November / December 2012
They say that truth is the first casualty of war. It's not true. When war breaks out, truth has already died. Deception is the main ingredient in creating wars in the first place.
So when we are constantly told that the Israeli military are bombarding Gaza because of the rocket attacks that Hamas has been inflicting on Israel, we have to be cautious. Where is the evidence that Hamas fired those rockets? Could they have been fired by overzealous Palestinian militants in spite of Hamas? Or could they have been fired by Mossad itself, in a typical false-flag attack, giving a credible pretext for war? Or could they have been fired by Palestinian activists infiltrated by Mossad agent provocateurs? A quick Internet search on "Mossad 'false flag'" will give a host of alleged or suspected false flag operations by Mossad, so what is going on now in Gaza?
I found an analysis of fatalities due to rocket attacks said to be coming from Gaza against Israel, by Phan Nguyen, a Palestine Solidarity activist based in New York.This shows inconsistencies in the figures. The author concludes that the figures given by the Israeli Defence Force are consistently higher than those which could be established. There were also inconsistencies in the statistics on the numbers of rocket attacks, given in different graphics by the IDF, and in comparison with those given by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. In his conclusions, he writes: "After a full year of no Israelis being killed by rocket fire from Gaza, Israel had to invade Gaza, prompting the new killing of three Israeli civilians, which provides retroactive justification for the prompting itself".
What I do know, however, is that any criticism of the actions of the Israeli government is often countered with allegations of antisemitism. Strangely, this also applies to anyone seriously questioning the government's versions of 9/11 and 7/7. But now many Jews are speaking out against the bombing of Gaza by Israel. Miko Peled is an Israeli Army veteran, the son of an Israeli general, as well as ~the author of the book 'The General's Son'. In a videoed lecture on Brasscheck TV he says that the Israeli education system teaches racism, that beaurocracy makes life impossible for Palestinians, and that the Israeli Army is a terrorist organisation. He also talks about the beginning of the bombing of Gaza in 2008, when a hundred tons of bombs were dropped on Gaza starting at 11:25 am, when school children were changing shifts, and many would have been out on the streets at that time. He stated that the Zionist state had to be replaced by a democracy.
One thing that I learned from this lecture was that all land in Israel belongs to the state. Perhaps this has some relevance to Israel's plans to eradicate the entire Palestinian village of Susiya in the West Bank. The organisation Rabbis for Human Rights, which has about a hundred members, is petitioning against this plan, claiming that the land is privately owned and is registered in the Land Registry, and that the expulsion of Palestinian people from their homes is illegal.
Another Jewish voice to speak out is that of musician Rich Siegel, who has produced a CD 'The Way to Peace'. A quote of his is displayed in a blog by peace activist Ken O'Keefe, under the heading 'Words from an Honest, Intelligent & Compassionate Jew – Rich Siegel'. Rich Siegel begins: "It is so terribly and dramatically disturbing to have been raised Jewish and Zionist, and to see the death and destruction that my people are bringing to the world". He says that many are afraid to speak out for fear of being called "Anti-Semite". The rest of his paragraph is not so restrained. His own life story confirms my view that many Zionists are and were quite sincere, but that the movement was hijacked – as many social movements are - by sociopathic maniacs. It reminds me also of the story of a young Zionist activist in the nineteenth century by the name of L L Zamenhof, who, when he had figured out the full implications of what he was doing, distanced himself from the movement. Zamenhof tried to create a bridge of understanding through language; Rich Siegel is reaching out to people with music.
A heart-rendering song by Rich Siegel, called 'Gaza 2012: Help is on the way' is presented on the website of another Jewish activist, the jazz musician Gilad Atzmon, who himself served in the Israeli Defence Force, from which he concluded "I was part of a colonial state, the result of plundering and ethnic cleansing". He supports the Palestinian right of return, and the one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and is author of the book 'The Wandering Who? A study of Jewish identity politics'.
In his blog of 27 November 2012, he wonders why the British government is now prepared to back a UN proposal for a two-state solution. He suggests that a 'two-state solution' would 'liberate' Israel from the burdens of being an occupier.
