ETERNAL VIGILANCE

Shin Bet Sabotage to Blame for Scuttling
Secret Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement

Israeli and Palestinian Sources Concur: Israel Made War Inevitable

By Jim Betker

Word comes today from the Omega Institute in Brighton, UK and its Director, Graham Ennis in a memorandum first sent to The Independent that Shin Bet, Israel's Internal Security forces, were responsible for scuttling an historic peace agreement which would have been announced at a major press conference attended by Palestinian Ministers and Israeli religious leaders the day before the IDF invasion of Gaza.

Ongoing negotiations had resulted in a breakthrough peace "understanding" which was to be announed in Jerusalem to mark the launching of an extraordinary peace initiative. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert had been briefed extensively about the initiative by Yitzhak Frankenthal, founder of the Arik Institute.

Also due to attend the press conference were Khaled Abu Arafa, the Palestinian Cabinet Minister for Jerusalem, Sheikh Muhamed Abu Tir, senior Hamas Member of the Palestinian Parliament, and other senior Palestinian delegates.

Arthur Nelsen, an Israeli journalist, described the events leading up to this promising peace initiative organized by Frankenthal, Rabbi Menachem Froman and MK Sheikh Ibrahim Sarsour, Chairman of the Islamic Movement, who were to be joined by Hamas leaders and together would have called for the release of the captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit:

"The day before the tanks rolled into Gaza, Froman had been due to launch an extraordinary peace initiative at a news conference in Jerusalem with Muhamed Abu Tir, the Hamas MP, Khaled Abu Arafa, the Palestinian minister for Jerusalem, and three Israeli rabbis.

"The panel was to have made a collective call for the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit, the beginning of a process to release all Palestinian prisoners, and the immediate start of negotiations with Hamas on the framework for a peace deal based on 1967 borders.

"They would also have announced that Jewish and Muslim religious leaders could achieve peace where Israel’s politicians had failed.

"But the response from Israel’s security establishment was crushing.

"Hours before the meeting was due to start, the Shin Bet detained Abu Tir and Abu Arafa and warned them not to attend the meeting. The news conference’s organisers were forced to contact the other rabbis — who were already on the road to Jerusalem — and tell them not to come.

"Instead of a triumphant statement of mutual respect and dialogue, a subdued and gently defiant three-man panel fended off aggressive questioning from an unruly Israeli press pack."

Israeli hardliners continue to maintain that the peace process is more dangerous than Hamas as Ted Belman wrote for Israel National Radio's Arutz Sheva website,

"...the threat of rockets raining down on Israel from Gaza isn't nearly the threat that the peace process was and is.

"To avoid this fate, the violence in the territories would have to continue at tolerable levels, but that doesn't solve the problem."

Belman's conclusion was that the Palestinians needed to be provoked.

Froman was a co-founder of Gush Emunim, the messianic settlers movement from which he split after Baruch Goldstein's Hebron massacre. As Richard Silverstein wrote of Froman on Tikun Olam,

"Despite this past history, he has very close relationships with Hamas. In fact, he negotiated for the release of Sheik Ahmed Yassin (later assassinated by Israel) from an Israeli prison, later becoming fast friends with him. He’s met with Mahmoud al-Zahar and the group’s leaders seem to like and genuinely trust him. He is a key figure in Jerusalem Peacemakers whose goal is to create an interdenominational dialogue involving spiritual dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"All of these qualities make Froman a very dangerous guy to Israeli intelligence."

In an interview with the Jerusalem Post Froman said, "Secular leadership is perceived by the Hamas as a group of Zionist apostates that are a spiritual danger to Muslims. I believe that a dialogue between religious Jews and Muslims can be productive."

Froman subscribes to the premise "that for Jews to live in all of Eretz Yisrael, they have to create a network of life with the Arabs."

It should be noted, however, that Froman believes that Jerusalem should be the seat of the United Nations' cultural bodies, human rights organizations and scholarly forums.

We see in this that Froman is indeed and ardent Zionist (and perhaps is calling for Jerusalem to be the seat of world government), though perhaps not one of the same stripe as is so prevalent in the Israeli government.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed writes that during all of this activity in Gaza,

"Israel simultaneously began conducting covert incursions on to Lebanese territory, provoking Hizbollah’s capture of two IDF soldiers. Credible sources confirm that the soldiers were not abducted on Israeli territory, but inside Lebanon. Like the scuppered peace negotiations, Western officials have ignored this, and misinformed the media. However, some reports corroborate the sources. Israeli officials, for instance, informed Forbes (12.7.06) that 'Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel.'"

The Israeli covert incursions took place near the Shebaa Farms, which is a disputed area of Lebanon occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War and supposedly taken from Syrian troops. Evidence points to the farms being Lebanese territory and an Israeli researcher proved it to be true by going to Paris and looking up records and maps from the period of the French Mandate.

A simple truth that is kept hidden from view concerning the reasons for the renewed violence in and around Israel is that Zionist provocations are to blame as OI Director Graham Ennis has written,

"The revelations show that Palestinian and Lebanese actors were not principally responsible for the escalation of the current conflict. Contrary to the misinformation disseminated by the Whitehouse and Whitehall, Israel vetoed unprecedented peace proposals that would have initiated a promising new framework for serious negotiations, and went on to provoke Palestinian and Lebanese groups into retaliations, that now threaten to escalate into a dangerous regional conflict."

