Sunday, 5 June 2011

Don't dare criticise Israel, you will be called an anti-semite

Originally sent June 2010

When I sat down to write this newsletter, I had intended to start off by congratulating peace campaigner Brian Haw for getting a bigger picture on the front page of the London Evening Standard on the day that the Queen opened Parliament than the Queen did herself.

But then, the world went crazy again.

The attack by the Israeli Defence Force on an aid convoy in international waters shocked the world. Even the Israeli version admits that they did it. They may attribute the deaths to armed resistance, but if that were true – and many are disputing that - would it have been unreasonable to have put up resistance when your boat is being pirated in international waters?

Angry demonstrations rapidly spread across the world, and early images appearing on our television screens included orthodox Jews demonstrating against the Israeli government. There are now various Jewish groups who are opposed to the military actions taken by Israel against the people of Gaza, and on other issues, too. A demonstration outside the IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv against the storming of the Gaza Flotilla was reported on Israel Social TV but, they say, not in the mainstream media:

If any good is to come from this sorry story, it has to be the realisation that you can now criticise Israel, or rather the actions of those who pull the strings in Israel, without being credibly accused of antisemitism, as you can for any other state. There has been much talk recently of covert operations by the Israeli secret service Mossad.

The UK government protested to Israel about the forging of UK passports in an undercover operation to assassinate a Hamas leader in Dubai.

There has been growing impatience in the US over Israel’s treatment of the people of Gaza. Considering that the US is Israel’s main ally and backer, and that they are also the world’s military superpower, it would seem surprising that a small beseiged country like Israel would want to go it alone. In the case of the Free Gaza flotilla, the Israeli forces would have known that even if the operation had been carried out without violence, they would still have been seen on virtually every television screen outside Israel as agressors on the high seas. How can we account for this behaviour?

It seems to me to be a symptom of overconfidence in one’s own strength. If we reduce the world stage to the laboratory of a tiny organisation which poses no threat to national security, we sometimes see the same sort of arrogance.

In my case, I could not understand how my opponents thought they could possibly get away with some of the blatent things they were saying and doing. Any normal person, I thought, would be able to see through them right away; it was as if they didn’t care. Yet, in the short term, they were right, because they knew one or two things that I didn’t know. They knew how accepting the ordinary members had become after years of brainwashing. I was later to find out that it was no use trying to present evidence to the members; they just weren’t interested, because they knew that I was wrong, even if they didn’t know what I was saying. It was no use showing them simple financial charts which appeared to contradict what they had been told for years. Yet these points could be grasped very quickly by others outside the organisation. The only defence which my opponents could offer, when their conspiracy of silence failed, was to react with contrived indignation, as if it were all an anticommittee plot by one individual. Yet I had only been putting together their own statements.

If we now replace our microscope with a telescope, we see the equivalent on the world stage. On the world stage, it was becoming increasingly clear that it was difficult to criticise Israeli policy without being vulnerable to allegations of antisemitism or of being a Nazi sympathiser. I first became aware of a possible Mossad connection with the London bombings of July 7, 2005, after I had written about the launch of the book ‘Terror on the Tube’ in my newsletter of September 2009, when emails were going around with suggestions of Nazi sympathies. Yet I had not touched upon issues concerning the Nazis, or indeed anything that would have made me vulnerable to such allegations.

I had so far assumed that the ludicrous interventions in the launch of Nick Kollerstrom’s book would have been coming from our own secret services, which may have had something to hide. Yet where was this coming from? Sure enough, I then realised that the CCTV surveillance in the London Underground was being run by an Israeli company.

Chapter Three of Terror on the Tube quotes an announcement on this from Israel National News of September 21, 2004:

"Verint Systems, a subsidiary of Israel's Comverse Technology announced that Metronet Rail has selected Verint's networked video solution to enhance security of the London Underground, according to an Israel21c report
Verint president and CEO Dan Bodner told Israel21c: 'We have significant experience working with transportation authorities and are committed to delivering innovative networked video security solutions for the transportation industry.'".

