Thursday, March 19, 2009

Exposing the Hidden Zionist Hand, utterly subservient to the WASP elites Ruling Britain and the United States

Everything they have done will fail and will continue to fail -- it is the natural law of crookery....

Exposing the Zionist Hidden Hand, which is utterly subservient to the real WASP elites Ruling Britain and the United States

For all practical purposes, the United States and Britain are Zionist-occupied nations. Because the American and British people are generally ignorant of what Zionism is, the meaning of this statement is not widely understood or appreciated.

David Milliband, Condeleeza Rice's UK counterpart

The lack of understanding by the public, however, doesn't change the fact that these once great nations have become Zionist-controlled states. The evidence is clearly seen in the self-destructive foreign policies these nations have pursued for the past 40 years or so.

The Anglo-American "leadership" positions in the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and their support of the costly Zionist fraud known as the "War on Terror" is further proof that Zionists control these nations – as if any were needed.

How did these powerful and independent nations become Zionist controlled? Unlike Palestine, where Eastern European Zionist immigrants used brutal terrorism to ethnically "cleanse" and conquer the land, in Britain and the United States the Zionists gained power gradually through "dumbing down" and effectively disenfranchising the native populations.

In Britain and the United States, the Zionists saved the use of terrorism for later, after they already controlled the media and the levers of power and government.

Americans today still believe they are free because the media tells them so and because they don't see the restraints and are able to move around and buy things. Americans are, indeed, free to work and shop, but they have virtually no real political power whatsoever. A good example is that while an overwhelming majority of the U.S. population is against the war in Iraq, the war and the huge spending bills to support it go on unchallenged by their representatives in Congress. Why don't the Congressmen vote to stop the disastrous war that has consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and taken more than 3,000 American lives?

Most Americans in the "land of the free and the home of the brave" are completely unaware that they have lost the most cherished democratic franchise, i.e. the citizen's fundamental right to vote and count their votes. They think their vote counts and don't have a clue that they lost their democratic franchise years ago. They are unaware of this situation simply because the media has not told them.

"If the media doesn't talk about, it must not be a problem" is the American way of thinking.

For the Zionist-controlled media, the absence of any citizen oversight of the vote-counting process and complete lack of transparency in American elections are simply non-issues, just like many other very important subjects of vital importance to the survival of the republic.

As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." This aptly describes the difficult condition Americans face at the beginning of the 21st Century.

Zionists, a marginal minority of Polish and Russian Jewish immigrants, were able to gain control of these great English-speaking nations by obtaining control of two fundamental institutions: the media and academia. This is not to say that they don't control other key institutions, but these two are of essential importance because they largely define the intellectual life of a nation.

Having worked in the media and studied Middle East history at an American university, I know what I am talking about here. History of the Middle East and Europe, and virtually every other subject taught at American universities, is viewed only through the Zionist prism.

For example, when I studied the Middle East at the University of California at Santa Cruz, the head of the department was a professor named Edmund Burke who had studied under the famous British Jew, Bernard Lewis, at Princeton. Burke was always recommending the books of Bernard Lewis, which I avoided like the plague.

American historian Joel Beinin called Lewis "perhaps the most articulate and learned Zionist advocate in the North American Middle East academic community."

"Terry" Burke spent 1990 "on sabbatical" with Lewis at Princeton. He returned to Santa Cruz in the late summer, just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in January 1991. I remember Burke giving a speech in August or September at the federal building in Santa Cruz as the conflict was heating up. The very first words out of his mouth were "Balkanization," something that amazes me to this day. He was unwilling to explain his choice of words when I called him about a year ago.

Although my main interest was Israel and Palestine, Burke recommended that I read a book about Yugoslavia. Balkanization, the breaking up of nations into ethnic statelets, is the Zionist plan for the entire Middle East, articulated by Oded Yinon of the Israeli foreign ministry in the early 1980s.

During the many lectures and courses I studied on the Middle East, never did I hear a critical word about Zionism or its brutal history in Eastern Europe and Palestine. This is primarily because the professors of Middle Eastern studies and European history are usually Jewish and strongly inclined to support Zionism.

If a professor were to openly criticize Zionism as the racist and violent ideology that it is, he would probably find himself unemployed in very short order.

I understood this and endeavored to present the anti-Zionist perspective at the university. I brought speakers like Ralph Schoenman, the author of The Hidden History of Zionism (1988), to the campus and led a tour of photojournalists to the West Bank and Gaza Strip shortly after the invasion of Iraq. Despite a great deal of effort and years of experience in the region, Burke did not give me "honors" with my degree, most likely because of my anti-Zionist views.

Gerald Levin
The media in the United States is controlled in the same way as the universities. The editors and journalists are prevented from investigating and discussing the real history of Zionism because the news outlets are usually owned by people who are themselves dedicated Zionists. The takeover of CNN by Gerald M. Levin of AOL Time Warner marked the fall of the last major non-Zionist media network.

Today, all major news outlets in the United States and Britain are strongly Zionist. There were a few good newspapers, such as the Christian Science Monitor, that provided some balance to the pro-Zionist "mainstream" networks, but even they have now fallen.

The result is that the populations of the United States, Britain, and Australia are largely ignorant of Zionism and what it has done in the past in other countries -- and what it is doing now -- in theirs.


Selecting issues and non-issues for coverage is the primary method employed by the Zionist-controlled news networks. Issues get a lot of coverage while non-issues get none.

Here are a few examples of issues and non-issues in the Zionist-controlled media:

• Iran's legal and monitored efforts to develop nuclear energy are an issue; Israel's illegal and secret nuclear arsenal is not.

• Discussion of the alleged role of Muslims in terrorist acts is an issue; solid evidence of Israeli involvement in 9-11 and the London bombings is not.

• The two-year long fake presidential campaign with a host of Zionist-controlled candidates is an issue; how our electronic "votes" are counted by mysterious "private" foreign companies of unknown ownership is not.

I don't know if any other American journalist and 9-11 researcher has been attacked, TASERed, and had their elbow broken by an undercover tactical squad in front of their family in the United States, but I know that when it happened to me in August 2006 it was very much a non-issue with the controlled media.


The position of foreign minister, or secretary of state in the United States, is a very important position, second only to the president or prime minister. Since foreign policy is the only policy coming out of Washington or London these days, these positions are of crucial importance and speak volumes about who is really controlling the government.

In the United States and Britain we have very strange people with odd backgrounds in these high-level appointed positions. The current British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is a 42-year-old politician named David Wright Miliband, the son of the Belgian-born Marxist, Adolphe "Ralph" Miliband.

The U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a 53-year-old former professor, holds the comparable position in the American government.

What is most peculiar -- and telling -- is that the backgrounds, loyalties, and ideologies of these two high-level appointed officials are never discussed in the Zionist-controlled media; clearly this is a non-issue.


It goes without saying that both Miliband and Rice are dedicated Zionists, they are, after all, serving in extremely pro-Zionist governments. But why are their personal and family histories not discussed by the media? Don't the American and British people have a right to know the person who is overseeing the implementation of their national foreign policy?

David Miliband, who only became a Member of Parliament in June 2001, was recently in Basra, Iraq, when the British officially stepped back from their failure and turned over control to Iraqi authorities.

Although Miliband and other British officials have tried to put a good face on the disastrous results of the Anglo-American invasion and occupation, the fact that it has been a complete failure is painfully apparent to all.

As a senior Iraqi military officer told ABC News, "The British legacy in Basra is criminal gangs, a corrupt and infiltrated police force, and borders open to all."

Major-General Jalil Khalaf, the new police commander in Basra, told the Times of London: "They left me militia, they left me gangsters, and they left me all the troubles in the world."

Yousif Nassar, one of Basra’s most famous composers, is also disappointed at what the British did to his city. "The British Forces created chaos and failed to deliver what they promised," he said, as reported by the Times of December 17, 2007.

The Times article was entitled "Crumbling services and violence on the streets, but hope follows British pullout."

"We congratulate all of those who have helped achieve this, most notably British and Coalition military and civilian personnel," Defense Secretary Des Browne and David Miliband said in a joint statement when the pullout was announced. How could these senior British officials congratulate anyone for their achievments in Basra? The Anglo-American occupation of Iraq is nothing but an unmitigated disaster. Perhaps that was the plan all along?

Knowing who David Miliband is and what he represents is key to understanding the real power behind Britain's foreign policy. This is certainly the reason the Zionist-controlled media keeps the British population – and the world – ignorant of the Miliband family's roots – in Brussels.

Ralph Milliband and son
David Miliband is the son of Ralph Miliband, born Adolphe in Brussels in 1924, and Marion Kozak. Ralph was a well known Marxist political theorist. Ralph, who died in 1994, is buried in Highgate Cemetery close to his idol, Karl Marx.

David's brother, Edward Samuel Miliband, is also a member of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's cabinet where he has been chairman of the Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers, which directs the UK's long-term economic planning.

Beyond that, the family history gets confusing and misleading, on purpose I'm sure.

The online biography of Adolphe "Ralph" Miliband says he was born in Brussels of Polish-Jewish emigré parents and that both his parents lived in the Jewish quarter of Warsaw, before his father, Samuel "Sam" Miliband, joined the Red Army in the Polish-Soviet or Bolshevik War (February 1919 – March 1921).

Sam Miliband is said to have left Poland after the First World War, which ended in November 1918. He supposedly became a leather worker in Belgium and then returned to Poland to join the Red Army under the command of Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein) in 1920.

The commanders who served under Trotsky in the Bolshevik War against Poland were Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Aleksandr Yegorov, Joseph Stalin, and Felix Dzerzhinsky.

Nikolay Bukharin, writing in the Soviet newspaper Pravda, urged the Bolsheviks to carry on beyond Warsaw "right up to London and Paris."

General's Tukhachevsky's order of July 2, 1920 read:

To the West! Over the corpse of White Poland lies the road to world-wide conflagration. March on Vilno, Minsk, Warsaw! Onward to Berlin over the corpse of Poland!

Why would a poor leather worker in Belgium give up his work and travel all the way to Poland to fight with the Bolshevik Red Army against the Polish Republic and the West? If this is true, Samuel Miliband must have been a very dedicated communist.

This is, however, most certainly not the whole truth. The family tree of the family of David and Edward Miliband clearly indicates that their grandfather Samuel Miliband was also born, like their father Adolphe, in Brussels in 1865. In this case, Brussels-born Sam must have been an extremely dedicated communist. There is another possible explanation. Perhaps Sam was a Zionist emissary on a mission to bring support and funds to the Red Army in their attempt to conquer Poland. If the family tree is correct that Sam Miliband was born in Brussels, there is something more to the Miliband story.

