Middle East atemporal

ianuarie 10, 2012

The Cost of Israel to Americans

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 3:55 pm

Many of the most serious dangers facing Americans today stem from our “special relationship” with Israel

by Aison Weir /  The Council For The National Interest

Our uniquely massive support for Israel has cost trillions of dollars and multitudes of lives. It has diminished our moral standing in the world, lessened our domestic freedoms, and exposed us to unnecessary and growing peril.

The majority of Americans – as well as our diplomatic and military experts – oppose this unique relationship. Yet, the lobby for Israel continues to foment policies that are disastrous for our nation and tragic for the region.

If we are to have Middle East policies that serve the national interest, that represent the highest values of our founders and our citizens, and that work to sustain a nation of honor, decency, security, and prosperity, then it is essential that all Americans become active and informed. Below are the facts:

American taxpayers give Israel over $8 million per day

(See report from Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress):

This to a nation, at its peak, of 7.4 million people – smaller than New Jersey. Israel has received more American money than any other nation on earth. It is more than we give to all the starving countries of Africa put together.

From 1950-53 Israel’s financial influx from the U.S. was one billion dollars; Israel at that time had 1.6 million inhabitants

In the past ten years, American taxpayers have given Israel approximately $200,000 per family of five.

This costs us even more:

  • US aid to Israel is given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year.

  • Since the US is operating at a deficit, this means that we borrow the money, give it to Israel, and then pay interest on it long after it is gone.

Israel, on the other hand, makes interest from it. Congress has mandated that Israel’s aid be immediately deposited to an interest bearing account with the Federal Reserve Bank.


Additional financial costs: $3 trillion

  • About $1.5 billion to Egypt and $843 million to Jordan is dispensed annually under arrangements made to induce these countries’ friendly relations with Israel.
  • Billions of dollars have been lost to U.S. manufacturers because of the Arab boycott engendered by Israeli actions.
  • Enormous and continuing costs to U.S. consumers of petroleum, which surged to such heights that it set off a world-wide recession during the Arab oil boycott imposed in reaction to U.S. support of Israel in the 1973 war.

There are a multitude of such costs.

A report by an economist commissioned by the Army War College in 2003 to analyze the situation in full found that the total cost to Americans over Israel’s 60+ years has been $3 trillion.

Americans have a higher unemployment rate than Israel and 10 million families are reportedly sliding into foreclosure; yet Americans continue to give tax money to Israel.


On top of this are the costs of the Iraq war:  hundreds of thousands of lives & over $3 trillion

The costs of the the Iraq war, which waspromoted by Israel partisans, are almost incalculable and are still growing.

The war added trillions of dollars to the federal debt, and this doesn’t include future health care and disability payments for veterans.

Economists report that the global financial crisis was due, at least in part, to the Iraq war.

The same parties are pushing for a similar attack on Iran.

The Lobby for Israel overrules US experts

U.S. policies in the Middle East rarely reflect U.S. interests and values.

Instead, over the objections of a multitude of State Department and Pentagon analysts, they are largely driven by a variety of factors:

1. Special-interest lobbying.  Fortune Magazine rates one of the many lobby organizations working on behalf of Israel, AIPAC, as the second most powerful lobby in Washington. Many analysts consider the pro-Israel interest group the most powerful lobby in our nation.

Senator William J. Fulbright aimed to bring a little more knowledge, a little more reason, and a little more compassion into world affairs and thereby increase the chance that nations will learn at last to live in peace and friendship — (wiki)

Senator William J. Fulbright aimed to bring a little more knowledge, a little more reason, and a little more compassion into world affairs and thereby increase the chance that nations will learn at last to live in peace and friendship — (wiki)

By the late 1960s Senator William Fulbright found that U.S. aid to Israel was being secretly funneled back to lobbyists in the U.S., who would use it to lobby for still more U.S. money to Israel.

The U.S. justice department and other agencies have oftenattempted to enforce U.S. laws

2. Israel partisans in the U.S. government and media: The efforts of a growing number of individuals with close ties to Israel (some are neoconservatives, others are neoliberals) who often hold key positions in U.S. administrations, the State Department, Pentagon, and media.

The US Ambassador to Israel stated that all US Middle East policies are predicated on their effect on Israel. This is a highly inappropriate practice and one that is replicated in no other region. US policies should be based on American interests and priorities, not those of a foreign nation.

3. Campaigns by pro-Israel funders to engender Islamophobia: to create fear and hatred of Muslims, a highly diverse population of 1.5 billion people whose faith is one of the three Abrahamic religions and who worship the same God as Christians and Jews.

4. Israeli-centric news reporting by the U.S. media consistently misportrays the current situation and the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

5. Hollywood movies and television shows, which often play a significant role in shaping attitudes and beliefs. These shows, frequently produced by individuals with ties to Israel, depict Arabs and Muslims almost always negatively, Jews and Israelis almost never negatively, and Christians both positively and negatively.

[Interestingly, the oil and weapons industries are not responsible for our relationship with Israel. In fact, at times these industries have lobbied against U.S. support for Israel, which undermines their ability to do business in the region.]  

Jonathan Pollard — Israel granted Pollard citizenship in 1995, while publicly denying, until 1998, that he was an Israeli spy. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has voiced particularly strong support for Pollard, visiting the convicted spy in prison in 2002.

Jonathan Pollard — Israel granted Pollard citizenship in 1995, while publicly denying, until 1998, that he was an Israeli spy. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has voiced particularly strong support for Pollard, visiting the convicted spy in prison in 2002.

Israel promotes its own interests, which is the right of any nation.

However, this is done at the expense of Americans who fund it.

There is considerable evidence that Israel is not the close ally many Americans believe it to be:

  • The GAO has reported that Israel conducts the most intense spying operation against the U.S. of any of our presumed allies.
  • Intelligence experts consider Jonathan Pollard the most damaging spy in US history. For years Israel denied any connection to Pollard; now it actively lobbies for his release.
  • Israeli forces have killed and injured numerous Americans. Rarely, if ever, have there been significant consequences.
  • Israel has stolen U.S. technology, and passed it on to other nations, some of them U.S. adversaries.

The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty

In 1967 Israeli forces attacked a U.S. Navy ship, the USS Liberty, killing or injuring over 200 American servicemen.

An independent commission in 2003 by extraordinarily high-ranking U.S. military officers and officials found that

Israel had commited an act of war against the United States,

the US President had recalled rescue aircraft, and that

the President had ordered a cover-up on the incident.

These statements, recorded in the Congressional Record, were not reported by U.S. news media.

Israeli ethnic expansionism has caused regional misery, instability, and continual conflict.

Israeli aggression (Israel initiated all of its warsexcept one) and its violations of international lawhuman rights conventions, and UNresolutions, have created enormous hostility against it throughout the world.

The US, as Israel’s number one funder, is increasingly imperiled by hostility created by Israeli actions.

Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons poses considerable danger both to the region itself and far beyond.

it has refused to sign the nuclear proliferation treaty and the British American Security Information Council has found that in Israel “nuclear weapons are being assigned roles that go well beyond deterrence.”

Israel’s war crimes in Gaza

While US intelligence agencies have so far found no indication that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, Israel’s possession of these weapons, combined with its history of aggression, create a compelling motivation for other nations in the region to acquire them for deterrence.

Israel frequently uses American weapons inviolation of US laws, killing and maiming large numbers of civilians, women, and children.

Since this is funded by American tax payers, and shielded by the U.S. government, it is causing dangerous hostility toward the U.S.

Damage to civil liberties and the American way of life


This dangerous and unnecessary peril (diplomats note that before Israel the US had no enemies in the region) has caused Americans to tolerate dangerous infringements on our liberty and violations of our Constitution.

This is causing deep damage to our character as a nation.

Deeply intrusive and potentially carcinogenic airport scanners, offensive “pat-downs” of our women and children, abrogations of our nation’s most fundamental legal principles are just a few of the direct and indirect results of our Israel policies.

A secure, prosperous, and honorable America

We would be far safer and our nation far healthier by heeding the wisdom of George Washington, the father of our nation:
“…nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.”
Source: The Council for the National Interest


ABOUT CNI: The Council for the National Interest (CNI) is a 501 (c) 4 non-profit, non-partisan organization that advocates for Middle East policies that serve the national interest; that represent the highest values of our founders and our citizens; and that work to sustain a nation of honor, decency, security, and prosperity.

CNI seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values, protects our national interests, and contributes to a just solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is CNI’s goal to restore a political environment in America in which voters and their elected officials are free from the undue influence and pressure of foreign countries and their partisans.

AIPAC: The Voice of America — Part 1: The Orange and the Pea  


Jewish Money Tabs Romney & Obama

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 9:03 am


SOME CALL IT ‘HEDGING YOUR BET while others call it ‘playing both sides.’ But it ALL amounts to the same thing: Jewry CONTROLS the elections.

The question to be asked by all savvy election observers is not, “Who will be our next president?” but rather, “Who will the Jews put in as next president?”

If we simply follow the money, it appears that our choice has already been narrowed down to two Zionist lackeys: (with Huntsman in the wings as a “sleeper” candidate and Ron Paul sidelined by the wretched Jew-owned media) Romney and Obama.

It all boils down to this: What flavor of Jew-control do you want? Republican flavor? Then you’ve got the Republican Jewish Coalition. Democrat flavor? Then you’ve got the National Jewish Democratic Council. BOTH have BILLIONS at their command to dictate a Jewish agenda to either party.

And what is the Jewish agenda? Growing up as a Jew, this author never heard during a presidential election with regard to any of the candidates, “Is he good America?” NO, never.

What I did constantly hear was, “Is he good for the Jews?” And that is the ONLY candidate that can possibly be nominated by either party.

This is because international Jewry controls both the money and the media that goes into the “making” of a presidential candidate. Period. View Entire Story Here & Here.


“TOP LEVEL JEWISH FUNDRAISERS are sticking with Obama,” reports the popular Jewish Daily Forward.

The article points out that although Obama faces a loss of Jewish funders due to his Middle East policy, his Jewish supporters from his 2008 race show no defections for 2012.

Alan Solow, former chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (there are literally HUNDREDS of Jew organizations) and a major Obama fundraiser, said the “would-be donors” in his Rolodex are “responding” just fine.

And Jack Rosen, Chairman of the American Council for World Jewry, (one of the HUNDREDS of Jew organizations infesting America), who hosted a campaign fundraiser attended by Obama in November, boasted that it “wasn’t difficult” getting his people to contribute.

As The Forward so pithily points out, Obama’s only problem with Jewish voters is that there aren’t enough of them.

Obama’s “Jewish Team” has a strategy in mind as well. The group includes Obama’s ad man, David Axelrod; Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz; former Congressmen Robert Wexler and Mel Levine; and mega-donor of Hyatt Hotels fame, Penny Pritzker.

