Islam train is done for. Anyone who wants to be certain in his life and also after his death must convert to Islam. In the end, Islam will be the only religion left in the world.’ ‘The ‘bearded ones’ are in charge and they are pushing us out,’ the cashier mutters gloomily. ‘If Jesus were to come back, he’d be shocked. Sometimes I am afraid to wear my cross.’”[6]

Arab Christians, predictably, are torn between the Arab identity, which inclines them towards solidarity with Arab Muslims, and the Christian non-Muslim identity, which puts them in the same category with Jews from the Muslim point of view: they must be forcibly converted, enslaved, or killed.[6a] Arab Christians do not get a pass from Muslims because they are Arab. Donna Rosenthal writes:
“According to an IDF spokesperson, a slightly increasing number of Israeli Arab Christians over age eighteen are either volunteering for the IDF or performing national service in schools and hospitals in their communities. In 2001, a young sergeant from Tur'an, a tranquil Galilee village where Jesus is said to have turned wine into water, became the first Christian soldier in the Israeli army to be killed in the intifadam shot in the head by a PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi sniper in Gaza. He and a number of other Arab Christians from this village enlisted after nearly one hundred men linked with radical clerics burst into a church during Good Friday Mass in 1997 ‘Tur'an must be 100 percent Muslim.’ Christian-Muslim clashes continued for days. A Christian art student was stabbed to death. Rioters fire-bombed Christian homes. ‘The Muslims call us traitors now,’ said a soldier, a pastor's son, who keeps his army rifle close by during leave; the family kitchen was pockmarked with bulltets. More and more, young Christians are unwilling to turn the other cheek. ‘We are not going to live in fear anymore. I think we realized that our future was more important than all the words of nationalism. You know the Muslims don't think of us as part of that nationalism, except when they need us. That's the truth. They talk about all this stuff against Israel and against occupation and collaboration. But they only care about fellow Muslims. We used to eat from the same plate, but now this village is torn apart. We [as Christians] have to do what is right for us now.’”[6b]
 

What portends the new US stance on Iran's rush to acquire nuclear weapons?
________________
Immediately before the Annapolis Conference a DEBKAfile “exclusive analysis” stated that, “with only hours to spare, the US organizers of the Middle East conference opening in Annapolis Tuesday decided to make the best of a forlorn event by switching its leitmotif from the intractable Israeli-PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi dispute to Iran -- and its multiple threats to the Middle East.”  What the US ruling elite was now hoping to achieve in Annapolis, DEBKA said, was “a united Arab front against Iran.”[7]

Immediately after the Annapolis Conference, DEBKA wrote:

“In a radical about-face, White House officials suddenly ‘discovered’ Monday, Dec. 3, that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago... This ‘discovery’ appeared in the latest National Intelligence Estimate, together with the comment that Iran seems less determined to develop nuclear arms than previously believed and is more vulnerable to international pressure...

...Monday, too, even the ‘moderate’ Arab turnout at the Middle East conference proved to be an illusion when Saudi King Abdullah walked into the GCC conference hall in Doha hand in hand with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian president was invited to the Gulf summit for the first time. The ‘moderate’ Arab front against Iran, proudly presented by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and prime minister Ehud Olmert, melted away to nothing.”[8]

It seems, therefore, that DEBKAfile’s pre-Annapolis “exclusive analyses” -- based on what appear to have been rumors or deliberate official disinformation -- got everything dead wrong, as DEBKA now admits.

First, the push to give Judea and Samaria to PLO/Fatah was hardly abandoned at Annapolis. On the contrary: the Israeli government committed itself to resolving the issue of the handover by the end of 2008. Moreover, in true imperial fashion, a US general -- one who is “involved in cutting business deals with the Gulf states” -- will be the one deciding whether PLO/Fatah is living up to its obligations in the 'Roadmap.' He will be coordinating closely with another US military officer, Keith Dayton./ This Dayton has in fact been training the 'PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Authority' troops for a year, and it is worrisome that “Dayton faced harsh criticism by [US] Congress members earlier this year after admitting that Fatah terrorists had obtained American arms.” In other words, the people in charge of making PLO/Fatah terrorists more deadly will be telling us whether or not they are supposedly behaving.[8b]

The “radical about face” that now assures us there is no nuclear threat from Iran is especially dramatic given that on 12 November another DEBKAfile “exlusive analysis” had reported that, according to its Washington sources, “the US president’s plan is to put before the public new findings on Iran’s nuclear secrets, drawn from data gathered by the United States, Russia, France, Germany and Israel, and use the publicity as a fulcrum to push hard for tough international sanctions [against Iran].”[8a] And the supposed US-sponsored “united Arab front against Iran” was a sham, since it “melted away to nothing.” In fact, as DEBKA also reports, following its declaration that Iran is not a threat, the US government is now embarking on a Saudi-brokered deal to get along with Iran.[8c]

What is the Israeli reaction?

“According to senior [Israeli] ministers,” wrote Y-Net News on 9 December, “Israel has information proving that Iran did not cease in its efforts to obtain a nuclear bomb, and is only acting in secret. Nevertheless, none of the three top ministers, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, or Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni seeks to create a confrontation with the American administration.”[8d] What geopolitical relationship will be consistent with the Israeli government being reluctant to confront the US government when it says that Iran is supposedly not a mortal threat to Israel? One in which the US is the master and Israel is the pet, required to be docile even when the master is cruel (and yet, high-profile US academics will have you believe that the US -- the mightiest power in history -- is supposedly Israel's pet). Internal political pressures being what they are, however, Ehud Olmert on 12 December issued what the Associated Press calls a “fierce rebuttal to a US Intelligence assessment that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons.” And yet Olmert added that he wanted to work through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has already signalled it means to produce a “nuclear free Middle-East,” something that would require stripping Israel of its nuclear deterrent.[8e]

Now, but why was DEBKA so wrong? Because sound geopolitical predictions cannot be based on the latest rumor; they have to be based on an analysis of history.

