Hace treinta años (17 de septiembre de 1978) Egipto, Israel, y los Estados Unidos firmaron dos acuerdos: "Un Marco de Paz en Oriente Medio" y "Un Marco para alcanzar un Tratado de Paz entre Egipto e Israel." El tratado de paz entre Egipto e Israel se alcanzó justo después de la Guerra Árabe-Israelí de Yom Kippur en octubre de 1973. Egipto y Siria consiguieron ganar posiciones militares israelíes en la Península del Sinaí y en los Altos del Golán. 

Esta victoria semi militar árabe dio la oportunidad al secretario estadounidense Henry Kissinger de trabajar duro a la hora de "neutralizar" al país árabe más poderoso, preparando el camino con vistas a la reunión entre el presidente egipcio Anwar al-Sadat y el primer ministro israelí Menachem Begin en el retiro presidencial en Camp David (Maryland), invitados por el entonces presidente de los Estados Unidos Jimmy Carter. 

Los acuerdos de Camp David trataron dos aspectos: la relación egipcia-israelí bilateral y el marco global para resolver el conflicto entre Israel y los palestinos. La paz entre Egipto e Israel estaba basada en la implementación de la famosa, ahora olvidada, Resolución 242 del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU que abogaba el intercambio de tierra por paz. También pedía que Israel devolviera el Sinaí a Egipto y que éste trabajara por la plena normalización de las relaciones con el estado judío. 

El otro acuerdo preveía negociaciones entre Egipto, Israel, Jordania, y los representantes palestinos para lograr un plan en tres fases a cinco años, para resolver el conflicto entre Israel y los palestinos, y poner fin a la ocupación israelí de las tierras palestinas conquistadas en la guerra árabe-israelí en junio de 1967. 

Camp David comenzó un proceso de paz en Oriente Medio esponsorizado por los Estados Unidos, que llevaba a la Conferencia de Madrid en octubre de 1991, la firma del Acuerdo de Oslo entre Israel y los palestinos en septiembre de 1993, y el tratado de paz entre Israel y los jordanos en octubre de 1994. 

Desde entonces el llamado "proceso de paz" en Oriente Medio ha atravesado altos y bajos, intercalados por la invasión de Líbano (1982), los dos levantamientos palestinos (Intifada), el regreso de Yasser Arafat y su OLP a Gaza y Cisjordania, y otras dos invasiones israelíes de Líbano, siendo la más reciente la guerra entre las Fuerzas de Defensa Israelíes (FDI) e Hizbulá en el verano de 2006. 

Hasta el momento la paz en Oriente Medio es más difícil que nunca. Los acuerdos alcanzados por los líderes israelí, egipcio y palestino no llegaron a las bases. Diversos ciudadanos israelíes visitaron Egipto y Jordania, pero menos jordanos y egipcios han visitado Israel. La situación en la franja de Gaza y Cisjordania es tan volátil y fragmentada como siempre. Los asentamientos ilegales israelíes siguen levantándose contraviniendo la ley internacional,  y el futuro estatus de Jerusalen sigue siendo el tema de infructuosos planes y negociaciones. Mientras tanto, se cierne una sombra que no augura nada bueno sobre el esfuerzo por alcanzar la paz en la región: Irán. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1632849.stm

CAMP DAVID: THIRTY YEARS LATER 

Thirty years ago (17 September 1978) Egypt, Israel, and the United States signed two accords-" A Framework for Peace in the Middle East" and "A Framework for Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel." The peace treaty between Egypt and Israel came on the heels of the October 1973 Yom Kippur Arab-Israeli War.  Egypt and Syria succeeded in penetrating Israeli military positions in the Sinai Peninsula and on the Golan Heights. 

This semi-military Arab victory gave U.S. Secretary Henry Kissinger the opportunity to work hard on "neutralizing" the most powerful Arab country, paving the way towards the meeting between Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at the presidential retreat in Camp David (Maryland), when they were invited by the then U.S. president Jimmy Carter. 

The Camp David accords covered two aspects: the bilateral Egyptian-Israeli relationship and an overall framework to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Peace between Egypt and Israel were based on the implementation of the famous, now forgotten, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 that called for the exchange of land for peace. It also called upon Israel to return the Sinai to Egypt and Egypt would work for the full normalization of relations with the Jewish state. 

The other accord envisioned negotiations between Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Palestinian representatives to negotiate a five-year, three-stage plan to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and end Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands conquered in the 1967 June Arab-Israeli War. 

Camp David initiated a U.S. sponsored peace making process in the Middle East that would lead to the October 1991 Madrid Conference, the signing of the September 1993 Oslo Accord between Israel and the Palestinians, and the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty in October 1994. 

Since then the so-called "peace process" in the Middle East has gone through ups and downs interspersed by the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (1982), the two Palestinian uprisings (intifada), the return of Yasser Arafat and his PLO to the West Bank and Gaza, and other two Israeli invasions of Lebanon, the latest being the Summer 2006 War between the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and Hezbollah. 

So far peace in the Middle East is as elusive as ever. Agreements reached at the top level of Israeli, Egyptian, Jordanian and Palestinian leaderships did not "trickle down" to the grassroots. Several Israeli citizens visited Egypt and Jordan but fewer Jordanians and Egyptians have visited Israel.  The situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is as volatile and fragmented as ever. Illegal Israeli settlements are still being erected in contravention of international law and the future status of Jerusalem is still the topic of fruitless plans and parleys. In the meanwhile we have a new ominous shadow on the whole peacemaking effort in the region: Iran. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/1632849.stm

The Framework for Peace in the Middle East

Muhammad Anwar al-Sadat, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, met with Jimmy Carter, President of the United States of America, at Camp David from September 5 to September 17, 1978, and have agreed on the following framework for peace in the Middle East. They invite other parties to the Arab-Israel conflict to adhere to it.

Preamble

The search for peace in the Middle East must be guided by the following:

• The agreed basis for a peaceful settlement of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors is United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, in all its parts.
• After four wars during 30 years, despite intensive human efforts, the Middle East, which is the cradle of civilization and the birthplace of three great religions, does not enjoy the blessings of peace. The people of the Middle East yearn for peace so that the vast human and natural resources of the region can be turned to the pursuits of peace and so that this area can become a model for coexistence and cooperation among nations.
• The historic initiative of President Sadat in visiting Jerusalem and the reception accorded to him by the parliament, government and people of Israel, and the reciprocal visit of Prime Minister Begin to Ismailia, the peace proposals made by both leaders, as well as the warm reception of these missions by the peoples of both countries, have created an unprecedented opportunity for peace which must not be lost if this generation and future generations are to be spared the tragedies of war.
• The provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the other accepted norms of international law and legitimacy now provide accepted standards for the conduct of relations among all states.
• To achieve a relationship of peace, in the spirit of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, future negotiations between Israel and any neighbor prepared to negotiate peace and security with it are necessary for the purpose of carrying out all the provisions and principles of Resolutions 242 and 338.
• Peace requires respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. Progress toward that goal can accelerate movement toward a new era of reconciliation in the Middle East marked by cooperation in promoting economic development, in maintaining stability and in assuring security.
• Security is enhanced by a relationship of peace and by cooperation between nations which enjoy normal relations. In addition, under the terms of peace treaties, the parties can, on the basis of reciprocity, agree to special security arrangements such as demilitarized zones, limited armaments areas, early warning stations, the presence of international forces, liaison, agreed measures for monitoring and other arrangements that they agree are useful.

