The notion that President Trump is a pragmatist and pacific, rejecting foreign entanglements is a wrong assessment. He is the most pro-Israel President to set foot in the White House and will soon share defense policy with Israel. He has supported Benjamin Netanyahu in annexing the Jordan Valley and north Dead Sea areas in the occupied West Bank; controversially recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; cancelled the JCPOA Iran nuclear deal; and had controversial territory in the Golan Heights named after him, all destroying hopes of peace in The Middle East. A war with Iran is looming, with the U.S. following a covert Likud-neoconservative agenda and Israel’s foreign policy evident after 9/11.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to annex Palestinian territory in the occupied West Bank and crucially, seize the bread basket of the Jordan valley, is not only illegal under international law but would, if enacted, make peace impossible in the Middle East. The two state solution for Israelis and the Palestinians, would dissolve and with it the Palestinian right to national self-determination and statehood. The backlash will undoubtedly escalate wars and ‘terrorism’.
Mr Netanyahu has the support of Donald Trump, who has single-handedly destroyed the United States’ honest-broker role. The US president recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and endorsed the illegal seizure of the Golan Heights. He also cut off humanitarian aid to Palestinians, presumably hoping to starve them into submission. It is doubtful whether Trump notoriously lacking in the benefits of academic or any reading, has any knowledge of the history of the region, or indeed events surrounding 9/11 and the 2001 attack on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon. Trump and his advisers are however all supporters of the settler movement to build housing in the West Bank for Israeli Jews in contravention of international law. Trump’s ‘carrot and stick’ approach to the “art of the deal” in the Middle East will not work against ideology and will only end in war.
Millions of Palestinians will end up living in segregated enclaves in the middle of the West Bank, with no real political rights and under separate legal and education systems. There will be no hope of prosperity and they will effectively live in a giant open prison under military occupation. Their farming jobs gone, they will probably leave the area they have lived in for hundreds of years, but isn’t that the plan?
Mr Netanyahu’s announcement on annexation curiously, but certainly not unpredictably coincided with remembrance services (2019) of the 9/11 attacks (2001). What now – not this again! I thought – time to dust off the 9/11 files and back into the 70s again: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (George Santayana).
Leaving aside the fact there are two Jerusalem’s and two opposing priesthoods, going back thousands of years and so visible in the events of Golgotha (covered in the Theatre Earth volumes 1 and 2; Secret History of European Union vol 1) which accounts for the close association of Israel, the US and Britain, we must start somewhere at least in more modern times and the Judaic-Zionist expansionist doctrine is to seize all the oil-rich lands from the shores of the Euphrates to the banks of the Nile.
The Hebrew scholar Levnoch Osman said: “In our eternal Book of Books (the Torah), the lofty ethical teachings of which are cherished by all mankind, the land of Israel is described not as a long, narrow strip of land with wavy, crooked borders, but as a state with broad natural borders”. God they claim promised to the Patriarch Abraham this state: ‘I give unto them the land where they have sown their seed, from the river of Egypt unto the great river of Euphrates’ (Genesis 15:18).
In 1952 Moshe Dayan (1915 -1981), previous Israeli defense minister declared: “Our task consists of preparing the Israeli army for the new war approaching in order to achieve our ultimate goal, the creation of an Israeli empire.” Empire implies imperialism, colonialism and occupation.
The British historian Arnold J. Toynbee, who served as an adviser on Near Eastern affairs to the British delegation at the Versailles Conference, in a newspaper article published in June 2004 stated the Zionist aims in these words: ‘We are Jews, the living representatives of Judah, one of the 12 tribes of Israel that conquered most of Palestine in the 13th century B.C. We held Judah’s share of the conquered territory for seven centuries, till we were deported by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 B.C. We were back again within less than half a century, and we then held Judea, once more, for the next 773 years, till we were evicted by the Romans in A.D.135. We have never renounced our claim to the land of Israel. We have always hoped, believed, and proclaimed that we shall get this land back again. It is our land, we contend….”
