THE MAIN INTERNATIONAL MISSION OF THE LEADERS OF THE USA, THE ONLY SUPER POWER AND THE RENOWNED WORLD PREACHER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY IS TO SERVE THEIR ZIONIST MASTERS DAY AND NIGHT WELL!
by Syarif Hidayat
WHY DIDN’T THE US-LED WESTERN COUNTRIES DARE ENOUGH TO LAUNCH MILITARY PUNITIVE STRIKE AGAINST ISRAEL FOR PRODUCING, STORING AND USING CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AGAINST (PALESTINIAN) CIVILIANS?
Israeli forces often have been using many kind of internationally banned weapons including chemical weapons against Palestinian civilians, but they always got away freely. Why? This could be the answer: Barack Obama, the other US leaders including Congress leaders and the US-led western regimes leaders as well as the US-led western media leaders serve the Zionist Israel day and night well!
“You can help us or we ‘will overthrow the world’.” – Chaim Weizmann, first president of the State of Israel.
Baba Mezia, 114b“The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts.”
Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: “Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.”
Midrasch Talpioth (fol. 225d): “God created them [Jews] in the form of men for the glory of Israel . But Akum were created for the sole end of ministering unto them [the Jews] day and night. Nor can they ever be relieved from this service. It is becoming to the son of a king [an Israelite] that animals in their natural form, and animals in the form of human beings should minister unto him.”
Facts speak for themselves correctly and objectively that the Israelis through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbyists could bully American leaders and Congressmen to support and finance Israeli actions in the occupied lands as well as support its political interests worldwide, while American leaders and the congressmen could not be brave enough to stand up against the Israelis bullying!!
Of course, the U.S.A, the renowned World Preacher of Human Rights and Democracy continues to support the terrorist state of Israel by giving it tanks, planes, rocket launchers and financial support to the tune of three to five billion dollars a year, with which Israel has built up the fourth-largest military machine in the world.
The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian lands, the building of the Zionist Apartheid Walls, the Israeli crimes against humanity and the Zionist state’s hegemony over the Middle East will continue, however, only as long as American money makes it possible.
Ariel Sharon: “We, the Jewish people, control America”
“Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”- Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI’s cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking.)
American presidential candidates almost always rush for Jewish (Zionists) funds:
That is why facts speak for themselves objectively and correctly that every US presidential race almost always becomes a big political event for American leaders from both Republican and Democratic parties to take part in a “formula competition” to serve the Zionist Israel better!
Protocol of the Elders of Zion —13, para 6 says: “Who will ever suspect then that ALL THESE PEOPLES WERE STAGE-MANAGED BY US ACCORDING TO A POLITICAL PLAN WHICH NO ONE HAS SO MUCH AS GUESSED AT IN THE COURSE OF MANY CENTURIES?”
The American Leaders Obsess Over Israel
Shmuel Rosner in his article titled “Debating Israel” published in http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com October 26, 2012, wrote that “At the end of the third U.S. presidential debate — the one in which Barack Obama and Mitt Romney clashed at times over actual foreign policy issues — I had to reconcile two competing feelings. As an Israeli, I can’t help but have a childish glee over the frequent mention of my country, a reminder of its important place in U.S. foreign policy. At the same time, I can’t help but wonder: Is this attention not a bit too much?”
The candidates referred to Israel over and over again. Romney called the country ‘‘our ally’’ and bragged of his relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama vowed to make Egypt abide by the ‘‘red line’’ of keeping its peace treaty with Israel (apparently, in some cases, the U.S. president does believe in red lines). Romney criticized Obama for suggesting that a bit of ‘‘daylight’’ between the United States and Israel is a good thing. Obama reminded us that ‘‘Israel is a true friend.’’
And, of course, both promised to stand by Israel if the country were ever attacked. On and on they went. There were more than 30 mentions of Israel. The word Europe was uttered once, India got not a word. Yes, Iran was mentioned even more times than Israel, but it was in the context of a threat. (In fact, that Iran was mentioned so many times is yet another victory for Israel.)
