Here is the latest body count. All of these people have been connected with the Clintons in some form

Clin­ton Body Count

Pub­lished 16 years ago – 


The Clin­tons have left a trail of death and de­struc­tion in thier wake. This is who we’ve lost and why they were tar­get­ted.

Here is the lat­est body count that we have. All of these peo­ple have been con­nected with the Clin­tons in some form or an­other. We have not in­cluded any deaths that could not be ver­i­fied or con­nected to the Clin­ton scan­dals. All deaths are listed chrono­log­i­cally by date.

Su­san Cole­man: Ru­mors were cir­cu­lat­ing in Arkansas of an af­fair with Bill Clin­ton. She was found dead with a gun­shot wound to the head at 7 1/2 months preg­nant. Death was an ap­par­ent sui­cide.

Larry Guer­rin: Was killed in Feb­ru­ary 1987 while in­ves­ti­gat­ing the IN­SLAW case.

Kevin Ives & Don Henry: Ini­tial cause of death was re­ported to be the re­sult of falling asleep on a rail­road track in Arkansas on Au­gust 23, 1987. This rul­ing was re­ported by the State med­ical ex­am­iner Fahmy Malak. Later it was de­ter­mined that Kevin died from a crushed skull prior to be­ing placed on the tracks. Don had been stabbed in the back. Ru­mors in­di­cate that they might have stum­bled upon a Mena drug op­er­a­tion.

Keith Coney: Keith had in­for­ma­tion on the Ives/Henry deaths. Died in a mo­tor­cy­cle ac­ci­dent in July 1988 with un­con­firmed re­ports of a high speed car chase.

Keith McK­askle: McK­askle has in­for­ma­tion on the Ives/Henry deaths. He was stabbed to death in No­vem­ber 1988.

Gre­gory Collins: Greg had in­for­ma­tion on the Ives/Henry deaths. He died from a gun­shot wound to the face in Jan­u­ary 1989.

Jeff Rhodes: He had in­for­ma­tion on the deaths of Ives, Henry & McK­askle. His burned body was found in a trash dump in April 1989. He died of a gun­shot wound to the head and there was some body mu­ti­la­tion, lead­ing to the prob­a­bly spec­u­la­tion that he was tor­tured prior to be­ing killed.

James Milam: Milam had in­for­ma­tion on the Ives & Henry deaths. He was de­cap­i­tated. The state Med­ical ex­am­iner, Fahmy Malak, ini­tially ruled death due to nat­ural causes.

Richard Win­ters: Win­ters was a sus­pect in the deaths of Ives & Henry. He was killed in a “rob­bery” in July 1989 which was sub­se­quently proven to be a setup.

Jor­dan Ket­tle­son: Ket­tle­son had in­for­ma­tion on the Ives & Henry deaths. He was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup in June 1990.

Alan Stan­dorf: An em­ployee of the Na­tional Se­cu­rity Agency in elec­tronic in­tel­li­gence. Stan­dorf was a source of in­for­ma­tion for Danny Casalaro who was in­ves­ti­gat­ing IN­SLAW, BCCI, etc. Stan­dor­f’s body was found in the back­seat of a car at Wash­ing­ton Na­tional Air­port on Jan 31, 1991.

Den­nis Eis­man: An at­tor­ney with in­for­ma­tion on IN­SLAW. Eis­man was found shot to death on April 5, 1991.

Danny Casalaro: Danny was a free-lance re­porter and writer who was in­ves­ti­gat­ing the “Oc­to­ber Sur­prise”, IN­SLAW and BCCI. Danny was found dead in a bath­tub in a Sher­a­ton Ho­tel room in Mar­tins­burg, West Vir­ginia. Danny was stay­ing at the ho­tel while keep­ing ap­point­ments in the DC area per­ti­nent to his in­ves­ti­ga­tion. He was found with his wrists slashed. At least one, and pos­si­bly both of his wrists were cut 10 times. All of his re­search ma­te­ri­als were miss­ing and have never been re­cov­ered.

Vic­tor Raiser: The Na­tional Fi­nance Co-Chair for “Clin­ton for Pres­i­dent.” He died in a air­plane crash on July 30, 1992.

R. Mont­gomery Raiser: Also in­volved in the Clin­ton pres­i­den­tial cam­paign. He died in the same plane crash as Vic­tor.

Paul Tully: Tul­ley was on the De­mo­c­ra­tic Na­tional Com­mit­tee. He was found dead of un­known causes in his ho­tel room on Sep­tem­ber 24, 1992. No au­topsy was ever al­lowed.

Ian Spiro: Spiro had sup­port­ing doc­u­men­ta­tion for grand jury pro­ceed­ings on the IN­SLAW case. His wife and 3 chil­dren were found mur­dered on No­vem­ber 1, 1992 in their home. They all died of gun­shot wounds to the head. Ian’s body was found sev­eral days later in a parked car in the Borego Desert. Cause of death? The in­ges­tion of cyanide. FBI re­port in­di­cated that Ian had mur­dered his fam­ily and then com­mit­ted sui­cide.

Paula Gober: A Clin­ton speech writer. She died in a car ac­ci­dent on De­cem­ber 9, 1992 with no known wit­nesses.

Jim Wil­hite: Wil­hite was an as­so­ci­ate of Mack McClar­ty’s for­mer firm. Wil­hite died in a ski­ing ac­ci­dent on De­cem­ber 21, 1992. He also had ex­ten­sive ties to Clin­ton with whom he vis­ited by tele­phone just hours be­fore his death.

Steve Willis, Robert Williams, Todd McK­ea­han & Con­way LeBleu: Died Feb­ru­ary 28, 1993 by gun­fire at Waco. All four were ex­am­ined by a pathol­o­gist and died from iden­ti­cal wounds to the left tem­ple. All four had been body guards for Bill Clin­ton, three while cam­paign­ing for Pres­i­dent and when he was Gov­er­nor of Arkansas.They also were the ONLY 4 BATF agents killed at Waco.

Sgt. Brian Haney, Sgt. Tim Sabel, Maj. William Barkley, Capt. Scott Reynolds: Died: May 19, 1993 – All four men died when their he­li­copter crashed in the woods near Quan­tico, Va. – Re­porters were barred from the site, and the head of the fire de­part­ment re­spond­ing to the crash de­scribed it by say­ing, “Se­cu­rity was tight,” with “lots of Marines with guns.” A video­tape made by a fire­fighter was seized by the Marines. All four men had es­corted Clin­ton on his flight to the car­rier Roo­sevelt shortly be­fore their deaths.

John Craw­ford: An at­tor­ney with in­for­ma­tion on IN­SLAW. He died from a heart at­tack in Tacoma in April of 1993.

John Wil­son: Found dead from an ap­par­ent hang­ing sui­cide on May 18, 1993. He was a for­mer Wash­ing­ton DC coun­cil mem­ber and claimed to have info on White­wa­ter.

Paul Wilcher: A lawyer who was in­ves­ti­gat­ing drug run­ning out of Mena, Arkansas and who also sought to ex­pose the “Oc­to­ber Sur­prise”, BCCI and IN­SLAW. He was found in his Wash­ing­ton DC apart­ment dead of un­known causes on June 22, 1993.

Vin­cent Fos­ter: A White House deputy coun­sel and long-time per­sonal friend of Bill and Hillary’s. Found on July 20, 1993, dead of a gun­shot wound to the mouth — a death ruled sui­cide. Many dif­fer­ent the­o­ries on this case! Read­ers are en­cour­aged to read our re­port in Strange Deaths.

