American Nation Blueprinting Itself on Despicable Israeli Behavior of Fear and Revenge ... the Social Fascist Mindset and the "Seige" Mentality ... Israel Designed for "Perpetual Retaliation and Revenge" ... the Stealing and Destroying of Other People's Existence and Lands ... the Constant Sowing of Discord Between the Peoples of the Middle East ... Eliminating the Moral Brakes for the Creation of a Police State;  Destroying the Moral Character of Soldiers ... Terrorism as a "Sacred" Principle ... Israel's Megalomanic Ambitions ...  Universal Fascism with the Convergence of Communism and Extreme (Mafia-Like) Capitalism ... America – the Enemy of Israel (Declared by Israel)

1986 Analysis of Israeli Military/
Government Policy by Livia Rokach

 

Excerpts and Commentary by Gary Goodman

http://www.takeoverworld.info

 

THIS IS EXTREMELY RELEVANT TO DEVELOPMENTS IN AMERICA SINCE 2001 AND BEFORE.  It revealed SO much to me, so many parallels.

 

This comes from an unusual source:  The personal diary of a former Prime Minister of Israel itself, Moshe Sherrat.  This EIGHT VOLUME diary was hidden for many years.  When Sherrat's son discovered it, he published it in Hebrew against Israeli government protests.  There was additional strong efforts to suppress publication of this English analysis using copyright laws, though this analysis simply utilizes a small portion of the actual quotes under "fair use".

 

America has taken many pages from the Israeli military and political playbook on how to run a nation of people on fear and revenge.  This diary, actual quotes and explanations, shines a light on current US policies and propaganda. 

 

More than mere propaganda, this diary shows Israel as having deliberately created a paranoid and fascist social mindset, a mass "siege mentality" [quote!] within it's own population, which Sherrat feared would destroy the good Jewish character of Israel in the naked grab to acquire more land (for the USA, it's resource control, explicitly, per many US leaders like Brzezinski).  This siege mentality was fomented over "threats of terrorism" which were both concocted and hyped by Sherrat's peers within the Israeli govt, and at times by the military establishment acting covertly and in defiance of the Prime Minister, acting against Sherrat's wishes and orders. Sherrat described feeling politically hogtied.

 

During the Eisenhower era, the United States was seen as an ENEMY of Israel, by Israeli leaders.

 

This diary supports my earlier intuition that American leaders are deliberately attempting to mould American law and society into a mirror of Israel's siege/garrison state—Not Hitlerian fascism.  Not Stalinism.  The Israeli model.  We're even planning a "security fence" like Israel, as well as draconian laws that can be utilized at any time to make dissenting citizens into enemy combatants with no rights.  In Israel, actual holocaust survivors are some of the most poverty-stricken and neglected citizens. 

 

I'm arguing here that the US finds the Israeli model "useful" for it's own parallel purposes.  This is echoed by Michael Ledeen who wrote "Universal Fascism".

 

See the latest, the “Extremist Belief Commission”, part of the 2007 Homegrown Terrorism Act where you have to check your own thoughts. 

 

As I predicted a few years ago, real, provoked, and "imaginary" terrorists will be targeted.  One person arrested had bombed a Women's Health center on the mistaken belief that "Women's Health" was synonymous with "abortion".  Another terrorist arrested was a member of California's Save Our State, a questionable anti-immigration protest group.  But another target is animal rights activists who are not even accused of ever hurting or planning to harm a human being—even organizing a boycott that affects profits is potentially an act of terrorism.  People who don't believe the official 9-11 story are also being considered.  Suspected terrorists MAY be held indefinitely with NO RIGHTS.

 

Save Our State Member arrested for “domestic terrorism”!  Home raided yesterday!  Computer confiscated! Rifles confiscated! Today arrest warrant was issued for weapons charges! The weapons were LEGAL!  Rifles purchased at a public sports shop LEGALLY!  (Couldn’t find anymore info.)

 

http://www.google.com/search?&q=2007+Domestic+Terrorism

http://www.google.com/search?&q=Extremist+Belief+Commission

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1107/112907cdpm2.htm

 

According to Reaganite Asst Treasury Sec. Paul Craig Roberts, Harman’s bill is called the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.”  When HR 1955 becomes law, it will create a commission tasked with identifying extremist people, groups, and ideas.  The commission will hold hearings around the country, taking testimony and compiling a list of dangerous people and beliefs.  The bill will, in short, create massive terrorism in the United States.  But the perpetrators of terrorism will not be Muslim terrorists; they will be government agents and fellow citizens.

 

"A complete reversal of the collective ethical code" [quote! from Sherrat's diary]  You can see this play out in urban crime in American cities, in a sense of social alienation, as well as a widespread growth of a brutal lawless mindset amongst many military personnel and Blackwater guys—who often talk about Israel and Sept 11 in the same breath.  Not just "defending America", but killing civilians for the fun of it.  You see this in the disproportionate hype about Mexicans, as well as permitting Mexican and Salvadoran and other gangs to roam freely terrorizing US citizens.

