March 31, 2010

Israel National News asks this question and it must be answered by the Fascist Left

(IsraelNN.com) A Palestinian Authority woman who addressed the United Nation’s Seminar on Assistance to the Palestinian People on March 25 noted that years of foreign aid appears to have done little good for the PA economy. Dr. Ghania Malhis, chairwoman of the board of trustees at the Economic Policy Research Institute in Ramallah, noted that billions of dollars spent over the past decade have not even restored the PA economy to its 1999 performance.

// <![CDATA[
if (sCountry!='IL'&&aAdSource[2]==1) {var cD=new Date();var cR=(new Date()%8673806982)+Math.random(); var c = ''; document.write('

‘);} else {document.write(‘

‘); sZones+=”,17″;sIDs+=”,InContentAd”}
// ]]>

Malhis estimated that foreign countries had donated a total of $12 billion to the PA since 1995. That figure did not include billions of dollars in aid provided by international aid groups such as UNRWA and other NGO’s, she noted. Aid to the PA is increasing steadily: the PA received an average of one billion dollars a year between 2001 and 2005, $1.5 billion in 2007, $1.8 billion in 2009, and an estimated $2 billion is expected in 2010.

The amount of aid provided is particularly high when compared to the number of PA Arabs – the highest estimated PA population is 3.9 million, and more conservative estimates put the number of PA Arabs at 2.6 million – and the PA’s GDP is an estimated $4.5 billion annually.

And yet, Malhis said, it has been difficult to note any positive impact of these enormous sums on the PA economy. The GDP is 13 percent lower than it was in 1999, and GDP per capita is down by 30 percent, she said. .

Two main contributing factors are the large PA public payroll, which accounts for almost 60 percent of the PA’s spending, and the money poured into the armed forces, which is more than the combined amounts spent on health and education, Malhis said. Malhis elaborated:

1. The production capacity in the occupied territories was higher in the early nineties prior to the peace process,

2. The ratio of exports to imports became a feeble 19 percent

3. The ability of Domestic Production to cover domestic national consumption deteriorated resulting in an increase in dependency on Israeli imports and a heavy reliance on Arab and international aid to finance the cost of these imports.

4. We have also witnessed deterioration in PA ability to provide basic services such as health, education, social development and security unless heavily subsidized by Arab and international donations and aid to support its expenditures.

5. In 2009, international support was required to address a budget deficit of 61.4 percent, equivalent to 39 percent of the Palestinian GDP.”

She concluded: “One cannot but feel that these resources have been wasted. When the outcome of more than a 12 billion dollar investment results in such disastrous numbers, then it is obvious that immense mistakes were made on a strategic level”. She named the following causes:

The Palestinians, and in specific the Palestinian Authority, hold a sizeable responsibility, having failed to invest the funds mobilized by Arab and International donors on development and instead using them to cover their current running expenditures.

The Palestinian Authority failed to provide developmental sustainable solutions to unemployment, choosing governmental recruitment over encouraging and nurturing a vibrant productive economy and infrastructure to create jobs.

International donors also strayed from their initial goal of building a stable PA economy at the start of the peace process, and began reacting to a series of crises rather than investing foreconomic growth, she explained

Kawther Salaam, who reported the summary on the Palestine Think Tank site, wrote:”It was also exposed in the English and Arab media that (Al Al), brother of an assistant to Mahmoud Abbas, “bought” land from a dead person near the Jordan River in an Israeli military area. The land does not exist, but a total of $2,700,000 was paid by the PA from an account at the Bank of Jordan as a price of the land; [and] $750.000 of this sum was reportedly paid as ‘fees’ to the Bank of Jordan itself, what hints at the involvement of this Bank in the embezzlement of funds donated by the international community towards support for the Palestinian people.”

Mahlis did not detail corruption, saying only: “The Palestinian Authority has also failed to timely address allegations of misuse of funds, power and mismanagement as well as a lack of accountability and transparency.” 

Past exposures showed that senior PA officials, including former PA chairman Yasser Arafat and current official Azzam el-Ahmed, have taken hundreds of millions of dollars in PA funds for their own use or that of their associates

However, true to form, Malhis put much of the blame on “aggressive Israeli policies,” stating that Israel had undermined the PA economy through counter-terror methods such as temporary closures and home demolitions and cited the end to the “occupation” as the cure all.

Previous statistics have shown that the Arab economy enjoyed an unprecedented boom from 1967, when the areas were restored to Israel after being occupied by Jordan since 1948, until the first and second Intifadas broke out in the early 1990s and in 2000.




March 31, 2010

Begin INN report here

(IsraelNN.com) Approximately 75 percent of U.S. Congress members are prepared to sign a letter calling for an end to public criticism of Israel by the Obama administration and to “reinforce its ties with the country,” according to the British Guardian

// <![CDATA[
if (sCountry!='IL'&&aAdSource[2]==1) {var cD=new Date();var cR=(new Date()%8673806982)+Math.random(); var c = ''; document.write('

‘);} else {document.write(‘

‘); sZones+=”,17″;sIDs+=”,InContentAd”}
// ]]>

An open letter states, “Our view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence.” The wording was suggested by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobby, which is asking Congress members to help improve relations between U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. 

The one-year-old American government has in effect discarded the Roadmap plan, which already had been detoured by then-U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, by mediating indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and gaining concessions from the Netanyahu government without parallel steps by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. 

However, its demands concerning Jerusalem apparently have crossed the red line for Diaspora Jews as well as for many liberal leaders in Israel, causing a rift among the president’s advisers. 

The White House on Tuesday tried to smooth over relations, with spokesman Robert Gibbs saying he was ”puzzled” by reports that President Obama snubbed Prime Minister Netanyahu by not holding a press conference or providing an opportunity for a public photograph. “I’m puzzled by the notion that somehow it’s a bad deal to get two hours with the president almost entirely alone,” he told reporters. “That doesn’t seem like a lot of punishment to me.” 

He also denied a rumor in the media that the United States was prepared to refrain from vetoing a possible United Nations resolution against Israel’s building for Jews in areas of Jerusalem that were restored to the Jewish State in 1967 but are not recognized by United States as being under Israeli sovereignty. Approximately 300,000 Jews live in the neighborhoods, which include Ramot, French Hill and Gilo. 

If the report was a trial balloon, the response appears to have let all the air out as Cabinet ministers line up behind Prime Minister Netanyahu to refuse to agree to a temporary building freeze. 

Another possible trial balloon was floated Wednesday morning by the left-wing Haaretz newspaper, which reported that President Obama asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to agree to a four-month temporary freeze on building for Jews in Jerusalem in return for direct talks with the Palestinian Authority. 

However, the same article noted that there is a general Cabinet consensus against formally agreeing to the request 

Most of President Obama’s advisers have taken a pro-Palestinian Authority stand, backing its claims to sovereignty over part of the city. Foreign media have reported that President Obama’s public stand against Israel, beginning with his speech in Cairo last June that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are “illegitimate,” has placed him out on a limb.   

“The administration’s credibility is at stake,”one source reportedly said.




March 5, 2010

We have noted the comment made by Peter Makara re the Serb report on the Muslim massacre of Serbs in Srebrenica and that this report was buried by the Media.

Also buried by the Media was the official Dutch report into the so called massacre of 1995 and in August 3, 2008 we on 4international did some work on this Dutch report

[Start 4international work on the Dutch report here]

They claimed 8000 men and boys murdered by the Serbs in Srebrenica. Sometimes 7000 but not quite so often. It was usually 8000.

In reviewing the Irish newspaper of record, The Irish Times, they have written from 1995 to the present in major articles referring to this Srebrenica Massacre where the Serbs murdered 8000 men and boys, going now up to 500 times since 1995, indeed using my limited maths I make that perhaps a major article every 10 days or so.

Are there 2000 such papers and magazines etc in the world doing this? I think so and much more but if so that makes it a million such vital articles broadcast into humanity. All saying the same thing, the endless repetition, that the Serbs murdered 8000 Muslims in Srebrenica.

But there is also The Dutch Report which these media outlets seem to have stuffed deep into the unknown recesses of their filing cabinets. Thanks to Mick Tanzer a regular reader for sending details of this report to 4international. 

“Then there is this astonishing and explosive material from the Dutch “Netherlands Institute for War Documentation” Report [from 2002]This blows the lid off of how Clinton, Albright, the Western media and NATO created the Srebrenica Big Lie:

This report by obviously staid conservative type people has been an absolute eye-opener. This is material that the liars on Harry’s Place will never ever go near.

It is written in a certain way but if time is spent on it there is all the evidence therein that the Media, Dutch and British politicians or one can say almost the whole EU political class, created this Srebrenica Hoax story between them.

I placed my comments in brackets. This is really an analysis of some parts of the report where I draw out some things that seemed to me specially significant. It is not so easy to follow and place all the pieces together. To help I have started by naming some of the main characters which I have simply culled from the story.

First… 2 organizations that the report tends to lump together…UNHCR and the International Red Cross

From Zagreb, a combined team of the Human Rights Office of Civil Affairs and the UN Centre for Human Rights

The ‘Bosnian State Commission for the collection of information on war crimes’

The Tribunal,

Amnesty International

A number of smaller NGOs.

(The Dutch Report adds the following little comment about these groups and note we have a NEW group presented to us…how many were there operating like scavengers in that Tuzla. Tuzla was under the control of the US Imperialists, by the way…Some of these were eager to publicize their findings as soon as possible. As early as 31 July, for instance, the US Committee on Refugees published an extensive report on the ‘death march’ from Srebrenica based on interviews conducted by its staff member Bill Frelick in Tuzla and the surroundings)

UNHCR Protection Officer Manca de Nissa

Christoph Girod of the International Red Cross

Again and for my emphasis…a mixed team from Civil Affairs/Human Rights Office (HRO) and UNCHR mostly from Zagreb

And from there…

Ken Bizer from Civil Affairs

HRO staff member Peggy Hicks. (Please note this name very carefully. When the evidence was showing no killings at all by the Serbs, and she admitted this, she began to claim the very opposite in her reports)

Swiss investigator R. Salvisberg, UNCHR Bosnia coordinator based in Sarajevo

T. Mazowiecki, the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights who arrived in Tuzla on 22 July, and was required to facilitate a visit to Izetbegovic’s military men, that is military men from the “safe area” which was Srebrenica.

We said in the article that the Dutch report was written in “careful” language. These are no revolutionaries who write this report but I am reminded of something that Leon  Trotsky stated about the Social Democrats (Labourites) in Norway where he sought refuge for over a year in the 1930s. Trotsky was of the opinion that the older more traditional conservative had more principles than the new whipper snappers (Blair’s New Labour comes to mind also). This is how I feel about this report also. They are no revolutionaries but they do have certain principles and a tendency towards truth which appeals to us. Consequently they the writers of the report use a reserved style. Nevertheless what they are saying, and sometimes it needs a little reading between the lines, is of great importance for our argument that the whole Srebrenica Massacre claim is a total hoax. If they sometimes lose their nerve at the enormity of what they are saying and who they are challenging then we will be ready to step in and take up the slack.

Without going over the whole report word for word I will take the first two paragraphs of the section dealing with the refugees in Tuzla. You will notice the reserved, almost understated, style that is used, but I hope to show that despite this their meaning is crystal clear if the reader only takes the time to ponder on the thought therein.

[begin quote here]

Investigations among Displaced Persons

These methodological problems, as well as the hindrances created by the Bosnian authorities, also confronted the interviewers who approached the Displaced Persons for information on behalf of various organizations.

(Methodological problems indeed! And the report writers get straight to the point, and the jugular, of the Islamist Bosnian leaders. If they were claiming a massacre then why on earth if there was a massacre would the Islamist leaders be placing “hindrances” in front of the investigators. By all the laws of common sense that does not make sense of any kind. Except it was phoney and they were “constructing” a massacre, a fake massacre. Think about it!)

Important roles were assigned to UNHCR and the International Red Cross, but they were joined from Zagreb by a combined team of the Human Rights Office of Civil Affairs and the UN Centre for Human Rights. Furthermore various other bodies were active, such as the ‘Bosnian State Commission for the collection of information on war crimes’, as well as the Tribunal, Amnesty International and a number of smaller NGOs.

(The vital two words in the above are “but” and “Furthermore”. It is the grammar which conveys the message. The first two organizations mentioned had “important roles” which “were assigned” to them and then there is the “but” and the “furthermore”. There is no doubt that the report is extremely annoyed with the plethora of groups all with their own agenda who descended upon Tuzla. This will become very clear as we go further.)

Some of these were eager to publicize their findings as soon as possible. As early as 31 July, for instance, the US Committee on Refugees published an extensive report on the ‘death march’ from Srebrenica based on interviews conducted by its staff member Bill Frelick in Tuzla and the surroundings.[1]

(And publishing as soon as possible in the eyes of the report means publishing on the basis of biassed evidence, because the rule of the game is that they were only talking to biased Muslims. The seriousness of this becomes clear later)

Due to the nature of their work most of the organizations were cautious about publicizing politically sensitive information. UNHCR was less reserved in this respect and several times its spokespersons released details from the ‘unconfirmed reports’ by Displaced Persons.

(Look at what has happened! The report began with 2 main investigating organizations, plus a lot more that they definitely are in conflict with. But within the space of a few sentences one of these two is failing miserably their test of intellectual rigour. That is the UNHCR. In the eyes of this report that leaves just the one, the Red Cross. But later it too seems suspect on some issues so that leaves…well precisely none!)

This included the suspicion that the VRS had used Dutchbat uniforms to mislead refugees.[2] Serious research, however, was commenced only on 21 July after Protection Officer Manca de Nissa had arrived in Tuzla. He submitted his report a week later, based on 70 interviews with both normal Displaced Persons and survivors of the march. Manca de Nissa did not however draw any conclusions about possible large-scale murders.[3]

(And there you have it. The only “serious research” strictly opposes any idea of “massacre”)

(It is all very understated, very reserved, but I tell you these people behind this report are creating the best defence that Radovan Karadzic could ever find)

[end quote here]

Yet, as you might expect, the report does have weakness and contradiction.

Take this which follows immediately on from the above paragraph There are many things here, most good, not all.

[start quote here]

It was much more difficult for an organization such as the International Red Cross to publicize findings. The strictly observed neutrality ruled out any statements that could be given a political slant. (Which raises the question what other way is there to carry out investigations. That they mention like this shows how they disapprove of what was taking place under the name of journalism) Another factor in this case was that the delegates were too familiar with the Bosnian propaganda (this is the Islamist leadership of Izetbegovic who dates back to Himmler and El Husseini in the Holocaust) and thus usually regarded the rumours issuing from Tuzla with great suspicion. (They are not beating around the bush here. The report is saying that the Red Cross is aware of the dishonesty of the Islamists)In a communiqué on 14 July, three days after the fall of the enclave, nothing was said about missing persons or possible summary executions. Nevertheless, staff of the International Red Cross had already gathered much information by this time. Although the International Red Cross had no official access to the men who arrived in Tuzla from 16 July onwards, staff had in fact spoken to several of them. A communiqué of 19 July however mentioned only that the International Red Cross demanded of the Bosnian Serbs that it be given access to prisoners. Still no mention was made of deaths. (So after much investigation by 19 July not a word about deaths. Why not? Because there was no unbiassed evidence that there were deaths, meaning massacres)But according to Christoph Girod of the International Red Cross the pressure was increasing.[4] Consequently, at a press conference on 31 July, Girod referred to the fact that there were 5000 to 6000 missing persons with the statement: ‘We have no indications of this whatsoever’. (They are flagging the pressure from the lies of the Media. They make a mistake in the above, surely they mean “allegation” not “fact”. Otherwise it doesnot make sense)It was only on 14 August that the International Red Cross first dared to publicly mention the possibility of executions.[5] (Note the “possibility” of executions. Who is arguing! But possibility is very far from fact! Surely!

[end quote here]

Then the conflict between the Red Cross and the UN groups from Croatia. The real reason is not given here.

There is the mention that Tizer was refused permision to visit Srebrenica. That is Tizer from the Croatian base. Why did the Serbs do this? Real reason is that Tizer and this whole mob from Croatia’s Zagreb were CIA. In investigating Roy Gutman, the journalist who wrote those false stories for the New York Times, the same issue came up. These are also the days when the US cum CIA are beginning (or more accurately finessing) their cooperation with the Fascist ethnic cleansing of the Krajina, the biggest single such act since the last world war!

