Friday, April 4, 2008

Dual Loyalty? The case for dual loyalty of the Jewish Diaspora

Having read the title of my previous post, I realized it does not make sense to call it "Israel to blame for iraq war part 2" without explaining the issue of dual loyalty. After all, all the people listed in my previous blog post are American Citizens. I shall repair that error immediately, post haste, in this article.

The article below, details how the (mostly Jewish - in fact, ALL the key players were American Jews) neocon movement pushed America into the war with Iraq using the tragedy of 9/11 as a selling point.

The article Is Israel to blame for the Iraq War?, proving, with cited sources, that Israel itself, its government at the time, was all for the George W. Bush's new Iraq War and did everything to push the United States into that war.

"The article with an embedded video of Democratic Congressman Howard Berman, saying to his audience "Israel is why I went on the Foreign Affairs Committee".

Tim Russert asking Obama, the future president (?) of the USofA, the poignant question during the Democratic presidential debate: "What do you do to assure Jewish Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel...",

and Phillip Weiss' analysis: "Why is it that a candidate must assure Jewish Americans about his being "consistent" on a foreign country, Israel? Isn't this an acknowledgement that American Jews feel dual loyalty?"

And why is McCain, the Republican candidate for president, campaigning in Israel? Why is he doing a voter canvassing tour in a foreign country? Personally I find that very strange...

General Wesley Clark talking about a grand plan of taking out seven (7) countries, starting with Iraq, who was told of the plan by mistake by his supposed aide, and then told to forget he ever heard of such a plan.

Why was House Resolution 951 passed, even though Ron Paul was against it, stating that "this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria, as it contains provocative language targeting these countries."

Have you seen the most important post on this blog, in which there is an embedded video of Mr. Scott Ritter telling in his straight talk, no fear US Marine sort of way, about the Israeli lobby and how powerful it is in the USA?

What ties all these articles together?

The issue of dual loyalty.

Now, lets cut the bullshit.
America is a woderful country, and it attracts hordes of immigrants, of all skin colors, races, religious beliefs, economic status...

Christians, moslems, jews, buddhists, atheists.
Mexicans, Irish, Poles, Brasilians, Tibetans.
A rich university student comes here to study advanced mathematics in a top US university and decides to settle here.
A poor Mexican comes here to get a job in a restaurant and to send some money back home to his family.

There is one thing that unites them - they are either first generation immigrants, or first generation Americans.

Which means that they (of course, it is a given) have patriotic feelings toward their country of origin, not their adopted country - the USA.

I have sat at the Poland-USA match here in American Goy city, and was proudly wearing my USA soccer jersey. The rest of the 60,000 crowd was wearing white and red clothing and waving polish flags. When some of the people around me learned that I was born in Poland yet supported the American soccer team over the Polish one, there were some things said which better I not repeat here.

Being called a traitor and a sellout for supporting your own country, the one I am a citizen of, is a pretty weird experience. Especially when it happens in your OWN goddamn country.

Talk to any Mexican who serves you in a restaurant. Befriend one. It might be harder than you think - Mexicans are (my experience) notoriously hard to talk to, and they "clam up" especially when talking to a gringo.

Once you talk to one...
The Mexicans are very hard working people (in my personal experience, the myth of a "lazy Mexican" is just that - a myth) and are very family oriented - they literally work incredible hours in pretty horrible menial jobs to support their families.

But ask them about Mexico, after you befriend one - they will tell you about the Mexican - American War, la Raza (the race) and their patriotic feelings toward Mexico, despite Mexico treating them so poorly that they had to emigrate. Especially if you are not an Anglo American, but a first generation immigrant - like they are.

Watching a soccer match in USA between America and Mexico is a surreal experience (personal experience again) as the stadium is 99% Mexican, and the Mexican national team receives tumultuous support, while the few odd Americans at the stadium spend their time watching out for food flying in from all directions. Again, these soccer matches are played in America, in major cities like NY, Chicago, heck, Colorado of all places.