 

Sherrat wrote about the non-existence of any actual serious Arab threat to Israel, during times when Israel was actively hyping Arab threats and the dire need for self-defense—basically its entire history, shortly after its founding in 1948 and bombing the British to make them leave.

 

The major point of this siege mentality was to "remove the mental and moral brakes" [quote] on Israel pursuing policies of greater ruthlessness against its neighbors (and Arab-Israeli citizens), such as the use of torture, of campaigns of terror and murder, of assassinations, forced expulsions and marches to UN camps, killing of children, demoralization, and anything and everything that a modern and truly civilized nation might shrink from doing—with exceptions in the case of grave and immediate threats (to quote President Bush on Iraq and torture).

 

So Israel's solution was to create a constant pervasive and persistent atmosphere of "grave and immediate threats" in the minds of its populace, by employing willing operatives in Israel's media, as well as fomenting "propaganda of the deed":  Israeli victims to be used as propaganda tools and to get more money from the U.S.  This is also a quote.

 

In one case, a curfew was declared and workers walking home and people herding sheep after 5pm were shot on sight.  Villages raided and people shot, bombed, and knifed to death. The goal was to make this stuff widely acceptable.

 

* * *

Below, a separate talk is about the use of the "ticking time bomb" excuse by Israel to justify exceptions to its own legal torture prohibitions, and the use of that exception on all prisoners, people picked up during random house raids, people tortured for allegedly "knowing someone". For a time, Israel permitted torture of unimaginable dimensions of brutality, often causing permanent maiming of people guilty of no crimes or minor crimes.  Relentless torture was used to extract forced confessions, self incrimination.  Almost certainly due to political pressure, Israel later officially banned torture ... but with "exceptions" for "imminent threats", "ticking time bombs". 

 

An Israeli report on torture from May 2007 describes this in gory detail, as well as an article by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy.

 

It made me realize more why America's earlier "debate" amongst "liberal" pundits and politicians on whether waterboarding was torture or not, whether justified or not in special circumstances, was nothing but a PR exercise about one of the lesser or "harmless" forms of torture, covering up extensive use of more brutal torture with a smokescreen of banter and chatter.

 

Like the TV show '24', this mindset of "ticking time bombs" is a propaganda lesson to all Americans that was permeated throughout all the anti-waterboarding discussions.  Courtesy of Israel.

 

The origin of the "ticking time bomb" excuse was a French fiction novel justifying certain exceptions to the prohibition of torture on Algerians—it was used on almost every prisoner.  Every captured Algerian prisoner was a "ticking time bomb".
 

http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim071225.mp3
 

Torture as a Way of Life:  A Defining Feature of the Zionist State
 

BTW, Schoenman, like me, is Jewish  – the next talk is about summary executions
 

http://www.takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html

 

Tactics includes using money to bribe some Arab military leaders to carry out domestic revolts, and provoking attacks on Jewish Israeli citizens.

 

Strategies include face-saving ops of blaming/justifying disorganized Jewish settlers, described as "angry and carrying out some retaliation", for coordinated military operations carried out by the Army.  Always "retaliation".

 

You can witness the same overall process being put forth in America.  Sept 11 was a huge example.  The 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other bombings were also orchestrated by parties in the US govt "security" apparatus, in collusion with certain protected Arab intelligence agents, most specifically Ali Mohamed and Emad Salem, and with help from Israel intelligence agent Guzie Hadas. 

 

(This info on the earlier attacks was documented by the NY Times and LA Times, and saved and discussed in part by hardcore right wing Free Republic—during the Clinton era when they still had some libertarian thinkers on board. Since 9-11, the libertarians seem to have been ejected.  On my home page at takeoverworld.info search for freerepublic).

 

You also see it in a wide variety of other nations—the siege mentality being instituted, America's exported "War on Terror".

 

This includes Israel's internal view during the Eisenhower and Kennedy administration that Western Nations, primarily the United States, was an ENEMY of Israel, because the US was leaning towards supporting both Israel and it's Arab neighbors, such as Egypt.  The Israeli solution was multi-pronged.

• One, to manufacture acts of terror and violence against US properties in Arab nations like Egypt, the Lavon Affair, and make it look like Arabs were attacking the US, and that Arab governments were either complicit or unable to stop them.  To create the image of "Arab terrorists" in the minds of American politicians and citizens.
  
   
• Two, to show off the utter ruthlessness and boldness of Israel as a force willing to commit mass murder on a scale resembling America's later actions in Vietnam.
  
   
• Three, to evoke public sympathy over the Holocaust and over Jewish victims, even at the unnecessary cost of Jewish lives.
  
   
• Others, read below.