Using high profile Jewish figures to “assure” deep-pocketed Jewish voters that Obama is “back on track” with a Pro-Israel platform, the “team” is announcing that their efforts have reaped overwhelming results.

Both the Jew, Dennis Ross, a former senior adviser to Obama on the Middle East with close personal and communal ties to the Jewish community (Ross led the effort to block a Palestinian move for statehood via the U.N.) and Daniel Shapiro, Obama’s new ambassador to Israel, are actively working on the incumbent’s behalf by plowing the money-field of their fellow tribe members.


“ROMNEY’S JEWISH BACKERS are a who’s who of the Republican Jewish establishment,” reports the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

“Every major Jewish Republican fundraiser is with Mitt,” says Houston Lawyer, Fred Zeidman, a leading donor to the Romney campaign. And Jewish shopping center mogul, Mel Sembler, is also on board (along with hundreds of his RICH Jewish friends), to catapult the mannequin into the Oval Office.

BUT THE REAL INDICATION that Romney’s got the nomination sewed up is Jewish Wall Street’s hedging their bets between Mitt and Barky.

Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase have alreadycontributed over $1 million combined to Romney’s campaign coffers.

Fundraising receptions for Mitt at $2500 per plate are also on Jewish Wall’s Street menu.

JPMorgan’s CEO Jamie Dimon, (Dimon is NOT a “Greek.” Dimon’s parentage were heirs of Smyrna’s Jewish banking moguls) and Wall Street veteran, Stephen Schwarzman, co-founder of the Blackstone Group, brought in beaucoup bucks for Mitt’s drive to the White House in two fundraising dinners held in NYC last winter. View Entire Story Here & Here.

While we can’t count Huntsman out yet, (the Jews didn’t bring him back from his ambassadorship to China for nothing AND he IS touting the Zionist line ALTHOUGH a marked man for NOT demanding a STRIKE on Iran), it looks like America will be STUCK with TWO JEW-PUPPETS to vote for in November 2012.


“The Zionization of American politics and how it Could Be Terminated”

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 8:13 am

The Zionization of American politics and how it could be terminated


By Alan Hart


Former lead BBC Mideast correspondent Alan Hart, will join Kevin Barrett on the radio today, Monday 1/9/12, 3 to 4 pm Central. Listen live atwww.AmericanFreedomRadio.com.

The first headline I thought of for this article wasThe Zionization of American democracy and how it could be terminated, but then I said to myself: “Don’t be silly, Alan, there’s no democracy in the ‘Land of the Free.’”

Leaving aside the fact that any American can now be arrested and detained without due process, there’s no mystery about why.
There’s much more to democracy than voting every few years for the lesser of two or three evils or in America’s case naked political whores (with the exception among the would-be Republican presidents of Ron Paul).

A truth is that for democracy to exist, the voters have to be informed enough about critical issues in order to participate in, or at least follow, debate about policy options and choices and call and hold their politicians to account, between elections if necessary. On that basis I know of no country in the world where democracy exists.

In the so-called democratic or what used to be called the “Free World” we have the framework for democracy but not the substance. When I joined ITN as a very young reporter very many years ago, its great editor-in-chief, Geoffrey Cox, gave me the mission statement in one short sentence. “Our job is to help keep democracy alive.” Today I charge the mainstream media with betraying democracy. So I say thanks for the internet, warts and all. (The jury is still out on how far it will be allowed to propel Arab demands for democracy but it might assist Russians to prevent a return to Stalinism under Mr Putin and his state Mafia).

A truth about America is that what passes for democracy there is for sale to the highest lobby bidders, not only(I must emphasize)the Zionist lobby in all of its manifestations.

On 9 December, quoting the latest findings of Public Campaign, a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to “sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics,”International Business Timesreported this amazing fact. “By employing a plethora of tax-dodging techniques, 30 multi-million dollar American corporations expended more money lobbying Congress than they paid in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, ultimately spending approximately $400,000 every day – including weekends – during that three-year period to lobby lawmakers and influence political elections.”

But that’s not all. Citizens for Tax Justice, the sister organization to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, reported that 68 of the 265 most consistently profitable Fortune 500 companies did not pay a state corporate income tax during at least one year between 2008 and 2010, while 20 of them paid no taxes at all during that period.

Apart from the occupant of the White House and those who advise him, probably nobody really knows which arethe most influential lobbies in America, but a list of the top ten as compiled by the Business Pundit web site made a lot of sense to me. The following are the ten, not necessarily in order of actual influence wielded.

The Defense Industry”or, as named by President Eisenhower when he warned his fellow Americans to be on their guard and not let it call the policy shots to secure a disproportionate amount of taxpayers’ money,theMilitary Industrial Complex. It needs conflict and war in order to be able to quench its thirst for taxpayers’ dollars and sustain its position as the biggest creator of jobs and wealth. (According to a recent report in The Economist, the U.S.
Department of Defense is the biggest employer in the world with 3.2 million on its payroll, ahead of China’s army with 2.3 million).The heaviest hitters in the defense industry are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics.

“Big Oil” which is said to spend more on lobbying than any other single special interest group – nearly $150 million in 2010.

“ The Financial Lobby” which in its various manifestations – banks and other financial institutions – is by far the biggest spender on Capitol Hill, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to campaigns and political parties. (In return, and as noted by Business Pundit, financial institutions are allowed free reign with other people’s money. A senate committee on the financial crisis of the late 2000’s found that, “The crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.”)

“Big Pharma”. Along with the financial lobbies, the pharmaceutical and health products industries have historically been one of the biggest and most powerful lobbies in Washington. Drug companies enjoy more power and influence in America than with any other government in the world.

“The Agribusiness Industry” which represents a erse collection of special interest groups including large food manufacturers like Kraft and Uniliver,huge agricultural companies like Monsanto, tobacco companies such as Phillip Morris, biofuel producers like UNICA, and logging companies like International Paper and Weyerhauser. These companies spend upwards of $150 million each year, funding campaigns and pushing legislation through Congress or blocking it.
“The Tech Lobby”which includes the economic fire power of Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft.

The Mining Industry”. This lobby, particularly the coal industry, has had its fingers in American politics for a long time. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was responsible for some of the most dramatic labor uprisings in history. In the last three years, in the face skepticism on the part of environmental advocacy groups, it spent nearly $100 million on seeking to persuade politicians that “clean coal” really will make a major contribution to averting an energy supply crisis.

“The NRA” (National Rifle Association). It has been one of the most consistently influential political lobbies in American politics for the past 30 years. Its power is less in money and more its ability to mobilize its members. It puts major effort into opposing candidates who advocate gun control.(Al Gore, for example, lost the 2000 election in his own home state of Tennessee primarily because of his pro gun-control stance).

“The AARP” (American Association of Retired Persons). It is an NGO and special interest group for people aged 50 and over and one of the largest lobbying groups in Washington.

“The Pro-Israel Lobby”which is more accurately described as the Zionist Lobby. As my regular readers know, I insist that it’s wrong to call this lobby pro-Israel because to do so implies that it speaks for all Israeli Jews and it does not. Headed by AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) which speaks for not more than about 25% of Jewish Americans, it has been calledthe NRA of foreign policy lobbies because of its ability to make or break politicians including presidents.

The statement that best sums up for me the consequences of all this financial fire power on America’s political system was the one made by the man I would like to see as America’s next president – Rocky Anderson. Who is he?

OnMonday 19 December, at a press conference in Washington D.C., he announced the creation of a new third party, the Justice Party, and his intention to run for the presidency under its banner.

Just turned 60, Rocky Anderson, a former two-term mayor of Utah’s Salt Lake City, has an impressive record of service to what could be called the public good on many fronts. For reasons of space I have to ask readers who want to know more about him to take a look at his Wikipedia entry.

On 11 August last year he denounced the Democratic Party and resigned his membership of it. In his letter to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he said: “Until the Democratic Party shows some spine and draws a line in the sand – that an end to the tax breaks for the wealthy needs to be part of any debt/budget bill – please take my name off your list… I’m done with the Democratic Party. As I said on Amy Goodman’s show a couple years ago, I’ve put my proud Democrat coffee mug in storage. I think now I’ll just throw it in the garbage and have done with it… The Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party.”

I was inspired by Amy Goodman’s interview with Anderson for Open Democracy very shortly after his announcement of the formation of the Justice Party.

The great thing about television is that it gives viewers the opportunity not only to listen to what speakers are saying but also to study their body language as they are speaking and listening to the questions. In other words, television gives viewers the opportunity to ask and answer an important question – Do I believe this guy or gal? With Tony Blair, for example, my answer was always “No”. And I regret to say it has become “No” when I listen to President Obama and watch his body language. Anderson’s body language told me he is a man I can believe and that makes what he had to say more than important – even though he has no chance of becoming president in 2013. (After that…?)
Here is what he said in answer to one of Goodman’s questions.

“We launched the Justice Party because the entire system is so corrupt. It’s so diseased. We know that the public interest is not being served by anyone in the system right now, particularly the two dominant parties who have sustained this corrupt system and who are sustained by it… Obama received more money from Wall Street than any presidential candidate ever. And they got a great return on their investment… We need people in public office who are pledged not to just represent the people’s interest in the same system, but to change the system and get the corrupting influence of corporate and other concentrated wealth out of our electoral system and out of our system of governance.”

Common sense says that the only way to end the financial corruption of American politics is by the people, the voters, demanding that it be ended.

A real clean-up would require legislation giving effect to the proposition that all elections will be funded by only one source – public money raised from taxation, with the revenue ring-fenced so that it could only be used for elections. There are about 100 million voters in America and ten dollars added each year to their tax bill would provide enough money for all election funding. Ten dollars a year is surely a very small price for each voter to pay for something approaching real democracy.

Given that Congress’s approval rating is closer to 10 percent than 20 percent according to the latest polls, organizing a rolling and rising tide of people power to demand the necessary constitutional amendment or amendments to get the corrupting influence of lobby funding out of the electoral system ought not to be a mission impossible.

In other words, if enough American voters were aware of how corrupt their political system actually is, and if then they cared enough, they could cause the corruption to be terminated. What a demonstration of real democracy in action that would be!

In an opinion piece for The Electronic Intifadaon 27 December, Ilan Pappe wrote the following.

“If we had a wish list for 2012 as Palestinians and friends of Palestine, one of the top items ought to be our hope that we can translate the dramatic shift in recent years in world public opinion into political action against Israeli policies on the ground… We know why this has not yet materialized: the political, intellectual and cultural elites of the Westcower(crouch or cringe in fear) whenever they even contemplate acting according to their own consciences as well as the wishes of their societies. This last year was particularly illuminating for me in that respect. I encountered that timidity at every station in the many trips I took for the cause I believe in. And these personal experiences were accentuated by the more general examples of howgovernments and institutions caved in under intimidation from Israel and pro-Zionist Jewish organizations.”

