From the glory of the anniversary was the speech and from the sacred blood a renewed vow that the resistance is ready in all the fronts.

Palestine was and will always remain the core issue, and to all who is concerned: Syria is the resistance cave and the conspiracy against Damascus is to fall as 2006 Israeli” aggression against Lebanon and its resistance suffered a humiliating defeat.

And to the “Israeli’s”, the Master of Speech set the boundaries of avenging Haj Imad’s martyrdom:

“His Blood is to chase you in your conscious and nightmares and we aren’t to choose a humiliating revenge.”

Under the slogan “Invincible Resistance” and in the Leader Martyrs’ day the Secretary General of Hizbullah His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah tackled a number of regional and internal files that both the nation and Lebanon are facing.

Condlences on Passing Away of Sayyed Moussawi’s Father 

Abu Hussein al-Moussawi

Thanking the mass audience for their sincere participation in the Resistance Leader Martyrs anniversary, Sheikh Ragheb Harb, Sayyed Abbas al-Moussawi, and Haj Imad Moughnyieh, the Secretary General of Hizbullah expressed his condolence to the death of Sayyed Abu Hssein al-Moussawi’s, father of Sayyed Abbas.

“From 20 years, we miss today the presence of beloved andhonored Abu Hussein al-Moussawi… In addition to the fact that this sincere Sayyed is the father of our beloved and respected leader, teacher, and Secretary General Sayyed Abbas al-Moussawi, he was always present in all the resistance fields,” Sayyed Nasrallah said.

“Despite his age and illness Sayyed Abu Hussein didn’t miss an opportunity to support the Resistance… We pledge to the soul of this father that we will preserve his soul as well as his era and we will continue on the path of Sayyed Abbas al-Moussawi,” Sayyed Nasrallah vowed.

Moving to the anniversary, His Eminence reiterated that the three exceptional Martyr Leaders shared common features among them.

“They were founders of this resistance, this process and this party (Hizbullah),” he noted adding that “they were the initiators who contributed and participated and worked on the construction this large and great structure.”
Stressing that “Hizbullah was and is still abiding by the martyr leaders’ track,” Sayyed Nasrallah clarified that “these martyrs had a very strong influence in bolstering the foundation, mentality, culture and course of this Resistance.”

“In a country and region that are on a continuous line of military and security quake’s, we must always establish a strong structure based on firm foundations of so that we preserve our country’s and people’s steadfastness and dignity,” His Eminence affirmed.

He further noted that “with the blessings of the Martyr Leaders, their sacrifices, struggle, resistance, and blood solid and stable foundations were devoted for the resistance.”

Zionist Plan in Region, Ongoing Occupation of Palestine

“Therefore, after 30 years of its inception the resistance is powerful, solid, well-established, and is characterized with a high degree of certainty,” he added pointed out that “as our slogan says, the resistance has an invincible will.”

Confirming that Hizbullah does not build its alliances based on moods, the Secretary General of Hizbullah explained that the resistance takes into consideration the interests of the nation, country and people.

“Among these bases upon which we build our coalitions is the issue related to the stance toward the Zionist plan in the region: First we must understand its truth, measures, dangers, strong points and its current environment,” His Eminence highlighted.

Recalling that “we understand that “Israel” is the entity usurper of occupied Palestine,” Sayyed Nasrallah clarified that “We understand that “Israel” reflects the entity, the tool, and the army of the Zionist plan in the region and we outline our stance based on this belief.”
“The danger of the Zionist plan, which is represented by “Israel”, involves the entire region. “Israel” occupies Palestine and the holy Christian and Muslim sites,” the Resistance Leader added.

“The “Israeli” project works on Judaizing al-Quds and causing all these misfortunes and pains to Palestinian people at home and abroad,” he confirmed stating that “Hizbullah adopts such a stance because we believe, and the facts prove this, that the Zionist entity endangers the region and its people regardless of their religious and racial affiliations or even the civilization from which they descend.”

Calling to “confront this danger and bring it down,” His Eminence pointed out that “our leaders who became martyrs were defending Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt and all Arab and Islamic states in the region.”
“Every resistance fighter in this region, particularly in the neighboring states who confronts “Israel’s” danger is defending the whole nation,” Sayyed Nasrallah added.

Moving from this primary standard, Nasrallah explained the bases through which the resistance evaluates, corrects and forms its alliances and this is among our most important standards.

“Based on this standard i.e. Palestine we evaluate our behavior and others’ (figures’, parties’, people’s, movement’s, and countries’) performance,” Sayyed Nasrallah said. Advising the rising Islamic movements to evaluate themselves and others’ positions through their stand from the Palestinian cause,” His Eminence stressed that “No Islamic movement in any Arab or Islamic country can exist without having a clear stance from the Zionist project in the region.” The Secretary General of Hizbullah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah moved on to comment on the regional scene.

“Throughout the 60 years of “Israeli” occupation to Palestine, some Arab regimes colluded with the Western and the “Israeli” against Palestine and helped in strengthening this entity,” he clarified.
“They helped in the survival of this entity and tried to convince Palestinian people and the peoples of the region to accept the settlement according to the “Israeli” interests, so that some Arab regimes were sincere and honest to the American and “Israeli”.”

The Zionist Entity and Arab Regimes 

Sayyed Nasrallah also explained that “when we say that we need to discuss the regional situation from the right perspective, we need to look at the issue of “Israel” and its current reality and how it’s behaving in addition to its location in light of what is happening in the region particularly in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon.”

Differentiating between the types of Arab regimes, Sayyed Nasrallah added that ”there are other sorts of regimes and Arab governments that took a neutral position from “Israel” and were busy in their internal issues preoccupied away from this conflict. They are responsibile for Palestine’s betrayal.”
“Other Arab regimes stood firm and raised positions of reluctance boring the risk of sanctions and great conspiracies, whether Muslim or Christian, whether Muslim or national, is it right and fair to equate in the perception and attitude between regimes that did everything to preserve “Israel” and governments that did the impossible for Palestine and the victorious resistance?” Sayyed Nasrallah wondered.

“The Arab people and governments are not preoccupied with Palestine. Syria is the leading event and I do not say Bahrain because no one is asking about what is happening in Bahrain… There is a grave injustice in Bahrain,” His Eminence added.

Stressing that “in light of the regional developments, the “Israelis” are proceeding with their plan in Palestine,” Sayyed Nasrallah provided the examples of “Judaizing al-Quds, expelling Palestinian people and torturing detainees in prison.”

“Palestinian detainee Khoder Adnan passed 60 days of hunger strike, where is the Arab League and the Arab World? If Khoder Adnan was an “Israeli” would the world and Arabs have behaved in a similar way?” the Resistance Leader questioned.

Moving into the “Israeli” front, Sayyed Nasrallah viewed that fear, anxiety, and lack of clarity are dominating the minds of the “Israelis”.

“In the latest Herzliya Conference, “Israeli” war minister Ehud Barak warned that the political and security challenges that “Israel” is facing are the more crucial than the ones faced by the founding fathers of the “Israeli” state,” Nasrallah clarified.

“In the time, it was assumed that “Israel” is moving towards more power, “Israel” is talking about the existential threat as a result of the jihadist resistance sacrifices,” His Eminence asserted.

Providing another example, Sayyed Nasrallah reminded of “Israeli” PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement prior to the downfall of Egyptian toppled president Hosni Mubarak and the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq: “After the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and the withdrawal from Gaza strip the trajectory changed and it has become clear that “Israel” is no more a government that cannot be overcome,” Sayyed Nasrallah quoted Netanyahu.

“The Mossad chief Degan says that Hizbullah has a firing and missile power that is 90% stronger than a standard army. Do we own this power or not? God knows,” he said.