 

The reason that support for Egypt and/or Syria and/or Lebanon and/or Iraq was a problem --- even if Israel was also given promises and protection—was that this protection would "tie the hands" of Israel's Army (Moshe Dayan), it would block Israel from exercizing a long-term covert strategy unilaterally seizing lands from Palestinian residents, and from attacking and seizing parts of Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, and from destabilizing its neighbors. 

 

If the US protected both Lebanon and Israel, for example, and truly promoted peace in the region, this would have blocked Israel from attacking Lebanese cities at will, killing 30,000 on a scale of slaughter said to be worse than Dresden or Coventry (by a British ambassador), on what even Sherrat describes as a pretext of retaliation and revenge, and therefore block the relentless process of expansion.

 

Dismantling Iraq was important to Israel for a long time, discussed in the Oded Yinon plan of 1982 and the Clean Break plan of 1999 cooked up with Bush cabinet Neo-Cons. This is because with Iraq as a potential supporter of Syria (and Lebanon?) and Palestinians, Israel's military adventures into neighboring countries had to be taken more cautiously.  Iraq was seen as a wild card against Israeli expansion.
 

"Let's Divide Iraq as We Did in Yugoslavia!" Oded Yinon, 1982
 

http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22clean+break%22+israel
 

Israel Makes Its 'Clean Break' - by Karen Kwiatkowski

 

See Sabra and Shatilla PHOTOS here:  From a Christian Fundamentalist medical doctor who witnessed it firsthand.  Unbelieveable gore.
 

http://www.inminds.co.uk/from-beirut-to-jerusalem.html
 

From Beirut To Jerusalem - Eyewitness to Sabra-Shatila Massacre ...
 

NOTE:  This is also the name of a book by Neo-con "Liberal" Thomas Friedman.

 

------------------------ EXCERPTS and my comments

 

Israel's Sacred Terrorism

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/rokach.html  (1986)

Referring to the terrorist bombings that crippled two prominent West Bank mayors and injured other civilians on June 2, 1980, William Browser, in an article for the New York Times (June 5, 1980), explained the apprehension of West Bank Palestinians: although military occupation is not new to them, Israeli terrorism—if that is what it was—is virtually without precedent in the last thirty years." It behooves Mr. Browser and the attentive public who reads the "news that's fit to print," to examine the many precedents amply documented and occasionally decried by a bewildered Israeli prime minister who worried about the moral deterioration in Israeli society in the 1950s that first prompted revenge as a "sacred" principle. In a passage quoted in Rokach's study, Sharett wrote:

"In the thirties we restrained the emotions of revenge. . . . Now, on the contrary, we justify the system of reprisal ... we have eliminated the mental and moral brake on this instinct and made it possible ... to uphold revenge as a moral value.... a sacred principle" (p. 33).

The worst of all human traits?  "Revenge." – Doc Schoenegge, my former-girlfriend's late father.

The undisguised satisfaction that the maiming of the two Palestinian mayors evoked among many Jewish settlers in the West Bank is reminiscent of the feeling in Israel in the 1950s that caused Sharett so much anguish, and challenged his conscience. In fact, the private armies now being organized by Jewish vigilante groups determined to keep the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip under permanent Israeli control, have openly advocated the removal of all Arabs from occupied Palestine.

Although these ultra-nationalists consider former Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir (former members of the terrorist Irgun and Stern gangs) to have become patsies, fools and traitors, and although Begin condemned the attacks on the Palestinian mayors as "crimes of the worst kind," the fact remains that the settlers of Gush Emunim and Kach are carrying out the settlement policies of the Israeli government. This government provides them with the protection and economic benefits and equips them with legitimacy. By the same token, it ensures that their victims will be defenseless and powerless. The 1948 Deir Yassin massacre, committed by Begin's Irgun Zvei Leumi, and the June 2, 1980 bombing, committed by another vigilante group, are products of the same type of "sacred terrorism."

The thirty-two years that have lapsed in the interim have witnessed innumerable acts of Israeli terror: it hardly seems necessary to recall the aerial bombardment of vital civilian infrastructures in Egypt and Syria in the late 1960s,⁷ or the destruction of southern Lebanon in the 1970S and'80s, nor to mention the brutality with which the occupation regime treats the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, or the many assassinations of Palestinian intellectuals in various European capitals in the early 1970s.

A most disturbing phenomenon, which will continue to inhibit the prospects for Palestinian-Israeli coexistence, is the ascendancy of the radical right in Israel. Its orientation towards brute force, its attitude towards Arabs, and its contempt for debate and dissent, leave little room for coexistence. Justifications of acts of terrorism against Palestinian civilians are rampant among members of the political establishment and Jewish settlers. Israel's former Minister of Science and Energy, Yuval Neeman, Knesset member Haim Druckman, former chief of staff Raphael Eytan, and Sephardic chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliahu are on record justifying that kind of terrorism.⁸ In July 1985, Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir vowed to work for the early release of convicted Jewish terrorists, whom he described as "excellent people who made a mistake" (Jerusalem Post, July 12, 1985). The propensity for violence against Arabs has been clearly established in interviews of settlers, young and old, by Israeli and Western journalists.⁹

^{* * *}

Given the recent Israeli attack on Lebanon, this historical record from a former Premier of Israel, Moshe Sherrat, tells about previous strategies from past decades.  See quote below.  Sherrat sounds like a weak version of President James Madison, concerned for his country.