Lebanon as a new target
The Neo Conservatives and the Policies of Constructive Chaos

by Thierry Meyssan
27 July 2006 | Voltairenet

During her press briefing at the State Department, on July 21st 2006, Condoleezza Rice was questioned on the initiatives she intended to take to bring peace back to Lebanon. "I have no interest in diplomacy for the sake of returning Lebanon and Israel to the status quo ante," she responded. "I think it would be a mistake. What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the growing - the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East not going back to the old one." [1]

Seen from Washington, what is happening today in Lebanon has no relation whatsoever with the recovering of soldiers captured by the Hezbollah. What is at stake is the carrying out of the long nurtured theory of << constructive chaos >>. According to the adepts of philosopher Leo Strauss, whose media branch is better known under the name of << neo-conservatives >>, real power cannot be exerted from if one remains in the status quo, but only, quite the contrary, in the act of destroying all forms of resistance. It is by plunging the masses into chaos that the elites can aspire to ensure the stability of their position.

Also, according to the adepts of Leo Strauss, it is only in this violence that the imperial interests of the United States merge with those of the Jewish State.

The Israeli will to dismantle Lebanon, to create in its place a mini-Christian state and annex part of its territory, is not new. It was enunciated in 1957 by David Ben Gourion in a famous letter published as an annex to his posthumous memoirs. [2] Particularly, it was inserted into a vast colonization project of the Middle East written in 1996 under the title: A clean break: a new strategy to secure the Kingdom (of Israel) [3] That document, written up in a neo conservative think tank, the IASPS, was prepared by a group of experts assembled by Richard Perle et given to Benjamin Netanyahu. It is representative of the thinking of the revisionist Zionism of Vladimir Jabotinsky. [4] It called for:

the canceling of the Oslo peace agreements
the elimination of Yasser Arafat
the annexation of the Palestinian territories,
the overthrow of Sadam Hussein to destabilize, Syria and Lebanon in a chain of events
 the dismantling of Iraq and the creation of a Palestinian state in its territory
the utilization of Israel as a complementary base for the US Star Wars program

That document inspired the speech given the next day by Benjamin Netanyahu to the US Congress. [5] All ingredients of the present situation are included there: threats against Iran, Syria and the Hezbollah, with the included demand for annexation of East Jerusalem.

That viewpoint concurs with that of the United States administration. The control of areas rich in hydrocarbons defined by Zginiew Brzezinski and Bernard Lewis as the "arc of crisis," ie. the arc reaching from the Gulf of Guinea to the Caspian sea going through the Persian Gulf, demands a redefinition of borders, States and political regimes : a "remodeling of the Greater Middle East," to use the expression of George W. Bush.

That is the new Middle East which Miss Rice claims to be the mid-wife of, and whose painful birth she is watching.

The idea is simple: substitute to the States inherited by the collapse of the Ottoman empire, smaller entities of mono-ethnic character, and neutralize those mini-states by setting up them permanently against each other. In other terms, the idea is to reconsider the secret agreements concluded in 1916 by the French and British empires, the Sykes-Picot agreements [6] and to establish rather a total domination of the Anglo-Saxons over the region. But in order to define new states, the existing ones must first be destroyed. That is what the Bush Administration and its allies have been doing since 5 years with the enthusiasm of a sorcerers apprentices. Judge the results:

Occupied Palestine's territory has been reduced by 7%; the Gaza strip and the West Bank have been separated by a wall; the Palestinian authority has been ruined, its ministers and parliamentarians kidnapped and imprisoned.
The UN has ordered Lebanon to disarm, expel the Syrian forces and dissolve the Hezbollah; former Prime minister Rafic Harriri was murdered and French influence disappeared with him; the economic infrastructures of the country have been razed and more than 500.000 added refugees roam in the region.
The Saddam Hussein dictatorship was replaced in Iraq by a still more cruel regime responsible for more than 3000 dead per month; in total anarchy, the country is on the verge of fragmenting into three distinct entities.
The Taliban pseudo-emirate has given way to a pseudo-democracy ruled under the most obscurantist interpretation of the Charia, with an added feature, the poppy culture. De facto, Afghanistan is already divided among the different war lords and combat is generalizing. The central government has renounced to being obeyed even in the capital city.

In Washington, the disciples of Leo Strauss, more and more impatient, dream of extending their chaos to Sudan, to Syria and Iran. In this transition period, one no longer speaks of "market democracy," but only of blood and tears.

Jacques Chirac who wished to intervene in Lebanon to defend French interests and sent there his Prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, had to renounce : during the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, George W. Bush forbade him from doing so stating that this was not an Israeli operation approved by the United States, but a United States operation being executed by Israel. Thus, M. de Villepin had nothing to declare to his interlocutors in Beyrut, only his words and his impotence.

More precisely, the project for destroying Lebanon was presented by Tsahal to the Bush administration a little more than a year ago, as the San Francisco Chronicle reported it. [7] It was at the center of political discussions at the yearly World Forum organized by the American Entreprise Institute, on June 2006 17th ad 18th at Beaver Creek. Benjamin Netanyahu and Dick Cheney met at length along with Richard Perle and Nathan Sharansky. The green light by the White House was given a few days after.

