Israelis Killed more Palestinians Last Year than in any Year since 1967

Why do the American people allow and even condone and fund  the slaughter of those who mean us no harm? It is shameful for us to elect those that are tolerant of such human cruelties. This is not American in any form of the past and cannot be America's future.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

A Palestinian man carries an injured girl
into the Shifa hospital following Israeli
strikes in Gaza City (AP Photo)

The year 2014 was a dangerous one to be a Palestinian. More Palestinians were killed by Israel than in any year since the occupation of Palestinian territories began in 1967.

According to a report (pdf) by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in 2,314 Palestinians were killed last year and an estimated 17,125 were injured in fighting with Israeli forces. That compares to 87 Israelis killed in the hostilities. Israeli injuries totaled an estimated 2,629.

Most of the deaths came in the fighting in Gaza between July 7 and August 26. During those hostilities, 2,220 Palestinians were killed, 1,492 of them civilians, 551 of whom were children. This included 142 Palestinian families who saw three or more family members killed because of attacks on their residences. These attacks on residential buildings accounted for 742 deaths.

During the Gaza fighting, 71 Israelis were killed, 66 of them soldiers.

Deaths were also up among West Bank and East Jerusalem Palestinians. There were 58 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces last year, as opposed to 28 in 2013 and eight the year before. Sixteen Israelis were killed as a result of conflict in this region in 2014, compared to four the previous year and none in 2012. Most of the 6,028 injuries were caused by rubber-coated metal bullets or tear gas inhalation.

The U.N. report criticized both sides in the conflict for their failure to adequately distinguish between civilians and combatants. It urged the Israelis to refrain from launching attacks that endanger non-combatants when deaths and injuries to civilians “would be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated.” The report urged Palestinian armed groups to “refrain from the indiscriminate firing of rockets and other projectiles at Israel and not endanger civilians by using their neighborhoods to launch attacks and shield combatants.

Although the Israeli Military Advocate General announced criminal investigations into 19 “exceptional incidents,” the authors of the report, based on previous experiences, were not optimistic about the issue of accountability. For example, following the Gaza War of 2008-2009, in which Israeli forces killed an estimated 759 Palestinian civilians, “only three soldiers were convicted, with the longest sentence involving the theft of a credit card.” 

There is no evidence that Palestinian authorities have ever investigated possible human rights violations by Palestinian armed groups.

In a separate report, Amnesty International accused Palestinian armed groups of committing war crimes “by repeatedly launching indiscriminate rockets and mortars towards civilian areas in Israel.” 
A previous report accused the Israelis of committing war crimes.

-David Wallechinsky, Steve Straehley

To Learn More:

Fragmented Lives (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian territory) (pdf)

U.S. Only Country of 47 to Vote against Investigating Possible Human Rights Violations during Israeli Occupation of Gaza (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)

"Standing with Israel" is Anti-Christian, Anti-Jewish & Anti-American (32m Documentary)

Christian Zionism: The Tragedy and The Turning, Part I (Full Documentary) from WHTT on Vimeo.

"Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person." - Socialism

Israel's Jews trapped in their own narrative

By Alan Hart

In recent months nothing has made me more angry than an article written and posted on 11 December by Alon Ben-Meir with a headline that described the occupied and oppressed Palestinians as being “Trapped in their public narrative”. It included this statement. 

“The Palestinians haven’t learned that they cannot have it both ways: demand a state of their own and threaten Israel’s very existence.”

My immediate response was this.

The only threat to Israel’s very existence is its on-going colonisation of the occupied West Bank (ethnic cleansing slowly and by stealth) and the sickening Zionist self-righteousness that justifies it.

The anger provoked in me by Ben-Meir’s article was accompanied by surprise at what he wrote because this Baghdad-born Jewish gentleman, currently a professor of international relations and Middle East studies at the Centre for Global Affairs at New York University, is internationally respected and not without influence in the corridors of power. He is a passionate supporter of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and an outspoken critic of Israel’s leaders for ignoring it. (His post before the one I am debunking here was headlined “How Netanyahu committed political suicide”, and the following was its opening sentence. “Prime Minister Netanyahu’s insistence on passing a bill that will define Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people is as disgusting as his denial that Israel is an occupying power.”)

The main purpose of “Trapped in their public narrative” was to convey this message.

Not withstanding the growing support of the international community, the Palestinians will be mistaken to assume that the international community will solve their conflict with Israel… Neither the Europeans nor the US who enjoy certain leverage with Israel will be able to force the hand of any hardcore right wing Israeli leader… Only the Palestinians themselves can change the Israeli public perception.