 

Sherrat:
 

.... A permanent assumption of mine is that if sometimes there is some reason to interfere from the outside in the internal affairs of some country in order to support a political movement inside it aiming toward some target it is only when that movement shows some independent activity which there is a chance to enhance and maybe to bring to success by encouragement and help from the outside. There is no point in trying to create from the outside a movement that does not exist at all inside ... it is impossible to inject life into a dead body.

 

As far as I know, in Lebanon today exists no movement aiming at transforming the country into a Christian State governed by the Maronite community....  . . . I don't exclude the possibility of accomplishing this goal in the wake of a wave of shocks that will sweep the Middle East . . . will destroy the present constellations and will form others. But in the present Lebanon, with its present territorial and demographic dimensions and its international relations, no serious initiative of the kind is imaginable.

 

The Christians do not constitute the majority in Lebanon. Nor are they a unified block, politically speaking or community-wise. The Orthodox minority in Lebanon tends to identify with their brethren in Syria. They will not be ready to go to war for a Christian Lebanon, that is for a Lebanon smaller than it is today, and detached from the Arab League. On the contrary, the Christians would probably not be opposed to a Lebanon united to Syria, as this would contribute to strengthening their own community and the Orthodox community throughout the region .... In fact, there are more Orthodox Christians in Syria than in Lebanon, and the Orthodox in Syria and Lebanon together are more numerous than the Maronites.

 

This is not surprising. The transformation of Lebanon into a Christian State as a result of an outside initiative is unfeasible today

 

As to the Maronites, the great majority among them has for years now supported those pragmatic political leaders of their community who have long since abandoned the dream of a Christian Lebanon, and put all their cards on a Christian-Muslim coalition in that country. These leaders have developed the consciousness that there is no chance for an isolated Maronite Lebanon and that the historical perspective of their community means a partnership with the Muslims in power, and in a membership of Lebanon in the League, hoping and believing that these factors can guarantee that the Lebanese Muslims will abandon their longings for a unification of Lebanon with Syria and will enhance the development among them of a feeling for Lebanese independence.

 

Therefore, the great majority of the Christian Maronite community is liable to see in any attempt at raising the flag of territorial shrinking and Maronite power a dangerous attempt at subverting the status of their community, its security and even its very existence. Such an initiative would seem disastrous to them because it could tear apart the pattern of Christian-Muslim collaboration in the present Lebanon which was created through great efforts and sacrifices for an entire generation; because it would mean throwing the Lebanese Muslims into the Syrian embrace, and finally, because it would fatally bring about the historical disaster of an annexation of Lebanon to Syria and the annihilation of the former's personality through its dilution in a big Muslim state.

 

Please recall the use of Walid Shoebat and Brigitte Gabriel as Lebanese (Maronite Christian) "experts" on Lebanon and Palestinian terrorism in the US media, to legitimize Rice's support for Israeli bombing of their own home country.  Gabriel told an Israeli reporter: "Bomb, bomb, bomb Lebanon .. please."

 

The full article describes a decades old "incident" where Israeli soldiers were "kidnapped in Israeli territory", when in reality they were spies sent in to bug the Syrian phone system—but they were sent in without sufficient training and support, evidently in the hopes that they would be captured—which would and did PROVOKE an incident with Syria.

[...]
The annexation of the three regions plus the city of Beirut to the Lebanese State has rendered possible the creation of a balanced economy. A return to the past would not just mean a surgical operation but also a disintegration leading to the end of Lebanon. . . .

 

I cannot imagine, even from this viewpoint alone, that any serious organization would collaborate with a plan that in my opinion would entail Lebanon's economic suicide.
[...]

 

When all this has been said, [I should add that] I would not have objected, and on the contrary I would have certainly been favorable to the idea, of actively aiding any manifestation of agitation in the Maronite community tending to strengthen its isolationist tendencies, even if there were no real chances of achieving the goals; I would have considered positive the very existence of such an agitation and the destabilization it could bring about, the trouble it would have caused the League, the diversion of attention from the Arab-Israeli complications that it would have caused, and the very kindling of a fire made up of impulses toward Christian independence. But what can I do when such an agitation is nonexistent? ... In the present condition, I am afraid that any attempt on our part would be considered as lightheartedness and superficiality or worse—as an adventurous speculation upon the well being and existence of others and a readiness to sacrifice their basic good for the benefit of a temporary tactical advantage for Israel.

 

Moreover, if this plan is not kept a secret but becomes known a danger which cannot be underestimated in the Middle Eastern circumstances—the damage which we shall suffer . . . would not be compensated even by an eventual success of the operation itself. . . .