Tsahal's military operations are supervised by the United States Department of Defense who determines the essentials of the strategy and the choice of targets. The main role is played by general Bantz Craddock as commander in chief of the Southern Command. As he showed during the Desert Storm operation and, particularly, when he lead NATO land forces in Kosovo, Craddock is a specialist of armored vehicles. He is a trusted man of Donald Rumsfeld of whom he was the personal chief of staff, and for whom he developed the Guantanamo camp. Next November, he should be named commander of the European Command and of NATO. In that position, he could be called to command, beyond those forces already operating in Afghanistan and Soudan, the interposition force which NATO could deploy in Southern Lebanon.

The Israeli and United States generals have learned to know each other, since some thirty years, thanks to the exchanges organized by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) an association which obliges its cadre to follow the seminars on the doctrines of Leo Strauss.

[1] Source : Special Briefing on Travel to the Middle East and Europe, State Department, July 21st 2006.

[2] Lettre de David Ben Gourion à Moshe Sharett sur la constitution d’un État maronite au Liban, document is available in French in the electronic library of the Réseau Voltaire.

[3] A Clean Break : A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, IASPS, July 8th 1996. An abridged version is available on the website of IASPS. The complete content of the document is known through the reports made by the Guardian at that time.

[4] The father of Benjamin Netanyahu, Ben-Zion Netanyahu was the personal secretary of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of revisionist Zionism. Ehud Olmert belongs to that same current..

[5] Speech to the Congress of the United States by Benjamin Netanyahu, July 9th, 1996.

[6] That secret treaty was signed on May 16th 1916 by Sir Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot, for the United Kingdom and France, then approved by Russia and Italy.

[7] Israel set war plan more than a year ago. Strategy was put in motion as Hezbollah began gaining military strength in Lebanon par Matthew Kalman, San Francisco Chronicle, July 21st 2006.

---

Editor's comment: Excellent article hits on many of the points we have been stressing for months if not years.

Meyssan puts together a fine history lesson for anyone who is in doubt of the collusion between the Zionists and the neocons, as well as showing some of the reasons behind the establishment of the bastard state of Israel.

From Al-Manar TV in Lebanon:
Israeli reserve combat soldiers refuse to take part in "missions of occupation and aggression"

25/07/2006
Al-ManarTV









Some 550 Israeli reserve combat soldiers have refused to take part in what they described as Israel's "missions of occupation and aggression."

On an internet site, the soldiers said:

"We, reserve combat officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces, who were raised upon the principles of Zionism, sacrifice and giving to the people of Israel and to the State of Israel, who have always served in the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission.

We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the State of Israel for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have been on reserve duty all over the Occupied Territories, and were issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the Palestinian people.

We, whose eyes have seen the bloody toll this Occupation exacts from both sides.

We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Territories, destroy all the values we had absorbed while growing up in this country.

We, who know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements are bound to be evacuated in the end.

We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War of the Settlements.

We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.

We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense Forces in any mission that serves Israel’s defense.

The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose – and we shall take no part in them."

---

Editor's comment: It seems that this letter was issued in 2002 and is posted at this Israeli website.

The Al-Manar website is apparently being blocked by many ISPs in the U.S. It would seem that the ADL in the U.S. has been gaining ground in its attempts to censor the internet.

This letter shows us that there are some members of the IDF who will take a stand against the rabid Zionists who populate the Israeli government. And these 550 who signed the letter signify only those who had the courage to stand up and be counted. There are likely more within the ranks who hold similar sentiments.

Nevertheless, these 'refusniks' have the guts to stand up for their principles against the genocidal policies of Zionism which have been entrenched since the Jewish colonization of Palestine began in earnest nearly a century ago.

This Zionist colonization only picked up steam in the 1920s and 30s after the imposition of the Balfour Declaration by Zionist representatives at Versailles at the end of WW I.

The text of the Balfour Declaration was included in the San Remo Agreement of 1920 which created the British and French Mandates in former territories of the Ottoman Empire. Of couse, the Arabs saw this as a monumental betrayal since the British promised them self-determination during the war years.

The increased immigration of Jews resulted in the Arab uprising in 1937-38 which caused the British to impose restrictions on Jewish migration to that troubled land and thereafter the issuance of its White Paper of 1939.

One might think, 'well, this is old news or history'. Nothing could be a greater self deception than to take that path. Unless we know where we have been, we shall never know where we are going. Thus, the efforts at keeping our true history under wraps to be replaced by the Zionist "world of truth" which is merely a world of approved lies in which all opposing viewpoints are suppressed.

The facade of Zionism is not as monolithic as it might seem. And though there has been little protest in the controlled media over the bombings, Ha'aretz has published a cautious editorial on July 15, 2006 which gets at the truth of the matter.

This truth, however, is not so readily apparent to the casual observer who has been inundated with propaganda from the compliant media. We endeavor to bring you a piece of that truth here today. Our success will be evident only when the pressure builds on the criminals in government to the extent to cause necessary change. And with this change will come justice as those who have betrayed our trust will be called to account.

The comments at the Ha'aretz editorial, faithfully reproduced by al-Jazeera, are very illuminaing and show the extent of the Israeli protests which had already begun quickly after the first reprisals against Lebanon by the IDF.

