Noam Chomsky had once observed an insightful nature of such 'conspiracies', as the open shared natural goals stemming from the very nature of its definition, which could therefore, no more be termed a conspiracy than both GM and Ford endeavoring to maximize their profits at all cost be termed a 'global corporate conspiracy'.

I have always added to that, the equally un-remarkable observation that a hungry lion anywhere in the world pouncing upon a lamb is similarly no global conspiracy by the world's lions to eat up all the lambs on the planet. That is just the nature of the bestial predators when its 'might defines right'. The higher cerebral concepts of 'right', 'wrong', 'moral', 'immoral', etc., do not even exist among any primal predators, for these only behave according to their nature. Pious platitudes, if they could be argued by the lion or the snake for instance, would in fact only be disseminated to the lambs and the mice to make them an even easier morsel to acquire!

The only thing that occasionally deters such exercise of primacy is a collective natural response like the one observed in the 'Battle at Kruger' park. Indeed, the quest for the holy grail of extracting voluntary servitude from the masses of mankind is the key idea of cultivating a willingly compliant public in order for the illuminated ones becoming their stewards for life. In Bertrand Russell's' timeless characterization, to extract voluntary servitude such that: "

Thus we observe that from Plato to Nietzsche, from the philosopher-king to the 'Ubermensch', all have argued the necessity of ruling upon the sheepish masses as the 'divine' imperative of the 'enlightened ones'. Indeed, Zbigniew Brzezinski even sub-titled his seminal book "The Grand Chessboard" with its egotistical subtitle "American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives", merely extending that idea of 'Ubermensch' rule from the most 'enlightened ones', to the most powerful sole-superpower!

The same theme exists among the 'Chosen Peoples', to deem their primacy upon the goyim their inherent nature, their divine destiny. The 'Ubermensch' are suckled these lessons in their mothers milk to acquire those imperatives across generations in perhaps the same way as the generations of corporate executives and CEOs who inherently know that they need to continually enhance the valuation of their company's stock performance in a capitalist system.

So, when these 'divine' ubermensch creatures who are beyond good and evil, behave in their primal predatory natural manner across time and space, across evolution or creation, are they being 'conspiratorial'?

In the Chomsky-Ebrahim nomenclature, perhaps not.

In the Ron Paul nomenclature, it is merely a shared 'Conspiracy of Ideas'  in which 'CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists', and that, it is only 'an ideological battle' wherein:

These are real things, it's not somebody made these up, it's not a conspiracy, they don't talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there has been money spent on it …

According to such legalism, smart conspirators, if powerful enough, could affect the enaction of conducive federal statutes, or prevent the enaction of adverse ones, that would enable them to get away with many morally reprehensible systems and acts. The Federal Reserve System for instance, falls into this category. A legalized extortion racket to enslave the public in perpetual debt for the issue and supply of their own national currency. Similarly, bootlegging is a federal crime one decade, a respectable business the next! And internationally, it is the enaction of laws under WTO which defines what is criminal and what isn't - not the raping and harvesting of developing nations that goes on under its conspiratorial rubric!

Thus suffice it to say, the word 'conspiracy' even has legal semantics, albeit rather limited. It is limited because it is easy to circumvent an abhorrence and call it legal when the king makes the laws.

But the multitudinous connotations of this word do not stop there. It also has a 'tin-hatted' or 'kookish' implication in furtherance of the devilish art of political science based state-craft. This was indeed implied by Congressman Ron Paul in his afore-quoted speech when he stated regarding the North American Union: "

In fact, some of the best cloaking devices for clandestine covert-operations and hidden agendas have been invented by the most brilliant minds - here is one exposition for instance from Ezra Pound: "invent two lies and have the public keep arguing which one of them might be true". Another is by Leo Strauss - the erudite teacher of the majority of the neo-cons - called "Noble Lies". A third by the White House, often referred to as "plausible deniability", okay may be it was invented by the DIA, the grand-daddy of all intelligence agencies. This thinly-veiled euphemism for deception to protect the leadership if things go badly in covert-operations became public knowledge during the Iran-Contra scandal, the televised coverage of which had gripped the American nation for months, including myself. And this wasn't just a rogue operation with ad hoc deniability cover by patriotic agents as most in the public are led to believe. Deniability is official government policy vis a vis any covert operation dating back to President Truman's signing of NSC 10/2. That directive made the introduction of 'plausible deniability' a requirement for CIA's clandestine operations in case they were ever blown while still active. Below is an excerpt from

'Management of Covert Actions in the Truman Presidency

Lastly, we also have the 'limited hangout' and 'modified limited hangout' conspiracies to mislead the public in case 'plausible deniability' for governmental wrong-doing doesn't work. This modus operandi of accepting partial mea culpa for something less consequential in order to mask the more egregious crimes was amply demonstrated by Richard Nixon during the waning years of his presidency. A good description of it with excerpts from the Nixon tapes planning the red herrings is on Wikipedia.

It should now be self-evident that while still active, or while mileage is being extracted from a clandestine operation recently concluded, or some egregious wrong-doing, all references to it must be squashed or dismissed, inter alia, by labeling them as kookish 'conspiracy theories'. And when blown, to have the cover story ready for 'plausible deniability', and/or some version of 'limited hangout'. What are these if not real conspiracies to mask real clandestine covert-operations and wrong-doings?

Thus, if it is axiomatically asserted that there is no such thing as a real conspiracy theory, then that really works wonderfully in the interest of the cloak-makers because it makes one forget the perspectives of history.

And this complex Machiavellian deception game behind alleging 'kookishness' bears exposing fully: invent two or more lies, not just one, and keep the good hearted well meaning peoples in the 'populist democracy' occupied debating which one of them might be true, for it would hardly matter what conclusions they reached. And wherever they ended up, to perhaps yank one of the lies from underneath them by conclusively showing it to be false thus conveniently demonstrating a baseless 'conspiracy theory' in order to keep that notion alive in the public imagination. This consequently delegitimizes in the public mind serious researchers' efforts in uncovering any covert-operation while its secrecy is of paramount necessity. Afterwards, after faits accomplis, after statute of limitations expiring, it makes little difference if historians and con-fession artists make a pecuniary gain peddling what is inconsequential history to the newer evolving realpolitik du jour. The recognition of this self-evident truth of the matter and its utility to Machiavellian statecraft was boldly narrated even in the New York Times (Ron Suskind, Oct. 17, 2004):

Cass R. Sunstein of Harvard Law School, the man who is today President Obama's Information Czar in the White House, in his 2008 paper titled Conspiracy Theories, called this process of the creation of diabolical red herrings, introducing 'beneficial cognitive diversity' through 'cognitive infiltration'. The paper has to be read in its entirety in order to be appreciated for its brazen and open appeal to Machiavelli.

So many complex semantics for the simple term 'conspiracy theory' - it's not just mere nomenclature - that this overview of its usefulness to statecraft was necessary in order to situate anything with such a bombastic title as 'The Capitalist Conspiracy', in its proper social-political-legal-conspiratorial context.

And an equally insightful and rational response to this question of long enduring conspiracy for world domination, is added to the motivational mix by G. Edward Griffin in the video below:

Thus, Griffin aptly noted: "The New World Order Is Not New", but a common objective borne of natural inclination to primacy which apparently transcends time, space, geography and race. It naturally increases in its scope in proportion to the vistas of power it acquires. And it automatically attracts to its cause the coterie of sycophants and useful idiots essential in realizing its overarching agendas. It is helped along, as W. Cleon Skoussen uncannily observed in his commentary in 'The Naked Capitalist':

'The real value of Tragedy and Hope … [is the] bold and boastful admission by Dr. Quigley that there actually exists a relatively small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race. Of course we should be quick to recognize that no small group could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of life were -in on the take- and were willing to knuckle down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a world-wide basis.' (pg. 6)

Subsequent manipulation of global events through statecraft machinations become trivial when one has already taken over the state's machinery and its many essential instruments of policy-making. The upshot of it all is that it becomes a moot point what label one might give to this empirical predatory behavior. Zbigniew Brzezinski even openly proclaimed its pertinence to statecraft in the very first sentence of his book mentioned earlier: 'Hegemony is as old as mankind'. The undeniable fact remains that world-government has been a long historical passion of oligarchs! The quest for the hegemony of the entire world has been their natural enduring conspiracy for world government. And it is finally coming to its grand fruition in our own time as most useful idiots still mindlessly chatter on about 'conspiracy theories'.

Until now.

The mainstream media's favorite scapegoat, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, resurfaced on Saturday amidst reports that he called the attacks of September 11, 2001 "a big lie." According to the immediate and rabid response of virtually every Western news network around, this was simply the latest insane claim of the same raving madman who has previously threatened to wipe a foreign state off the map and denied the Holocaust.

