Historical Revisionism and Our Struggle for Liberation
by Nabila Harb, Co-editor of the Free Arab Voice
The historical revisionist movement would receive little notice outside academic circles were it not for its willingness to examine established versions of Jewish myth and history. For this reason, Zionist propaganda has done its utmost not only to discredit it but to silence it, resorting repeatedly to terrorist attacks internationally against scholars who have dared to question the facts of the so-called 'Jewish holocaust'.
In a reader's letter to The Barnes Review, a teacher wrote: 'It is so much fun to use your articles for a portion of history and geography lessons [in our schools]. This way, a large variety of opinion can tickle the imagination of children and allow them to think for themselves... By all means, continue to explore the fascinating history of mankind, wherever it may lead'.
The phrase 'wherever it may lead' is most significant here and what is most feared by the Zionist propaganda machine is that such explorations will lead to the TRUTH.
It has been said that: 'The truth will set you free'. Indeed, the truth is one weapon in the Palestinian war for freedom denied to the Zionists, and the search for and publication of the truth must be encouraged AT ALL COSTS. In this context, it is ironic to note that, in a legal action taken against an historical revisionist by the Zionists, when the scholar under attack proved that he had published nothing more than the truth, a judge declared that 'The Truth is no Defence'. And yet, Zionist influence has become so powerful that the international community, so quick to defend freedom of expression in other circumstances, was conspicuously silent in the face of this outrageous ruling.
There is a character in Western literature named Don Quixote who attacked a windmill under the mistaken impression that it was an enemy. It is not Don Quixote's misperceptions that have made him beloved, but rather his willingness to take on ANY challenge in his quest for justice. Is this not precisely what is at the core of the historical revisionist movement as well? History must not be confused with religion, and yet, apparently, there are certain areas where history and religion both must yield to fantasies promoted by the Zionists in their efforts to conceal past and perpetuate present and future crimes against humanity and the Palestinian people. The Zionists, who proclaim a 'right' to occupy the land of Palestine on the grounds of a 2,000 year old previous Occupation of the land, have managed, by virtue of the 'chosen people' and Jewish 'holocaust' myths, to curtail international scholarly investigations into the past, present and future. History always has been a curious mixture of fact, speculation and human perception, an account of events written usually by the winners, and one that has been recounted in such a way as to bolster the appearance of legitimacy of those in power. A famous example of the divergence between accepted history and fact in the West is the case of Richard III of England, portrayed by William Shakespeare as a murdering hunchback in the interests of promoting rather precarious Tudor claims to the throne of England. Astonishingly, this version of history prevailed, partly due to the literary brilliance of Shakespeare's writing, until the 20th century, when a combination of archaeological discoveries and scholarly research revealed a vastly different reality.
Whatever the facts or fictions with respect to the Jews in Europe during the Second World War, it is an indisputable fact that the Zionists have USED the 'Jewish holocaust' argument both as a sword and as a shield where their invasion and continuing occupation of Palestine is concerned. Another fact: the Zionist programme with respect to the invasion and occupation of Palestine had its beginnings in the 19th century, quite prior to the Second World War, and it is a FACT that the Zionists then embraced the concepts of racial purity and ethnic genocide that are attributed to the Nazis later in history and that they continue to do so, making their Occupation of the Palestinian homeland a racist apartheid state to rival that of White South Africa. Yet another fact: practical as well as intellectual research has shown that some of the so-called 'truths' about the Jewish holocaust during the Second World War are pure fiction. It is another fact that Jewish 'history' from 'biblical' times onwards is permeated with fictions and misinformation. History even at its best, is partly fact and partly opinion, interwoven with rumours and folktales and it is utterly incomprehensible to find ordinarily intelligent human beings refusing to investigate all claims made with respect to the 'Jewish holocaust' in order to come closer to a knowledge of what really happened. That, however, is the situation in the Western world today. Surely there is something wrong with this picture!
Any claims of a 'Jewish holocaust' of the Second World War should be subject to ordinary standards of evidence and proof. Moreover, there have been horrendous acts of genocide throughout history, and the attitude that somehow a Jewish holocaust would be more despicable and subject to different standards of proof than any other is arrogant and indefensible.
ANY Zionist propaganda, whether it pertains to the so-called 2,000 year old claim to Palestine or whether it demands Palestine as 'compensation' for the 'Jewish holocaust' must be countered, and the truth should be used as aggressively as possible in resistance to the Zionist Occupation of Palestine.
There can be no justification for ignoring or silencing legitimate academic research and theory with respect to the events of the Second World War. In ordinary situations, it is assumed that a habitual liar lies about everything. Why is it that the world accepts the Jewish version of the 'Jewish holocaust' without question when the Zionists have demonstrated a total and proven disregard for the truth in all other situations and circumstances?
Logic, reason and facts must never be subverted to political blackmail. The seed of Zionism that was planted at the end of the 19th century in Europe were carefully cultivated by the Zionists to blossom into the poisonous fruits of the Jewish holocaust myth as a tool with which to fight the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to their homeland. There have been countless holocausts throughout the history of humanity. There is NOTHING special about the 'Jewish people' and therefore, could be nothing special about any 'Jewish holocaust', whatever the facts and fictions of that particular holocaust might be. The true crime here is the monstrous fashion in which Zionists have manipulated and twisted the suffering of some Jews in Europe during the Second World War into a vast propaganda machine. One need only read Zionist documents of the era in order to see how well the concept of a Jewish 'holocaust' suited the Zionist programme in Palestine. Furthermore, there is hard evidence that the Zionists themselves were allied with the Nazis in encouraging their own people to flee from Europe in their greed to take over the Palestinian homeland.
On 21 July 1933, the Zionist Federation of Germany wrote to the Nazi party: 'In the foundation of the new State, which has proclaimed the race principle, we wish to adopt our community to these new structures... Our recognition of the Jewish nationality allows us to establish clear and sincere relations with the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not want to underestimate these fundamental principles, because we too are against mixed marriages and for the maintaining of the purity of the Jewish group... To attain its practical objectives, Zionism hopes that it will be able to collaborate with a government that is fundamentally hostile to the Jews...'
In 1938, the Zionist leader Ben Gurion declared that, 'If I knew it was possible to save all the children in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution. For we must take into account not only the lives of these children but also the history of the people of Israel'. He stated moreover that: 'The Zionist's task is not to save the 'rest' of Israel which finds itself in Europe, but to save the land of Israel for the Jewish people'.
In the American Jewish Conference of 2 May 1948, Rabbi Klaussner stated: 'I am convinced people must be forced to go to Palestine... For them, an American dollar appears as the highest of goals. By the word 'force', I am suggesting a programme. It served for the evacuation of the Jews in Poland and in the history of the 'Exodus'... To apply this programme we must, instead of providing 'displaced persons' with comfort, create the greatest possible discomfort for them... At a second stage, a procedure calling upon the Haganah to harass the Jews.'
In Theodore Herzl's 'Diaries', in the late 19th century, he declared that: 'Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.'
The old Roman maxim, 'Cui bono?' comes to mind. Who but the Zionists have benefited enormously from the tales of the 'Jewish holocaust'? Any independent research or study of the subject would be a threat to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
The work done by historical revisionists in investigating the history of the Second World War in Europe is not the foundation of any arguments against the continuing existence of the Zionist entity in Palestine, but it does offer valuable support to the resistance movement against a vile Occupation that seeks to conceal its true nature under the shelter of the preposterous myth of the eternal 'Jewish victim'.
Looking at the history of the Jewish people in Europe and elsewhere, it is clear that it was the Jewish horror of 'assimilation' which lay at the very root of any anti-Jewish feeling and that, far from being victims, they occupied an enviable position compared to the poor.
In feudal Europe, this refusal to assimilate, coupled with the mobility and freedom of the Jews was in stark contrast to the serf who was chained virtually to the land on which he worked. The Jews, moreover, considering themselves 'one nation', with loyalty only to their own people, preferred moveable property to land as this kept their wealth fluid, easily transported from one nation to another.
Moreover, Jewish traffic in moveable goods, and their position as pawnbrokers in Europe, gave them considerable influence over governments and politics. It was Jewish wealth, incidentally, that helped to finance Richard I of England's despicable 'crusade' in Palestine.
Moreover, Jews tended to be literate in an era when the European Christian Church discouraged literacy outside of the clergy. Jews were employed as secret agents and spies by many European powers precisely because of their international connections, literacy and mobility.
As a people who refused to assimilate, who spoke a foreign language and who were literate, wealthy and mobile, they could not but foster natural resentment and hatred in the hearts of the native poor. This lead to occasional hostile responses, when native populations struck out at Jewish communities, visible embodiments of wealth and freedom, perceived as arrogant because of their 'ghetto' mentality, and hated for their willingness to engage in usury. In fact, for the poor and the desperate, the only relationship with Jews often would be as a supplicant dependent upon the mercy of a moneylender. Such relationships are not positive in nature. 'Anti-semitic' feelings often were simply a response to prevailing Jewish attitudes and that it was the Jewish insistence upon viewing themselves as superior and apart from the rest of humanity that is to blame for anti-Jewish acts in the course of history.
The tendency on the part of the Jews to engage in international commerce reached a peak in the 19th century when such families as the Rothschilds became a major influence in international politics. The infamous Balfour Declaration would never have been written had it not been for the financial power and political influence of English Jews. Throughout the 20th century, Jewish influence grew in power through increasing control of international finance and the media. This is nothing more than a fact and yet, to state this is to invite instant accusations of 'anti-semiticism'.
Historical revisionists who dare to investigate the Jewish 'holocaust' immediately are accused of being anti-semitic as well. Despite the fact that the Jews are not the only semitic people and that Ashkhenazi Jews are not even Semites, although in typical fashion, Jewish propaganda has developed this fiction, ignoring the semitic nature of the Arab people, Jewish use of 'anti-semiticism' as a weapon is nothing new. The Zionist movement used the spectre of anti-semitism as a means of encouraging the emigration of Jews to Palestine. Zionist terrorist groups operating throughout the Arab world, particularly during the 1950s, committed acts of terrorism against their fellow Jews to generate an appearance of rampant 'anti-semiticism' in order to 'persuade' them to 'emigrate' to Palestine.
Moreover, if Jewish history in terms of Europe and the holocaust is beyond question, does it not follow logically that the official Jewish version of the history of Palestine should be beyond question as well? Why should one particular portion of the tale be accepted unconditionally but other parts be subject to ordinary standards of truth?
In view of the ongoing ethnic genocide against the Palestinian people and the blatant deceptions and denials by the Zionists in the face of concrete evidence, why is it so difficult for people to accept the concept that the Zionist art of deceit began in the 19th century and continued through the decades, and that so-called 'facts' about the Jewish holocaust are as false as their claims that they do not deliberately murder Palestinian civilians?
A few examples among hundreds: The world saw proof of the massacres of Sabra and Shatila and indeed, the guilt of Butcher Sharon was proclaimed in a Zionist court! The world saw a young boy who was cowering behind a rubbish bin with his father and begging for mercy shot in cold blood and yet the Zionists tried to deny this. The world saw hard evidence of the terrible massacre at Qana, and yet the Zionists denied it outright at first, until forced to acknowledge that it happened but that it was an accident! The world recently saw a young Palestinian stripped to his underclothing, handcuffed, prostrate on the ground, helpless for over half an hour before he was shot in the head at close range by a Zionist soldier after the Zionists attempted to claim that they shot a 'terrorist' who was resisting and who had been trying to detonate explosives. The world has seen evidence of the recent massacre in Jenin, evidence of mass graves and the brutal slaughter of civilians and yet the Zionists continue to deny that any of this took place.
If no such massacre took place, why is it that the Zionist entity refused to allow the media and the United Nations to examine the situation in Jenin? Look at the entire fabric of Zionist 'history' and you will find it to be a densely woven carpet of lies.
From the original lie of 'A land without a people for a people without a land' onwards, the entire invasion of Palestine by the Zionists is founded upon flagrant deceptions.
The struggle against Zion is not only a national struggle for the Palestinian people; it is a struggle against a philosophy of racial supremacy and imperialism. Any individual of strong moral fibre and integrity will not only deny the right of the Zionists to create a wholly Jewish homeland in Palestine but would resist the concept of the establishment of such a racially biased government anywhere in the world. Any one who believes in justice must quarrel with the whole concept of a State predicated upon membership in a group that has no basis in democracy, ordinary concepts of Statehood or even religion. The Ashkenazi and the Sephardic Jews are entirely different races; if one is to speak of the 'Semitic' people, this does not translate to 'Jews' but includes the Arab people. As for religion, many of the Jews in Palestine and worldwide are atheist, so it is not the religious affiliation that makes one a Jew. On what basis do some Palestinians support a 'Jewish homeland'? This has no foundation in land ownership or in political theory either. There is NO justification for the resurrection of an outdated, racist ideology that provides for an 'exclusively Jewish State' anywhere on this planet. There is no justification for the occupation of other peoples' land either. It goes against fundamental principles of human rights and democracy.