“Mubarak regime was toppled and went away, so they set up a consolation for Mubarak and the joy of what is happening in Syria,” Hizbullah Secretary General added highlighting that “Iraq was a strong barrier that protects the eastern gate to “Israel” but today Netanyahu fears that Iraq has turned into an ally of Iran.”

Addressing the people of the region, His Eminence warned the Egyptian people that the US-”Israeli” project is seeking to spread chaos and discord among them.

“Dear Egyptians whenever you encounter chaos or a security incident and turmoil search for the “Israeli and American hands who want either to form a coalition between the military rule and new elected president against the people’s will or to spread chaos,” Sayyed Nasrallah clarified.
To the Iraqis, Nasrallah sent a similar message: “Chaos and internal fighting is the America’s opportunity, especially after it failed to stay in Iraq.”

Moving to the conspiracy against Syria, Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed that “today there is an “Israeli” consensus in that any option is better than keeping Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.”
“”Israel” hopes that the Syrian regime would collapse because when opposition becomes sponsored by the American, Western and the moderate Arabs, who have well-known histories, then we have the right to worry,” Hizbullah’s Secretary General stated.

Asking about the secret behind the determination to topple the Syrian regime, Sayyed Nasrallah declared clearly:

“According to us we stand by the Syrian regime. Can anyone say that the Syrian regime is not a rejectionist regime and did not support the resistance in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq? The regime in Syria has stood in the face of the US-”Israeli” project in the region.”
“Is it not strange that an alignment of the United States, the West, and moderate Arab states, was formed along with al-Qaeda to bring down the Syrian regime?” Nasrallah wondered.

Not denying the fact that there are negative aspects in the Syrian regime as the latter announced, Sayyed Nasrallah mentioned that “the Syrian Leadership announced that it is ready to embrace reforms and has started to issue decrees on parties and media and then came the constitution proposal.”

“There are groups that say that the Syrian did not open the Golan front. You who speak of the Resistance, have you ever stood by the Resistance, opened a front or offered money instead of attacking the resistance’s funding?” he asked.

Denouncing the Arab League position from the Syrian crisis, Sayyed Nasrallah highlighted that “these Arab governments said that the solution with “Israel” is political and can be achieved through negotiation…and for 10 years they have been waiting to negotiate with the “Israel” and they have been patient.”

“But in Syria there is no time. Assuming that the regime in Syria is like “Israel”, then why do moderate Arab states accept negotiations and a political solution with “Israel” and not with Syria? Even in Bahrain why don’t the Arabs stand by the Bahraini people who are abiding by Resistance?” Nasrallah wondered.

Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad (L) receives a copy of the new draft constitution

Noting that they prevented of arms for the resistance in Palestine and Lebanon, Sayyed Nasrallah expressed astonishment that some Arabs called for arming Syrians so that they would fight each other.

Urging for a political solution in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon so that we take the opportunity away from the “Israeli”,” the Resistance Leader raised the question “did any emir or sheikh in any Arab regime embrace the reforms which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad adopted? However, the Americans need to destroy Syria and Iraq.”
On Bahrain, His Eminence considered that “the first people who took to the streets during the war on Gaza were the Bahraini people… If there were elections in Bahrain you would have seen that Bahrain stands by the Resistance.”

Moving to the internal Lebanese front, Sayyed Nasrallah renewed Hizbullah’s sympathies to Hariri’s family and to those who love him in the anniversary of the assassination of former PM Rafiq Hariri.
“We are people who support dialogue and reason and we respect the sensibility of Lebanese and the other party. We do not seek to eliminate [the other] and we recognize its presence,” His Eminence emphasized.

Reviewing some of the points that have been raised in “March 14″ speeches, Nasrallah declared that “Hizbullah supports any call for a national dialogue without prior conditions and we will take part in any national dialogue that has an agenda which we back.”

“However, a call for joining a national dialogue with prior conditions is not an invitation for dialogue,” he added pointing out that “there was also an attack that was launched against Hizbullah and Syria.”

“I hoped that whenever they (March 14) want to review the names of the massacres it is better if Samir Geagea did not do so. It would have been better if national bloc leader Carlos Eddie did so.”

Regarding the fourth person who spoke [during the February 14 event] and who spoke on behalf of the so-called “Syrian National Council”, Sayyed Nasrallah considered that “if the first appearance of the SNC crescent would be represented by Fares Soueid speaking on behalf of the group, then this is a good start.”

“A year ago I approached the Bahraini revolution, and they rose against us as former Prime Minister Saad Hariri attacked us. I demand that “March 14″ alliance has an approach because we have one standard,” Resistance Leader clarified.

Asking about the reasons and consequences of “”March 14′s” fighting with money and weapons in Syria and being involved in escalating the fighting in a brotherly country,” Sayyed Nasrallah reminded of “March 14″ verbal campaign upon the arrest of a Hizbullah member in Egypt as he was supporting the Palestinian resistance movements.

“If you do not want us to send arms to the resistance men who are fighting the enemy of this nation, how do you explain being convicted in a case of temptation and suspicion?” His Eminence wondered.

Addressing those who linked their fate to the bet of toppling the Syrian regime, Sayyed Nasrallah said that “there are two expectations: the first is that the Syrian leadership will overcome the conspiracy, the other is that Syria is dragged into civil war.”

Expecting the 1st hypothesis, Sayyed Nasrallah warned “March 14″ of the consequences of their bets reminding of similar bets during 2006 aggression.

He further asked these forces about the source of the 3 billion dollars they had received since 2005 and the weapons they are carrying.

“We say and previously uncovered that we have weapons and that we are becoming increasingly militarized, and that there is an increase in the quality and quantity of our arms in addition to announced and unknown arms, but what about “March 14″ weapons?”

“One of “March 14″ leaders says that Hizbullah is talking about others weapons to justify his arms. This is a lie, when we talk about weapons of the resistance we have only one justify that our weapons is used to defend Lebanon and to liberate the land,” Nasrallah explained.

Finally, “March 14″ leaders are not in a position of setting out the conditions or dictating the terms,” the Secretary General added that the current government’s importance lies in the fact that it is providing stability and security.

 Sayyed Assures: Hizbullah Not Related to “Israeli” Embassy Bombings

At another context, Sayyed Nasrallah commented o the bombings that it “Israeli” embassies in India, Georgia, and Bangkok.

“I am confident that these bombings have nothing to do with us in Hizbullah,” His Eminence stressed reiterating that “Haj Imad’s blood is to chase them.”

“The “Israeli” understands where our revenge is. It is not in the recruits or “Israeli” diplomats. It is humiliating for Hizbullah to avenge its great leader by killing ordinary “Israelis”.”

“We tell them to stay wait because as long as there is blood in the veins of one of us, we would one day avenge for Leader Imad Mughniyeh supervisor and between a close not respected revenge and a decent noble one, we prefer the second,” Sayyed Nasrallah confirmed.

Denying all leaks that Hizbullah is to resort to the “Israeli” if the region moves into the US-”Israeli” path, the Resistance Leader recalled how Sheikh Ragheb was martyred for refusing to shake hands with the enemy.

“All the martyrs were killed because they refused to the bargain,” Nasrallah asserted noting to Hizbullah’s 2006 refusal to compromise.

“Most of the Arab countries were against us, the Lebanese government was against us and the Western countries too. Most of the media attacked us as our people were displaced and places were bombed. We were told that a decision was took to crush Hizbullah, so we were in of two choices either to surrender, deliver the weapon and captives,, and accept f the spread of multinational, or to continue in the battle. At that moment, I really felt ad understood Imam Hussein and Karbala.”
“Woe unto the wretched!”