Yet, as with those other mistranslated or misunderstood statements, this new claim hardly stands up to even the most cursory scrutiny, as it has been reported with little accompanying context and comparison. According to a translation by Reuters, Ahmadinejad, addressing the staff of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry, stated that, "The September 11 incident was a big fabrication as a pretext for the campaign against terrorism and a prelude for staging an invasion against Afghanistan." PressTV translated the President as saying that the circumstances of 9/11 were a "big lie intended to serve as a pretext for fighting terrorism and setting the grounds for sending troops to Afghanistan."

Most of the press, including CBS, Huffington Post, and Fox, ran with an Associated Press report by Ali Akbar Dareini entitled, "Iran's Ahmadinejad: Sept. 11 attacks a 'big lie'" while CNN and Ha'aretz reprinted the AP with some slight variations like using the headline "Ahmadinejad Calls 9/11 'A Big Fabrication'."

Robert Mackey, writing for The New York Times editorialized that Ahmadinejad told Iranian intelligence officials that the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City was "staged."

By reporting that he called 9/11 a "lie" or "fabrication," the press has completely subverted the meaning of Ahmadinejad's actual statement. Headlines and ledes like the ones printed by the mainstream media give the intentionally misleading interpretation that Ahmadinejad claimed that 9/11 didn't actually happen. But the full quote obviously reveals something quite different. The events of 9/11 – that hijacked airplanes were flown into buildings, killing tens of hundreds of people – is not questioned or denied by Ahmadinejad in these statements. The attacks, in and of themselves, are not debated or disputed. What Ahmadinejad says is that the event itself was the result of, as PressTV reports, a premeditated "scenario and a sophisticated intelligence measure," that was subsequently used as an excuse to justify the so-called "War on Terror" and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

In short, President Ahmadinejad does not claim that 9/11 itself is a lie. He never has. In May 2006, in a letter written directly to George W. Bush, Ahmadinejad states, clearly and unequivocally,

"September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies."

Ahmadinejad's words echo those of his predecessor, President Mohammad Khatami, who in the wake of the attacks declared, "On behalf of the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic, I denounce the terrorist measures, which led to the killing of defenseless people, and I express my deep sorrow and sympathy with the American people." Furthermore, Iran was one of the first countries to hold candle-light vigils in solidarity and sympathy with the victims of the attacks.

What Ahmadinejad does claim, however, is that the official story of the events – publicly memorialized in the publication of the US government-sponsored The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) – is dubious, incomplete, and may very well have been the result of well-calculated misinformation and deliberate action (or, perhaps, inaction on previously obtained intelligence) by the US government. This is neither a new revelation for Ahmadinejad nor for the world community in general. In his letter to Bush, Ahmadinejad wrote,

"Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?"

In questioning the job done by American intelligence agencies, and questioning the US government's official version of events and responsibility, in the lead-up to September 11th, the Iranian President isn't alone.

Esfahan is Half the World, and Half the World Questions the 9/11 Story

To read the hysterical reports about his recent 9/11 comments questioning the accepted story of the event, one would think that Ahmadinejad is voicing roundly rejected, widely unpopular, and insanely outrageous conspiracy theories, devoid of any reasonable evidence or public support. This is hardly the case.

In fact, Ahmadinejad is in the company of more than half of planet Earth, half of New Yorkers, and almost half of all Americans. His views are not particularly uncommon, let alone unique. They surely don't demonstrate a lunatic fringe viewpoint, but rather an opinion well within the public discourse, though not often discussed by Western media.

Whereas the 9/11 Commission was officially "created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002…to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks," a plurality of the public believe this goal was not successfully accomplished and have doubts about the Commission's findings.

An August 2004 Zogby poll, conducted right after the Commission's report was made public and just days before the Republican National Convention was held in Manhattan, found that over 49% of New York City residents and 41% of New York State citizens say that at least some US government officials "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."

Another Zogby poll from May 2006 found that 42% of Americans believe that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks" and said "there has been a cover-up." Another ten percent of respondents were unsure. The same poll found that 44% of Americans believe that "the Bush Administration exploited the September 11th attacks" in order to advance its own foreign policy agenda in the Middle East, namely, "to justify the invasion of Iraq."

Furthermore, 45% of those polled agree that "so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success," while eight percent remain "unsure."

A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll from July 2006 discovered that "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East."

The next year, in May 2006, a Rasmussen poll revealed that "overall, 22% of all voters believe the President [sic] knew about the attacks in advance," while "a slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance."

Between May 2002 and October 2006, polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News found that upwards of 79% of the American public believed that "When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States," members of the Bush Administration were either "mostly telling the truth but hiding something," "mostly lying," or "not sure." In those four and a half years, the number of respondents convinced that the government was "mostly lying" grew by 20%.

A September 2008 World Public Opinion survey, asked "16,000 people in 17 countries who they thought was responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington." The results showed that "majorities in only nine of the 17 countries believed that al-Qaida was behind the attacks." In response, WPO director Steven Kull stated,

"Broadly, I think what this tells us is that there is a lack of confidence in the United States around the world. It is striking that even among our allies, the numbers that say al-Qaida was behind 9/11 do not get above two-thirds, and barely become a majority. So this is a real indication that the United States is not in a strong position to, in a sense, tell its story. The American narrative is not as powerful in the world today."

Evidence aside, the mainstream media presents Ahmadinejad's recent statements as if they represent an outlandish theory based upon nothing more than paramount insanity.

Wiping Context Off the Map

Disingenuously reporting that Ahmadinejad called 9/11 a "big lie" without exploring the context his statement, notably his claim that 9/11 was used as a "pretext" to carry out the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, is much akin to headlines announcing that Ahmadinejad threatens to "wipe out" Israel without presenting the statement in full. For instance, a Jerusalem Post article from December 12, 2006 and entitled "Ahmadinejad: Israel will be 'wiped out'" states in the first paragraph that the Iranian President "vowed once again that Israel would be 'wiped out.'" Only later in the piece does writer Herb Keinon reproduce the entire quote, which reveals a contextually vital qualification:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom…[elections should be held among] Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."

Similarly, press reports from the previous fall, which sparked the entire "wiped off the map" fiasco, failed to tell their readers the whole story. In that speech, analyst Arash Norouzi explains, "Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets." Apparently, in his reading of history, Ahmadinejad was simply reiterating the suggestions of Zionism's founder Theodor Herzl. In chapter 2 of his 1896 manifesto, Der Judenstaat, Herzl wrote,

"We [Jews] should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence."

Ahmadinejad reminded his audience that, while the eventual weakening or complete dissolution of America's hegemony over the Middle East via its colonial-settler garrison state may be unthinkable or unimaginable to some, "as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books." He listed the Shah's tyrannical monarchy in Iran, the repressive and expansionist Soviet Union, and the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, as examples of "regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished" in only the past three decades. In conclusion, Ahmadinejad repeated Khomeini's prescient view that the political demise of the Zionist government of Israel would soon follow: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Of course, all we've ever heard from Western press reports is that Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," an idiom that doesn't even exist in the Persian language, and that was the end of the discussion.

Confusing "Pretext" with "Pretense"

When Ahmadinejad speaks about historical events acting as pretexts to subsequent injustices, he is not claiming that the first event never happened, but simply stating that the event served to justify what followed. This pretext, then, is the exploitation of terrible tragedies as an excuse, motive, and ostensible reason ascribed to explain what historically occurred next. Using horrific events to nefarious advantage is what Naomi Klein has essentially defined as "The Shock Doctrine." This is what Ahmadinejad has spoken about when he uses the term "pretext," which is why, in his speech on Saturday, he stated that "Depredation, bullying and killing the reality of humanity are the outcomes of the capitalist way of thinking."

Unfortunately, the media has decided to equate the term "pretext" with "pretense" and insist that they are both identical synonyms for a claim, invention, myth, fabrication, or lie. With this in mind, it is easy to see how the demonization campaign of Ahmadinejad has been so successful.

This deliberate misinterpretation is not at all new. Even though it is commonplace in the press to insist that Ahmadinejad is a virulent anti-Semite who believes the Nazi holocaust never happened, this is an absurd suggestion unsupported by the facts.

When, at last April's Durban II conference, Ahmadinejad addressed the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 by stating, "As was the case after World War II, armies occupied other territories and people were transferred from territories…In reality, under the pretext of compensating for the evil done in the name of xenophobia, they in fact set up the most violent xenophobes, in Palestine."

He continued, "The Security Council made it possible for that illegitimate government to be set up. For 60 years, this government was supported by the world. Many Western countries say they are fighting racism; but in fact support it with occupation, bombings and crimes such as those committed in Gaza. These countries support the criminals."

The media reported that Ahmadinejad called the holocaust a myth, which promoted a pre-staged walkout by attending European delegations. But the usage of the word "pretext" is obvious to anyone willing to actually read.

Ahmadinejad's Durban II comments repeat remarks he previously wrote back in early September 2006, in a letter sent to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In it, Ahmadinejad stated, "World War II came to an end with all its material and moral losses and its 60 million casualties. The death of human beings is tragic and sad. In all divine religions and before all awakened conscience and pure nature of mankind and the sense of right and wrong, the life, property and honor of people, regardless of their religious persuasion and ethnic background, must be respected at all times and all places."