There lies the justification for the prison of the Palestinians and the incessant wars in the Middle East outwardly justified as security for Israel, but more in line with Israel’s imperial ambitions based on biblical text. The Six-Day War, also known as the June War, 1967 Arab–Israeli War, or Third Arab–Israeli War, was fought between 5th and 10th June 1967 by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Relations between Israel and its neighbors were not fully normalized after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
The opposing dialectic argument was made by Ghandi. The problem of the formation of the State of Israel was very simple to Gandhi. In the late 30’s Ghandi accurately diagnosed the problems in Palestine as between Jews as settlers and Arabs as natives and stated unequivocally that Palestine belonged to the Arab natives and their rights took precedence over any other claims: “The cry for the national home for the Jews does not have much appeal to me. The sanctions for it are sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after a return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the Earth make their country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the sense that England belongs to the English and France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by a moral code of conduct”. A two state solution is the only moral way forward now, to avoid further conflict in the Middle East, with no more violence on both sides.
This biblical right to the land was justification during the Six Day War, for driving the Egyptian troops into the Sinai Desert to die of thirst, hunger and heat. U.S. reconnaissance planes flying on the perimeter of the Sinai Desert took hundreds of pictures of the stragglers and reported there were 50,000 Egyptians dead or dying on the desert. The U.S. Air Force loaded 60,000 gallons of water in five-gallon jerry cans on pallets and prepared to drop them but was stopped when Defense Secretary Robert Mc Namara ordered a halt after he received phone calls from White House foreign policy-planner Walt Rostow and UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg. It was a violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war and amounted to genocide.
At the time Moshe Dayan and Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, chief of the Israeli General Staff, who plotted the Six-Day War were in charge of the expansionist program from the Euphrates to the Nile. Even at this time there were fears that Zionist expansionist policy would provide the spark to ignite World War III. In fact the spark would only appear in 2001 with the 9/11 attacks. The Zionists had planned to annex all of Jordan, virtually all of Syria, half of Iraq and a large part of Saudi Arabia and all of the rich lands of the Nile Valley. To follow would be Yemen, Aden, Muscat, Qatar and Oman, lands rich in oil.
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at the time said: “The return of even one bit of earth to the Arab would be a betrayal of the nation.” Jordan’s King Hussein reportedly made a secret offer to Israel that in exchange for the return of the West Bank of the Jordan River, Hussein would agree to demilitarize it, negotiate border adjustments and even waive his insistence upon regaining the Old City of Jerusalem. Israel rejected the offer: “The natural border of the country is the Jordan River – a border that would be established only if Israel kept the West Bank areas it took from Jordan.”
Despite refutations, the idea of expelling or (in accepted language “transferring”) the indigenous Palestinian population was an integral part of the Zionist effort to found a Jewish national state in Palestine. In fact this idea of transfer first appeared in Theodore Herzl’s diary. Herzl (1860 -1904) was a Jewish Austro-Hungarian journalist, playwright, political activist, and writer who was the father of modern political Zionism. Herzl formed the Zionist Organization and promoted Jewish immigration to Palestine in an effort to form a Jewish state. In fact from the time the Zionists first began purchasing the land they began evacuating the Arab “tenants” or the indigenous population.
Of course such measures are common in colonialism and occurred to many indigenous peoples. Restoration of the rights of these peoples e.g. Maori in New Zealand and Native Americans in America, has occurred in major part throughout the world, except in Israel, where morality is not questioned based on biblical authority and perceived ownership of the land. The Israelis have not proclaimed this plan of mass expulsion as this would cause the Zionists to lose the world’s sympathy which continues in remembrance of the Holocaust. They continue to expand Israeli territory, maintain inhumane conditions and poverty, now magnified by Trump’s withdrawal of aid, in the hope the Palestinians will leave, or through continued Palestinian retaliatory attacks on Israel, provide justification for mass expulsion.
The Israelis waited for opportune times to initiate the expulsion, so as to avoid world condemnation. The first Arab-Israeli war in 1948 enabled the Israelis to expel 750,000 Palestinians which was more than 80% of the indigenous population and thus achieve an overwhelmingly Jewish state. The opportunity to grab more land occurred as a result of the 1967 war. The world at the time was reacting to a policy of forced population transfers, equating such practice with the horrors of Nazism. The Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949, had “unequivocally prohibited deportation” of civilians under occupation. The problem then for the Israelis since the 1967 war has been what to do with the Palestinian population. A two state solution was never going to happen for the Israelis.