Framework

Taking these factors into account, the parties are determined to reach a just, comprehensive, and durable settlement of the Middle East conflict through the conclusion of peace treaties based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 in all their parts. Their purpose is to achieve peace and good neighborly relations. They recognize that for peace to endure, it must involve all those who have been most deeply affected by the conflict. They therefore agree that this framework, as appropriate, is intended by them to constitute a basis for peace not only between Egypt and Israel, but also between Israel and each of its other neighbors which is prepared to negotiate peace with Israel on this basis. With that objective in mind, they have agreed to proceed as follows:

• West Bank and Gaza
  Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the representatives of the Palestinian people should participate in negotiations on the resolution of the Palestinian problem in all its aspects. To achieve that objective, negotiations relating to the West Bank and Gaza should proceed in three stages:
  1. Egypt and Israel agree that, in order to ensure a peaceful and orderly transfer of authority, and taking into account the security concerns of all the parties, there should be transitional arrangements for the West Bank and Gaza for a period not exceeding five years. In order to provide full autonomy to the inhabitants, under these arrangements the Israeli military government and its civilian administration will be withdrawn as soon as a self-governing authority has been freely elected by the inhabitants of these areas to replace the existing military government. To negotiate the details of a transitional arrangement, Jordan will be invited to join the negotiations on the basis of this framework. These new arrangements should give due consideration both to the principle of self-government by the inhabitants of these territories and to the legitimate security concerns of the parties involved.
  2. Egypt, Israel, and Jordan will agree on the modalities for establishing elected self-governing authority in the West Bank and Gaza. The delegations of Egypt and Jordan may include Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza or other Palestinians as mutually agreed. The parties will negotiate an agreement which will define the powers and responsibilities of the self-governing authority to be exercised in the West Bank and Gaza. A withdrawal of Israeli armed forces will take place and there will be a redeployment of the remaining Israeli forces into specified security locations. The agreement will also include arrangements for assuring internal and external security and public order. A strong local police force will be established, which may include Jordanian citizens. In addition, Israeli and Jordanian forces will participate in joint patrols and in the manning of control posts to assure the security of the borders.
  3. When the self-governing authority (administrative council) in the West Bank and Gaza is established and inaugurated, the transitional period of five years will begin. As soon as possible, but not later than the third year after the beginning of the transitional period, negotiations will take place to determine the final status of the West Bank and Gaza and its relationship with its neighbors and to conclude a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan by the end of the transitional period. These negotiations will be conducted among Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. Two separate but related committees will be convened, one committee, consisting of representatives of the four parties which will negotiate and agree on the final status of the West Bank and Gaza, and its relationship with its neighbors, and the second committee, consisting of representatives of Israel and representatives of Jordan to be joined by the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza, to negotiate the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, taking into account the agreement reached in the final status of the West Bank and Gaza. The negotiations shall be based on all the provisions and principles of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the location of the boundaries and the nature of the security arrangements. The solution from the negotiations must also recognize the legitimate right of the Palestinian peoples and their just requirements. In this way, the Palestinians will participate in the determination of their own future through:
     1. The negotiations among Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza to agree on the final status of the West Bank and Gaza and other outstanding issues by the end of the transitional period.
     2. Submitting their agreements to a vote by the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza.
     3. Providing for the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza to decide how they shall govern themselves consistent with the provisions of their agreement.
     4. Participating as stated above in the work of the committee negotiating the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan.
     5. All necessary measures will be taken and provisions made to assure the security of Israel and its neighbors during the transitional period and beyond. To assist in providing such security, a strong local police force will be constituted by the self-governing authority. It will be composed of inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. The police will maintain liaison on internal security matters with the designated Israeli, Jordanian, and Egyptian officers.
     6. During the transitional period, representatives of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the self-governing authority will constitute a continuing committee to decide by agreement on the modalities of admission of persons displaced from the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, together with necessary measures to prevent disruption and disorder. Other matters of common concern may also be dealt with by this committee.
     7. Egypt and Israel will work with each other and with other interested parties to establish agreed procedures for a prompt, just and permanent implementation of the resolution of the refugee problem.
• Egypt-Israel
  1. Egypt-Israel undertake not to resort to the threat or the use of force to settle disputes. Any disputes shall be settled by peaceful means in accordance with the provisions of Article 33 of the U.N. Charter.
  2. In order to achieve peace between them, the parties agree to negotiate in good faith with a goal of concluding within three months from the signing of the Framework a peace treaty between them while inviting the other parties to the conflict to proceed simultaneously to negotiate and conclude similar peace treaties with a view the achieving a comprehensive peace in the area. The Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel will govern the peace negotiations between them. The parties will agree on the modalities and the timetable for the implementation of their obligations under the treaty.
• Associated Principles
  1. Egypt and Israel state that the principles and provisions described below should apply to peace treaties between Israel and each of its neighbors - Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.
  2. Signatories shall establish among themselves relationships normal to states at peace with one another. To this end, they should undertake to abide by all the provisions of the U.N. Charter. Steps to be taken in this respect include:
     1. full recognition;
     2. abolishing economic boycotts;
     3. guaranteeing that under their jurisdiction the citizens of the other parties shall enjoy the protection of the due process of law.
  3. Signatories should explore possibilities for economic development in the context of final peace treaties, with the objective of contributing to the atmosphere of peace, cooperation and friendship which is their common goal.
  4. Claims commissions may be established for the mutual settlement of all financial claims.
  5. The United States shall be invited to participated in the talks on matters related to the modalities of the implementation of the agreements and working out the timetable for the carrying out of the obligations of the parties.
  6. The United Nations Security Council shall be requested to endorse the peace treaties and ensure that their provisions shall not be violated. The permanent members of the Security Council shall be requested to underwrite the peace treaties and ensure respect or the provisions. They shall be requested to conform their policies an actions with the undertaking contained in this Framework.

For the Government of the For the Government
Arab Republic of Egypt:                                                                                    of Israel:

Muhammed Anwar al-Sadat                                                                             Menachem Begin

Witnessed by:

Jimmy Carter,
President of the United States of America

Do you remember this Accords? Do you remember this day?

Did any of you compared the two countries after and before?

what every side gain from this accords?!, do you check the GDPs?

what can we say now after those 30 yrs except to the dark, dirty, stink hell Sadat

what made you sign this MF, History?, what you got?!!

it's amazing when you think about how the man can be stupid, retarded, traitrous, greedy, etc and then the chance made him a leader!, what you think he can do better than Sadat?

To the hell MF

Links:

• Camp David Accords, Wikipedia
• Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, Wikipedia
• The Avalon Project
• The Accords from Jimmy Carter Library
• Time to recognize failure of Israel-Egypt Treaty, The Sun
• 20 yrs after camp david, AFP
• Decades after Camp David, Forward
• Thirty years after Camp David, American Thinker

But unlike with Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin brokering a peace accord between Egypt and Israel, the Hatfield Family and the McCoy clan did not hole up at Camp David for a week in order to iron out their differences. Not even close.

Instead, the famous warring families called up Richard Dawson and played "The Feud." Yep, in 1979 the Hatfield and McCoy families went at it once and for all on the hit TV game show, "The Family Feud." The winners took home a prized pig, which was kept on the set during the show.

I didn't see the episode, but if I were a betting man I'd wager Dawson gave that pig a big smooch and then afterwards played it off in sexual suggestive, yet charming, British manner.

There's nothing charming about the feud between the Phillies and the Mets, though. The fact is the battle for supremacy in the NL East is just plain ol' nasty. These guys just don't like each other. In fact, the hatred the Phillies have for the Mets actually inspires them.

"The other team gives you some inspiration, let's put it that way," shortstop Jimmy Rollins said last week. "You're able to take that and keep yourself motivated."

That's kind of vague. How about some elaboration, Jimmy?