But this report in very short measure lays bare the whole truthful mechanism of where this Srebrenica Hoax stary was constructed step by step. Armed as we are with that evidence that Clinton and Izetbegovic hatched the idea of a Massacre of 5000 Muslims by the Serbs in taking Srebrenica long before…we can see this being put in place in these two devastating paragraphs. Sure there are plenty more details to come but essentially it is all here.

[begin report here]

Salvisberg’s team initially took a random approach, with evaluations taking place each day, after which the work became more systematic. The investigators chose a gentle, passive approach. They asked who wanted to talk to them, and then interviewed these people. According to Salvisberg they were not after ‘sexy stories like the ones in the press’.[10] A total of five women came forward who said they had been raped. In general the stories of those who had been transported away in buses were relatively ‘uneventful’. They had experienced few incidents. A picture gradually emerged, but the main question was whether the reported executions were isolated incidents or indications of a widespread phenomenon. It was also very difficult to gain a picture of the number who had been executed, but things certainly gave cause for concern, according to the investigator Peggy Hicks of the Human Rights Office of Civil Affairs in Zagreb.[11]

After about a week the investigators of the two UN organizations noticed that their respondents had been told what to say; they suspected that these instructions came from the Bosnian authorities. The gist of these prompted stories was that the Serbs and the UN (not specifically the Dutch) had been the bad guys, who had ‘sold out’ the people of the enclave. At this time Salvisberg had not yet heard any criticism of the actions of the people’s own Muslim soldiers. It was to be some days before the first stories emerged which also assigned blame to the Bosnian government.[12]

[end quote here]

Do I have to comment on that? I hardly think so!


After a few days the team of investigators started looking for men who had entered the Safe Areas following the march. They visited a camp full of soldiers outside Tuzla. This proved a difficult affair: the authority of T. Mazowiecki, the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights who arrived in Tuzla on 22 July, was required to facilitate this visit. This solved only part of the problem: the interviewers were not permitted to approach people themselves but were ‘accompanied’ by the Muslim authorities. ‘They were presented to us’, reported the investigator Hicks. This was supposedly to save the investigators’ time. ‘It made me feel very uneasy’, said Hicks later[13]

Other investigators shared her experience. According to R. (Roman) Wieruszewski of the UNCHR office in Sarajevo, one of the consequences of this ‘accompaniment’ was that everyone with whom he and his colleagues spoke claimed that he had been unarmed. In later interviews conducted independently of the authorities the interviewees generally declared that of course they had carried weapons, otherwise they would not have survived the march.[14] Sometimes it was women who said that of course the soldiers had been armed. Salvisberg recounted: ‘They even laughed at us when we asked about this.’ He and the other researchers calculated that of the Muslim men, about one-third had been armed and about two-thirds had been unarmed. They gained the impression that there had been an element of organization in the distribution of the available weapons: ‘You get one, you don’t’, which according to them led to conflicts. Other Displaced Persons reported fights between the Muslim soldiers. There were also reports that Bosnian Muslims had executed Serbs.

The impression gained by the research team was that the soldiers had several prepared standard stories, such as a mass murder of 25 people conducted by the Bosnian Serbs, in which the respondent kept under cover or pretended to be dead. ‘We heard this story ten times or so’, said Salvisberg.[15] Although the reconstruction of the march presented problems, the biggest problem proved to be establishing what had happened to the group in Srebrenica and Potocari.[16]

In the first report send by Hicks on 21 July, she nonetheless concluded that there was sufficient basis ‘to believe that significant human rights violations occurred both before and during the transport from Srebrenica’.[17] Much remained unclear, however. In the final report finished by Hicks on 31 July, the issue of numbers remained open. She could do nothing else than to conclude that further investigations were required.[18] It was only in October 1995, following new revelations in the press, that even she realized what the probable scale of the murder had been.[19]

[end quote here]

Let us look at a few interesting things in the above

  1. The Muslims of Izetbegovic were promoting the Massacre story following the blueprint laid down by Clinton and Izetbegovic that the Serbs must do a massacre of at least 5000 in order to sway American opinion for the US to bomb the Bosnian Serbs
  2. In that case would you not expect free access
  3. So why were the Islamist watchers always watching over what the soldiers said
  4. The thought that they were doing this to help the investigators, make thing flow more smoothly, is a good example of Takkiya (Islamist lies or Islamic deception permitted in the cause)


Let us look at the evidence coming out about a massacre and executions and how Ms Hicks reacted rather strangely

1.      ‘They were presented to us’, reported the investigator Hicks. This was supposedly to save the investigators’ time. ‘It made me feel very uneasy’, said Hicks later. SAYS THE BOULD HICKS!

2.      Anything else making her uneasy? Well, just this little detail:  “The impression gained by the research team was that the soldiers had several prepared standard stories, such as a mass murder of 25 people conducted by the Bosnian Serbs, in which the respondent kept under cover or pretended to be dead. ‘We heard this story ten times or so’, said Salvisberg”.

3.      Meaning according to them at least on 10 different times, maybe more, 10 different Muslim soldiers reported that a batch of 25 were shot, and each time the character crawled out when the coast was clear and made his way to Tuzla to tell his story, and his, and his, and his etc etc. The response ov any sane investigator to this might be “What a f…ing concoction”

4.      Yet Hicks does not write up anu of this when she comes to report but she joins in the Islamist lie machine “In the first report send by Hicks on 21 July, she nonetheless concluded that there was sufficient basis ‘to believe that significant human rights violations occurred both before and during the transport from Srebrenica’.”


This fairly caught my eye but like much else in this Dutch report it is mentioned in passing and no examination of the implications.

So consider the following:

“After a few days the team of investigators started looking for men who had entered the Safe Areas following the march. They visited a camp full of soldiers outside Tuzla. This proved a difficult affair: the authority of T. Mazowiecki, the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights who arrived in Tuzla on 22 July, was required to facilitate this visit.”

I remember a pop song of about 20 years ago. It was about a guy who was “living next door to Alice” for about 20 years and all about his angst. Anyway it was recut and interposed at regular intervals was the almost scream “Who the F…k is Alice!”

And here I felt like screaming “Who the f..k is T. Mazowieki”.

This Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, who was this guy, as the only one who could get the investigators in to talk to the Muslim soldiers from Srebrenica. The report tells us nothing. Does not even raise an eyebrow at this but it cries out for an explanation. They are a strange lot, these investigators!

I would want to know everything about this Human Rights guy, and as somebody with obvious sway with the Izetbegovic, what on earth was he doing investigating the Serbs committing war crimes!


So it appears that Mazowiecki had something that no other investigator had. He had the ability to enter the investigating group into the Muslim soldiers camp. There the investigators could talk to the soldiers if the soldiers had somebody from the Muslim side Islamist leadership watching.

After that then why am I not so very surprised at all that this then happened

[begin quote here]

Remind you again about this Human Rights character

After a few days the team of investigators started looking for men who had entered the Safe Areas following the march. They visited a camp full of soldiers outside Tuzla. This proved a difficult affair: the authority of T. Mazowiecki, the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights who arrived in Tuzla on 22 July, was required to facilitate this visit.

And the conflicting reports:

Typical of the problems in defining the events shortly after the fall were the statements made by two high-ranking UN officials in Tuzla. The Peruvian diplomat H. Wieland, the highest official of the UN Centre for Human Rights in the region, said on 23 July that ‘we have not found anyone who saw with their own eyes an atrocity taking place’.[20] On the same day, however, the Special Rapporteur for human rights, Tadeus Mazowiecki, also declared in Tuzla that ‘barbaric’ acts had taken place

[end quote here]

Either one of these two is lying. Which do you believe? Do you believe the UN guy from Peru? Or do you believe the Human Rights guy who has a special relationship with Islamofascist Izetbegovic?

No. don’t answer! I am just teasing! Even to a 9 year old it is a no brainer! The “Special Reporteur of Human Rights, Tadeus Mazowiecki, smelled to high heaven and was obviously a piece of human garbage which Soros had picked up somewhere!

And there you have the quandary that the Serbs side were in. No matter the evidence, or total lack of evidence, the Hicks and Mazowieckis of this world were going to knife the Serbs.


From 2008 we have this article on Fourth International

We are reprinting it in order to begin to answer those Serb traitors, the Serbian bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, who voted last night to accept the Srebrenica imaginary massacre

by Felix Quigley

August 5, 2008

Just recently I noticed that somebody called John Peter Maher has provided us with a vital piece of evidence. The place was interesting. The writer was responding to the scurrilous attack on the Serbs and Karadzic by Pajamas Media and Phyllis Chesler. I wish to report the highlights of this research here because it confirms other research that I have been doing in recent times on the record of Irish newspaper of record The Irish Times.

I discovered hundreds of articles on the Irish Times all asserting the Massacre of 8000 men and boys, which is a hoax. I reckoned this means that there would be a major article on this Srebrenica issue in the Irish Times of about one every ten days.

But there were none at the time of the alleged massacre, and none for at least a couple of months after the alleged event. In other words there was a very strange gap.

This simple fact backs up the reports of the Dutch soldiers (not the Dutch politicians) on the ground who stated that they knew of no murders by the Serbs.

That is basically no Srebrenica Massacre for the Irish Times to report on at all until it was essentially put together by false stories by a whole number of people connected with the EU, Dutch politicians (but not Dutch soldiers who were on the spot, US politicians in the UN like Albright etc etc.

The putting together of the story thus needed time. It also needed ambiguity and mystery.

So for example these liars created a mystery about missing Muslims which they numbered as thousands of missing Muslims. They were not missing at all. Those thousands had reached Tuzla. So this initial period is very important to understand how this Lie was created. The great strength of the work of this writer is that he focusses on just this period.

Hence in reading those comments in answer to the scurrilous piece by Phyllis Chesler I fairly pricked up my ears when I saw what John Peter Maher was writing.

At least Pajamas Media allows some dissenting opinion although some of our readers and supporters have been censured.

But in any case this one reader has placed a number of comments which are a direct challenge to the whole of the Srebrenica Hoax story. I will reprint some of his work here and I thank that writer for his invaluable contribution.

It is so important because it deals with the period immediately following the retaking of Srebrenica, and especially during that first month until Albright made her false accusations to the closed session of the Security Council of the UN. That is the key period to understanding how the greatest hoax in the history of humanity was created.

[start quote here]

John Peter Maher:

When did commentators first start using the formulation, the catch phrase, “The Srebrenica Massacre [of x-thousands of Muslim men and boys]”?

When did the “Srebrenica Massacre” story break?

No reports from 10 July 1995 and the immediately ensuing days and weeks ever refer to “the massacre of 8000 (or 7000 etc) Muslim men and boys”.

FROM Iran, no mention of a massacre having taken place:

“Iranian foreign minister [Velayati], in a message to the UN secretary-general, has asked for immediate action to prevent a massacre of the defenceless people of Srebrenica by the Serb rebels. SOURCE: Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1, Tehran, in Persian 0930 gmt 11 Jul 95; Source: Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1, Tehran, in Persian 0930 gmt 11 Jul 95; SECTION: Part 4 Middle East; THE MIDDLE EAST; IRAN; ME/2353/MED. Message to UN secretary-general. Text of report by Iranian TV on 11th July.

From the front, no mention of a massacre having taken place:

Reports from the front in mid-July 1995, e.g. Chris Hedges in the New York Times of 18 July 1995, reported that thousands of armed Muslim fighters “slipped” through Serb lines under fire and arriving safe in Tuzla, held by Muslim forces (and a US garrison).

The lag time between as yet unbaptized “Srebrenica Massacre” on 10-11 July 1995 and the first press reports is over a month. David Rohde, who spearheaded the story that became known as “the Srebrenica Massacre”, did not himself use any such phrase or make such a claim. In his story, in the Guardian of 19 August 19 1995 we find “…I saw what appeared to be a decomposing human leg protruding from freshly turned dirt…” He repeated Albright’s fabrication about a massacre in a soccer stadium in a nearby town, [where] human faeces, blood, and other evidence indicated large numbers of people were confined, and perhaps shot.” Also: “United Nations official estimate that 4,000 to 6,000 Muslim men are still missing in the wake of the Srebrenica and Zepa assaults.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
The news would have still been hot when Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote an Op-Ed piece in “The New Republic” of 7 August 1995, under the headline: AFTER SREBRENICA. Zbig Brzezinski says only that something awful “might” happen.

Nowhere does Brzezinski mention a “Srebrenica massacre”. That catch phrase does not appear until weeks after the alleged event. It will not be found in the press until the American-sponsored Croatian “Storm” (Oluja) on Serb Krajina in August-September 1995.

(In)Consistency: Madeleine Korbel Albright, whose “Albright Group” now has the franchise for the cell phone business in Kosovo, brought the earliest allegation of a Serb massacre of Muslims on August 11, 1995. The chief United States delegate to the United Nations told a closed session of the Security Council that 2,000 to 2,700 missing Bosnians from the Srebrenica enclave might have been shot by the Bosnian Serbs.– She did not use the formulation “Srebrenica massacre.”

So, the numbers in Albright’s document and subsequent tellings and re-tellings are not consistent. What this implies we know from the Book of Daniel, chapter 13, where Susanna is denounced by corrupt Elders. Since their testimonies were inconsistent, as Daniel showed by “debriefing” the corrupt judges separately, the judges were condemned for bearing false witness.

LEXIS-NEXIS searches now permit us to track down press reports on whatever story. Readers can see for themselves what results turn up in searches dated between 10 July 1995 and the beginning of October 1995, using parameters such as

(Srebrenica AND massacre)
(Srebrenica AND missing)
Srebrenica AND 7000 OR 8000)
(7000-8000 men and boys) …

(Koranically, once boys attain the age of fifteen, they are “warriors” for Islam.)Remeber boy bombers in Israel.

Did the Srebrenica Massacre” happen? Draw your own conclusions.
Remember the the “Jenin Massacre” in the world press’ satanization of Israel

Jul 28, 2008 – 1:59 am John Peter Maher:

Just to repeat what John Peter Maher said once more:

“Madeleine Korbel Albright, whose “Albright Group” now has the franchise for the cell phone business in Kosovo, brought the earliest allegation of a Serb massacre of Muslims on August 11, 1995”.

And this was a lie and based on lies.

The hoax was constructed around the whole lie, or speculation, that there were thousands missing.

By about 2 weeks later though Chris Hedges of the New York Times no less had totally taken the ground from under that speculation with his article that the thousands missing had reached Tuzla, a Muslim and US controlled stronghold.

Hence as Maher points out a dearth of reports in the Media because essentially there was nothing to report on.

This Srebrenica Massacre is a Giant Lie. It never happened. It was made to happen by the repetition hundreds of thousands of times by a World Media which is totally corrupt.

To understand this giant lie you have to understand the giant corruption in this giant world media that capitalism and imperialism has inflicted upon us.

Thank you Maher for a vital piece of evidence.

The Maher piece was written as a comment on this article





4international totally condemns and attacks the decision reached in the Serb parliament on the Srebrenica issue

As we on 4international have showed and will show there was NO massacre by the Serbs of Muslims in Srebrenica.

This is an imaginary event created mainly in Tuzla by the Media.

It has close connection to the fake ITN photography of a supposed “concentration camp” in Bosnia, and also is connected the Media lies against the Jews, such as the France 2 Mohammed El Dura affair

The following report is by the BBC and is full of lies and assertions

Such as

“The murder of nearly 8,000 Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) was carried out by Bosnian Serb forces – allies of then-Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic.

The massacre, in what was supposed to have been a UN safe haven, became a symbol for the atrocities of the Balkan wars.”

Oh really! Just by repeating it does not make it authentic. (Example of Big Lie technique)



Serbia’s parliament has passed a landmark resolution apologising for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre – Europe’s worst atrocity since World War II.

The motion, approved by a narrow majority, says Serbia should have done more to prevent the tragedy.

It stopped short of calling the Bosnian war killings a genocide.

The murder of nearly 8,000 Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) was carried out by Bosnian Serb forces – allies of then-Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic.

The massacre, in what was supposed to have been a UN safe haven, became a symbol for the atrocities of the Balkan wars.

Meanwhile, a Dutch court has rejected an attempt to hold the United Nations responsible for the killings.