Jon Par­nell Walker: An in­ves­ti­ga­tor for the RTC who was look­ing into the link­age be­tween the White­wa­ter and Madi­son S&L bank­ruptcy. Walker “fell” from the top of the Lin­coln Tow­ers Build­ing.

Stan­ley Heard & Steven Dick­son: They were mem­bers of the Clin­ton health care ad­vi­sory com­mit­tee. They died in a plane crash on Sep­tem­ber 10, 1993.

Jerry Luther Parks: Parks was the Chief of Se­cu­rity for Clin­ton’s na­tional cam­paign head­quar­ters in Lit­tle Rock. Gunned down in his car on Sep­tem­ber 26, 1993 near the in­ter­sec­tion of Chenal Park­way and High­way 10 west of Lit­tle Rock. Parks was shot through the rear win­dow of his car. The as­sailant then pulled around to the dri­ver’s side of Park’s car and shot him three more times with a 9mm pis­tol. His fam­ily re­ported that shortly be­fore his death, they were be­ing fol­lowed by un­known per­sons, and their home had been bro­ken into (de­spite a top qual­ity alarm sys­tem). Parks had been com­pil­ing a dossier on Clin­ton’s il­licit ac­tiv­i­ties. The dossier was stolen.

Ed Wil­ley: A Clin­ton fundraiser. He died of a self-in­flicted gun­shot wound on No­vem­ber 30, 1993. His death came the same day his wife, Kath­leen, was sex­u­ally as­saulted in the White House by Bill Clin­ton.

Gandy Baugh: Baugh was Lasater’s at­tor­ney and com­mit­ted sui­cide on Jan­u­ary 8, 1994. Baugh’s part­ner com­mit­ted sui­cide ex­actly one month later on Feb­ru­ary 8, 1994.

Her­schell Fri­day: A mem­ber of the pres­i­den­tial cam­paign fi­nance com­mit­tee. He died in an air­plane ex­plo­sion on March 1, 1994.

Ronald Rogers: Rogers died on March 3, 1994 just prior to re­leas­ing sen­si­tive in­for­ma­tion to a Lon­don news­pa­per. Cause of death? Un­de­ter­mined.

Kathy Fur­gu­son: A 38 year old hos­pi­tal worker whose ex-hus­band is a co- de­fen­dant in the Paula Jones sex­ual ha­rass­ment law suit. She had in­for­ma­tion sup­port­ing Paula Jone’s al­le­ga­tions. She died of an ap­par­ent sui­cide on May 11, 1994 from a gun­shot wound to the head.

Bill Shel­ton: Shel­ton was an Arkansas po­lice of­fi­cer and was found dead as an ap­par­ent sui­cide on kathy Fer­gu­son’s grave (Kathy was his girl friend), on June 12, 1994. This “sui­cide” was the re­sult of a gun­shot wound to the back of the head.

Stan­ley Hug­gins: Hug­gins, 46, was a prin­ci­pal in a Mem­phis law firm which headed a 1987 in­ves­ti­ga­tion into the loan prac­tices of Madi­son Guar­anty S&L. Stan­ley died in Delaware in July 1994 — re­ported cause of death was vi­ral pneu­mo­nia.

Paul Ol­son: A Fed­eral wit­ness in in­ves­ti­ga­tions to drug money cor­rup­tion in Chicago pol­i­tics, Paul had just fin­ished 2 days of FBI in­ter­views when his plane ride home crashed, killing Paul and 130 oth­ers on Sept 8 1994. The Sept. 15, 1994 Tempe Tri­bune news­pa­per re­ported that the FBI sus­pected that a bomb had brought down the air­plane.

Calvin Wal­raven: 24 year on Wal­raven was a key wit­ness against Jo­ce­lyn El­der’s son’s drug case. Wal­raven was found dead in his apart­ment with a gun­shot wound to the head. Tim Hover, a Lit­tle Rock po­lice spokesman says no foul play is sus­pected.

Alan G. Whicher: Over­saw Clin­ton’s Se­cret Ser­vice de­tail. In Oc­to­ber 1994 Whicher was trans­ferred to the Se­cret Ser­vice field of­fice in the Mur­rah Build­ing in Ok­la­homa City. What­ever warn­ing was given to the BATF agents in that build­ing did not reach Alan Whicher, who died in the bomb blast of April 19th 1995.

Du­ane Gar­rett: Died July 26, 1995-A lawyer and a talk show host for KGO-AM in San Fran­sisco, Du­ane was the cam­paign fi­nance chair­man for Di­ane Fien­stien’s run for the sen­ate, and was a friend and fundraiser for Al Gore. Gar­rett was un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion for de­fraud­ing in­vestors in Gar­ret­t’s failed sports mem­o­ra­bilia ven­ture. There was talk of a deal to evade pros­e­cu­tion. On July 26th, Gar­rett can­celed an af­ter­noon meet­ing with his lawyer be­cause he had to meet some peo­ple at the San Fran­sisco air­port. Three hours later he was found float­ing in the bay un­der the Golden Gate Bridge.

Ron Brown: The Com­merce Sec­re­tary died on April 3, 1996, in an Air Force jet car­ry­ing Brown and 34 oth­ers, in­clud­ing 14 busi­ness ex­ec­u­tives on a trade mis­sion to Croa­tia, crashed into a moun­tain­side. The Air Force, in a 22-vol­ume re­port is­sued in June of 1996, con­firmed its ini­tial judg­ment that the crash re­sulted from pi­lot er­rors and faulty nav­i­ga­tion equip­ment At the time of Brown’s death, In­de­pen­dent Coun­sel Daniel Pear­son was seek­ing to de­ter­mine whether Brown had en­gaged in sev­eral sham fi­nan­cial trans­ac­tions with long­time busi­ness part­ner Nolanda Hill shortly be­fore he be­came sec­re­tary of com­merce.

Charles Meiss­ner: died: UNK – Fol­low­ing Ron Brown’s death, John Huang was placed on a Com­merce De­part­ment con­tract that al­lowed him to re­tain his se­cu­rity clear­ance
by Charles Meiss­ner. Shortly there­after, Meiss­ner died in the crash of a small plane. He was an As­sis­tant Sec­re­tary of Com­merce for In­ter­na­tional Eco­nomic Pol­icy.

William Colby: Re­tired CIA di­rec­tor was found dead on May 6,1996 af­ter his wife re­ported him miss­ing on April 27,1996. Ap­par­ently, Colby de­cided to go on an im­promptu ca­noe­ing ex­cur­sion and never re­turned. Colby who had just started writ­ing for Strate­gic In­vest­ment newslet­ter, wor­ried many in the in­tel­li­gent com­mu­nity. Col­by’s past his­tory of di­vulging CIA se­crets in the past were well known. Strate­gic In­vestor had cov­ered the Vince Fos­ter sui­cide and had hired hand­writ­ing ex­perts to re­view Fos­ter’s sui­cide note.

Admiral Je­remy Bo­orda: Died on May 16,1996 af­ter he went home for lunch and de­cided to shoot him­self in the chest (by one re­port, twice) rather than be in­ter­viewed by Newsweek mag­a­zine that af­ter­noon. Ex­pla­na­tions for Bo­or­da’s sui­cide fo­cused on a claim that he was em­bar­rassed over two “Valor” pins he was not au­tho­rized to wear.

