Saturday 23rd of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the adelson family....

 Miriam Adelson (née Farbstein; born 10 October 1945) is an Israeli-American physician, political donor, and philanthropist. She was married to Sheldon Adelson from 1991 until his death in 2021.

 

After his death, she became the owner of the Las Vegas Sands and as of May 2024, is estimated to be the fifth richest woman in America with a net worth of $34.2 billion.[2]

Adelson is the richest Israeli in the world and the 42nd richest person in the world according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, while Forbes places her as the 44th.[3][4][5]

She is the current publisher of the newspaper Israel Hayom and, with her family, owns the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Adelson is the majority owner of the Dallas Mavericks with her son-in-law Patrick Dumont. 

Adelson is a political megadonor to the Republican Party and one the largest supporters of Donald Trump, who awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018.[6] Adelson has been a major donor to Trump's presidential campaigns as well his 2017 presidential inauguration and defense fund against the Mueller investigation into Russian interference.

.....

Adelson is a prolific donor in American politics, mostly to causes affiliated with the Republican Party. She was the top female donor in the 2012 United States elections, contributing as much as the next 15 female donors combined. According to Politico, she reportedly donated $46 million in the 2012 elections.[7]

Since buying a majority stake in the Dallas Mavericks, Adelson has been advocating for greater legalization of gambling in Texas, in order to build a casino in the state.[22]

Support for Israel

Adelson has stated the "top issue in the Jewish community is the survival of the Jewish people." Rabbi Shmuley Boteach described her as "arguably the proudest Jew I have met."[7] A strong supporter of Israel, she has said that her heart is in that country and that she got "stuck" in America after meeting her husband.[12]She is credited with influencing his political views on Israel, who was "inspired by [her] Zionism, and from there began a public and philanthropic campaign unique in our generation".[23] Adelson is a financial supporter of the Zionist Organization of America, the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum and memorial in Jerusalem, and various U.S. groups that fundraise for the Israeli military.[24]

In response to the October 7th, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Adelson published an Op-Ed in Forbes Israel, entitled "Dead to Us". Referring to wave of pro-Palestinian protests occurring across various western cities and countries, Adelson stated that "Those ghastly gatherings of radical Muslim and Black Lives Matter activists, ultra-progressives and career agitators were nothing short of street parties. These people are not our critics. They are our enemies, the ideological enablers in the West of those who would go to any length to eradicate us from the Middle East. And, as such, they should be dead to us".[25]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Adelson

 

 

QUEEN OF DEATH, MIRIAM ADELSON’S ‘CONGRESS’ – BLANK CHECKS FOR WARS ON BEHALF OF THE KHAZARIAN JEWISH MOB

 

As the 60th anniversary of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution approaches, it’s time to reflect on how Congress solidified its long-standing deference to the presidency on foreign policy and how the people can make their voices heard.

 

CHRISTIAN APPY

Aug 01, 2024.  Common Dreams

 

With the U.S.- backed carnage in Gaza continuing and the threat of growing violence looming throughout the region (in Lebanon, Iran, and who knows where else), we need to think more deeply than ever about how the American people have historically been excluded from foreign policy decision-making. An upcoming anniversary should remind us of what sent us down this undemocratic path.

Sixty years ago, on August 7, 1964, U.S. Congress handed President Lyndon B. Johnson the power to wage a major war in Vietnam, solidifying its long-standing deference to the presidency on foreign policy. Not once since World War II has Congress exercised its constitutional responsibility to vote on declarations to decide if, when, and where the United States goes to war.

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 flew through Congress, in part because most members trusted the president’s assurance that he sought “no wider war.” Their trust was misplaced. The Johnson administration kept secret and lied about its plans for future military escalation in Vietnam. It also lied about the incident used to persuade Congress to give LBJ a blank check to use military force however he wanted: the false claim that American ships had been the targets of unprovoked and unequivocal attacks by North Vietnamese patrol boats.

We have long had more than enough evidence to demand fundamental changes in U.S. foreign policy. We can’t wait for Congress to represent us faithfully.

In fact, the United States had been fighting a secret war against North Vietnam since 1961. The U.S. destroyers that LBJ said were innocently sailing on the “high seas” were there to support South Vietnamese attacks (organized by the U.S. military and CIA) on North Vietnamese coastal villages. On August 2, 1964, these ongoing acts of war finally provoked a few Vietnamese patrol boats to chase after a U.S. destroyer which, firing first, easily disabled the small vessels. The Vietnamese managed to fire a few torpedoes but missed. There were no American casualties. Not exactly Pearl Harbor.