As I write this, the UN finally recognises Palestine as a non-member observer state. This may not be the ideal solution, but it does give the Palestinians a voice in the international arena, and opens the way for them to be able to challenge some of the Israeli elite in the international courts. Will it stop the violence? Probably not, but it does enable a response to violence by diplomatic means rather than by rockets. The Palestinians do have cause to celebrate in the streets. But what are the implications for the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land? And will the Israelis have to rebuild the wall on their own land rather than that of Palestine? What will the Israeli reaction be now? They have already hit back by approving the construction of 3 000 new settler homes on Palestinian land. The Israeli ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, stated: "This resolution will not advance peace. This resolution will not change the situation on the ground. It will not change the fact that the Palestinian Authority has no control over Gaza, …"(). I think they will divide and conquer.
A letter to the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, from Jews for Justice for Palestinians, dated 20 November, was signed by 1600 British Jews. It began: "We write to express our astonishment at your statement of 15th November, when you said that Hamas bears principal responsibility for the current crisis", explaining that it is difficult to square that with the statistics from the UN Office for the Protection of Civilians, which show a pattern of mutual attacks during the year to the end of October 12, with 73 Palestinians being killed while no Israelis were killed. "Although Israel had been killing militants continually from early October, which often triggered retaliatory rocket attacks, from 4th November Israel began to kill civilians on land … It would seem that this was a pattern of mutual attacks, not of Hamas initiating the confrontation", the letter continued. However, the letter explains, most important is a revelation on the ceasefire negotiations: "On 12th November the militant factions confirmed their agreement to cease firing providing Israel stopped its military actions against them. The Palestinian in charge of the negotiations was none other than Ahmed Jabari, who had kept the militant factions in check for years and who had negotiated the release of Gilad Shalit with Gershon Baskin. Israel destroyed the nascent ceasefire by assassinating him, and then commenced its concentrated attacks. The Israeli government justified it by referring to his organizing of terrorist attacks 'over five years', thereby neatly ignoring the ceasefire negotiations. The only credible conclusion is that the Israeli government did not want a ceasefire". They are still collecting signatures on their website.
Jews for Justice for Palistinians have been campaigning with others for the non-renewal of a European Parliament security contract with G4S, on account of its role in inhumane treatment of Palestinian political prisoners. The success of that campaign was announced in April this year. Certainly I would not have been happy in accepting G4S 'protection' had I been in the European Parliament, if only because of the debacle of the London Olympic Games earlier this year. But I would still have opposed it had my only knowledge of G4S been my experience of them at Reading railway station one winter's night a couple of years ago. Having missed my last connecting train I got chatting with what I thought was a fellow passenger, who told me he, too, was waiting for an early-morning train. I told him about a meeting I'd just attended in London on 9/11. There followed a provocative incident and what I now think was a faked dispute between him and a cleaner, the result of which was that I found myself being frog-marched out of the station by two security guards who refused to show me their identity. Outside the station I found others who had been banished. Then the police arrived and refused to take my complaint, but told me to move off the station forecourt. A taxi driver who had seen the whole incident called me over. "It happens every night", he told me. Then the guy I had been talking to in the station reappeared and walked back in. "He's there every night", said the taxi driver, "He's an informer". It later transpired that the security company at Reading station is G4S. They must not be allowed to take over any role in the police service or the judicial service in the UK, and they should not be trusted with any public assignment.
There must be some British Jews who are asking the question I was asking after my first visit to Germany at the age of 13, when I found that, actually, Germans were normal people, even if they had just over thirteen years previously been led by a maniac. My question was: "Could it happen here?" Common sense told me it couldn't, because we're British, yet logic told me it could. The British support for the insurgents in Syria for doing what the Gazans were being accused of doing by the Israelis is a further example of imperial expansionism. It was that imperial expansionism that roused the imperial rivalry of Kaiser Bill, which led to two world wars. I never voted for Tony Blair or his party, but when he became Prime Minister in 1997 I was favourably impressed, even if I had been puzzled on how he had risen to power so easily after decades of internal party disputes. Then came Iraq. I was finding it difficult to believe that a British government could actually instigate a war on the basis of deception. By 2005 it was becoming very clear, that Tony Blair's New Labour group was a right-wing coterie which had surrepticiously taken over the Labour Party. At the same time I was investigating a small membership association, and finding the same sort of setup. Then in 2006 I came across scientific and technical articles which showed up the mega-lies of the US and the UK governments in relation to 9/11. My faith in the British Establishment was shattered. So I can understand the feelings of Miko Peled and Gilad Atzmon when they underwent something similar – though being in the Israeli military, their feelings may have been even more intense than mine were. There was a strong feeling of betrayal, as I realised that virtually everything I thought I knew about the British Establishment was a false reality set up by the propagandists. So it's not just the Jews; it's us, too. I've had many Jewish friends throughout my life, and long may that continue.