Burden ‘lifted’

The resolution – which the Serbian government sees as a crucial step in its attempts to join the European Union – was approved after almost 13 hours of heated negotiations in the Belgrade parliament.

“Condemning the crime against the Bosniaks of Srebrenica, while paying respect to the innocent victims and offering condolences to their families, will lift the burden off future generations,” Nada Kolundzija was quoted as saying by Serbia’s B92 website.

But opposition deputies criticised the text, describing it as “shameful” for Serbia. Some nationalist politicians voted against, while others abstained in protest.

Velimir Ilic, an opposition MP, said: “Why do you want to put a mark on the future generations that they will never wash away?”

Serbian nationalists had argued that any resolution must also denounce crimes committed by Bosniaks and Croats during the 1992-95 war.

Mass grave near Srebrenica

Several mass graves have been discovered near Srebrenica

The BBC’s Mark Lowen in Belgrade says the resolution comes after years of denial in Serbia that the Srebrenica massacre even took place.

The resolution has been criticised by Bosniaks and Muslims in Serbia because it does not describe the Srebrenica massacre as an act of genocide.

It has been recognised as such by the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague.

Several Bosnian Serbs have been convicted over their role in the massacre, when Bosniak men and boys were taken from their families and shot dead. The town had been designated a UN “safe haven” under the protection of Dutch UN troops.

The Bosnian Serbs’ wartime leader, Radovan Karadzic, is currently on trial in The Hague. The general accused of masterminding the killings, Ratko Mladic, is still on the run.

Lawyers for the victims’ relatives have tried to hold the Dutch government and the UN accountable for failing to stop the massacre.

But on Tuesday, The Hague Appeals Court upheld a 2008 lower court ruling affirming UN immunity from prosecution, which it said was essential for it to be able to carry out its duties around the world.

Srebrenica massacre
6 – 10 July 1995: The Bosnian Serb Army attacks Srebrenica – within a UN safe area previously held by the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.







Europe’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has produced record-breaking high-energy particle collisions.

Scientists working on the European machine have smashed beams of protons together at energies that are 3.5 times higher than previously achieved.

Tuesday’s milestone marks the beginning of work that could lead to the discovery of fundamental new physics.

There was cheering and applause in the LHC control room as the first collisions were confirmed.


Detail from Large Hadron Collider explainer graphic

These seven-trillion-electronvolt (TeV) collisions have initiated 18-24 months of intensive investigations at the LHC.

Scientists hope the studies will bring novel insights into the nature of the cosmos and how it came into being.

Many of them have described Tuesday’s event as the beginning of a “new era in science”.

But researchers caution that the data gathered from the sub-atomic impacts will take time to evaluate, and the public should not expect immediate results.

“Major discoveries will happen only when we are able to collect billions of events and identify among them the very rare events that could present a new state of matter or new particles,” said Guido Tonelli, a spokesman for the CMS detector at the LHC.

The LHC is one of the biggest scientific endeavours ever undertaken.

Particle interaction simulation (SPL)

Housed at Cern (the European Organization for Nuclear research) in a 27km-long tunnel under the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, the LHC successfully collided particle beams travelling at close to the speed of light.

The expectation is that previously unseen phenomena will reveal themselves in the resulting debris, with a key objective being the search for the much talked-about Higgs boson particle.

This is thought to have a profound role in the structure of the Universe, and would enable scientists to explain why matter has mass – something which, at a fundamental level, they have difficulty doing at present.

Cern’s director general Rolf Heuer said: “It’s a great day to be a particle physicist.

“The LHC has a real chance over the next two years of… possibly giving insights into the composition of about a quarter of the Universe.”

Take two

The LHC broke down shortly after its opening in 2008 but, since coming back online late last year, has gradually been ramping up operations.

Two proton particle beams have been circling in opposite directions in the magnet-lined tunnels at 3.5 TeV since 19 March.

Having established their stability, these beams were allowed to cross paths and collide.

This 7 TeV event, which took place on Tuesday at 1200 BST, was the highest energy yet achieved in a particle accelerator.

The LHC’s four major experiments – its giant detectors Alice, Atlas, CMS and LHCb – have now begun to gather their first physics data from the collisions, a development that Cern described as an “historic moment”.

Image of a particle beam collision inside the LHC

The LHC’s detectors are examining the debris from the collisions

“This is new territory,” said Professor Tonelli.

“If you want to discover new particles, you have to produce them; and these new particles are massive. To produce them, you need higher energies. For the first time [on Tuesday], we will be producing particles that have energy 3.5 times higher than the maximum energy achieved so far.

“This is why we can start the long journey to make major discoveries in identifying a new massive state of matter.”

(our emphasis)

At the end of the 7 TeV (3.5 TeV per beam) experimental period, the LHC will be shut down for maintenance for up to a year. When it re-opens, it will attempt to create 14 TeV events.

[Charged particles tend to speed up in an electric field, defined as an electric potential – or voltage – spread over a distance

One electron volt (eV) is the energy gained by a single electron as it accelerates through a potential of one volt
It is a convenient unit of measure for particle accelerators, which speed particles up through much higher electric potentials
The first accelerators only created bunches of particles with an energy of about a million eV (MeV)
The LHC can reach beam energies a million times higher: up to several teraelectronvolts (TeV)
This is still only the energy in the motion of a flying mosquito
But that energy is packed into a comparatively few particles, travelling at more than 99.99% of the speed of light]
(From BBC news of today. Other related articles there on


March 30, 2010

New Guardians fight to stop Arab crime spree in Galilee, Negev PDF Print E-mail
Written by Joanne Hill   
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
TORONTO – It sounds like a scene from an old movie about the Wild, Wild West: a group of young men, discouraged by the local sheriff’s inability to stop an ongoing crime spree by cattle rustlers and arsonists, bands together to form a night patrol to spot and report criminals.  But this is taking place today, in the Galilee and Negev, as the 2,000-plus Israeli volunteers who make up the Irgun HaShomer HaChadash (New Guardians) work to help secure the safety of Jewish farmers whose properties and livelihoods are under attack. 

Aharon Pulver, executive director of the Israel Independence Fund, visited the Jewish Tribune office recently to talk about the New Guardians as well as other initiatives his all-volunteer, philanthropic umbrella organization believes are worthy of Canadian support.

Much as it was for Israelis in the 1920s during the early days of the British Mandate, the Jewish minority in the Galilee and Negev now are “at risk in terms of their property and their property rights,” Pulver said. “Often their property is stolen by marauders whose intent is clearly to create financial havoc on Jewish agricultural settlements and reap profit from stealing their herds – their cattle, their sheep – (and) their agricultural produce.”

According to Pulver, radical Arab elements are funding what Americans call “blockbusting”:  Jewish farmers are terrorized and brought to the brink of bankruptcy by theft or arson to make them amenable to being bought out by Arabs.

Until now, Pulver said, the authorities have “turned a blind eye” to these crimes, but the members of the New Guardians are building a cooperative relationship with police as they conduct their patrols. The New Guardians is an unarmed, civilian group whose work requires training, night vision and communication equipment, protective vests, horses and vehicles.

The Israel Independence Fund also provides financial support for educational, medical and anti-terrorism initiatives. One educational program takes IDF soldiers to the town of Peki’in in the Upper Galilee – where Jews have lived without exile for more than 2,000 years – for a one-day seminar on the history of the locale and its residents.  

“The Canadian Jewish community can be tremendously helpful in reaching out to those organizations that…provide creative answers and create a more positive atmosphere for Jewish independence and (for) maintaining Judaism and Zionism in Israel today.”

Canadian donations made via Vaad Mishmeres Mitzvos are eligible for tax receipts. Benefactors may earmark their donations for specific programs.

For more information, visit http://fundisrael.org.


March 30, 2010

Everything that Caroline Glick writes is worth paying attention to. She is on the ground in Israel and is a terrific writer. We on 4international learn much from Caroline.

As the local and international press corps converged on Jerusalem’s Old City to cover the Arab riots at the Temple Mount two weeks ago, little mention was made of the fact that Jerusalem was not the only flashpoint. In Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Israeli Arab rioters supported by far-left protesters stoned buses. Israeli Arabs firebombed motorists on Highway 443 and on the roads to Beersheba. In the North, cars were stoned.

These little-reported attacks are the consequence of one of the most dangerous emerging threats to Israel’s national survival: the rapidly escalating radicalization of Israel’s Arab citizens.

Over the past decade and at a frenzied pace since the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, acting at least partially at the direction of the Israeli Islamic Movement and with the active support of the far left, Israeli Arabs and Beduin have launched a massive assault on the state. The relevant national authorities including the courts, the state prosecution, the police, the IDF, the Jewish National Fund, the Israel Lands Authority and the Ministry of Interior have failed to defend against it.

Firebombing Jewish-owned vehicles is small potatoes in comparison to developments at the center of mass of the Israeli Arab onslaught: state land. Over the past decade, Israeli Arabs have seized millions of dunams of state land.

The dimensions of this phenomenon were spelled out in last year’s State Comptroller’s Report. While the local and international Left pillories Israel when the state tries to demolish a handful of the thousands of illegal Arab buildings in Jerusalem, what goes unmentioned is that by the end of 2007 there were more than 100,000 illegally built structures in Israel. The overwhelming majority were constructed on state land seized by Arab land thieves in the Negev and the Galilee. By the end of 2009, the number of illegal buildings grew to an estimated 150,000. The scope of the theft is so vast that the Comptroller’s Report referred to it as a “national scourge.”

Most of the open land in Israel is owned by the state and administered by farmers, ranchers and the IDF. Farmers and ranchers – particularly in the North and the South, but in areas around Jerusalem as well – are daily terrorized by neighboring Arab thieves. The thieves destroy their fences, steal and slaughter their livestock and threaten to murder them if they raise any objections, mend their fences or install surveillance cameras. Many farmers and ranchers – like most business owners around Beersheba and Upper Nazareth – are coerced into paying protection money to the same Arab gangs who target their fields.

As the Comptroller’s Report makes clear, the threatened and abused farmers have no official body to turn to for help. While incidence of land theft has increased more than 50 percent in recent years, enforcement measures at all levels have decreased by 81%. In 2007, courts issued just 5,400 judgments on illegal construction. Of these, only 193 led to demolition orders. And just a handful of those orders were carried out.

Israel has no official policy for contending with the problem. A police unit formed specifically to enforce land laws has only recruited 55% of its allotted personnel and most of those 64 policemen devote their energies to routine policing duties.

The absence of state protection has led farmers and ranchers to abandon their lands. For instance, continuous harassment by Arabs from the village of Tuba Zangaria forced Kibbutz Kfar Hanassi just east of Rosh Pinna to abandon 4,000 dunams (400 hectares) of land. Neighboring Kibbutz Amiad abandoned 13,000 dunams. Upper Nazareth is poised to abandon 20,000 dunams. The police refuse to even escort Upper Nazareth’s Mayor Shimon Gafsou to threatened areas.

In the South, the situation is no different. Illegal Beduin squatters from the Taarbiya tribe that migrated to Israel from Sinai have gone to war against the Omer Local Council for trying to build a new neighborhood on land they illegally seized. They have shot at contractors, attacked police escorts. They burned down an electrical transformer station, leaving the area with no electricity for over a week, and then burned down a replacement station.

Omer Council Chairman Pini Badash has been the target of repeated attacks. Badash bought an airplane to document the illegal construction as part of his efforts to force the state to act. The Beduin burned his plane. They burned his wife’s car in front of her and have repeatedly threatened to kill him.

LIKE THE farmers and local councils, the army has simply given up. The IDF has abandoned training areas throughout the North and South. For instance, the Nevetim Air Force base has abandoned 17,000 dunams stolen by Beduin. According to the Comptroller’s Report, 220-250 families have squatted on the land and built approximately 800 illegal buildings. Between 2004 and 2008, there was a 53% increase in the number of illegally built structures.

Rather than defend its bases and the surrounding areas, the IDF has limited the movement of its own officers. The IAF has prohibited its fighter pilots (!) from traveling alone on the highway linking Tel Arad with Beersheba via the Shoket junction. Due to repeated shooting attacks on Jewish-owned vehicles, the pilots who protect our skies are required to travel in convoys of no less than four vehicles.

Just as its grantees played a lead role in the formation of the UN’s Goldstone Commission and the drafting of its defamatory accusations against Israel, organizations supported by the New Israel Fund have played a large role in abetting the Israeli Arab theft of state lands. NIF- and EU-supported groups like Adallah, the Regional Council of Unrecognized Arab Villages, Um Batin and The Steering Committee for Planning and Protection of Arab Rights in the Negev have waged a political and legal assault on Israel to prevent the state from protecting itself and its citizens from Beduin and Arab land crimes.

Cowed by the twin forces of the Red-Green alliance, successive governments have tried to solve the problem by buying off the Arabs. The Olmert government built a village for the Taarbiya Beduin outside of Omer and gave each family NIS 180,000 to leave the illegal structures they had built on state land and accept free houses. Most agreed to relocate, but the 50 families who remained in place stepped up their assaults on Omer while demanding to receive ownership rights for the land they stole.

Just this past Sunday the cabinet unanimously approved a multi-year program to transfer NIS 800 million to 12 Beduin and Arab communities. The government touted the move as a “stimulus plan.”

LUCKILY FOR Israel, the leadership vacuum created by successive governments is beginning to be filled today by a group of law abiding, idealistic young Israelis. The New Israeli Guardsman is a voluntary organization formed two years ago by the sons and daughters of distressed farmers and ranchers.

Yoel Zilberman was an officer in one of the IDF’s elite commando units who got tired of watching his father – a farmer at Moshav Tzipori in the Western Galilee – despair as Arab gangs from surrounding villages cut his fences, stole his livestock and wrecked his crops. During his furloughs, Zilberman began carrying out night time patrols of his father’s fields and repeatedly intercepted thieves as they infiltrated his land.

Over time, Zilberman realized that it wasn’t enough for him to guard his father’s land. His efforts just deflected the problem onto his neighbors. So he organized his friends, the sons and daughters of other farmers in the area, and formed the New Israeli Guardsmen, named after the original Guardsmen – the first Jewish self-defense organization in the Land of Israel in the modern era, which was formed a hundred years ago.

The New Israeli Guardsmen – which today operates throughout the Galilee and the Negev – fields more than 650 volunteers who devote up to 20 days a year to guarding land or mending vandalized farm equipment and fences.

Recognizing that the long-term solution to the problem is to increase the public’s dedication to classic Zionist ideals of Jewish control over the Land of Israel, in addition to building and manning guard posts, the Guardsmen organize courses and lectures on Jewish history, Zionism, Jewish philosophy and other relevant topics at their guard posts for the general public.

Next year, 30 young men carefully vetted from a pool of 300 volunteers will receive a yearlong deferral of their military service to serve with the Guardsmen. They will be split into three groups of 10 and man three guard posts in the Galilee and the Negev. Each guard station controls between 5,000 and 20,000 dunams. In addition to their guard duties, the young men will receive agricultural training and study Jewish history, Talmud, philosophy and Arab history. Zilberman hopes that the program will inspire its participants to choose farming as their vocation after they finish their army service.

The Guardsmen operate on a shoestring budget scraped together from private donors. Contingent on raising the necessary funds, the group intends to increase its corps of volunteers tenfold by 2013. If it meet its goals, 6,000 volunteers and 300 national service program members will operate from 30 guard stations in the Galilee and the Negev and protect between 400,000 and 600,000 dunams of state land. They also hope to reach out to Jews in the Diaspora and encourage them to come to Israel and volunteer for the Guardsmen, to bring them closer to the story and fate of the State of Israel.

Zilberman believes that the success of the Guardsmen will empower the state to take the necessary action to enforce Israel’s laws and so defeat the strategic threat posed by the radicalization of the Israeli Arab sector. And he is probably right. At any rate, it is all but certain that the government could take no action without the Guardsmen.

In light of the growing force of the international campaign to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist, no government in Jerusalem will act unless it feels it has strong and stable backing from a mobilized citizenry. For instance, it is hard to imagine how Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu could have defended Jerusalem as stalwartly as he did during his trip to Washington this week if he hadn’t known that the public is with him.

By the same token, the state will only enforce its laws without prejudice when it is certain that the public will rally behind it. Our leaders need to know that the public will stand behind them when the New Israel Fund grantees collaborate with the international Left and the Islamic Movement to demonize Israel as racist for protecting the property rights of the state and its citizens.

