Zionism is the latest anti-Semitic cult

Bigots were Zionism’s avid fans—it was the anti-Semites who championed the Zionists.

Excerpt

Our topic is of course the so-called “conflict” in Israel-Palestine, a tragedy that has dragged on for so long that it feels static, indeed almost normalized.

But unlike other deadly conflicts, this one is wholly in our power to stop—“our” meaning the United States and Europe.

It is in our power to stop it, because we are the ones empowering it.

We are now approaching the centennial of the British Original Sin in this tragedy, the Balfour Declaration.

The British role in Palestine was a case of ‘hit & run’: The Balfour Declaration, in which the British gave away other people’s land, was the hit; and thirty years later, Resolution 181—Partition—was the run, leaving the Palestinians abandoned in a ditch.

Zionism was of course among the incarnations of racial-nationalism that evolved in the late nineteenth century.

Bigots were Zionism’s avid fans—it was the anti-Semites who championed the Zionists.

Gertrude Bell, the famous English writer, traveler, archaeologist, and spy, reported, based on her personal experience, that those who supported Zionism did so because it provided a way to get rid of Jews.

The London Standard’s correspondent to the first Zionist Conference in 1897 I think described Zionism perfectly. He reported that

…the degeneration which calls itself Anti-Semitism [bear in mind that ‘anti-Semitism’ was then a very new term] has begotten the degeneration which adorns itself with the name of Zionism.

Indeed, most Jews and Jewish leaders dismissed Zionism as the latest anti-Semitic cult.

They had fought for equality, and resented being told that they should now make a new ghetto—and worse yet, to do so on other people’s land.

They resented being cast as a separate race of people as Zionism demanded.

They had had quite enough of that from non-Jewish bigots.

For others, the idea of going to a place where one could act out racial superiority was seductive.

As the political theorist Eduard Bernstein put it at about the time the Balfour Declaration was being finessed, Zionism is “a kind of intoxication which acts like an epidemic”.

By the time the Balfour Declaration was finalised, thirty-plus years of Zionist settlement had made clear that the Zionists intended to ethnically cleanse the land for a settler state based on racial superiority; and it was the behind-the-scenes demands of the principal Zionist leaders, notably Chaim Weizmann and Baron Rothschild.

Shireen Abu Akleh: Polish Zionist Jew Blinken still thinks “Israel” should lead probe

Radical Zionist zealots like Anthony Blinken, Linda Thomas Greenfield, Victoria Nuland, and now Richard Nephew, have absolutely hijacked the Biden Administration’s key foreign policy posts. This was to be anticipated. Now it has happened.

Antony Blinken had called for ‘independent’ investigation, but State Department says US position has not changed.

Washington, DC The administration of US President Joe Biden has said it still believes Israel should lead the investigation into the killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh.

“There has been no change in our approach,” a State Department spokesperson told Al Jazeera in a statement on Thursday, a day after Secretary of State Antony Blinken called for an “independent” probe of Abu Akleh’s killing.

“We continue to call for a thorough, credible investigation that culminates in accountability.”

Israeli forces fatally shot the veteran Al Jazeera journalist on May 11 while she was reporting in Jenin in the occupied West Bank.

Calls for justice for Abu Akleh have grown louder as the one-month anniversary of the killing approaches – and as investigations by the Palestinian Authority, media outlets and rights groups have concluded that she was targeted by the Israeli military.

Washington has called for accountability while insisting that Israel should lead the investigation into the incident.

This week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken was confronted by journalist Abby Martin over the Biden administration’s continued support for Israel and Saudi Arabia after the killing of journalists, including Jamal Khashoggi and Shireen Abu Akleh.

Abby Martin: “Why is there no accountability for Israel or Saudi Arabia for murdering journalists? It is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist in Palestine.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken: “I deplore the loss of Shireen. She was a remarkable journalist, an American citizen, as you well know. And there, too, we are determined to follow the facts and get to the truth of what happened.”

Abby Martin: “The facts have been found, Secretary Blinken, with all due respect.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken: “No, they have not yet been” — 

Abby Martin: “With all due respect, it is conclusive.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken: “No, I’m sorry, with respect, they have not yet been established. We’re looking for” —

BDS ‘Mapping Project’ links Jews to ‘all ills’ of society

The Mapping Project: a project created by activists and organizers in eastern Massachusetts, investigating local links between entities responsible for the colonization of Palestine, for colonialism and dispossession here where we live, and for the economy of imperialism and war. Here is how the Zionists feel about it. Note that there is a difference between Jews and Zionists. The Zionists intention from the beginning has been to blend in with the real Jews. The Jews reject all forms of Zionism. This is not about Jews. It is about Zionists who work for the Zionist Entity called Israel.

“This whole project is reminiscent of a dangerous antisemitic pattern of activity known from antiquity through the horrors of the 20th century: a pattern which has led to violence against Jews and their institutions,” said Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

The Zionist invaders have always been terrorists!

 World Israel News

An anti-Israeli group in Boston, Massachusetts, published Friday an interactive map showing ostensible links between myriad Jewish groups in the state and public and private companies and institutions, in an attempt to broaden support for the demonization of the Jewish state.

The purpose of the innocuous-sounding Mapping Project is not hidden. The pro-BDS group said it “wanted to develop a deeper understanding of local institutional support for the colonization of Palestine and harms that we see as linked, such as policing, US imperialism, and displacement/ethnic cleansing.”

Other “harms” they throw into the mix include “systemic white supremacy” in the U.S., “privatization and medical apartheid.” The “liberation struggles” against all these types of wickedness propagated by the “oppressors,” which the mappers claim are the U.S. and Israel, “are connected” and therefore should be fought together, the BDS activists say.

 

— BDS Boston (@BDSBoston) June 3, 2022

This classic example of intersectionality then displays a series of Jewish organizations whose sin, according to the group, is support for the Jewish state. The names range from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), AIPAC and J Street to Jewish charities, newspapers, and a synagogue network, along with almost all those who work for them.

They are linked on the map to such public institutions as universities like MIT and Harvard (which “engage in these multiple forms of oppression and produce much of the ruling class”), municipal governments, labor federations, and military bases. Dozens of corporations in the private sector are also targets, including Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Citigroup, Deloitte and DuPont.

Local police forces are a special target, as the group supports the discredited claim that officers are flown to Israel to learn anti-terrorism tactics that are then used inappropriately against minorities back home.

US police chiefs are visiting the country as part of an ADL delegation to learn advanced training techniques from Israel Police. Among the delegation are chiefs of the Orlando, Florida and San Bernadino, California, police departments, who recently witnessed unprecedented terrorist attacks in their cities. Remember, for land thieving murderous “Israel” the native Palestinians are terrorists.

In a joint statement, the ADL, Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston (JCRC) and Combined Jewish Philanthropies (CJP) – all named by the group – strongly denounced the effort.

Its “underlying messages are clear: Jews are responsible for the ills of our community and if you maintain your relationship with Jewish organizations, you will share that responsibility,” the NGOs said.

“It is a list with names and organizations to be shunned, isolated and disenfranchised. And it draws on age-old antisemitic tropes that are all too clear to our community: Jewish wealth, control and conspiracies.”

The Israeli government also hit back, not ignoring the fact that its Boston-based consulate general to New England was a prominent target.

“Israel strongly condemns BDS Boston’s publication of a map of local Jews and its blaming them for anything and everything wrong in Greater Boston,” said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lior Haiat.

“This publication reveals the true, ugly face of BDS Boston, which is nothing but a conspiratorial antisemitic organization. We call on all decent people to come out against this publication, and to condemn the organization and those behind this racist campaign.”

The Mapping Project says it wants to “dismantle” all its targets. The NGOs’ response: “We will not be intimidated and we will not be silent.”

Zionsit Neocons Dominate US Foreign Policy

Jewish neocons together is, of course, unconditional defense of Israel and everything it does

• May 10, 2022

Once upon a time United States foreign policy was based on actual national interests, but that was long ago and far away before the country was beguiled into a colonial war with Spain followed by a twentieth century that was chock-a-block full of any type and intensity of warfare that one might imagine, including the use of nuclear weapons.