What am I trying to say here?
Simply this - that first, and possibly second (3rd? 4th?), generation Americans have patriotic feelings toward the country where they were born or their family originated - much more than to their country of economic choice, the USA.

Therein lies the Dual Loyalty.

The problem for a country like America is the theory of "assimilation". This is not a Star Trek concept - this simply means that, according to this theory, all these first generation incoming Americans will learn English, learn to be Anglo-Saxon, learn the mainstream American culture and mannerisms and, in short, become mainstream American Citizens.

I call bullshit.

This theory works when a person, alone, is dropped into an alien (to him) environment of a school, a work place, a neighborhood.

When a person like that is alone in an alien environment, then that person has to assimilate - usually, it is human nature after all - most of us want to fit in. And so, the person will make tremendous efforts to learn English, learn the culture, the mores, the mannerisms of the mainstream America so they can fit in.

This is what happened to me - I was dropped into a Junior High School, with nary an English word in my vocabulary... more - I was put in a class above my age, because, according to a family member, "Americans are idiots" and so I should go thru junior HS and high school as quickly as possible to go to a university.

This scenario of course does not happen when there is a group of immigrants already in place. When you have here hundreds of thousands of Poles, and thousands (millions, really) Mexicans, they (of course - human nature) will congregate together, go to the same church (where mass is NOT said in English), go to their ethnic shops and businesses...

There will be push back to assimilation - there will be resistance.

And there will be dual loyalty, perhaps going forth to 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation...?

Having set the table, lets pick on the Jews (Sorry, could not resist this).
Jews are no different in the dual loyalty problem from Mexicans, Poles, Irish, and any other ethnic/country group in the USA. Except for one thing - the Jewish recent history, at least as taught in the United States, is all about the Holocaust.

The German Nazis killed millions of Jews - men, women and children - in camps, which processed humanity going to the slaughter on an industrial scale. In effect, the concentration camps should probably have been called death camps, and that is one of the names they are called in Poland. They were not places to "store" people (concentration), they were places people were driven to so they could be killed efficiently. Mostly Jews, but many, many others - millions of non-Jews were also "processed" in those camps, gays, Poles, Russians, German political enemies of Nazism, etc.

Having this recent history, it is no wonder that Jews from Europe (Ashkenazi) became thoroughly radicalized. After all, if the Germans have tried to wipe out your whole race from existence, murdering millions - I bet that would affect you too, Mr. or Ms. Mexican-Irish-Polish immigrant to the USA.

Having become radicalized, the Jews began the Zionist movement, which in its simplest definition means "Lets get Jews a country of their own, where we will not fear anti-semitism, and where all the Jews in the world can come for refuge" (again, if I was 100% Jewish, I would be a Zionist also).

The trouble was that the land of Palestine which the radicalized Ashkenazi Jews wanted was occupied by Arabs, living in their villages and tending their crops. There is a fascinating article describing what happened next in Counterpunch online magazine, in which the Israeli "new historian" (which means that he practices actual history instead of pro-Israel, pro-Zionist propaganda) Benny Morris talks about the pogroms of Arabs in 1948 (birth year of Israel), the mass murder and ethnic cleansing, the rapes of Arab Palestinian women; exactly what happened during the recent Yugoslavia civil war between Serbs, Croats and Bosnians. (this interview with Benny Morris deserves its own blog entry, and it shall come later).

So the Israeli Jews ethnically cleansed themselves a country - just like the United States did with American Indians in previous century, and just like the Serbs tried to do to their Bosnian neighbors.

The biggest trouble in this scenario (to me - this is my analysis of the dual loyalty issue for the Jewish diaspora around the world) is that the Jewish diaspora was radicalized by the soul shaking Holocaust experience. The words "Never Again!" as taught in schools around the world were not taught about the Nazi AND Soviet oppression (you must remember - Stalin killed MORE people in his camps (called gulags) and because of his economic policies than Hitler, and so did Mao Tse Tung in China), but ONLY about the Jewish suffering.