In America Zionist intimidation which causes the “caving in” manifests itself in two ways.

One is funding for election campaigns and the threat, actually the promise, not only to deny funding to candidates who won’t commit to toeing Zionism’s line but to fund their opponents.

The other is delivery of Zionist lobby organized Jewish votes in close election races. (In a few states that are home to large Jewish populations – New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Florida – the Jewish vote can be decisive).

Once upon a time, when most Jewish Americans voted for Democratic Party candidates, Republicans running for office did not bother to grovel for Jewish campaign funds and votes. An indicator of how times are changing is that in the current race for the White House, and with the exception of Ron Paul, Republican candidates are grovelling for Jewish campaign funds and votes as much if not more than Obama. In that context it can be said that the Zionization of American politics has been completed.

Can it ever be ended? Yes if enough Americans insist that their politicians be accountable to those who elect them and not the big money special interest lobbies.

At the time of writing the signs are that Obama will get a second term by default, this because no Republican challenger is credible to enough Americans. If that is the outcome of November’s election, probably a majority of Americans will be very far from happy with the way their electoral system operates; and that discontent might just be enough to cause them to demand an end to the corruption of the lobby system.

My hope for 2013 and beyond is that they will. (Could it be that Rocky Anderson’s time will come?)


The Media Consensus On Israel Is Collapsing

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 8:10 am

Across the political spectrum, once-taboo criticism is now common




New critics of Israel: Roger Cohen, left, of New York Times; Paul Pillar former CIA bigwig.

Fatah-Hamas reconciliation

With Hamas and Fatah meeting this week in Cairo, reconciliation between the rival Palestinian political parties is likely only a matter of time. Official U.S. policy holds that Hamas is only a terrorist entity, and any agreement between the two factions jeopardizes continued U.S. aid.  There is reason to believe, however, that more flexible, productive positions will be expressed in the U.S. media. Slowly but unmistakably, space is opening up among the commentariat for new, critical ideas about Israel and its relationship to the United States.

Freedom of this sort was visible in the pages of the New York Times last week. Thomas Friedman, the paper’s foreign affairs columnist, wrote that American leaders were betraying the country by outsourcing their foreign policy to Israel. A standing ovation given to the Israeli prime minister by the U.S. Congress this year was “bought and paid for by the Israel lobby,” he wrote. Phrased bluntly as it was, Friedman’s sentence was startling. As the quintessential establishment columnist, Bill Clinton’s favorite pundit and a thrice Pulitzer Prize-winner, Friedman is often seen in the U.S. as authoritative on the Middle East and rivaled only perhaps by the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg in the influence of his writing on popular discussion.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times

Not surprisingly, Friedman’s piece elicited furor from those policing the conversation about Israel. The Israeli ambassadorAmerican Jewish CommitteeJerusalem Post and even members of Congress gang-swarmed Friedman, accusing him of anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel. It was not the first time in recent months Friedman has been critical of Israel policy. In September, he wrote of the Obama government that the “powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the U.N., even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s.” A more damning critique of Israel and the lobby would be difficult to make.

Even so, Friedman is not the only Times-man to let go the pro-Netanyahu line. Columnist Roger Cohen is even more critical of Israel than is Friedman, and like Friedman he is notable for being a liberal supporter of the Iraq War — not exactly a radical, in other words. Cohen now regularly writes about Israel’s “illiberalism,” says U.S. foreign policy has been “Likudnized,” and calls opposing Israeli oppression of the Palestinians the most important task currently facing diaspora Jews.

Cohen believes the new conversations he has contributed to represent “changes going on in the U.S. Jewish community,” he said in a phone interview. “Jewish identity in postwar America was built very much on the Holocaust and support for Israel, and for younger American Jews that may have less resonance. There may be a rethinking of that form of attachment to Israel.”

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt — Authors of ‘The Israel Lobby’

J Street, the organization devoted to lobbying for Israel from a liberal perspective, is both reflective of, and a stimulant to, a more balanced conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Cohen says. If he is right, J Street is performing its job well. Public discussion about the Mideast conflict is still nowhere near evenhanded in the United States, but it is more so than it used to be.

Three academics, Tony JudtStephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, deserve a lot of credit for expanding the permissible. Whatever one thinks of their analyses or prescriptions, they endured opprobrium and ostracism, to state the obvious: The unconditional U.S.-Israeli relationship is good for neither the U.S. nor Israel. Walt has an important perch at Foreign Policy’s website, which he uses to regularly espouse his once-radical views on Israel.

Criticism of the special relationship, once rare, is now frequent. Newsweek/Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan  has become a regular source of attacks on the unqualified U.S. support for Israeli policy. Time magazine’s Joe Klein has been similarly outspoken. “If you don’t think that the Israel Lobby has an enormous influence on the Congress, you’re deluding yourself,” he wrote recently.

Peter Beinart is senior political writer at The Daily Beast

Peter Beinart, also of Newsweek/Daily Beast, inspired headlines with his critique of the “Failure of the American Jewish Establishment.” He has a forthcoming book sure to get a lot of attention called “The Crisis of Zionism.” Former New York Observer writer Philip Weiss has created a one-stop shop for critics of Israel and U.S. policy. And, of course, Salon’s own Glenn Greenwald regularly questions the bipartisan consensus on Israel.

As one would expect, these developments are causing a great deal of consternation from those determined that views favorable to the Palestinians never get a hearing. In 2006, the American Jewish Committee released its infamous report accusing these new critics of Israel of being simply anti-Semitic. Last year, Lee Smith of Tablet magazine made the odd charge that publications like the Atlantic and Salon encourage Jew-hating writers in the hopes of increasing page views. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol has lamented that charging Israel’s critics with “anti-Semitism” doesn’t effectively silence them any longer. And this week Iran-Contra convict Elliott Abrams criticized Friedman and Klein because they exemplify the mainstreaming of Walt and Mearsheimer’s ideas.

But it isn’t only pundits and academics. Diplomats and the people who would be on the center-right of American politics (if such a thing still existed) have been vocal about their alienation from U.S. discussion of Israel. Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution, an advisor to three presidents on Middle East and South Asian issues, told me in an email that “Fear of angering extreme evangelicals and the old lobby still inhibit real debate about Israel in American politics.”

Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for Colin Powell

Paul Pillar, former CIA bigwig, has become a stark critic of Israel for the National Interest. He has defended the comparison of Israel’s occupation policies with apartheid South Africa, and says that he agrees with all of Walt and Mearsheimer’s analysis, including the most incendiary charge — that the Israel lobby was instrumental in pushing the U.S. to invade Iraq.

Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for Colin Powell, has been similarly outspoken about the power of what he calls “the Jewish lobby.” Jack Matlock, Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the Soviet Union, has written that by far the greatest threat to Israel’s security and well-being is the policies of its own government. And in 2009 longtime diplomat Chas Freeman blasted the Israel lobby for successfully ending his nomination to be chairman of the National Intelligence Council.

American Diplomat Charles W. Freeman, Jr.

For all the discussion-widening in the chattering classes, official U.S. foreign policy has changed little, if at all. Obama has overseen unprecedentedmilitary deals between Israel and the United States, and all but abandoned the Palestinians in the international diplomatic arena. Newt Gingrich’s historically discredited claim that the Palestinians are an “invented people” shows that American politicians still take some of the most extreme positions in the Israeli polity as gospel.

Still, at the outset of his term Obama made the biggest rhetorical push against Israeli settlement policy that any U.S. president ever has, only to back down in the face of Israeli objections. The resulting animosity between Netanyahu and the administration is no secret. Democratic rank-and-file voters are also less supportive of Israel than they used to be, and less so than Republicans are now. The new conversation about Israel has yet to make its way into Congress and the executive branch, but that day may be coming.

Jordan Michael Smith is a writer living in Washington, D.C. He has written and blogged for numerous print and online publications, including the Huffington Post, the New Republic, the American Prospect, the American Conservative, In These Times and the Columbia Journalism Review. Born in Toronto, Canada, he holds a Master of Arts in Political Science from Carleton University in Ottawa; and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and English from the University of Western Ontario. He has written for the New York Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post.

Editing: Debbie Menon


ianuarie 9, 2012

The World for Israel, or Jews for the World?

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 8:06 pm

remarkable event took place on Dec. 8, 2011, at the National Press Club in downtown Washington. It was a Jewish-Gentile forum on Israel, Palestine, Zionism, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and the imminent threat of war.

At the heart was presentation of a new book, Rabbi Outcast: Elmer Berger and American Jewish Anti-Zionism, written by Jack Ross and published by Potomac Books. Ross, of Brooklyn, N.Y., graduated from National Labor College in 2006. Since 2005, he has been writing for Antiwar.comThe Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, and The American Conservative.

As the book’s caption says, dramatic changes have been taking place in the attitudes of American Jews toward Israel and Zionism. At no time since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 has there been such disenchantment with Israel and Zionism. The role the Israel lobby played in the Iraq War and the “global war on terror,” as well as Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, made large swaths of theAmerican Jewish community question Israel’s foreign policy and its Zionist ideology.

The history of Jewish anti-Zionism in America predates the founding of Israel. Ross’s hero is Elmer Berger, a Reform Jewish rabbi (1908 –1996) who was one of the founders and first director of the American Council for Judaism (ACJ), which took a strongly anti-Zionist stance at its founding in 1942. Berger resigned from the ACJ in 1968, but he continued to fight via American Jewish Alternatives to Zionism, an organization he led until he died in 1996.

Ross says his own discovery of the anti-Zionist heritage of America was “a revelation.” He praises Berger’s mentor, the father of American Reform Judaism, Isaac Mayer Wise, who in 1900 denounced the nascent Zionist movement as “a prostitution of Israel’s holy cause to a madman’s dance of unsound politicians.”

The forum’s panel included Ambassador Andrew Killgore, publisher of The Washington Report on Middle East AffairsAllan Brownfeld, a former member of President Ronald Reagan’s transition team who now writes for The American Council on Judaism (ACJ); Josh Ruebner, national advocacy director of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation; and Jon Utley, associate publisher of The American Conservative magazine.

Killgore recalled his friendship with the rabbi. “Elmer and I were in agreement,” he said, that “Hitler’s persecution of European Jewry was being cynically exploited by the Zionists to further their own cause.” In the 1960s, said Killgore, the rabbi was tireless in explaining to U.S. diplomats dealing with the Middle East that “Judaism’s basic values could not be reconciled with disregard for the rights of the Palestinians upon whose lands the new Jewish state had been created.”

The forum was sponsored by the Freda Utley Foundation and Fran Griffin, founder of the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, which hosts a number of conservative authors, including several Jews. FGF’s mission is to educate leaders and the public on the need to preserve Western civilization.

Speaker after speaker praised Ross’s book as an act of scholarly perseverance and civic courage. The book also won the praise of such scholars as John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, co-author of the 2006 book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Though he was not present at the forum, Professor Mearsheimer sent his comments, calling the work an “important book for anyone interested in understanding the complex history of how American Jews have related to the State of Israel.”