The attacks on Palestinians have been ongoing for many years, even extending to seizures at sea by Israeli naval forces who have caused civilian vessels to 'heave to' and be boarded, whereupon some numbers of Palestinian suspects would be kidnapped from their voyage between Cyprus and Lebanon.

In the weeks leading up to the attack in Gaza there were many instances of Israeli terror perpetrated upon innocent civilians. The best known of which was the shelling of the beach on July 9th that killed 5 children.

Ehud Olmert's Ties to 9/11

By Christopher Bollyn
18 June 2006 | Rumor Mill News

The first two months of Ehud Olmert's term as Israel's prime minister have been described as "the bloodiest, deadliest and the most criminal period of the 58-year-old state of Israel." Although the controlled press overlooks the new Israeli leader's crimes, Olmert's ties to the convicted Israeli criminal who controlled airport security at Boston airport on 9/11 cannot be ignored.

Although Zionism is probably the most potent force influencing U.S. politics, it is safe to say that it remains a political philosophy woefully misunderstood by the majority of the U.S. population. Although President George W. Bush and his war cabinet are clearly Zionists advancing the Zionist agenda, an agenda which is promoted and supported by nearly every member of Congress, Zionism and its bloody history are subjects which most Americans know virtually nothing about.

While American universities offer courses and degrees in practically every subject imaginable, a college curriculum offering a critical examination of Zionism and its history is not to be found.

This public's general ignorance of Zionism, its goals and history, is compounded by the controlled media, which grossly distorts and misinterprets Zionism to make this most un-American philosophy appear to be something familiar and benevolent to Americans. The well-documented bloody history of Zionist terror and ethnic cleansing, something which is well known to all Israelis and Palestinians, is strange and unknown terra incognita to most Americans, primarily due to academic and media censorship.

After the terror attacks of 9/11, which a large body of evidence indicates involved Israeli intelligence agents, and with more than 150,000 Americans engaged in costly and disastrous wars in the Middle East, it is simply no longer sustainable for Americans to remain blissfully ignorant of political Zionism.

ZIONISM AND COMMUNISM

Zionism, as a political movement, developed with Communism in the late 1800s among the Jewish communities in the western regions of the Russian Empire. In Lithuania, Poland, Byelorussia, and Ukraine, particularly in areas with large Jewish populations, Zionism became a new national religion. From the beginning, the Communist and Zionist movements were closely intertwined.

In the late 1800s, the religious-political ideology of Zionism led Jews in search of a national identity to shun the local language and begin speaking and writing Hebrew, a language which had not been spoken for thousands of years. In the Soviet Union, Jews were considered a national group and Jewish nationality was marked as such in Soviet passports. A Jewish Autonomous Region was even established in the Soviet Union in the area of Birobidjan in 1934 with Yiddish as the official language.

Although the Russian and Eastern European Jews known as the Ashkenazi are not even Semites, but Slavic and Asiatic converts to Judaism, Zionist zeal led them to misidentify themselves as "Hebrew," when for example, they entered the United States at Ellis Island.

As Zionists had "reconstituted" the "Hebrew" language, the primary political objective of political Zionism has always been the formation of a purely Jewish state in Palestine, something which has never actually existed in history. The fact that 20th Century Palestine was already inhabited by Palestinians, many of whom are real Semites, descended from the original Jews, Arabs, Greeks, and other races of the Holy Land, was something the Zionists intended to use military force to correct.

The armed conquest and ethnic cleansing of Palestine was vigorously promoted in the 1930s by Ze'ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky, one of the most militant of Zionists. Jabotinsky, born in Odessa in 1880, became commander of the Zionist militia known as the Irgun in 1937. Jabotinsky headed the New Zionist Organization (N.Z.O), the Betar youth movement, and the Irgun militia, three extensions of the same extremist movement.

The Jabotinsky ideology maintains that the Jewish people have exclusive rights to all the Land of Israel, which it claims extends from the Nile of Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq.

OLMERT AND JABOTINSKY

Ehud Olmert, like his Russian-born parents who emigrated first to China and then to Palestine, is an ideological child of Jabotinsky. Olmert's father, Mordechai, was a devoted follower who joined the right-wing Herut movement and the Irgun militia then led by the notorious Zionist terrorist Menachem Begin.

Olmert's intensely right-wing family lived on a cooperative farm called Nahalat Jabotinsky. As a child, Olmert was a member of Betar, the militaristic youth movement. Begin, the hard-line Israeli prime minister who held the credo "In blood and fire Judea fell; in blood and fire Judea shall rise," would later refer to Olmert as "Ehud, my son."

Olmert, a member of parliament since 1973, later became mayor of Jerusalem, the occupied capital city of Palestine, and oversaw Israel's territorial expansion of the city limits. The area that Israelis now call Jerusalem extends from Bethlehem in the south, to Ramallah in the north, and Jericho is the east.

In the thinking of Jabotinsky Zionists like Olmert, there is simply no place for the Palestinians in the Land of Israel: "There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews of Eretz Israel," Jabotinsky wrote. "If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs."

The barrier wall that has been built across the West Bank is an idea straight from the writings of Jabotinsky: "Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population - an iron wall which the native population cannot break through," Jabotinsky wrote in his 1923 book, The Iron Wall: We and the Arabs.