Let me be clear - the Jews were the MAIN target of the Holocaust, and they were slated to be exterminated - killed off. Meanwhile, the Slavs (Russians, Poles, etc) were, according to Nazi ideology, supposed to have had their intelligentsia (their elite, the university professors, scientists, teachers, bankers etc) killed off, leaving only a malleable population of docile slaves working in factories as slaves - think black slaves in America in the Southern states picking cotton, and you have a pretty good idea of what the Nazi plan was for Eastern Europe. Which happened - the Polish elite were put against the wall and shot or transported to the death camps.

That part of history is not taught; WW2 holocaust is exclusively taught about the Jewish suffering. The Jews, according to popular history, were the ONLY victims of the Nazis. The millions of Russians, Poles, Frenchmen, Czechs, Slovaks - they do not matter in the historic narrative as taught in the USA and Western Europe.

This leads to even more radicalization of the Jewish viewpoint.

As in the "Never Again!" slogan becomes a rallying cry, to do anything and everything, legal or semi-legal, to make it a reality. Never again will a holocaust against us, the Jews, be allowed to happen.

And how best to prevent such a holocaust?
Before and during WW2, most countries refused desperate fleeing Jewish refugees from Nazis entry. America under FDR refused desperate Jewish refugees form Nazi Germany entry into the "land of the free, home of the brave" - see Voyage of the Damned. To their credit, Western European countries took in the Jews fleeing for their lives from Nazi Germany, and to its eternal shame America didn't.

"Give me your tired, your poor" - indeed...

This episode, among many others, shaped Jewish thought and the ideology of Zionism.

Simply put, since Jews were not even admitted to America (of all places!) as they were fleeing for their lives (this was not economic migration - these were dead men walking), the Jews around the world decided (logically) that there must be, at all cost, a Jewish state in the world.

So that as a last resort, Jews fleeing from persecution from wherever, whichever country or region, could find safe refuge.

The trouble, of course, was that the land in question was already settled by Arabs.

After the Holocaust (Shoah), Jews were in no mind for legal niceties and simply ethnically cleansed themselves a country.

And, the Jews around the world, being taught about the Shoah in their own, private, Jewish schools as well as by their country's public schools, came to the conclusion that Israel, the Jewish state, must be supported - no matter what.

That is Zionism in a nutshell.

The trouble I see with the Zionist ideology now, in 2008, is that it is very unlikely, in modern times, for ANY country to engage in overt or covert anti-semitism. There may be (and are) individuals who commit anti-semitic actions, but these are isolated individuals - usually caught and punished under the law of the land.

Jews in America, for example (if you read the Philip Weiss blog) are doing very well, and indeed are now part of the elite, that strata of society which dictates to the rest of the country its foreign policy, its domestic policy, and are in powerful positions to sway public opinion or, better yet, the other elites' opinions to their views.

That is what happened, for example, in the Iraq War 2 - please re-read the article right below this one if you do not yet understand the Iraq War 2 historical narrative.

The trouble, then, is that Jews are in no immediate danger of another holocaust or a pogrom happening anywhere in the world - but they act as if such a thing is inevitable, and so are radicalized enough to support the aims of Zionism - which by now simply means to support Israel no matter what - all the time, and as their main goal.

Israel, I hasten to say, is not in any danger whatsoever - you see, Israel has nuclear bombs, and their Arab (potential) opponents do not. There is no way the radicalized Palestinian Arabs are an existential danger to Israel. (Incidentally, the Palestinian Arabs are radicalized for the SAME reason Zionists were and are radicalized - they are now looking for their own country, their own safe refuge, because no Arab country will protect them from Israeli apartheid policies - what is happening now could be called - bear with me - Palestinian Arab version of Zionism).

The trouble also is that us Jews are taught, from when we are small kids, to be outsiders - we may live in America/France/Romania - but we are Jews first. And so, being Jewish, being pro-Israel comes first.