So what happened to the masses of CCTV footage that should have been available, which would have given a much more complete picture of what was going on? Were all those cameras dummies, or was footage being withheld from the public? Was that footage being withheld by the London Metropolitan Police, or was it being withheld from them?

According to the announcement, “The system will enable security personnel to monitor passenger platforms and certain remote portions of the track”. So would some people in or from the Middle East have had instant access to pictures of the London Underground at the time of the terrorist attacks? What we find, Nick writes, “is a company with 24 hour access to the entire tube network run by a senior ex-Israeli army officer, whose former employers are engaged in a largely covert war against Arabs for land”. The company, and its controlling company, according to Appendix 2 of the book, are run by ex Shin Beth and Mossad officers. How could a government minister have been so convinced that she knew better than the police at a meeting of COBRA, the government's emergency committee, in which she was insisting that there were eight incidents when the police representative was insisting that there were four?

This conversation was described in Andy Hayman’s book ‘The Terrorist Hunters’, which the UK government banned for a while after its publication.

Was the government minister making this up, or was she repeating what she had been told to say? Where did that information come from ultimately? If the minister’s information was correct, then the most obvious source of that would have been the Israeli company operating the CCTV cameras. That leads us again to the question of who is running the country. Constantly we are led in the direction of the big financial institutions. We need to ask where the political influence in those institutions lies. The picture that seems to be emerging is not one of unified central control, but of various competing factions, which all have a common interest in keeping the public in ignorance.

Whatever horrors one faction brings about, they can be confident that competing factions will retain a conspiracy of silence, because it is in their best interests to do so. If we pick up the microscope again, we see various individual police officers going beyond the law in their treatment of members of the public, but what do other police officers do about it? If they witness such an event yet remain silent, then surely they are guilty of complicity.

In false flag terrorism, what incentive is there for one group to speak out against another if they may be guilty of something similar themselves. Inevitably, the more ruthless groups will be outdoing each other, and so a bubble will be created. Eventually, the whole thing will get out of hand, and various groups will realise that they have to speak out. Then the bubble bursts.

I think we have just witnessed the bursting of such a bubble. I saw a snippet of news on the television, in which Bill Clinton asked, “Who’s the superpower here?”. Apparently that happened when he met Binjamin Netanyahu for the first time, in 2006.

Did that mean that Israel was punching above its weight even then, or did it mean that the Israeli lobby have more influence in Washington than we had imagined? The Israeli lobbying organisation AIPAC held its largest ever conference in Washington in March, and amongst its main speakers were Hillary Clinton, Binjamin Netanyahu and Tony Blair. Shortly beforehand, there had been a diplomatic incident when, during a visit to Israel by Vice President Joe Biden, the Israeli government announced more construction work on occupied land in Jerusalem.

Aljazeera put out a programme analysing the strength of the Israeli lobby in the US under the title ‘Inside Story - US-Israel: Unsettled dispute’:

On November 16, 2009, Channel 4 put out a programme in its Dispatches series, under the title ‘Inside Britain's Israel Lobby’, in which they showed how the Israeli lobby appear to be using financial pressure to censure political opinion in the UK.

All political parties are affected, they said, but they focused on the Labour Party and the Conservative Party.

Given this degree of influence, it is interesting that UK Foreign Secretary William Hague was so outspoken in speaking out against the attack when funding had previously been cut off when he had spoken out against Israeli action in Gaza, according to the Dispatches programme.

The programme shows how branding people as ‘antisemitic’ is a deliberate policy by the pro-Israel lobby to silence critics. Over the past few months there have been increasing concerns over a possible Mossad connection with 9/11.

Dr Alan Sabrosky is a former director of studies of the Strategic Studies Institute at US War College, and was described in the Kevin Barrat Show on No Lies Radio as “the most controversial voice in the 9/11 truth movement”, in an introduction to an interview on March 30, in which he claims that Mossad was behind 9/11.