The flesh Ben-Meir put on those bones included the following.

The Palestinians’ constant acrimonious public narrative against Israel has and continues to damage their credibility in the eyes of many Israelis…They are now increasingly focused on evoking international sympathy for their cause, but have failed time and again to appeal to the Israeli public, which matters the most to realise their stated objective of a Palestinian state.

The Palestinians appear to be trapped in their rancorous public narrative against Israel, even during the peace negotiations. Coupled with widespread anti-Israeli teaching in schools, regular media attacks and indoctrination in many public and private institutions, this is what Israelis see, hear, fear and believe.

The Palestinians fail to understand that they have nurtured persuasive anti-Israeli sentiment among the Palestinians and strong anti-Palestinian feeling among the Israelis, which is to the detriment of peace.

It is time for the Palestinians to re-examine the shifting political landscape in Israel and change course now, however incongruous that may be, because it is indispensable to their overall objective.

The Palestinians need to recognise that there is a psychological dimension to their conflict with Israel, traced back through decades of mutual hatred and mistrust. The frequent verbal attacks and the characterisation of Israel as a racist and apartheid state only reinforce the Israelis’ resentment and distrust of the Palestinians.

The PA [Palestinian Authority] seems to ignore the fact that their constant anti-Israeli public sentiments play into the hands of the powerful right constituency while weakening the hands of the centre and left-of-centre, which represent the majority of Israelis.

The Israeli political parties from the centre and left want to hear a language of reconciliation…The Palestinians cannot expect the Israelis to dismiss their public onslaught as empty rhetoric… Only the Palestinians themselves can change the Israeli public perception – not by mere political slogans but by demonstrating that they can be trusted and are a worthy negotiating partner.

The Palestinians must separate (draw a distinction) between the Israeli government and people. Every single Palestinian leader must carefully think about how his or her public utterances affect the Israeli electorate, especially during national elections. There is a steady shift to the right and maligning Israel during the campaign will only further strengthen the right and weaken the centre and the left.

I am not naive to suggest that by merely changing their public narrative positively the Palestinians will instantly and dramatically alter the political map in Israel in favour of the left and centre. But if the Palestinians want to realise statehood, they must change their rancorous narrative sooner rather than later, and the Israeli elections offer a unique opportunity to begin this shift.

I agree with Ben-Meir to the extent that between now and Israel’s election in March it would be a good idea for the Palestinians to remind Israel’s Jews, constantly and explicitly, that the ground on their side for peace on terms which a sane government of Israel would have accepted with relief was prepared 35 years ago by Yasser Arafat.

But also to be said is that the idea (implicit in Ben-Meir’s article) that only the occupied and oppressed Palestinians can bring Israel’s Jews to their senses and get them to understand the extent to which they have been brainwashed by their leaders is ridiculous.

In my view the most awesome flaw in Ben-Meir’s logic can be summarised as follows.

It assumes by obvious implication that Israel’s Jews are the victims in the story of Palestine that became Israel when, actually, and as the whole world is beginning to understand, they are the oppressors.

From that it follows, it seems to me, that it’s Israel’s Jews not the Palestinians who have got to make the first major move if there is ever to be peace based on justice for the Palestinians and security for all. And what does that first major move have to be?

An acknowledgment that a terrible wrong was done to the Palestinians by Zionism in the name of all Jews and that this wrong must be righted.

via redressonline

Israel teaches brutality to your security agencies

Posted on December 10, 2014
 
Early this year, in Denver (Colorado) ex-Israeli soldier Eran Efrati, explained how Israel Occupation Force (IOF) have militarized foreign law enforcement agencies in countries like the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, Brazil, Turkey, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, India, etc. “Israeli soldiers are intensely trained for a war, whilst their actual military duties are to subdue and control Palestinians,” he said. Watch video below.

Currently, every Jewish-controlled media is talking about the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture practices that includes “interrogators threatened to rape a detainee’s mother, forced others to stand on broken feet, and inserted hummus into one’s rectum“, something routinely applied on Palestinian youth by Israeli interrogators. According to Karen Greenburg, a leading American national security expert, “After 9/11 we reached out to the Israelis on many fronts and one of those fronts was torture. 

The training in Iraq and Afghanistan on torture was Israeli training. There’s been a huge downside to taking our cue from the Israelis and now we’re going to spread that into the fabric of everyday American life? It’s counter-terrorism creep. And it’s exactly what you could have predicted would have happened.” Read more here.

In December 2011, American Jewish investigative reporter Max Blumenthal reported the total Israelification of US law enforcement agencies.