“One Israeli newspaper called my country the “big winner” of the debate. This is right, in some ways. Giving Israel such prominence in a discussion of U.S. foreign affairs makes the country stronger and seem larger than it really is, thereby deterring enemies who notice how far American leaders are willing to go in stating their allegiance to an old ally,” Shmuel Rosner, an editor and columnist based in Tel Aviv.
“But all this support has a down side as well: It can make Israel a target for all those wanting to hurt America without actually making war against the United States. And, more importantly, it has the potential of making Israel seem like a burden to some American voters — which of course wouldn’t serve Israel’s interests in the end. When I start to think of it this way, the spotlight on my country becomes unnerving,” he said.
There’s nothing new about this obsession with Israel. It was not much different four years ago, when Obama ran against Senator John McCain, or in the decades of presidential races before that. In the first 2008 presidential debate, Israel was mentioned seven times. Like Romney today, McCain criticized Obama.
“What Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand [is] that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a ‘stinking corpse,’ and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map,” McCain said, referring to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, “you legitimize those comments.”
Just as he is doing today, Obama in 2008 had to reassure the audience that Israel is “our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world.”
Israel defines Obama as “pro-Israeli”
One difference in the campaign of 2012, of course, is that Obama now has a political record. And as far as Israel is concerned, it’s not all roses. This offers an opportunity for Romney, and he’s trying to exploit it. Israelis were suspicious of Obama to begin with and became even more so when he made an overt effort to get closer to the Arab world.
As president he pressured the Israeli government to make concessions in the peace process and on settlements, but had only moderate success with the Israeli side and no success with getting the other side to seriously negotiate. Today, according to polls, only around 18 percent of Israelis define the American president as “pro-Israeli.”
Romney’s effort to lure American Jewish voters away from Obama — a campaign I watched firsthand as I spent the week leading up to the third debate in and around Florida — is based in large part on the president’s lack of popularity in Israel. All of this makes Israel a hot debate topic. Obama is forced to defend his record against Romney, who sees the president’s lack of popularity here as a weak spot, an opportunity to be exploited.
“Meanwhile, if Romney becomes president he might soon discover — as they all do — that there’s a difference between campaigning and governing, that the promises and pledges he made on Israel may come back to irritate him. No wonder then that all this attention to my country makes me not just proud but also nervous. Is Israel really in such great need of support? If the answer is no, then all this fuss is unnecessary and possibly hurtful. If yes, well, I doubt Romney’s and Obama’s firm stands would be enough to save us,” Shmuel Rosner, a senior political editor for The Jewish Journal, concluded his article.
“I can’t help but have a childish glee over the frequent mention of my country, a reminder of its important place in U.S. foreign policy. At the same time, I can’t help but wonder: Is this attention not a bit too much?” Shmuel Rosner asks.
The following are quotes about Israel from every U.S. president since 1948 that confirms Shmuel Rosner is right:
“I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have faith in it now. I believe it has a glorious future before it—not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization.”
“Our forces saved the remnant of the Jewish people of Europe for a new life and a new hope in the reborn land of Israel. Along with all men of good will, I salute the young state and wish it well.”
“For Israel was not created in order to disappear – Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom; and no area of the world has ever had an overabundance of democracy and freedom.”
“America and Israel have a common love of human freedom and they have a common faith in a democratic way of life.”
“Americans admire a people who can scratch a desert and produce a garden. The Israelis have shown qualities that Americans identify with: guts, patriotism, idealism, a passion for freedom. I have seen it. I know. I believe that.”
“My commitment to the security and future of Israel is based upon basic morality as well as enlightened self-interest. Our role in supporting Israel honors our own heritage.”
“We have a special relationship with Israel. It’s absolutely crucial that no one in our country or around the world ever doubt that our number one commitment in the Middle East is to protect the right of Israel to exist, to exist permanently, and to exist in peace. It’s a special relationship. “
“In Israel, free men and women are every day demonstrating the power of courage and faith. Back in 1948 when Israel was founded, pundits claimed the new country could never survive. Today, no one questions that. Israel is a land of stability and democracy in a region of tyranny and unrest.”