The issue of the 'Jewish holocaust' is NOT the primary concern of Palestinian and Arab resistance, and one should not become sidetracked into devoting ones entire lives and minds to this issue. The primary concern is the freedom of Palestine and of the Arab Nation. And yet, one must support the efforts of independent scholars and academics who are devoting their lives to the search for the truth with respect to Jewish history and who do so under threat of imprisonment and serious personal injury.
Palestinian resistance to an Occupation which has robbed the Palestinian people not only of a homeland but of ordinary human rights and even of their lives should be unqualified and there should be no reluctance to engage in questioning so-called 'facts' of Jewish history, including but not limited to the so-called Jewish 'holocaust'. Aside from the fact that there is no cause for Palestinians to agonise over the suffering of Jews past, present or future, history is by no means in the nature of a sacred text, nor is it necessary to 'pull our punches' when dealing with an enemy that considers us an inferior species. Zionism is the enemy of justice and Zionism is founded upon a premise that Jewish lives are somehow more valuable than any one else's lives and that Jewish versions of history are not to be questioned. The fact that Zionists have engaged upon a deliberate use of a 'Jewish holocaust' as a tool of propaganda to attempt to justify the imposition of a 'wholly Jewish homeland' in Palestine and as an all-purpose shield against any attacks against Zionism is the only reason that this topic concerns Palestinians.
The Zionists chose this particular battlefield and it is our duty to use every weapon at our disposal in response. Palestinian academics like Edward Said only compromise their own commitment to the liberation of Palestine and support of truth by engaging in laments with respect to the Jewish 'holocaust', and those who denounce 'terrorism' according to U.S./Zionist definitions not only attempt to diminish the sacrifices of our martyrs, but strengthen the Zionist stranglehold on international opinion.
Any one who supports Zionism, whether Jewish or not, is not only an enemy of the Palestinian people but is an enemy of justice, democracy and fundamental human rights as well. Whoever that person may be, from whatever group or religion, and whatever reasons may be given, his/her identity is less important than the fact of supporting an indefensible Occupation. The Zionist entity is founded on the corpses and ruins of Palestinian lives and Palestinian dreams, and individuals of steadfast integrity cannot be intimidated into becoming apologists for Zionism under any circumstances.
The same Zionist propaganda that labels legitimate armed resistance as 'terrorism' and its own flagrant terrorism and genocide as 'self-defence' continues to perpetuate the myths of the Jewish 'holocaust'. Resistance to the Zionist Occupation must be unconditional and unrelenting. Palestinians who are dedicated to the principle of resistance need not concern themselves with spurious allegations that they are crossing the borders of morality by questioning any official version of Jewish history any more than they need to accept the boundaries drawn by the Zionists on the map of the homeland.
http://www.freearabvoice.org/issues/historicalRevisionismAndTheStruggle.htm#art2
The historical revisionist movement would receive little notice outside academic circles were it not for its willingness to examine established versions of Jewish myth and history. For this reason, Zionist propaganda has done its utmost not only to discredit it but to silence it, resorting repeatedly to terrorist attacks internationally against scholars who have dared to question the facts of the so-called 'Jewish holocaust'.
In a reader's letter to The Barnes Review, a teacher wrote: 'It is so much fun to use your articles for a portion of history and geography lessons [in our schools]. This way, a large variety of opinion can tickle the imagination of children and allow them to think for themselves... By all means, continue to explore the fascinating history of mankind, wherever it may lead'.
The phrase 'wherever it may lead' is most significant here and what is most feared by the Zionist propaganda machine is that such explorations will lead to the TRUTH.
It has been said that: 'The truth will set you free'. Indeed, the truth is one weapon in the Palestinian war for freedom denied to the Zionists, and the search for and publication of the truth must be encouraged AT ALL COSTS. In this context, it is ironic to note that, in a legal action taken against an historical revisionist by the Zionists, when the scholar under attack proved that he had published nothing more than the truth, a judge declared that 'The Truth is no Defence'. And yet, Zionist influence has become so powerful that the international community, so quick to defend freedom of expression in other circumstances, was conspicuously silent in the face of this outrageous ruling.
There is a character in Western literature named Don Quixote who attacked a windmill under the mistaken impression that it was an enemy. It is not Don Quixote's misperceptions that have made him beloved, but rather his willingness to take on ANY challenge in his quest for justice. Is this not precisely what is at the core of the historical revisionist movement as well? History must not be confused with religion, and yet, apparently, there are certain areas where history and religion both must yield to fantasies promoted by the Zionists in their efforts to conceal past and perpetuate present and future crimes against humanity and the Palestinian people. The Zionists, who proclaim a 'right' to occupy the land of Palestine on the grounds of a 2,000 year old previous Occupation of the land, have managed, by virtue of the 'chosen people' and Jewish 'holocaust' myths, to curtail international scholarly investigations into the past, present and future. History always has been a curious mixture of fact, speculation and human perception, an account of events written usually by the winners, and one that has been recounted in such a way as to bolster the appearance of legitimacy of those in power. A famous example of the divergence between accepted history and fact in the West is the case of Richard III of England, portrayed by William Shakespeare as a murdering hunchback in the interests of promoting rather precarious Tudor claims to the throne of England. Astonishingly, this version of history prevailed, partly due to the literary brilliance of Shakespeare's writing, until the 20th century, when a combination of archaeological discoveries and scholarly research revealed a vastly different reality.
Whatever the facts or fictions with respect to the Jews in Europe during the Second World War, it is an indisputable fact that the Zionists have USED the 'Jewish holocaust' argument both as a sword and as a shield where their invasion and continuing occupation of Palestine is concerned. Another fact: the Zionist programme with respect to the invasion and occupation of Palestine had its beginnings in the 19th century, quite prior to the Second World War, and it is a FACT that the Zionists then embraced the concepts of racial purity and ethnic genocide that are attributed to the Nazis later in history and that they continue to do so, making their Occupation of the Palestinian homeland a racist apartheid state to rival that of White South Africa. Yet another fact: practical as well as intellectual research has shown that some of the so-called 'truths' about the Jewish holocaust during the Second World War are pure fiction. It is another fact that Jewish 'history' from 'biblical' times onwards is permeated with fictions and misinformation. History even at its best, is partly fact and partly opinion, interwoven with rumours and folktales and it is utterly incomprehensible to find ordinarily intelligent human beings refusing to investigate all claims made with respect to the 'Jewish holocaust' in order to come closer to a knowledge of what really happened. That, however, is the situation in the Western world today. Surely there is something wrong with this picture!
Any claims of a 'Jewish holocaust' of the Second World War should be subject to ordinary standards of evidence and proof. Moreover, there have been horrendous acts of genocide throughout history, and the attitude that somehow a Jewish holocaust would be more despicable and subject to different standards of proof than any other is arrogant and indefensible.
ANY Zionist propaganda, whether it pertains to the so-called 2,000 year old claim to Palestine or whether it demands Palestine as 'compensation' for the 'Jewish holocaust' must be countered, and the truth should be used as aggressively as possible in resistance to the Zionist Occupation of Palestine.
There can be no justification for ignoring or silencing legitimate academic research and theory with respect to the events of the Second World War. In ordinary situations, it is assumed that a habitual liar lies about everything. Why is it that the world accepts the Jewish version of the 'Jewish holocaust' without question when the Zionists have demonstrated a total and proven disregard for the truth in all other situations and circumstances?
Logic, reason and facts must never be subverted to political blackmail. The seed of Zionism that was planted at the end of the 19th century in Europe were carefully cultivated by the Zionists to blossom into the poisonous fruits of the Jewish holocaust myth as a tool with which to fight the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to their homeland. There have been countless holocausts throughout the history of humanity. There is NOTHING special about the 'Jewish people' and therefore, could be nothing special about any 'Jewish holocaust', whatever the facts and fictions of that particular holocaust might be. The true crime here is the monstrous fashion in which Zionists have manipulated and twisted the suffering of some Jews in Europe during the Second World War into a vast propaganda machine.One need only read Zionist documents of the era in order to see how well the concept of a Jewish 'holocaust' suited the Zionist programme in Palestine.Furthermore, there is hard evidence that the Zionists themselves were allied with the Nazis in encouraging their own people to flee from Europe in their greed to take over the Palestinian homeland.
On 21 July 1933, the Zionist Federation of Germany wrote to the Nazi party: 'In the foundation of the new State, which has proclaimed the race principle, we wish to adopt our community to these new structures... Our recognition of the Jewish nationality allows us to establish clear and sincere relations with the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not want to underestimate these fundamental principles, because we too are against mixed marriages and for the maintaining of the purity of the Jewish group... To attain its practical objectives, Zionism hopes that it will be able to collaborate with a government that is fundamentally hostile to the Jews...'
In 1938, the Zionist leader Ben Gurion declared that, 'If I knew it was possible to save all the children in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution. For we must take into account not only the lives of these children but also the history of the people of Israel'. He stated moreover that: 'The Zionist's task is not to save the 'rest' of Israel which finds itself in Europe, but to save the land of Israel for the Jewish people'.
In the American Jewish Conference of 2 May 1948, Rabbi Klaussner stated: 'I am convinced people must be forced to go to Palestine... For them, an American dollar appears as the highest of goals. By the word 'force', I am suggesting a programme. It served for the evacuation of the Jews in Poland and in the history of the 'Exodus'... To apply this programme we must, instead of providing 'displaced persons' with comfort, create the greatest possible discomfort for them... At a second stage, a procedure calling upon the Haganah to harass the Jews.'
In Theodore Herzl's 'Diaries', in the late 19th century, he declared that: 'Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.'
The old Roman maxim, 'Cui bono?' comes to mind. Who but the Zionists have benefited enormously from the tales of the 'Jewish holocaust'? Any independent research or study of the subject would be a threat to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
The work done by historical revisionists in investigating the history of the Second World War in Europe is not the foundation of any arguments against the continuing existence of the Zionist entity in Palestine, but it does offer valuable support to the resistance movement against a vile Occupation that seeks to conceal its true nature under the shelter of the preposterous myth of the eternal 'Jewish victim'.
Looking at the history of the Jewish people in Europe and elsewhere, it is clear that it was the Jewish horror of 'assimilation' which lay at the very root of any anti-Jewish feeling and that, far from being victims, they occupied an enviable position compared to the poor.
In feudal Europe, this refusal to assimilate, coupled with the mobility and freedom of the Jews was in stark contrast to the serf who was chained virtually to the land on which he worked. The Jews, moreover, considering themselves 'one nation', with loyalty only to their own people, preferred moveable property to land as this kept their wealth fluid, easily transported from one nation to another.
Moreover, Jewish traffic in moveable goods, and their position as pawnbrokers in Europe, gave them considerable influence over governments and politics. It was Jewish wealth, incidentally, that helped to finance Richard I of England's despicable 'crusade' in Palestine.
Moreover, Jews tended to be literate in an era when the European Christian Church discouraged literacy outside of the clergy. Jews were employed as secret agents and spies by many European powers precisely because of their international connections, literacy and mobility.
As a people who refused to assimilate, who spoke a foreign language and who were literate, wealthy and mobile, they could not but foster natural resentment and hatred in the hearts of the native poor. This lead to occasional hostile responses, when native populations struck out at Jewish communities, visible embodiments of wealth and freedom, perceived as arrogant because of their 'ghetto' mentality, and hated for their willingness to engage in usury. In fact, for the poor and the desperate, the only relationship with Jews often would be as a supplicant dependent upon the mercy of a moneylender. Such relationships are not positive in nature. 'Anti-semitic' feelings often were simply a response to prevailing Jewish attitudes and that it was the Jewish insistence upon viewing themselves as superior and apart from the rest of humanity that is to blame for anti-Jewish acts in the course of history.
The tendency on the part of the Jews to engage in international commerce reached a peak in the 19th century when such families as the Rothschilds became a major influence in international politics. The infamous Balfour Declaration would never have been written had it not been for the financial power and political influence of English Jews. Throughout the 20th century, Jewish influence grew in power through increasing control of international finance and the media. This is nothing more than a fact and yet, to state this is to invite instant accusations of 'anti-semiticism'.
Historical revisionists who dare to investigate the Jewish 'holocaust' immediately are accused of being anti-semitic as well. Despite the fact that the Jews are not the only semitic people and that Ashkhenazi Jews are not even Semites, although in typical fashion, Jewish propaganda has developed this fiction, ignoring the semitic nature of the Arab people, Jewish use of 'anti-semiticism' as a weapon is nothing new. The Zionist movement used the spectre of anti-semitism as a means of encouraging the emigration of Jews to Palestine. Zionist terrorist groups operating throughout the Arab world, particularly during the 1950s, committed acts of terrorism against their fellow Jews to generate an appearance of rampant 'anti-semiticism' in order to 'persuade' them to 'emigrate' to Palestine.
