|Home||Blog||Freedom Potentials||The Cross Roads||Veritas Books|
|Newtimes Survey||Podcast Archive||Video Archive||PDF Archive|
|Actionist Corner||YouTube Video Channel||BitChute Video Channel||Brighteon Video Channel||Social Credit Archive|
On Target Britain
Food for Thought: Mr James Baker, the United States Secretary of State, in the Philippines earlier yesterday said: "What really troubles us isn't just the stand-off at the agriculture ministry. It is the general flouting of United Nations Security Council resolutions across the board that tends to destroy the credibility of the United Nations as the world's pre-eminent peace-keeping body".
"Iraq agrees to U.N. search", the Financial Times, 27th July, 1992.
In Afghanistan, when, on successive days in October , U.S.
gunships machine-gunned and cannoned the remote farming village of
Chowkar-Karez, killing as many as 93 civilians, a Pentagon official
was moved to respond at one point: "the people there are dead because
we wanted them dead", while U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
commented: I cannot deal with that particular village"
IRAQ IN THE GLOBAL SCENARIOPublished in Two Parts - Part 2 Section B
SEEKING A PATHWAY THROUGH THE QUOTATIONS
"'Saddam' Hussein Bowled Muralitharan - 22"
What is so geopolitically unique or important
about Iraq and Saddam Hussein?
Whitaker's Almanack for 2002 shows that Iraq, with a population of some 23,000,000, possesses 2,200 main battle tanks, 2,400 armoured personnel carriers, 1,000 armoured fighting vehicles and 120 armed helicopters. So what? Israel, a comparatively tiny country with a population of a mere 6,000,000, has 3,900 main battle tanks, "around" 9,900 armoured person-nel carriers, 446 combat aircraft and 133 armed helicopters. Israel is also "believed" to have a nuclear capacity of "around" 100 warheads which can be delivered by aircraft or Jericho I and II missiles. We also know that Israel is supported financially and with state-of-the-art military technology by the United States. Why? We may probe deeper into the realms of conspiracy and its projections back and forth in time, but the reasons of the here-and-now are not hard to find. The United States has been a melting pot of all the European talents and, as such, has become a gigantic economic and therefore geo-political cuckoo in the "nest" of the global scenario. The rest flutter round this nest like so many sparrows.
There is no room in this scenario for lesser "cuckoos" to challenge this hegemony. It is a challenge that constitutes the so-called "Axis of Evil". The United States, which has triggered the unsustainable treadmill of an exponential rise in the debt-usury creation of "money" dare not allow this to happen, even if one day it must almost inevitably implode. Nevertheless, when United States spokesmen prate about Regional Security, for example, they really mean the maintenance of the status quo of geopolitical subservience to this economic model. When we read that "Bush demands 'democratic' Cuba", this means that a condition for removing the trade embargo is that Cuba must hold "democratic" elections. In other words, Cuba must create the right political climate for economic exploitation, such as that which has enslaved most of Latin America. (International Herald Tribune, 21st May, 2002).
Why does an economically impoverished Turkey, even as a NATO ally, require its own AWACS early warning and control system, especially when the United States as the NATO superpower, already has its own bases in Turkey? Because this means a $1,300,000,000 deal for the Boeing Corporation - and more debt for Turkey! ("Turkey close to military deal", Financial Times, 29th May, 2002).
Just What Is So Different About Saddam Hussein?
We have asked why Saddam Hussein should have been singled out from amongst those leaders around the world who are deemed to pose a threat to humanitarian ideals or "Regional Security". What has been so different or unique about Saddam Hussein? Iraq has threatened Kuwait once, in 1961, and invaded Kuwait once, in 1990, under Saddam Hussein's Presidency. On the second occasion Iraq was roundly defeated and its infrastructure was deliberately and comprehensively destroyed. Humanitarian ideals - Human Rights - are those set by the "International Community" in any case. This means, as usual, the United States subsuming the authority of the United Nations, or not, as suits its geopolitical strategy at the time. We have shown how gross these double standards have been(52). This means in turn that if one "shouts loud enough"; in practice if one uses the controlled Mass Communications Media, much of the mud must stick regardless of the truth. However, we already know, for example, that aircraft from NATO ally Turkey, along with Turkish ground forces, attack the Kurdish people. We know that the Anglo-American air forces use the same air bases in Turkey, illegally to enforce so-called "no-fly zones" to protect the Kurds in Northern Iraq!
Concurrently the British Government has been backing a project for the construction of 22 dams in Turkey, of which the Ilisu Dam is the best known. This would amass enormous profits for Balfour-Beatty and other British construction companies. It would also displace an estimated 78,000 Kurds from their traditional areas, destroy 10,000 years of archaeological history, and give Turkey control over the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates upon which both Syria and Iraq depend. Forget Human Rights, but think of the money. ("Iraq presses Turkey for water-sharing agreement", the Morning Star, 17th April, 2000; "Turkish dam puts spotlight on export credit guarantees", the Financial Times, 14th July, 2000; "Would we let a foreign government do this to Oxford? - 'It's the jewel in the crown of the Kurdish people'", The Daily Telegraph, 14th July, 2000; "M.P.s in Turkish dam link", The Observer, 16th July, 2000).
We have shown that a concerted press campaign
has been waged to demonise Saddam Hussein as a barbaric, genocidal and
even fratricidal tyrant who has not hesitated to employ chemical and
biological weapons against his own people. This contravenes the humanitarian
standards set by the "International Community". It also implies standing
the dictionary on its head! In the United States great efforts have
been made to cover up the criminal activities of former President Bill
Clinton and his wife Hilary, both in their home territory of Arkansas
- the Whitewater Affair - and in Washington. This has involved the mysterious
"suicide" of presidential aide Vince Foster, and the deaths of a number
of others associated with the case(53).