In the six month period from March 1, 2014 to August 31, 2014, eighty of London’s Metropolitan staff members took practical training course while watching Israeli military murdering over 2,300 civilians in Gaza including 550 children.

The British government routinely hires Israeli lobbyists to demonize British Muslims. The British government asked professor Alan Johnson, an Israeli lobbyist to write a report that examines journeys taken by young British Muslims ‘in and out of extremism’. He was also hired to develop strategies to counter so-called “radicalization” (being pro-Palestinian) among Muslim youth.

Professor Alexis Jay, another Zionist hag was the author of recent report on Pakistani/Bangladeshi Muslims involved in rapping over 1,400 British women (girlfriends and street women). In her report, Jay forgot to mention UK’s most Jewish Catholic paedophile James Savile. He was investigated for rapping nearly 400 men and boys in his BBC office.

On December 9, 2003, the UK’s Guardian reported that Israeli military officials are training US assassination squad in Iraq. “It is bonkers, insane. Here we are – we’re already being compared to Sharon in the Arab world, and we’ve just confirmed it by bringing in the Israelis and setting up assassination teams,” said a military officer at Fort Bragg in North Carolina.

Protesters in Missouri yelled at police, “You gonna shoot us? Is this the Gaza Strip?” They were right to be concerned. Thousands of US law enforcement officers have trained in Israel or attended Israeli government-sponsored conferences to learn how Israel’s police and security forces prevent “terror attacks.” (Two law enforcement agencies deployed in Ferguson took courses in Israel, according to the Anti-Defamation League.) Israel can teach many lessons on how to dehumanize neighbors and crush dissent.

http://rehmat1.com/2014/12/10/israel-teaches-brutality-to-your-security-agencies/

 

Iran is the Only Defender of Palestinian Rights

Posted on November 30, 2014
“The real reason for Israel’s simmering hostility toward Iran is Palestine. Now that most of the feeble Arab states have been removed from the former anti-Israel coalition, the only remaining stalwart defender of Palestinian rights – an opponent of Israel’s total absorption of the West Bank and Golan – is Iran,” Eric Margolis, US-Canadian veteran journalist and author, posted on November 29, 2014.

“If the (US-Iran nuclear) deal is sabotaged, and if I was an Iranian, I would want my government to develop and possess a nuclear bomb or two for the purpose of deterrence. 

My logic would be that if Saddam Hussein had possessed nuclear weapons Iraq would not have been attacked and invaded. And that’s a logic that might well prevail in Iran if an agreement with the P5+1 is sabotaged,” Alan Hart, veteran British war correspondent and author, posted on November 29, 2014.

“No matter how much Iranian government agrees to Washington’s demands, nothing will satisfy Israel other than a US-Iran war. The US and Israel, two terrorist states, want a Western-puppet regime in Iran,” Steve Lendman, American Jewish writer and radio talk-show host.

Joe Cirincione, president Ploughshares Fund, a global anti-nuclear arms advocacy group and author of ‘Nuclear Nightmares’, said: “These talks are an historic opportunity to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb and prevent another war in the Middle East. Diplomacy is working. Under the interim agreement, Iran froze and rolled back its nuclear activities. Under the extension, Iran’s nuclear program remains frozen. That’s a win for the US and our allies.”

Iran is the only Muslim country which had supported the freedom-fighters in several countries, such as, Palestine, Bosnia, apartheid South Africa, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Sudan. The military, financial and moral support to oppressed people around the world is enshrined in the Constitution (Article 3) of the Islamic Republic.

“The expansion and strengthening of Islamic brotherhood and cooperation among all, and unsparing support to oppressed of the world,” it says, while Article 154 calls for support “of the just struggles of the oppressed against the arrogant in every corner of the globe“.

While every professional Zionist liar never stop repeating anti-Hamas mantra that group’s founding charter calls for the destruction (read “recovery of Arab stolen land”) of Israel. Here is something worth reading from Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party’s manifesto.

1. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of state of Israel.”

2. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of state of Israel (not even recognized by the US, UN, EU or NAM) and only of Israel. The government will reject Palestinian demand to divide the city.” Jerusalem was divided by UNSC into Israeli West Jerusalem and Palestinian East Jerusalem in 1947.

3. “The government of Israel will flatly reject the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of Jordan river.”

4. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samara (West Bank) and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. The settlement of the land is clear expression of the unassailable rights of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.” A Zionist Christians’ fantasy for the second-coming of Jesus.
Source Rehmat

Netanyahu Is a National Security Risk - and Washington Knows It by Adil E. Shamoo

If not a Netanyahu, then who? 

