ReDiscover 9/11

Editor’s comment: There should be a prohibition on dual nationals serving in any government capacity in the United States of America.

Cantor took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution fom all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Is Cantor’s fallback to explain his allegiance to Israel the kol nidre which allows abdication of contracts, oaths and agreements?

In Jewish tradition, the Cantor proclaims: “All personal vows we are likely to make, all personal oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our personal vows, pledges and oaths be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths.”

Eric Cantor’s Pledge of Allegiance

Soon-to-be GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor met on Wednesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — the same day when the actual U.S. Secretary of State met with Netanyahu — and vowed that he and his GOP colleagues would protect and defend Israeli interests against his own Government. According to a statement proudly issued by Cantor’s own office:

Regarding the midterms, Cantor may have given Netanyahu some reason to stand firm against the American administration.

“Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington,” the readout continued. “He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.”

Leave aside the absurdity of believing that Israel needs to be protected from the extremely deferential and devoted Obama administration. So extraordinary is Cantor’s pledge that even theJewish Telegraph Agency’s Ron Kampeas — himself a reflexive American defender of most things Israel — was astonished, and wrote:

“I can’t remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president. Certainly, in statements on one specific issue or another — building in Jerusalem, or somesuch — lawmakers have taken the sides of other nations. But to have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House — that sounds to me extraordinary.”

More at: http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/news/eric-cantors-pledge-allegiance

DECLARATION: NO MUSLIMS PROVEN INVOLVED IN 9/11
October 21, 2010 posted by Gordon Duff · 37 Comments
On the basis of the study “No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11″ by Elias Davidsson (2008), that we have carefully examined, and other similar studies, we undersigned are now convinced that the U.S. authorities did not prove [beyond reasonable doubt*] their account on the mass murder of September 11, 2001, in particular their claim that Muslims/Arabs committed this crime.

Click the embedded link in the article to become a signatory to this DECLARATION.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: War With Iran

We write to alert you to the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran as early as this month. This would likely lead to a wider war. Israel’s leaders would calculate that once the battle is joined, it will be politically untenable for you to give anything less than unstinting support to Israel, no matter how the war started, and that U.S. troops and weaponry would flow freely. Wider war could eventually result in destruction of the state of Israel. This can be stopped, but only if you move quickly to preempt an Israeli attack by publicly condemning such a move before it happens.

We believe that comments by senior American officials, you included, reflect misplaced trust in Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Actually, the phrasing itself can be revealing, as when CIA Director Panetta implied cavalierly that Washington leaves it up to the Israelis to decide whether and when to attack Iran, and how much “room” to give to the diplomatic effort. On June 27, Panetta casually told ABC’s Jake Tapper, “I think they are willing to give us the room to be able to try to change Iran diplomatically … as opposed to changing them militarily.”

Similarly, the tone you struck referring to Netanyahu and yourself in your July 7 interview with Israeli TV was distinctly out of tune with decades of unfortunate history with Israeli leaders. “Neither of us try to surprise each other,” you said, “and that approach is one that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is committed to.” You may wish to ask Vice President Biden to remind you of the kind of surprises he has encountered in Israel.

Blindsiding has long been an arrow in Israel’s quiver. During the emerging Middle East crisis in the spring of 1967, some of us witnessed closely a flood of Israeli surprises and deception, as Netanyahu’s predecessors feigned fear of an imminent Arab attack as justification for starting a war to seize and occupy Arab territories. We had long since concluded that Israel had been exaggerating the Arab “threat”- well before 1982 when former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin publicly confessed:

“In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [Egyptian President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Israel had, in fact, prepared well militarily and also mounted provocations against its neighbors, in order to provoke a response that could be used to justify expansion of its borders.

Given this record, one would be well advised to greet with appropriate skepticism any private assurances Netanyahu may have given you that Israel would not surprise you with an attack on Iran.

Mohamed El-Moctar El-Shinqiti
aljazeera.net

Aggression immersed in victimhood is a striking reality of the Israeli discourse

An American academic once told me: “Many people in the Islamic world think America does not believe in human rights, but they are wrong; America believes in human rights indeed, the problem is the American definition of human.”

In other words: the American definition of ‘human’ is not a universal one. This is not purely an American characteristic; every culture faces the challenge of broadening its cultural limits and universalising its moral norms.

But among all human cultures and ideologies, the Israeli case is unique in its double standard.

Criminality wrapped in self-righteousness and aggression immersed in victimhood are a few striking characteristics of the Israeli reality and discourse.

Read the rest of this entry »

Gordon Duff
Veterans Today
29 June 2010

For those Americans that don’t know, Ken O’Keefe is the United States Marine combat veteran who captured two Israeli’s suspected of the murder of Turkish photojournalist during the battle on the Mavi Marmara. Veterans Today staff writer, O’Keefe was captured, taken to Israel and beaten, tortured for two days before being released. Israeli’s claimed O’Keefe was planning to set up a training school for terrorists inside Gaza while on the ill fated relief mission attacked in international waters by 24 Israeli ships and dozens of American built Blackhawk and Apache helicopters. As many as 6,500 Israelis are believed to have taken part in the operation, deemed a “war crime” by maritime law experts with the British government.

Nine are known to have died, with autopsies showing “execution style ” killings and many more are still missing, fate unknown. Verified witness reports indicate that Israeli soldiers threw four wounded humanitarian workers overboard to their deaths, victims not listed on the official tally. Other victims are unaccounted for, either killed in Israeli custody, dead from lack of medical care for wounds or being held in secret detention facilities. It is believed these names were withheld because the victims had no affiliations with any Islamic organization and one or more may have been American citizens.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ludwig Watzal
CounterPunch
22 June 2010

Jeremy Milgram is a member of “Rabbis for Human Rights” and a participant in the inter-religious dialogue in Israel. He lives in Jerusalem.

Ludwig Watzal: What do you think of Israel´s handeling of the Gazean freedom flotillas?

Jeremy Milgram: Pretty bad. Excessive use of force. We have known this for a long time when it comes to demonstrations by Palestinians. This time it was an excessive and inappropriate use of force against Europeans and Internationals. The people today did not do anything illegal. They tried to get into Gaza. These are terrible moments in Israeli society.  

My feelings are that Israel`s reckless reaction to the boats should make a lot of people very nervous, as well as the fact that Israel continues to posses atomic bombs. This was poor policy by Israel in terms of responding to a non-threat in case of the boats. Just imagine the reaction if there would have been a real threat from Iran.

Why does the Israeli government react to every crisis with such ferocity? 

The idea of always using force and to be the first in using force as a last resort, has to do with the identities of those who are in charge, the group of seven who make the decisions [the so-called security cabinet L. W.] Of those seven, three were military commanders: Netanyahu, Yaalon, Barak, Lieberman and Yihsai are off-the-wall: they are people to whom you don´t want to give any power. We have a very inadequate leadership.

Has the reliance on force anything to do with the holocaust trauma?

There is an abnormal amount of fear. I think of the fear that is being manufactured from above. By this fear, any anger regarding what we suffered in the holocaust is redirected from Christian Europe to the Muslim Middle East. I think this is a manipulation. But I think also that Israelis are really afraid. The Palestinian resistance, which has also taken violent forms has been a catastrophe because it hardened Israeli attitude. Israelis are thus afraid to make any change, such as to relinquish any piece of land or accord the Palestinians any geographic advantage, even if they have a bad conscience.

Read the rest of this entry »