"No, just watch ‘em. If you were a player and you're looking over in that other dugout, you'll feel a certain type of way. Rewind the game. Just watch the game."

Just watch the game. It's that simple. Better yet, it seems as if those Mets and their antics inspired an old Phillie watching the games on TV in Jupiter, Fla. to sit down in front of a computer and type out an e-mail to his old team. But more than just an "attaguy" missive congratulating the club for another fine season, this one was more of a call to arms.

Think Winston Churchill delivering his "Blood, Sweat, and Tears" address before the House of Commons on May 13, 1940.

Or maybe it was more like Franklin Roosevelt's first inauguration address in 1933 when he told Americans that, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Maybe it was like The Dude telling the Big Lebowski that, "This aggression will not stand... man."

So if the Phillies go on to surge past the Mets for a second straight September and into the playoffs, perhaps Mike Schmidt's e-mail will be the watershed moment. In its historical context we'll call it the "Better Than They Are" note or maybe, "Win One for the Schmidter."

No matter what, Schmidt words inspired his beloved Phillies in Friday night's taut, 3-0 classic in which Brett Myers may have turned in his finest performance ever.

Schmidt wrote:

Guys,
One pitch, one at-bat, one play, one situation, think "small" and "big" things result. Tough at-bats, stay up the middle with men on base, whatever it takes to keep the line moving. Hot offense. 27 outs on defense. The Mets know you're better than they are. They remember last year. You guys are never out of the game. Welcome the challenge that confronts you this weekend. You guys are the best.

Good luck,
Mike Schmidt.

Just like Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address," Schmidt's letter was short, sweet and direct. Also like Lincoln's famous speech, Schmidt's words will be remembered forever. Schmidt came through for the team during that last series in Montreal in 1980 and he came through against Kansas City in the World Series later that month. This time, without a bat or glove Schmidt came through again - but with a laptop, an e-mail account and nine simple sentences.

If the Phillies go on to win this thing, it could go down as Schmidt's finest moment as a Phillie.

When told that Schmidt wrote, "The Mets know you're better than they are," Rollins, in his understated way, added to the potential legend with a throwing down of the proverbial gauntlet of his own:

"Well, that part's true," Rollins said.

The Phillies will have two games on Sunday - and just 19 more after that - to prove it again.

Come on down and let's play The Feud!

David Icke Newsletter, July 23rd 2006

The Story That so Very Few People have the Research or the Guts to Tell ...

What Is Really Happening in the Middle East

Due to overwhelming requests we are making David's two recent newsletter specials detailing the background to the Middle East war available to everyone, such is the importance of the information.

We only ask that people do all they can to circulate the articles to every person and website they think would benefit from the content.

Thank-you.

Continued from Part 1: One Law for One...Propaganda Against the Other...

Part 2

I want to continue where I left off last week because after seven more days of constant propaganda over what is now a full blown war in the Middle East some balance and background is desperately required here.

We keep being told that the conflict was started by Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip when a total of three Israeli soldiers were kidnapped. Bullshit. What is happening is the latest outbreak of hostilities that began when the Rothschild dynasty targeted what was then Arab Palestine to be what it called a 'Homeland for the Jews'.

The Rothschild cabal could not care less about Jews. To them they are a means to an end of global control. The first leader of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, summed up this mind set when he said:

'If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.' (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth's Ben-Gurion)

David Ben-Gurion - sick man

The 'Jewish homeland' was from the start a Rothschild fiefdom orchestrated through a global secret society network of interbreeding families known as the Illuminati. The goal of these families is domination of the planet through a world government dictatorship, a world army and a micro-chipped population, as I have been detailing in my books all these years.

This week the Israeli writer, Barry Chamish, told of a meeting with Evelyn Rothschild's grandson, who abandoned the family to be a Mormon. Chamish said he learned that just seven families are enjoying the 'fruits of the war'. The grandson had said of the Rothschilds:

'They created Israel as their personal toy. It makes them richer and gives them more control. It's not going to be destroyed.'

The Rothschilds funded the early European settlers in Israel, manipulated events in Germany that led to the horrific treatment of Jewish people and others, and then used that as the excuse to reach their long-term goal - a Rothschild-Illuminati stronghold in Palestine using the Jewish population as fodder to be used and abused as necessary. They called their plan 'Zionism'. This term is often used as a synonym for Jewish people when it is actually a political movement devised and promoted through the House of Rothschild and opposed by many Jews.

The most visible Zionist front in the United States today are the so-called 'neo-conservatives' or 'neo-cons', that I highlighted last week in the first part of this expose.

The Rothschilds exploited as their 'justification' to seize Palestine the claim in the Old Testament that the Jews were God's Chosen People and that 'He' had gifted them the land of what was once called Israel. That's it, no more debate required. 'God' has spoken, it's in the Old Testament, and so we're moving in.

As Golda Meir, another Israeli Prime Minister, said in Le Monde in 1971:

'This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy.'

The invasion and subversion of an entire nation was based on texts in the Bible written by who knows who thousands of years ago after the Jewish captivity in the ancient Illuminati centre of Babylon in what is now Iraq. Pinch me, it can't be true. 'Ouch', yes it is.

In fact, this nonsense is an historical fraud because the vast majority of Jewish people, those who call themselves 'Ashkenazi' Jews, have no connection to the land of Palestine/Israel at all, as courageous Jewish writers like Arthur Koestler have detailed. See his book The Thirteenth Tribe. The Ashkenazi come from a country once known as Khazaria in southern Russia and the Caucasus, not the land they have used the Biblical texts to lay claim to.

Those later called Ashkenazi Jews moved north over the centuries into Russia and then Western Europe and these were the people targeted by Hitler and the Nazis and exploited by the Rothschilds to populate Palestine. Koestler wrote that the official story of Jewish origins 'begins to look like the most cruel hoax history has ever perpetrated'.

Jewish writer Arthur Koestler detailed the Khazar origins of most Jewish people in his book, The Thirteeenth Tribe. Here is a brief summary of what he revealed ...The Story of the non-Semitic Jews - http://www.missionislam.com/nwo/khazars1.htm

Jews fall into two main groups, the Ashkenazi and the Sephardic, who were once located in Spain and Portugal. Daniel Elazar at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs wrote that at the end of the 11th Century, 97% of Jews were Sephardic, but the ratio changed dramatically over the centuries and by 1931 Ashkenazi Jews accounted for nearly 92 per cent of world Jewry.

Today the Ashkenazim utterly dominate Israel society both in numbers and control. Jewish organizations like the Anti Defamation League (ADL) constantly target others for 'racism' when Israel is a strictly and fiercely hierarchical society based on race, even among the Jews. The Ashkenazi are at the top, of course, followed by the Sephardic, and, irony of irony, then come the Mizrahi Jews, who descend from the Jewish communities of the Middle East. At the bottom of the pile are the black Ethiopian Jews who have long complained of blatant racism. Underneath all of them come the Palestinian Arabs.

(See Racism Inside Israel - Racism By Any Other Name - The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel - The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel)

Ethiopian Jews in Israel are bottom of the social pile - except for the Palestinians, naturally.

This Internet article described one expression of this racist Israeli structure - income distribution:

'Israeli society is further fragmented by ethnic class and religious inequality. In general terms, Arab citizens are the lowest paid, and have seen a decline in their position over the period 1990 to 2001. Mizrahi Jews (Jews of African or Asian descent) have seen a small improvement, whilst Ashkenazi Jews (Jews of European or North American descent) are the highest paid, and have seen a 10 percent rise in their pay. In 2001, Ashkenazi Jews received on average one and a half times the income of Mizrahi Jews and twice that of Arabs.'