On May 16, during a joint meeting of senior officials of the defense and foreign affairs ministries, Ben Gurion again raised the demand that Israel do something about Lebanon. The moment was particularly propitious, he maintained, due to renewed tensions between Syria and Iraq, and internal trouble in Syria. Dayan immediately expressed his enthusiastic support:

 

According to him [Dayan] the only thing that's necessary is to find an officer, even just a Major. We should either win his heart or buy him with money, to make him agree to declare himself the savior of the Maronite population. Then the Israeli army will enter Lebanon, will occupy the necessary territory, and will create a Christian regime which will ally itself with Israel. The territory from the Litani southward will be totally annexed to Israel and everything will be all right. If we were to accept the advice of the Chief of Staff we would do it tomorrow, without awaiting a signal from Baghdad.
 

The Litani River was a main goal of the recent Israeli attack on Lebanon, according to Israeli govt documents.

 

... I did not want to bicker with Ben Gurion. . in front of his officers and limited myself to saying that this might mean ... war between Israel and Syria.. . . At the same time I agreed to set up a joint commission composed of officials of the Foreign Affairs Ministry and the army to deal with Lebanese affairs. . . . [According to Ben Gurion] this commission should relate to the Prime Minister. (16 May 1954, 966)

 

The Chief of Staff supports a plan to hire a [Lebanese] officer who will agree to serve as a puppet so that the Israeli army may appear as responding to his appeal "to liberate Lebanon from its Muslim oppressors." This will of course be a crazy adventure.... We must try to prevent dangerous complications. The commission—must be charged with research tasks and prudent actions directed at encouraging Maronite circles who reject Muslim pressures and agree to lean on us. (28 May 1954, 1024) 

 

From that moment on, this unholy alliance was to use every possible means constantly to escalate terrorist violence and political subversion in Lebanon, according to lsrael's blueprints of the fifties. All this, it is hardly necessary to recall, was hatched when no Palestinian guerrillas were remotely in view.  If anything, the difficulties Israel encountered throughout all these years in consummating its long-standing ambition to divide Lebanon and separate it from the Arab world constitute one more proof of the external and alien nature of these plots in respect to the authentic aspirations of the Lebanese people regardless of their religious faith.

 

Arab capitals, too, were persuaded that the Israeli escalation of self-provoked incidents, terrorism and renewed retaliation meant that Israel was preparing the ground for war.

 

A new and more subtle strategy of covert aggression was thereupon introduced by the Israeli army. Its aim: to bypass both the Arab security arrangements and Sharett's reluctance to authorize attacks across the border. Small patrols slipped into the West Bank and Gaza with precise directives to engage isolated Egyptian or Jordanian military patrols, or to penetrate into villages for sabotage or murder actions. Invariably, each such action was falsely described later by an official announcement as having occurred in Israeli territory. Once attacked, the military spokesman would explain, the patrol proceeded to pursue the aggressors into enemy territory. Almost daily actions of this kind, carried out by Arik Sharon's special paratroops, caused a great number of casualties. Regularly, the prime minister was left to guess how things really went. Between April and June he noted in his diary that he learned by chance, for example, of the coldblooded murder of a young Palestinian boy who happened to find himself in the Israeli patrol's way near his village in the West Bank. With regard to another incident he wrote:

 

"Finally I have discovered the secret official version on the Tel Tsafi action—two Arabs that we have sent attacked the Mukhtar who was supposedly said to have been involved in a theft, and killed his wife: in another incident a unit of ours crossed the border "by mistake-," in a third incident three of our soldiers were patrolling deep inside Jordanian territory, ran into the National Guard which opened fire (who will check?), returned fire and killed four. (31 May 1954, 523)

 

Is the army allowed to act in that way according to its own whims and endanger such a vital enterprise? "(13 May 1954, 514)

 

Reports by U.S. embassies in Arab capitals, studied in Washington, have produced in the State Department the conviction that an Israeli plan of retaliations, to be realized according to a pre-fixed timetable, exists, and that the goal is that of a steady escalation of the tension in the area in order to bring about a war.  American diplomacy is also convinced that it is lsrael's intention to sabotage the U.S. negotiations with Egypt, and also those with Iraq and Turkey, aimed at the establishment of pro-Western alliances. (14 April 1955)

 

This analysis was correct. It was reconfirmed in the following weeks by Israel's rejection of border security proposals previously accepted by Egypt, including the creation of mixed Israel-Egypt-UN patrols, and the mining of certain border areas. Such arrangements, Dayan affirmed, "will tie our hands."

