Courtesy IfAmericansKnew.org

On January 13th the Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that Israel might someday need to “order a hit” on the president of the United States.

In the column, publisher Andrew Adler describes a scenario in which Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu would need to “give the go-ahead for U.S. based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel.”

The purpose? So that the vice president could then take office and dictate U.S. policies that would help the Jewish state “obliterate its enemies.”
Adler writes that it is highly likely that the idea “has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles.”

Numerous Jewish leaders quickly condemned Adler, who has now apologized for the column, resigned, and put the newspaper up for sale. An Israeli columnist noted that the hatred being stirred up against Obama is similar to conditions in Israel that led to the murder of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish extremist.

Many of those criticizing Adler claim that he had defamed Israel by suggesting that it would ever do such a thing. Abe Foxman, head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) proclaimed: “There is absolutely no excuse, no justification, no rationalization for this kind of rhetoric. It doesn’t even belong in fiction.”

In reality, however, Adler’s expectation that Israel’s inner circles have explored such a course of action, and would be willing to undertake it, may be entirely accurate. The fact is that Israel has killed and plotted to assassinate people throughout the world; a number have been Americans. One alleged plot was chillingly similar to Adler’s suggestion.

There is evidence that in 1991 an Israeli undercover team planned to assassinate a U.S. President. The intended victim was George Herbert Walker Bush.

The first person to write of the plot was a former 11-term Republican Congressman from Illinois, Paul Findley. In a 1992 article in the Washington Report for Middle East Affairs, Findley described the alleged scheme and how it was revealed.

Findley writes that the U.S. Secret Service had received a warning that elements of Israel’s spy agency might target Bush when he went to Madrid for the opening day of the peace conference to be held that year.

According to Findley, a former Mossad agent named Victor Ostrovsky who had written a book exposing Israel’s spy agency told a group of Canadian parliamentarians that he had received secret intelligence suggesting that the “the Mossad’s hatred of Bush – and support for Vice President Dan Quayle – might lead to an attempt on the president’s life.”
Israel considered Quayle much closer to Israel than Bush. Bush had particularly angered Israel by attempting to pressure Israel into ending its illegal settlement expansion on confiscated Palestinian land by withholding loan guarantees until Israel ended this practice.

Findley writes that Ostrovsky’s statements were relayed to Findley’s friend and former colleague Paul “Pete” McCloskey, a prominent former Republican Congressman from California who had recently been named by Bush to the National and Community Service Commission.

McCloskey, a decorated Marine veteran and graduate of Stanford law school who had at one time been considered a presidential contender, flew to Ottawa to debrief Ostrovsky in person and evaluate his information.

Findley reports that Ostrovsky told McCloskey that the Mossad wanted “to do everything possible to preserve a state of war between Israel and its neighbors, assassinating President Bush, if necessary.” Ostrovsky said that a PR campaign was already underway in both Israel and the United States to “prepare public acceptance of Dan Quayle as president.”

Convinced that Ostrovsky was legitimate and his information significant, McCloskey jumped on the next flight to Washington, where he reported Ostrovsky’s intelligence to the Secret Service and State Department.

The apparent plot never went forward, perhaps because Ostrovsky and McCloskey had given it away.

Ostrovsky gave more details about the plot two years later in his 1994 book, “The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad’s Secret Agenda,” published by HarperCollins.

In the book Ostrovsky writes that an extremist group within Mossad was responsible for the plan. He says they kept the plan secret from then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, though they believed that Shamir would have ordered such a hit himself if he hadn’t been constrained by politics. In the lead-up to Israel’s 1948 founding war, Shamir had headed up a terrorist group known for its assassinations.

In his review of Ostrovsky’s book, Ambassador Andrew Killgore, a retired career foreign service officer and publisher of the Washington Report, called the book an “insider’s probing exposé of some Middle East realities that have been hidden too long from all but Israeli eyes.”

Ostrovsky writes that the Israelis planned a “false flag” operation in which they would pin the assassination on Palestinians. They kidnapped three Palestinian militants from Beirut who were to be the scapegoats, took them to Israel’s Negev desert, and held them incommunicado.

“Meanwhile,” Killgore writes, “Mossad-generated threats on the president’s life, seemingly from Palestinians, were leaked. These were designed to throw suspicion on the organization of rogue Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. Names and descriptions of the three terrorists were leaked to Spanish police so that, if the plot was successful, blame would automatically fall on them.”

Ostrovsky reports that after the assassination plot was eventually cancelled, the three Palestinian prisoners were “terminated.”

If the plot had gone forward, this would not have been the first time that Israel targeted Americans for death. Nor would it be the first false flag operation.

•    In 1954 the Mossad planned to firebomb American installations, libraries, and other gathering places in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood was to be blamed for the attacks, thus causing American animosity toward Egypt. An accidental early detonation of one of the devices caused the plot, known as the Lavon Affair, to unravel before it could kill or mutilate the intended Americans.
•    In 1967 Israeli air and sea forces perpetrated an almost two-hour assault in which they tried to sink a US Navy ship with a crew of 294. While the attack failed to sink the ship, it succeeded in killing 34 Americans and injuring 174. Some analysts have conjectured that this was also a false-flag operation; it is highly likely that Egypt would have been blamed for the attack if the ship had gone down.
•    In 1973 Israeli fighter pilots were ordered to shoot down an unarmed U.S. reconnaissance plane (at the time the U.S. was delivering massive weaponry to Israel to prevent it from losing the “Yom Kippur” war with Egypt and Syria). While the Israelis were unable to reach the altitude of the U.S. plane, they did manage that same year to shoot down a civilian Libyan airliner that had strayed over Israeli territory, killing 104 men, women, and children. One was an American.
•    In 1990 a Canadian-American scientist and father of seven, Gerald Bull, was assassinated in Belgium. All indications are that it was an Israeli Mossad hit team that drilled five bullets into the back of his head and neck. (Israel has assassinated a number of scientists of various nationalities. The most recent is a 32-year-old Iranian father with a young son.)
•    In 2003 it came out that Israeli leaders had officially decided to undertake assassination operations on U.S. soil. An FBI spokesman, queried about the Israeli plans, said only: “This is a policy matter. We only enforce federal laws.”
•    In recent years a growing number of American peace activists have been intentionally killed, maimed, and injured by Israeli forces, including 23-year-old Rachel Corrie, 21-year-old Brian Avery, 37-year-old Tristan Anderson, 21-year-old Emily Henoschowitz, and 21-year-old Furkan Dogan.