"Talking peace and drumming up support for his realignment plan of settlement, Ehud Olmert's 8 weeks in power proved to be the bloodiest, deadliest and the most criminal period of the 58-year-old state of Israel," Duraid Al Baik, foreign editor of Gulf News wrote in a recent article, "Olmert: The criminal who peddles peace."

"Since he was sworn in as the 12th prime minister of Israel on April 14, the Israelis have killed more than 50 Palestinians and injured around 200 almost at a rate of 1 killed and 4 injured per day," Al Baik wrote. "The new prime minister has set a record, surpassing the one established by his predecessor Ariel Sharon during the bloodiest days of the Palestinian uprising or intifada."

Seeking to foment a civil conflict among Palestinians, Olmert is now providing weapons to support the "private army" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is seen by many as a Palestinian quisling working against the elected Hamas-led government.

The most egregious terrorist act, among the many recently committed by Israeli forces, was the shelling of the beach in Gaza in which 8 members of one family were killed. This blatant act of Israeli terror was followed by the official denial of responsibility although the Israelis had been shelling the Gaza Strip at the time the family on the beach was hit.

Mark Garlasco, a military expert working for the US-based Human Rights Watch group, was the first independent investigator to reach the scene of the crime and found shrapnel from a 155 mm artillery shell. "My assessment [is] that it's likely that this was incoming artillery fire that landed on the beach and was fired by the Israelis from the north of Gaza," Garlasco said.

OLMERT AND ATZMON

Olmert, who has long been tarnished by allegations of financial crimes, was implicated in a financial scandal involving forged receipts for donations to the 1988 Likud campaign, of which he was co-treasurer. This affair culminated in the March 1996 conviction of three other Likudniks, including Menahem Atzmon, the Likud treasurer. Olmert was also later indicted in the Likud affair, but was acquitted.

During the 1970s Olmert had worked in the law firm owned by another Atzmon, Uzi Atzmon.

Menahem Atzmon, convicted in Israel, went on to become the founder and head of International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), the parent company of Huntleigh USA, the airport security firm that ran passenger screening operations at the airports of Boston and Newark on 9/11.

Huntleigh USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of an Israeli company called International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS) International N.V., a Netherlands-based aviation and transportation security firm headed by "former [Israeli] military commanding officers and veterans of government intelligence and security agencies."

Menachem Atzmon, convicted in Israel in 1996 for campaign finance fraud, and his business partner Ezra Harel, took over management of security at the Boston and Newark airports when their company ICTS bought Huntleigh USA in 1999. UAL Flight 175 and AA 11, which allegedly struck the twin towers, both originated in Boston, while UAL 93, which purportedly crashed in Pennsylvania, departed from the Newark airport. The convicted Israeli criminal Atzmon also controls and operates the German port of Rostock on the Baltic Sea.

Some 9/11 victims' families brought lawsuits against Huntleigh claiming the security firm had been grossly negligent on 9-11. While these relatives have a right to discovery and to know what Huntleigh did or did not do to protect their loved ones on 9-11, Huntleigh, along with the other security companies, was granted complete congressional protection in 2002 and will not be called to account for its actions on 9-11 in any U.S. court.

Atzmon, a convicted criminal, political ally and co-defendant of Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, was directly responsible for passenger and airline security at Boston's Logan Airport, whence the two airliners which struck the World Trade Center originated.

Olmert's relationship with Atzmon and the failed airport security of 9/11 is obviously more than coincidental yet the controlled press in the United States has failed to investigate this Israeli link to the terror attacks as it has with so many other links.

Photo: Of the same mind, Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon are brothers in arms and followers of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, founder of the most radical, racist, and militant form of Zionism. The Zionist controlled media continues to ignore the crimes of these men and their direct links to the mass murder committed on 9/11.

---

Editor's comment: In this outstanding piece by Christopher Bollyn, we find that the latest Prime Minister of Israel is just as much a world class criminal as his predecessors.

Bollyn weaves a telling history of the roots of Zionism and Olmert's family connections to Jabotinsky and the Irgun.

As Bollyn puts the pieces together, we find that the state of Israel is run by imposters, "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie..." (Rev. 3:9)

We find the origins of the "Wall of Hate," the barrier wall being constructed in present day Israel to separate the Palestinian areas from Israel proper.

Bollyn shows in no uncertain terms that "Ehud Olmert's 8 weeks in power proved to be the bloodiest, deadliest and the most criminal period." Since this article was written a month ago, Olmert has proved it in spades with the attacks on Gaza and Lebanon.

Olmert is also tied to 9-11 by another criminal who was convicted in Israel and subsequently acquired the company which held passenger screening security at Boston's Logan airport, a link, Bollyn says, the media in the U.S. has failed to investigate.

The worst part of all is that the sycophantic U.S. Congress has granted this company protection from liability and will not be called to account for any possible misdeeds.

More treason from our Congresscowards.

Zionists Suffer Creature of Their Own Making

Hamas is the Antithesis of the Zionist Thesis of Eretz Israel;
Hezbollah applies defensive measures to counter Zionist Terror

By Jim Betker

It should be noted, as a historical fact, that Hamas was created and funded by the Israelis in the 1980s as an alternative to Arafat's PLO and the Arab nationalism it espoused.