In the 1980s when the right-wing Likud government came to power in Israel, the idea of expulsion again arose. This time it was tied to a larger war, with the destabilisation of the Middle East, seen as necessary in order for the grand scheme of Zionists – that of expulsion and expansion to be realised. Indeed that was floated as a proposal in an article by Oded Yinon, titled “A strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” which appeared in the World Zionist Organisation’s periodical Kivunim in February 1982. The article called for Israel to bring about the dissolution and fragmentation of the Arab states into a mosaic of ethnic groupings. The scene was set and Ariel Sharon on March 24, 1988, stated that if the Palestinian uprising continued, Israel would have to make war on her Arab neighbors. The war, he stated, would provide “the circumstances” for the removal of the entire Palestinian population from the West Bank and Gaza and even from inside Israel. At some point this idea of Pax-Israelica of the Middle East was linked to the neoconservative view of Pax-Americana, the United States would act as Israel’s proxy to achieve a goal that suited them both.
The U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s did not have a common Middle Eastern policy with Israel. The U.S. was concerned only with promoting stable governments that would not disrupt America’s life blood – oil. The U.S. worked for peace between Israel and the Muslim states in the region, but those states had wanted justice for the Palestinians. It was inevitable that all peace talks would break down.
In the 1980s the U.S., supported Iraq in its war against Iran, viewing Iraq as a bulwark against the radical Islamism of the Ayatollah’s Iran which threatened oil supplies and the aim of secular States. During this period the U.S., helped arm Iraq with weapons, supercomputers, poisonous chemicals (which Iraq used against the Iranians and the Kurds) and even strains of anthrax and bubonic plague. After 9/11 the U.S., accused Saddam of stockpiling “weapons of mass destruction” which the U.S., had armed them with!
Neoconservatism is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks, but later members became devoted to Israel. The neoconservatives (neocons) saw their chance, for a Middle East war on their terms, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Neocons went into overdrive in pushing for a U.S. war with Iraq, even though Iraq was seen as critical in maintaining stability in the Gulf. The Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, headed by Richard Perle the neocon, was set up to promote war. Neocon hawks including The Wall Street Journal promoted the view that America’s war objective should not be simply to drive Saddam – Iraq out of Kuwait (which the U.S. had turned a blind eye to) but also to destroy Iraq’s military potential and her capacity to develop nuclear weapons.
The neocons and Israel hoped that the war would not only lead to the removal of Saddam Hussein but would allow the American occupation of Iraq and fulfill Israel’s foreign policy. In the first Gulf War, the full conquest of Iraq was not achieved mainly because of the opposition by General Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General Norman Schwarzkopf, the field commander. The U.S. had a UN mandate only to liberate Kuwait, not to remove Saddam in regime change.
G. H. W. Bush (Bush senior and 41st president) was earmarked for removal, when it was thought neocon/Israeli goals conflicted with the Bush administration’s goals, of placating the Arab coalition that supported the war. This entailed the effort to curb Israeli control of the occupied territories, with a demand that Israel halted the construction of new settlements in the occupied territories as a condition for receiving $10 billion in U.S loan guarantees for Israel’s resettlement of hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union.
The neocons bided their time through Clinton’s administration, promoting their views through a network of think tanks. Members of these think tanks would later immensely influence George W. Bush (43rd president). The JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and CSP (Centre for Security Policy were the main influence, together with right-wing politicians, arms merchants, military men, Jewish billionaires and Republican administrations. John Bolton, recently fired by Trump allegedly for his hawkish views, was on JINSA’s board of advisers and was then Under Secretary of State for Arms Control. Dozens of JINSA and CSP members ascended to powerful government posts under George Bush 43rd president. JINSA/CSP was hard line in their relentless campaign for war, not just war with Iraq, but “total war.” They had their eyes on Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Look around the Middle East today and see the results. These countries at the time prior to 9/11 were not a threat to the U.S, but they were perceived as a threat to the security of Israel.
In a 1996 paper developed by Perle, Feith, David Wurmser and other neocons, published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, titled “A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm;” the neocon perspective on war with Iraq was laid bare. The paper was intended as a political road map for the incoming government of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud party. Likud, officially the Likud-National Liberal Movement, is a centre-right to right-wing political party in Israel. It was founded in 1973 by Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon in an alliance with several right-wing parties, who were far from secular.
The paper stated that Netanyahu should “make a clean break” with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel’s claim to the West Bank and Gaza. The plan was to “shape its (Israel’s) strategic environment” beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad as the first step toward eliminating anti-Israeli governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Hashemite refers to a member of an Arab princely family claiming descent from Hashim, great-grandfather of Muhammad. The Hashemites are the ruling royal family of Jordan. The House was also the royal family of Syria, Hejaz and Iraq. Presumably Israel believed that puppet kings were the answer as a form of regime change.
