A top Russian investigator was shot dead on Thursday as he walked out of a restaurant in central Moscow in an apparent contract killing, the Kommersant daily reported.

Sep 28 03:41 AM US/Eastern

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070928074103.94mzl2i4&show_artic...

Nazim Kaziakhmedov was shot twice in the chest and once in the head by an attacker dressed in black and wearing a baseball cap, Kommersant said on Friday, citing officials.

Kaziakhmedov was working on a major fraud case involving investment group Finvest and was a member of the newly-formed investigative committee of the Russian prosecutor's office, Kommersant said.

Shoot-outs and contract killings are less frequent in Moscow than they were during the so-called "wild capitalism" years of the 1990s. But there has been a recent spate of incidents.

In the early hours of Wednesday, a member of the Armenian parliament was stabbed and shot by two men in the casino of the swanky Metropol Hotel in the city centre, suffering serious injuries.

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Why I admire Ernst Zundel

http://pcapostate.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-i-admire-ernst-zundel.html

How could anyone admire a man that publicly admits admiration for Adolf Hitler, that openly acknowledges himself to be a "Holocaust skeptic," and who never apologizes for his political incorrectness and nonconformist views? Who could possibly approve of a man who has put his personal freedom and indeed life on the line countless times in order to do nothing more than bring the world’s attention to what he believes to be an honest, albeit alternative view of history? Who could appreciate anyone bold enough to literally carry a cross on his own back, on behalf of all the world’s Germans for no other reason than to at least partially exonerate them of the collective guilt forced upon them after the Second World War?

Who could possibly admire a man that has sustained nothing but continuous persecution from society at large, who has been the victim of an ongoing smear campaigns launched more than three decades ago, who has suffered from every conceivable attack on his character, finances, family and even on his life? Who could think highly of man who despite all these things, and despite the fact that he is in prison at this very moment, not for a crime, no…no…. but because he questions certain aspects of the holocaust story?

Again, I ask, who could ever appreciate a man who for the last several decades has devoted himself to bringing forth the unpopular views of hard working academics, who were it not for Ernst Zundel, may be unknown today, and their work tossed into the sea of forgettable historiography, not based upon its undeniable merit, but based upon the fact that it didn’t sit well with mainstream and politically acceptable views?

How could anyone possibly hold a man like this in high regard, when there are so many other courageous individuals out there willing to stand up for their views, heroes that wouldn’t consider apologizing for their beliefs, like American politicians? For instance, when Jim Moran boldly exclaimed the obvious fact that Israel stood the most to gain from a U.S. war in Iraq, and in fact was influencing American foreign policy by way of a few well placed American Zionist officials. What about Trent Lott, who stated at a GOP function that the United States would have been, better off today had Strom Thurmond become president back in the 1950s. What about the daring exploits of Howard Dean, the Democratic parties best bet in 2004, a man unafraid to take a stand on an issue he can apologize for later. Yes, America is full of courageous people, people unafraid to throw their neighbor to the crocodile, in hopes of being the last eaten.
If I were interested in apologists and hesitant stands on ambiguous issues, I’d have plenty of heroes to admire, right here in the United States. Being an academic, I could seek out other academics to idolize and/or admire, there are so many courageous examples, although I can’t think of one right now. Some of you might shout, "Hey, what about Noam Chomsky?" I’d just say, been there done that, and found the esteemed professor "sympathetic" to Ernst Zundel’s plight, "outrageous," he even exclaimed, but in the end, he felt that it wouldn’t be in anyone’s best interests, if he were to speak out too vocally on Ernst’s behalf. Academic cowardice?

What about all the gutsy journalists working for the prestigious networks and newspapers? Certainly, these bold "defenders" of truth and justice would write an article on the illegal nature in which Ernst was deported from the United States to Canada, where he was subsequently thrown quietly into a solitary confinement cell in the Toronto West detention Center, in Toronto Canada. Or how in 2005 he was quietly deported from Canada to his native Germany where he now sits more than a year later after numerous trial delays initiated by his persecutors. These brave journalists would definitely be interested in an expose on how the new terrorism laws are already being abused to silence dissent.