 

* * *

The creation of a siege mentality in Israeli society was necessary to complement the prefabricated myth of the Arab threat. The two elements were intended to feed each other. Although Israeli society faced a serious risk of social and cultural disintegration under the impact of a mass immigration of Asian and North African Jews into the pre-state's ideologically homogeneous community, the purpose of the siege mentality was not so much that of attaining a defensive cohesiveness in Israel's Jewish society. It was calculated principally to "eliminate the moral brakes" required for a society to fully support a police (state?) which constituted a complete reversal of the collective ethical code on which its formal education was based and from which it was supposed to derive its vital strength.

 

Of course, this ethical code had not been respected in the past either. Aggression and terrorism had been exercised by the Zionists before and during the 1947-48 war. The following testimony of a soldier who participated in the occupation of the Palestinian village of Duelma in 1948 is only the most recently disclosed of a long chain of evidence:

Killed between 80 to 100 Arabs, women and children. To kill the children they fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one house without corpses. The men and women of the villages were pushed into houses without food or water. Then the saboteurs came to dynamite the houses. One commander ordered a soldier to bring two women into a house he was about to blow up. . . . Another soldier prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death. Another Arab woman with her newborn baby was made to clean the place for a couple of days, and then they shot her and the baby. Educated and well-mannered commanders who were considered "good guys". . . became base murderers, and this not in the storm of battle, but as a method of expulsion and extermination. The fewer the Arabs who remain, the better. (quoted in Davar, 9 June 1979)

Also see Sabra and Shatilla PHOTOS here:  From a Christian Fundamentalist medical doctor who witnessed it firsthand.  Unbelieveable gore.
 

http://www.inminds.co.uk/from-beirut-to-jerusalem.html
 

From Beirut To Jerusalem - Eyewitness to Sabra-Shatila Massacre ...
 

NOTE:  This is also the name of a book by Neo-con "Liberal" Thomas Friedman.

But these episodes did not filter through to the society at large. The War of Independence was ritualized, on the contrary, as a miraculous victory of (Jewish) right against (Arab) might. Deir Yassin was (falsely) described by tile ruling Labor establishment as an isolated and even condemnable case, a product of the brutality of the minority lrgun group. Manuals, school textbooks, history books, anthologies and the media placidly glorified the moral quality of the war, the "Puritv of the weapons" used by the army, the Jewish ethos underlying the state.

Sherrat:

The conclusions from Dayan's words are clear: This State has no international obligations, no economic problems, the question of peace is nonexistent.... It must calculate its steps narrow-mindedly and live on its sword. It must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge.. . . And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space. (Such a slip of the tongue: Ben Gurion himself said that it would be worth while to pay an Arab a million pounds to start a war.) (26 May 1955, 1021)

CHAPTER 9 Disperse the Palestinian Refugees ....

 

One important reason for the insistence with which Israel pursued its retaliation policy was the desire of the Zionist ruling establishment to exert permanent pressure on the Arab states to remove the Palestinian refugees of the 1949 war from the proximity of the armistice lines, and to disperse them through the Arab world. This was not due, in the early fifties, to military considerations: as we have seen, and as Dayan's above quotation clearly demonstrates, the Israeli government was more interested in the heightening of border tensions than in their elimination. Furthermore, its lack of concern for the security of the Jewish border population was as cynical as its own promotion of a sensation of danger among the settlers through provocation and false propaganda. Moreover, in those years no organized Palestinian resistance movement existed.

 

It was all too obvious that the low level of guerrilla-type activities permitted by the Arab regimes was intended more to reduce the tensions created inside their countries by the presence of the refugees, and to keep the issue on the agenda in the international arena, than to prepare for a war of liberation in Palestine. But the presence of the Palestinian refugees along the armistice lines in Gaza and the West Bank was not only a constant reminder of the illegitimacy of lsrael's territorial conquests in 1948-49 and of its violation of UN resolutions calling for repatriation, it was also a living, physical landmark along borders which Israel had no intention of accepting as definite limits to its territorial expansion. In other words, as long as masses of Palestinians were still concentrated on Palestinian soil, the Israeli rulers argued, there was both the risk of international pressure in support of their claim to return to their homes, and little likelihood for international permission for Israel to cancel the geopolitical concept of' Palestine entirely, substituting it with that of "Eretz-lsrael."

 

It must be underlined at this point that Sharett's position on the Palestinian question did not differ, except regarding the use of military methods to disperse them, from that of the "activists." He had totally rejected Count Bernadotte's repeated pleas in 1948 for a return of tile refugees to their homes (Folke Bernadotte To Jerusalem, London, 1951). A year later, he ridiculed the position of the General Zionist Party in favor of a Palestinian independent state in the West Bank and against an agreement with King Abdullah on the division of the West Bank between Israel and Jordan (Divrei, Haknesset, Jerusalem, 1949). In his Diary, there are numerous references to negotiations attempted by his senior aides at the foreign ministry with Arab representatives or exiles aimed at resettling the Palestinians in countries such as Libya, Syria or Iraq.