Israel, like all democracies, is only as strong as its citizens. What organizations like the New Israeli Guardsmen show is that Israel’s citizens are strong. We are willing to bear the burdens of a free people. As Pessah, the Jewish festival of freedom, approaches, we must support their endeavors and demand that our leaders follow their example.

// <![CDATA[
var OutbrainPermaLink="http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=21804&quot;;
} else {
var OB_demoMode = false;

var OBITm = "1213211595";
var OB_Script = true;
var OB_langJS = "";
document.write ("”);
// ]]>


reprinted from Israpundit

March 30, 2010

Tattered Liberty

From the January 25, 2010, issue of NR.

Sometimes you do live to see it. In my book America Alone, I point out that, to a five-year-old boy waving his flag as Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee procession marched down the Mall in 1897, it would have been inconceivable that by the time of his 80th birthday the greatest empire the world had ever known would have shriveled to an economically moribund strike-bound socialist slough of despond, one in which (stop me if this sounds familiar) the government ran the hospitals, the automobile industry, and much of the housing stock, and, partly as a consequence thereof, had permanent high unemployment and confiscatory tax rates that drove its best talents to seek refuge abroad.

A number of readers, disputing the relevance of this comparison, sent me mocking letters pointing out, for example, Britain’s balance of payments and other deteriorating economic indicators from the early 20th century on. True. Great powers do not decline for identical reasons and one would not expect Britain’s imperial overstretch to lead to the same consequences as America’s imperial understretch. Nonetheless, my correspondents are perhaps too sophisticated and nuanced to grasp the somewhat more basic point I was making. Perched on his uncle’s shoulders that day was a young lad who grew up to become the historian Arnold Toynbee. He recalled the mood of Her Majesty’s jubilee as follows:

    “There is, of course, a thing called history, but history is something
    unpleasant that happens to other people. We are comfortably outside all of that I am sure.” The end of history, 1897 version.

Permanence is an illusion — and you would be surprised at how fast
mighty nations can be entirely transformed. But, more important,
national decline is psychological — and therefore what matters is
accepting the psychology of decline. Within two generations, for
example, the German people became just as obnoxiously pacifist as they once were obnoxiously militarist, and as avowedly “European” as they once were menacingly nationalist. Well, who can blame ’em? You’d hardly be receptive to pitches for national greatness after half a century of Kaiser Bill, Weimar, the Third Reich, and the Holocaust.

But what are we to make of the British? They were on the right side of all the great conflicts of the last century; and they have been, in the scales of history, a force for good in the world. Even as their colonies advanced to independence, they retained the English language and English legal system, not to mention cricket and all kinds of other cultural ties. And even in imperial retreat, there is no rational basis for late-20th-century Britain’s conclusion that it had no future other than as an outlying province of a centralized Euro nanny state dominated by nations whose political, legal, and cultural traditions are entirely alien to its own. The embrace of such a fate is a psychological condition, not an economic one.

Is America set for decline? It’s been a grand run. The country’s been
the leading economic power since it overtook Britain in the 1880s.
That’s impressive. Nevertheless, over the course of that century and a quarter, Detroit went from the world’s industrial powerhouse to an urban wasteland, and the once-golden state of California atrophied into a land of government run by the government for the Government. What happens when the policies that brought ruin to Detroit and sclerosis to California become the basis for the nation at large? Strictly on the numbers, the United States is in the express lane to Declinistan:
unsustainable entitlements, the remorseless governmentalization of the economy and individual liberty, and a centralization of power that will cripple a nation of this size. Decline is the way to bet. But what will ensure it is if the American people accept decline as a price worth paying for European social democracy.

Is that so hard to imagine? Every time I retail the latest indignity
imposed upon the “citizen” by some or other Continental apparatchik, I receive e-mails from the heartland pointing out, with much reference to the Second Amendment, that it couldn’t happen here because Americans aren’t Euro-weenies. But nor were Euro-weenies once upon a time. Hayek’s greatest insight in The Road to Serfdom is psychological: “There is one aspect of the change in moral values brought about by the advance of collectivism which at the present time provides special food for thought,” he wrote with an immigrant’s eye on the Britain of 1944. “It is that the virtues which are held less and less in esteem and which consequently become rarer are precisely those on which the British people justly prided themselves and in which they were generally agreed to excel. The virtues possessed by Anglo-Saxons in a higher degree than most other people, excepting only a few of the smaller nations, like the
Swiss and the Dutch, were independence and self-reliance, Individual initiative and local responsibility, the successful reliance on
voluntary activity, noninterference with one’s neighbor and tolerance of the different and queer, respect for custom and tradition, and a
healthy suspicion of power and authority.” Two-thirds of a century on, almost every item on the list has been abandoned, from “independence and self-reliance” (40 percent of people receive state handouts) to “a healthy suspicion of power and authority” — the reflex response now to almost any passing inconvenience is to demand the government “do something,” the cost to individual liberty be damned. American exceptionalism would have to be awfully exceptional to suffer a similar expansion of government and not witness, in enough of the populace, the same descent into dependency and fatalism. As Europe demonstrates, a determined state can change the character of a people in the space of a
generation or two. Look at what the Great Society did to the black
family and imagine it applied to the general population: That’s what
happened in Britain.

But that’s to cast decline in its least favorable light, after it’s had a
couple of generations to work its dark magic. As it’s happening,
incremental decline is extremely seductive. Great powers aren’t Chad or Rwanda, where you’re sliding from the Dump category to the Even Crummier Dump category. Take a city like Vienna. Once upon a time it was an imperial capital. The empire busted up, but the capital still had magnificent architecture, handsome palaces, treasure houses of great art, a world-class orchestra, fabulous restaurants . . . who wouldn’t enjoy such “decline”? You benefit from all the accumulated capital of the past without being troubled by any of the tedious responsibilities.

Have another coffee and a piece of strudel and watch the world go by. To be sure, everything new — or, at any rate, everything new that works — is invented and made elsewhere. But genteel decline from the heights can be eminently civilized, especially to those of a leftish bent.

Francophile Americans passing through bucolic villages with their
charmingly state-regulated charcuteries and farmland wholly Subsidized by the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy can be forgiven for wondering whether global hegemony is all it’s cracked up to be.

Whether decline will seem quite so bucolic viewed from a Jersey strip
mall rather than the Dordogne remains to be seen. Yet in the
geopolitical sense it can be marvelously liberating. You still go to all
the best parties and have a seat at the top table — Britain and France are members of the U.N. Security Council and the G7 and every other group that counts — and even better, when the check comes, you’re not the one stuck with the tab. You can preen and pose on the world stage secure in the knowledge that nobody expects you to do anything about it: It’s no surprise to find that the post-great powers of Europe are the noisiest promoters of every fashionable nostrum, from the iniquities of the Zionist Entity to the perils of “climate change.” The European Union has attitudes rather than policies. A couple of years back, Bret Stephens, then editor of the Jerusalem Post, opened his mail to find a copy of something called “Conclusions of the European Council,” a summary of the work done during the six months of Ireland’s “Euro-presidency.” A braver man than I, he read it, at least as far as Item 80: “The European Council expresses its deep concern at the recent events in the Eastern Congo, which could jeopardize the transition process.”

And that and a couple euros will get you a café au lait. The EU is free to flaunt its “concern” — whoops, “deep concern” — over events in the Eastern Congo precisely because nobody in the Eastern Congo or anywhere else expects Europe to do a thing about it. The Continent increasingly resembles those insulated celebrities being shuttled around town from one humanitarian gala to another — like Barbra Streisand and Leonardo DiCaprio jetting in to join Barack Obama and Al Gore in bemoaning Joe Sixpack’s carbon footprint.

And when you put it like that, what’s the downside?

Okay, since you ask, here’s my prediction: American decline will not be like France’s or Austria’s. For one thing, we don’t appreciate how
unusual the last transfer of power was. If you’re not quite sure when
that took place, the British historian Andrew Roberts likes to pinpoint
it to the middle of 1943: One month, the British had more men under arms than the Americans. The next month, the Americans had more men under arms than the British. The baton of global leadership had been passed. And, if it didn’t seem that way at the time, that’s because it was as near a seamless transition as could be devised — although it was hardly “devised” at all. Yet we live with the benefits of that transition to this day: To take a minor but not inconsequential example, one of the critical links in the Afghan campaign was the British Indian Ocean Territory. As its name would suggest, that’s a British dependency, but it has a U.S. military base — just one of many pinpricks on the map where the Royal Navy’s Pax Britannica evolved into Washington’s Pax Americana with nary a thought: From U.S. naval bases in Bermuda to the ANZUS alliance Down Under to NORAD close to home, London’s military ties with its empire were assumed by the United States. Britain’s eclipse by its transatlantic progeny is one of the smoothest transfers of power in history — and unlikely to be repeated.

Now look beyond the Anglosphere. Why did decline prove so pleasant in Europe? Because it was cushioned by American power. The United States is such a perversely non-imperial power that it garrisons not ramshackle colonies but its wealthiest “allies,” from Germany to Japan. For most of its members, “the Free World” has been a free ride. And that, too, is unprecedented. Even the few NATO members that can still project meaningful force around the world have been able to arrange their affairs on the assumption of the American security umbrella: In the United Kingdom, between 1951 and 1997 the proportion of government expenditure on defense fell from 24 percent to 7, while the proportion on health and welfare rose from 22 percent to 53. And that’s before New Labour came along to widen the gap further.

Those British numbers are a bald statement of reality: You can have
Euro-sized entitlements or a global military, but not both. What’s
easier to do if you’re a democratic government that’s made promises it can’t afford — cut back on nanny-state lollipops, or shrug off thankless military commitments for which the electorate has minimal appetite? A Continental might take the view that this is democracy’s safeguard against an old temptation. After all, declining powers frequently turned to war to arrest their own decline or another’s rise — see the Franco–Prussian, the Austro–Prussian, the Napoleonic Wars, and many others. But those were the days when traditional great-power rivalry was resolved on the battlefield. Today we have postmodern post-great-power rivalry, in which America envies the way the beneficiaries of its post-war largesse have been able to opt out of the great game entirely.

In reality-TV terms, the Great Satan would like to vote itself off the
battlefield. On its present course, as Dennis Prager put it, America
“will be a large Sweden, and just as influential as the smaller one.”

And that’s the optimistic scenario — because the only reason Sweden can be Sweden and Germany Germany and France France is that America is America. Who will cushion America’s decline as America cushioned Europe’s?

Furthermore, is “a large Sweden” even possible? Insofar as it works at all, Big Government works best in small countries, with a sufficiently homogeneous population to have common interests. There’s a fascinating look by Alberto Alesina and Enrico Spolaore called The Size of Nations, in which the authors note that, of the ten richest countries in the world, only four have populations above 1 million: America (300 million people), Switzerland (7 million), Norway (4 million), and Singapore (3 million). Small nations, they argue, are more cohesive and have less need for buying off ethnic and regional factions. America has been the exception that proves the rule because it’s a highly decentralized federation. But, as Messrs. Alesina and Spolaore put it, if America were as centrally governed as France, it would break up. That theory is now being tested by the Obamacare Democrats, and, as we see with the
wretched Ben Nelson’s cornhusker kickback or the blank check given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when American-style Big Government starts “buying off ethnic and regional factions,” the sky’s the limit. To attempt to impose European-style centralized government on a third of a billion people from Maine to Hawaii is to invite failure on a scale unknown to history. Which is to say that, domestically, Washington’s retreat from la gloire will be of an entirely different order of business from Paris’s.

And overseas? If America becomes Europe in its domestic disposition and geopolitical decline, then who will be America? Of the many competing schools of declinism, perhaps the most gleeful are those that salivate over the rise of China. For years, Sinophiles have been penning orgasmic fantasies of a mid-century when China will bestride the world and America will be consigned to the trash heap of history. It will never happen: As I’ve been saying for years, China has profound structural problems. It will get old before it gets rich.

Russia? The demographic deformation of Czar Putin’s new empire is even more severe than Beijing’s. Russia is a global power only to the extent of the mischief it can make on its acceleration into a death spiral.

The new Caliphate? Even if every dime-store jihadist’s dreams came true, almost by definition an Islamic imperium would be in decline from Day One.

So there’s no plausible new kid on the block? Isn’t that good news?
Not exactly. Much of the timing of American decline depends on Beijing, which will make the final determination on such matters as when the dollar ceases to be the world’s reserve currency. Given that they hold at least the schedule of our fate in their hands, it would be rather reassuring if they had the capability to assume America’s role as the global order-maker. But they don’t and they never will. The most likely future is not a world under a new order but a world with no order — in which pipsqueak states go nuclear while the planet’s wealthiest nations, from New Zealand to Norway, are unable to defend their borders and are forced to adjust to the post-American era as they can. Yet, in such a geopolitical scene, the United States will still be the most inviting target — first because it’s big, and second because, as Britain knows, the durbar moves on but imperial resentments linger long after imperial

One sympathizes with Americans weary of global responsibilities that
they, unlike the European empires, never sought. The United States now spends more on its military than the next 40 or so nations combined. Yet in two rinky-dink no-account semi-colonial policing campaigns, it doesn’t feel like that, does it? A lot of bucks, but not much of a bang.

You can understand why the entire Left and an increasing chunk of the Right would rather vote for a quiet life. But that’s not an option. The first victims of American retreat will be the many corners of the world that have benefited from an unusually benign hegemon. But the consequences of retreat will come home, too. In a more dangerous world, American decline will be steeper, faster, and more devastating than Britain’s — and something far closer to Rome’s.

In the modern era, the two halves of “the West” form a mirror image.
“The Old World” has thousand-year-old churches and medieval street plans and ancient hedgerows but has been distressingly susceptible to every insane political fad, from Communism to Fascism to European Union. “The New World” has a superficial novelty — you can have your macchiato tweeted directly to your iPod — but underneath the surface noise it has remained truer to old political ideas than “the Old World” ever has.

Economic dynamism and political continuity seem far more central to
America’s sense of itself than they are to most nations’. Which is why it’s easier to contemplate Spain or Germany as a backwater than America.

In a fundamental sense, an America in eclipse would no longer be

But, as Charles Krauthammer said recently, “decline is a choice.” The
Democrats are offering it to the American people, and a certain
proportion of them seem minded to accept. Enough to make decline
inevitable? To return to the young schoolboy on his uncle’s shoulders
watching the Queen-Empress’s jubilee, in the words of Arnold Toynbee: “Civilizations die from suicide, not from murder.”

— This article first appeared in the January 25, 2010, issue of National Review as “Welcome to Rome.”


This is a great article by Mark Steyn.

Steyn is not a Marxist but in many ways his is a Marxist analysis par excellent. I mean he describes the break up of the capitalist system so well. In this article he is especially clever on the decline of Britain and he clearly points to Fascism in the decline of America, ending of course on a false “hope over reality” note  

So on that latter…The only thing to disagree with in an overall sense is the following:

Here Steyn at the very end gives in to a mixture of wishful thinking and false thought. It is not a matter of will and never has been. The economic foundations are out of kilter and no wishing will change that.

That will lead in to Marxist science but Steyn will never go there!

Steyn is brilliant, but does not tell the whole truth.




Reprinted from Israpundit

March 30, 2010

By Ron Radosh, Pajamas Media

There is no doubt, as Politico’s Laura Rozen writes today, that “an intense debate inside the Obama administration about how to proceed with Netanyahu to advance the Middle East peace process has grown more heated.” As her sources tell her, the internal debate revolves around Dennis Ross’s argument that the WH has to be sensitive to Benjamin Netanyahu’s domestic concerns, “while other officials including some aligned with Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell are arguing Washington needs to hold firm in pressing Netanyahu for written commitments to avoid provocations that imperil Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and to preserve the Obama administration’s credibility.”

Ross, it seems, is bravely putting forth an alternative view he wants the President to consider. Instead of listening to him, his opponents are arguing, as one unnamed person tells her, that “he [Ross] seems to be far more sensitive to Netanyahu’s coalition politics than to U.S. interests and he doesn’t seem to understand that this has become bigger than Jerusalem but is rather about the credibility of this Administration.”