Actually, anti-Zionism in the United States has a long history. Among the several Reform rabbis who founded the American Council for Judaism, Berger is the best-known because he dedicated his whole life to the struggle to free U.S. foreign policy from the grip of Zionists. Whereas Berger’s anti-Zionism was rooted in Reform Judaism, his modern followers are not the only American Jews who oppose Zionist Israel. There are the radical pro-socialist leftists who want to make Israel a binational Jewish-Arab state. And there is the Neturei Karta movement of Orthodox Haredi Jews who call for a peaceful dismantling of Israel because, in their view, Jews are commanded not to have their own state until the coming of the Messiah.

Zionists, on the other hand, either reject or don’t care for the spiritual, eschatological, and metaphysical dimensions of Judaism. Theirs is a quasi-religious ideology that aims at purely political, materialist, territorial, and economic goals. As Brownfeld pointed out, true “Judaism is centered on the worship of God, not the idolatry or worshiping of any political entity.” He agreed with Ross that “the essence of Judaism is not in the ‘national narrative’ … but rather in … the prophets, who spoke out against the kings and priests who corrupted the nation and the people.”

Josh Ruebner noted that the more Israel oppresses Palestinians, the more young American Jews question the Israel lobby and the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Desperate to ensure support for Israel, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) pays for “birthright Israel” trips for Americans. But the majority of young Jews enjoy their American birthright, as they abhor the fact that since its inception Israel has relied on violence in pursuit of its goals in the Middle East.

“The façade of Jewish unanimity that AIPAC likes to project will not last forever,” said Ruebner. His organization is an umbrella for over 380 U.S. groups that aim to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine. They campaign for Boycott, Disinvestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israeli interests in the U.S.

Though originally indifferent to religion, Zionist political ideology now likes to dress up Israel’s territorial ambitions in religious garb. This hypocrisy, however, backfired as it inspired the struggle of Palestinian Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, against dispossession, discrimination, and humiliation inside and outside of Israel.

In fact, some observers have described Israel as an apartheid stateJimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for helping negotiate peace between Israel and Egypt, spelled out the stark choice Israel now faces in his book Palestine: Peace or Apartheid.

Zionist claims on Jerusalem as an exclusive capital of Israel have inflamed anti-Israeli and anti-American passions in all Muslim countries. It has helped the fanaticaljihadists win the hearts and minds of millions of Muslims who came to mistrust their moderate and secular politicians for their failure to defend Muslim rights to Jerusalem, or Al-Quds, as sacred to their cultural tradition.

As an exclusive capital of Israel, Jerusalem is an abomination to Muslims and Christians alike. It is also abhorrent to those religious and secular Jews who are proud that Judaism set high ethical standards for its Christian and Islamic offshoots. Now divided and sectored, Jerusalem ought to be a universal monument to religious tolerance and brotherhood under the auspices of the United Nations. Only then could it fulfill its prophesied role as a source of unity for mankind.

A hotbed of hatred, mistrust, and war in the Middle East, Israel also sets a bad example for right-wing demagogues in Europe and the United States who clamor for getting tough on Muslim and other immigrants, just as the Israelis were in theirOperation Cast Lead against the Gaza Strip. It is noteworthy that the Labor Party youth group that the Norwegian right-wing extremist Anders Behring Breivikattacked on July 22, 2011, expressed support for the BDS campaign against Israel.

Albert Rosenblatt, a poet and journalist who came to the forum from New York, suggested it’s not enough for American Jews to be “anti,” be it anti-Zionist, anti-Israel, or anti–American Empire. “Don’t we need to say what we are FOR?” Several people responded that they do not necessarily question Israel’s right to exist, but they want to have its policy revised in such a way that it would become not “a Jewish state,” but a normal country.

Since Jon Utley mentioned my role in finding the grave of his Jewish father, Arkady Berdichevsky, who was executed in the USSR during mass purges of the “Trotskyites,” I felt I had to speak too. Referring to Jon’s article published in 2005 in The Freemanand later turned into a film,  Return to the Gulag: Jon Utley’s Search for His Father,I thanked him for introducing me to the story of Rabbi Berger as a fellow dissident, just as Jon and I have been.

In my own comments, I noted that when I came to the United States in 1966 on an invitation from the University of Chicago, I didn’t find many Zionists on or off campus. My main concern was that too many of my colleagues and students were either pro-Soviet or soft on Communism. With all respect due to Rabbi Berger, I take exception to his illusions about the USSR as the land of liberty for the Jews. Communism was good neither for Jews nor Muslims nor Russians, especially the religious ones. As a totalitarian ideology, Communism was hostile to all free spirits, even the atheists who were not of the Marxist-Leninist stripe.

Zionism was not in vogue then in the United States. The predominant concern was not with the fate of Israel but with making sure we didn’t irritate the USSR in Vietnam and elsewhere, lest a nuclear war be unleashed. Sometimes, I felt I was just about the only Zionist in Chicago, and I’m a Gentile to boot. I knew Soviet propaganda manipulated Palestinians for geopolitical advantage.

The main significance of this forum is that we let the world know that there are many courageous and righteous Jews who are not Zionists. By honoring the memory of Rabbi Berger we inflict a blow not only to Zionists, but also to those who lump all Jews into one homogeneous group that rushes from one extreme to another, from Communist internationalism, which cares for neither religion nor nationality, to Zionist nationalism. Israel’s leaders profess to care for one religion and one nationality. In fact, they have but one self-serving goal: to perpetuate their own power at any cost, even at great risk to the rest of humanity.


We broke for refreshments and fresh efforts to figure out, face to face, what’s going on in Israel, the United States, and the world. The foremost topic was: Will Israel attack Iran? Will the United States allow it to happen? Will we facilitate the attack?

Nobody knew the answer, but the concern itself showed how far the Zionist regime was ready to take the whole world for the sake of its own survival.

Lately, this concern has spiked. I have already posted a report about Russian troops in the Caucasus being put on high alert in case an Israeli attack triggers warfare along Iran’s borders with Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.

It was also reported, or rather, underreported, that on Dec. 16 President Barack Obama met behind closed doors with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The meeting was held in the outskirts of Washington, D.C., at the Gaylord Hotel, National Harbor, Maryland. It focused on the issue of a U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran.

Since Obama has already said he takes “no options off the table,” one might suspect, as Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research does, that the attack on Iran could include the use of tactical bunker-buster nuclear weapons that only the United States has and that Israel may request to make the attack effective. These bunker busters have an explosive capacity between one third and six times that of the Hiroshima bomb.

Most fittingly, at least, in the popular psyche, 2012 is the year of Armageddon. Fiat justitia, pereat mundus, “let justice be done even if the world shall perish”: this was one of the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s maxims. Whether this Latin motto stems from ancient Rome or Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I (1503-1564), its grave implications are no longer philosophical. Nor are they metaphorical.

Whatever pretext Israel and the United States (for consistency) might find for the war they threaten, at stake is the existence of the world as we know it. Even a triumph of their justitia may turn utterly hollow, for there might be no people to celebrate it. So the real question that Jews and non-Jews alike face today is: Is the world for Israel or are Jews for the world? We know how Rabbi Berger would have answered.


The Only (Russian) Democracy in the Middle East

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 5:18 pm

This incident in the Knesset parliamentary committee on education today probably won’t make the mainstream media outside of Israel, or hasn’t yet.  Will it be shown in America? Sometimes MSNBC’s nightly line-up needs some relief from talking heads on Mitt Romney, and they show parliaments from the Far East, or the Former Soviet Union, engaging in fist-fights. It’s cute, and it reminds us in America how far we are from that.

So we have a blond Russian settler in Israel, a gentile who became eligible to become a citizen of a modern state through religious conversion, and is now a member of the ultra-nationalist Russian Jewish party, Yisrael Beitienu, stand up, calmly pours a glass or water, and throws it an Palestinian Israeli knesset member,   MK Raleb Majadele, a member of Labor, no less. There had been the usual heated words before that, as the Russian settler kept on interrupting the Palestinian Israeli’s sspeach, while the chairperson  of the Parliamentary committee, a fellow Russian ultra-nationalist, Alex Miller, looked on.

Folks, this is Israel today. Were there to a two-state solution next week, were there to be a viable Palestinian state, were the problems of the Palestinian refugees solved, the fundamental problem of Israel would not be solved. And what is that problem?

Simply put – Israeli Zionism. A religio-ethnic-exclusivist doctrine that privileges ultra-Russian nationalist religious converts to Judaism over native Palestinians.

Ah, the beauty of Israeli democracy,,,the indigenous natives are given the vote, and the political power to have water thrown at them.

The news cycle for this story in Israel lasted a few hours. That’s all.

And yet…look at the dignity and restraint with which Majadale responds. Reminds me of another civil rights movement….but that wasn’t played out in the US House of Representatives.

Here’s some of the background, courtesy of Haaretz


The argument erupted after MK Danny Danon (Likud) called for the retrenchment of the principal of a school in the Negev town of Arara, who took students on a human rights march held in Tel Aviv last month. The Knesset discussion was held following a Haaretz report that the Education Ministry reprimanded the Israeli-Arab high school.”You are marching against the state,” Michaeli shouted at Majadele, who answered back, „shut up.” He then added that, „She won’t shut me up. This is not Yisrael Beiteinu. The issue of fascism won’t stop here – I intend on taking this debate to other Muslims who will serve as an example for the State of Israel… Fascism will not be allowed to take over the house.” Michaeli replied that „It is disrespectful to the status of women in the Knesset. We will discuss the matter in the Ethics Committee.”

At a certain point in the argument, as it appeared that Michaeli was about to leave the room to calm down, she poured a cup of water and threw the contents at Majadele. Following that, she left the room with fury.
Majadele turned to Committee Chairperson, MK Alex Miller (Yisrael Beiteinu), and said, „That says it all. I’m sure you wouldn’t condone such wild and fascist behavior. I’m telling you, I’m excited. This is predictable.
We’ll take this matter to the Ethics Committee and we’ll call her to order.”