It is time that Zionist racism and apartheid was exposed to balance the endless claims of racism and 'anti-Semitism' that come the other way through Illuminati fronts like the ADL and many others that have been set up to brand as racist anyone who challenges the Zionist agenda.

In truth, Ashkenazi Jews are not even a Semitic people - it is the Arabs and minority Jewish people who are the Semites. Not that it should matter what they are, the human body is just a potential vehicle for the Infinite Consciousness that we all are. But such labels are used by these people to suppress debate so we need to balance the propaganda.

The lands of the Semitic peoples. Why aren't we told that being 'anti-Semitic' overwhelmingly means 'anti-Arab'??

So imagine if all this happened in your country. There you are peacefully getting on with your life and getting along well enough with the small numbers of Jewish people who live in your communities - just as the Palestinian people were. Then, American and European governments decree that your land, where your ancestors have lived for thousands of years, belongs to someone else and millions of Jewish people from all over the world descend upon your country.

David Ben-Gurion reads the declaration of independence on May 14th 1948 which claimed Palestine as a Jewish state

Even worse, they don't want to just live among you - they want to take complete control of everything and turn you into serfs and slaves. How would you react? How would anyone react in the face of this?

The Palestinians were supposed to just lie down and accept this staggering injustice and if they didn't they were 'terrorists'. What the world seems to have forgotten, and they will certainly not be reminded by the mainstream media or even most of the 'alternative' media, is that it was through terrorism that Israel was imposed upon the incumbent Arab population.

This is the story.

The idea that a Jewish homeland in Israel was the result of what happened in Nazi Germany is ridiculous. That was the justification used at the time by the Rothschilds amid the wave of - understandable - public sympathy. But the planning and manipulation began long before in the 19th and early 20th centuries through the Rothschilds and their gofers like Chaim Weizmann. British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, Viscount Palmerston, was a close Rothschild family associate and patriarch of European Freemasonry. He mixed with all the major Illuminati names of his era. As early as 1840, he wrote:

Chaim Azriel Weizmann who worked for the Rothschilds to prepare the way for a Jewish state in Arab Palestine. He was President of the World Zionist Organization and the first President of Israel.

'There exists at the present time among the Jews dispersed over Europe a strong notion that the time is approaching when their nation is to return to Palestine. It would be of manifest importance to the Sultan to encourage the Jews to return and settle in Palestine because the wealth that they would bring with them would increase the resources of the Sultan's dominions, and the Jewish people if returning under the sanction and protection at the invitation of the Sultan would be a check upon any future evil designs of Egypt or its neighbours. I wish to instruct your Excellency strongly to recommend to the Turkish government to hold out every just encouragement to the Jews of Europe to return to Palestine.'

More bullshit. Palmerston was pushing the Rothschild-Illuminati agenda and he knew it.

House and Baruch ...Rothschild front men and the real power in the United States in early years of the 20th century - not President Wilson

The Rothschild/Illuminati-manipulated First World War led to the 'Balfour Declaration' in 1917 when the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, declared his government's support for a Jewish homeland in Israel. This announcement was connected to a deal to bring the United States into the war, a scam orchestrated through President Woodrow Wilson's minders, Edward Mandel House and Bernard Baruch. Both were Rothschild agents in America.

It was Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, who formulated with others this British government 'declaration' in support of a Jewish homeland. What became known as the 'Balfour Declaration' was actually a letter from Balfour to Lord Rothschild. What official history does not tell you is that a major Illuminati grouping is called the Round Table and this spawned organisations like the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London and both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission in the United States. Lord Balfour was an inner-circle member of the Round Table, Lord Rothschild was its funder, and the 'Balfour Declaration' was a letter between the two!

Lord Balfour and his controller, Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild. They were behind the British declaration of support for a Jewish homeland in Israel.The Balfour Declaration promised Palestine to both the Jews and Arabs, in fact. They wanted to keep the Arabs on their side for a while because they needed them to revolt against the Turks as part of their First World War strategy. They used the man known as 'Lawrence of Arabia' to lead this campaign. However, they, and Lawrence, knew it was all a lie.

The Balfour Declaration said that 'nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine'. But Rothchild sidekick Chaim Weizmann would say: 'With regard to the Arab question - the British told us that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence'. Nor have they been ever since.

After Europe had been devastated by the Rothschild-Illuminati First World War there came the Versailles 'Peace' Conference near Paris in 1919 in which reparations were imposed on the post war German government, the Weimar Republic, that were so crippling and unsustainable that they prepared the ground for Hitler and the Nazis to come to power on a platform of restoring German pride and the nation's economy.

Every one of the major 'advisors' at Versailles from Britain, France and the United States was either a Rothschild bloodline or controlled by them. These included Bernard Baruch. And guess what? They announced their official support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The Hitler regime was funded by Illuminati-Rothschild agents like the Rockefellers, Harrimans and Prescott Bush, grandfather of the idiot president. This allowed the German war machine to emerge in just a few years from the ashes of economic collapse. What followed was the Second World War, the concentration camps, and the Illuminati-Rothschild use of these horrors to secure their long-held goal - a foothold in the Middle East to advance their plans far into the future.

The lands that the Rothschilds and their agents wished to occupy were populated at the time by the Arabs or Palestinians, but there was always going to be but one fate for them. Former Israel Prime Minster, Yitzhak Rabin, said in an uncensored version of his memoirs, published in the New York Times on 23 October 23rd, 1979:

'We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question - What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said "Drive them out!"'

And that's what they did.

Zionist terrorism in the war to create the State of Israel. Remind you of anywhere?

The Arabs were driven out of power or consequence in their own land by Zionist terrorist groups like Hagana, Irgun and the Stern Gang (also known as Lehi) who bombed and assassinated Arabs, fellow Jews and the British administrators who had control over Palestine under a mandate from the League of Nations and the Versailles Peace Conference. 'Palestine' was then the region we now call Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire.

This Zionist terrorism led to the imposition of the Jewish state in 1948 when 750,000 or more Arabic people were expelled from their own land. Among the major players in these and other terrorist operations were Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Ariel Sharon, butchers who became Israeli Prime Ministers and had the nerve to condemn Arab terrorism.

Begin and Shamir ... terrorists who became Prime Ministers of Israel and condemned terrorism!The Stern Gang was named by the British after its first commander, Avraham Stern, who later formed his own group, Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael (National Military Organization in Israel). An Internet article describes the motivation:

'... Stern believed that the Jewish population should focus its efforts on fighting the British rather than supporting them in World War II; and that forceful methods were an effective means to achieve those goals. He differentiated between "enemies of the Jewish people" (e.g., the British) and "Jew haters", (e.g., the Nazis), believing that the former needed to be defeated, and the latter neutralized. To this end, he initiated contact with Nazi authorities offering an alliance with Germany in return for transferring Europe's Jews to Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish state therein.'

This has always been the true motivation of these manipulators and they have treated Jewish people as a whole as cattle to be exploited at will to this end.

Irgun ... a terrorist organisation that helped to spawn IsraelIrgun, led by later Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, was responsible for the bombing of the British headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. It killed 91 Britons, Arabs and Jews, injuring many more, and this was only one of a stream of terrorist outrages and assassinations that ended in the creation of Israel. An article on the World Socialist Website, points out:

'It is not simply that Ariel Sharon and company are a bunch of hypocrites or political amnesiacs about the past. More importantly, the Irgun, led by Menachem Begin, the Stern Group and Lehi, its successor, went on to form the Herut party, forerunner of the Likud party, and the ultra right-wing Moledet party, which form the main coalition partners of Sharon's government.