The right-wing government leaders of the state of Israel, bolstered by their powerful US allies, are trembling with excitement at the prospect of a military attack against Iran.

Everything is in place for Iraq Redux. This time the Extremists are determined to get it right. No ground troops, just highly sophisticated bombing runs that will target nuclear targets in Iran.

The American public is being manipulated by Israel’s Zionist extremists to believe that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear arms which will be able to “wipe Israel off the map”.

Time to choose up sides, folks: Are you with us or against us?

Republican candidates for president, congressional Republicans and conservative Democrats, with the active encouragement of the always predictable Israel Lobby, are all spoiling for a fight for “our side”.

Truth of the matter, as Paul Pillar reported in the website , The National Interest, Israel has already launched its war with Iran through stealth assassinations of Iranian scientists, who may have, or more likely, did not have, a part in developing nuclear military capability. Pillar’s source is a report by Richard Engel and Robert Windrem, developed for NBC news:

Although the assassinations of Iranian scientists have until now been followed by no indication of responsibility other than smug comments of satisfaction from officials of the most likely foreign state perpetrator, now NBC offers something more specific.

According to a report by Richard Engel and Robert Windrem, the assassinations have been the joint work of Israel and the Iranian cult-cum-terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq.

According to the report, the partnership has involved Israel providing financing, training and arms to the MEK to accomplish the hits, as well as to commit other acts of violent sabotage inside Iran. The story tracks with accusations from officials of the Iranian government, who say they base most of what they know on interrogations and captured materials from a failed assassination attempt in 2010.

Such accusations by themselves would be easy to dismiss, of course, as more of the regime’s propaganda. But the NBC story cites two senior U.S. officials, speaking anonymously, as confirming the story. A third official said “it hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet,” although like the others he denied any U.S. involvement. The Israeli foreign ministry declined comment; the MEK denied the story.

No one is fooled by the Israeli denials. In fact, as the NBC report suggests, Israel deflects attention away from its involvement in all things nefarious, by suggesting that Iran is the aggressor here with its “attacks” on Israeli diplomats, a case dutifully made by the Washington Post here and here.

Juan Cole, a Middle East scholar, writing on his Informed Comment blog, is not persuaded by the Israeli spin. He finds Indian sources more credible than Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman:

American media that just parrot notorious thug, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in [these] unlikely allegation are allowing themselves to be used for propaganda. Why not interview Indian authorities on this matter? They are on the ground and have excellent forensic (“CSI”) abilities. Stop being so lazy and blinkered; that isn’t journalism.

Deflect attention from reality, create fear, and take the “high road”. This is the way extremists operate. It has always been so. We need only to travel back to the post WWII days of the 1940s and 1950s, when the US public was transfixed by a Washington drama that pitted suspected Communists against the American Way of Life.

The drama was launched in 1947 Congressional hearings.

Looking back to those days,the extremist side of that conflict became known in 1950 as McCarthyism, after Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy, a Republican who served in the US Senate from 1947 until 1957. He became a media star because he was horribly simplistic as he peddled fear. Finally, the Senator overreached and ran afoul of an honest judge named Joseph Welch. After that he spiraled downward.

But for a time it was the McCarthy era, where the sides were clearly defined, no room for ambiguity. The times demanded good versus evil, darkness against light, the powerful against the weak. This 4 minute film clip below, from the 1947 hearings, shows both “friendly” and “unfriendly”  witnesses. One of the friendly witnesses was an actor named Ronald Reagan, who later became President of the United States.

Those with the power of the Law behind them asked the question: “Are you now or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party”? It was a question which, with the wrong answer, could send a person to jail.

Ten of those who testified as “unfriendly” witnesses, became known as the “Hollywood Ten.” Because they originally refused to cooperate with House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC) they were cited for contempt of congress.

They were subsequently fired and blacklisted by the Motion Picture Association of America. All ten served up to a year in prison, were fined $1,000 and faced great difficulty working in Hollywood again.

Some worked under assumed names. The blacklist was finally broken in 1960 when Dalton Trumbo, an unrepentant member of the Hollywood Ten, was publicly acknowledged as the screenwriter of the films Spartacus and Exodus. (Could Trumbo have anticipated that the Israel he celebrated in his script for Exodus, would one day be asking “Are you now, or have you ever been”?)

The oppression of the Hollywood Ten operated on a McCarthyite battle of simplistic good versus evil. The battle is repeated whenever extremists hold absolute power, or think they do. Give the “wrong” answer and you are doomed to an indefinite time of incarceration, or at the very least, a permanent banishment from polite society.

Fast forward to the Palestine of 2011-12, where a dying young Palestinian man lies chained to a hospital bed in Israel’s Ofer Prison in Palestine. In an earlier Wall Writings posting, I examined what happened to bring this young man into the Israeli military prison.

After he was seized on December 17, 2011, Kahder Adnan was asked the contemporary variation of the 1940s’ Communist question, under torture in an Israeli jail nine weeks ago this weekend.

Adnan was asleep with his family when he taken by the Israeli Occupation Forces from his home near Jenin, in Area A, that part of the Palestinian Occupied Terrorities which the Oslo Accords mandated “the Palestinian Authority has sole civil jurisdiction and security control, while Israel retains authority over movement in and out of the area”.

The questions put to the 33-year old baker and Bir Zeit University graduate, are probably not recorded. Israeli officials have made no effort to be specific as to why Adnan had been placed in “administrative detention”, the bland terminology used by Israel for “disappearing” a Palestinian into the darkness of the absolute control of its military prison system.

Israeli occupation forces subsequently have let their friends in the media know that the question put to Adnan was a variation of the old 1940s American “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party”. I am  reasonably certain no one asking that question had ever heard of Joe McCarthy.

For Khader Adnan, the question was more along the lines of, “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of Islamic Jihad”?

From the McCarthy era to the time of Israel’s military occupation, the questions resonate through the decades.  We, the all powerful, the all good, demand that you confess that you belong to a “party” that is evil. How does the public know that the Islamic Jihad is evil?  Because the “only democracy in the Middle East”, declares it to be so.

Communism in the 1940s and 1950s did bad things; the 2012 Islamic Jihad is fighting military occupation by the means it has, none of which are attractive. Extremism from the top of the power pyramid, engenders extremism from below.

In Israel, and indeed, in the United States, where the definition of evil is dictated by Israel, Islamic Jihad is an “illegal terrorist organization”.  But is Khader Adnan a “member” of Islamic Jihad?  He might have answered with a biblical statement, “you say I am”. Or maybe he simply remained quiet, waiting to be charged with membership is an illegal organization, a charge that is yet to come.

Khader Adnan is no stranger to an Israeli jail cell. He has already spent six years in one. He had, however, been a free man until nine weeks ago when he was once again hauled away into “administrative detention”, a colonial means of control the British, the original colonial power, bequethed to Israel, the current colonial power.

Israel has put in jail more than 40% of the male Palestinian population, at one point in their lives. The purpose is to subdue the population. Sometimes they sit for years in administrative detention.  At other times, they serve prison terms, and then reenter society under the watchful eyes of Israeli soldiers and informers.

Khader Adnan responded the only way left to a prisoner whose future rests entirely in the hands of his jailers; he began a hunger strike that could lead to his death. In spite of numerous calls from Israeli and Palestinian organizations that Adnan be charged or released, the state of Israel remains silent, watching a man dying in one of its military prisons.

Most Americans are ignorant of Adnan’s impending death. If, or when, he dies, the American media may record his death as a small news item that will almost certainly, identify him as a leader of the “radical terrorist Islamic Jihad group”, a charge never leveled against Adnan except by implication.