Now, we may disagree between ourselves on how best to accomplish Zionist goals - whether by a peace process between Arabs and Israel, or whether by ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from the occupied territories, or by steering America into a war with Iraq... Iran... Syria...

But always, even if we have patriotic feelings towards our home country, the fear of the Holocaust is drummed into us which results in our support of Israel. So when I drive across my neighborhood, I see the posters about "We stand with Israel" and the call to give 10% of my will to the Jewish state. These calls to my inner-zionist are all around me.

The trouble with us Jews is that because of the Holocaust, because we became radicalized, we, unlike many other ethnic groups, do not assimilate nor do we want to. We are comfortable being part of many countries' elites (for goodness sake, a Zionist Jew is now a French president), and so there is no reason to assimilate fully. That is why on our blogs, our newspapers, we argue with the (always) mindset of "What's best for Israel? What is best for us, Jews?" first and foremost in our minds.

Whether we argue for peace or war, there is always the fear of the holocaust, and the idea of the safe place, a refuge for all Jews existing... just in case...

Many Jews, especially in America, try to mask this by saying the old canard that "American and Israeli goals are one and the same", which to any thinking individual is bullshit. But it sounds good - explains the American Jews' patriotism towards Israel.

I was speaking mostly from the position of common sense - my own experiences and my own analysis of what is going on.

Inevitably, people want proof. People want the proof handed to them on a silver platter, and hammered with a gigantic hammer into their heads, and even then they might disagree.


If my articles on my blog listed at the beginning do not sway you and open your eyes, then perhaps this will (again, thanks to reader Greg Bacon).

What this proof is - this is a policy paper presented to Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, then Israeli Prime Minister. The report dealt with Israel's security and how best to achieve it. The writers of this recommendation were American-Jews, of the neocon variety.

Simply put, this policy paper recommended actions necessary to make Israel "more secure" in the future, meaning in the XXI Century. Chief among the recommendations were:

* Removal of Saddam Hussein
* Attack on Iran
* Attack on Syria
* Repudiation of the "land for peace".

If you follow the international news at all, you realize that this plan has been put into motion.

Iraq was attacked and destroyed - it is now not a danger to Israel.

Iran is next - the war drums and mass hysteria is being whipped in the USA to attack Iran, and the neocons are desperate to attack Iran before George W. Bush's presidency ends.

The Oslo accords were repudiated, and new settlements are growing on the West Bank.

The fascinating thing about this is how open this is - these are AMERICAN CITIZENS advocating what is best for Israel. I do not see Zbigniew Brzezinski writing a policy paper "what is best for Poland" before his career as a National Security Advisor - because that would be seen (rightly) as a huge conflict of interest.

This is not a conspiracy - this is right there, in the open - just google it yourself.

The incredible thing is that the people who wrote a policy paper advising Israel on its strategy for the near future (i.e. now), became very powerful figures in American government.

And they were successful in putting this plan to "make Israel more secure" in motion.

Using America's military and moneys.

Why am I the only one seeing this? Is this a forbidden topic, something that you don't talk about in polite company? Can only Jewish newspapers and blogs discuss this world changing topic? (Seems so!).

Here is the actual text of the policy recommendation written for then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: read it here please.

Note the authors of this manifesto (source: Free Republic):

Richard Perle - American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader (Come on now - you KNOW who that guy is by now, right?).

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University

Lets play a game called - spot the non-Jew in that bunch (hint: odds are you cannot win that game).

Some of these names should be familiar to you if you paid attention to the news.

Douglas Feith - "Douglas J. Feith (born July 16, 1953) served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for United States President George W. Bush from July 2001 until he resigned from his position effective August 8, 2005. His official responsibilities included the formulation of defense planning guidance and forces policy", source: Wikipedia article.

