Speculations continue to grow around the identities authors of a suspected sock-puppet blog that distributed pictures of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in SS uniform, ostensibly on behalf of the J14 social justice movement.

Who tried attributing “Nazi Netanyahu” pictures to J14 protest?

By Dimi Reider FOR

A previously unknown blog caused an uproar in Israeli media, after publishing pictures of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Nazi uniform alongside a text supportive of the J14 social justice protests. Left-wing bloggers believe this is a right-wing attempt to smear the protesters.

One of the inciteful photomontages published by the Civil Curfew blog (Author:Unknown)

Speculations continue to grow around the identities authors of a suspected sock-puppet blog that distributed pictures of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in SS uniform, ostensibly on behalf of the J14 social justice movement.

Left wing site Activismos traced the blog, which was taken down within hours of making headlines in Israeli media, to domains registered to  Likud activist Philipe Hubert. Hubert himself, however, said he merely provided hosting and platforms used to create the controversial content, has since sold these assets, and threatened to sue. Activismos pulled their post pending further investigation.

The picture above, alongside two others, first appeared on a blog named “Civil Curfew” on August 8, under a call for Netanyahu’s arrest. “The authors of the blog go to great lengths to connect themselves to the protest leaders,” journalist and blogger Itamar Sha’altiel reported on Activismos yesterday. “They claim they ‘represent the heart of the Israeli protest against the swinish capitalist government of Benjamin Netanyahu,’ and that they are ‘at the very core’ of ‘the immense civil curfew spreading across Israel…’ the blog was taken down soon after hitting the headlines in the mainstream media.”

Sha’altiel pointed out the term “civil curfew” was both oblique and highly unusual, and found it was first used a week ago, on a forum titled “Mizrachim against Israel,” by a user named “Shakshouka,”  a self-declared member of an organisation called “The Union of Mizrachim Against Israel – Deborah Salon.” He went on to say that the website of the Salon and a handful of other supposedly militant sites – “Mizrachim against Israel,” “Anarchists Without Borders,” “Biased Media” and “Pincers” – occupy a small group of domains all registered to Philipe Hubert. The platform operating the websites,, is also registered to Hubert – as is another website,, one of the main unofficial websites for Likud activists.

The journalist went on to stress the suspiciousness of highly provocative websites presenting a militant and violent image of the Israeli left and being affiliated with a member of the Likud party. The Likud itself filed a complaint with the police against the “Civil Curfew” blog for incitement. Hubert told Walla today that he did indeed develop the technology used to create the controversial websites, but has sold it in 2008, and had no involvement with either the platform or the domain ever since. The current owner of the platform, Nadav Gorlitzki, confirmed Hubert’s statement in an interview to financial daily Calcalist.

“I strongly deny the accusations and I intend to sue the bloggers,” Hubert himself told Walla. “It’s like accusing Mark Zuckerberg for involvement in someone opening an anarchist group on Facebook… Benjamin Netanyahu is a personal friend of mine, and I would never do anything to cause him any harm.”

Activismos called for a police investigation into the identities of the authors of the pictures and the “Civil Curfew” blog. It also removed Shaaltiel’s investigative post, citing the need for further inquiries, and published Hubert’s denial.


The media covered the statement of opening Rafah passage Permanently ; Today we went to observe what’s happening at the entrance of Rafah and we were shocked with what we’ve witnessed!
Please watch the video to realize the truth of the circumstances at Rafah crossing.


Despite the hysterical (and strikingly racist and Islamophobic) claims of opportunistic serial liars like Goldberg (who has warned of Iran’s “theologically driven, eliminationist anti-Semitism”), Netanyahu (who accused Iran’s leaders of belonging to a “messianic apocalyptic cult”) and Alan Dershowitz (who claimed Iran had “demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice millions of their own people to an apocalyptic mission of destruction”), even the United States government concurs with assessments that Iran is a rational actor on the world stage, concerned only with national self-defense rather than aggressive military offensives.

Israeli Fear-Mongering about Iran Faces a Barak-lash
By Nima Shirazi

Sometimes Ehud Barak has trouble staying on message.

Last year in Herzliya, he warned of Israel becoming an apartheid state like South Africa, a usually verboten analogy among Zionist officials, unless a viable Palestinian state is created soon. “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic,” Barak said. “If this bloc of millions of ­Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.” Whoops.

This time around, however, Barak pulled the rug out from under Israel’s favorite scare tactic. The former Israeli Prime Minister/current Minister of Defense/Deputy Prime Minister told Ha’aretz today that even “[i]f Iran succeeds in developing nuclear weapons, it is unlikely to bomb Israel,” thereby undermining one of the Netanyahu administration’s main propaganda lines that a nuclear-armed Iran (if one ever were to exist) would represent an immediate “existential threat” to the self-proclaimed Jewish state.

According to Ha’aretz, Barak voiced his opinion that “Israel should not spread public panic about the Iranian nuclear program and responded to a question about whether he thought Iran would launch a nuclear attack on Israel by saying, “Not on us and not on any other neighbor.”

Just a few days ago, on May 1, both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israeli President Shimon Peres repeated their dire warnings and tired talking points about the supposed Iranian threat. Speaking at the opening ceremony of Holocaust Memorial Day at Yad Vashem, Israel’s memorial to Jewish victims of Nazi genocide, Netanyahu and Peres both “stressed Iranian nuclear aspirations as an existential threat to Israel,” with Netanyahu declaring that “Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas are working openly for the destruction of our people.” He continued, “We cannot place our fate in the hands of others,” and then warned that, “when Israel and the Israel Defense Forces say, ‘Never Again,’ they mean precisely that.”

Peres went even further, stating, “Iran’s fanatic leadership is a danger to the entire world. It is not only a threat to Israel. It is a threat to any household, anywhere. It is a real risk to the fate of humanity.”

Drawing a bogus parallel from Nazi intentions to Iranian ones has long beena mainstay of Israeli fear-mongering despite its obviousabsurdity.

Meanwhile, during his Ha’aretz interview, Barak explained, “I don’t think in terms of panic,” continuing,

“What about Pakistan, some political meltdown happens there and four bombs wind up in Iran. So what? So you head for the airport? You close down the country? Just because they got a shortcut? No. We are still the most powerful in the Middle East.”

This is not the first time Barak has made such comments. In April 2010, Barak told Israel Radio, “Right now, Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel. If Iran becomes nuclear, it will spark an arms race in the Middle East. This region is very sensitive because of the oil flow; the region is important to the entire world. The fact that Iran is not an immediate threat, but could evolve into one, means that we can’t let ourselves fall asleep.”

Still, in his remarks to Ha’aretz today, Barak made sure to tread familiar fear-mongering ground by stating his belief that the Iranian leadership could not necessarily be trusted not to do something crazy (they are bearded Muslims after all).

“I don’t think that anyone can say responsibly that these ayatollahs, if they have nuclear weapons, are something you can rely on, like the Politburo or the Pentagon,” Barak said. “It’s not the same thing. I don’t think they will do anything so long as they are in complete control of their senses, but to say that somebody really knows and understands what will happen with such a leadership sitting in a bunker in Tehran and thinking that it’s going to fall in a few days and it is capable of doing it? I don’t know what it would do.”

Clearly, according to Barak, only governments run by Western white people are mature and rational enough to have nuclear weapons. Also, the idea of the Iranian leadership “sitting in bunker in Tehran” is ridiculous enough without Barak’s wishful thinking about the potential collapse of the Islamic Republic thrown in (though it is clear that the deliberate inference is to make a mental connection with the Führerbunker beneath Hitler’s New Reich Chancellery in Berlin). Additionally, the idea of the Iranian leadership detonating a nuclear weapon (that they don’t even have) in order to fend off regime change in a blaze of radioactive glory is complete nonsense. “I think we are seeing the beginning of the end of the dictatorships in the Arab world, including the Iranian one,” he said, demonstrating his apparent misunderstanding of how the Iranian governmental system actually works.

Beyond that, there is ample evidence that Iran, which maintains a strict “no first strike” policy, is not prone to act rashly with regard to military aggression, especially against countries with superior capabilities and nuclear arsenals. In October 2008, Congressional foreign policy advisor Gregory Aftandilian, speaking at a Center for National Policy event titled “A Nuclear Middle East,” noted that Iran is “not stupid” and “has a long history, thousands of years, of statecraft,” concluding simply, Tehran is not suicidal.”

In a reasonable and realistic critique of Jeffrey Goldberg’s Israeli propaganda puff piece, Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation wrote last year, “Iran has shown itself to be a strategic, rational, albeit ruthless, calculator of its interests — not an irrational, suicidal nation.” Center for American Progress reporter Matt Duss and national security analyst Andrew Grotto also agree that Iran is neither a “suicide nation” nor a “martyr state.” Late last year, a diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks revealed that Australia’s top intelligence agency, the Office of National Assessments (ONA) viewed “Tehran as a sophisticated diplomatic player” which was not “liable to behave impulsively or irrationally.” A report in the Sydney Morning Herald quoted ONA chief Peter Varghese as saying, “It’s a mistake to think of Iran as a ‘rogue state’.”

Iranian government and military officials have long stated that they will act militarily in self-defense only if their country is attacked, never preemptively or preventatively, and have never issued threats about initiating aggression against another nation.

Despite the hysterical (and strikingly racist and Islamophobic) claims of opportunistic serial liars like Goldberg (who has warned of Iran’s “theologically driven, eliminationist anti-Semitism”), Netanyahu (who accused Iran’s leaders of belonging to a “messianic apocalyptic cult”) and Alan Dershowitz (who claimed Iran had “demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice millions of their own people to an apocalyptic mission of destruction”), even the United States government concurs with assessments that Iran is a rational actor on the world stage, concerned only with national self-defense rather than aggressive military offensives.