All of this has been minimally reported in the U.S. press. While major news media from England to Israel to Australia covered the Jewish Times’ apparent endorsement of a possible Israeli assassination of a U.S. President, the scandal has been largely missing from U.S. media. Even Atlanta’s AP bureau inexplicably initially decided not to write a report on it, only finally sending out a story many days later.

Such news omissions concerning Israeli partisans are not rare. In 2004 a fanatic Israel loyalist wrote a letter saying that he was going to burn down Presbyterian churches while worshippers were inside (he was furious at the Presbyterian Church’s decision to divest from companies profiting from the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land).         This grisly threat also received minimal media play.

Despite Israeli violence against Americans (even while American taxpayers have given Israel far more of our tax money than to any other nation) American presidential candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, continue to vie over who is most devoted to Israel.

It is ironic that Adler considers Obama so bad for Israel, given that Israeli analysts have rated him second only to Mitt Romney in his fidelity to Israel. And Obama has now released a seven-minute video that may catapult our first African-American president into first place in pandering to an apartheid nation.

But perhaps he’ll be safe from assassins.

By FRANK SCOTT
Columnist
Pt. Richmond, CA

“Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, torment, slavery, brutalization and moral degradation at the other…” Karl Marx may not have referred to the 1% and the 99% when he wrote of those extremes in the 19th century, but they certainly capture this moment in the 21st. Americans appalled at minority domination of national wealth as they pay for endless wars, increasing inequality and vanishing public services have joined a rising global movement for democracy. 65% of the planet’s 7 billion people are poor, bringing the 21st century still closer to Marx’s words of the 19th. Humanity’s call for another world is growing louder and more insistent. The forces of reaction are working to smother that voice through their private governments and media but also through supposedly public and even progressive political circles.

In a particularly sad irony, a budding form of anarchic democracy in America grows through the “Occupy” movement, while an attempt at such governance in Libya has been crushed, at least temporarily. The NATO attack succeeded in obliterating a governing force that tried representing a majority of the Libyan people. While Khadafy’s regime made many mistakes after its initial socialist phase, perhaps most seriously in re-aligning with the treacherous west, its Green Book attempt to create real and not simply representative democracy was laughed at by cynics but in line with anarchist dreams of power coming from collective will and not individual leadership. Many in the Occupy movement may not know what really happened in Libya, but under thought control exercised by agents of the 1% relatively few have any idea.    More important, growing numbers of people are learning that minority ruled society is the root cause of most problems facing humanity. That these problems grow more severe each day makes the increased demand for change both timely and ever more necessary. The Climate Change meetings in Durban that found the 1% ruling powers standing in the way of any change threatening their fanatic worship of private investment and belief in the market deity only showed more conclusively that democracy of the 99% must become reality to end the hypocritical sham that has gone by its name far too long.

Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly urged “the people of the world…create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.”  These solutions are impossible under the domain of private capital’s 1%. The un-regulated markets of obsessive profit seeking are like un-protected sex. Even at their best they can produce unwanted results and at their worst they may produce terminal disease, which is what present global market forces have created. We cannot opt for a temporary remission via private profiteering which carries the disease; the 99% need to consider the abolition of minority dominated market forces and the beginning of democratic control of global resources, in the interest of all the earth’s inhabitants and not just a tiny group of multi billionaires. In an alleged modern, civilized, digitized society, it’s time we end stupid mythology about hard work earning people incredible sums of money that bring them the power of gods.
How do people come by such wealth? How many packages must they deliver, students must they teach, patrons must they serve, miles must they drive, wounds must they bandage, legal briefs must they submit, floors must they sweep, children must they raise, to end up with a billion dollars? Ten billion dollars?

What sense does it make to have one human living on millions of dollars a week while billions of humans live on less than five dollars a day? The imperial rulers maintain dominance only by virtue of military might. Without massive murder power such as was exercised in Libya and is threatened in Syria and Iran, they would already be gone and as global opposition grows that power will soon not be enough to dominate the planet. Newer threats to powerful nations like China and Russia only show the near dementia of rulers nearing the end of their reign.

But the madness of the diminishing cult, with nuclear weapons at their disposal, threatens our future, just as humanity shows signs of coming together to create a different world of peace, social justice and protection for the environment that sustains all mankind. Leaving control of social wealth in private hands would be suicide for the human race.
Henry Ford once said, “It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” He was correct. We need to understand that system and transform it by creating federal, state and municipal public banks, owned, administered and investing according to the wishes of the people whose funds are held by these institutions. We cannot rely on some wealthy people investing according to moral principles unknown to most of their class. They should be taxed and their money democratically invested in the societies that created this wealth in the first place. We need to create a sensible maximum wage and a higher minimum wage that guarantees survival, with a social safety net that allows no one to go hungry, experience untended illness, or live without shelter.