In 1969 moves were made in the United States to develop new biological weapons, which would have to be tested by United States Health Agencies on "unwitting" victims. In 1974 Dr Henry Kissinger advised President Gerald Ford in National Security Memorandum 200 of the need to contain the world's population growth. In 1976, certain countries were offered free vaccinations against smallpox. Five years later 60 per cent of the people in these areas contracted what later became known as AIDS. ("Biological Warfare weapons Development and Testing: A Chronology by Donald C. Scott", 1999 Journal of Degenerative Diseases, Vol. 1, No. 1; taken from the Internet). The same source reported that, in 1985-1989, the United States "sells several hundred units of bio-weapons to Iraq for use against Iran. Included in shipments were deadly anthrax plus disabling brucella agents: melitensis, suis and abortis".
In the Guardian Weekly we learned that the United States deliberately tested nerve gas on American sailors between 1963 and 1970. ("U.S. admits nerve gas tests", 30th May - 5th June, 2002). We have already written of the use of Depleted Uranium ammunition and the involvement of the Organophosphate group of chemicals during the Gulf War of 1991, and the use of Depleted Uranium ammunition again in the Balkans in 1999. Apart from radiation damage to servicemen and civilians, we know that Organophosphates have involved the physically degenerative and often fatal "Gulf War Syndrome(57).
Use of Organophosphates in agriculture has also
brought about similar symptoms amongst agricultural workers. We know,
too, from the exposures of toxicologist Dr Dick Van Steenis that such
cases are routinely referred to Dr Virginia Murray at Guy's Hospital,
in London, where they have been diagnosed as psychological rather than
physical disorders(58). Professor Hooper, E.P. Marshall and M. Williams
have now published a Report which exposes this practice and names Simon
Wessely, Professor of Epidemiological and Liaison Psychiatry who also
works from Guy's Hospital(59). Hooper and his co-authors record that
not only is Wessely an adviser to the Ministry of Defence, but that
his work is not only funded by I.C.I. Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer U.K.,
the Department of Health and Sainsbury's Linbury Trust amongst others,
but also by the United States Department of Defense.
FROM THE PUBLISHED RECORD OF THREE BOOKS
Perspectives And Distortions
We cannot rightly live with this in a Christian
spirit or maintain the pretence of Christianity. Pivotal is the State
of Israel, Political Zionism and the movement of Jewish migrants from
Central and Eastern Europe West across the Atlantic, and to Israel.
To speak of this invokes the automatic charge of "anti-Semitism". This
is an historic fallacy increasingly exploited since the 1939-45 War
by the Jewish Holocaust experience. Current events in Israel-Palestine
have certainly provoked knee-jerk, street level "reprisals" quite unfairly
against indigenous Jewish communities elsewhere. This ignores the fact
that many people have relatives, friends or colleagues who are adored,
admired and respected, for whom their Jewishness does not even enter
the equation. It also ignores the reality that many Jews themselves
are vehemently opposed, often with great courage, to the State of Israel
and events in the Middle East. One example was the late Israel Shahak,
of whom The Guardian wrote, on 28th May, 2002:
With these parameters established, we must take account of the very real Power vested in the American-Jewish establishment, drawn as it is from a tiny 2-3 percent, 5,000,000 in the overall United States population of 276,000,000. A more subtle but not dissimilar case is that in the United Kingdom where the percentage is even smaller, at 0.5 per cent. We may then recognise that much of the impetus for mounting a military campaign against Iraq, and the removal of Saddam Hussein, originates largely with this faction, Invisible Enemy - Israel, Politics, Media, and American Culture(60) by Edward Abboud.
To argue that powerful Israeli links do not operate in the United States, that there is no dominant American-Jewish, Zionist lobby in Washington, that the Mass Communications Media and the Entertainment Industry are not largely under American-Jewish ownership and control, or that these influences do not dominate United States policies in the Middle East, is as farcical as it is fallacious. It is pointless to beg the question of numerous dispassionate and supporting statistical, factual, organisational, quantitative and qualitative analyses. The problem is to place the United States in perspective, with due regard for the enormous cultural and social spectrum of a Nation of some 276,000,000 people; not least those 5,000,000 of Jewish extraction. Edward Abboud sensibly and scholastically explores the elements of war, propaganda, subversion and conspiracy with scarcely any reference to Israel. For once the reader had a chance to consider the nature of conspiracy in some depth; a term invariably the target of journalists who deter discussion by ritually howling down "conspiracy theories".
Abboud carries this forward to the process of social and moral degradation, disinformation and distortion brought about by the techniques of communication and entertainment; not least the calculated attack on Christianity. After all, how often does one hear expletives blasphemous of Christianity in the cinema, but never anything comparable and degrading of Judaism? Moslems are frequently portrayed as terrorists, whereas Jewish themes are positively promoted, especially the Holocaust. Thus the most powerful Nation in the world can be fragmented and destabilised to bring the people and their elected representatives to a condition of subservience and economic exploitation in the service of the State of Israel. Abboud has therefore given us the ideal framework within which to consider the American-Jewish viewpoint, which follows, below.
Jewish Power - Inside the American Jewish
Jacob Schiff left the Rothschilds headquarters
in Frankfort-am-Main for America in 1865. There, until his death in
1920, he became the leading Jewish banker with Kuhn Loeb. He also became
acknowledged leader of the growing Jewish community in America, which
he established as a significant body of opinion. Schiff had strong doubts
about Zionism and the divided loyalties implicit in any form of Israeli
"nation", and advocated the concept of an semi-autonomous Jewish community
within some form of Palestinian protectorate. He was soon to lose out
to the militant Zionist element and in the last years of his life entered
into a lengthy correspondence. Here is an extract from a letter in September,
1917, to a Mr Friedman(62):
It is important to have the contemporary view of the American-Jewish community, and this has been provided comprehensively by J.J. Goldberg, who writes with the support of Jewish organisations, and individuals such as Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (A.D.L.), and politician Stuart Eizenstat. Jewish Power contains an excellent record of American-Jewish organisations, influence in the Mass Communications Media and Enter-tainment Industry, in political circles and in business generally. Goldberg describes the country wide network of organisations right down to local communities, and how this is mobilised in support of Jewish interests. Naturally there is considerable diffusion of opinion within the American-Jewish community, with moral as well as cultural pressure for people to sit on their hands over Israeli oppression and atrocities. Nevertheless there has been an increasing tendency for criticism of Israel. Similarly journalistic opinion has been equally diversified and increasingly critical of Israel. Apart from the support of Evangelical Christians for Israel the pro-Israeli drive has come from Jewry in the United States rather than as a result of any demand from Israel, which has treated this support with some contempt. Conversely, this has not deterred Israel in demanding and getting the political and material support of the United States.