There has been much speculation, but we need hard facts. It would be difficult to see how Bulding 7, which housed a major centre of the CIA, could have been prepared for controlled demolition without the knowledge of the CIA. That, of course, could mean some faction in the CIA, but at a high level. If Mossad and the CIA were complicit, then we would need detailed evidence to know which of them was in the lead role. Many questions remain to be answered concerning the attacks of 9/11. One thing we do know, however, is that for 25 seconds Building 7 was in free fall, within a margin of error of 1%.

Physics teacher David Chandler recently produced a new analysis of the collapse of the tower, based on new information released from the NIST final report on Building 7.

“This is high school physics we’re talking about”, he says, “If they can’t get the high school physics right, what confidence can we have in their multicoloured computer-generated whizz-bang simulations that tell us of the exact sequence of girder failures, without any physical evidence for any of it. I’m a high school physics teacher. I teach my students better lab practice than NIST demonstrates here”. He calls the NIST report a “cover-up by a government agency”. How could those who set up this operation possibly hope to get away with it, when they knew there would likely to be video footage and scientific analysis?

Again, it seems to me to be a symptom of overconfidence in one’s own strength, in this case, the strength of the mass media brainwashing of the population. The video is pretty conclusive proof of controlled demolition, yet they have got away with it for nearly nine years. It’s an analogous situation to my financial charts. The bubble has yet to burst. False flag terrorism is so widely known about amongst people with inquisitive minds who look for alternative sources of information than the mainstream media, that that has to be another bubble waiting to burst.

The Israeli assault on the Free Gaza Flotilla will remind many of the sinking of the USS Liberty in 1967, which is now well-documented yet unknown to the general readership of the mainstream media.

In this incident, the Israeli forces were in collusion with the US in attacking the US surveillance ship Liberty during the 1967 war, in an operation apparently designed to give a pretext to attack Egypt. The attack was witnessed by a Soviet ship, and so the operation was called off at the last moment. The recent assault on the Free Gaza Flotilla may bring the matter of the USS Liberty to the public’s attention, now that the UK government has stated that there should be an inquiry into the recent event.

Meanwhile, another dangerous situation is building up between North and South Korea, regarding the alleged sinking by North Korea of the South Korean warship Cheonan. This was investigated by ‘The Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group’ of South Korea, with additional experts from the US, Australia, the UK and Sweden. In their final report, they conclude:

“Based on all such relevant facts and classified analysis, we have reached the clear conclusion that ROKS ‘Cheonan’ was sunk as the result of an external underwater explosion caused by a torpedo made in North Korea. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine. There is no other plausible explanation”.

Yet the only evidence that they present of the torpedo being fired by a North Korean submarine is that the torpedo was marked with “No. 1” written in Hangul. That is the script of the Korean language, used both in North Korea and South Korea. I would say that evidence points overwhelmingly to faked stupidity. It seems the Chinese are not impressed either.

Premier Wen Jiabao stated that China will take its position on the basis of truth and facts, and that it will seek information from various sources and seriously study it before making clear its stand in "a fair and objective manner”.

He also stated that China understands the current difficult situation President Lee Myung-bak and the South Korean government are facing. The publishing of the Cheonan report comes at a very convenient moment for the pro-American government of South Korea, just ahead of their general election on June 3.

The New York Times reports:

“Soon after taking office two years ago, Mr. Lee appeared at risk of losing public support, as he faced mass demonstrations on the streets of Seoul against the import of United States beef. Now, political experts are talking about the ‘Cheonan effect’, as polls show that more than half of expected voters approve of the president and his tougher line toward the North.”

Brian Haw has been on a protest vigil since June 2, 2001. Initially he was campaigning against the economic sanctions on Iraq and the bombing of the country by the US and UK. After 11 September 2001, he widened his focus, directing his messages of peace against the 'war on terror', the terror that the US and UK have inflicted on Afghanistan and Iraq.