What’s more, the White House also claimed it had “unequivocal” evidence that North Vietnamese patrol boats attacked again on August 4. In fact, the U.S. commander on the scene sent a “flash message” urging civilian authorities to delay any decision—because what first seemed like an attack may have been a false alarm caused by “freak weather effects on radar and overeager sonarmen.” Within days it was all but certain that no second attack had occurred. As President Johnson said to an aide, “Hell, those dumb, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish!”

Nonetheless, Johnson went on television near midnight on August 4 to announce that it was his “duty” to launch a “retaliatory” airstrike. As he spoke, 64 U.S. warplanes were on their way to bomb North Vietnam. The next day LBJ asked Congress for a resolution giving him the authority “to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States.” We now know that the heart of this resolution had been drafted months earlier. The administration had just been waiting for a pretext to ram it through Congress.

We also know the lies didn’t stop there. That fall, as Johnson campaigned for the presidency, he sounded like a peace candidate, promising that he would not send “our boys to do the fighting for Asian boys.” Running against pro-war Republican Barry Goldwater, LBJ won in a landslide. Americans voted for peace and ended up with a war that killed more than 3 million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans.

Virtually every top U.S. foreign policy official knew the Johnson administration was lying about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, including 33-year-old Daniel Ellsberg. By chance, Ellsberg’s first full day on the job, as one of Robert McNamara’s Pentagon “whiz kids,” was August 4, 1964. Ellsberg was then a Cold War hawk who supported the U.S. mission in Vietnam. Like all his colleagues, he raised no internal objections to Johnson’s airstrikes or the administration’s effort to sell the Tonkin Gulf Resolution through deceit. And no insider gave a second’s thought to revealing those lies to Congress, the media, or the public.

After a year in the Pentagon, nearly two years in Vietnam, and two more years meeting young anti-war activists and intensely studying the 7,000-page top-secret history of decision-making in Vietnam that became known as the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg underwent a dramatic political and moral conversion. By 1967, he believed the war an unwinnable stalemate from which the U.S. should find a face-saving exit. By 1969, he regarded it as fundamentally immoral and unjust, and thought the U.S. should withdraw unilaterally and immediately.

At that point, Ellsberg decided to photocopy the Pentagon Papers and make them public, hoping that their sordid record of government lying would further ignite anti-war activism. He did so with the knowledge that it might bring him a life sentence in prison. First Ellsberg tried to persuade anti-war senators to put the Pentagon Papers into the public record. When that effort failed, he took the papers to TheNew York Times and 18 other newspapers. Each of them published substantial portions in June 1971.

Later that year, Ellsberg spoke with former Oregon Senator Wayne Morse, one of only two members of Congress who voted against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. They talked about the documents in the Pentagon Papers that contained detailed evidence of the Johnson administration’s lies about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Morse said to Ellsberg, “If you’d given me those documents, at the time, in 1964, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution would never have gotten out of committee. And if they had brought it to the floor, it would have lost.”

You can’t replay history, so we can’t test Morse’s claim, but Ellsberg has many times said that the greatest regret of his life was not exposing the government’s lies about Vietnam much earlier. There were many reasons why he didn’t, and why so few officials ever expose national security wrongdoing. The biggest reason, Ellsberg came to realize, was the intense culture of power, loyalty, and careerism that characterizes foreign policy circles. Almost no one in those positions, even those who have serious objections to ongoing policies, is willing to risk their insider status and their access to power and privileged information. Most fully internalize the arrogant assumption that the foreign policy elite understands far better than Congress or the people how the world works and how the U.S. should exercise its power.

And Congress, for its part, continues to enable an ever more imperial presidency that decides when and where the U.S. goes to war. It almost never uses the power of the purse to reduce U.S. militarism or to cut funding for unpopular wars. The nearly trillion-dollar Pentagon budget is rubber-stamped every year. There is no guarantee that a more engaged Congress would give us a less militarized and interventionist foreign policy. But it would make that policy more accountable to a public which historically has been substantially more anti-war than its representatives. As in the Vietnam era, a majority of Americans opposed the 21st century wars in Iraq and Afghanistan many years before they ended. And since at least March 2024 a majority of Americans have opposed the Israeli government’s war on Gaza, yet Congress continues to bankroll U.S. support for it.