Moreover, if Jewish history in terms of Europe and the holocaust is beyond question, does it not follow logically that the official Jewish version of the history of Palestine should be beyond question as well? Why should one particular portion of the tale be accepted unconditionally but other parts be subject to ordinary standards of truth?
In view of the ongoing ethnic genocide against the Palestinian people and the blatant deceptions and denials by the Zionists in the face of concrete evidence, why is it so difficult for people to accept the concept that the Zionist art of deceit began in the 19th century and continued through the decades, and that so-called 'facts' about the Jewish holocaust are as false as their claims that they do not deliberately murder Palestinian civilians?
A few examples among hundreds: The world saw proof of the massacres of Sabra and Shatila and indeed, the guilt of Butcher Sharon was proclaimed in a Zionist court! The world saw a young boy who was cowering behind a rubbish bin with his father and begging for mercy shot in cold blood and yet the Zionists tried to deny this. The world saw hard evidence of the terrible massacre at Qana, and yet the Zionists denied it outright at first, until forced to acknowledge that it happened but that it was an accident! The world recently saw a young Palestinian stripped to his underclothing, handcuffed, prostrate on the ground, helpless for over half an hour before he was shot in the head at close range by a Zionist soldier after the Zionists attempted to claim that they shot a 'terrorist' who was resisting and who had been trying to detonate explosives. The world has seen evidence of the recent massacre in Jenin, evidence of mass graves and the brutal slaughter of civilians and yet the Zionists continue to deny that any of this took place.
If no such massacre took place, why is it that the Zionist entity refused to allow the media and the United Nations to examine the situation in Jenin? Look at the entire fabric of Zionist 'history' and you will find it to be a densely woven carpet of lies.
From the original lie of 'A land without a people for a people without a land' onwards, the entire invasion of Palestine by the Zionists is founded upon flagrant deceptions.
The struggle against Zion is not only a national struggle for the Palestinian people; it is a struggle against a philosophy of racial supremacy and imperialism. Any individual of strong moral fibre and integrity will not only deny the right of the Zionists to create a wholly Jewish homeland in Palestine but would resist the concept of the establishment of such a racially biased government anywhere in the world. Any one who believes in justice must quarrel with the whole concept of a State predicated upon membership in a group that has no basis in democracy, ordinary concepts of Statehood or even religion. The Ashkenazi and the Sephardic Jews are entirely different races; if one is to speak of the 'Semitic' people, this does not translate to 'Jews' but includes the Arab people. As for religion, many of the Jews in Palestine and worldwide are atheist, so it is not the religious affiliation that makes one a Jew. On what basis do some Palestinians support a 'Jewish homeland'? This has no foundation in land ownership or in political theory either. There is NO justification for the resurrection of an outdated, racist ideology that provides for an 'exclusively Jewish State' anywhere on this planet. There is no justification for the occupation of other peoples' land either. It goes against fundamental principles of human rights and democracy.
The issue of the 'Jewish holocaust' is NOT the primary concern of Palestinian and Arab resistance, and one should not become sidetracked into devoting ones entire lives and minds to this issue. The primary concern is the freedom of Palestine and of the Arab Nation. And yet, one must support the efforts of independent scholars and academics who are devoting their lives to the search for the truth with respect to Jewish history and who do so under threat of imprisonment and serious personal injury.
Palestinian resistance to an Occupation which has robbed the Palestinian people not only of a homeland but of ordinary human rights and even of their lives should be unqualified and there should be no reluctance to engage in questioning so-called 'facts' of Jewish history, including but not limited to the so-called Jewish 'holocaust'. Aside from the fact that there is no cause for Palestinians to agonise over the suffering of Jews past, present or future, history is by no means in the nature of a sacred text, nor is it necessary to 'pull our punches' when dealing with an enemy that considers us an inferior species. Zionism is the enemy of justice and Zionism is founded upon a premise that Jewish lives are somehow more valuable than any one else's lives and that Jewish versions of history are not to be questioned. The fact that Zionists have engaged upon a deliberate use of a 'Jewish holocaust' as a tool of propaganda to attempt to justify the imposition of a 'wholly Jewish homeland' in Palestine and as an all-purpose shield against any attacks against Zionism is the only reason that this topic concerns Palestinians.
The Zionists chose this particular battlefield and it is our duty to use every weapon at our disposal in response. Palestinian academics like Edward Said only compromise their own commitment to the liberation of Palestine and support of truth by engaging in laments with respect to the Jewish 'holocaust', and those who denounce 'terrorism' according to U.S./Zionist definitions not only attempt to diminish the sacrifices of our martyrs, but strengthen the Zionist stranglehold on international opinion.
Any one who supports Zionism, whether Jewish or not, is not only an enemy of the Palestinian people but is an enemy of justice, democracy and fundamental human rights as well. Whoever that person may be, from whatever group or religion, and whatever reasons may be given, his/her identity is less important than the fact of supporting an indefensible Occupation. The Zionist entity is founded on the corpses and ruins of Palestinian lives and Palestinian dreams, and individuals of steadfast integrity cannot be intimidated into becoming apologists for Zionism under any circumstances.
The same Zionist propaganda that labels legitimate armed resistance as 'terrorism' and its own flagrant terrorism and genocide as 'self-defence' continues to perpetuate the myths of the Jewish 'holocaust'. Resistance to the Zionist Occupation must be unconditional and unrelenting. Palestinians who are dedicated to the principle of resistance need not concern themselves with spurious allegations that they are crossing the borders of morality by questioning any official version of Jewish history any more than they need to accept the boundaries drawn by the Zionists on the map of the homeland.
http://www.freearabvoice.org/issues/historicalRevisionismAndTheStruggle.htm#art2
Friday, July 20, 2007
The U.S. and the Escalating Threat to the World
The article that follows was written in 2005. Nonetheless...
The U.S. and the Escalating Threat to the World
by Nabila Harb/FAV co-editor
See Also: Iraq and the Dangers of the Policy of Appeasement (copied below this article)
The U.S. and its Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt have used their invasion of Iraq as a means through which to achieve many goals apart from its primary goal of gaining control of Iraq and its natural resources. This war has been a vehicle through which the U.S. not only elevated propaganda to new heights at the expense of the truth, but actually undertook the murder of independent journalists. By targeting journalists for murder, a clear threat was delivered to any one daring to publicise any facts in opposition to the U.S. and Coalition goals. Now the example of the invasion is being utilised as a concrete threat to any other nation that dares to demonstrate any opposition whatsoever to international U.S./Zionist goals. Victory has not been won by the Coalition in Iraq by any means, and yet, by destroying buildings, statues and other symbols of the legitimate Iraqi leadership and by encouraging widespread looting, the Coalition is hoping to convince the Iraqi people as well as the international community of its power to give life or death to whomsoever it wills.
Bogus accusations of 'pursuing weapons of mass destruction' were part of the foundation upon which the Coalition based its invasion of Iraq. Now, even as the country of Iraq continues to resist, the U.S. warns other nations to 'draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq.' In particular, the U.S. threatens Iran, Syria and Korea with the possibility of a U.S. or 'Coalition' invasion, should they attempt to retain the right to oppose U.S. foreign policy. John R. Bolton, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, warned Syria and other countries in the region to 'open themselves' up to 'new possibilities for peace'. In other words, no one has the right to self-defence or defence of the homeland. 'New possibilities for peace' require capitulation to U.S./Zionist aims and are predicated upon total disarmament by any country that is in a position to threaten the Zionist entity.
Bolton declared that: 'With respect to the issue of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the post-conflict period, we are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest.'
Of course, proliferation of nuclear arms is not only allowed but encouraged in the case of the Zionist entity, an illegal political entity that never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and one that has threatened the U.S. government with the possibility of becoming a 'rogue state' if the U.S. should ever waver in its support. In 1986, Francis Perrin, high commissioner of the French atomic energy agency from 1951 to 1970, told the press that France and the illegal Zionist entity had worked for two years in the late 1950s to design an atom bomb. Perrin declared, inter alia, that: 'We [France] thought the Israeli bomb was aimed against the Americans, not to launch it against America but to say 'if you don't want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us, otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.'
Indeed, the Zionists vowed before the current American invasion of Iraq that, should Iraq attack the Zionist illegal entity, they would feel free to use nuclear weapons in response. This is the same Zionist entity that attempted to conceal its own nuclear capacity from the world for decades. In fact, despite all propaganda to the contrary, it was only Iraq who possessed no weapons of mass destruction, and the American invasion had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'threat', actual or potential, from a nation weakened by over a decade of punitive sanctions.
An U.S. Air Force report from 1999 declared the Zionist entity to be building a nuclear naval force meant to respond to any nuclear strike by such countries as Iran or Iraq. The number of Zionist nuclear weapons cited in the report was 400 atomic and hydrogen weapons, double that of previous assessments. Some of these 400 nuclear and thermonuclear weapons could be deployed by the Zionist navy on the fleet of three German-built Dolphin-class diesel submarines, giving the Zionist entity a second strike capability with nuclear cruise missiles. The same report declared that: 'the first basing options for the new second-strike force of nuclear missile capable submarines include Oman, located strategically near Iran' but that the Zionist entity might be able to use Jordanian air space for a nuclear strike on Iran. It stated finally that: 'Israel's Defense Ministry has requested from the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorisation for a retaliatory nuclear strike.'
In the spring of 2002, the Zionist entity contemplated a 'pre-emptive strike' against Iran. The Coalition invasion of Iraq made it unnecessary for the Zionists to carry out their own threats against Iraq, but they still remain eager to see both Iran and Syria weakened significantly or destroyed. The Bush administration now has made it clear that it could be persuaded to turn its aggression next towards either Syria or Iran.
Iran, despite its rather despicable attempts to curry favour with the U.S. by abetting the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and its own compliance with international law in terms of its nuclear programmes, has not won either security or safety with the U.S. and its allies. In terms of nuclear weapons, Iran, unlike the Zionist entity, is party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has accepted full scope safeguards and is entitled to import nuclear reactors and other technologies under the provisions of the treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency regularly has inspected all of Iran's declared nuclear facilities, reports it to be in full compliance with the NPT and has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons effort. Since 1991, the IAEA invoked authority to conduct special inspections of undeclared sites and Iran allowed the IAEA to visit any site upon request. The agency failed to uncover any non-sanctioned activites in any of its several visits. Despite all of this, Iran remains a potential target for the next act of American/Zionist aggression and will not be removed from Bush's characterisation as part of his 'axis of evil'. Demonstrations of disgraceful jubiliation at the Coalition's current successes in Iraq will change nothing.
In reality, it should be far more frightening to contemplate nuclear weapons at the disposal of the Zionists, an aggressive colonialist racist regime proven to have expansionist aims towards the Arab Nation than nuclear power in the hands of Syria, Iran or Korea. In fact, the only nation that has used nuclear weapons and used them on a civilian population is the United States, the nation that demonstrated its aggressive, law-defying nature once again in its invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq.
A U.S. poll was taken to show that half of the United States population would support U.S. military action against Iran if it continued to move toward nuclear weapons development and 42 percent of those surveyed said the United States should take action against Syria if it were helping Iraq. Polls only represent the views of those chosen to participate, and one hopes that this is not the opinion of the people of the United States, but only of those brainwashed by official U.S./Zionist propaganda. Even so, it is a rather frightening prospect, and if a valid poll, definitely supports the notion of culpability of the people of the United States for the blood shed and crimes committed by its government.
Bolton continued to elaborate upon his threat by stating that: 'I think Syria is a good case where I hope that they will conclude that the chemicals weapons program and the biological weapons program that they have been pursuing are things that they should give up. It is a wonderful opportunity for Syria to foreswear the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and, as with other governments in the region, to see if there are not new possibilities in the Middle East peace process. He concluded by stating that the priority of the United States was the 'peaceful elimination of these programmes.'
The U.S./Coalition invasion of Iraq is a demonstration of how 'peaceful elimination' is achieved. Indeed, it is obvious that other nations do need to 'draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq'. The U.S. and its allies must be stopped now. Half-hearted attempts to support Iraq while attempting to placate the U.S. will accomplish nothing.
The real lesson to be drawn from Iraq is that one must not acquiesce in self-destruction at the hands of the enemy. Iraq actually attempted to conform to the dictates of the United Nations with respect to its weapons and resources for self-defence while the United States never had any intention of forswearing its own plans for invasion. While Iraq destroyed weapons at the behest of U.N. inspectors, the United States amassed troops and weapons in preparation for invasion.