The Miliband family tree provides the names and dates of birth of Samuel's 11 siblings, his parents, and even his grand-parents, data which supports it as a credible source. Why then has the Zionist-controlled media obscured the Miliband family history and pretended that David's father was born in Warsaw, when his family records indicate he was born in Brussels?

This is information about the Miliband family that the Zionist-controlled media had evidently decided that the public does not need to know. It also suggests that the preferential treatment and promotions that the Milibands have received since coming to Britain have more to do with their high-level connections than with their abilities.

Their connections and loyalties are evidently to the highest levels of the Zionist "Communist" International in Brussels, which is the only reason they are in the positions they are in. Their loyalty is clearly not to the British nation or people.


The same is true of Condoleezza Rice, who was mentored at the University of Denver by the Czechoslovakian Jewish immigrant, Josef Korbel, the father of the previous secretary of state, Marie Jana Korbelova, a.k.a. Madeleine Albright.

One might think that this amazing coincidence would be newsworthy but it has generally been ignored by the controlled media as well. This is probably because the obvious question, "Who is Josef Korbel?" is a question the Zionist-controlled media does not want to address.

Josef Korbel (1909-77) was a Czechoslovakian diplomat in the London-based "government" in exile of Edvard Benes, which took power in Prague after World War II. Korbel was the father of Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, and the mentor of George W. Bush's Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. What a coincidence – or is it?

Korbel was also a thief. Korbel stole paintings which belonged to German industrialist Karl Nebrich, whose property in Prague was confiscated as part of the post-war Benes decrees. Like the more than three million other ethnic Germans from Bohemia, Moravia, and Slovakia, Nebrich and his family were expelled from the country under the postwar decrees, which oddly remain in force to this day.

Would any European nation that banned Jews and confiscated their property be allowed to be a member of the European Union? Why are such racist laws permitted against Germans?

Korbel's stealing of property and art is just the tip of the iceberg. Korbel was involved in the United Nations partition of India and Pakistan and the illegal arming of the Zionist fighters in Palestine until the end of 1948.

When the communists came to power in 1948, Korbel was charged and sentenced and fled to New York where he lived in the cottage house of a very large mansion in Great Neck, New York. He was eventually given a teaching position at the University of Denver.

The Korbel's move to New York is described in Seasons of Her Life, A Biography of Madeleine Albright:

The Korbels settled into a home just outside New York City. One of Joseph Korbel's colleagues at the United Nations had helped the family rent a small gardener's cottage at 149 Station Road in a woodsy section of Great Neck, a prosperous and developing suburban community on Long Island's North Shore.

Korbel clearly played a key role in the Zionist-Israeli weapons pipeline from Czechoslovakia, which was the main supplier and base for the nascent Israeli Air Force. The Zionist air bridge from Czechoslovakia, known as Operation Balak, was the essential weapons supply line and is regarded as one of the Israeli Air Force's most important achievements. Czechoslovakia provided weapons, ammunition, and the first fighter airplanes to the Zionist forces in Palestine.

The would-be Israelis even operated their own airbase and pilot training school in Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia played an important role as the main transit point for arms shipments going by sea and a refueling stop for the Israeli and Zionist pilots flying fighter aircraft from Czechoslovakia to Palestine – which became the State of Israel after May 1948.

Korbel, an avowed anti-communist and senior member of the Benes government, became the Czech ambassador to Belgrade at this time, although he hated the socialism of Tito. Korbel was the ambassador in Yugoslavia because he was playing another more important role: the key Zionist point man in the illegal weapons transfers to Jewish forces in Palestine. The people, such as Shimon Peres, who were involved in the illegal weapons smuggling to the Haganah and the Irgun terrorist gangs in Palestine have been at the top of the Zionist hierarchy since 1948.

There is, of course, much more to the sordid Milliband, Korbel, and Rice histories. This material is provided simply to illustrate the high-level Zionist connections of the people who shaped and taught the current foreign ministers of Britain and the United States. Because this information is not provided by the controlled media in these two great nations, I am providing this research to help my fellow Americans and British friends realize who is controlling their foreign policy – which is nothing short of disastrous....
How about exploring the Intelligence Industry connection angle...maybe that would shine a light on why AIG appears to have leverage enough to threaten Congress??

check this out...Greenberg has his hooks into the NY Fed, too..... AIG Is CIA, has been from inception...,Maurice.shtml

From 9/11 Encyclopedia:

Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, once floated as a possible CIA Director in 1995, is the CEO of AIG insurance (->), manager of the third largest capital investment pool in the world. Maurice Raymond Greenberg (AIG, Kroll, CFR) was born in New York City May 4, 1925, the son of Jacob Greenberg and Ada (Rheingold) Greenberg. The young man adopted the nickname "Hank" to make people think of a popular American baseball player with the name, Hank Greenberg. Greenberg served in the U.S. Army in the Korea conflict.

He joined the insurance firm, Continental Casualty Co., in 1952. Continental executive J. Milburn Smith recommended Greenberg to the C.V. Starr insurance/spy organization, which made Greenberg its vice president in 1960, its president and CEO in 1967, and its chairman, succeeding Starr, in 1969. Maurice Greenberg was deeply involved in chinese trade in the 80s, where Henry Kissinger (->) was one of his representatives.

In the China trade, Greenberg became very close to Shaul Eisenberg, the leader of the Asian section of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, and agent for the sales of sophisticated military equipment to the Chinese military. From 1988 to 1995, Greenberg was a director of the New York Federal Reserve bank - this branch of the system is the main instrument through which Federal Reserve chiefs and the Bank of England traditionally execute their U.S. political-economic policy.

Greenberg was deputy chairman of the New York Fed in 1992 and 1993, and New York Fed chairman in 1994 and 1995. In 1993, Maurice Greenberg's American International Group (AIG ->), became co-owner of the "private spy agency", Kroll Associates (->), as a result of rescuing Kroll from bankruptcy with a cash infusion. Kroll was notorious during the 1980s as the "CIA of Wall Street" due to the prevalence of former CIA, FBI, Scotland Yard, British secret service and British Special Air Service men Kroll employed for corporate espionage in takeover bids, as well as for destabilization of foreign nations. During 1996, while Greenberg was deputy chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (See Cfr), he chaired the CFR task force on intelligence, which published "Making Intelligence Smarter: The future of U.S. Intelligence." This report mostly served to exhibit Greenberg's access to the intelligence community; but he parlayed it into a nomination by Senator Arlen Specter and others, for Greenberg to be Director of the Cia....

Robert Maxwell rose rocketlike into the stratosphere of international prominence, leaving a trail of sparks behind him as he burst brilliantly on the world scene. As his brilliance faded with the collapse of his business empire, and the world's attention turned to new events and crises, his name drifted into obscurity. The story of Maxwell's life, however, far transcends the brilliant flash of public display.

Authors Gordon and Dillon resurrect the life of Robert Maxwell, reconstructing this man who was born in 1923 to Jewish parents living in the obscure Polish village of Slatinske Doly. As a young man, he transformed himself into an English gentleman and World War II hero who was decorated by Field Marshal Montgomery himself with the Military Cross for bravery under fire. In Great Britain, Maxwell climbed to dizzying heights of power, wealth and prestige.

The authors' wonderfully detailed biography is based on multiple sources and interviews with 54 people who had intimate knowledge of Maxwell and his life. In addition, 21 other contacts supplied information that enriched the many details of Maxwell's personality, character, skills and foibles. The end result is a multi-faceted portrayal of a person with immense personal skills—and, unfortunately, many flaws. His biographers divide Maxwell's many lives—all of which he lived with consummate skill and supreme confidence—into four different and significant life trajectories: public, family, criminal, and spy.

His public life as a media baron paralleled the life of William Randolph Hearst in many of its details. At his financial apogee, Maxwell owned over 400 companies. From the ninth floor of Maxwell House in London, he directed his vast business empire, relishing his role as a potentate of publishing, communications, printing, technology, property, currencies, gilts, and shares. He bought companies and pillaged and sold their valuable assets piecemeal—always for a handsome profit. With his prodigious memory and his many minions, he managed to keep track of all his holdings, always manipulating them to his business advantage and the unfortunate disadvantage of his business partners, bankers and creditors.

Maxwell entertained with lavish abandon, sweetening his business proposals with ample doses of rich surroundings, women, vintage wines, champagne and abundant caviar. Using a combination of arrogance and charm, he met and successfully engaged in business deals with leaders in the rarified atmosphere of international finance and politics. He was noted for his obsessive and shameless self-aggrandizement via his London newspaper, The Mirror. Even his closest associates were astounded by Maxwell's personal vanity. Those who knew him intimately observed that he frequently played fast and loose with the truth.

Once his empire began to founder, his creditors discovered that Maxwell had used the same assets multiple times to serve as collateral for his prodigious debt. In the end, it became impossible for him to continue juggling his assets, and Maxwell's empire collapsed. Bankruptcy was finally declared, with debts amounting to more than $1 billion—the largest in British bankruptcy history.

Maxwell's family life, like that of many people deeply obsessed with making fortunes, was almost non-existent in his later years. In 1944, he married Elizabeth Maynard, the daughter of a French silk merchant, in Paris. Although he remained faithful for a while, he eventually became a flagrant philanderer, bedding a succession of leggy blonde secretaries whom he showered with expensive gifts and vague promises of marriage after his divorce (which did not happen). His wife, Betty, rarely saw him, instead spending her lonely days at their country estate, Headington Hill Hall, raising their nine children. Their youngest, Ghislaine, was Maxwell's favorite, and he named his beloved yacht, Lady Ghislaine, after her. Two of his sons, Kevin and Iain, joined him in his business affairs and managed the final frantic search for additional funds to keep Maxwell's foundering empire afloat.

Maxwell's criminal activities began early in his career, culminating when the collapse of the Eastern Bloc set the stage for a feeding frenzy of fraud, deceit and theft of state assets. KGB and other Eastern Bloc intelligence agents—with whom Maxwell already had established contacts—moved into the business world following the breakup of the Soviet empire, and became the sharks that devoured the assets of state resources for their own ends. The underworld flourished, and Maxwell was there to help himself to a hefty 15 to 20 percent cut as he laundered their money through Bulgaria and Western banks. Soon, Maxwell had links to criminals who dealt in illegal arms, prostitution, money laundering, drugs, and contract killings—all of whom used Maxwell to launder their profits.