And most Americans will not see that yet another Palestinian has died because the powerful are in control with the power to ask the question: “Are you now or have you ever been”, a member of whatever group that is not approved by the rulers

Variations of the McCarthy Era question will continue as a part of our national discourse. It crops up even within the American Jewish community, as it did in a strange bit of inter-tribal conflict reported this week by Adam Horowitz on his blog,Mondoweiss.

Someone has said that great minds run together.  I don’t know about that, but I say to you that by all things sacred, earlier in the week I was working on this post which links the McCarthy Era to Zionism.

I had even searched for, and found, the short congressional grilling of the Hollywood Ten, including Dalton Trumbo, above. Suddenly, there was Horowitz beating me into on line with the McCarthy connection. The least I can do is permit him to  give the background of the story.

It all started when the New York Times transferred Ethan Bronner, its long-time Jerusalem bureau chief, back to the US. The irony of this personnel shift lies in the fact that Bronner finally may have become too much of a Zionist for even his editors to tolerate. For his part, Bronner says he had requested the transfer.

Bronner had been criticized by peace activists for his softness in covering the Occupation, soft that is, as in not being critical enough of the Israeli IDF tactics. When the story broke that his son had, until last year, served in the Israeli Defense Forces, even the Times‘ Public Editor suggested it was time for a transfer.

Jodi Rudoren, the new Jerusalem bureau chief is, like Bronner, Jewish. But her ethnicity was not enough to satisfy some on the Zionist team. Acting as a journalist should, she had reached out to sources on both sides of the issue in Israel/Palestine.  Talking to the “enemy” immediately triggered a radical Zionist reaction.

Adam Horowitz on Mondoweiss, tells what happened next, writing under the headline: “Right wing to Rudoren: Are you now, or have you ever been, a Zionist?”

Judi Rudoren continues to hold her ground against the right-wing onslaught against her for tweeting Mondoweiss and Ali Abunimah, as well as recommending Peter Beinart’s new book (these are really the charges?). The Washington Free Beacon’s Adam Kredo interviews her and begins in the most (appropriately) McCarthyite way possible:

The New York Times’ incoming Jerusalem bureau chief, Jodi Rudoren, won’t say if she is a Zionist.

“I’m going to punt on that question,” Rudoren, who is Jewish, told theWashington Free Beacon in an interview yesterday. “I’m not really interested in labels about who I am and what I think.”

He later presses her on the fact that she retweeted a mention from Sami Kishawiof the “Love Under Apartheid” campaign:

On the issue of her journalistic objectivity, Rudoren said her tweets do not reveal an innate bias against Israel.

Asked if she considers Israel an apartheid state—as critics of the Jewish state so often do—Rudoren declined comment.

“I don’t have an assessment yet,” she said. “I’m not sure I’ll ever answer that question in the way you’ve just framed it.”

Adam Horowitz and his Mondoweiss site, along with Richard Silverstein’s Tikun Olanblog, have been one of the very few US-based web sites or publications, to provide a day by day account of the Khader Adnan ordeal as he lies chained to an Israeli military bed near Ramallah.

Whether the unjust administrative detention of Khader Adnan ends in his last minute release or in his death by self-starvation, Adnan will have registered his protest against the injustice and humiliation of Israel’s military Occupation, and in his case, especially, its administration detention.

Somehow I have to believe that new New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief will report on the final outcome of Adnan’s protest. She should, because in a much less serious moment in her life, Rudoren has also been asked the McCarthy Era question by her inquisitors.

The drawing at the top of this posting originally appeared on the website of The Association for Human Rights in Israel. The video of the HUAC hearings is from this site.

This week’s Wall Writings posting is being released a few days earlier than usual because I wanted to add my voice to those around the world who have demanded that Israel release Khader Adnan before he dies in an Israeli military prison, where he was incarcerated without any charges made against him.

BY LARRY DERFNER

TOPICS:IRAN, ISRAEL

JERUSALEM — After bombs went off near Israeli embassies in New Delhi and Tbilisi, and a man with an Iranian passport accidentally blew himself up in Bangkok, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu couldn’t let the opportunity pass. Yediot Aharonot, the country’s most widely read newspaper, reported Wednesday: 

An updated list of talking points distributed by the national advocacy desk in the Prime Minister’s Office  sought to connect the wave of terror with the international community’s efforts at tightening sanctions on Iran, and also to prepare the ground for a military option to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

According to Yediot, the new talking points read: “Iran and Hizbullah are behind these terror attempts. If this is what Iran is doing now, imagine what it will do if its nuclear arms project reaches the goal.” The tabloid’s story was headlined “Iran’s long arm,” and the subhead read, “Israel to the world: ‘Terror acts show nuclear Iran cannot be allowed.’” The story’s ominous tone meshed perfectly with the talking points.

Israel’s whole body politic – politicians, media, influential public figures and public at large – is  now leaning into a war with Iran. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s recently reported opinion that Israel would likely strike between April and June is shared, give or take a month or two, by countless others.

The consequences of such an attack range from a bilateral missile war and intensified international terror attacks, to a regional war involving weapons of mass destruction. Israel may not pull the trigger, of course. But at this point, that seems the only realistic working assumption.

Israeli talking points are coming faster and sharper. Iran’s nuclear project is marching toward the “zone of immunity,” says Defense Minister Ehud Barak. “It is our duty to rely on ourselves when we are concerned with a threat to our very existence,” says Netanyahu. Their apparent aim is to create an aura of inevitability around an imminent Israeli strike. Leading the drive, Netanyahu and his one-time army commando unit leader, Barak, want full support at home and no serious opposition from the U.S. if and when they send the jet bombers on their mission. Naturally, they would prefer that the U.S. do the job – inflicting lasting damage on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure could well be beyond Israel’s military capability – but from here, at least, the American military option looks unlikely, certainly within a time frame Israel accepts.

Some skeptics think Netanyahu and Barak may just be engaging in psychological warfare aimed at keeping Western economic pressure on Iran, the goal being to force or scare the Tehran regime into giving up its pursuit of nuclear weapons, which it denies pursuing. But it’s hard to imagine anything short of visibly destroyed hardware on a massive scale that might convince Israel’s leadership that the nuclear threat had been lifted.

Yet while there is skepticism about the leadership team’s true intentions, there is virtually none being expressed here about the wisdom of going to war. The paucity of dissent is remarkable, not to say depressing, in a country that prides itself on being a “vibrant democracy.”

At the end of last week, the media were talking about which towns had good bomb shelters and air raid sirens and which didn’t. The likelihood that Israel would soon be attacking Iran had begun to sink in. An antiwar demonstration was held across the boulevard from the Defense Ministry compound in Tel Aviv. About 25 people showed up. They held signs that read, “Don’t bomb – talk” to the evening rush hour traffic going past. One driver honked.

I asked a sidewalk passerby, a woman in her mid-20s pushing a baby carriage, what she thought of a possible government decision to bomb Iran. “They sit up there, they’re smarter than me, whatever they decide, I’ll support,” she said. A fellow of about 20 on a skateboard said: “I’m not for war, I’m against war. But if somebody is going to attack you, if your enemy is going to attack, don’t you think you have to attack him first, for the sake of survival?” I asked if he thought Iran would attack Israel first. “I don’t know, I’m not privy to all the information. But good luck,” he said, and skated off.

For all the famous outspokenness of Israeli politicians, not one is speaking out against an attack, not from the moderate opposition nor the “peace camp.” Peace Now, a group that has organized huge demonstrations going back 30 years against the Lebanon War and the occupation, has said not a word about the extraordinarily high-risk war of choice that looms in the very near future.

The news media, with the exception of the liberal Ha’aretz newspaper, is fully on board. The mainstream media reflect and reinforce public opinion, which shows weariness with settlement-building and settlers, but automatic support for any decision taken in the name of security, especially in the face of a nuclear threat from a regime like Iran’s.