To put it bluntly, Ross’s opponents are painting him as anti-American, subject to the old canard about “dual loyalties” to Israel rather than to his own country. Ross’s goal, one that is hardly opposed to our own national interest, is to develop “an international and regional alliance including Arab nations and Israel to pressure and isolate Iran.” But it seems that the Obama administration is quickly backing away from taking any meaningful action to curb Iran, and instead is spending its energy in condemning the Israelis for seeking to build 1600 apartments in Jerusalem.

Joining those who want Obama to primarily keep up the pressure on Israel is the mainstream of American liberal journalists, most of them Jewish, who evidently see a need to reinforce Obama (not that he needs it) in his decision to get tough on America’s most loyal ally in the Middle East.

Writing in the March 29th New Yorker, its editor-in-chief David Remnick attributes Obama’s unpopularity in Israel only to “right-leaning Israelis,” ignoring all the polls that show our President’s unpopularity extends across the board and exists among all political tendencies in Israel. As for the recent housing crisis, Remnick sees Biden and Obama as the ones who were humiliated by the Israelis, which he attributes to “a deep Israeli misreading of the President and an ignorance of the diversity of opinion among American Jews and in the United States in general.”

Next, Remnick mentions the ploy I discussed yesterday — that Obama’s bona fides re Israel are proved by all the “Jewish mentors” and friends he has. Why, it turns out, Obama even served as a shabbos goy for Ira Silverstein, an Orthodox Jew with whom he shared an office suite at the Capitol. I guess turning lights on and off on Saturdays is proof definitive of what he thinks about the Arab-Israeli dispute.

As for the fact that he was friends with Rashid Khalidi, he argues, why shouldn’t he be? After all, one can be pro Israel while opposing “the platform of Likud and the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.” Israel, of course, is no longer in Gaza, and their voluntary evacuation led not to peace, but to the renewal of Hamas and to rocket attacks against Israel on a daily basis.

Next comes the J-Street ploy. If we needed proof that J Street exists only as a cover for Obama to say “the Jews who represent most American Jews favor my policy,” Remnick provides it. As he writes, Likud and its supporters “overlook younger, more liberal constituencies, which for years have been more questioning of Israel policy.” Remnick does not stop to inform his readers that J Street opposed Israel’s retaliation against Hamas, condemned Israel for construction in Jerusalem, and regularly goes out of its way to oppose actual Israeli policies taken to defend the country’s interests. And the mainstream of American Jewry in fact does not support the positions J Street has taken.

Just this week, the lack of support for J Street was shown by what has taken place in Philadelphia, where Democratic congressional candidate Doug Pike, who previously took campaign contributions from J Street and accepted their endorsement, returned the $6000 he got from them and denounced their backing. Facing a primary challenger who argued that Pike was not sufficiently supportive of Israel, he found his poll numbers quickly falling.

Pike then explained that he did not fully comprehend how differently he saw things from J Street. From the Jewish Exponent: “For instance, Pike said, he was ‘troubled’ by J Street’s recent stance supporting Obama in his latest diplomatic flare-up with the Jewish state over plans to build new housing in an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood.” As the reporter for Philadelphia’s Jewish newsweekly explained, “the reversal [of Pike’s acceptance of J-Street’s support] raises questions about the influence of J Street and its ability to raise cash and support candidates who favor its more proactive approach to the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict.” So much for those “younger, more liberal constituencies” that Remnick is so sure represent America’s Jewry. As the Exponent story puts it, it casts doubt on whether J Street “should be considered a mainstream Jewish organization, under the pro-Israel tent.”

Whatever Remnick’s limitations as an observer, he appears absolutely moderate when compared to the vicious attack on critics of Obama’s Middle East policy emanating from Joe Klein in one of his most recent blogs appearing on the Time website. Klein, as we have seen before, tends to lose it in his blogs.

This time, Klein takes on a column penned by Elliot Abrams, now resident at the Council on Foreign Relations, that appears in the Weekly Standard. Fair enough. Klein is entitled to his own views on Abrams’ analysis. But then, instead of offering a serious critique, he brands Abrams’ views as “the foreign policy equivalent of Tea Partyism.” For those of you who support the tea party movement, this is not meant as a compliment.

What could upset Klein so much about Abrams’ views? Well, he leaves out what Klein thinks are major criticisms of Israel — such as restoring Jewish historic sites in Palestinian areas, humiliations suffered daily by West Bank Palestinians who are law-abiding, and as you expect, “the new housing blocks in East Jerusalem,” even though Klein acknowledges that “the new housing is in a neighborhood that will undoubtedly be Jewish once the maps are redrawn.”

Then Klein gets to the nitty-gritty. The real issue is what he calls “the Israeli colonization of Palestinian lands.” It almost appears similar to what the Arab League was arguing back in 1948 at the time of Israel’s creation — that the Jewish state was itself such an act of imperialist colonization. As for Klein’s other fabrications and ignorance about Hebron and the historic Jewish presence there, I refer you to Noah Pollak’s brilliant critique appearing today in Contentions.

Klein goes on to argue that while the Palestinians have fulfilled all the conditions necessary to achieve peace, the Israelis alone have not, since they continue to colonize. And those who have a different analysis — he specifically cites Abrams and Jennifer Rubin — they are condemned as perpetrators of the “Big Lie” and in Rubin’s case, of being “a pro-Likud fanatic.” Now Rubin — as any readers of her wonderful posts knows — can well take care of herself. But what Klein has done is to respond not to her argument that Obama is presiding over “the most anti-Israeli administration in history,” which many of us feel has been established as fact, but to deal with this claim by engaging in an outpouring of ad hominem remarks one does not expect to find on the site of a distinguished magazine.

Indeed, he then writes that Abrams, Rubin and AIPAC — the notorious “Jewish lobby” — are guilty of undermining American policy in such a manner that their views “teeter on the brink of treachery.” (my emphasis) They are, to put it another way, potential traitors to our country! This is as good an example of liberal McCarthyism as one can find. Klein, I think, is the first to make such an accusation since the right-wing crazy Taki argued a few years ago in the pages of the American Conservative that American Jews are a “fifth column,” and elsewhere that the Jewish neo-cons (he actually lists thirteen of them by name) are “as shameless and contemptible as most traitors are.”

And why should they and Israel “stand down”? The answer Klein gives is that “the U.S. is trying to build a regional, and international, coalition to contain and deter Iran — to prevent it from building nuclear weapons, if possible — that will work to Israel’s benefit, if it is successful.” Is Joe Klein serious? Has he not read the newspapers the past few days, in which the administration has made it clear it is backing off tough sanctions?

If anyone is trying to get the U.S. to in fact do precisely what Klein says it is already doing, it is those very people he is criticizing in his article, including Rubin, Abrams, the neo-cons Klein detests, and a dwindling group of liberal hawks who see clearly the Obama administration’s continuing backsliding.

Klein closes with the same old charge. AIPAC, the neo-cons, all of those whom Klein sees as wrong-headed are “extremists” who “stand well outside mainstream thinking on this issue.” If this is true, it is mainstream thinking that is wrong. But as Doug Pike has learned down in Philadelphia, is it the Joe Kleins and the J Street crowd that are the ones suffering from delusions. Klein, like J Street, ends by trying to paint himself as the real friend of Israel, while those who criticize our current administration’s policy are, he writes, encouraging “ right-wing American extremists who deny the legitimacy of our President.”

With a comment like that, Joe Klein reveals himself to be part of a conspiracy mongering group of liberal journalists who evidently see any criticism — no matter how ably it is developed and put forth — as extremist in content. In Klein’s world, this can only end by stopping our criticism. What happened to both free speech and the right to oppose a foreign policy when we think it is wrong?

With friends like Joe Klein and David Remnick, we have learned that Israel does not have to search far for its real enemies.

Addendum: 10:30 pm East Coast time

Since writing the above, Andrew Sullivan joins Remnick and Klein with his editorial column in the London Times. He begins by praising Obama for refusing “to listen to the latest excuses,arguments and prevarications” from Netanyahu. The Israeli PM, he claims, “is badly hurting America’s interests around the world.” As he sees it, the division between Israel and the United States is no longer “taboo;” indeed, it is necessary.

Or as Sullivan puts it, “Israel’s role as an ally has become muddled.” It stands in the way of the US making overtures to “moderate Arab regimes.” What regimes? Iran? Syria? Or does he mean the Saudis, who behind the scenes share with Israel a great antipathy towards Iran’s getting closer to gaining the bomb? Next, Sullivan repeats the false story about General David Petraeus supposedly attacking the US alliance with Israel. Jake Tapper of ABC News reported today on his ABC blog that the comments “attributed to him ‘were simply inaccurate.’” The statements that Sullivan also quotes, Petraeus says, “are flat wrong.”

Tapper’s blog continues:

Petraeus explained that he had submitted a document in which he described the “various factors that influence the strategic context in which” American troops operate in CENTCOM. And the Middle East peace process, he said, is one such factor that influences the environment—but is one of many, also including “a whole bunch of extremist organizations” as well as “a country that has a nuclear program”—meaning Iran. “We have all the factors in there,” he said, and the Middle East peace process “is just one.”

Petraeus added that “people inferred things” that were not said, and “bloggers picked it up and spun it.” And now, Sullivan joins those who further ignore facts and continue to spread a false story on behalf of his anti-Israeli animus. So, to quote Sullivan by adding the word “not” that he does not have in his own sentence, “This is all indisputably not true, which is why it is in America’s interest to resolve the matter.”

What clearly bugs Sullivan is that, as he puts it, “in America, Israel is still popular as the second real democracy in the Middle East.” Yet as he sees it, the support for Israel is coming only from Republicans and evangelical Christians who want Jews to convert, while more and more Democrats are jumping ship. Using Sarah Palin’s ignorance as an easy vehicle to brand all those who support Israel as doing so for bad reasons, he even attacks the entwined Israeli and American flag lapel she wears — seemingly not realizing that many Democrats and independents who support Israel wear the same lapel — which one can find for sale anywhere in Israel.

Finally, Sullivan — whom we already know cares not a fig leaf for Israel — cannot refrain from endorsing J Street as the true voice of reason, thereby following the others who conveniently use them as a fig leaf for advocacy of a new policy that would break the ties between the US and Israel. And of course, he attacks “the rigidly pro-Israel” journals of opinion- The Weekly Standard and The New Republic, the latter being the publication that made him a household name when he was its editor, and which he now argues is “balanced by many bloggers,” of which he obviously counts himself.

Obama, he concludes, “has a gift for getting his enemies to destroy themselves.” But this time, Andrew, the stakes are high — and Iran’s push towards a nuclear weapon is closer than ever, while if anything is likely to be destroyed, it is Obama’s disastrous and delusional foreign policy. Thankfully, there are still opinion leaders who do not listen to bloggers like the bitter Sullivan, including those at The Washington Post whom he so disdains.


by Jim Stephens

March 30, 2010

At first we on 4international did not pay too much attention to this birth certificate issue. We now do. It is a crucial issue and we thank Joan Swirsky and Israpundit for this fine article

Now that the regime currently occupying the White House has bribed, threatened, intimidated, bullied, manipulated, and cut unconstitutional and illegal deals with Democrats in exchange for their votes for the totalitarian nightmare of socialized medicine, the subject of Obama’s missing birth certificate is more timely and relevant than ever — precisely because the ugly spectacle emphasized once again the degree to which Obama has arrogantly flouted, sneered at, and spit upon the U.S. Constitution, a document he and his handlers and henchmen clearly revile and are determined to shred and destroy.

The same contempt for the bedrock foundations of our country was apparent during Obama’s run for the presidency and his refusal to produce his birth certificate. It reminds me of the search I conducted in 2004 for my mother’s birth certificate, a non-negotiable prerequisite for her admission into a nursing home. Although she was born in a farmhouse in 1913 to immigrants who didn’t speak English, it took me only three phone calls and not more than 20 minutes to locate this valuable document. Unlike Obama, who was born — he says — in 1961, I didn’t pay nearly two million dollars to lawyers to fight the nursing home’s request.

To this day, Obama has failed to produce proof that he was born in the United States and that he is a natural-born American citizen, one of only three absolute requirements in the U.S. Constitution to become President of the United States. In fact, if Obama is not a natural-born American citizen, he is acting as president under false pretenses, which de facto makes every statement he has made as the usurper POTUS, every bill he has signed, every czar he has appointed, every act, proclamation, signing statement, executive order, and law, et al, fraudulent, illegal, and therefore null and void — including this unconstitutional healthcare so-called reform bill.

As I type, Mr. Hope & Change is working on granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants to further bankrupt the United States and thereby etch in stone a constituency that relies on free everything — and will therefore return the favor by voting Democratic in future elections. This will actualize his and the far-left’s goals of turning our democratic Republic into a Communist share-the-poverty facsimile of a Russian, Cuban, or Venezuelan state!

But that is not all: Obama is putting on the fast track the Cap-and-Trade scheme to tax every person in the U.S. every time he or she flushes the toilet, turns on a light, opens the refrigerator, drives a car — the list of penalties for merely living go on and on.

When this or that writer or commentator asks, “Doesn’t he realize X, Y, or Z?” — the answer is, of course he does! His entire raison d’être is to convert the country he hates — America — into the kind of socialist/communist/fascist country he clearly admires. Exhibit A is surely his serial embrace of foreign dictators and his undisguised hostility toward our most trusted allies.

How did this happen? As blogger Daniel Greenfield notes, Obama’s election “was not about what the people wanted. It was about his own victory by any means necessary. Hardly surprising from the man who began his political career by betraying and destroying his own mentor, climbed into the United States Senate over two sex scandals that were a product of his opposition research, and reached the White House through voter fraud, illegal campaign donations, and an owned media corps….Each win for Obama was another loss for fair and honest elections. And each time Obama won, it was not because the public decided he was the better man, but because the sheer array of dirty tricks, fraud, and media propaganda insured that no choices would be allowed.”

Today, there are few Americans, even Obama’s acolytes and fans, who now think he is a natural-born American or, for that matter, a Christian, as he pretended to be as a congregant for 20 years in his Chicago pastor’s Black Theology church. In short, black theology is Marxist doctrine: hate America, hate whitey, hate Jews, hate free-market capitalism, hate the U.S. Constitution. Here, he just about admits as much. From where I stand, that pretty well sums up Obama’s first 14 months in office.


At this point, every honest, decent member of Congress and the media, as well as ordinary citizens, knows that there was something putridly rotten about Obama’s election. Not just the billion dollars in campaign donations, most of which are still unaccounted for but known to have flowed from foreign donors, many of them enemies of America. And not just the missing mountains of qualifying data that all presidential candidates are expected to produce, including:

  • His Illinois law license. Is he even a lawyer? Where is his supposed Harvard Law degree? Where are the papers he wrote in law school? Why does he not correct people when they say he was a law professor when he was never a professor but only a lecturer?
  • His Selective Service registration, which investigative-journalist and lawyer Debbie Schlussel has reported to be falsified, an accusation that Linda Bentley quite persuasively documented just the other day.
  • His visa, or more probably visas. After all, he did travel to Pakistan in 1981 when Americans were forbidden into that country. Did he use the Indonesian visa he got when he was a citizen of that country?
  • His school records from Indonesia and Hawaii.
  • His college transcripts from Occidental College in CA, Columbia College in NY, and Harvard Law School in MA.
  • His baptism certificate.
  • His Illinois State Senate records.
  • His law practice client list.
  • His records from the University of Chicago, where Obama, the instructor, supposedly taught.

Just as mysterious is the question of who exactly backed this virtually unknown neophyte senator with the paper-thin résumé and almost non-existent voting record — this man who had lifelong associations with countless dubious-if-not-criminal friends and associates, as well as political radicals.

We now know that leftist billionaire financier George Soros was and is a major backer. And we’ve also learned that dozens of Clinton administration leftovers and elected officials, all of the hard left — as well as a number of hugely influential executives and bankers from AIG and Goldman Sachs — were part of Obama’s toxic brew. But how, you may ask, could these arch capitalists be leftists? Because, like Soros, they fancy themselves Kings of the Universe, smarter than the average Joe, and therefore destined to join a new American oligarchy in which the few rule and the many are under their collective thumbs.

The motives of these megalomaniacs involve the tenacious belief — facts to the contrary — that the proven tyrannies of socialism and communism will improve the lot of the masses they consider so stupid, combined with a driving lust for absolute power — you know, the kind that corrupts absolutely. Underlying this is a worldview in which most people are perceived to be “victims” of “the system.” And of course a fulminating rage.