David Wurmser - "is a Swiss-American dual citizen and a former Middle East Adviser to US Vice President Dick Cheney"

There is more: "After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith appointed Wurmser and veteran defense analyst Michael Maloof as a secret two-man Pentagon intelligence unit. One of their products, days after the attacks, was a memo that suggested "hitting targets outside the Middle East in the initial offensive" or a "non-Al Qaeda target like Iraq.""

Source Wikipedia article.

Nobody but me finds it odd that people who make recommendations in a policy paper on what's best for Israel in 1996 are given Department of Defense positions in the USA? Anybody see the conflict of interest?

To put the plan for a "more secure Israel" into motion, the neocons (which is really a code word for pro-Israel activists in the USA government) organized themselves into PNAC, or the 'Project for the New American Century'. I am always reacting with laughter (really, I find it very funny) that the people who fist recommended "What's best for Israel" have the chutzpah to next write "What's best for America in the New Century", which incidentally includes everything that is best for Israel (i.e. removing Saddam, attacking Iran, Syria etc.).

The funniest thing to me is the idea that a new "Pearl Harbour" is needed to galvanize Americans to support the neocon vision for securing Israel - which the al Kaida dutifully (perfect timing, ask and ye shall receive!) provided.

To see the PNAC webpage on Wikipedia, see here - the bit about the new "Pearl Harbour" and here - the complete Wiki article.

Here is PNAC's own page - lest someone accuse me that I make all of this up. Incidentally, searching for key word "Israel" does not find any hits on the PNAC website. Another inside joke.

Here are some of the members of PNAC:
Elliott Abrams - During investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair, the special prosecutor handling the case prepared multiple felony counts against Abrams but never indicted him, President George W. Bush appointed Abrams to the post of Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations at the National Security Council on 25 June 2001.

Some human rights groups and commentators considered his White House appointment controversial due to his conviction in the Iran-Contra Affair investigation and his role in overseeing the Reagan administration's foreign policy in Latin America. Source - wiki.

William Kristol - William is the son of Irving Kristol who has been called the "father of the neoconservative" movement. Chairman of the Project for the New American Century, is editor of the highly criticised Murdoch publication, the Weekly Standard. The Standard serves as a sort of magazine version of FOX"news" and has been sued, debunked, and earned a general reputation for false and shoddy reporting.

Richard Perle - (Hello again!) "A veteran Washington insider, Perle has on occasion been accused of being an Israeli agent of influence. It has been reported that, while he was working for Jackson, "An FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy," writes Paul Findley (They Dare To Speak Out, Chicago, Ill, Lawrence Hill Books 1989)."He came under fire in 1983 when newspapers reported he received substantial payments to represent the interests of an Israeli weapons company. Perle denied conflict of interest, insisting that, although he received payment for these services after he had assumed his position in the Defense Department, he was between government jobs when he worked for the Israeli firm." Source:

There we go again - dual citizens working for Israeli weapons companies. And oh, Perle being recorded on FBI wiretap telling Israeli officials American secrets did not affect his career at all. Simply put, to give Israelis American secrets is not a crime now, unlike in the days of Jonathan Pollard.

"During the Reagan Administration, Khashoggi was one of the middlemen between Oliver North, in the White House, and the mullahs in Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. Khashoggi is still brokering. In January of this year, he arranged a private lunch, in France, to bring together Harb Saleh al-Zuhair, a Saudi industrialist whose family fortune includes extensive holdings in construction, electronics, and engineering companies throughout the Middle East, and Richard N. Perle, the chairman of the Defense Policy Board."

Funny - we met some of these guys in my previous article...

You want to see the mission statement and see the list of who comprises PNAC?
Go to their official site again - it is not a secret.

I advise you to do your own research. Dig into the PNAC website, google keyword "PNAC", then do some research on the "Clean Break" policy paper and compare and contrast them. Research the neocons - it is EASY to do, and information is available even when the mainstream media considers such simple connect the dots 5 minute google investigative journalism as taboo.