Some might consider that the United States has become a nation made by war, to include a presumption that all the war-making has been both just and necessary, since America is “exceptional” and by default “the leader of the Free World.”

Witness what is taking place vis-à-vis Ukraine and Russia right now, pressing forward with a full-scale economic war against Moscow while arming one of the belligerents in support of no actual national interest, as if by habit.

This is zionism: HOW THE JEWISH LOBBY WORKS

The propensity of American politicians to resort to arms to compensate for their other failures is such that among circles in Washington and the media there has long been a joke making the rounds observing that no matter who is nominated and elected president we always wind up with John McCain.

But if one is seriously concerned about the tendency of the United States to view nearly every foreign problem as solvable if only one uses enough military force, the joke might be updated to suggest that we Americans now always wind up with the Kagans, the first family of neoconservative/neoliberal advocates for an aggressive, interventionist US foreign policy.

Victoria Nuland, the architect of the disaster in Ukraine and a Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton protege, is married to Robert Kagan and now serving as number three in the State Department.

And the bad outcomes are predictable

Robert is the Stephen & Barbara Friedman Senior Fellow with the Project on International Order and Strategy in the Foreign Policy program at Brookings and is also a regular contributing columnist at The Washington Post.

His brother is Fred, currently a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Fred’s wife Kimberley is head of the aptly named Institute for the Study of War.

 

When Congress-critters want to justify a new war, they frequently cite judgements made by one of the various groups associated with the Kagans.

Robert is a frequent contributor to the national media both in interviews and opinion pieces calling inevitably for harsh measures against countries like Russia and Iran while Fred uses his bully pulpit to argue in favor of a large increases in military spending to counter “future threats.”

Fred and Robert are members of the Aspen Strategy Group. They and their father, Donald, were all signatories to the neocon Project for the New American Century manifesto, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (2000).

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : A Family Business of Perpetual War

Characteristically, the Kagan brothers love war but expect someone else to do the fighting.

They are both considerably overweight and could never pass a military entrance physical if they were so inclined, which, of course they are not.

The Kagans have been closely tied to the Democratic Party on many social issues and would likely describe themselves as liberal interventionists as well as neocons, since in practice both labels mean the same thing in terms of an assertive foreign policy backed by force.

Plus, their flexibility gives them access to the foreign policy establishments of both major parties, as also does their support of Israeli interests in the Middle East, to include outspoken support of the Iraq War and for a covert war against Iran.

The Kagans are labeled by many as conservative, but they are not reliably Republican.

Donald Trump was much troubled during his 2016 and 2020 campaigns by so-called conservatives who rallied behind the #NeverTrump banner, presumably in opposition to his stated intention to end or at least diminish America’s role in wars in the Middle East and Asia.

The Kagans were foremost among those pundits.

Robert was one of the first neocons to get on the #NeverTrump band wagon back in 2016 when he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president and spoke at a Washington fundraiser for her, complaining about the “isolationist” tendency in the Republican Party exemplified by Trump.

Many other notable neocons also declared themselves to be #NeverTrump, including Bill Kristol, Bret Stephens, Daniel Pipes, Reuel Gerecht, Max Boot and Jonah Goldberg.

Donald Trump's 'Axis of Evil': Pompeo, Bolton & Abrams

‘Axis of Evil’: Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams

To be sure, some high-profile neocons stuck with the Republicans, to include the highly controversial Elliott Abrams, who initially opposed Trump but later became the point man for dealing with both Venezuela and Iran, attracted by Trump’s hardline with both countries.

Abrams’ conversion reportedly took place when he realized that the new president genuinely embraced unrelenting hostility towards Iran in particular as exemplified by his ending of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad.

John Bolton was also for a time a neocon in the White House fold, though he later became an enemy after being fired by the president and then wrote a book critical of Trump.

Even though the NeverTrumper neocons did not succeed in blocking Donald Trump in 2016, they maintained relevancy by slowly drifting back towards the Democratic Party, which is where they originated back in the 1970s in the office of the Senator from Boeing Henry “Scoop” Jackson.

A number of them started their political careers there, to include leading neocon Richard Perle.

It would not be overstating the case to suggest that the neoconservative movement together with its liberal interventionist colleagues are dominating foreign policy thinking across the board in Congress and the White House.

That development has been aided by a more aggressive shift among the Democrats themselves, with Russiagate and other “foreign interference” still to this day being blamed for the party’s failure in 2016 and for its dreary prospects in midterm elections later this year.

Given that mutual intense hostility to Trump, the doors to previously shunned liberal media outlets have now opened wide to the stream of foreign policy “experts” who want to “restore a sense of the heroic” to US national security policy.

Eliot A. Cohen and David Frum have been favored contributors to the Atlantic while Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss were together at the New York Times prior to Weiss’s resignation.

Jennifer Rubin, who wrote in 2016 that “It is time for some moral straight talk: Trump is evil incarnate,” is a frequent columnist for The Washington Post while both she and William Kristol appear regularly on MSNBC. Russian-Jewish import hardliner Max Boot is a regular feature contributor at the Post.

The unifying principle that ties many of the mostly Jewish neocons together is, of course, unconditional defense of Israel and everything it does, which leads them to support a policy of American global military dominance which they presume will inter alia serve as a security umbrella for the Jewish state.

In the post-9/11 world, the neocon media’s leading publication Bill Kristol’s The Weekly Standard virtually invented the concept of “Islamofascism” to justify endless war in the Middle East, a development that has killed millions of Muslims, destroyed at least three nations, and cost the US taxpayer more than $5 trillion.

The Israel connection has also resulted in neocon political and media support for the currently highly aggressive and dangerous policy against Russia, due in part to its involvement in defense of Israeli target Syria.

In Eastern Europe, neocon ideologues have aggressively exploited the largely illusory policy of “democracy promotion,” which, not coincidentally, has also been a major Democratic Party foreign policy objective, both coming together nicely to justify the current chaos in Ukraine.

The neocons and liberal interventionists are involved in a number of foundations, the most prominent of which is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), that are largely funded by Jewish billionaires and defense contractors.

FDD is headed by Canadian Mark Dubowitz and it is reported that the group takes direction coming from officials in the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

Other major neocon incubators are the American Enterprise Institute, which currently is the home of Paul Wolfowitz, and the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at John Hopkins University.

Many former Barack Obama White House senior officials who believe in liberal interventionism and democracy promotion while also hating Russia and Vladimir Putin have developed comfortable working relationships with the neocons.

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Antony Blinken Continues to Lecture the World ...

Foreign policy hawks including Antony Blinken, Wendy Sherman, Nicholas Burns, Susan Rice and Samantha Power are calling most of the shots given Biden’s senility but with neocon political and media support.

Unfortunately, nowhere in Biden’s foreign policy circle does one find anyone who is resistant to the idea of worldwide interventionism in support of claimed humanitarian objectives, even if it would lead to an actual shooting war with major competitor power Russia and also possibly China. In fact, Biden himself embraces a characteristically extremely bellicose view on a proper relationship with foreign nations “claiming that he is defending democracy against its enemies.” His language and authoritarian governing style leave no wiggle room for constructive dialogue with adversaries. The script being written by his Administration on how to deal with the rest of the world promises nothing but unending trouble and quite possibly sharp economic decline in the US for the foreseeable future.

What’s Ukraine got to do with Palestine?

While Russia has been virtually cut off from the world, Israel continues to enjoy impunity as it occupies and colonizes Palestinians’ land and imposes a brutal regime of apartheid on them.
“We are like you”

Since Russia invaded Ukraine late last month, there has been no shortage of comparisons with the situation in Palestine.

For many who support Palestinian rights, there is an instinctive identification with Ukraine as a country under attack, defending itself against a much more powerful force.

No one can be indifferent to scenes of civilians experiencing the horror of war and to the lives of millions upended as they become refugees.