Again, Greenfield weighs in, explaining that this rage is part of “the bargain leftists always strike: I Will Only Love You If You Kill Yourself. Leftists only love an America, he says, “in which the Constitution is wielded to protect Islamic terrorists and a man who hates the country can take office in the White House, in which the lives of Americans are worthless but the comfortable treatment of captured terrorists is worth more than gold, in which all of the country’s history and values are viewed as nothing more than the brutal atrocities of greedy savages, while the brutal atrocities of newly arrived greedy savages are treated as heroic achievements worthy of celebration and praise….”

“In their more honest moments,” Greenfield continues, “leftists will admit that they do not love America — only its potential…to be changed by them…moments like Michelle Obama proclaiming that she had never been proud of her country before…a chilling glimpse into the mind of the left that cannot love anything that is not an expression of their own ego….”

“They love [an] America that legalizes illegal aliens, displaces its own citizens to make way for them, and tears down all barriers against crime and terror. They love America, so long as it frees terrorists from prison — and when war is declared against it by a fanatical cult of mass murderers, it gives the murderers their day in court with lawyers and a trial….This is the America they love. I will only love you, if you kill yourself.”


A coup d’état is never an overnight phenomenon. It takes years, often decades, of planning, and more often than not, there are thwarted attempts along the way. In America, leftists have been actively trying both to undermine and overthrow our country since at least the 1960s (actually well before then, as far back as a hundred years). They tried with Jimmy Carter, but in spite of the lasting harm he did, his stupendous incompetence ultimately did him in, relegating him to one ignominious term.

They tried again with Bill Clinton, who as a student spent years — when he might have been fighting for our country in Vietnam — hanging around England smoking pot and, oddly, “visiting” Communist Russia. Clinton lasted two terms, largely because he was too narcissistic and undisciplined to stick to the leftist party line, craving the spotlight to such a degree that when the electorate smacked him and his wife down for trying to inflict socialized medicine on our citizens, he moved ever so nimbly to the center, where he stayed until he practically had to be dragged off the stage during the most self-aggrandizing departure of a president in American history.

Through these failures, the left learned never to depend on a genuine natural-born American citizen to actualize their coup, that the real thing would somehow retain some random DNA strands of affection for our republic. They would have to find a faux American, one who looked and sounded like the real thing, but whose allegiance to America was non-existent — perhaps someone who had lived in a Muslim country, studied the Koran, subscribed to Sharia law, and had lifelong relationships with Marxists and Communists and other America-haters. Enter the man who calls himself Barack Obama.

In a stunning piece of journalism — “Who’s Your Daddy? Who’s Your Mama? AND WHERE IS YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE?” — a “Concerned Citizen, forced to speculate in absence of the public release of documents,” considers several plausible scenarios that describe who Obama’s parents might have been, where he might have been born, and how the idea to insinuate this Manchurian Candidate-Trojan Horse into America’s body politic came to pass. The article poses numerous provocative questions:

  • What exactly happened in the Teresa Hotel in Harlem in 1960 — where a man resembling Barack Obama Sr. rubbed shoulders with Malcolm X and a Cuban journalist?
  • What was Fidel Castro doing at the above hotel at the same time? Khrushchev? Malcolm X?
  • How could Obama’s “mother,” Stanley Ann Dunham, have delivered him in August of 1961 in Honolulu when official University of Washington records show her 2680 miles away in Seattle attending classes that same month? (Pamela Geller: www.atlasshrugs.com).
  • Was Madelyn Dunham really Obama’s mother, and not his grandmother?
  • Was he the product of an affair between his “grandfather,” Stanley Armour Dunham (who he looks like) and one of the Asian, Polynesian or Indonesian girls who frequented the beaches of Hawaii in the 1950s? On the cover of Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father, why is the man he claims is his father, Barack Obama Sr., not pictured, while his grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, is? Was the dark-skinned woman on the cover his real mother?
  • Was he really the son of his earliest mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a prominent poet, Communist political activist, and self-professed pedophile? Davis wrote about raping a 13-year-old girl. Could that girl have been Stanley Ann Dunham? Could this be why Obama wrote on his Facebook page that he was born in 1957?
  • Was Obama really the only son of Malcolm X and his wife Betty Shabazz? They had six daughters, but did they leave the care of their only son to surrogates to protect him from the same fate — assassination — that killed Malcolm X?
  • Or did Malcolm X father Obama with one of the dozens of daughters of the Communist Indonesian President Sukarno, after the older man invited him to the anti-white, anti-capitalist Bandung conference in 1955? Sukarno loathed America. Was it he who hatched the plot to take over America? Did he then share his idea with Malcolm X because he believed the American Muslim was capable of succeeding?
  • Where do the Rockefellers fit in? Recent speculation has it that Michael Rockefeller, the Harvard graduate who is thought to have died in Papua, New Guinea, may have fathered Obama with a Papuan woman. Here’s a film of Michael’s strange odyssey. Is it coincidence that Obama’s “grandfather” Stanley and his stepfather Lolo Soetoro both worked for the Rockefellers’ Standard Oil Company?
  • Is it coincidence that the Marxist-praising Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Rockefeller crony and Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, now acts as an advisor to Obama?
  • What are we to make of Obama’s old friend from high school, Illinois Army National Guard Major L. Tammy Duckworth, telling The Honolulu Advisor on January 8, 2006, that she was “happy to point out that she and Hawaii-raised Punahou (Indonesia) high school graduate Obama have “a karma’aina connection”? Both of them, she said, were born outside the country — Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand. Predictably, Duckworth retracted her statement a few days after the article appeared in print.
  • Was it just a fashion statement when we witnessed Michelle Obama on election night appear in a dress of the revolutionary and anarchic colors of red and black, with a gigantic sash in the unmistakable configuration of an X — and Obama’s very young daughters also dressed in revolutionary red and black? As an observer wrote, What if the garb worn by the Obama’s was a silent tribute to Barack’s real father, Malcolm X?…the red and black dress and that X that hits you between the eyes….where are the various shades of red, white, and blue?….”
  • Was the CIA behind Obama’s attempted coup d’état? Where does the Ford Foundation fit in? If you want a much more extensive history of the Ford Foundation, the CIA, and the ghastly Indonesian coup, read David Ransom’s piece here.
  • What is the likelihood of Obama’s so-called mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, meeting two “husbands” — Barack Obama Sr. and Lolo Soetoro, both connected to “Big Oil” — at the University of Hawaii?
  • Obama denies he’s a Muslim, but “the accumulated research from primary sources who knew Obama from his childhood indicate that he was a devout Muslim, the son of a devout Muslim, the stepson of a devout Muslim, and the grandson and namesake (’Hussein’) of a devout Muslim. He was registered in school in Indonesia as a Muslim and demonstrated his ability to chant praise to Allah in impressive Arab-accented tones even as an adult. Just as he has not disavowed his ‘uncle’ Jeremiah, neither has he disavowed the Muslim faith that he was born into and raised in. Here, with George Stephanopoulos, Obama says as much.
  • Is Obama the son of “CIA spooks” and a “CIA spook” himself?

In a can’t-put-down article, Deanna Spingola writes of Pastor James David Manning, who in May is holding a public trial at Columbia University in New York (just blocks from Manning’s church in Harlem) that is charging Barack Obama with treason! Here is what Spingola writes:

    “Obama…was recruited [at Occidental College in CA] in 1980 by the CIA [when Stansfield M. Turner was the director], which has made it a practice since its inception to recruit college students. He was, by his own admission, a ‘C’ student, a dope smoker, and a member of the Marxist Club at Occidental, a co-educational liberal arts college. In 1981, Obama allegedly transferred from Occidental to Columbia University….Columbia had a foreign student program, and the CIA has major connections and influence with Columbia and the nation’s other educational facilities….the CIA needed Muslims or others who could easily blend into the Muslim environment in the Middle East….Obama, as an undercover agent, was the lead agent in the arms and money supply for the CIA-trained Taliban Army against the Soviet Army war machine. His actions were integral to the Taliban’s success in their opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Obama, it is publicly acknowledged, went to Pakistan in 1981. There is no way of knowing how often Obama traveled between Pakistan and Russia.

“According to Dr. Manning,” Spingola writes, “Obama was an interpreter for the CIA during the war in Afghanistan. When Obama completed his CIA operations in the mid 1980s and returned to the U.S., he persuaded the State Department to maneuver his entrance into Harvard Law School….”

Needless to say, Pastor Manning’s life has been threatened and continues to be threatened by people who are deeply afraid of his explosive charges.

And here is yet another bizarre oddity: an article saying that Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, “voluntarily surrendered” his law license back in 2008 in order to escape charges that he lied on his bar application, and that First Lady Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993!


I have written at length of the many lawyers and journalists who have addressed the birth certificate issue. You can read some of their names here. But with the notable and noteworthy exceptions I’ve mentioned, other so-called investigative journalists who should have been asking and answering the above questions and dozens of others are an extinct species, killed off by leftist media moguls in league with the Obama regime, or too timid and pandering in their own rights to have taken up the cudgels on behalf of the public they pretend to serve.

People understand why hacks from the former, now moribund, mainstream media have avoided the subject of Obama’s eligibility like the plague it is. By and large, they are liberals and leftists who shilled for him during his campaign, concealed mountains of damning evidence about his lack of experience and shady associations, and studiously avoided any mention of his still-unknown country of birth.

But harder to understand are the hacks at Fox. In a startling display of dishonesty and pretension, Bill O’Reilly, who wants to be considered intelligent and so never fails to tell his audience that he earned a master’s degree at Harvard, apparently never studied coups d’état, never realized that the Marxist Castro’s shining moment came only after years of agitation, rebellion, and subterfuge. But the idea of Obama being part of a conspiracy was apparently too much for the former elementary school teacher to contemplate… above his pay grade, so to speak. Never even consulted Wikipedia, as I just did, to learn of the hundreds of coups d’état that took place in the 20th century alone.

Apparently Harvard never taught Mr. “looking out for the folks” about the successful coups in Argentina in 1943, in Thailand in 1947, in Czechoslovakia in 1948, in Egypt in 1952, in Paraguay in 1954, in Pakistan in1958, in Venezuela in 1958, in Turkey in 1960, in Ecuador and Syria and Brazil and South Vietnam and Ghana and Libya and Somalia and Greece and Chile and again in Pakistan — the list is endless — and the immense and lengthy planning that went into these government overthrows. Or the more recent coups — since 1999 — in the Ivory Coast, Fiji, Peru, Mauritania, Haiti, Congo, et al.

Without acknowledging the widespread existence of coups and the years or decades of planning they entailed, O’Reilly decided to slam “the birthers” — as he pejoratively calls those who still believe in the Constitution and think presidents of the U.S. should abide by it, starting with their eligibility — and stated that he personally had seen Obama’s birth certificate.

Of course he hadn’t. He lied. Then in an orchestrated charade, he trotted out two women, both lawyers, he routinely disrespects by barking out their last names and in essence had them standing on their hind legs, yapping in agreement about those misguided “birthers.” It didn’t take long for Glenn Beck to echo their yaps. That’s right, the guy who routinely looks straight in the camera and exhorts his audience to seek “the truth.”

Why would O’Reilly lie? Why would Beck avoid seeking “the truth” in this one glaring instance? Were they threatened, as Douglas Hagmann — a respected journalist, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and longtime private investigator — and Judi McLeod, a prolific journalist and the managing editor of Canada Free Press, suggest? After a nine-month investigation, they discovered that prominent media people had indeed been threatened by the heads of major TV and radio stations and also Federal Communication Commission officials — with job losses and worse — to never raise, allude to, or mention the birth certificate issue! Or was it the huge influence the Saudis have over Fox content since they bought and then increased their shares to nearly 20 percent in Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp?

Whatever. The fact that O’Reilly and Beck caved — and continue to cave — has forever negated their credibility.


So appalled are a majority of Americans at the hijacking of one-sixth of the American economy through the healthcare legislation, and so revolted by the hideous process it entailed, that upwards of 15 state attorneys general — and counting — are suing the federal government on grounds that key parts of the Deathcare law are unconstitutional; that the law includes taxpayer-funded abortions (smoke-and-mirrors to the contrary), kill-the-elderly cuts to Medicare seniors, huge tax increases that will wipe out the entire middle-class of our country, and a Nazi-like brown-shirt $16-billion-taxpayer-funded force of Internal Revenue Service goons to reinforce our descent into tyranny. Ordinary citizens are suing too, among them four residents of Michigan, represented by the Thomas More Law Center and attorney David Yerushalmi.

And dozens if not hundreds of groups are crying Repeal — which former speaker Newt Gingrich explained was not possible because Obama would veto such a move. What is possible, Gingrich said, is for Republicans to gain majorities in the House and Senate during the midterms in November and then cut off funding for this horrific, bankrupt-the-nation law. And if the GOP gains the presidency in 2012, they can then repeal this socialist blueprint.

But there may lie the rub. As writer J.D. Longstreet reminds us: “The democrats’ lust for power is so great and their zeal for socialism so intense that I cannot see them allowing their hold on power to be placed in jeopardy by, of all things, an election where the voice of the people is actually heard….in less than eighteen months the Obama Regime has managed to take America from a constitutional republic to a socialist republic….that accomplishment alone should give you reason enough to suspect that when their power is threatened they will use the full force of the Central Government to ruthlessly crush any and all who they perceive as a threat. At this moment in history, a threat is anyone, any American, who does not agree with them.”

Longstreet and others imagine Obama creating a national crisis or emergency — sort of like the phony swine flu “pandemic” last year — in which Martial Law is declared and the midterm elections are suspended. “Who decides what a national emergency is?” he asks. “You’ve got it — the Obama Regime!”

Longstreet then issues a warning: “The American people are a patient people. We will put up with a lot of nonsense from our government — for a while. But we draw the line when that government ignores the Constitution, as the Obama Regime and the Democrats in the Congress have done. There is a seething rage in America today….my senses tell me it is too late to avoid the ‘lashing out’ Americans are about to unleash. [Americans] are waiting, just waiting, for an incident that will knock the chocks from the dam wall holding back the cascade. Postponing, or suspending, the midterm election…would be the spark that ignites a firestorm that will consume all in its path.”

Journalist Sher Zieve concurs. “The political party that promoted the slavery of Africans, established Jim Crow laws, created the Ku Klux Klan, refused to follow court orders barring segregation…is now is full raging power within the borders of the United States of America. Most of them — including their dictatorial leader Barack Hussein Obama — realize that the chances for their reelections to power are, at best, marginal. I have warned that any and all ‘free’ elections would probably soon be a thing of the past. The Marxist way is to not allow them in the first place.

“The current U.S. government is moving quickly and forcefully against the American people,” Zieve continues. “I have to now wonder how close We-the-People are today toward reaching the same conclusions as did our founders….I think we may be as close to our founders’ ultimate decision as we will ever be. Do we wish to be free and sovereign or submit to bondage? For a brief window of time longer, it’s still our choice.”

Then there is Michael Connelly’s stern warning: “…I have some bad news for all of the socialists, or progressives, or whatever you choose to call yourselves this week, you have made a huge mistake. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto who led the attack said that: ‘I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.’

“I suggest to President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid that you have awakened the giant again and that this giant, made up of freedom-loving Americans, is going to be coming at you from every direction you can imagine. Individuals and State Governments will be challenging you in the courts, and Americans will take you on in the polling places. In every city, town and village you will hear the voices of angry Americans, and despite your best efforts we will not be silenced. You will hear the outcry of Americans of every race, religion, and creed, and we will prevail.”

All of this takes time, of course…time well spent. But it will take less time to revive the serious question of Obama’s very suspect eligibility to be president in the first place!

“Forget the dispute over the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement of the U.S. Constitution for presidents,” writes Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily. “Barack Obama may not even be a ‘citizen,’ according to a new filing in a long-running legal challenge to his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.”

If there is even one court in our land whose judge has not been threatened, intimidated, bought off, or bribed, the case for Obama’s ineligibility should be tried immediately. If found guilty, I suspect Obama would be responsible for the greatest purchase of confetti in the history of the world!

© Joan Swirsky

[End article by Swirsky]

What a terrific article the above is. Obama is one of the most mysterious characters ever, and we need to remember that the face which politicians present will not be the whole story.


