War Drums Sounding
by
by
Kevin Alfred Strom
Free Speech, September 2002
Volume VIII, Number IX
Ever since September 11, Jewish commentators and columnists have beaten
their war drums for an all-out war against Iraq -- Kristol, Kagan,
Krauthammer, Safire, Kondrake, Feder, Wattenberg, and many others --
all of them deceptively pretending to be neutral observers, pretending
to place American interests before those of Israel. Mortimer Zuckerman
takes the cake in this category by being not only a columnist for US News and World Report; but its owner as well, and the owner of the New York Daily News to boot. And Zuckerman also apparently feels there's no conflict of
interest in his publications' coverage of the Middle East caused by his
current tenure as the Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major
Jewish Organizations, an umbrella group of fifty-two national Jewish
organizations, whose very name and structure reveal the enormity of
Jewish power and influence.
Meanwhile, the cousins of the Jewish commentators and columnists
are busy at work in Washington, seeking to shape U.S. foreign policy
through their official and advisory positions in the Bush
administration. Richard Perle, a Jew and Director of the Defense Policy
Board, and a Director of the Jerusalem Post as well, would like us to attack Iraq now, as would Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, a Jew who, during
the Gulf War aroused the fury of our senior military officers who
claimed, quite correctly, that Wolfowitz was overly sympathetic to
Israel.1
Perle and Wolfowitz are joined in their cabal by "our" Undersecretary
of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, a Jew who recently approved a
plan to nuke Iraq if it moves against Israel, and Vice President
Cheney's Jewish chief of staff, Lewis Libby, and Elliott Abrams, Bush's
Jewish "National Security Director for Democracy, Human Rights and
International Operations." And we can't forget Bush's Press Secretary
and chief handler, Ari Fleischer, also a Jew. Imagine the uproar if as
many media pundits and government officials were of Iraqi or
Palestinian descent! Imagine the media outrage if even one major
columnist or advisor was discovered to be a member of the National
Alliance.
Having initiated the media barrage calling for a U.S. attack on
Iraq, Jews are now trying to keep a low profile, fearful that the
American people might finally connect the dots and realize that the
Jews' reason for wanting war is not that they are concerned about the interests of New York fire-fighters
or Pennsylvania coal-miners -- but that they are primarily concerned,
as they always have been, about the future of Israel and World Jewry.
Fearing a Gentile backlash against their subversive activities,
it is critical for the Jews that most Americans not perceive who is
behind the constant agitation for another war against Iraq. The Jewish
Telegraphic Agency reported last week that:
(S)ome analysts say that Jewish leaders keep a low
profile out of concern that critics might say America is attacking Iraq
to benefit Israel.2
God forbid that anyone should dare reach such a conclusion! Jews are
concerned not about whether attacking Saddam Hussein is good for
America, but whether it is good for Israel. Forget that American blood
and resources will be sacrificed. Forget that Jewish sabre-rattling
will endanger the nation by making us the focus of Arab resentment. To
the "Chosen," it doesn't really matter if thousands of additional Iraqi
civilians are killed in an American attack. During the Gulf War, we
bombarded Iraqi cities for two months, killing 80,000 innocent
civilians.3 At least 333,000 children and elderly Iraqis, and perhaps three times
that many, have died prematurely since the war began, thanks to the
U.S.-sponsored blockade of medicine and food, and our destruction of
Iraqi water purification plants. Madeleine Albright, the Jewish former
Secretary of State, justified these cruel policies and coldly dismissed
humanitarian concerns with the comment that "the price is worth it."
333,000 dead babies and old people, worth it. 80,000 dead: wives,
husbands, and children. This is worth it. And all of this against a
country that presents no threat to the United States! After all, Iraq
is over 6,000 miles away, with no ballistic missiles that could reach
us -- but, with missiles that could reach Tel Aviv. Since many Jews
regard Israel as our "51st state," they have decided that we must launch a "preemptive war" against their enemy.
They have blood on their hands, up to their shoulders. Yet they
pretend to be innocent lambs who have the best interests of America at
heart.