It’ll be another creation from the Zionist family tree, just as the Bushes grew into a Clinton and Obama. Our own congressional traitors can partner-up with anyone providing they grease their palms and elevate their prestige whether they be Republican neocons or on AIPAC payroll. Yes, indeed, while deckhand sailors may swab the deck of the present swill, the same officers navigating our ship of state will remain on the bridge.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An anonymous U.S. official caused a dustup when he called the Israeli prime minister "chickenshit." Others might have said worse


Adil E. Shamoo and Peter Certo, November 11, 2014 


<![if !vml]><![endif]>Last month, an anonymous US official stirred a tempest in a teapot when he called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a chickenshit” in comments to the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. The insinuation was that while Netanyahu will happily rile up his right-wing base on issues related to Palestine or Iran, he lacks the political courage to take meaningful steps to resolve either conflict.

State Department officials scurried to disavow themselves of the remark. But the incident revealed an increasingly common conclusion in Washington: Netanyahu’s foot-dragging on Middle East peace is not only frustrating for the United States – it’s dangerous.

Once a taboo subject in Washington, the value of the U.S.-Israeli alliance has increasingly come under scrutiny among even leading members of the foreign policy establishment.

As Anthony Cordesman – a Mideast expert at the center-right Center for Strategic and International Studies – observed, “It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it test the limits of US patience and exploits the support of American Jews.”

General David Petraeus, back when he was the head of the US Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel.” Even President Obama has listed the conflict as a factor in US wars in the Middle East that are “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

These comments by leading American figures were made four years ago – well before the Obama administration had had its biggest dustups with Netanyahu’s government. Two Gaza wars and another round of failed peace talks later, nothing has changed except Israel’s increasing willingness to flout international law – as it did in its massive assault on Gaza earlier this year, which killed some 1,500 civilians.

Now, even US Secretary of State John Kerry – a pro-Israel stalwart – admits, to the chagrin of Israeli officials, that the lack of progress in peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians is feeding support for the Islamic State. “There wasn’t a leader I met with in the region,” Kerry said of his efforts to cobble together an anti-Islamic State coalition, “who didn’t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation.”

One would think that such complaints from a key ally and patron would elicit some soul-searching in the Israeli government. Yet instead of charting a new course in his speech at the United Nations last September, Netanyahu fell back on an old, lazy recipe of demonization, equating Hamas with the Islamic State and the Islamic State with Iran. And he continued oft-used delaying tactics, inviting the current coalition of Arab countries fighting the Islamic State to draft a new peace proposal for Israel and the Palestinians – despite his longstanding rejection of the Arab Peace Initiative drafted over 10 years ago by many of those same countries. Officials in the Obama administration were reportedly “unconvinced” that Netanyahu’s proposal was sincere, given his lack of interest in direct talks with the Palestinians themselves.

In addition, just days before an October meeting with President Obama, Israel announced plans to construct 2,610 new housing units in East Jerusalem in violation of existing agreements. In a rare public rebuke, Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said that the new settlements will alienate Israel’s “closest allies” – presumably including Washington – and “call into question Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.”

Uncowed, Netanyahu dismissed the criticism, describing the US rejection of the new settlements as “against American values” and “anti-peace.” When an Israeli prime minister describes longstanding US strategic interests – in this case, conditions that would enable the creation of a viable Palestinian state and a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – as “un-American,” it’s a clear indication that the United States cannot continue its current course of appeasing Israel’s every demand.

That’s a conclusion increasingly shared by Israel’s longtime allies in Europe. Sweden’s new government recently indicated that it will recognize Palestine as a state. The UK parliament followed up with a symbolic recognition vote of its own, and more European countries may soon do the same.

Groups in the United States and in Europe, meanwhile, have worked with Palestinian activists to organize a boycott of Israeli settlement products and academic institutions. Indeed, US civil society – including many Jewish organizations – is now leaps and bounds ahead of the US government when it comes to rethinking the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu now looks poised to mobilize his supporters in the US Congress to vote against any nuclear agreement between Washington and Tehran.

Yet even as official Washington simmers with frustration at Netanyahu’s simultaneous demands for US support and disregard for US interests, officials rushed to put out the fire started by the anonymous “chickenshit” quip. As Foreign Policy’s Steve Walt put it, if Washington pretends that the “‘special relationship’ is hunky-dory, even when it is obvious to even casual observers that it is not,” then “Netanyahu’s not chickenshit – the White House is.”

