Featured Post

GUERRE MESSIANIQUE SIONISTE AVANT LA VENUE DE LEUR MACHIAH/ANTECHRIST/DAJJAL: EXTENSION DES FRONTIERES DE L'ENTITE SIONISTE, VOL ET PILLAGE DU GAZ ET DU PETROLE DES PAYS MUSULMANS DE NOUAKCHOTT A BAGHDAD

« Le comble du savoir-faire ne consiste pas à remporter toutes les batailles, mais à soumettre l’armée ennemie sans livrer bataille » (Sun...

Monday, November 30, 2009

Dieudonné dechiffre et decrypte la propagande israelienne de Sarkosy en France

Dieudonné et Yahia Gouasmi du PAS (parti anti-sioniste) confirment que Sarkosy utilise Clotilde Reiss comme otage et qu'il bloque deliberement sa liberation, pour mieux l'utiliser dans les preparatifs de guerre contre l'Iran, dans le meme cadre que l'affaire des 'burquas' ou de 'l'identité nationale'. Sarkosy dirige la France vers une guerre contre l'Iran, selon le desir de ses maitres a Tel Aviv, confirmant bien que Sarkosy n'est rien d'autre que l'ambassadeur d'Israel en France.

Caroline Fourest défoncée par Tariq Ramadan



Caroline Fourest se presente comme une 'journaliste d'investigation' alors que ces ecrits ne depassent par les rapports bidons de la police, auxquels elle n'a fait que greffer ses commentaires... Toutes les fautes trouvees dans son livre ne proviennent pas de son fait mais de ceux de ses officiers ou 'collegues' (on sait plus trop) de tutelle au ministere de l'interieur. On retrouve des pans entiers de rapports des RG et meme de la DST sous l'epoque de la maison Pasqua dans ce qu'elle appelle 'ces livres'. C'est en fait un agent-' journaliste', une extrémiste sioniste, islamophobe, raciste, faisant parti des commandos 'mediatiques' de l'ambassade israelienne en France et de son bras terroriste le CRIF dont les seuls references 'islamiques' sont des agents du DRS algerien ou du makhzen marocain voir des pantins tunisiens qui se croient toujours sous l'ere coloniale, comme Djamel Schifouna alias Sifaoui, un mythomane, ancien membre du 'FIS', reconverti en agent de propagande par les sefarades ultra-sionistes algeriens et 'pieds nickeles noirs' de la DST-DRS, qui devrait retourner cirer les pompes et servir les cafés de son maitre et apprenti poseur de bombes, apprenti-saboteur de lignes TGV, Bernard Squarcini a Levallois-Perret.

« Ce soir et jamais », France 3, le 16 novembre 2009 est une nouvelle confrontation entre le Docteur Tariq Ramadan et l’extrémiste propagandiste anti-islamique et anti-sémite anti-arabe Caroline Fourest. L’occasion m’est enfin fournie pour dire un grand bravo au Dr Ramadan qui nous a gratifiés d’une démonstration sans précédente digne d’un grand orateur ! Sans renier mes sévères critiques de certains thèmes développés par le docteur, je fus comblé au-delà de toute espérance en le voyant broyer entre ses doigts cette créature immonde qui n’a cessé de déverser son fiel sur l’Islam, les Musulmans et les Arabes sans jamais être remise à sa place. Tariq Ramadan lui a magistralement rabattu le caquet en lui faisant ravaler ses mensonges un à un en dépit de ses tactiques sionistes bien connues d’interruption sans arrêt (avec, bien sûr, la flagrante complaisance du présentateur !) dans le but d’essayer d’empêcher tout échange constructif, mais Ramadan ne s’est pas laissé démonter du tout ! Il ne s’agit pas d’un simple clash entre un titan et un vermisseau, car nous avons vu là une Caroline Fourest littéralement enfoncée et défoncée par les arguments percutants du Docteur en dépit de ses vains échappatoires, et tentatives de déviations du sujet!

Voilà plus d’une décennie que les médias racistes refusent de parler à ou de Tariq Ramadan sans l’accuser d’être le petit fils d’Hassan Al Banna, fondateur du mouvement héroïque de Libération des Frères Musulmans d’Egypte, occupée dans les années 1930’s par des envahisseurs et pillards européens, alors qu’ils n’accusent jamais la France de soutenir militairement et économiquement l’état sioniste, terroriste, et raciste en Palestine occupée.

L’occasion me permet de rajouter ceci :
Les parents des Européens d’origines arabes ont le devoir d’enseigner à leurs enfants la langue arabe, et il n’est nullement question que les Musulmans perdent leur identité arabo-musulmane. C’est effectivement là où Tariq doit jouer un rôle prédominant afin de contrecarrer le pléthore de mauvaises traductions du Saint Qur’ân qui abondent, et surtout celles fragmentaires et délibérément falsifiés des racistes anti-musulmans, celles de Fourest, en l’occurrence.
Il est malheureux cependant que Tariq Ramadan ait raté l’occasion de dire que c’est aux Palestiniens de décider en toute liberté si oui ou non ils doivent reconnaître une entité terroriste dans leur pays, la Palestine, vu qu’il s’appuie sur le contexte historique dans bien d’autres cas. Personne n’a le droit de justifier, directement ou indirectement, le génocide des Palestiniens par des Européens Sionistes dans un pays qu’ils ont volé grâce au terrorisme (Gerald Kaufmann MP) et des effusions de sang qui durent depuis plus d’un demi-siècle en violation de toutes les lois internationales. Ramadan et toute autre personne ou organisation ou même État ne devrait jamais cesser d’exiger le retour des terres volées, et la poursuite des voleurs, des meurtriers, et des tortionnaires, et leurs éventuelles condamnations.
Pourquoi le Dr Ramadan se sent-il toujours obligé de condamner le fatwa (opinion juridique) iranien sur Salman Rushdie suite à son livre « Les Versets sataniques », et sans jamais expliquer les raisons de ce fatwa et condamner son contenu blasphématoire à l’égard de l’Islam, du Saint Prophète Muhammad (paix et bénédiction sur lui), et dont Rushdie s’est rendu gravement coupable. Ce n’est certes pas à Ramadan de dire aux Iraniens comment appliquer leurs lois. Le Musulman, européen ou pas, qui s’est vu forcé de lire « Les Versets sataniques », a bien sûr très bien compris le pourquoi de ce décret. Death Row (« La file des condamnés à mort ») aux Etats-Unis fourmille de gens sur qui pèse la peine de mort. Le blasphème (sans oublier que Rushdie fut payé d’avance pour écrire son livre) est un délit très grave en Islam et en Iran. On peut ne pas être d’accord en jugeant le décret trop sévère, mais Ramadan doit quand même respecter le décret. Sinon, pourquoi respecte-t-il les lois en faveur des homosexuels ou de « l’holocauste juif » ?

La menace sioniste contre l’Iran
La journaliste extrémiste anti-sémite anti-arabe, Caroline Fourest, accuse Tariq Ramadan d’être un salarié d’une chaîne de télévision (Press Tv) iranienne financée par le gouvernement iranien mais trouve normal qu’elle soit elle-même salariée (ou à la solde) des entités européennes qui commettent des actes terroristes en Iraq, Afghanistan, et ailleurs, ou que, par exemple, des chaînes de télévision européennes soient financées par des trafiquants et fabricants d’armes. L’Iran est un pays qui a subi, et qui subit toujours, le terrorisme européen depuis des décennies. La démocratie de Mossadegh fut même renversée pour y installer un régime de dictature sous Reza Pahlavi, un extrémiste et meurtrier applaudi par tous les médias de l’occident avec ses photos en couverture de tous les quotidiens, hebdomadaires et revues, y compris Paris Match !

Ensuite, pourquoi, Tariq Ramadan, se sent-il obligé de se prononcer sur la question si controversé de l’holocauste des « Six Millions » de Juifs européens durant la deuxième guerre mondiale, et reniant au monde le droit de le questionner ? C’est triste comment on nous oblige à répéter un million de fois que le Président iranien ne « nie » pas cet holocauste, mais a tout simplement dit qu’il faut faire des recherches scientifiques plus approfondies car le chiffre annoncé et « légalisé » dans certains pays européens est en flagrante contradiction des chiffres officiels des « World Almanac » de 1933, 1938, 1947 et 1949. Pourquoi ne pas préciser que l’Iran a plutôt dit qu’Israël aurait du être créée en Europe, par exemple, en Allemagne ou en Pologne ou l’holocauste aurait eu lieu. Bien des Juifs européens questionnent cet holocauste des Six Millions, et certains le nient même, comme le Professeur juif Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce. Pourquoi Ramadan ne demande-t-il pas l’abrogation des lois racistes qui empêchent un chercheur de nier un évènement historique qui, basé sur l’évidence disponible, semble avoir été falsifié pour des raisons politiques ? La fameuse loi Fabius-Gayssot est une loi fasciste juive communiste qui interdit de penser et de s’exprimer librement, et elle doit être abolie !

Qui sont en réalité les « débiles mentaux » en question ? Évidemment, ce sont les envahisseurs, les tueurs, les voleurs des pays et des ressources des autres, et l’Iran est actuellement sous une grande menace sioniste. Constamment, Israël menace d’attaquer l’Iran ! Depuis plus d’un demi siècle Israël prétend que sa sécurité est menacée, alors que c’est elle qui menace la sécurité de tout le monde ! Les Iraniens accusent les sionistes de fomenter une guerre civile et de commettre des actes terroristes en Iran. Leur agent Moussavi a perdu les élections présidentielles en dépit du soutien de l’Internationale sioniste. Utiliser la BBC, organe raciste anti-musulman et anti-palestinien, pour condamner le gouvernement iranien, n’est-ce pas une ingérence de Tariq Ramadan dans les affaires politiques iraniennes ? La BBC, prise en flagrant délit de propagande anti-iranienne et d’avoir falsifié la ‘popularité’ de (l’inconnu) Moussavi, n’avait-elle pas boycotté tous les appels caritatifs (Charity Appeal) destinés pour aider les Palestiniens victimes des attaques terroristes, y compris par l’usage des bombes au phosphore ? Quel double jeu sinistre joue-t-il donc ? Même le député George Galloway a décrit la BBC comme un « Bloody Bias Corporation ».

L’Islam est « un et indivisible »
Tariq Ramadan doit éviter de tomber sans arrêt dans les pièges que lui tendent les sionistes en se sentant obligé d’utiliser des termes comme ‘Islam salafiste’, ‘Islam médiévale’, ‘Islam contemporain’, ‘mosquée traditionaliste’. L’Islam est « un » et « indivisible ». Ramadan s’est proclamé réformateur de l’Islam, réforme qui est à l’agenda des Sionistes européens. Mais, que veut-il dire par la « réforme de l’Islam », c-a-d, de la parole de Dieu et de la Sunnah (les traditions prophétiques), alors qu’une telle réforme est défendue en Islam ? En Islam, une certaine réforme est autorisée pour détruire le mal, pour protéger ses croyances, pour combattre la domination, pour accomplir des progrès scientifique (médical, technologique, spatial), et non pour servir l’ambition hégémonique des Sionistes. Il ne faut surtout pas faire d’amalgame du concept islamique de Tajdid, qui veut dire « renouvellement », avec réforme, ce qui veut dire changer, et même détruire. De la même manière, malgré que certains partis politiques prennent le terme Islâh pour ‘réforme’, le principe de Islâh veut dire « réparer » ce qui a été endommagé dans le but d’un retour à la forme originale, c-a-d, re-former et non réformer Les réformateurs en Islam (pas de l’Islam !) sont des Muslihuun, mais, en même temps, le Saint Qur’an nous met en garde contre des corrupteurs (muf-siduuna) qui se prétendent Muslihuun [Ref. Qur’an - Al-Baqarah (La Vache) s.2 v.11&12].