 

Finally, on May 28, 1955, Sharett's ideas on the question of the Palestinian refugees were unequivocally expressed in his instructions to lsrael's ambassadors in connection with the Security Pact offered to Israel by the U.S., which the foreign minister suspected might include some conditions: "There may be an attempt to reach peace by (the United States) pressuring us to make concessions on the question of territory and the refugees. I warned [the ambassadors] against any thought of the possibility of returning a few tens of thousands of refugees, even at the price of peace." And this was the "liberal" Zionist leader who claimed to be an expert on Arab affairs because he had lived for two years, during his adolescence, in an Arab village in the West Bank; because he knew Arabic, because he had lived in Syria during his military service in the Turkish army.

 

Section continues on how committed Sherrat was to expelling Palestinians, driving them out of their lands, but concerned about what the press might say, what public opinion might be:

 

And we shall still have 100,000 of them in the Strip, and it is easy to imagine what means we shall resort to in order to repress them and what waves of hatred we shall create again and what kind of headlines we shall receive in the international press.
 

The first round would be: Israel aggressively invades the Gaza Strip.
 

The second: Israel causes again the terrified flight of masses of Arab refugees. (27 March 1955, 865)

 

AMERICA — the ENEMY of ISRAEL

To Aharon Barkatt, then secretary general of Mapai, Sharett painted the following picture of Israel's security establishment:

Dayan was ready to hijack planes and kidnap [Arab] officers from trains, but he was shocked by Lavon's suggestion about the Gaza Strip. Maklef [who preceded Dayan as Chief of Staff] demanded a free hand to murder Shishakly but he was shaken when Lavon gave him a crazy order concerning the Syrian DMZ. (25 January 1955, 682)

He [Lavon] inspired and cultivated the negative adventuristic trend in the army and preached the doctrine that not the Arab countries but the Western Powers are the enemy, and the only way to deter them from their plots is through direct actions that will terrorize them. (26 January 1955, 685)

Peres shares the same ideology: he wants to frighten the West into supporting Israel's aims. 

But who is the tail and who is the dog today?

 

In reviewing a whole bunch of things I've read, I do not believe that 9-11 was a "Jew job" as some racists say, nor that Iraq was and is a "Jew War" caused by Israel.  I do believe that the operational strategies are in motion, to frighten the American public into supporting Israel's aims, and to frighten Congress into keeping their mouths shut or avidly supporting the White House—or engaging in little sniping partisan criticisms that ultimately uphold the overall strategy, yet which appear to be opposition to Bush.

 

In an interview which included Richard Perle in a video on the Israel Lobby, he made two seemingly contradictory statements.  He claimed that:

 

a)  US policy is NOT driven by an "Israel Lobby".

 

b)  If any Congressman or Senator complained about Israel they would lose the next election, guaranteed. 

 

I think what Perle was saying seems partly true.  US policy is not driven solely by concerns about Israel or Israeli strategy.  But it also must be emphasized that the "Israel Lobby" includes non-Israelis and non-Jews, including the Christian-Zionists who want Armageddon, and who think the State of Israel symbolizes some Biblical crap, and it includes American politicians who have held consultancies with Israel and dual citizenship.

 

On the other hand, I also agree with the Colonel (Colin Powell's staffer) who said it was BULLSHIT that the United States policies and Israel's policies matched.  Politicians who might not be on board must be pressured and wooed, especially by annual AIPAC carnivals and ongoing meetings and contacts.

 

Rather, from what I can gather, both sets of plans are complementary.

 

The United States had many published plans of invading the Middle East and "Seizing Arab Oil" going back decades.  This was in part to secure oil rights and ownership for American companies, billions of dollars in resources.  There were plans put forth to "create a bogeyman", to seize Saudi Arabia, but the idea seems to have been based on convenience, and thus modular.  Saddam Hussein ended up being an easier "sell" than Saudi Arabia, plus there are too many cooperating interests ruling out Saudi Arabia.

 

The United States has had longstanding goals of occupying the Middle East with more large military bases (besides those in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar, Bahrain, Diego Garcia—in the Indian Ocean—and others).

 

On the other hand, Israel's Oded Yinon plan of 1982, and the subsequent Clean Break Strategy of 1998, included breaking up Iraq into ethnic enclaves of Sunni, Shia, and Kurd, eliminating Iraq's power, fracturing the country along ethnic lines, and giving Israel a clear upper hand in conquering more territory from Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan without risk of interference or support from Iraq.  Divide and conquer.

 

Sept 11, which has justified the Iraq War, produced a complementary strategy.  The additional benefits are ways of testing out battle strategy on a defenseless enemy, trying out new military hardware, and testing out new psychological operations on the domestic public.

 

A worrisome part of this strategy for Americans is turning America from that of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc. into something more closely resembling the Israeli garrison state and the siege mentality I mentioned previously. 

 

Future American generations will grow up inside this siege mentality as if it is a fact and perfectly natural.  The mindset and the culture of America will be transformed from that of freedom and liberty to security and this peculiar Zionist fascism described by more than one top Israeli politician and journalist, but here by the late Moshe Sherrat said he was pacing like a lunatic, and was terrified about how to confront his own political wing and how to not get labeled anti-Zionist or weak. (Or assassinated, like Rabin?)