By accepting the 60 million death toll of World War II, how could Ahmadinejad be denying the mechanized ethnic cleansing of millions of European Jews? He continued,

"Honorable Chancellor

I have no intention of arguing about the Holocaust. But, does it not stand to reason that some victorious countries of World War II intended to create an alibi on the basis of which they could continue keeping the defeated nations of World War II indebted to them. Their purpose has been to weaken their morale and their inspiration in order to obstruct their progress and power. In addition to the people of Germany, the peoples of the Middle East have also borne the brunt of the Holocaust. By raising the necessity of settling the survivors of the Holocaust in the land of Palestine, they have created a permanent threat in the Middle East in order to rob the people of the region of the opportunities to achieve progress. The collective conscience of the world is indignant over the daily atrocities by the Zionist occupiers, destruction of homes and farms, killing of children, assassinations and bombardments.

Excellency, you have seen that the Zionist government does not even tolerate a government elected by the Palestinian people, and over and over again has demonstrated that it recognizes no limit in attacking the neighboring countries."

If Ahmadinejad's point still isn't clear, he elaborates:

"Using the excuse for the settlement of the survivors of the Holocaust, they encouraged the Jews worldwide to migrate and today a large part of the inhabitants of the occupied territories are non-European Jews. If tyranny and killing is condemned in one part of the world, can we acquiesce and go along with tyranny, killing, occupation and assassinations in another part of the world simply in order to redress the past wrongs?"

The question is not whether the holocaust happened or not, rather, it is how that horrendous tragedy has been exploited in order to justify the establishment of a "Jewish State" in Palestine and rob indigenous Palestinians of their own rights to self-determination. The issue is not to call history into question, but rather to explore the consequences of historical acts.

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad has always made a stark distinction between Jewish people and Zionists. He has said on numerous occasions that his opposition to a Jewish State is a political and ideological one, and not to be confused with a violent ultimatum or military threat to the Israeli people. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said that Iran has "no problem with people and nations" and that Iran does "not have any confrontation with anyone. We seek relations based on respect and justice." Even more specifically, in a 2008 CNN interview with Larry King, he stated quite clearly that "we don't have a problem with the Jewish people."

Just to be extra clear, Ahmadinejad declared, "We are opposed to the idea that the people who live there should be thrown into the sea or be burnt," reiterating his belief in self-determination of all people based upon elections: "We believe that all the people who live there [in Israel and Palestine], the Jews, Muslims and Christians, should take part in a free referendum and choose their government."

Even during his widely lambasted Durban II speech, Ahmadinejad clearly demarcated the distinction between the 19th century colonial ideology of Jewish nationalism and the Jewish religion, stating, "The word Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces."

Despite the fact that Ahmadinejad called for an "end to Zionism," countless news agencies erroneously reported that he sought the "destruction of Israel," and numerous commentators, including British ambassador Peter Gooderham, called these remarks "anti-Semitic."

In his piece about Ahmadinejad's 9/11 statement on Saturday, The New York Times' Robert Mackey, reminded his readers about comments made by the Iranian President during an International al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day rally on September 18, 2009, a national celebration in solidarity with the Palestinian people and in opposition to Zionism. Mackey, who refers to Quds Day as "Iran’s annual anti-Israel day," writes that Ahmadinejad told the crowd that "The pretext for the creation of the Zionist regime is false…It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim." Again, the pretext of the holocaust is not at all the same thing as a lie.

The holocaust, as an historical occurrence admitted to by its own perpetrators in Europe and widely described as the systematic and mechanized murder of millions of Jews, is not being called a lie in this statement. Considering that the indigenous people of Palestine bear no responsibility for the atrocities committed by the Nazis, the consequences of the holocaust, however, as it was used to justify the creation of Israel in Palestine, is what Ahmadinejad states is based on a "mythical claim." This becomes quite clear by listening to the very next line of Ahmadniejad's speech, unreported by Mackey or anyone else in the Western press: "The occupation of Palestine has no connection with the issue of the holocaust."

Later in the Quds Day speech, Ahmadinejad once again made sure to distinguish between Judaism and Zionism:

"The Zionists have no faith. It is a big lie that the Zionists should be considered tantamount to the Jews or the Christians. Zionists are not Jews nor Christians, and, rather, the Zionists seek to destroy all the values brought about by the divine prophets…the basis of Zionism is to destroy human culture and human values and the values of all nations."

Iran itself has an ancient community of over 25,000 Jews, the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel itself. Along with Ahmadinejad, Siamak Morsadegh, the Jewish Iranian legislator and community leader, has criticized Israel's policies towards Palestinians, especially in Gaza, saying it showed "anti-human behavior…they kill innocent people," and continuing that the Jewish community in Iran does "not recognize a government or a nation for the Zionist regime."

"A New Pearl Harbor"

That Ahmadinejad – along with millions and millions of others around the world – would find the official story of 9/11 suspicious is not without good cause.

A year before the September 11, 2001 attacks, neocon think tank Project for a New American Century, published a 90-page manifesto for a imperially dominant American Empire, urging "that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." Among its aims, the report, entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century, calls for the United States to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars" and achieve "a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity."

PNAC's members, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Eliot Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, and Richard Perle, believed that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Maybe those many PNAC members who, later that year, were subsequently appointed to top level positions in Bush's new administration didn't want to wait that long for such a galvanizing moment in order to pursue their own agenda of unilateral preemptive invasions of Middle Eastern countries.

When Ahmadinejad speaks of 9/11 as involving a "complicated intelligence scenario and act," shouldn't the media perhaps contextualize his statement by discussing the exaggerated and manipulated 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident which was largely responsible for launching the American military campaign in Vietnam, the 1954 Israeli false flag operations known as the Lavon Affair conducted against Egypt, or the planned, but never implemented, Operation Northwoods scheme in 1962 concocted by the U.S. Department of Defense to instigate a war with Cuba (one of the plans consisted of hijacking an airplane and blaming the new Castro regime).

IranAffairs' Cyrus Safdari reminds us of "Emad Salem, an undercover FBI informant who had infiltrated the group that carried out the first WTC bombing back in 1993. He was smart enough to record his conversations with the FBI. Turns out, he specifically warned the FBI of the bombing, and offered to replace the bomb material with a harmless substance, but the FBI said no." What about the completely bogus, but thoroughly hyped, "Newburgh bomb plot" to bomb synagogues in Riverdale, NY and fire a missile at a US military jet, which was entirely set up by FBI informant Shahed Hussain.

What about the 2007 statement by National Medal of Science laureate Lynn Margulis in which she referred to 9/11 as a "new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties"? Or former CIA Middle East operative Robert Baer, who has written, "Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation – not one based on 'confession' extracted by torture – we will never know what happened on 9/11." Or former senior CIA official Bill Christison, who wrote that there is a "strong body of evidence showing the official US government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies." What about the other CIA officials who question the official story?

What about the Guardian report from November 1, 2001 which revealed that, according to French intelligence officials, "Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent"?

What about the mysterious collapse of Tower 7, Able Danger, the failure to scramble jets, the myriad National Security experts denied, ignored, or censored from the 9/11 Commission report, deception and non-cooperation by the Department of Defense, whistle-blowers like Coleen Rowley, supposed short-selling and text message warnings, or the five dancing Israelis seen watching and videotaping the attacks from New Jersey's Liberty State Park across the Hudson River?

What about the British intelligence report, entitled "Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States," which purports to provide evidence that "Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001, yet begins with the following disclaimer: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law"?

What about the BBC report, entitled "The investigation and the evidence," which concludes, "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks…At best the evidence is circumstantial."

What about the evidence that, in no verified audio or video tapes, has bin Laden actually claimed responsibility for the attacks, yet has even been quoted as stating, "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act…we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed."

What about the fact that Osama bin Laden is, to this very day, not specifically wanted in connection with the 9/11 attacks, according to FBI's own Most Wanted List?

As a result, is there not plenty of dubious information and spurious evidence surrounding the official story of the September 11 attacks to warrant some sort of suspicion, regardless of what you may personally think actually happened? In this way, with his recent comments, President Ahmadinejad has given voice to the majority of the world. But clearly, for fear they might stumble on some uncomfortable truths, it appears easier for the mainstream media to decontextualize his statements and label him a crackpot conspiracy theorist who is a danger to the American way of life, thus leading the United States down the path to attacking a third Middle Eastern country, than to do its own job.

By misrepresenting the country of Iran, its people, its system of government, its culture, its religion, its elected and unelected leaders, the Western press has already set the stage for an attack on the Islamic Republic. Because of the media's sensational and propagandistic reporting, 71% of Americans already believing that Iran currently possesses nuclear weapons. 90% think that the power of Iran's military poses either a critical or important "threat to U.S. vital interests" (despite the fact that Iran's military budget that is literally one hundred times smaller than that of the US). 59% of American citizens even support unilateral, preemptive US military action against Iran regardless of whether economic or diplomatic efforts achieve the government's desired effect.