Way back in February 2006, at a time of supposed ‘crisis’ between the US and Iran, when everybody and his second cousin were predicting an imminent US attack on Iran, Historical and Investigative Research published an article predicting that there would be no such attack.[9] Then, when Iran seized a few British officers and everybody once again predicted an imminent attack, since this was a perfect excuse, HIR published an article explaining that this was just political theater, with a structure identical to the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis, meant to make Iran look very tough. Nothing was likely to happen. Indeed, the hostages were released and there was no war.[9a] HIR’s analysis was naturally not based on the latest rumors in the media (or else we would have predicted a US attack against Iran). We based it on the documented history of US-Iranian relations since 1979, when the Islamists took power. This history reveals a very close alliance between the US and Iranian ruling elites -- the mutual invective is just theater, there to dupe you. I summarize this history briefly below:

1) In the wake of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Islamist leader Ayatollah Khomeini staged a coup d'etat and then absorbed SAVAK wholesale. This had been the deposed Shah’s repressive internal security apparatus, and now, with its personnel intact, it was renamed SAVAMA: Khomeini’s tool of internal repression. And yet, before the revolution Khomeini had been promising to dismantle SAVAK because it was a repressive extension of the hated CIA, the intelligence agency of ‘Great Satan.’ Indeed, SAVAK had always had very close ties with the CIA because it had been created by the CIA and because the Shah was a US puppet, installed by a CIA operation in a 1953 coup. So there was a stark contradiction between the anti-US words of the Ayatollah Khomeini when he dramatically denounced ‘Great Satan’ in his speeches, and his pro-‘Great Satan’ actions when he absorbed wholesale a CIA subsidiary. Actions speak louder than words.[10]

2) The Iranian Revolution depleted the Iranian military which was in dire need of spare parts. Those spare parts could only be American because the entire Iranian military infrastructure was US-made (because the Shah had been a US puppet). This means that the Ayatollah Khomeini could not afford to provoke a war with Iraq immediately after he took power -- unless, that is, he knew already that the US would supply him with weapons. What happened? a) The Ayatollah Khomeini provoked a war with Iraq; b) The US gave Khomeini about $8 billion dollars (officially to release the well-treated hostages in the US embassy in Tehran); and c) In secret, the US began sending the Iranians billions of dollars in weaponry, every year, which the Iranians bought with the money for the hostages (when this was discovered it was called the Iran-Contra scandal, or ‘Iran-gate.’) When caught, the US government claimed that the arms shipments were to gain the release of a handful of American hostages held in Lebanon by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah. This explanation was ridiculous on the face of it, but in any case the arms shipments to Iran began in 1981, and the first hostage in Lebanon was not taken until 1982, so the arms shipments had nothing to do with releasing hostages. There was, therefore, a stark contradiction between the anti-Khomeini words of the US government, when they denounced him as an Islamist terrorist and claimed to prefer an Iraqi victory in the Iran-Iraq war, and the louder pro-Khomeini actions of giving Khomeini billions of dollars with which to secretly buy American weapons for his war against Iraq.[11]

3) When the Iran-Iraq war ended badly for Iran despite all the US help, and Iran had to ask for a cease-fire in 1988, Zalmay Khalilzad, at the State Department, wrote a briefing paper for incoming President Bush Sr. in which he called for “strengthening Iran and containing Iraq.” The next year he authored an article in the Los Angeles Times where he argued that “Tehran is looking for ways to overcome strategic inferiority and gain a degree of protection against Iraq,” and that “a further weakened Iran would not increase stability,” and so it would be better -- once again -- to strengthen Iran. Right after that, Khalilzad was named assistant undersecretary of defense for policy planning, following which the US prodded Kuwait to provoke Iraq into attacking it. This produced the excuse -- ‘defending Kuwait’ -- for the 1991 Gulf War that destroyed Iraq. With that done, US policy became to contain Iraq. Iran was, in consequence, strengthened. In this case US actions and words were in harmony, because Khalilzad had called for “strengthening Iran and containing Iraq.”[12]

4) From his new perch at RAND Corp., a ‘think tank’ that pretends to be independent of the US government, Khalilzad argued in 1992 that the Bosnian Muslims should be armed and that the Afghan strategy -- relying on Islamic states to arm and train terrorist ‘holy warriors’ -- should be followed. Pentagon military intelligence coordinated with the Iranian government to import thousands of foreign mujahideen (or mujahedin = ‘holy warrior’) mercenaries into Bosnia. These soldiers fought for the Bosnian Islamist and terrorist Alija Izetbegovic, whose policy was genocide. During this time US and Iranian officials loudly exchanged invective, but actions speak louder than words.[13]

5) More recently, Iran in fact cooperated closely with the US invasion of Iraq. Not only that: the US military took action, while invading Iraq, to strengthen the Iranian regime, for example bombing the positions of Iranian rebels based in Iraq.[14] Everybody agrees that the effect of the US invasion of Iraq has been to install there a pro-Iranian Shi’ite government.[15] As early as 2005, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American viceroy in Iraq, began calling for an early withdrawal of US forces from Iraq even as he conceded that Iran was “advancing its long-term goal of establishing [regional] domination.”[16]

Now, over the course of the last two years, harsh words have been exchanged between US and Iranian officials concerning the Iranian nuclear program, and US President George Bush called Iran a component of the ‘Axis of Evil,’ a monicker so corny and melodramatic that it can only be topped by Iran calling the US ‘Great Satan.’ Once again, however, actions speak louder than words -- in this case, actions that the US has not undertaken. The US government has repeatedly done nothing to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and, as we see above, it has now announced that it will do nothing.

DEBKA now says that “Saudi and American sources told DEBKAfile that President George W. Bush used the Annapolis conference as a piece of theater, which presented a sham moderate Arab front against Iran to disguise the intense work underway on a Saudi-mediated accommodation between Washington and Tehran.”[16a] The point, however, is that on the basis of the above history, DEBKA should have predicted, before the conference, that any semblance of producing an anti-Iranian front simply had to be theater, because a truly anti-Iranian policy would have completely contradicted the entire history of US foreign policy toward the Iranian Islamist regime.