Adil E. Shamoo is professor at University of Maryland and an associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. He is a senior analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus Foreign Policy in Focus, and the author of Equal Worth – When Humanity Will Have Peace. Peter Certo is the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be reached at ashamoo@som.umaryland.edu.
via AntiWar

Christian Evangelicals increasingly support Palestinian human rights

Alison Weir Counterpunch
September 29, 2014

An article in Middle East Quarterly, a pro-Israel publication, reports that support for Israel is eroding among American evangelical Christians, with only 30 percent in a recent survey stating support for Israel above Palestinians.

This trend is even more pronounced among youth, according to an article by David Brog, Jewish-American executive director of Christians United For Israel (CUFI), a major pro-Israel organization. Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu has called CUFI “a vital part of Israel’s national security” and columnist Charles Kauthammer has said, “I do not know of an organization in the world more important to Israel than CUFI.”

Brog’s article, “The End of Evangelical Support for Israel?” is largely pitched as a wake-up call to Israel partisans who, according to Brog, “must take this threat seriously.” (For more on Brog, see below)

Brog quotes a journalist reporting in 2012 about the “the largest gathering of young evangelical leaders in America,” the Catalyst convention: “In dozens of random conversations, I noted that Millenians … expressed solidarity with the Palestinians and annoyance with Israel. This is a seismic shift in the American church and a serious threat to Israel’s one traditional area of support.”

A decade ago, Brog reports, “As if out of nowhere, a block of fifty to one hundred million friends of Israel were poised to enter the national debate and safeguard the U.S.-Israel relationship for generations to come.”*

Today, however, Brog describes a significant reversal. As more and more evangelicals learn the facts on Israel-Palestine (Brog calls such information an “anti-Israel narrative”) they are dropping their unconditional support for Israel.

While evangelical support for Israel has often been attributed to their theology, Brog’s article indicates that the significant factor in the shift is learning the true situation in Israel-Palestine.

Brog states that there is a precedent for such an about-face. 

While many mainline Protestant churches used to support Israel, he states that today “to the extent the mainline denominations act corporately in connection with the Jewish state, it is to divest from it.”

Similarly, as evangelicals learn more about the issue, Brog reports that “more leaders of this generation are moving toward neutrality in the conflict while others are becoming outspoken critics of Israel.”

Brog writes, “Questioning Christian support for the Jewish state is fast becoming a key way for the millennials to demonstrate their Christian compassion and political independence.”

Today, Brog writes, many of those 18 to 30 are “rebelling against what they perceive as the excessive biblical literalism and political conservatism of their parents. As they strive with a renewed vigor to imitate Jesus’ stand with the oppressed and downtrodden, they want to decide for themselves which party is being oppressed in the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

Brog cites a 2010 Pew survey of evangelical leaders attending the Third Lausanne Congress of World Evangelization that “contained two bombshells. It showed that only a minority of those evangelicals polled sympathized primarily with Israel. And it demonstrated that American evangelical leaders were actually less inclined to support Israel than evangelical leaders in general.” The survey found that 49% of American evangelical leaders sympathize with both sides equally and 13% sympathize primarily with the Palestinians.

Brog also notes that the survey indicated that evangelical support for Israel was “never as universal as was commonly believed.”

Much of the increased awareness of the situation, Brog reports, comes from evangelical experts on the Middle East who are speaking and writing widely on this issue, producing documentaries, organizing trips to the region, and creating conferences to inform Christians on the facts.

In the last few years three documentaries were made by Christians specifically for Christians to inform them on Palestine: With God on Our Side, Little Town of Bethlehem, and The Stones Cry Out. They were created by, respectively, Porter Speakman, a former Youth with a Mission member, Mart Green, chairman of the board of trustees of Oral Roberts University, and Yasmine Perni, an Italian journalist. Brog also names evangelicals such as Jim Wallis, Stephen Sizer, Tony Campolo, Serge Duss and sons Brian and Matt, and Palestinian Christians such as Sami Awad and Naim Ateek as among those educating Christians on Palestine. FINISH READING

The 1917 Balfour Conspiracy: How the US and UK Zionists Prolonged WWI & Put the World at Risk ever Since *full vid*

▶ Benjamin H. Freedman 1961 speech - YouTube

Published on Dec 29, 2013

Frankly speaking against Zionism in 1961: Benjamin H. Freedman speech at the Willard Hotel. Transcripts:http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/is...
There are also opposiing arguments
http://www.redstate.com/diary/barrypo...
Some crazy people have taken over Wikipedia pages on B.H.Freedman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AB...
The Truth will stand on its own merit
by Benjamin H. Freedman
Born in 1890, he was a successful Jewish businessman in New York City. He was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He defected from the Jewish movement in 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and most of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the USA.

Freedman had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations involved in gaining power in the USA. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.