In April 2010, in a statement before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, Defense Intelligence Agency director Lieutenant General Ronald L. Burgess stated, “Iran’s military strategy is designed to defend against external threats, particularly from the United States and Israel. Its principles of military strategy include deterrence, asymmetrical retaliation, and attrition warfare.” He added that Iran is “unlikely to initiate a conflict intentionally or launch a pre-emptive attack.”

The intelligence report delivered to Congress that day in conjunction with Burgess’ testimony also revealed the assessment that Iran maintains a “defensive military doctrine, which is designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities,” and followed that “Iranian military training and public statements echo this defensive doctrine of delay and attrition.” This identical position was reaffirmed this past March in Burgess’ 2011 testimony before the Armed Services Committee.

A month earlier, in his “Statement for the Record on the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,” Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper declared that the official judgment of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies is that “Iran’s nuclear decisionmaking is guided by a cost-benefit approach, which offers the international community opportunities to influence Tehran. Iranian leaders undoubtedly consider Iran‟s security, prestige and influence, as well as the international political and security environment, when making decisions about its nuclear program.”

Furthermore, an Iranian official was just arrested for supporting a film “that proposes the Twelfth Iman in the Shiite faith, the supposed initiator of judgment day, would appear soon” after “Iranian authorities put the film’s producers under investigation.” This hardly seems like the action of an “messianic apocalyptic cult.”

So, will Barak’s candor temper Netanyahu’s rabid bellicosity in days to come? Unlikely. But are his comments a welcome break from the constant Chicken Littlesque doomsday hysteria that seems to define Israeli hasbara? Yes, they are. As such, get ready to see a whole new level of fear-mongering trotted out by both Israel and the U.S. in the near future in order to wash away the frustrating and inconvenient truths spoken by Barak today.

Over the past four months, I have been adding updates to my article, “The Phantom Menace: Fantasies, Falsehoods, and Fear-Mongering about Iran’s Nuclear Program,” whenever new predictions and allegations about Iran’s nuclear program are released.

To read them all, click here.

Posted AT


Be sure not to miss video at end of this post….

Truly a people’s hero…. made the world Safe For Democracy!
OR…. As a true hero once said,  “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
New Lyrics……
Who’s the leader of the club
That’s made for you and me
Hey! there, Hi! there, Ho! there
You’re as welcome as can be
Barack Obama!
Barack Obama!
Forever let us hold our banner
High! High! High! High!
Come along and sing a song
And join the jamboree!
Barack Obama club
We’ll have fun
We’ll be new faces
High! High! High! High!We’ll do things and
We’ll go places
All around the world
We’ll go marchingWho’s the leader of the club
That’s made for you and me
Hey! there, Hi! there, Ho! there
You’re as welcome as can be
B-A-R-A-C-K O-B-A-M-ABarack Obama!
Barack Obama!
Forever let us hold our banner
High! High! High! High!

Come along and sing a song
And join the jamboree!





After it’s success in raising worldwide controversy over its fabricated Third Intifada Page on FaceBook, Israel now intends to exploit the site to its full extent to promote itself.

Israeli embassies around the world have already begun to manage Facebook pages, but now the Foreign Ministry intends to make more efficient use of the network to improve Israel’s image.

Israel to promote itself on Facebook

Deputy foreign minister meets networking site’s managers to discuss plans for online PR

WASHINGTON – The government intends to turn the social network Facebook into the main platform for Israeli online public relations, investing a lot of resources on creating an efficient strategy to utilize the 600 million-large’ network.

Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon visited the California offices of the network on Friday, and met with company heads including Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and VP of Advertising and Global Operations David Fischer, who is the son of Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer.

The Foreign Ministry is set on turning the famous social network into the main platform for Israeli online public relations both in English and in Arabic. Officials in Jerusalem have expressed their belief that Facebook is a friendly platform for communication with young people around the world, allowing for distribution of messages through video clips and games.

Israeli embassies around the world have already begun to manage Facebook pages, but now the Foreign Ministry intends to make more efficient use of the network to improve Israel’s image.

Ayalon’s meetings are intended to foster a relationship between the Israeli government and Facebook heads. Ayalon has also invited Facebook managers to visit Israel in order to meet with internet entrepreneurs and participate in the Presidential Conference expected to take place in Jerusalem next June.

The deputy foreign minister displayed before them Israel’s high-tech abilities, noting that Intel Company is the biggest private employer in Israel, with more than 7,000 employees.

Following Facebook’s slow response in closing the internet page calling for a “third Intifada” and a violent protest against Israel, Facebook managers clarified that in the future they intend to deactivate any pages preaching violence. They also stated Facebook plans to open a marketing center in Israel.

Face to face with Israel’s critics

The United States’ government is already cooperating with major internet companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter to develop media tools intended to reach citizens around the world, especially in developing communities. Young Egyptians, for example, were part of a program advertised by the State Department online. These youths later organized protests in their country via Facebook.

Ayalon met with California Governor Jerry Brown and told him that due to a travel warning issued by California to Israel there are currently no student exchanges between Israeli and Californian universities.

Ayalon mentioned that these programs, with leading universities such as Stanford and Berkley, are a crucial tool for acknowledging and learning about Israel’s reality. Brown responded that he will act to cancel the orders.

As he left the meeting Ayalon ran into an anti-Israel protest, experiencing first-hand the great objection against Israel and its policies. He approached demonstrators, who were holding posters demanding the US government stop funding Israel “because of the occupation”, and attempted to speak with them. This rare dialogue caught the attention of those passing by, some of whom expressed their support of Ayalon.


Remember Israel’s last PR campaign….. here it is;

In an effort to combat these movements and polish the tarnished image of the Israeli army in light of numerous allegations of war crimes by UN reports, a group named StandWithUs is sponsoring a tour during which six Israeli army soldiers will speak about their experiences.

UN reports including the Goldstone Report about the January 2009 siege on Gaza by Israel that was released in September 2009 and a UN report released this month examining Israel’s attacks on an aid flotilla in international waters against activists in May both alleged numerous war crimes committed by Israeli soldiers. The Israeli army also upholds a blockade and occupation against the Gaza Strip that British Prime  Minister David Cameron called a “prison camp.”

The Michigan tour stops will feature speeches by two soldiers named Omer and Shai. They will visit Michigan State University in Lansing on Oct. 19 and The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor on Oct.  20.

Many in the Arab American and pro-Palestinian communities are concerned that the  tour is not about imparting knowledge, but is instead a glorified PR campaign in response to the BDS movement and an attempt to gain sympathy for Israel at a time when  sentiments are turning against them on college campuses in concert with international movements.

“Such a tour is intended to undermine the growing BDS efforts on American campuses. As you know, the University of Michigan-Dearborn (UM-D) Student Government passed yet another divestment resolution last year, and will likely approve one this year as well,” said Dr. David Skrbina, professor of Philosophy at UM-D.

Michigan-Dearborn was one of numerous universities  that have passed resolutions in support of boycotting companies that allegedly support Israel’s military.

“The Israeli army has not been facing good press within the media regarding the flotilla attacks and with how they treat the Palestinians in occupied Palestine,” said Mahde Abdallah, a senator in the UM-D Student Government. “Them coming to polish their image is just showing that they’re worried about the pro-Palestinian movements on campuses in the US.”

StandWithUs contends they’re simply wishing to impart knowledge, using both this tour and their website Soldiers Speak Out to correct misconceptions.

“We created this website because a few isolated allegations from ‘anti-war’ Israeli soldiers are being used to defame the Israeli Defense Forces  (IDF),” said Roz Rothstein, co-founder and CEO of Stand WithUs.  “Yet the IDF has over 700,000 citizen soldiers and  reservists who try to live up to its high ethical standards. The IDF impartially  judges all alleged violations, and punishes offenders.”

StandWithUs reports that the two soldiers who are visiting the campuses have received honors in the military and have upheld all the moral codes of the Israeli Army.

Skrbina doesn’t think this tour will help the image of the Israeli army much, however, as evidence continues to mount against their declarations of upholding a high moral standard.

“They have an uphill battle, thanks to Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and at sea,“ he said. “They are sponsoring this ‘tour’ by two IDF soldiers to argue that Israel is only ‘defending itself’… and to show that the soldiers are really ‘nice guys’. Any soldiers who are involved with enforcing an illegal occupation are clearly not ‘nice guys’.”

Source Inluding Photos


We welcome ALL organizations and individuals to join us in condemning false claims of anti-Semitism for the purposes of attempting to discredit our collective anti-racist activism against Israeli apartheid.

Statement by Jewish Activists and Organizations active in BDS against Israel

This statement was produced in response to a statement published on “BDS Cookbook” and circulated by Hillel, a campus organization at more than 500 universities and colleges. The BDS Cookbook ( is ‘put together’ by ‘a group of academics and students’ to offer resources to both prevent and challenge BDS campaigns on university campuses in the United States. 

Who is funding or organizing this website is unclear, but it is part of a concerted, well-funded, well-advertised effort to undermine BDS. This level of organized response speaks well for the advances made in the campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel in the short six years since the call came from over 120 Palestinian civil society organizations.

Join us in standing against these false claims of antisemitism made to defend racism and occupation.  Please sign the petition and forward widely.