There is far more than enough wealth to house, feed, clothe and benefit everyone, if we simply stop squandering that wealth on minorities who use it to perpetuate a system that is bringing us closer to social disaster. Capitalism is in a crisis which will get much worse before we make it better. In order to do that we need to end inequality and begin to recognize that the survival of one is dependent on the survival of all.       Happy New Year, 2012 could be a great one.

BY GHASSAN RUBEIZ, Ph.D.
Columnist, Palm Beach Gardens, FL

Israel’s tolerance for “Palestine” is diminishing.  Some of Israel’s extra-conservative leaders think of war leading to the expulsion of Palestinians into neighboring Jordan as a solution.

Overt and direct ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is not likely to happen, but it may be achieved indirectly as a byproduct of a future regional war.

Eleven million people live in Israel and its occupied, annexed or controlled territories.  The population under Israeli authority is now half Arab and half Jewish. One of every five Israeli citizens is Palestinian. Half a million Israeli settlers live in the occupied West Bank and in East Jerusalem.  Gaza’s 1.6 million people live under the rule of Hamas, an Islamic resistance. But Gaza’s air space is closed and its borders are under siege.

Naturally, this mix of sovereignty and identities has always been tense and volatile. Demography is rapidly changing among the Palestinians and the Ultra Orthodox and Mizrahi Israeli Jews. Ideology is shifting to the right.  The Arab Spring is introducing reform as well as uncertainty. Israel is alarmed by the rise of political Islam emerging from successive regime change in the Arab world. The simultaneous ascendancy of political Islam and radical conservative Jewish politics is not a coincidence: one side reinforces the other.
Extreme elements in the Israeli cabinet wish to see Palestinians of the West Bank transferred to neighboring Jordan. Starting with the displaced refugees after the 1948 war, about three million Palestinians – constituting half the population -  now live in Jordan. Currently, a special committee in the Knesset discusses a new bill which identifies Jordan as the Nation State of the Palestinian People.

Discussions of the so called “Jordanian Option” for a future Palestinian state are already active in the US, Europe and Israel.  The outrageous claim that Palestine is historically absent or invented emanates from the fact that the victor often dictates history. The idea of “justified” ethnic cleansing of Palestinians within the occupied territories and Israel sounds immoral to most Israelis. But for those who have no interest in a two-state solution – or in a bi-national state scenario with equality for Arab and Jews- reducing Palestinian presence in Eretz (Greater) Israel may look feasible in a pretext, such as a regional war.

Question: what pretext could be created to rationalize the driving of Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan? To transfer Palestinians to Jordan requires a battle involving Palestinians. Although Palestinians are militarily exhausted, it would not take too much to provoke Hamas and Hezbollah to return to military confrontation.
For Israel, Iran appears to be a convenient setting to start a new wave of military intervention in the region. For warmongers, Iran today looks like Iraq nine years ago. The Persian state also serves as a conduit to a battle with armed Palestinians and their Lebanese allies on Israel’s border. Iran’s inflammatory rhetoric on the Holocaust, its regional alliances and nuclear adventures, provide a “perfect” enemy for those seeking an international crisis to induce the intended Palestinian population transfer. A swift Israeli air attack on Iran may not necessarily generate the conditions of ethnic transfer.  However, if the attack were to turn into a protracted war, Hamas and Hezbollah would likely be involved. If Israel were to win this protracted war, it would most likely arrange to push Palestinians across the Jordan River. But Israel’s victory in this scenario is not certain. Neither in 2006, nor in 2009, did Israel succeed in wiping out Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza. The outcome of such wars is often inconclusive: No side wins; hatred rise and opinions shift to the extreme.

President Obama is not a fool to risk the creation of a regional war with Iran as a starting point.  Unlike his opponents, President Obama, stays firm on his Iran policy of sanction-based diplomacy. Today, compared to Newt Gingrich – who lately referred to Palestinians as an “invention”- and other GOP presidential hopefuls, Obama is starting again to look moderate on the Palestine question. Furthermore, the leaders of the American Jewish community are not yet sold on the idea of a war with Iran, and on a Jordanian option for peace. Finally, most Israelis know well that they cannot risk losing a single war. Should Obama win a second term, he will hopefully find a solution in dealing with an economically exhausted Iran and deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict with a firm hand. An Iranian Spring is in the background. War delays it.

Over the last four decades, the strongest means of Palestinian resistance has been their territoriality, their adherence to their land. They have learned from 1948 and 1967 wars that once they leave their land, homeland becomes a mirage. To the extent that the Palestinians avoid military confrontation with Israel, it will be difficult for Israel to find a pretext to deport masses of people. Moral restraint, anticipation of rage of 1.5 million Muslims, and world opinion will not allow unprovoked ethnic cleansing. Force should not be used to draw borders, displace people and forge national identity.