We have seen, in the last 10 months, an unprecedented outpouring of American protest in support of Palestinian rights. For good reason. Nearly 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza, most of them civilians, and many of them children, have been killed by the Israeli military’s indiscriminate and disproportionate response to the Hamas killing of some 1,100 Israelis on October 7, 2023. Around 1.7% of the Gazan population (2.3 million) have been killed and at least 90% displaced from their homes (many have had to flee multiple times). A recent study by the medical journal The Lancet, estimates that the death toll in Gaza could reach 186,000 even if there is a cease-fire today.

For most Americans, this level of suffering is unimaginable. Yet we must try to imagine it. If we were Gaza, at least 5.7 million of us would be dead, the vast majority women, children, and other civilians. Many millions more would be among the uncounted dead and dying—buried, lost, sick, starving. More than 300 million of us would be forced from our homes, on the road seeking shelter, food, and water under ongoing military attacks and perils beyond description.

That is the reality in Gaza.

In the end, only a mass democratic movement has the potential to dramatically change U.S. foreign policy. The first challenge is to overthrow the baseless claim that the United States is the greatest force for good in the world, the “indispensable nation” that stands for the rule of law, freedom, and democracy. Our record does not warrant such a delusion. Only when that ideology and naïve faith is broadly undermined can we hope to chip away at the long-standing infrastructure of U.S. militarism—the over 750 military bases on foreign soil, the annual military exercises in two-thirds of the world’s nations, and the “defense” budget that equals the next nine most militarized nations combined.

Ellsberg and Morse were right. The people must know the truth. But we have long had more than enough evidence to demand fundamental changes in U.S. foreign policy. We can’t wait for Congress to represent us faithfully. The people’s voice must be heard.

 

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2024/08/01/queen-of-death-miriam-adelsons-congress-blank-checks-for-wars-on-behalf-of-the-khazarian-jewish-mob/

 

 

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

israhell's bad....

Israel and the United States have escalated significantly against the Iran-led Axis of Resistance, bringing the Middle East to the brink of an all-out war.

The escalation began on July 20, when Israel launched its first ever attack against Yemen. A series of strikes hit the Red Sea port of al-Hodieda, which is held by the Houthis (Ansar Allah), destroying fuel storage facilities and other infrastructure. The attack claimed the lives of six people and left more than 87 others wounded.

The attack was a response to a drone strike that hit the Israeli city of Tel Aviv a day earlier, killing a man and wounding eight others. The strike was claimed by the Houthis, who have been launching operations against Israel and ships linked to the country in response to the bloody war on the Palestinian enclave of the Gaza Strip.

On July 30, Israel escalated further, this time against Hezbollah in Lebanon. An Israeli strike hit Dahieh, a suburb south of the capital Beirut and a stronghold of the group. The target of the strike was Fouad Shukr, also known as Hajj Mohsen, a senior military commander of the group and a top advisor to its leader Hassan Nasrallah.

Three civilians were killed, a woman and two children, and 74 other people were wounded in the Israeli strike, which sparked calls for revenge.

The deadly strike was Israel’s response to a blast that killed 12 civilians in the Druze town of Majdal Shams in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights on July 28. The IDF alleged that a rocket fired by Hezbollah was behind the blast. However, the group denied targeting the Syrian town.

Also on July 30, the U.S. carried out a strike on the Iraqi province of Babil, killing four drone specialists of Kata’ib Hezbollah and wounding several other fighters. The group is a key faction of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, who has been also launching attacks against Israel in support of Gaza.

The Israeli escalation didn’t stop there. On July 31, the political leader of the Hamas Movement, which rules Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in Iran’s capital. The group held Israel responsible.

Haniyeh and one of his bodyguards were killed after the building where they were staying was struck, Hamas said in a statement, noting that Haniyeh was in Tehran to attend the inauguration ceremony of Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian.

The recent moves by Israel and the U.S. indicate that they are both attempting to provoke a full-on regional war. The targeted factions of the Axis of Resistance have already vowed that there will be a response.

 

https://southfront.press/israel-sows-seeds-of-war/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

free palestine....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM3kZSzkO7Y

The war to end Western hegemony has begun

 

As a potentially decisive war in West Asia looms, Dimitri Lascaris spoke with Lebanon-based, geopolitical analyst Laith Marouf about the causes and consequences of the recent assassinations of resistance leaders in the region.

Marouf argues that this will be a decisive war over control of West Asia's land and resources, that the war is spreading to the streets of Western cities, and that even the Olympic Games have become a theatre of conflict between the Western and non-Western worlds.