Jews do not lose sleep at night worrying if such an attack will turn
virtually the entire Moslem world of over one billion people against
America, and subject us to further attacks like those of September
11th. During the Second World War, there was a joke that, as the
Gentiles marched off to war, the favorite song of the Jews was "Onward
Christian Soldiers," and that may once again be the case if we attack
Iraq. For one thing is certain -- the children of Wolfowitz and Perle
and Krauthammer and their ilk will not be marching off in uniform, or
coming home in body-bags, or with Purple Hearts.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency article goes on to note the
strategy of one influential Jewish leader, Morris Amitay, a pro-Israel
activist and former executive director of the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee, better known around Washington as AIPAC. He said:
Why should it be a Jewish or Israeli issue? We should stay as patriotic as the next guy, but not be out front.
As for the Jewish motivation for instigating a US war against Iraq, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article further says:
The Jewish community views an attack on Iraq as advantageous on several levels....
[A] regime change in Iraq would be in Israel's best interest. Iraq's
production of weapons of mass destruction and apparent willingness to
use them are a constant threat to Israel's security....
American engagement in Iraq could help Israel's standing in its
conflict with the Palestinians. President Saddam Hussein has been
financially assisting Palestinian terrorist groups and giving funds to
the families of suicide bombers. Many believe Hussein would try to
rally Arab governments to his side by attacking Israel.
In addition, some argue that overthrowing Hussein would send a
strong message to the Palestinians about the consequences of terrorism.
The Jewish-owned New York Times said in a recent editorial4 that what is crucial is that Iraq be disarmed of all "unconventional
weapons" -- the so-called "weapons of mass destruction." In other
words, what the Times wants, but doesn't quite dare say, is a Middle East in which only one country has nuclear weapons -- Israel. This would give Israel's Prime
Minister, Ariel Sharon, known as the "Butcher of Beirut" for his bloody
massacres of innocents going back decades and still happening today,
the power to dominate the Arab world perpetually. It is Israel, and not
Iraq nor other Arab nations that possesses the greatest Middle Eastern
arsenal of over 450 nuclear weapons of mass destruction -- many of
which were built during a time when Israel deceitfully disavowed any
intention to build nuclear weapons.
Of course Israel's vast nuclear arsenal has evoked nary a peep
of criticism from American bureaucrats, elected officials or political
commentators. According to American law, all aid to Israel would have
to stop if it were proven that she had built nuclear weapons in
violation of her agreements. All official Washington knows that Israel
has done exactly that, but they keep silent to oblige Israel in getting
more American money and more American blood.
They have blood on their hands, up to their shoulders. Yet they
pretend to be innocent lambs who have the best interests of America at
heart.
It is also Israel, and not Iraq, that is in the process of
manufacturing genocidal biological weapons capable of killing Iraqis
while leaving Jews unharmed. On November 15, 1998, the Sunday Times of London reported that Israel was developing an "ethno-bomb." It is
reported that Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances
by identifying a gene carried by some Arabs, and then creating a
genetically-modified bacterium or virus. The deadly micro-organisms
would attack only Arabs or other non-Jews, leaving Jews unscathed. Talk
about genocide and "weapons of mass destruction"!
A senior Israeli intelligence official has admitted:
There is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemical or biological weapon ... which is not manufactured [in Israel].5
The big threat in the Middle East is Israel, not Iraq. The only weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East are in Israel. Its 450 nuclear weapons6 are far more than it needs for deterrence. Israel has ballistic
missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow. They are the world's
fourth or fifth most powerful nuclear power, and Israel is the only
Middle Eastern nation that adamantly refuses to sign the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Don't forget that from the 1950s the United States was training Israeli
nuclear scientists and providing nuclear-related technology.7 It is clear that Israel has had no interest in peace except that which
is dictated on its own terms. Israel is the primary destabilizing force
driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region's states to
seek their own deterrents. George W. Bush talks about an "Axis of
Evil," a term cooked up by David Frum, his Jewish speech-writer, but
this absurd attempt at demonization represents a grotesque
double-standard by which Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are condemned for
developing nuclear weapons, while Israel -- the principal culprit -- is
permitted to increase its nuclear and biological arsenal in blatant
violation of American laws that ought to cut off all aid to the Jewish
state. Even the Jewish writer Seymour Hersh has admitted:
...the size and sophistication of Israel's nuclear
arsenal allows men such as Ariel Sharon to dream of redrawing the map
of the Middle East aided by the implicit threat of nuclear force.8
Thanks to Israeli expansionism and terrorism, and international Jewish
agitation, a wide-scale nuclear conflict in the Middle East has now
become a distinct possibility. It could be triggered by religious
zealots, or by secular Zionist fanatics, or both. Such a war would be
directed by Ariel Sharon, a war criminal whose record as a murderer
stretches from the massacre of Palestinian civilians in 1953 to the
massacres at Sabra and Shatila in 1982, to this year's massacre at
Jenin, to this month's openly-admitted rocket attack on a civilian
apartment complex.