Available speech transcripts

http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=428
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Guil...
Weizmann-Balfour relationship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_...

Balfour Declaration: (To understand what happened it's best to read all of the paragraphs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_...
Montagu was the second British Jew to enter the Cabinet, the inner circle of government. However, he was strongly opposed to Zionism, which he called "a mischievous political creed", and opposed the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which he considered anti-semitic and whose terms he managed to modify. In a memo to the Cabinet, he outlined his views on Zionism thus: "...I assume that it means that Mahommedans [Muslims] and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test."[4] He was opposed by his cousin Herbert Samuel, a moderate Zionist who became the first High Commissioner of the British Mandate of Palestine.

Must watch: Strive movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AF...

Sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 was an Anglo-American Staged False Flag Conspiracy

Ted Cruz Enrages Jews and Christians by his support for the Israel Zionist State

Ted Cruz: Christians must support Israel

Within one month after the election, new Senator Ted Cruz twice traveled to Israel. Here he meets with his new boss, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On Thursday, Canadian-born American Senator Ted (Refael) Cruz with Cuban Jewish family roots, was booed offstage during a dinner for the Middle East's Christian conference in Washington DC. "Christians have no greater ally than Israel. Tonight, we are all united in defense of Christians. Tonight, we are all united in defense of Jews," Ted Cruz said. Ted Cruz, who is one of many Israel's lackeys in the US Senate angered Christian audience including Lebanon's ambassador in Washington, Antoine Chedid, when he started ranting Israeli hasbara lies about Jewish love for the Christians. In 2012 former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren tried to stop Bob Simon's report on Christians' plight in Israel scheduled to be aired by the CBS. In addition to pleasing the Jewish Lobby, Cruz also evoked some of pastor John Hagee's "religious" lies. He showed his "American Christian patriotism" by saying: "Those who hate Israel hate America. Those who hate Jews hate Christians. If those in this room don't recognize that, then my heart weeps." "If you hate the Jewish people, you're not reflecting the teachings of Jesus," Cruz added. According to Jewish scholar, Benjamin Freedman, Jesus was not Jewish. Then Ted Cruz turned his wrath over to the supporters of Palestinian people, Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran and Syria. To add some spices to his "Zionist curry", Cruz included Zionist-created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS terrorists among Israel's Muslim enemies. "Religious bigotry is a cancer with many manifestations," he said. "ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, state sponsors like Syria and Iran, are all engaged in a vicious genocidal campaign to destroy religious minorities in the Middle East," Cruz said. Cruz's comments on the region were too extreme for the audience, and provoked a round of cries that firmly asked him to leave. "Stop it, stop it, enough," and "Out, out, leave the stage!" were some of the shouts aimed at the senator, which prompted the In Defense of Christians (the sponsor of the said conference) president, Toufic Baaklini, to join Cruz on stage and ask the crowd to listen. After failing in attempts to be heard, the senator announced "if you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you. Good night and God bless," before walking off the stage, with some carrying on the shouts and others applauding his departure. Lebanese Christian MPs Jean Ogassapian, Atef Majdalani and former MP  Ghattas Khoury all left the conference in protest to Cruz' Israeli propaganda. Patriarch Gregory III Laham also intended to leave but was persuaded by the Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai, a Zionist poodle, to stay.

View article...

Most Americans Say US Gives Too Much Aid to Israel by Grant Smith

Surveys are more accurate with the inclusion of key facts

by Grant Smith, September 30, 2014 

Most Americans believe the United States is giving too much foreign aid to Israel according to an online survey. The American Public Opinion on U.S. Aid to Israel (PDF) survey was fielded via Google Consumer Surveys between September 26-29, 2014 as a necessary follow-up to the release of the influential Chicago Council on Global Affairs 2014 report. Middle East analysts eagerly await the biennial Chicago Council survey results and its frank reflections of American views about foreign policy toward the region. Many are surprised by Chicago Council’s conclusions that 64 percent of Americans prefer not to take sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict and that 55 percent would oppose sending U.S. troops to protect Israel if it struck Iran.

However, this year the Chicago Council also concludes that the majority of Americans would keep economic and military aid to Israel, Mexico, Taiwan, Afghanistan Iraq, Egypt and Pakistan “about the same.” Only a small percentage would increase aid, while most of the rest would prefer to decrease or stop aid altogether. One problem identified by the Chicago Council is that most Americans believe such aid to most countries is far more than it actually is. A second issue is that “this question was asked before August violence between Israel and Palestinians…” Despite these factors, the Council confidently concludes “Americans tend to support maintaining or increasing military aid to Israel, Taiwan and Mexico. In a pattern similar to preferences for economic aid, the public tends to favor decreasing or stopping military aid to Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.”