The gang of former generals, ultra-nationalists and religious bigots that run Israel today are the political heirs of terrorists who furthermore had close connections with the fascists. In this, they mirrored some of the Arab nationalists in Palestine, Egypt and Iraq who allied themselves with Germany in order to rid themselves of British imperialism. These alliances led to a virtual civil war between the various wings of the Zionist movement during World War II.'

This is what people need urgently to realise. To challenge Israel is not to condemn Jewish people as a whole. It is to expose the fact that they are fodder in a game most do not begin to understand - a game controlled from the start by a leadership made up of terrorists. When we understand this, past and present events start to make far more sense.

Kissinger with Golda Meir

Henry Kissinger, a war criminal of astonishing proportions, was United States National Security Advisor and Secretary of State from 1969 to 1977 and responsible for the death and suffering of extraordinary numbers of people around the world. But his prime role was to represent the interests of Israel and the Illuminati plan for the Middle East that I will describe shortly. Especially after the emergence of Kissinger, the Illuminati-Israel grip on American foreign and domestic policy began to tighten ever more obviously.

The Illuminati/Israel nexus has spent decades taking over the government structure of the United States to ensure that (a) Israel has become the recipient of ONE THIRD of all US aid; (b) that it is funded to the tune of billions a year by the US to finance its military spending and build up; and (c) that the United States government pursues a foreign policy of unbelievable bias towards Israel and against the surrounding Arab states.

The pathetic statements about Lebanon by Bush that blamed Hezbollah for everything, supported the mass murder of civilians, sorry 'Israel's right to defend itself', and showing no desire to secure a ceasefire, are typical of how Israel controls the US government through the Illuminati network. So is the mantra of 'Iran and Syria are to blame'. These are both on the Illuminati hit list and they need an excuse to target them.

As I pointed out in detail last week, the Bush administration is dominated by supporters of Israel through the Project for the New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the top lobby groups in Washington. Joel Beinin, a contributing editor of Middle East Report and a professor of Middle East history at Stanford University, says that the AIPAC ...:

'... became a significant force in shaping public opinion and US Middle East policy after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Its power was simultaneously enabled and enhanced by Israel's emergence as a regional surrogate for US military power in the Middle East in the terms outlined by the 1969 Nixon Doctrine'. (In other words, the Kissinger Doctrine).

An AIPAC foreign policy associate in Jerusalem told CNSNews.com that in one month alone some 10% of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives had visited Israel on tours it had arranged. CBS News also reported in 2004 that an FBI investigation had found evidence that a senior Pentagon analyst with close ties to neo-con Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and neo-con Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith had provided a draft presidential directive on Iran to the AIPAC that was then passed to the Israeli government.

Wolf Blitzer, who leads the CNN team covering the Middle East conflict, is a Jewish former employee of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. How can that be seen to be fair? How many Arabic anchors are covering the conflict for CNN? Exactly.

Add to all this the Zionist control through ownership and personnel of much of the mainstream media and you have a network that gives the Arabic peoples no chance whatsoever of justice and understanding and the public no chance of being told the truth.

So to current events and their true significance.

It is claimed that everything started with the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, but we need to go back at least to June 9th when Israel shelled a beach in Gaza killing eight Palestinians and injuring 32 civilians, including 13 children. The dead included seven members of one family. The Israeli government offered its 'deep regret', but this outrage was no accident. It was part of the process of instigating a reaction so that what has happened since could unfold.

On June 13th ,an Israeli plane fired at a vehicle on a busy Gaza road and when civilians hurried to help the injured another missile was fired into the crowd. Eleven Palestinians died, including two medical staff and two children.

Come on, the Israeli government was saying - retaliate. We have the gun clocked, we're ready to go, and we just need you to give us the excuse to pull the trigger.

A photograph released by the Israeli army shows an Israeli navy vessel shelling a beach in the northern Gaza Strip on June 9th 2006

Huda Ghalya screaming alongside the body of her father after the Israeli attack. Huda lost seven members of her family - across three generations - on that Gaza beach. Here's the video if you can stomach it. The Israeli government will have no problem - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13593.htm. And Israel has the nerve to talk about the terrorism of others.If Arab people had done the same they would have been called terrorists, the pimps of the 'world community' would have been red-faced in their condemnation, and Israel's American-funded military would have done what have these past ten days.

The outrageous double-standards are just sickening. I saw some former Israel military commander this week saying how terrible it was that Israeli children had to be sitting in bomb shelters in Haifa when, as she spoke those words, children were being killed by Israeli bombs in Lebanon.

But then Israeli Prime Minister and terrorist, Menachem Begin, told the Israeli parliament that Palestinians 'are beasts walking on two legs' and another Prime Minister and terrorist, Yitzhak Shamir, said in a speech to Jewish settlers that the Palestinians 'would would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls'. ('Begin and the 'Beasts', New Statesman, June 25, 1982, and Yitzhak Shamir quoted in the New York Times April 1st, 1988). That is what they really think.

What a way to bring up your children ... Israeli kids writing messages on the bombs waiting to be fired at Lebanese civilians and children just like them ...

... But then God is on their side ...

... Message received ...

Have no illusions here, Arabs and the rest of the world's peoples, are seen as inferior beings - little more than vermin - to the extremist fanatics who buy the nonsensical baloney of a 'God's Chosen People'. It was the neo-con Israel fanatic John Bolton, the 'US' (Illuminati/Israel) Ambassador to the UN, who said this week that there was a 'moral' difference between the deaths of Israeli civilians and those of Lebanese people in the conflict.

Bolton, like Bush and Secretary of State Rice, sing for their supper at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

'I think it would be a mistake to ascribe moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts,' he said, and those caused by Israel's 'self-defense'. Behind that statement is the racism that has long been at the heart of American and Israeli policy. But then why shouldn't Israel and its supporters be racist to others when their very state is based on apartheid and racism on a mega scale?

'What should we do next, oh masters?'

'We must say Syria and Iran are to blame, and it is too early to have a ceasefire so Israel can go on killing the innocent for as long as it wants?'

'Alright, anything you say.'

The creation of Israel was never an end in itself. It has always been a means to an end. All along, the plan has been to target the Islamic world to trigger a global war that would set the world ablaze and lead to the 'solution' of centralised control of the planet and all its peoples. To do that they needed to create a point of conflict, a power keg, among the Arab countries that could be exploded to start another global conflict. This is the real reason for the creation of Israel and the real reason why the United States has spent its billions building up Israel's might and military.

Albert Pike, a Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and Illuminati to the core, is alleged to have written a letter in 1871 to an infamous Illuminati operative, Guissepe Mazzini, in which he outlined the three world wars that would lead to global domination.

The first war, he is supposed to have written, would overthrow the Czars in Russia through a conflict between the British and Germanic Empires; and the second would lead to political Zionism being strong enough to install a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. Now there are many who say the letter never existed, but what is interesting, in the light of current events, is what he is supposed to have said about World War Three:

'The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of the Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile, the other nations, once more divided on this issue, will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion ...We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil.

Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.'

Source: Cmdr.William Guy Carr, former Intelligence Officer in the Royal Canadian Navy, quoted in Satan: Prince of This World.

If Pike did not write that, then the faker was some prophet. The Illuminati agenda all along has been to create so much war, conflict and upheaval of every kind that the people agree to be ruled by a centralised global dictatorship to 'solve the problems' these perceived 'saviours' have actually created. It is the technique I have dubbed Problem-Reaction-Solution. You covertly create the problem and then overtly offer the solution ... the change you want to impose on the world.

The plan has always been to use Israel as the spark to explode the Middle East into war, which would then drag in more and more countries and lead to a conflict with China. North Korea is part of this, also. One of the reasons the rest of the Arab world has been so restrained over events in Lebanon is that they know the game plan and are terrified of the consequences for them.