When Goldberg argues his case for the diversity and limited extent of American-Jewish Power, he shows his disingenuousness by giving specific examples of this Power in practice in the self-same pages. He describes how Jewish supporters are blackmailed into making adequate campaign contributions, and how Jewish organisations country-wide are mobilised in support of Jewish interests to "flood the media". We also read how the American Jewish Committee sponsored the activities of the Frankfurt School of Cultural Communism whose "social science" research was devoted to destabilising traditional Christian culture and values. Goldberg describes in detail the Power exercised by Laurence Tisch through his ownership and control of the Columbia Broadcasting Service (C.B.S.). He shows the concentration of political Power in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (A.I.P.A.C.), of which we have corroboration from The Independent on Sunday of 21st May, 1995, under the heading "Big bucks keep U.S. politicians lined up in pro-Israel camp".
We read how Congressman Paul Findley was unseated after he had espoused the Palestinian cause. Findley later published his story(63). Goldberg writes how President Harry S. Truman was hostage to this Power in the 1940s, and how President Gerald Ford came to "taste" this same Power. In his very Prologue Goldberg describes the confrontation between President George Bush Snr. and Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir during 1991 over the continued construction of settlements on Palestinian land, and how Bush not only lost the 1992 Presidential Election, but how strong support for his popular protégée, Richard Thornborough, suddenly evaporated in favour of the winning Democratic opponent. It is no surprise, therefore, to find the name of Richard Perle(Bild., C.F.R.) prominent in the pages of Jewish Power, or that he has been a strong advocate for a campaign against Iraq.
The War Against America- Saddam Hussein And
The World Trade Center Attacks(64)
Had somebody given instructions to write something
to implicate Saddam Hussein in the attack on the New York World Trade
Centre, on 11th September, 2001, the revised edition of Laurie Mylroie's
book would have fitted the bill perfectly. First published in 2000 under
the title Study of Revenge, the revised edition, with the new
title The War Against America appears to have been rushed into
print at the end of 2001 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research with the same haste as that of Harris and Paxman's revised
edition on chemical and biological warfare(65).
Three months after The War Against America was published, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was forced to withdraw a promised dossier to support a campaign against Saddam Hussein. This was almost certainly because the "evidence" to justify this was still simply not there. ("Blair refuses to release dossier on Iraq threat", The Sunday Times, 31st March, 2002 and "Blair delays publishing evidence against Iraq", Financial Times, 1st April, 2002).
David Rose, in a favourable review in The Observer (date not recorded), referred to Mylroie's "relentless forensic analysis of a huge array of human and documentary evidence" . . . "like a detective novelist". After going carefully through The War Against America we profoundly disagree. History is written, and guilt determined, by the victor. Oil is not only about consumption, competition and profit. It is about strategic availability and control. President George W. Bush has vowed to sustain the voracious American - not Western - way of life regardless.
Palestine and the Jews were seen as a bastion for the West at the Congress of Vienna, in 1815. With the final collapse of five centuries of Ottoman rule, in the 1914-18 War, the Middle East was divided arbitrarily between subservient Arab Sheikdoms by the Western Powers to suit Western interests. This was further complicated by the Sykes-Picot Treaty, of 1916, to share the spoils between Great Britain, France and Czarist Russia, and by the infamous Balfour Letter of 1917. So the victor today, in the name of Laurie Mylroie, could write that "UNSCOM came to believe that Iraq had tested biological agents on human beings" with complete disregard for the concomitant of vastly greater atrocities committed worldwide by the Western Powers or their surrogates. Shock-horror! Thousands of Kurds had been set up to die by the West; Iraq had obediently done the killing. Iraq had been set up and armed by the West for a genocidal war against Iran in 1980. Saddam Hussein had been supplied by the West with the necessary chemical wherewithal for the use of which he subsequently found himself blamed. We have Israel-Palestine fundamental to the Arab cause.
In the short eighty-year history of modern Middle Eastern Nations we can expect Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya and the rest to mirror Western agencies such as the C.I.A. with counterparts of their own. One may argue that two wrongs do not make a right, but we are certainly back again with blatant double standards. Mylroie begins her account with the assassination by El Sayyid Nosair of the Right Wing Israeli-American Meir Kahane in the United States, in 1992. This was her lead to the first attack on the World Trade Centre, in 1993, the events that followed, and the agencies and individuals allegedly involved. Then the speculation starts: "Was there a link between Nosair and the F.R.C., or at least one of its members?". The F.R.C., or Fatah Revolutionary Council, was based in Baghdad and had been founded by Sabra al Banna, later to become known as "Abu Nidal".
Both David Yallop(67) and Kenneth Timmerman(68) agree with Mylroie's statement that Abu Nidal's organisation was controlled by Iraq. But it was also clear that Abu Nidal had been expelled from Iraq and had transferred his loyalties, at least pro tem, to Syria. In the cat-and-mouse game being played in the Middle East, the then United States Secretary of State George Schultz knew perfectly well about the atrocities being committed by Abu Nidal, and had been responsible for securing his expulsion. However, Mylroie then proceeds by tracing tenuous links between Abu Nidal, Nosair, Saddam Hussein and the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre. The preparations for the bombing were bizarre, and incompetent enough seriously to question any overall professional or governmental involvement. Mylroie quotes plenty of circumstantial evidence from passports and telephone records. She also speculates of one Salemeh, calling his uncle Abu Bakr, in Baghdad, as "Perhaps it was something like this, 'Oh Uncle! You are going to be so proud of me. . . . We're going to avenge martyr Nosair!'", and that "Through Salemeh's calls, Baghdad almost certainly learned of the New York extremist's plans". Again, that Abu Bakr may have informed the Iraqi authorities because he "might well have felt obliged". (Emphasis added).