Conclusion
N’empêche que le Dr Tariq Ramadan accuse l’anti-sémite anti-arabe (cf. ‘anti-sémite anti-hébreux’) Caroline Fourest, avec raison, de dogmatisme, de « mal commenter », de « faussement commenter », de « très mal interpréter », de « déformer » ses propos, et d’imposer sur les autres sa pensée et sa moralité. Dans ses explications successives, Tariq Ramadan a vivement dénoncé Caroline Fourest pour avoir essayé de saboter le débat par ses interruptions intempestives. Il précise que Fourest ne travaille pas seule, et nous fait comprendre qu’elle opère au sein d’une conspiration (croisade) anti-islamique et anti-musulmane qui ne veut absolument pas d’un Islam visible. Paul Berman et Daniel Pipes (USA) et Bernard-Henri Lévy et André Gluksmann (France) en feraient parti ! Que Caroline Fourest soit reçue par le raciste anti-musulman Douglas Murray du Royaume Uni n’est pas une simple coïncidence ! Tariq Ramadan précise : « Partout ou ces groupements sont, c’est toujours la même chose. Ceux qui critiquent la politique d’Israël sont soupçonnés d’anti-sémitisme ». À noter que les Juifs européens ont usurpé le terme ‘anti-sémite’ alors que, d’après bien des sources du Moyen Orient et d’ailleurs, les Palestiniens sont considérés comme les plus proches des véritables Sémites, et notamment les Arabes, et non les Ashkénazes (v. Arthur Koestler « La Treizième Tribu »). Les langues arabe, araméenne et hébraïque sont des langues sémitiques alors que l’hébreu moderne (plus proche du Yiddish) parlé en Israël n’est pas nécessairement considéré comme tel. L’écrivain français juif Armand Abecassis précise qu’« Il n'y a plus d'hébreu, mais des juifs ».

Finalement, l’Islam a son système propre et n’a nul besoin de copier ou de singer l’occident, et il ne revient pas aux fascistes anti-musulmans et à leurs agents d’enseigner aux Musulmans et aux Musulmanes comment vivre leur religion, comment gouverner, comment se défendre, comment s’habiller, comment prier, comment penser, etc. Où les Musulmans sont minoritaires, ils sont sous obligation de se battre pour le respect de leur identité propre, de leurs droits en privé comme en public, et de leur dignité. L’Europe a connu réforme après réforme. Elle a tout essayé, et a toujours échoué : esclavage, racisme, colonialisme, impérialisme, hégémonie, etc. C’est une réforme de la pensée européenne qui s’avère nécessaire, et non de l’Islam. Cela lui permettra de respecter aussi les Musulmans et la culture islamique comme elle respecte les Juifs, par exemple, à un tel point que le Quai d’Orsay est devenu notoire comme un nid de Juifistes. Les racistes cherchent à détruire l’Islam par tous les moyens, et ils ont recours à tout un arsenal de termes à connotation péjorative : « intégrisme, fondamentalisme, islamo-fascisme, Islam radical… » etc. Donc, il faudra que le Dr Tariq Ramadan le comprenne une fois pour toutes que l’Islam n’est pas réformable comme le christianisme ou le judaïsme (voir l’hébraïsme).

M Rafic Soormally,
Londres,
29 novembre 2009


http://www.alterinfo.net/Clash-Caroline-Fourest-contre-Tariq-Ramadan_a39357.html

http://www.alterinfo.net/Retour-sur-le-debat-entre-Caroline-Fourest-et-Tariq-Ramadan-explication-video_a39507.html?com#com_1072052

Israel, Great Britain, USA, France behind drug trade in Afghanistan


Americans Are Deeply Involved In Afghan Drug Trade






A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford




The U.S. set the stage for the Afghan (and Pakistan) war eight years ago, when it handed out drug dealing franchises to warlords on Washington's payroll. Now the Americans, acting as Boss of All Bosses, have drawn up hit lists of rival, "Taliban" drug lords. "It is a gangster occupation, in which U.S.-allied drug dealers are put in charge of the police and border patrol."

American Are Deeply Involved In Afghan Drug Trade


A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford


"U.S.-allied drug dealers are put in charge of the police and border patrol, while their rivals are placed on American hit lists."


If you’re looking for the chief kingpin in the Afghanistan heroin trade, it’s the United States. The American mission has devolved to a Mafiosi-style arrangement that poisons every military and political alliance entered into by the U.S. and its puppet government in Kabul. It is a gangster occupation, in which U.S.-allied drug dealers are put in charge of the police and border patrol, while their rivals are placed on American hit lists, marked for death or capture. As a result, Afghanistan has been transformed into an opium plantation that supplies 90 percent of the world’s heroin.



An article in the current issue of Harper’s magazine explores the inner workings of the drug-infested U.S. occupation, it’s near-total dependence on alliances forged with players in the heroin trade. The story centers on the town of Spin Boldak, on the southeastern border with Pakistan, gateway to the opium fields of Kandahar and Helmand provinces. The chief Afghan drug lord is also the head of the border patrol and the local militia. The author is an undercover U.S.-based journalist who was befriended by the drug lord’s top operatives and met with the U.S. and Canadian officers that collaborate with the drug dealer on a daily basis.



The alliance was forged by American forces during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and has endured and grown ever since. The drug lord, and others like him throughout the country, is not only immune to serious American interference, he has been empowered through U.S. money and arms to consolidate his drug business at the expense of drug-dealing rivals in other tribes, forcing some of them into alliance with the Taliban. On the ground in Pashtun-speaking Afghanistan, the war is largely between armies run by heroin merchants, some aligned with the Americans, others with the Taliban. The Taliban appear to be gaining the upper hand in this Mafiosa gang war, the origins of which are directly rooted in U.S. policy.


"It is a war whose order of battle is largely defined by the drug trade."


Is it any wonder, then, that the United States so often launches air strikes against civilian wedding parties, wiping out the greater part of bride and groom's extended families? America’s drug-dealing allies have been dropping dimes on rival clans and tribes, using the Americans as high-tech muscle in their deadly feuds. Now the Americans and their European occupation partners have institutionalized the rules of gangster warfare with official hit lists of drug dealers to be killed or captured on sight – lists drawn up by other drug lords affiliated with the occupation forces.



This is the "war of necessity" that President Barack Obama has embraced as his own. It is a war whose order of battle is largely defined by the drug trade. Obama's generals call for tens of thousands of new U.S. troops in hopes of lessening their dependency on the militias and police forces currently controlled by American-allied drug dealers. But of course, that will only push America's Afghan partners in the drug trade into the arms of the Taliban, who will cut a better deal. Then the generals were argue that they need even more U.S. troops.



The Americans created this drug-saturated hell, and their occupation is now doomed by it. Unfortunately, they have also doomed millions of Afghans in the process.


For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford. On the web, go to http://www.blackagendareport.com/


Thursday, November 26, 2009

Les familles des captifs palestiniens, la joie de l’Aïd volée pour les bourreaux israéliens


Gaza – CPI
www.palestine-info.info


Les musulmans du monde entier sont joyeux. Ils vivent la fête du pèlerinage, la fête du mouton, la grande fête, l’Aïd Al-Kabir. Les gens visitent leurs familles, leurs parents, même les plus éloignés.

Cependant, les milliers de Palestiniens enfermés dans les prisons israéliennes ne peuvent contacter leurs familles. Les occupants israéliens qui ne respectent rien ne sont pas prêts aujourd’hui à respecter les fêtes importantes des captifs palestiniens.

Tawfik Abu Naïm est chef du mouvement des captifs et un de leurs doyens, enfermé dans la prison israélienne de Hadarim. Il se confie au Centre d’étude des captifs. Des violations condamnables et inacceptables sont pratiquées envers les captifs palestiniens par l’administration israélienne des prisons. Elle n’a aucun respect pour les fêtes islamiques. Elle ne permet pas aux familles palestiniennes de contacter leurs proches enfermés dans les prisons israéliennes, même pendant les jours de fêtes, même pas par téléphone.

Tout au contraire, les captifs sont transférés d’une prison à l’autre. Et pendant les jours de fêtes, les mouvements des captifs sont limités.

Des fêtes sans goût

Des familles des captifs informent le Centre que l’Aïd n’a aucun goût, voyant leurs membres enfermés dans les prisons israéliennes, sans visites, sans lettres. Elles sont toujours inquiètes pour leur vie. Les jours des fêtes encore plus. Les jours de fêtes sont des jours de larmes, versées pour l’éloignement de leurs enfants.

L’eau ne parvient à couler dans la gorge, tant je suis triste, voyant mon fils loin de moi, derrière les barreaux israéliens, dit une mère.

Une autre mère se trouve dans la prison israélienne de Talmoud. Sa fillette parle de ses souffrances et de celles de ses frères, surtout en voyant les autres enfants embrasser leur mère, dans les de fêtes, leur mère qui leur offre des cadeaux et des gâteaux.

Les captifs palestiniens appellent à ce qu’on s’intéresse à leur cause, appellent les responsables palestiniens à l’union, à sortir de cet état de division, à s’intéresser au destin de la ville d'Al-Quds et à la question des réfugiés.

Et derrière les barreaux, des femmes palestiniennes sont enfermées. Elles voient leurs souffrances augmentées pendant les jours des fêtes. Il n’est pas difficile d’imaginer combien souffre une mère qui ne peut embrasser son enfant, le jour de fête.

Rafat Hamdouna, directeur du Centre, à appeler à être aux côtés des captifs, à pratiquer toutes les pressions possibles sur les occupants israéliens pour améliorer le sort des captifs palestiniens, surtout les jours de culte et les jours de fêtes.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Le comité d'Al Qods lance une campagne intitulée l'Aïd Al Kabîr, nous n'oublions pas Al Aqsa".


Caire - CPI



Le comité Al Aqsa de l'union des médecins arabes a lancé une campagne intitulée, pendant l'Aïd El Kebir on n'oublie pas Al Aqsa, face aux violations et agendas criminels de l'occupation israélienne qui tente par tous les moyens de la judaïser, en encourageant les extrémistes sionistes a l'envahir.


Le rapporteur de ce comité, Dr. Djamel Abdel Salam, a affirmé lors d'une déclaration de presse au centre palestinien d'information, le mardi 24/11, que la campagne vise à rappeler la nation des grands projets sionistes très dangereux qui menacent, plus que jamais, la mosquée sainte d'Al Aqsa, à travers les creusements, les fouilles, les tunnels et les tentatives incessantes de l'envahir.


Abdel Salam a déclaré que la campagne sera diffusée à travers des e-mails, des messages mobiles, des "Face book", des groupes de messagerie et d'autres, pour rappeler la nation qu'Allah swt a lié les deux mosquées, Al Haram (à la Mecque) et Al Aqsa à Al Qods. Il a appelé les fils de la nation, les militants à faire de ce thème lancé par la campagne un message de félicitation pendant les jours qui viennent afin de le répandre parmi la plupart des gens.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Sarkosy did not played any role in this deal, he just paid hundreds of millions of euros during his last private visit to the Jewish Al Saud family

SHALIT DEAL: WILL ISRAEL SCREW THIS UP AND BLAME HAMAS?