The pressure for war with Iraq continued when on February 19, 1998 this theme was pushed again in an “Open Letter to the President” (Clinton) by the neoconservative Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf. The usual names were attached (Abrams, Armitage, Bolton, Feith, Ikle, Khalilzad, Rodman, Wolfowitz, Wurmser, Zakheim, Rumsfeld). Rumsfeld was a neocon as were other signatures that were pro-Zionist neocons such as Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Gaffney, Muravchik, Peretz, Wieseltier, and Solarz. Clinton did not take the bait for war but did allocate money for military support of the Iraqi opposition.
It is extraordinary that Americans working in the administration in 1996 were part of Israeli foreign policy to “shape its strategic environment” by removing Israel’s enemies. The same individuals’ after 9/11 were linking United States foreign policy to Israel in order to shape that Middle East environment for the Israelis. The U.S. had become the dirty work contractor for Israeli interests.
To discover the real motives for the war on Iraq, one must ask how did the 9/11 terrorist attack lead to the planned war on Iraq, even though as we subsequently discovered Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and had no “weapons of mass destruction.” As with Netanyahu’s announcement (2019) to annex Palestinian territory in the occupied West Bank, which coincided with a 9/11 anniversary, significance’s are never to be dismissed: 9/11 is also the anniversary of the League of Nations proclaiming in Palestine the British Mandate in 1922. The date represents the first physical step toward the implementation of the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of Israel. It was Rothschild, who put pressure on Balfour (Theatre Earth vol 2).
We must go back to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) which was a Washington based think tank created in 1997. The goal was a global American empire to bend the will of all nations – the new socio-economic Pax-Americana. The fundamental ideology of PNAC was set out in a White Paper (Sept. 2000) entitled ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.’ The thrust of the document was towards America replenishing and modernising US forces, in the air and under the sea; development of a global missile defense system; strategic dominance of space; control of cyberspace; permanent forces positioned in Southeast Asia, Southern Europe and the Middle East.
The PNAC document described 4 “core missions” for the US military. The two central ones were requirements for American forces to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars,” and “perform the constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions.” PNAC had more to do with Israeli foreign policy, than any Pax-Americana.
Conveniently PNAC only emerged as a political force in mainstream government after the disputed election of George W. Bush and the 9/11 attacks. PNAC members became the men that ran the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. Men like Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfwoitz. The latter was Jewish as were many members but not exclusively. Wolfowitz was claimed as the ideological father of PNAC.
One year before 9/11, PNAC called for “some catastrophic catalysing event, like a Pearl Harbor,” which would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda. The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy the 9/11 attacks as “a war pretext incident.” The PNAC’s declared objective was “Defend the Homeland” and “Fight decisively and win multiple, simultaneous theatre wars”.
Zbigniew Brzezinski a committed globalist and dark figure who influenced 5 presidents in his book, The Grand Chessboard, stated: “…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus (in America) on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” The question was and still is, whether the threat was to Israel and not America and whether PNAC was really Israeli expansionist and security foreign policy. If the latter is the case then it would be the first instance where a great power or superpower, would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state – Israel. (See Blog: Secret US-UK trade deal: are GMOs on the conspiratorial menu?)
Brzezinski who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter was one of the key architects of the Al- Qaeda network, created by the CIA at the start of the Soviet Afghan war (1979-1989).
The PNAC’s reference to a “catastrophic and catalysing event” echoes a similar statement of the ardent globalist David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994: “We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order”.
The neoconservatives of PNAC were primarily although not exclusively of Jewish ethnicity and right-wing Zionist persuasion. They tried to make use of 9/11 to foment a broad war against Islamic terrorism, the targets of which would coincide with the enemies of Israel. Much controversial evidence dubbed “conspiracy theory” emerged after 9/11 claiming the atrocity was planned. It is not your author’s aim to cover that here other than to remember the 75 leading academics and scientists who in 2006, just 5 years after 9/11 stunned America by claiming the 9/11 terrorist attacks were orchestrated by warmongers inside the White House, as an “inside job” carried out to justify the invasion and occupation of oil-rich countries. The academics – calling themselves 9/11 Scholars for Truth, said the facts of their investigations could not be ignored and that they had overwhelming evidence of a massive conspiracy, giving credence to the theories that circulated on the Internet since 2001.