A existat holocaust in Romania ?Mit si adevar in problema „trenului mortii”

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 11:20 am
La Iasi, sub bombardament aerian, 1941Aceste documente inedite sunt mărturii ale unui medic cernăutean, mare erudit. Ajuns în Roman (după ce absolvise în 1938, Facultatea de Medicină la Iasi si a făcut războiul ca medic pe front), e deposedat de tot ce avea, e deportat cu familia si chinuit ani de zile de autoritătile comuniste. A redat Romanului multe comori ale istoriei orasului si zonei noastre, găsite si prelucrate din arhive uitate si din mărturii iconografice si relatări ale trăitorilor acelor vremuri (el însusi, fiu de Sef al arhivelor la Palatul Mitropolitan din Cernăuti). A publicat o lucrare de exceptie despre cei 200 de ani de istorie a Spitalului Precista Mare din Roman si numeroase articole si studii de istorie si istorie a medicinei.
Aceste adevăruri trebuie stiute si spuse, să le afle toti cei care ciuntesc încă istoria noastră, deformând obrazul – si asa biciuit si scuipat al – neamului nostru românesc.
Camelia CorbanÎn volumul de fată, cu triste amintiri despre cele întâmplate la Roman în ziua de 3 iulie 1941, vom insera mai întâi, în chip de preambul, evenimentele petrecute la Iasi cu câteva zile mai înainte. Asa cum se observă, ele au avut o strânsă interdependentă, ba chiar filiatiune între ele, având ca eroi principali pe Prof. dr. Alexandru Moruzi, în Iasi iar pe doamna Viorica Agarici, Presedinta Filialei Locale a Societătii „Crucea Rosie”, în Roman.
Pe atunci, subsemnatul activam ca „intern” la Spitalul Caritatea, sub conducerea reputatului neurochirurg si chirurg-general Prof. dr. A. Moruzi […]. La 22 iunie 1941, când s-a decretat „Mobilizare generală” pentru începerea războiului de reîntregire, unitatea noastră, cu întregul ei personal, a fost „mobilizată pe loc”, având datoria a primi si trata rănitii cei mai gravi, îndeosebi cei cu leziuni ale sistemului nervos central (creier si măduva spinării). Spitalul Caritatea a devenit astfel „Spitalul militar de Zonă Interioară (Z.I.) Nr. 286”. Dat fiind profilul său specializat, aici urmau a se primi formatiunile sanitare înaintate, precum Ambulantele Divizionare si Spitalele de Campanie. Dar, când tunurile bubuiau la numai 18 kilometri depărtare de orasul Iasi, atât spitalul nostru, cât si celelalte cu profil similar au fost obligate să primească rănitii adusi în grabă, direct de pe zona de operatii, unii pansati sumar la „Posturile de prim ajutor”, altii deloc! Sărmanii răniti erau adusi de urgentă cu autosanitare, cu autocamioane sau alte mijloace de transport moto si hipo. Era un semn că doborârea nedreptei frontiere trasată între frati, în anul precedent, era mai dificilă decât se păruse în Ordinul generalului (ulterior, maresal) Ion Antonescu: „Ostasi, vă ordon treceti Prutul!” Sovieticii, opunând o rezistentă acerbă, cauzară, precum se vedea, multiple pierderi atât trupelor noastre, cât si celor aliate, germane. Acestia din urmă nu se internau la noi, ci în Feldlazarett – amplasate si acestea în Iasi; unul chiar în vecinătatea Spitalului Caritatea, în clădirea Liceului Ortodox de fete, unde acum functionează Radiodifuziunea ieseană.
Ca urmare a avalansei de răniti care pierdeau sânge, se impunea o muncă „non stop”, pentru salvarea atâtor eroi. Din această cauză, la Spitalul Z.I. 286 atât chirurgii, cât si ajutoarele lor (printre care mă număram), nu-si îngăduiau o clipă de răgaz, până când nu era cules si ultimul rănit aflat pe tărgile depuse în holul spitalului. Iar după 24, 36 ori 48 ore de muncă încordată, dacă sosea un nou transport de răniti, în loc de a se odihni o frântură de ceas, gustau o cafelută si … iarăsi la datorie.
Reglementar, triajul noilor sositi începea cu examinarea lor „la piele”, în scopul depistării leziunilor avute, schimbarea garourilor hemostatice si a bandajelor îmbibate, imobilizarea provizorie, cu atele a fracturilor, administrarea de lichide cu medicamente analgetice, sulfamide antigangrenoase; controlul radiologic al focarelor de fractură si zdrobiri pentru descoperirea corpurilor străine (schije, plumbi) retinute. După aceasta – la sala de operatii. De fapt, lucrau concomitent două echipe chirurgicale, în două săli alăturate. Către prima dintre acestea, unde lucra prof. Moruzi cu ajutoarele sale (dr. Ionel Bogdan alternativ cu dr. Vsevolod Urbanovici, plus doi interni), se îndrumau cazurile mai grave. Aici, pe cât posibil, anestezia era locală sau rahidiană, menajând astfel starea generală a pacientilor; la nevoie se recurgea si la narcoză (adormire) cu eter, mai rar chloroform, hemostaza era perfectă, spre a reduce la minimum noi pierderi de sânge la organismele deja spoliate. La necesitate majoră, se administrau si transfuzii de sânge proaspăt, recoltat pe loc de la donatori universali. La trepanatii craniene, pentru extragerea din creier a aschiilor osoase ori a schijelor, se foloseau manevre delicate, nesocogene. Lucrul decurgea în liniste desăvârsită, cu putine cuvinte, încât adjunctii profesorului trebuiau să fie mereu atenti spre a-si potrivi gesturile cu ale acestuia ori a-i servi, la momentul potrivit, instrumentul necesar. Un intern experimentat exercita functia (acum numită de anestezie-reanimare), în sarcina lui căzând narcoza, transfuziile, tensiometria periodică spre a surprinde la timp si a combate prăbusirile tensionale. Procedând astfel, cu prudentă si tehnicitate ireprosabile, se evitau la minimum decesele pe masa de operatii. Aceeasi grijă pentru evitarea amputatiilor invalidante, oricât efort uman si investitie materială trebuiau investite împotriva distrugerilor osoase si a suprainfectiilor microbiene, cauzatoare, în trecut a dezastrelor pomenite. În sala a doua, unde se introduceau rănitii de gravitate medie sau usoară, operau alternativ, câte unul din cei doi medici auxiliari, asistati de interni sau externi. În ambele părti îsi făcea simtită prezenta sora sefă de la blocul operator, Maricica Lăzărescu. Datorită hărniciei si constiinciozitătii sale, ea se bucura de încrederea totală a profesorului în problema sterilizării materialelor noi si a instrumentarului, igienizarea si dezinfectia sălilor de operatii aflate în sarcina ei.
În sprijinul material si spiritual al rănitilor nostri veneau si unele asociatii caritabile, precum Societatea Natională de Cruce Rosie, Oficiul Român de Patronaj s.a. Li se ofereau cadouri în alimente, dulciuri, tigări, efecte de lenjerie, cărti patriotice, iconite… Sub egida acelorasi veneau si formatiuni artistice cu program literar sau musical, făcându-i pe răniti să uite pentru moment suferintele care îi tineau la pat. O astfel de ocazie memorabilă a fost, prin luna august a acelui an, vizita doamnei Maria Maresal Antonescu, în compania căreia se afla si ciobanul iluminat Petrache Lupu de la Maglavit. Când apărea acesta în usa salonului, rănitii, oameni obisnuiti din popor, emotionati, se aburcau din paturi ca si cum ar fi dorit să zboare în întâmpinarea lui, să îi ceară binecuvântarea, nu preotilor însotitori. Desi nitel peltic, acesta îi îmbărbăta spunându-le „Fratilor, nu fiti necăjiti dacă ati pierdut o mână sau un picior; sufletul de buni români să nu-l pierdeti. Asa să vă ajute Dumnezeu!” si trecea de la pat la pat întinzându-le o iconită pentru sărutare. După plecarea lui si a celorlalti, sărmanii răniti aveau senzatia ca si cum „li s-ar fi luat o piatră de pe inimă”. Până si plăgile începură a li se cicatriza mai usor. Desigur, sub influenta benefică a furtunii neuro-endocrine prin care trecură…

Întâmplări din oras
În vreme ce la Spitalul Z.I. 286, si nu numai, se lucra ca într-un stup de albine, în oras începuseră a se comite acte de sabotaj a ordinii publice si a efortului de război. Se pare că acestea au debutat în cursul noptilor întunecoase, fără lună, când pe deasupra orasului au început a se roti câte unul-două avioane de recunoastere sovietice care, pe lângă misiunea lor de bază, mai aruncau ici-colo câte o bombă, a căror explozie tinea populatia în alertă. Se zicea că lansau si parasutisti, care găsindu-si adăpost prin podurile unor case si prin copaci, mitraliau de acolo unitătile de infanteristi aflate în mars către front. Se mai zicea că locurile unde trebuiau să fie lansati parasutistii, erau indicate prin luminile unor becuri electrice aprinse în cosurile caselor.
Desigur că imediat după întâmplările cu parasutistii, au fost organizate razii de prindere a celor care au pus semnalizările luminoase si a complicilor acestora. Patrulele erau mixte: politisti români dublati de ostasi SS germani. Până seara au fost adusi la Chestura de Politie (de pe str. V. Alecsandri) circa 500 de indivizi. La triajul riguros făcut în aceeasi noapte, dirijat de chestorul sef, col. Chirilovici, si de prefectul judetului, col. Captaru, nu stiu ori de au găsit vreun parasutist, dar au fost identificati 100 de comunisti notorii, care fură trimisi numaidecât în inchisoarea militară de la Copou. Toti ceilalti au fost eliberati si trimisi la casele lor. Norocul celor 100 de retinuti, căci, asa cum se va arăta mai departe, în modul acesta le-a fost salvată viata.
Dar sturnbandfurerul H. Ohlenburg, de la Comandamentul german al orasului, nefiind multumit de rezultatul acestei anchete, a hotărât să o ia de la capăt, cu metode si mijloace proprii. Asa încât, cu ajutorul unor patrule compuse din agenti SS, până în seara următoare, 6.VI.1941, au fost umplute iarăsi beciurile si curtea înalt îngrădită a Chesturii, cu persoane ce li se păruseră … suspecte. În cursul noptii, altă „anchetă”, însă cu mitraliera, de care n-a scăpat nimeni. În dimineata următoare cine a trecut pe acolo (str. V. Alecsandri), a putut vedea suvoiul de sânge închegat, scurs, ca din abator, pe sub poarta Politiei, peste bordura trotuarului, în rigolă, iar de aici la vale… În zilele si noptile ce au urmat, făcându-le „Kurzeren Prozess” (răfuială mai scurtată), nu-i mai aduseră la Politie, ci îi împuscaseră pe trotuar, în fata caselor de unde i-au scos. Dimineata treceau cărutele Primăriei, îi încărcau ca pe butuci, ducându-i la santurile-gropi comune din cimitirul Israelit…
Vrând să mai debaraseze orasul si de alti – pentru ei – indezirabili, îi imbarcară în două trenuri de vite, puternic oblonite ca să nu intre nici aerul la cei înghesuiti înăuntru; trenuri cu destinatie diferită: primul, care ne interesează îndeosebi, spre Lagărul de concentrare de la Călărasi – Ialomita, al doilea – la Podu Iloaei. Dar, ca să nu ajungă prea repede, îi purtară înainte si înapoi, pe caniculă, încât peste jumătate din ei se sufocară. Trenul întâi, care si-a meritat cu prisosintă trista poreclă de „trenul mortii”, după ce si-a lepădat 650 de morti la Târgu Frumos, 350 la Mircesti, ajunse, în dimineata de 3 iulie `41, la Roman. Aici le-a iesit imediat în întâmpinare echipa de infirmiere ale Crucii Rosii, cu serviciul în gară, intentionând să le acorde, ca si trenurilor cu răniti, ceai si pachetele cu hrană rece. Dar paznicii germani ai trenului le interziseră apropierea de vagoane. Atunci fu chemată în ajutor presedinta Filialei locale de Cruce Rosie, doamna Viorica Agarici.
Urmarea, se stie si se mai scrie despre gestul eroic: S-a postat în fata locomotivei, declarând că nu va pleca de acolo până nu se vor da la o parte obloanele, în spatele cărora detinutii strigau cerând aer si apă. Cu sprijinul oficialitătilor române, printre care si al Reginei Mamă Elena, aflată în vizită la Spitalele militare Z.I. din localitate, a prefectului judetului Roman, generalul Stefan Ionescu, s-a ajuns prin telefon la generalul Ion Antonescu. Iar acesta solicitând sprijinul Generalului colonelului Eugen von Schorner, comandantul Armatei a 11-a germană, ce coopera în Basarabia cu trupele noastre, a venit ordinul de eliberare a trenului si de oprire a actiunilor antievreesti de la Iasi. Atunci s-au mai găsit 350 de morti, care au fost îngropati la Săbăoani. Trenul a fost igienizat, detinutii vii – asistati, după care a putut să-si continue cursa la destinatie, mai debarcând numai 12 morti la Mărăsesti.
În calitate de martor ocular al acestei drame iesene, am intentionat să dovedim că „Holocaustul de la Iasi”, atribuit în totalitate nouă, românilor, s-a datorat integral fractiunii naziste a trupelor germane. Este un adevăr crud, care spus si cu acelasi prilej, poate va fi mai bine înteles si receptat ca atare.