And what is Tony Blair doing as the Middle East peace envoy for 'The Quartet' (the UN, the US, the EU and Russia)? Not very much as far as I can see from the Quartet's website. He did meet with Israel's president, Shimon Peres, though, and stated: "I very much hope that over the coming days we can achieve cessation on a basis that is sustainable, on a basis that stops the threat of missiles coming from Gaza, targeted at Israeli civilians, and also then relieves the people of Gaza, who have also suffered, of course". As I have reported previously, Tony Blair is also making a lot of money through his contacts in the area.
Tony Blair's former Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, Lord Gilbert, wasn't doing much to help the cause of peace, either, when on 22 November, in a Lords debate on talking to the Chinese about multilateral nuclear disarmament, he said that he was in favour of the nuclear deterrent. He suggested that the neutron bomb could be used as "an enhanced radiation reduced blast warhead to create cordons sanitaire along various borders where people are causing trouble". He then suggested doing just that on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Lord Gilbert has interests in the oil, gas and mineral industries, and is a trustee of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, a privately run programme sponsored by three defence companies, which aims to "improve the quality of debate on military issues". I see that a Conservative MP, Douglas Carswell, was banned from this organisation, after criticising the propriety of defence companies sponsoring it when he saw British companies under-equipped on the front line. Understandably, though it was reported in Asia, little of this neutron bomb idea has been reported in the mainstream media in the UK, except for Russia Today and in a news website The News Tribe, published in Bradford in English and Urdu.
There was an obvious flaw in the logic of Lord Gilbert's defence of the nuclear deterrent; the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons works only because the devastation caused by a nuclear bomb would be so enormous that no-one would consider actually using it. As soon as you start talking about tactical nuclear weapons that deterrent effect vanishes. So do mini-nukes, or micro-nukes exist, apart from the neutron bomb? Here we are talking about low-yield nuclear weapons, as distinct to suit-case bombs. I had always thought that low-yield nuclear weapons were impossible, if they operated by fission, because of the critical mass required to start a nuclear explosion. However, now I learn of a law passed in Congress in 1994 which prohibited research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Never believe anything before it's been officially denied! Then in 2004 that law was repealed.
So could a low-yeald nuclear bomb have been used in demolishing the twin towers in 9/11? Professor Steven Jones is a leading expert in nuclear fusion, and he has repudiated the idea, stating that the levels of radioactive fall-out elements is not high enough. He also states in the same letter that the observed concrete pulverisation could have been brought about by chemical explosives. However, I know of no scientific study which would quantify this. The question of where the energy came from to pulverise much of the twin towers has, since 2006, been the source of a bitter dispute in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which was being run by Steven Jones, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer. Jim Fetzer published an open letter, before a split in the team claiming that Steven Jones was attempting to supress discussion on alternatives to his own thermite theory of controlled demolition, which would fully account for Building 7, but only partially account for the twin towers. Judy Wood was focusing attention on the pulverisation of the towers, but putting forward her own theory of 'directed energy', and claiming that no high temperatures were involved. Steven Jones regarded this as nonsense. But what did cause the pulverisation? Jim Fetzer is now turning his attention to mini-nukes, or micro-nukes, as I reported in my last newsletter.
I came across a very interesting series of videos, under the heading '9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera', produced during 2012 by a multitalented Ace Baker. In a series of eight videos, he presents the essentials of each issue in a very lucid and logical manner, sometimes with musical interludes of his own compositions, in order to illustrate the points. I have yet to view the first two videos, 'Broken News' and 'The Official Story vs. The Truth Movement', but the third video, 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth' gives us an interesting account of the issues I have just outlined. The fourth video, 'Phenomena', examines the three theories, and is drawn to the idea of mini-nukes. I have yet to view the fifth, 'Legally Challenged'. The sixth, 'What Planes?' makes a case out that, actually, no planes hit the twin towers, and the seventh, 'The Key', shows how the videos may have been faked. This leaves the overwhelming objection that too many people witnessed the planes. The final video, 'The Psy-Opera' shows how that could be accounted for by psychological techniques of deception. I found this most interesting, and would be interested in receiving any technical critiques.