One member of the group, Professor Steven Jones, who lectured in physics at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, said: “We don’t believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone. We challenge this official theory and, by God, we’re going to get to the bottom of this.” The academics pointed the finger at the neoconservatives. Professor Jones said it was impossible for the Twin Towers to have collapsed in the way they did, saying that jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claimed horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers were indicative of controlled explosions used to bring down the towers; a claim that the 9/11 Commission naturally did not investigate with any diligence.
In the 1970s the US was becoming increasingly aware of Third World causes and indeed the Palestinian rights. This changed with Reagan in the White House and the neoconservatives attached themselves to the right, whereas previously they were liberal Democrats, or even socialists and Marxists and often Trotskyites.
For some time prior to 9/11, neocons had publicly advocated an American war on Iraq. The 9/11 incident provided the pretext. The idea that neocons were the motivating force behind the U.S. movement for war was taken up by the press after the war with Iraq; where it was questioned whether the obsession of a few neocon hawks became the central goal of U.S. foreign policy. There were a few sources however, who did not gain national coverage, who claimed that the war with Iraq was planned at Israel’s request. The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar pointed out that Richard Perle and Douglas Feith and their fellow neocon members were walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests.
In his Farewell Address, George Washington expressed the view that the greatest danger to American foreign relations would be the “passionate attachment” of influential Americans to a foreign power, which would orient U.S. foreign policy for the benefit of that power to the detriment of the United States. Indeed ordinary Americans post 9/11 became increasingly worried that the “world hates us” and America was being dubbed “The Great Satan” by Muslims.
It is clear that already in the Clinton Administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated plans to invade both Iraq and Iran: “Dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran…is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran…The purpose of U.S engagement as espoused in the NSS (President’s National Security Strategy) is to protect the United States vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.”
Clever men however can wrap anything up to seem what it is not. The PNAC was linked to the Defense-Intelligence establishment, the Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which played a behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of US foreign policy. Brezezinski and Rockefeller were connected to this network and were committed globalists.
With regard to Syria, already in October 2003, the bombing of assumed “terrorist bases” in Syria by the Israeli Air Force was intended to provide a justification for subsequent preemptive military interventions. Ariel Sharon launched the attacks, with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld. The whole Middle East was being destabilised, post 9/11.
In order to directly influence White House policy in the George W. Bush administration Wolfowitz and Perle managed to obtain leading roles on the Bush foreign policy/national security advisory team for the 2000 campaign. Headed by Soviet specialist Condoleezza Rice, the team was referred to as “the Vulcans”. Bush had no direct experience in foreign policy and little knowledge of the world. This led to his so-called gaffes confusing Slovakia with Slovenia and referring to Greeks as “Grecians” and failing a pop quiz on the names of four foreign leaders. He became depicted as a monkey in cartoons.
Condoleezza Rice, had no record on Middle Eastern affairs and thus Bush was left to advice from Zionists and neocons, like Wolfowitz and Perle. Bush’s foreign policy was shaped by them and reinforced by Cheney and Rumsfeld and the numerous other neocons that inundated the Bush administration. Perle was known as “Prince of Darkness” and was a personal friend of Ariel Sharon, board member of the Jerusalem Post, and an ex-employee of the Israeli weapons manufacturer Soltam. According to author Seymour M. Hersh, while Perle was a congressional aide for Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D- Washington), FBI wiretaps picked up Perle providing classified information from the National Security Council to the Israeli embassy and yet there he was directing U.S foreign policy.
George W. Bush entered office in January 2001, perceived as a mentally challenged president. Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel in February 2001, and was committed to removing Palestinians. He had said in the past that Jordan should become the Palestinian state where Palestinians removed from Israeli territory would be relocated. Ever concerned with racial purity and religion, public concern in Israel was mounting over demographic changes that threatened “God’s chosen people”. Haifa University professor Arnon Sofer released the study, “Demography of Eretz Israel,” which predicted that by 2020 non-Jews would be a majority of 58% in Israel and the occupied territories. There were also worries that an increase in population would exceed available land and the limited supply of water.