Viorica Agarici – mit si adevar in problema „Trenului mortii”

Din capul locului declar ca nu am intentia de a nega sau minimaliza tragicele evenimente petrecute la Iasi in iunie/iulie 1941, care s-au derulat pana in gara Romanului. Despre asta s-a scris si se va mai scrie mult, incat modesta mea contributie s-ar pierde ca o picatura de apa intr-un ocean de venin. In schimb, voi aduce cateva elemente noi legate de cele intamplate la Roman. Cititorii au latitudinea sa le arunce in talgerul balantei ce li se va parea mai adecvat.

Asadar, la gara din Roman – Era in fatidica zi de 3 iulie 1941, cand s-a anuntat sosirea, in tranzit, a unui tren cu evrei deportati din Iasi. Pentru fetele de la Cantina Crucii Rosii, ca si pentru personalul punctului sanitar din gara condus de doctorita Veronica Falcoianu (foto alaturata), situatia parea similara cu cea a trenurilor de raniti cu stationare scurta, avand alta destinatie. In acest rastimp, li se acordau, in vagoane, ajutoarele umanitare si medicale necesare. Totusi, judecand bine, medicul de serviciu la punct in acea zi, in unire cu echipele de la cantina, au inteles ca situatia actuala va fi oarecum diferita. Din aceasta cauza au chemat-o in ajutor pe doamna Viorica Agarici, presedinta Filialei locale a Societatii nationale de Cruce Rosie. Dansa a venit fara intarziere, insotita de vicepresedinta, d-na Eliza Vargolici si de medicul primar al judetului, dr. Stefan Pasov. In urma lor a sosit si seful Comenduirii Pietei, cpt. I. Cocaneanu.

Din primul moment, duduia Viorica a inceput a-si organiza echipa cu care avea sa intre in actiune. Din aceasta faceau parte: Sofia Lazarescu (sefa cantinei), invatatoarele Zoe Iacobescu, Elena Taune si Maria Curelescu, tinerele Mura Hagiaturian, Rodica Lazarescu si doua maici detasate de la manastirea Agapia. Intre timp, cpt. Cocaneanu a luat informatii suplimentare de la biroul de miscare al garii, de unde s-a intors foarte posomorat. Cand au iesit pe peron, cantinierele cu tavi si cosuri cu de ale gurii, 4 soldati cu caldari cu ceai, doctorita Falcoianu insotita de of. san. V. Toma si infirmierele voluntare de Cruce Rosie, purtand medicamente pentru urgente si material de pansat, Cocaneanu s-a apropiat de d-na Agarici, soptindu-i ceva la ureche. Cei prezenti au spus ca niciodata n-au vazut-o decat blanda si amabila, dar acum si-a iesit din sarite!

Deodata intra trenul in gara – o garnitura lunga cu vagoane de marfa („bou-vagon” cu portierele zavorate) din care razbateau voci disperate, cerand ajutor si apa! Pentru acest tren insa era un Ordin de la Comandatura militara germana din Iasi, ca nimeni sa nu se apropie.

Interventia Reginei-Mama (Relatare a doctorului Nicolae Horga, radiolog sef la Spitalul Precista)

La aflarea acestui ordin d-na Viorica Agarici i-a cerut cpt. Cocaneanu sa intervina pentru a fi deschise vagoanele si a se putea acorda asistenta medicala celor din interior. Cpt. Cocaneanu l-a contactat telefonic pe generalul de Divizie Stefan Ionescu, prefectul judetului Roman care tocmai atunci se pregatea sa intampine pe Regina Mama Elena, sosita intr-o vizita la spitalul din Roman.

Prefectul i-a expus Reginei situatia disperata din gara chiar in Spitalul Precista Mare (atunci Z.I. 448). cand se faceau prezentarile si i-a raportat tot ce se intampla in gara. Revoltata, regina l-a trimis pe aghiotantul ei pentru a verifica daca informatia este adevarata. Cand aghiotantul s-a intors si a confirmat cele spuse de prefect, Regina i-a cerut generalului Stefan Ionescu sa-i inlesneasca legatura cu generalul Ion Antonescu, care se afla in trenul Patria, aflat in exclusivitate la dispozitia sa. Regina cerandu-i sa ordone deschiderea portierelor si acordarea asistentei medicale evreilor din tren.

In tot acest timp, d-na Agarici a dus o adevarata „batalie” cu soldatii germani care pazeau si ei trenul. Ea a pasit hotarata inainte, facand fetelor semn sa o urmeze. Trebuiau sa strabata distanta pana la linia a 4-a, unde fusese tras trenul cu deportati, semn ca nu va avea cale libera. Prioritate aveau atunci trenurile militare germane si romanesti, care goneau spre front. Asa incat avea de stationat un timp, exact cat era nevoie a intra cu ajutoarele cerute. Soldatii germani, cand au vazut ca grupul de persoane in alb se apropie hotarat de trenul lor, le-au iesit inainte, cu pistoalele mitraliera intinse si strigand: „Zuruck Verboten!” (Indarat! Oprit!). Era o prima somatie. D-na Agarici, fara teama, li s-a adresat pe acelasi ton: „Verflucktes Gesindel, auf die Seite!” (Creaturi blestemate, la o parte!). Cpt. Cocaneanu, stiind de ce sunt in stare acesti ostasi fanatici, din trupele SS, a venit in graba rugand echipa sa se intoarca pe peron, caci la o a doua somatie, acestia vor trage in plin. A fost un moment de panica. Fetele si soldatii cu caldari au facut cale intoarsa. Numai duduia Viorica Agarici s-a repezit ca un glonte in fata locomotivei, prinzandu-se cu mainile de ea si a inceput a striga cat tinea o gura ca daca nu se deschid portierele vagoanelor, pentru a se acorda ajutor detinutilor, ea ramane acolo pana ce va trece trenul peste dansa!

In timpul acesta, nemtii isi vedeau linistiti de treaba, asteptand momentul cand vor putea ordona pornirea trenului, cu riscul, de a strivi romanca aceea furioasa… La amenintarea cu pistolul in piept a unui ofiter SS, Viorica Agarici a raspuns: „Wenn Du mich schiesst, schiesst Du deine Mutter!” (Daca ma impusti pe mine, o impusti pe maica-ta!).

Intre timp, generalului Ion Antonescu, informat de cele intamplate la Roman si neavand autoritate asupra militarilor germani care nu permiteau asistarea detinutilor, a luat legatura cu Comandantul al Armatei a XI-a germana, generalul colonel Eugen von Schorner solicitandu-i aprobarea celor solicitate de regina Mama. Acesta, in cele din urma, a ordonat asistarea deportatilor din trenului cu evrei.

In sfarsit au fost date la o parte usile de la un vagon, le-a aparut o scena de infern: vii si morti, claie peste gramada, cu imbracamintea sfasiata zaceau intr-un namol de fecale si urina. Era prea din cale afara! Pentru a nu alarma populatia orasului (din care peste 7000 erau evrei), care prinzand de veste, incepusera a aflui spre gara, s-a convenit ca trenul sa fie impins indarat, la Sabaoani. Acolo fura deschise toate vagoanele iar cei morti, dupa ce au fost verificati de cpt. Dr. Radu Popovici, chirurgul Spitalului Militar (venit si el cu sanitarii sai, foto alaturata), au fost depusi intr-o groapa sapata ad-hoc in dosul garii.

Dupa intoarcerea trenului in gara dintre cei vii, cei bolnavi au fost consultati de doctorita Falcoianu, o parte din ei fiind internati in Spitalul Militar pentru ingrijirile necesare. Intre timp, dr. Stefan Pasov, medicul orasului, colaborand cu Presedintele Comunitatii evreiesti, dr. med. Reznic Meer, au organizat transportarea, cu randul, a tuturor deportatilor valizi la baia Companiei a IV-a Sanitara de langa gara, unde au fost curatiti, reechipati cu haine noi, hidratati si alimentati, cu ajutorul si pe contul Comunitatii. Bineinteles, sub paza severa, pentru a se evita dezertarile. La randul lor, prin grija Companiei a IV-a sanitare, toate vagoanele au fost spalate, dezinfectate si capitonate pe jos cu paie proaspete, peste care s-au intins cearceafuri.

A doua zi, 4.VII.1941, cu obloanele descuiate, trenul – fost pana aici „al mortii” – s-a repus in miscare. Pe parcurs, oprind in garile mai mari, se deschideau usile vagoanelor pentru ca echipele de Cruce Rosie sa poata controla si asista deportatii. E drept, ici – colo se mai auzea si cate o huiduiala, venita din partea unora, dar asta nu a influentat cu nimic tinuta ocrotitoare a organelor oficiale. Ajunsi cu bine la Calarasi (pe Dunare), la predare in lagar au fost numarati 776 de oameni. Precum se stie, in 1944, au fost eliberati cu totii.