The tone is set by the red-on-black scare headlines in the tabloids and the grim facial expressions and bracing reports from correspondents on Channel 2, which dominates TV news. On the night of the Bangkok bombing, Ehud Ya’ari, dean of the country’s so-called Arab affairs correspondents, reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was expected on Wednesday to inaugurate the uranium enrichment facility in Fordo, a site built deep underground in the side of a mountain. “Thus,” said Ya’ari, “Iran’s nuclear project enters what Defense Minister Ehud Barak calls the ‘zone of immunity.’” Draw your own conclusions, folks.

Except for Gideon Levy at Ha’aretz, no well-known newspaper columnist or TV commentator has come out against a war; nearly all are worried and noncommittal. But one of the most influential columnists, Yediot’s Sever Plocker, a passionate centrist with long-standing contacts around the Israeli establishment, wrote a column Tuesday titled “Israel won’t blink first.” Declaring that “the State of Israel, as the national home of the Jews, has decided to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons,” Plocker maintained that unless Iran freezes its nuclear weapons program and allows international inspectors into the underground sites and even the “secret” ones, “zero hour” will soon arrive. “No begging will stop Israel at that point. There will be a war,” he wrote.

Meanwhile, the literary triumvirate of Amos Oz, David Grossman and A.B. Yehoshua, Israel’s loftiest voices of peace and enlightenment, have remained silent. President Shimon Peres, who has put his days as a peacemaker far behind him, is warning only about the dangers of a nuclear Iran and not at all about those of an Israeli attack.

So what’s going on? What is this lockstep march to war in a country that made peace with Egypt and Jordan; that at times tried to make peace with the Palestinians; that absorbed missile attacks from Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War yet held its fire at America’s behest; that had “warriors for peace” in the Prime Minister’s Office, “peace governments” and a “peace camp”?

It’s all gone. Since the Palestinian intifada ended the “peace process” in 2000, Israelis blame everything that goes wrong, every political dispute, violent or nonviolent, completely on the other side. No politician, commentator or other public figure who seeks mainstream approval can be thought of as “weak on security” or “naïve about the Arabs.”

Yet the reaction to the Iranian nuclear threat has deeper roots than that. While Netanyahu is known for his Holocaust analogies on this issue, his predecessors going back to Yitzhak Rabin 20 years ago have all lobbied the world to stop Iran from going nuclear, which has been marked “unacceptable.” Since Menachem Begin ordered the 1981 attack on Iraq’s reactor (over the opposition of Peres and war heroes Moshe Dayan and Ezer Weizman), Israel has lived by the doctrine that no enemy in the Middle East will have nuclear weapons. After the 1981 attack, it acted on this doctrine a second time in 2007, under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (and defense minister Barak), with the airstrike on Syria’s embryonic nuclear facility.

So the issue for Israel isn’t just the Iranian regime’s jihadist craziness and Holocaust denial. Israel bombed the Iraqi reactor when Saddam Hussein was the Reagan administration’s man in the Gulf against Iran. It bombed the Syrian installation before Bashar Assad started slaughtering Syrians en masse, when he was offering Israel land-for-peace negotiations.

While it’s true that Iran isn’t just any Middle Eastern enemy, the Israeli doctrine applies to all of them.

Only one person has made a real effort to reverse the country’s course, and lately he’s given up, too. At the start of last year, upon finishing his legendary tenure as Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, then the country’s unchallenged supreme warrior, did the unprecedented. He began speaking out openly against an attack on Iran, calling it “the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard,” and warning that afterward, “the regional challenge that Israel would face would be impossible.” He was going public, he explained, because “there is no one to stop Bibi and Barak” from undertaking such a “dangerous adventure” now that he and the other military and intelligence chiefs, who had the clout to rein in the political leadership, were retiring.

Last week, after months of silence, Dagan resurfaced to announce he’s heading a new NGO to change Israel’s parliamentary system – an old chestnut of the good government movement that seems conspicuously irrelevant now. For nearly a year, Dagan raised a flag, and when he saw hardly anyone behind him, he lowered it. A few high-level ex-warriors, including two former army chiefs of staff, warned against the consequences of attacking Iran. But these were isolated remarks that got very little attention; in the public’s mind, the antiwar movement began and ended with one man.

I asked a retired army general who agrees with Dagan’s views why he and the many others like him didn’t get together and sign a letter in a major newspaper, or hold a press conference, or do something that might start a public debate over this fairly fateful matter; after all, Israelis listen to generals. He replied that he and his fellows didn’t have the information that those around the cabinet table had, they didn’t know if the government really intended to order an attack, and they didn’t want to take the chance that this was all “psychological warfare,” which they would be undercutting if they spoke out.

“You have to understand,” he said, “Israel is a small community, everybody knows everybody else’s opinion, so you have to be responsible. That’s the way I was educated.”

No opposition – that’s what Netanyahu and Barak want, and at home, that’s what they’re getting.

As for opposition from the Obama administration, it has been awfully muted. The Republican presidential candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) have  been gung-ho, which has much to do with the administration’s wariness toward Israel in this election year. But then how strong an argument for restraint can the administration make to the Israelis, after repeating for years that a nuclear Iran is “unacceptable” and that “all options are on the table”?

“Priviţi doar ce s-a întâmplat, în perioada premergătoare războiului din Irak, din 2003. Oricine se opunea unui război ilegal de agresiune era acuzat că ar fi un simpatizant al lui Hitler. Vă puteţi imagina aşa ceva ? Holocaustul nazist a devenit principala armă ideologică pentru a justifica războaiele de agresiune. Asta este ironia supremă ! Asta este realitatea ! Ori de câte ori Israelul şi Statele Unite doresc să lanseze un război ilegal de agresiune, ce acuzaţii aduc ? Că inamicul lor este Hitler. Ahmadinejad este Hitler. Hezbollah este Hitler. Hamas este Hitler.”

Breaking down the wall

The Zionist Story este un documentar independent, realizat în 2009 de un fost paraşutist şi actual rezervist israelian, Ronen Berelovich, o relatare extrem de onestă şi emoţionantă a epurărilor etnice, colonialismului şi apartheidului practicat de mişcarea sionistă internaţională, în scopul împlinirii prin orice mijloace a unei profeţii străvechi, din vremea demonicului Yahwe, de re-edificare a statului israelian pe teritoriul istoric al Palestinei, în detrimentul ghinionistei populaţii arabe locale, al cărei calvar se apropie de un secol de existenţă.

Berelovich combină, cu succes, imaginile de arhivă cu propriile comentarii şi interviurile luate unor personalităţi la Ilan Pappe, Terry Boullata, Alan Hart şi Jeff Halper, care au avut curajul de a încerca să prezinte adevărul istoric, în condiţiile actuale ale unui climat politic extrem de tensionat şi favorabil protejării minciunilor învederate ale propagandei sioniste.

Când am scris articolul dedicat unui om deosebit, un Don Quijote modern, Norman Finkelstein, ştiam că multe lucruri rămăseseră nespuse, fiindcă istoria reală a iadului prin care trece dârzul popor palestinian, de la 1917 şi până în prezent, este prea puţin cunoscută marelui public, din cauza laşităţii mass media, a propagandei sioniste foarte bine susţinută financiar, a trădării tuturor guvernelor lumii, care s-au raliat punctului de vedere susţinut de guvernul israelian şi, nu în ultimul rând, datorită ferocităţii cu care este atacat orice ne-evreu care îndrăzneşte să se atingă de acest subiect fierbinte, sub umbrela legislaţiilor promovate în multe ţări, inclusiv în România, de marii trădători ai intereselor naţionale.