Sarkosy was in Riyadh last week, France paid secretly, the exact amount 460 millions euros, and we'll make sure that this will be known before the next french elections. 460 millions for Shalit and what else ?

Report: Shalit deal to be executed Friday

Hamas sources tell Saudi network al-Arabiya prisoner exchange with Israel to take place on first day of Eid al-Adha holiday; 450 Palestinians prisoners to be released to Gaza, West Bank in return for kidnapped soldier’s transfer to Egypt

Read the report HERE

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/shalit-deal-will-israel-screw-this-up-and-blame-hamas/

Visite de Nicolas Sarkozy en Arabie saoudite : les raisons d’un nouvel échec français


Non seulement il a rien fait pour la fiotasse Shalit, mais en plus les israeliens empochent 460 millions d'aides et de subventions sur 3 ans... Dis donc nain de jardin, t'es tellement irrite que tu retournes provoquer les banlieues, t'en as besoin pour finir de siphonner Le Pen aux regionales ! Et apres tu les envois dans des camps de travail ou sur le champ de bataille en Iran ? Continues comme ca, tu seras le Louis XVI du 21 ieme siecle, si c'est pas pathetique, un juif sioniste né en Hongrie vient parler d'identité nationale... Tu me diras Hitler etait autrichien, un austro-hongrois, comme toi !

Le site « Elaph.com » revient sur ce qu’il appelle « l’échec de la 3ème visite du président français Nicolas Sarkozy en Arabie depuis son élection, effectuée le 17 novembre ». Riyad ne tolère pas l’acrobatie diplomatique de la France et la lui fait payer.


La visite de Nicolas Sarkozy en Arabie saoudite s’est achevée sur un goût amer et une déception, souligne le site « Elaph.com », en raison de l’échec du président français à obtenir des Saoudiens le moindre contrat. A part les quelques formules de politesse, et la promesse d’étudier les propositions de Paris, Riyad refuse toujours - depuis 2008 - de conclure des marchés avec les Français.


« Elaph.com » cite une source saoudienne pour affirmer que « le Président Sarkozy a encouragé les Saoudiens à développer un programme nucléaire civil avec l’aide de la France, pour un montant pharaonique ». Mais ses interlocuteurs ont décliné l’offre, proposée auparavant aux Emirats Arabes Unis sans succès. Selon la même source, Sarkozy a dit au roi Abdallah que « la France était prête à vendre un programme nucléaire civil à l’Arabie ». La réponse du Souverain était sans détour : « Merci beaucoup. Mais pas maintenant ».


Selon plusieurs sources saoudiennes, « le pouvoir en Arabie chercherait, à travers le boycott économique de la France - qui ne dit pas son nom - à sanctionner la politique étrangère de l’Hexagone, marquée par une drôle d’acrobatie ». Riyad n’apprécie pas le rapprochement entre la France et la Syrie, ainsi que ses excellentes relations avec le Qatar, où se trouvait Carla Bruni Sarkozy, pendant que son époux négociait en Arabie. Au point que le site « Elaph.com » désigne Sarkozy par « Nicolas Al-Thani », du nom de l’émir du Qatar. L’Arabie est particulièrement irritée, depuis le début du mandat présidentiel, par l’ouverture accélérée de Sarkozy sur Damas et Doha, deux alliés de l’Iran dans la région, et qui nourrissent l’hostilité à l’égard de Riyad, et soutiennent les mouvements terroristes comme le Hezbollah et le Hamas. Ainsi, « les Saoudiens refusent de récompenser la France en lui attribuant des contrats pour des milliards de dollars, alors qu’elle s’allie avec leurs adversaires ».


Autrement dit, l’Arabie suggère à Paris, indirectement, mais avec beaucoup d’ironie, d’aller récolter les fruits de sa politique en quémandant des contrats en Syrie, un pays au bord de l’asphyxie financière depuis l’arrêt du pillage du Liban à la faveur du retrait de l’armée syrienne du pays du Cèdre. D’autant plus que la Syrie vient d’attribuer, début novembre, un contrat de construction d’une ligne de chemin de fer de plus de 270 km, reliant Palmyre à Deir Ez-Zor, aux entreprises allemandes, trois jours seulement après la visite du secrétaire d’Etat français aux Transports, Dominique Bussereau, à Damas où il a affirmé que « les entreprises françaises sont prêtes à assister la Syrie dans le développement de ses transports urbains et à répondre à tous les appels d’offres ». Les Allemands ont remporté le marché une semaine à peine après l’inauguration médiatisée du bureau de l’Agence Française de Développement (AFD) dans la capitale syrienne. C’est dire comment les Syriens se moquent de Paris une nouvelle fois, en « mangeant l’appât et en pissant sur l’hameçon ».
__________________

*http://www.mediarabe.info/spip.php?article1768
et
http://www.elaph.com/Web/AkhbarKhasa/2009/11/504571.htm

B'nai B'rith – The Jewish Secret Society that Dominates America


By Christopher Bollyn,
www.bollyn.com




President Truman, a highest level Freemason, was forced to accept the dictates of a gang of Zionist Jewish Freemasons on crafting U.S. policy in the Middle East. What does this say about the real hierarchy of power among Freemasons? Truman, a Freemason since 1909, had established the Grandview Lodge No. 618 in Missouri and served as its first "Worshipful Master". In 1940, Brother Truman was elected the ninety-seventh Grand Master of Masons of Missouri. In 1945, President Truman was made a Sovereign Grand Inspector General, 33°, and Honorary Member at the Supreme Council of the Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite (A.A.S.R.) Southern Jurisdiction Headquarters in Washington D.C. The fact that Jewish Freemasons of the B'nai B'rith were able to meet secretly with the president in the Oval Office whenever they wanted and were able to direct the U.S. president, a highest level Mason, to follow their orders in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East, shows the immense power this secret society of Zionist Jews has long had over the U.S. government and other Masonic orders. Barack Hussein Obama was created as a politician in Chicago and made President of the United States by the power of the B'nai B'rith. It's high time for these secret societies to be removed from the corridors of power where U.S. policy is crafted.



B'nai B'rith was instrumental in gaining U.S. support for the nascent Zionist state of Israel in the late 1940s. The Jewish secret society of Freemasons used President Harry Truman's friend - and their agent - Eddie Jacobson of Kansas City (standing behind Truman), to persuade the president to approve the Zionist land grab known as the U.N. Partition Plan for Palestine of 1947 and to recognize the state of Israel the next year following the Zionist ethnic cleansing of nearly 400 Palestinian villages and towns. When Truman extended de jure recognition of the Zionist state on January 31, 1949, the only guests invited to the signing ceremony in the Oval Office were members of B'nai B'rith: Eddie Jacobson, the B'nai B'rith executive vice president Maurice Bisgyer, and the secret society's president, Frank Goldman (sitting).


The first step to solving America's most serious problems requires that we identify the people who control the hidden hand behind the disastrous policies that are destroying our proud republic. This is the first article in a series about the B'nai B'rith, the Jewish secret society that created the state of Israel and made Barack Obama president.

After one year in office it is clear that the Obama administration, elected on a platform of "change", is actually maintaining the policies of the Bush administration. In some cases, such as the occupation of Afghanistan, President Barack Hussein Obama has actually added to the war effort by sending tens of thousands more troops.

The fact that the political change was only superficial and that the Obama administration intends to follow the basic policies of the previous administration can best be seen in the continuing cover up of the truth of what really happened on 9-11. The false-flag terrorism of 9-11 is the fundamental lie that needs to be protected. Upon this blatant lie the fraudulent "War on Terror" is based, and this illegal war policy has been embraced by Barack Obama.

When the Obama team sent Henry Kissinger to Moscow for early meetings with the Russian leadership, rather than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it was evident that the power brokers running the Obama White House were the same as those that ran the Bush and Clinton administrations – and those before them.

Rahm Emanuel, Chief-of-Staff of the Obama administration and son of an Israeli terrorist, and David Axelrod, the president's strategy chief and senior adviser, are two of the highest managers of Barack Obama. Axelrod, the son of a Communist Jew, has been managing Obama's political career since 1992. Emanuel, as a former senior adviser in the Clinton White House, was the person who pushed the disastrous NAFTA legislation through Congress in 1993. But who really manages Emanuel and Axelrod? Who tells them what policies to promote and which to discard?


Our politicians and policies are given to us today via television and the controlled media like the mysterious writing on the wall appeared to Babylon's King Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar, in the Old Testament. But who controls the hand that creates the politicians and crafts the policies?

The election of Barack Obama has provided us with a glimpse of the hidden hand that controls the government of the United States. The politicians and policies of the U.S. government do not actually come from the people but are presented to the public through the controlled media. The two most influential papers in the United States, The New York Times and Washington Post, are both controlled by German Jewish families that are among the founding members of the Jewish secret society the B'nai B'rith. The B'nai B'rith, an order of Jewish Freemasonry, is closed to non-Jews which puts its Jewish members at the top of the Masonic hierarchy. The members of B'nai B'rith are able to join other Masonic orders but only Jews can belong to B'nai B'rith.

Barack Obama has been created as a political candidate since 1992 by David Axelrod and Bettylu Saltzman, the daughter of Philip M. Klutznick, the former head of B'nai B'rith International, the supreme body of the B'nai B'rith. This is the secret society of Zionist Jews that controls the White House and the policies of the U.S. government.


The first Chicago newspaper report from the 1860s that revealed that a secret organization of "Israelites" had existed in Chicago for some 20 years.

'Do you really think that criminals are clever, good people, Thrasymachus?'

'Yes, if their criminality is able to manifest in a perfect form and they are capable of dominating countries and nations.'
- Socrates in Plato's Republic

Secret societies like the Freemasons and B'nai B'rith are like the black holes of astronomy. We cannot see black holes but we know they exist because we can see their profound effects on light and other bodies. So is it with the Jewish B'nai B'rith and other Freemasonic secret societies, which we know very little about but that pervade every level of our society and affect everything around us.

Great nations, like the United States, France, and Germany, once had anti-Masonic and anti-Semitic political parties that acted to challenge the pervasive influence of secret Masonic and Jewish organizations. Today we no longer have such political parties and find our societies dominated by the B'nai B'rith and Jewish Freemasons.

In the United States in 1828, the Anti-Masonic Party was the original third party to be active on the national scene. Popular opinion in America was naturally opposed to secret organizations and people feared the Freemasons, believing they were a powerful secret society that undermined republican principles. The Anti-Masonic Party was right. A democratic republic cannot allow its government, courts, and media to be run by the members of secret societies.

In 1843, a German Jew who called himself Henry Jones founded a Jewish secret society called the “Bundes-Brueder” (League of brothers) in the Sinsheimer Café near Wall Street in New York. Jones recruited his co-founders from the synagogue where he was in charge. At least four of its founders were Freemasons. The order, which was later re-named the “B’nai B’rith,” was closed to all non-Jews and to any Jew who fraternized with Christians.

The power of the B'nai B'rith has grown immensely during the past 166 years. As an independent journalist who has investigated the evidence of Israeli involvement in the false-flag terror of 9-11, I have seen how this secret society of Jewish Freemasons is able to corrupt every aspect of American society. It is the force behind the media and government cover-up of the truth of what happened on 9-11. It is also the secret organization behind the brutal attack on me at my house in August 2006 and the malicious prosecution and corrupt court process that followed.


Christopher Bollyn the day after being brutally assaulted by a three-man undercover tactical police squad at his home in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, in August 2006.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

ARE BLACKWATER MERCENARIES RESPONSIBLE FOR FALSE FLAG BOMBINGS IN ORDER TO UNLEASH CIVIL WAR IN PAKISTAN?