Indeed, it is interesting to look at the example of North Korea and its response to U.S. pressure. In a statement made on the 6th of April, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea demonstrated clear recognition of the dangers that face any nation that dares to oppose U.S. world domination and gave its own response to recent threats made by the U.S.
Stating that 'the DPRK has so far made every possible effort to ensure stability and peace in the Korean Peninsula and the region', it accused the United Nations Security Council first of dealing with the nuclear issue on the peninsula in such a manner as to make it a 'prelude to war' to be 'misused by the U.S. as an excuse for war.'
One can hear the echo of similar United Nations discussions and resolutions on Iraq here and recall the recent U.S. manipulation, bullying and ultimate disregard of the international community in its inexorable aim to invade Iraq.
The DPRK then stated very forcefully that: 'The U.S. intends to force the DPRK to disarm itself. The Iraqi war shows that to allow disarming through inspection does not help avert a war but rather sparks it.'
Furthermore, that: 'Neither international public opinion nor the U.N. Charter could prevent the U.S. from mounting an attack on Iraq. This suggests that even the signing of a non-aggression treaty with the U.S. would not help avert a war.'
And finally:
'ONLY THE PHYSICAL DETERRENT FORCE, TREMENDOUS MILITARY DETERRENT FORCE POWERFUL ENOUGH TO DECISIVELY BEAT BACK AN ATTACK SUPPORTED BY ANY ULTRA-MODERN WEAPONS, CAN AVERT A WAR AND PROTECT THE SECURITY OF THE COUNTRY AND THE NATION. THIS IS A LESSON DRAWN FROM THE IRAQI WAR.'
Syria and Iran should take note and respond in like fashion. The DPRK continues by rejecting the entire fabric of deceit upon which the U.S. relies to support its worldwide aggressions, stating that:
'The U.S. is seriously mistaken if it thinks that the DPRK will accept the demand for disarming while watching one of the three countries the U.S. listed as part of an 'axis of evil' already subject to a barbarous military attack.'
In conclusion, the DPRK vowed that, should the U.S. target North Korea, the DPRK would have 'no other option but to beef up the deterrent force for war by mobilising all the potentials.'
In like manner, Syria and Iran must recognise the need for absolute resistance to the U.S. foreign policy 'programme'. Unity against the U.S. is vital. The lesson to be learned from the U.S./Coalition invasion of Iraq is that the U.S. is ruthless in its programme to eliminate any potential threats to its own status as the most powerful dictator in the international community. At the heart of U.S. world domination plans are Zionist interests and this never was more obvious than when the U.S. chose to invade Iraq, a country without any so-called 'weapons of mass destruction' rather than taking any action towards Korea, a nation possessing nuclear deterrent power. The Zionists have no interest in Korea at present, but they do have an interest in increasing their sphere of control within the Arab Nation and Iran. The appointment of Jay Garner, a Zionist puppet, to supervise the so-called 'post-Saddam Hussayn' admininstration of Iraq is damning evidence of U.S./Zionist collaboration.
Furthermore, Iraq was chosen as the first target probably because the U.S. believed that it would have United Nations support and because it was able to invade Iraq in the First Gulf War without any effective resistance from the Arab Nation as a whole. Despite Arab opposition to the first U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the anger and frustration with respect to the economic sanctions that punished Iraq for over a decade, the leaders of the Arab Nation made it clear that they would not actually oppose a second U.S. invasion. Moreover, much of the military apparatus for a second invasion of Iraq was in place and indeed, the U.S. and British had been invading parts of Iraq throughout the past decade, under spurious claims of 'enforcing' the sanctions.
Iraq, therefore, was a much easier target than Syria, Iran or Korea. The oil resources in Iraq made it irresistable to Western governments determined to take multi-national control over Arab resources and radically diminish the power of OPEC.
An invasion of Syria certainly would be in Zionist interests, perhaps even more than the invasion of Iraq, but Iraq posed an easier target in terms of the degree of passivity that the U.S. could expect from the rest of the world, even if most of the world opposed a military invasion of Iraq. After all, the brutal economic sanctions against Iraq had been allowed to proceed year after year without any sort of effective intervention from any one.
Iraq is by no means defeated, and the U.S. cannot claim true victory of any sort at this point in time. Even so, it is vital for every country to take note of the unequivocally aggressive nature of U.S. foreign policy and to respond as the DPRK responded. No one can afford to wait to see what ultimately happens in Iraq, hoping that perhaps the United States will become so entangled in a long war of attrition that it will not be able to open another front. After all, the United States proved itself willing to invade Iraq even while continuing military actions in Afghanistan, and it carried out attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously.
There is no middle path here, and a policy of appeasement with respect to the United States will not grant safety, peace or security to any nation. Any country that decides to work with the United States in an attempt to win either U.S./Zionist friendship or tolerance is committing suicide. The U.S./Zionist aims to destroy the Arab Nation and Iran will not waver. Any U.S. 'road map' for Palestine ultimately will facilitate Zionist security in the region, and thus must be repudiated categorically.
Like an abusive marriage, any so-called alliance with the U.S. or the Zionists operates to the benefit only of the abusive partner. Any gains for the victim are illusory at best. Independence from U.S. control is the only path to true survival.
Before this, I wrote another article:
IRAQ AND THE DANGERS OF THE POLICY OF APPEASEMENT
Nabila Harb/ FAV's Co-editor
A Position Statement on the Behalf of the Editorial Board of the Free Arab Voice
The dirtiest word in the lexicon of political philosophy may be 'appeasement'. It is fashionable to use the example of Hitler's invasion of Poland as an argument to convince people that a 'pre-emptive strike' is justified. With respect to Bush's proposed invasion of Iraq, one has to agree that the spectre of 'appeasement' looms very large on the horizon. If the world does not stop this power-mad leader NOW, it will be much harder to stop him in the future.
It is wrong for a nation to march into another country and assume control of it for no other reason than a desire to control the assets of that country. It is wrong for a nation to stockpile weapons of mass destruction and to use not only the threat of that power to eliminate opposition to its goals, but to actually USE those weapons in aggressive actions against other nations.
The U.S. has made all of these arguments in its bid for world support of its proposed invasion of Iraq. In fact, though, it is the U.S. rather than Iraq that is the threat. The world is guilty of the policy of appeasement with respect to the United States, and the dangers of appeasement in this case cannot be underestimated.
When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan after the attacks of 11 September, Bush warned the world that 'you either are with us or against us' and made the potential effects of any opposition very clear. At that point in time, saturation media coverage of the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon and Bush's obvious intention to wage war against any convenient target either convinced the world community of the righteousness of his actions or persuaded world powers that it would not be in their best interest to oppose the U.S. The Taliban was not a popular regime in any case. Other nations, even if they did not accept U.S. logic, were not willing to risk their own security for the sake of the Taliban.
The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was the real beginning of a policy of 'appeasement' on the part of the world community. Having persuaded or cowed the world into support, acquiescence or discreet silence, Bush immediately began to rant about his 'axis of evil', and to turn his attention to future targets. Chief among these was the sovereign nation of Iraq, rich in oil but weakened by over a decade of punitive international 'sanctions'. In point of fact, the invasion of Iraq was a primary goal from the moment George W. Bush Jr. assumed the Presidency of the United States. Since the first invasion of Iraq, U.S./Zionist media and interests have portrayed President Saddam Hussein as the 'anti-Christ', a dangerous super-villain with no redeeming features as well as the desire to control or destroy the rest of the world. So successful was this media and government propaganda that even many anti-war activists preface their declarations of opposition to an invasion of Iraq with a caveat statement denouncing Saddam Hussein as a leader and/or human being. Too often, anti-war declarations are in the nature of: 'While we believe in a regime change for Iraq, the United States should not invade Iraq.' Bush Jr. no doubt felt that his programme for the second invasion of Iraq would proceed smoothly, unimpeded by any real opposition.
Reality is against him, however, and there is no new 9/11 drama to obscure the facts or issues here. It is the United States, not Iraq, that possesses the 'weapons of mass destruction' AND the intention of using them. It is the United States, not Iraq, that has plans to invade, occupy and control other sovereign nations. It is the United States and its sidekick, the Zionist entity, that pose the real and pressing threat to world peace and security.
Bush now declares to the world that: 'You either support Saddam Hussein or me'. He is using the same form of intimidation and blackmail against the world community that succeeded in giving him the 'rubber stamp' of international approval for his invasion of Afghanistan. Now, however, the stakes are higher where the international community is concerned.
The proposed U.S. invasion of Iraq is the 'crossing of the Rubicon' in terms of any international influence over the United States and its foreign policies. Opposition to Bush must be real and effective if Iraq is not to be merely the first step in a continuing U.S. policy of invasion and aggression against sovereign nations throughout the world.
The U.S. offers foreign aid for those who support the U.S. and threats of reprisals, whether economic or military, for those who oppose it. One nation cannot stand alone against the U.S., although Iraq bravely has refused to surrender to U.S. acts of military aggression, bullying, threats and years of punishing economic sanctions. It is vital now for the international community to unite against the U.S. plan of aggression, not only for the sake of Iraq, but for the sake of all independent nations and people throughout the world.
The United Nations was created for a situation like this. If it cannot protect Iraq from the proposed U.S. invasion, then it cannot protect any one. Nations cannot act unilaterally now, because the price of opposition to the U.S. for a single nation may be too high. If the international community unites, however, it can halt the progress of the U.S. plan for control of the world map.
The European Community cannot be divided, nor can it afford to support the U.S. proposal to invade Iraq. Tony Blair's bid to increase England's sphere of influence at the expense of Iraq, Europe and indeed the rest of the world is not only shameful but ultimately will be revealed to be an empty illusion. If one day Great Britain should decide that its interests are opposed to a particular U.S. plan, it will fare no better than Iraq in any attempt to halt the U.S. Tony Blair will have to realise that the British Empire cannot be resurrected, even by hanging onto the coattails of George Bush. England must stand united with France, Germany and other European nations who understand the dangers posed by a policy of appeasement. The United States cannot be allowed to continue in its path of aggression.
There was a time when the Soviet Union was able to act as a balance to U.S. foreign influence and aggression. Even if Russia's power and influence do not equal that of the old Soviet Union, it needs to act now to prevent the U.S. from becoming the sole arbiter of world fate.
China certainly possesses the power to do something concrete to halt the progress of U.S. aggression. It cannot afford to be seduced by trade considerations into allowing the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The plan to invade Iraq is part and parcel of a larger U.S. programme to control the global map. The threats and enticements offered by the U.S. to smaller nations in order to gain their 'support' of this war cannot be allowed to influence a nation with real power to stop this international bully.
Small nations that rely upon U.S. aid and could be destroyed easily by the U.S. military machine must unite to form an effective alliance against the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. To stand alone against the U.S. might be suicidal, but to join together with other nations is the only true path to security. They have to recognise the real danger of appeasement, and to understand that they could fall victim to a future U.S. plan of invasion at any time if they do not stand firmly against U.S. aggression now.
One should not have to stress the importance of an Ummah and an Arab Nation united against the threat of U.S. aggression against a fellow Islamic Arab nation, but unfortunately, neither the Ummah nor the Arab Nation have demonstrated any concrete or practical opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The recent example of Turkey, negotiating over aid and influence with the U.S. as its price for betraying Iraq, is disgraceful, even if Turkey so far has not capitulated, simply because its terms were not met. As shameful are those Arab nations that have allowed the preliminary invasions of their own lands by U.S. troops and armaments and their situation should provide a clear and compelling example of the high price of U.S. aid.
On the other hand, a few brave and intrepid Kuwaitis have demonstrated their resistance to the U.S. military programme, even at the price of their own lives. Moreover, their acts are clear proof that, even if the leaders and government of a nation acts dishonourably and surrenders to the pressures of fear and greed, the masses effectively can oppose the U.S. programme of invasion. In practical terms, however, at this late stage, any truly effective popular demonstrations must take the form of action rather than slogans and words.
Iraq has declared that it is U.S. and Zionist weapons of mass destruction that pose the only real threat to the world and this is no more than the truth. It is not a matter of choosing between the U.S. and Iraq, as George Bush would lead people to believe. It is a matter of standing up for oneself against a superpower that obviously has no moral integrity or qualms about destroying any sovereign state that dares to oppose its crimes against humanity. After all, the U.S. unequivocally refused to be bound by any international court of justice. It is the U.S., as well as the illegal Zionist entity, who refuse to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It is the U.S., as well as the illegal Zionist entity that refuse to abide by U.N. resolutions and international law in the form of the Geneva Conventions and other laws relating to the protection of human rights.
Iraq poses no threat whatsoever to any one. It is the U.S. that poses the greatest threat now to the world community, and opposition to the U.S. proposed invasion of Iraq must be real and effective, consisting in deeds rather than words.