What is so amazing is, considering the open collaboration of the Zionists with the National Socialist government of the Third Reich, that the Zionists could be opposed to nationalism.

Apparently, the only nationalism that is good, from the perspective of the Zionists, is a Jewish supremacist style of nationalism. All others are, hence, verboten.

There is no room in this paradigm for Arab nationalism, which Hitler and the National Socialists wished to see as self determination for the Arabs and as a check against British hegemony and to eliminate the late colonial mandates which were another of the atrocities of Versailles.

This was wholly evident in the wish of the NSDAP to allow the Jews of Germany to emigrate to their own homeland. It was not a homeland of the choosing of the Nazis, but of the British, and the only choice which the Zionists would accept, though there were other alternatives which could have been acceptable.

Among those suggested was a then lush island of Madagascar. Imagine what the Ashkenazi Jews could have done with that virtual paradise by bringing the European work ethic to that remote and sparsely populated place.

It is not so odd, then, that the U.K. and, following after WW II, the U.S., would be openly opposed to Arab nationalism which they saw as a threat to their control over the geostrategic area of the Middle East, in time to include the oil concessions of Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

But the whole picture became skewed as time went on after the war. With the ensuing CIA-MI6 inspired coups in both Iraq and Iran in the 1950s and the subsequent influx of U.S. dollars to back those illicit regimes, the progression of events led to the eventual rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the backing of mujahideen to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan beginning in earnest in the mid-80s.

The origination of this policy of backing the Islamic movement originated in Israel in 1973. Thus began the collaboration of the Zionists with Sheikh Yassin and the beginnings of what would eventually become Hamas. These policies were officially implemented beginning in 1979.

This was all initiated to counter the nationalist movement of the PLO and Yassir Arafat which the Zionists saw as being a fierce competitor to their own nationalist and expansionist schemes.

What the Zionists did not count on was that, lacking the higher education of the past golden era of Islam in the 13th and 14th centuries when there was a high vocation toward literature, mathematics and architecture, these young Arabs were misguided into grabbing onto a twisted meaning of jihad which was never before accepted in Islam. Jihad in the traditional sense meant only religious fervor, not violence or warfare.

Thus, we see that it is the machinations of the Zionists themselves which has brought about the entire calamity we now witness unfolding in that troubled land.

We can now expect the Zionist cabal to continue with its war crimes and genocide, policies which have been entrenched in the body politic of that outlaw and rogue mini-state.

The U.S. is now completely complicit in this when Bush failed to intervene to stop the violence.

We see by the parallels above that it is the Zionists who really control the foreign policies of the U.S. and have made the U.S. a servile partner in an unconscienable attack on humanity and civilization.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are shown to be tactically similar to what has just occurred in Lebanon. The tactics are exactly the same as have been used in the Balkans War in 1999 and the sanctions and bombing of Iraq for 12 years after Gulf War I.

We can say without doubt that it is the Zionists (Olmert) and neocons (Cheney) who have an interest in provoking a wider war. Certainly, it is not in the interest of Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria or Iran (or the rest of the world) to have this escalate to a regional conflict. Cui bono?

As it currently stands there are some 25,000 Americans (40,000 Canadians and 10,000 Britons) stranded in Lebanon after the attacks by Israel which have destroyed the Rafik Hariri International Airport, including the newly remodeled terminal and all port facilities from Beirut to Tripoli and the smaller facilities up and down the coast.

A recent report says that an IAF strike has killed 8 Canadians and wounded six more in a Lebanese village which abuts the Israeli border.

This is a prime opportunity for the Mossad and Shin Bet (or their Phalangist collaborators) to perpetrate a false flag operation which would stampede the western nations into an all out war for Israel.

An exclusive from Wayne Madsen Report tells us that Israel has used poison gas and depleted uranium ammo on civilian targets in south Lebanon. Ehud Olmert now "joins Ariel Sharon in annals of Israeli leaders who committed war crimes in Lebanon."

TAX DEFENDANT TURNS TABLES ON REVENUERS

Justice Department Drops Case; Tax Honesty Advocates Rejoice

Clever Use of Red Tape Gets IRS Case Thrown Out

By Pat Shannan
July 10, 2006 | American Free Press

In a move that shocked both sides on the tax
issue, federal prosecutors petitioned a federal
judge in Illinois to drop the government’s
lawsuit against a man accused of not paying
his income tax because the Justice Department
reportedly feared it would lose the case.

Robert Lawrence, 49, of Peoria, Ill., was first targeted by
the IRS for potential criminal prosecution in 1999 because
of his stance on the income tax. His views reflected the longheld
belief by the tax honesty movement that Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) numbers are necessary in
order to legalize any government form requesting information
from the general public.

In 2002, Lawrence was jailed for contempt because he
asked a judge too many questions the court wouldn’t answer.
He subsequently lost his job as a welder at the Mitsubishi
manufacturing plant and has been warding off an IRS
onslaught ever since.

It wasn’t until March 17, 2006, that a federal grand jury,
at the behest of U.S. Attorney Roger Heaton, actually indicted
Lawrence on three counts of tax evasion and three counts
of willful failure to file a personal income tax return.
Lawrence was looking at 18 years in prison and a costly trial
that was set to begin on Monday, May 15.