For the rest of the book Mylroie deals largely with the expulsion of the UNSCOM Weapons Inspection Team from Iraq in 1998, the Islamic Terror network and links within and to it. Unfortunately this takes a circuitous route without ever convincingly arriving at Iraq in the centre. She also deals with the terrorist bombings in Africa and Saudi Arabia. In the case of UNSCOM, this was apparently covered to demonstrate that disputes with Iraq were provoked as a vehicle for Saddam Hussein to indulge in further military activities. It was also quite clear that the United States, not the United Nations was in the driving seat. President Clinton had been hitherto reluctant to take any military action against Iraq in its series of confrontations with the UNSCOM inspectors.
Whilst Mylroie mentions the sequence of the impeachment of President Clinton by the House Judiciary Committee on 11th December, 1998, and the decision to launch the three-day bombing of Iraq, Operation Desert Fox, less than a week later; as a result of the final withdrawal of the UNSCOM Team, she fails to connect the two events. Nor does she mention the use of the Team for American intelligence purposes in blatant contravention of the United Nations terms of reference. She also seeks to "identify" a link between Iraq and the bombing of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 with the clear inference - not evidence - of Iraq's complicity. This was seemingly on the basis that these attacks occurred almost immediately after the withdrawal of the UNSCOM Team.
Of the bombing in Riyadh, three years earlier in November 1995, in which 5 American servicemen died, Mylroie writes, "'Of course that was Iraq. That was a professional bomb. It was not made by a bunch of Saudis sitting in a tent in the middle of the desert.' So a senior Saudi official told me"! And; "Kuwaiti officials immediately suggested that Iraq was behind the bomb. So, too, did the veteran Israeli journalist Uri Dan" [hardly surprising - Ed.!].
Of the later bombing at al Khobar in June, 1996, in which a further 19 American servicemen died, Mylroie quotes Richard Perle, Israeli-linked Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defence under President Ronald Reagan, as suggesting that Iraq was "the likeliest suspect in the bombing". In her concluding chapter she writes, "All of this evidence adds up to the very substantial probability that Iraq was involved in both of the World Trade Centre attacks". We have painful personal experience of the sharp rejection of complex official papers for lack of construction, and inadequate supporting material. Generally, Mylroie's text was laced with terms such as "may have learned", "apparently decided", "it would seem that", "were thought to be", "It is possible that" and "would have told him". At one stage Mylroie actually uses fiction, The Fist Of God, a thriller by Frederick Forsyth, from which she used two pages in quoting the words of one of the characters to substantiate her case against Saddam Hussein!
Allegation, supposition and "links" seem to have become "conclusions", which in turn became established fact. This can only be seen as thoroughly unprofessional, apart from suggesting the deliberate manufacture and contrived interpretation of evidence. The case against Saddam Hussein may well be valid, but in our opinion this was no way to go about it, particularly for an author billed as having taught at Harvard University and the United States Naval War College.
ZIONISM - THE "CASTING VOTE" OF ORGANISED JEWRY
The Blueprint For Armageddon
We read from the Institute for Historical Review
circa February, 2002) that:
In January, 2002, the significance of Iran and
Iraq was shown when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon attempted to
balance isolation of the Palestinians by offering to assist any Attack
by the United States on Iraq. A peacemaking visit to the Middle East
in March, 2002, by United States former General Zinni came to nought
as Sharon persisted with attacks on Palestinian soil. Moderate Secretary
of State Colin Powell, already under pressure from anti-Iraq "hawks",
such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and his assistant Paul Wolfowitz(Bild.,
C.F.R.) in Government, was sent on a fruitless peacemaking mission to
the Middle East early in the following April. Reports such as "Israeli
leader has more power in Washington than Powell" were appearing (The
Sunday Telegraph, 14th April, 2002). A week after Powell's tour the
United States was already obediently vetoing a proposal for any United
President George W. Bush has not been faring
any worse than his predecessors. Goldberg wrote that "[President Jimmy]
Carter's standing among Jews was in disastrous shape as a result of
his continuing clashes with Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel.
It was sure to damage his reelection effort"(72) . (emphasis added).
In 1991 President George Bush Snr., and his Secretary of State James
Baker, clashed bitterly over Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's continuing
construction of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land - Ariel Sharon
was Housing Minister at the time. Russian-Jewish immigrants were flooding
into Israel as a result of an agreement brokered by Edgar Bronfman,
President of the World Jewish Congress, in Moscow. In an attempt to
regenerate the peace process and force Shamir's hand Bush held up $10,000,000,000
in loan guarantees allocated to help with this problem. This move almost
certainly cost Bush a second term in office at the 1992 Presidential
Elections. The veteran commentator, Hilaire du Berrier, summed up this
episode, and the hostile domestic press coverage, in his newsletter,
H du B Reports, of February, 2002:
The London paper quoted Richard Cohen's column
in Washington Post: "What's at stake here is the President's nose. It's
been out of joint ever since Secretary of State James Baker was three
times greeted in Israel by the cacophonous establishment of more West
Bank settlements. Every settlement is a personal challenge . . . an
expression of contempt for a President who's not that favourably disposed
to Israel anyway". . . . A.M. Rosenthal used the New York Times to cry
that "Mr Bush's blackmailing Israel to satisfy his own 'likes and hatreds'
was further proof that people such as the Kurds, the Balts and China's
democrats trust this administration at their own risk." . . . Still
quoting the New York Times, as though Chinese democrats existed, the
London article continued: "In the same paper William Safire fumed that
there was no greater obstacle to peace in the Middle East than Mr Bush's
obsession with forcing Israel out of the West Bank." The headlines of
the time reflected arguably even greater bile than that with which President
George W. Bush is currently being treated:
What Price The Viewpoint Of The Arab World?
The position is distorted by judging current events selectively on the grounds of moral equivalence since the Intifada that began just over two years ago. Account has to be taken of the incursion of European refugees and the brutal seizure of Palestinian land after the 1939-45 War. The Arab world could hardly be expected to accept the new "State" after the gradual settlement that had been going on since the late Nineteenth Century, latterly under the auspices of the Mandate. For years the only recourse for Palestinian organisations was acts of violence against Israeli and Western interests abroad. We had the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973, and the Camp David "peace process" of the mid-1980s. The later Oslo Accords of 1993 perpetuated the stitch-up as Israel retained control of water supplies and continued to construct settlements. One also has to reckon with the desperation of decades of brutal oppression and the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian property. This has all been underpinned by a flow of on-the-spot reports from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (U.N.R.W.A.). Yet even with the authority of the United Nations, these have received little press coverage and virtually no meaningful political initiative.