The writer is certainly thorough.


But the writer also presents huge inconsistencies, either does not know history, or else deliberately mixes it up for capitalist ideological reasons.


So Obama seems to be presented as a “Marxist”. You can laugh at this but there is also the issue of this being based on ignorance of the writings and struggles of Leon Trotsky and the creation of the Fourth International, also the persecution of the FI BY CAPITALISM AND STALINISM


But I do not expect the truth from capitalist supporting sources.



ONE OF MANY GREAT ARTICLES IN www.jihadwatch.org

The terminology was carefully chosen by the Sharia-inclined parties pushing this law. After all, what kind of person, they could ask, would object to curbing pornography? What kind of religious group would object?

They can thus seize upon objections to portray their opponents as perverts and savages to an inattentive audience that projects their own understanding onto a term that is being used in quite a different context. It’s actually quite a common tactic, though usually employing ostensibly positive terms like “peace,” “justice,” “human rights,” “women’s rights,” and so forth.

The crucial difference occurs when Sharia is the framework in which such terms are defined. Hence, in this case, all freedom of personal and religious expression becomes subject to Sharia. As such, the “pornography” law threatens to become a vehicle for Islamic supremacism and the cultural genocide of non-Islamic traditions, whether Christian, Hindu, or other non-Islamic faiths in Indonesia.

“Christ on cross ‘could be porn under Indon law’,” from CathNewsAsia, March 29:

Even the naked body of Christ may be considered as pornography after Indonesia’s Constitutional Court approved a new anti-porn law, Catholics fear.

The fears arose after the Constitutional Court declared the anti-pornography law (enacted by the Government in 2008) to be compatible with Indonesian public policy, Fides reports.

Fides sources say that in Indonesian civil society, among moderate Muslims, Christians, and Hindu groups, as well as associations dedicated to protecting freedom and human rights – especially in eastern Indonesia- have challenged the document.

“It is not that we are pro-pornography,” explained Catholic sources of Fides, “but because it is feared that this law – accepting a controversial generic definition of ‘pornography,’ which includes ‘any attitude and any artistic-cultural form of communication that excites a sexual instinct or is contrary to morality,’ lends itself easily to exploitation: the fundamentalist Muslim fringe can use it to penalize non-Muslims and, ultimately, seek to impose strictly traditional customs, even the Sharia.”

“Our angels are naked,” an Indonesian priest told Fides ironically. “Will they be outlawed? This law comes at a time when the country is also debating the blasphemy law, which carries similar risks.

Many Islamic leaders and intellectuals have called for a review of the measure on blasphemy, saying it is the wrong weapon to leave in the hands of radical Islamic groups.

In the case of the anti-pornography bill, however, threats and insults have hit Catholic Judge Maria Farida, one of the nine judges of the Constitutional Court (the only woman and the only Catholic of the Court) because she courageously voted against this bill. We wish to express our support and our prayers for her.”

Even when the text of the law was drafted two years ago, the Indonesian Bishops expressed strong doubts and misgivings, in part because the rules that regulate public morality and decency in Indonesia are already contained in other legislation.

Just the other day, they also ruled that Sharia takes precedence over civil law. That paves the way for rulings like this, which uphold Muhammad’s example above those pesky modern Indonesian laws about child welfare and human rights.

“NU rules in favor of underage marriages,” by Muhammad Nafik and Andi Hajramurni for the Jakarta Post, March 27:

The minimum age of 16 years to marry under the prevailing 1974 marriage law is not a sharia-binding regulation for Muslims, according to Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) jurists.

The panel of sharia experts announced there was no age limitation for marriage under Islamic law.

They did not cite gender; but the law states that women must be at least 16 to marry, while the minimum age for men to marry is 18.

The experts said Muslim parents can marry off their underage children, but strongly appealed for marriages to only be carried out after the child has reached puberty.

Non-binding. Wink-wink.

The jurists underlined that couples in which both are underage must abstain from sexual intercourse until they are deemed physically and mentally capable of doing so.

In practice, the person making that call will all too likely be the randy old creep who just married a 12-year-old.

The edict was reached at a meeting of jurists at the national leadership conference of NU, the country’s largest Muslim organization, in Makassar, South Sulawesi.

“The majority of clerics are of the opinion that there is no minimum age limit in marriage under sharia law,” NU jurist Cholil Nafis told a press conference on the sidelines of the congress on Friday.

The edict to allow for underage marriages quickly sparked protests from human rights activists Friday.

“It’s a setback and contravenes the 2002 Child Protection Law,” National Commission for Child’s Protection (Komnas Anak) secretary general Arist Merdeka Sirait said.

Article 48 of the law requires parents to prevent their children from underage marriages, he argued.

“Underage marriages eliminate the rights of children, particularly to determine their future, and encourages sexual exploitation,” Arist said….


Noting that Islamic law forbids musical instruments will bring you swift charges of “ignorance” and “Islamophobia,” but the “militiamen” in Iraq who believe that music is un-Islamic are not ignorant “Islamophobes”:

Hadith Qudsi 19:5: “The Prophet said that Allah commanded him to destroy all the musical instruments, idols, crosses and all the trappings of ignorance.” (The Hadith Qudsi, or holy Hadith, are those in which Muhammad transmits the words of Allah, although those words are not in the Qur’an.)

Muhammad also said:

(1) “Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance.”

(2) “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.”

(3) “Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.”

(4) “This community will experience the swallowing up of some people by the earth, metamorphosis of some into animals, and being rained upon with stones.” Someone asked, “When will this be, O Messenger of Allah?” and he said, “When songstresses and musical instruments appear and wine is held to be lawful.”

(5) “There will be peoples of my Community who will hold fornication, silk, wine, and musical instruments to be lawful ….” — ‘Umdat al-Salik r40.0

Sharia Alert from Iraq: “Oud maker labors in secret on Baghdad rooftop,” by Hamza Hendawi for AP, March 28:

BAGHDAD — In a tiny workshop on the roof of his home in a Baghdad slum, Farhan Hassan works in secret, lovingly curving wood and tightening strings to make his ouds — a traditional Arabic instrument.

Only close family and friends know what he is doing, because the militiamen in his neighborhood frown on such frivolities.

The oud’s angst-filled tunes define Iraq’s music, the same way the Tigris and Euphrates rivers define its landscape. But nowadays few in the country play or make the oud, a pear-shaped, deep-voiced cousin of the lute. Hundreds of artists fled Iraq during the violence in recent years — and continued instability and the power of religious hard-liners give them little desire to return.

Now Hassan is also hoping to leave Iraq. Like many of the estimated 2.5 million Shiites who live in Sadr City, he has had to cope with some of the city’s worst living conditions. Militiamen have closed music stores, prohibited the mixing of the sexes, banned wedding parties, imposed the Islamic hijab on women and murdered gay men — all while making a living as hired guns….

“I could have gone out on the streets carrying an RPG or a machine-gun and people would either take no notice or commend me on my courage,” he mused. “But I would have probably been killed if I had gone out with an oud in my hand,” he said with a laugh tinged with bitterness….

Thanks to Jihadwatch

There are many great articles in www.jihadwatch.org


by Jim Stephens

March 30, 2010

Suddenly the Russians are hit by suicide bombers.


As train doors open on a sleepy early morning and as totally ordinary people struggle to work as happens anywhere because capitalism is like that and it makes the wage slaves toe the line, suddenly…oblivion

But those dead are the lucky ones; in these killings by suicide murderers the injuries are horrific because these murderers and their handlers back up the explosive with nails etc

And the morning after, THIS MORNING, the BBC has the usual pro Jihadist interview

I jotted down a few words from the BBC, but the essence was sympathy for the Jihadist murderers

But there are young C who think that this is the only way


The regime in these places is worse than the regime in Moscow


Lecturer in the department of war studies, somewhere in London!


I did not quite catch the name but does that matter!

And this is what really gets me about these Jihadists and the reaction to it and them.

If it is Serbs who are murdered by these Jihadist murderers then it is good as far as the world and the media are concerned

And if it is Jews in Israel murdered by whatever brand of Jihadist, Fatah, Hamas, Hizbullah, and any one of the 57 varieties, OK again

The Russians, the Chinese, the British, the Spanish, the Indonesians etc never seem to be able to join together the dots

The Russian Government is one of the biggest backers of Jihad when it is Jihad against Israel, meaning we hasten to add Jihad against the Jews, because that is the new anti-Semitism.

The Russian Government has been teasing and threatening Israel and the Jews for many a month with their support for the Iranian fascists and their non ending Jihad against the Jews of Israel.

Wakey Wakey Russians!

The Jihad monster has turned tail and bit you. But the tragedy is not you the “governors” but those ordinary folk with hardly a political thought in their heads.

So it is all right to practice terror against the Jews in Israel, to support the whole point of terror there which is the Palestine State.

In fact they are creating it

Note what Hilary Hippo Hips Clinton had to say this morning. Whether you are in London, in Madrid, etc etc, but she omitted in Israel

You see Hippo Hips along with Obama are in essence ANTISEMITES and they are totally incapable of saying Jerusalem or Tel Aviv

What you have is a careful and conscious separation. They cannot say the words Tel Aviv, and Madrid, in the same sentence in this sense, that they are all effected by the Jihad.

So as a non Jew who supports Jews and speaking for 4international I say Fuck Obama the anti-Semite and Fuck Clinton the anti-Semite! And the same to all those who refer to “young people with no hope”, that is their cover for the Jihad.

“The extremists who want to turn the clock back on civilization”

These are the words of hippo hipped Clinton in referring to the “extremists” in the Moscow subway, the “young people who have no hope” as the BBC says, as the anti-Semitic Israel hater calls “my Muslim friends”.

But hippo hips makes a sharp exception for the “extremists” who attack Israel. There they are freedom fighters according to hippo hips.

And that is the way with all the antisemites in the world today. Anything goes as far as the antisemites are concerned when it is against Israel (Jews)

There is literally nothing happening in the world today that does not impinge on anti-Semitism.

Jihadwatch carried this report:

Two female suicide bombers blew themselves up on Moscow’s subway system as it was jam-packed with rush-hour passengers Monday, killing at least 37 people and wounding 102, officials said.

The head of Russia’s main security agency said preliminary investigation places the blame on rebels from the restive Caucasus region that includes Chechnya, where separatists have fought Russian forces since the mid-1990s.

The first explosion took place just before 8 a.m. at the Lubyanka station in central Moscow. The station is underneath the building that houses the main offices of the Federal Security Service, or FSB, the KGB’s main successor agency.

A second explosion hit the Park Kultury station about 45 minutes later.

Emergency Minister Sergei Shoigu said the toll was 37 killed and 102 injured, but he did not give a breakdown of casualties at each station, according to Russian news agencies.

“I heard a bang, turned my head and smoke was everywhere. People ran for the exits screaming,” said 24-year-old Alexander Vakulov, who said he was on a train on the platform opposite the targeted train at Park Kultury.

“I saw a dead person for the first time in my life,” said 19-year-old Valentin Popov, who had just arrived at the station from the opposite direction.

In a televised meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev, Federal Security Service head Alexander Bortnikov said body fragments of the two bombers pointed to a Caucasus connection. He did not elaborate.

“We will continue the fight against terrorism unswervingly and to the end,” Medvedev said. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, on an official trip to Siberia, was being kept informed of developments, news reports said.

The blasts practically paralyzed movement in the city center as emergency vehicles sped to the stations.

In the Park Kultury blast, the bomber was wearing a belt packed with plastic explosive and set it off as the train’s doors opened, said Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for Russia’s top investigative body. The woman has not been identified, he told reporters.

A woman who sells newspapers outside the Lubyanka station, Ludmila Famokatova, said there appeared to be no panic, but that many of the people who streamed out were distraught.

“One man was weeping, crossing himself, saying ‘thank God I survived’,” she said.

The last confirmed terrorist attack in Moscow was in August 2004, when a suicide bomber blew herself up outside a city subway station, killing 10 people. Responsibility for that blast was claimed by Chechen rebels

So Medvedev fights against terrorism to the end!!! But he rewards the terrorists of the Iranian Government, the killers of youth, the torturers in Teheran. And he is a big pal of the Palestinian Arab terrorists because THAT is Israel and their target is Jews!

When will people start to grasp this…the essence of anti-Semitism?


By Jim Stephens

March 29, 2010

The following short comment on Israel National News sums up the situation perfectly

[Begin comment here]

The new anti-Semites

The new anti-Semites o not publicly proclaim their desire to bring about a 2nd Holocaust or to subject the Jews to mass murder or annihilation. The hatred is aimed at the State of Israel, which, according to the new anti-Semites, represents all that is evil in the world and which is the main violator of human rights and guilty of virtually every other abuse that can be conceived. This poison is now so widespread that a poll taken in Europe not too long ago found Israel to be the greatest menace to the peace of the world–far ahead of such murderous regimes as those of Iran and North Korea.
gj, Passaic (03/29/10)


by Jim Stephens

March 29, 2010

Telling the Big Lie

The Arabs are claiming that Jerusalem is an Arab city. Historical Revisionism! What rubbish!

[Begin report from Israel National News]

(IsraelNN.com) The Arab League concluded its 22nd summit in Libya on Sunday without any changes from its longstanding policies: no to recognizing Israel under any conditions, yes to armed resistance (aka terror) against Israel, no condemnation of genocide in Darfur, yes to Arab Jerusalem, and more. A follow-up meeting will be held in October

This summit focused on Jerusalem, which the League termed an Arab city. “East Jerusalem is an integral part of the occupied Palestinian lands of 1967. All procedures that are carried out by the Israeli Occupation Authorities is illegal, and does not change the legal status of the city that remains occupied, nor does it impact the political status as the capital of Palestine,” the League stated.

The League called on United States President Barack Obama to continue criticizing the building of homes for Jews in Judea, Samaria, and eastern and northern Jerusalem. Israel must not be allowed to “Judaize” the city, Arab ministers said.

As the summit opened, Arab leaders agreed to give the Palestinian Authority $500 million to “fight Judaization” in Jerusalem and promote its own interests in the city.

Jerusalem has historically been a majority-Jewish city. In 1948, the Jordanian army drove Jews out of historic Jerusalem, including the City of David and the Old City.

Jews returned to the eastern and northern neighborhoods of Jerusalem 19 years later, in 1967, and have remained there since. The land has been annexed to Israel, and is officially part of the nation’s capital city. However, the PA claims that the areas temporarily controlled by Jordan rightfully belong to the PA as capital of a future Arab state.

The League determined that if Israel were to give the PA control over all areas controlled by Egypt and Jordan from 1948 to 1967 – Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and much of Jerusalem – the Arab League would support peace. However, the League would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

No to Terrorism – just call it “Resistance”
The Arab League also condemned terrorism, but then redefined the word “terrorism” to exclude attacks intended to “resist occupation.” The change in terminology effectively gives the green light to groups such as Hamas, Fatah, and Hizbullah, which justify their attacks on Israeli civilians by saying that Israel was established on Arab land.

While giving lip service to the war on terrorism, the League also condemned the assassination of arch-terrorist Mahmoud al-Mabhouh of Hamas. Mabhouh was killed in Dubai, in an operation that the world has blamed on Israel.

Support for Libya, Syria, Sudan
League members also agreed to express support for Arab countries under Western pressure. League members backed Sudan, expressing solidarity with the country and rejecting “attempts to violate its sovereignty.”

Sudan has faced widespread criticism for failing to stop an ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of the country, and for allegedly giving support to the perpetrators. Arab militias have slaughtered tens of thousands of non-Arab Muslims in Darfur, and many more have died of starvation.

The League also called for compensation for Libya over losses it sustained due to Western sanctions following the Lockerbie bombing. It supported Syria in its demand that Israel hand over control of the strategic Golan region, which was annexed to Israel following the 1967 Six Day War.


Karl Marx visited the city of Jerusalem more than a century and a half ago and wrote following that visit

[Begin what Karl Marx said about Jerusalem]

in an article written in 1854 [1] Marx turned his attention to the fate of the Jews of the Holy Land. Curiously enough, this piece turns out to be more or less the only thing he ever wrote in which he displays some sympathy for his own people.