Friendly noises are now also coming from the Iranians. In the last few days, former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami was here in Mexico City and he had a chat with reporters from the daily Reforma. Leonardo Valero wrote in that paper:

“...Dr. Khatami was confident yesterday that when neoconservative ideas are defeated -- which he thinks is possible in the presidential elections that will be held next year -- Washington may come to recognize that it has many common interests with Teheran.

The report presented last Tuesday by the intelligence agencies in the United States, where they recognize that Iran had slowed down its military nuclear program in 2004, Khatami opined, was evidence of the retreat of neoconservative ideas.”[17]

It appears that we are being prepared, by both US and Iranian officials, for a significant ‘thaw’ in US-Iranian relations that will be consummated by the time the next administration comes into power. But in fact there have been noises towards this -- amid the obligatory exchanges of insults -- all along. For example, earlier this year, in April, “Condoleeza Rice [was] urging Iran to join her at a high-level conference on the future of Iraq next week, signaling that Washington is now ready for a serious exchange of views with Tehran.” The Financial Times explained the context: “Washington’s need to secure the right regional environment for its eventual withdrawal from Iraq.”[18] Then, in May, the Jerusalem Post reported that “The US and Iran say they will hold upcoming talks in Baghdad about improving Iraq's security.” In the words of Gordon Johndroe, the White House's National Security spokesman, “The purpose is to try to make sure that the Iranians play a productive role in Iraq.”[18a] This all agrees with what HIR argued, as far back as late 2005, was the purpose of Bush’s war on Iraq: giving Iraq to Iran.[19]

What does this all achieve? Pro-Iranian Shi’ite control of Iraq allows Iran to become the dominating presence in the emerging ‘Shia Crescent.’



This will allow Iran to launch a direct, conventional attack on Israel’s northern border, because Hezbollah, Lebanon, and Syria are already functioning as Iranian satellites.



This aspect of the future attack on Israel, therefore, is now reaching its final stage with the staged ‘thaw’ between the US and Iran that will allow US troops to be evacuated from Iraq when the new US administration comes in, leaving that country awash in sophisticated US weaponry that can be used against the Jewish State.

There is also the question of Iraq’s WMDs, which probably did exist and ended up in Syria, something that the US government has gone out of its way to keep from public view. This will be taken up in a forthcoming section of this piece.


__________________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
__________________________________________________________

[1] “Israel frees PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi prisoners to boost Abbas”; EuroNews; English Version, December 3, 2007, news, 112 words.

[2] “HOW DID THE ‘PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

“PLO/Fatah's Nazi training was CIA-sponsored”; Historical and Investigative Research; 22 July 2007; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/cia-fatah.htm

[3] “Judea and Samaria: IDF Rounding Up Jews' Weapons”; Israel National News; 2 Tevet 5768, December 11, '07; by Gil Ronen.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124487

[3a] "After Annapolis: PA Television Erases Israel From Map"; Israel National News; 3 Tevet5768, December 12, '07; by Hillel Fendel
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124417

[4] “New PA Law: Negotiating Jerusalem is an Act of Treason”; Israel National News; 2 Tevet 5768, December 11, '07; by Hillel Fendel.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124500

[5] Rosenthal, D. 2003. The Israelis: Ordinary people in an extraordinary land. New York: Free Press. (p.311)

[6] Rosenthal (2003:312)

[6a] To learn about what Muslims are supposed to do with non-Muslims, read:

"The religion of peace?: What, exactly, is 'moderate Islam'?"; from THE CULTURE OF ISLAM; Historical and Investigative Research; 10 January 2007; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/islam/culture01.htm

"Dhimmitude and slavery: The fates of non-Muslims (and Muslims, too) in Islamic society"; from THE CULTURE OF ISLAM; Historical and Investigative Research; 14 October 2007; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/islam/culture02.htm

[6b] Rosenthal (2003:319)

[7] “Saving Annapolis by Shifting its Focus to … Iran”; DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis; November 26, 2007, 12:28 PM (GMT+02:00)
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1316

[8] “Bush Drops Military Option, Tehran Slams Door on Diplomacy”; DEBKAfile Special Report December 3, 2007, 11:03 PM (GMT+02:00
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1316

[8a] "Bush to Go Public on Iran’s Secret Nuclear Arms Activities"; DEBKAfile Exclusive Report; November 12, 2007, 11:22 AM (GMT+02:00)
http://www.debka.org/article.php?aid=1314

[8b] "New U.S. Military Envoy to Supervise PA Progress on Terrorism"; Israel National News; 3 Tevet 5768, December 12, '07; by Hana Levi Julian.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124416

(IsraelNN.com) U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has appointed a NATO veteran to serve as America's military point man in the Middle East.

It will be the task of General James Jones, a Marine Corps general who retired last February and served until 2006 as the NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, to monitor activities between Israel and the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Authority.

A 40-year-veteran, Jones headed a panel tasked by the Congress last summer that studied the readiness of Iraq's police and military forces. He will be retaining his present position as president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Energy.

Jones, whose official title will be Special Envoy for Middle East Security, will be the one to determine whether Israel and the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Authority are meeting their obligations in the first stage of the American Roadmap plan. He will report directly to Condoleezza Rice.

"I believe we need an experienced leader who can address the regional security challenges comprehensively and at the highest levels, and who can provide the full support of our government to the partners as they work to meet their responsibilities," said Rice.

"Israelis must be confident that a PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi state will increase their security and not detract from it. PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazis must be capable of standing on their own and policing their territory. And countries in the region must be invested in the success of this state-building effort, for their own security depends on it too," she added.

The Ministry of Defense has not yet replied to a request for comments on the appointment.

Dr. Gadi Eshel of Professors for a Strong Israel, however, was unimpressed by Rice's remarks, saying that she has chosen to appoint someone to the post who is "at the very least cold towards Israel."