On 5th April, 1991, with this record, and "battle honours" from Deir Yassin to Sabra Shatila and other atrocities to Israel's credit, The Guardian reported the shock expressed in Israel at Saddam Hussein's slaughter of the Kurds in Northern Iraq. The then Housing Minister Ariel Sharon, who has yet to be brought to trial for his own war crimes, was even reported as saying: "The killing of the Kurds is not much of an encouragement to Israel to undertake the political moves that some seek of us". Nor, in the light of this history did it behove the new President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Judge Israel Feinstein, to take Israel's critics to task at this time. In any case it can hardly be seen as appropriate for a member of the British Judiciary to take any position on behalf of a foreign power, regardless of his cultural affinities.(""Feinstein starts new session with attack on Israel's critics", Jewish Chronicle, 18th October, 1991).
It is fortunate that we have had those of the moral integrity and conscience, like Professor Noam Chomsky, the late Professor Israel Shahak, the late Chaim Bermant, Uri Avnery, Rabbi Jeffry Newman, Harold Pinter, Labour Member of Parliament Gerald Kaufman and Anne Karpf of the Jewish Chronicle to bring a sense of balance to the situation. To these must be added the large numbers of Jews who have demonstrated courageously against the present policies, in Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the leadership of the tightly-knit Anglo-Jewish community has tended to sponsor the Israeli Right Wing cause, or otherwise given succour to oppressive Israeli regimes.
With few language barriers, well-organised Anglo-Jewish charitable and other groups are supported by a powerful caucus of politicians such as Lord (Greville) Janner, and leading business men such as Lord Rothschild, Sir Stanley Kalms and Cyril Stein. By contrast Christian Aid and Amnesty International, both of which have exposed the plight of the Palestinians, are largely ignored. Indeed, when Christian Aid ventured to publicise this problem, in 1992, a complaint about Christian Aid's political activities was promptly made by a member of the Board of Deputies to the Charities Commission ("Christian Aid charity is under fire over allegations of political bias", Jewish Chronicle, 14th February, 1992; "Top British charity is accused of spreading Palestinian propaganda", Jewish Chronicle, 27th December, 1992). This was yet another example of the hypocrisy and double standards axiomatic to the promotion of Zionist-Jewish interests and those of the Arab community.
The main representative body in the United Kingdom
for the Arab world, the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British
Understanding (C.A.A.B.U.), receives little publicity and struggles
for funding. The following are extracts from the C.A.A.B.U. Annual Report
for 2001 and reflect this position:
Tim Llewellyn after Sep 11th, on newspaper reporting and on a B.B.C. Television Panorama programme: We are firmly in the age of flak-jacket reporting. Much is said, but little is explained. Television producers and editors love the smell of napalm in the morning. Television news, on whichever domestic channel you tuned to, was not offering much in the way of analysis; the Middle East, Afghanistan, "terror" remained firmly in a British focus. . . . The menacing Richard Perle, the far right-wing [No! - Zionist - Ed] American defence analyst known to his colleagues in Washington as the Prince of Darkness, was allowed to preach his sermon unchallenged: "We do what we like, to whom we like, how we like. So shut up and take it" is roughly his approach; a polite Pakistani diplomat lady was no match for him.
Chris Doyle on coverage of the Intifada. C.A.A.B.U's media work has had to move to a different level over the last 12 months. This is in part because New Labour and the Prime Minister seem more concerned about the editorials of the Daily Mail or The Times than the views of the elected representatives of this country. This is also reflected in the highly energetic and exhaustive media lobbying in which the pro-Israeli lobby engages which, at its worst, has descended into crude bullying of editors and correspondents. Prior to the Al Aqsa intifada, this lobby had been largely dormant at least as a force for justifying Israeli actions in the Occupied territories. The peace process and the [delusion of] warm relations established between Blair and Barak had made active lobbying irrelevant. Hence the Britain-Israel Public Affairs Committee (B.I.P.A.C. [carbon copy of the United States body]) had folded. Yet, within weeks of the intifada, new organisations were being established to press Israel's case.
It was the media that was being targeted. The Israeli government and the Israeli Defence Forces had even taken on image consultants. Unprecedented pressure was placed on the broadcasting media in particular, but also any newspaper or journalist who questioned Israel's right to put down Palestinian demonstrations in whatever fashion they chose. (Emphasis added).
THE FARCE OF POLITICAL DEBATE
Influence - "Ye Shall Know Them By Their Fruits"
Equally noticeable has been the almost total absence of any meaningful political initiative to redress the balance over the sequestration of Arab lands, to end Israeli oppression, force Israeli compliance with United Nations Resolutions and regulate Israel's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction . This would have meant openly confronting United States strategic and political policies, and insisting on adherence to the conveniently forgotten clause in the Balfour Letter of 1917, that the interests of the existing inhabitants of Palestine would not be adversely affected by Jewish settlement. This has only been maintained by overarching United States economic, as well as military Power, and regular use of the veto in the United Nations Security Council. All of this has been patently ignored by the "International Community" as far as any political position or public debate are concerned.