Perhaps, as was seen with the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, the press is doing exactly what the US government wants it to do.

*****

Contact him at wideasleepinamerica@gmail.com.
–
Wide Asleep In America
Brooklyn, NY
http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com

The following eleven voices from different countries show views on Palestine after the breakdown of Zionism, written in 2030, three years after the State of Israel had collapsed.

1. Shlomo Berge: "Three years ago, the last war in the region ended. We as Israelis never knew how real peace would feel like, because we were told that there will always be anti-Semites who want to exterminate us. In a way, the way things went was inevitable. We just saw no other solution and were backed by so many countries in our violent delusion. I remember from kindergarten and school how our army was glorified as was the defense against the enemies. Gaza 3 changed a lot of that. While in Gaza 1 and 2 some thousands of Palestinians were killed, Gaza 3 reduced the population by about 20 percent. Of course there had been many outcries, but Israel was used to face opposition and to preserve what was called 'self-defense'. Things then happened very quickly: riots and terror attacks from Palestinians inside Israel led to their expulsion by the army. When the settlements in the West Bank were attacked, the army went all the way and cleared the West Bank completely from the Arabs, claiming that the enemy wanted to make the region 'judenfrei', i.e. free from Jews. There was a huge celebration when Israel was finally freed, a little like back in 1967. As Israel had pre-emptively struck Iran with small nuclear bombs and also invaded Syria and Lebanon, there was no power left to immediately threaten us. The US had already weakened all other powers in the region. Only international rejection became really harsh and massive and Israel finally left the United Nations, stating that the anti-Jewish Nazi spirit in the UN countries was unacceptable and that nobody was to tell Israel what to do to save its existence. By that time, about four million people had been killed by Israel, while about 40.000 Zionist soldiers and some Jewish civilians were killed. Although the number of enemies had increased, nobody dared to attack the Zionist state, because Israel openly threatened to drop more nuclear weapons as it had done in Iran. But instead of having peace, Israel fell into a civil war. Some settlers tried to take over large portions of land declaring they represented the real Israel. Several Jewish groups launched terror attacks while Jews from many countries entered and claimed land and property. The army split up into several factions and soon we had no more government. There were hundreds of dead Jews every day and nobody could help us. Whoever tried to analyze the situation was called an anti-Semite, because allegedly Jews were seen as the perpetrators of all evil which is an old anti-Semitic cliché. People did not distinguish between Jews and Zionists. Many Jews were not perpetrators, but as non-Zionists they were not accepted as real Jews by the people in power. It was such a shame. The militias just had way too many weapons. It was chaos. Far more than a million Jews left the country in despair. In the end, the Palestinians just came back and founded the Democratic Republic of Palestine. They were the only ones left to run the country."

2. Lubna Younis: "I lost my whole family in the second Nakba, when the Zionists drove us out of Nablus to stop all resistance and terror attacks forever. I was just a child then, but I remember how the missiles flew and the tanks came in. The Zionists called it a 'transfer' and said it was to reach peace from the terrorists, but like in 1948 they killed many of the men in combat age. I played outside when a bomb destroyed our home. Everybody inside was dead. Such a typical Palestinian story ever since 1948. The neighbors took me with them to Jordan. Unlike 1948, the exile of the second Nakba only lasted for five years. The Zionists had no more targets and so they started killing each other. In the end, the whole country was devastated. You know, in the 5000 years of the history of this country it never faced such a destruction. Olive trees need decades and centuries to grow and so many thousands of them were pulled out of the ground. Pollution and the wall also helped in ruining the beautiful landscapes. Nothing like this had ever happed to this country before and never was the local population forced out like that. When the Zionists used up their weapons against themselves and when the government broke down in the Civil War, the United Nations sent troops to Dimona to make sure nobody uses nuclear weapons again. It was enough that some of them had been used against Iran. Then, when it was quiet, we just returned to our homes and villages. There were several waves of people returning, also from the refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, and other places. Today, a majority of 70 percent Palestinians live in Palestine, Muslims, Christians, Jews and atheists. The rest are former Israelis, the survivors of the Civil War minus the emigrants. Many went back to where they or their parents originally came from, the USA, Russia and other places. More than a million Jews moved during the Civil War and many others after the establishment of Palestine. Of course we persecuted the war criminals among the remaining Jews, but in the end only three or four thousand were put into jail. Some incidents of lynch mobs are known, but the new authorities were strictly against that and cooperated with the UN. (By that time the UN headquarters had already moved to Europe.) We wanted to stop all extra-judicial killings, we just had enough of all that. We then rebuilt our cities and villages and kind of resumed our history in a way that we had been deprived of since the days of Lawrence of Arabia. Nobody talks about terrorism anymore, all the borders are open now, and soon all Arabs will have a shared currency. It is good now, no more killing, and yet we still mourn the millions of victims. At least, so we want to think, all these people did not die in vain. But sometimes it is hard to recall all this horror. Every year, we commemorate the dead of all sides including the European Holocaust in the Count Bernadotte Congregation Hall in Jerusalem."

3. Umm Midian: "I belong to the very few Israeli Jews who have always been in solidarity with the oppressed Palestinian people. I lived in Israel then and I live much better in Palestine now. There was a huge fear that the Arabs would kill all Jews once the army would not defend them anymore. But it turned out that ironically the Jews in the country have never been as secure as they are now. Many Arabs felt honest sympathy when they saw how Jews killed Jews by the thousands, despite the fact that millions of Arabs and Muslims had been killed by the Zionists before. Racist Zionism was the original problem, there is no more doubt about that today, even in the US. Nobody seems to want to talk about Zionism anymore, as if the Zionists had come from outer space and then disappeared again like extra-terrestials. Of course the Zionist perpetrators were and are taken to account by their victims. This is normal and it is a matter of justice. But the fear of a heavy revenge proved to be unwarranted. Maybe deep in their hearts the Zionists thought: since we have been so brutal with them on a regular basis, they just have to hate us and give us exactly what we gave to them. But they forgot that those Arab and Muslim victims are no Zionists, they do not follow this logic."

4. Theodor Madden: "By the time Israel fell apart I worked in the US Foreign Office. They were difficult years ever since it came out that 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by parts of our own government. You remember the conspiracy theory according to which Islamic terrorists did the job. When the voices of architects and firemen got louder, asking how three buildings could collapse like that against all laws of physics, the pressure got really hard. Then there were many other unsolved questions, e.g. about the much too small hole in the Pentagon building, the lack of remains, the suspicious drills, strange facts about the so-called terrorists and so on. The government should just have provided answers. Instead, the Patriot Act was used against the critics. And we lost so many soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan and spent so many billions of dollars. Why? All this was originally linked to 9/11 without any logic. People started asking what we were trying to accomplish in the countries we attacked. So we were almost paralyzed when Israel targeted Iran unilaterally, when it expelled the Palestinians and when it started destroying itself physically. There was nothing at all the US could have done to prevent this. What should we have done? Send in troops into a civil war zone? To support whom? Our own country was about to collapse and this is actually still possible, although rather unlikely, because we brought all our troops back home now. The situation thus has deescalated for us. Moreover, we do not send weapons to what is now Palestine and do not pay the Egyptians and other regimes any more money, which saves billions of dollars. The whole arms industry is in decline and we do not really care after this nightmare. My personal opinion is that we should have arrived at this conclusion soon after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I personally never was an adherent of Zionism, but of course it was a shock to see our close ally Israel breaking down like a house of cards. The good thing is that there are many fewer weapons in the region now. We never thought that stability could be so cheap, financially speaking. We had to give up our hegemony of the oil fields and strategic places, but we are learning to appreciate the new possibilities that go with regional stability. We don't have the choice, anyway, I guess."

5. Agathe Mengel: "As a German politician it has always been clear to me that we had to stand by the side of Israel and there is nothing we have to be sorry for! The constant rocket-fire and anti-Semitism forced Israel to defend itself. The collapse of the State of Israel is a catastrophe, because it was a safe haven for all the Jews in the world. This is why we have recognized the new state only because the EU has made this decision and we could not have opposed it. It is beyond question that the German history has made the State of Israel necessary. Anti-Semitism is still very strong in the world and Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East. It may be true that there have not been any combat actions observed in the region for three years, but this can change any time. We certainly did not make a mistake here in Germany when we supported Israel, because we have a responsibility."