The Chicago Council survey suffers a fatal third flaw in its approach to the foreign aid question – lack of relevant comparative data given to respondents. The 2014 U.S. foreign aid budget (PDF) for Mexico is $206 million; Afghanistan is $749 million while Pakistan is $881 million with Iraq getting $73 million. Meanwhile Egypt and Israel receive lion’s shares with $1.6 billion to Egypt and a whopping $3.1 billion for Israel. 

Furthermore, aid to Israel has increased on average 30 percent annually since 1970. Israel now receives 9 percent of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget while benefiting from Egypt’s 5 percent share which is justified as maintaining the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace agreement. In Israel’s case, the figure understates actual aid levels since Congress is regularly tapped by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its donor network for additional military aid and joint program funding. Official figures also omit the value of intelligence sharing, such as the massive flows of raw intelligence on Americans approved by President Obama in 2009 and revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

How do Americans really feel about aid to Israel when it is put in perspective? To find out, IRmep surveyed the same statistically significant number of American adults as the Chicago Council (around 2,108). Obviously, the IRmep Google Consumer Survey was fielded after the brutal Israeli invasion of Gaza – a significant difference. The survey question, however, included the necessary context that the Chicago Council left out, asking, “The U.S. gives Israel over $3 billion annually (9% of the foreign aid budget and more than any other country). The amount is.” Respondents could choose between “much too much, too much, about right, too little, and much too little.” The order of choices were randomly reversed to avoid bias.

Almost 61 percent of Americans say the U.S. is giving too much aid to Israel. 33.9 percent said the U.S. gives “much too much” while 26.8 percent said it is “too much.” Some 25.9 percent felt aid to Israel was “about right” but only 6.1 percent said it was “too little” and 7.3 percent is “much too little.”

That such an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the U.S. is giving too much aid to Israel may surprise many who are accustomed to seeing polls and surveys (including Chicago’s) incorrectly claiming overwhelming U.S. support for Israel. It should not be this way. The fault lies in flawed questions and lack of relevant context. Comparing American opinion between Israel, Hamas and Iran is about as useful as comparing U.S. aid to Mexico and Israel, though the former may comfort Israel affinity groups (which do a lot of their own proprietary polling) and congress members. Many important questions about Israel are never asked in U.S. surveys. Where results would likely produce a bad outcome, entire categories of polls – such as the World Values Survey in Israel – are almost never fielded.

Chicago Council also confidently notes that Americans uniformly despise Iran, citing the 1979 hostage crisis and Iran’s nuclear program as the core reasons. According to the Chicago Council survey analysis, “They are also prepared to use force if necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” Chicago claims that the third highest perceived threat to U.S. vital interests is “the possibility of unfriendly countries becoming nuclear powers” followed by the even more specific number four, “Iran’s nuclear program.”

Before making such broad claims it would again be useful to insert the type of control questions that would not only improve survey quality (which Chicago Council does at a basic level) but also ascertain whether respondents have been subjected to a propaganda or scare campaign that explains their most elevated but unfounded worries. In the case of Iran, the Israel lobby has been relentless in its campaign to pit Americans against Iran – and it has really paid off. 

Although no credible Western intelligence agency believes Iran currently has nuclear weapons – a majority – 58.5 percent of Americans now do according to IRmep’s Google Consumer Survey.

Most polls dealing with Middle East policy would produce better results by giving American respondents some key facts and relevant data before asking hard questions. What many such polls most reveal is the sorry state of American news reporting and stunning success of Israel lobby propaganda campaigns.

Read more by Grant Smith

• DOJ Demands Immunity for Anti-Iran Group UANI – September 14th, 2014
• Death of the Masked Men – June 23rd, 2014
• Israel’s First US Espionage and Smuggling Network – May 29th, 2014
• Will the US Also Deny Visas to Israel’s Spies? – April 13th, 2014
• AIPAC’s Fed Candidate Stanley Fischer on a Warpath Against Iran – December 27th, 2013

via Anti-War

Rothschild Zionism *video*

Published on Jul 2, 2013

British author and lecturer David Icke has written 20 books and traveled to over 55 countries since 1990. His books reveal how a hidden hand is behind world-changing events like the attacks of 9/11 and the manufactured wars in the Middle East, as part of a mass mind manipulation technique he has dubbed problem-reaction-solution. While being controversial and often heavily ridiculed and attacked, David Icke has driven on with his unrelentless investigation into subject areas that others don't dare touch. He reveals information that has been kept from a "dumbed down" population and has allowed the establishment to treat them as nothing more than slaves to a sinister hidden agenda.