Tot atunci, am afirmat:

“Şi pentru a calma din start spiritele, care ar putea să se inflameze inutil, la fel cum am procedat în cazul primului articol dedicat imperiului american, voi face o distincţie clară între poporul evreu – dezrădăcinat şi spulberat prin lume, vreme de milenii şi care a fost sacrificat, cu sălbăticie, în multe momente de răscruce ale istoriei, în numele unor interese meschine – şi conducerea statului Israel, subordonată integral sionismului plătit cu banii familiei Rothschild.”,

declaraţie ce rămâne perfect valabilă, pentru a-mi clarifica poziţia, fiindcă nu obişnuiesc să mă dezmint: am avut prieteni evrei, oameni oneşti şi muncitori, care nu aveau nimic de-a face cu sionismul şi crimele statului evreu, care nu poate şi nu trebuie să fie confundat cu populaţia în numele căreia susţine, nejustificat, că vorbeşte şi acţionează.

Şi chiar îl voi cita, în aceeaşi ordine de idei, pe profesorul universitar Ioan Coja, care, acuzat fiind de Nicolae Corbu că ar fi antisemit, numai fiindcă dorea să afle şi să afirme adevărul în spinoasa problemă legionară, a răspuns elegant:

“Cât priveşte antisemitismul meu [...] recunosc: sigur că sunt antisemit, dar nu tot timpul, ci numai atunci când mi se iveşte prilejul. Adică atunci când am de-a face cu evrei neruşinaţi şi proşti ! Dacă nesimţiţii pedepsiţi de Dumnezeu să n-aibă nici minte şi nici obraz se întâmplă să fie români, atunci mă fac antiromân, n-am încotro ! Sunt antimaghiar, antiamerican, antisuedez ş.a.m.d., după cum e cazul.”

Ronen Berelovich, tehnicianul de înregistrări al Curţii Supreme din capitala israeliană, a studiat regia de film la Camera Obscura Film School în Tel Aviv, Israel, fiind şi creatorul câtorva scurt-metraje – unele dintre ele prezentate la festivalurile internaţionale de film – şi al unei mini-drame “Shesh-besh”, de 40 de minute, prezentată la “Cinemateque”, principalul cinematograf de artă din Tel Aviv.

Autorul declara:

“Am terminat, recent, un documentar independent, ‘The Zionist Story’, în care am căutat să prezint nu numai istoria conflictului israelo-palestinian, ci şi principale sale motive: ideologia sionistă, scopurile sale (prezente şi viitoare) şi susţinerea sa fermă, nu numai de către societatea israeliană, ci, de asemenea, din ce în ce mai mult, de percepţia democraţiilor occidentale asupra problemelor Orientului Mijlociu.

Aceste concepte au fost deja demonstrate în excelentul documentar ‘Occupation 101‘, în regia lui Abdallah şi Sufyan Omeish, dar în documentarul meu am abordat subiectul din perspectiva unui israelian, fost soldat în rezervă şi cineva care şi-a petrecut întreaga viaţă în umbra sionismului.

Sper să vă puteţi rezerva câteva momente pentru a privi acest film şi, dacă vă va plăcea, chiar vă rog să-l împărtăşiţi şi altora (cum atât documentarul cât şi filmările de arhivă sunt folosite numai în scop educaţional, filmul poate fi distribuit liber).

Am realizat de unul singur acest documentar, în întregime, practic fără vreun buget alocat, deşi am făcut tot posibilul pentru a mă ridica la un înalt standard profesional şi sper ca acest documentar ‘casnic’ să stârnească interesul spectatorilor.”

În ce priveşte distribuţia liberă a filmului, după cum veţi constata şi singuri, nu numai imaginile de arhivă, ci şi interviurile recente au o calitate video slabă, din păcate, ceea ce mă face să cred că s-au depus ceva eforturi, pentru a stopa difuzarea pe internet a variantei originale.

Deşi li s-a contestat continuu autenticitatea şi chiar şi aici, pe blog, am fost admonestat cu indignare de un “cunoscător”, la  modul: “Oare  dumneata  chiar nu  ştii că  sunt false ?”, am să revin la Protocoalele Înţelepţilor Sionului, care constau, de fapt, în 24 de procese-verbale încheiate de diferitele secţiuni ale Marelui Congres Masonic, care s-a ţinut în Elveţia, la Bâle (Basel), în 1897 (care este amintit şi în film), şi formează programul masonic de cucerire mondială, program elaborat şi comunicat unor anumiţi “iniţiaţi”, pentru a se păstra o urmă scrisă a acelor convorbiri ultrasecrete (alţi autori susţin că a fost doar o reformulare, varianta originală fiind întocmită cu circa 100 de ani mai devreme, în casa lui Mayer Amschel Rothschild).

Din ce motiv ?

Fiindcă, lăsând la o parte pentru o clipă dezbaterea legată de autenticitatea lor, în forma în care au fost aduse la cunoştinţa lumii de profesorul rus Serghei Nilus, în 1902, prezintă în clar strategia de dominaţie mondială a sionismului francmasonic şi cele ce sunt scrise în Protocoale coincid aproape la perfecţie cu toate evenimentele importante ale secolelor XX şi XXI, care au ajuns să contureze imaginea terifiantă a unui imperiu mondial masonic.

Nimeni, niciodată, nu va reuşi să mă convingă că totul se datorează unor simple coincidenţe, atunci când strategia sionistă enunţată pe faţă, explică, de exemplu, foarte convingător, evoluţia tragediei poporului palestinian şi a întregii lumi, sub ofensiva ocultei mondiale globaliste:

“În politică trebuie să te pricepi să iei proprietatea altuia fără a şovăi, mai ales dacă poţi obţine, prin acest mijloc, supunerea şi puterea. Statul nostru, în aceasta cucerire paşnică, are dreptul să înlocuiască grozăviile războiului prin condamnări la moarte mai puţin văzute şi mai folositoare, necesare adeseori pentru a întreţine teroarea aceasta, care face popoarele să asculte orbeşte.

O neînduplecare constantă, dar straşnică, este cel mai mare atu al puterii unui Stat; prin urmare, nu este numai în folosul nostru, este chiar de datoria noastră să ne ţinem de acest program al violenţei şi făţărniciei. O asemenea doctrină, bazată pe calcul, este tot atât de folositoare ca şi mijloacele pe care le întrebuinţează. Nu numai prin aceste mijloace, dar şi prin aceasta doctrină a neînduplecării, vom învinge şi vom robi Guvernului nostru Suprem toate celelalte guverne.”

Rabinul Moishe Arye Friedman declara:

“Adevăraţii antisemiţi sunt aceia care conlucrează cu sioniştii. Sioniştii au pus în Israel bazele unui stat terorist, de apartheid, care îi urmăreşte pe palestinieni şi îi alungă, iar pe plan internaţional au pus la cale, din interese de afaceri sau de putere, industria Holocaustului.

Noi, evreii credincioşi, nu vrem nimic altceva decât să trăim conform normelor ţării voastre, ca nişte cetăţeni buni şi paşnici, şi să ne putem exercita religia în libertate. Pentru aceasta nu va găsi nimeni motiv de antisemitism.

Dar atâta timp cât dreptul la opinie şi exprimare nu este respectat, iar oamenii cu gândire de dreapta sunt reduşi la tăcere prin cele mai odioase şi criminale metode, atâta timp cât mijloacele industriei Holocaustului mai sunt utilizate împotriva unei lumi întregi, se va tăia în continuare în propria carne şi antisemitismul va fi o veşnică poveste.”