There is a tactic known as the 'human shield', whereby individuals act as human shields to protect some one who is a target. The world must act now as a 'human shield' to protect Iraq against the U.S. A real international peace-keeping force must be created to protect Iraq from invasion. Iraq cannot be allowed to stand alone against U.S. aggression and if the only way to truly stop this invasion is to stand in the path of the U.S. military machine, then the international community must act to do precisely that. Honour and integrity demand that the world community oppose the U.S. plan to invade Iraq, but beyond that, self-preservation demands it as well.
The U.S. and the Escalating Threat to the World
by Nabila Harb/FAV co-editor
See Also: Iraq and the Dangers of the Policy of Appeasement (copied below this article)
The U.S. and its Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt have used their invasion of Iraq as a means through which to achieve many goals apart from its primary goal of gaining control of Iraq and its natural resources. This war has been a vehicle through which the U.S. not only elevated propaganda to new heights at the expense of the truth, but actually undertook the murder of independent journalists. By targeting journalists for murder, a clear threat was delivered to any one daring to publicise any facts in opposition to the U.S. and Coalition goals. Now the example of the invasion is being utilised as a concrete threat to any other nation that dares to demonstrate any opposition whatsoever to international U.S./Zionist goals. Victory has not been won by the Coalition in Iraq by any means, and yet, by destroying buildings, statues and other symbols of the legitimate Iraqi leadership and by encouraging widespread looting, the Coalition is hoping to convince the Iraqi people as well as the international community of its power to give life or death to whomsoever it wills.
Bogus accusations of 'pursuing weapons of mass destruction' were part of the foundation upon which the Coalition based its invasion of Iraq. Now, even as the country of Iraq continues to resist, the U.S. warns other nations to 'draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq.' In particular, the U.S. threatens Iran, Syria and Korea with the possibility of a U.S. or 'Coalition' invasion, should they attempt to retain the right to oppose U.S. foreign policy. John R. Bolton, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, warned Syria and other countries in the region to 'open themselves' up to 'new possibilities for peace'. In other words, no one has the right to self-defence or defence of the homeland. 'New possibilities for peace' require capitulation to U.S./Zionist aims and are predicated upon total disarmament by any country that is in a position to threaten the Zionist entity.
Bolton declared that: 'With respect to the issue of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the post-conflict period, we are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest.'
Of course, proliferation of nuclear arms is not only allowed but encouraged in the case of the Zionist entity, an illegal political entity that never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and one that has threatened the U.S. government with the possibility of becoming a 'rogue state' if the U.S. should ever waver in its support. In 1986, Francis Perrin, high commissioner of the French atomic energy agency from 1951 to 1970, told the press that France and the illegal Zionist entity had worked for two years in the late 1950s to design an atom bomb. Perrin declared, inter alia, that: 'We [France] thought the Israeli bomb was aimed against the Americans, not to launch it against America but to say 'if you don't want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us, otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.'
Indeed, the Zionists vowed before the current American invasion of Iraq that, should Iraq attack the Zionist illegal entity, they would feel free to use nuclear weapons in response. This is the same Zionist entity that attempted to conceal its own nuclear capacity from the world for decades. In fact, despite all propaganda to the contrary, it was only Iraq who possessed no weapons of mass destruction, and the American invasion had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'threat', actual or potential, from a nation weakened by over a decade of punitive sanctions.
An U.S. Air Force report from 1999 declared the Zionist entity to be building a nuclear naval force meant to respond to any nuclear strike by such countries as Iran or Iraq. The number of Zionist nuclear weapons cited in the report was 400 atomic and hydrogen weapons, double that of previous assessments. Some of these 400 nuclear and thermonuclear weapons could be deployed by the Zionist navy on the fleet of three German-built Dolphin-class diesel submarines, giving the Zionist entity a second strike capability with nuclear cruise missiles. The same report declared that: 'the first basing options for the new second-strike force of nuclear missile capable submarines include Oman, located strategically near Iran' but that the Zionist entity might be able to use Jordanian air space for a nuclear strike on Iran. It stated finally that: 'Israel's Defense Ministry has requested from the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorisation for a retaliatory nuclear strike.'
In the spring of 2002, the Zionist entity contemplated a 'pre-emptive strike' against Iran. The Coalition invasion of Iraq made it unnecessary for the Zionists to carry out their own threats against Iraq, but they still remain eager to see both Iran and Syria weakened significantly or destroyed. The Bush administration now has made it clear that it could be persuaded to turn its aggression next towards either Syria or Iran.
Iran, despite its rather despicable attempts to curry favour with the U.S. by abetting the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and its own compliance with international law in terms of its nuclear programmes, has not won either security or safety with the U.S. and its allies. In terms of nuclear weapons, Iran, unlike the Zionist entity, is party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has accepted full scope safeguards and is entitled to import nuclear reactors and other technologies under the provisions of the treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency regularly has inspected all of Iran's declared nuclear facilities, reports it to be in full compliance with the NPT and has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons effort. Since 1991, the IAEA invoked authority to conduct special inspections of undeclared sites and Iran allowed the IAEA to visit any site upon request. The agency failed to uncover any non-sanctioned activites in any of its several visits. Despite all of this, Iran remains a potential target for the next act of American/Zionist aggression and will not be removed from Bush's characterisation as part of his 'axis of evil'. Demonstrations of disgraceful jubiliation at the Coalition's current successes in Iraq will change nothing.
In reality, it should be far more frightening to contemplate nuclear weapons at the disposal of the Zionists, an aggressive colonialist racist regime proven to have expansionist aims towards the Arab Nation than nuclear power in the hands of Syria, Iran or Korea. In fact, the only nation that has used nuclear weapons and used them on a civilian population is the United States, the nation that demonstrated its aggressive, law-defying nature once again in its invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq.
A U.S. poll was taken to show that half of the United States population would support U.S. military action against Iran if it continued to move toward nuclear weapons development and 42 percent of those surveyed said the United States should take action against Syria if it were helping Iraq. Polls only represent the views of those chosen to participate, and one hopes that this is not the opinion of the people of the United States, but only of those brainwashed by official U.S./Zionist propaganda. Even so, it is a rather frightening prospect, and if a valid poll, definitely supports the notion of culpability of the people of the United States for the blood shed and crimes committed by its government.
Bolton continued to elaborate upon his threat by stating that: 'I think Syria is a good case where I hope that they will conclude that the chemicals weapons program and the biological weapons program that they have been pursuing are things that they should give up. It is a wonderful opportunity for Syria to foreswear the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and, as with other governments in the region, to see if there are not new possibilities in the Middle East peace process. He concluded by stating that the priority of the United States was the 'peaceful elimination of these programmes.'
The U.S./Coalition invasion of Iraq is a demonstration of how 'peaceful elimination' is achieved. Indeed, it is obvious that other nations do need to 'draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq'. The U.S. and its allies must be stopped now. Half-hearted attempts to support Iraq while attempting to placate the U.S. will accomplish nothing.
The real lesson to be drawn from Iraq is that one must not acquiesce in self-destruction at the hands of the enemy. Iraq actually attempted to conform to the dictates of the United Nations with respect to its weapons and resources for self-defence while the United States never had any intention of forswearing its own plans for invasion. While Iraq destroyed weapons at the behest of U.N. inspectors, the United States amassed troops and weapons in preparation for invasion.
Indeed, it is interesting to look at the example of North Korea and its response to U.S. pressure. In a statement made on the 6th of April, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea demonstrated clear recognition of the dangers that face any nation that dares to oppose U.S. world domination and gave its own response to recent threats made by the U.S.
Stating that 'the DPRK has so far made every possible effort to ensure stability and peace in the Korean Peninsula and the region', it accused the United Nations Security Council first of dealing with the nuclear issue on the peninsula in such a manner as to make it a 'prelude to war' to be 'misused by the U.S. as an excuse for war.'
One can hear the echo of similar United Nations discussions and resolutions on Iraq here and recall the recent U.S. manipulation, bullying and ultimate disregard of the international community in its inexorable aim to invade Iraq.
The DPRK then stated very forcefully that: 'The U.S. intends to force the DPRK to disarm itself. The Iraqi war shows that to allow disarming through inspection does not help avert a war but rather sparks it.'
Furthermore, that: 'Neither international public opinion nor the U.N. Charter could prevent the U.S. from mounting an attack on Iraq. This suggests that even the signing of a non-aggression treaty with the U.S. would not help avert a war.'
And finally:
'ONLY THE PHYSICAL DETERRENT FORCE, TREMENDOUS MILITARY DETERRENT FORCE POWERFUL ENOUGH TO DECISIVELY BEAT BACK AN ATTACK SUPPORTED BY ANY ULTRA-MODERN WEAPONS, CAN AVERT A WAR AND PROTECT THE SECURITY OF THE COUNTRY AND THE NATION. THIS IS A LESSON DRAWN FROM THE IRAQI WAR.'
Syria and Iran should take note and respond in like fashion. The DPRK continues by rejecting the entire fabric of deceit upon which the U.S. relies to support its worldwide aggressions, stating that:
'The U.S. is seriously mistaken if it thinks that the DPRK will accept the demand for disarming while watching one of the three countries the U.S. listed as part of an 'axis of evil' already subject to a barbarous military attack.'
In conclusion, the DPRK vowed that, should the U.S. target North Korea, the DPRK would have 'no other option but to beef up the deterrent force for war by mobilising all the potentials.'
In like manner, Syria and Iran must recognise the need for absolute resistance to the U.S. foreign policy 'programme'. Unity against the U.S. is vital. The lesson to be learned from the U.S./Coalition invasion of Iraq is that the U.S. is ruthless in its programme to eliminate any potential threats to its own status as the most powerful dictator in the international community. At the heart of U.S. world domination plans are Zionist interests and this never was more obvious than when the U.S. chose to invade Iraq, a country without any so-called 'weapons of mass destruction' rather than taking any action towards Korea, a nation possessing nuclear deterrent power. The Zionists have no interest in Korea at present, but they do have an interest in increasing their sphere of control within the Arab Nation and Iran. The appointment of Jay Garner, a Zionist puppet, to supervise the so-called 'post-Saddam Hussayn' admininstration of Iraq is damning evidence of U.S./Zionist collaboration.
Furthermore, Iraq was chosen as the first target probably because the U.S. believed that it would have United Nations support and because it was able to invade Iraq in the First Gulf War without any effective resistance from the Arab Nation as a whole. Despite Arab opposition to the first U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the anger and frustration with respect to the economic sanctions that punished Iraq for over a decade, the leaders of the Arab Nation made it clear that they would not actually oppose a second U.S. invasion. Moreover, much of the military apparatus for a second invasion of Iraq was in place and indeed, the U.S. and British had been invading parts of Iraq throughout the past decade, under spurious claims of 'enforcing' the sanctions.
Iraq, therefore, was a much easier target than Syria, Iran or Korea. The oil resources in Iraq made it irresistable to Western governments determined to take multi-national control over Arab resources and radically diminish the power of OPEC.
An invasion of Syria certainly would be in Zionist interests, perhaps even more than the invasion of Iraq, but Iraq posed an easier target in terms of the degree of passivity that the U.S. could expect from the rest of the world, even if most of the world opposed a military invasion of Iraq. After all, the brutal economic sanctions against Iraq had been allowed to proceed year after year without any sort of effective intervention from any one.
Iraq is by no means defeated, and the U.S. cannot claim true victory of any sort at this point in time. Even so, it is vital for every country to take note of the unequivocally aggressive nature of U.S. foreign policy and to respond as the DPRK responded. No one can afford to wait to see what ultimately happens in Iraq, hoping that perhaps the United States will become so entangled in a long war of attrition that it will not be able to open another front. After all, the United States proved itself willing to invade Iraq even while continuing military actions in Afghanistan, and it carried out attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously.
There is no middle path here, and a policy of appeasement with respect to the United States will not grant safety, peace or security to any nation. Any country that decides to work with the United States in an attempt to win either U.S./Zionist friendship or tolerance is committing suicide. The U.S./Zionist aims to destroy the Arab Nation and Iran will not waver. Any U.S. 'road map' for Palestine ultimately will facilitate Zionist security in the region, and thus must be repudiated categorically.
Like an abusive marriage, any so-called alliance with the U.S. or the Zionists operates to the benefit only of the abusive partner. Any gains for the victim are illusory at best. Independence from U.S. control is the only path to true survival.
Before this, I wrote another article:
IRAQ AND THE DANGERS OF THE POLICY OF APPEASEMENT
Nabila Harb/ FAV's Co-editor
A Position Statement on the Behalf of the Editorial Board of the Free Arab Voice
The dirtiest word in the lexicon of political philosophy may be 'appeasement'. It is fashionable to use the example of Hitler's invasion of Poland as an argument to convince people that a 'pre-emptive strike' is justified. With respect to Bush's proposed invasion of Iraq, one has to agree that the spectre of 'appeasement' looms very large on the horizon. If the world does not stop this power-mad leader NOW, it will be much harder to stop him in the future.