However, on Friday, May 12, Heaton’s assistant prosecutors
quietly motioned Judge Michael Mihm to dismiss all six
counts with prejudice, and the court immediately issued the
order. “With prejudice” means that the government is barred
from bringing those charges to the court again.

Now, those same mainstream media voices, which made
Lawrence’s jailing a top news story, have all been silenced.
The U.S. Attorney’s office declined comment for this report.

While the irony lies in the fact that the motion was
brought by the prosecution rather than the defense, the
result is still a victory for Lawrence.

So why would the Justice Department suddenly change
its mind and look to drop the case? After all, its prosecutors
have proven over and over again that juries are pushovers in
tax cases. The answer, according to Lawrence, lies within
something called the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

The federal statute states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person
shall be subject to any penalty for failing to
comply with a collection of information that
is subject to this subchapter if . . . the
collection of information
does not display a valid
control number assigned
by the Director in accordance
with this subchapter.
. . . The protection provided
by this section
may be raised in the
form of a complete
defense, bar, or otherwise
at any time during
the agency administrative
process or judicial action
applicable thereto.

Lawrence had
been raising this issue
since the 1990s, but it
continued to fall on deaf
ears until the prosecutors
received discovery from the defense
the week before trial, says
activist Bob Schulz of We the
People Foundation. This revealed to
the DOJ for the first time that Lawrence was
reportedly basing his entire defense on an act of Congress.

Congress first enacted this law in 1980 to apply to government
agencies. Later, in 1994, lawmakers made it even
more restrictive. Technically, the act was designed to police
paperwork. However, without an OMB number, a government
form is considered to be a “bootleg” copy and carries
with it no public requirement to comply.

In a press release, Schulz’s We the People Foundation
elaborated on the law:

In Section 3512 of the act, titled “Public Protection,”
it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty
for failing to comply with an agency’s collection of
information request (such as a 1040 form), if the
request does not display a valid control number
assigned by the Office of Management and Budget in
accordance with the requirements of the act, or if the
agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to
the collection of information that he is not required to
respond to the collection of information request
unless it displays a valid control number.

In sum, the PRA requires that all government agencies
display valid OMB control numbers and certain
disclosures directly on all information collection
forms that the public is requested to file. Lawrence’s
sole defense was he was not required to file an IRS
Form 1040 because it displays an invalid OMB control
number.

Schulz followed up by
writing an open letter to
Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales demanding
that DOJ come forward
with a public explanation for
its outrageous treatment of
Lawrence. Schulz said:

Indicting and then permanently
dismissing without any
court action occurs so
rarely as to require the
Department of Justice to
post a public explanation
in order to satisfy the public’s curiosity about
this strange working of justice. This foundation
found no such public notice in Peoria, on the DOJ
web site, or in any other public forum. We wanted to
determine the probable cause of DOJ’s remarkable act.

---

Editor's comment: It's all in the law. The trouble is that the IRS is even lying to their own people.

And DOJ is simply a rubber stamp outfit for the collection of the debt the USG owes the banksters.

When the gold was taken away in 1933 with FDRs Emergency Banking Act, the power to collateralize U.S. debt was made public policy. In other words, all Federal Reserve Notes were backed with bonds from the U.S. Treasury. This gave the treasury the power to create dollars in any amount it desired.

The forced use of Federal Reserve Notes, which are "obligations of the United States" the national debt was transferred directly to the people.

This is something which could never be done previously due to the apportionment clause of the U.S. Constitution where any debt incurred by the federal government was apportioned back to the several states to be paid according to their representation in Congress.

Thus, the mischief of Congress has led to the enslavement of the people and the elevation of a phony ruling class who hold the purse strings of socialist intervention in the lives of millions.

The IRS is merely the collection agency of the international bankers who are the receivers of the U.S. bankruptcy of 1933. The amount of the original debt is purported to be $428 million.

We can see from this that the profligate spending of the government has been the death knell of liberty as the people have become bondservants to the bankers and continue to blindly pay the usury which has enslaved them and will enslave their children for generations to come.

Thomas Jefferson warned of this very situation when he wrote,

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

What will you do TODAY to advance the cause of liberty and remove from this land the most despicable tyranny ever to exist on the face of the Earth?

Will you give up your credit cards?

Will you give up your cell phones?

What part of your accustomed way of life or your prospects to improve it will you be willing to sacrifice to decrease the amount of your personal debt to the banksters?

Think about it.

“I Was a Mouthpiece for the American Military”

An embedded TV producer's frank assessment

By Ken Silverstein
July 7, 2006 | Harpers

In an interesting interview published this week in Foreign Policy, Newsweek's Rod Nordland spoke about the difficulties of reporting from Iraq. He said that the Bush Administration has been largely successful in managing the news “to the extent that most Americans are not aware of just how dire it is and how little progress has been made” and revealed that some embedded reporters “have been blacklisted because the military wasn’t happy with [their] work.”

Many embedded reporters have managed to do fine work from Iraq, but there are significant obstacles for even the best and most determined journalists. I recently spoke with a former senior TV producer for Reuters who worked in Iraq between 2003 and 2004. The producer, who asked that she not be identified by name, arrived in Tikrit soon after the capture of Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2003, and was embedded with American troops for 45 days. She told me that, over the years, she has worked closely with the French army, NATO troops in the Balkans, and UN peacekeepers in covering war and conflict, but she said had never faced the sorts of restrictions imposed by the Pentagon on journalists in Iraq. “I was,” she said, “a mouthpiece for the American military.”