Probably the most audacious illegal business project with which Maxwell involved himself was Bulgaria's Neva network. The concept was simple: plunder Western technology through secret agents, produce the same technology in Eastern Bloc nations, particularly Bulgaria, then sell the goods to the Eastern markets. Maxwell set up the companies to carry out the work, then laundered the profits through his network of banks. At its inception, Maxwell did not envision that Neva would grow into one of the most powerful crime syndicates in the world, embracing the Russian mafia, the crime families of Bulgaria, as well as those in New York, Hong Kong and Japan. All the companies Maxwell formed eventually would come under one name—Multi-Group—which controlled a significant percentage of global profits from gas, telecommunications, oil, gambling, and money laundering.

In contrast to his criminal pursuits, Maxwell's life as a spy did not begin immediately. Following World War II, he dabbled in intelligence work at Berlin's Spandau Prison, where he interrogated captured Nazi leaders and gained a reputation as a skilled interviewer. He was good enough to be offered a position with British MI6 as a "super contact person." Maxwell did not accept the offer, however, and was soon classified by MI6 as a "Zionist—loyal only to Israel" and a person to be watched.

When asked to spy for Israel's Mossad, Israel's CIA, Maxwell eagerly accepted because of his great love for Israel—although the money he made in Israel was also to his liking. Following a visit to Israel Maxwell said that he had traveled everywhere in the world and Israel was the only place where he felt at home. In Israel he found the faith he thought he had lost. Viewing himself as a savior of Israel's ailing industries, he shrewdly bought ailing Israeli companies and turned them into successful enterprises. Some of the companies became covers for Mossad. Maxwell also used his many contacts in the Russian government to work tirelessly to enable Russian Jews to immigrate to Israel.

As Maxwell made his rounds from capital to capital, meeting world leaders and exchanging gossip with them, the Mossad used him as its eyes and ears. The spy agency saw him as someone who could pass through any door in any capital and learn secrets to which even the Mossad could not be privy. Maxwell also become a source of information for his intelligence contacts in the Eastern Bloc, including the KGB.

Robert Maxwell traveled the world and peddled Promis, software the Israelis stole from Inslaw, the American company that developed the program. Promis could track data on any target subject by querying and integrating information from innumerable electronic databases, without requiring reprogramming. The theft took place when the Mossad's Rafi Eitan traveled to the United States impersonating an assistant prosecutor in the Israeli Ministry of Justice in Tel Aviv and met with William Hamilton, the inventor of Promis, at Inslaw. After his meeting with Hamilton, Eitan immediately went to the Department of Justice, and, through serendipity, acquired a copy of Promis. Eiten then worked through former Mossad agent Ari Ben Menashe, who found Yahuda Ben-Hanan in California's Silicon Valley to construct a back door to the program. This enabled the Mossad to monitor Promis and obtain the information the program developed as it worked for all who used it—friend and foe alike.

With the help of former Texas Senator John Tower, Maxwell managed to sell the software to the Los Alamos Laboratories, thus making Israel's Mossad privy to the innermost secrets of American atomic energy programs. When Promis was sold to Credit Suisse, Israel was able to follow the money flows from any government or business agency that used the bank.

Eventually the Mossad adopted the same process used by the CIA to hide its own money distributions. Maxwell ultimately sold Promis software worth over $500 million to the intelligence agencies of Zimbabwe, South Africa, Guatemala, Colombia, Nicaragua, Bulgaria, Egypt, East Germany, Poland, Belgium, Turkey, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand and China, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the KGB—all of whom the Mossad monitored as Promis developed intelligence for the benefit of the owner—and, unknowingly, the Mossad.

Eventually, however, all of Maxwell's life trajectories ended in financial collapse and disaster. In his public life, his highly leveraged business ventures finally caught up with him, and he teetered on the edge of bankruptcy for almost a year. Because of this, the authors argue, he hit on the idea of threatening his Mossad handlers with public disclosure if the Mossad did not find a way for him to get out of his financial crisis. Concluding that Maxwell had outlived his usefulness, Thomas and Dillon believe the Mossad ordered his assassination. Three months later, on Nov. 5, 1991, Maxwell met his end some time after 4:45 a.m. on the aft deck of the Lady Ghislaine, as, on Mossad instructions, she cruised off Gran Canaria Island. Maxwell assumed that the Mossad was planning to deliver his requested $1 billion to be used to bail him out of his financial troubles. Instead, Israeli kidon slipped aboard and injected a lethal nerve agent into Maxwell's neck behind his right ear. He was then thrown overboard....

Page 4
... bankers and the emerging Russian Mafia, a conglomerate of crime families with global reach, had found the country a useful conduit for money laundering. ...
Page 37
... conduct their activities: whole-scale drug running, money laundering, trafficking in humans and gun running. By 1991, investors included the heads of ...
Page 67
It ordered the National Security Agency to 'penetrate banks to combat money-laundering and other criminal activities, and illegal sales of high technology ...
Page 78
Many were held by Richard J Brenneke, the CIA operative in overall charge of the agency's secret money-laundering operations. He worked sixteen-hour days ...
Page 79
It was Robert Maxwell's first step into the criminal world of money laundering. By then Maxwell was ready to move Promis into the Soviet Union. ...
more »
Page 83
The money would be used to finance 'black' operations, so sensitive and secret they could not even be paid for out of the Finance Office in Mossad's ...
Page 142
The broker could still be a useful conduit for Maxwell's money-laundering activities. His decision fitted what was happening in those other areas where his ...
Page 145
Cyrus Hashemi could be a bagman for Islamic terrorist groups, laundering the money they required to finance their operations through the Bank of Credit and ...
Page 160
It was as if MI5 and MI6 and the CIA had been ordered to put all their money-laundering facilities at the disposal of a single foreign businessman. ...
Page 162
The country had become, thanks to the free hand Maxwell had been given, the centre of a thriving economy based upon whole-scale theft and money laundering. ...
Page 163
It would control a significant percentage of the global profits from gas, telecommunications, oil, gambling and money laundering. ...
Page 165
For years the bank had unwittingly been a conduit for money laundering by one of the major criminal families in Moscow, the Rising Sun, whose head was ...
Page 173
Now he could go anywhere - and he did: to Liechtenstein to set up a new money- laundering operation; to Gibraltar, to Cyprus, the Channel Islands and the ...
Page 175
There is only one reason why he would do so, feel he must do so: the attraction of making still more money to satisfy his insatiable desire to be the ...
Page 176
... it was money laundering. Same in Switzerland. Italy was drugs and traffic in people - mostly women for prostitution. In Belgium and Germany, ...
Page 178
From there the money could be sent on to LITEX - and to anywhere in the world. In terms of money laundering, it was crude but still effective. ...
Page 179
activities and money laundering. Lukanov had, however, assured him there would be plenty of photo opportunities for Maxwell in the new regime. ...
Page 180
... a large salary and an ongoing secret role in laundering money from Bulgaria. Lukanov, when he later faced scrutiny for his links to Maxwell, ...
Page 189
Not only was he deeply implicated in money laundering for Neva, but his relationship with Lukanov in particular was both close and mutually financially ...
Page 205
At the same time he appointed himself chairman of BIM so that he could use it as a major money- laundering conduit for washing his activities in Bulgaria. ...
Page 346
Bin Laden could also use the software for electronic banking transactions and money-laundering operations much more sophisticated than anything Robert ...
Page 350
... in Sofia and Moscow, had helped expand Multi-Group's interests in Macedonia, where the authorities were determined to prevent money laundering. ...
Page 353
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Page 354
He knew about Mossad, Maxwell and their role in Promis and money laundering. He was also the man who could finger Earl Brian.' Belton would remain convinced ...
Page 355
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Page 369
Their laundering of money is hard to trace and terrorists have learned from organised crime - from the Maxwells of this world,' John O'Neill remarked in one ...
Page 382
... a study of the documentation of Richard J Brenneke, the CIA operative who had been in overall charge of the agency's secret money-laundering operations. ...

Robert Maxwell was buried on Jerusalem's Mount of Olives after Israel provided him a MOSSAD Assassin...then a state typical Israeli fashion....


Seymour Hersh and the Missing Siamese twins CIA2/MOSSAD and the Zionist-Israeli Connection....

As I read Hersh’s highly publicized and influential reports in the New Yorker Magazine on torture in US occupied Iraq (1), it became increasingly apparent that this was not a thoroughly researched exposé of the higher ups responsible for the policy of torture. Hersh’s reportage was a selective account guided by selected question about selected officials. As one reads through Hersh’s version of events with increasing incredulity it is clear that Hersh hangs his whole argument and exposé of US officials involved in the use of torture on one person – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - (important to be sure) and not on the other top Defense officials who were extremely influential and responsible for war policy, establishing intelligence agencies and co-coordinating strategy and tactics during the occupation. Rumsfeld was part of an elite, which sanctioned and promoted torture. Throughout his exposé Hersh deliberately omits the role of the Zionists (Wolfowitz, Feith – numbers 2 and 3 in the Pentagon) who supported and promoted the war, torture-interrogation and particularly Israeli experts who led seminars teaching the US Military Intelligence their torture-interrogation techniques of Arab prisoners based on their half-century of practice.

In looking for documentary sources of torture interrogation Hersh relies on academic texts and 20 year old CIA manuals, not Israeli practice widely disseminated by the Mossad and Shin Bet advisers presently involved in torture in neighboring Palestine and Iraq today.

Hersh is presented in the mass media as an iconoclastic, investigative journalist, a role which gives his reportages and exposés a great deal of credibility. Yet it was Seymour Hersh who publicly defended torture of suspects and their family members as a method of interrogation, citing the Israeli examples in the wake of September 11, justifying torture in the same way as the Pentagon now justifies the torture of Iraqi suspects. Instead of citing an obscure professor at the University of Chicago, Hersh should have cited the influential tract defending torture by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz (a fellow Zionist) widely read by the ‘civilian militarists’ who run the Pentagon, and direct the chain of command leading to interrogation through torture.

Hersch’s account fails to provide a political context in the Pentagon and in the Middle East for the systematic use of torture. To understand the issue of the US practice of torture and violent abuse of Iraqi prisoners and civilians requires an examination of the ideological demonization of the Iraqi population – “the Arabs” and the US unconditional political and military support for the state of Israel, the principal long-term large-scale practitioner of torture against Arabs. The most vitriolic systematic denigration of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East is found in the writings an speeches of influential US-based Zionist ideologues, like the Pipes (father and son), the Kristols (senior and junior), the Kagans, Cohens, Goldhagens and others. The first step toward justifying torture is to “dehumanize’ the victim, to label them as ‘untermensch’ (congenitally violent savages). The Zionists in the US were merely following the pronouncements of their ideological mentors in Israel who not infrequently proclaimed that “the only thing the Arab understands is force” (Sharon, Golda Meier, Dayan, Rabin etc…). The Zionist ideologues in the Pentagon were influential in arousing hatred of “Arabs” in several ways. First in their defense of Israel they deliberately distorted the nature of Israel’s colonial war, blaming the Palestinian victims for the systematic violence which Israel inflicted on them. The ideologues defended every Israeli violent action: the massacres in Sabra and Shatila, where they went to extremes to pin those massacres on innocent others..., in Jenin, new Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the murderous assault on Rafah, the killing of UN aid workers and peace activists, the monstrous wall ghettoizing a whole people, the mass murder of hundreds of Palestinians and destructions of thousands of homes in Gaza. Israeli violence against Palestinians made a deep impression on US Zionists who generalized and deepened their animus to Arab Muslims throughout the Middle East, but particularly in Iraq where they were in a position to implement their policies.