George H.W. Bush
“For more than 40 years, the United States and Israel have enjoyed a friendship built on mutual respect and commitment to democratic principles. Our continuing search for peace in the Middle East begins with a recognition that ties uniting our two countries can never be broken.”
“American and Israel share a special bond. Our relationship is unique among all nations. Like America, Israel is a strong democracy, a symbol of freedom, and an oasis of liberty, a home to the oppressed and persecuted.”
George W. Bush
“For more than a generation, the United States and Israel have been steadfast allies. Our nations are bound by our shared values and a strong commitment to freedom. These ties that have made us natural allies will never be broken. Israel and the United States share a common history: We are both nations born of struggle and sacrifice. We are both founded by immigrants escaping religious persecution in other lands. Through the labors and strides of generations, we have both built vibrant democracies, founded in the rule of law and market economies. And we are both countries established with certain basic beliefs: that God watches over the affairs of men and values every human life.”
“The American people and the Israeli peoples share a faith in the future and believe that democracies can shape their own destinies and that opportunities should be available to all. Throughout its own extraordinary history, Israel has given life to that promise.” (October 21, 2009)
“America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable, and our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day … The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors.” (September 21, 2011)
“America’s Founding Fathers understood this truth, just as Israel’s founding generation did. President Truman put it well, describing his decision to formally recognize Israel only minutes after it declared independence. He said, “I had faith in Israel before it was established. I believe it has a glorious future before it — as not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization. For over six decades, the American people have kept that faith. Yes, we are bound to Israel because of the interests that we share — in security for our communities, prosperity for our people, the new frontiers of science that can light the world. But ultimately it is our common ideals that provide the true foundation for our relationship. That is why America’s commitment to Israel has endured under Democratic and Republican Presidents, and congressional leaders of both parties. In the United States, our support for Israel is bipartisan, and that is how it should stay.” (March 4, 2012)
CIA documents reveal Israeli stockpile od chemical weapons
A newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday (9 September 2013) by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.
The revelation comes in the midst of the reported use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government on August 21st.
(Picture shows: The Israeli Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons manufacturing facility at Dimona, Negev desert as viewed from satellite (image by sodahead.com)
The document revealed by Foreign Policy magazine on Monday shows that, in addition to building up a nuclear stockpile of an estimated three hundred nuclear weapons during the 1960s and 70s, the Israeli military also developed an extensive stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.
The 1983 document stated that U.S. spy satellites had identified “a probable CW [chemical weapon] nerve agent production facility and a storage facility… at the Dimona Sensitive Storage Area in the Negev Desert. Other CW production is believed to exist within a well-developed Israeli chemical industry.”
“While we cannot confirm whether the Israelis possess lethal chemical agents,” the document adds, “several indicators lead us to believe that they have available to them at least persistent and nonpersistent nerve agents, a mustard agent, and several riot-control agents, marched with suitable delivery systems.”
The single page of a larger CIA report was discovered at the Ronald Reagan Library in California in its unredacted form – the report had been released several years ago to the National Archives, but was heavily censored.
According to the Foreign Policy report, “Israeli historian Avner Cohen, in his 1988 book Israel and the Bomb, wrote that Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion secretly ordered that a stockpile of chemical weapons be built at about the time of the 1956 war between Israel and Egypt. The CIA, on the other hand, believed that Israel did not begin work on chemical weapons until either the late 1960s or the early 1970s.
The article included the following assessment from the 1983 CIA report: “Israel, finding itself surrounded by frontline Arab states with budding CW [chemical weapons] capabilities, became increasingly conscious of its vulnerability to chemical attack. Its sensitivities were galvanized by the capture of large quantities of Soviet CW-related equipment during both the 1967 Arab-Israeli and the 1973 Yom Kippur wars. As a result, Israel undertook a program of chemical warfare preparations in both offensive and protective areas.”