By IHSAN ALKHATIB, Ph.D, ESQ.
Staff Writer

In responding to a 2006 survey of 1,000 American Muslim registered voters, a plurality of American Muslim respondents chose to identify themselves as “just a Muslim”. Of the survey respondents, 12% identified themselves as Shia while 36% self-identified as Sunni, and 40% called themselves “just a Muslim.” These responses were read to mean that American Muslims want to emphasize their common Muslim identity over their narrower sectarian belonging.
It is greatly misleading to think of Muslim “division” as a Sunni-Shia phenomenon. Within the Sunni Islamic tradition there are four schools of jurisprudence. In addition, the Sunnis are often classified into Sufis, Salafis or Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood. There are lesser known sects and schools of thoughts in Islam. One way to think of this complex phenomenon is as a healthy diversity of a vibrant great faith/civilization. Another way to think of it is as a division- thus implying conflict and irreconcilable and clashing differences. If there is a problem in the Muslim community it goes beyond the Sunni-Shia split- it’s an issue of accepting “the other” and co -existence. In some communities members of the same mosque have come to blows- inside the mosque. In one mosque in Chicago congregants fought, in the mosque, and the police were called to separate the “leaders” of the mosque. It is a tragic reality given the fact that Islamic doctrine and tradition calls for peaceful and respectful dialogue even with non- Muslims, let alone among Muslims. These conflicts and disagreements sometimes arise out of simple issues. USA Today once quoted well-known Imam and activist Mohamed Majid stating: “I’ve seen people fight over how close their toes can be when they kneel in prayer. It’s got to stop.”
American Muslims face daunting challenges. These challenges are mainly imposed by international developments beyond their control. The criminals who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and the others who attempted terror attacks have put the American Muslim community in a very precarious condition. Since 9/11, American Muslims are not only the American group whom it is acceptable to demonize but also the group whose demonization and victimization is thought by the perpetrators of hate as an expression of American patriotism.
Unity and co-existence are good in and of themselves. But when a community is threatened and outnumbered, unity and cooperation become basic necessities of survival. A hated and demonized community like the American Muslim community does not have the luxury of dwelling/(emphasizing) on real and imagined differences and grievances. Benjamin Franklin said: “We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.” This is so true today of American Muslims.

By Sarah Price

The winner of the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize will be announced tomorrow in Oslo, Norway.  There are many well-known nominees, including Wikileaks’s Julian Assange, jailed whistleblower Bradley Manning, and Wael Ghonim, one of the main organizers of the Egyptian protests in Tahrir Square, who was also imprisoned for some time for his role in the revolt.  But there is no clear frontrunner, which surprises the chairman of the prize committee, Thorbjoern Jagland, who says that to him the choice seems obvious, although he is not revealing any hints.  However, it’s very possible that the winner will come from the Arab Spring uprising.

But there is one name that has not even been suggested by the committee, much less formally announced as a nominee.  His singular act of self-sacrifice, in a moment of overwhelming frustration with a lifetime of dealing with an oppressive government, sparked the movement that has spread across the world.

26-year-old Mohamed Bouazizi had been a street vendor in Tunisia since his childhood.  It was the only way he had to make a living, but he still managed to give away some of his produce to poor families, as well as supporting his parents and siblings on what little he made.  But local law enforcement continually harassed him, sometimes taking his produce, or fining him for not having a permit he wasn’t even required to have.  But without money to bribe the police, he was fair game to them.

On December 17, 2010, he was accosted and publicly humiliated by a female municipal officer and beaten by her aides, and had his weighing scale taken away by her.  He ran to the governor’s office trying to get it back, but the governor refused to see him. Trying desperately to get in, he threatened to set himself on fire if he wouldn’t see him, which he still didn’t.  Bouazizi then acquired a can of gasoline, returned to the governor’s office, stood in the middle of traffic and yelled, “How do you expect me to make a living?” Then doused himself, lit a match and set himself on fire.

Witnesses tried to put the fire out, but he was burned over 90% of his body.  He stayed alive, but in a coma, for 18 days, during which time the frustrated Tunisian youth started to rise up in his town of Sidi Bouzid.  Then-President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali vowed to have him transported to a hospital in Paris, but never did, and even used a supposed visit to him in his hospital room as a photo opportunity.

After Bouazizi’s death in January 2011, the protests became more widespread as Tunisians took to the streets and demanded the removal of Ben Ali.  The protests and violence became so overwhelming, Ben Ali finally fled to Saudi Arabia on January 14, ten days after Bouazizi’s death.

With the victory of the Tunisian people over a dictator who had been in power for 23 years, the Egyptian youth were galvanized, and took to the streets on January 25 to demand the removal of President Hosni Mubarak, who had been in power for 30 years, in an oppressive dictatorship.  The images from Tahrir Square inspired and energized people not only across the Arab states, but also across the world, and protests began to rise up internationally, as citizens of Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, and Kuwait called for the resignations of their tyrannical regimes.  Ten months after the spontaneous beginning of the movement, thousands have given their lives for a unified purpose, and several leaders have fled the countries they once ruled.  In the United States, protesters have switched from marching the streets in solidarity with the Arab Spring, to marching for their own rights.  The Occupy Wall Street movement, less than one month old, has now moved to several major cities across the country, and while there has been no definitive change as of yet, there is already a shift in President Obama’s tone toward Congress and his opponents.

The uprisings are occurring in different countries, with different people under different conditions, with different demands.  But the message is the same: No more oppression.  No more tyrannical leaders with voiceless populations.  We decide our fate.

The movement has also had collateral benefits.  The new direction of people standing up for their rights and demanding governmental transparency has arguably made the climate more comfortable and receptive for people like Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, and organizations like Wikileaks.  Even as they are under fire from governmental agencies for their actions, people are not only supportive of them, but outspoken in defense of their rights.  The Palestinian bid for member statehood with the United Nations, while still under review, also may not have been as successfully received as it has been without the progress made thus far, this year.

The progress that has been made in the last ten months has been a long time coming, and yet still astonishing in its power and velocity, and whomever is named to receive the 2011 Nobel Prize for Peace no doubt will deserve it.  But it is very likely that no matter who it is, or what their actions were related to were either connected to, or benefited by, the Arab Spring, and the actions of a young man so desperate for a voice that he would set himself on fire to finally be heard, and thereby opened the eyes and ears of an entire planet and united it.  If not honored for this stunning and ultimate self-sacrifice, may he at least be remembered.

By ALISON WEIR
Courtesy CNI

Israel’s prosperity grows at the expense of Americans

Israel’s Jerusalem Post newspaper recently published an article calling Israel “The New Golden Country” for young people from around the world. It reports that Israel boasts an ever-increasing GDP, a strong currency, and a         “lower unemployment rate than the US.”