ISLAMIC RESISTANCE CONFIRMS THAT ISRAELIS, BRITISH, AMERICAN, INDIAN, ISI AND BLACKWATER, XE ARE BEHIND TERRORISM in Afghanistan and Pakistan, targeting only innocents to unleash civil wars



Yesterday I wrote of media reports saying that the Obama administration had written to Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, ‘saying he expects the Pakistani leader to rally political and national security institutions in a united campaign against extremists’. It now seems that Blackwater, the US mercenary company, may well have been responsible for a series of bombings aimed specifically at civilians in an effort to alienate the Pakistani people from the Taliban.


In a recent video, Taliban spokesman, Azam Tariq, denied that the Taliban were responsible for a suicide bombing at the International Islamic University in Islamabad on 20 October 2009, and the massive car-bombing that indiscriminately killed scores of civilians at a market in Peshawar, a bombing that coincided with a visit by Hillary Clinton to Pakistan, on 28 October 2009.
What gives Tariq’s statement credibility is the fact that, first, the Taliban, as can be seen in the video, are quite happy to claim responsibility for those bombings that were against police and security facilities which they see as legitimate targets. Second, it would not at all be in the Taliban’s interest to indiscriminately murder the very people, particularly in Peshawar where most of the people are Pashtun, that offer the Taliban most support and from whom the Taliban draw new recruits.Tariq claims that Blackwater mercenaries working in conjunction with Pakistani security, the ISI, are responsible for the bombings.
According to a report in the Pakistani online newspaper ‘The Nation’, some 202 Blackwater mercenaries arrived in Pakistan on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 on a flight out of Heathrow, London, though the report did not mention the purpose of their being in Pakistan saying only that authorities at Islamabad airport had allowed the men into Pakistan without any of the normal checks for visas, etc. The same report also noted that ex-Army Chief of Staff, Mirza Aslam Beg, had claimed “that former President Pervez Musharraf had given Blackwater the green signal to carry out its terrorist operations in the cities of Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Peshawar and Quetta”.
Many Blackwater employees are currently accommodated at the Pearl Continental luxury hotel in Peshawar, a building which has been earmarked for purchase by the US government for use as a future US consulate. They are in Peshawar “to provide security for a US-backed aid project in the area”, though what kind of ’aid’ they are providing ‘security’ for has not been specified.As well as bombings, it seems Blackwater operatives have also recently been involved in the targeted killings of several Pakistani military officers; presumably these were officers who had been discovered to have had sympathies or ties with the Taliban.
Looking at the broader picture, one might ask; what would be the purpose of pushing Pakistan toward civil war? The answer is simple: Once having pushed Pakistan to the brink of such a crisis, the situation would be so critical that it would provide an ideal opportunity for the US to step in to support a pro-US government in Pakistan and also to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
I would also provide the opportunity for the US to overtly fight the Taliban on Pakistani soil.Obviously, the US military are unable to undertake any of these tasks – yet, but Blackwater mercenaries, already in Pakistan providing security to a ‘US-backed aid project’, are already in a position to ruthlessly and covertly exploit an already potentially lethal political situation between the Pakistan government and the Taliban.A very senior Australian defence public servant who I spoke to about the situation between the Taliban and Pakistan told me that ‘in a year or so Pakistan will be Australia’s, and the West’s, biggest headache but that there were plans to deal with it’.That was in October of last year.

Israel infiltration and control of Westminster

TV documentary exposes Britain's Israel lobby




Channel 4 Dispatches: "Inside Britain's Israel lobby", broadcast on 16 November 2009. The video can also be viewed here.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Terror Risk High as Obama Ponders Afghan Fiasco


Earlier images of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed





The person said to be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "mastermind of 9-11," may arrive in New York City before Christmas.






By Christopher Bollyn,
www.bollyn.com




The risk of another false-flag terror attack like the terror atrocities of 9-11 is currently very high. This is not a prediction but a warning based on my analysis of 9-11 and the predicament that the U.S. and NATO find themselves in as they try to occupy Afghanistan, a nation of fighting men who have always resisted foreign occupiers.







An Afghan fighting man at a funeral of a fallen comrade. The men of Afghanistan, mainly Pashtuns of Aryan stock, are fighting the U.S.-led occupation of their nation. What would you do if your country were occupied? Would you take up arms and fight to free your nation from occupation or would you submit to the occupying power? This question is much more pertinent than most Americans realize.







As President Barack Hussein Obama ponders what to do about the fiasco in Afghanistan, the risk of a false-flag terror attack that forces his hand is greatly increased. An Israeli-designed terror attack that is seen by the public as having been committed by Al Qaida would serve as an effective decision maker for Obama and swing public opinion behind sending more troops to the eight-year-old war of occupation in Afghanistan.












This is why I consider the chances of another terror attack to be blamed on Al Qaida to be very high at the moment.Why has Obama waited so long to decide what to do in Afghanistan? The Zionist-controlled president obviously does not intend to bring the troops home and the status quo is clearly not working. Obama, who will soon receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and his Zionist handlers are obviously reluctant to send tens of thousands more U.S. troops to a war of occupation that is very unpopular with Americans. Fearing defeat and "mission failure", the U.S. military, NATO, and the Zionist-controlled media are clamoring for more troops to be sent as soon as possible, but if Obama were to send more troops he would lose even more support among his political base, which is really quite weak.The administration's plan to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged "mastermind of 9-11," to New York City to stand trial may be part of this plan. Why has it taken the Obama administration one year to come to this decision? If Obama were truly serious about closing Guantanamo and seeing justice served, he would have made these moves last spring. A trial for the person said to be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would provide an ideal possibility for another false-flag terror attack in New York City. One that killed the 9-11 terror suspects before they had a chance to be thoroughly interrogated in an open trial would probably be the desired outcome for the planners of the terror attack.













The person said to be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "mastermind of 9-11," may arrive in New York City before Christmas.







Earlier images of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed













One has to remember that the real goal of the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with democracy or the terrorism of 9-11. The U.S.-led invasion and occupation is meant to occupy and pacify the country to allow for the construction of the TAPI pipeline to transport the Mossad-owned gas of Turkmenistan to India and China. When this pipeline is built, the Mossadnik Yosef Maiman and his Israeli partners will become tremendously wealthy selling the gas resources of Turkmenistan, which they own and control. The Israelis certainly have not shelved this plan because of the high casualties being suffered by U.S. and NATO forces. The Israeli terrorists who masterminded 9-11, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the utterly fraudulent "War on Terror" (e.g. Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak) are at the top of their game -- and running the Israeli government.













The Zionist Terror Troika - Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak
The current Israeli government is very close to the Obama administration. With Rahm Emanuel, the son of a Zionist terrorist, running the White House, one might think that the Israeli government is calling the shots in the Oval Office. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Lally Weymouth, senior editor of Newsweek and The Washington Post (which her family owns), in late October 2009:







There is much greater cooperation and transparency between the Obama administration and my government than people know. We speak openly and I greatly appreciate steps taken by the Obama administration against the distorted Goldstone report and their pressure on Iran to stop its military nuclear program as well as the ongoing efforts we are making to re-launch the peace negotiations between us and the Palestinians.







Rahm Emanuel, the son of a Zionist terrorist from the Stern Gang, runs the Obama White House. The president is kept in an information bubble and handled like a puppet by his Zionist handlers who have managed him since 1992.







David Axelrod, Obama's adviser since 1992, made the candidate by making his political decisions and writing his speeches. He still does.







Lally Weymouth is the daughter of Katharine (Meyer) Graham and grandaughter of Eugene Isaac Meyer, the Zionist Jew banker of Lazard Freres who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1930 to 1933 and who bought The Washington Post at a bankruptcy auction in 1933. Like most U.S. news outlets, both the New York Times and Washington Post are owned by Zionist Jewish families.







Sources and Recommended Reading:













Christopher Bollyn, "Why Afghanistan?" September 28, 2009 http://www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_11438













Bollyn, "The Great Game - The War For Caspian Oil And Gas," October 14, 2001http://www.bollyn.com/the-great-game-14-oct-2001













Bollyn, "Gitmo Gulag Process Falls into Chaos," July 16, 2009http://www.bollyn.com/gitmo-gulag-process-falls-into-chaos













Bollyn, "Terror Mastermind KSM is an Imposter - The Confession is Fake," March 16, 2007http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Bollyn-Ahmed-Abdul-Qadus.html













Bollyn, "The Absence of Justice for 9/11 Victims," March 20, 2007http://www.bollyn.com/index.php?id=10665













Bollyn, "When and Where was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Captured - or Killed?" March 16, 2007http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Bollyn-Ahmed-Abdul-Qadus-arrest.html

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Obama, the Biggest Threat to Al-Aqsa in 90 Years?


By Shaykh Riyad Nadwi, PhD
11th November 2009
http://www.occri.org.uk/Articles/Obama-Aqsa.htm


وَمَكَرُوا مَكْرًا كُبَّارًا
"And they have devised a tremendous plot..." (Quran, 71:22)

:الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسوله وآله وصحبه أجمعين

The Obama Pro-Muslim Smoke Screen


Owing to the fog of multiple and conflicting pictures painted to depict Barack Obama, confusion remains in the minds of many as to what the new President of America really represents and where exactly his loyalties lie. As the weeks and months of his presidency pass by, inconsistent messages and contradictory positions on major issues have become a standard feature of the regime. An executive order is signed to close Guantanamo Bay and end the military trials of its inmates, but then the military trials are revived and Guantanamo remains open. Renditions are ruled out in public, but then ruled in by stealth. The war in Iraq was to be ended in 2009, but instead of any substantial withdrawal of troops, we have the construction of the "small-city-larger-than-the-Vatican" sized US Embassy in Baghdad. Indeed, war continues, as in the previous administration, to feature at the top of the White House agenda, with thousands more troops committed to war in Afghanistan - but then Obama receives the Nobel Peace Prize. An insightful young Muslim sent me her reaction to the prize in these words:


"The Nobel Peace Prize has always seemed in danger of being more ridiculous than sublime. Who can forget such former laureates as that bastion of realpolitik Henry Kissinger or Yitzak 'Break their bones' Rabin? Despite this, I listened with a mixture of astonishment and disbelief when I heard the news that Barack Hussein Obama was this year's recipient. It seems strange indeed that aside from his desk job in the White House this year's recipient is also the Commander in Chief of the world's largest army, which is currently fighting wars in two separate countries, and presides over the largest defense budget in the world, which is estimated to total somewhere between $925 billion and $1.14 trillion in 2009. This is not to mention the 40,000 extra US troops he has pledged to send into Afghanistan or the tacit support he has given the despicable practice of secret rendition. This award seems all the more astonishing when one takes into account the type of individual that Alfred Nobel had in mind for the recipient of the award, namely it should be awarded to 'the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.' It seems that in 2009 we are closer than ever to 1984: 'Then the face of Big Brother faded away again and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.'"



The sense of confusion is widespread among large swathes of people from diverse backgrounds, including even some from his own black community (e.g. Rev. Jesse Jackson who had to apologise publicly after being caught on camera saying that he wanted to castrate Obama). However, the Obama confusion is most profound among Muslims. While some Muslims insist, against all the evidence to the contrary, that he is a Muslim, others see him as a saviour of sorts and a messiah of peace. This, of course, is a picture Obama himself has sought to project to the Muslim world through a variety of means. He ensured that, as president, the first phone call he made was to Mahmoud Abbas, his first television interview was on the Dubai-based channel Al-Arabiyya (extending a "hand of friendship" to the Muslim world), and he also made sure that his first major overseas speech was to a Muslim audience in a Muslim country.