In Tikrit, she was based with U.S. troops at a military compound established at one of Saddam's former palaces, where she provided pool coverage for Reuters TV and AP TV (which was fed to other media outlets). When insurgents attacked civilians, she told me, the American military would rush her to the scene so she could record the carnage and get shots of grieving Iraqis.

When it came to other stories that were clearly sympathetic to the U.S. side, such as funerals for American soldiers killed in combat, the U.S. military was extremely helpful—indeed, encouraging. In such cases, she was granted full access and allowed to film speeches by officials honoring the dead, the posthumous awarding of medals, and other aspects of the ceremony.

But when this producer wanted to pursue a story that might have cast the war effort in an unfavorable light, the situation was entirely different. Every few days, she said, she would receive a call from the Reuters bureau in Baghdad and discover that reporters there had heard, via local news reports or from the bureau's network of Iraqi sources, about civilians being killed or injured by American troops. But when she asked to leave the compound to independently confirm such incidents, her requests were invariably turned down.

“Reuters had an armored car,” she told me, “and we wanted to go out on our own, but I would ask the PIO [Public Information Officer] for permission and he would say he needed to get more information before we could go. Hours would pass, it would get dark—and in the end we were never able to get to the scene.” Even getting an on-camera comment from a military spokesman was impossible in such cases, she said.

The producer said that it was impossible to pursue stories frowned upon by the military—for example, on how the local population viewed the occupation and American troops—because she was not permitted to leave the base on her own. The height of absurdity came when the Tikrit compound came under serious attack one evening and the producer was asked by the Reuters bureau in Baghdad to phone in a report on the situation. “We couldn't find out anything [from the U.S. military],” she said, so Reuters had to cover the fighting from Baghdad, despite having a TV producer and reporter on the ground at the compound in Tikrit.

The producer frequently filmed foot patrols and nighttime raids. She said that for the latter, the military and the embedded journalists would drive for long stretches in pitch darkness. The raids themselves, she said, were blurry and confusing, and afterwards soldiers would round up suspected insurgents and sympathizers for interrogation. It was routine for the producer to wait in one room of a house while detainees were questioned in another. “Not always, but there were times when I would hear detainees screaming during the questioning,” she said. “I'm not sure what was happening but they were screaming loudly—they weren't just being slapped around.” Because she obviously was not permitted to film the interrogations, none of that material could be included in her pool feeds.

She and the other journalists stationed at the base in Tikrit grew cynical about their work and came to believe that they were being used. “Other reporters in Iraq,” she said, “especially local Iraqis [working for Western outlets], were able to get both sides of the story, but we were getting only one side.” During her 45 days in Tikrit, she told me, she didn't file a single story critical of the American project in Iraq. “There was no balance,” she said. “What we were doing wasn't real journalism.”

---

Editor's comment: What is significant here is that this interview with Rod Nordland has originated in Foreign Policy, the official journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which is the propaganda arm of Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission.

No other explanation is needed but to say what has been said before, Bush and Cheney's days are numbered.

This also confirms reports emanating from the recent Bilderberg confab in Toronto that the European wing of Bilderberg was none too happy with the continuing quagmire in Iraq, which they had warned Bush not to invade, and were thereafter livid about it at their 2003 meeting.

The handwriting is on the wall now for all to see and we should expect full fledged abandonment of Bush by the neocons as they continue to jump ship trying to save their own skins. The finger pointing will go on in a futile attempt to shift blame from their own moribund policies of the now defunct PNAC, which, according to Wayne Madsen, has recently closed its doors.

In the confusion of the collapse of the Bush presidency, we will see more big name Republicans turn on their failed head of state in an attempt to save their own political careers from annihilation.

And the fact that a mainstream chief foreign correspondent, Newsweek's former Baghdad bureau chief, is the vehicle being used to expose the hypocrisy of the Bush cabal's failed war on terror is the most illuminating aspect of this story from Foreign Policy.

And Ken Silverstein, a seasoned investigative journalist, weaves a tale in this Harper's piece which confirms what we have known all along about the control of embedded reporters in Iraq by his interview of a former senior TV producer for Reuters.

HOW DO YOU SPELL PROPAGANDA?
Clearly, the full picture of managed news directed by the Pentagon and the military now has another piece of the puzzle inserted to give us the astounding truth about the lies and full blown deceit, peppered with some half-truths, being fed to reporters under the watchful eye of the Public Information Officers of the military.

Added to the previous information of Pentagon direction of bloggers and other Iraqis who were being fed stage-managed prewritten stories and you have the picture of a propaganda machine which is the symbol of the completely corrupt and morally bankrupt administration of George Walker Bush.

Deliverance from the manifestations of this evil cabal of corporatists is what the world needs now more than anything by the initiation of impeachment proceedings of both Bush and Cheney by the next Congress as the neofascist Repulicans hear their swan song in the elections this fall.

While we expect little change from a new majority in Congress, the political savvy of those elected will be to look out for number one first. And that means they just might have to go along with what the majority of the American people want for a change, the end of perpetual war.

As General Smedley Butler once wrote in his 1933 speech, War is a racket.