You will come to the conclusion that both the PNAC mission statement and the 'Clean Break' policy paper were written by the same, or very like minded people, setting forth an action plan detailing what America should do to "make Israel more secure".

This action plan was only partially realized (after all, Iraq was supposed to be the first victim, with Iran and Syria getting their turn next, which did not happen - yet).

There is still work to be done "to make Israel more secure".

advanced web statistics


Anonymous said...

Alot of the resentment towards the neo-cons comes not only for lying us into a trillion dollar boondoggle that has pissed off the rest of the earth, but their missionairy-like zeal to completely open this nations borders to everyone on the damned planet. I mean what is good for the goose is good for the gander right? How about one or two million Darfur black Africans to Israel? Try that wont'd get some resistance BIG TIME.

Everybody would like their "own" nation. Europeans would do, but its too politically incorrect to admit aloud. Africans want American money, but they sure as hell wouldn't want us down there (well, maybe the men would like a few blondes, but thats another story). The Chinese wouldn't want 500 million white people coming to China, the Indians wouldn't want 500 million Arabs either. The corporate-multiracial-uniculture is soulless and empty. No one really wants it except the elite, who figure "why dont we just have one universal nation with our corporations "atop it" and our news organizations "informing" it?"

Anonymous said...

BTW----Have you ever wondered why Israel, in its easily superior military and economic power, doesn't just build a huge wall around itself and not allow any Palestinians to live there or force them into Jordan or Gaza or the West Bank?

I have, and here is what I come up with................Israel WANTS some friction because it WANTS to exand. Israel isn't finished expanding yet. She may not be itching to go all John Hagee and move all the way east to the Euphrates...........but to the Jordanian border and a chunk of Southern Syria is probably a long-term objective to the Likudniks. I imagine they'd like Gaza in their innermost thoughts if they could just get those dastardly Palestinians to up and dissapear from it.

There is no good way to "do this" without a bunch of friction. I empathize (always have) with Israel. They are a urbane, civilized, educated bunch having to live with religious fanatics (although a few of the Hasidic are as religiously fanatic as anybody you will come across admittedly). Ive even wondered that if Israel offered Saudi Arabia and the Palestinians enough money, if the Saudis (or Iranians or Kuwaittis or Turkish or Pakistanis) would accept the Palestinian population if they were given homes and cars and enough money to last several years in the new nations that would be Islamic for them. But they wouldn't take the money and many of the Palestinians wouldn't move---------------so we just have to have a flabberghasting mess I suppose. Americans dont understand this as we can move whenever we like it here between states over great distances.

Anonymous said...

How do you know for sure that the holocaust really did happen as you are told? I wasn't there so i cannot confirm nor deny it. Some people did research,
i hate it to live in a world where we have to question every bit of information because the lies are all around us. We are marinated in lies, soaked to the bones...

Anonymous said...

sry, that last link seems chopped of, search google video for "one third of the holocaust". Here is a link again

AmericanGoy said...

Sorry am not big on Holocaust denial.

If you are in doubt, go to Poland and visit the death camps - they are still there, a silent monument to industrial scale murder.

I am however cognizant of the fact that the Shoah, the great suffering of the Jewish people, was kidnapped and used to promote political and economic programs.

See my "Holocaust Industry" article.

Unknown said...

This article was excellent, American Goy.

Anonymous said...

It never ceases to amaze me how people look at the official narrative of the holocaust in simple terms where one accepts the official story lock stock and barrel or is a 'denier'.

There was great deal of exaggeration & distortion about the holocaust. The gas chambers alleged to have existed at Dachau are now debunked. Throwing live people into ovens, making lampshades ans soap (Elie Weisel's fables) are also no longer believed to be true. The number of Jews said to be exterminated at Auschwitz has dropped from 4 million to .7 - 1.1 million, yet the official death toll is still claimed to be 6 million. How so?