During their discussion, Lascaris referred to a recent drone surveillance video published by the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon. The complete video, with English subtitles, can be found here: https://x.com/TVFreePalestine/status/....

Lascaris also referred to a recent emergency session of the UN Security Council.

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

the lobby....

 

The awesome power of the Israel lobby    By John J. Mearsheimer

 

There is abundant evidence that Israel is pursuing policies that are directly at odds with the Biden administration’s goals in the Middle East.

First, the Biden administration desperately wants a ceasefire in Gaza. The Netanyahu government, however, is committed to making sure the negotiations for a ceasefire fail, which they have so far.

Second, the Biden administration wants Israel to come up with a plan for administering Gaza once the shooting stops. The Netanyahu government, however, refuses to do so.

Third, the Biden administration wants to move toward a two-state solution to put an end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The Netanyahu government, however, explicitly rejects that idea and offers no alternative solution to the conflict.

Fourth, the Biden administration wants to avoid a war with Iran. The Netanyahu government, however, has twice tried to drag the United States into war with Iran. The first instance was on 1 April 2024, when the IDF attacked the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The second instance was on 31 July 2024, when Israel assassinated Ismail Haniyeh, who was in Tehran on an official visit.

Fifth, the Biden administration seeks to avoid a widening conflict between Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel, fearing the situation could escalate into a regional war and the United States might be dragged into the fight. The Netanyahu government, however, wants to provoke a war with Hezbollah.

Sixth, the Biden administration has a deep-seated interest in a stable Middle East. The Netanyahu government, however, seems to be “willing to set the region ablaze,” as one Israeli columnist recently observed.

Given these profound policy differences, given that the United States is profoundly more powerful than Israel, and given that Israel is profoundly dependent on the United States for diplomatic, economic, and military support, one would expect the Biden administration to use this enormous leverage to get Israel to change its behavior so that it is more in line with the American national interest.

But that has not happened.

The Biden administration has instead supported Israel at every turn, while at the same time haplessly protesting what Israel is doing or not doing.

To make matters worse, neither Congress, nor Republican leaders, nor the mainstream media, has pushed the Biden administration to pressure Israel to change its behavior in any meaningful way.

This disturbing situation raises the obvious question: why?

The answer: the awesome power of the Israel lobby.

 

First published in John Mearsheimer’s substack, August 7, 2024.

 

https://johnmenadue.com/the-awesome-power-of-the-israel-lobby/

the lobby....

 

The awesome power of the Israel lobby    By John J. Mearsheimer

 

There is abundant evidence that Israel is pursuing policies that are directly at odds with the Biden administration’s goals in the Middle East.

First, the Biden administration desperately wants a ceasefire in Gaza. The Netanyahu government, however, is committed to making sure the negotiations for a ceasefire fail, which they have so far.

Second, the Biden administration wants Israel to come up with a plan for administering Gaza once the shooting stops. The Netanyahu government, however, refuses to do so.

Third, the Biden administration wants to move toward a two-state solution to put an end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The Netanyahu government, however, explicitly rejects that idea and offers no alternative solution to the conflict.

Fourth, the Biden administration wants to avoid a war with Iran. The Netanyahu government, however, has twice tried to drag the United States into war with Iran. The first instance was on 1 April 2024, when the IDF attacked the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The second instance was on 31 July 2024, when Israel assassinated Ismail Haniyeh, who was in Tehran on an official visit.

Fifth, the Biden administration seeks to avoid a widening conflict between Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel, fearing the situation could escalate into a regional war and the United States might be dragged into the fight. The Netanyahu government, however, wants to provoke a war with Hezbollah.

Sixth, the Biden administration has a deep-seated interest in a stable Middle East. The Netanyahu government, however, seems to be “willing to set the region ablaze,” as one Israeli columnist recently observed.

Given these profound policy differences, given that the United States is profoundly more powerful than Israel, and given that Israel is profoundly dependent on the United States for diplomatic, economic, and military support, one would expect the Biden administration to use this enormous leverage to get Israel to change its behavior so that it is more in line with the American national interest.

But that has not happened.

The Biden administration has instead supported Israel at every turn, while at the same time haplessly protesting what Israel is doing or not doing.

To make matters worse, neither Congress, nor Republican leaders, nor the mainstream media, has pushed the Biden administration to pressure Israel to change its behavior in any meaningful way.

This disturbing situation raises the obvious question: why?

The answer: the awesome power of the Israel lobby.