Campaigners for Palestinian rights have also noted the parallels – and the vastly different and hypocritical responses – to calls for boycotts of Russia and Israel, as well as the selective application of international law.

While Russia has been virtually cut off from the world, Israel continues to enjoy impunity as it occupies and colonizes Palestinians’ land and imposes a brutal regime of apartheid on them.
“We are like you”

Of course, the identification of Ukraine with the plight of the Palestinians is one Ukrainian leaders insistently reject.

They see themselves as Israel and their Russian enemies, presumably, as the Palestinians.

In December, for example, President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Israel is “often an example for Ukraine” and asserted that “both Ukrainians and Jews value freedom.”

“We know what it’s like not to have [one’s] own state,” Zelensky added.

“We know what it means to defend one’s own state and land with weapons in hand, at the cost of [their] own lives.”

According to The Jerusalem Post, Zelensky has also urged that “we should be like Israel in defending our homeland.”

The Ukrainian leader, notoriously, portrayed Israel as the victim last May when its warplanes were bombarding Gaza, massacring entire Palestinian families in their homes.

In February, before the Russian invasion, Ukrainian officials even complained that Israel was treating their country “like Gaza” by not giving them enough support – implying that such perceived mistreatment should be reserved for Palestinians, not Ukrainians.

Ukrainian officials have pressed home this identification with Israel ever since the Russian invasion began.

“I think that our army is one of the best in the world. Maybe after the Israeli army,” Markiyan Lubkivskyi, an advisor to Ukraine’s defense minister told The Jerusalem Post.

“The army is very strong, because of experience and morale is very high, motivation is very high. We are like you.”

The same newspaper reported that Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of the Ukrainian capital Kiev, “says his models for how to win against all odds are Israel – a country he has visited and admires – and the IDF [Israeli army].”

“We have to learn from Israel how to defend our country, with every citizen,” Klitschko said.
“Entangled”

Wherever one falls on these matters, there are deeper connections with the question of Palestine, according to Columbia University professor Joseph Massad.

“Russia and Ukraine both have relations and histories that are very much part of the history of the region which the West came to call the Middle East,” Massad told Rania Khalek on her BreakThrough News show Dispatches this week.

Massad noted that southern Ukraine and the Crimea were former Ottoman regions conquered by Russia’s tsars in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

“Ukraine’s settler-colonial city of Odessa on the Black Sea, formerly the Ottoman city of Haci Bey, was the place where Greek anti-Muslim nationalism was born at the beginning of the 19th century and where colonial Jewish Zionism was born at the end of the 19th century,” Massad said.

“In fact, the first Jewish colonists who came to colonize Palestine in the 1880s were Ukrainian Jews from the settler-colony of Odessa.”

Crimea was even identified during the Soviet period as a potential site for an autonomous Jewish republic – a plan that was abandoned due to strong resistance from the Crimean Tatar population.

More recently, “Both Ukraine and Russia have policies that are entangled with the Middle East,” Massad observed.

Ukraine, for instance, provided the third largest military contingent to take part in the illegal US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.

“As far as Russia is concerned, of course [President Vladimir] Putin has also had excellent relations with Israel, at the same time he did intervene in Syria against the regime’s jihadist and American and Gulf-supported enemies,” Massad said.

“However his intervention in Syria continued to allow the Israelis to bomb Syria, but not the jihadists.”

Massad also raised the issue of Ukrainian Jews, which Israel is calling upon “to emigrate to Israel so that it can transform them into colonists of the land of the Palestinians.”

Massad’s discussion with Khalek provides a great deal of context and insight on the situation in Ukraine and Western responses, including an intense surge of Russophobia that mirrors the previous bouts of xenophobia that regularly accompany American wars and interventions abroad.

They also touch on conformity of thought and censorship in Western liberal democracies – and other themes that Massad recently addressed in an article for Middle East Eye.

Israel’s Role In Ukraine

“What should be troubling to Russia is the extent of the cooperation between Ukraine and Israel in the fields of military and intelligence.”

26 February, 2014

In the events that have unfolded in Ukraine during the past weeks, the role of Israel is by far the most interesting.

As far as the Americans and the European Union are concerned, it is a question of pursuing old-fashioned power politics vis-à-vis Russia with a view to minimizing the latter’s influence in Europe.

The role of Israel, on the other hand, can be adequately appraised only by taking into account the financial interests of the following individuals, whose plight was reported by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on 2 July 2013:

“In the past decade, wealthy businessmen from the former Soviet Union have flocked to Israel in private planes via the Moscow-Tel Aviv route.

Once here, they buy mansions in wealthy communities and get around in luxury cars.

Most of them have come to Israel to escape the grasp of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

They live below the radar, zealously guarding their privacy and hiding their assets and Israeli citizenship. […]

Many of them fear that if their Israeli assets and citizenships were revealed, it would complicate their relations with Russian authorities or hurt their business interests.”

Gone are the days of cowboy liberalism when Western tycoons and businessmen would treat Russia with the condescension of a colonial lord towards his African subject.

The economic system currently in force in Russia is corporative in nature: the state works with the businessmen, and those amongst these businessmen, Khodorkovsky being a case in point, who object to the interference of the state into their financial dealings can count on heavy reprisals.

The oligarchs of Russia are left with no choice but to cooperate with Putin, lest they suffer the same fate as Khodorkovsky.

Some of these oligarchs prostrate themselves with great gusto at the feet of the ruler in Kreml, but the modus vivendi that they have found with Putin is an uneasy one.

After all, these oligarchs are in possession of state assets of the Soviet Union purchased at a fraction of their actual value.

At some point in time these assets will have to be returned to their rightful owners: The Russian People.

The long term aim of these these oligarchs is to determine the political culture as well as the legislative framework of Russia in such a way that their property is shielded from being expropriated by the state.

The procession from liberalism towards corporatism, which in the future could lead to further centralisation, is a process that these oligarchs are at pains to reverse.

The first step towards such a reversal is to prevent Putin from extending his sphere of influence into their safe havens in the former Soviet Union, of which Ukraine is the most important.

Press TV was one of the few news outlets to report on the Israeli involvement in the riots in Ukraine:

“A former Israeli army officer is playing a leading role in the anti-government protests in Ukraine […].

[This] unnamed Israeli was commanding a group of 20 Ukrainian militants while four other Israelis, who had also previously served in the army, were said to have taken part in opposition rallies in Ukraine’s capital of Kiev.

They were born in Ukraine but migrated to Israel and joined its armed forces before returning [to Ukraine] for the demonstrations […]”

The Press TV report went on to state

“that an Israeli tycoon provided financial support to the opposition in Ukraine […]”

On 16 December 2013 Jerusalem Post reported that

“some young Jews working for international organizations such as JDC, Hillel and Limmud have taken to the barricades [in Ukraine, and they were] ‘really active’ in offering support as well as ‘organizing the barricades’.”

One may well be tempted to view these young Jews as useful idiots, but it is far more plausible that they were in fact provocateurs with a political agenda of their own.

Ukraine is not just a safe haven for oligarchs on the run from Putin; it is also a country in which Israel exerts a high degree of political influence.

What should be troubling to Russia is the extent of the cooperation between Ukraine and Israel in the fields of military and intelligence.

During the European Championship in football in 2012, which was held in Poland and Ukraine, Mossad was partly in charge of security.

And the cooperation went much farther than the overseeing of sports events:

(i) Exchange of security information between the two countries; such an exchange is most likely skewed in Israel’s favour.

(ii) Cooperation in the field of counter-terrorism.

(iii) Israel is granted wellnigh unlimited access to Ukrainian databases; this facilitates the halting of the influx of undesired elements into Israel as well as the apprehension of potential or imagined terrorists.

Indeed, the cooperation between Israel and Ukraine in the field of intelligence is so extensive that Israel saw it fit to appoint Reuven Dinel, a former Mossad agent, as ambassador to Ukraine.

It is worth noting that Dinel was caught spying in Russia during the 90s and was subsequently declared persona non grata.