The Zionists and Torture in Iraq

The Pentagon’s main source of “intelligence” and propaganda for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was in part derived from the Office of Specials Plans (OSP) and Counter-terrorism Evaluation Group established by ultra-Zionist Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense (third in the Pentagon hierarchy) with strong support from Wolfowitz, Abrams and Rumsfeld. Feith put fellow Zionist, Abram Shulsky in charge of OSP. The Special Group bypassed normal CIA and military intelligence agencies and secured its own intelligence prior to the war and was involved in securing intelligence during the first stages of the occupation (before it was dismantled). As the Iraqi resistance increased its effectiveness and the US justification for the war (weapons of mass destruction) was proven to be a total fabrication of the Special Group, the top echelon of the Pentagon, Rumsfeld and the Zionists grew desperate – they collectively passed the orders to intensify and extend torture to all Iraqi suspects in all the prisons. It is a gross simplification to say that the line of command was limited to Rumsfeld, when Wolfowitz, Feith and Abrams were also intimately involved in everyday policies prosecuting the war, defending the occupation and controlling intelligence.

Even more than Rumsfeld, the Zionist zealots in the Pentagon were the most ardent promoters of introducing Israeli methods of torturing and humiliating Arab suspects, lauding Israeli “successes” in dealing with the “Arabs”. They, not military intelligence, promoted the use of Israeli ‘experts’ in interrogation; they encouraged Israeli led seminars in urban warfare and interrogation techniques for the US military intelligence officers and private contractors.

Nothing about the responsibility of the Pentagon Zionists in the torture of Iraqis appears in Hersh’s “expose”. The glaring omissions are deliberate – as they are obvious – form a systematic pattern and serve the purpose of exonerating the Pentagon Zionists and Israel and hanging the entire responsibility for war crimes on Rumsfeld.

A Close Look at Hersh’s Method

A close reading of Hersh’s series of articles in the New Yorker reveals his premises and political perspectives, none of which have anything to do with democratic values or concern with human rights.

Hersh’s principal concern is that Rumsfeld’s blanket order to use torture disrupted the operations of an elite group made up of professional commandos involved in a secret “special access program” designed to murder, kidnap, torture “terror suspects” throughout the world. In other words by involving thousands of everyday US soldiers (referred to by one of Hersh’s sources as “hillbillies”) as torturers in Iraq Rumsfeld was endangering the operation of professional killers throughout the world. Hersh’s second major concern was that the discovery of the torture would “hurt America’s (sic) prospects in the war on terror” – in other words a tactic he attributed (solely and wrongfully) to Rumsfeld was endangering the US empire-building capacity. Hersh’s empire-centric view refuses to recognize the elementary rights of self-determination and international law. Hersh’s third apparent concern is with Rumsfeld’s bypassing the CIA and other intelligence agencies and attempt to monopolize intelligence. This is a bit ingenuous. Wolfowitz and Feith set up the special intelligence agency that fed Rumsfeld the fabricated intelligence, they promoted Chalabi (known throughout Washington intelligence circles as totally unreliable) as an impeccable source of “inside information”, in Saddams’ non-existent weapons of mass destruction knowing in advance that they were passing phony “data”. As Wolfowitz latter cynically admitted the decision to launch the US invasion over banned weapons was because it was the only issue they could agree upon.

Hersh is not stupid, he knows what everyone else in Washington and out of government knows: the Zionists in the Pentagon were pushing for war with Iraq before 9/11 (even before they took office in Washington and were working with the Israeli state) and were intent on having the US destroy Iraq, at any price including the loss of American lives, budget busting deficits, imperiling oil interests and jeopardizing US global imperial interests.

They launched the invasion bypassing the military central command by deliberately falsifying the response of the conquered Iraqi people (“they will welcome us as liberators” – Wolfowitz and Perle) and intent on destroying civil and state structures (the so-called de-Baathification purges) in order to forever undermine Iraq’s capacity to challenge Israel’s domination of the Middle East.

None of Hersh’s questions explore these well known facts about who is responsible for the atrocities against Iraqis. He didn’t have to cite unnamed intelligence or Pentagon sources – General Anthony Zinni and many non-Zionists insiders, as well as the CIA and Central Command knew about the Zionist promoters, plans and moreover knew the role Feith played in pushing for harsher interrogation techniques. But Hersh ignored these questions, those Zionists and their ideological supporters and advisers who did everything possible to undermine any Iraqi economic recovery and capacity to run their own education, health and electoral systems. De-Baathification was meant to turn Iraq into a backward tribal, divided desert country run by their protégé Chalabi, the only “candidate” who would recognize Israel, supply it with oil and support Mid-East “integration” under Israeli hegemony. The Zionist Pentagonistas succeeded in securing the war, they succeeded in destroying basic Iraqi social services, they destroyed the state (courts, military, civil services). However in their blind subservience to Israel they overlooked the fact that the disbanded professional soldiers and purged civil leaders and professionals would become part of an experienced armed resistance, that Iraq would become ungovernable, that US rule would crumble, that the US would become bogged down in a politically lost war, that its puppet regime would have neither legitimacy nor popular support. The Zionist did what they thought was best for Israel, even if it provoked greater opposition world-wide, including in the US, where a majority have turned against the occupation by May 2004. Only the Israeli transmission belt, AIPAC would cheer Bush and his continuation of the occupation and pledge allegiance to the Israeli war against Palestinians. When their self-serving “prediction” of an Iraqi welcoming committee turned into a valiant popular anti-colonial war, Feith and his underlings called for greater use of more forceful interrogation methods – Rumsfeld and Feith encouraged Israeli type torture to “humiliate the Arabs”. Meanwhile Kagan’s call to “bomb the Arab street” was tried and failed to intimidate the Iraqi resistance.

Hersh’s exposé of Rumsfeld as the only top culprit turns up at a convenient moment: when US policy has failed and most knowledgeable officials are moving closer to identifying the role of the Pentagon Zionists. It was clever by half: Rumsfeld was universally despised in Congress, among the professional military and a host of others for his policies and arrogant public face. Even in “exposing” Rumsfeld however Hersh is careful to do so in a fashion that allows his Zionist colleagues to continue in office unscathed.

Hersh justifies some of Rumsfeld’s acts of illegal terror by describing “legalistic obstacles” to eliminating terrorists. Hersh’s support for Rumsfeld’s resort to unaccountable commandos engaging in assassination, kidnapping and torture of suspects around the world is in effect a way to condone those tactics after Rumsfeld leaves office. If Rumsfeld resigns, torture will continue under colleagues Feith and Wolfowitz. Hersh drags in a fifth level functionary working under Feith, Stephan Cambone, who he tells us “was deeply involved” in the torture of prisoners – more involved than his Zionist superiors? We might ask the peerless investigatory journalist: How is it that Hersh blames those above (Rumsfeld) and those below (Cambone) but never focuses on Feith and Wolfowitz who designed and directed policy?

In setting up Cambone for the exposé, Hersh profiles Cambome in terms that fit with greater pertinence the Zionists: He advocated war with Iraq (following Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and Abrams); he disdained the CIA who the Pentagon Zionists viewed as “too cautious”; he attacked the CIA for not finding WMD. Since Cambone functioned under Wolfowitz and Feith he was simply repeating what his bosses wanted to hear and perhaps that’s why they entrusted him with the relevant dirty tasks of extracting ‘intelligence’ via torture.

Hersh tries to link Cambone with the extension of the torture practiced “selectively” by the Special Agency Program. SAP was already operative before Cambone took office and its operations were under the direction of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and Abrams. Hersh’s dating of the torture in August 2003 with Cambone and Major General Miller (from Guantanamo) assignment is false. It started earlier under the SAP and with Israeli trained interrogators. Moreover the Pentagon headed by the same three (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith) ordered Miller’s use of torture on “suspects” at Guantanamo – who moved him to Iraq as a reward for exemplary work. Hersh does not explore Miller’s links with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith before going to Iraq. He simply aborts the analysis – looks at the middle and lower levels of power: Cambone, Miller, interrogators, and enlisted soldiers. Out of this framework Hersh comes up with a detailed piece of selective investigatory journalism. Hersh exposes some but covers up for those most actively involved in invoking the war and directing it in a way that served Israeli interests. The cost in US lives and the degradation of young US servicemen forced to assume the role of torturers is of little concern to the Pentagon Zionists. Even after all the exposés of torture, killings and rapes, major Zionist ideologues like Kristol, Krauthammer, Rubin, Perle, Kagan and Frum have launched attacks on Bush for “backing off from the war.”

The Pentagon’s Zionists are under attack. In the face of the US debacle in Iraq, the anti-Zionist coalition found in the State Department, the Military, the CIA and elsewhere have launched a counter-offensive. Marine General Anthony Zinni, Senator Fritz Hollings and other prominent political, diplomatic and military leaders have openly identified the role of the Pentagon Zionists in launching and directing the war to favor Israel. The most recent and visible move was the marginalization of the pro-Israel Chalabi – the protégé of Wolfowitz, Feith and Abrams. The raid on his house and the carting off of his records, ostensibly to investigate financial irregularities is a symbolic setback. So is the US abstention in the Security Council on Israel’s rape of Rafah – much to the chagrin of the Israel First crowd at the AIPAC convention. In response all the major Jewish organizations and publications from the Forward, Anti-Defamation League, AJC and others have denounced the critics of the Pentagon Zionists.

Hersh attempts to head off the anti-Zionist headhunting coalition by focusing on the two Goyim – Rumsfeld and Cambone –has been to no avail. The knives are drawn. Because of Zionist power in and out of the government, the anti-Zionist coalition and their supporters use code words, the most common of which is “neo-conservative”, which everyone now knows means Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams and other Zionists in and out of the government. AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League and other Israel Firsters sensing the danger to their co-thinkers have turned to labeling critics of the neo-conservative militarists “anti-Semites” and arousing Congress members, the media and their propaganda machine into silencing the coalition into submission..

But the Coalition is gaining influence – Bush is insisting on handing over symbolic power to Iraqi Shias in a subtle game of cooption promoted by the State Department. Already the Zionists led by Kagan and Kristol have all but called Bush a traitor and coward for “retreating.”