În 1917 planurile sioniştilor începeau să prindă contur, prin cucerirea Palestinei de către britanici, consfinţită pe plan internaţional prin Tratatul de la Sèvres (10 august 1920), care îngloba, desigur, extraordinar de “oportuna” Declaraţie Balfour.

Să fi fost o simplă coincidenţă această acţiune a britanicilor, de parcă ar fi acţionat la ordinele sioniştilor sau mă încearcă pe mine paranoia ?

Haideţi să clarificăm !

Declaraţia a ajuns la cunoştinţa opiniei publice sub forma unei scrisori redactată de ministrul de externe britanic, Lord Arthur James Balfour – de fapt, aşa cum îi stă bine unui şef, acesta dăduse ordin să fie redactată de către un subordonat, pe atunci, Lord Alfred Milner, figura cheie a războiului anglo-bur (1899-1902) – la insistenţele lui Chaim Weizmann şi ale lui Nahum Sokolow, care au încercat multă vreme să recruteze Marea Britanie în acţiunea de stabilire a unui stat evreiesc în Eretz Israel, în schimbul garantării controlului asupra zonei de nord a Canalului de Suez.

Şi cui credeţi că-i era adresată, spre aprobare, această scrisoare “istorică” ?

Unui personaj sinistru, Lord Walter Rothschild (Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, Baron the Rothschild), membru “de frunte” (bancher, politician, sionist şi zoolog) al Comunităţii Evreieşti din Anglia.

Interesant este faptul că Milner, care se subordona lui Balfour, pe linie diplomatică, era, simultan, subordonatul lui Rothschild, în calitate de bancher.

După cum aminteam în articolul dedicat documentarului Thrive, una dintre cele mai importante societăţi secrete ale sec. XX (dacă nu cumva cea mai importantă) era Round Table, cu ramificaţii în întreaga lume, deşi îşi avea sediul în Marea Britanie.

Round Table este cea care orchestrează acţiunile Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission şi ale Royal Institute of International Affairs.

În 1917, este fascinant faptul că, în timp ce Balfour era un membru de vază al Round Table, Alfred Milner era de fapt liderul oficial, după moartea lui Cecil Rhodes, iar organizaţia fusese fondată de Lionel Walter Rothschild.

Hmm… încurcate sunt căile… Satanei, nu-i aşa ?

Poate astfel vă va fi mai clară, totuşi, implicarea directă britanică în punerea în aplicare a planurilor sioniste pentru edificarea Eretz Israel.

La fel de interesant este rolul celui de-al doilea război mondial (apropo, Protocoalele solicitau obţinerea statului fascist global prin intermediul a trei războaie mondiale) în finisarea planurilor sioniste pe termen lung:

- lagărele de concentrare au convins evreii europeni “îndărătnici” că numai în Palestina se putea edifica raiul, aşa cum susţinea furibund propaganda sionistă;

- debusolarea postbelică a permis declanşarea războiului din 1948 şi implicit, recunoaşterea de către ONU a noului stat Israel, apărut în urma operaţiunii de divizare, prezentată destul de detaliat în film;

- acordurile de la Bretton Woods, din iulie 1944, consolidau sclavia financiară mondială, punându-se bazele principalelor instrumente neocolonialiste “moderne”, FMI şi Banca Internaţională pentru Reconstrucţie şi Dezvoltare (ce frumos sună demagogia cămătarilor), transformată între timp în Banca Mondială;

- între 1939 şi 1945 se definitivează ideologia noii ordini mondiale, prin volumele “World Order” al lui Lionel Curtis şi “The New World Order” al lui H.G. Wells (care abandona literatura ştiinţifico-fantastică în beneficiul celor care-l iniţiaseră în secretele ocultei mondiale, propunând un stat mondial colectivist care să cuprindă, culmea, până şi democraţiile socialiste, pe calea recrutării universale pentru muncă, incriminând cu tărie individualismul naţionalist, descris ca “maladia lumii”).

Ciudat este faptul că Hitler, în corespondenţa purtată cu unul dintre cei mai fervenţi susţinători şi sponsori ai săi, Friedrich “Fritz” Thyssen, i se plânge acestuia că evreii din Germania şi din restul Europei ocupate nu înţeleg necesitatea emigrării în Palestina, forţându-l să-i interneze în lagăre de concentrare.

Nu prea corespunde asta cu imaginea unui monstru iraţional şi coleric, care acţiona numai la impuls, nu-i aşa ?

Mai degrabă seamănă, din punct de vedere al opiniilor, cu unul dintre liderii sionişti de marcă.

Să fie iarăşi o simplă coincidenţă ?

Mă tem că nu !

Conform unor dovezi de dată recentă, acelaşi rabin menţionat mai sus, Moishe Arye Friedman, împreună cu mulţi alţii, acuză liderii sionismului mondial că au colaborat cu naziştii, pentru a forţa imigrarea evreilor căpoşi din Europa în Palestina, unde prezenţa lor era neapărat necesară pentru a răsturna raportul demografic în favoarea evreilor şi a justifica deportarea sau încarcerarea populaţiei palestiniene, devenită astfel minoritară.

Şi chiar mai grav decât atât, nu oricărui evreu îi era permis să ajungă în Palestina, ci numai celor înstăriţi, care se putea întreţine singuri şi puteau sponsoriza şi statul israelian aflat în stadiul de proiect, de “trierea” săracilor urmând a se ocupa aparatul de stat nazist, ceea ce a şi făcut, cu mare eficienţă, după cum se ştie.

Aceeaşi nemernici sionişti s-au folosit de roadele crimei lor, de holocaustul imaginat şi ordonat de ei, pentru a culpabiliza întreaga lume, care nu-şi mai putea permite să critice un popor supus unui asemenea martiriu, deşi încă o dată precizez, sioniştii sunt asasinii şi nu victimele holocaustului.

Toate bune şi frumoase până aici şi chiar logice, dar de ce ar fi acţionat Hitler, atât de activ, în beneficiul politicilor şacalilor sionişti ?

Un psihoanalist, Walter Langer, în cartea sa “The Mind of Hitler”, nu susţinea că Hitler a fost doar sprijinit de familia Rothschild (dar şi de familia regală “britanică”, aşa-zisă de Windsor, în fapt Saxe-Coburg-Gotha şi de marele “erou de război” britanic, Lord Mountbatten, un Rothschild şi un satanist), ci că Hitler era, de fapt, un Rothschild.

Informaţiile lui Langer provin din investigaţiile desfăşurate de un ofiţer din Gestapo, de rang înalt, Hansjurgen Koehler (publicate în 1940 cu titlul “Inside the Gestapo”), efectuate la ordinul paranoicului Obergruppenführer SS Reinhard Heydrich, care întocmea dosare oricui, în scop de şantaj.

Lui Heydrich, la rândul lui, îi atrăsese atenţia o anchetă mai timpurie ordonată de cancelarul austriac, Engelbert Dollfuss, asupra familiei lui Hitler.

Koehler a scris:

“Tatăl lui Adolf, Alois Hitler, a fost fiul ilegitim al Mariei Anna Schicklgruber. S-a presupus, în general, că tatăl lui Alois a fost Johann Georg Hiedler. Dar documentele austriece dovedesc că Maria Anna Schicklgruber locuia, de fapt, la Viena la momentul conceperii lui Alois, fiind servitoarea baronului Rothschild. În momentul în care familia a descoperit că este însărcinată a fost trimisă înapoi acasă, unde s-a născut Alois şi, cinci ani mai târziu, s-a căsătorit cu Johann Georg Hiedler.

[...] Al doilea grup de documente din dosarul albastru conţinea documentele colectate de Dollfuss. Cancelarul trebuie să fi ştiut că, având un asemenea dosar personal, l-ar fi putut controla pe Hitler.”

