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.”

Trump Was Right: Latest Arrests Prove Threats to Jewish Centers in US Were False Flags

1 Israeli false flag hacker

21st Century Wire

For the last two months, the US media has continued to ramp-up the alleged ‘alarming trend’ of hate crimes against Jewish institutions and sites in America.

On March 13th, CNN ran the headline, “Jewish Center Bomb Threats Top 100; Kids Pulled from Schools.” Clearly, media outlets like CNN were pushing a sensational, fear-based narrative, and propagating the idea that there is a ‘crisis’.

TrumpInitially, Donald Trump expressed skepticism about the rather bizarre and completely spontaneous spike in reports of attacks and threats to Jewish facilities in the US, suggesting in late February that the threats were being done to “make others look bad,” inferring that this string of events might be a false flag. Predictably, Trump was roundly attacked for questioning the anti-Semitic narrative.

It turns out, that Trump was very likely correct. On Thursday, a 19 yr-old US-Israeli dual citizen was arrested by Israeli police – in conjunction with an ongoing FBI investigation into the supposed wave of threats made to Jewish communities and institutions in the United States, as well as in several other countries over the past few months. So far, the suspect is said to be behind the majority of the threats – and used cyber-camouflage software to conceal his identity while carrying out his erroneous false flag actions. 

Also, according to an Israeli government official, the suspect’s father has also been arrested on the same charges – indicating this was a coordinated, organized effort.

The Israeli father and son duo were not the only party in on this ‘trend’ either. Earlier this month we learned also that the FBI had arrested a former journalist, Juan Thompson, who the bureau say was behind at least eight cases. “Authorities described his menacing calls as part of his campaign to harass a woman,” said the Washington Post. The Williams case was almost invisible in the US mainstream media who seems to have collectively opted not to give this, or any other related revelations, a fraction of the oxygen which it originally gave the slew of alleged ‘hate crimes.’

1 church-mcclinton

If anyone should be skeptical of false flag hate crimes, it’s Trump. During, and after the US election, a string of faked ‘hate crimes’ were carried out and eventually exposed as fake incidents – all designed to discredit Donald Trump and his supporters. The worst of these was a fake “racist” attack on a church in Greenville, Mississippi which was burned down, with the words “Vote Trump” spray-painted on the wall. Pro-Clinton news outlets all loudly ran the story without questioning its merit or its timing. The media bought it, of course, but it was later revealed that the incident was a false flag – staged just days before the November election. The arsonist turned out to be an African-American and de facto Hillary Clinton supporter, Andrew McClinton of Leland, Mississippi.

In addition to the fake church attack, liberal and Democratic Party supporters and media operatives also promoted astring of fake hate crimes against Muslims, including a fabricated a story in Lafayette, Louisiana, where a Muslim woman lied to police about being attacked and having her hijab ripped off, and a similar fabricated story by another Muslim woman in New York who made up a fake ‘hate crime’ on subway. In both instances, the media, eager to use these dubious stories in order to inflict political damage against Trump, ran gleefully with the story.

One cannot calculate the real damage done to trust between communities and faith and ethnic relations, as a result of all of these fake hate crime stunts and their initial media coverage

Trump surrogate Anthony Scaramucci echoed the President’s suspicion of the sudden spate of threats to Jewish sites in the US:

It’s not yet clear who the offenders are. Don’t forget @TheDemocrats effort to incite violence at Trump rallies https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/17/exclusive-okeefe-video-sting-exposes-bird-dogging-democrats-effort-to-incite-violence-at-trump-rallies/amp/ 

Photo published for O'Keefe Reveals 'Bird-Dogging' to Incite Violence at Trump Events

O’Keefe Reveals ‘Bird-Dogging’ to Incite Violence at Trump Events

Democrats have used trained provocateurs to instigate violence at Republican events nationwide through a tactic called “bird-dogging.”

breitbart.com

Like the President, his former advisor Scaramucci was castigated by a number of media outlets who had adopted the Jewish alarmist narrative of events. Not surprisingly, the pro-Israel, anti-Russian and unofficial NATO mouthpiece, The Daily Beast and its writer Gideon Resnik, helped advance accusations of anti-Semitism against the US President:

“After a slew of bomb threats forced evacuations at Jewish community centers and schools in 11 states on Monday, President Trump reportedly suggested that the threats may have been done to “make others look bad.”