The article fails to mention the well over $3 billion a year that American taxpayers have given Israel for years, nor the fact that some of this money has been used to develop industries that compete with US companies, costing thousands of American jobs and adding to the American unemployment rate.
The story also omits the fact that Israel has periodically stolen US technology, hurting the US economy still more, and fails to note that support for Israel has cost Americans in the range of $3-$6 trillion and that these costs continue to escalate.

The article reports that many young Jewish American singles “are realizing that their future is in Israel. Since 2002, over 7,000 students and young professionals have made Aliyah [“ascended” to Israeli citizenship] from North America and the UK… bringing with them their skills…”

Many of these new Israeli citizens, the article reports, then “telecommute to their home countries, commute to Europe or consult globally,” adding to Israel’s economy.
The Israeli story states: “Many students and young professionals are drawn by the incentive of free tuition for a bachelor’s or master’s degree,” comparing this to the United States, where obtaining a degree can put many into significant debt.

According to the article, “Israel sits, quite literally, at the nexus of the world.” The newspaper reports: “This tiny nation is not only in the geographical heart of the globe and at the center of international attention. Israel is also at the very core of innovation, a leader in global commerce and technology.”

Again, the story fails to report the US subsidy of such “innovation.”

In the past ten years alone, Americans have given Israel the equivalent of approximately $200,000 per Israeli family of five. In addition, there have been weapons subsidies, loan forgiveness programs, special trade preferences, and other generous gifts from American taxpayers to Israel. In fact, despite being one of the world’ smallest nations, Israel receives more US tax money than any other country.

On top of this, a multitude of organizations contributing money and assistance to Israel have been given tax-deductible status in the US, removing still more money from the American economy. For example, donations to the “Birthright Israel” program that takes Jewish American students on fun-filled holidays to Israel, convincing many to then “ascend” to Israeli citizenship, are deducted from taxes owed to the U.S.
When Americans become Israeli citizens they retain their U.S. citizenship, allowing them to continue to vote in US elections. Such dual citizenship used to be illegal in the U.S., where it was felt that a citizen could have only one primary national loyalty (for example, in a war or other situations where interests diverged between two nations an individual would have to choose which to support). It was only after Israel became a nation and many Jewish Americans wished citizenship in both countries that a 200-year American tradition was changed.

The Jerusalem Post article also neglected to mention Israel’s attack on a US Navy ship that killed and injured approximately 200 Americans and caused the ship to be scrapped. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Israel termed this a “mistake” and gave the U.S. $6 million “compensation” for a ship valued at $40 million, another blow to the U.S. economy.

While US news media, which are highly Israel-centric in their coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict and portray Israelis as victims, the Jerusalem Post reports that “a recent Gallup survey on global wellbeing ranked Israelis seventh in the world in terms of happiness and satisfaction with their lives” (well ahead of the U.S.).

In considerable contrast, the Palestinian Territories, where the population has been living under Israeli occupation for almost 45 years, is listed as the 12th lowest population in this wellbeing survey.
Miami Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the extremely pro-Israel head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (it is unknown whether she has dual citizenship) and who has just introduced yet another bill on Israel’s behalf, has proposed that the U.S. end assistance programs to the Palestinian population, despite considerable poverty among Palestinian families, while continuing the American dole to Israel, even though Israel is listed among the world’s wealthiest nations.

The Jerusalem Post crows, “The back pages of daily newspapers are overflowing with last minute vacation deals within Israel and abroad, and it is completely normal to find that your friend or coworker has just found a great deal to fly off to Europe for a long weekend.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to suffer a growing economic crisis, numerous Americans have lost jobs and homes, schools are being closed, businesses have gone bankrupt, and many military families are subsisting on food stamps.

An increasing number of Americans are calling for an end to US taxpayer subsidies to Israel. Some go even further, suggesting that it is time to reverse the money flow and demand that Israel begin sending back some of the billions of dollars it has received from American taxpayers over the past 60-plus years.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Israel’s current account balance is 29th in the world; the U.S. comes in at 196th.

BY GHASSAN RUBEIZ, Ph.D.
Columnist, Palm Beach Gardens, FL

Once the battle with Gaddafi is finished, Libyans can turn to rebuilding their country. Only old attitudes, such as tribal loyalties, stand in the way. After Gaddafi, the greatest challenge in state building will be the exercise of representative and strong national leadership.

Libya is being liberated after Tunis and Egypt. This recent triumph in Libya will embolden the rebellious movements in Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, Algeria, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories, and in the foreseeable future, even Saudi Arabia.

Of the three liberated North African countries, Libya, despite tribal differences, most resembles Tunisia in having favorable cultural homogeneity within society. Both countries also have manageable-sized populations in relation to the land. While Libya has an advantage over Tunisia in oil wealth, Tunisia is richer in developed non-governmental organizations. To mention one item, Tunisia is relatively liberal in legislation on women’s rights. In rebuilding a society of the future, Libya should eagerly seek close economic and social cooperation with its Arab neighbor on its Western border.

Egypt, in contrast to Libya, has limited cultivable land and a large reservoir of labor. Libya will need construction workers, and educational and health experts, of its neighbor on the Eastern border. Employing Egypt’s labor force just across borders would lessen Cairo’s addiction to foreign assistance and Tripoli’s excessive reliance on Western presence.

Libya is blessed now with absence of a self-serving military establishment which has nursed Arab autocracies for almost a century. Most Arab rulers have an outrageous sense of entitlement to their nations’ resources. Such manipulative rulers co-opt the military to back up their hold on power. The generals are rewarded for focusing on defense of illegitimate authority rather than the protection of borders.
Even when the ruler is deposed, the power brokers may take the posture of being on the side of the people.  As a result, the military in Egypt has regained national authority and has slowed the reforms of the post-Mubarak transition. Similarly, albeit to a lesser extent, the powerful business elites in Tunisia have diluted the progress of reform after the demise of President Ben Ali.