His books are some of the most comprehensive exposés of the global conspiracy ever written and among them are: And the Truth Shall Set You Free, The Biggest Secret, Remember Who You Are and Human Race Get Off Your Knees: The Lion Sleeps No More.

Many have dubbed Icke as the "most controversial speaker" on the planet. They used to laugh at him, but now they come in the thousands to hear him speak all over the world.

Nonetheless, David's words are designed to inspire all of us to be who we really are, to fling open the door of the mental prison we build for ourselves and to walk into the light of freedom.

David Icke's website: http://www.davidicke.com/

Like "Dismantle The Matrix" on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DismantleThe...

Follow "Dismantle The Matrix" on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/DTheMatrix

NSA Spies on US Citizens for Israel: Most would Call it Treason

Now, how does one convince himself, or others, this atrocity is just a Democrat thing...hmmm?

More videos like this

  Edward Snowden drops another bomb

Well, what next?

The NSA is recording the conversation of US citizens and sending them to Israel.

Yes, they're doing it.

What the F*&^!

Details on the latest revelation from Edward Snowden.

Many of the people whose conversations have been recorded will see their family and friend targeted with violence and extortion by the Nazi...I mean Israeli defense forces.

Imagine, if the US provided Nazi Germany - an close industrial ally before WW II started - with the private communications of Jewish citizens. That's what we're looking at here.

How The NSA Enabled Israel Military Intelligence To Politically Persecute Innocent Palestinians

from the a-huge-mess dept

by Mike Masnick, Thu, Sep 18th 2014

 

Almost exactly a year ago, one of the many Snowden revelations came out, this time concerning the fact that the NSA was giving raw domestic communications data to Israeli military intelligence. This was somewhat shocking, because it basically was allowing Israeli intelligence to sift through communications data (both metadata and actual communications), including on Americans, without any restrictions. As was noted at the time:

Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.

The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy of US citizens caught in the dragnet. The intelligence community calls this process "minimization", but the memorandum makes clear that the information shared with the Israelis would be in its pre-minimized state.

James Bamford, the long-time NSA watcher and chronicler, has a new article in the NY Times, where he now connects that free and unencumbered data sharing with revelations of abuse by the very Israeli military intelligence unit the data went to. Bamford notes that, when he interviewed Snowden over the summer, Snowden had called out the data sharing with Israel as one of the most shocking finds:

Among his most shocking discoveries, he told me, was the fact that the N.S.A. was routinely passing along the private communications of Americans to a large and very secretive Israeli military organization known as Unit 8200. This transfer of intercepts, he said, included the contents of the communications as well as metadata such as who was calling whom.

Typically, when such sensitive information is transferred to another country, it would first be “minimized,” meaning that names and other personally identifiable information would be removed. But when sharing with Israel, the N.S.A. evidently did not ensure that the data was modified in this way.

Mr. Snowden stressed that the transfer of intercepts to Israel contained the communications — email as well as phone calls — of countless Arab- and Palestinian-Americans whose relatives in Israel and the Palestinian territories could become targets based on the communications. “I think that’s amazing,” he told me. “It’s one of the biggest abuses we’ve seen.”

And, indeed, Bamford notes, it's now been more or less confirmed that the information that NSA was sharing was used to persecute innocent Palestinians. This is only coming out now because dozens of veterans of the unit publicly called out the abuses and refused to continue to participate in the process:

It appears that Mr. Snowden’s fears were warranted. Last week, 43 veterans of Unit 8200 — many still serving in the reserves — accused the organization of startling abuses. In a letter to their commanders, to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and to the head of the Israeli army, they charged that Israel used information collected against innocent Palestinians for “political persecution.” In testimonies and interviews given to the media, they specified that data were gathered on Palestinians’ sexual orientations, infidelities, money problems, family medical conditions and other private matters that could be used to coerce Palestinians into becoming collaborators or create divisions in their society.

Everything about this is disturbing. There have long been concerns about the NSA and other intelligence agencies using the information they have access to try to coerce innocent people, threatening to embarrass them or reveal secrets. Other Snowden documents have revealed that the NSA in fact had plans on how to do something similar, using things like the porn surfing habits of people they didn't like to embarrass and discredit them -- even if they weren't part of any terrorist organization. While the NSA insisted it never did such things, this latest revelation suggests that the NSA clearly enabled the Israelis to do exactly that -- often using communications and metadata of Americans, handed over willy-nilly to the Israelis to do just that.

Meanwhile, kudos to the Israeli veterans for blowing the whistle on this kind of activity.
view article