 

Perhaps only if a large group of Senators or Congressman agreed to band together to oppose Israel, then there might be a chance of success, particularly if it was Bi-Partisan.  As Brzezinski noted, new policies MUST seem bi-partisan to gain broad legitimacy.  Otherwise you get split constituencies, like with Bush.
 

http://www.freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=173

 

continued  EGYPT

 

In the next months the U.S. authorized France to divert to Israel Mirage planes which were already earmarked for NATO. At the moment of the Suez offensive the U.S. feigned surprise, and even indignation. But it made a clear distinction between England and France, the beaten rivals in the inter-imperialist struggle for influence in the Middle East, and Israel. The immediate retreat of Britain and France from Egypt was requested by President Eisenhower within a matter of hours. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and Sinai was pushed through only four months later and then only thanks to heavy Soviet pressure which threatened to submerge the West in unforeseen complications to world peace. Israel, with the CIA authorization in its pocket, was granted the mitigating circumstances of "security needs" in world opinion's judgment on that criminal war. The precedent had thus been set, and could only mean that the retreat from Gaza and Sinai was to be purely tactical, as the 1967 war later proved.

 

As a so-called moderate Zionist, Moshe Sharett's lifelong assumption had been that lsrael's survival would be impossible without the support of the West, but that Western so-called morality as well as Western objective interests in the Middle East would never allow the West to support a Jewish state which "behaves according to the laws of the jungle" and raises terrorism to the level of a sacred principle. To prominent Mapai leader David Hacohen, who declared himself convinced that the Israelis should behave in the Middle East as if they were crazy in order to terrorize the Arabs and blackmail the West, he replied:

 

If we shall behave like madmen, we shall be treated as such-interned in a lunatic asylum and isolated from the world.

 

But his adversaries proved him wrong, thereby dealing a crushing blow to his personality as well as to the very hypothesis of moderate Zionism. What they proved was that his supposedly rational assumption was not only fallacious but also unrealistic. In the final analysis the West, and in particular the U.S., let itself be frightened, or blackmailed, into supporting Israel's megalomanic ambitions, because an objective relationship of complicity already existed and because once pushed into the open this complicity proved capable of serving the cause of Western power politics in the region.21 Just as Zionism, based on the de-Palestinization and the Judaisation of Palestine, was intrinsically racist and immoral, thus the West, in reality, had no use for a Jewish state in the Middle East which did not behave according to the laws of the jungle, and whose terrorism could not be relied on as a major instrument for the oppression of the peoples of the region.

 

Moshe Sherrat concludes:

 

There was a fatal but coherent logic in this newly acquired equation, which would determine the course of future events:
 

I go on repeating to myself:  nowadays admit that you are the loser! They showed much more daring and dynamism ... they played with fire, and they won. Admit that the balance sheet of the Sinai war is positive. Moral evaluations apart, Israel's political importance in the world has grown enormously.... You remain alone. Only your son Coby is with you. The public, even your own public, does not share your position.  On the contrary. . the public now turns even against its "masters" and its bitterness against the retreat [from Sinai and Gaza] is developing into a tendency to change the political balance in this country in favor of Begin. (4 April 1957)

 

This article continues;  these are only excerpts

Gary Goodman
http://www.takeoverworld.info

 

* * *
 

"I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in '47, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo. "
—Harry S Truman (1961)

 

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and thus clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
—Henry L. Mencken (1880-1956)

 

All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it... Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.
—Adolf Hitler

 

"The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be DOMINATED by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values (of Liberty).
Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities."
—Zbigniew Brzezinski

 

Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, PRETENDING generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. 
—Abraham Lincoln

 

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
—President Bill Clinton, U.S.A. Today, 11 March 1993

 

"I believe that if the people of this nation fully understood what Congress has done to them over the last 49 years, they would move on Washington; they would not wait for an election....It adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States!" 
—George W. Malone, U.S. Senator (Nevada), speaking before Congress in 1957.

 

"Military Men are just DUMB STUPID ANIMALS to be Used as Pawns in Foreign Policy." 
—Henry Kissinger

 

"All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
—David Rockefeller

 

"The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor" (2000)
—Project for a New American Century (Bush cabinet)

 

"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers.  There are only two things we should fight for.  One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket."
—Major General Smedley Butler, Two-time recipient of the Medal of Honor and Commandant USMC

 

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, WAR is the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.   War is the parent of armies; from these proceed DEBTS and TAXES ... known instruments for bringing the MANY under the DOMINATION of the FEW. . .  NO nation could preserve its FREEDOM in the midst of CONTINUAL WARFARE."
—James Madison, Political Observations, 1795


More on the War on America

http://www.planetization.org/reversingfascism.htm