So tarnished was Dinel’s reputation that Turkmenistan refused to grant diplomatic status to this enemy of Russia. Ukraine had no such qualms.

Ukraine is today a veritable den of russophobic Israelis.

On the one hand, Israel’s interests coincide with those of the West in the sense that they both wish to limit the Russian sphere influence, whereas on the other Israel is advocating the agenda of oligarchs with dual or multiple citizenships jealously clinging on to assets stolen from the people of Russia.

Russia has no choice but to treat Israel as an enemy state.

Debka Files: Iranian president offers Putin support for “invading” Ukraine

That’s the headline from Zionist intel ‘Debka files’. The US/Israel war machine is one machine.

From the Black Sea to the East Med, Don’t Poke the Russian Bear

 • FEBRUARY 24, 2022

Predictably, Western corporate media has already gone totally berserk branding it as the much-awaited Russian “invasion”. A reminder: when Israel routinely bombs Syria and when the House of One Saudi routinely bombs Yemeni civilians, there is never any peep in NATOstan media.

This is what happens when a bunch of ragged hyenas, jackals and tiny rodents poke The Bear: a new geopolitical order is born in breathtaking speed.

From a dramatic meeting of the Russian Security Council to a history lesson delivered by President Putin and the subsequent birth of the Baby Twins – the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk – all the way to their appeal to President Putin to intervene militarily to expel the NATO-backed Ukrainian bombing-and-shelling forces from Donbass, it was a seamless process.

The (nuclear) straw that (nearly) broke the Bear’s back – and forced its paws to pounce – was Zelensky the Comedian, back from the Russophobia-drenched Munich Security Conference where he was hailed like a Messiah, saying that the 1994 Budapest memorandum should be revised and Ukraine should be nuclear-rearmed.

That would be the equivalent of a nuclear Mexico south of the Hegemon.

Putin immediately turned Responsibility to Protect (R2P) upside down: an American concept invented to launch wars in MENA (remember Libya?) was retrofitted to stop a slow-motion genocide in Donbass.

First came the recognition of the Baby Twins – Putin’s most important foreign policy decision since going to Syria in 2015. That was the preamble for the next game-changer: a “special military operation (…) aimed at demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine”, as Putin defined it.

Up to the last minute, the Kremlin was trying to rely on diplomacy, explaining to Kiev the necessary imperatives to prevent heavy metal thunder: recognition of Crimea as Russian; abandon any plans to join NATO; negotiate directly with the Baby Twins – an anathema for the Americans since 2015; finally, demilitarize and declare Ukraine as neutral.

Kiev’s handlers, predictably, would never accept the package – as they didn’t accept the Master Package that really matters: the Russian demand for “indivisible security”.

The sequence, then, became inevitable. In a flash, all Ukrainian forces between the so-called line of contact and the original borders of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts were boxed in as the occupying force of territories of two Russian allies that Moscow had just sworn to protect.

So it was Get Out – Or Else. “Or else” came as rolling thunder: the Kremlin and the Russian Ministry of Defense were not bluffing. Timed to the end of Putin’s speech announcing the operation, the Russians decapitated with precision missiles everything that mattered in terms of the Ukrainian military in just one hour: Air Force, Navy, airfields, bridges, command and control centers, the whole Turkish Bayraktar drone fleet.

And it was not only Russian raw power. It was the artillery of one of the Baby Twins, the DPR, that hit the HQ of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Donbass, which actually housed the entire Ukrainian military command. This means that the Ukrainian General Staff instantly lost control of all its troops.

This was Shock and Awe against Iraq, 19 years ago, in reverse: not for conquest, not as a prelude for an invasion and occupation. The political-military leadership in Kiev did not even have time to declare war. They froze. Demoralized troops started deserting. Total defeat – in one hour.

The water supply to Crimea was instantly re-established. Humanitarian corridors were set up for the deserters. “Remnants” now include mostly surviving Azov battalion Nazis, mercenaries trained by the usual Blackwater/Academi suspects, and a bunch of Salafi-jihadis.

Predictably, Western corporate media has already gone totally berserk branding it as the much-awaited Russian “invasion”. A reminder: when Israel routinely bombs Syria and when the House of One Saudi routinely bombs Yemeni civilians, there is never any peep in NATOstan media.

As it stands, realpolitik spells out a possible endgame (see Donetsk’s head, Denis Pushilin: “The special operation in Donbass will soon be over and all the cities will be liberated.”)

We could soon witness the birth of an independent Novorossiya – east of the Dnieper, south along Sea of Azov/Black Sea, the way it was when attached to Ukraine by Lenin in 1922. But now totally aligned with Russia, and providing a land bridge to Transnistria.

Ukraine, of course, would lose any access to the Black Sea. History loves playing tricks: what was a “gift” to Ukraine in 1922 may become a parting gift a hundred years later.

It’s creative destruction time

It will be fascinating to watch what Prof. Sergey Karaganov masterfully described, in detail, as the new Putin doctrine of constructive destruction , and how it will interconnect with West Asia, the Eastern Mediterranean and further on down the Global South road.

President Erdogan, the ceremonial NATO Sultan, branded the recognition of the Baby Twins as “unacceptable.”

No wonder: that definitely smashed all his elaborate plans to pose as privileged mediator between Moscow and Kiev during Putin’s upcoming visit to Ankara. The Kremlin – as well as the Foreign Ministry – don’t waste time talking to NATO minions.

Lavrov, for his part, had a recent, very productive entente with Syrian Foreign Minister Faysal Mekdad. Russia, this past weekend, has staged a spectacular strategic missile display, hypersonic and otherwise, featuring Khinzal, Zircon, Kalibr, Yars ICBMs, Iskander and Sineva – irony of ironies, in synch with the Russophobia-fest in Munich.

In parallel, Russian Navy ships of the Pacific, Northern and Black Sea fleets performed a series of submarine search drills in the Mediterranean.

The Putin doctrine privileges the asymmetrical – and that applies to the near abroad and beyond. Putin’s body language, in his last two crucial interventions, spell out nearly maximum exasperation.

As in realizing, not auspiciously, but rather in resignation, that the only language those neo-con and “humanitarian” imperialist psychos in the Beltway understand is heavy meal thunder (they are definitely deaf, dumb and blind to History, Geography and Diplomacy, for that matter.

No to mention they never accepted their defeat in Syria.)

So we can always game the Russian military, for instance, imposing a no-fly zone in Syria to conduct a series of visits by Mr. Khinzal not only to the Turk-protected shady jihadist umbrella in Idlib but also the jihadists protected by the Americans in Al-Tanf base, near the Syria-Jordan border.

After all these specimens are all NATO proxies.

The United States government barks non-stop about “territorial sovereignty”. So let’s game the Kremlin asking the White House for a road map on getting out of Syria: after all the Americans are illegally occupying a section of Syrian territory and most of all adding extra disaster to the Syrian economy by stealing their oil.

NATO’s stultifying Stoltenberg has announced the alliance is dusting off its “defense plans”: that may include little more than hide behind their expensive Brussels desks.

They are as inconsequential in the Black Sea as in the East Med – as the Empire remains quite vulnerable in Syria.

There are now four Russian TU-22M3 strategic bombers in Hymeimim base, each capable of carrying three S-32 anti-ship missiles that fly at supersonic Mach 4.3 with a range of 1,000 km. No Aegis system is able to handle them.

Russia in Syria also has stationed a few Mig-31Ks in Latakia equipped with hypersonic Khinzals – more than enough to sink any kind of US surface group, including aircraft carriers, in the East Med.

The US has no air defense mechanism whatsoever with even a minimal chance of intercepting them.

So the rules have changed. Drastically. The Hegemon is naked.

The new deal starts with turning the post-Cold War set-up in Eastern Europe completely upside down. The East Med will be next. The Bear is back, baby. Hear him roar.