Eshel pointed out that Jones is involved in cutting business deals with the Gulf States, a major conflict of interest. "But what else can you expect from the State Department?" he said. "It verges on pure anti-Semitism, to appoint such a man to decide whether an act of terror has been committed with the blessing of the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Authority or not.

"The very fact that another country nominates an individual – and G-d forbid Israel would accept it – to judge whether an act of terror is sufficiently defined as a real act of terror or a negligible breach of the commitment of the PA [to end the violence] – that very fact is so mind-boggling that I cannot see any other definition," he added.

U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that Jones will also be monitoring the development of the PA security services as part of his role in supervising the PA's compliance with the Roadmap requirements. McCormack added that he will be working closely with Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, the U.S. security coordinator who has been training the PA security forces for more than a year.

Dayton faced harsh criticism by Congress members earlier this year after admitting that Fatah terrorists had obtained American arms. His reputation was also severely damaged when Hamas terrorists overran Gaza last June and routed the Fatah militia he had trained.

At the beginning of this month, 300 of Dayton's PA security troops made their debut in the "terrorist capital" of Samaria, Shechem. Dayton has been supervising their training at an American-funded base in Jericho, with new weapons purchased by the Bush administration.

[8c] "Bush Embarks on Saudi-Brokered Deal with Tehran"; From DEBKA-Net-Weekly Exclusive Updated by DEBKAfile; December 8, 2007, 10:02 PM (GMT+02:00).
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1321

[8d] "Shas minister: Americans' attitude to report reminiscent of Auschwitz: Yitzhak Cohen says during cabinet meeting 'US intelligence report was ordered by someone who wants dialogue with Tehran. Minister Eli Yishai: 'We must not play dumb in the face of the report's findings'; Y-Net News; 12.09.07, 14:30; Roni Sofer.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3480595,00.html

[8e] Ehud Olmert's statements were reported in:

"Israeli prime minister rejects US intelligence report on Iran nuclear program"; Associated Press Worldstream, December 12, 2007 Wednesday 12:42 AM GMT, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 419 words, By STEVEN GUTKIN, Associated Press Writer

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). On 6 February 2006, The Australian reported that “Israeli officials were taken aback by the approval of a clause in the IAEA document implying dismantlement of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.” How taken aback? Well, not that much: “Israel yesterday applauded the decision by the international community to move against Iran, despite discomfort about the resolution’s indirect reference to Israel’s own alleged nuclear program.”

SOURCE: Iran threat like Hitler: Merkel,  THE AUSTRALIAN, February 6, 2006 Monday,  All-round Country Edition, WORLD; Pg. 11, 935 words, Peter Conradi, Abraham Rabinovich

[9] “Will the US attack Iran?: An alternative hypothesis”; Historical and Investigative Research; 23 Feb 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/attack_iran.htm

[9a] “The Iranian Hostage Crisis - Again: Is this hostage crisis different from the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 03 April 2007; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/hostage_crisis_2007.htm

[10] “If the Ayatollah Khomeini was an enemy of the United States ruling elite, why did he adopt the CIA's security service?”; Historical and Investigative Research - 21 Feb 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/savak.htm

[11] Under the official hypothesis that he was the enemy of the US ruling elite, Khomeini’s immediate provocation of a war with Iraq is difficult to explain. The previous autocratic and repressive dictator of Iran, the Shah (King) Reza Pahlavi, had been a total US puppet, installed in power in a 1953 CIA coup (a). In consequence most of the military equipment of the Iranian armed forces was American-made. The Iranian revolution had involved some fighting, and so “Iran at that time was in dire need of arms and spare parts for its American-made arsenal.”(b)  And yet Khomeini went out of his way to engage in dramatic anti-American provocations at the same time that he picked a fight with Iraq. For example, Khomeini seized the US embassy in Iran and took its personnel hostage.

An absurdity? On the face of it, certainly. If Khomeini needed US spare parts for its military, then how could he afford to attack Iraq and the US simultaneously?

But the absurdity can be resolved if you posit that in reality the US ruling elite and Khomeini were never enemies. In this view, like his predecessor the shah, Khomeini was a US asset, and his ‘provocations’ were part of a US-driven political theater for the unsuspecting global audience, there to generate certain appearances that the US ruling elite found useful for its geopolitical game.(c) What this view requires is that Khomeini would get his money and spare parts from the US quite despite his apparent provocations.

And he did.

(part 3 to be continued below)... n.

 

[nikmatdam]

The Washington Post claimed in 1980 that “the seizure of the American hostages has deprived Iran’s military of much-needed U.S. and European spare parts for its almost entirely imported military equipment.”(d). But this was false. The ‘hostage crisis’ did not deprive Khomeini of anything. On the contrary. The United States government offered to pay billions of dollars  in exchange for the release of the hostages, which Iran accepted (the final sum was close to $8 billion) (e). And throughout the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, Iran received secret shipments of US weapons, which became a great embarrassment to the Reagan administration when this became known in 1986 (this was called, alternately, ‘Iran-gate’ and the ‘Iran-Contra scandal’). US officials claimed when caught that the arms shipments had the purpose of getting Iran to lean on the Hezbollah terrorists it has always patronized in Lebanon, who at the time had taken some other Americans hostage. The media was quick to make this explanation seem credible. For example, the Washington Post told its readers late in 1986 that, “according to informed sources” (in other words, according to alleged sources that nobody could check), “an Iranian government emissary told U.S. representatives he would arrange for the release of an American hostage held in Lebanon if the United States would sell Iran 500 TOW antitank missiles” (f). But this explanation was absurd. History’s greatest power does not arm to the teeth a fifth-rate power so it can grovel for its influence on a tiny terrorist organization in a third country, and maybe get some hostages released.

But in any case, it couldn’t be true even in principle. Limited congressional investigations into the relationship between Reagan and Khomeini brought to light, as the New York Times reported later, in 1999, that:

“Soon after taking office in 1981, the Reagan Administration secretly and abruptly changed United States policy and allowed Israel to sell several billion dollars’ worth of American-made arms, spare parts and ammunition to the Iranian Government. . .