Some witnesses said they saw no planes, but just explosions. I think we've been missing something big here. I used to have a temporary job at Gillette's factory in Isleworth, and as I would cycle under the flight path near Heathrow, I would hear aeroplanes screeching above me. I was incredulous that anyone could actually live there under such conditions. Aircraft are now quieter than they were in the 1970s, but even so, would not absolutely everyone in the vicinity be saying that they heard a terrific screeching noise just over their heads, and looked up, to see a massive aircraft plunge into the tower? Another point that makes me reconsider this is the denigration by labeling. Anyone even querying this was being mocked as a 'no-planer'. Perhaps I ought to take out the hyphen in that, too, as I did with 'antisemitism'.
I now need to watch the 'Legally Challenged' video. However, a recent development is the news that the President of Italy's Supreme Court, Ferdinando Imposimato, is to refer 9/11 crimes to the International Criminal Court. In 2007 the court's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, told the Sunday Telegraph that he would be willing to launch an inquiry and could envisage a scenario in which the Prime Minister and American President George W Bush could one day face charges at The Hague.
So what do we need to do in our daily lives to stop such things happening? The main thing is to be able to identify the style of those who are not trying to engage with the arguments, but have other techniques of persuasion. There is at the moment a big press story over an idea being put forward for the building of vast areas of farmland in the UK. The case for this was put on Newsnight by a government representative, Nick Boles, and I recognised his style; it was very thinktankish. I said, "I wonder if he's linked to Policy Exchange, or possibly Demos". When I checked him out, I found that he had founded Policy Exchange! Policy Exchange is David Cameron's favourite think tank, and was responsible for falsification of receipts presented to Newsnight when accusing UK mosques of purchasing terrorist literature. David Cameron's later statement that multiculturalism had failed was based on a further report by Policy Exchange, which I analysed, and I concluded that that, too, was a falsification. Now it appears that the recent elections for Police and Crime Commissioners was based on a Policy Exchange idea. The result was the lowest turnout in a nationwide election ever: 15.1%, including 2.8% spoilt papers. "Not good for democracy" wrote the BBC's political correspondent Nick Robinson. My only hope with regards to the new Police and Crime Commissioners is that it will open up a new avenue for pressing for investigations into police corruption. My police authority, the Thames Valley Conservative Police Force, is responsible for the David Kelly affair.
So an organisation that arguably should have been prosecuted for inciting religious or racial hatred is now advising the government on police policy. It's not just Israel; there is something sick in British society, too.
In the UK the report of the Leveson inquiry into phone hacking has just been published. What started out as a scandal on illegal activity by some journalists has now escalated into a recommendation for an 'independent' body to be set up to regulate the press. I should have thought that the obvious means of stopping illegal activity would be to apply the current laws rather than to create new ones. The obvious starting point in this case would be to review the defamation laws, which in the UK hugely favour the rich and powerful. Surely the answer must be to enable a bottom-up solution rather than a top-down solution. Just how would the government create an 'independent' regulatory body, when influence is consistently through the back door?
The press is now biting back very hard. If they win, this attempt at regulation could be a blessing in disguise, because they will be under pressure to demonstrate that an independent press is necessary in defending the people against tyranny. They will be on the lookout for issues which would otherwise not reach the public, because they are just too embarassing to government. Most people in the UK are wondering why on earth we went into Afghanistan in the first place. What better an issue could there be for the press to attack the political establishment with than the cause of that war, and so the basis for its continuation. It was enabled by Tony Blair's deception in the House of Commons, when he stated that he had proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible, and that he would deposit a document in the library containing that proof. The document he deposited essentially repeated what he had said in the Commons. Come on, Press, show your guts. You know that the Afghan War was brought about by deception; if you don't challenge government on that now, you will have failed to demonstrate that you are even worth saving.
"I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it's very difficult for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran": thus began a lecture to the think tank Washington Institute for Near East Studies by a Patrick Clawson. Yes, the warmongers are actually talking openly about what they're doing to initiate wars, in the sure knowledge that they won't be widely reported by the compliant mainstream media. Max Igan and Ken O'Keefe in Gaza show us this remarkable video clip, and tell us why we all need to pay attention.
Truth is not the first casualty of war; peace is the ultimate casualty of deception.