Will the transition in Libya be different? The National Transition Council, NTC, of Libya has the potential to begin effective state building since the army of Gaddafi has been practically decimated through bloody fighting, with the crucial aid of overwhelming NATO air power. As a result, the leaders of the old regime will not be able to reinvent themselves to take an active role in the post- Gaddafi regime. However, it would be a mistake (a lesson from Iraq’s chaos after Saddam) to bar all former loyalists to Gaddafi from participating in running and rebuilding the country. An extra tolerant TNC (think of South Africa) would gain wider acceptance from all sectors of society and lead the way in building a culture of reconciliation and peace.

Not all the people of Libya are likely to trust the self appointed NTC, which for the most part represents the Eastern (Bengazi) region of the country. Emerging from a climate of violence, which could have developed into a civil war, current Libyan leadership should soon set an end-date for their rule and hand over power to a nationally elected leadership.

The new leaders of Libya have to justify their legitimacy in the days ahead with bold and creative action. Dependence on NATO for too long would interfere with the process of national recovery.
As the NTC pacifies the remnants of old regime loyalists, they ought to show tolerance to this opposition. The future of democratic Libya deserves a new culture of peace and pluralism.
To win the hearts and minds of all the people of Libya, not only the people of the East, the NTC should immediately widen the circle of its leadership.

Three contiguous North African Arab countries have led the Arab Spring. It is a historic opportunity for Libyans not to dwell on the sins of past but to focus on the opportunities of the future. Egypt and Tunisia are well suited to participate in the rebuilding of Libya. If the leaders of Libya take a regional approach in the rebuilding of their country, NATO’s dominance will be diminishing rapidly.

A decisive difference Libya can make to the Arab Spring is the implementation of smooth transition to real reform. Libya’s further contribution could be inter-regional cooperation. If Libya’s transition fails, enemies of the Arab Spring would be vindicated.

By IHSAN ALKHATIB, Ph.D, ESQ. Staff Writer
Dearborn, MI

FBI training paints Islam and Muslims with a broad brush of falsehoods and negativity?

A key participant in BRIDGES, the law enforcement-community forum in Detroit, once asked rhetorically at a meeting: We want to know, does the government see us as partners or as suspects? There is good evidence that while there are many in the government that see the community as a partner, some of those who are training law enforcement don’t. They are training the FBI agents who have awesome powers of investigation, surveillance and prosecution, that Islam and Muslims are evil and that they are the enemy. With such training it is not surprising to see closure of charities, reports of harassment and discriminatory treatment.

The religion of terrorist sympathizers?

A few months ago the media was busy with the story about an FBI training manual that was full of falsehoods and inaccuracies about Islam. I chose to ignore that story thinking that it is the exception to the rule. I thought the US government does not send its agents to the field armed with falsehoods, misrepresentations and inaccuracies. An article by Spencer Ackerman made me change my mind. In an article entitled “FBI teaches agents: ‘Mainstream’ Muslims are ‘violent, radical’ dated September 14, 2011 Ackerman reads: ‘The FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that ‘main stream’ {sic] American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult leader”; and that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than “funding terrorism for combat.” At the agent’s training ground in Quantico, Virginia, agents are shown a chart contending that the more devout a Muslim, the more likely he is to be violent. Those destructive tendencies cannot be reversed, an FBI instructional presentation adds: “Any war against non-believers is justified” under Muslim law; a “moderating process cannot happen if the Koran continues to be regarded as the unalterable word of Allah.”’
Training manual misrepresents Islam

This takes us back to the FBI training manual that surfaced but had 14 pages deleted. The training manual shows the extent of the problem Muslim Americans have. There is nothing positive in the manual about Islam or Muslims. American Muslims want their government agents to be informed about the religion and to understand the ideas of those Muslims who wish to do it harm. Many of these agents, if not all of them, have no knowledge of Islam and Arabs other than what they grew up learning from watching TV and movies that portray Arabs and Muslims in a very negative light. One would expect that the government would give the agents a nuanced look at the faith and its adherents and the subset that is of particular interest to law enforcement. Instead of giving them a better understanding, the training prejudices them against the whole community, the community that they are supposed to police as well as protect.

The “no good morning to you” faith?

The training manual is laughable if it were not for the serious consequences that its misrepresentations entail. It presents nothing positive about the religion and its adherents who number about 6 million in the United Stated. The choice of pictures and quotes is designed to present Islam as alien, barbaric and a threat. One of the quotes in the manual is: “All that is required for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing.” Islam is the evil and the good men are the FBI agents? Is there any other conclusion that could be made from this quote? Then there is picture of a “ceremonial part of a Muslim circumcision ritual” in a village in Bulgaria. Really- this is the picture to show to illustrate Islam’s adherents?  Another picture chosen to illustrate Islam is the picture of a shabby- looking long- bearded Saddam Hussein. Couldn’t the trainers find anything positive about the religion and the civilization that it built? Even the dikhr/prayer beads which are used to remember God are called “worry beads” and there is no mention that they are used to remember God. The Muslims are portrayed as nonsensical and different even with their greetings. The manual claims that a reply of “good morning” for a “good morning” greetings would “offend an Arabian” and would be seen as an “ignorant reply.” This is not a Saturday Night Live sketch. It’s the FBI training manual.