Take a look at this film by David Cole, an atheist Jew:

Simlarly, this film, One Third of the Holocaust documents many of the grotesque exaggerations:

Most of the evidence for gassing comes from testimony extracted by torture. The fact is the allies had intercepted all communications going into or out of Auschwitz long before it was liberated by the Red Army. There was no communication about exterminations or mass killings. The Nuremberg trials were largely the equivalent of Soviet style show trials.

The fact is these were labor camps. People were killed, but the evidence for large scale industrialized genocide is weak to say the least.

Take a look at episodes 2,3, 11, 13, 20, and 28. Decide for yourself if the physical evidence supports the official narrative:

Anonymous said...


British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes

By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:53am BST 05/04/2008

British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Baghdad government.

A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment. In closely watched testimony in Washington next week, Gen Petraeus will state that the Iranian threat has risen as Tehran has supplied and directed attacks by militia fighters against the Iraqi state and its US allies.

The outbreak of Iraq's worst violence in 18 months last week with fighting in Basra and the daily bombardment of the Green Zone diplomatic enclave, demonstrated that although the Sunni Muslim insurgency is dramatically diminished, Shia forces remain in a strong position to destabilise the country.

"Petraeus is going to go very hard on Iran as the source of attacks on the American effort in Iraq," a British official said. "Iran is waging a war in Iraq. The idea that America can't fight a war on two fronts is wrong, there can be airstrikes and other moves," he said.

"Petraeus has put emphasis on America having to fight the battle on behalf of Iraq. In his report he can frame it in terms of our soldiers killed and diplomats dead in attacks on the Green Zone."

Tension between Washington and Tehran is already high over Iran's covert nuclear programme. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes.

In remarks interpreted as signalling a change in his approach to Iran, Gen Petraeus last week hit out at the Iranian leadership. "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said. "All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts."

The humiliation of the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki by the Iranian-backed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in fighting in Basra last week triggered top-level warnings over Iran's strength in Iraq.

Gen Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Baghdad, will answer questions from American political leaders at the US Congress on Tuesday and Wednesday before travelling to London to brief Gordon Brown.

The Wall Street Journal said last week that the US war effort in Iraq must have a double goal.

"The US must recognise that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq," wrote the military analyst Kimberly Kagan.

There are signs that targeting Iran would unite American politicians across the bitter divide on Iraq. "Iran is the bull in the china shop," said Ike Skelton, the Democrat chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "In all of this, they seem to have links to all of the Shi'ite groups, whether they be political or military."

Source: Telegraph. UK

The Wall Street Journal said... it said what the Zionist traitor, Rupert Murdoch wanted it to say.

Murdoch's media empire played no small part in helping to promote the Iraq invasion by repeating, if not manufacturing, some of the lies used to get America to fight Israel's war against Iraq.

Media whores like Kimberly Kagan, wife of Frederick Kagan, another war prostitute, are doing their master's bidding by promoting lie after lie to help get America to fight Israel's "existential" enemy, Iran.

The Kagan family are notorious Israeli-firsters, not having met a war, occupation or murder of anything Muslim/Arab/Palestinian they didn't like.

These types of beings like to live on their knees, since that's the easiest way to pick up the shekels tossed in their direction.. and the easiest way to slurp on a Zionist Flesh Popsicle.

Here's some info on that family of war pigs in Source Watch

Kagan "authored the so-called 'real Iraq Study Group' report as the AEI's 'hawkish' rival to the ISG report of James Baker and Lee H. Hamilton in December 2006. The AEI report, titled Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq, was released on January 5, 2007, and Kagan was said to have won-over the ear of President George W. Bush." [2][3]

Kagan was a signatory to the January 28, 2005, Project for the New American Century letter to Congress calling for "Increasing U.S. Ground Forces" in Iraq. He was also a signatory to a September 20, 2001, "open letter" in which the PNAC urged President Bush "that the war on terrorism include the removal of Iraqi president Saddam Hussain [sic] 'even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [ 9/11 ] attack.'" [4]

Kagan is the brother to foreign policy analyst Robert Kagan, "also a scholar," who was a "founding member of the Project for the New American Century. With fellow PNAC founder Bill Kristol, Robert wrote the [January 30,] 1998 New York Times article 'Bombing Iraq isn't Enough' that asserted: [5]

"If Mr. Clinton is serious about protecting us and our allies from Iraqi biological and chemical weapons, he will order ground forces to the gulf. Four heavy divisions and two airborne divisions are available for deployment. The President should act, and Congress should support him in the only policy that can succeed."