 

First published in John Mearsheimer’s substack, August 7, 2024.

 

https://johnmenadue.com/the-awesome-power-of-the-israel-lobby/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

zionist rupert.....

 

ALAN HART: IS RUPERT MURDOCH IGNORANT OR AN AGENT OF ZIONIST DECEPTION?

 

Hart is no longer with us but this 2010 piece is more than a ‘golden oldie’ (Truth Bomb)

  • October 30, 2010

In a recent speech at an ADL (Anti-Defamation League) dinner, Rupert Murdoch, arguably the most influential mainstream media chief on Planet Earth, made some extraordinary statements which must be challenged. But first it’s necessary for us all to be clear about what ADL’s role is.

Its proclaimed objective is to “fight anti-Semitism”. In reality its main purpose under the leadership of Abe Foxman is to smear, harass, silence and preferably destroy those of all faiths and none who are critical of Zionism in action – critical of Israel’s policies in general and its contempt for international law in particular; and critical of the awesome power of the Zionist lobby, in America especially.

In his speech Murdoch said his own perspective on the evil of anti-Semitism was “simple”. He put it this way (my emphasis added):

“We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews. For the first decades after Israel’s founding, this war was conventional in nature. The goal was straightforward – to use military force to overrun Israel.”

That was Murdoch’s carefully understated way of endorsing Zionism’s assertion that for the first decades of its life Israel lived in danger of annihilation, the “driving into the sea” of its Jews. As I document in detail through the three volumes of the American edition of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Israel’s existence was never, ever, in danger from any combination of Arab force. Zionism’s assertion to the contrary was the cover that allowed Israel to get away where it mattered most (in America and Western Europe) with presenting its aggression as self-defense and itself as the victim when, actually, it was and is the oppressor.

The main event during the period in which Murdoch asserted that the Arabs were trying to “overrun” Israel was the 1967 war. Zionism’s story of it, which the mainstream media still peddles to this day, is that Israel went to war either because the Arabs attacked first or were intending to attack. Both, the either and the or, are Zionist propaganda nonsense. It was a war of Israeli aggression.

I don’t expect Murdoch to pay any attention to what the Gentile me has to say on the subject, but if he is not an agent of Zionist deception (i.e. if he is merely ignorant), he ought to consider what various Israeli leaders have said. I quote them in America Takes Sides, War With Nasser Act II and the Creation of Greater Israel, Chapter 1 of Volume Three the American edition of my book, which is sub-titled Conflict Without End?

I preface the quotes of Israeli leaders with this observation.

“If the statement that the Arabs were not intending to attack Israel and that the existence of the Jewish state was not in danger was only that of a goy, it could be dismissed by Zionists as anti-Semitic conjecture. In fact the truth the statement represents was admitted by some of the key Israeli players – after the war, of course. Before we look at what actually happened in 1967 and why, here is a short summary of some pertinent, post-war Israeli confessions.”

In an interview published in Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin said this: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar contained the following statement by Mordecai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government. “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”

On 4 April 1972, General Haim Bar-Lev, Rabin’s predecessor as chief of staff, was quoted in Ma’ariv as follows: “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Days war, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”

In the same Israeli newspaper on the same day, General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations during the war and a nephew of Chaim Weizman, was quoted as saying: “There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”

In the spring of 1972, General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, addressed a political literary club in Tel Aviv. He said: “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.” In a radio debate Peled said: “Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel.” He added that “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”

In the same program Chaim Herzog (former DMI, future Israeli Ambassador to the UN and President of his state) said: “There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon – as the memoirs of President Johnson proved – believed in this danger.”

On 3 June 1972 Peled was even more explicit in an article of his own for Le Monde. He wrote: “All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defense’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”

The preference of some generals for truth-telling after the event provoked something of a debate in Israel, but it was short-lived. If some Israeli journalists had had their way, the generals would have kept their mouths shut. Weizman was one of those approached with the suggestion that he and others who wanted to speak out should “not exercise their inalienable right to free speech lest they prejudice world opinion and the Jewish diaspora against Israel.”

It is not surprising that debate in Israel was shut down before it led to some serious soul-searching about the nature of the state and whether it should continue to live by the lie as well as the sword; but it is more than remarkable, I think, that the mainstream Western media continues to prefer the convenience of the Zionist myth to the reality of what happened in 1967 and why. When reporters and commentators have need today to make reference to the Six Days War, they still tell it like the Zionists said it was in 1967 rather than how it really was. Obviously there are still limits to how far the mainstream media is prepared to go in challenging the Zionist account of history, but it could also be that lazy journalism is a factor in the equation.