So, this is what he says about the Jews of Jerusalem:

[Quote from Marx starts here]

“The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect, as they are in no way affected with the weakness of their Government at Constantinople. Nothing equals the misery and suffering of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, this quarter of dirt between  Mount Zion and Mount Moriah, where their synagogues are situated – the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins and living only upon the scanty alms transmitted by their European brethren. The Jews, however, are not natives, but from distant and different countries, and are only attracted to Jerusalem by the desire of inhabiting the Valley of Jehosophat and to die in the very places where their Redemptor is to be expected.

‘Attending their death,’ says a French author, ‘they suffer and pray. Their regards turned to that mountain of Moriah, where once rose the temple of Solomon, and which they dare not approach, they shed tears on the misfortunes of Zion, and their dispersion over the world.'”[2]

[Quote from Marx ends here]

In passing, Marx informs us that Jerusalem had 15,500 inhabitants, including 8,000 Jews and 4,000 Moslems (Arabs, Turks and Moors).

His remarks are confirmed by all contemporary observers. We will leave out the surveys of the Alliance Israelite Universelle, whose objectivity might be questioned by suspicious readers, and rely instead on the accounts of Catholic writers of travel guides for pilgrims to the Holy Land. These edifying tours invariably culminated in the contemplation of the spectacle – both instructive and heartrending – of the downtrodden Jews, living in the most extreme poverty. Frozen in prayer before the Wailing Wall, they formed a living illustration of the degeneration of the “killers of God.” And in order to heighten the impact of this grand finale, a point would be made, before undertaking this final step,  including a visit to the Jewish quarter in the programme.

“This is by far the darkest and most unhealthy part of the whole city. (…) The wretched appearance of the inhabitants and the disgusting state of this district mean that nobody passing through it can forget God’s curse which weighs so visibly on the Jewish people.”[3]

Let’s return to the picture Marx painted of the Jews of Jerusalem.

What does he show us?

* That the Jews inhabit “the most filthy quarter of the town”, “the quarter of dirt.”

* That they were “the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance,” without this sparing them the insults of the Greeks and persecution of the Latins…



By Jim Stephens

March 29, 2010

Israel National News has an article which points out what we on 4international have always believed

Israel has no choice but to capture Gaza and smash Hamas

But we say that the very same applies to Judea and Samaria…there is no difference between Fatah and Hamas, as far as Jew hatred is concerned

[Begin INN report here]

(IsraelNN.com) Minister Yuval Steinitz of Likud warned Sunday that Israel may be forced to retake control of Gaza and topple the Hamas regime. In an interview with goverment-run Voice of Israel Radio, Steinitz said that Israel “will not tolerate” Hamas’s growing rocket arsenal.


The writer then gives a summary of the history

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005; in 2007, Hamas seized control of the region. In late 2008 Israel carried out a major counter-terror offensive in Gaza after increasingly frequent rocket attacks killed several civilians. The three-week offensive succeeded in greatly reducing the number of attacks from Gaza.

Steinitz also discussed the United States’s pressure on Israel regarding housing for Jews in Jerusalem. America’s criticism of Israel is not advancing peace, but rather, is having the opposite effect, he stated.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has already made two significant gestures to the Palestinian Authority, by freezing construction for Jews in Judea and Samaria and by working to improve the PA economy, Steinitz said. By continuing to pressure Israel, the US is giving the impression that it is less friendly to Israel than it was in the past, which encourages the PA to up its demands, he explained.

4international believes very strongly that the more that Israel strengthens and helps the Arabs behind Abbas then the more dangerous they become.

If Israel has not learned this by this stage then it has learned nothing


By Jim Stephens

March 29, 2010

The following series of events as detailed by Debkafile show that the US ruling classes are stirring up antisemitism in the most vicious manner. Obama can effectively be compared to Hitler

[Begin Debkafile report here]

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 23, 2010, 9:24 AM (GMT+02:00)

Tags:  George Mitchell   Mahmoud Abbas   Peace talks 

US envoy chases Palestinian leader to Amman

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has laid down a fresh condition for restarting indirect peace talks: Israeli must first free 2,000 jailed Palestinian terrorists.  debkafile’s Middle East sources report that Abbas raised this new hurdle after manufacturing an accident that forced the US president’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, to chase him to the Jordanian capital, Amman, on Monday, March 22.

Abbas’ list includes 323 prisoners sentenced to long terms for brutal terrorist offences before the 1993 Oslo partial peace accords were signed. Israel has refused to trade this group – even to obtain the release of its kidnapped soldier Gilead Shalit from Hamas. The Palestinian leader is perfectly aware of this. Therefore, Monday night, US and Israeli officials concluded finally that Abbas, after stalling for more than a year, remained determined to undermine all prospects of renewed peace negotiations on one pretext or another.
While achieving this purpose, Abbas also challenges his rivals in Hamas for not demanding enough for the Israeli soldier.
By raising the ante for talks to an intolerable level, the Palestinian leader avoided having to give the US envoy an answer and sent George Mitchell off with yet another failed mission.
In Washington, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of Israel facing “hard choices” for peace, when she addressed the AIPAC annual conference Monday.
In fact some of those hard choices have already been forced on Israel.
While prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the conference that Jerusalem was Israel’s capital – not a settlement – and that the quarter of million Jews living in suburbs built after 1967 would remain in Israel in any future peace settlement – he quietly he set in motion bureaucratic measures for an almost total freeze on construction in East Jerusalem, in response to arm-twisting by the Obama administration and ahead of his meeting Tuesday night with the US president.
Before that meeting, Netanyahu explained these and other conciliatory measures to Secretary Clinton.
Constantly forced into the position of giver to keep the Mitchell mission afloat, he told the conference that compared with Israel’s many concessions for the sake of peace talks, the Palestinians have done nothing except lay down obstructive prior terms and conduct a smear campaign against Israel around the world.

It was time for the Palestinians to start giving too, he stressed.
Our sources report that Palestinian delaying tactics are clearly aimed at using the Obama administration’s willingness to squeeze Israel for more advantages before committing themselves to talks, while the Netanyahu government, following Barak’s lead, places its emphasis on placating the Obama administration, which in turn is forcing Israel to give ground to Palestinian demands, however insatiable.
A year ago, the US president declared Jerusalem was Israel’s capital, never to be divided. Today, he is pushing Israel to settle for a repartitioned Jerusalem to provide a future Palestinian state with a capital.
 When Netanyahu first agreed to a 10-month freeze on West Bank construction, Clinton praised him for ceding more than any of his predecessors for the sake of peace.

The Israeli strategy of adapting to changing US policies and interests without solid bedrock of its own principles and values is untenable and bound to break down whenever it comes to the crunch.



by Jim Stephens

March 29, 2010

The Debkafile report tells its own story.

What exists in the White House is a rotting dictatorship. Obama was not elected by the American people to do this. In fact Obama lied, claiming to AIPAC that he would be the friend of Israel.

Now American Jews, and all Jews in the Diaspora, must draw the correct lessons and act decisively.

[Begin Debka report here]

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 24, 2010, 9:36 PM (GMT+02:00)  

Netanyahu leaves amid standoff with Obama

US president Barack Obama kept on turning the screw on Israeli minister Binyamin Netanyahu Wednesday, March 24, after their harsh conversation in the White House Tuesday: Netanyahu was told bluntly to issue a White House-dictated public pledge before leaving Washington for home to eschew further construction in East Jerusalem, or else face a US presidential notice condemning Israel and holding its government responsible for the failure to restart indirect Israel-Palestinian talks.
Reporting this, debkafile’s Washington sources add that Netanyahu’s public renunciation of Jerusalem construction was required to include also the large Jewish suburbs of the city and remain in force for the duration of negotiations. He must also pledge further concessions to the Palestinians.
As part of the ultimatum, the US president warned the Israeli prime minister that he also intended formulating in detail for the first time the settlement the US government sought for solving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Netanyahu flew out of Wednesday night without reaching common ground with the president on the key points at issue. He and defense minister Ehud Barak spent their last hours in the US capital working on a statement that might satisfy the White House. Barak worked out of the Israel embassy with the president’s special adviser Dennis Ross at the National Security Council’s office at the White House. Middle East envoy George Mitchell shuttled between them in an effort to save his mission.
A high-ranking US official categorized the current crisis in US-Israeli relations as the most acute in 54 years, ever since 1956 when President Dwight Eisenhower gave David Ben-Gurion an ultimatum to pull Israeli forces out of Sinai – certainly more serious than the impasse over the Madrid conference between the first President Bush and Yitzhak Shamir in 1992.
A US presidential notice condemning Israel and predetermining the shape of an Israeli-Palestinian settlement would be tantamount to a US diktat and put the lid on negotiations, direct or indirect, because Israel would be dragged to the table in handcuffs to face an Arab partner who would accept nothing less than the terms Washington imposed in advance on Israel.
Such a notice would put a clamp on the close dialogue which has historically characterized US-Israeli ties –  to the detriment of Israel’s international standing.

The Washington Post laid the blame for the crisis squarely on President Obama, whom it accused of treating Netanyahu “as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length.”
The WP went on to say: “Obama picked a fight over something that virtually all Israelis agree on, and before serious discussions have even begun.

“A new administration can be excused for making such a mistake in the treacherous and complex theater of Middle East diplomacy. That’s why Obama was given a pass by many when he made exactly the same mistake last year. The second time around, the president doesn’t look naive. He appears ideological — and vindictive.”



by Jim Stephens

March 29, 2010

The war against Israel by the descendents of Hajj Amin el Husseini is intensifying.

Now it seems quite inevitable that Al Qaida is going to take over the “Palestinian” movement, and why not, because they have everything in common. They are part of the same Jihadist root

You will not find the following in any of your BBC or other Media, in other words we are being fed lies

This is what has been happening to Jews on the Israeli border

[Begin Debka report here]

DEBKAfile Special Report March 26, 2010, 7:23 PM (GMT+02:00)

Israeli helicopter in action in Gaza

A Hamas cross-border attack on Israeli forces outside Kissufim Friday, March 26, killed an officer, Maj.  Eliraz Peretz, Dep. Commander of Golani Battalion 12, 31, from Eli and 1st Sgt. Ilan Seviatsovsky, 21,  from Rishon Lezion.

Two Israeli soldiers were also injured in the heavy fighting which followed when an Israeli tank and artillery force which crossed in to shell the attackers was ambushed by a second Hamas unit firing anti-tank weapons and bombs. Israeli helicopter gunships were sent in as the battle escalated into the heaviest Israel-Hamas engagement since Israel’s Cast Lead anti-terror operation in early 2009.
Israel says Hamas is accountable for the attack.
Maj. Peretz’s elder brother, Uriel, was killed in action in Lebanon 12 years go.

On the Palestinian side, the Hamas military arm, Izz-e-dine al Qassam, reported its gunmen attacked an Israeli force which entered southern Gaza from the Kissufim area, while an organization calling itself Taliban-Palestine claimed its men staged the attack.

debkafile’s military sources report a persistent rise in tension on the Gaza-Israeli border with Hamas with a smattering of missiles and other provocations every few days.

Exactly a week ago, on March 19, three pairs of motorbike riders, claimed to be from an al Qaeda-linked outfit, crashed through Gaza’s border fence and opened RPG and automatic fire on Israelis soldiers on patrol near the Israeli village of Kfar Azza. They missed and swerved back into the Gaza Strip before the soldiers could return the fire. There were no casualties on either side.

Monday, March 22, the same Kissufim sector was the scene of an Israeli firefight with three Palestinian intruders from southern Gaza. Sgt. Gabriel Cepic, 21, was killed by friendly fire when a Golani infantry unit mistook his tank force for Palestinian gunmen.
Our counter-terror sources report that Palestinian terrorist groups operating under the al Qaeda-linked Jalalalat umbrella control extensive areas of southern Gaza.




By Jim Stephens

March 29, 2010

Obama has instructed Israel to do NOTHING about the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel. And Obama is not trusted. Many Israelis now think he will allow and even support a Nuclear Iran. In other words Obama hates Israel.

This will have immediate effects which are unstoppable!

Now Israel is a small country and although it is well armed it can only do so much.

4international believe that Israel is unable to defeat Iran and the whole of the Islamic world PLUS the US by ordinary conventional warfare.

It is a matter of how time merges in to military strategy.

For Israel to continue to exist it HAS to engage in war with Iran on a first strike Nuclear basis.

This is why we are intensely interested in the following produced by the excellent (always) Debkafile.

[begin report by debka here]

Scenarios of a potential Israeli attack on Iran – usually without Washington’s assent – abound in leading US media in the last 24 hours. They contrast sharply with the impression Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been trying to convey to the public that he and President Barack Obama were of one mind on the Iranian question when they talked at the White House last Tuesday, March 23, but  the president wanted more Israeli concessions to get talks restarted with the Palestinians.
debkafile’s military sources point in particular to the work of two eminent experts on Iran’s nuclear program, Anthony Cordesman and American-Jordanian Abdullah Toqan for the Washington Institute for Strategic Affairs, who report the belief in some American military circles that “…nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels…”
The quote was embodied in a 208-page report published Friday, March 26 under the heading: Options in Dealing with Iran’s Nuclear Program.

They explain that because of the limited scale of its air and missile forces, Israel would resort to “using these [nuclear] warheads as a substitute for conventional weapons, given the difficulty its jets would face in reaching Iran for anything more than a one-off sortie.”
Our sources note that in July 2009, the two researchers (in a 114-page report) maintained that the Israeli Air Force possessed the aircraft and resources for striking Iran’s nuclear facilities. This view disputed the estimates generally current Washington at the time. Then, too, Cordesman and Toqan were of the opinion that it was not necessary to hit scores of targets to cripple Iran’s nuclear bomb program: Seven to nine sites would suffice.
Our Iranian sources report that Tehran ran off thousands of copies of that report for distribution among its intelligence and Revolutionary Guards commanders, who were told to study every word, photo and map. Iran’s rulers took the work as seriously as though they had scooped a top-secret Israeli plan of operation.

In their latest work, the two researchers find that “”Ballistic missiles or submarine-launched cruise missiles [such as those with which Israeli Dolphin submarines are armed] could serve for Israeli tactical nuclear strikes without interference from Iranian air defenses.”
Saturday, March 27, the day after the Cordesman-Toqan paper was published, The New York Times revealed:
“… international inspectors and Western intelligence agencies say they suspect that Tehran is preparing to build [two] more sites,” six months after its secret enrichment plant was discovered in Qom.

The report goes on to say:  “The most compelling circumstantial evidence… is that while Iran appears to be making new equipment to enrich uranium, that equipment is not showing up in the main plant that inspectors visit regularly [at Natanz or at Qom.]”
Small manufacturing factories spread around Iran to avoid detection and sabotage “are a particular target of American, Israeli and European intelligence agencies,” some of which have been penetrated,” the report says.  Iran “has encountered difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges, the machines that spin at very high speeds to enrich uranium.”

Then, Sunday, March 28, The New York Times followed up with proposed scenario, captioned: “Imagining an Israeli Strike on Iran,” based on a simulation exercise conducted last December by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Its main point is that if Israel goes ahead with this attack, using a refueling base set up in the Saudi desert without Saudi knowledge, Washington will essentially tell its leaders they have “made a mess,” and instruct them “to sit in a corner while the United States tries to clean things up.”
The exercise does not indicate how the US will clean things up, whether diplomatically or militarily – or both – or just concentrate on keeping the Gulf oil nations safe from Iranian retaliation.
Iran next defies warnings and fires missiles at Israel, including its nuclear center at Dimona, with minimal damage and casualties – the strategy being “to mount low-level attacks on Israel while portraying the United States as a paper tiger…”

debkafile’s sources infer from this simulated war game that the Americans believe that, aside from the confrontation over Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel and Iran will try and use their conflict to manipulate US policy.

The next stage would be for Hizballah to fire up to 100 rockets a day into northern Israel, following which Israel would launch a 48-hour campaign by air and special forces against Lebanon to destroy Hizbalah’s military strength.
The games simulators then predict an Iranian attack on the Saudi oil industry center at Dahran with conventional missiles, mining the Strait of Hormuz and damaging US oil shipping.
At that point, Washington will embark on a massive reinforcement of the Gulf region. It is clear that the US will then aim at destroying all Iranian, air, ground and sea targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz to inflict a “significant defeat” on Iran’s forces.
The game is projected to end eight days after the initial Israeli strike.