În 1837, numai Salomon Mayer Rothschild locuia la conacul din Viena al familiei, despre care propriul său fiu, Anselm Salomon, scria:

“[...] înainte de 1840 dezvoltase o pasiune atât de libidinoasă pentru fete foarte tinere, încât aventurile sale au trebuit să fie muşamalizate, cu greu, de poliţie.”

Într-un asemenea context, pot fi explicate foarte uşor: ordinul de asasinare al cancelarului Dollfuss, dat de Hitler, obsesia acestuia pentru cucerirea cu orice preţ a Austriei şi, legat de documentarul nostru, obedienţa cu care Hitler a respectat planurile ordonate de oculta sionistă mondială.

Dincolo de intriga, poate de capă şi spadă, a articolului, rămâne realitatea crudă dezvăluită de documentar, a unui guvern israelian promotor al unui apartheid criminal, creatorul celei mai mari închisori de pe planetă, ale cărui planuri de expansiune ameninţă România cel puţin din două puncte de vedere: în primul rând, planurile de evacuare ale întregii populaţii, imaginate de guvernul sionist israelit în cazul înfrângerii suferite din partea unei coaliţii probabile a statelor arabe, vizează ca zonă de dislocare Dobrogea şi, în al doilea rând, să nu uităm halucinanta decizie a fasciştilor din Uniunea Europeană, de a oferi toate datele personale ale românilor, spre administrare, statului Israel.

Posted by Gilad Atzmon on February 15, 2012. Filed under Jewish Matters. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

For eleven months, the Western powers and the Gulf States have lead a campaign to destabilize Syria. Several thousand mercenaries infiltrated the country. Recruited by agencies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar within the Sunni extremist community, they came to overthrow the “usurper Alawite” Bashar al-Assad and impose a Wahhabi-inspired dictatorship. They have at their disposal the most sophisticated military equipment, including night vision systems, communication centers, and robots for urban warfare. Supported secretly by the NATO powers, they also have access to vital military information, including satellite images of Syrian troop movements, and telephone interceptions.

This has been falsely portrayed to the Western public as a political revolution crushed in blood by a ruthless dictatorship. Of course, this lie has not been universally accepted. Russia, China and the Latin American and Caribbean member states of ALBA repudiate it. They each have a historical background that allows them to readily grasp what is at stake. The Russians are thinking of Chechnya, the Chinese of Xinjiang, and the Latin Americans of Cuba and Nicaragua. In all these cases, beyond ideological or religious appearances, the methods of destabilization by the CIA were the same.

Group of Syrian government opponents, belonging to the hotchpotch commonly known as “Free Syrian Army.”

The strangest thing about this situation is to observe the Western media deluding themselves that the Salafists, Wahhabis and Al-Qaeda fighters are motivated by democratic principles, while they continue to demand on Saudi and Qatari satellite airwaves the head of the Alawi heretics and the Arab League observers. It matters little if Abdel Hakim Belhaj (number 2 of Al-Qaeda and current military governor of Tripoli, Libya) came personally to install his men in northern Syria, and Ayman Al-Zawahiri (current leader of Al-Qaeda since the official death of Osama bin Laden) has called for a jihad against Syria: the Western press pursues its romantic dream of a liberal revolution.

Even more ridiculous is to hear the Western media slavishly disseminating the daily dispatches put out by the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood ranting about the crimes of the regime and its victims, under the signature of the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights. Besides, since when has this Brotherhood of putchists been interested in human rights?

Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda’s number one following the official death of Osama Bin Laden, reiterated his call for hijad to overthrow the Baasist regime in Syria.

All it took to turn “terrorists” into “democrats” was for Western secret services to arrange for the puppet “Syrian National Council” to enter the scene, with a Sorbonne professor as President and as spokesperson the mistress of the former head of the DGSE. In a sleight of hand, the lie has become a media reality. Those abducted, mutilated and murdered by the Wahhabi Legion are transformed by the press into victims of the tyrant. Conscripts of all faiths who are defending their country against aggression are painted as sectarian Alawite soldiers oppressing their people. The destabilization of Syria by foreigners is treated as one more episode of the “Arab Spring.” The emir of Qatar and the Saudi king, two absolute monarchs who have never held national elections in their countries and incarcerate protesters, have become the champions of revolution and democracy. France, the United Kingdom and the United States, who just killed 160,000 Libyans in breach of the mandate they received from the Security Council, have turned into philanthropists responsible for the protection of civilian populations. Etc..

However, the low intensity war that the Western press and the Gulf have hidden behind this masquerade came to an end with the double veto by Russia and China on 4 February 2012. NATO and its allies were ordered to cease fire and withdraw, at the risk of sparking a war on a regional, or even global, scale.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with Russian Foreign Minister Serguei Lavrov on 7 February in Damascus.

On 7 February, a large Russian delegation, including the highest ranking foreign intelligence officials, arrived in Damascus where it was greeted by cheering crowds, aware that Russia’s return to the international scene marked the end of their nightmare. The capital, but also Aleppo, the second largest city, were decked out in white, blue, red, and people marched behind banners written in Cyrillic. At the presidential palace, the Russian delegation joined those of other states, including Turkey, Iran and Lebanon. A series of agreements were reached to re-establish peace. Syria has returned 49 military instructors captured by the Syrian army. Turkey intervened to obtain the release of the abducted Iranian engineers and pilgrims, including those held by the French (incidentally, Lieutenant Tlass who sequestered them on behalf of the DGSE was liquidated). Turkey has ceased all support for the “Free Syrian Army,” closed down its facilities (except the one on the NATO base at Incirlik), and turned over its commander, Colonel Riad el-Assad. Russia, which is the guarantor of the agreements, has been allowed to reactivate the former Soviet listening base on Mount Qassioum.

The next day, the US State Department informed the Syrian opposition in exile that it could no longer count on its military aid. Realizing that they have betrayed their country to no avail, the Syrian National Council members went in search of new sponsors. One of them even went so far as to write to Benjamin Netanyahu asking him to invade Syria.

Deployment of the Lebanese army during its operation in the north of the country.

After a period of two days required for the implementation of the agreements, not only the national armies of Syria, but also Lebanon, stormed the bases of the Wahhabi Legion. In northern Lebanon, a massive arsenal was seized in the town of Tripoli and four officers were taken prisoner in Akkar, in a school abandoned by UNRWA and transformed into a military HQ. In Syria, General Assef Shawkat in person commanded the operations. At least 1,500 fighters were captured, including a French colonel of the DGSE technical communication services, and more than a thousand people were killed. At this stage it is not possible to determine how many among the victims are foreign mercenaries, how many are Syrians cooperating with foreign forces, and how many are civilians trapped in the beleaguered city.

Lebanon and Syria have restored their sovereignty over their entire territory.

Intellectuals are debating whether Vladimir Putin might have made a mistake in protecting Syria at the risk of a diplomatic crisis with the United States. The question is wrongly put. Having reconstituted its forces for years and asserted itself today on the international stage, Moscow has put an end to two decades of a unipolar world order, permitting Washington to expand its hegemony to achieve global domination. The choice was not between siding with tiny Syria or with the mighty United States, but between allowing the first world power to destroy yet another government or upsetting the balance of power to create a more just international order in which Russia has a say.

There has been altogether too much stuff in the media lately about how Iran is not really a threat to anyone and how even some prominent Israelis don’t really believe that they have to go to war (or have Washington go to war on their behalf).

It was perhaps inevitable that there would be some pushback to again stoke the fires and make the case that Iran is indeed evil incarnate and on the verge of obtaining an apocalyptic weapon.

Israeli Fear-Mongering about Iran Faces a Barak-lash. Sometimes Ehud Barak has trouble staying on message. — Nima Shirazi