It seems that the terrorist-turn-Prime Minister-terrorist, Ariel Sharon, was pursuing policies that did not suit the needs of the agenda. So he took his leave - stage far right -after his massive induced stroke to be replaced by his 'friend' Ehud Olmert and the truly appalling Shimon Peres who now front up the devastation and mass murder in Lebanon and Gaza.

Sharon: You were just a sad pawn, mate. Peres: no words would suffice.This is the historical background, the falling dominoes, that have led to what is happening today with hundreds of Lebanese killed, more than half a million made refugees, and missiles killing and maiming Israelis who are manipulated and programmed by their own sick government to believe the Big Lie.

Of course, Arab terrorism is equally wrong. Violence just begets violence, only peace begets peace. Every kidnapping, death and injury is a personal and family tragedy and none is more or less important than any other. The sight of the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, calling two Arab children in Israel killed by Hezbollah rockets 'martyrs for Palestine' was gut-wrenching. There are idiots and terrorist fanatics on both sides and I have no illusions about the suppression of freedom in Syria or Iran either. It is a case of seeing the big picture in which the monstrous game is being played out and putting the Arab response into its historical context.

It is time for all of us to come together, Arab, Jew, Gentile, whatever name you give yourself. The labels don't matter; they are but diversions, illusions. We are ALL one infinite consciousness caught in a crazy computer game believing it to be real.

What do most Israelis, Arabs, Jews, Gentiles, Chinese, whoever, really want? They want peace and love and harmony in their lives. So let us grasp that together. It is what unites us, this desire for peace, love and freedom. It crosses the delusions of the religious and racial divide. Why should we go on allowing the crazies to deny it to us?

How do we change the world from hatred and war to peace and love?

We must be peaceful and loving and cease to cooperate with the forces of hatred and war.

They can only control us and dictate to us with our cooperation because they are the few and we are the many. We are the power on this planet if only we realised that and expressed it with a passion. The dark eyes and dark suits can only have power through divide and rule. They want us to fight among ourselves, only then can these pathetic people have their wicked way.

As Gandhi said: 'We must be the change we want to see in the world.'

Truer words never spoken.

'I'm ready, what about you?

]]> http://crossdale.wordpress.com/?p=34 Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:50:49 +0000 crossdale http://crossdale.da.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/israels-terrorists/ An article in Saturday's Times examines an old Irgun pamphlet issued by the Israeli prime minister and Nobel Peace Prize winner Menachem Begin.

In the document, Irgun tells British troops: “It is unavoidable that many Jewish soldiers and many British soldiers should fall. And it is only fair that these people know at least why they may be killed.”

It adds: “Most of you have been in this country for quite a long time. You have learned what the word ‘terrorist’ means, some of you may even have come into direct contact with them (and heartily desire not to repeat the experience). But what do you know about them? Why does a young man go underground?”

It then draws a parallel with what would have happened if, seven years earlier, Britain had been overrun by Nazi Germany. “Remember 1940. Then it seemed quite possible that your island country would be conquered and subjugated by Hitler hordes . . . what would you have done? Would you have gone underground?” The pamphlet says that the occupation is “illegal and immoral” and “parallel to the mass assassination of a whole people”, in language that echoes that used on a note pinned to the booby-trapped bodies of two British intelligence officers executed by Irgun that same summer.

[caption id="attachment_38" align="alignright" width="290" caption="Irgun Soldiers"][/caption]

Aside from the juicy irony contained in the reference to an 'illegal and immoral' occupation, there isn't much here that's controversial. That the Irgun (and it's younger sibling the Stern Gang, led by another prime minister of Israel, Yitzhak Shamir) was a terrorist group is not disputed. However, stories like this can help give rise to the unhelpful adage that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter', a rhetorical quote which has some validity when denouncing elite rhetoric, but which is not particularly useful in any form of specific analysis.

Defining terrorism is a notoriously difficult task; every value one might decide to load into the term is contested (Carl Wellman gives strong arguments to suggest that the term need not even imply physical violence). One important aspect of this debate is the question over whether the word 'terrorist' should imply a moral judgment. Honderich argues that we should try to avoid ending up with a 'persuasive definition', and thus that the word should be easily applicable and should carry no automatic moral appraisal. Instead, we should view 'terrorism' as a prima facie wrong, which must be able to justify itself in the same way that any other use of force or authority must (i.e. the burden of proof is on the part of the terrorist). If an attack which involved the killing of ten innocents would almost certainly lead to the liberation of a nation, one could argue that it should be classed as a moral act which, on the whole, improved the human condition. Naturally consequentialist maths is a tasteless and tactless exercise, which is generally made less appaling by the appeal to rule consequentialism (in this case it might be termed Just War theory). It has always been the preserve of the powerful to condemn terrorism. Large states can rely on old-fashioned war, or economic strangulation to achieve their aims. They can destroy their enemy's army from a distance, and need not imagine what it would like to have their country occupied. This pseudo-moralistic smokescreen should be pushed aside by anyone seriously concerned with a doctrine of moral equality.

Begin appears to accept something like this principle in the pamphlet, when he says that the British should know why the Jews were using terrorism, and that their cause and methods were just. Whether or not he was correct in his appraisal is a seperate matter - what should be taken is the obvious principle that terrorism is not always the wrong thing to do. More importantly, terrorism and terrorists do not occupy some lower moral realm, more evil than everyone else. We are all located on the same continuum. As Robert Pape has argued, terrorists fight in accordance with strategic military objectives, more often than not to secure or defend their homeland. This need not imply that today's terrorists are right to act as they do; generally they are not. It means that when Israel, or the US and UK, condemn terrorism, and when they use the accompanying fear to justify further oppresive policies, we should be very careful. The terrorists are not the big evil in the sky; they occupy the same moral plain as everyone else, and it's entirely possible that they have far more claim to their actions than our own country does to its own.

Edit: Obama, in Israel, has just said that there can be 'no excuses' for terrorism (presumably meaning non-state terrorism). Again, an example of the placing of the term in a realm so extreme as to permit any action to be taken against it.  It is sometimes said that there is no idea so absurd that it cannot be justified by the creation of jobs. Something very similar could be said about the prevention of terrorism.

On this day, twenty-six years ago, Israeli occupation forces launched a massive military incursion into Lebanon in an operation dubbed "Peace for Galilee." At first glance, the Israeli aggression seemed to be aimed at south Lebanon, but then Defense Minister Ariel Sharon pushed all the way to the capital Beirut.
"Peace for Galilee" for the Israelis is the "Israeli Invasion" for the Lebanese.  It began on 6 June, less than two months after Israel transformed its defeat in Sinai into a political victory in Camp David. Then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin got the impression that all Arab countries would follow Egypt and sign so-called peace deals with Israel.
 
Jordan gave its word to Israel that it would sign such treaty once Lebanon signs a similar one. The Kingdom did not want to get involved in any agreement that would put it at odds with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) that had its leadership headquarters in Beirut.
Back then, Lebanon meant the fertile land for Palestinian resistance movements; thus dealing a blow to the PLO in Lebanon would crush the resistance once and for all and pave the way for signing a peace deal with Lebanon and then with Arab states. In doing this, Israel would extract the acknowledgment of Arabs in the so-called "state of Israel" and open the way for political and economic expansion in the Middle East region.
 
Menachem Begin found that the only way to achieve this "glory" for Israel was to invade Lebanon to crush the PLO, but under what pretext?
 