During this time, he has successfully fought legal battles against actions to get him removed from his camp on the green opposite Parliament. The police at times have been brutal, and gone beyond the law. Parliament even introduced a law which is generally believed to have been aimed at removing him, now known as Haw’s Law, but when challenged, the court ruled that the law could not be applied retrospectively. The result was that Brian Haw became the only person in the world with the legal right to protest outside the UK Parliament without police permission.

On May 1 this year, a group of about fifty peace demonstrators set up camp on the same piece of land, calling themselves the Democracy Village. Unlike Brian Haw, some of them dug the turf and started growing vegetables there, and unlike Brian Haw, they were not targeted by the police. There was talk of possible agents, or provocateurs amongst them, who would turn the whole protest into a circus and enjoy police immunity. Brian Haw wisely dissociated himself from them, apparently anticipating what was about to happen. On the evening of May 25, the day of the Queen’s speech and the opening of Parliament, the London Evening Standard reported on its front page: “The Queen was greeted by extraordinary scenes as she arrived at Westminster for the state opening of Parliament today. Dozens of campaigners encamped outside the Commons jeered and waved banners as her coach drove past – but the only people to be arrested were veteran anti-war protester Brian Haw and his friend Barbara Tucker. Sixty-year-old Mr Haw, who has been living in a tent opposite Parliament for nine years, was dragged off for obstructing police sniffer dogs”. Inside, there was a two-page spread under the heading “Why did Boris allow shanty town to stay there so long?”, Boris being the London mayor Boris Johnson, whose spokesman stated: “The Mayor respects the right to demonstrate. However, the scale and impact of the protest is now doing considerable damage to Parliament Square and preventing its peaceful use by other Londoners, including those who may wish to have an authorised protest”.

Clearly the whole operation had to be a set-up, with the police targeting Brian Haw, and the politicians using the Democracy Village as an excuse. The behaviour of the authorities in this issue seems to have been extraordinary. How can we account for this behaviour? It seems to me to be a symptom of overconfidence in one’s own strength. Instead of quietly removing Brian Haw whilst the nation’s attention was on the Queen’s speech, they succeeded in making the Queen’s speech look ridiculous, and in focusing attention on Brian Haw. Brain had not been demonstrating against the monarchy, but nothing could have been more damaging to the monarchy than what happened. The Independent covered the story on its front page with two photos, one headed ‘Inside’ and the other headed ‘Outside’. It contrasted the promises of reintroducing some of the civil liberties taken away by the Blair regime with the suppression of what was, after all, a legal vigil outside Parliament. Yet cabinet minister Vince Cable in the new coalition has in the past given his support to Brian Haw.

In a gesture of support, together with Susan Kramer MP, he offered a new poster to Brian Haw in 2006, to replace one of those taken by the police, and is pictured on Brian’s website. The Independent contrasted what was in the Queen’s Speech on civil liberties with what was actually happening in Parliament Square.

The contrast of the ostentatious splendour of the throne and the crown with the T-shirt of a lone protester being dragged from his tent outside put the monarchy itself into disrepute. Buckingham Palace’s PR people will need to do something to repair the damage. If Brain is allowed to return, the Establishment will lose face. If he is imprisoned or dies, he will become a martyr. If he is simply evicted, he will become a celebrity.

In 2007 the Tate Modern staged an exhibition under the title ‘State Britain’, which was a recreation of Brian’s display just before it was removed by police in May 2006.

I think the best way out of the current predicament would be for the Tate Modern to exhibit a monument in memory of Brian Haw’s vigil. Respectable members of the Establishment are calling his camp an ‘eyesore’ and so the monument should be an eyesore, too. It should be a piece of modern sculpture depicting the ugliness of war. When eventually Brian Haw’s vigil does come to an end, that monument should be placed on the very same spot as his vigil. It should be a permanent monument, and it should be named ‘The Westminster Haw Memorial’.

No comments:

Post a Comment