“Israeli” Left recap of wonderful “Israel” last week

Israeli soldiers raided Nablus and extra-judicially executed three Palestinians

Feature Image: The Burning of the Temple, by Francesco_Hayez. Not much has changed except the Zionists are throwing the Palestinians out

A difficult week – and the following one seems even worse

…from Gush Shalom

[ Editor’s Note: Adam Keller uses this short and sweet message style, as he is paying for print media placement. The original post was in a narrow newsprint format.

His material is a good quick read for those wanting to know the latest occupation force nasty treatment of its open air prison subjects.The US looks the other way on almost all of Israel’s aggression, due to our compromised Congress, via decades of blackmail material compiled on them, and then ‘influence’ over their reelection status.

As for our military, it is along for the ride, loving the free trips to Israel and getting schmoozed; treatment that does not really come free. ‘Things’ are expected in return and refusals can trigger ‘issues’.

As has been stated here by many, hard line Israelis view America as their golden calf. Someday, if and when Israelis get to experience what it is like to endure the treatment they have dished out to the Palestinians, they will remember the taste of the bitter fruit.

I hope I live to see it. It will be a glorious day… Jim W. Dean ]

First published February 20, 2022

Hacking into mobile phones and extracting personal information from them started with the Palestinians and has reached deep into Israeli society.
 
Israeli soldiers raided Nablus and extra-judicially executed three Palestinians. 
The Knesset approved a law that prevents Arab citizens of Israel from marrying whomever they wish and living in this country With their chosen spouse.
Two Palestinian workers plunged to their death from unsafe scaffolding on a high rise being built by a greedy contractor on the rubble of a slum whose residents were forcibly evicted.
And in the same week: The leadership of British Jewry, which hitherto granted unconditional support to all of Israel’s actions, informed a former minister in the Israeli government that racists of his ilk were personae non gratae.
Gush Shalom statement
Feb. 15, 2022
Contact: Adam Keller +972-(0)54-2340749

Uri Avnery … gone but not forgotten by VT

Amnesty International Warns “Israel” in Palestine: Forcible Transfer of Palestinians is a War Crime

 

Amnesty International warned Israel on Tuesday that forcible transfer of Palestinians under occupation amounts to a war crime, the official Palestinian news agency WAFA reported.

“For three days, Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah have been holding demonstrations in response to the imminent threat of forced eviction for the Salem family, which is slated for next month,” said AI in a tweet, commenting on the serious developments in the occupied East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah.

Amnesty added that Israeli security forces have used “unlawful force” to disperse Palestinians demonstrating against the forcible transfer of the Salem family.


It called on the Israeli authorities “to immediately halt forced evictions in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah and end the ongoing forced displacement of Palestinians from East Jerusalem,” warning that “forcible transfer is a war crime and a pillar of Israel’s system of apartheid.”

Amnesty recently stated that Israel is implementing a system of apartheid against the Palestinians under its rule, in a report released on February 1.

Tension started in the neighborhood three days ago after far-right Israeli lawmaker Itamar Ben Gvir, backed by Jewish settlers, set up an office on land owned by the Salem family in Sheikh Jarrah, days after an Israeli court ordered the family to leave its home.

Zionist Power Over Washington

 • JANUARY 18, 2022

There have appeared a couple of stories recently that illustrate how there is only one “red line” that no one dares cross in Washington and that is criticism of Israel and its associated supportive mythologies of increasing “holocaust denial” and “surging anti-Semitism.”

The rule is ruthlessly enforced by the Israel Lobby, often by its redoubtable Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which is based in New York City but has a regional office in the capital, conveniently close to government offices, from which vantage point it can observe possible deviations and mete out instant punishment.

If one wants to learn how hypersensitive (and vicious) defenders of Israel and/or Jewishness can be it is only necessary to read about the recent experience of strongly pro-Israel Republican Senator Marco Rubio.

He denounced “upscale liberals who control the media” in a tweet and was immediately attacked for “the anti-Semitic trope that Jews control the media,” which of course they do, but Rubio is too stupid and too fearful of Jewish influence to be suggesting that.

So, one must conclude it is not even safe for a conservative friend of Israel to mention the “liberal media” for fear of being labeled as guilty of “coded anti-Semitism.”

Likewise, any mention of the malign influence of George Soros by Republicans is likely to bring down the wrath of the usual suspects, not because it is a fiction but solely because he is Jewish and it implies that Jews can interact conspiratorially, which is demonstrably true.

Another interesting story concerns a government institution that I had never heard of before, the US Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad (USCPAHA), and guess what?

It is nearly all about Israel, Jews and the so-called holocaust! If you don’t believe that bold assertion on my part, go to the organization’s website which includes multiple pictures of people handing out holocaust related “Cultural Pluralism Awards” and smiling for the camera.

The commission was created by Public Law 99-83 in 1985 and its ostensible purpose stated on the website is to “1. identify and report on cemeteries, monuments, and historic buildings in Eastern and Central Europe that are associated with the heritage of US citizens, particularly endangered properties, and 2. obtain, in cooperation with the Department of State, assurances from the governments of the region that the properties will be protected and preserved…

The establishment of the Commission recognized that the population of the United States is mostly comprised of immigrants and their descendants.

The United States has an interest in the preservation of sites in other countries related to the heritage of these Americans.

The Holocaust and 45 years of atheist Communist governments created a critical need that led to the Commission’s establishment.”

The site also includes a list of “projects” , which are overwhelmingly Jewish/holocaust related and located in the parts of Europe where Jews settled.

Alison Weir’s “If Americans Knew” has reported how in the past congress there were 70 largely hidden bills that in some way benefited Israel, and the creation of America’s Heritage Abroad has that smell to it, yet another gift that flies beneath the radar by being attached to a larger piece of legislation.

America’s Heritage Abroad only surfaced in the news due to a stink being raised by ADL over one of the organization’s 21 commissioners, all of whom appear to be Jewish judging from their names.

He is Darren Beattie, who has been described as a “Right-wing conspiracy theorist [who] continues to occupy a position in the federal government given to him by Donald Trump, almost a year since Joe Biden took office and gained the ability to fire him.

Beattie was appointed by then-President Donald Trump in November 2020 to serve on the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad.

Its main responsibilities are seeking to preserve monuments in eastern and central Europe, many of which memorialize Holocaust victims.

He gained new prominence in recent weeks promoting conspiracy theories about the Capitol riot, earning public praise from Trump.”

Recently, the ADL criticized the appointment and said that Beattie, who describes himself as a “proud Jew” on Twitter, should not be continuing to serve on the commission.

Spokesman Jake Hyman complained that “Since Beattie’s appointment to the Commission in November 2020, he has continued to spread outrageous and deeply harmful falsehoods and misinformation, including about the January 6 insurrection, that are at odds with serving in such positions of official responsibility.

We retain our view that Beattie, who once attended an event with white supremacists and participated in a panel discussion with white nationalist Peter Brimelow, should have no place on a commission that plays a special role preserving Jewish heritage sites from before the Holocaust.”

Beattie claims that he is still on the commission even though he no longer appears on its website.

He states that “I’m proud to serve president Biden to honor the memory of the Holocaust” before criticizing ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt as a “Democrat apparatchik” who has “destroyed the reputation of the ADL during his tenure.”

So, the United States is now in the business of promoting holocaust remembrance on the taxpayer’s dime.

Another fascinating news report that just surfaced also has a holocaust plus “surging” anti-Semitism back story.

It is all about how numerous Biden nominees are stuck in the Senate waiting for approval, but it is really about Deborah Lipstadt who is described as a “renowned holocaust scholar.”

Lipstadt is the Dorot professor of Modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies at Atlanta’s Emory University, as well as founding director of Emory’s Institute for Jewish Studies.

She has also held senior positions at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, another taxpayer supported enterprise that promotes the Israel narrative. Lipstadt has sharply criticized some progressives in the Democratic Party who have dared to criticize Israel, including Representative Ilhan Omar, for describing pro-Israel Americans as a “political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

Such statements are “part of the textbook accusations against Jews,” Lipstadt countered, but Omar was, of course, right, though not allowed to get away with the truth when confronted by the Democratic Party establishment led by a foaming at the mouth Nancy Pelosi.