On July 24, 1981, US President Ronald Reagan's special envoy Philip Habib arrived in Beirut with a controversial mission. Habib managed to broker a shaky nine-months ceasefire between Yasser Arafat and Israel. When the ceasefire took effect, Tel Aviv was like a beehive preparing politically and logistically for their "big time invasion."  
Back in Beirut, Israeli and pro-Israeli bodies worked persistently on straining the internal front. Clashes between Lebanese and Palestinian forces expanded throughout south Lebanon. Both forces got weak and their chances of closing ranks to confront any Israeli military operation were zero.  
 
The element of direct military resistance was removed at a time some Arab regimes were at the Arab Summit in Fass preparing a formula to penetrate the Arab impregnability.
So everything was ready for the invasion. Israel just needed the pretext and it was not hard to find. On June 3, 1982, Israel's ambassador in London Shlomo Argov escaped an assassination attempt.
The Israeli intelligence told Begin that the PLO was not involved in the attack, however he withheld this information from his cabinet. Rafael Eitan, who was then the Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, responded to the aforementioned information in his famous saying "Abu Nidal, abu shmidal. We need to end PLO!"

Full article: http://www.insight-info.com/articles/item.aspx?i=1156

Lidt Guf fra zionismens side,
som er helt lovligt at udrydde et andet folk
for at gøre "israel" større.

Lidt billeder af, hvordan man dannede
"israel" staten og hvad vesten var med til.
Det, som de kalder for "demokrati" host host''

Her er hvad Tv2 og vesten's nyheder kan lære noget af.
Vis det frem, kom frem i lyset,
hvor på jorden lægger huset.
Taget fra des folk, som ikke kan få nok.
Blod fra zionismen's død, som for dem er rar
for at bevar staten "israel" som de nu har-
Hvor et andet folk lider af undertrykkelse
skabt af forbandelse.

Palæstina vil aldrig dø'
og aldrig være noget ny.

"israel" vil være nyt så
nyt at jeg kan huske mit sidste spyt.

Carter Loves Hamas Because He HATES Menachem Begin: "Its almost old news already, the worst president in United States History, Jimmy Carter, will be meeting with Hamas in a few weeks:

Fox News— The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.

Deanna Congileo, Carter’s press secretary, confirmed in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that Carter will be in the Mideast in April. Pressed for comment, Congileo did not deny that the former president is considering visiting Meshal.

‘President Carter is planning a trip to the Mideast next week; however, we are still confirming details of the trip and will issue a press release by the end of this week,’ wrote Congileo. ‘I cannot confirm any specific meetings at this point in time.’

The State Department has designated Hamas a 'foreign terrorist organization,' and some groups hold Meshal personally responsible for ordering the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack once said of the prospect of meeting with Meshal, 'That's not something that we could possibly conceive of.'

Everyone is now reporting the Carter meeting but no one is reporting the reason BEHIND the meeting. You see, Jimmy Carter has an obsessive, frothing at the mouth-type hatred of former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

Ken Stein (the man whose resignation over the Peanut's book, started the exodus from the Carter Center) wrote an extensive article in of Middle East Quarterly last year More than just correcting the mistakes in Carter's trashy opus, Stein (who worked with Carter on the book The Blood of Abraham and was director of the Carter Center until his resignation) gave us insight into Carter's heart and why he [Carter] hates Israel so much.

Jimmy Carter is obsessively fostering hatred for a Ghost. Jimmy Carter Hates Israel and loves Hamas because he hates Menachem Begin. Carter feels that Begin cost him the 1980 election and also cost him the opportunity to be known as the greatest peacemaker ever in the history of the world.

Carter thinks the reason Israel STILL will not leave the disputed territories is the legacy of the late Israeli Prime Minister The intransigence of Begin and his successors, Carter believes, was compounded by a failure of U.S. political leaders to pressure the Israeli government to' correct its policy'.

HEY JIMBO! GIVE THE GUY A BREAK HE PASSED AWAY A LONG TIME AGO....GET OVER IT !!!!...Carter's Obsessive Hatred of Begin reaches almost comic proportions.

Stein gives examples:

• Carter's animosity toward Begin has grown with time. He blames Begin for refusing to negotiate over the West Bank. Not only did this deny Carter a more complete peace deal, but, Carter believes, it also institutionalized itself in Israeli policymaking, worsening the Palestinians' plight. Since Begin took office on May 17, 1977, ending the Labor movement's hegemony in Israeli political life, Carter has repeatedly blasted Israeli prime ministers for what he terms the creation of a 'horrible' and 'terrible' state of affairs for the Palestinians in areas of east Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip

• Skepticism of Carter's intentions may have convinced Begin to take a harder line about the West Bank, which, in line with biblical terminology, he called Judea and Samaria. During his tenure as prime minister, Begin forbade the negotiation agenda to include the West Bank and those portions of Jerusalem that the Israeli government annexed after the 1967 Six-Day war. This refusal to negotiate became Carter's core disagreement with Begin. Carter realized that with Begin adamant against further concessions, he had no tangible item to offer to the Palestinians or other Arab leaders to reach a broader peace agreement. With Begin not offering a fallback position, Carter could not initiate a conclusive Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process. He never forgave Begin.

• A point he has repeatedly made when speaking to my students, his animus toward the late Israeli leader is limitless. This became evident when we were writing The Blood of Abraham, and Carter insisted on asserting that Begin 'wanted to expand Israeli borders to both sides of the Jordan River.' In fact, this is anachronistic. True, this had been Begin's view prior to Israel's independence in 1948, but it was not, as Carter implied, Begin's position after his twenty-nine years in the Knesset (parliament) or during his premiership. During chapter editing, I brought the error to Carter's attention. He declined to correct it.

• The Negotiations with Egypt was really two against one: During the difficult negotiations between Egypt and Israel, Carter and his advisers tried to get Sadat to engage in a collusive scheme: They would encourage Sadat to make 'deliberately exaggerated' demands. The White House would then intervene to 'compel' Cairo to scale back its demands in exchange for Israeli concessions. Then-national security advisor Brzezinski explained that Washington would 'apply maximum leverage on Israel to accommodate,by keeping the West Bank's political future on the table for future negotiations. That Carter risked possible Israeli-Egyptian peace in an effort to extract greater concessions from Begin underscores the tension in their relationship.

• Carter also blames difficulties with Begin for undermining his re-election. In early 1980, with the critical New York Democratic primary looming, Mondale urged Carter to repudiate the U.S. vote for U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 465,which had condemned Israeli settlement activity. According to Barack Obama's Adviser Brzezinski:
  

Jewish voters swung heavily over to Senator [Edward] Kennedy, ensuring Carter's defeat. The set-back prolonged the Carter-Kennedy contest. Sadat did not want a final showdown on the Palestinian problem prior to the return of the Sinai to Egypt. Without pressure from Sadat, our own incentive to push Israel hard was much decreased. Begin proved himself to be a skilled manipulator ... adroit at delaying tactics and in diversionary public appeals ... by mid-June it was clear even to Mondale that Begin wanted Carter defeated.

Carter reminds me of Herbert Lom in the old Pink Panther movies, he played Clouseau's Boss who hated the Peter Sellers character so much that he kept trying to kill him. Lom's character keeps hurting himself in his attempts and eventually winds up insane.

Such is Jimmy Carter's sick hatred of Menachem Began. The man has been dead for sixteen year's and Cater allows his hatred to stew, effect his decision making, and cause him to ruin any legacy that he might have had.

"

(Via YID With LID.)</

Hvorfor når den hvide mand dræber civile ikke også kaldes terrorirst?

Hvad kalder man en kristen der er terrorist?

Hvorfor kalder man så en Muslim, som er terrorist for islamist?