Lance Hern­don: Hern­don a 41 year old com­puter spe­cial­ist and a promi­nent en­tre­pre­neur who re­ceived a pres­i­den­tial ap­point­ment in 1995 died Au­gust 10, 1996 un­der sus­pi­cious cir­cum­stances. He ap­peared to have died from a blow to the head. Po­lice said no weapons were found at his man­sion, adding that Mr. Hern­don had not been shot or stabbed and there was no ev­i­dence of forced en­try or theft.

Neil Moody: Died -Au­gust 25, 1996 Fol­low­ing Vin­cent Fos­ter’s mur­der, Lisa Fos­ter mar­ried James Moody, a judge in Arkansas, on Jan 1, 1996. Near the time Su­san Mc­Dou­gal first went to jail for con­tempt, Judge Moor’s son, Neil died in a car crash. There were other re­ports that Neil Moody had dis­cov­ered some­thing very un­set­tling among his step­moth­er’s pri­vate pa­pers and was threat­en­ing to go pub­lic with it just prior to the be­gin­ning of the De­mo­c­ra­tic Na­tional Con­ven­tion. He was al­leged to have been talk­ing to Bob Wood­ward of the Wash­ing­ton Post about a block­buster story. Wit­nesses said they saw Neil Moody sit­ting in his car ar­gu­ing with an­other per­son just prior to His car sud­denly speed­ing off out of con­trol and hit­ting a brick wall.

Bar­bara Wise: Wise a 14-year Com­merce De­part­ment em­ployee found dead and par­tially naked in her of­fice fol­low­ing a long week­end. She worked in the same sec­tion as John Huang. Of­fi­cially, she is said to have died of nat­ural causes.

Doug Adams: Died Jan­u­ary 7, 1997- A lawyer in Arkansas who got in­volved try­ing to help the peo­ple who were be­ing swin­dled out of their life sav­ings. Adams was found in his ve­hi­cle with a gun­shot wound to his head in a Spring­field Mo. hos­pi­tal park­ing lot.

Mary C. Ma­honey: 25, mur­dered at the George­town Star­buck’s cof­fee bar over the 4th of July ’97 week­end. She was a for­mer White House in­tern who worked with John Huang. Ap­par­ently she knew Mon­ica Lewin­sky and her sex­ual en­coun­ters with Bill Clin­ton. Al­though not ver­i­fied, it has been said that Lewin­sky told Linda Tripp that she did not want to end up like Ma­honey.

Ronald Miller: Sud­denly took ill on Oc­to­ber 3rd,1997 and steadily wors­ened un­til his death 9 days later. (This pat­tern fits Ricin poi­son­ing.) Ow­ing to the strange­ness of the ill­ness, doc­tors at the In­te­gris Bap­tist Med­ical Cen­ter re­ferred the mat­ter to the Ok­la­homa State Med­ical Ex­am­in­er’s Of­fice. The Ok­la­homa State Med­ical Ex­am­in­er’s Of­fice promptly ran tests on sam­ples of Ron Miller’s blood, but has re­fused to re­lease the re­sults or even to con­firm that the tests were ever com­pleted.

Had been in­ves­ti­gated by au­thor­i­ties over the sale of his com­pany, Gage Corp. to Dy­namic En­ergy Re­sources, Inc. was the man who tape recorded Gene and Nora Lum and turned those tapes (and other records) over to con­gres­sional over­sight in­ves­ti­ga­tors. The Lums were sen­tenced to prison for cam­paign fi­nance vi­o­la­tions, us­ing “straw donors” to con­ceal the size of their con­tri­bu­tions to var­i­ous can­di­dates. In­deed, Dy­namic En­ergy Re­sources, Inc. had hired Ron Brown’s son Michael solely for the pur­pose of fun­nel­ing $60,000 through him to the Com­merce Sec­re­tary, ac­cord­ing to Nolanda Hill’s tes­ti­mony.

Sandy Hume: On Sun­day, Feb­ru­ary 22nd, 1998, Sandy Hume, the 28 year old son of jour­nal­ist Britt Hume, was re­port­edly found dead in his Ar­ling­ton, Vir­ginia home. Aside from the state­ment that this was an “ap­par­ent” sui­cide, there re­mains in place a to­tal me­dia black­out on this story, pos­si­bly out of con­cern that the ac­tual facts will not with­stand pub­lic scrutiny. Worked for Hill mag­a­zine, about Con­gress for Con­gress.

Jim Mc­Dou­gal: Bill and Hillary Clin­ton friend, banker, and po­lit­i­cal ally, sent to prison for eigh­teen felony con­vic­tions. A key white­wa­ter wit­ness, dies of a heart at­tack on March, 8 1998. As of this writ­ing al­le­ga­tions that he was given an in­jec­tion of the di­uretic lasix has not been de­nied or con­firmed.
Died on March 8, 1998

Johnny Lawhon: 29, died March 29, 1998- The Arkansas trans­mis­sion spe­cial­ist who dis­cov­ered a pile of White­wa­ter doc­u­ments in the trunk of an aban­doned car on his prop­erty and turned them over to Starr, was killed in a car wreck two weeks af­ter the Mc­Dou­gal death.. De­tails of the “ac­ci­dent” have been sketchy — even from the lo­cal Lit­tle Rock news­pa­per.

Charles Wilbourne Miller: 63, was found dead of a gun­shot wound to the head on No­vem­ber 17, 1998 in a shal­low pit about 300 yards from his ranch house near Lit­tle Rock. Po­lice found a .410 gauge shot­gun near Miller’s body and a Ruger .357-cal­iber re­volver sub­merged in wa­ter. In­ves­ti­ga­tors con­cluded the Ruger was the weapon used by Miller to kill him­self. Yet, two rounds in the hand­gun’s cylin­der had been spent.

He had long served as ex­ec­u­tive vice pres­i­dent and mem­ber of the board of di­rec­tors for a com­pany called All­tel and was deeply in­volved in his own soft­ware en­gi­neer­ing com­pany un­til the day he died. All­tel is the suc­ces­sor to Jack­son Stephens’ Sys­tem­at­ics, the com­pany that pro­vided the soft­ware for the White House’s “Big Brother” data base sys­tem and that was be­hind the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s plan to de­velop the se­cret com­puter “Clip­per” chip to bug every phone, fax and email trans­mis­sion in Amer­ica.

Car­los Ghigliotti: 42, was found dead in his home just out­side of Wash­ing­ton D.C. on April 28, 2000. There was no sign of a break-in or strug­gle at the firm of In­frared Tech­nol­ogy where the badly de­com­posed body of Ghigliotti was found. Ghigliotti had not been seen for sev­eral weeks, com­mer­cial clean­ing com­pa­nies may have been con­tacted in or­der for the of­fices to be cleaned.

Ghigliotti, a ther­mal imag­ing an­a­lyst hired by the House Gov­ern­ment Re­form Com­mit­tee to re­view tape of the siege, said he de­ter­mined the FBI fired shots on April 19, 1993. The FBI has ex­plained the light bursts on in­frared footage as re­flec­tions of sun rays on shards of glass or other de­bris that lit­tered the scene.

“I con­clude this based on the ground­view video­tapes taken from sev­eral dif­fer­ent an­gles si­mul­ta­ne­ously and based on the over­head ther­mal tape,” Ghigliotti told The Wash­ing­ton Post last Oc­to­ber. “The gun­fire from the ground is there, with­out a doubt.”

Ghigliotti said the tapes also con­firm the Da­vid­i­ans fired re­peat­edly at FBI agents dur­ing the as­sault, which ended when flames raced through the com­pound. About 80 Branch Da­vid­i­ans per­ished that day, some from the fire, oth­ers from gun­shot wounds.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the con­gres­sional com­mit­tee chaired by Rep. Dan Bur­ton, R-Ind., said that po­lice found the busi­ness cards of a com­mit­tee in­ves­ti­ga­tor in Ghigliot­ti’s of­fice. Corallo said Ghigliot­ti’s work for the com­mit­tee ended some time ago.

Tony Moser: 41, was killed as he crossed a street in Pine Bluff, Ark on June 10, 2000. Killed 10 days af­ter be­ing named a colum­nist for the De­mo­c­rat-Gazette news­pa­per and two days af­ter pen­ning a sting­ing in­dict­ment of po­lit­i­cal cor­rup­tion in Lit­tle Rock.

Po­lice have con­cluded that no charges will be filed against the un­named dri­ver of a 1995 Chevro­let pickup, which hit Moser as he was walk­ing alone in the mid­dle of un­lit Rhine­hart Road about 10:10 p.m

Po­lice say they have ruled out foul play and will file no charges against the dri­ver be­cause he was not in­tox­i­cated and there was no sign of ex­ces­sive speed.

“Pub­lished orig­i­nally at Ether­Zone.com : re­pub­li­ca­tion al­lowed with this no­tice and hy­per­link in­tact.”

Why Territory? By Ian Klinke

Why Territory?

By Ian Klinke

Territory is increasingly presented as the only response to the world’s problems. But if territory is the answer, then what exactly is the question?


Inthe 1990s, it was common for us to hear and read about the end of territory. The Berlin Wall had fallen and the remaining pockets of real existing socialism were crumbling fast under the forces of liberal capitalism. As the European Union dissolved its internal borders, the spread of the internet seemed to further de-territorialise our lives. Two decades on, the picture seems to be a rather different one.

From the United Kingdom’s decision to retreat into the nation-state to the construction of border fences and walls in Israel, Hungary, the United States and elsewhere, the control of geographical areas seems to have returned to haunt us. Even cyberspace is now increasingly policed, both by authoritarian and more democratic states alike. Many of those who valorise a territorial world will argue that there is something inherently natural about this return of territory. Indeed, as a way of demarcating power in space, the question of territory may seem as old as mankind — but it is not.

Today, territory is commonly assumed to be a portion of the Earth’s surface, including its subsoil, airspace and adjacent waters, that is controlled by a state. Territory defines the geographical area over which a state has jurisdiction and it allows the state to filter the movement of people and goods into and out of this area. As an attempt to say “this far and no further”, territory may seem inherent to the human condition. But if territory was of natural rather than of cultural origin, we should be able to observe attempts to territorialise politics in all societies throughout history. Divided cities like Belfast, Jerusalem or Nicosia would be the rule rather than the exception. In fact, the logic of territory has its origins only in the 17th century.

“As a way of demarcating power in space, the question of territory may seem as old as mankind — but it is not.”

Rather than an answer to the question of migration, territory was originally a response to the problem of religious warfare. Indeed, it first emerged as a solution to the Thirty Years’ War, a conflict that had wiped out millions of Central Europeans between 1618 and 1648 in the name of both Protestantism and Catholicism. In order to ban such wars in the future, rulers should choose their territory’s denomination without interference from others. Those amongst the population who felt they would prefer to inhabit a territory with a different denomination to their ruler’s could simply leave. From this arose the principles of territorial sovereignty and non-intervention, which remain crucial to the functioning of contemporary world politics.

States have not always been interested in making exact maps of their territories. Feudal states, city states and empires did not govern through territory. The Romans, for instance, may have used the term ‘territory’, but it referred mainly to the land associated with a city. They did not imagine their world to be made up of territorial states. Instead of being governed by hard external borders, their empire was ruled through fuzzy boundaries. Medieval states were systems of rule that were based on inter-personal relations rather than the idea of territory. It was only in the 17th and 18th centuries that the world witnessed an explosion in cartographic activity. For in order to govern their territories, states also had to survey, calculate, and map their boundaries.

If we want to understand why so many of us have come to think of territory as a basic instinct rather than a political institution, we have to travel to the late 19th century, to a time when European colonialism was at its peak and the age of exploration had come to an end. It was in this political climate that the German zoologist-turned-geographer Friedrich Ratzel would come to write about territory as the target of a biological urge that was inherent in all species and nations. He argued that, much like caterpillars and primroses, nations were organisms that needed living space if they wanted to ensure their survival. A nation’s health could be judged only by its territory. This idea of the need for living space would develop a powerful traction in the early 20th century, as a whole range of political movements and regimes started to fetishise territory and sought to expand their living space by force.

“If we want to understand why so many of us have come to think of territory as a basic instinct rather than a political institution, we have to travel to the late 19th century.”

Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 aside, straightforward territorial conquest is comparatively rare in today’s world. And yet, borders and territorial questions still seem to structure the way in which our world works. We encounter this territorial world in border crossings, airports, and, if unlucky, in refugee camps and detention centres. In a biometric age, we even have our citizenship imprinted on our bodies — through our iris and fingerprints. And yet it is important to remember that this world of increasingly fortified borders is in fact rather new. Until WWI, it would have been possible to travel through Europe without a passport.

It is similarly vital not to forget that the territorial border remains only one way in which power is exerted over populations through space. There are others. Indeed, the prevention of motion by barbed wire in the 20th century was always accompanied by attempts to channel motion in particular directions. Much of this was — and continues to be — done through the built environment. Think of the forces unleashed by the Autobahn, or the invisible hand that lures us into the temples of consumer capitalism on a Sunday. Territory is never the only game in town. It has to coexist with other perhaps more consensual forms of control.

Territory is also hardly the smoothest form of power. Everyone who has tried to change the behaviour of a child or even a pet by assigning them a territory will know of the resistance that this can provoke. If we look at the responses of European states to the current refugee crisis, the problem soon becomes apparent. Barbed wire, the attempt to control migration by piercing human flesh, is not only imperfect (for the human body will eventually find a way around it), but it is also a powerful symbol of oppression; we only have to think of the iconic barbed wire fences of Auschwitz or Amnesty International’s logo. During the Cold War, the anti-nuclear movement often congregated precisely around NATO’s razor-wired military bases from which a nuclear war was to be waged on the world. So when states put up fences and walls today, this always also exposes the fundamental violence at the heart of the modern state.

Territory can also be an obstacle in other ways. It can limit what can be said and done. It is difficult, for instance, to wage a war without having a territorial state as an enemy. When the United States and its allies first embarked on the war against the shady forces of international terrorism in 2001, they saw themselves forced to find a territorial state that could be targeted by the Anglo-American war machine — Afghanistan.

The relationship between terror and territory is a crucial one in other ways, too. Think of the recent mass killings that have been carried out by young men — and they are nearly all men — in places like Brussels, Paris, Orlando and Berlin. Even before the blood has dried, there will be speculation about the perpetrator’s nationality. If he holds a passport from a predominantly Muslim nation or was born in such a nation, then the act is usually declared a terrorist act, no matter how weak his religiosity or his links to terrorist networks. The man may drink and have girlfriends, but he will be branded a terrorist. His motives will be assumed to be public and thus political.

If, however, he is from Western Europe — like the Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, who killed 150 in 2015 by downing his plane in the French Alps — then the motive is usually assumed to be private and we will hear about his psychology rather than his politics. If it is terror, then we can see all kinds of exceptional measures brought into force, from detention without trial to the bombing of Islamic State in Syria, as carried out by France after the Paris attacks. If it is “simply” a mass killing, then nothing much happens at all. One of the key differences is the passport.

“This vision of a world in which your passport defines your politics is of course a dangerous one — but it is also one that will likely provoke opposition.”

As xenophobic and nationalist movements and politicians are increasingly swept into power in the global North, we increasingly hear that territory is the solution to our problems. But if territory is the answer, then what precisely is the question? In the early 21st century, the question is perhaps not so much ‘migration’ or ‘identity’, as it is often claimed, but the failures of Western liberalism with its fantasy of a borderless globe of free trade and commerce. Financial deregulation, privatisation, and globalisation have created a world that radiates a sense of insecurity amongst the majority of the population. Since the global financial crisis of 2008, it has become increasingly clear that prosperity and financial security are no longer attainable for large segments of the population, even in developed economies. If we add to this the threat of climate change, then we can even say that the belief in ‘progress’, a notion that has stood at the heart of ‘The West’ since the Enlightenment, itself has been shattered. Suddenly it makes more sense why the timeless truths of a territorial world seem so appealing to many.

If we accept that the recent rise of the new right in the United States and Europe is not so much a response to the so-called refugee crisis, but, much like the rise of fascism in the 1930s, an answer to this fundamental disillusionment and insecurity, then we can see much more clearly that territory is in fact a trick. It tricks us into believing that there is a way to collapse our planetary complexities back into a world of parcelled-up territories. This is nothing less than the fantasy of creating a world in which there are only people who identify with the territorial state, people who desire and fear the same things. This vision of a world in which your passport defines your politics is of course a dangerous one — but it is also one that will likely provoke opposition.


This is an extract from Weapons of Reason’s fourth issue: Power, available to order now.

Illustrations by Koivo

Palestine: “There’s No Conflict, There’s An Illegal Occupation”

Interview With Dr. Asem Khalil

palestine-onu

Professor Doctor Asem Khalil, Ph.D. in Constitutional and International Law, Associate Professor of Law of Birzeit University, West Bank, speaks of ways to consolidate the Palestine State, and definitely end Israeli crimes against humanity in the Palestinian territories.

Edu Montesanti: Dear Professor Doctor Asem Khalil, thank you so very much for granting this interview. How do you evaluate the meeting between President Donald Trump and Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 15? “I’m looking at two-State and one-state” formulations, President Trump said during a White House news conference with Mr. Netanyahu. “I like the one that both parties like. I’m very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one”. Your view, please.

Dr. Asem Khalil: The Palestinians always called for a One State; as a compromise they accepted to enter a peace process where two state solution is envisaged as a way to get peace. If by one state, we mean equal rights for all citizens,

I don’t see why Palestinians would reject that – if they were first to ask for it and accepted only as a compromise the call for two state solution where most of historic Palestine will be part of the now state of Israel.

I think the answer given by Trump wasn’t thought through enough, and I don’t think Israel would go for a one State where one person one vote anyway.

Edu Montesanti: Why cannot Israel and the Palestinians decide alone the question? Why do Palestinians need a third party to get an agreement?

Dr. Asem Khalil: Palestinians are under occupation. It is not their own responsibility to negotiate with the occupier; for sure, it is not part of any negotiation whether to maintain or end occupation – negotiation may be on the modalities on how to do that only.

So far, Palestinians are in a weak position. They are requested to chose pacific means to reach liberation and end occupation, while at the same time, they are asked to negotiate directly with an occupier who continues to confiscate land day on day out.

It is the responsibility of the international community to put an end to one of the last occupations in the world. It is the responsibility of all community of states to make sure that rights of Palestinians – which are erga omnes – are respected.

Edu Montesanti: The United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 voted on December 23 last year, condemning the Israeli settlements as a flagrant violation of international law and a major impediment to the achievement of a two-state solution, changes nothing on the ground between Israel and the Palestinians. UN member States “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council”, according to the UN Charter. Human rights and the international community also condemns the Israeli settlements and military attacks against Palestinians. Journalist Daoud Kuttab observed in Al-Jazeera in February, in the article US and Israel join forces to bury Palestinian statehood: “Ever since the 1967 occupation, the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly expressed the illegality of the occupation, as in the preamble of Resolution 242 ‘emphasizing inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’.” Why does nothing change year by year, massacre after massacre?

Dr. Asem Khalil: Change doesn’t come by UN resolutions. There are few cases like the one of Israel where the UN and the Security Council in particular showed how incompetent they are in dealing with Israel’s violations of Palestinians’ rights on their land and their right to self-determination.

Palestinian leadership, nonetheless, still think that such resolutions are important. They help maintain clear what is just and what is not.

What is acceptable and what is not. Changes in international relations and power relations between states may help in the future bring the change that is needed. Although it may be too late by then.

Edu Montesanti: What are the crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians?

Dr. Asem Khalil: There are various massacres that were committed by Israel against Palestinians surrounding the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 – causing and contributing to forced displacement and refugeehood of thousands of people.

Many other massacres were committed afterwards, either directly or indirectly. Bombings directed towards civilian areas and facilities continued in recent years when attacking Gaza.

Edu Montesanti: How is life in Gaza and in the West Bank?

Dr. Asem Khalil: Gaza is being qualified as a big prison – unqualified for human living because of lack of necessary civilian infrastructures and lack of jobs.

Most West Bank populated cities are living under Palestinian Authority rule – which coordinates with Israel in security and civil matters too.

Edu Montesanti: Professor Avi Shlaim observed days ago, in Al-Jazeera: “Sadly, the Palestinians are handicapped by weak leadership and by the internal rivalry between Fatah and Hamas.” Your view on the internal politics in Palestine, please, Professor Doctor Khalil.

Dr. Asem Khalil: He is right. This is part of the problem and why stagnation is in place. It is part of the story though.

The full picture is an Israeli occupation which separated Gaza from West Bank and maintained legal and political fragmentation since then; it is also in the way Oslo separated de facto the two areas and maintained a status quo where Palestinians are not dealt with by Israeli occupation – and contrary to the wordings of Oslo – as one political community and West Bank and Gaza Strip were not in reality considered or dealt with as one political entity.

Edu Montesanti: What could we expect from Arab leaders from now on?

Dr. Asem Khalil: We don’t have much expectations. We think the Arab region is now busy with their own problems.

They are now seeing the Palestinian issue as marginal and secondary. This is very problematic now.

Edu Montesanti: How do you see the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement?

Dr. Asem Khalil: The BDS movement can be the way ahead for peaceful resistance to occupation and apartheid in Palestine. Israel is aware of the historical precedence of South Africa and the boycott movement that ended up at the end in delegitimizing the apartheid regime in South Africa, and contributed to the entry of a new era there.

We hope similar thing happens now – not delegitimizing the state of Israel, but the apartheid regime in place.

Edu Montesanti: What is the solution to the conflict, Professor Doctor Asem Khalil?

Dr. Asem Khalil: There is no conflict. There is an occupation that needs to come to an end; a colonization project that needs to be aborted; an apartheid regime that needs to be dismantled; justice and equality to be restored.

If and when this is done, no need to think of mechanisms to end a conflict because it wouldn’t exist.

President Trump has changed nothing for the good of America…(cont.)

The FBI’s Secret Rules

26-10-15-1

President Trump has inherited a vast domestic intelligence agency with extraordinary secret powers. A cache of documents offers a rare window into the FBI’s quiet expansion since 9/11.

terrorists-won

Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide

The rulebook governing all FBI agents’ activities, in unredacted form for the first time. This is the 2011 edition, which remains the baseline document today, although the FBI recently released some updates from 2013.

SEE DOCUMENT

Hidden Loopholes Allow FBI Agents to Infiltrate Political and Religious Groups

Cora Currier
Beneath the FBI’s redaction marks are exceptions to rules on “undisclosed participation.”

National Security Letters Demand Data Companies Aren’t Obligated to Provide

Jenna McLaughlin, and Cora Currier
Internal documents suggest the FBI uses the secret orders to pursue sensitive customer data like internet browsing records.

Despite Anti-Profiling Rules, the FBI Uses Race and Religion When Deciding Who to Target

Cora Currier
The bureau still claims considerable latitude to use race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion in deciding which people and communities to investigate.

In Secret Battle, Surveillance Court Reined in FBI Use of Information Obtained From Phone Calls

Jenna McLaughlin

Secret Rules Make It Pretty Easy for the FBI to Spy on Journalists

Cora Currier
Rules governing the use of national security letters allow the FBI to obtain information about journalists’ calls without going to a judge or informing the targeted news organization.

Annotation Sets

  • Bureau Hid Doubts About Reliability of Stingray Evidence Behind Redaction Marks


  • CIA and NSA Dossiers Are Available to the FBI in the Absence of Any Crime, Raising Privacy Questions


  • FBI Spy Planes Must Abide Rules When Looking Into Homes


  • On Campus, the FBI Sometimes Operates Outside Restrictions


  • To Probe the Digital Defenses of Targets, the FBI Turns To a Special Program


Confidential Human Source Policy Guide

Detailed rules for how the FBI handles informants. Classified secret. This unreleased September 2015 document is a major expansion and update of a manual from 2007 on the same topic.

SEE DOCUMENT

The FBI Gives Itself Lots of Rope to Pull in Informants

Trevor Aaronson
Agents have the authority to aggressively investigate anyone they believe could be a valuable source for the bureau.

When Informants Are No Longer Useful, the FBI Can Help Deport Them

Trevor Aaronson
The FBI coordinates with immigration authorities to locate informants who are no longer of value to the bureau.

How the FBI Conceals Its Payments to Confidential Sources

Trevor Aaronson
A classified policy guide creates opportunities for agents to disguise payments as reimbursements or offer informants a cut of seized assets.

Annotation Sets

  • How the FBI Recruits and Handles Its Army of Informants


Counterterrorism Policy Guide

Excerpts from a guide for agents working on counterterrorism cases, which functions as a supplement to the FBI’s main rulebook, the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide. Classified secret. Not previously released. Dates to April 2015.

SEE DOCUMENT

Undercover FBI Agents Swarm the Internet Seeking Contact With Terrorists

Cora Currier
The FBI’s online activities are so pervasive that the bureau sometimes finds itself investigating its own people.

Based on a Vague Tip, the Feds Can Surveil Anyone

Cora Currier
Low-level “assessments” allow the FBI to follow people with planes, examine travel records, and run subjects’ names through the CIA and NSA.

The FBI Has Quietly Investigated White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement

Alice Speri
Bureau policies have been crafted to take into account the active presence of domestic extremists in U.S. police departments.

Annotation Sets

  • Disruptions: How the FBI Handles People Without Bringing Them To Court


Confidential Human Source Assessing Aid

A document bearing the seal of the FBI’s Anchorage field office that gives tips for agents cultivating informants. It is classified secret, and dates from 2011.

SEE DOCUMENT

DIOG Profiling Rules 2016

A 2016 update to the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide’s policy on profiling by race, gender, and other factors.

SEE DOCUMENT

Guidance on Guardian Assessments 2013

A 2013 unclassified communique from the FBI’s counterterrorism division explaining the database checks and other steps to be taken as part of low-level investigations.

SEE DOCUMENT

National Security Letters Redacted

An unclassified internal FBI document explaining the rules for national security letters, orders that the bureau uses to obtain certain information without a warrant. The document is undated but contains references to another document from November 2015.

SEE DOCUMENT

Is the US controlling Israel or is Israel controlling the US? Tell us what you think.

Who is Pulling Trump’s Strings in the US???

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1-Israel-ISIS

Who is pulling whose strings?  Obama or Netanyahu? Is the US controlling Israel or is Israel controlling the US? Tell us what you think.

How can we forget when Obama just started his first term in office in 2011, when he told the world he was going to take the Palestine borders back to 1967.

Israel has said endorsing the 1967 borders would prejudge negotiations. Obama also took pains to show respect for Israel’s views ahead of his meetings Friday with Netanyahu soon after.

Still, Mr. Obama’s tough stand could set the stage for a tense meeting Friday when Netanyahu goes to the White House.

In a statement following Mr. Obama’s remarks, Israeli Prime Minister rejected the president’s endorsement, and said a return to his country’s 1967 borders would spell disaster for the Jewish State.

Calling the 1967 lines “indefensible,” Netanyahu said such a withdrawal would jeopardize Israel’s security and leave major West Bank settlements outside Israeli borders.

Round one to Netanyahu, when Obama bows down to the wishes of Israel and one election promise out of the window.

Whatever Israel asks for Israel gets and we saw this in April 2014 when Obama signed away an additional $225 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system.

The U.S. has provided hundreds of millions of dollars for Iron Dome in the past. The new package is intended to replenish Israel’s capabilities.

beto_orourke

 

Congress approved the money last week before lawmakers left for their annual summer break. Obama signed the bill in the late afternoon in the Oval Office with a handful of photographers present.

Congressman O’Rourke was one of the few who voted against an aid package to Israel. Overwhelmed by the swift avalanche of Jewish criticism, the young man won’t ever make the same ‘mistake’ again.

It took only one wrong vote to teach a freshman Democrat from Texas how sensitive, and even wrathful, the Jewish community can be when it comes to Israel.

But the real story of what happened to Rep. Beto O’Rourke did not stop with the angry reaction he got when he cast one of only eight votes in Congress against special funding for Israel’s Iron Dome rocket defense system during the recent Gaza war.

It was almost a textbook case of how the establishment pro-Israel lobby works its magic — and a story not yet completed in early September, when The New Yorker magazine took note of what had happened to O’Rourke.

In an in-depth report on the work of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the large Washington-based lobby, during the Gaza war, New Yorker writer Connie Bruck recounted the blasts that rained down on the El Paso congressman following his vote.

The reactions, as Bruck reported, included a mass email blast labeling O’Rourke as “an anti-Israel congressman” and denouncing his vote as “shameful.” Critical local press coverage included a public comment by one of his own Jewish donors to the El Paso Times that in voting as he did, O’Rourke “chooses to side with the rocket launchers and terror tunnel builders” of Hamas.

But since then, behind the scenes, what has followed is a long process of mutual outreach and hours of hashing out differences, until the final act, which is now in the works: an El Al flight to Tel Aviv on the pro-Israel lobby’s dime.

“He’s a good guy, but he didn’t know how the Jewish community would react,” said Daniel Cheifec, executive director of the Jewish Federation of El Paso. “Now he knows that this community is not going to be very happy if he screws up again.”

O’Rourke, in fact, had no prior record of criticizing or voting against Israel. He did not even oppose more funding for the Iron Dome system. He only opposed rushing through the large appropriation with no debate as members of Congress were hurrying home for the summer recess when a more considered vote to boost the program was coming in October.

Israel, which receives more than $3.6 billion per year in various forms of aid from Washington, is already the single largest recipient of American largesse. But the August 1 House vote appropriating $225 million to Israel above and beyond its usual aid was meant to allow the Jewish state to restock on Iron Dome interceptors that had proved effective in countering Hamas rocket attacks into the country.

Congressional leaders squeezed the vote into the legislative schedule just as members were packing up to leave for their summer recess. The overwhelming support of 395 representatives with only eight voting against was not unusual for a pro-Israel piece of legislation, especially one that deals with military assistance at a time of war.

“I really don’t understand how he makes his decision,” Rabbi Stephen Leon of Congregation B’Nai Zion, a local synagogue, told the El Paso Times even before The New Yorker piece picked up on the pushback. “It’s a great, great disappointment to the Jewish community here. We had meetings with him prior, to talk to him about the importance of Israel, and the way he voted makes very little sense.”

El Paso, a city with a 70% Hispanic majority, has a relatively small Jewish community, estimated at 4,000, amid a population of some 862,000. But Jews are well represented on O’Rourke’s donor list, with local businessman Stephen L. Feinberg among the top contributors to his campaign.

O’Rourke, in a Facebook posting, tried to explain his vote. “I could not in good conscience vote for borrowing $225 million more to send to Israel, without debate and without discussion, in the midst of a war that has cost more than a thousand civilian lives already, too many of them children,” he wrote. He also stressed that with an aid package for Israel up for a vote in two months, he felt no need to rush more spending without adequate debate when Congress was all but empty.

To members of the Jewish community who later spoke with him, O’Rourke also explained that he was one of the last to vote in the roll call, at a point at which it was clear the bill was cruising toward passage. He consequently felt free to cast a vote on principle, knowing it would not impact the final outcome. O’Rourke believes that every appropriation should be properly debated.

Veteran Democrat Jim Moran of Virginia, who is known for refusing to vote along the lines of the pro-Israel lobby, tried to warn O’Rourke. “I tried to find him on the floor, but I couldn’t,” he told The New Yorker. “I’m afraid he may have a tough race in November.”

At O’Rourke’s office, emails flooded his inbox. The El Paso Jewish federation sent out an alert to members, urging them to take action. It contained O’Rourke’s contact information and a suggested sample letter. Another email, for which no one will now take responsibility, circulated among Jewish activists urging supporters not to re-elect him.

This threat is all but empty, since O’Rourke faces no real challenge in his strongly Democratic district.

Beto (short for Robert) O’Rourke, 41, is a fourth-generation El Paso native who started off his career in a teenage rock band. He studied at Columbia University and returned to his hometown, where he ran for city council before moving on to the national scene. His political focus has been on immigration and veteran affairs, two key issues for a border town that hosts a large army base. But he won more recognition for his call to legalize marijuana, an uncommon voice in the state of Texas. Foreign policy has never been a top priority.

Hours after the controversial vote, O’Rourke launched a damage-control campaign that proved to be effective. He reached out to Jewish donors and friends who were more than happy to start the healing process.

Politicians are meant to be representing the people who have elected them, but in the US it seems that this is not the case. Unless you vote on what Israel wants you to vote for, you get the wrath of the Jews and Israel on you.

HOPELESS HAWKS: U.S. Congress Cheers Netanyahu’s Hatred of Iran

Now we have just witnessed Benjamin Netanyahu addressing Congress in the style of a State of the Union speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won 41 rounds of applause as U.S. lawmakers eagerly enlisted in the Israeli-Saudi conflict against Iran and its allies – an enthusiasm that may well entangle the U.S. military in more wars in the Middle East.

Netanyahu declared:

“In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow. So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations. We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.”

Netanyahu’s reference to “Iran’s aggression” was curious since Iran has not invaded another country for centuries. In 1980, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – at the urging of Saudi Arabia – invaded Iran. During that bloody eight-year war, Israel – far from being an enemy of Iran – became Iran’s principal arms supplier. Israel drew in the Reagan administration, which approved some of the Israeli-brokered arms deals, leading to the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986.

In other words, Israel was aiding Iran after the Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah in 1979 and during the time when Netanyahu blamed Iran for the attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and various acts of terrorism allegedly committed by Hezbollah, a Shiite militia in Lebanon. Israel only shifted toward hostility against Shiite-ruled Iran in the 1990s as Israel gradually developed a de facto alliance with Sunni-ruled and oil-rich Saudi Arabia, which views Iran as its chief regional rival.

Netanyahu’s choice of Arab cities supposedly conquered by Iran was strange, too. Baghdad is the capital of Iraq where the U.S. military invaded in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his Sunni-dominated government — on Netanyahu’s recommendation. After the invasion, President George W. Bush installed a Shiite-dominated government. So, whatever influence Iran has in Baghdad is the result of a U.S. invasion that Netanyahu personally encouraged.

More recently, Iran has supported the embattled Iraqi government in its struggle against the murderous Islamic State militants who seized large swaths of Iraqi territory last summer. Indeed, Iraqi officials have credited Iran with playing a crucial role in blunting the Islamic State, the terrorists whom President Obama has identified as one of the top security threats facing the United States.

Netanyahu cited Damascus, too, where Iran has helped the Syrian government in its struggle against the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front. In other words, Iran is assisting the internationally recognized government of Syria hold off two major terrorist organizations. But Netanyahu portrays that as Iran “gobbling up” a nation.

The Israeli prime minister also mentioned Beirut, Lebanon, and Sanaa, Yemen, but those were rather bizarre references, too, since Lebanon is governed by a multi-ethnic arrangement that includes a number of religious and political factions. Hezbollah is one and it has close ties to Iran, but it is stretching the truth to say that Iran “dominates” Beirut or Lebanon.

Similarly, in Sanaa, the Houthis, a Shiite-related sect, have taken control of Yemen’s capital and have reportedly received some help from Iran, but the Houthis deny those reports and are clearly far from under Iranian control. The Houthis also have vowed to work with the Americans to carry on the fight against Yemen’s Al-Qaeda affiliate [AQAP].

Leading the Battle

Indeed, Iran and these various Shiite-linked movements have been among the most effective in battling Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, while Israel’s Saudi friends have been repeatedly linked to funding and supporting these Sunni terrorist organizations. In effect, what Netanyahu asked the Congress to do – and apparently successfully – was to join Saudi Arabia and Israel in identifying Iran, not Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, as America’s chief enemy in the Middle East.

That would put the U.S.-Iranian cooperation in combating Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in jeopardy. It could lead to victories by these Sunni terrorists in Syria and possibly even Iraq, a situation that almost surely would force the U.S. military to return in force to the region. No U.S. president could politically accept Damascus or Baghdad in the hands of openly terrorist organizations vowing to carry the fight to Europe and the United States.

Yet, that was the logic — or lack thereof — in Netanyahu’s appeal to Congress. As he put it, “when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.” He also argued that Iran was a greater threat than the Islamic State, a position that Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren has expressed, too.

“The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime [in Syria] as the keystone in that arc,” Oren told the Jerusalem Post in a 2013 interview. “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran” – even if the “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda.