The White House announced in late July that Lipstadt would lead an expansion of the activity of the State Department’s Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, which is tasked with tracking and countering the alleged rise of anti-Semitism abroad.

For the first time, the position will have the rank of ambassador, which makes necessary Senate confirmation.

Bear in mind that these are all mechanisms set up specifically to promote the narratives favored by international Jewry.

Apart from affirmative action for blacks and other set-asides to favor them, there exists nothing in the US government to enhance the status of any other European, Latino or Asian ethnic groups or religious persuasions that is in any way similar.

These commissions, offices and special ambassadorships were established through the assiduous marketing of their brand by Jews using their methodically exploited financial power and the political access that it buys.

To cite only one example of what all that networking produces, politically wired Jewish organizations already receive more than 90% of the discretionary grants for “security” issued by the Department of Homeland Security.

And the end result is that Washington is a helpless giant that is drawn into conflicts in the Middle East that it would best avoid while also funding the Jewish aggressors, most recently in response to a demand to rearm the Israeli military with $1 billion, conflicts which serve no US national interest.

Finally, should the United States be so obsessed with a narrative that is certainly in many respects questionable and which relates to events that largely took place many years ago overseas?

Should the American taxpayer continue to foot the bill for all these contrivances to bind the US government hand and foot to the “heritage” of a small minority of the population and to its favored foreign state?

These are questions that are almost never asked though, as Voltaire allegedly put it, “If you want to know who controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize.”

The AMIA Terror Bombing, the Prosecutor, the Spy and Mossad

The United States and Israel placed heavy pressure on the Argentine government to implicate Iran. NO EVIDENCE

The July 18, 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina was one of the worst pre-9/11 terrorist attacks in the Western hemisphere, killing 85 and injuring 300.

For over a quarter century, the US and Israeli governments have blamed Iran for the bloodshed, citing it as primary evidence of Tehran’s role as the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism.

This narrative remains part of the propaganda offensive against Iran, and has been exploited by the Donald Trump administration to justify a campaign of economic strangulation aimed at either destabilizing the Islamic Republic or achieving regime change.

Iosi’s testimony should have ended that cover-up, but Nisman, SIDE, and the Federal Police colluded to quash a serious investigation. and impunity for the real AMIA terrorists continues.

Soon after the bombing, the United States and Israel placed heavy pressure on the Argentine government to implicate Iran.

At the time, however, officials in the embassy in Buenos Aires were well aware there was no hard evidence to support such a conclusion.

In an August 1994 cable to the State Department, US Ambassador James Cheek boasted of the “steady campaign” the embassy had waged that “kept the Iranians in the dock where they belong.”

In a striking comment to this writer in 2007, Cheek conceded, “To my knowledge, there was never any real evidence” of Iranian responsibility.

Bill Brencick, the chief of the political section in the US embassy from 1994 to 1997, also acknowledged in a 2007 interview that US insinuations of Iranian responsibility were based solely on a “wall of assumptions” that had “no hard evidence to connect those assumptions to the case.”

Brencick recalled that he and other US officials recognized “enough of a Jewish community [in Buenos Aires] and a history of anti-Semitism that local anti-Semites had to be considered as suspects.”

But this line of investigation was never pursued in any official capacity, likely because it contradicted the interests of a US national security state that was dead-set on indicting Iran for the bombing.

However, a dramatic development has threatened to upend the official US-Israeli narrative on the AMIA attack.

In 2014, the public learned that a former spy who had infiltrated the Jewish community in Buenos Aires on behalf of Argentina’s Federal Police had revealed to two investigative journalists that he had been ordered to turn over blueprints to the AMIA building to his Federal Police case officer.

The spy was convinced the building plans were used by the real culprits behind the bombing.

His stunning revelation prompted a series of articles in the Argentine press.

The spy was convinced the building plans were used by the real culprits behind the bombing. His stunning revelation prompted a series of articles in the Argentine press.

The former infiltrator’s account provided the first clear indication that anti-Semitic veterans of Argentina’s “Dirty War” and their allies in the Argentine police and intelligence service orchestrated the explosion.

But Argentina’s legal system — still heavily influenced by the intelligence agency that influenced the official investigation to blame Iran and a prosecutor whose career had been based on that premise  —  stubbornly refused to investigate the former police spy’s account.

Infiltration, Torture, Anti-Semitic Conspiracies

The former police infiltrator, Jose Alberto Perez, believed the AMIA building blueprints he had provided to the Federal Police were used by those who planned the bombing.

He had learned from his police counter-terrorism training course that such building plans could be valuable tools for planning such an operation.

Perez was also convinced that the bomb had detonated inside the building, rather than in front, and had been placed in the interior of the AMIA building through a gap between it and a neighboring building.

Experts of Argentina’s Gendarmerie had come to the same conclusion, and leaked it to Clarin, Argentina’s largest tabloid, just two days after the bombing.

Perez also provided crucial evidence that those who had used him to spy on Jewish community leaders were motivated by the same anti-Semitic beliefs that had led the Argentine military dictatorship to single out Jews for especially cruel treatment during the “dirty war” in the 1970s: his case officer, whom he knew only as “Laura”, had ordered him to find out as much he could from the Jewish community about the so-called “Andinia Plan.”

According to that alleged plan, Jewish immigrants and foreign Zionists had been secretly plotting to take control of the vast Patagonia region of southern Argentina and create a Jewish state to be called “Andinia.”

The myth of the “Andinia Plan” followed the rise of anti-Semitism as a major social force in Argentina during the 1930s and became a staple of the anti-Semitic right’s narrative during the heyday of military domination of the Argentine society and politics from the 1960s through the “dirty war” against leftists in the 1970s.

At least 12 percent of those subjected to interrogation, torture, and murder during the dirty war were Jews, according to an investigation by the Barcelona-based Commission of Solidarity with Relatives of the Disappeared, although they represented only 1 percent of the population.

Nearly all were interrogated about the “Andinia Plan.”

The crusading Argentine journalist Jacobo Timerman, who was born to Jewish parents and whose newspaper provided critical coverage of the military regime’s “dirty war,” was among those detained in the junta’s secret prisons.

Timerman recalled in his memoir how he was asked repeatedly to reveal what he knew about the “Andinia Plan” during extended interrogation and torture sessions. His interrogator refused to accept his answer that it was merely a fiction.

Meanwhile Israel, which maintained strong military and political ties to the Argentine Juntathroughout the dirty war, remained silent about the Jewish journalist’s detention throughout the war.

“Iosi” Goes to the Press

Jose Alberto Perez, for his part, was wracked with guilt about having enabled the AMIA terror bombing.

He had become an integral part of the Jewish community, studying Hebrew for three years, marrying a Jewish woman who was the secretary of an Israeli Embassy official and even taking the Jewish version of his Spanish surname, Jose.

Within the Jewish community, he was known as “Iosi” Perez.

As he fell into despair, Iosi contacted investigative journalists Miriam Lewin and Horacio Lutzky to ask their help.

The two journalists had tried for years to find a foreign sponsor to grant the former spy asylum abroad but to no avail.

Meanwhile, Iosi had secretly taped a video with the prominent Argentine journalist Gabriel Levinas in which he narrated his work penetrating the Jewish community and the unusual request for the blueprints.

Levinas posted the video online in early July 2014, just prior to the publication of the second edition of his own book on the AMIA bombing, which included Iosi’s story.

The release of that video prompted Lewin and Lutzky to arrange for Iosi to join Argentina’s Witness Protection Program.

The two journalists also urged Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who had spent a decade accusing Iran of the bombing, to meet Iosi in person.

But according to Lewin, Nisman would only agree to speak with Iosi on the phone.

The prosecutor insisted on having three of his employees interview Iosi in person, she recalled in an interview with The Grayzone, then signed a declaration about that July 2014 meeting as though he had been present, and “did not show interest in interrogating him any further.”