It is wrong for a nation to march into another country and assume control of it for no other reason than a desire to control the assets of that country. It is wrong for a nation to stockpile weapons of mass destruction and to use not only the threat of that power to eliminate opposition to its goals, but to actually USE those weapons in aggressive actions against other nations.
The U.S. has made all of these arguments in its bid for world support of its proposed invasion of Iraq. In fact, though, it is the U.S. rather than Iraq that is the threat. The world is guilty of the policy of appeasement with respect to the United States, and the dangers of appeasement in this case cannot be underestimated.
When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan after the attacks of 11 September, Bush warned the world that 'you either are with us or against us' and made the potential effects of any opposition very clear. At that point in time, saturation media coverage of the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon and Bush's obvious intention to wage war against any convenient target either convinced the world community of the righteousness of his actions or persuaded world powers that it would not be in their best interest to oppose the U.S. The Taliban was not a popular regime in any case. Other nations, even if they did not accept U.S. logic, were not willing to risk their own security for the sake of the Taliban.
The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was the real beginning of a policy of 'appeasement' on the part of the world community. Having persuaded or cowed the world into support, acquiescence or discreet silence, Bush immediately began to rant about his 'axis of evil', and to turn his attention to future targets. Chief among these was the sovereign nation of Iraq, rich in oil but weakened by over a decade of punitive international 'sanctions'. In point of fact, the invasion of Iraq was a primary goal from the moment George W. Bush Jr. assumed the Presidency of the United States. Since the first invasion of Iraq, U.S./Zionist media and interests have portrayed President Saddam Hussein as the 'anti-Christ', a dangerous super-villain with no redeeming features as well as the desire to control or destroy the rest of the world. So successful was this media and government propaganda that even many anti-war activists preface their declarations of opposition to an invasion of Iraq with a caveat statement denouncing Saddam Hussein as a leader and/or human being. Too often, anti-war declarations are in the nature of: 'While we believe in a regime change for Iraq, the United States should not invade Iraq.' Bush Jr. no doubt felt that his programme for the second invasion of Iraq would proceed smoothly, unimpeded by any real opposition.
Reality is against him, however, and there is no new 9/11 drama to obscure the facts or issues here. It is the United States, not Iraq, that possesses the 'weapons of mass destruction' AND the intention of using them. It is the United States, not Iraq, that has plans to invade, occupy and control other sovereign nations. It is the United States and its sidekick, the Zionist entity, that pose the real and pressing threat to world peace and security.
Bush now declares to the world that: 'You either support Saddam Hussein or me'. He is using the same form of intimidation and blackmail against the world community that succeeded in giving him the 'rubber stamp' of international approval for his invasion of Afghanistan. Now, however, the stakes are higher where the international community is concerned.
The proposed U.S. invasion of Iraq is the 'crossing of the Rubicon' in terms of any international influence over the United States and its foreign policies. Opposition to Bush must be real and effective if Iraq is not to be merely the first step in a continuing U.S. policy of invasion and aggression against sovereign nations throughout the world.
The U.S. offers foreign aid for those who support the U.S. and threats of reprisals, whether economic or military, for those who oppose it. One nation cannot stand alone against the U.S., although Iraq bravely has refused to surrender to U.S. acts of military aggression, bullying, threats and years of punishing economic sanctions. It is vital now for the international community to unite against the U.S. plan of aggression, not only for the sake of Iraq, but for the sake of all independent nations and people throughout the world.
The United Nations was created for a situation like this. If it cannot protect Iraq from the proposed U.S. invasion, then it cannot protect any one. Nations cannot act unilaterally now, because the price of opposition to the U.S. for a single nation may be too high. If the international community unites, however, it can halt the progress of the U.S. plan for control of the world map.
The European Community cannot be divided, nor can it afford to support the U.S. proposal to invade Iraq. Tony Blair's bid to increase England's sphere of influence at the expense of Iraq, Europe and indeed the rest of the world is not only shameful but ultimately will be revealed to be an empty illusion. If one day Great Britain should decide that its interests are opposed to a particular U.S. plan, it will fare no better than Iraq in any attempt to halt the U.S. Tony Blair will have to realise that the British Empire cannot be resurrected, even by hanging onto the coattails of George Bush. England must stand united with France, Germany and other European nations who understand the dangers posed by a policy of appeasement. The United States cannot be allowed to continue in its path of aggression.
There was a time when the Soviet Union was able to act as a balance to U.S. foreign influence and aggression. Even if Russia's power and influence do not equal that of the old Soviet Union, it needs to act now to prevent the U.S. from becoming the sole arbiter of world fate.
China certainly possesses the power to do something concrete to halt the progress of U.S. aggression. It cannot afford to be seduced by trade considerations into allowing the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The plan to invade Iraq is part and parcel of a larger U.S. programme to control the global map. The threats and enticements offered by the U.S. to smaller nations in order to gain their 'support' of this war cannot be allowed to influence a nation with real power to stop this international bully.
Small nations that rely upon U.S. aid and could be destroyed easily by the U.S. military machine must unite to form an effective alliance against the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. To stand alone against the U.S. might be suicidal, but to join together with other nations is the only true path to security. They have to recognise the real danger of appeasement, and to understand that they could fall victim to a future U.S. plan of invasion at any time if they do not stand firmly against U.S. aggression now.
One should not have to stress the importance of an Ummah and an Arab Nation united against the threat of U.S. aggression against a fellow Islamic Arab nation, but unfortunately, neither the Ummah nor the Arab Nation have demonstrated any concrete or practical opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The recent example of Turkey, negotiating over aid and influence with the U.S. as its price for betraying Iraq, is disgraceful, even if Turkey so far has not capitulated, simply because its terms were not met. As shameful are those Arab nations that have allowed the preliminary invasions of their own lands by U.S. troops and armaments and their situation should provide a clear and compelling example of the high price of U.S. aid.
On the other hand, a few brave and intrepid Kuwaitis have demonstrated their resistance to the U.S. military programme, even at the price of their own lives. Moreover, their acts are clear proof that, even if the leaders and government of a nation acts dishonourably and surrenders to the pressures of fear and greed, the masses effectively can oppose the U.S. programme of invasion. In practical terms, however, at this late stage, any truly effective popular demonstrations must take the form of action rather than slogans and words.
Iraq has declared that it is U.S. and Zionist weapons of mass destruction that pose the only real threat to the world and this is no more than the truth. It is not a matter of choosing between the U.S. and Iraq, as George Bush would lead people to believe. It is a matter of standing up for oneself against a superpower that obviously has no moral integrity or qualms about destroying any sovereign state that dares to oppose its crimes against humanity. After all, the U.S. unequivocally refused to be bound by any international court of justice. It is the U.S., as well as the illegal Zionist entity, who refuse to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It is the U.S., as well as the illegal Zionist entity that refuse to abide by U.N. resolutions and international law in the form of the Geneva Conventions and other laws relating to the protection of human rights.
Iraq poses no threat whatsoever to any one. It is the U.S. that poses the greatest threat now to the world community, and opposition to the U.S. proposed invasion of Iraq must be real and effective, consisting in deeds rather than words.
There is a tactic known as the 'human shield', whereby individuals act as human shields to protect some one who is a target. The world must act now as a 'human shield' to protect Iraq against the U.S. A real international peace-keeping force must be created to protect Iraq from invasion. Iraq cannot be allowed to stand alone against U.S. aggression and if the only way to truly stop this invasion is to stand in the path of the U.S. military machine, then the international community must act to do precisely that. Honour and integrity demand that the world community oppose the U.S. plan to invade Iraq, but beyond that, self-preservation demands it as well.
'The Truth Will Set you Free'
The article that follows was written shortly after the invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, much of its content remains relevant even now.
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE
THE U.S./ZIONIST PROPAGANDA WAR, ITS LEADERS AND ITS VICTIMS
by Nabila Harb\FAV co-editor
The people of the United States are being insulted and yet, they not only accept the insult, but embrace it with enthusiasm. They are being insulted by their leaders and by the media and yet they would rather focus on Saddam Hussein as an enemy, when the real enemies are in their own country. Yellow ribbons in 'support of the troops' and American flags multiply through the country like a cancer, devouring truth and justice and installing propaganda symbols in their place. What is happening in the United States now? Is the U.S. government and media keeping the people informed of the real progress of the invasion of Iraq? The people of the United States evidently believe that they are being given the information and facts that they deserve to have. After all, the government is acting in THEIR name as it murders the Iraqi people, destroys the Iraqi landscape and further weakens the economic structure of the country. The American government and the media are at great pains to provide constant 'updates' of the situation in Iraq, but does any of it bear even the shadow of a resemblance to the truth? In fact, the intelligence and common sense of the people of the United States are being insulted by the most blatant forms of propaganda and a web of deceit that stretches from the United States across the globe. Its victims are not only the Iraqi people but very fundamental rights of freedom and self-determination for people everywhere, including people within the United States itself.
The mainstream media in the U.S. as well as the government, are at pains to define the U.S. aggression against Iraq not as an invasion but as a 'liberation effort', an almost humanitarian action designed to bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq by removing their own leaders and government and introducing the enlightened reign of Imperialist Americans and Zionists in their place. After all, the supporters of the Zionists continually claim that the Zionist entity is the 'only democracy in the Middle East'. Through their power and good graces, the future of Iraq as another true 'democracy' is assured.
One need only look at the example of their Occupation of Palestine to see how the Arab Nation fares under a racist, apartheid regime, and how much the Palestinian people have benefited from Zionist 'democratic' rule. To those who rely upon mainstream mass media and government information in the United States, however, the invasion of Iraq is in the nature of a 'holy war', motivated by the duty to destroy the Iraqi government and its leaders, and replace them with a government that will pursue American and Zionist aims and thereby bring 'peace and security' to the region. In fact, the American government attempted to pass a resolution in Congress to dictate a day of prayer and fasting in order to persuade God to grant victory to the troops of the Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt. This new 'Crusade' against the Arab Nation must be as repugnant to truly religious individuals as the Crusades of the Middle Ages and yet, the government is trying to add God to the propaganda stew it is concocting. It is merely another demonstration of how this government has abandoned the principles upon which the United States was founded, one of which was a clear separation between Church and State, and another of which was freedom of belief and expression. Despite all of this, the people of the United States apparently remain unaware of the threat to their liberties.
To those individuals and nations with even a passing interest in international history and events, the U.S. 'Coalition' motivation for invading Iraq always was quite clear. American and Zionist led multi-national corporations involved in oil and in the arms industry and their needs prompted the invasion, and indeed plans for this invasion preceded the attacks of 11 September that supposedly set the so-called 'war against terror' in motion. The U.S. international 'war against terror' whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else is fueled by greed and political designs for control of the map.
A hundred years ago, imperialists declared their interests and aims fairly directly, without being obliged to camouflage them too much with claims of idealistic virtues. Imperialism and Empire had not become dirty words, and the fundamental premise upon which they rested, which was that a superior culture and people had the duty to guide and rule an inferior people, still was acceptable in the West and elsewhere in the world.
Now, however, imperialism and beliefs in cultural or racial superiority must be disguised by other more politically correct motives, although the United States does profess a duty to police the globe, allegedly in the name of 'democracy'. Moreover, nations are discovering that they cannot accept American funds without accepting U.S. overseers and an omnipresent threat of U.S. 'police intervention' if any fundamental threat to American/Zionist interests is found.
Not only have Imperialism and Empire lost their ideological pedestals, but governments no longer can simply order their people to obey without offering some sort of satisfying philosophical reason for obedience. Technological advances provide the masses everywhere with information about events throughout the globe and this makes it necessary for governments to create very powerful and effective propaganda in order to enlist their obedience and support. In the case of the invasion of Iraq, the propaganda blitz on the part of the United States and Britain has been of unprecedented proportions. Saturation propaganda is the rule of this war, and apparently the Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt will stop at nothing in order to keep the lies flowing smoothly and unimpeded.
Some of the most significant early casualties of this war from 'friendly fire' perhaps have been journalists. The 'embedded' reporters for the United States and its criminal coalition must rely only carefully sanitised information to the media, or they will be ejected not only from Iraq but from their jobs. Peter Arnett and Geraldo Riviera are two very different sorts of journalists, but both have been victims of 'friendly fire' from the U.S. and both have been removed from Iraq and their jobs as reporters for the crime of having made statements that were not acceptable for one reason or another to the U.S. government.