These gestures of friendly intent towards Muslims are further reinforced when Muslims remember the highly-publicised anecdotes of antagonism towards Obama from the American Right and its media outlets during the early stages of the presidential campaign. Most notably among these was the "madrasa graduate" accusation from Fox News and, of course, the famous emails warning the Jewish electorate that he was a closet Muslim.


Seeing that the pro-Israel Fox News and members of the US Jewish community were antagonistic towards Obama reinforced the idea among many Muslims that "the man is probably on their side".


The frequent bouts of petty conflict between Fox News and Obama did not damage either party. In fact, these conflicts serve, as we can see in the latest round, to boost audience figures while simultaneously increasing the president's credibility, depicting him as someone who can stand up to the right wing media.


What most people do not realise is that the Fox Network played a larger role in creating acceptability for a black president in the minds of the US electorate that any other network in the US. The high profile Fox TV drama series 24 did not only serve to soften the public attitude towards torture by portraying it as a necessary evil, but it also played a major role in promoting something (i.e. a black US president) that was until then considered, even among blacks, as absurd. This phenomenon was dubbed "The Palmer Effect" by commentators such as Lucia Bozzala. In her article of early 2007 "The Palmer Effect: Has '24' Made the US Safe for President Obama?" she wrote:


"In 24, the Palmers are elected. Fancy that. In those off years and months between terrorist crises, David Palmer wins elections, and Wayne Palmer wins because he has the right last name.... The point, though, is that they win because they got enough votes. They don't enter the office on a technicality. They are president because people like them. They really really like them. In other words, the minds behind 24 (right wing or not) were able to conceive of the idea of a black man being elected by the general public, and not toss it out as patently absurd i.e. if Jack Bauer has no fear of a black president, then maybe we won't either." (The Palmer Effect: Has "24" Made the U.S. Safe for President Obama? Lucia Bozzola, 30 Jan 2007.)
The Fox Network controversy is not the only example of one story in public and another in private. There is a pattern of projecting public conflict while maintaining private friendship. In the public arena, the Right and the Neocons were criticising Obama but then it was revealed that a week before his swearing in, he was attending secret dinners with George Will and William Kristol. The news shocked his many supporters. A Washington Times reporter, describing the reaction when the news of the secret dinner emerged, wrote "The lefties are mystified. So are a few of the righties."


The same pattern is visible in Obama's choice of individuals to hold key positions in his administration. Some commentators have gone as far as labelling those Right and Neocon activists who suddenly switched their support to Obama's candidacy as "Obamacons". Here is a brief list of them:


Andrew Sullivan in his Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters - The Atlantic.Douglas Kmiec, Endorsing Obama - Slate.The Endorsement Follows the Covenant—Why I Endorse Sen. Obama - Slate.David Friedman (son of Milton) prefers Obama to McCain.Scott Flanders (CEO of Freedom Communications - the company that owns The Orange County Register) should be pro-Senator McCain, but favours Senator Obama.Megan McArdle endorsing Obama on Super Tuesday.Francis Fukuyama backs Obama.Andrew J. Bacevich, The Right Choice? The conservative case for Obama - The American Conservative.Jeffrey Hart and Wick Allison of The National Review both like Obama. Hart sees him as a redeemer with practical solutions.Susan Eisenhower, grand-daughter of the Republican President, Why I'm Backing Obama - WP.Lawrence A. Hunter - of the "Contract with America".


Even the National Review, the intellectual anchor of the conservative movement, including Jeffrey Hart and Wick Allison, the latter of whom has been a senior editor at the magazine since 1968 and even wrote a history of the magazine called The Making of the American Conservative Mind, put their support behind Obama. Allison praised Obama in The Dallas Morning News saying, "His life story embodies the conservative values that go to the core of my beliefs."
Then, once in power, there were several more shockers. All his talk about fairness and respect for peoples of the world went out of the window on the occasion of the United Nations' World Conference on Racism. Instead of supporting it, Obama told Jewish leaders that Durban II crossed a red line and the message from his administration was: "We are not in a position to attend... barring those red lines being met."


So what sort of person does one have to be to behave with such duplicity? When an average politician behaves in this manner, people resign themselves to the fact that they all do it. However, when someone comes along with an entirely new magnitude of promise and change, the subsequent "reality check" can prove to be quite unsettling, especially for those Muslims who have placed all their hopes in the Obama dream. According to some reports, 90 per cent of Muslims who voted in the US elections did so for Obama. Many of them voted in the hope that he would bring peace to the world and as one of them put it: "Obama represents a magic spear in the heart of the clash-of-civilization theory". The General Secretary of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, in a message to Obama, wrote, "Dear President Obama, With great respect, the OIC would like to congratulate you on behalf of the Muslim world on your ground breaking election as President of the United States. The Muslim world has cheered your election and holds high hopes for your historic presidency... Muslims hunger for a new era of peace, we firmly believe that America, with your guidance, can help foster that peace." (The New York Times International, 20.01.2009.) [Also see Appendix A3 for OIC Communique of 1st November 2009 on Israeli aggression against Al-Quds Al-Sharif and the Blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque.]


The Fairytale Versus Self-interest


Some Muslims refer to Obama's history as proof of his kind-heartedness and concern for the well-being of the oppressed and less fortunate. At the Democratic Party Convention, there were a string of warm-up acts before his speech to inform the crowd of who he was. The audience were given a fairytale story about Obama: once having graduated from college and not wanting to go after big money, he forsook the big bucks and a wealthy life in order to work with poor black people in Chicago's south side - as a community organiser. This story, repeated by several speakers, made quite an impact. Even the man who had hired him all those years ago, Jerry Kellman, regurgitated the same fairytale and in so doing caused many black people to burst into tears, especially when he said: "In 1985, I needed to hire a community organiser. I found myself in New York City, across from a 25-year-old recent college graduate. I wanted to convince him to give up a comfortable life and a bright future to come to Chicago to take up the toughest of challenges for a salary of just $10,000 a year. It was not difficult to convince Barack to take the job. All I had to do was describe what had happened to people on the south side of Chicago." Obama himself often cites his time as a community organiser in Chicago as one of the experiences that qualifies him to be president: "I can bring this country together, I have a track record, starting from the days I moved to Chicago as a community organiser."



However, if one reads Obama's own biography (Dreams from My Father), the story is quite different and somewhat revealing of the kind of person Obama is. It also provides an insight into the mentality of the man who took him under his wing and trained him to capitalise on his mixed heritage, i.e. to manipulate people who are desperate while serving one's self-interest. This is what Obama himself wrote about Marty Kaufman (the pseudonym for Jerry Kellman) and about the job in Chicago. In the interests of brevity, I have selected relevant paragraphs from the book to provide insight into the mission in Chicago and the thinking behind it:



Kellman needed a black man to front his organisation in a predominantly black community and Obama agreed to act on Kellman's behalf. Here is the story in Obama's own words: "I received a call from Marty Kaufman... he was looking to hire a trainee... he was in New York for a week." (p.149.) "I was broke, unemployed, eating soup from a can." (p.139.) "He was Jewish, in his late thirties, had been reared in New York. He had started organising in the sixties with student protests, and ended up staying with it for fifteen years. Farmers in Nebraska. Blacks in Philadelphia. Mexicans in Chicago. Now he was trying to pull urban blacks and suburban whites together around a plan to save manufacturing jobs in metropolitan Chicago. He needed somebody to work with him, he said. Somebody black." (p.141.)



Kellman had even declared himself Catholic to run his "game" with the churches but he still needed a black man as go-between. The church was the only game in town. The main concern was, of course, money. Kellman had said to Obama that, “Most of our work is with churches. If poor and working-class people want to build real power, they have to have some sort of institutional base. With the unions in the shape they're in, the churches are the only game in town. That's where the people are, and that's where the values are, even if they've been buried under a lot of bullshit. Churches won't work with you, though, just out of the goodness of their hearts. They'll talk a good game - a sermon on Sunday, maybe, or a special offering for the homeless - but if push comes to shove, they won't really move unless you can show them how it'll help them pay their heating bills." (p.141.)



The self-interest formula was Kellman's most precious gift to Obama. "The day of the rally, Marty decided it was time for me to do some real work, and handed me a long list of people to interview. Find out their self-interest, he said. That's why people become involved in organising - because they think they'll get something out of it. Once I found an issue enough people cared about, I could take them into action. With enough actions, I could start to build power. Issues, action, power, self-interest. I liked these concepts. They bespoke a certain hardheadedness, a worldly lack of sentiment; politics not religion." (p.155.) "I tossed my third week report on Marty's desk. 'Yeah, not bad,' he said. 'But it's still too abstract... like you're taking a survey or something. If you want to organise people you need to steer away from the peripheral stuff and go towards people's centres. The stuff that makes them tick.' I asked if he (Marty) ever worried about becoming too calculating, if the idea of probing people's psyches and gaining their trust just to build an organisation ever felt manipulative. He sighed. 'I am not a poet, Barack. I'm an organiser'. What did that mean? I left the office in a foul mood. Later, I had to admit that Marty was right."



Obama's admiration was not just then in Chicago - the lessons he learnt from Kellman remained cherished with him in the years that followed. Many years later Obama told his biographer David Mendell that, "Jerry Kellman is whip smart. One of the smartest men I ever met."
The black people in Chicago warned Obama about being used. "Reverend Smalls said 'Listen... what's your name again? Obama? Listen, Obama, you may mean well. I'm sure you do. But the last thing we need is to join up with a bunch of white money and Catholic churches and Jewish organisers to solve our problems. They're not interested in us. Shoot, the archdiocese in the city is run by stone-cold racists. Always has been. White folks come in here thinking they know what's best for us, hiring a buncha high-talking college-educated brothers like yourself who don't know better, and all they want to do is take over. It's all a political thing, and that's not what this group here is about.'" (p.161.) "I noticed that none of them left with my flyers… Marty said, 'Most important, I needed to spend more time getting to know the leaders in the community; flyers couldn't pull people out on a rainy night.'" (p.162.)



Did Obama take the advice of the black Reverend? No. Instead he continued to work loyally for Mr Kellman. Nothing changed much for the poor people but something interesting happened in the suburbs and Obama's value-laden and insightful advice to Kellman was to change - not the policy, just the tactics.



Their project received $500,000 from the Illinois Legislature for a job bank. "...turned out to be a bust. As Marty had planned it... two months after it was supposed to have started, no one found work through the program. The computers didn't work; the data entry was plagued with errors; people were sent to interviews for jobs that didn't exist. [Angela, Shirley Mona, complained] All they knew was that $500,000 had gone somewhere, and it wasn't in their neighborhood. For them the job bank had become yet more evidence that Marty had used them to push a secret agenda, that somehow whites in the suburbs were getting the jobs they'd been promised. 'Marty's just looking out for his own,' they grumbled. I had tried my best to mediate the conflict, defending Marty against charges of racism, suggesting to him that he cultivate more tact." (p.167-8.)



Apart from some hollow "hoo-has" about asbestos, not much changed on Chicago's south side while Obama was fronting the Kellman game. The lesson, however, from this story for Muslims is that Obama has a track record of being completely loyal to the people behind him. He was tried and tested in the Kellman project. If he was agreeable to fronting the Kellman organisation simply because the colour of his skin made him acceptable, then he would most certainly be willing to front a Zionist project if his tenuous links with Muslims gave him the credibility of being an honest broker.