The photos of torture, which have discredited the war policy, threaten to isolate the Zionist zealots. Faced with the indignation of the whole civilized world at the war crimes, the ‘progressive’ Zionist apologists, like Hersh, take to isolating blame on Cambone and Rumsfeld and minimizing the responsibility to “a few soldiers in a cell block”, as did Senator Lieberman while the AIPAC elite cheer Bush on with the war ignoring the muck and blood of torture.

Rumsfeld has shrewdly tied his future to his Zionist partners in the Pentagon and outside, counting on riding on their coat tails and reaping the support of the powerful Jewish lobby and their leaders in the Israeli state, who stand behind them. He has few other influential allies.


In the final analysis even if Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Rubin, Libby and the current crop of Zionist Pentagonistas are forced to resign it will only be a temporary setback. The Zionist political organizations remain intact, their influence over Congress remains overwhelming and they have pledges from both major presidential candidates that “Israel’s cause is America’s cause” (Bush and Kerry). The Zionist juggernaut grinds on, securing sanctions against Syria and calling for the bombing of Iran’s supposed nuclear facilities. If you can’t find a real threat to the US maybe the next crop of Zionists in power will cook up another “consensual pretext”. Holbrooke and Sandy Berger can tutor the US on multi-lateral wars of aggression.

Meantime among those who still deny Zionist power in US foreign policy, one only has to read the accounts of the AIPAC conference in Washington in May 2004. At a time when Israel was killing children in the streets of Rafah and destroying hundreds of homes under the horrified eyes of the entire civilized world, when an indignant UN Security Council finally rose to its feet and unanimously condemned Israel, US Congressional leaders and the two major Presidential candidates pledged unconditional support to Israel, evoking the bloodthirsty cheers of investment brokers, dentists, doctors, lawyers – the cream of the cream of American Jewish society. “The cause of Israel is the cause of America” rings out from the mouth of every candidate as the Israelis bulldoze homes and snipers shoot small girls on their way to buy candy. Its almost as if Sharon wanted to demonstrate the power of the Zionists in the US, timing the vile destruction of Rafah to coincide with the AIPAC convention and the disgusting appearance of the spineless American politicians supporting ongoing crimes against humanity. Not one voice was raised in even meek protest. To those who claim that the Zionist are just one of a number of “influential lobbies” – try explaining the unconditional support for Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people by the most powerful politicians in the US.

It is almost a perverse pleasure to watch Sharon smear the muck and gore of Sabra and Shatila, Jenin, and more...Rafah on the groveling faces of US politicians – they deserve each other. But for those of us who support a democratic anti-imperialist foreign policy this is one of the most humiliating moments in US history. Something we won’t read in the exposés of Hersh or the erudite Zionist treatises in defense of endless wars....

The Lobby and the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon

Their Facts And Ours

All the national, state and local Jewish organizations have launched a $300 million fundraising and propaganda campaign in support of the 21 Jewish civilians and 116 soldiers killed during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (but not the 18 Israeli Arabs who were excluded from Jews-only bomb shelters). As adjuncts of the Israeli foreign office not a single one of the 52 organizations which make up The Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in the US voiced a single public criticism of Israel’s massive destruction of civilian homes, hospitals, offices, supermarkets, refugee convoys and churches and mosques, and the deliberate killing of civilians, UN peacekeepers and rescue workers with precision bombing. On the contrary the entire Jewish lobby echoed in precise detail the Israeli lies that the Lebanese deaths were caused by the Lebanese resistance’s “use of human shields,” despite the total devastation of the heavily populated southern suburbs of Beirut, completely out of range of any Hezbollah rockets.

The magnitude of the Jewish Lobby’s cover-up of Israel’s massive military assault can be measured in great detail.

The Israeli Armed Forces (IDF) launched 5,000 missiles, five-ton bunker-buster bombs and cluster bombs as well as anti-personnel phosphorus bombs each day into Lebanon for 27 days — totaling over 135,000 missiles, bombs and artillery shells. During the last seven days of the war Israel launched 6,000 bombs and shells per day — over 42,000, for a grand total of 177,000 over a heavily populated territory the size of the smallest state in the US. In contrast, the Lebanese national resistance launched 4,000 rockets during the entire 34-day period, an average of 118 per day. The ratio was 44 to 1 — without mentioning the size differentials, the long-term killing effects of the thousands of un-exploded cluster bombs (nearly 50 killed or maimed since the end of hostilities) and Israel’s scorched earth military incursion.

The Jewish lobbyists publish the number of Israel’s civilian dead as 41, forgetting to mention that only 23 were Jews, the remaining 18 were members of Israel’s Arab Muslim and Christian minority who constitute around 20% of the population. The disproportionate number of Israeli Arabs killed was a result of the Israeli government policy of providing shelters and siren warning systems to Jews and ignoring the security needs of its Arab citizens. The proportion of civilian deaths to soldiers was 41 to 116 or 26% of the total Israeli dead (but if we only consider Jewish Israelis and IDF members the proportion 23 to 116 or 16% of the Jewish dead were civilian.) Clearly the Lebanese resistance was aiming most of its fire at the invading IDF. In contrast, in Lebanon, of the 1,181 so far known to have been killed, 1088 were civilians and only 93 were fighters. In other words 92% of the Lebanese dead were civilians — over three times the rate of civilians killed by the Lebanese resistance and almost six times the rate of Jewish civilians killed (the only ones who count in the Lobby’s propaganda machine). To put it more bluntly: over 47 Lebanese civilians were slaughtered for each Jewish Israeli civilian death.

The Jewish Lobby’s claims of Israeli moral and military superiority in the Middle East — which is paradoxically combined with warnings that Israel’s survival is at stake — has been shredded to tatters as a result of their failure to annihilate Hezbollah.

The Lobby’s echoing Israeli military claims of the invincibility of the Israeli armed forces is largely based on their ‘fighting’ against rock throwing Palestinian school kids. Today it is clear that they are quite vulnerable when faced with well-armed, veteran Lebanese guerrilla fighters. According to a United Nation Report, from June 26 to August 26, 2006, Israel killed 202 Palestinians, 44 of whom were small children, while losing one soldier; while in Lebanon, Israel lost 116 soldiers to 93 Lebanese fighters in 34 days (almost half the time period). In other words, 157 times more Israeli’s were killed as a result of the Lebanese invasion in one month than died in Palestine in two months (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, August 26, 2006). The Jewish Lobby’s propaganda campaign in the US Congress, throughout the mass media and even in our small communities in defense of Israel’s “Summer Rain” (raining bombs on civilians) against the Palestinians has been thoroughly exposed as a murderous scorched earth policy by the United Nations report and summarized in the Israeli daily Haaretz (August 27, 2006): “The [campaign] . . . is still taking a severe toll on 1.4 million Palestinians . . . thousands of Palestinians have been forced to flee their homes following continuing IDF incursions into the Strip (Gaza) and heavy shelling . . . the Israeli Air Force has conducted 247 aerial assaults in Gaza…more than a million people have been left with no regular supply of water and electricity.” The Lobby, like skilled totalitarians, reverses the roles calling the Palestinian victims (all 202 of them) terrorists and the executioners (the Israeli Defense Force) victims (one dead soldier who was most likely killed by ‘friendly fire’).

George Orwell would have written a scathing essay on the Lobby’s version of Israel’s Animal Farm where one Israeli death is worth more than 202 Palestinians.

In surveying the Daily Alert, the propaganda sheet prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (a semi-official propaganda arm of the Israeli regime) for the Conference of Presidents of Major America Jewish Organizations (CPMAJO), there is not a single mention of the fact that the Jewish state was killing almost 10 Lebanese civilians for each fighter, while the Hezbollah resistance was killing four times as many Israeli soldiers as Israeli civilians (Jews and Gentiles). Not a single opinion article, editorial or commentary reproduced by the Daily Alert, from the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, The National Telegraph, the New York Sun, USA Today, Boston Globe, New York Times, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post or The Times (UK) mentions the fact that Israel’s much ballyhooed “precision” bombing succeeded in targeting civilians, while the Lebanese defenders’ far less sophisticated weaponry mainly hit IDF invaders.

These omissions by the Jewish Lobby and its members and supporters in the Anglo-American-Israeli respectable and yellow press and electronic media were absolutely necessary to perpetuate the myth the Israel was waging a “defensive”, “existential” (sic) war for “survival” against Islamic “terrorists” embodied in Hezbollah and the Lebanese National Resistance.

Was Israel’s destruction of 15,000 homes up to Beirut and beyond to Northern Lebanon defensive actions as the CPMAJO claims? Do these very smart, very wealthy, highly educated Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Hopkins and Chicago-educated apologists for the Israeli invasion really believe that bombing hospitals, supermarkets, water treatments plants, churches and mosques in Southern Lebanon, oil refineries and milk, food and pharmaceutical factories in Beirut, transport, highways and bridges in Northern Lebanon were “existential” acts essential for the survival of the “Jewish State”? Can’t they understand the simple math presented above? The math of genocide? Do the investment bankers, professors, dentists and armies of rabbis of all Talmudic readings believe that Israel is the innocent victim of aggression — justifying the slaughter of over 90% Lebanese civilians among those it killed? Such well-educated professionals must know that from January 1996 to August 2006, there were weekly incidents all along the Israeli-Lebanese border, involving Israeli raids, killings and kidnapping of Lebanese civilians, as well as rocket firing in both directions. Didn’t the Hollywood moguls who gave so generously to the Israeli war machine know that Elliott Abrams, President Bush’s chief adviser on the Middle East (stern defender of Jewish purity and intimate collaborator with the Israeli high command) gave full support in early summer to an Israeli plan to destroy Hezbollah, at least one month before the border incident (see Seymour Hersh, “Watching Lebanon,” The New Yorker, August 21, 2006)?

Of course the educated elites know all about the Israeli lust for power and dominance –unlike the good Germans in the 1940s, who claimed they didn’t see the smoking chimneys or the grim trains — as today images of devastated apartments and slaughtered children were visible, easily accessible and followed by well-publicized reports by all the human rights groups on Israel’s crimes against humanity. They knew and supported Israel’s crimes before and after the ceasefire — and they proudly chose to endorse the war, the policies and the state as true accomplices after the fact.

Yet the Jewish Lobby tells us that Hezbollah’s kidnapping of two soldiers across the Israeli border was the detonator for a full-scale invasion. Numerous sources around the world even dispute the Israeli account of a Hezbollah cross-border attack. According to the big business US magazine Forbes (July 12, 2006), the French news service AFP (July 12, 2006), the respectable Asia Times (July 15, 2006) and the Lebanese police, the Israeli soldiers were captured within Lebanon in the area of Ai’tu Al-Chaarb, a Lebanese village a few kilometers from the Israeli border.