Kagan is the son of Donald Kagan, who is a professor at Yale and a fellow at the Hudson Institute. Frederick, Robert, who is a member of the Aspen Strategy Group, and their father Donald are "all signatories to the neoconservative Project for the New American Century manifesto titled Rebuilding America's Defenses (2000)." [6]

Anonymous said...

American Goy...
You need to check your history. Zionism has been around for very much longer than AFTER WW2. As a matter of fact...

[Some uninformed defenders of the Holocaust tale declare that if the Jews hadn't been forced or taken against their will from their homes and lifestyles, none of this would have never happened even if it were just the unfortunate death of hundreds of thousands by starvation and typhus. Very few understand that there were TWO entities that wanted the German, later European Jews, to emigrate out of Germany and Europe...the German Nazis and the Zionists. The World Zionist Organization and the American Jewish Council were adamant that Jews emigrate nowhere else than Palestine. The Germans had tried to arrange emigration to Madagascar and Uganda but those possibilities were closed by Jewish organizations. What remained is a working relationship with the Zionist organizations Irgun and Haganah to facilitate emigration to Palestine. The British made this difficult.

Edwin Black, of Jewish heritage, an erudite scholar wrote The Transfer Agreement: The Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine, published in 1984. Dr. Sybil Milton of the Simon Wiesenthal Center calls it,

a spellbinding, exciting book. This subject has not been previously explored. It adds a significant new dimension to our understanding of this critical era."

Yoav Gelber of the Yad Vashem Israel Holocaust Museum states,

Edwin Black's research is striking in its dimension and scope. The vast uncovering of source material and its extensive use are almost overwhelming. He penetrates deep into the political and economic processes of inter-Jewish relations and into gentile attitudes involving the rescue of Jews from Nazi rule for the benefit of the Zionist enterprise of Eretz Yisrael.

Black focuses primarily on the effects of the Zionist elements among world Jewry which had declared war on Germany by means of a boycott on all German goods.
Although propagandists attempt to dismiss this amazing event as just a newspaper headline, it lead to high level negotiations between the German government and Zionists. Since Jews controlled much of the world's shipping, they could effectively block German commerce. The terms of the Transfer Agreement were that the boycott would end in return to the transfer of German Jews to the Palestine.

The German Chancellor, Heinrich Bruning, had responded to the boycott by establishing currency restrictions that prevented ANYONE, German or foreigner, Christian or Jew, from transferring their wealth out of the country without permission. The restriction was NOT aimed at Jews OR Christians, but at speculators and hoarders.

At the same time, the British, who controlled the Palestine under a League of Nations mandate following WW I, limited Jewish entry into Palestine only to those in possession of at least a thousand pounds (equal to about $5000 today).

read this informative article here:


There is quite alot of historical fact about the collaboration of zionists and the nazis. Zionism has been an organized political entity since the late 19th century.

Anonymous said...

Israel Lobby Watch:

NY Expat said...

Just a couple of things:

First, it's really unfair to conflate neocons with the rest of us American Jews.

Second, the Zionist movement started in the late 19th century, during the Dreyfus trials in France, where Dreyfus was accused of...Dual Loyalty!

As Bender might say, "Now that's irony!"

NY Expat said...

Just a couple of things:

First, it's really unfair to conflate neocons with the rest of us American Jews.

Second, the Zionist movement started in the late 19th century, during the Dreyfus trials in France, where Dreyfus was accused of...Dual Loyalty!

As Bender might say, "Now that's irony!"