Iosi entered the Witness Protection Program the same day as the interview, according to Lewin.

Iosi’s Federal Police case officer “Laura,” who was retired by then, was released by the minister of security from the normal secrecy requirement about Iosi’s work.

But she rejected Iosi’s testimony, according to Lewin, claiming his reports had been judged “poor.”

Her claims stood in stark contrast to the actual reports obtained by prosecutors which clearly showed his findings had been evaluated as “excellent” year after year.

Lewin told The Grayzone she was confident that Iosi would have been able to provide “solid information about the local connection of the bombing,” but none of the four prosecutors who inherited the unsolved AMIA case after Nisman’s death were willing to follow up on the leads he provided.

Lewin noted that several of the senior Federal Police officials who would have been involved in the decisions to infiltrate the Jewish Community and request the AMIA blueprints were still active in 2015. That fact helps to explain why the case was left to die despite Iosi’s explosive revelations.

SIDE Covers the Junta’s Back

Another key factor in the corruption of the AMIA investigation was the role of the state intelligence agency, known as SIDE, in influencing the lead prosecutor, Judge Juan Jose Galeano. Not only was a special unit within SIDE tasked with overseeing the Galeano’s investigation, another SIDE unit operated directly inside Galeano’s office, as journalist Sergio Kiernan reported.

SIDE proceeded to exploit its power to divert attention away from the logical suspects within the junta, circling the wagons to protect its own.

As Sergio Moreno and Laura Termine reported in the daily La Prensa, November 28, 1994, the SIDE unit handling the AMIA investigation was notorious for its hatred of Jews.

The group consisted of veterans of the dirty war known as the “Cabildo” group, their name inspired by a right wing anti-Semitic magazine published in the early 1980s that had republished an infamous tract detailing the “Andinia Plan” conspiracy.

The chief of the Cabildo group unsuccessfully sued Moreno and Termine for labeling his unit anti-Semitic. Following complaints by Jewish community leaders about the Cabildo group’s role in the AMIA investigation, it was removed from the case – but not before it deflected public attention away from leaders of the dirty war and onto an alleged Iranian conspiracy.

SIDE’s PR strategy depended on the theory that the AMIA explosion emanated from a vehicle-born suicide bomb, thereby casting suspicion on Iran and its ally, Hezbollah.

The intelligence services claimed a white light commercial van had been used in the bombing. Its engine was supposedly found in the rubble on July 25, a week after the explosion.

The identification number on the engine was traced to Carlos Alberto Telleldin, the Shia owner of a shady “chop shop” operation that rebuilt damaged cars for sale. Telleldin was accused of being an accessory to the terror plot and jailed on other charges.

But the official AMIA case files revealed that Telleldin had been targeted before the AMIA bombing. This stunning fact was noticed by a “private prosecutor” hired by the organization of AMIA victims Memoria Activa.

According to a close analysis of the official evidence by Alberto L. Zuppi, a request by Federal Police to wiretap Telleldin’s phone was issued on July 20 — at least five days before the alleged discovery of the engine that led investigators to blame Telleldin.

In the weeks that followed the AMIA explosion, more evidence surfaced that pointed to Telledin’s role as a patsy.

In September 1994, five Lebanese nationals were detained as they tried to leave Argentina for Paraguay. Through a series of leaks, SIDE planted stories in the media suggesting the suspects were linked to a terrorist network.

The following month, a part-time agent for SIDE and former chief of a notorious prison camp where suspects were tortured during the “dirty war,” Captain Hector Pedro Vergez, began visiting Telleldin in prison.

In four meetings between September 1994 and January 1995, Vergez offered the jailed suspect $1 million and his freedom if he would identify two of the Lebanese nationals who were then detained in Paraguay as having purchased the van from him — thus making it possible to accuse them of the bombing. But Telleldin refused to lie, and the SIDE plan was derailed.

It was not long, however, before SIDE and Galeano initiated a new plan to implicate two Buenos Aires provincial policemen as Iranian-sponsored culprits.

Resorting to Bribery, Mossad Info, and MEK Sources to Blame Iran

In July 1996, Juan Jose Galeano personally visited Carlos Telleldin in prison and offered him $400,000 to blame the two police officers. The scandalous scene was captured in a video shown on Argentine television in 1997.

SIDE was actively involved in the cover-up operation, with agency director Hugo Anzorreguy approving a direct payment to Telleldin’s wife.

The case against the two policemen was thrown out in court in 2004, but Galeano and Anzorreguy went unpunished for another 15 years.

It was not until 2019 that they were sentenced to prison terms for their role in the affair, highlighting the culture of impunity that surrounded SIDE.

Once the Galeano case imploded, Alberto Nisman attempted to craft yet another narrative blaming Iran for the bombing.

For this, he depended on information provided by Israel’s Mossad to Jaime Stiuso, the SIDE official in charge of counterintelligence.

Nisman’s 2006 indictment of seven Iranian officials for the terror plot relied completely on the claims of senior members of the Mujahedin-E-Khalq (MEK), the Israeli and Saudi-backed Iranian exile cult.

Not only were none of the MEK members in any position to provide reliable information about a supposedly high-level Iranian plot because they had been actively engaged in a terrorist campaign of their own against the Islamic government by helping Iraq’s then-President Saddam Hussein select targets in Iran.

Nisman’s reliance on such unscrupulous sources demonstrated his own apparent determination to reach preordained conclusions about Iran’s guilt. It was hardly a surprise, then, that Nisman ignored Iosi’s revelatory testimony.

Nisman’s other major source, Jaime Stiuso of SIDE, was a notorious manipulator who had spent years collecting wiretaps on Argentine politicians.

In 2014, the intelligence chief was working to build a case against President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner for supposedly conspiring with Iran to eliminate the official Argentine accusation of Iranian guilt. Few observers believed the case would hold up under close scrutiny.

In January 2015, Nisman was found dead in his apartment of a gunshot wound to the head.

Though political opponents of Kirchner were convinced the prosecutor’s death was the result of a government-sponsored murder, a recent documentary detailing the various investigations of his death, “Nisman: el fiscal, la presidenta y el espía,” concluded that he had committed suicide.

By the time of his death, Nisman was helping direct a disinformation campaign that allowed SIDE to cover for shadowy figures from Argentina’s violently anti-Semitic past, and to bury their likely role in the AMIA bombing.

Iosi’s testimony should have ended that cover-up, but Nisman, SIDE, and the Federal Police colluded to quash a serious investigation.

gareth porter

Aquarter-century after the bombing, impunity for the real AMIA terrorists continues.

 

Factory of falsehoods

Moshé Machover slams the hypocrisy of an Israeli aggressor state demanding sympathy as a victim state

6.01.2022

At the time of writing, the outcome of the Vienna talks about restoring the Iran nuclear deal – the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weapon capability1 – is hanging in the balance.

Should we believe persistent news reports of an ‘unbridgeable gulf’ between the positions of the US (which withdrew from the deal during the Trump presidency) and Iran? Perhaps.

But they could just reflect bargaining postures, as often happens in hard negotiations, which seem to be at the precipice of breakdown before a last-minute agreement.

One thing is sure: Israel, the kibitzer in this political poker game, is doing all it can to prevent any real rapprochement between its US patron and the Iranian bête noire.

Preserving

What are Israel’s real concerns?

Israeli propaganda repeatedly claims that Iran is aiming to achieve capability to produce nuclear weapons, because it intends to annihilate Israel.

Here is a typical example, from an address by prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu at Yad Vashem on Holocaust Remembrance Day, April 15 2015:

Just as the Nazis aspired to crush civilisation and to establish a ‘master race’ to replace it in controlling the world, while annihilating the Jewish people, so too does Iran strive to gain control over the region, from which it would spread further, with the explicit intent of obliterating the Jewish state.

Iran is advancing in two directions: the first is developing the ability to arm itself with nuclear weapons and accumulate a stockpile of ballistic missiles; and the second – exporting the Khomeinist revolution to many countries by heavily using terrorism and taking over large parts of the Middle East.2

This is, of course, sheer nonsense. Iran has neither the intention nor the ability to ‘obliterate’ Israel.