The Israeli government has harshly criticized the Syrian government for its alleged use of chemical weapons three weeks ago, and has encouraged President Obama’s pledge to respond militarily.
Israel did sign the Convention to Ban Chemical Weapons, but the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) never ratified the treaty. Israel has never opened its nuclear facility or its chemical weapons stockpile to international inspections.
Chemical and Biological Weapons
Israel possesses a comprehensive arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. According to the Sunday Times, Israel has produced both chemical and biological weapons with a sophisticated delivery system, quoting a senior Israeli intelligence official, “There is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemical or biological weapon . . .which is not manufactured at the Nes Tziyona Biological Institute.”
The same report described F-16 fighter jets specially designed for chemical and biological payloads, with crews trained to load the weapons on a moments notice.
In 1998, the Sunday Times reported that Israel, using research obtained from South Africa, was developing an “ethno bomb; “In developing their “ethno-bomb”, Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying distinctive a gene carried by some Arabs, then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus…
The scientists are trying to engineer deadly micro-organisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes.” Dedi Zucker, a leftist Member of Knesset, the Israeli parliament, denounced the research saying, “Morally, based on our history, and our tradition and our experience, such a weapon is monstrous and should be denied.”
Israel wants Syria and Iran, crushed
Jonathan Cook in his article titled “Israel wants Syria and Iran, crushed” published in Informationclearinghouse website, September 2013, wrote President Barack Obama may have drawn his seemingly regretted “red line” around Syria’s chemical weapons, but it was neither he nor the international community that turned the spotlight on their use. That task fell to Israel.
It was an Israeli general who claimed in April that Damascus had used chemical weapons, forcing Obama into an embarrassing demurral on his stated commitment to intervene should that happen. According to the Israeli media, it was also Israel that provided the intelligence that blamed the Syrian president, Bashar Al Assad, for the latest chemical weapons attack, near Damascus on August 21, triggering the clamour for a US military response.
It is worth remembering that Obama’s supposed “dithering” on the question of military action has only been accentuated by Israel’s “daring” strikes on Syria – at least three since the start of the year. It looks as though Israel, while remaining largely mute about its interests in the civil war raging there, has been doing a great deal to pressure the White House into direct involvement in Syria.
That momentum appears to have been halted, for the time being at least, by the deal agreed at the weekend by the US and Russia to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. To understand the respective views of the White House and Israel on attacking Syria, one needs to revisit the US-led invasion of Iraq a decade ago.
Israel and its ideological twin in Washington, the neoconservatives, rallied to the cause of toppling Saddam Hussein, believing that it should be the prelude to an equally devastating blow against Iran. Israel was keen to see its two chief regional enemies weakened simultaneously. Saddam’s Iraq had been the chief sponsor of Palestinian resistance against Israel.
Iran, meanwhile, had begun developing a civilian nuclear programme that Israel feared could pave the way to an Iranian bomb, ending Israel’s regional monopoly on nuclear weapons. The neocons carried out the first phase of the plan, destroying Iraq, but then ran up against domestic opposition that blocked implementation of the second stage: the break-up of Iran.
“Keystone” axis against Israel
The consequences are well known. As Iraq imploded into sectarian violence, Iran’s fortunes rose. Tehran strengthened its role as regional sponsor of resistance against Israel – or what became Washington’s new “axis of evil” – that included Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Israel and the US both regard Syria as the geographical “keystone” of that axis, as Israel’s outgoing ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, told the Jerusalem Post this week, and one that needs to be removed if Iran is to be isolated, weakened or attacked.
But Israel and the US drew different lessons from Iraq. Washington is now wary of its ground forces becoming bogged down again, as well as fearful of reviving a cold war confrontation with Moscow. It prefers instead to rely on proxies to contain and exhaust the Syrian regime.
Israel, on the other hand, understands the danger of manoeuvring its patron into a showdown with Damascus without ensuring this time that Iran is tied into the plan. Toppling Assad alone would simply add emboldened jihadists to the troubles on its doorstep.