Couldn’t the violence of some of Islam’s adherents been presented in the context of faith- based violence that is not uncommon in other faith groups as well? The word Allah is used and there is no reference to the fact that Allah is God in English and that Allah is the word that Arab Christians use to refer to God. The trainer/s would have none of that. The important clarification would not help in the earnest demonization training effort. When Jihad is talked about there no mention of defensive and offensive Jihad doctrines and its comparison to the Catholic Just War doctrine and the nuances of the doctrine of Jihad and its surrounding controversies.

No nuancing of Shariah

Shariah is mentioned in the training and described as Arabic for “the way to water.” How silly is that? Instead of a bullet point on that would it not have been helpful to refer to the work of Columbia University’s Christian Palestinian scholar Wael Hallaq about Shariah and how it evolved over time independent from the governing authorities and how it became what it is today. Recommending the reading of the concise An Introduction to Islamic Law would have given the agents who read the book a good idea about the development of Shariah law, a knowledge that can be helpful in building rapport with targets and sources as well.

Taking sides: The fringe as the mainstream

The manual also mentions the issue of abrogation/naskh and does a hatchet job with that too- by design. The abrogation is probably one of the most contested issues in the religion. Deal with abrogation. The presentation takes sides on this issue- takes the side of those who argue that the Sword verse/s have cancelled the many verses in the Koran that are seen as calling for peaceful coexistence. The training presents the position of the fringe as Islam’s position on naskh when scholars such as AlQaradawi on Aljazeera and on his website argued that the fringe’s position is flawed and untenable because, among other things, there are verses that come after the so-called sword verses in the very same chapter and call for co-existence as well. It’s a debatable nuanced issue but the training misleads the trainees to take the position of the fringe as the position of the mainstream. This is dishonest. Not an innocent mistake. There is the same problem with the tired repetitiveness of the Dar Alharb, Dar Al Islam view of the world. There is no mention that this is not grounded in the Koran or the Hadith but is a product of one scholar’s mind that was accepted broadly at one time but is questioned now by major scholars such as Al Qaradawi and Tarek Ramadan.
The “least tolerant” gets special government attention

When the manual deals with the schools of thought, or mathabs, are presented on a scale of most tolerant to least tolerant instead on the scale of flexibility and/or strictness in interpreting the faith. When referring to Hadith the manual says that it is “not vague, tells reader exactly what to do, and in what order.” Not true. There are different classes of Hadith as to their authenticity. There is vagueness and disagreement.

“The Godfathers of Jihad”

Probably the worst part of this training is the presentation of some of the key figures of modern Islamic history as “the godfathers of jihad”:  Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood; Sayed Qutub, an author and literary critic who wrote the controversial Milestones as well as books of literary and religious merit; Maududi  a scholar of political Islam; and Abdullah Azzam, one of the leaders of Afghanistan Jihad, a war effort that was supported by the US against the Soviet Union. These are all figures with huge appeal in Islamic circles for many reasons- 99.9% of these reasons have nothing to do with the US or its war on terror. To call them “godfathers” means that anyone or any mosque  that has a book by these key figures or a book that is positive about any of these figures will be painted as radical/ terror sympathizer. This is a grossly over inclusive approach. Hassan al Banna is the founder of the grassroots organization the Muslim Brotherhood that has a huge following the Muslims world. Qutb is a scholar who in addition to writing the controversial Milestones wrote books of literary and religious merit. Azzam is celebrated for his courage in fighting the communists. To call them “godfathers” not only mischaracterizes what they stood for but demonizes their readers and admirers. And as to the Shia, when the manual refers to them it associates them with the US adversary Iran and does not mention their major demographic presence in Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq and the fact that Azerbaijan is also a Shia-majority country.

The training’s stated goal is “to understand the culture and understand the threat.” It does neither. Ackerman’s criticism is on point: “… depicting Islam as inseparable from political violence is exactly the narrative al-Qaida spins- as is the related idea that America and Islam are necessarily in conflict. “ In his testimony before Congress FBI director Mueller refers to the important role of American Muslims as partners in the so-called war on terror. Ackerman states: “That is exactly the opposite message sent in the training rooms of Quantico, where the next generation of FBI counterterrorism is shaped.” Indeed.

By FRANK SCOTT

Columnist

San Rafael, CA

The breakdown of global economics dominated by capital is more apparent with each local crisis. Even Israel has seen Jewish citizens demonstrating against the inequality of what they think is their own economy, just as all over the world people are rising up against injustice seen as unique to their nations. Of course, Israeli Jews demonstrating against an economy which has become more unequal for them are missing the point that what was previously so fair to them was derived at the expense of the Palestinians who still suffer unfairness and inequality that date back earlier than the current crisis. Even further back than 1948; the official birth of the settler, apartheid Jewish state.

And, it should be added, at the expense of the American taxpayers who not only finance Israel’s military power and fight its wars but pay for a government frequently operating more in Israel’s than America’s interest. In fact, even as signs of a crippled political economy loom so large, 82 members of the American government embarked on a tour of Israel paid for by sponsors who insure their continued role as an Israeli Knesset within the American congress.

Nevertheless, the continued actions around the world, both peaceful and violent, make it clear that the system under stress and causing breakdowns is not confined to any one nation or area of the globe.

Here in the USA, as public service programs are being savaged while great wealth increases its share of national income, the 2012 presidential campaign is already in full swing. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been banked by candidates with hundreds of millions more being raised among their wealthy employers. This, while a majority of Americans suffer declining status in every aspect of their lives, is indication of both inequality and immorality in the political economic system. But it may still be a while before we all understand that the system conducting assaults on working majorities for the benefit of wealthy minorities in the USA, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Iceland, Israel, Egypt, England and more, is the same one that is killing people and fomenting strife in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia and more.

Under the control of mind managers who teach us individuality and self esteem in the face of social disaster, it must begin to sink into even the most set upon that we suffer from a common and not unique-to-ourselves disorder. It is global capitalism, the private profit/public loss system making rich people much richer, poor people much poorer, the supposed middle less middle, and putting the earth itself under more stress than at any time in recorded history.