The fate of Iraq and other Arab states, and their leaders, has been inextricably entwined with this situation. The late Lord Stockton (Harold Macmillan), called Anglo-Jewish politicians "Old Estonians". Zionist, and Communist traitor Lord Victor Rothschild ran the Central Policy Review Staff, the Cabinet Office "Think Tank", from 1971 to 1974, under Prime Minister Edward Heath. Several Anglo-Jewish Ministers served in the Government of Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher and her successor, John Major frequently appeared at Anglo-Jewish gatherings and spoke at Anglo-Jewish meetings on a scale not remotely enjoyed by the Moslem community. When John Major made "yet another appearance" the Jewish Chronicle reported this on 21st May, 1993, under the heading "Zionism has become the vogue"! Labour Party Leader Tony Blair shared legal chambers with Eldred Tabachnik, Q.C., later to become Chairman of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
In November, 1994, the Sunday Express reported that Blair was making numerous contacts with Jewish organisations and was "making a determined pitch" for the Jewish vote. On 9th May, 1997, the Jewish Chronicle wrote that Blair had captured the Jewish vote in key marginals in winning the May, 1997, General Election. On 7th June, 1991, a full front page report in the Jewish Chronicle revealed that Mr Cyril Stein had condemned the moderate Chief Rabbi, Lord Jakobovits, for his "foolishness" and "ignorance" in supporting the Palestinian cause in an interview with the Evening Standard. Photographed with Lord Jakobovits and Cyril Stein were Mr Gerald Ronson, a leading contributor to Israeli causes, and Mr Stanley Kalms. The report also mentioned that Mr Michael Levy had resigned from the Jakobovits Foundation in protest. Sir Stanley Kalms is now Treasurer of the Conservative party. Lord Levy is an unelected, unofficial aide to Prime Minister Blair with particular reference to the Middle East.
In The Political Arena
The essential point is that the leaderships of both major British Political Parties are in the United States' strategic, and political pocket, and are tied by major transatlantic business interests. This leaves little room for individual judgement or genuine political debate. In March, 2002, when several pertinent questions concerning Iraq, such as support by Iain Duncan Smith for United States policies, were addressed to the Conservative Member of Parliament for North Shropshire, Owen W. Paterson, the reply, which failed to answer any of the points raised, was simply that "I am sorry that our views do not concur, but I am grateful to you for taking the trouble to let me know of your feeling on this important issue." One is reminded of the old adage "My mind is made up; please do not confuse me with facts".
The Conservative Party booklet forwarded with this reply, A race against time(73), purported to deal with the terrorist threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction, and was allegedly written by Iain Duncan Smith. In our view it was badly structured, badly written, poorly referenced, and appeared to be inspired by hawks in the American State Department. Unfortunately, senior and well-informed Members of Parliament, even of the ruling Labour Party, fare little better. They are met with platitudes read from official briefs by Ministers with little or no experience of the Middle East. Nor do we find knowledge beyond the orthodox party-political line amongst other speakers. Only a handful of Members of Parliament of any party seem to be well-informed or personally acquainted with the Middle East, and have the courage to challenge the party-political orthodoxy. They include the much respected Father of the House, Tam Dalyell, the colourful George Galloway, Alice Mahon and Jeremy Corbyn.
It is difficult not to be selective in defining this situation. However, the following brief extracts illustrate the position well. They have been taken from a Debate on Iraq held in the Westminster Hall, on 6th March, 2002, and recorded in Hansard(74). We have added emphasis where appropriate We have also inserted our own comments in square brackets to indicate when relatively uninformed statements were made, but which conformed to the accepted political line:
Tam Dalyell, Labour Member for Linlithgow. * The idea that we could attack and that there would be a Northern Alliance situation [as occurred in Afghanistan] - the Northern Alliance might be Shia - is a crackpot one. Those of us who visited the great mosque of the Shi'ites at Kerbala and have been elsewhere in Iraq know that it is not that kind of society. I deeply regret that no British Minister and, as far as I know, few in the current diplomatic service have been to Iraq. I say this to the Foreign Office: for pity's sake, listen to some of the former British ambassadors, including Sir Stephen Edgerton and Sir John Moberly, who urge great caution. If people do not have direct experience of Baghdad, they should at least speak to those who served there with distinction for many years. . . . Last week I was in Tunis, because the Foreign Minister of Tunisia - the most moderate of all Arab countries - requested that I visit him. I am authorised to say that that man, who is a former ambassador to Washington and has been Foreign Minister of Tunisia for 11 years, is wholly against an attack of the kind that is contemplated. That view is shared by Kofi Annan, who says publicly that no attack on Iraq should take place at the present time. Incidentally, if there is to be any action, it should be taken through the United Nations. The idea that we can change matters in Iraq by a bombing attack is preposterous.
George Galloway, Labour Member for Glasgow Kelvin. * I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Mr Simpson) that in the list of countries that possess weapons of mass destruction, that occupy other people's land and disobey United Nations Security Council resolutions, the one country that he forgot to mention was Israel. It is sitting on top of a mountain of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, which we know about thanks to the brave Jew, Mordechai Vanunu, now in his 15th year in solitary confinement in an Israeli prison. As well as sitting on top of the land of other people, in defiance for decades of international resolutions of the Security Council, Israel is also sitting on top of a mountain of weapons of mass destruction. Yet the only sanction contemplated against Israel is forcing it to take part in the Eurovision Song Contest.
* What sort of Labour Member of Parliament will support in the Lobby a war launched by such a grizzly crew? [in the White House] What justification is there for launching such a war? Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorism on 11th September. Ministers repeatedly made that clear. They said that they had seen no evidence linking Iraq to the terrorism of 11th September - but they tried so hard, did they not? There were anthrax flasks, and meetings with Mohammed Atta in Prague Airport that turn out never to have happened. Whatever happened to the anthrax flask that Atta was supposed to have been given? We know now that the anthrax used in the attacks on the United States was American anthrax sent by an American lunatic who was probably a former employee of the U.S. Government. The propaganda canards are being dragged out. We have seen them all.
* You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we were told in the Chamber about the five-year-old boy who was imprisoned for throwing a stone at a picture of the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein. When we asked for further details, the Foreign Secretary referred us to the Defence Secretary. When we asked the Defence Secretary, he referred us to the Minister of State. When we asked the Minister of State, he took shelter behind the protection of intelligence sources. We all know about the babies in the incubators in Kuwait city and the professional public relations firm that was hired in the U.S. to build the propaganda case for war. The daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador posed as a nurse. She said that she had watched Iraqis in a Kuwaiti hospital unplugging incubators from the wall, which killed the babies, and shipping those incubators North to Iraq. We found out only later that she was a professional actress and that the whole stunt had been paid for as part of the war propaganda.