“Unfortunately, this recent denial fits in with a clear pattern that we have seen from Trump, which includes dismissing Jewish reporters asking about violence, refusing to include a reference to Jews’ suffering in the White House’s official statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day, failing to denounce David Duke, tweeting Anti-Semitic imagery, and elevating white nationalist Steve Bannon as his top advisor,” DNC spokesperson Eric Walker said.

It wasn’t long before the notoriously reactionary Anti-Defamation League (ADL) weighed in:

“Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, responded by saying: “We are astonished by what the President reportedly said. It is incumbent upon the White House to immediately clarify these remarks.” 

This talking point reached a crescendo just in time for President Donald Trump’s March 14th speech to Congress, when The Lobby dispatched Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro to the White House to try and press Trump just two days after a Jewish cemetery was vandalized in Philadelphia, and a week after a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis was ransacked (in both cases, police had not made any arrests, so it is unknown who did these incidents, or why they did it).

In the hysterical atmosphere created in part by the media’s amplification of this alleged ‘hate trend’ and under direct pressure from The Lobby, it appeared that at the last minute Trump was made to inject the Jewish alarmist talking point at the beginning of his address to the Joint Session on national TV. Trump proclaimed the recent threats against Jewish community centers acts of “hate and evil,” but the insertion of this talking point seemed highly awkward.

So after all that spinning, it turns out the Donald Trump may be correct – and the media, the ADL, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anne Frank Center and every other mouthpiece for the Israeli Lobby – were all wrong on this issue. 

Regarding this week’s arrest of the 19 yr-old Israeli man, the Washington Post adds:

The FBI handed over the information to the Israel police after finding these threats had originated from Israel, Haaretz reported.

“The investigation began in several countries simultaneously after dozens of threatening calls were received at public places, events, synagogues and community buildings that caused panic and disrupted events and activities in various organizations,” the Israel police said in a statement.

“The result of the threats made by the suspect had caused damage to the communities and to their security and in one case when threats were made by the suspect, caused an airline to make an emergency landing.”

The Israel police said the suspect had used advanced camouflage technologies when contacting the institutions and making those threats. The youth’s computers were seized and he was brought in for arraignment before an Israeli court.

Maybe the media should be more careful before jumping to conclusions about WHO is responsible for events that suddenly appear in our news feeds. That includes jumping to conclusions about the ever popular talking point of “ISIS-inspired terror attacks in the US, UK, France, and Germany. More often than not, all is not what it seems.

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

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

#US, #Palestine #News: #Trump and his #US represntitive at the #UN urges withdrawal of an anti-#Israel #UNReport…

cia-contro-mossad1

#US, #Palestine #News: #Trump and his #US represntitive at the #UN urges withdrawal of an anti-#Israel #UNReport…

16938938_402410353452661_963774886403576377_n

http://adam1baum.blogspot.com/2017/03/trump-and-his-us-represntitive-at-un.html?spref=tw

#BoycottIsrael Murderers and Thieves

Israel to demolish Palestinian village in West Bank Israeli occupation wants to use the land of the village to build facilities serving illegal Israeli Jewish settlements in the nearby area Earlier, the villagers appealed against Israeli demolition orders, but the Israeli courts failed to prevent Israeli occupation from carrying out the demolitions. Israeli Civil Administration […]

via israel to demolish Palestinian village in West Bank — Uprootedpalestinians’s Blog

The fight for justice begins at home

Rather than focusing exclusively on Israel-Palestine, Western leftists should use the occupation as a starting point to examine their own role in oppression at home.

By Jakub Zahora

Activists hold mock sections of the Separation Wall during a protest against the occupation on the West Banks main Jerusalem-Hebron highway in full view of Israeli settlers, Beit Jala, West Bank, January 15, 2016. (Activestills.org)

In early October last year, dozens of activists staged a “Global Sukkot against Demolitions” demonstration in front of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) building in Jerusalem. I participated in the event, which involved a coalition of anti-occupation groups and Bedouin citizens of Israel protesting against JNF-led plans to demolish four Palestinian and Bedouin villages in the Negev and the West Bank.

The protest was purposefully organized during Sukkot in order to appeal to the Jewish values and historical experiences underpinning this holiday, which in addition to its agricultural elements, also commemorates Jewish wandering and plight after the Exodus. Indeed, Jewish and Palestinian activists explicitly evoked themes of homelessness and dispossession during the protest in order to show the parallels between historical Jewish experiences and the current treatment of non-Jews by the Israeli state. The demonstration ended with activists declaring, “Not in my name.”

To my surprise, the slogan left me somewhat uneasy. Indeed, the discriminatory policies we were protesting had never been conducted in my name: I am not Jewish. Thus, this occasion made a question that had been haunting me for a while even more pressing: what is my position and that of other non-Jewish researchers and activists in Israel and Palestine, and what can we contribute?

I came to the region in fall 2015 to conduct my doctoral research on so-called “quality of life” settlements. Over the course of the year I spent in Israel/Palestine doing interviews, making observations and analyzing documents, I became deeply conscious of my own position there. Without buying into the narrative that equates criticism of the State of Israel with anti-Semitism, I became critical of what I perceived as the Western Left’s excessive focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when compared to other instances of mass suffering and oppression around the world.

On the one hand, I am inclined to agree with opinions that single out Israel for its colonial policies, which stand in stark contrast to its self-proclaimed status of being “the only democracy in the Middle East.”

Protesters demand that Airbnb stop renting properties in West Bank Israeli settlements, Dublin, June 3, 2016. (Courtesy of JVP)

On the other, I also became convinced that being strongly opinionated about, and actively involved in resistance against, the Israeli occupation has become a sort of identity politics on the part of those Westerners who are eager to be seen as progressive. It seemed to me that involvement in pro-Palestinian activism for a month or two served as a kind of rite of passage for mostly young, college-educated leftists.

What further bothered me was that this exceptionalizing perception of Israel/Palestine was often accompanied by a rather essentialist take on the situation in the region, that went beyond the Orientalist, xenophobic and patronizing attitudes towards Palestinians I had steeled myself for when beginning my research. Thus, an acquaintance’s remarks that the untidiness of “Arab” cities in the West clearly demonstrated Palestinians’ cultural inferiority vis-à-vis Israelis, did not really surprise me.

More disturbingly for me, I repeatedly came across simplified and even dehumanizing language from some foreigners when discussing Israelis, a pattern I had a hard time reconciling with the self-declared leftist views of these individuals. I vividly remember another researcher, whose project also involved interviewing settlers, referring to them as “imports.” As I objected to this perplexing language, she seemed surprised and retorted “So how would you call them? Immigrants?”

I very much agree that settlers are part of the Israeli occupying regime. Yet, as I reflect on my personal and national history, I am forced to question certain leftists’ hasty condemnations. My family owns a large cottage in a mountainous area in the northern part of the Czech Republic. Located near the top of a hill, it has a beautiful view over a picturesque village and the surrounding hilly areas.

Yet this peaceful scenery is in fact a sort of monument to massive ethnic cleansing: before World War II, the village had been predominantly German, its inhabitants deported by the Czechoslovakian authorities in late 1945. Overall, around 2.5 million Czechoslovakian citizens of German background were expelled in the aftermath of the war, and several thousand instances of murder and rape occurred. With this in mind, I can hardly see the situation in Israel/Palestine as unique.

Protest in front of JNF office in Jerusalem (photo: Max Schindler)

But most importantly, I found myself resentful of my own role in the research and activist industry focused on the region. I can understand the need of Jewish activists to protest and critically analyze Israeli policies, given that the State of Israel claims to represent them because of their religion/ethnicity.

But what am I to make of myself, an Eastern European gentile who has almost no personal connection to the region? Given that there is an abundance of racist policies and practices in my home country as well, how can I possibly justify my own research of the Israeli settlement project as opposed to, for instance, investigating the mistreatment of refugees by Czech authorities?

I do not have any definite answers to these questions, only tentative ideas. In terms of my research, I gradually started considering “quality of life” settlements as a somewhat extreme example of a wider phenomenon of how can people shut themselves away from violence that underpins their everyday lives.

Indeed, in my interviews with settlers the disturbing policies and practices of the Israeli rule that take place literally a hundred meters from them never came up. This perspective then helped me to see the power structures in the occupied Palestinian territories as less exceptional and more similar to other contexts, including the one I was born and brought up in.

I believe this attitude could be productive for others when approaching the conditions in Israel/Palestine. Perhaps it is not just about seeing parallels between the Israeli army’s daily harassment of Palestinians on the one hand, and mass incarceration of blacks in the U.S. or ghettoization of Roma citizens in the Czech Republic on the other. I came to the conclusion that we should also acknowledge how few differences there are between “economic” settlers commuting on Israeli-only roads in the West Bank, and us (non-settlers, non-Israelis, and in some cases non-Jews), in our comfortable gated communities and gentrified neighborhoods.

Adopting such a perspective thus does not call for refraining from criticism towards Israeli policies. Indeed, as racism and xenophobia once again become legitimate in Western public debates and political programs, practices that sustain the Israeli occupation of the West Bank should be seen as alarming examples of how easily violence against some segments of the population can become concealed, normalized and eventually accepted. Maybe, then, the case of Israel/Palestine can help us, Jews and non-Jews alike, to see more clearly our own daily compliance in oppression and dispossession in other contexts.

Jakub Zahora is a PhD student at the Department of International Relations at Charles University in Prague. In his dissertation he is looking into the politics of space and sight in large settlements in the West Bank.

The Deep State’s Hatred of Trump Is Not the Same as Yours

Posted on Mar 2, 2017

By Paul Street

b4pzrc8ccaaevu0

Last October, three weeks before the presidential election, I wrote an essay for left progressives titled “The Ruling Class’s Hatred of Trump is Different Than Yours.” People on the left, I noted, loathed the white-nationalist, quasi-fascist Donald Trump because of his sexism, racism, nativism, authoritarianism, militarism, “law and order” police-state-ism, anti-intellectualism, his regressive arch-plutocracy, fake populism, climate denialism and promise to “deregulate energy” and thereby escalate the petro-capitalist, greenhouse gassing-to-death of life on earth.

The establishment’s contempt for the orange-haired beast, I noted, was different. The nation’s unelected and interrelated dictatorships of money and empire were perfectly willing to live with most, if not all, of what the left hated about Trump. After all, I reasoned, they’d been backing or tolerating most or all of those terrible things under presidents from both major United States parties for decades.

Trump, I wrote, faced ruling-class disdain because he was considered bad for transnational capital and the American empire. For the most part, the “deep state” masters who backed Hillary Clinton did not appreciate The Donald’s blustering promises to roll back the neoliberal “free trade” agenda in the name of the forgotten working class. The foreign policy and “national security” establishment especially hated his criticism of Washington’s long march toward war with Russia.

They did not relish the related threat Trump posed to Brand America. It is longstanding, bipartisan, U.S. ruling-class doctrine that this country is the world’s great beacon and agent of democracy, human rights, justice and freedom. American reality has never matched the doctrine, but smart rulers knew that it would be especially difficult to align those claims with a president like Trump.

As a presidential candidate, Trump openly exhibited racist, nativist, sexist, arch-authoritarian, police-state-ist, Islamophobic, pro-torture, and even neofascist sentiments and values. “If our system of government is an oligarchy with a façade of democratic and constitutional process,” the veteran congressional staffer Mike Lofgren wrote last summer in the preface to his book “The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government,” “Trump would not only rip that façade away for the entire world to behold; he would take our system’s ugliest features and intensify them.” They also had policy differences with Trump’s “isolationist” and “anti-trade” rhetoric. That is why the nation’s economic and foreign-policy elites preferred Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio over Trump in the Republican primaries and Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Flash forward to the present. Horrified at the rise of an Insane Clown President who evokes chilling echoes of classic fascism, millions have taken to the streets. The issues that concern the swirling, record-setting crowds that have arisen from coast to coast are evident on their homemade signs.They include women’s and civil rights, climate change, social justice, racism, nativism, the police state, mass incarceration, plutocracy, authoritarianism, immigrant rights, low wages, economic inequality (the top tenth of the upper U.S. 1 percent now owns more wealth than the nation’s bottom 90 percent), hyper-militarism and the devaluation of science and education. The marches and protests are about the threats Trump poses to peace, social justice, the rule of law, livable ecology and democracy.

Meanwhile, the national corporate media and the U.S. intelligence community have been attacking Trump for a very different and strange reason. They have claimed, with no serious or credible evidence, that Trump is, for some bizarre reason, a tool of the Russian state. The charge is as wacky as anything Glenn Beck or, for that matter, Trump (former leader of the preposterous “birther movement”), used to say about President Obama. Citing vague and unsubstantiated CIA reports, The New York Times, The Washington Post and many other forces in the establishment media want Americans to believe that, in Glenn Greenwald’s properly mocking words, “Donald Trump is some kind of an agent or a spy of Russia, or that he is being blackmailed by Russia and is going to pass secret information to the Kremlin and endanger American agents on purpose.”

Beneath the wild and unsubstantiated charge that Trump is some kind of Moscow-controlled Manchurian president is a determination to cripple and perhaps remove Trump because he wants to normalize U.S. relations with Russia. Why, you might ask, would smoothing things over between Washington and Moscow be a terrible thing? It wouldn’t be for everyday Americans who don’t want to see themselves, their children and their grandchildren blown up in a nuclear war over, say, Ukraine (where the Obama administration provocatively helped create a fascist, NATO-affiliated regime on Russia’s western border) or Crimea (where the vast majority of the population welcomed reversion to Russia).

The U.S. power elite—rooted in key deep-state institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Atlantic Council, the Brookings Institution, The Washington Post and The New York Times—thinks differently. As Mike Whitney recently explained on Counterpunch, Trump’s failure to grasp the necessity of the New Cold War with Russia “threat[ens] … Washington’s broader imperial strategy to control China’s growth, topple Putin, spread military bases across Central Asia, implement trade agreements that maintain the dominant role of western-owned mega-corporations, and derail attempts by Russia and China to link the wealthy EU to Asia by expanding the web of pipeline corridors and high-speed rail that will draw the continents closer together creating the largest and most populous free trade zone the world has ever seen. … The economic integration of Asia and Europe must be blocked to preserve Washington’s hegemonic grip on world power.”

This is CFR-led, U.S. “Open Door” Imperialism 101.

media-aipac-mafia1

Don’t be fooled by how much CNN’s anchors enjoy broadcasting images of mass anti-Trump popular protests. The U.S. imperial, financial and corporate establishment doesn’t care about the plight of the Standing Rock water and climate protectors, livable ecology, Muslim communities, Latino immigrants, Black Lives Matter activists, poor blacks, civil liberties, the working class (white and nonwhite) or Trump’s recent, insane, budget-busting call for a 10 percent increase in the U.S. military budget.

The Trump presidency is a problem for the American establishment for some very different reasons. He’s a public relations and marketing disaster for Brand USA. How do you sell the United States as a great model and agent of freedom, democracy and cultural diversity when its visible state is captained by vicious, white-nationalist authoritarians like the Twitter-addicted “thin-skinned megalomaniac” Trump and his quasi-fascist “alt-right” Svengali, Steve Bannon?

Trump is seen by many American elites as too stupid, narcissistic and crude to head the world’s most powerful nation. It’s an understandable concern. As The New York Times noted, Trump “spent the first 48 hours of his presidency bickering about the size of the inauguration crowd.”

We’ve never heard a U.S. president say anything as dangerously idiotic as what Trump proclaimed to the nation’s governors on Monday while calling for an over-the-top and dead-in-the-water increase in the Pentagon budget. “We have to start winning wars again. … We never win,” said the new commander in chief, who stands atop a giant nuclear stockpile (the U.S. owns more than 5,100 nuclear warheads) with the capacity to blow the world up many times over. “When I was young, in high school and in college,” the Vietnam-era draft dodger added, “everybody used to say we never lost a war. America never lost. Now, we never win a war.”

Talking so flippantly and childishly about wars and the nation’s need to “win” them—this without even referring to any purportedly legitimate war aims in the nuclear era—is beyond the ruling-class pale. It’s not that the establishment is pacifist or squeamish about killing people. Far from it. The American empire’s body count runs into the many millions over the last half-century alone. But Trump’s juvenile language makes the U.S. look all too transparently like a recklessly daft rogue state, not the wise and “indispensable nation” it has long been purported to be.

Recall Trump’s talk to the CIA on his first full day in office. In a rambling speech broadcast on CNN and other cable news outlets, he complained like a petulant junior high student about the media’s supposed underestimation of the number of people at his inauguration. Then he told stone-faced senior intelligence officials that the U.S. might get another chance to go into Iraq and “get the oil.”

The world shuddered two weeks ago when a U.S. Army officer posed for a photograph with a wealthy patron at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago golf resort while carrying the “nuclear football”—the suitcase that carries the launch codes for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The new president is going to spend many of his presidential weekends at his opulent Mar-a-Lago resort, where the membership fee doubled to $200,000 after he was elected, and members now have new rules to follow.

George W. Bush also was over his head in the White House. Still, with his longstanding, ruling-class, establishment pedigree and his history as a graduate of Yale’s secret Skull and Bones society, he had the decency and, well, the class, to know his limits and place. He subjected himself to certain rules of conduct imposed by his vice president and other more competent and knowledgeable handlers.

The malignant narcissist and Twitter-addicted Trump is a different breed. He might be able to clean himself up enough to read a semicivilized and half-conciliatory speech to Congress (earning thereby a fantastic description as “presidential” from the noted sycophant Van Jones). Still, he seems unable to stop himself from doing and saying things that shred the veneer of a wise, far-seeing and benevolent American empire.

Then there’s been his related failure to grasp the necessity of focusing his dangerous imperial energies on Russia.

Has Trump and/or the people around him gotten the message on Russia? Perhaps. He agreed to get rid of his incompetent and insufficiently anti-Russian national security adviser, Michael Flynn, under establishment pressure. Flynn’s replacement is Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who views Russia as a “hostile revisionist power” that “annex(es) territory, intimidates our allies, develops nuclear weapons, and uses proxies under the cover of modernized conventional militaries.” Two weeks ago, the White House said Russia needs to return Crimea to Ukraine—a preposterous statement that may reflect a newfound willingness for play along with New Cold War rhetoric. In his first annual address to Congress on Tuesday, Trump signaled strong support for Russia’s great antagonist, NATO.

Still, don’t expect the Trump-as-a-tool-of-Russia talk to go away. It’s too irresistible for Democrats to drop. Besides working to delegitimize Trump (something Democrats hope to turn to their advantage in 2018 and 2020), the blame-the-Kremlin narrative helps New Cold Warriors atop both reigning parties keep the heat on Moscow. It helps them hedge in Trump’s lingering promise of rapprochement with Russia.

At the same time, the Russia card helps the corporatists atop the Democratic Party avoid responsibility for blowing the election. After defeating the progressive Democrat Bernie Sanders (who would have defeated Trump) in dubious ways, the neoliberal Democrats ran a hopelessly wooden, Wall Street-captive and corruption-tainted candidate (Hillary Clinton) who couldn’t mobilize enough working- and lower-class voters to defeat the hypernoxious and widely hated Trump. The “Moscow stole it” story line is a fancy version of “the dog ate my homework” for a dismal, dollar-drenched Democratic Party that abandoned the working class and the causes of peace, social justice and environmental sustainability long ago.

The moneyed masters in charge of the “inauthentic opposition” party (the late, left-liberal political scientist Sheldon Wolin’s all-too-accurate description of the Democrats nine years ago) would rather not take a long, hard and honest look at what that political organization has become. It does not want to concede anything to those who dream of turning it into an authentically progressive opposition party. The “Russia did it” imputation works for establishment Democrats hoping to stave off demands from more progressive and populist types (who recently came close to claiming the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee) in their own party. So much better to blame external others for the richly deserved near-collapse of their party at all levels.

The Russia card also has proved tempting to U.S. progressives who should and may know better. Their understandable passion for seeing Herr Trump humiliated and removed from office has led some of them down a disturbing path. As Gareth Porter has noted, “Many people who oppose Trump for other valid reasons have seized on the shaky Russian accusations because they represent the best possibility for ousting Trump from power.” It’s a big mistake. Porter reflects and warns:

But ignoring the motives and the dishonesty behind the campaign of leaks has far-reaching political implications. Not only does it help to establish a precedent for U.S. intelligence agencies to intervene in domestic politics, as happens in authoritarian regimes all over the world, it also strengthens the hand of the military and intelligence bureaucracies who are determined to maintain the New Cold War with Russia.

Those war bureaucracies view the conflict with Russia as key to the continuation of higher levels of military spending and the more aggressive NATO policy in Europe that has already generated a gusher of arms sales that benefits the Pentagon and its self-dealing officials.

Progressives in the anti-Trump movement are in danger of becoming an unwitting ally of those military and intelligence bureaucracies despite the fundamental conflict between their economic and political interests and the desires of people who care about peace, social justice and the environment.

Do serious progressives committed to democracy, peace and social justice really want to lie down in the same warmongering and pro-surveillance bed as the CIA and the Pentagon? Doing so is bad for their souls and moral integrity. It’s also bad for democracy and for peace to help empower and legitimize the imperial system’s unelected and infamously nefarious deep state “intelligence” bureaucracy, “maybe the only [Washington] faction worse than Donald Trump,” according to Greenwald. As Whitney wisely counsels, “Leftists should avoid the temptation of aligning themselves with groups and agencies that might help them achieve their short-term goal of removing Trump, but ultimately move them closer to a de facto 1984 lock-down police state. Misplaced support for the deep state Russophobes will only strengthen the national security state’s stranglehold on power. That’s not a path to victory, it’s a path to annihilation.”

Take to the streets (and highways, town plazas, fossil-fuel extraction sites, shop floors, assembly halls, airwaves and airports, etc.) against Trump, by all means. But also take to the streets against the grim neoliberal Democrats who opened the barn door for his dangerous presidency and against the unelected “deep state” interests working always to increase the ever-upward concentration of global capitalist wealth and power. We don’t want to bring Trump down just to help install an administration more properly suited to selling and otherwise advancing American empire, inequality and ecocide.