The Bipolar performance of a financial market with ever more rapid and rabid mood swings accompanies a crazed military policy killing more people every day while alienating more old friends, creating more new enemies, and pushing everything closer to disaster. Still, the bipartisan political process pits one set of corporate capital’s servants against another, both competing for power but only to maintain a system that needs to be radically changed for the salvation of the human race.

The over extended empire’s attempts to destroy Libya joined with previous assaults in Iraq , Afghanistan and other places is taxing the imperial dominators to the point at which collapse, if not sudden, is certainly a near future possibility. People are straining against the irrationality of having to struggle for survival while a tiny minority lives in luxury beyond the dreams of ancient despots. The sooner a democratic tendency such as finally seems to be operative in many places takes hold everywhere the better for humanity, but the USA is not only still far behind the pack but suffering political forces working to further impede its progress.

The USA is at the center of this flailing monster and its people need to take control from the minority only concerned about acquiring more and more wealth at the cost of less and less hope for the majority’s future. Democratic action is needed to end the bloody wars, create public banks, invest our massive public wealth in jobs that put people before profit, and transform our energy base from fossil fuels and other synthetics which pollute to abundant biological sources which can strengthen society in cooperation with nature. While growing numbers of Americans favor such moves, the power structure reflects none of that impulse unless it can create a private profit for some that always means a public loss for most.

Negative signs of collapse are increasing but positive reactions have a greater chance at success than ever before. Coordinated democratic action needs to end the divisive battling among a global majority which has been boxed into being a group of minorities in order to keep it from seeing its common interest and predicament. Human survival is not simply the concern of members of minority groups, people of alleged color or no color, those who choose to marry or stay single, have babies or adopt, or speak different languages.

Food, clothing, shelter and the niceties of life do not exist for the exclusive consumption of special individuals but for the continuation of the human race. The longer we allow minority control of our environments both social and natural, the closer we will come to failure as a human race. The present crisis will continue and get worse until we react as global citizens and demand, and achieve, global democracy. If that seems beyond us, we can at least begin the easy part and create a truly democratic transformation here at the center of the global problem.

Courtesy NY Times

The Obama administration has long been bumbling along in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to sacrificing Americans’ basic rights and liberties under the false flag of fighting terrorism. Now the Obama team seems ready to lurch even farther down that dismal road than George W. Bush did.
Instead of tightening the relaxed rules for F.B.I. investigations — not just of terrorism suspects but of pretty much anyone — that were put in place in the Bush years, President Obama’s Justice Department is getting ready to push the proper bounds of privacy even further.
Attorney General John Ashcroft began weakening rights protections after 9/11. Three years ago, his successor, Michael Mukasey, issued rules changes that permit agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to use highly intrusive methods — including lengthy physical surveillance and covert infiltration of lawful groups — even when there is no firm basis for suspecting any wrongdoing.
The Mukasey guidelines let the bureau go after people identified in part by race or religion, which only raises the danger of government spying on law-abiding Americans based on their political activity or ethnic background.
Incredibly, the Obama administration thinks Mr. Mukasey did not go far enough. Charlie Savage reported in The Times last week that the F.B.I plans to issue a new edition of its operational manual that will give agents significant new powers to search law enforcement and private databases, go through household trash or deploy surveillance teams, with even fewer checks against abuse.
Take, for example, the lowest category of investigations, called an “assessment.” The category was created as part of Mr. Mukasey’s revisions to allow agents to look into people and groups “proactively” where there is no evidence tying them to possible criminal or terrorist activity. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search databases without making a record about it. Once an assessment has started, agents will be permitted to conduct lie detector tests and search people’s trash as part of evaluating a potential informant. No factual basis for suspecting them of wrongdoing will be necessary.
The F.B.I. general counsel, Valerie Caproni, said agents want to be able to use the information found in a subject’s trash to pressure that person to assist in a government investigation. Um, well, yes, that is the problem. It only heightens concern about privacy, improper squeezing of individuals, and the adequacy of supervision.
Currently, surveillance squads, which are trained to surreptitiously follow targets, may be used only once during an assessment. The new rules will allow repeated use.
They also expand the special rules covering “undisclosed participation” in an organization by an F.B.I. agent or informant. The current rules are not public, and, as things stand they still won’t be. But we do know the changes allow an agent or informant to surreptitiously attend up to five meetings of a group before the rules for undisclosed participation — whatever they are — kick in.
The changes also remove the requirement of extra supervision when public officials, members of the news media or academic scholars are investigated for activities unrelated to their positions, like drug cases. That may sound like a reasonable distinction, but it ignores an inflated potential for politically motivated decision-making.
The F.B.I.’s recent history includes the abuse of national security letters to gather information about law-abiding citizens without court orders, and inappropriate investigations of antiwar and environmental activists. That is hardly a foundation for further loosening the rules for conducting investigations or watering down internal record-keeping and oversight.
Everyone wants to keep America safe. But under President Bush and now under President Obama, these changes have occurred without any real discussion about whether the supposed added security is worth the harm to civil liberties. The White House cares so little about providing meaningful oversight that Mr. Obama has yet to nominate a successor for Glenn Fine, the diligent Justice Department inspector general who left in January.
Finally, Congress is showing some small sign of interest. Senator Jon Tester, Democrat of Montana, has written to Robert Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, asking that the new policies be scuttled. On Friday afternoon, Senators Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Charles Grassley of Iowa, the chairman and the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, called on Mr. Mueller to provide an opportunity to review the changes before they are carried out, and to release a public version of the final manual on the F.B.I.’s Web site. Mr. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. need to listen.