More difficult to silence or 'purify' are the members of Coalition armed forces who have experienced combat and live to tell about it. This is where the chink in the Coalition propaganda armour is most apparent. Soldiers, returning wounded from the front, are bewildered, confused and thoroughly convinced of the strength and determination of Iraqi resistance to the Coalition efforts at 'liberation'. If people in the United States are to become aware of the degree of deceit to which they are being subjected, it will be through the stories told by the troops they are so eager to support, as they return wounded and disillusioned from the war.
A story from 27 March declared that: 'For them, the war is over. A few U.S. soldiers were half the way home on Thursday, bearing wounds inflicted by Iraqis they thought they were liberating. They recounted to journalists how they came under fire at the weekend from Iraqi troops dressed as civilians at the city of Nassiriya.
'We were very surprised. We were told when we were going through Nassiriya that we would see little to no resistance,' one soldier told a news conference at the U.S. military's medical facilities at Landstuhl, Germany. 'We were more prepared for what happened in the Gulf War when they turned over and surrendered most of the time...'
Another soldier declared: 'They weren't rolling over like we thought they would.'
Beside him, in hospital robes, other soldiers told of being hurled from their Humvee by an Iraqi missile in a separate attack. 'The amount of resistance, some of it I don't understand. I mean we're there to help them to get them out of the regime.'
U.S. and Coalition propaganda, faced with the embarrassment of being forced to explain overwhelming Iraqi resistance to their invasion, revised itself and began to claim that the Iraqis were being threatened by their leaders and forced to fight. When that fails to convince the public, they fall back upon the argument that one must support the troops as they are individuals who are one's parents, spouses, siblings or friends. One of the U.S. soldiers defeated by Iraqi resistance tried to claim that he was only fighting to protect his friends.
'You may be against the war, but don't be against the soldiers there who are fighting it. I joined to serve my country but when I was there I was fighting to protect my friends,' he said.
This spurious and quite absurd argument evidently DOES carry weight with the public, despite the fact that the very raison d'etre for armed Coalition troops in Iraq is to kill Iraqis. They are not sent there to protect their friends, but to wage an illegal war of aggression against the Iraqi people. If they really wished to protect themselves and their friends, they would refuse to serve in the war. Those troops now in Iraq would receive the warm reception U.S. government propaganda led them to expect from the Iraqi people if they surrendered to the people of Iraq, rendering the Coalition invasion impotent.
The bogus argument that the U.S. troops are dealing death to the Iraqis simply to 'protect their friends' is similar to the Zionist argument with respect to Zionist presence in Palestine. Every Zionist in Palestine is an illegal Occupier, and yet they attempt to claim that they are acting in 'self-defence' when they slaughter Palestinians and destroy their homes. The most outrageous claim perhaps is the one of 'pre-emptive self-defence' whereby the Zionists assassinate Palestinians and attempt to justify the murders by claiming that they are acting to 'prevent future acts of terrorism'.
Both Bush and Blair have taken lessons from the Zionists in formulating their propaganda with respect to the invasion of Iraq. Apart from the fact that this invasion is being undertaken in order to further Zionist aims with respect to the Arab Nation, mainstream media actually supports these aims and therefore is willing to exert itself in creating effective propaganda to obscure the realities of the invasion.
In the States, as well as elsewhere in the West, the Zionist influence over the media must not be underestimated. When the attacks of 11 September took place, the situation with respect to the major networks and newspapers was as follows:
Probably the largest media conglomerate is AOL-Time Warner, controlled by Zionists. Not only does this conglomerate own AOL and Time-Warner, but Turner Broadcasting Systems, CNN, CBS, HBO and other television stations as well as Warner Brothers Studio, Castle Rock Entertainment and New Line Cinema. Time Warner is the largest periodical publisher in the U.S., and publishes Time, People and Fortune, among others.
Zionist Micheal Eisner, CEO of Walt Disney Company, owns Capital Cities/ABC, which owns the ABC Television Network. ABC owns ten stations outright in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Houston as well as 225 affiliated stations in the U.S. ABC is part owner of several European television companies. Its subsidiary, ESPN is run by another Zionist, Steven Bornstein, and the ABC network not only controls A & E and Lifetime Television but as ABC Radio Network owns 26 major radio stations in major cities of the U.S.
Viacom, which produces and distributes television progerammes for the three largest networks in the U.S. owns 13 television stations and 12 radio stations and produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, run by Zionist Sherry Langing. The Zionist head of Viacom , Murray Rothstein, acquired CBS, in turn run by Zionist Melvin Karmazin. CBS owns 14 major market television stations and 160 radio stations. Its publishing division includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free Press and Pocket Books. It is involved in satellite broadcasting and is the world's largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon and other networks.
The other major network, NBC, founded by Zionist David Sarnoff, is still run by Zionists.
The Associated Press is controlled by Zionist managing editor, Michael Silverman, who directs daily reporting and supervises the editorial departments. Executive editor, Jonathan Wolman, is a Zionist as well. The Newhouse media empire, owned by the Zionist Newhouse brothers, publishes 30 daily newspapers, 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable television systems, and publishes periodicals through Conde Nast, owned by them.
The Zionist Sulzberger family owns the New york Times and through the company, 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe, The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features and photographs from the NYT by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies and magazines.
The Washington Post is owned by the descendant of Zionist financier Eugene Meyer, partner of the infamous Barnard Baruch. The Washington Post has a number of other media holdings in newspapers, in television and in periodicals, including Newsweek. In a joint venture with the New York Times, the Washington Post publishes the International Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed English language daily newspaper in the world.
Time magazine is published by a subsidiary of Time-Warner. U.S. News & World Report is owned and published by Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who owns the Atlantic Monthly and the infamous New York rag, the Daily News.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, to find the media diligently supporting U.S./Zionist aims in Iraq and elsewhere throughout the world. When a reporter dares to make an unsanitised statement, he/she is removed summarily from their positions.
Neither Peter Arnett nor Geraldo Riviera have anything approaching objective attitudes towards Iraq. Their removal therefore will act as a strong threat to any one who allegedly reports 'news' from the front, no doubt silencing any but the most intrepid of independent reporters.
The Zionist link to U.S. political and business interests in the oil, energy and arms businesses are well-documented, but if there were any doubt whatsoever about the Bush administration's plan to give control of Iraq to the Zionists, it would be dispelled by his choice of an administrator to direct the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance in 'post-war' Iraq. Bush has chosen retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, former assistant chief of staff in the Army, who travelled with the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs to the Zionist entity in 1998. In 2000, he signed a letter that praised the Zionist entity's 'restraint in the face of Palestinian violence' and urged the U.S. government not to allow its supposed role as a 'peace facilitator' to fetter its role as a 'friend to Israel'. His precise words were: 'Friends don't leave friends on the battlefield', referring to the Zionist entity's campaign of genocide and terror towards the Palestinian people and the role of the U.S. in sending generous aid to the Zionists.
Garner, moreover, is president of an arms company that provides crucial technical support to missile systems vital to the US invasion of Iraq.
It is this Zionist and arms dealer that the U.S. has chosen to coordinate the civil administration of Iraq if the U.S. and its Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt manage to defeat the Iraqi people.
Apart from Jay Garner, there are other Zionists and enemies of civil rights who have been appointed very prematurely to serve in what is being conceived as the 'post-Saddam Hussain government' of Iraq.
Michael Mobbs is an influential legal advisor for the Pentagon who will be given charge of civil administration in Iraq if the U.S. invasion is successful. Mobbs is the author of what has become known as the 'Mobbs declaration', an outrageously unconstitutional document presented to the U.S. courts on behalf of the Pentagon claiming that the President has wide powers to detain American citizens indefinitely if they simply are alleged to be enemy combatants. As part of the spurious 'war on terrorism', he is one of those who determines the legal fate of so-called 'terror suspects' and other detainees held by the U.S. military in Cuba and Afghanistan. In the Bush administration's fantasy vision of 'post-Saddam Hussain' Iraq, he will take charge of 11 of the 23 Iraqi ministries.
Another Zionist appointed to the Pentagon-controlled Iraqi 'government-in-waiting' being assembled in a cluster of seaside villas in Kuwait is James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA with connections to the Zionist entity. Woolsey continues to insist, without any foundation whatsoever in fact, that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind who planned the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York, a clear indication of his Zionist-driven obsession with the President of Iraq. The fact that Woolsey sits on the advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs is irrefutable evidence of his Zionist affiliations. James Woolsey is to be given a senior role in the U.S./Zionist puppet government of 'post-Saddam Hussain' Iraq.
This is the true nature of the U.S. and its Coalition's 'liberation' of Iraq. If successful, the country of Iraq and its natural resources will be liberated from the control of its own people, and placed in the hands of U.S. agents of multi-national corporations and Zionists. The heartsblood of the Iraqi people is being spilt for the worst sort of corporate and imperialist greed. Any soldier who fights for the 'Coalition' of the Morally Bankrupt must not be allowed to hide behind media or government propaganda but must accept responsibility for the crimes he or she commits in the name of the United States and its Coalition. The heartsblood of the Iraqi people who are defending their homeland, their honour and their dignity is on the hands not only of the U.S. and Coalition governments and their agents, but every one who does not oppose this invasion in every way possible. Rely upon government and media propaganda at your peril. There is no excuse for ignorance and no excuse for supporting this war against Iraq, which is a crime against humanity and justice. When members of this shameful 'Coalition' die, they are criminals executed in the course of commission of a crime.
The cold-blooded murder of women and children who were killed simply because they refused to halt at the command of a foreign agent is neither an accident, nor is it 'collateral damage'. It is the true face of this war, as much as the systematic genocide of the Palestinian people by the Zionist entity. That is the simple truth, and no amount of propaganda can provide a defence for the Coalition or its agents. They must be held fully accountable for the crimes they commit, and any one who fails to oppose this war must be held accountable as well. In particular, it is the American soldiers who have experienced the reality of the war in Iraq who must repudiate the propaganda and make the truth known, both in the States and abroad. When American troops who fought in Vietnam began to protest against the war, they were able to create effective opposition to the government and its nefarious aims. As more troops return from Iraq wounded and disillusioned, the propaganda machine may find itself unable to control the flow of information and change in public climate.
At the end of the day, the blood of the Iraqi people will demand to be heard and the voice of justice will be louder and reverberate with greater power than any so-called 'weapon of mass destruction' throughout the entire world. The only questions that remain are: Where does each and every one of us stand in this conflict and what do we intend to do about it?
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE
THE U.S./ZIONIST PROPAGANDA WAR, ITS LEADERS AND ITS VICTIMS
by Nabila Harb\FAV co-editor
The people of the United States are being insulted and yet, they not only accept the insult, but embrace it with enthusiasm. They are being insulted by their leaders and by the media and yet they would rather focus on Saddam Hussein as an enemy, when the real enemies are in their own country. Yellow ribbons in 'support of the troops' and American flags multiply through the country like a cancer, devouring truth and justice and installing propaganda symbols in their place. What is happening in the United States now? Is the U.S. government and media keeping the people informed of the real progress of the invasion of Iraq? The people of the United States evidently believe that they are being given the information and facts that they deserve to have. After all, the government is acting in THEIR name as it murders the Iraqi people, destroys the Iraqi landscape and further weakens the economic structure of the country. The American government and the media are at great pains to provide constant 'updates' of the situation in Iraq, but does any of it bear even the shadow of a resemblance to the truth? In fact, the intelligence and common sense of the people of the United States are being insulted by the most blatant forms of propaganda and a web of deceit that stretches from the United States across the globe. Its victims are not only the Iraqi people but very fundamental rights of freedom and self-determination for people everywhere, including people within the United States itself.
The mainstream media in the U.S. as well as the government, are at pains to define the U.S. aggression against Iraq not as an invasion but as a 'liberation effort', an almost humanitarian action designed to bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq by removing their own leaders and government and introducing the enlightened reign of Imperialist Americans and Zionists in their place. After all, the supporters of the Zionists continually claim that the Zionist entity is the 'only democracy in the Middle East'. Through their power and good graces, the future of Iraq as another true 'democracy' is assured.
One need only look at the example of their Occupation of Palestine to see how the Arab Nation fares under a racist, apartheid regime, and how much the Palestinian people have benefited from Zionist 'democratic' rule. To those who rely upon mainstream mass media and government information in the United States, however, the invasion of Iraq is in the nature of a 'holy war', motivated by the duty to destroy the Iraqi government and its leaders, and replace them with a government that will pursue American and Zionist aims and thereby bring 'peace and security' to the region. In fact, the American government attempted to pass a resolution in Congress to dictate a day of prayer and fasting in order to persuade God to grant victory to the troops of the Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt. This new 'Crusade' against the Arab Nation must be as repugnant to truly religious individuals as the Crusades of the Middle Ages and yet, the government is trying to add God to the propaganda stew it is concocting. It is merely another demonstration of how this government has abandoned the principles upon which the United States was founded, one of which was a clear separation between Church and State, and another of which was freedom of belief and expression. Despite all of this, the people of the United States apparently remain unaware of the threat to their liberties.