A Jewish response to the February 2011 Statement of Jewish Zionist Organizations on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)

Because academic, cultural and commercial boycotts, divestments and sanctions of Israel:
are being called for by Palestinian civil society in response to the occupation and colonization of their land,
are a moral tool of non-violent, peaceful response to more than sixty years of Israeli colonialism, and,
rightfully place accountability on Israeli institutions (and their allies and partners) that use business, cultural, and academic ties to white-wash Israel’s responsibility for continuing crimes against humanity,
The undersigned organizations and individuals stand firm in our support of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) initiatives against Israel until it meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law. 

BDS is not antisemitic. We reject the notion that the 2005 BDS call from Palestine, and the BDS campaigns the world over which it has inspired, are rooted in anti-Jewish sentiment. On the contrary, BDS is an anti-racist movement against the daily, brutal occupation of Palestine and military threat to the region by the State of Israel. False claims of antisemitism distort the true nature of the Palestinian struggle and are an affront to, and betrayal of, the long history of Jewish survival and resistance to persecution.

BDS is not anti-democratic.We also reject the assertion that the cultural and academic boycotts of Israel defy the democratic principle of free speech. Research and development in academic institutions play a central role in designing and defending Israel’s military and intelligence machinery. Cultural institutions perpetuate the deception of Israeli democracy. To defend freedom of speech for those who disregard justice while demonizing those who struggle for justice is a great disservice to genuine democracy.

Through boycott, divestment and sanctions, civil society asserts our commitment to not contribute to the Israeli state, which is responsible for atrocious acts of disregard for human life and well being. Attacks against BDS campaigns will not prevent us from taking this stance against Israeli impunity. For the Jewish organizations signed onto this letter, self-determination for Jews includes the right to participate in the movement for justice in Palestine and to live in the world with our fellow citizens in peace, freedom, and equity. It does not include the domination and colonization of other people or living separate from our fellow human beings in a state that privileges Jews.

BDS was a key strategy in ending the white South African system of apartheid by applying international pressure. In pursuit of justice, peace and freedom for all, we speak out as Jews committed to BDS and Palestinian liberation.

* International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network
* Not In Our Name (Argentina)
* Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in Middle East (EJJP, Germany)
* Not in Our Name: Jews Opposing Zionism (Canada)
* Jews for a Just Peace (Fredericton, Canada)
* Independent Jewish Voice (Canada)
* Middle East Children’s Alliance (USA)
* Critical Jewish Voice (Austria)
* Women in Black (Austria)
* French Jewish Union for Peace (UJFP)
* Bay Area Women in Black (USA)
* St. Louis Women in Black (USA)
* Philadelphia Jews for a Just Peace (USA)
* American Jews for a Just Peace (USA)
* Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (UK)
* JUNTS, Asociació catalana de Jueus i Palestins (Asociación Catalana de Judios y   Palestinas, Spain)

* Steve Amsel, DesertPeace.Wordpress.Com
* Ronnie Kasrils, former South African government minister, writer, founder Not In My Name, South Africa
* Antony Loewenstein, Independent Australian Jewish Voices
* Peter Slezak, Independent Australian Jewish Voices
* Moshé Machover, Professor (emeritus) (UK), founder Matzpen
* Felicia Langer, Israeli lawyer, author, Right Livelihood Award 2006 (Alternative Nobel Prize) 1990, Bruno Kreisky Prize 1991
* Mieciu Langer, Nazi Holocaust survivor
* Hedy Epstein, Nazi Holocaust survivor
* Hajo G. Meyer PhD, Nazi Holocaust survivor
* Kamal Chenoy, IJAN India & The All India Peace and Solidarity Organization
* Paola Canarutto & Giorgio Forti, Rete ECO, Italy
* Liliane Cordova Kaczerginski, IJAN France
* Sonia Fayman, IJAN France & UJFP
* Ernesto Rosenberg, GRAMARPAL (Grupo de Amistad Argentina-Palestina, Neuquén, Argentina)
* Mark Elf, blogger, Jews sans Frontieres

We welcome ALL organizations and individuals to join us in condemning false claims of anti-Semitism for the purposes of attempting to discredit our collective anti-racist activism against Israeli apartheid.

Click HERE to sign the petition



Haaretz has an international reputation as Israel’s most liberal and reliable newspaper. But The Electronic Intifada has discovered that one of the newspaper’s regularly-featured reporters, Cnaan Liphshiz, used his news reports for the publication to promote the agenda of an extreme pro-Israel group with which he was also employed.

Haaretz journalist doubles as anti-“delegitimization” operative

(Illustration: Hmbr/Wikimedia Commons) 


Haaretz has an international reputation as Israel’s most liberal and reliable newspaper. But The Electronic Intifada has discovered that one of the newspaper’s regularly-featured reporters, Cnaan Liphshiz, used his news reports for the publication to promote the agenda of an extreme pro-Israel group with which he was also employed.

At the same time, Liphshiz appears to have made efforts to conceal his work with the Dutch Zionist group CIDI (Centre for Documentation and Information on Israel), an undisclosed conflict of interest which calls into question the reliability of his reports and the editorial standards of Haaretz.

From 2007 until the present, Liphshiz has written about 50 articles in Haaretz which quote information provided by CIDI or its executive director Ronny Naftaniel, usually without offering any countervailing opinion or sources. Many of Liphshiz’s stories are based entirely on information provided by CIDI.



CIDI has confirmed to The Electronic Intifada that Lipshiz worked for the organization, and is likely to work for them again in the future.

CIDI has earned a reputation as one of the staunchest advocates for Israel in the Netherlands, launching stinging personal attacks and smears on public figures and groups who dare to call on Israel to respect human rights. In an article for The Electronic Intifada, Stan van Houcke, a Dutch journalist and author, described CIDI as an organization whose main goal is to cover up Israel’s violations of international law (“Dutch ‘research’ group covers for Israeli crimes,” violations, 5 November 2007).


Using Haaretz to “delegitimize” The Electronic Intifada

On 17 December, Haaretz published a profile by Cnaan Liphshiz of Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal (““Dutch FM: Ties with Israel are like our bond with NATO“).



In the story, Liphshiz writes: “One of Rosenthal’s first statements regarding Israel as minister concerned the website The Electronic Intifada … .”

The Electronic Intifada has been the target of attacks orchestrated by NGO Monitor, an Israeli group linked to the Israeli government and the West Bank settler movement and funded by Islamophobic organizations and individuals in the United States (“Why NGO Monitor is attacking The Electronic Intifada,” 30 November 2010).



Liphshiz’s 17 December article went on to repeat accusations meant to defame The Electronic Intifada — that the publication frequently compares Israel to “Nazi Germany” (an accusation, incidentally, that can be made with much greater justice against Haaretz). Liphshiz did not quote from The Electronic Intifada’s extensive refutation of NGO Monitor’s accusations, or seek a comment from the publication (Haaretz subsequently appears to have removed an entire paragraph of Liphshiz’s article dealing with The Electronic Intifada).

CIDI has also promoted NGO Monitor’s attacks on The Electronic Intifada on its website, including NGO Monitor’s false and fabricated allegations of “anti-Semitism” and use of The Electronic Intifada funds for speaking tours (“Onderzoek naar financiering ICCO van Electronic Intifada,” 26 November 2010).



It would appear that Liphshiz is more interested in promoting NGO Monitor’s and CIDI’s campaign against The Electronic Intifada — and more generally against critics of Israel’s appalling human rights abuses — than acting as a professional and transparent journalist.

Liphshiz’s double role

Cnaan Liphshiz is scheduled to take part in Jewish Identity Day activities in the Netherlands on 9 January 2011. The official website promoting his participation stated that:

“Cnaan is an Israeli reporter for the well-known newspaper [sic] “Haaretz”, and the European Jewish Press, focusing on the campaign to delegetimize [sic] Israel in Europe. Cnaan also writes about immigration trends and Jewish world news.”

It explained that “His background in journalism grew out of serving in the Israel Defense Forces during the second intifada, first as a special forces combatant and then, following an injury, as an intelligence corps researcher in a unit monitoring the intelligence apparatuses of hostile and rival entities.”

It also revealed that, “Before coming to Holland to work at CIDI, He lived in Florentin, a neighborhood in the south of Tel Aviv … .”

Website metadata indicate this webpage was created in October 2010.

After The Electronic Intifada began its inquiries regarding Liphshiz’s undisclosed dual status as a frequent Haaretz reporter and an employee of CIDI, the Jewish Identity Day website was changed to omit any reference to Liphshiz’s employment with CIDI or that he apparently moved to The Netherlands specifically to work for the organization. The relevant section now simply states:

“Before coming to Holland, He lived in Florentin, a neighborhood in the south of Tel Aviv … .” (



However, Google cache and copies of the webpage made by The Electronic Intifada before it was changed confirm the apparent effort to conceal information about Liphshiz’s affiliation with CIDI.


A screenshot of the Jewish Identity Day’s website showing Lipshiz’s original bio
A closeup of the original bio showing Lipshiz was employed at CIDI …
… the bio after it was modified to hide Lipshiz’s employment at CIDI
CIDI’s public information officer, Naomi Mestrum, confirmed in a response to questions emailed by The Electronic Intifada that “CIDI knows Mr. Cnaan Liphshiz, but he is not an employee of our organisation. However Mr. Liphshiz did a project involving research for us on a freelance basis this year.” 

In response to further inquiries, Mestrum added that Liphshiz “helped us update a statistical research on Jewish immigration to and from Europe. He may help us update and elaborate the same database in the future.”

Regardless of technicalities of whether he is paid as a freelancer or on regular payroll, CIDI confirmed a past and likely future pecuniary relationship between CIDI and Liphshiz. Mestrum did not respond to a question regarding the start and end dates of Liphshiz’s paid work for CIDI.