For those journalists, lazy or not, who might still have doubts about who started the Six Days War, here’s a quote from what Prime Minister Begin said in an unguarded, public moment in 1982. “In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

My own favourite Israeli quote is the one I use to draw the Prologue to Volume One of my book to a conclusion. In 1980 I had a number of conversations with the best and the brightest of Israel’s Directors of Military Intelligence, Major General (then retired) Shlomo Gazit. Over coffee one morning I said to him: “I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s all a myth. Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger.” He replied: “The trouble with us Israelis is that we’ve become the victims of our own propaganda.”

In his speech to the ADL dinner, Murdoch said that phase two of the “ongoing war against the Jews” (after the failure to “overrun” Israel by force) was “terrorism” He seems to have no idea of reality on this front either.

One of a number of summary truths about terrorism is this. In Palestine that became Israel, it was the Zionists who turned to terrorism first – to drive out the occupying British and then the indigenous Arabs.

Murdoch spoke of the terrorists targeting Israelis at home and broad – “from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada.” Fact: All but two of the Israeli athletes in Munich were killed by German security forces after Israeli Defense Minister Dayan insisted, against Prime Minister Golda Meir’s own best judgement, on a shoot-out to prevent a negotiated end to the hostage drama. Fact: The second intifada, which PLO Chairman Arafat was doing his best to prevent, was provoked by Ariel Sharon to improve his prospects of becoming prime minister by seeing off a challenge from Netanyahu.

A second summary truth about Palestinian terrorism is this. The Palestinians were not and are not “at war with the Jews”. Black September’s Munich operation, for example, was terrorism for a public relations purpose – to draw the attention of the world to the fact that the Palestinians existed, were occupied and oppressed and in need of some justice.

A summary truth about general Arab and wider Muslim terrorism is this. It is primarily a response of the weak and oppressed to Israel’s arrogance of power and insufferable self-righteousness; to the impotence, corruption and repression of Arab and other Muslim regimes which are correctly regarded by their masses as little more than puppets of America-and-Zionism; and to the deadly double-standard of Western foreign policy – in particular its unconditional support for Israel right or wrong. (In at least one respect the Arab and other Muslim masses have much more wisdom than Western leaders. They, Arab and Muslims masses, know that unconditional support for Israel right or wrong is not in anybody’s best interests, not even those of Israel’s Jews).

According to Murdoch “the war against the Jews” has now entered a new phase. “This,” he said, “is the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimizing it. The battleground is everywhere – the media… multinational organizations … NGOs. In this war, the aim is to make Israel a pariah.”

It is true that in the eyes of many if not most peoples of the world (and probably many of their governments behind closed doors) Israel is increasingly being seen as a pariah state. But that’s a consequence of Israel’s policies and actions, war crimes and all.

What Murdoch sees as the rise of anti-Semitism is, in fact, the rise of anti-Israelism. The danger for the Jews of the world is that it will be transformed into violent anti-Semitism at a foreseeable point in the future if the Zionist state is not called and held to account for its past crimes and is allowed by the major powers to go on committing new ones.

It is a fact that prior to the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, most Jews were opposed to Zionism’s colonial enterprise. One of their fears was that Zionism would one day provoke anti-Semitism if it was allowed by the big powers to have its way. As I never tire of writing and saying, this fear was given a fresh airing by Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving Director of Military Intelligence. In 1986 he published a remarkable book, Israel’s Fateful Hour. It contains this warning (my emphasis added):

Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.

Nearly a quarter of a century on I think it can and should be said that Israel’s “misconduct” has become the prime factor in the equation that could transform anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism.

If I had the opportunity to address Mr. Murdoch directly, I would say to him the following. If you really care about the Jews (I mean the Jews as people as opposed to their money), you would put your media empire at the service of the truth of history.

I would also tell him that when I joined ITN (Independent Television News) as a very young reporter many years ago, its great editor-in-chief, Geoffrey Cox, gave me the mission statement in one short sentence. “Our job is to help keep democracy alive.”

I would then say to Murdoch that my charge today is (generally speaking) that the mainstream media has betrayed democracy. And I would add, “You, sir, are the greatest betrayer, traitor, of them all.”

 

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2024/08/10/alan-hart-is-rupert-murdoch-ignorant-or-an-agent-of-zionist-deception/

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.