In the summer of 2001, Jane’s Information Group an authoritative source reported that Israel had completed planning for a massive and violent invasion of the Occupied Territories in order to drive out the Palestinians, if they survived. It was to involve “air strikes F-15 and F-16 fighter bombers, a heavy artillery bombardment and then attack by a combined force of 30,000 men…tank brigades and infantry.” It sounded more like a plan for extermination in such a densely populated region, rather than merely removing Arafat the PLO leadership. The U.S. vetoed the plan and Europe opposed it.
Following the 9/11 attacks Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would do for U.S. – Israeli relations and he responded: “It’s very good.” He had to correct himself with “Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.” He also tried to align Israeli and U.S. interests saying the assault was on “our common values” – what common values? Further stating: “I believe together we can defeat these forces of evil.” However he had just made Israel’s enemies, those of the United States.
The neocons hardly waited for the dust to settle with 2,753 murdered souls at the site of the Twin Towers before they started to beat the tom-tom, agitating for a wider war on terrorism that would co-incidentally deal with Israel’s enemies. On September 20, 2001 neocons again put pen to paper and the PNAC sent a letter to President Bush endorsing the war on terrorism and stressing that the removal of Saddam was an essential part of that war.
The Weekly Standard, the political neocon news magazine in the October 29, 2002 issue presented an article by Kagan and Kristol, where they predicted a wider Middle East war. As per neocon policy it spoke of …”American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid.” They sounded ecstatic at the thought of a possible Third World War or Armageddon. As I warned in The Secret History of European Union volumes, there is a group with an apocalyptic psychology on this planet, with religious prophesy as the script.
In a November 20, 2002, article in The Wall Street Journal Eliot Cohen referred to the conflict as “World War IV” a term picked up by other neocons. Paleoconservatives like Scott Mc Connell opposed to a wider war, soon saw bin Laden as “a sideshow” where the real target was Saddam Hussein and Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 assault. No doubt neocons realised also that if they pinpointed bin Laden, someone would point out that he and Al-Qaeda were created by the CIA at the time of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and were intelligence assets. The Wall Street Journal, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the Washington Times as well as the neoliberal New Republic all had blood on their hands: however most media outlets in the U.S., are owned by men of Jewish extraction.
The wolves surrounding Bush, soon recognised not only that he knew nothing, but he could be manipulated through his born-again Christian faith. He was persuaded he was destroying the evil of terrorism and made to feel God had appointed him to carry out a purpose He was there to fight the evil of terrorism. Bush’s terminology such as “the axis of evil” reflected his brainwashing. It is frightening to consider that thousands of lives were in the balance in Iraq, when this was the president. Bob Woodward’s Bush at War revealed that as early as September 12, Rumsfeld raised the issue of attacking Iraq. Afghanistan claimed as the hiding place of Bin Laden, was just another side-show.
Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General accused the United States of committing “a crime against humanity” and “against the people of Iraq” during the first Gulf War where sanctions were employed; going on to say “that exceeds all others in its magnitude, cruelty and portent.” Citing United Nations agency reports and his own on-site investigations, Clark charged in 1996 that scarcity of food and medicine as a result of sanctions against Iraq imposed by the United States since 1990, and U.S. bombings of the country, had caused the deaths of more than a million people, including more than half a million children. This does not reflect also those left with injuries that would affect their future survival.
Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in President Clinton’s administration, defended the mass killings. During a 1996 interview she was asked: We have heard that half a million children have died (as a result of sanctions against Iraq). I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima… Is the price worth it? Albright replied: “we think the price is worth it” (’60 Minutes’ May 12, 1996).
The U.S. even supported Israel when an official Israeli commission found that Ariel Sharon prime minister at the time, bore some responsibility for the 1982 massacres of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.
In 1948, as the state of Israel was being established in Palestine, U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall, along with nearly every other high-level U.S. foreign affairs specialist, warned that American support for Israel would have dire long term consequences. That has been and still is the case and it may still end in another World War.
If there was a rational man attempting to stop all- out war in the Middle East after 9/11, it was Colin Powell. Powell broke from the neocons and argued that the “war on terror” had to be directly linked to the perpetrators of September 11 – Osama bin Laden’s network. Powell publicly repudiated Wolfowitz’s call for “ending states” with the response that “we’re after ending terrorism. And if there are states and regimes, nations that support terrorism, we hope to persuade them that it is in their interest to stop doing that…” Of course there was that tricky history of the CIA creating Al-Qaeda.