They have blood on their hands, up to their shoulders. Yet they
pretend to be innocent lambs who have the best interests of America at
heart.
How has the United States benefited from its love affair with Israel,
after having deferred to its every whim for over half a century?
Refusal to withdraw from Palestinian and Syrian territory, disregard
for UN resolutions and U.S. requests, proliferation of nuclear weapons,
aggression against its neighbors, damage to American relations with
other Middle East countries, the deliberate bombing of the U.S.S.
Liberty, and espionage against the U.S. by Jonathan Pollard and others.
In fact, the Israeli Cabinet honored Pollard by declaring him an
Israeli citizen in 1995, and he has been elevated to the status of a
national hero there. Israel, the nation that is the largest recipient
of American foreign and military aid in the world has reciprocated by
placing spies in our government. Unfortunately, Pollard's case may be
only the tip of the iceberg. Confirmation of recent Israeli spying on
American soil was offered by the French newspaper Le Monde this past March and discussed by Dr. Pierce in prior American Dissident Voices broadcasts.
It is high time that Americans woke up and spoke out about what this
one-sided relationship is costing us. Israel has worked against our
interests on other occasions, too. In 1992, Israel illegally resold
American military technology to China, and resold aerial refueling
technology to Latin America.
Do you remember Mordechai Vanunu? He is the Israeli
whistleblower who is finishing his twelfth year in captivity -- and the
American news media continue to treat him as a non-person. On Sept. 30,
1986, Israel's government lured Vanunu to Rome, abducted him, and put
him on a cargo ship back to Israel. At a secret trial, he faced charges
of espionage and treason. A military court sentenced him to 18 years in
prison. What was Vanunu's crime? He gave detailed information about
Israel's secret arsenal of nuclear bombs to journalists at the Sunday Times of London.
After growing up in a Jewish family that emigrated to Israel from
Morocco when he was a boy, Mordechai Vanunu became an employee at the
Dimona nuclear plant in 1976. Nearly a decade later -- shortly before
his employment ended at the remote nuclear facility -- he took photos
of areas inside Dimona which had always been illegally hidden from
international inspection. Using severance pay to travel abroad in 1986,
Vanunu contacted the famous Insight investigative unit of Britain's Sunday Times.
The newspaper reported:
During his extensive debriefing by our Insight team, he offered to give
the paper his photographs and all his information for nothing, provided
we did not publish his name, insisting his sole interest was in
stopping nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.9
However, the Sunday Times persuaded Vanunu to allow his
name to be used. The paper agreed to pay him for the serialization of
his story, or for a book. Peter Hounam, the main reporter on the story
for the Sunday Times said:
My impression of the man was of someone who had a genuine desire to
tell the world of something that was going on which he felt was
genuinely wrong for Israel to do. He felt it was wrong that the Israeli
public and parliament were not given any information about what was
happening in Dimona.
On Oct. 5, 1986, the Sunday Times broke the story under the
front-page headline "REVEALED: THE SECRETS OF ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR
ARSENAL." But by then, Vanunu was a prisoner of the Israeli government.
That's how the world learned that he'd been kidnapped. From then on,
when he was transported to court, the van windows were painted black.
And it is still very dark for him. After a dozen years, much of them in
isolation, he is still in prison.
Can you imagine what would have happened if another country in
the Middle East -- say, Iraq or Iran -- kidnapped one of its citizens
from Western Europe to retaliate for spilling the beans about its
nuclear weaponry? That person would have become an instant media hero
in the United States. But if you mention Mordechai Vanunu's name to an
American, you're likely to get a blank stare. On this side of the
Atlantic, he's a media phantom. The United States' media coverage of
Vanunu has remained paltry: just a few scattered newspaper articles.