. . .The change in policy came before the Iranian-sponsored seizure of American hostages in Lebanon began in 1982. . .” [my emphasis] (g)

So the US had the Israelis sell “several billion dollars’ worth” in arms secretly to the nearby Iranians; meanwhile, explains the NYT, “The Reagan Administration continued to replenish Israel’s stockpile of American-made weapons.” But the key point is this: if the US policy to send US armament to Iran began before the hostages were taken in Lebanon, then arming Iran had nothing to do with buying the freedom of these hostages. The NYT pretends that, since it didn't, “No American rationale for permitting covert arms sales to Iran could be established.” But this is false. Such a rationale could be established, it’s just that the New York Times is not allowed to say it: the US had a policy to sponsor the growth of Islamist terrorism, which is precisely why the US program through Israel -- which demonstrates the total lack of independence of Israel, a state that Iran was promising to destroy -- “was overtaken by the [direct US] arms shipments to Iran,” as the same NYT article states.

NOTES:

(a) “HOW THE UNITED STATES DESTROYED DEMOCRACY IN IRAN IN 1953: Re-print of 16 April 2000 New York Times article”; with an introduction by Francisco Gil-White; Historical and Investigative Research, 5 January 2006;
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/iran-coup.htm

(b) The New York Times, December 8, 1991, The Iran Pipeline: A Hidden Chapter/A special report.; U.S. Said to Have Allowed Israel to Sell Arms to Iran, By Seymour Hersh

(c)  “GRAND THEATER: THE US, THE PLO, AND THE AYATOLLAH KHOMEINI: Why did the US government, in 1979, delegate to the PLO the task of negotiating the safety of American hostages at the US embassy in Tehran?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 10 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/plo-iran.htm

(d) The Washington Post, September 24, 1980, Wednesday, Final Edition, First Section; A22, 1258 words, Centuries of Enmity Fuel New Iranian-Iraqi War, By William Branigin, Washington Post Foreign Service.

(e) U.S. PROMISES IRAN $5.5 BILLION ON DAY HOSTAGES ARE FREED; ASSETS ARE PUT AT $9.5 BILLION In All, 70 Percent Would Be Made Available Within a few Days of Americans' Release; By BERNARD GWERTZMAN Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857. Jan 11, 1981. p. 1 (2 pages)

"Largest Private Financial Transfer in History"; New York Times; Jan 25, 1981; by STEVEN RATTNER; pg. E3

(f) Iranian Offered Release Of American Hostage For 500 TOW Missiles, The Washington Post, December 31, 1986, Wednesday, Final Edition, FIRST SECTION; PAGE A1, 1087 words, Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer, NATIONAL NEWS, FOREIGN NEWS

(g) The Iran Pipeline: A Hidden Chapter/A special report.; U.S. Said to Have Allowed Israel to Sell Arms to Iran, The New York Times, December 8, 1991, Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 1; Part 1; Page 1; Column 1; Foreign Desk, 2897 words, By SEYMOUR M. HERSH,  Special to The New York Times, WASHINGTON, Dec. 7

[12] “Mr. Bush and his aides were urged to rethink Persian Gulf policy from the moment they took office. Shortly after Mr. Bush won the Presidency in November 1988, a State Department strategist drafted a paper for the President-elect urging that the United States take a fresh approach to the region.

Mr. Khalilzad advised in the paper that America's new policy should concentrate on strengthening Iran and containing Iraq. The paper was included in the State Department Policy Planning Staff's official ‘transition book’' which reviewed all the foreign policy issues the new President would soon have to confront.”

SOURCE: THE 1992 CAMPAIGN; Bush's Greatest Glory Fades As Questions on Iraq Persist, The New York Times, June 27, 1992, Saturday, Late Edition - Final, George Bush, Section 1; Page 1; Column 5; Foreign Desk, 2554 words, By ELAINE SCIOLINO with MICHAEL WINES, Special to The New York Times, WASHINGTON, June 26

“Mr. Bush and his aides were urged to rethink Persian Gulf policy from the moment they took office. Shortly after Mr. Bush won the Presidency in November 1988, a State Department strategist drafted a paper for the President-elect urging that the United States take a fresh approach to the region.

Mr. Khalilzad advised in the paper that America's new policy should concentrate on strengthening Iran and containing Iraq. The paper was included in the State Department Policy Planning Staff's official 'transition book,' which reviewed all the foreign policy issues the new President would soon have to confront.”

SOURCE: THE 1992 CAMPAIGN; Bush's Greatest Glory Fades As Questions on Iraq Persist, The New York Times, June 27, 1992, Saturday, Late Edition - Final, George Bush, Section 1; Page 1; Column 5; Foreign Desk, 2554 words, By ELAINE SCIOLINO with MICHAEL WINES, Special to The New York Times, WASHINGTON, June 26

To read about how the US pushed to have the Kuwaitis provoke the Iraqis, read the section entitled “The US ordered Kuwait to provoke Iraq” in the following piece:

“Why Bush Sr.'s 1991 Gulf War? To Protect Iranian Islamism: Like father, like son: this is also the purpose of Bush Jr.’s war; Historical and Investigative Research; 20 Dec 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/gulfwar.htm

[13] Zalmay Khalilzad argued that,

“The lesson of Afghanistan is that arming the victim of aggression is a prudent and workable alternative to the dispatch of U.S. troops or to appeasement. That's because it reinforces economic and political pressures, which by themselves seldom succeed against a determined aggressor.

…As in the case of Afghanistan, the enterprise could be funded in large part by moderate Islamic states.”

SOURCE: "Arm the Bosnians"; The Washington Post; December 28, 1992, Monday, Final Edition; BYLINE: Zalmay Khalilzad; SECTION: EDITORIAL; PAGE A15; 894 words.