While the Jewish lobby raises funds exclusively for Israeli-Jewish soldiers and civilians, Hezbollah is engaged in a non-sectarian reconstruction program that embraces all Lebanese communities and households, regardless of religious or ethnic preferences. The reason is found in the fact that the Lebanese resistance was a national movement. Contrary to the Lobby’s propaganda, the Lebanese resistance was not exclusively Shia or even Muslim in make-up. Israel’s invasion managed to united Lebanon’s factions in defense of their homeland. Of the 93 Lebanese fighters killed, 20% were from organizations other than Hezbollah, a point ignored by the Lobby’s ideologues, who pursue Israel’s policy of pushing the US to attack Iran, Syria and other Middle East states known to be hostile to Israel’s hegemonic ambitions.

Consequences of Israeli War

In both Israel and throughout the pro-Israel Jewish networks, the Israeli military’s failure to achieve its goal of defeating and eliminating the Lebanese resistance, particularly Hezbollah, has had a major impact. In Israel, the major criticism of the Olmert-Perez regime and General Halutz from both soldiers and civilians is that the government was too weak — there was insufficient bombing, lack of sufficient ground troops and too much concern for Lebanese civilians. The cease-fire, they complained, was premature; the territory occupied was too limited. Likud and other parties in the Knesset called for the bombing of Syria and Iran.

While many US and Israeli progressives cited the “turmoil”, “dissent” and harsh polemics in the aftermath of the war as typical of the “rough and tumble” of Israel’s democracy, they ignored the savage militarist substance and ultra-rightwing direction of Israeli public opinion. The “who lost the war” polemics in Israel is basically anchored in preparations for a new, more violent attack on Lebanon and other adversaries of Israel.

This militaristic rage is manifested in the brutal daily assaults on the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank where Israeli warplanes bomb homes and ground forces assassinate and injure dozens of civilians – “existential” murders against stone-throwing schoolboys. Israel’s rage has affected Jewish religious notables. The Rabbinical Council of America called for the Israeli military to re-evaluate its military rules of war in light of Hezbollah’s “unconscionable use of civilians, hospitals, ambulances, mosques and the like as human shields,” according to the Jerusalem Post (August 21, 2006). The RCA and the modern Orthodox women’s organization, Eminah, represent over one million US Jews. Their call to maximize civilian deaths in order to lessen the “risk” to “our” (Israeli Jewish) soldiers is in the finest spirit of Nazi chaplains egging on the Wehrmacht’s scorched earth policy during World War II. Their Israeli counterparts, Rabbis Eliyahu and Drori, echoed the RCA’s “delicate criticisms” in more colorful and uninhibited terms: “Our corrupt military, which tells us that our soldiers must endanger their lives to protect enemy civilians, is the reason we lost the war,” according to the gentle Rabbi Eliyahu, who sees all non-Jewish civilians opposing Israeli policy as enemies worthy of incineration. Not to be outdone, the good Rabbi Drori accused the rest of Western humanity of being “anti-Semites” for being horrified at Israel’s savage destruction. “Anti-Semites demand that we use Christian morality while our enemies act like barbarians.” (Jerusalem Post, August 21, 2006) Apparently the killing and maiming of over a thousand Lebanese civilians, mostly women and children, does not satisfy this raging bull Rabbi.

Lest one think that these US and Israeli Rabbis are simply loose cannons or isolated psychopaths, three weeks earlier one Rabbi Dov Lior, in the name of the Yesh Council of Rabbis (with hundreds of thousands of Israeli followers), announced that “when our enemies hold a baby in one hand and shoot us with the other, or when missiles are purposely aimed at civilian populations in the Land of Israel in blatant disregard for moral criteria, we are obligated to act according to Jewish morality, which dictates that ‘he who gets up to kill you, get up yourself and kill him first.’” (Jerusalem Post, August 25, 2006) The holy men of the Holy Land are providing a post-factum religious blessing for the more than three hundred Lebanese children killed and urging the future killing of even more children. All this, we are told, is according to “Jewish morality.” Surely many US Jews, especially liberals and even conservatives, object to rabbinical fiats for the slaughter of children, but we are deafened by their polite silence. The Lobby conveniently ignores the Jewish morality spiel, even as it defends the “moderate” secular line of Israeli civilian deaths resulting from Hezbollah using Lebanese babies and old grannies as shields to commit their crimes. So we have a raging debate among US and Israeli rabbis, and secular and religious apologists over whether killing Lebanese civilians and children is based on tactical military or religious-ethical considerations.

The Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, David A. Harris, puts to the lie the nasty bit of propaganda by US “Left” Zionists who downplay the role of the Jewish Lobby in securing whole-hearted US White House and Congressional support for Israel’s destruction of Lebanon. In discussing US subservience to Israel, Harris stated, “No other nation has been prepared to define such an intimate relationship with Israel in all bilateral spheres — from arms sales, foreign aid and intelligence-sharing to a free-trade zone, scientific co-operation and diplomatic support. No other nation has the capacity, by dint of its size and stature, to help ensure Israel’s quest for a secure and lasting peace ]sic] . . . In the recent conflict with Hezbollah, once again the United States demonstrated its willingness to stand by Israel, provide vital support and withstand the pressure of many US allies who would have wished for an earlier end to the fighting even if it meant keeping Hezbollah largely intact and in place . . . Whatever the primary factor, there can be no doubt that American Jewry is an essential element of the equation (yoking the US to Israel). This is all the more reason why American Jewry need to work day in and day out to ensure that the mutually beneficial link [sic] goes from strength to strength.” (Jerusalem Post, August 25, 2006)

In plain English, the Jewish networks and lobbies were able to secure 98 percent support from Congress for a resolution supporting Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, even as 54 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of Republicans favor a policy of neutrality as opposed to alignment with Israel. (Times-Bloomberg Poll, July 25-August 1, 2006, published in the Jewish Telegraph Agency – August 15, 2006) The Lobby convinced, pressured and threatened the White House to prolong the Israeli terror bombing as Harris so proudly announced. The Jewish Lobby does work “day in and day out” to make sure that Israel can ethnically cleanse Palestine, drop five-ton bombs on Lebanese apartment buildings, bulldoze villages and isolate the US from even its closest allies at the expense of the US taxpayers, our democratic ideals and our sovereignty. And the American Jewish Committee has the chutzpah (arrogance) to say that it is “our mutually beneficial link.” Now that is a bit of political dishonesty to say the least...!

Sunday, March 15, 2009

The New Heretics

The New Heretics

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
– George Santayana

How quickly we forget. With the abuses of the Inquisition still fresh in memory, the Founders embraced democracy to protect liberty from the manipulations of belief. That’s why facts were enshrined at the core of self-governance and the rule of law. The duplicity at the core of the U.S.-Israeli relationship has put that founding principle at risk.

For seven terrifying centuries, heretics were punished under canon law. In 1633, Italian astronomer Galileo was condemned for “grave suspicion of heresy” when he showed that the sun—not the crown—was the center of the universe. Since the merger of church and state in the Roman Empire of the 4th century, anyone who dared dispute papal authority—by challenging faith with facts—was condemned as both a heretic and an enemy of the state.

Today’s heretics are those who challenge our faith in the “special relationship” between Israel and the United States. To criticize Israel risks condemnation as an “anti-Semite.” Defenders of this relationship were forced to become more vigilant after Israeli troops used U.S.-provided arms and ammunition to kill 1,330 Palestinians in Gaza, including at least 346 children.

That attack, planned for more than a year, was scheduled between Christmas and the presidential inaugural. Within 48 hours of ending its assault, Israel had dispatched an army of bloggers to counter anti-Zionist websites. By early February, the Anti-Defamation League was bemoaning a “pandemic of anti-Semitism” as the massacre fueled outrage worldwide.

By early March, Israeli policy was being described as a threat to international peace and security, a violation of international human rights, a crime against humanity and a form of apartheid. By associating the U.S. with such behavior, this special relationship fueled anti-American hatred, fanned the flames of radicalization and set the stage for more terrorism.

At Hampshire College in Massachusetts, protesters urged that their school divest from firms whose operations support Israel’s four-decade siege of Palestine. When students compared Zionist policies to apartheid-era South Africa, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz condemned them as “rabidly anti-Israel” (enemies of the state).

At Ottawa College in Canada, debate was stifled when Students Against Israeli Apartheid were prohibited from displaying an anti-war poster condemning Zionist policies that president Jimmy Carter condemned in his 2007 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

The People In Between

Meanwhile Pope Benedict XVI attacked a cleric whose excommunication he had lifted. The Pontiff claimed he was unaware that Bishop Richard Williamson had challenged key facts of the Holocaust. When condemned by the Vatican, Williamson apologized. The Vatican insisted he recant. Critics claimed the high profile dispute was staged to distract attention from the carnage in Gaza.

Left unmentioned in mainstream media was the fact that this German Pope, the first since 1523, previously led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a direct descendant of the Vatican’s 16th century tribunal, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition.

The fiercest condemnation of the bishop’s reluctance to recant came not from Rome but from German Chancellor Angela Merkel. No media outlet reported that in 2003 Zionist media mogul Haim Saban acquired control of ProSiebenSat.1, Germany’s second largest broadcaster.

As a major opinion-shaping influence in the years preceding Merkel’s emergence as Germany’s first female chancellor, Saban described himself as an “Israeli-American” and “a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” Steve Rattner, Saban’s financial adviser, explained the motive for his client’s acquisition six years ago: “He thinks Germany is critical to Israel.”

To put these media-fueled events in historical perspective requires a grasp of how—in the Information Age—warfare is waged not on a conventional battlefield but in the shared field of consciousness. In that mental domain—where consensus opinions are created, shaped and sustained—facts are routinely displaced by what people can be induced to believe.

Thus the threat to democracy when media-owning Zionists influence policy-making—as when Merkel threatened to arrest Williamson for Holocaust denial on an EU-wide warrant. Or when Zionists support a modern-day Inquisition—as when Williamson faced expulsion from Argentina, the site of a seminary he directed and home to the largest Jewish population in Latin America.

In October 2007, Defense Secretary Robert Gates coined a phrase to describe the most perilous combatants when waging unconventional warfare. A former C.I.A. Director, he called them “the people in between.” Between Galileo and the facts was Church doctrine determined to displace science with beliefs or, in media parlance, with consensus opinion.