Charlotte Halle, editor of the Haaretz English edition, confirmed to The Electronic Intifada that Liphshiz had been employed by the Haaretz English edition up to August 2010, “though he has contributed the occasional piece on a freelance basis since then.”

Halle pointed out that Liphshiz’s most recent pieces, including the 17 December profile of Uri Rosenthal, had been commissioned not by the Haaretz English edition but in the online edition.

Gadi Lahav, editor-in-chief of Haaretz online, wrote to The Electronic Intifada that “Cnaan Liphshiz was previously employed by Haaretz, but is now writing occasionally on a freelance basis. Mr. Liphshiz denies that he is employed on a permanent basis by any organization, including CIDI.”

In an apparent reference to Liphshiz’s 17 December article, Lahav added, “As for this specific article, it wasn’t published by the printed edition, and it seems it ran on the website by mistake.”

Liphshiz did not respond to a request for comment emailed to him at an address provided by Mestrum.

What is now clear is that Liphshiz has maintained for an extended period an employment relationship with both Haaretz and CIDI that should have been disclosed to readers and was not. Liphshiz continues to try to evade giving his editors or the public clear answers about the status of his relationship with CIDI. This is not a case of a freelancer writing one or two articles and failing to disclose a passing relationship with an organization that might have been mentioned once or twice, but a regular writer who has contributed dozens of articles favorable to the organization for which he worked, and advancing its advocacy agenda.

Using Haaretz as a cover to push CIDI’s agenda

Liphshiz’s dual role with CIDI is both a matter of public interest, and conflict of interest for Haaretz. In his reports for the newspaper, Liphshiz frequently cites information provided by CIDI without any countervailing view or analysis and without disclosing his own relationship to the group, as a few examples illustrate.

A 9 September 2009 story headlined “Dutch Jews suffered tenfold increase in anti-Semitic attacks during Gaza war” relies entirely on statistics provided by CIDI.



In a 27 June 2008 profile of Dries van Agt, a former Dutch prime minister and outspoken critic of Israel’s human rights violations, Liphshiz counters van Agt’s charges that Israel is “making frequent and excessive use of deadly force against the Palestinians,” by citing CIDI. Liphshiz then cites accusations of “anti-Semitism” against van Agt from various “accusers,” some of whom are unnamed (“‘Dutch Jimmy Carter’ accuses Israel of terrorism in new book“). Many criticisms and questions Liphshiz directs against van Agt appear to be lifted from an article written in Dutch by CIDI founder Ronny Naftaniel (“Van Agt heeft selectief geheugen“).



In an 2 April 2008 story, Liphshiz misleadingly casts CIDI and its director Ronny Naftaniel as courageous defenders of Muslims against the rising tide of Islamophobia in the Netherlands (“Dutch Jews louder than Muslims in condemning ‘Fitna’ film“).



Naftaniel claims credit for criticizing a film by Dutch Islamophobic demagogue Geert Wilders. “We are never afraid to speak out in the harshest of terms against what we think is wrong, be it against Muslim extremism here in the Netherlands, or the Dutch or Israeli governments,” Liphshiz quotes Naftaniel as saying. “But this movie portrays all Muslims as The Enemy. And this is just not true.”

These are examples of numerous articles in which Liphshiz provides an uncritical and favorable platform to CIDI and its (his) boss in Haaretz but does not disclose his relationship.

“Delegitimization” is a political stance not a reporter’s beat

The description of Liphshiz on the Jewish Identity Day website as a journalist “focusing on the campaign to delegetimize [sic] Israel in Europe” is troubling. The characterization of the activities by Palestine solidarity activists and Israeli human rights groups as “delegitimization” is a political stance promoted by such organizations as CIDI itself, NGO Monitor,The Reut Institute and the Israeli Foreign Ministry.



On 9 December, for example, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon held a press conference at which NGO Monitor director Gerald Steinberg named The Electronic Intifada as “a very powerful organization” at the center of a global network to “delegitimize” Israel (transcript of press conference via Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs).



That Liphshiz may take it as a given that Palestine solidarity activities constitute “delegitimization,” suggests he is less a truth-seeking journalist, than a foot soldier in Israeli government-endorsed propaganda efforts.

In the 17 December article profiling Rosenthal, for example, Liphshiz even repeats claims made by NGO Monitor that the Dutch embassy in Tel Aviv has a “pro-Palestinian agenda” — simply because it has upheld long-standing Dutch government policies regarding the occupied Palestinian territories.

While reporters and journalists may have affiliations to, and may advocate for political and activist groups in accordance with basic freedoms of association and expression, the essence of ethical practice is disclosure of these relationships whenever relevant, especially if they could be seen as affecting the reporter’s work or judgment. In this case Liphshiz has been passing off his advocacy for CIDI as “news” reporting under the banner of Haaretz.

Perhaps Liphshiz sees his “journalism” work as a mere continuation of his time “as an intelligence corps researcher in a unit monitoring the intelligence apparatuses of hostile and rival entities” — in which case disclosure would of course be a problem.

If Haaretz wishes to rescue its journalistic reputation it would be well-advised to ensure that it does not become a mere vehicle for political smear campaigns conducted by extremist organizations and their operatives.




Omitting basic facts that would challenge the regime of domination, the program focused on platitudes that promoted an undefined peace, excluding any mention of justice. Typical comments from participants included: “I must see the conflict from our joint shared side.” “Our past must not determine our future.” “We should join together to make this future closer to the present.” “I want us to really live like neighbors.”

Arava Institute claims to promote peace, but remains silent on justice

by Adalah-NY*

The Arava Institute’s online event “With Earth and Each Other,” held Sunday, November 14, exemplified why the Palestinian call for a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions is vital. The event was billed as a celebration of Palestinians, Israelis and Jordanians working together for the environment. But it failed to educate viewers about the most basic facts of Israeli policies, and thus simply reinforced the status quo. The event, billed as not “political,” suggested that the Middle East conflict can be resolved if people of different religions and ethnicities are nicer to each other. It presented no information on the fundamental and systematic inequalities that are at the root of the conflict.

Adalah-NY and numerous other groups had urged participants, including religious and environmental organizations and performing artists like Pete Seeger, Dan Bern, and Mandy Patinkin, to respect the Palestinian boycott call and bow out. Arava Institute was targeted for boycott due to its failure to condemn Israel’s on-going ethnic cleansing of Bedouin residents of the Negev desert, where Arava is based, and Arava’s very close partnerships with the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and the Israeli government. The Israeli government and the JNF have been instrumental in cleansing the land of the indigenous Palestinian residents and planting over their villages with trees. While Arava extolls international cooperation in service of the environment, they remain silent about Israeli and JNF policies, including, as one recent example, the Israeli government’s destruction (five times in succession) of Al Araqib, a Bedouin village in the Negev, to make way for a JNF forest.

“With Earth and Each Other” was completely silent about Israeli colonialism, settlements, house demolitions, appropriation of water, and uprooting of olive trees. The tone of obfuscation was set in the first minutes when one of Arava’s Israeli Jewish students, Gavriel Vinevgard, introduced himself by saying, “My parents live in the Golan Heights here in Israel.” However, Israel has militarily occupied and illegally colonized the Golan Heights, part of Syria, since 1967. No country recognizes the Golan Heights as part of Israel.

At another point, the narrator gestured to a huge concrete wall Israel built and explained, “Behind me is the wall that separates Israel from Palestine. The water that we share doesn’t recognize the barriers that we build.” But Israel built 80% of that wall inside the occupied West Bank, separating Palestinians from Palestinians, rather than separating Palestinians from Israelis. And Israeli settlers live on both sides of the wall, siphoning off the West Bank’s most plentiful water resources while spewing polluted water into Palestinian communities.

Omitting basic facts that would challenge the regime of domination, the program focused on platitudes that promoted an undefined peace, excluding any mention of justice. Typical comments from participants included: “I must see the conflict from our joint shared side.” “Our past must not determine our future.” “We should join together to make this future closer to the present.” “I want us to really live like neighbors.”

Viewers and participants were told that water, air, and land must be shared by all peoples in the region, across borders. But they were not told that Israel monopolizes these resources for its Jewish residents and controls the borders in order to do so. Israelis use around three and a half times as much water as West Bank Palestinians. Israel is building settlements over two of the West Bank’s three main water aquifers in an effort to keep control of those resources. And in the Negev desert, where Arava is located, Israel denies entire Bedouin villages’ access to running water.

Land distribution is similarly skewed. In the West Bank, where 2.5 million Palestinians live, Israel’s military controls and administers approximately 60% of the land (known as Area C), with 500,000 Jewish settlers directly controlling 42% of the West Bank. Within Israel, Arava’s partner, the JNF,directly controls 13% of the land, and effectively controls 93% of Israel’s land through its role in the Israel Land Administration, renting and leasing only to Jewish citizens. This violates the rights of Israel’s Palestinian citizens, who comprise 20% of Israel’s population.

Pete Seeger opened the hour-long program with a song about Martin Luther King Jr. and the importance of joining together to struggle nonviolently for change. Seeger may not know that most of the Palestinians and Israelis who are nonviolently protesting Israeli rights abuses together in the West Bank also support the economic, academic and cultural boycott of Israel, another proven nonviolent tactic.  Seeger had promised to make a strong statement about Palestinian dispossession during the program, but the closest he came was a tangential reference to the Montgomery bus boycott.