* We remember the presidential palaces. The former Member for Hamilton, South [Lord Robertson], now the Secretary-General of N.A.T.O., held up a map of my constituency in the Chamber and said that the palaces were larger than the area of Paris. However, when they were mapped, they turned out to be smaller than Paddington. We were told that all sorts of weapons of mass destruction could be found in them. When the U.N. inspectors searched them, they found not so much as a bow and arrow. . . . Scott Ritter - the former senior official of the arms inspectorate - who spent years in Iraq destroying weapons, told an audience in this Chamber that Iraq had been effectively disarmed by 1998. . . . Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow [Tam Dalyell] nor I know what weapons exist in Iraq or in any other country. However, Scott Ritter is in a better position than either of us to know whether Iraq has such weapons, as he spent years destroying them as an employee of the United Nations Special Commission. Mr Alan Duncan. Conservative Member for Rutland and Melton.
* Saddam Hussein's Iraq refuses to acknowledge international norms [whatever those are!] or its own international agreements [sic! and Israel?]. It is run by a regime that oppresses its own people and appears intent on developing weapons of mass destruction - we should be naive in seeing them as being merely defensive in purpose. Iraq under Saddam Hussein represents a clear danger to international [sic] security and regional stability and represents a clear affront to human rights [sic!, vis., Israel] - a point about which I would have thought Labour Members would feel especially strongly.
* Containment has been our first aim in tackling Saddam Hussein. It is the policy that we have followed so far - with some success - but we must face the reality that containment alone is not enough to defeat the evil of the Iraqi regime and its [assumed] weapons programme. Saddam Hussein is abusing the patience of the world [whatever "world" implies] and is [assumption now fact] developing far more destructive potential than he has yet possessed [proof]. . . There are those who question Saddam's capacity to produce the chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons that we feel are a growing threat. I say to them, where are the thousands of tonnes of precursor chemicals, suitable for chemical weapons use [source, or proof of figures?], that are unaccounted for? [on whose evidence]. Saddam Hussein has not yet complied with U.N. Security Council resolution 687 regarding inspection [used by the USA for spying], so what is he hiding?
* If we or the Americans were to use the Kurds as pawns [the Americans have done!], they would be massacred [they have been!]. It would be wrong and reckless to sacrifice them on the altar of our ambitions to topple Saddam Hussein.
Mr Ben Bradshaw. Labour Member for Exeter; and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. * My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr Simpson) made the point that this has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. We do not quite agree; Iraq is a sponsor of terrorism. But we make no secret of the fact that our main concern about that country is its determination [proof?] to build weapons of mass destruction capability and the threat that it poses, not just to its neighbours, but to the rest of the world [the "world" being?]. . . . My hon. Friend questioned whether there would be any legal base in the hypothetical circumstances that there is military action. The legal view, with which I have much sympathy, is that Iraq is in flagrant breach, not just of United Nations resolutions [as for Israel?], but of the cease-fire agreement that it entered into at the end of the Gulf war, which makes that cease-fire no longer valid. [and illegal over-flying and bombing by the United States and United Kingdom?].
This particular Debate was ended prematurely in angry disarray by the Deputy Speaker after the Under Secretary of State, Ben Bradshaw, had concluded by stating that George Galloway had "made a career of being not just an apologist, but a mouthpiece, for the Iraqi regime over many years". Whilst there are those who would argue that there was a grain of truth in Ben Bradshaw's accusation he does betray the political mind-set ultimately dictated by the party-political hierarchy and the whip system. It also shows the problem of seeking to establish the truth, not in any conflict with genuine National interests, but in the face of the overarching and uncompromising Power and strategic objectives of the United States.
THE PRESS CONSPIRACY?
The Elusive Truth Of The Printed Word
We have already dealt with the demonisation process(76). Although Iran, Libya, Syria and others are variously identified as pariah states, Iraq has been singled out for attention, with particular reference to Saddam Hussein. Journalists will cultivate their exclusive sources. However, "Intelligence" is strictly a military entity and is by its nature classified. "Information" is what is available openly. This must be assessed analytically and conclusions must be properly drawn in order to pass on information to the reader. What we have seen in practice has been a steady stream of often sensationally composed disclosures. Some have been supplemented by impressive maps, charts, tables, diagrams and artists' impressions. Photographs have frequently promoted a deliberate association with Saddam Hussein by incorporating his image in a suitable menacing pose. Boiled down, almost all have been a compendium of supposition, "disclosures", selective interpretation and journalistic "opinion". This has been underpinned by the questionable word of defectors and carefully staged official releases. These releases have often impressed as fabrications, as in the case of successive video tapes of Osama bin Laden, and documentary and other "evidence" conveniently abandoned by the Taliban and al Qa'eda forces.
Hollinger International Inc.
Indeed, as we studied the record we applied our
own code, "T.T.U." - "Telegraph Talk-Up"! In Siklos' biography of Lord
Black the story of Black's purchase of The Jerusalem Post is insouciant,
muted(77). The reality was that the admittedly rather run down newspaper
was a liberal thorn in the side of the Extreme Right Wing Likud Party
and, during the takeover and transition to Black's ownership, it was
this faction that played a leading role in Israel ("Jerusalem Post sacks
30 staff", The Independent, 6th December, 1990; "How they pulled up
the Post - The old newspaper was a liberal voice in the wilderness.
Then the new owner arrived", The Independent, 4th January, 1991). It
was hardly surprising when we later read a report of a complaint from
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres that The Jerusalem Post was attempting
to undermine the peace process (The Independent, 9th September, 1993).
We have excellent corroboration for these links and the general alignment
of the Hollinger group in the Company Annual Reports and the listed
directorships and advisers. The names represent a cross section of the
world's "movers and shakers", the Global Power Brokers, with clear links
to organisations such as the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission,
the Council on Foreign Relations and useful political appointees:
The following is a representative record of press
coverage from Telegraph Newspapers. To this we have added and highlighted
significant details on the content and authorship:
BACKWARDS INTO THE FUTURE - WHO REALLY RULES?