The idea that Mr. Zundel is a threat to any nations national Security is ridiculous, the man hasn’t committed a violent crime in his entire life and has never been convicted of a crime that wasn’t later overturned in Canada’s highest court. The brave and courageous purveyor’s of "fair and balanced" news haven’t written an article yet, that even approached an equitable portrayal of Mr. Zundel. Ernst Zundel’s crime is that he is politically incorrect, a nonconformist and no matter what the powers that be throw at him, he just won’t apologize and prostrate himself in feigned humility like so many of our illustrious leaders. He is dangerous only to the status quo, and they know it, that in fact is why he currently languishes in prison, not because he actually represents a danger to society.

Ernst Zundel admires Adolf Hitler, so what? Ernst Zundel doesn’t believe any Jews were gassed at Auschwitz, so what? Ernst Zundel is and has been for some time; extremely critical of Zionism and its designs on the world, by God…it is too damned bad more people aren’t behind him on this! Zundel is unafraid to do what Jim Moran didn’t have the guts to do, and that is to stand up to and challenge the State of Israel, and the undisputed influence Zionists have in the United States and Canada today. Don’t fool yourself, this disproportionate influence is very real, Congressmen have written books about it, as have Senators. Viktor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent wrote a tell all book about Israeli espionage in the United States and how the Israelis could "count on" American Jews to do much of their work for them, after all it was a Jewish thing, and had nothing to do with patriotism. It is an undisputed fact that more than one hundred Israelis were detained for espionage in the United States immediately following September 11th, and inexplicably deported back to Israel before charges could filed, and more importantly before the American people were informed. It is an undisputed, empirical fact that five Israeli’s were arrested on 9-11 for filming the actual impact of the jetliners as they hit the World Trade Centers and laughing and clapping each other on the back in a congratulatory manner while filming the event. It is an absolute fact that on January 2, 2004 a Jew named Asher Karni was arrested at Denver’s International Airport for having sold [past tense] more than sixty nuclear weapon detonators to Pakistan, a country that is without a doubt the most unstable Islamic Republic in the world. Despite having committed what might be the greatest terrorist incident in modern memory, Karni remains unknown to most Americans, largely because the Jewish mainstream media has suppressed the story. Karni was sentenced to three years for selling nuclear weapon detonators to Pakistan; Zundel has yet to be tried, despite having served more than three years in prison. Go figure.

So, is it possible to admire a man like Zundel? During his infamous 1988 Holocaust Trial, a trial in which his opponents love to mention his conviction, but never mention the fact that this unjust conviction was later overturned by Canada’s highest court. Zündel apparently impressed another young man named Jurgen Neumann who had this to say about Ernst Zundel, "he is a very sincere individual. He actually seemed to believe exactly what he said… He never avoided any questions asked of him." This was what impressed Neumann at the time and impressed him during the 1988 trial. According to Neumann, Zundel asked him to do many things that a mere propagandist would never request, i.e. continue to independently research the topic. This indicated to Neumann that Zündel was sincere about the subject and that he continually attempted to widen his field of factual knowledge as any historian would. Imagine that, admiring a man that believes what he says. Certainly an odd concept in this day and age, being that we are so often exposed to a tremendous number of people more than willing to take whatever position they are told to take, or in the case of the politicians, whichever way the winds blow, as manifested by poll results. Incidentally, does anyone really trust our polls any longer?