Er det fordi kun Muslimer er "terrorister"?

Hvorfor besætter den hvide mand de muslimiske lande?

Hvordan vil Danmark have det hvis den mørke Muslim mand besætter DK?

Sandheden startede ikke 11/9 langt fra. Sandheden vil den hvide man lægge skjul på.

Hvorfor kan folk glemme når 1000 af os bliver dræbt, men ikke glem hvis man dræber èn hvide?

Hvornår vil den hvide mand stoppe at besætte lande og tag lande?

Hvor er retfærdigheden henne?

Hvorfor må vi ikke forsvar os?

Hvordan kan det være at hvis vi gøre det så bliver vi kaldet for terrorister/Islamister?

Hvorfor bliver man terrorist?

No justice, no peace!

I de efterfølgende dage stod der i pressen: "Middleeastern Conspiracy". Senere fandt man ud af det var to politisk-engageret højre-aktivister, Timothy and Terry, kristne. Da man fandt ud af det gled det hurtigt væk i glemmebogen.

Man havde ellers været nok så aktive da teorien om den muslimske konspiration var relevant. Ha' det dette eksempel in mente.
Efter 2. verdenskrig, fra 1941 til 1948 blev 259 terrorist angreb fuldført af jødiske/zionist terrororganisationer så som Irgun, stungang, haganah. D. 22 Juli 1946 stod Irgun bag eksplosionen på King David Hotel i Jerusalem. Det efterlod 91 dræbte, 28 britter, 41 arabere, 17 jøder, 5 andre.

Hovedet bag Irgun-aktionen var Menachem Begin. Han og Irgun-organisationen klædte sig på så de lignede arabiske muslimer da de placerede bomberne. Deres attentat blev som sagt fuldført og er det største angreb på britisk mandat med 91 dræbte. På dette tidspunkt var Menachem Begin Englands most wanted terrorist. Efter nogle år bliver Menachem Begin Israels premierminister. Og lur mig om ikke også han får Nobel fredsprisen.

Det er uhørt og vanvittigt. Hjernen bag en terrororganisation, der ved et af de mange angreb dræber 91 uskyldige, får en nobelpris for fred.
Før 1944 fandtes staten israel ikke. For at nå til deres mål om en selvstændig stat brugte de disse organisationer så som Irgun, Haganah osv, som står for flere tusinde uskyldiges død. Så medmindre Danmark, mener staten Israel hviler på et falsk grundlag, og landet i virkeligheden tilhører Palæstina, så bør I trække jeres udtalelser om palæstinensisk "terror" tilbage.

Det absolut mest ironiske er at disse organisationer (irgun osv.) var registreret af England som værende terrororganisationer, som hamas, hezbollah er det i dag, fordi de via vold tilkæmpede sig et land, som var bosat. Nu peger israelerne fingre af palæstinenserne og registrerer deres frihedskæmpere for terrorister, på trods af at de kæmper for en langt mere retfærdig sag; nemlig at genvinde det land som var deres før 1944. Hvem ved, hvis Menachem Begin kunne, kan Hamas's leder også få nobels fredspris?

Tak til Goerge.

Barack Obama is a candidate of inclusion and he is willing to talk to some Republicans if he is elected President.

Good for him. Odds are that a Democrat elected President this year will have both a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.

What he or she will not have is 60 votes in the Senate to get past filibusters.

It's positive to talk to just about anybody. It does not hurt to talk.

I believe Senator Obama is an unwavering Democrat.

I believe he is as left-of-center as any recent Democratic nominee and in many respects more so.  

I believe inclusion is better than exclusion and that simply because you talk to somebody does not mean you agree with them or that you will give them what they want.

You don't even have to like the people you're talking with.

You can believe in parties and in ideology and still talk to the other side.   

Look at the photo above. If Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin could talk after terrible armed conflict, what is wrong with Senator Obama saying he will talk to Republicans?

What can it hurt?    

It was fundamentalists who killed President Sadat because he talked with Israel and made peace.

There are fundamentalists in all countries and they can be ideological as well as religious.

Or they can just be some, though not nearly all, bloggers, or Fox News, with a stake in keeping people angry all the time.

It wasn’t until the end of the tour that I realized the symbolism of my Begin education tonight, one of the nights covering the Annapolis ridiculousness going on. If Sharon were dead, he’d be rolling in his grave. They don’t make leaders like that anymore.

Menachem Begin pushed through war so he could get to peace. And that wasn’t consistent; it went back and forth, but at least it went. He did seem to think about what he was doing and who it would help or hurt; in the very least, he had emotions along with brains.

Ehud Olmert puts that to shame. In terms of mistakes and misfits, at least Begin knew when to step down. Begin exuded personality; he laid his beliefs on the table and stood firm, while Olmert is a blank stare of a man. Begin was a fighter for social justice, yet in the present leadership students haven’t been to school since last June.

Leaders today don’t have the kind of experience that creates the potential for… nostalgia. The big guns are dead or - almost dead. Sadat and Begin - these guys had balls. Where are today’s guts? Do good leaders only spring from tragedy?

I’ve purposely chosen to actively ignore the Annapolis goings-on. It’s the first time that I’ve been apathetic towards a ‘chance’. I’m another hard-working exhausted Israeli, tired of vomiting up cliches. I’m slowly paying my due; I made aliyah and live my life here, working hard to stay committed. How is the government completing their end of the bargain?

As a museum, the Begin Center wasn’t all that impressive, but I’m glad I went. I feel a renewed sense of spirit; not necessarily in the backwards American-Zionism way, but just as an Israeli citizen who knows that inspiring leaders have existed in the past and believes that someday - hopefully before more tragedy is done - they will rise again.

By Ray Hanania -- Even before anyone realized that Jimmy Carter’s book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid" would stir up controversy and a lively but sometimes vicious debate, filmmaker Jonathan Demme decided to follow the former president during his book tour. Demme has produced a powerful documentary, "Jimmy Carter: A Man from Plains," now showing in limited distribution in major cities around the country. For me, it was one thing to read Carter’s book – most journalists and critics who trashed it and the author did not read it. But it is even more moving to witness Carter through Demme’s Hollywood lens as he travels from book stores, to media interviews to university speeches preaching peace, justice and principle. Demme is best known to me as the director of the shocking Hollywood film, "Silence of the Lambs."

The food was good, but rough and badly cooked. Bulk seemed to matter most. Tea, eggs, bacon, stirabout, potatoes and cabbage were the usual food; tomatoes, lettuce, celery, beans, and fruit in general were unknown. The lack of green vegetables was said to be due to the famine years when the people ate nettles and grass (…) Soon I learned to dread bacon and cabbage. The bacon was often home cured. It hung in long marrow flitches from hooks in the smoke-blackened ceiling where it seasoned. It was fat and I did not like fat (…) The cabbage was boiled a long time and it was not strained. I ate the mate – as it was called – because I did not like to offend the people. They were kind, they had taken more care with my food and they would consider me stuck-up. They were sensitive, as a rule. For two years I ate bacon and cabbage, or, if I had the option changed to tea and an egg. Sometimes the tea was stewed. The pot “took a heat” from the fire from the early breakfast, or was allowed to draw too long. Strong tea that a mouse could trot on. Stewed tea took away hunger.

Although we weren’t quite as badly off for greens and fruit, the diet of country people in Ireland hadn’t changed much by the time I arrived in the world forty odd years later. Anyone wanting great entertainment, a stirring account of the joy and horror of guerrilla warfare and to know something of the reality of Ireland’s War of Independence would do well to read this magnificent book and avoid seeing Ken Loach’s farcical agit-prop film, The Wind That Shakes the Barley.