Circumventing the Obstacles


If an American president wanted to hand over all of Al-Quds Al-Sharif (Jerusalem) - including Masjid al-Aqsa - to the Israelis so that they could turn it into Israel's undivided capital, there are several major obstacles that he would need to circumvent. Brute force and military might, although available in good measure, would not suffice on their own. There is a long list of further issues that would need to be considered such as international law, Muslim religious sentiment, potential disruption to world trade, Arab-American relations, world crude oil prices, Muslim anger and so on. Thus far, regardless of how staunch any American president may have been in his support for this idea, American self interest has always remained a sobering force whenever it came to following through with such a plan. This explains why even though in 1995 Congress voted to move the US embassy to Al-Quds Al-Sharif (Jerusalem), the American embassy in Israel remains in Tel Aviv to this day. In June 2009, Obama postponed the moving of the embassy to Al-Quds Al-Sharif for a further six months.



There is no lack of intent with regard to a planned handing over of Al-Quds Al-Sharif to Israel. It is only the aforementioned obstacles that are preventing it from being implemented. If the plan were to become executable in a way that would circumvent these obstacles, preserving American integrity and interests on the one hand and causing minimal/manageable reaction from Muslims worldwide on the other, then there would be no need to postpone the US embassy move to Jerusalem, the handing over of full control of Al-Aqsa Mosque to the Israelis and allowing them to demolish and build whatever they wish on the site. Let us not forget that the international community has presided over precisely this sort of land grab across 70-80% of Palestinian lands for the past 60 years. However, when the matter relates to Al-Quds Al-Sharif in particular, the biggest deterrent is worldwide Muslim sentiment and the attachment of Muslims to Masjid Al-Aqsa through the explicit words of the Quran (Al-Israa 17:1).



If America were to send out a signal that it wanted to support the Israeli claim to Masjid Al-Aqsa, then that would make it very difficult for Muslim and Arab leaders to maintain any links with the US. Pressure from the masses would be so strong and widespread that it would sink any government into turmoil. However, if Al-Quds Al-Sharif - including Masjid Al-Aqsa - were handed over to the Israelis in exchange for a Palestinian state, with America being seen as an honest broker who left Jerusalem to the Palestinians to defend on their own in negotiations with Israel, then the blame for failing to secure Jerusalem could be placed firmly on Palestinian shoulders. The Palestinians would be at fault while America would be credited with creating a Palestinian state.For this plan to work, large numbers of Muslims would need to be convinced in advance that there is divergence of policy between America and Israel and that the new president has no bias whatsoever in favour of Israel. To achieve these two feats, a number of smoke screens are needed.
The Policy Conflict Smoke Screen
It is no secret that Israel's dependence on the United States of America for financial and military aid gives any sitting president in the White House an enormous amount of influence on Israel. According to some conservative estimates, Israel has so far benefited from US aid to the tune of $114 billion in direct aid and numerous other measures (e.g. refined fuel for its military). This pipeline of benefits for Israeli politicians is a major consideration in policy formulation. Although there are many occasions when Israel appears to have deviated from its compact with the US, subsequent analysis and leaked information has invariably revealed that White House approval, explicit or implicit, is always obtained in advance (e.g. the 2008 invasion of Gaza). The bottom line is that if Israel ever genuinely breaks rank with the White House on policy, it would jeopardise the very existence of Israel. As long as the aid pipeline continues to flow, the synergy of policies will continue. But why the need to emphasise this well-known fact here? The reason is because over recent months, a concerted PR campaign has been under way to give the impression that a policy gap is opening up between Israel and the White House. Both Israel and the US are sending out signals that they are moving apart, when in reality they are closer than ever. To see through this smoke screen, we must keep our eyes firmly "on the money", i.e. the flow of US financial and military aid to Israel. Obama has committed himself to fund Israel more than previous presidents. In his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) he said, "As president I will implement a memorandum of understanding that will provide $30 billion of assistance to Israel."



As for policy on Al-Quds Al-Sharif in particular, another large bundle of smoke and mirrors is being projected to keep Muslims guessing. In the AIPAC speech Obama told the audience in clear and bold diction: "Let me be clear, Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognised and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." When this statement caused uproar in the Muslim world, the following day Obama's campaign advisers came up with the ultimate smoke and mirrors explanation. Suddenly Jerusalem , as they put it, "is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties." These are the same two parties who have been in a stalemate for the past 60 years over illegal settlements in hundreds of Palestinian villages and towns. Now we must expect them to miraculously come up with an agreement "on their own" about the most sensitive plot of land in the entire dispute. If a Palestinian state cannot be achieved except through international arbitration and pressure from the United States, then it is ludicrous to suggest that Al-Quds Al-Sharif can be left to the two parties alone, especially when one side is armed to the teeth with American-funded weapons and the other side is represented by the likes of Mahmoud "the capitulator" Abbas. For those Muslims with their heads in the sand, the Goldstone report fiasco proves that the Obama bias towards Israel as outlined in his AIPAC speech was not merely "electioneering" but genuine words from the heart. In fact, the Israelis are so drunk with the fortune of having Obama, that they have become careless of all consequences. This is how one Israeli commentator described what they did about the Goldstone Report:


"To force the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, of all people, to withdraw his demand for a discussion of the report - that is an Israeli-American dictate tantamount to pressuring him to commit hara-kiri (suicide)." (Yossi Sarid, Haaretz, 16.4.09.)
If a Palestinian leader is unable to defend his right to speak and discuss the killing of 1400 Palestinians in Gaza including women and children, how on earth would he be able to secure one inch of Masjid al-Aqsa in Obama's "final status negotiations"?


In fact, Al-Quds Al-Sharif is the only plot of land in the whole area that has genuine international status in legal terms and deserves first status international attention, not "final status" Obama deception. In his Cairo speech to the Muslim world, Obama almost acknowledged the international status of Al-Quds Al-Sharif when he tried to put back together the egg which he had smashed in his AIPAC speech by saying that he wanted us all to work for a day when "Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together." What good is there in saying this to a bunch of Muslims who are acutely aware of his exact words to the AIPAC crowd? One cannot be telling the truth on both occasions. One of these has to be a lie and to find out which one it is likely to be, we need to take a closer look at Mr Obama and the people behind him in his meteoric journey to the White House.


If it Looks Like a Duck...



Unless the funding stops, no one should ever be fooled into thinking that Israel is acting independently of the wishes of the United States. The US has the ultimate veto on policy in Israel - it's called "aid". Israelis cannot disobey Obama if he really wants them to do something. As for why they would have placed themselves in such a bind by supporting his candidacy, the answer is probably that because when it comes to Israel, Obama is the safest pair of hands to be in the White House. He has the finesse to make people feel that he is genuinely concerned to such an extent that even when he does the complete opposite they remain reluctant to question his sincerity.


Since Obama's election to the presidency, Israelis have gained a new air of confidence and arrogance. Their positions have hardened in an unprecedented manner and their hostility towards the Palestinians has gained an entirely new momentum of cruelty and pigheadedness - as if to say to the world that "we have absolutely nothing to fear in Washington". They invaded Gaza in a merciless killing spree while Obama remained suspiciously silent, then made lame excuses for his silence, and now he has attempted to suppress discussion on the Goldstone report on Gaza. In Al-Quds Al-Sharif, Palestinians were evicted from homes they had owned for generations to allow settlers to move in, while the archaeological project in Al-Quds Al-Sharif has been taken away from genuine academics and handed over to a bunch of fanatical religious zealots called Ateret Cohanim ("the crown of priests") who are now ferociously digging towards the foundations of Masjid al-Aqsa, Al-Haram Al-Sharif.



The Israelis would not be so audacious unless they were reassured by a new and extraordinary level of US support. I believe that support is Mr Obama himself. Don't take my word for it. Jeffery Goldberg has been described by Michael Massing as "the most influential journalist/blogger on matters related to Israel". Here is what Goldberg had to say about Obama's commitment to the land of Israel: "Mr. Obama is actually more pro-Israel than either Ehud Olmert or Ehud Barak." (J. Goldberg, New York Times, 18 May 2009.) Mr Goldberg was not being flippant; this is a serious statement made by someone who cares about Israel.
Obama's acquaintances in his adopted hometown of Chicago are well aware of his long-standing avid support for Israel. Even some rabbis look pale in front of him when it comes to Israel. According to Eli Lake,"The rabbi of a synagogue across the street from the Obama family residence in Hyde Park, Chicago, Arnold Jacob Wolf, said that the senator was in fact too hawkish on Israel. 'In my opinion he has been too strong. I belong to the Peace Now group and he doesn't. He is defensive of Israel in ways I wouldn't be, mostly the occupation,' the rabbi, who says he has known Mr. Obama for 10 years, said."


Forget the Emails, Think Rabbis


As for those Muslims who persist in keeping their heads in the sand while pinning hopes on, and drawing conclusions from, the anti-Obama emails that were circulated among American Jewry during the election campaign, I say to them take a closer look at the relationship. Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, is not the only Zionist standing closely behind the President.


What those Muslims need to realise is that while on one hand the news reports about emails projected a sense of genuine suspicion among the Jewish electorate, Obama on the other hand had been receiving unprecedented support - more than any other candidate ever - from the most important people in the American Jewish community: the rabbis. Rabbis from all over the United States flocked to support Obama in their droves - a first in US politics. A website was launched and hundreds of rabbis declared their loyalty. Why? Because I believe they knew exactly where he stood in terms of Israel and Al-Quds Al-Sharif. He is their man.
"I have been a rabbi in Chicago for twenty-eight years. In all that time I have never publicly endorsed a candidate for office. As a congregational rabbi, I have always avoided taking such a public position. This year is very different... As a Chicago area rabbi I have been fortunate to know Senator Barack Obama. I have met him on many occasions, and I witnessed his swearing in for his Senate seat in January of 2005.