The event leaves the impression of a project to corral idealistic youth into activities of friendly inter-communal cooperation that enforce a strict silence on issues of dispossession.  Palestinians have called for a boycott of these types of activities, similar to the international boycott imposed on apartheid South Africa, because experience shows that they serve as a cover for the entrenching of discriminatory policies. Staged by an Israeli academic institution that calls itself “non-political,” “With Earth and Each Other” was a “feel good” event. The event implied that peace can be achieved without justice, and so unintentionally confirmed the importance of the Palestinian call for a boycott of these sorts of activities.

For more background on the event:

Letter to Pete Seeger from Jeff Halper, Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions,

Letter from over 40 organizations to Pete Seeger (including Adalah-NY),

Letter from 17 groups in the Gaza Strip to Pete Seeger,

Letter to Pete Seeger from Israelis from BOYCOTT! Supporting the Palestinian BDS call from within

Fact Sheet: Boycott the Arava Institute’s “With Earth and Each Other,” Adalah-NY,

*Adalah-NY: The New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel is a grassroots strategic alliance of concerned organizations and individuals in New York, formed to demand an immediate, unconditional, and permanent end to U.S. and U.S.-sponsored Israeli aggression in the Middle East.

Read HERE my post about Pete Seeger’s participation in the event… PETE SEEGER: IN LIEU OF A TRIBUTE


Personal property of Jewish financier Bernard Madoff were sold in an auction that raised more than $2 million to repay the victims of his multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme.

Billions are missing or owed, $2 Million will repay?
Is there a new scheme in the making??

Auction of Madoff Family Possessions Brings in $2 Million for Victims

Personal property of Jewish financier Bernard Madoff were sold in an auction that raised more than $2 million to repay the victims of his multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme.

The weekend auction in New York run by the U.S. Marshals Service raised money for the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund, whose proceeds are used to compensate Madoff’s victims.

Among the items sold was Madoff’s wife’s 10.5-carat diamond engagement ring, for $550,000, and a pair of slippers embroidered with Madoff’s initials, for $6,000, Reuters reported, Unused Madoff underwear was also sold, as well as a Rolex watch, furniture and antiques.

An auction of Madoff’s possessions last year raised $1 million.

Madoff, 73, was jailed last year after pleading guilty to running a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands and caused the collapse of several Jewish charities. He was sentenced to 150 years in prison.




Image by Bendib



Or just a ploy for the ‘right’…..  it seems far more likely that the loyalty oath is a ploy to placate right-wing elements as a precondition for receiving their support for another freeze.

The following was an Op-ed in today’s Ynet

Glatt kosher loyalty oath

Op-ed: Loyalty oath meaningless if it’s only meant to placate Right ahead of another freeze

Yoel Meltzer


In the midst of Jerusalem’s many cafes and restaurants, occasionally one can find a dairy restaurant with an English sign in the window proclaiming “glatt kosher.” Not surprisingly many people, both native Israelis and tourists, assume that this means “very kosher.” This innocent mistake is actually quite amusing since “glatt” is Yiddish for “smooth,” which refers to the check of the lungs on a kosher animal following ritual slaughter to ensure that there are no wounds. In other words, the term “glatt” only refers to meat products and has absolutely no relevance for dairy products. As is the case frequently in life, things are not always what they appear to be.  

With this in mind, I would suggest a word of caution regarding the new loyalty oath. While many on the right are understandably celebrating what they regard as a truly positive step – a rare moment of Israeli leadership disregarding hypocritical political correctness and potential international criticism in order to unabashedly assert the Jewish nature of the country – nevertheless the oath and the events surrounding it should be further examined.  

In addition to the oath further strengthening the confusing term “Jewish democratic state,” it would be a mistake to believe that any oath will be a panacea for the many complex problems that Israel faces vis-à-vis its non-Jewish citizens. Moreover, what would happen to someone who orally pledged allegiance but then subsequently acted in ways that contradict the pledge? Would such a person lose his citizenship? Does anyone actually believe that the Supreme Court will just sit quietly on the sidelines and not interfere?  

Steep price tag

Placing legal technicalities aside and assuming for a moment that there actually is some merit to the oath, the question that anyone who is genuinely happy over this development should be asking himself is “why now?” More specifically, if for years successive Israeli leaderships have rarely taken a firm stance in regards to anything overly “Jewish,” especially if in doing so they would be exposing themselves to all the predictable knee-jerk criticisms, then why is the current leadership deliberately doing so now?  

Although one would hope that the leadership is finally starting to connect to and listen to the real Jewish voice on the street, a voice that is far more attached to the country and tradition then what many have been made to believe, there might be a steep price tag here. Considering the external pressure on the government to continue with the so-called peace talks, coupled with its own internal fear of being labeled as the one responsible for their breakdown as a result of the cessation of the Jewish building freeze in Judea and Samaria, it seems far more likely that the loyalty oath is a ploy to placate right-wing elements as a precondition for receiving their support for another freeze.  

If so, then this is simply part of the continued illogical and blind march to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria and not some sort of changed consciousness permeating the leadership. I hope I’m wrong, but as “glatt kosher” dairy restaurants show us, things are not always what they appear to be.


It is not clear, however, whether Obama could have made the offer via means other than a letter.

Possibly E Mail? Anyone think of that?

White House: Obama did not send letter to Netanyahu

A researcher with ties to Dennis Ross published an article on Wednesday saying that Obama sent a letter to Netanyahu offering U.S. guarantees in exchange for a two month settlement freeze extension.

The White House denied on Thursday that U.S. President Barack Obama sent a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposing a set of U.S. guarantees to Israel in exchange for Israel extending a freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank for another two months.

“No letter was sent to the Prime Minister. We are not going to comment on sensitive diplomatic matters,” said Benjamin Chang, the deputy spokesman for the White House National Security Council.

It is not clear, however, whether Obama could have made the offer via means other than a letter.

Earlier on Thursday, Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath said that U.S. special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell denied that Obama made such an offer to Netanyahu.

In an interview on Nazareth’s A-Shams radio station, Shaath said that Mitchell made the denial during a meeting on Thursday with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.

Shaath added that the Palestinians would not return to the negotiating table unless Israel extends a freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank and that the Arab League would support that position at its meeting next week.

An article published on Wednesday on the website for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy by David Makovsky, a researcher with ties to Dennis Ross, Barack Obama’s chief advisor on the Middle East, reported that Obama had written a letter Netanyahu in which Obama offered to support the presence of Israel Defense Forces soldiers in the Jordan Valley even after the establishment of a Palestinian state, if Israel would agree to a two month settlement building freeze.

Netanyahu was reportedly inclined to reject the offer.

Obama’s letter was said to include a long list of American favors in exchange for an extension of the settlement building freeze, which ended this week. Most of these favors are critical to Israel’s strategic security needs that Netanyahu has been demanding for years.

Other commitments that Obama reportedly offered Netanyahu in the letter include an agreement not to ask for any more building freeze extensions, an agreement to veto any anti-Israel UN Security Council resolution in the next year, and an agreement that the future fate of the settlements be dealt with only as part of a final status agreement with the Palestinians.

Obama’s letter was said to include additional commitments, including a series of guarantees to prevent the smuggling of weapons and missiles into a Palestinian state, a lengthy period of interim security arrangements in the Jordan Valley and a comprehensive regional defense pact for protection from Iran to follow the establishment of the Palestinian state.

The American President also reportedly vowed to upgrade Israel’s security capabilities and increase the three billion dollar security aid package that Israel receives annually. The letter included commitments to advanced weapons and early warning systems, including satellites.


Conspiracy theories …. paranoia …. two attributes of a new brand of ‘warriors’ that are haunting the Internet. I have written about them, calling them Trolls…. basically, that’s what they are.

What is it they actually do? They troll the Net searching for a particular topic, in our case anti zionism or Palestine. They cruise through comments on our Blogs and try to dig up email addresses to add to their lists…. and wallah… you are the recipient of hate mail from various groups. Often, you might even find that your own Site or Blog was hacked by these people.

These trolls are part of a movement using the same methods that are used by CONTELPRO. The zionists are getting good at this themselves, reaching out to their youth groups and recruiting them to be a part of their ‘Internet Police’. In fact, these very zionist trolls often pose as anti zionists, or worse yet anti Semites in order to garner new contacts for their hate lists. Hence, me referring to them as the Modern Day Illuminati.

Iv’e given this advice many times before in posts…. be on guard against these groups…
DON’T ever post personal information about yourself on the Web.
DON’T ever post a real address or phone number.
DON’T trust ANYONE that asks too many personal questions or ‘over befriends’ you at the start.

The following video will give you an idea of how they work…. as they try to destroy you.


As the Boycott enters the global arena, as support for it grows daily, the zionists are desperately burning the candle at both ends trying to find ways to fight it.

As was done to discredit the efforts of the activists on the Humanitarian Missions to Gaza, the use of YouTube videos seem to have become the norm…. often using clips of the activists themselves (out of context) to justify their anti humanitarian positions.

The following is their latest attempt to discredit the BDS Movement, making it look like a ‘plot’ to destroy Israel. BUT… Just as a Boycott helped bring an end to apartheid in South Africa, it will do the same here! YouTube nor zionism cannot stop the wheels of progress!!

The above is a production of MEMRI, one of zionism’s greatest global tools….

We often hear that “the camera does not lie” ….. BUT YOUTUBE DOES!


Is that possible??

Benny Morris exposes his nasty side

By Alex Kane

Israeli historian Benny Morris is famous for being part of the “New Historians” of Israel that exposed a great deal of Zionist myths about the founding of the state of Israel, including the falsehood that leaders of surrounding Arab states told Palestinians to leave their homes, and that they listened.  The truth, of course, is that there was a deliberate policy of expulsion carried about by Jewish forces, and that many Palestinians fled and became refugees because they were fearful for their lives.