1. Prin anii ’50, dupa razboi, victimele, in numar de 53, dezgropate la Sabaoani (nu „370” cum gresit s-a scris!), carora li s-a adaugat mortii in numar de 360, depusi anterior la Mircesti, au fost aduse la Cimitirul Israelit din Roman, unde au fost reinhumate in doua gropi comune alaturate, peste care s-au turnat placi de beton cu dimensiunea de 3/10 metri. Din cele de mai sus rezulta ca, daca intre Mircesti si Roman, cale de 20 km, si-au pierdut viata inca 53 de oameni, fara „minunea” de la Roman, la Calarasi ar fi ajuns numai cadavre.

A fost in mod incontestabil, meritul duduii Viorica Agarici, de a-i fi salvat pe acestia. Dar nu numai al ei, singura; fara concursul tuturor persoanelor sus mentionate, n-ar fi reusit aceasta performanta. Ii reamintim: capitan I. Cocaneanu, general divizie Stefan Ionescu, vicepresedinta Crucii Rosii romascane, Eliza Vargolici, cei trei medici cu ajutoarele lor. In fine, dar nu in ultima instanta, acordul in acest sens al conducatorului statului (si prin concursul prompt al Reginei Mama Elena), a tras mult in cumpana. Mai e nevoie sa amintim si compasiunea populatiei romascane (crestini si mozaici la un loc) care au contribuit cu totii la usurarea suferintelor atator oameni inocenti…?

2. La urma, inca ceva despre doamna Viorica I. Agarici, eroina acelor zile. Dupa anii 1949, a fost despuiata de toata averea ei (proprietatea de la Calugareni, jud. Roman, casa din oras de pe str. Alexandru cel Bun etc.) si aruncata in strada, fara chip de subzistenta. A avut totusi noroc de cateva familii romascane care i-au intins atunci o mana de ajutor. Familia av. Mart a primit-o intr-o odaita, iar dintre evrei, dr. medic Iosif Abraham si fotograful Jack Reinstein organizau lunar, pentru ea, o cheta (bani marunti), pe care doamna nu voia sa-i primeasca decat sub forma de recompensa pentru meditarea unor copii (printre care si elevul Radu Cozarescu). Desigur, fiind retinuta in casele acestora si la masa de pranz. In fond, era adusa in pozitia de cersetoare. De altfel, si umbla cu cosnita de papura in mana, unde i se mai arunca cate ceva…

Ar fi plecat din Roman, dar nu avea unde: sotul, mort de gangrena apendiculara in spitalul de aici (nu la Iasi, cum s-a scris!), cei trei fii, Georgel, Vasilica si Costache, bagati la puscarie… Abia in 1967, Georgel fiind eliberat, s-a mutat la dansul, in Bucuresti. De atunci si-a adus aminte si Federatia comunitatilor evreiesti de meritele doamnei Agarici, fixandu-i o mica renta viagera.

Acum, eroina de la Roman isi doarme somnul de veci intr-un cimitir din Bucuresti, in vreme de copacul sadit in amintirea ei, pe „aleea dreptilor” de langa Rechowod (Israel), creste falnic.

<a href=”http://www.fgmanu.ro/Istorie/articol214„>AICI </a>

Separating America From Israel, Reality From Myth

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 10:45 am

Israel no longer provides the United States a strategic value like it did during the Cold War. Not only that, Israel is a strategic burden on the United States. That’s a big difference from Cold War days. At the same time, the more comprehensive strategist in me says that doesn’t matter because the connections between America and Israel are so great and so strong that geostrategy, political strategy, grand strategy, is of no consequence here. You actually take that psychological component up to the level of grand strategy and you say America can’t get out of this even if it wanted to.” – Lt. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, from the 2007 documentary directed by Marije Meerman called, „Endgame: A Future Scenario for Israel.”

„We Americans are the peculiar, chosen people—the Israel of our time; we bear the ark of the liberties of the world. . . . God has predestined, mankind expects, great things from our race; and great things we feel in our souls. The rest of the nations must soon be in our rear. We are pioneers of the world; the advance guard, sent on through the wilderness of untried things, to break a path into the New World that is ours.” – Herman Melville.

In a number of previous articles, I’ve used the term „USrael” as a way to reflect what seems like the unbreakable relationship between the United States and Israel. One person on Twitter has taken offense to this term, and I apologize for it. The vast majority of the American people are not Israeli-firsters, but their voice is silenced by the hijacked government and media.

When it comes to U.S. government policy, the interests of the American people are not considered. On the other hand, Israel’s interests come first and last in any U.S.-led discussion about Middle East peace agreements.

But the term „USrael” reflects deep psychological and political realities. And I can’t apologize for reality. With that said, though, I will no longer use the term because I realize now that it’s an affront to America, and its political independence.

America’s independence from Israel and the Israel Lobby is necessary before there can be a resolution to the conflict in the Middle East between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Obviously, this is easier said than done. The problem is difficult because the root of the problem is not publicly acknowledged by politicians, journalists, pundits, and many bloggers: the big 9/11 lie.

America and Israel are both responsible for the 9/11 lie, so their political and moral credibility is linked together. The complete merger of their identity as a civilization and their imperial policies towards the Middle East was sealed on September 11, 2001, when the shadow governments of both countries committed an unspeakable act of evil, terror, and aggression against humanity and the laws of civilization.

Moments after the attacks, the evil leaders of both governments enacted a psychological siege on the global public mind. Call it a state of silence, or a state of mental siege. Questioners of the official story were not seen as committing treason, but as being paranoid and crazy, which is a worse offense in human society.

Since both shadow governments in the United States and Israel share this great sin, they can’t walk away from it separately. This fact means that the political and military leaders of the United States cannot cut off their ties to Israel even if they wished to do so because the Israelis hold the ultimate trump card: evidence about the clandestine 9/11 attacks that can bring down the world’s only superpower along with Israel if released to the public. As far as the powers-that-be are concerned, releasing the deep secrets of 9/11 is equivalent to putting nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists.

The crimes that bind the two governments, especially 9/11, are of such scale and magnitude that they can’t be separated from each other. America and Israel are really one nation in the 21st century. And this will remain the state of affairs until the 9/11 controversy is settled by the American people.

Israel Is The Greatest Enemy of America

Due to the symbolism of 9/11, the enemies of Israel became the enemies of America: Muslims, Arabs, and anti-Israeli regimes in the Middle East who correctly perceive Israel as the perpetual aggressor and war-maker.

On the afternoon of 9/11 the five dancing Israeli spies who were arrested by a New Jersey police officer named Sgt. Scott DeCarlo said: „We’re not your enemy, we’re your friend. Our enemies are your enemies.” This was a lie.

Far from being a reliable friend, Israel is the greatest enemy of America. History will prove this to be the truth. It is already the greatest threat to global security and Middle East peace.

But, as a result of 9/11, the U.S.-Israel alliance is welded in steel. The „West vs. Islam” political and cultural narrative was constructed by imperialists in America and Israel before 9/11, but it was 9/11 that raised this destructive mythic narrative up to the field of political reality. This false narrative has been used to legitimize the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the ongoing shadow war against Iran.

The question of how this dangerous narrative will be destroyed can’t be answered by any one of us. The forces of history will come into play. So far, political education hasn’t put this narrative out of fashion. People who are trying to educate the world public about 9/11 are scorned and ridiculed as paranoid-ridden conspiracy theorists.

Another problem is that brainwashed liberals are too gutless to question the official 9/11 story, while their mirror opposites, the brainwashed conservatives, are fully committed to Israel even if the poisonous relationship leads to the destruction of America.

America’s interests and security are not served by its close-minded defense of a belligerent and racist Israel that makes enemies out of peace doves. As Lt. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson says in the quote above, „Israel no longer provides the United States a strategic value like it did during the Cold War. Not only that, Israel is a strategic burden on the United States. That’s a big difference from Cold War days.”

The nature of the special relationship between America and Israel is connected to psychological guilt and political blackmail, not to strategic reality and security concerns.

The idea that America must stick by Israel come hell or high water means suicide for America, because the road that Israel is on has only one exit: self-destruction. By traveling together with the war hawks in Israel on that same stupid road, America will also be destroyed. And nobody wants to see that happen except the New World Order terrorists in Washington and London, and their mentally retarded minions in Al-Qaeda and other Western-backed Islamic terrorist groups.

Separating America from Israel can’t be done without first separating reality from myth and fact from fiction.

The 9/11 lie, which is at the heart of the special relationship between the two shadow governments in America and Israel, has caused internal bleeding in America, the West, and Israel, and apocalyptic destruction in the Middle East. For humanity’s sake, this poisonous lie must be pulled out of the body politic, which has suffered from artificially implanted myths and desperately needs a massive infusion of truth and reality.


Alexander Yakobson’s “Generous” Peace Offer

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 8:28 am

The op-ed in last Friday’s Haaretz by historian Alexander Yakobson offers a wonderful insight into the mind of the secular Israeli who considers himself a liberal Zionist.  In fact, I consider it must-reading for anybody who wishes to understand the sort of mentality that  has effectively killed the two-state solution from 1948 to the present. (I haven’t founded it translated yet into English; if somebody has a link, please send it to me.)

Yakobson’s piece was in response to an op-ed in the previous Friday’s Haaretz by writer A. B. Yehoshua, who was beginning to despair of a real two-state solution because of the difficulty involved in moving so many settlers. Yakobson responded with an idea that he had floated before, namely, that as part of a peace agreement, the army would withdraw to the 67 border, and the settlers would be allowed to decide if they wanted to stay in Palestine as Palestinian citizens.  After all, if the Jewish state has an Arab minority, why shouldn’t the Palestinian state have a Jewish minority? Yakobson didn’t repeat what he had written earlier, namely that  that most settlers would return after receiving some modest compensation “beyond the letter of the law.” –and that since the Arabs are known for making life impossible for the Jews in their midst, even the nuts who stay will end up coming back eventually under the law of return.

For a secular Israeli like Yakobson it’s all good:  The Palestinians get their land and get off the Israelis’ back; the crazy religious settlers can settle in Eretz Yisrael if they like, and if they don’t, they come back for only a fistful of shekels. Just think of the money we save!

The secular Israeli liberal  offers the Palestinian nothing that he himself wants and everything he can’t abide – the West Bank, which he never visits; the Palestinians, whom he would prefer not to worry about; and the religious settlers, whom he is ecstatic to part with. Which of his own interests does he sacrifice in the spirit of compromise? None..

And what about the Palestinians? Well after being powerless to stop their land from being expropriated and developed into illegal bedroom communities and cities for settlers who wish  them dead and gone, or at least, permanently subservient, they now are obligated by a treaty with the regional superpower to keep the settlements and settlers, who, presumably according to Yakobson, will turn into loyal Palestinian citizens without any irredentist tendencies.