The mentally challenged Bush, filled with Christian crusade mentality, rapidly under his minders – the neocons, made public pronouncements in expanding the war to Iraq. In a speech at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, he proclaimed that “Afghanistan is just the beginning of the war against terror. There are other terrorists who threatened America and our friends and there are other nations willing to sponsor them. We will not be secure as a nation until all these threats are defeated. Across the world, and across the years, we will fight these evil ones, and we will win.”
It was as if we were entering yet another nightmare after 9/11, where thousands would be killed or suffer unimaginable grief, where mothers would lose sons and daughters – people would live with life-long injuries with limbs blown off. The irrationality was extraordinary and like a juggernaut one could not stop it. I certainly tried by producing an article including much of what is written here to news editors in the UK – not published naturally and those editors have blood on their hands.
The final call to war was made in Bush’s January 29, 2002, State of the Union speech, in which he officially uncoupled the “war on terrorism” from the specific events of 9/11. Powell had lost his attempt to bring rationality to a president controlled by Israeli foreign policy and exercised through the neocons. Naturally since Al-Qaeda was an intelligence asset of the CIA created in Afghanistan Soviet war (December 1979 to February 1989), Bush in his speech did not even mention bin Laden or Al -Qaeda. The threat now was to come primarily from three countries – Iran, Iraq, and North Korea – which he dubbed “an axis of evil” that allegedly threatened the world with their weapons of mass destruction. In fact the phrase “axis of evil” was coined by Bush’s neoconservative speechwriter, David Frum.
Trump certainly has taken on the “axis of evil” with Iraq completed, but still confronting Iran and North Korea. Trump sacked John Bolton and the warmongering past of the neoconservatives, allegedly preferring the “art of the deal”. Either Trump is so ignorant of the background, preferring to gain his information from news channels, or like the mentally challenged Bush can be persuaded by some other major catastrophe, which has conveniently occurred in the drone attack in Saudi Arabia.
Colin Powell tried to persuade Bush that UN sanction would be necessary to justify a U.S attack on Iraq, which probably through Tony Blair, then Prime Minister in the UK persuaded Bush. This was a move away from Powell’s initial position that Washington should make war on Iraq only if Baghdad were proven to have been involved in the September 11 terrorism. The UN Security Council decided that UN inspectors, with sweeping inspection powers, would determine whether Iraq was violating the pledge to destroy all of her weapons of mass destruction. The inspections found no WMD, but this was ignored.
UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (November 8, 2002) placed the burden of proof on Iraq to show that she no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction. Any false statements or omissions in the Iraqi weapons declaration would constitute a further material breach by Iraq of her obligations and would set in motion discussions by the Security Council on considering the use of military force against Iraq. No questions were ever asked of Israel, when she developed a formidable nuclear weapons arsenal.
In the autumn of 2002, the Jordanian government, fearing that Israel might push the Palestinian population into Jordan during the anticipated U.S. attack on Iraq asked for public assurances from the Israeli government that it would not make such a move. The Sharon regime, however, refused to publicly renounce an expulsion policy. One can only wait to see if Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to annex Palestinian territory in the occupied West Bank will goad the Palestinians to retaliation, justifying their expulsion as a long sought goal of Israel. Who can say whether covert ops might provide that justification?
General Hameed Gul was director general of the Pakistani Intelligence Services (Inter-Services Intelligence) and a close ally of America, working with the CIA. Although he supported the “American way of life” and western democracy, he turned against America for betrayal and countless broken promises. He claimed the September 11 attacks were the work of renegade U.S. Air Force elements working with the Israelis. Gul claimed Bin Laden had nothing to do with the attacks insisting they were the work of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service.
Gul claimed: “Jews never agreed to Bush 41 (George H.W. Bush, the 41st President) or 43 (his son G. W. Bush, the 43rd President). They made sure Bush senior didn’t get a second term. His land-for-peace policy in Palestine didn’t suit Israel. They were also against the young Bush because he was considered too close to oil interests and Gulf countries. Bush 43 was a potential danger to Israel… Israel knows it has a short shelf-life before it is overwhelmed by demographics…”
In May of 1998, Osama Bin Laden was interviewed for ABC TV. Bin Laden spoke of why he sought conflict with America: “For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honour and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed” and: “This is my message to the American people to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack other people’s lands….”