Morris obviously has had a huge impact on the discourse on Israel/Palestine.  But he’s also an ardent Zionist who routinely expresses racist attitudes towards Arabs and Palestinians.  In a piece he wrote for Tablet magazine, where he interviews Israeli President Shimon Peres, he asks Peres:

Perhaps ending the 1948 war with this demographic was a mistake?

Peres: No, moral considerations took priority over demographic considerations. Ben-Gurion knew that every war and conflict takes place twice—once on the battlefield and then in the history books. He didn’t want things to be written in the history books that were in dissonance with the foundations of Judaism. He really believed that without a moral priority there is no existence for the Jewish people. To expel he saw as contrary to his moral values.

Morris’ question reveals a lot: he obviously doesn’t consider Palestinians as human beings.  Referring to them as “this demographic” is deeply dehumanizing, and he also seems to be suggesting that Israel should have just expelled all of the Palestinians in the 1948 war.

This is not a new revelation, however.  Morris is on record as saying that he is quite alright with ethnically cleansing Palestinians, and that it was a mistake to not “finish the job” in 1948.

This is from an interview published in Ha’aretz, via Counterpunch ( Morris’ answers are bolded by me):

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

“There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide – the annihilation ofyour people – I prefer ethnic cleansing.”

And that was the situation in 1948?

“That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”

The term `to cleanse’ is terrible.

“I know it doesn’t sound nice but that’s the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed.”

What you are saying is hard to listen to and hard to digest. You sound hard-hearted.

“I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. From the moment the Yishuv [pre-1948 Jewish community in Palestine] was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population. To uproot it in the course of war.”



Regular readers of this Blog should have a pretty good idea of where I stand on certain issues. In case you missed my views of the organisation known as J Street, they can be read HERE.

Today there was a piece posted at the Jerusalem Post, a piece written by zionism’s most prolific McCarthyite, denouncing McCarthyism. It’s funny to see how a twisted mind like Dershowitz’s operates. HERE you can find some of his latest McCarthyite tactics, and below is his tirade from today’s JP.

(My comments appear in RED)

J Street’s McCarthyism

Alan M. Dershowitz

J Street, the leftist lobbying organization that claims to be pro-Israel, is currently running a television ad that divides the world into two groups: The good guys who support the two-state solution, the end of the occupation and peace; and the bad guys who oppose these results and instead favor a continuation of violence. Pictured as representing the pro-peace position are President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and General Petraeus. Pictured as representing the anti-peace, anti two-state, pro expansion of settlements and pro violence position are Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Senator Lieberman, Malcolm Hoenlein (Director of the Conference of Major Jewish organizations), and – you guessed it – me!

Truth be known, those named as the ‘good guys’ are the ones that have been sending the funds necessary for Israel to carry out its genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.  You should know Dershi…. that’s all that really matters.

Now Jeremy Ben-Ami, who runs J Street and who is responsible for the ad, knows full well that I support the two-state solution and peace, and have opposed Israeli settlements since he was in diapers. (I began publicly supporting the two-state solution in 1970 and began opposing settlements in 1973). Ben-Ami knows this because we debated each other at the 92nd Street Y and he publicly acknowledged that I support these positions. He knows that I wrote a book called The Case For Peace, advocating precisely these positions, which was praised by President Clinton (“the blueprint for stability presented in this book is among the best in recent years”), Amos Oz (Dershowitz’s The Case For Peace is an “enthusiastic voice for peace”) and other advocates of a peaceful resolution.

Dershowitz wrote a book ‘The Case For Peace’, Obama was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize…. methinks Peace has more than one meaning.

Why then would he falsely lump me with Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin when he knows that I fundamentally disagree with their positions? Why would Ben-Ami knowingly put out an ad containing such defamatory McCarthyism? (Joe McCarthy infamously lumped together liberals with communists, and progressives with Stalinists.) There are several possible reasons.

Perhaps he is ‘lumped in’ with them because he’s as much an idiot as they are, just perhaps.

First, Ben Ami cannot tolerate the idea that there are liberals, like me and Professor Irwin Cotler of Canada, who support the two-state solution, the end of the occupation and peace, while fundamentally disagreeing with J Street’s general negativity toward Israel. As I argued during the debate and on other occasions, J Street and I tend to agree on many substantive issues, but I publicly focus on the 80% of issues on which there is broad consensus within the pro-Israel community; whereas J Street focuses on the 20% of issues on which there is disagreement, such as the policy toward Iran, the Goldstone report and nuclear policy. It would have been fair for J Street to have an ad putting me on the other side of those issues. But for Ben-Ami to try to persuade the public that I oppose the two-state solution (as Rush Limbaugh does), favor expansion of the settlements (as Palin does) and oppose peace is simply a lie, and a deliberate one at that. No softer word will suffice.

If Dershowitz is a Liberal, than colour me a fascist….

The second reason why J Street decided to include me in their insidious ad is to appeal to hard left elements such as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and others who pay lip service to supporting Israel while condemning everything the Jewish state stands for. Ben-Ami is trying to build a large organization and in order to attract the hard left, he finds it useful to demonize me, because the hard left hates my liberal support for Israel. That also explains why J Street rarely if ever praises Israel, even when the Jewish state takes risks for peace. To praise Israel is to risk losing the support and membership of the hard anti-Israel left – and Ben Ami is not prepared to lower his numbers, even if he is required to distort the truth, in order to increase contributions and pad his membership list.

Finkelstein pays lip service to supporting Israel? Then why did you get him fired?

The J Street ad is fraudulent in yet another way. It suggests that I am saying certain words, but the voice is not mine. Thousands of my words, in my actual voice, are available on YouTube, but none of them have me opposing the two-state solution, favoring expansion of the settlements or opposing peace. So they just make it up by including a video of me with my lips moving and a dubbed voiceover, suggesting that they have me (along with the others) on videotape opposing the two-state solution. (All the videos have moving lips, but some include words actually spoken by the person in the video while others could be attributable to any of the people in the video whose lips are moving – watch it and judge for yourself!) If this were a political campaign ad, J Street would be in deep trouble. But this is even worse, because it is an attempt to deceive the public into thinking that mainstream supporters of Israel all favor the expansion of settlements and oppose the two-state solution and peace.

Snakes like Dershowitz have many voices….. depending on the phase of the moon.

J Street continues to destroy its credibility by posting deceptive and divisive ads of this kind. If they are willing to mislead the public in this manner, they should not be trusted to tell the truth about anything relating to Israel. They are more interested in increasing their own power and contributions than they are in supporting Israel or promoting truthful dialogue. If they want to have any chance at restoring their credibility, they must begin to tell the truth. A good first step would be to remove this ad and admit that it was fraudulent. Otherwise, everyone will begin to understand what the J in J Street stands for: Joe McCarthy.

J Street  shows its true colours as an integral part of the zionist lobby by posting ads such as these.



Instead of talking ‘Peace’, Israel discloses its plans for their next war….

“The IDF has … implemented operational changes in its orders and combat doctrine designed to further minimize civilian casualties and damage to civilian property in the future,” the report said.

Israel ‘taking steps’ to reduce civilian casualties in future wars

An Israeli report submitted to the UN also says Israel has launched 47 criminal investigations into alleged misconduct by soldiers in the Gaza war.

A new Israeli report on the 2008-2009 war in the Gaza Strip says that the Israel Defense Forces is taking steps to reduce the number of civilian casualties in future wars and will restrict the use of white phosphorous.

The 37-page report, which was posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website, was delivered to the office of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday in compliance with a General Assembly resolution, UN officials said.

“The IDF has … implemented operational changes in its orders and combat doctrine designed to further minimize civilian casualties and damage to civilian property in the future,” the report said.

“In particular, the IDF has adopted important new procedures designed to enhance the protection of civilians in urban warfare, for instance by further emphasizing that the protection of civilians is an integral part of an IDF commander’s mission,” it said.

Among those measures will be the inclusion of a humanitarian affairs officer in each combat unit.

About 1,400 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians, and 13 Israelis were killed in Israel’s December 2008-January 2009 offensive in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip that was aimed at ending cross-border rocket fire from Palestinian militants.

A UN report by a team headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone was issued in September and found that both the Israeli army and the militant Islamist group Hamas, which controls Gaza, were guilty of war crimes in the conflict but focused more on Israel.

Israel, which refused to cooperate with Goldstone, has condemned his report as distorted and biased and rejected the war crimes allegations. Hamas denied its fighters committed war crimes but has said it regrets Israeli civilian deaths

The report also said Israel has launched some 47 criminal investigations into alleged misconduct by its soldiers in the Gaza war, 11 more than in January.

A November 2009 resolution of the 192-nation General Assembly demanded that the Israelis and Palestinians credibly investigate allegations of war crimes during the conflict.

The Palestinian Authority’s UN delegation also submitted a progress report to Ban’s office, but it was not immediately available. The West Bank-based Palestinian Authority has no influence over Gaza and is unable to investigate Hamas.

Israel said in the report it was planning to impose restrictions on using white phosphorous weapons, smoke-screening munitions that can cause serious burns.

In response to criticism of its use of white phosphorous during the Gaza war, the IDF implemented mandatory buffer zones of several hundred meters and restricted use of it near sensitive sites. The report said the use of white phosphorous remains legal, though the IDF did conduct a review of its use.

“As a consequence, the IDF is in the process of establishing permanent restrictions on the use of munitions containing white phosphorus in urban areas,” the report said.

The United Nations has yet to react to the Israeli report.

Israel is under pressure to accept another international investigation into a deadly May 31 raid on a flotilla of aid ships that attempted to break through the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza. The raid left nine Turkish pro-Palestinian protesters dead.