To lend credence (believability) to the displacement of facts with faith requires that the mental environment be saturated with supportive impressions and emotions. Thus the curious correlation when seemingly unrelated events emerged in this same time frame to reinforce the prevailing pro-Israeli orthodoxy, including:

• The high profile suspension of U.K. diplomat Rowan Laxton for allegedly making anti-Semitic remarks while riding an exercise bike in a London gymnasium.

• The high profile protection provided in Dubai to Andy Ram, an Israeli tennis star.

• The announcement that the London Evening Standard’s new owner, Russian-Ashkenazi oligarch Alexander Lebedev, will expand his media empire with a new radio station in Moscow.

• The announcement that the Obama administration will boycott the 2009 World Conference Against Racism after successful lobbying by the Israel lobby who knew that the Zionist state’s treatment of Arabs would be portrayed as racist.

These impressions were reinforced by the release in 2008 of eight Holocaust-based films.

The Displacement of Informed Choice

The Framers envisioned democracy as a form of governance that resides not in a royal court but in a mindset shared by its participants. Where else could it reside? Thus the key role envisioned for media to ensure widespread participation in a system of informed consent. Absent widespread access to unbiased information, the blessings of liberty they knew would eventually succumb to those who prey on ignorance and beliefs.

Thus the risks to self-governance when freedom relies on broadcasters with an undisclosed bias. It is precisely those “people in between” that routinely displace facts with what an unsuspecting public can be deceived to believe.

That fact-displacing modus operandi works the same in modernity as in antiquity. The impact on informed consent is identical regardless whether the deceit is a belief in Iraqi WMD, a consensus faith in the infallibility of unfettered financial markets, or the widely shared opinion that the Zionist state is a democratic ally rather than an enemy within.

Faith-based treachery is as ancient as the use of canon law to silence critics of Church doctrine. The only modern component of this duplicity is the reach of contemporary media and its capacity to manipulate the shared mental state on an unprecedented scale. Freedom can no longer afford America’s entangled alliance with a nation known to routinely wage war by way of deception.

A 1578 handbook for inquisitors explained that its harsh penalties were “for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.” The new Evil Doers are those who dare document the costs of the U.S.-Israel relationship in blood, treasure, insecurity and hard-earned credibility.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Pure French Hubris...

Pure French Hubris...

France's counterterrorism measures are not as enviable as suggested by gullible and tainted "pundits"... The nation's pre-emptive approach rests on a broadly defined offense of "criminal association in relation to a terrorist undertaking," which allows judges to order arrests and detain people on the basis of minimal evidence.

In jails, terrorism suspects are denied basic rights. They are not permitted to see a lawyer for three days and then only for 30 minutes, they are interrogated at all hours without a lawyer present, and they are not told they have the right to remain silent. All of this makes detainees particularly vulnerable to mistreatment.

In courtrooms, the accused are often unable to challenge intelligence material at the heart of the case - sometimes from third countries where torture is routine. Some are convicted on evidence establishing little more than that there was contact among certain people.

When the government is unable or unwilling to prosecute, it deports foreign citizens - who may have been born in France and lived there all their lives - following procedures that do not guarantee due process or adequately protect against the risk of torture or mistreatment in the countries that receive them.

On the street, many Muslims feel singled out and stigmatized. In the long run, abusive counterterrorism measures are counterproductive because they undermine confidence in public authorities and alienate the very communities whose cooperation is so vital in countering violent extremism.

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Le Tribunal de La Haye, en tant qu'organe de justice digne de confiance, est mort.

Le Tribunal de La Haye, en tant qu'organe de justice digne de confiance, est mort...

Comment les pantins de La Haye se sont trompés d'accusé...

En 1979, les services secrets allemands dépêchaient à Zagreb une équipe
d'agents dont la mission consistait à soutenir Franjo Tudjman, favorable
au démantèlement de la Yougoslavie et au développement de la haine

Par la suite, l'Allemagne lui adressera de nombreuses armes.

Quels objectifs poursuivait le gouvernement allemand ?

Briser la Yougoslavie pour mieux contrôler les Balkans et s'assurer une
route stratégique vers le Moyen-Orient, le Caucase, le pétrole et le gaz.

En 1991, lors du sommet de Maastricht, le chancelier H. Kohl
reconnaissait les « indépendances » de la Slovénie et de la Croatie,
bafouant ainsi le droit international.

Pourtant, tous les experts avertissaient que cette attitude susciterait
une guerre civile.

Dans le même temps, le gouvernement allemand, confortait la guerre
civile des Balkans en favorisant le nationaliste musulman Izetbegovic,
collaborateur d'Hitler dans sa jeunesse!

Toutes ces décisions provoquaient une panique chez les importantes
minorités serbes vivant en Croatie et en Bosnie depuis des siècles.
Voilà la véritable histoire...

Durant le conflit, Washington a cherché à profiter de la situation,
encourageant volontairement la poursuite des atrocités.

Lord Owen, envoyé spécial de l'Union européenne en Bosnie, et donc
observateur très bien placé, a écrit dans ses Mémoires : « Je respecte
beaucoup les Etats-Unis. Mais, durant ces dernières années (92-95), la
diplomatie de ce pays est coupable d'avoir prolongé inutilement la
guerre en Bosnie ».

Non seulement le bloc de commandement américain souhaitait doubler
l'Allemagne, mais encore : diviser, affaiblir l'Union européenne, et
utiliser l'Otan comme gendarme du continent européen.

Par ricochet, on ôtait à la Russie tout accès à la Méditerranée et les
Américains imposaient leur leadership politique et militaire pour les
autres guerres en préparation.

Celles qui viendront sous la forme de «guerres civiles européennes », ce
dont LIESI a déjà eu l'occasion de parler.

L'attitude de Washington devrait faire réfléchir les Européens qui
cautionnent la honteuse interprétation de l'histoire par les juges de La

On évoque les déficits nationaux, les suppressions de postes en grand
nombre du fait du respect des diktats de Bruxelles, aux ordres de la
haute finance qui passe ses directives aux banquiers du Fonds monétaire
international (FMI).

On oublie de faire certains rapprochements entre ce qui se passe, à
l'Ouest... avec les événements qui précédèrent la « guerre civile »

Justement, en décembre 1989, le FMI (dont l'ancien patron est très
admiré par N. Sarkozy...) impose des conditions draconiennes à la

Il faut mettre en place des « mesures libérales ». Cela aboutira à la
déstabilisation et à la faillite des grandes entreprises d'Etat.

La Banque Mondiale démantèle le système bancaire, fait licencier 525 000
travailleurs en un an, puis réclame la suppression de deux emplois sur

Le niveau de vie chute dramatiquement. Les dirigeants ne savent que
faire et ils ont recours à la tactique de la division et à la surenchère
dans la haine nationaliste.

Par conséquent, cette guerre yougoslave, chirurgicalement préparée par
les juges de Milosevic, expose les conséquences pouvant être imposées
par les chantres de la globalisation aux populations des Etats soucieux
des droits sociaux, opposés aux multinationales américaines !
Cet éclairage, bien différent de celui proposé par les médias du capital
anonyme et vagabond, peut aider à comprendre les mouvements sociaux
organisés en France aujourd'hui et surtout ceux qui se préparent dans
les trois ans à venir...

Ce qui se passe n'est pas innocent et l'entêtement du Premier ministre
de Villepin est compréhensible à la lecture des informations rapportées
dans la brochure La Haute Banque impose ses valets... LIESI l'avait déjà

Washington a réellement l'intention de se servir de l'islam pour
abaisser la garde des Etats de l'Ouest hostiles au modèle libéral de
Wall Street.

Aujourd'hui comme hier, la haute finance est derrière les dirigeants
croates et musulmans... présentés comme de pures victimes.

Pourtant, Izetbegovic fit campagne électorale en republiant en 1990 sa «
Déclaration islamique » : « Il n'y a pas de paix, ni de coexistence
entre la religion islamique et les institutions sociales et politiques
non islamiques ».

Il mit en place un régime corrompu et maffieux basé notamment sur un
lucratif marché noir et le détournement de l'aide internationale.

Il fit appel, avec la bénédiction de Washington, à des mercenaires
islamistes, notamment d'Al Qaïda ! Mais cela ne gênait pas les juges de

Ensuite, les belligérants commirent TOUS des crimes de guerre. Pourquoi
a-t-on seulement retenu ceux de Milose¬vic ?

Le 4 août 1996, le Washington Post publiait : « Milosevic n'a pas réussi
à comprendre le message politique de la chute du Mur de Berlin. D'autres
politiciens communistes ont accepté le modèle occidental, mais Milosevic
a été dans l'autre direction.

On nous a fait croire que les Serbes étaient des agresseurs, envahissant
la Bosnie de l'extérieur.

En réalité, trois nationalités vivaient en Bosnie depuis très longtemps
: les Musulmans (43 %), les Serbes (31 %), les Croates (17 %). Sans
oublier 7 % de « Yougoslaves » nés de mariages mixtes ou préférant
dépasser les appartenances étroites.

Partager la Bosnie entre les nationalités, comme l'Union européenne a
tenu à l'imposer, était absurde et dangereux.

La Bosnie ne pouvait être divisée sans guerre civile. En fait, les
populations serbes de Bosnie ne se battaient pas pour envahir les
territoires « des autres », mais pour conserver leurs terres ou pour
établir des couloirs de communication entre elles.

Commandant des forces de l'ONU en Bosnie de juillet 1993 à janvier 1994,
le général belge Briquemont était bien placé pour dire : « La
désinformation est totale [...] La télévision a besoin d'un bouc émissaire.

Pour l'instant,il y a une unanimité totale pour condamner les Serbes, et
cela ne facilite pas la recherche d'une solution.

Je ne pense pas que l'on puisse envisager le problème de l'ex-
Yougoslavie et de la Bosnie-Herzégovine uniquement sous l'angle anti-serbe.

C'est beaucoup plus compliqué que cela.

Un jour, en pleine guerre croato-musulmane, nous avons donné des
informations sur des massacres commis par l'armée croate.

Un journaliste américain m'a dit : " Si vous donnez ce type
d'informations, les téléspectateurs américains n'y comprendront plus
rien " ».

Contrairement à l'image qu'en a donnée la presse, la Serbie est
aujourd'hui le seul Etat, avec la Macédoine, resté « multinational » de

Par contre, tous les protégés de l'Otan — Croatie, Bosnie et Kosovo —
ont pratiqué, eux, une purification ethnique quasi totale.

L'on se souvient peut-être de l'affiche exposant des « prisonniers »
détenus, semblait-il, derrière des barbelés. L'un d'eux avait les côtes
terriblement décharnées.

Tout était faux dans cette image tirée d'un reportage de la TV
britannique ITN.

Bernard Kouchner avait plaqué sur la photo un mirador d'Auschwitz et
l'accusation « exterminations en masse ». Pour marteler le message
«Serbes = nazis ».