6. Yossi Feinsand: "I am one of the survivors of the Civil War and I admit that I used to be an ardent Zionist before this war. But in the end I recognized that we were the ones who made the biggest mistakes. I feel betrayed by my parents, schools, politicians, and media. They always told us we cannot be wrong and that it is an old anti-Semitic cliché that the Jews are the guilty ones. But it is we who were guilty in Palestine! Not because we were Jews, but because we were Zionists. It developed into a racist ideology not much better than Nazism, if at all. How many people did we kill? Millions. It started when we came from abroad, made our state without any agreements and at the same time expelled the indigenous population. We were told in our schools that we are special, the chosen people, eternal victims, and that we need a strong army to fight our vicious enemies. Today I live in Jerusalem among all these 'enemies' and they are much nicer than what we used to be. As Zionists, we actually projected all of our own faults onto the Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims. We accused them of hostility when we were hostile. We called them violent while being violent. We held Islam to be an evil religion, because we as Zionists acted in an evil way. We claimed they want to take our land and what we did was take their land. Why did our friends not stop us? I feel so ashamed and can only say how proud I am to be a Palestinian now. I tell my story to everyone and even learned Arabic to do so. Wherever I come I receive so much affection and friendship that it makes me cry. How generous my fellow countrymen are, how great also the Islamic religion. They do not torture me, they all forgave me and I have nothing to fear in my great country, in Palestine!"

7. Naser Ateeq: "Like every Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and Human Rights advocate I am more than happy that the long Zionist nightmare finally has ended. And it is clear to the world now what the 'conflict' was all about. They had taken our land and expelled us, killing many, and most of the world had called our legitimate resistance 'terrorism' and turned us from victims to perpetrators, because the weakest always become the scapegoat. Why did they not learn from the German history? But in the end the world saw the real face of Zionism and now they are quiet at last and we got our land back. Now we must face our own demons, because we do not want to make the same mistakes and project our traumas onto others. One of the taboos of our Palestinian society is, for example, child abuse. It has always been normal for our fathers to beat the children. And society has covered it up. Parents used to be like gods, beyond justice. Even for driving a car you need a license, but children can be raised by every idiot. This must stop now! The problems of our society were not all produced by Israel. By beating our children we have destroyed ourselves and by oppressing our sisters, because they are women, we also did wrong. We have had a damned pasha society and some even derived this sinful behavior wrongly from the Qur'an or the Bible. Some groups have killed and threatened Jewish civilians and there is no excuse for that, not occupation, not anything. We have killed collaborators and showed that we can also be killers, just like them. And we witnessed lynch mobs, even if they were few, after the collapse of the Zionist state. All this must stop immediately and without condition. No more killing! No more oppression! No more beating of our beloved and helpless children! In many respects, we are completely retarded and backward. 'Takhalluf' is the Arabic word for that, in case you have forgotten. A lot of all that is claimed to be Islamic, but I don't believe that. Fortunately, we are a democratic society now. It did not astonish me that in our second free elections the Islamic parties have lost their majority. They have their place and they are important, but Palestine has always been open to all faiths and so it is only normal that the Democratic Party has won the last elections. In it we find all currents in the good manner of Bir Zeit campus society in its best days. There are even some people in it who used to be in the collaborator party of Fatah."

8. Muna el-Missiry: "Egypt profited so much from the new time. Not only because the borders to Palestine and ALL other Arab countries plus Iran are open now, but we also got rid of the unwanted regime, even without a military coup. Like in some other Arab countries the Islamists started with a big success after Gaza 3. They are the only popular currents that were able to gain a huge block of voters, because they represent our main religion and because they are not as corrupt as other trends, especially those affiliated with the West. But then, like in Palestine itself, the peoples recognized that a liberal society in the end works better and that it does not deny religion, anyway. We will not forget that it was the Islamists who opened all the borders, in their quest to restore Islamic unity and the 'umma', i.e. the universal Muslim community. Traveling educated us Egyptians, us Arabs and Muslims a lot and we had hungered for that. Of course, not all of our problems have ceased with the disappearance of the Zionist state, but a lot of them really have. The falcons in Arab countries cannot take Israel as a pretext for weapon-trade and sternness anymore, and indeed we do not feel threatened, especially since the US has completely withdrawn all its troops from the region. Today I can travel from Cairo to Jerusalem in only a few hours, without a visa! In fact, I went there only two weeks ago to help rebuild the Dome of the Rock and the Aqsa Mosque which were heavily damaged in the last years of the Zionist Civil War."

9. Yousuf Sharif: "Since we threw our king out of the country, Jordan faces much more than a renewal. People call it a rebirth. Everything seems possible now. We have a free press and nobody has to fear anything when speaking out against injustice. Jordanian kings have a long history of collaboration with the Zionists and this chapter is closed now forever! Every Palestinian in Jordan – that is about 70 percent of the population – is free to return to Palestine. Most of them don't, because they found a home in Jordan and they can travel to Palestine whenever they want. Only the victims of the second Nakba returned with an overwhelming majority."

10. Gulamhusein: "I am now an old man of 102 years. I was born in Bombay. For most of my life there I lived in terror, what with ghastly Hindu-Muslim riots breaking out on a regular basis. To make matters worse we had the British occupying our land, our beloved India, and lording it over us. Under the leadership of Gandhi we mounted a movement to drive them out and we ultimately did. Even as we gained independence in India, Palestinians lost more than half of their land to an Israeli state imposed on them by the international community, many members of which had their arms twisted to vote for the UN partition resolution. There followed a massacre of Palestinians. I simply could not understand how the Jews, who had suffered so much under the Germans and others, could inflict so much death, destruction and misery on the Palestinians so as to be able to create a Jewish state of their own on the land the Palestinians had occupied for centuries. Nor could I understand how those living in Israel, and even more puzzlingly, those living in other countries, could believe the Israeli propaganda that the Palestinians were trying to take their land and drive them into the sea when the truth was that the Jews were taking Palestinian land and trying to drive the Palestinians, if not into the sea or the Jordan River, then out of what used to be their land. It took me some time to learn and understand that not all Jews were complicit. Many were, from the start, opposed to Zionism. It was only the Zionists who were to blame and, even most of the Zionists believed and acted as they did because the truth was hidden from them and they were fed lies from childhood. As time went on, more and more of these came forward and said so. The Nakba of 1947/48, the 1967 War, the 2009 Israeli invasion and destruction of Gaza, and the failure of the international community to come to the aid of the Palestinians, take suitable action against Israel for its violations of international law and end Israel's illegal and brutal occupation of West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, left me shaken, and almost destroyed my faith in justice. I wondered if Palestinians would ever get justice. But history, as life, takes strange and unexpected turns. After the Civil War, the Palestinians, who had been driven out of their lands, started coming back from Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq and even from far away countries. The Israelis feared that the Palestinians would do unto them as they had done unto the Palestinians. But the Palestinians, the majority of them Muslims, remembered their beginnings. Their Prophet and his followers (the Muslims), had been persecuted and tortured for years by the Meccans and had ultimately been driven out of Mecca. Years later, the Muslims marched triumphantly back into Mecca, led by Prophet Muhammad. At that moment, the Meccans hid, fearing that the Muslims would be vengeful and there would be a massacre. But Muhammad had ordered the returning Muslims that there was to be no looting or pillaging, no killing, no rape, no taking of slaves. And there was none. – In the three years that have elapsed since the collapse of Israel there has been a great change. There is, at last, peace in the region. The inhabitants of the Democratic Republic of Palestine — Jews, Muslims, Christians, no matter what their faith or ethnic origin – live in peace and harmony, as of old. The phony "war on terror" has ended. I never imagined this day would come. Nor did millions of others. But come it did, three years to this day. It is a miracle. As is my being alive at 102 years!"

11. Dana Azulai: "At the beginning of the Civil War my parents got killed in a bombing. I had just finished school by the time and did not know how to carry on. I was in despair. When my relatives in Canada invited me to come to them, I accepted their offer gratefully. They took care of all the formalities and, luckily, it all worked out rather quickly. Despite the fact that Israel had gained a very bad reputation in world, due to the 'transfer' of the Arabs, the attacks on Iran and the Civil War, I was well-received by most of the Canadians, and treated in a friendly way. I also found a job very soon. But despite all of that I never really felt well. The weather and the landscape are so much different and also the mentality of the people. When the Civil War was over I certainly thought about returning. But then the Palestinians founded their state and my dream to go back home, was soon over. Surely, the Palestinians would not allow the return of Jews. Besides, how could I voluntarily go to a land that was now governed by our enemies? But I still was in touch with some friends, who had stayed in Israel and who had survived. They, too, were afraid after the new state was built. But in the course of time they reported about the reconstruction work and about the peaceful coexistence. It was not so easy for me, but the country, that now called itself the Democratic Republic of Palestine, was my homeland. I missed my friends, the Mediterranean Sea, the sun, and everything. So half a year ago I returned. I was astonished about the fact that it was so easy. I just had to prove that I was born in the territory of what today is Palestine and immediately got my papers. It is not easy to be back. I am always confronted with what my people did to the Palestinians and to themselves. But I am happy that I ventured to do it."

# 10 written by Gulamhusein Abba (www.anis-online.de/1/rooms/gulamhusein/index.htm), # 11 written by Sabine Yacoub, www.sabine-yacoub.de, all other entries by Anis
http://www.anis-online.de/2/literatur/2030.htm

Personal reflections on my forthcoming lecture

Since the date for my new lecture became fixed, a few months back, at my alma mater university in the State of Minnesota, USA, where I received my first 4 years of higher education, and earned my Bachelor’s degree, I was in a quandary.  Certainly, this would not be the first lecture I give to an American academic audience in my long career, but since I chose the topic of “Whither Palestine/Israel: What Future?  I have been preoccupied almost constantly with this lecture.  Whatever else I was doing, researching, writing, attending conferences, workshops, meetings, etc, or being involved in domestic and manual chores at home, and so forth, this forthcoming lecture dominated my mind.  It was my nagging concern, and I kept pushing to have it become my wife’s nagging concern too.  Why?