More importantly, people I know and deeply trust have known Barack Obama since his days at Harvard Law School. Barack Obama is a man of incredible wisdom, insight, and integrity. His connections within the Chicago Jewish community could not be deeper. He has won the admiration and trust of many of the leading figures of Chicago Jewish life. Those who know him best recognize him to be a person who truly understands the American Jewish experience as well as the centrality to Jews and all Americans of Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East and America's strongest ally. He demonstrated a remarkable depth of understanding of Israel in his most recent visit there and impressed all those whom he met. I support him as well because of his commitment to an America called to its highest ideals. On all the major domestic issues Barack Obama shares the values of the American Jewish community. I am endorsing Barack Obama for president because I know him to be a man of incredible judgment and vision. This is the most important presidential election of our lives. These times demand that we elect Barack Obama President of the United States. Rabbi Sam Gordon, Wilmette, IL." (http://www.rabbisforobama.com/)


Here is a message - and a list of rabbi supporters - from the website Rabbis for Obama (please see Appendix A1 below for a full list of hundreds of rabbis who supported Obama's election to the White House. There may be more but these are the ones whose names were published on the RabbisforObama website):


"Dear Friends:



As rabbis who believe that Barack Obama is the best candidate to be President of the United States, we have formed 'Rabbis for Obama' as a grassroots organization of rabbis from all movements and backgrounds. We join together to support Senator Obama for President, and we do so in the belief that he will best support the issues important to us in the Jewish community.
Some of us know Senator Obama personally, and we recognize that he has been inspired by Jewish values such as Tikkun Olam and the pursuit of justice, and he is deeply committed as well to a civil discourse between opposing arguments. We also know that Senator Obama will inspire young people, both in the Jewish community and the wider American community, to become more involved in improving this country and repairing the world."

nn
Chair:Rabbi Sam Gordon, Wilmette, IL
Co-chair:Rabbi Steven Bob, Glen Ellyn, IL
Vice- Chairs:Rabbi Rachel Cowan, New York, NYRabbi Elliot Dorff, Los Angeles, CARabbi Ellen Weinberg Dreyfus, Homewood, ILRabbi Steve Foster, Denver, CORabbi Dayle Friedman, Philadelphia, PARabbi Laura Geller, Los Angeles, CARabbi Don Gluckman, Pikesville, MDRabbi Nancy Fuchs Kreimer, Wyncote, PARabbi Charles Kroloff, Westfield, NJRabbi Richard N. Levy, Encino, CARabbi Brian Lurie, San Francisco, CARabbi Rachel Mikva, Rye Brook, NYRabbi Jack Moline, Alexandria, VARabbi Charles Simon, New York, NYRabbi David Teutsch, Philadelphia, PARabbi Ethan Tucker, New York, NYRabbi Burt Visotzky, New York, NY


Source: Rabbis For Obama website http://www.rabbisforobama.com/
We know that Obama also had a rabbi in his family (see the Jerusalem Post article "The Obama Family Rabbi"), but that does not explain why senior ex-congressmen like Abner Mikva would declare in the Jerusalem Post that Barack has a "yiddishe nishama" and that "Barack will be the first Jewish president in the US." These are not statements from stupid or deluded individuals. They are the pillars of the community. Obama had to have given them a sufficiently compelling reason before they would have gone out so far on a limb to endorse him.


Al-Quds Al-Sharif and Masjid al-Aqsa is the Prize


I believe that Obama has promised the Jewish community in America and the Israelis in all sincerity that he will facilitate for them the taking over of all of Jerusalem including Masjid Al-Aqsa. All the indications are that preparations are being made to work towards the execution of such a plan. Here again to avoid the accusation of "conspiracy theorist" I quote the Israeli commentator Uri Aveney on the recent events in Al-Quds Al-Sharif. He wrote:


"THE SUBJECT dominating this week's news was Jerusalem. Everything happened 'suddenly'. Suddenly the flames broke out on the Temple Mount, after the month of Ramadan had passed relatively quietly. Suddenly the Islamic Movement in Israel called upon the Arab citizens to rush and save the al-Aqsa mosque. Suddenly, senior Islamic preachers all over the Muslim world urged the one and a half billion Muslims to rise to the defense of the holy shrines. (Nothing happened.) The police chief in Jerusalem has a ready explanation: the Muslims are 'ungrateful'. We have 'allowed them' to pray safely all through Ramadan, and that is how they repay us. This colonial arrogance infuriated the Arabs even more. According to the Israeli authorities, nothing has happened that could justify this 'sudden' upheaval. Meaning: it is an Arab provocation, a vile effort to create a conflict out of nothing. But in Arab - and not only Arab - eyes it looks very different. For years now, the Arab community in Jerusalem has been under siege. Since Binyamin Netanyahu became Prime Minister, and since Nir Barkat became mayor of Jerusalem, the sense of siege increased many fold. Both men belong to the radical Right, and both are leading towards ethnic cleansing.



"This finds its foremost expression in the systematic building of Jewish neighborhoods in the heart of the Arab quarters in the annexed Eastern part of the city, which is supposed to become the capital of the Palestinian state and whose final status is still to be decided by negotiation. The execution is entrusted to a group of extreme Rightists called Ateret Cohanim ('the crown of priests'), financed by the American Bingo king Irwin Moskowitz. After winning a resounding victory in shaving Jebel Abu-Ghneim ('Har Homa') and building a fortress-like settlement there, they are now establishing Jewish neighborhoods in the heart of Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan, Ras al-Amud and Abu Dis, not to mention the Muslim Quarter of the Old City itself. At the same time, they are trying to fill up the E1 area between Jerusalem and the giant settlement Ma'aleh Adumim.



"Seemingly, these are all sporadic actions, initiated by respect-hungry billionaires and power-drunk settlers. But that is an illusion: behind all this feverish activity there lurks a government plan with a well defined strategic goal. It is enough to look at a map in order to understand its purpose: to encircle the Arab quarters and cut them off from the West Bank. And beyond: to enlarge Jerusalem to the East up to the approaches of Jericho, thus cutting the West Bank into two, with the Northern part (Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm) cut off from the Southern part (Hebron, Bethlehem).
"And, of course: to make the life of the Arab inhabitants of Jerusalem impossible, until they 'voluntarily' leave the 'United City, Israel's Capital in all Eternity'. IN THIS strategy, a central role is played by the thing called 'archaeology'. For a hundred years, Jewish archaeology has sought, in vain, to prove the existence of David's kingdom... For this desperate search, archaeological diggings took off the strata pertaining to the last 2000 years in the country's life - the periods of the Byzantine empire, the Islamic conquest, the Mamelukes and the Ottomans. The search has a manifest political purpose, and most Israeli archaeologists consider themselves soldiers in the service of the national struggle.



"The scandal that is taking place now at the foot of al-Aqsa is a part of this story. Something unprecedented is happening there: the digging in 'David's Town' (clearly a propaganda appellation) has been turned over to the same ultra-nationalist religious association, Ateret Cohanim, that is building the provocative Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem and around it. The Israeli government, quite officially, has entrusted this scientific task to a political group. Not just any political group, but an ultra-radical one. The digging itself is being conducted by archaeologists who accept their authority.



"Israeli archaeologists who care for the integrity of their profession (there still are some) protested this week that the digging is proceeding in a thoroughly unprofessional way: the work is done in an unscientific hurry, artifacts found are not examined properly and systematically, the sole aim is to uncover evidence as quickly as possible to support the Jewish claim to the Temple Mount.



"Many Arabs believe that the aim is even more sinister: to dig under the al-Aqsa mosque in order to bring about its collapse. These fears were reinforced by the disclosure in Haaretz this week, that the digging is undermining Arab houses and threatens to bring them down.
"Israeli spokesmen are upset. What vile slanders! Who can even imagine such things?! But it is no secret that in the eyes of many nationalist-religious fanatics, the very existence of the two mosques there - al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock - is an abomination. Years ago, members of a Jewish underground organization planned to blow up the Dome of the Rock, but were caught in time and sent to prison. Recently, a religious website wrote: 'Today there stands there an evil thing, a great witch that must be taken off. The Temple will stand in place of this pustule topped with yellow pus, and everybody knows what to do about a pustule, one has to empty it of the pus. That is our aim, and with God's help we shall do it.' Already, sheep are being raised for sacrificial purposes in the Temple.



"One can ridicule these outpourings and assert, as always, that they come from the lunatic fringe. That is what they said about the murder of Yitzhak Rabin. But for Arabs, who see with their own eyes the daily effort to 'Judaize' the Eastern city and to push them out, this is no joke. Their fear is genuine.



"Since the millions of inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have no access to the Temple Mount - contrary to all the talk about 'religious freedom' – the Islamic Movement in Israel proper has assumed the role of guardian of the two shrines. This week, the call went up to outlaw the movement and to put its leader, Sheikh Ra'ed Salah, in prison.



"Sheikh Ra'ed is a charismatic leader. I met him 16 years ago, when we both lived for 45 days and nights in a protest tent opposite the prime minister's office, after Rabin had deported 415 Islamic activists to the Lebanese border. The sheikh was, at the time, a friendly person, pleasant to be with, full of humor, who treated Rachel, too, with utmost friendliness (but without taking her hand, much like our own Orthodox rabbis). I learned from him a lot about Islam, and answered as well as I could his questions about Judaism. Nowadays he is much more tough and uncompromising. THERE IS something symbolic about the proximity in time of the awarding of the Nobel Prize and the Temple Mount happenings..." (Uri Aveney, The Other Israel. 10/10/09.)



The events unfolding in Al-Quds Al-Sharif in the last two weeks seems to confirm my fear that the plan to take the mosque now is building up unprecedented momentum. On Sunday (25.10.09), a conference of leading rabbis was held in Jerusalem. This is how the conference was described by a correspondent of Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz:


"Top religious Zionist leaders came together Sunday at a rightist conference advocating Jewish ascent to the Temple Mount. It's hard to remember when was the last time Israel saw such a unity between its religious Zionist leaders. Political rivals such as MKs Uri Orbach and Michael Ben Ari sat side by side on the center stage; Moderate rabbis 'respectful of the government' like Rabbi Yuval Sherlo and Rabbi Yaakov Medan came together with 'rebellious Haredi nationalists' such as Rabbi Elyakim Levanon and Rabbi Dov Lior. They all joined together to call upon the Jewish public to ascend the Temple Mount, despite the harsh criticism directed at them from the Haredi sector as well as from some national-religious rabbis. Rabbi Medan, one of the heads of the moderate Yeshivat Har Etzion, told the conference participants that he recently met with a 'top defense official' and discussed the sparse presence of Jews in the Temple Mount."
These constant provocations have led Palestinian youths to riot which then leads Israeli soldiers to enter the site and arrest worshipers. The Jordanians issued statements saying: "Any new provocative attempts by Israeli troops and Jewish extremists such as what happened today in the shrine's compound represent a flagrant violation of international law and conventions and set the stage for more tension and acts of violence," Minister of State for Media Affairs and Communication Nabil Sharif said in a statement. But no one seemed to be listening, while an Israeli army judge declared that all of the West Bank belongs to the Jews.



The following Tuesday, 27.10.09, in Al-Quds Al-Sharif five more Palestinian homes were demolished and according to The Jerusalem Center for Social and Economic Rights another 275 Palestinian homes are scheduled for demolition within the next two months. The strategy employed is one of gradual ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem - a few houses at a time, day by day and week by week, the Muslim houses are slowly being wiped off the map. In addition, there are on-going systematic provocations to spark trouble on a regular basis. For example, on Friday 30.10.09, a group of Israelis drove into a Muslim neighbourhood in Al-Quds Al-Sharif and tried to take over a Palestinian house. When the occupants resisted they were beaten up and sent to hospital.



On Tuesday 3.11.09 Israeli settlers seized another Arab house in Al-Quds Al-Sharif. Jerusalem police spokesman Shmulik Ben Rubi said, "A group of Jews arrived at the house with a court order, saying that it was their house."



Since the arrival of Obama in the White House, there is also a new air of Israeli optimism on the diplomatic front. Dismissing the Goldstone report and securing Obama's vote against it are not the only reasons for them to celebrate. Right wing Israelis are expecting a lot more from Obama in their drive to take Al-Quds Al-Sharif. The Mayor of Jerusalem, in a recent visit to the US, was welcomed in Congress by a group of members who are now proposing legislation to enable the move of the US embassy in Israel to Al-Quds Al-Sharif. Mayor Nir Barkat, told reporters that, “I believe moving the American embassy to Jerusalem will be the first step towards other embassies moving to the capital, as in every other country in the world,” and "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem."



On Monday 7.11.09, the Israeli Prime Minister had yet another private meeting with Obama in the White House - a news report explains the two "will hold talks Monday evening, but they will not appear together before the White House press corps". This of course is a convenient way of avoiding having to face questions about what they have been taking about - Jerusalem? Obama will also soon be meeting "top leaders from The Jewish Federations of North America at the White House". We may never know what exactly will be on the agenda but given the recent momentum of "ethnic cleansing" in Jerusalem, it is highly likely that the City of Al-Quds Al-Sharif will feature in the discussions.