En fait, cet hypocrite qu'est M. Kouchner avait tout bonnement recopié
une campagne de diabolisation lancée par la firme US de « public
relations » Ruder Finn.

Précisons que cette firme est en cheville avec la célèbre Hill &
Knowlton qui inventa le média mensonge des couveuses « volées » par les
Irakiens !

Et si l'on évoquait le « Plan FER A CHEVAL » ? En 1999, Scharping,
ministre allemand de la Guerre disait: « [Nous craignions] un
fléchissement du soutien des médias, annonciateur d'un retournement de
l'opinion en faveur d'un arrêt de la campagne de bombardements de l'OTAN
et de la reprise des négociations.

Une catastrophe que mon collègue Joshka Fischer voulait à tout prix
éviter ». Le moment était venu d'annoncer une nouvelle sensationnelle :
il disposait depuis quelques jours de la preuve écrite que Milosevic
avait programmé pour le printemps un crime contre l'humanité de grande
ampleur au Kosovo, justifiant a posteriori l'engagement préventif de la
Bundeswehr. « Nous avons enfin la preuve que dès décembre 1998 un
nettoyage systématique et l'expulsion des Kosovars albanais avaient été
planifiés, une preuve en détail et qui nomme toutes les unités
yougoslaves qui y participent.

L'analyse fait apparaître une image effroyablement claire.

J'ai décidé que le plan Fer à cheval soit rendu public demain ».

Deux ans plus tard, le 8 février 2001, la chaîne ARD diffusait un
documentaire exclusif : « Au commencement fut le mensonge ».

Ce soir là, un million de téléspectateurs allemands médusés apprirent ce
qu'un petit nombre de personnes bien informées savait déjà : il n'y
avait jamais eu de plan Fer à cheval serbe, et des massacres avaient été
inventés de toute pièce.

Ils entendirent également l'ancien porte-parole de l'OTAN durant la
guerre, le Britannique Jamie Shea, adresser un vibrant (mais fort
compromettant) hommage à l'éminente contribution des dirigeants
allemands : « Non seulement le ministre Scharping, mais aussi le
chancelier Schrader et le ministre Fischer furent un exemple grandiose
de leaders politiques qui ne s'alignent pas sur l'opinion publique mais
savent la modeler.

En dépit de fâcheux dommages collatéraux et malgré la durée des
bombardements, ils ont su maintenir le cap. Si nous avions perdu le
soutien de l'opinion publique allemande, nous aurions aussi perdu celui
des pays partenaires ». (Source : M. Collon.)

Milosevic était devenu très gênant

Slobodan Milosevic est mort le 11 mars 2006 dans sa cellule d'un
infarctus du myocarde.

Officiellement, « il a pris délibérément un médicament contre-indiqué ».

L'ancien président était jugé depuis plus de quatre ans pour génocide,
crimes de guerre et crimes contre l'humanité pour son rôle lors des
trois guerres qui ont déchiré l'ex-Yougoslavie dans les années 1990,
faisant plus de 200 000 morts.

Les éditoriaux de la presse européenne furent, faut-il s'en étonner,
rédigés sur le même ton : « La mort du monstre... la mort du tyran... la
mort du boucher... la mort du perdant... et aussi, la mort de l'éternel
inculpé ».

Dans une prison aussi moderne que celle de Scheveningen, sa vie aurait
dû être hautement protégée, en tout cas à la hauteur de « la masse de
crimes pour lesquels il devait répondre » !

Relevons en outre que sa mort survient moins d'une semaine après celle
du témoin vedette le plus important de ce procès, l'ancien chef Milan

Ce dernier s'est « suicidé » dans sa cellule où il y purgeait une peine
de treize ans...

Le quotidien russe Izvestia a publié la dernière lettre du prisonnier du
TPI (Tribunal Pénal International), rédigée en anglais et adressée au
ministère russe des Affaires étrangères. Milosevic déclare carrément
qu'il était l'objet d'actions délibérées nuisant à sa santé.

Le document, daté du 8 mars, a été transmis à l'ambassade de Russie aux
Pays-Bas le 11 mars seulement, c'est-à-dire le jour de la mort de

Dans sa lettre, l'ex-président informe que le 7 mars on lui a produit un
document dont il ressortait que le 12 janvier un médicament puissant, la
rifampicine, avait été décelé dans son sang, l'un de ceux utilisés
contre la lèpre et la tuberculose, bien qu'il n'ait jamais pris
d'antibiotiques durant toutes les cinq années passées en prison.

C'est ainsi que Milosevic explique le refus obstiné du TPI de
l'autoriser à se faire soigner à Moscou.

Les médecins du Centre toxicologique auprès de l'Institut des urgences
Sklifossovski de Moscou estiment que la rifampicine, à forte dose,
détruit les reins et le foie et qu'aucun antibiotique n'est capable
d'induire un infarctus du myocarde...

Quelques jours après, le Kremlin dépêchait à La Haye l'académicien Leo
Bokeria, directeur du Centre Bakoulev de chirurgie cardio-vasculaire.

Sa conclusion est cinglante : «Une grave erreur a été commise dans le
traitement de Slobodan Milosevic car le diagnostic n'a pas été établi
avec suffisamment de précision.

Le malade a été privé des soins qui l'auraient guéri. Une opération,
classique dans de nombreux pays du monde, aurait suffi ! » Leo Bokeria
assure que si Slobodan Milosevic avait été transféré dans une clinique
spécialisée, notamment dans le centre que lui-même dirige, après une
coronarographie et des soins appropriés, il aurait vécu de longues années...

Bien évidemment, tout cela conforte l'attitude des proches de Slobodan
Ils accusent le TPI d'être responsable de sa mort. « C'est une
liquidation physique planifiée », a lancé sa femme, dans des
déclarations publiées par le quotidien belgradois Vecernje Novosti daté
du 13 mars.

Dans la foulée, la Douma (chambre basse du parlement russe) a publié ce
commentaire : « L'activité du Tribunal pénal international pour
l'ex-Yougoslavie doit s'achever dans les plus brefs délais. [...] Les
décisions des juges du tribunal de La Haye sont politisées et partiales
à l'extrême.

Non seulement le TPI emploie deux poids et deux mesures, mais il viole
aussi grossièrement les droits de l'homme ».
Comment donc ne pas privilégier la thèse de l'assassinat ?

En 2004, James Gow, « expert en crimes de guerre » et partisan du
Tribunal de La Haye, exprimait à Channel 4 : « Ce serait mieux si
Milosevic mourait en cellule, parce que si le procès suivait son cours,
il pourrait bien n'être condamné que pour des charges mineures ».

Harold Pinter, Prix Nobel de Littérature 2005, commentait ainsi le
procès : « La Cour US-OTAN qui juge Slobodan Milosevic a toujours été
totalement illégitime.

Impossible de la considérer comme un tribunal sérieux. La défense de
Milosevic est puissante, convaincante et irréfutable ». Et pourquoi les
médias ne nous parlaient-ils pas plus des audiences de ce procès ?

Lors de son témoignage à La Haye, le Général Farkas, chef de la sécurité
de l'Armée Yougoslave en 1999, s'était ainsi exprimé : « Lorsque
Milosevic a été mis au courant de crimes commis par des réservistes de
la police, associés à la milice de Slobodan Medic'Boca', il a été furieux.

Il a demandé comment il se faisait que la milice des Scorpions avait pu
être active au Kosovo ; il a demandé que les coupables soient poursuivis
et que cela ne se reproduise plus ».

F. Mitterrand avait également confié : « M. Boutros Ghali m'a informé,
il y a quelques jours, que le projectile qui a frappé le marché de
Markale à Sarajevo était un acte de provocation des Musulmans bosniaques ».

Finalement, il pouvait ressortir de ce procès une vérité bien
dérangeante pour les responsables de l'OTAN.

Certaines censures d'hier n'auraient-elles pas pu apparaître au grand jour?

Le juge Robinson a par exemple coupé ce témoignage d'Eve-Ann Prentice,
journaliste du Guardian et du Times et spécialiste des Balkans :

« En novembre 1994, je me trouvais avec un collègue du Spiegel, dans
l'antichambre du bureau du président de Bosnie, Izetbegovic.
Nous avons vu Oussama ben Laden, escorté, entrer dans le bureau
d'Izetbegovic ». Que faisait ainsi l'agent de la CIA dans le camp des «
gentils » ?

A moins d'être déficient mentalement il est évident que le procès devait
être truqué ou alors... il fallait faire disparaître Slobodan Milosevic

Sur la blogosphère serbe du Courrier des Balkans les messages de ce
genre sont abondants : «c'est la dernière victime en date d'un nouvel
ordre mondial... ou encore... c'est un bouc émissaire pour toutes les
guerres des Balkans... »


Le Kremlin a adroitement fait savoir aux chantres des droits de l'homme
occidentaux que la Russie avait, à plusieurs reprises, mis en avant des
considérations humanitaires élémentaires, en garantissant que le malade,
mieux soigné en Russie, reviendrait à La Haye dès qu'il irait mieux.

Mais les Occidentaux ont préféré le faire mourir pour ne pas être
confronté à une autre réalité...

D'un autre point de vue, l'échec du Tribunal de La Haye est aussi un
échec moral.

Quand une cour de justice a à son actif plusieurs suicides de détenus et
la mort de son principal accusé, lequel a plus d'une fois demandé à se
faire soigner (à noter que toutes les victimes sont des Serbes), c'est
pour le moins suspect...

Quand le Tribunal de La Haye prétend chercher la justice mais laisse
impunis les criminels qui siègent à Washington et dans certaines
capitales européennes, on ne peut qu'aboutir à une parodie de justice.

Milosevic avait peut-être un problème de conscience, mais que dire de
certains hommes politiques occidentaux ?

La question n'est pas de savoir s'il fallait traduire l'ex- président
yougoslave en justice, mais plutôt pourquoi les personnalités
officielles occidentales qui ont délibérément disloqué la Yougoslavie,
humilié et exterminé le peuple serbe, ne se sont-elles pas retrouvées
elles aussi sur le banc des accusés ?

De même, à côté de Saddam Hussein, il faut juger ceux qui ont déclenché
la guerre en Irak, ceux qui ont bombardé Fallujah avec des armes
chimiques prohibées, ceux qui ont organisé en secret des prisons à
travers l'Europe, qui enferment indéfiniment des détenus à Guantanamo,
qui ont transformé la prison d'Abou Ghraib en chambre de tortures, comme
l'avait fait Saddam Hussein à l'époque.

Le Tribunal de La Haye, en tant qu'organe de justice digne de confiance,
est mort.