Whatever I read on this broad subject during this period (and I read a lot!); whatever came into my “in box”—reports, studies, analyses, position papers, book reviews, articles, petitions to sign, etc., all was perused; and some was read thoroughly and carefully, with the forthcoming lecture in mind! Why? What was I looking for?

The audience to whom I will be speaking, who is not unfamiliar to me (because I taught there for seven years) was firmly nestled in the back of my mind … my memory.  Basically, this is an audience of privileged Catholic young men and women; the product of middle and upper economic classes; well-bred and well-immersed in the so-called “Judeo-Christian tradition”; and who do well financially when they graduate.  They succeed in gravitating voluntarily and enthusiastically, with unmatched conviction, nurtured by a deep sense of Catholic loyalty (avoiding the wrath of generations of cumulative Catholic guilt), to good job opportunities in mainstream sectors that reproduce and sustain prevalent American culture.  My recollection of this audience (at least in the mid to late 1970’s and through the review of the “Alumni magazine”, which I receive regularly) is that they are not much interested in knowing and analyzing the changing state of the world beyond US borders, unless they happen to have been somehow affected by it, or participating in it through the direct occupation of other countries, e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, etc, or indirectly, e.g., Palestine.

Therein lays my quandary.  My main and nagging concern was this: How can I constrict more than a century-old Palestinian struggle for liberation and against foreign colonialism in a lecture of about 30-40 minutes, to such an audience, without “force spoon-feeding” them; without suffocating them with reams and reams of information; and without thrusting them into the realm of history, to where they would be very reluctant to go on their own volition? How best to etch in their brains one or two deep insights that they will not forget, and that they would keep coming back to for reference, even if they naturally resist doing so?

At the same time, doesn’t this quandary apply in speaking to any audience who identifies and supports the illegal American invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan as their patriotic duty? Wouldn’t this require at least two to three “pruning” attempts before you can get to the core of the issues, and before you can get such an audience to see and acknowledge the core?

Initially, and as a way out of my predicament, I began working on a basic premise that I need to find and cast in front of them bits of critical data, strung in a somewhat coherent logical chain that can be verified empirically, without requiring leaps of a different system of logic.  I started squeezing my mind, and everything I read and re-read.  I wanted to come up with some type of a list of what is important (for them to know) and what is less important?

I concluded, readily, that they needed to have a visual image of how the land of Palestine was effectively eviscerated, decimated, dismembered … since 1947.  So, I worked on providing maps revealing the gradual obliteration of the land of Palestine.  This is easy to show, because such maps abound.  But this, in itself, wasn’t satisfactory to me.  Should I, then, refer them to basic good references that document this process of genocidal tragedy? But, then, how I can bring them from there to today? How can I entice them to cross with me, quickly and without major diversions, the last century of the Zionist colonial onslaught on Palestine?

How much detail should I expose them to, while introducing the entire “Oslo process”, for example? But, regardless of the level of detail I would provide them, what essence would they retain from these “Oslo” details? And what essence I want them to hold on to and, hopefully, internalize? Should I, for example, highlight the fragmentation of the land (the essence of coherent geography and space)? Should I underscore the acquiescence to a continued military colonial occupation, as it is driven and encouraged by the emergence of a Quisling “Palestinian Authority” in its role as a sub-agent for Israeli control and oppression? Or, should I give more attention to the pre-designed role of “Oslo” in the total fragmentation of the Palestinian people, and the dissolution of their struggle for liberation and freedom, etc ? Or, should I deal with all the above components as constituting the elements of an insidious plan? And finally, is my audience opposed, in principle, to military occupation and colonization of another people?

Or, on the other hand, should I start with the now and telescope it back into its historical context? Why not, it occurred to me, start shocking them by focusing, for example, on the most recent racist genocidal calls to “curb Palestinian births” by one Martin Kramer of Harvard’s Weatherhead Center for International Affairs? Or, by the Israeli decision to erase the 800 years old Palestinian Mamilla Cemetery in Jerusalem to make room for a Jewish so-called “Museum of Tolerance” in its stead?  Or, by the multitude of stories of Palestinian daily human sufferings and humiliation on the military checkpoints, in all Palestinian areas under occupation (Gaza, West Bank, Jerusalem)?  Or, should I focus on the rise in numbers and percentages (since 2001) of attempted suicides among Palestinian young people (18 – 30 years of age), mostly women (about 80%), because of the absence of hope, blocked horizons, and evaporating alternatives for decent human and free existence? Etc, etc.

As always, I attempted to engage my wife in this process of mental deliberations.  She was instrumental in helping me get out of this predicament.  “This is important, but not shocking ”, she advised.  “Why don’t you focus on the real basics? It is about time, at this critical stage, to re-focus on the real essentials of the entire struggle, and to forcefully engage your American audience to reflect on these essentials.” And this is what I am doing.  I “shifted gears” to go faster towards the target! What are the real essentials, and where do we go from here? This will be the core of my forthcoming lecture.

Essential one:

The creation of Israel, as a result of the “Partition Resolution” (UNGA 181) in 29 November 1947 is illegal and has no legitimacy, just like the invasion and occupation of Iraq by American forces.

*  “Israel was created, mainly, by Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing – a pre-planned process that saw three-quarters of the indigenous Arab inhabitants of Palestine dispossessed of their homes, their land and their rights.” 

*  The assertion that Israel’s birth certificate and legitimacy was given by the UN Partition Resolution is pure Zionist propaganda, because: 

“In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.” 

• “The UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a recommendation – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.”
   
• “The General Assembly's recommendation never went to the Security Council for consideration because the U.S. knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force given the extent of Arab and other Muslim opposition to it; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.  So the partition plan was vitiated.”

*  Hence, the push and pressure on the Palestinians to recognize the Zionist state.  “In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.”  (See Alan Hart, “ Zionism Unmasked" , Palestine Think Tank, 13 February 2010.)

*  “The vote was 33 in favor, 13 against and 10 abstentions, with a requirement for a 2/3 majority. Is that a large majority? Abstentions obviously were not counted, but why and under what pressure of ideals were those abstentions made? And what about the other countries, more than the fifty-six voting within the UN, and probably more including the many colonies that were probably excluded at the time?”

*  “The UN Partition Plan of 1947 is of dubious validity … based as it was on a limited and perhaps contrived vote count. … Further questions arise from the Plan itself in which it says: ‘The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;’

*  The historical record documents clearly that there was a large "attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution," and that “rose immediately from the Israeli ‘defence' forces who quickly set about the ethnic cleansing of over 400 towns using tactics which today would be considered terror.”  (For the above, see Jim Miles, “ Shlaim's Israel and Palestine”,, 18 January 2010,  Jim Miles's ZSpace Page).

*  Although I accept the position of those who argue that “Israel exists and the vote is irrelevant”, it is, nevertheless, imperative to keep reminding that Israel, as a state, was created by Zionist colonialism and terror, not a political peaceful entity along side of Palestine, but a settler colonial entity on top of Palestine, and obliterating it.

*  It is vital to keep questioning “What is the true nature of this state of Israel that commands the allegiance of the American people and is now seeking to enlist the governments of the world against its perceived ‘existential’ enemy, Iran?” and that may ignite a third world war!

*  It is vital to keep reminding that this rogue state is in defiance of international law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions that apply to occupying powers.  This is a state “that possesses weapons of mass destruction, including hundreds of nuclear weapons, and refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”, not to mention stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons;

*  It is crucial to keep reminding that this State “has defied more than 160 UNGA and 39 UNSC resolutions, demanding it act as a civilized state abiding by international law and protocol”;

* It is fundamental to keep reminding that this is “a state that has systematically confiscated, appropriated, annexed, and assimilated virtually all land belonging to the Palestinians in a sixty-year period of time, leaving them approximately 14 percent of their original land, making it the greatest visible land theft known to human kind in our day”;

*  It is important to keep reminding that this is “ a state that proclaims itself a democracy but is not and, with malicious intent, confiscates the money belonging to a democratically elected government in Palestine and arrests their representatives without charge or trial.” (See William A. Cook,  “The Unstated Script of the Wiesel Open Letter to President Obama”,  23  February 2010, Information Clearing House. 

Essential Two:

The “Oslo Process” with all its accords, starting with the “Declaration of Principles” in September 1993, is an international plan, inspired, devised and supported by the very Western powers that created the illegitimate state of Israel.  It was imposed on the Palestinians for the simple reason to force them to acquiesce to the status quo of Israeli colonialism and occupation of the entire land of Palestine. “By mortgaging the Palestinian leadership to US and Israeli sponsorship, by creating and maintaining administrative, legal and financial structures that will ensure this dependence, Oslo has been what it was designed to be from the start: the mechanism of ending the Palestinian quest to end Israeli colonialism and occupation, and the legitimation of Israel's racist nature by the very people over whom it exercises its colonial and racist dominion.”