To those individuals and nations with even a passing interest in international history and events, the U.S. 'Coalition' motivation for invading Iraq always was quite clear. American and Zionist led multi-national corporations involved in oil and in the arms industry and their needs prompted the invasion, and indeed plans for this invasion preceded the attacks of 11 September that supposedly set the so-called 'war against terror' in motion. The U.S. international 'war against terror' whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else is fueled by greed and political designs for control of the map.
A hundred years ago, imperialists declared their interests and aims fairly directly, without being obliged to camouflage them too much with claims of idealistic virtues. Imperialism and Empire had not become dirty words, and the fundamental premise upon which they rested, which was that a superior culture and people had the duty to guide and rule an inferior people, still was acceptable in the West and elsewhere in the world.
Now, however, imperialism and beliefs in cultural or racial superiority must be disguised by other more politically correct motives, although the United States does profess a duty to police the globe, allegedly in the name of 'democracy'. Moreover, nations are discovering that they cannot accept American funds without accepting U.S. overseers and an omnipresent threat of U.S. 'police intervention' if any fundamental threat to American/Zionist interests is found.
Not only have Imperialism and Empire lost their ideological pedestals, but governments no longer can simply order their people to obey without offering some sort of satisfying philosophical reason for obedience. Technological advances provide the masses everywhere with information about events throughout the globe and this makes it necessary for governments to create very powerful and effective propaganda in order to enlist their obedience and support. In the case of the invasion of Iraq, the propaganda blitz on the part of the United States and Britain has been of unprecedented proportions. Saturation propaganda is the rule of this war, and apparently the Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt will stop at nothing in order to keep the lies flowing smoothly and unimpeded.
Some of the most significant early casualties of this war from 'friendly fire' perhaps have been journalists. The 'embedded' reporters for the United States and its criminal coalition must rely only carefully sanitised information to the media, or they will be ejected not only from Iraq but from their jobs. Peter Arnett and Geraldo Riviera are two very different sorts of journalists, but both have been victims of 'friendly fire' from the U.S. and both have been removed from Iraq and their jobs as reporters for the crime of having made statements that were not acceptable for one reason or another to the U.S. government.
More difficult to silence or 'purify' are the members of Coalition armed forces who have experienced combat and live to tell about it. This is where the chink in the Coalition propaganda armour is most apparent. Soldiers, returning wounded from the front, are bewildered, confused and thoroughly convinced of the strength and determination of Iraqi resistance to the Coalition efforts at 'liberation'. If people in the United States are to become aware of the degree of deceit to which they are being subjected, it will be through the stories told by the troops they are so eager to support, as they return wounded and disillusioned from the war.
A story from 27 March declared that: 'For them, the war is over. A few U.S. soldiers were half the way home on Thursday, bearing wounds inflicted by Iraqis they thought they were liberating. They recounted to journalists how they came under fire at the weekend from Iraqi troops dressed as civilians at the city of Nassiriya.
'We were very surprised. We were told when we were going through Nassiriya that we would see little to no resistance,' one soldier told a news conference at the U.S. military's medical facilities at Landstuhl, Germany. 'We were more prepared for what happened in the Gulf War when they turned over and surrendered most of the time...'
Another soldier declared: 'They weren't rolling over like we thought they would.'
Beside him, in hospital robes, other soldiers told of being hurled from their Humvee by an Iraqi missile in a separate attack. 'The amount of resistance, some of it I don't understand. I mean we're there to help them to get them out of the regime.'
U.S. and Coalition propaganda, faced with the embarrassment of being forced to explain overwhelming Iraqi resistance to their invasion, revised itself and began to claim that the Iraqis were being threatened by their leaders and forced to fight. When that fails to convince the public, they fall back upon the argument that one must support the troops as they are individuals who are one's parents, spouses, siblings or friends. One of the U.S. soldiers defeated by Iraqi resistance tried to claim that he was only fighting to protect his friends.
'You may be against the war, but don't be against the soldiers there who are fighting it. I joined to serve my country but when I was there I was fighting to protect my friends,' he said.
This spurious and quite absurd argument evidently DOES carry weight with the public, despite the fact that the very raison d'etre for armed Coalition troops in Iraq is to kill Iraqis. They are not sent there to protect their friends, but to wage an illegal war of aggression against the Iraqi people. If they really wished to protect themselves and their friends, they would refuse to serve in the war. Those troops now in Iraq would receive the warm reception U.S. government propaganda led them to expect from the Iraqi people if they surrendered to the people of Iraq, rendering the Coalition invasion impotent.
The bogus argument that the U.S. troops are dealing death to the Iraqis simply to 'protect their friends' is similar to the Zionist argument with respect to Zionist presence in Palestine. Every Zionist in Palestine is an illegal Occupier, and yet they attempt to claim that they are acting in 'self-defence' when they slaughter Palestinians and destroy their homes. The most outrageous claim perhaps is the one of 'pre-emptive self-defence' whereby the Zionists assassinate Palestinians and attempt to justify the murders by claiming that they are acting to 'prevent future acts of terrorism'.
Both Bush and Blair have taken lessons from the Zionists in formulating their propaganda with respect to the invasion of Iraq. Apart from the fact that this invasion is being undertaken in order to further Zionist aims with respect to the Arab Nation, mainstream media actually supports these aims and therefore is willing to exert itself in creating effective propaganda to obscure the realities of the invasion.
In the States, as well as elsewhere in the West, the Zionist influence over the media must not be underestimated. When the attacks of 11 September took place, the situation with respect to the major networks and newspapers was as follows:
Probably the largest media conglomerate is AOL-Time Warner, controlled by Zionists. Not only does this conglomerate own AOL and Time-Warner, but Turner Broadcasting Systems, CNN, CBS, HBO and other television stations as well as Warner Brothers Studio, Castle Rock Entertainment and New Line Cinema. Time Warner is the largest periodical publisher in the U.S., and publishes Time, People and Fortune, among others.
Zionist Micheal Eisner, CEO of Walt Disney Company, owns Capital Cities/ABC, which owns the ABC Television Network. ABC owns ten stations outright in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Houston as well as 225 affiliated stations in the U.S. ABC is part owner of several European television companies. Its subsidiary, ESPN is run by another Zionist, Steven Bornstein, and the ABC network not only controls A & E and Lifetime Television but as ABC Radio Network owns 26 major radio stations in major cities of the U.S.
Viacom, which produces and distributes television progerammes for the three largest networks in the U.S. owns 13 television stations and 12 radio stations and produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, run by Zionist Sherry Langing. The Zionist head of Viacom , Murray Rothstein, acquired CBS, in turn run by Zionist Melvin Karmazin. CBS owns 14 major market television stations and 160 radio stations. Its publishing division includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free Press and Pocket Books. It is involved in satellite broadcasting and is the world's largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon and other networks.
The other major network, NBC, founded by Zionist David Sarnoff, is still run by Zionists.
The Associated Press is controlled by Zionist managing editor, Michael Silverman, who directs daily reporting and supervises the editorial departments. Executive editor, Jonathan Wolman, is a Zionist as well. The Newhouse media empire, owned by the Zionist Newhouse brothers, publishes 30 daily newspapers, 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable television systems, and publishes periodicals through Conde Nast, owned by them.
The Zionist Sulzberger family owns the New york Times and through the company, 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe, The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features and photographs from the NYT by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies and magazines.
The Washington Post is owned by the descendant of Zionist financier Eugene Meyer, partner of the infamous Barnard Baruch. The Washington Post has a number of other media holdings in newspapers, in television and in periodicals, including Newsweek. In a joint venture with the New York Times, the Washington Post publishes the International Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed English language daily newspaper in the world.
Time magazine is published by a subsidiary of Time-Warner. U.S. News & World Report is owned and published by Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who owns the Atlantic Monthly and the infamous New York rag, the Daily News.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, to find the media diligently supporting U.S./Zionist aims in Iraq and elsewhere throughout the world. When a reporter dares to make an unsanitised statement, he/she is removed summarily from their positions.
Neither Peter Arnett nor Geraldo Riviera have anything approaching objective attitudes towards Iraq. Their removal therefore will act as a strong threat to any one who allegedly reports 'news' from the front, no doubt silencing any but the most intrepid of independent reporters.
The Zionist link to U.S. political and business interests in the oil, energy and arms businesses are well-documented, but if there were any doubt whatsoever about the Bush administration's plan to give control of Iraq to the Zionists, it would be dispelled by his choice of an administrator to direct the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance in 'post-war' Iraq. Bush has chosen retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, former assistant chief of staff in the Army, who travelled with the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs to the Zionist entity in 1998. In 2000, he signed a letter that praised the Zionist entity's 'restraint in the face of Palestinian violence' and urged the U.S. government not to allow its supposed role as a 'peace facilitator' to fetter its role as a 'friend to Israel'. His precise words were: 'Friends don't leave friends on the battlefield', referring to the Zionist entity's campaign of genocide and terror towards the Palestinian people and the role of the U.S. in sending generous aid to the Zionists.
Garner, moreover, is president of an arms company that provides crucial technical support to missile systems vital to the US invasion of Iraq.
It is this Zionist and arms dealer that the U.S. has chosen to coordinate the civil administration of Iraq if the U.S. and its Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt manage to defeat the Iraqi people.
Apart from Jay Garner, there are other Zionists and enemies of civil rights who have been appointed very prematurely to serve in what is being conceived as the 'post-Saddam Hussain government' of Iraq.
Michael Mobbs is an influential legal advisor for the Pentagon who will be given charge of civil administration in Iraq if the U.S. invasion is successful. Mobbs is the author of what has become known as the 'Mobbs declaration', an outrageously unconstitutional document presented to the U.S. courts on behalf of the Pentagon claiming that the President has wide powers to detain American citizens indefinitely if they simply are alleged to be enemy combatants. As part of the spurious 'war on terrorism', he is one of those who determines the legal fate of so-called 'terror suspects' and other detainees held by the U.S. military in Cuba and Afghanistan. In the Bush administration's fantasy vision of 'post-Saddam Hussain' Iraq, he will take charge of 11 of the 23 Iraqi ministries.
Another Zionist appointed to the Pentagon-controlled Iraqi 'government-in-waiting' being assembled in a cluster of seaside villas in Kuwait is James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA with connections to the Zionist entity. Woolsey continues to insist, without any foundation whatsoever in fact, that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind who planned the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York, a clear indication of his Zionist-driven obsession with the President of Iraq. The fact that Woolsey sits on the advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs is irrefutable evidence of his Zionist affiliations. James Woolsey is to be given a senior role in the U.S./Zionist puppet government of 'post-Saddam Hussain' Iraq.
This is the true nature of the U.S. and its Coalition's 'liberation' of Iraq. If successful, the country of Iraq and its natural resources will be liberated from the control of its own people, and placed in the hands of U.S. agents of multi-national corporations and Zionists. The heartsblood of the Iraqi people is being spilt for the worst sort of corporate and imperialist greed. Any soldier who fights for the 'Coalition' of the Morally Bankrupt must not be allowed to hide behind media or government propaganda but must accept responsibility for the crimes he or she commits in the name of the United States and its Coalition. The heartsblood of the Iraqi people who are defending their homeland, their honour and their dignity is on the hands not only of the U.S. and Coalition governments and their agents, but every one who does not oppose this invasion in every way possible. Rely upon government and media propaganda at your peril. There is no excuse for ignorance and no excuse for supporting this war against Iraq, which is a crime against humanity and justice. When members of this shameful 'Coalition' die, they are criminals executed in the course of commission of a crime.
The cold-blooded murder of women and children who were killed simply because they refused to halt at the command of a foreign agent is neither an accident, nor is it 'collateral damage'. It is the true face of this war, as much as the systematic genocide of the Palestinian people by the Zionist entity. That is the simple truth, and no amount of propaganda can provide a defence for the Coalition or its agents. They must be held fully accountable for the crimes they commit, and any one who fails to oppose this war must be held accountable as well. In particular, it is the American soldiers who have experienced the reality of the war in Iraq who must repudiate the propaganda and make the truth known, both in the States and abroad. When American troops who fought in Vietnam began to protest against the war, they were able to create effective opposition to the government and its nefarious aims. As more troops return from Iraq wounded and disillusioned, the propaganda machine may find itself unable to control the flow of information and change in public climate.
At the end of the day, the blood of the Iraqi people will demand to be heard and the voice of justice will be louder and reverberate with greater power than any so-called 'weapon of mass destruction' throughout the entire world. The only questions that remain are: Where does each and every one of us stand in this conflict and what do we intend to do about it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)