For a glimpse of the ongoing assault on Al-Quds Al-Sharif and the ethnic cleansing taking place see the videos below.

Conclusion


The Al-Aqsa Mosque's indelible links with the words of the Quran and with the early history of Islam place it among the most cherished and revered sites in the hearts of Muslims around the world, as in the hadith: Abu Huraira [ra] is quoted as saying that Allah's Messenger [Sallallaahu Alayhi wasallam] said, "Set out deliberately on a journey only to three mosques: this mosque of mine (in Medina), the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) and Masjid al Aqsa (in Jerusalem)." (Bukhari & Muslim). The dangers that lurk in the shadows as a result of any plan to take Masjid Al-Aqsa away from the control of Muslims are immense not only for Muslims but for the entire world. This had been the received wisdom in the international arena since the Allied forces took the city of Al-Quds Al-Sharif in 1917. They recognised the importance of the Mosque and the potential repercussions of violating its sanctity. Even as the French General Henri Gouraud stood on the grave of Salahuddin and kicked it saying, "The Crusades have ended now! Awake Saladin, we have returned!


My presence here consecrates the victory of the Cross over the Crescent," Western forces did not target the Mosque - although it was Salahuddin's most treasured conquered asset.The multiple pictures painted by Obama and his supporters should not blind anyone from recognising that while he gives the impression of being an honest broker of peace who is sympathetic to Muslim concerns, his real loyalties remain with Israel and all its ambitions. We need to avoid being taken in by the romance of the fairytale and remember that Kellman has left a lasting impression on his Obama. In Obama's willingness to front the Kellman organisation simply because the colour of his skin made him acceptable is a serious lesson for Muslims. If his tenuous links with Islamic culture give him the credibility in the eyes of Muslims to being an honest broker, it is not unthinkable that Obama would act as a front for a project to take Masjid al-Aqsa away from the Muslims.



In 1980 when the Israeli Knesset passed a law which declared, exactly as Obama declared in his AIPAC speech, that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel," the UN Security Council passed resolution 478 (1980) declaring the law "null and void". The resolution was passed by a unanimous vote of 14 members. Any one of the 14 countries could have abstained like the United States did but they chose not to do so and the reason is that there is, however reluctant, a recognition that any attempt to target Masjid Al-Aqsa will result in a global crisis of unprecedented magnitude and all efforts should be made to avoid such a scenario from developing. However, given that we now live in an era when postmodern "mumbo-jumbo" rules the minds of policy makers and their advisers, a class of individuals have emerged to dominate who believe that they can do anything and get away with it. They may reason with themselves that if we can instigate wars on false pretences and even force Muslim governments to change their school curricula so as to diminish Muslim children's attachment to the Quran and Islam, then why not put into motion the plan to take Masjid al-Aqsa and use technology to deal with the consequences - as the Israelis do with the Palestinians? If they can convince Muslims, under the pretext of preventing extremism, to abandon large chunks of the Quran, then why should they not expect us to give up Masjid Al-Aqsa?From the evidence presented above, it appears that Obama has promised to facilitate full control of all of Al-Quds Al-Sharif including Masjid Al-Aqsa to the Israelis while employing his charm and rhetorical skills to placate Muslims' reactions. The hope is that with the aid of technology and spin the political repercussions will be managed. The bottom-line is that the arrival of Obama in the White House coincides perfectly with the emergence of an emboldened Israel which behaves as if it has nothing to fear in Washington. The inhuman brutality in Gaza, the day-by-day increasing violations of international law through regular invasions of the Haram al-Sharif, the demolishing of Palestinian houses in the City and the unjustified digging towards the foundations of Masjid al-Aqsa are all indications of a new found confidence.



What Should Muslims Do?



First, avoid being fooled by the fairytale of a "peace messiah" and focus on the real person of Obama as he was when he was the Kellman front man. For Muslims he is likely to be more damaging than his predecessors in the White House.Second, declare that if the US continues to fund and arm Israel, then we will not accept any pretences of a "failure to convince the Israelis" or "policy gaps between Washington and Tel Aviv" because we know when countries disobey the wishes of the United States sanctions come into place fast and strong. At the moment the US Treasury has sanctions in place for a large number of countries: Balkans-related Sanctions, Belarus Sanctions, Burma Sanctions, Ivory Coast-related Sanctions, Counter Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions, Counter Terrorism Sanctions, Cuba Sanctions, Democratic Republic of the Congo-related Sanctions, Iran Sanctions, Diamond Trading Sanctions, Iraq-related Sanctions, Former Liberian Regime of Charles Taylor Sanctions, Lebanon-related Sanctions, Non-proliferation Sanctions, North Korea Sanctions, Sudan Sanctions, Syria Sanctions, Zimbabwe Sanctions. When sanctions come into place for Israeli crimes against the Palestinians then we will consider the claims of a "failure to convince Tel Aviv" and a "policy gap between the US and Israel".



At the moment all we can see is that the US administration and Israel are fully coordinated. The Goldstone-Abbas fiasco is sufficient proof for those who still need it. Obama did not only force Abbas to delay the UN debate on the report but his administration has voted against it in the UN on the side of Israel. The latest example is the sleight-of-hand attempt by Obama to do a U-turn on the "full freezing of settlements". These are just two examples in a long list of deceptions and betrayals orchestrated on the Muslim world through double-speak and bully-tactics "diplomacy" on behalf of Israel. Of course, they need the Arab governments to forget about "settlement freezing" and to establish instead economic and telecommunications trade with Israel as soon as possible. The logic is simple - when the masses feel that their livelihood is at stake they will tolerate anything - even 700 billion dollar bailouts for fat-cat bankers. If the Arab world becomes dependent on Israel both economically and technologically then they will have incentives to be tolerant when Masjid al-Aqsa is eventually taken over by the Israelis.


The outcome of the UN vote on the Goldstone report (05.11.09) is more than sufficient reason for all Muslim and Arab countries to declare a universal policy of non-cooperation with those 18 countries (including the US) that voted against the report. (See full details of the vote below in Appendix A2.) Britain along with a host of European countries abstained from the vote. These are the same countries that seldom miss an opportunity to lecture Muslims on the virtues of human rights when it serves to take a swipe at Islam and the Quran but now when the comparison is with the actions of Israel in Gaza, suddenly everyone has lost their tongues. I wonder what the Gazan children disfigured by phosphorous will say about this when they grow up.



Third, if the assault on the Islamic nature of Al-Quds al-Sharif does not cease and the settlement freeze does not happen, the Muslim masses should demand that their governments freeze bilateral cooperation with the Obama regime. Instead of hollow statements about "playing with fire", Muslim governments need to set real deadlines and stick to them. Put simply, we must declare that either Israel freezes settlements and aggression against Al-Haram al-Sharif or we the Muslims will do the freezing – we will freeze security cooperation, freeze business contracts, freeze G2o commitments, freeze IMF contributions, freeze emissions commitments and so on. Soon, the world will be cold enough to allow the overheated hotheads to think clearly and reasonably.



The bracketed sentence in Aveney's piece above where he remarked that the Ulama from "all over the Muslim world urged the one and a half billion Muslims to rise to the defence of the holy shrines. (Nothing happened.)" should put us all to shame.Here I would like us all to repeat those calls of the Ulama to defend the holy shrines until every Muslim who believes in the words of the Quran responds with one voice declaring that Masjid Al-Aqsa has a special place in the heart of every Muslim. To attack Masjid Al-Aqsa is to attack the heart of every Muslim.سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي أَسْرَى بِعَبْدِهِ لَيْلًا مِنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ إِلَى الْمَسْجِدِ الْأَقْصَى الَّذِي بَارَكْنَا حَوْلَهُ لِنُرِيَهُ مِنْ آَيَاتِنَا إِنَّه هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ"Glory be to (Allah) Who did take His Servant for Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque [al Masjid al Aqsa] whose precincts We did Bless in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the one Who heareth and seeth all things." (Quran 17:1)



Fourth, there is need for a global drive to conduct regular events in all the major cities of the world - for as long as this threat to Masjid Al-Aqsa remains - to challenge the deception and to send a clear message to those who think they can deceive two billion Muslims with smoke screens and slick talkers that insha'Allah their plan will not succeed. Most important of all, however, is that as Muslims we must revive our hearts with the certitude of the words of Allah. Erosion of belief in the certainty of the words of the Quran is a necessary prerequisite for their plan to succeed. If we lose faith, or we begin to question or doubt, as we are being encouraged to do regarding the message and promises brought to us by our Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wassalam), then our confused minds and incoherent utterances will become music to the ears of those who scheme against us.I also want to remind those Muslims who see themselves as "intellectuals" calling on the Ummah to give up certainty of faith (yaqin) in the Quran and sound Hadith, that they are implicated in this aggression against Masjid al-Aqsa.


Every time a career-seeking, self-promoting so-called "modernist or reformist Muslim" issues a call for Muslims to abandon 1400 years of received wisdom in exchange for baseless and wild speculation or doubt-ridden concoctions about the Quran and Hadith, the hearts of our enemies heave with optimism and the ambitions of their plans increase by leaps and bounds.Finally, we should bear in mind that it is only with the Will of Allah (subhanahu wata'ala) that the Mosque can be saved. If in doubt, reflect on the last time that the Mosque was occupied by those who desecrated it. Many were also confused then and wondered if the Mosque would ever be rescued. In those days of gloom and despair, a lone mufassir (exegete) sitting some 2,000 miles away in Spain had written in his interpretation of Surah Rum (the chapter "Rome" in the Quran) the exact year in which Masjid Al-Aqsa would be liberated.


The tafsir was written some 60 years prior to the event. Here is Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir's record of the incident in his al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah:قال أبو شامة في الروضتين: وقد تكلم شيخنا أبو الحسن علي بن محمد السخاوي في نفسيره الأول فقال: وقع في تفسير أبي الحكم الأندلسي – يعني ابن برجان – في أول سورة الروم أخبار عن فتح بيت المقدس ,انه ينزع من ايدي النصارى سنة ثلاث وثمانين وخمسمائة...قلت ابن برجان ذكر هذا في تفسيره في حدود سنة ثنتين وعشرين و خمسمائة.(البداية والنهاية ج 12 ص 326)"Abu Shamatah reports in Al-Rawdhatayn: Our Shaikh Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Muhammad al-Sakhawi noted in his first tafsir that there occurred in the Tafsir of Abi Al-Hakam al-Undulusi meaning Ibn Burjan, of the beginning of Surah Rome information about the retaking of Al-Quds Al-Sharif (Jerusalem), it will be taken from the hands of the Christians in the year 583 Hijri...


I noted that Ibn Burjan mentioned this in his tafsir around the year 522 Hijri." (Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah Vol 12. p. 236.)Exactly as the mufassir had interpreted the verse, the mosque was liberated in the year 583 Hijri (1187 CE), sixty years after it was written in the tafsir. We are a patient people striving to emulate the character of the final Prophet of God who was sent as a mercy to the worlds. Both our belief and our behaviour are informed by the wisdom of that mercy. We do not aim to bring discord and destruction to the world and we expect those in positions of responsibility to reciprocate our forbearance with justice and not misjudge it for folly or apathy towards Masjid Al-Aqsa.


ومكرو ومكرَ الله ُوالله خير الماكرين(آل عمران 3:54)"They plotted and planned and Allah is the best of planners."(Qur'an 3:54)


Sh Riyad Nadwi, PhD

11th November 2009