An investigation by the government of the Netherlands showed that the Pentagon and the Iranian government had teamed up to import thousands of mujahedin 'holy warriors' into Bosnia:

“How the U.S. & Iran have Cooperated to Sponsor Muslim Terror (And this while loudly denouncing one another in public...)”; Emperor’s Clothes; 13 April 2003; by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/deja.htm

Ïn Bosnia the US was not arming “the victim of aggression,” but Alija Izetbegovic, who had written a book calling for an exterminationist jihad against the non-Muslims of Bosnia. But that is just as well, because, contrary to what Zalmay Khalilzad wrote, neither had the US armed “the victim of aggression” in Afghanistan. This is what Zbigniev Brzezinski -- Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, author of the Afghan strategy, and Khalilzad’s mentor -- explained to Le Nouvel Observateur in an interview:

[Quote from Le Nouvel Observateur begins here]

LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR: Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began, six months before the Soviet intervention, to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carter’s security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Yes. According to the official version, the CIA's support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army's invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different: Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.

[Quote ends here]

SOURCE: “Ex-Security Chief Brzezinski’s Interview makes clear: The Muslim Terrorist Apparatus was Created by US Intelligence as a Geopolitical Weapon. The US & European States are still using Brzezinski’s Muslim terrorist strategy!”; Emperor’s Clothes; 6 September 2004; by Jared Israel.
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm

[14] On 24 March 2003, the Financial Times wrote as follows:

“It may be part of George W. Bush's axis of evil; some predict it will be next on the list for US pre-emptive action; but Iran is the only one of Iraq's neighbours that wholeheartedly supports regime change in Baghdad, even if via a US-led invasion.

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his government is one of the few objectives on which the various factions of the Tehran regime agree. Since becoming convinced that the Bush administration is indeed determined to effect forcible change in Iraq, Tehran has been egging on Washington, albeit in private. Whenever the US has needed Tehran's help, the Iranians have been more than happy to oblige.”

SOURCE: “War Sirens Herald Iran's Hour of Revenge”; Financial Times; March 24, 2003, Monday Usa Edition 1; Section: Comment & Analysis; Pg. 17; Headline: War Sirens Herald Iran's Hour Of Revenge; By Khairallah Khairallah

You may read the entire Financial Times piece, and an Emperor’s Clothes analysis of it, here:

“If the US Has Hostile Relations Towards Iran, Shouldn't Someone Tell the Iranians?”; Article from the Financial Times with comments by Jared Israel; Emperor’s Clothes; 27 March 2003.
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/helping.htm

On the question of US assistance to Iran during the invasion, please consult:

U.S. Bombed Bases of Iranian Rebels in Iraq; International Herald Tribune | New York Times; Thursday 17 April 2003; by Douglas Jehl

To read the above International Herald Tribune/NewYork Times piece, and an Emperor’s Clothes analysis, visit:

“U.S.  ‘Quietly’ Bombs Anti-Regime Iranian Rebels” -- Article by Douglas Jehl, International Herald Tribune, Comments by Jared Israel; Emperor’s Clothes; 19 April 2003; by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bombed.htm

The following analysis is also useful:

“Reader Says: ‘EC is Wrong; Iran is not Helping the US in Iraq’ -- Jared Israel Replies”; Emperor’s Clothes; 6 April 2003; by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/seale.htm

[15]  The Guardian says, about the ongoing invasion of Iraq, that

“Iran is the true winner of that war. They only had to sit tight and smile as the West delivered on a golden plate all the influence Iran had always sought in the Middle East. The US and its allies will soon be gone from Afghanistan and Iraq, leaving Iranian-backed Shias dominant in both countries, their influence well spread across Syria, a chunk of Saudi Arabia and other countries for decades to come. Historic Iranian ambitions have been fulfilled without firing a shot while the US is reduced to fist-shaking. How foolish was that?”

SOURCE: Comment & Debate: No more fantasy diplomacy: cut a deal with the mullahs: Iran cannot be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, only delayed. We must negotiate not ratchet up the rhetoric,  The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, February 7, 2006 Tuesday, GUARDIAN COMMENT AND DEBATE PAGES ; Pg. 31, 1095 words, Polly Toynbee

But why is this presented as “foolish”?

What we have to explain is why every major policy initiative of the US in the Middle East, year after year, turns out to benefit Iran. The Guardian says: incompetence. But will incompetence produce the exact same result, year after numbing year? Perhaps it can. But the obvious hypothesis, when an actor engages over and over again in behaviors that achieve always the same result, is that the actor desires this result: the US ruling elite wants to strengthen Iran. This hypothesis, however, will not be put on the table. Not even to be considered. Not even to be dismissed with derision.

In this way, the most obvious hypothesis becomes unthinkable.

[16] Zalmay Khalilzad called for ““a withdrawal of American forces next year.” SOURCE: White House sets stage for pullback of troops, The Toronto Star, November 24, 2005 Thursday, NEWS; Pg. A12, 729 words, Tim Harper, Toronto Star, WASHINGTON

Zalmay Khalilzad says that Iran is “advancing its long-term goal of establishing [regional] domination.” SOURCE: “Iran Won’t Need an Exit Strategy: Top Iraqi Officials Hammer Out a Memorandum of Understanding in Tehran – and take America’s Ambassador in Baghdad by Surprise”; Intel; Newsweek; 28 November 2005; pp.30-31; by Scott Johnson and Michael Hirsh.

[16a] "Bush Embarks on Saudi-Brokered Deal with Tehran"; From DEBKA-Net-Weekly Exclusive Updated by DEBKAfile; December 8, 2007, 10:02 PM (GMT+02:00).
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1321

[17] “Desacredita Khatami una guerra inevitable: Destaca el ex Presidente persa los intereses comunes entre Irán y EU”; Reforma; INTERNACIONAL; por Leonardo Valero; p.2.

[18] “US urges Iran to join Iraq talks”; Financial Times; April 22 2007; By FT reporters
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f96545e-f0f9-
11db-838b-000b5df10621.html?nclick_check=1

[18a] "Iran, US say they are willing to hold talks on Iraq"; Associated Press; TEHERAN, Iran. Reprinted in the Jerusalem Post on May 14, 2007.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178708594274
&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[19] “Bush Jr.’s War on Iraq: A general introduction”; Historical and Investigative Research; 1 Dec 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/iraq-general-intro.htm
 

[MasterWolf1]

I agree with Chaimfan. 

So far, Nik you haven't supplied any proof of your wild accusations.

Agreed.

Agree also

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Nik, nobody here is going to read through your encyclopedia. Give us some FACTS, with their sources.

[MasterWolf1]

Stop printing a novel, a simple 2 line or so statement with fact will do.

[nikmatdam]

i'm looking for the proof you have to give me the time to find it... unfortunately one of the books i need is in storage... anyone own "the unholy trinity" by john loftus...? i think that's where the pic with eichmann and ben gurion is with them taking a little tiul around "Eretz Yisrael" circa 1937... and in that book it describes the rat-lines set up by the vatican to help many, many high-ranking nazis escape from europe with all their stolen loot and it is done so in detail... documented detail... proving something within my little dissertation here as you put it which you all refuse to read... which is... that therein lies proof that nazis trained the nascent plo terrorist group (arafat and abbas) in egypt after the war... and at least for now this tangentially supports my contention that the slime-lords sanctioned, plotted and created arab terror and have continued to do so ever since... each new group which springs up is slime-backed, funded and trained... hez. and hamas... islamic jihad and al qaeda... all woven from the same fabric upon the very same loom... all from cardinal-red esavite-roman wool... nik. out...

[jerry1800]

I agree, Nik 100% correct

[Maccabi]

also, if anyone has read any of "The Secret War Against The Jews" one would see that Catholicism is really the main problem.

Let's face it...the arabs aren't sh!t. Without being blocked by Euro-Vatican influence and intrigue, Jews in Israel could probably deal with the muzzies/arabs in a couple of weeks and restore the Biblical borders, smash the mosque and bring the redemption.

F*cking Osama Bin Ladens head would be sent UPS to the Citizens of NY if the Mossad was ever allowed to operate at full capacity.

The pope is the crown prince of queer baby rapers in my opinion and by continuing with their evil Jesus farce, they are killing many decent, righteous people (both Jewish and Gentile).

This phoney Jesus peace stuff is garbage...We need a ruler like David or Moses.

Let me tell you catholics something about David...He wasn't all sunshine and kittens like that phoney impostor radical feminist piece of excrement Jesus...And if righteous gentiles would stop drinking the cool aid out of Jesus' as* and immediately stop all monetary support of the catholic church (and all Jesus institutions) entirely (and direct all funds to the JTF), I think the world would be a much better place in less than a year.

I mean, think of it this way:  If you support the catholic church with a $20 donation, where do you think the money ends up? It ends up in the pocket of some self-hating Jewish scumbag like Sharon or Peres as a bribe by some agent of the catholic church to get property and usurp Jerusalem. (Or perhaps some group like Pieces Now)  And who does that help?

If you stay a catholic (even if you don't give money) you lend personal credibility to an evil farce.

[nikmatdam]

there ya go... right on... i didn't want to get into this aspect of the vatican
slime-machine... i wanted to deal with the political and historical impact they have had on the world... but you're right... you can't exclude the immorality issue which they have always secretly maintained...

you just know that the recent pedaphilia and homosexuality go all the way up the ladder... and all the way back in time... afterall... all the bishops and cardinals and popes started out in the same vane... as parish priests... and so you guys do the math... over the years what is the percentage per year of faggot/pedaphile fathers...? and what is the percentage of those exposed or even if caught... those defrocked...? and so they end up like mahoney and law moving on up the chain of command with impunity and without incident... and maybe they work so hard today to keep this scandal under raps not because of the bad pr and amount of cash settlements but to protect the powerful at the top of the org. with the same past...

furthermore... don't think these supposedly "celibate" monks are piously holding themselves in check in rome or wherever they are stationed... behind closed doors and high walls... who knows what goes on...?

my proof is from "2 babylons" by alexander hislop... since he proves beyond even a shadow of a doubt that catholicism is the continuation of the pagan, idolotrous heresy and rebellion against Hashem begun by nimrod... which worships nimrod as the sun G-d... his mother and wife semiramis as "the queen of heaven" and satan as moloch... the serpentine G-d of fire... they also do the same kinds of disgusting immoral practices as per the code and pact of nimrod's satanic, death-cult... known down thru history as the babylonian/egyptian mystery cult and religion... nimrod established the doctrine that whatever the G-d of the flood whom they so feared and despised and had declared eternal war upon (the tower of bavel being just the first in a long series of means they devised to attempt to "kill" G-d... chalilah)... he established the concept that it was encumbent upon every one of his followers and those initiated into the higher reaches of the hierarchy within his secret society and order with no exclusions for all time to come... that they were bidden to defy G-d and His 7 universal noachide laws...

and therefore whatever Hashem has forbidden... nimrod demanded that they must break and perform... ergo... they must murder, worship idols and commit incest, adultery, homosexuality and even bestiality... and the more depraved one became... the higher the cult-member rose within the order... raping virgins... sacrificing humans... cannibalism in the form of the forceful aborting and eating of fetus'... you name it... these were the sick, twisted, demented and thoroughly satanical and perverted tenets of this barbaric paganism and evil heathenism devised by nimrod and carried forward down thru history by his surrogates and successors... and i've already recorded here how it came to be usurped by esav and become the state religion of the roman empire which is edom... which is esav... and how they fabricated its suppression at the fall of rome by pretending to adopt christianity's form of monotheism... but it was all just a ruse and a sleight of hand to hide their on-going allegiance to the satanic nimrodian death-cult... and this has evolved and emanated out to us down to our day from behind the "iron-curtain" that are the walls of the vatican in rome... the catholic church...

now "catholicism" does not by definition mean "christian" or "christianity..." this is a huge misnomer... it may appear in the dictonaries which the slime publish but it actually means... i believe in latin... "universal church or religion..." which is and always has been the slime's ultimate goal for a one world government and religion dictatorially and tyrannically run by themselves... absolute and total despotism is their paramount aim and objective... and this fits in well with the mindset that produced the name for their roman state-religion of christianity... they called it catholicism... because this was their one expectation... that everyone alive would be enslaved to its tenets, dictates and beliefs without exception... and any and all diversions from or refusals to comply would not be tolerated and that thus any of these rebellions would always be met with fierce resistance and would be put down viciously by any and all means available and necessary... and the adherents of these "heresies" cruelly and mercilessly slaughtered... usually by auto-da-fe... the act of being burnt at the stake in so-called "fires of the faith" which at least in death then would "purge from sin" and/or "purify from heresy" the rebels and non-conformists of the "sole truth" of catholicism... i.e. nimrod's cultic slime-machine...  

and so to this very day... especially during the long night of this nearly 500-year epoch of the counter-reformation... the roman church led by jesuitism has been pursuing the path of never-ending warfare and universal unsuffurage and ruthless subversion of and punishment for any of the billions of humans who have in the eyes of the vatican dared to defy them and their rule... all those whom they regard as dissenters, deviants, profaners, heretics and those who commit sacrilege have been and are still... all slated to be maliciously dealt with and violently removed from the earth unless they relent, recant, repent and acquiesce to "rejoin" "the one true and universal church..." (the catholic one in rome)...

this is the full story... and it is long past time that this dire warning and dread peril be widely disseminated among mankind before it is too late for any of us to take up arms to defend ourselves, our families, our freedoms and liberties... and our land, our torah faith and our people as a whole from the unrelenting onslaught and ceseless attack of the slime... the strategy and plan does not ever alter or change... they never give-up nor give-in... and they never, ever will... know this and know it well... only their tactics are modified from time to time to meet each new challenge to their hegemony, power and self-proclaimed and arrogantly-presumed authority... nik. out...   

[Ambiorix]

what do you want to happen with the catholic church nic.

[Maccabi]

And what about the catholic virgin nuns who are 'saving themselves for Jesus'.

Do they honestly think the real messiah is going to bring them all to Jerusalem, line them up naked outside the 3rd temple and personally bust every one of their cherries?

I mean, aside from practicing homo stuff, the vatican is also messing with the minds of many young women (and men). 

Their warped views bring more unwanted babies and more AIDS to the world.

I never understood the whole 'virgin for a saint' thing.  I mean, mosiach would have to be a pretty virile guy to bang all 1 million of them.  How is that even human?  Their traditions go totally against the way God create man and woman.

Probably some other part of the cult like sacrificing virgins to the fire or something.

[Ambiorix]

And what about the catholic virgin nuns who are 'saving themselves for Jesus'.

Do they honestly think the real messiah is going to bring them all to Jerusalem, line them up naked outside the 3rd temple and personally bust every one of their cherries?

I mean, aside from practicing homo stuff, the vatican is also messing with the minds of many young women (and men). 

Their warped views bring more unwanted babies and more AIDS to the world.

I never understood the whole 'virgin for a saint' thing.  I mean, mosiach would have to be a pretty virile guy to bang all 1 million of them.  How is that even human?  Their traditions go totally against the way G-d create man and woman.

Probably some other part of the cult like sacrificing virgins to the fire or something.

more complaints?

[Maccabi]

more complaints?

hahaha. I could ramble for days about how much I hate Jesus and the new testament, but I guess here is not the place so I will stop. 

Feel free to delete my comments if you are a mod reading this. 


The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he was God.

[Ambiorix]

more complaints?

hahaha. I could ramble for days about how much I hate Jesus and the new testament, but I guess here is not the place so I will stop. 

Feel free to delete my comments if you are a mod reading this. 


The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he was G-d.

]


Ok , would you like to write a PM? That can't hurt anybody or anything.

[Maccabi]

I may have to start a different site, because I don't want to mess up Chaim's donations from the Jesus groupies if they get offended that this stuff is allowed on the forum...And that could hurt the cause (even though I think the catholic church is the main problem in this whole little global/political/religious dilemma we're facing and is just as bad as the muslims and needs to be exposed to gentiles)

In Judaism, it's a mitzvah to smash (or even grind up) idols, and it can actually be quite fun exposing the absurd realities behind certain false doctrines. And there's just so much to bash about the new testament.  And really, those people like the pope deserve to be catapulted from their thrones of power and degraded. They really are evil.

The average Christian? Whatever, I don't care they're mostly fine people. But don't Christians think it is better to see different view points of view about the God of Israel and judge for yourself what the truth is?  Wouldn't you rather learn from a rabbi who has studied the Torah deeply for decades than hear this rehashed Jesus mumbo jumbo?

I mean, shouldn't we be encouraging gentiles to visit rabbis, like say talk to 3 different rabbis for questions about religion rather than to walk on eggshells about Jesus? Shouldn't gentiles we work with hear the brutal and unadulterated truth of what we think about Jesus so that they can make informed decisions for themselves?

I know some of the rabbis in the US are pretty retarded, but maybe if they talked to at least 3 rabbis for points of reference about G-d, they could become more knowledgeable and more useful towards the cause?

Is it just me, or would someone have to be totally on the Jesus cool aid to shut off their brain and not question the blatantly obvious evil, wicked teachings of Jesus and the new testament (which are of course couched in false peace terms and imagery of doves and kittens)?  The whole idea that it is better not to think for yourself lest you offend Jesus and be thrown into the fire for eternity...that seems very evil...It seems exactly like the type of thinking that is allowing a certain New World Order to take control as we speak...

[Ambiorix]

what is the worst part of the New Testament according to you?

[Maccabi]

There's so much a really can't pick just one thing.

maybe the fact that the Tanach has hundreds of heroes and interesting characters, while the new testament consists of one 'hero' doing something, and then rest of it being a big circle jerk about how great he is.

Sort of seems like a scheme to rob people of their individuality.