The main pillars of this process, as it has been shown in actual application and results, are the following:

• The fragmentation of Palestinian political leadership, and the obfuscation and destruction of the principle of “representation”, namely, the relationship between the PLO and the PA;
• The fragmentation of the Palestinian people into unconnected pieces and geographies: West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, Areas occupied in 1948, refugees in camps, “shatat” (Diaspora) Palestinians, Areas “A”, “B”, and “C” in the West Bank, etc ;
• The Palestinian dependence on international aid for their basic physical survival, the daily running of the administrative governing apparatus, with emphasis on security rather than on the productivity of agricultural lands for food security, etc;
• The creation of distorted and corrupt social and economic classes who usurped power and economic resources, rendering society more pauperized: “A political class”, “A policing class”, “A bureaucratic class”, “An NGO class”, and “A business class”;
• The continued international legitimation of Israel’s racist nature.  (For the above, See Joseph Massad, “Oslo and the end of Palestinian independence”, Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 21-27 January 2010). 

Essential Three:

The only way to ensure Palestinian emancipation from this system of occupation, colonialism and apartheid is to work towards establishing a free, democratic, secular and non-racist country in the entire land of historic Palestine, while Israeli Jews embark on self-liberation from the dominant racist Zionist ideology.  The cardinal question is this:  How to break this vicious cycle of colonial occupation and apartheid, and to expose the various measures of “managing the conflict” as delusionary substitutes for a just, lasting and democratic solution targeting the entire people of the historical land of Palestine? How to really seize the initiative for freedom and democracy? What should be our guiding principles?

To start with, what’s the situation today in Palestine/Israel?

• The status quo on the ground reveals the presence of 3.8 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, about 40% of whom live in, what has been described, an open air prison in Gaza; nearly half a million illegal Zionist colonists (called “settlers”)living in the West Bank; and 1.3 million Palestinians living as a subjugated minority on their land, inside Israel, among nearly 6.0 million Israeli Jews.
   
• At the end of 2008, at least 7.1 million Palestinians, representing 67 percent of the entire Palestinian population (10.6 million) worldwide were displaced persons (6.6 million refugees and 427,000 IDPs). This makes Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) the largest and longest-standing case of displaced persons in the world today.
   
• Starting sometime un the late 1980s, “the number of settlements, and even the size of their population, became immaterial because the apparatus of Israeli rule was perfected to such a degree that the distinction between Israel proper[Areas occupied in 1948] and the occupied territories [Areas occupied in 1967]—and between settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and Jewish communities inside Israel—was totally blurred.   Similarly, the takeover of land ceased to be chiefly for the purpose of settlement construction and became primarily a means of constricting the movements of the Palestinian populace and of appropriating their physical space”.
   
• “As far as Israeli citizens and their range of interests are concerned, the annexation of the territories is a fait accompli. …  The continuation of the status quo creates a quasi-stable situation: the Jewish community, a loose framework of cultures and ethnic tribes in constant tension, is held together by enmity to the Palestinian “Other”, and by a determination to rule them. … Fragmentation became the major tool of Israeli control, to preserve their rule over Israel/Palestine from the river to the sea. … The ruling Jewish community will continue, even when it becomes a minority, to force this split on the Palestinians with the usual carrots and  sticks, dictating the agenda, presenting threats, imposing collective punishments and bribery. … The ‘peace process’ serves as a curtain behind which divide and rule is entrenched”.
   
• “They have invented a unique concept of a ‘state’: its ‘sovereignty’ will be scattered, lacking any cohesive physical infrastructure, with no direct connection to the outside world. …  The airspace and the water resources will remain under Israeli control.  Helicopter patrols, the airwaves, the hands on the water pumps and the electrical switches, the registration of residents and the issue of identity cards, as well as passes to enter and leave, will all be controlled (directly or indirectly) by the Israelis.”
   
• “The status quo will endure as long as the forces wishing to preserve it are stronger than those wishing to undermine it, and that is the situation today in Israel/Palestine.”  

• Several factors sustain the current status quo and ensure its survivability.  These include the high level of fragmentation of Palestinian society and the ongoing incitement of the fragments against each other; the “mobilization of the Jewish community into support for the occupation regime, which is perceived as safeguarding its very existence”; the sustained funding of the status quo by the so-called “donor countries”, which “frees Israel from the burden of coping with the enormous cost of maintaining the control over the Palestinians and creates a system of corruption and vested interests” ; the ongoing delusion that “negotiations” will end the status quo, thus rendering it a temporary state; and “the silencing of all criticism as an expression of hatred and anti-Semitism”.
• The status quo is characterized by a huge gap in GDP between Palestinians under occupation and the occupying Israelis, of a magnitude of 1:20. “This gap cannot endure without the force of arms … which enforces a draconic control system. … All the economic, social and spatial systems of governance in the occupied territories are designed to maintain and safeguard Israeli privileges and prosperity on both sides of the ‘Green Line’, at the expense of millions of captive, impoverished Palestinians”.  

• This status quo is labeled, by Benvenisti, as “de facto bi-national regime” , a term stressing  “the total dominance of the Jewish-Israeli nation, which controls a Palestinian nation that is fragmented both territorially and socially.” (For the above quotes, see Meron Benvenisti, “The Inevitable Bi-national Regime”, January 2010).
   

To work strategically on our liberation process, we need to instill an appropriate discourse that embodies our future strategic vision.  This discourse should start by purging itself from the language of  “two-state solution”,  “two states for two people”, “West Bank and Gaza”, “East Jerusalem”, “peacemaking”, “direct or indirect negotiations”, “state building”, “legal or illegal settlements”, etc.  Our language should focus on means of resistance to achieve our liberation towards living in a free, non-racist, secular country in the entire land of historical Palestine; on emancipation from occupation and economic dependency; on individual and collective rights; on international law; on responsive and accountable leadership; on self-reliance and productivity; and on the right of all the refugees and displaced persons, who were ethnically cleansed from their homes and country by the Zionist colonial movement, to return to Palestine.

To embark on this course, we should be committed to struggle, with anti-Zionist Jews, for:

• “The dismantlement of the existing system of colonial apartheid, and all forms of racist political, spatial, economic, and psychological separation on the historical land of Palestine”, on the premise that: “all activities resulting from the illegal and criminal Zionist-Western colonization of Palestine, since Palestine was targeted at the turn of the twentieth century, including land and water theft for exclusive Jewish-Zionist settlements, political and legal structures, displacement and replacement of indigenous populations, privileged access and exploitation of natural resources, etc, are null and void, and should be dismantled.”

• “The unhindered return of all Palestinian individuals and groups who were forced by the Zionist colonial enterprise, with the active support of the Western imperialist centers, to abandon their homes and properties; and to exercise their inalienable natural right to acquire these properties back;”
• “The unobstructed productive use of their lands and other natural resources for the indigenous development of the society;”
• “The total freedom of all the people of historical Palestine to chose the type of their governance system, without any coercion or prejudice;”
• “The safeguarding of the seminal principle of separating religious beliefs from the political system, and the use of religion as the basis of government;”
• “The legal guarantee of equal rights of individuals and groups for all minorities living in the new Palestinian Society;”
• “The insistence on the basic principle that majority-minority relations must be based on equality and non-exploitation.” 

Such a worthwhile, justified, and difficult but legitimate struggle would: 

• “Rectify the historical and continuous evil and injustice done to the Palestinian people;
• Preserve the geographical and territorial integrity of the land of Palestine, and will work as a counterweight to the insidious process of fragmentation;
• Insist on the Right of Return of all Palestinians to their lands and properties from which they were forcefully and criminally evicted;
• Dismantle all Zionist and Jewish-Israeli structures and laws that were built on inequality and on the exclusion of Palestinian Arabs, with the purpose of imposing and maintaining a hegemonic control of the Zionist-Ashkenazi state over the entire region;
• Allow and encourage mutual living and existence between the Palestinian Arabs and Israeli anti-Zionist Jews in the historical land of Palestine, within a democratic, non-sectarian, equal, non-repressive, non-exploitative, just and open society;
• Promise genuine and sustainable development of the territory of Palestine, for the benefit of all its inhabitants, especially the poor and the marginalized, by focusing on the effective, productive and purposeful use of land and water, for the full employment potential of its workers;

Set an important human example of how antagonists may live together harmoniously in a delineated physical space, once racist and exclusionary ideology and practices are expunged.”

(For the above quotes, see Khalil Nakhleh, “Thinking the Thinkable”, 20 August 2008,  http://www.kanaanonline.org/articles/01633.pdf). 

Khalil Nakhleh, Ph.D.