In June 2014, then speaking as a former ambassador at an Aspen Institute conference, Oren expanded on his position, saying Israel would even prefer a victory by the brutal Islamic State over continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. “From Israel’s perspective, if there’s got to be an evil that’s got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail,” Oren said.

Netanyahu made a similar point: “The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs.”

Of course, Iran has disavowed any interest in developing a nuclear bomb — and both the U.S. and Israeli intelligence communities agree that Iran has not been working on a bomb. Further, the negotiated agreement between Iran and leading world powers would impose strict oversight on Iran’s civilian nuclear program, leaving little opportunity to cheat.

Instead, Netanyahu wants the United States to lead an aggressive campaign to further strangle Iran’s economy with the goal of forcing some future “regime change.” The principal beneficiary of that strategy would likely be Saudi Arabia, which has served as the proselytizing center for the reactionary Wahabbi version of Sunni Islam, which inspired Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

Elements of the Saudi royal family also have long been known to support Islamist militants, including forces associated with bin Laden. Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that convicted al-Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui identified leading members of the Saudi government as financiers of the terrorist network.

According to the story, Moussaoui said in a prison deposition that he was directed in 1998 or 1999 by Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan to create a digital database of the group’s donors and that the list included Prince Turki al-Faisal, then Saudi intelligence chief; Prince Bandar bin Sultan, longtime Saudi ambassador to the United States; Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, a prominent billionaire investor; and many leading clerics.

Moussaoui also said he discussed a plan to shoot down President George W. Bush’s Air Force One with a Stinger missile with a staff member at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, at a time when Bandar was the ambassador to the United States and considered so close to the Bush family that his nickname was “Bandar Bush.”

Moussaoui claimed, too, that he passed letters between Osama bin Laden and then Crown Prince Salman, who recently became king upon the death of his brother King Abdullah.

While the Saudi government denied Moussaoui’s accusations, Saudi and other Persian Gulf oil sheikdoms have been identified in recent years as financial backers of Sunni militants fighting in Syria to overthrow Assad’s largely secular regime, with al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front the major rebel force benefiting from this support.

Shared Israeli Interests

The Israelis also have found themselves on the side of these Sunni militants in Syria because the Israelis share the Saudi view that Iran and the so-called “Shiite crescent” – reaching from Tehran to Beirut – is the greatest threat to their interests.

That attitude of favoring Sunni militants over Assad has taken a tactical form with Israeli forces launching attacks inside Syria that benefit Nusra Front. For instance, on Jan. 18, 2015, Israel attacked Lebanese-Iranian advisers assisting Assad’s government in Syria, killing several members of Hezbollah and an Iranian general. These military advisers were engaged in operations against Nusra Front.

Meanwhile, Israel has refrained from attacking Nusra militants who have seized Syrian territory near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. One source familiar with U.S. intelligence information on Syria told me that Israel has a “non-aggression pact” with Nusra forces, who have even received medical treatment at Israeli hospitals.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have found themselves on the same side in other regional struggles, including support for the military’s ouster of the elected Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, but most importantly they have joined forces in their hostility toward Shiite-ruled Iran.

Now that all calls for the US to invade Syria fade away and the longer the war goes on, the more lies are surfacing and the call for war is getting more desperate. With Netanyahu calling for war in Iran and Syria and Obama reviving the Cold War with Russia.

Unless Europe wakes up to what Obama and Netanyahu are up to there are going to be more wars in Europe. When are the US taxpayers going revolt against their hard earned dollars going to Israel and wars. What is the point of having elected leaders, when they can only do what Israel tells them to.

Who is running the US and who is controlling your police? The biggest enemy of Obama isn’t Iran, it should be his own people, that he is continually lying to.

Netanyahu has just spoken to Congress, let’s see how long it takes for him to get exactly what he wants. WAR.

FoS

This Week at Trump’s Zionist Owned U.S. State Dept: March 17, 2017

Trump is the Now Officially the New Obama Succubent in his 1st 100 days

 

 criticism-of-israel-and-israelis-policies-nothing-to-do-with-anti-semitism

Missed key foreign policy coverage over the last week? We’ve got you covered. Each week, DipNote will recap the latest U.S. Department of State highlights covering a wide range of global issues, events, and initiatives in one easy to read post.

Here are the highlights from This Week at State:

Secretary Tillerson Makes First Visit to the East Asia and Pacific Region

Secretary Tillerson Addresses Reporters at Joint Press Conference With South Korean Foreign Minister Yun in Seoul. (State Department Photo)

On March 17, Secretary Tillerson traveled to the Republic of Korea for meetings with senior officials to discuss bilateral and multilateral issues, including the United States’ continued “ironclad” support of the U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance and the growing threat presented by Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). While in Seoul, the Secretary held meetings with the acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn and Foreign Minister Yun.

“The U.S. commitment to our allies is unwavering. In the face of North Korea’s grave and escalating global threat, it is important for me to consult with our friends, and chart a path that secures the peace. Let me be very clear: the policy of strategic patience has ended. We are exploring a new range of diplomatic, security, and economic measures. All options are on the table. North Korea must understand that the only path to a secure, economically-prosperous future is to abandon its development of nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other weapons of mass destruction.” — Secretary of State Tillerson, Seoul, Korea March 17, 2017

The day prior, Secretary Tillerson traveled to Tokyo, Japan. While in Japan, the Secretary underscored the Administration’s commitment to broaden U.S. economic and security interests in the Asia-Pacific region and reaffirmed the importance of cooperation within the U.S.-Japan alliance during discussions with Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo.

Secretary Tillerson travels to Beijing on March 18 for the final leg of his Asia trip. Follow the State Department on Twitter and Facebook and visit www.state.gov for more information.

The United States Reaffirmed Commitment to a Sovereign Ukraine

On the third anniversary of Russia’s Crimean “Referendum,” the United States reaffirmed its commitment to a sovereign and whole Ukraine.

“The United States does not recognize Russia’s “referendum” of March 16, 2014, nor its attempted annexation of Crimea and continued violation of international law. We once again reaffirm our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity…Crimea is a part of Ukraine. The United States again condemns the Russian occupation of Crimea and calls for its immediate end. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control of the peninsula to Ukraine.” — Press Statement by State Department Acting Spokesperson Mark Toner

Ambassador Nikki Haley Addresses the 61st Commission on the Status of Women

U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, delivered remarks during the 61st UN Commission on the Status of Women, an annual two-week session that brings together more than 40 UN member government representatives and civil society to discuss ways to improve the lives of women around the globe. The theme of this year’s session was “Women in the Changing World of Work.” In her remarks, Ambassador Haley shared her mother’s story and emphasized the importance of ensuring fair, equal opportunities for women and girls around the world.

And now, a look ahead to what is happening next week at State:

Secretary Tillerson to Host Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS Ministerial

On March 22, Secretary Tillerson will host the foreign ministers and senior leaders of the Global Coalition working to defeat ISIS. This meeting will take place at the Department of State in Washington D.C., and will be the first meeting of the full Coalition, now at 68 members, since December 2014.

The ministerial will include a detailed discussion of priorities for the Coalition’s multiple lines of effort, including military, foreign terrorist fighters, counterterrorist financing, counter-messaging, and stabilization of liberated areas, to increase the momentum of the campaign. Additionally, Ministers will discuss the ongoing humanitarian crises in Iraq and Syria that are affecting the region.

Follow the State Department on Twitter and Facebook for additional information and updates.

Catch up on previous This Week at State blogs on DipNote and Medium.com.


This entry originally appeared on DipNote, the U.S. State Department’s Official blog.