Israel has launched multiple investigations into the incident but Ban wants an independent probe that includes Turkish and Israeli participation..



The Jerusalem Post had reported in April that the AJCongress lost as much as 90 percent of its approximately $24 million endowment in the Madoff scam.

Let us pray that the ADL follows them soon…

AJCongress Suspends Activities

The American Jewish Congress has suspended its activities after running out of funds.

The suspension of the venerable Jewish-American advocacy organization’s activities, confirmed to JTA on Sunday by acting co-executive director Marc Stern, comes after months of rumors that the organization was on the verge of collapse after losing most of its endowment in the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme.

As of Sunday afternoon there was no mention of the suspension on the AJCongress website.

The Jerusalem Post had reported in April that the AJCongress lost as much as 90 percent of its approximately $24 million endowment in the Madoff scam.

Richard Gordon, the AJCongress president, told the Post that the group has money in the bank but cannot access it now due to the constraints of its constitution.

The 92-year-old organization is rumored to be in merger talks with the American Jewish Committee.



The NYT’s Cognitive Dissonance on Gaza

By Alex Kane

New York Times readers could be forgiven if they felt confused after reading two stories about the blockade of Gaza in today’s paper. One story, by Michael Slackman and Ethan Bronner, the Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief, depicted the life of people in Gaza as desperate and idle, not allowed to enter and exit as they please or trade with the outside world. A separate story, with only Bronner’s byline on it, explains that since the deadly Israeli raid on an aid flotilla, the land blockade has been “eased” considerably.

Slackman and Bronner report:

Israel is never far from people’s minds here. Its ships control the waters, its planes control the skies. Its whims, Gazans feel, control their fate.

And while most here view Israel as the enemy, they want trade ties and to work there. In their lives the main source of income has been from and through Israel.

Economists here say what is most needed now is not more goods coming in, as the easing of the blockade has permitted, but people and exports getting out.

The other, much shorter piece by Bronner, with a reporter from Cairo contributing, states:

Israel imposed the blockade several years ago to isolate Hamas, the militant anti-Israel group that won elections in Gaza in 2006 and seized complete control in 2007. But in the time since the Turkish flotilla episode, Israel eased the land blockade considerably.

Bronner echoed that sentiment in another recent piece:

Following the takeover of the flotilla and the deaths on board, international pressure forced Israel to ease the land blockade.

Now the blockade is largely limited to the sea and to materials, like steel, that Israel fears could be turned into weapons by Hamas.

That article contradicts today’s piece, which informs readers that people are trapped and not allowed to export goods to the outside world, a key component of rebuilding a battered economy. The blockade has hardly been “eased.” The piece with Slackman lines up with what numerous human rights organizations and international bodies have said about what the siege is doing to the people of Gaza.

So, what explains the cognitive dissonance? While you can’t know for sure, one could reasonably suspect that Slackman, the Times’ Cairo bureau chief, had a big role in writing and reporting on the piece  titled, “Trapped by Gaza Blockade, Locked in Despair.” In the article only written by Bronner, whose son is in the Israeli Defense Forces, Israel comes out looking much better. Bronner’s reporting has long been documented as being biased in favor of Israel.

This begs the question: if Bronner’s bias shines so bright, why is he still allowed to be the Jerusalem bureau chief for the “paper of record”?

Clark Hoyt, the former public editor for the Times, suggested that Bronner should be reassigned after it emerged that Bronner’s son joined the IDF. Today’s articles prove the need for that reassignment to happen.



Another lying rabbi  (Chief Rabbi of South Africa)

By Khalid Amayreh

The shipyard dogs of Zionism get ferociously mad whenever Israel is described as a racist and apartheid state. They argue rather vehemently that it is unfair and unjust to describe the deformed pariah entity as an apartheid state, citing the fact that non-Jews in Israel are accorded equal political rights and are allowed to vote.

Well, I think we do a great injustice  to language when we call Israel an apartheid state because the Zionist regime is far more nefarious than all the apartheid and discrimination in the world combined.

Theoretically, Israel does give some rights to non-Jewish citizens. However, when these rights are dealt with in practice, they are effectively devoid of  any substance. In fact, non-Jews are accorded citizenship in Israel  only in exchange for coming to terms with Jewish supremacy and inherent discrimination against them. After all, the state is defined as Jewish first and only democratic second, meaning that in any conflict between the “Jewish” and “democratic” aspects of the state, the Jewish component will always come first.

So what is the point of having rights and privileges that are used solely for propaganda purposes and not meant to be implemented in any genuine manner?

Besides,  “democracy” goes for the Jews, while  “Jewish supremacy” is smacked in the face of the native Arab community?

In addition, we all know that democracy can produce criminal and racist  laws. Fascism is often of a populist nature, especially  in the absences  of constitutional  checks and balances which don’t exist in Israel.

Hitler, we must remember,  came to power via the ballot boxes. And many of the anti-Jewish laws  in Germany in  the early and mid 1930s were passed by democratically-elected parliaments just the Israeli Knesset is doing these days.

Today, the “democratic” Israeli Knesset passes inherently racist laws allowing the deportation of non-Jewish citizens, the confiscation of non-Jewish  property, and the systematic persecution of non-Jews.  In other words, the outer form is democracy but the substance is fascism in its ugliest form.

In a recent article published in the Jerusalem Post, a mouthpiece of Gush Emunim, the Nazi-minded settler movement,  Warren Goldstein, a visiting Rabbi from South Africa, claimed that “the accusation that Israel is apartheid is probably one of the most unjust accusations that could be made.”

Well, this is a brazen lie. Israel has separate roads for Palestinians and Jews. Israel has separate laws for Palestinians and Jews in the Wes Bank. The Israeli justice system doesn’t accord equal treatment to  Jews and Palestinians. A Jew convicted of murdering a Palestinian benefits from all  conceivable extenuating circumstances and is always given the benefit of the doubt, while Palestinian suspects are declared guilty even if proven innocent. Indeed, Jewish soldiers and settlers who have murdered innocent Palestinians are routinely set free after a brief symbolic period of  detention or declared unfit to stand trial, or as usual acquitted of any wrong doing.

We are not talking about a few isolated cases. In fact, this is the modus operandi of the Israeli justice system. Ask any human rights observer in occupied Palestine, and they will tell you volumes about the Nazi nature of the Israeli justice system.

In many cases, the burden of proof is the  sole responsibility of the victim’s family. This is not a genuine legal process aimed at establishing the truth, but rather a sinister trick aimed at enabling Jewish murderers to escape with impunity or at least circumvent the due process.

For example, when a Jewish settler or soldier abducts a Palestinian boy and subjects him to torture, including firing at his legs or feet,  away from the eyes of the media, the soldier, if caught,  is not really punished for torturing the victim, but rather for failing to ensure that no cameramen or witnesses were watching the criminal act. So the real crime is not the abduction and shooting of an innocent person, but rather not properly hiding the abominable act.

In case,  the victim’s family is poor, e.g. can’t pay the heavy costs of lengthy litigation, the murderer is set free for lack of sufficient evidence. God knows how many thousands of innocent Palestinians have been  killed in cold blood by Jewish thugs and the thugs are set free.

The Rabbi says that while the South African apartheid regime was evil, it is morally offensive to compare Israel to apartheid in any way.

Again this is an obscene lie by a so-called rabbi who is expected to make a distinction between veracity and mendacity.

In fact, we do a great injustice to apartheid when  we compare it with Israel. Apartheid is segregationalist while Israel is eradicationist. Apartheid, at least in South Africa, wanted to keep the races apart, but Israel’s ultimate goal is to ethnically cleanse and uproot  the native Palestinians, either by way of physical extermination as in Dir Yasin or by way of expulsion and mass deportation. In fact, Israel is more comparable to Nazi Germany than to the defunct South African apartheid regime.

Gerald Kaufman, an ex- British  Jewish  Parliamentarian, noted a few years ago  that Israeli atrocities in Gaza and south Lebanon made the Star of David look like the Swastika of Hitler.

Undoubtedly, the apartheid regime in South Africa, which was Israel’s chief  and close ally in the Black continent, was repulsive in every conceivable aspect. But it was not more evil than Israel. The notorious regime of ill repute  never used White phosphorous against civilians,  never demolished thousands of black homes in order to silence opposition to apartheid. It never deported millions of native Black South  Africans as Israel has done to  the Palestinians.

In fact, Israel committed more crimes per capita than any other country in the world. Israel, one may solemnly and candidly claim, is a huge crime against humanity.

The racist rabbis goes on, trying to make evil look good and ugliness look beautiful.

He claims that the problem in occupied Palestine is actually no more than just a border dispute between the Jewish people and the Muslim world.

“You have a border dispute between the Jewish people, represented by the state of Israel, and the Muslim world, where to draw the 1967 borders. Israel has tried time and again to resolve that dispute and to make successful negotiations around that.”

Again, the so-called rabbi is acting as a public relations officer for Israeli Nazism. He easily forgets that Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip along with East Jerusalem in a war of aggression in 1967. He easily forgets that Israel, instead of responding positively to repeated  Arab and Palestinian peace offers, including the latest Arab Peace Initiative, has been busy  stealing Arab land and building Jewish-only settlements for fanatical Jews indoctrinated in Jewish supremacy.

Does a state that steals its neighbors land, and transfers its citizens to live on land that belongs to another people really want peace?

Finally, the so-called rabbi tries to assure himself that Israel is a just cause.

“We all know that the various governments of Israel have made mistakes in the past, there is a lot of self-criticism and self-analysis in the Israeli press. But what we need to be proud of as Jews is the justice of the cause of the state of Israel.?