Given these assessments, Israel and the US have struggled to envision a realistic endgame that would satisfy them both. Obama fears setting the region, and possibly the world, ablaze with a direct attack on Iran; Israel is worried about stretching its patron’s patience by openly pushing it into another catastrophic venture to guarantee its regional hegemony.
In his interview published yesterday by the Jerusalem Post, Michael Oren claimed that Israel had in fact been trying to oust Assad since the civil war erupted more than two years ago. He said Israel “always preferred the bad guys [jihadist groups] who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys [the Assad regime] who were backed by Iran.”
That seems improbable. Although the Sunni jihadist groups, some with links to al-Qaeda, are not natural allies for either the Shia leaders of Iran or Hizbollah, they would be strongly hostile to Israel. Oren’s comments, however, do indicate the degree to which Israel’s strategic priorities are obsessively viewed through the prism of an attack on Iran.
More likely, Israel has focused on using the civil war as a way to box Assad into his heartlands. That way, he becomes a less useful ally to Hizbollah, Iran and Russia, while the civil war keeps both his regime and the opposition weak.
Israel would have preferred a US strike on Syria, a goal its lobbyists in Washington were briefly mobilised to achieve. But the intention was not to remove Assad but to assert what Danny Ayalon, a former deputy Israeli foreign minister, referred to as “American and Israeli deterrence” – code for signalling to Tehran that it was being lined up as the next target.
That threat now looks empty. As Silvan Shalom, a senior government minister, observed: “If it is impossible to do anything against little Syria, then certainly it’s not possible against big Iran.” But the new US-Russian deal to dispose of Syria’s chemical weapons can probably be turned to Israel’s advantage, so long as Israel prevents attention shifting to its own likely stockpiles.
In the short term, Israel has reason to fear Assad’s loss of control of his chemical weapons, with the danger that they pass either to the jihadists or to Hizbollah. The timetable for the weapons destruction should help to minimise those risks – in the words of one Israeli commentator, it is like Israel “winning the lottery”.
But Israel also suspects that Damascus is likely to procrastinate on disarmament. In any case, efforts to locate and destroy its chemical weapons in the midst of a civil war will be lengthy and difficult. And that may provide Israel with a way back in. Soon, as Israeli analysts are already pointing out, Syria will be hosting international inspectors searching for WMD, not unlike the situation in Iraq shortly before the US-led invasion of 2003. Israel, it can safely be assumed, will quietly meddle, trying to persuade the West that Assad is not cooperating and that Hizbullah and Iran are implicated.
In a vein Israel may mine later, a Syrian opposition leader, Selim Idris, claimed at the weekend that Damascus was seeking to conceal the extent of its stockpiles by passing them to Lebanon and Iraq. Obama is not the only one to have set a red line. Last year, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, drew one on a cartoon bomb at the United Nations as he warned that the world faced an imminent existential threat from an Iranian nuclear weapon.
Israel still desperately wants its chief foe, Iran, crushed. And if it can find a way to lever the US into doing its dirty work, it will exploit the opening – regardless of whether such action ramps up the suffering in Syria.
“The Israeli regime is a tool in the hands of Zionists to control the Middle-East and the entire world.” – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“Zionists today are afraid of their own shadows and are therefore trying to control this disappointing atmosphere by staging brouhaha and psychological warfare, but should know that propaganda will not resolve their problems.” – Iranian General Ahmad Vahidi.
Israel is a murderous society
“Though it is certain that there is no ethnic or racial continuum between the Biblical Israelites and the Khazarians who lead the Jewish state and its army, the similarities between the murderous enthusiasm described in Deuteronomy and the current string of Israeli lethal actions cannot be denied. Israel is a murderous society not because of any biological or racial lineage with its imaginary ‘forefathers’. Israel is deadly because it is driven by a fanatical tribal Jewish ideology and fueled by a psychotic merciless Biblical poisonous enthusiasm.” – Gilad Atzmon, an Anti-Zionist Israeli activist. (HSH)