Independent Researcher and Writer

Ramallah, Palestine/Israel

(Struggling to Transform Our Homeland)

Roberts also insults the Iraqi resistance by stating it inflicted losses on the American superpower “in their spare time” off from fighting Shi’is. Completely disregarding 1,400 years of Islamic history, a single athletic dispute leads Roberts to conclude that “Muslims cannot even play together”. This focus on an isolated event is selective, as Mr. Roberts doesn’t appear to recall that Sunnis and Shiis both celebrated the Iraqi soccer team’s victory in the 2007 Asian Cup.  Even if we were to assume Iraq’s Muslims aren’t united enough for Roberts’ taste, he seems to have ignored the USA’s critical divide-and-conquer role in Iraq. He doesn’t appear aware of the USA’s deployment of Shii and Kurdish troops to battle Sunni cities, such as Fallujah in November 2004. He ignores the USA’s political and financial support of sectarian parties, politicians and clergymen. He also neglects to mention the Israeli role in sowing the seeds of conflict in Iraq, outlined in Oded Yinon’s infamous A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties. Roberts is unaware of 17-year old Othman from A’athamiya, a young Iraqi who drowned after rescuing nearly a dozen Iraqis when the A’imma Bridge in Baghdad collapsed in 2005. He also overlooked the joint Sunni-Shii celebrations of Muntathar Zaidi’s throwing his shoes at Bush. The US corporate media, which cheerlead for the war, has every interest to blackout, marginalize and ignore stories of Iraqi unity. It is regretful that Roberts condescends Iraqis in the same manner.

One wonders whether Mr. Roberts would’ve displayed this same white man’s burden, vilifying misbehaving oppressed peoples, by admonishing Native American tribes who may have been at odds during the theft of their land by white settlers. Would Mr. Roberts have weighed in on the dispute between the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X? Would he have demonstrated moral authority to arbitrate between Martin Luther King Jr’s philosophy of nonviolence and Malcolm X’s commitment to freedom by any means necessary? Would he have appointed himself as judge between the North and South Vietnamese? Dictating derogatory suggestions to the oppressed is no business of “solidarity” activists. If Roberts is entitled to instruct Iraqis to unite, surely Iraqis are far more entitled to tell Americans, including Roberts, to put their right-wing, left-wing, class and racial divisions aside to meaningfully mobilize to end their seven-year occupation of our country (by “meaningful”, I mean more substantive than symbolic anti-war protests every anniversary of the war). When they have extra time on their hands, Iraqis could probably tell Americans to unite on their debilitating healthcare disputes.

It is frustrating enough when the operators of the US war machine and their mouthpieces in mainstream media refer to Iraqis in demeaning sectarian language. It is far more disappointing when those involved in the “anti-war” movement, who are supposedly in solidarity with Iraqis, use such divisive, disrespectful discourse. I call on Mr. Roberts to apologize to the beleaguered Iraqi people, victims of two decades of his country’s ruthless foreign policy, funded by his tax dollars, for publishing such an undeserved portrayal.

Qais Nawwaf is one of millions of displaced Iraqis. He resides on a colonized part of Indigenous territory commonly referred to as the "United States." He has a degree in a discipline invented by his ancestors: writing. He may be reached at: qnawwaf@gmail.com.

The fingerprints of Israel’s meddling are all over the place in Yemen. And you better believe that we’ll be hearing a lot more about Yemeni connections to all manner of atrocities committed in the name of “Allah” against the United States. Israel will make darn sure of that. And what’s my evidence? Well, recent history would be a good place to start.

Does anybody remember the USS Cole? In October, 2000 while refueling in the Port of Aden, the USS Cole was sunk by a small boat loaded with explosives, resulting in the death of 17 soldiers and injuring another 39. Samples of the explosives taken from the ships hull revealed that the explosive was of a type only available in the U.S. and…(drum roll please) that’s right-Israel!

How about the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Sa'ana? In October 2008 Yemeni security forces arrested a group of alleged Islamists militants linked to Israeli intelligence in connection to that provocatuered attack. The network was described as 40 people from different Arab nationalities that were spying for the Mossad. Say it ain’t so, Joe!

Israel has even been linked to the Somali piracy trade when Somali pirates were found to have telephone links to former Israeli Prime minister Ehud Olmert’s office. Nasty business.

Now how could our “only ally in the Middle East” do such awful things to their best friend in the whole wide world? Simple. It’s the old Mossad “we will wage war by way of deception” technique of carrying out attacks on your ally and blaming it on the one’s you want your ally to attack in retaliation (in layman’s terms of course).

So what’s the hubbub, bub? Why all this activity concentrated in and around Yemen? Well, Israel has always salivated over controlling that region. In an article appearing in “The Yemen Times” on October 26, 2008 titled “Israeli Strategy to occupy Al-Mandab Strait” Najeeb Al-Ghurbani writes:

“The first President of the Zionist government David Goryon expressed his state’s aspirations to control the Red Sea in 1949. He rather said, “We are besieged from land frontiers while sea is the only passage to the outside world and the only means for establishing communication with other continents.”

If you want an even better grasp on the Israeli strategy you can find it in Saudi Arabian Colonel Turki Al-Anazi’s “Strategy Research Project” document titled “Strategic Importance of the Red Sea”. Starting on page 13 under the heading “Israeli Strategy”, Col. Al-Anazi states:

“Free navigation to and from Eilat is considered absolutely essential to Israel’s security and economic interests and to reduce Israel’s political isolation, due to the enmity with its Arab neighbors.

The Red Sea’s importance for Israel grew since it is the best waterway for shipping and trade with East Africa and the Far East. The prime concern for the Israelis is to secure free passage through the straits of the Red Sea so it would not be under any political or economical pressure.

The Israeli strategy in the Red Sea stands on certain bases.

First, the necessity of Israel’s security that demands controlling the straits and waterways of the Red Sea and preventing any of its adversaries from controlling them.

Secondly, the Red Sea is vital to Israel’s economic well being since it’s a maritime route to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean’s and links it to Asian and African trading markets.

The Israelis even set their own goals dealing with the Red Sea region, which are:

1.) To secure free navigation on the Red Sea

2.) To accomplish a strategic depth in the Red Sea, which enable Israel to monitor the Arab military in this region

3.) To break any Arab blockade on any of the Red Sea straits, waterways or on the Israeli ships

4.) To guarantee and secure the civilian line and military lines in the Red Sea which are directed to the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal or to the Indian Ocean through the Strait of Bab Al-Mandab.”

So it should come at no suprise that Connecticut Senator and Israel-firster Joe Lieberman wants a pre-emptive strike on Yemen. Not only does he want retaliation for the failed attempt to blow up a Delta airliner in Detroit by Nigerian student Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab; but it’s also the fulfillment of a lifelong Israeli dream.

And since we’ve touched on the subject of the Christmas day “Fruit of the BOOM!” false flag event, I might as well point out that even that smells of Israeli mischief. When you consider that security at the Amsterdam airport where our alleged terrorist sailed through was run by an Israeli company ICTS (the same company responsible for security for every airport from which the 9-11 terrorists departed) and when you factor in that his father (who is mistakenly reported by the MSM to be a Nigerian banker) is an arms dealer with intimate and far reaching ties to Israel and the Mossad, you can’t blame me for sending up red flags all over the place.

But I know. You’re going to tell me that Obama has already assured us that he has no intention of sending troops into Yemen, right? Well, actually I believe him. How can he? We’re already over-extended with a war in Afghanistan and one staring in Pakistan. Where is he going to get the troops? Now Bush might try to pull off a crazy thing like that but that’s not Obama’s style. Obama is a protégé of Zbigniew Brzezinski and using your own men and resources to fight wars is not how old Zbig rolls. Brzezinski’s strategy is one of proxy wars. Brzezinski method is to pit one group against the other in order to destabilize the region. An example of this is the creation of al-Queda in Afghanistan (by none other than Obama’s current Defense Secretary Robert Gates). The U.S. trained and equipped a fighting force and pitted them against the Russians. Nice way to save some scratch while at the same time devastating your opponent.

So how can this strategy be applied to an offensive in Yemen? Well, I tend to side with Webster Tarpley here and his assessment of the situation. Tarpley points out that the objective in Yemen is to break it up into micro-states and mini-states. And there are at least four groups that can be used to facilitate this. To the north are the Shiite Houthie rebels who are supported by Iran and fighting in opposition to the central government. Then we have the Saudi backed Sunni who are in support of the central government. Throw in some hard lined Communist left-overs from the old soviet days and a bunch of Guantanamo ex-cons and escaped prisoners joining the CIA…uh, I mean…al-Queda and you’ve got the makings of one hell of a party!

And of course after they get through killing each other off and pieces of Yemen start breaking into sub-regions and enclaves, Obama can step in with his Nobel prize in hand and offer humanitarian aid and assistance; which essentially means Wall Street, Tel-Aviv and London coming in for the kill under the President’s left cover.

And by the time its all over, the U.S. will have set a nice little table for its client state Israel to feast upon.

But that’s just my opinion. What do I know?

http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.co…nd-everything/