The New York Times -- America's supposed "newspaper of record" -- has hardly mentioned
Vanunu at all. That's quite a contrast to the situation in Britain,
where coverage of Vanunu's case has been extensive and sustained.
Recently, in the course of several months, mainstream British outlets
have done at least forty-five major stories about Vanunu, according to Nexis. Sixteen of them appeared in the Sunday Times alone. Top politicians and journalists in Washington wag their fingers
at India and Pakistan for joining the world's nuclear club without an
invitation. But there is no such scolding of Israel, which receives
U.S. aid at a rate of about $10 million a day, while maintaining a stockpile of hundreds of nuclear warheads.
If you wonder why this broadcast is virtually the only voice in the
United States of America which dares to tell the truth on this vital
issue, consider the fate of Mordechai Vanunu, for daring to tell the
truth about Israel's weapons of mass destruction.
Speaking of the suppression of news that is unfavorable to
Israel, have you heard about the case of former Israeli secret agent,
Victor Ostrovsky? Although he fled to Canada after revealing the
tactics of the Mossad (Israel's spy and assassination agency) in a
book, he continued to be pursued by the allies of Israel there and in
the United States.10 Ostrovsky has written:
The same people who presumably would praise someone from the CIA or the
U.S. armed forces who exposed serious wrongdoing in those institutions
were now hard at work to smother my criticisms of an intelligence
agency for a foreign country that, to put it as charitably as possible,
does not have America's best interests at heart.
In 1995, an Israeli television executive called for Ostrovsky's
assassination during a broadcast telephone interview with him. Those
same "Americans" who call Ostrovsky a traitor to Israel for exposing
the Mossad's tactics hail as a hero Jonathan Pollard, a traitor to the
U.S. who spied on the American government for Israel.
The suppression of criticism of Israel continues. There is the case of the two Oneida, New York Daily Dispatch editors who were fired last September for daring to mention Israeli
terrorism and Israel's acts of oppression in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. It is horrifying to think that in a land priding itself on
free speech that simply pointing out Israel's crimes in the Middle East
can cause the firing of two editors. But when you're dealing with the
Jewish power structure you're not dealing with Americans, and you're
not dealing with people who have any respect for freedom of speech. The
Jews were even able to get the offending editorial removed from the
newspaper's website, as Dr. Pierce told us in a recent broadcast.11 These high-handed tactics of intimidation and suppression combined with
the virtual Jewish stranglehold on the U.S. news and entertainment
industry help explain why most Americans are so easily misled on
political issues where there is a vested Jewish interest and agenda.
Now, as our pro-Israeli President threatens Iraq, it becomes
increasingly obvious that Israel would love to have thousands of U.S.
troops permanently stationed nearby. Just as plans for an attack on
Iraq seem to have originated from a mentality of "Oh, since we're
already in Afghanistan, why not attack Iraq, too" what is to prevent
the whining (but secretly smiling) Israeli-firsters in the media and
government from convincing Bush and Congress to decide that since we're
already in Iraq, we might as well pay a visit to Israel to help them
decimate the Palestinians?
If we truly want peace in the Middle East and if we truly want
to avoid the escalation of that regional conflict into a nuclear and
biological catastrophe, we'd better wake up and learn how to deal with
what the French ambassador to England so bluntly but aptly referred to
as "that shitty little country Israel" which places us "in danger of
the Second World WarI." The French ambassador is not the only one who
is waking up. All over Europe mainstream politicians and writers are
speaking out against the Jewish disease of unmitigated aggression and
genocide, against the Jewish-led bloodbath. Our kinfolk in Europe are
learning the score. Isn't it about time that we joined them -- before
it's too late?
FOOTNOTES
1. New York Times, Dec. 23, 1991, p. A14
2. July 30, 2002
3. Giorno, Milan, Cape Cod Times, Aug. 3, 2002, p. A14
4. August 3, 2002
5. John Steinbach, "Nuke Nation: Israel's weapons of mass destruction," Covert Action, April-June 2001
6. Washington Post, March 11, 2001, B2
7. John Steinbach, Covert Action Quarterly, April - June 2001
8. quoted in Steinlight
9. Tim Weiner, "The Man Who Protects America from Terrorism," New York Times, Feb. 1, 1999, A3
10. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (October/November 1997, pp 37, 84-85)
11. October 27, 2001
|
at
the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781