It is clear that to Muslims the Palestinian issue is very important. President Trump in recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and endorsing the illegal seizure of the Golan Heights, together with withdrawing aid from Palestinians and the provocative action of plans by Netanyahu to annex Palestinian territory in the occupied West Bank can only lead to retaliation, which would justify the long sought goal of expulsion.
Why is it that when Israel continues to violate international law, America and indeed Britain often turn a blind eye? I have I trust in my books shown that Britain is intricately a part of Jewish history and the 13th tribe, with two Jerusalem’s one being in Scotland, where Jesus’ genealogies derive as a rabbi of the Druids (Theatre Earth vol. 1, p. 194, 186; Theatre Earth vol. 2. P.474; The Secret History of European Union Vol. 1). I think that Arnold Toynbee, in claiming Judah as one of the 12 tribes of Israel was confused on the matter and prophesy of Revelations – there were I contend 13 tribes.
It is recognised that America may rule the world, but Israel rules America. Former Republican Congressman, Dr Paul Findley, Jacksonville, Ill, spent 1961 -1983 in the US Congress and remained a lone voice against Israel dominating U.S. politics: “Americans need to wake up to certain facts, Middle East policy is not treated as foreign policy but as domestic policy, because the lobby for the State of Israel is the most powerful, most intimidating lobby in Washington…” Dr Findley who had spent 22 years as a Republican congressman found his political career destroyed after he campaigned against the Jewish lobby.
There was no refutation of Dr Findley’s claims in fact Ariel Sharon when Prime Minister of Israel stated: “Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that… I want to tell you something very clear: don’t worry about American pressure on Israel – we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it” (Oct. 03. 2001).
One of the most powerful U.S. senators in the past, William Fulbright bluntly stated on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’, that “Israel controls the U.S. senate”. Israel pre-9/11 created an “outside enemy” to the U.S. but they were enemies of Israel, not the U.S., although America’s interference through the CIA in other countries affairs had certainly in past decades contributed.
One cannot discount that unknown to themselves on a ‘need to know’ basis that terrorists themselves are merely assets to US, Israeli or in the past Pakistan intelligence services. The asset is not in direct contact with its covert sponsors and is not cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence sponsors. The fundamental question is whether this occurred in the events surrounding 9/11. For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged terrorist organisation Jemaah Islamiah had links to Indonesia’s military intelligence, which in turn had links to the CIA and Australian intelligence.
The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian parliament, which persuaded the public to accept terrorism as a threat, and which pushed India and Pakistan to the brink of war, were allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups: Lashkar-e-Taibal (Army of the Pure) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Army of Mohammed) both of which according to the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) were supported by Pakistan’s ISI. Whatever the case the ISI and Gul were not in tune with the U.S., and what the CFR failed to acknowledge was the crucial relationship between the ISI and the CIA and the fact that the ISI continued to support Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM), whilst also collaborating with the CIA. One might call such covert control over terrorist groups as fabricating an enemy. Certainly a world-wide terrorist threat was useful and the world had to be made a dangerous place in order to achieve the goals of a World Order and globalisation, so eventually man would accept mass surveillance and a police state and the dictates of a World Order, so sought after by Rockefeller. A two tiered system of privilege for the rich and communism for the poor – the beehive political model.
Many links and questions remain unanswered in the lead up to the 9/11 attacks: the role of Bush officials, their documented links to the terror network, the business ties between the Bushes and Bin Laden families, the role of Pakistan’s military intelligence (USI) which supported and abetted Al Qaeda while working their U.S. counterparts (CIA), and the fact that several Bush officials were the architects of Al Qaeda during the Reagan administration (revealed in the Iran-Contra investigation).
Al Qaeda was an intelligence asset of the CIA, which sponsored them whilst at the same time warning of impending terrorist attacks. 1991 saw the beginning of the civil war in Yugoslavia (1991- 2001). Evidence in an official congressional report from the Republican Party claimed in 1993-1994 at the time of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, the Clinton Administration and Al Qaeda were actively collaborating in joint military operations in Bosnia. Congressional records point to the same collaboration in Kosovo (1995-1999). In the aftermath of 9/11 Bin Laden was hardly mentioned, but Bush’s “axis of evil” gained priority headlines. In fact Bin Laden was in hospital in Dubai (UAE) on the 10th of September undergoing renal dialysis.
The use of war pretext incidents had occurred as a strategy for war a number of times – Pearl Harbour being one. In 1962 the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled “Operation Northwoods”, to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba.