For all the haters out there.
Ever since September 11, Jewish commentators and columnists have beaten their war drums for an all-out war against Iraq -- Kristol, Kagan, Krauthammer, Safire, Kondrake, Feder, Wattenberg, and many others -- all of them deceptively pretending to be neutral observers, pretending to place American interests before those of Israel. Mortimer Zuckerman takes the cake in this category by being not only a columnist for US News and World Report; but its owner as well, and the owner of the New York Daily News to boot. And Zuckerman also apparently feels there's no conflict of interest in his publications' coverage of the Middle East caused by his current tenure as the Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, an umbrella group of fifty-two national Jewish organizations, whose very name and structure reveal the enormity of Jewish power and influence. Meanwhile, the cousins of the Jewish commentators and columnists are busy at work in Washington, seeking to shape U.S. foreign policy through their official and advisory positions in the Bush administration. Richard Perle, a Jew and Director of the Defense Policy Board, and a Director of the Jerusalem Post as well, would like us to attack Iraq now, as would Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, a Jew who, during the Gulf War aroused the fury of our senior military officers who claimed, quite correctly, that Wolfowitz was overly sympathetic to Israel.1 Perle and Wolfowitz are joined in their cabal by "our" Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, a Jew who recently approved a plan to nuke Iraq if it moves against Israel, and Vice President Cheney's Jewish chief of staff, Lewis Libby, and Elliott Abrams, Bush's Jewish "National Security Director for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations." And we can't forget Bush's Press Secretary and chief handler, Ari Fleischer, also a Jew. Imagine the uproar if as many media pundits and government officials were of Iraqi or Palestinian descent! Imagine the media outrage if even one major columnist or advisor was discovered to be a member of the National Alliance. Having initiated the media barrage calling for a U.S. attack on Iraq, Jews are now trying to keep a low profile, fearful that the American people might finally connect the dots and realize that the Jews' reason for wanting war is not that they are concerned about the interests of New York fire-fighters or Pennsylvania coal-miners -- but that they are primarily concerned, as they always have been, about the future of Israel and World Jewry. Fearing a Gentile backlash against their subversive activities, it is critical for the Jews that most Americans not perceive who is behind the constant agitation for another war against Iraq. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported last week that: (S)ome analysts say that Jewish leaders keep a low profile out of concern that critics might say America is attacking Iraq to benefit Israel.2 God forbid that anyone should dare reach such a conclusion! Jews are concerned not about whether attacking Saddam Hussein is good for America, but whether it is good for Israel. Forget that American blood and resources will be sacrificed. Forget that Jewish sabre-rattling will endanger the nation by making us the focus of Arab resentment. To the "Chosen," it doesn't really matter if thousands of additional Iraqi civilians are killed in an American attack. During the Gulf War, we bombarded Iraqi cities for two months, killing 80,000 innocent civilians.3 At least 333,000 children and elderly Iraqis, and perhaps three times that many, have died prematurely since the war began, thanks to the U.S.-sponsored blockade of medicine and food, and our destruction of Iraqi water purification plants. Madeleine Albright, the Jewish former Secretary of State, justified these cruel policies and coldly dismissed humanitarian concerns with the comment that "the price is worth it." 333,000 dead babies and old people, worth it. 80,000 dead: wives, husbands, and children. This is worth it. And all of this against a country that presents no threat to the United States! After all, Iraq is over 6,000 miles away, with no ballistic missiles that could reach us -- but, with missiles that could reach Tel Aviv. Since many Jews regard Israel as our "51st state," they have decided that we must launch a "preemptive war" against their enemy. They have blood on their hands, up to their shoulders. Yet they pretend to be innocent lambs who have the best interests of America at heart. Jews do not lose sleep at night worrying if such an attack will turn virtually the entire Moslem world of over one billion people against America, and subject us to further attacks like those of September 11th. During the Second World War, there was a joke that, as the Gentiles marched off to war, the favorite song of the Jews was "Onward Christian Soldiers," and that may once again be the case if we attack Iraq. For one thing is certain -- the children of Wolfowitz and Perle and Krauthammer and their ilk will not be marching off in uniform, or coming home in body-bags, or with Purple Hearts. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency article goes on to note the strategy of one influential Jewish leader, Morris Amitay, a pro-Israel activist and former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known around Washington as AIPAC. He said: Why should it be a Jewish or Israeli issue? We should stay as patriotic as the next guy, but not be out front. As for the Jewish motivation for instigating a US war against Iraq, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article further says: The Jewish community views an attack on Iraq as advantageous on several levels.... [A] regime change in Iraq would be in Israel's best interest. Iraq's production of weapons of mass destruction and apparent willingness to use them are a constant threat to Israel's security.... American engagement in Iraq could help Israel's standing in its conflict with the Palestinians. President Saddam Hussein has been financially assisting Palestinian terrorist groups and giving funds to the families of suicide bombers. Many believe Hussein would try to rally Arab governments to his side by attacking Israel. In addition, some argue that overthrowing Hussein would send a strong message to the Palestinians about the consequences of terrorism. The Jewish-owned New York Times said in a recent editorial4 that what is crucial is that Iraq be disarmed of all "unconventional weapons" -- the so-called "weapons of mass destruction." In other words, what the Times wants, but doesn't quite dare say, is a Middle East in which only one country has nuclear weapons -- Israel. This would give Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, known as the "Butcher of Beirut" for his bloody massacres of innocents going back decades and still happening today, the power to dominate the Arab world perpetually. It is Israel, and not Iraq nor other Arab nations that possesses the greatest Middle Eastern arsenal of over 450 nuclear weapons of mass destruction -- many of which were built during a time when Israel deceitfully disavowed any intention to build nuclear weapons. Of course Israel's vast nuclear arsenal has evoked nary a peep of criticism from American bureaucrats, elected officials or political commentators. According to American law, all aid to Israel would have to stop if it were proven that she had built nuclear weapons in violation of her agreements. All official Washington knows that Israel has done exactly that, but they keep silent to oblige Israel in getting more American money and more American blood. They have blood on their hands, up to their shoulders. Yet they pretend to be innocent lambs who have the best interests of America at heart. It is also Israel, and not Iraq, that is in the process of manufacturing genocidal biological weapons capable of killing Iraqis while leaving Jews unharmed. On November 15, 1998, the Sunday Times of London reported that Israel was developing an "ethno-bomb." It is reported that Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying a gene carried by some Arabs, and then creating a genetically-modified bacterium or virus. The deadly micro-organisms would attack only Arabs or other non-Jews, leaving Jews unscathed. Talk about genocide and "weapons of mass destruction"! A senior Israeli intelligence official has admitted: There is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemical or biological weapon ... which is not manufactured [in Israel].5 The big threat in the Middle East is Israel, not Iraq. The only weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East are in Israel. Its 450 nuclear weapons6 are far more than it needs for deterrence. Israel has ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow. They are the world's fourth or fifth most powerful nuclear power, and Israel is the only Middle Eastern nation that adamantly refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Don't forget that from the 1950s the United States was training Israeli nuclear scientists and providing nuclear-related technology.7 It is clear that Israel has had no interest in peace except that which is dictated on its own terms. Israel is the primary destabilizing force driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region's states to seek their own deterrents. George W. Bush talks about an "Axis of Evil," a term cooked up by David Frum, his Jewish speech-writer, but this absurd attempt at demonization represents a grotesque double-standard by which Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are condemned for developing nuclear weapons, while Israel -- the principal culprit -- is permitted to increase its nuclear and biological arsenal in blatant violation of American laws that ought to cut off all aid to the Jewish state. Even the Jewish writer Seymour Hersh has admitted: ...the size and sophistication of Israel's nuclear arsenal allows men such as Ariel Sharon to dream of redrawing the map of the Middle East aided by the implicit threat of nuclear force.8 Thanks to Israeli expansionism and terrorism, and international Jewish agitation, a wide-scale nuclear conflict in the Middle East has now become a distinct possibility. It could be triggered by religious zealots, or by secular Zionist fanatics, or both. Such a war would be directed by Ariel Sharon, a war criminal whose record as a murderer stretches from the massacre of Palestinian civilians in 1953 to the massacres at Sabra and Shatila in 1982, to this year's massacre at Jenin, to this month's openly-admitted rocket attack on a civilian apartment complex. They have blood on their hands, up to their shoulders. Yet they pretend to be innocent lambs who have the best interests of America at heart. How has the United States benefited from its love affair with Israel, after having deferred to its every whim for over half a century? Refusal to withdraw from Palestinian and Syrian territory, disregard for UN resolutions and U.S. requests, proliferation of nuclear weapons, aggression against its neighbors, damage to American relations with other Middle East countries, the deliberate bombing of the U.S.S. Liberty, and espionage against the U.S. by Jonathan Pollard and others. In fact, the Israeli Cabinet honored Pollard by declaring him an Israeli citizen in 1995, and he has been elevated to the status of a national hero there. Israel, the nation that is the largest recipient of American foreign and military aid in the world has reciprocated by placing spies in our government. Unfortunately, Pollard's case may be only the tip of the iceberg. Confirmation of recent Israeli spying on American soil was offered by the French newspaper Le Monde this past March and discussed by Dr. Pierce in prior American Dissident Voices broadcasts. It is high time that Americans woke up and spoke out about what this one-sided relationship is costing us. Israel has worked against our interests on other occasions, too. In 1992, Israel illegally resold American military technology to China, and resold aerial refueling technology to Latin America. Do you remember Mordechai Vanunu? He is the Israeli whistleblower who is finishing his twelfth year in captivity -- and the American news media continue to treat him as a non-person. On Sept. 30, 1986, Israel's government lured Vanunu to Rome, abducted him, and put him on a cargo ship back to Israel. At a secret trial, he faced charges of espionage and treason. A military court sentenced him to 18 years in prison. What was Vanunu's crime? He gave detailed information about Israel's secret arsenal of nuclear bombs to journalists at the Sunday Times of London. After growing up in a Jewish family that emigrated to Israel from Morocco when he was a boy, Mordechai Vanunu became an employee at the Dimona nuclear plant in 1976. Nearly a decade later -- shortly before his employment ended at the remote nuclear facility -- he took photos of areas inside Dimona which had always been illegally hidden from international inspection. Using severance pay to travel abroad in 1986, Vanunu contacted the famous Insight investigative unit of Britain's Sunday Times. The newspaper reported: During his extensive debriefing by our Insight team, he offered to give the paper his photographs and all his information for nothing, provided we did not publish his name, insisting his sole interest was in stopping nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.9 However, the Sunday Times persuaded Vanunu to allow his name to be used. The paper agreed to pay him for the serialization of his story, or for a book. Peter Hounam, the main reporter on the story for the Sunday Times said: My impression of the man was of someone who had a genuine desire to tell the world of something that was going on which he felt was genuinely wrong for Israel to do. He felt it was wrong that the Israeli public and parliament were not given any information about what was happening in Dimona. On Oct. 5, 1986, the Sunday Times broke the story under the front-page headline "REVEALED: THE SECRETS OF ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR ARSENAL." But by then, Vanunu was a prisoner of the Israeli government. That's how the world learned that he'd been kidnapped. From then on, when he was transported to court, the van windows were painted black. And it is still very dark for him. After a dozen years, much of them in isolation, he is still in prison. Can you imagine what would have happened if another country in the Middle East -- say, Iraq or Iran -- kidnapped one of its citizens from Western Europe to retaliate for spilling the beans about its nuclear weaponry? That person would have become an instant media hero in the United States. But if you mention Mordechai Vanunu's name to an American, you're likely to get a blank stare. On this side of the Atlantic, he's a media phantom. The United States' media coverage of Vanunu has remained paltry: just a few scattered newspaper articles. The New York Times -- America's supposed "newspaper of record" -- has hardly mentioned Vanunu at all. That's quite a contrast to the situation in Britain, where coverage of Vanunu's case has been extensive and sustained. Recently, in the course of several months, mainstream British outlets have done at least forty-five major stories about Vanunu, according to Nexis. Sixteen of them appeared in the Sunday Times alone. Top politicians and journalists in Washington wag their fingers at India and Pakistan for joining the world's nuclear club without an invitation. But there is no such scolding of Israel, which receives U.S. aid at a rate of about $10 million a day, while maintaining a stockpile of hundreds of nuclear warheads. If you wonder why this broadcast is virtually the only voice in the United States of America which dares to tell the truth on this vital issue, consider the fate of Mordechai Vanunu, for daring to tell the truth about Israel's weapons of mass destruction. Speaking of the suppression of news that is unfavorable to Israel, have you heard about the case of former Israeli secret agent, Victor Ostrovsky? Although he fled to Canada after revealing the tactics of the Mossad (Israel's spy and assassination agency) in a book, he continued to be pursued by the allies of Israel there and in the United States.10 Ostrovsky has written: The same people who presumably would praise someone from the CIA or the U.S. armed forces who exposed serious wrongdoing in those institutions were now hard at work to smother my criticisms of an intelligence agency for a foreign country that, to put it as charitably as possible, does not have America's best interests at heart. In 1995, an Israeli television executive called for Ostrovsky's assassination during a broadcast telephone interview with him. Those same "Americans" who call Ostrovsky a traitor to Israel for exposing the Mossad's tactics hail as a hero Jonathan Pollard, a traitor to the U.S. who spied on the American government for Israel. The suppression of criticism of Israel continues. There is the case of the two Oneida, New York Daily Dispatch editors who were fired last September for daring to mention Israeli terrorism and Israel's acts of oppression in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is horrifying to think that in a land priding itself on free speech that simply pointing out Israel's crimes in the Middle East can cause the firing of two editors. But when you're dealing with the Jewish power structure you're not dealing with Americans, and you're not dealing with people who have any respect for freedom of speech. The Jews were even able to get the offending editorial removed from the newspaper's website, as Dr. Pierce told us in a recent broadcast.11 These high-handed tactics of intimidation and suppression combined with the virtual Jewish stranglehold on the U.S. news and entertainment industry help explain why most Americans are so easily misled on political issues where there is a vested Jewish interest and agenda. Now, as our pro-Israeli President threatens Iraq, it becomes increasingly obvious that Israel would love to have thousands of U.S. troops permanently stationed nearby. Just as plans for an attack on Iraq seem to have originated from a mentality of "Oh, since we're already in Afghanistan, why not attack Iraq, too" what is to prevent the whining (but secretly smiling) Israeli-firsters in the media and government from convincing Bush and Congress to decide that since we're already in Iraq, we might as well pay a visit to Israel to help them decimate the Palestinians? If we truly want peace in the Middle East and if we truly want to avoid the escalation of that regional conflict into a nuclear and biological catastrophe, we'd better wake up and learn how to deal with what the French ambassador to England so bluntly but aptly referred to as "that shitty little country Israel" which places us "in danger of the Second World WarI." The French ambassador is not the only one who is waking up. All over Europe mainstream politicians and writers are speaking out against the Jewish disease of unmitigated aggression and genocide, against the Jewish-led bloodbath. Our kinfolk in Europe are learning the score. Isn't it about time that we joined them -- before it's too late?
Post a Comment