Allegations to the contrary are figments of hasbarah, Israel’s efficient factory of falsehoods.

True, Iranian leaders have occasionally expressed the hope that the Zionist regime would collapse and disappear.

But this is wishful thinking rather than a threat that Iran was going to initiate military action to bring about the demise of Israel, as claimed by the Israel-friendly media.

The most notorious instance of this deliberate falsification involved a statement made on October 26 2005 by Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

He was quoting the Islamic Republic’s first leader’s expectation that “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.

This was widely misrepresented as a threat to “wipe Israel off the map”.3

Moreover, even if Iran achieves “the ability to arm itself with nuclear weapons”, it would pose no existential danger to Israel.

This was emphatically pointed out by Ephraim Halevy, a former chief of Mossad (Israel’s counterpart of the CIA and MI6).

Addressing a conference held in February 2008 in Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies,

Ephraim Halevy slammed Israeli political leaders for calling Iran’s nuclear threat ‘an existential threat’.

“There is something wrong with informing our enemy that they can bring about our demise,” Halevy said.

“It is also wrong that we inform the world that the moment the Iranians have a nuclear capability there is a countdown to the destruction of the state of Israel.

We are the superpower in the Middle East and it is time that we began behaving like [a] superpower,” he said.4

Of course, Israel is not indifferent to the prospect of Iran achieving nuclear weapon capability.

But its concern is not fear of being ‘obliterated’; rather, it is worry about any erosion, however slight, of its position as hegemonic regional superpower.

This position depends, among other factors, on its being the only Middle Eastern state possessing a nuclear arsenal,5 as well as the only one that has refused to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

It is by far the most aggressive, expansionist state in the region, operating a prolific policy of assassinations;6 frequent, widely reported bombings in Syria and Lebanon; and attacks at sea on ships carrying Iranian oil.7

This state-terroristic practice depends on its enemies and rivals having no effective means of deterrence, as that would tilt the military balance and diminish Israel’s overwhelming advantage.

Iranian nuclear capability could constitute such a deterrent, albeit not a very serious one.

In fact, a more credible deterrent is Iran’s development of conventional missiles that would exact an unacceptably high price in retaliation for an Israeli attack8 – which is why Israel is lobbying for inclusion of a ban on this development in any revived Iran nuclear deal.

By the way, the same logic applies to Israel’s evident concern about the rather advanced state of missile build-up by Iran’s Lebanese ally, the Hezbollah.

There is no real danger of Hezbollah initiating an aggressive military action against Israel; but its missiles are now a credible deterrent against a repeat of Israel’s extensive, aggressive incursions into Lebanon, or a massive strike against Hezbollah’s patron, the Islamic Republic.

Political concern

However, from the perspective of preserving Israel’s absolute regional hegemony, the greatest concern is not the purely military one.

It is political. In his lecture, from which I have quoted above, Ephraim Halevy went on to say: “Iran’s real goal [is] to turn itself into a regional superpower and reach a ‘state of equality’ with the United States in their diplomatic dealings.”

This is a rather inept way of putting a valid point.

Of course, Iran can never reach a state of equality with the US in diplomatic dealings; but a détente between the global hegemon and the Islamic republic would certainly upgrade the latter’s regional position.

This would imply some erosion of Israel’s regional hegemony, because it is unlikely that as part of the US-Iran deal the latter would acquiesce in Israel’s leading regional dominance (as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have done).

I have repeatedly pointed out that in this respect Israeli interest may diverge from American ones. For example, a year ago I wrote:

I have my own view on the possibility of an arrangement of some sort between the United States and Iran.

Of course, it would depend on many contingencies, but, as the nuclear deal struck by Barack Obama proved, there are circumstances where it is possible for these two states to come to an agreement. In my opinion, Israeli hostility to Iran is more far-reaching than that of the USA. It would be acceptable for the Americans under certain circumstances to strike such an agreement – provided Iran behaved like an obedient client state. That would involve giving Iran some kind of respect as a major power in the Middle East. But Israel would oppose such an arrangement, because Iran is regarded as an obstacle to its own regional hegemony.9

This explains Netanyahu’s vehement efforts to dissuade the US Congress under the Obama administration from signing the 2015 nuclear deal, and his encouragement to Trump to withdraw from the deal (not that Trump needed much encouragement). As several Israeli military commentators pointed out, the US withdrawal left Iran free since 2017 to enrich uranium to a higher concentration, thus coming closer to nuclear weapon capability than while the deal held. Netanyahu’s anti-deal advocacy would indeed have been irrational if his main concern was Iran’s nuclear capability. But it was quite rational, given that his priority was to exacerbate US-Iran relations.

The same logic applies to the Vienna talks. As the well-informed Iranian-American scholar, Trita Parsi, has recently pointed out,

It’s not the nuclear deal that’s the problem for Tel Aviv, but the very idea that Washington and Tehran would reach any detente at all …

[T]he details of the deal are not the real problem. It’s rather the very idea of Washington and Tehran reaching any agreement that not only prevents Iran from developing a bomb, but also reduces US-Iran tensions and lifts sanctions that have prevented Iran from enhancing its regional power …

There is a curious passage in the [New YorkTimes piece [published on December 10]: “American officials believe that so long as Iran has not moved to develop a bomb it does not have a nuclear military program, since it suspended the existing one after 2003. Israeli officials, on the other hand, believe that Iran has continued a clandestine effort to build a bomb since 2003.” If true, has Israel shared that intelligence with Washington?

If so, it has failed to persuade the CIA and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

If it hasn’t been shared, why not? And why did the Times choose to publish this rather inflammatory allegation without investigating these very basic – not to say critical – questions?

The moral of the story is this: US and Israeli interests on Iran diplomacy are irreconcilable.

Biden’s efforts to square the circle have predictably failed. Biden must choose whether he will pursue America’s interest or Israel. This should not be a difficult choice.10

Whatever political differences we may have with Parsi, his diagnosis of Israel’s main concerns is correct.

Israel is doing its damnedest to prevent any agreement in Vienna. It resorts to various provocations, including barely veiled threats of taking major unilateral military action.

In my opinion, the probability of such action – an all-out Israeli attack on Iran – is thankfully not high.

There are no signs in Israel of serious military preparations for this scenario, or of fortifying civilian population centres against expected Iranian and Hezbollah retaliation.

However, escalation of the relatively low-level raids and assassinations that have become routine is most probable; and these can get out of control and lead to an unintended major conflagration.

Nuke-free

Meantime, as Akiva Eldar, a senior Israeli political commentator, has recently remarked, what could deflate Israel’s puffed-up bullying posture is a serious proposal for a nuclear demilitarisation of the Middle East. In an article entitled ‘The Iranian threat: no nukes for us – or Israel’,11 he writes:

Over the years we have learned that when a politician or a general declares that “all options are on the table” he is actually referring to a single option – the military option. Supposedly that’s the only option that will remain to Israel if the negotiations with Iran don’t produce a nuclear agreement that satisfies the political leadership in Jerusalem.

… Has anyone read or heard about preparations for the possibility that Iran will announce that it accepts all the restrictions that the United States wants to impose on it; that in addition, it will allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit its nuclear installations without advance warning, and will even agree to extend the treaty by another 15 years – all that, on one condition: that Israel signs exactly the same document?

… As far as is known, the decision-makers in Jerusalem, those who declaim that “all options are on the table”, did not consider the possibility that Iran would pull out the doomsday weapon: an overall agreement for nuclear demilitarisation of the Middle East – including Israel – and acceptance of all the demands. It’s much sexier on television to show helmeted pilots talking about preparations for war.

Akiva Eldar has his tongue firmly in his cheek when warning against this “doomsday weapon”. But the point he is making is serious. We should call for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. Israel will, of course, reject the very idea – as it has done in the past – but it will serve to expose its hypocritical stance of an aggressor demanding sympathy as a victim.