Note that this “generous proposal” is from a man who opposes the return of any more than a handful of Palestinian refugees to Israel because of the threat to the security of the Jewish state.  He sees no security threat to the Palestinian state by  the religious fanatics he is so eager to get rid of. Not his problem, is it?

Can his proposal be made serious? Consider the following friendly amendments:

Settlers can remain as citizens of the Palestinian state, after they give up their Israeli citizenship, of course. But since they do not own the land they live on anyway, but rather lease it from the Israeli government, the Palestinian government  could move them to other places on the West Bank, after offering proper compensation.

In exchange for the Palestinians being forced to received hundreds of thousand Jewish “immigrants”, the Israelis would be forced to receive hundreds of thousand Palestinian “immigrants”, i.e., returning refugees. How many hundreds of thousands? Well, if a bit over half a million Israeli Jews are offered the opportunity to stay in the West Bank, and there are a bit over 3.5 million Palestinians living there now, then that works out to about 16% – and 16% of 5.5 million Israeli Jewish living within the Green Line would work out to 880,000 Palestinian refugees. Of course, you will immediately say that this isn’t fair – after all, the Jewish state starts out with 20% of its population Arab. Good point. Let’s assume, then, that the Arabs had not driven thousands of Jewish settlers from the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1948, and they constituted around – what – 5% of the total? So, you know, we’ll compromise on resettling 3/4 of a million Palestinian refugees in exchange for allowing the Jewish settlers to remain where they are. And half a million of them will be settled West of Jerusalem, the rest in the Galilee and the Negev.

I find that the problem folks like Prof. Yakobson is that they are pretty good negotiators when negotiating with themselves. They know how to figure out what is in their own best interests – a secular Israel which is culturally Jewish, with a few Rabbis and Arabs to give it some flavor. That’s why whenever they come up  with a plan, they are  always trying to sell it to the Jews. They never mention  the possible down-side for the Palestinians.

That’s what liberal Zionists have been doing from time immemorial.


Israel’s emerging ‘Jewish Hezbollah’?

Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 7:49 am

Posted By

Seven months ago, during the early morning hours of May 30, Jewish settlers visiting Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus in the Palestinian West Bank engaged in a shoving match with IDF soldiers deployed to protect them. Within minutes, the confrontation escalated; several soldiers were punched by Jewish worshippers and rocks rained down on the soldiers from settlers atop the tomb. A YouTube video of the incident was later circulated on the internet at the request of the IDF. The Nablus incident was among the first in a growing series of confrontations between settlers and the Israeli military – and it sent shock waves through the Israeli military establishment. Brig. General Yoav Mordechai called the settlers „irresponsible lawbreakers” and pointed out that the IDF in the West Bank was deployed to protect settlers from „terrorists.” His message was clear: the settler confrontation had placed the lives of his soldiers at risk.

Mordechai’s statement must have brought wry smiles to Palestinian villagers near Nablus, whose olive groves have been burned and mosques desecrated by the same settlers who attacked the IDF detachment. But the Joseph’s Tomb incident was only the beginning: throughout July and August, settlers from Yitzhar – a hotbed of settler extremism – forced a series of confrontations with the IDF until, in August, a stone-throwing incident pitting settlers against Palestinians threatened to get out of control, with the IDF pushing Palestinians away from the settlers in order to protect them from the violence – and not the other way around. „It was an amazing scene,” a Palestinian organizer who witnessed the incident said during a recent trip to Washington. „At one point, one of the IDF commanders turned to me and said, ‘why don’t you do us a favor and just shoot these people?'”

The settler-on-IDF confrontations have increased over the last weeks, sending ripples of concern through the Israeli establishment. While no senior Israeli elected official has yet to suggest that the program of settlement expansion needs to be rethought, the viewpoint is the subject of sotto vocereflections throughout the Jewish state. After all, the unstated goal of the national settlement enterprise is to put obstacles in the way of Palestinian national claims – not to seed a nascent and nasty internal conflict. Now, and particularly if the confrontations continue (or escalate), Israeli officials will have to ask themselves whether it is wise to continue a program that is providing the equivalent of a Palestinian fifth column. It’s not as if the Palestinians haven’t noticed. Asked about the recent settler-IDF dust-ups near Nablus, a serving Palestinian legislator waves away a question about whether or not Abu Mazen and company will return to the peace talks: „What we ought to do is sit back and watch,” he says, „while Israel starts to unravel.”

„I don’t want to exaggerate, but it’s time to call this what it is,” a veteran IDF officer noted in a recent telephone conversation on the Nablus incident. „It might be news in America, but it’s no secret in Israel. This is a very real crisis. What we have here is the birth of a state within a state. The birth of a kind of Jewish Hezbollah.” This former officer went on to speculate that „what is emerging in the West Bank” is „a three-state solution: Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and, standing between them, a radical settler state.” Yehuda Shaul, an organizer of Breaking The Silence – a group of IDF soldiers committed to publicizing the reality of being an Israeli soldier in the West Bank – is unwilling to go that far, though he confirms that the series of escalations between settlers and the IDF has roiled the Israeli military. „The IDF is in the West Bank to control tens of thousands of Palestinians,” he notes, „but they’re having the most trouble controlling the settlers. It’s quite an irony.”

Shaul, who served for 14 months as a sergeant of the Hebron Brigade during the Second Intifada, points out that the IDF is deployed in the West Bank „to protect the settlers, not the Palestinians. If the settlers attack the Palestinians that’s not our problem.” He adds, „that would be the job of the police.” But, while noting the difference, Shaul sent along a YouTube video of IDF soldiers arguing with Israeli police officers over settler violence in Hebron. The IDF officer is requesting the police commander arrest a settler who has stolen farm implements from a Palestinian farmer. „You’re a police officer,” the young commander says, „you’re a police officer. I can’t touch them.” The police officer cocks his head – arrest a settler? He shrugs and looks away, taking no action. The IDF commander offers a last plea: „Listen we have to live with these people [the Palestinians] afterwards,” the IDF commander says. When the police officer still refuses, the IDF commander walks away in disgust.

These kinds of incidents, untold dozens of them throughout the West Bank over the last year, reached a crescendo recently. Last Tuesday, a group of settlers invaded an IDF army base near Nablus armed with paint and nail guns while, at the same time, Jewish settlers occupied an IDF base in the Jordan Valley. The settlers threw stones at IDF soldiers and defaced IDF vehicles. The Israeli government reacted forcefully. Defense Minister Ehud Barak condemned „these rioters,” calling them „criminal groups of extremists,” while adding that „homegrown terror” would not be tolerated. Prime Minister Netanyahu sounded just as tough, saying that Jewish „rioters” would be subject to administrative detention – while refusing to label them as „terrorists.”

And on Friday, Barak appointed Brig. General Nitzan Alon as the new commander of the IDF’s Central Command – with oversight of the West Bank. Alon is the IDF’s tough guy, and has had his own run-in with settlers. In July, a group of settlers confronted him at his home, denouncing him as a traitor and „Nazi” – an apparent response to his condemnation of settler „price tag” operations against the IDF and Palestinians. Alon is undeterred: „When you burn a mosque or throw a fire bomb into a house it’s an act of terror,” he said, after being named head of the Central Command. „Our job goes beyond censure – we have to deal with it.”

Of course, the IDF’s problems aren’t restricted to the emerging settler-on-IDF civil conflict, as evidenced by the ongoing punitive nature of its engagement with the Palestinians of the West Bank. Even so, the engagement is taking its toll, as evidenced by the circulation of a July video of the shenanigans of a Hebron detachment dancing in a Palestinian street brought IDF commanders up short. As did a recent series of tweets from IDF soldiers following the death of 28-year-old Mustafa Tamimi, shot and killed when a tear gas canister was fired at him at close range.

The story of the IDF tweets was breaking, last week, just as I was attending Tamimi’s funeral in Nabi Saleh: „What was Mustafa thinking running after a moving jeep while throwing stones #fail.” The tweet, written by IDF Major Peter Lerner seemed to mock Tamimi’s death and to suggest that he deserved what he got. This, despite the fact that there are strict IDF regulations against Israeli soldiers shooting tear gas directly at protesters. The Lerner tweet caused additional headaches for the already hard-pressed IDF, whose official spokesperson was quick to note that the message did not reflect Israeli thinking or official IDF policy. While Lerner later apologized („I did not mean to hurt anyone’s feelings by writing ‘fail’,” he said. „I felt the need to point out that none of the pictures of Tamimi prior to the incident were published despite the fact that he was throwing stones”), the message inflamed an already volatile situation in the West Bank. Then too, Lerner’s apology hardly seemed that – for if IDF officers believe that Palestinians deserve to die for throwing stones, then the IDF has bigger problems than an increasingly radical settler population.

For Israel, then, the emerging problems in the West Bank provide a dual challenge: to dampen settler radicalism at the same time that they ensure continued IDF discipline. On the one hand, Israeli leaders are hoping that a new, tougher line against the settlers will serve to dampen the burgeoning crisis – which will take pressure off the soldiers of the Kfir Brigade, established and trained as an „elite” unit for West Bank service. But a number of IDF officers doubt that simply issuing threats and naming a new West Bank commander will do much to address the problem and many expect the situation to get worse. Recently, the IDF warned its commanders that they could expect „live fire” from settlers opposing the dismantling of outposts near Nablus and on Wednesday, Israeli Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger warned of an incipient civil war pitting settlers against the IDF. „Damaging IDF property is a horrible defamation of God. Nothing justifies such a violent act, especially when it is directed at the IDF and its soldiers, who sacrifice their lives to protect the people of this country.” But Israel’s religious establishment is hardly united. The Chief Rabbi for Samaria blamed the government for provoking settlement violence. „This is violence and this is violence,” he said. „There is violence against Jews on the part of those young extremists who run wild, and there is violence of the Israeli government against peaceful and quiet settlers.”

The traded barbs have drawn the line in Israel, between a government that has traditionally supported settlements as a political project – and those who see settlements as a redemptive religious calling. Increasingly, the IDF has found itself caught in the middle of this conflict, with IDF soldiers told that their time in the West Bank will be spent protecting Israelis. Given the anti-IDF current among large numbers of settlers, and the most recent attacks against Israeli soldiers by „criminal groups of extremists,” that will, now, almost certainly change. Even so, the current incipient conflict is markedly different than the one the IDF trained for just a generation ago. „My parents and their parents lived in a country threatened by Egypt and Syria,” Yehuda Shaul notes, „but this conflict is quite different. It’s definitely not what we’re trained to do.” But Shaul adds this caveat: „I think one of the worst things we do is blame the settlers,” he says. „That’s the easy way out. The settlements are there because our government thought it was a good idea. So. Was it?”

Mark Perry is the author of eight books, including the recently released Talking To Terrorists(Basic Books, 2010). He recently returned from a visit to the West Bank.



« Pagina anterioarăPagina următoare »

Creează un sit web gratuit sau un blog la WordPress.com.