What Just cause is this idiot talking about? How can the cause of a state that is based on ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and land theft and lying be just? Or perhaps the Talmudic sage thinks that all the property of non-Jews belongs to Jews because God created the entire universe for the sake and benefit of the Jew?!!!

I really don’t understand how these so-called rabbis have the moral chutzpah to invoke morality whenever they try to justify Israeli Nazism. I don’t know what morality they are talking about.

Well, the Nazis, too, thought their cause was moral.

Also see THIS JP Report


Jonathan Pollard

Jonathan Pollard speaking during a 1998 interview.

Photo by: AP

According to the official version of events, Israel immediately apologized to the U.S. after Pollard was arrested and claimed that a “rogue agency” had been behind the espionage activity. Since then, a decision was made in Israel that no espionage activities will be undertaken on U.S. soil.

Except for the following…..

1985 The New York Times reports the FBI is aware of at least a dozen incidents in which American officials transferred classified information to the Israelis, quoting [former Assistant Director of the F.B.I.] Mr. [Raymond] Wannal. The Justice Department does not prosecute.

1985 Richard Smyth, the owner of MILCO, is indicted on charges of smuggling nuclear timing devices to Israel (Washington Post, 10/31/86).

1987 April 24 Wall Street Journal headline: “Role of Israel in Iran-Contra Scandal Won’t be Explored in Detail by Panels”

1992 The Wall Street Journal reports that Israeli agents apparently tried to steal Recon Optical Inc’s top-secret airborne spy-camera system.

1992 Stephen Bryen, caught offering confidential documents to Israel in 1978, is serving on board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs while continuing as a paid consultant — with security clearance — on exports of sensitive US technology.

1992 “The Samson Option,” by Seymour M. Hersh reports, “Illicitly obtained intelligence was flying so voluminously from LAKAM into Israeli intelligence that a special code name, JUMBO, was added to the security markings already on the documents. There were strict orders, Ari Ben-Menashe recalled: “Anything marked JUMBO was not supposed to be discussed with your American counterparts.”

1993. The ADL is caught operating a massive spying operation on critics of Israel, Arab-Americans, the San Francisco Labor Council, ILWU Local 10, Oakland Educational Association, NAACP, Irish Northern Aid, International Indian Treaty Council, the Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco police. Data collected was sent to Israel and in some cases to South Africa. Pressure from Jewish organizations forces the city to drop the criminal case, but the ADL settles a civil lawsuit for an undisclosed sum of cash.

1995 The Defense Investigative Service circulates a memo warning US military contractors that “Israel aggressively collects [US] military and industrial technology.” The report stated that Israel obtains information using “ethnic targeting, financial aggrandizement, and identification and exploitation of individual frailties” of US citizens.

1996 A General Accounting Office report “Defense Industrial Security: Weaknesses in US Security Arrangements With Foreign-Owned Defense Contractors” found that according to intelligence sources “Country A” (identified by intelligence sources as Israel, Washington Times, 2/22/96) “conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally.” The Jerusalem Post (8/30/96) quoted the report, “Classified military information and sensitive military technologies are high-priority targets for the intelligence agencies of this country.” The report described “An espionage operation run by the intelligence organization responsible for collecting scientific and technologic information for [Israel] paid a US government employee to obtain US classified military intelligence documents.” The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (Shawn L. Twing, April 1996) noted that this was “a reference to the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a civilian US naval intelligence analyst who provided Israel’s LAKAM [Office of Special Tasks] espionage agency an estimated 800,000 pages of classified US intelligence information.”

The GAO report also noted that “Several citizens of [Israel] were caught in the United States stealing sensitive technology used in manufacturing artillery gun tubes.”

1996 An Office of Naval Intelligence document, “Worldwide Challenges to Naval Strike Warfare” reported that “US technology has been acquired [by China] through Israel in the form of the Lavi fighter and possibly SAM [surface-to-air] missile technology.” Jane’s Defense Weekly (2/28/96) noted that “until now, the intelligence community has not openly confirmed the transfer of US technology [via Israel] to China.” The report noted that this “represents a dramatic step forward for Chinese military aviation.” (Flight International, 3/13/96)

1997 An Army mechanical engineer, David A. Tenenbaum, “inadvertently” gives classified military information on missile systems and armored vehicles to Israeli officials (New York Times, 2/20/97).

1997 The Washington Post reports US intelligence has intercepted a conversation in which two Israeli officials had discussed the possibility of getting a confidential letter that then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher had written to Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. One of the Israelis, identified only as “Dov”, had commented that they may get the letter from “Mega”, the code name for Israel’s top agent inside the United States.

1997 US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, complains privately to the Israeli government about heavy-handed surveillance by Israeli intelligence agents.

1997 Israeli agents place a tap on Monica Lewinsky’s phone at the Watergate and record phone sex sessions between her and President Bill Clinton. The Ken Starr report confirms that Clinton warned Lewinsky their conversations were being taped and ended the affair. At the same time, the FBI’s hunt for “Mega” is called off.

2001 It is discovered that US drug agents’ communications have been penetrated. Suspicion falls on two companies, AMDOCS and Comverse Infosys, both owned by Israelis. AMDOCS generates billing data for most US phone companies and is able to provide detailed logs of who is talking to whom. Comverse Infosys builds the tapping equipment used by law enforcement to eavesdrop on all American telephone calls, but suspicion forms that Comverse, which gets half of its research and development budget from the Israeli government, has built a back door into the system that is being exploited by Israeli intelligence and that the information gleaned on US drug interdiction efforts is finding its way to drug smugglers. The investigation by the FBI leads to the exposure of the largest foreign spy ring ever uncovered inside the United States, operated by Israel. Half of the suspected spies have been arrested when 9-11 happens. On 9-11, 5 Israelis are arrested for dancing and cheering while the World Trade Towers collapse. Supposedly employed by Urban Moving Systems, the Israelis are caught with multiple passports and a lot of cash. Two of them are later revealed to be Mossad. As witness reports track the activity of the Israelis, it emerges that they were seen at Liberty Park at the time of the first impact, suggesting a foreknowledge of what was to come. The Israelis are interrogated, and then eventually sent back to Israel. The owner of the moving company used as a cover by the Mossad agents abandons his business and flees to Israel. The United States Government then classifies all of the evidence related to the Israeli agents and their connections to 9-11. All of this is reported to the public via a four part story on Fox News by Carl Cameron. Pressure from Jewish groups, primarily AIPAC, forces Fox News to remove the story from their website. Two hours prior to the 9-11 attacks, Odigo, an Israeli company with offices just a few blocks from the World Trade Towers, receives an advance warning via the internet. The manager of the New York Office provides the FBI with the IP address of the sender of the message, but the FBI does not follow up.

2001 The FBI is investigating 5 Israeli moving companies as possible fronts for Israeli intelligence.

2001 JDL’s Irv Rubin arrested for planning to bomb a US Congressman. He dies before he can be brought to trial.

2002 The DEA issues a report that Israeli spies, posing as art students, have been trying to penetrate US Government offices.

2002 police near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station in southern Washington State stop a suspicious truck and detain two Israelis, one of whom is illegally in the United States. The two men were driving at high speed in a Ryder rental truck, which they claimed had been used to “deliver furniture.” The next day, police discovered traces of TNT and RDX military-grade plastic explosives inside the passenger cabin and on the steering wheel of the vehicle. The FBI then announces that the tests that showed explosives were “false positived” by cigarette smoke, a claim test experts say is ridiculous. Based on an alibi provided by a woman, the case is closed and the Israelis are handed over to INS to be sent back to Israel. One week later, the woman who provided the alibi vanishes.

2003 The Police Chief of Cloudcroft stops a truck speeding through a school zone. The drivers turn out to be Israelis with expired passports. Claiming to be movers, the truck contains junk furniture and several boxes. The Israelis are handed over to immigration. The contents of the boxers are not revealed to the public.

2003 Israel deploys assassination squads into other countries, including the United States. The US Government does not protest.

2004 Police near the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in Tennessee stop a truck after a three mile chase, during which the driver throws a bottle containing a strange liquid from the cab. The drivers turn out to be Israelis using fake Ids. The FBI refuses to investigate and the Israelis are released.

2004 Two Israelis try to enter Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, home to eight Trident submarines. The truck tests positive for explosives.

The above is taken from a WRH Report…. it can be read HERE

Jerusalem honors convicted spy Pollard on 9,000th day of incarceration

A message urging Obama to free Pollard will be projected onto Jerusalem city walls; Dozens of protesters call for Pollard’s immediate release.

The Jerusalem municipality will dim lights that illuminate the walls surrounding the old city on Tuesday evening, as a gesture of solidarity with convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, who has been incarcerated in the United States for almost a quarter-century.

Pollard was arrested in 1986 as he tried to seek asylum in the Israeli Embassy in Washington. He was convicted of espionage for Israel and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

As part of Tuesday’s event, a special message calling upon U.S. President Barack Obama to release Pollard will be projected onto the darkened city walls.

Dozens of Pollard supporters demonstrated earlier Tuesday under the Metarim Bridge for the second consecutive day, calling for his immediate release.

Since Pollard’s conviction, the U.S. has steadfastly refused to shorten his sentence or grant him a pardon, despite requests by Israeli prime ministers, ministers, and MKs.

According to the official version of events, Israel immediately apologized to the U.S. after Pollard was arrested and claimed that a “rogue agency” had been behind the espionage activity. Since then, a decision was made in Israel that no espionage activities will be undertaken on U.S. soil.


« Older entries Newer entries »