We need to take a less dismissive view of Conspiracy and heed the dictionary to conceive the threads of Power. Power is certainly vested only nominally in the person of President George W. Bush. If we go back to King Boris and the last quotation in "Food For Thought" on our cover page, we should take note that the European Monarchies had been close to events for centuries and are still a close-knit group behind the scenes today. Johnny-come-latelys like Bush and Prime Minister Blair are shallow manifestations. Professor Noam Chomsky gave us his impression of Blair during the Balkans Campaign of 1999: "On Blair, I guess nothing you can say would surprise me. When I happen to catch him on B.B.C. TV some-where, or see a picture, he reminds me of nothing more than a slightly crazed six-year old with a big grin while he plays with his new star wars laser gun that can wipe out everyone in sight."
It has been said that the Catholic Church, strangely under fierce attack today, is one element of the global Powerplay. The ancient Guelphic Knights were linked to the Nineteenth Century Italian Carbonari, once the society of the charcoal burners of the forest, but which later evolved with formal lodges and rituals(81). In 1933 Lady Queenborough published her detailed history of secret societies and their interrelationships(82). Her account of the Rite of Mizraim with its links to Judaism and names like Fauld, Rothschild and Goldsmid should have great significance today. There was a continuity of these secret societies, often with Masonic-style rituals, during the Nineteenth Century.
A sharp deviation from United States policies,
the Middle East and Saddam Hussein?
A year later, in 1967, a meeting of the Bilderberg Group at Mont Tremblant, in Canada, tabled papers that argued that this Power would supersede that of individual Nations. Today the United States wields this Power almost unchallenged; with little publicity military bases are being extended to the Balkans, former Soviet states around the Caucasus and elsewhere. At the heart of this lies oil. Perhaps a six-gun mentality is part of the American psyche? This Power is being exercised with the dramatic overkill of a Schwarzenegger movie. We saw this against Iraq, in 1991, we saw it in the Balkans in 1999, and we are seeing it in Afghanistan today; a brutal instrument wielded in the name of quasi-Christian Western Materialism, with total disregard for Moslem and other cultures. But where is the ultimate source?
Such networks function beyond the reach of society as a whole; what Quigley termed the gulf between the "simple absolutes" of popular perceptions and the reality of "complex relativisms". In the upper-most reaches of any activity, participants and former adversaries share a common experience and move with a certain detachment. At the wedding of Jemima Goldsmith, in 1993, in an oft-repeated scenario in these circles, Royalty, aristocracy, bankers, business-men, media barons, politicians and individuals like Henry Kissinger mingled together. For all that President George W. Bush represents a Nation of 276,000,000 people, the greatest Military Power in history, he has been rendered impotent, like his predecessors, unable to move either forwards or backwards in resolving the deadlock in the Middle East. There can only be one primary explanation; the hard core of the Organised American-Jewish lobby; a dominant caucus extracted from the minority 5,000,000 American-Jewish community.
Since Jacob Schiff established the Jewish community in American society, this potential has been subsumed and monopolised by this militant Zionist core. Like the network of fine blue veins in a cheese, it has changed radically the character of the original both in American-Jewish and National terms. Ultimately this identifies with what Winston Churchill called the "International Jew" in his article "Zionism versus Bolshevism - A Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People", in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of 8th April, 1920. Detached analysis, J.J. Goldberg(84), and the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion(85), however resented, together offer qualitative, quantitative, factual evidence of the extent of this Power. Unless all concerned mutually come to terms and reconcile with these truths no progress can be made in the Middle East.
It is vital radically to reconstruct, and police, the territorial and cultural scenario brought about by the Allied Powers after the 1914-18 War, and in 1948. Until this time there can be no genuine Palestinian State or security for Israel, Iraq will remain the current strategic Diversion - "Diversiya" - from the truth, and Saddam Hussein will be its immediate target. Such honesty seems improbable unless the spiralling, unsustainable Global Economy, or culturally strained Western societies implode to produce a new scenario in the eternal blur between war and peace.
REFERENCES Note: Prices are shown where available from Bloomfield Books, and represent only a selection relevant to the theme of this edition of On Target. A wide range of reading may be found in the Stock Price List (S.P.L.), which may be obtained post free on request from the address on the last page. Out of print, or older works, may be obtained through the Book Search Service, or the Second-Hand Book Service, both of which are operated by Mr. T.G. Turner, for which details are available as for the S.P.L. Material geared to the text is listed numerically, and that of a general interest to the subject is listed at the end.
References are continued in numerical sequence
from Part 1 and Part 2, Section A. Where reference is repeated in Part
1 or 2 Section B ("Op. cit".), the full title is also repeated.
Further material may be found in the Bloomfield Books Stock Price List (S.P.L.). This is available from the address below. Prices for all material include postage in the United Kingdom. Overseas orders add 20% for surface mail (Europe add 20% for automatic air mail) or 55% for airmail. (U.S. readers should add 55% after adding postage to the U.K. prices, and send payment in U.S. dollars with a cheque drawn on a bank in the U.S.A. made payable to "Donald A. Martin"). All from Donald A. Martin, Bloomfield Books at: 26 Meadow Lane, Sudbury, Suffolk, England, CO10 2TD. EXTRA COPIES: As a service to our readers, extra copies and back numbers of On Target are available at £2 for a single copy, £1.50 each for 2 - 10 copies, 75p each for 11 - 50 copies, and over 50 copies at 50p each. (quantity prices only apply per issue).
ON TARGET INDEXES. These are available from Bloomfield Books, currently for Volumes 22-29. The price is 50 pence per copy, per volume (all 8 volumes - £3.50). See address below. On Target is printed and published by Intelligence Publications (U.K.) 26 Meadow Lane, SUDBURY, Suffolk, ENGLAND CO10 2TD. By private subscription only at the following rates: U.K. - £20 per annum U.S.A. - Surface Mail U.S.$45 per annum- Air Mail U.S.$50 per annum Elsewhere overseas - Surface Mail £25 per annum - Air Mail £30 per annum
Reproduction, without prior agreement, of the contents of this publication is subject to the acknowledgment of the source, together with the address and subscription rates, and provided a copy of any reproduction is sent immediately to the publisher. Editor and Publisher: Donald A. Martin Copyright © D.A. Martin Deputy Editor and Research Department: Barry S. Turner
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|