In a recent article entitled "Why I admire David Irving," another historical revisionist current imprisoned in Austria for his views, a gentleman by the name of Nick Herbert had this to say about the "notorious" author, "I am not a professional historian and my knowledge of what went on in WW II is not extensive but for most of my life I have been trained in the methods of rational thinking and can follow an argument like a rat terrier. I recognize a good argument when I see one and have familiarized myself with most of the rhetorical counterfeits of reasoning. I consider myself an expert truth-seeker." Herbert then went on to say, "As a scientist, seeking truth is part of my profession." What Herbert was essentially saying is that Irving’s research should be examined as it has merit, the revisionist point of view must not be discounted in the name of political correctness.

An interesting detail about both Ernst Zundel and David Irving is that neither holds a degree in history, yet both men are infinitely better versed in just about every aspect of history than I am, and I hold a masters degree in history and politics. Of this, there is no doubt whatsoever. I have come to know Mr. Zundel through correspondence and am literally amazed at his ability to recall the smallest details out of the thousands of texts he has read. I have been told that Mr. Irving has a photographic memory, which may be true, and could explain his phenomenal ability to deliver the most rational, well-conceived and coordinated presentations I have ever heard from any historian, including my former illustrious professors.

It has become abundantly clear to me that our allegedly fair and balanced mainstream media has seriously misrepresented both Irving and Zundel. When my wife and I met Ms. Ingrid Zundel for the first time, we didn’t meet the "yellow-eyed Hun, black widow spider, virulent racist," that the media might have led us believe, no… we met one of the most intelligent, kindly and concerned women we had ever met. My family and I quickly became enamored with her, and she said, what should have been more than obvious at that point, "If only people would get to know Ernst, they would find that he is one of the kindest people in the world." In fact, that is exactly what I have found by corresponding with him, rather than relying on highly biased media reports and/or ADL profiles of the man.

Ernst is a threat to the ADL because he not only denies that there was ever a systematic plan to gas Jews during World War II, but also implicates Zionism and its appendages, like the ADL, as the exploiters of this myth, for the purposes of fleecing the world’s Gentile population and the imposition of unreasonable, and often dubious political demands, something Congressman Jim Moran was once quick to note, and even quicker to apologize for. One must wonder if perhaps Ernst Zundel isn’t far more important than anyone ever imagined, after all, someone went to a great deal of trouble to quietly and quickly deport him from the United States to a country where they could be sure he would be effectively silenced during a period of crisis following September 11th, in the United States. In fact, Zundel, may have been one of the more vociferous whistleblowers in North America following the attack in New York, honestly pointing out undeniable, albeit uncomfortable facts, like the surreptitious deportation of more than a hundred Israeli spies from the US following the attack, as well as the extremely unpopular view that Israel was really the only entity with anything to gain from a preemptive war in Iraq. If Zundel were free today, and not under the news blackout employed to further marginalize his most rational views, he’d be unapologetically implicating Israel as the soul beneficiary of any further hostilities in Iran or Syria.

So inevitably the question arises, was Ernst Zundel ever a threat to Canada’s National Security because he was allegedly the "patriarch" of a virulent and violently racist subculture, or was he a threat because there is a great deal of merit to his arguments? The aforementioned Noam Chomsky is attributed with having once said, "If you don’t believe in freedom of expression for those you most despise, you don’t believe in freedom of expression." Such an incredibly simple idea, yet contemporary Americans can’t seem to accept its pure unadulterated logic, despite paying it lip service continuously, citing it as perhaps our most important Constitutional right. The problem in America isn’t that we have no theoretical understanding of the importance of our Constitution; it’s in our application of the principles espoused within that document that we fail. Our government through the media propagates its agenda by providing us with its simple foundation, never its entire structure, and it reinforces this agenda by demonizing and marginalizing its opponents. Being that we are almost completely at the mercy of our television, oh come on, admit it, we tend to believe what is broadcast, and therefore we become the indoctrinated, not the educated, no matter what Fox news says, and we then reject, often out of hand dissenting views. This is known as "selective distortion," in advertising circles, and is a well-known concept throughout the entire media apparatus. In social psychology the tendency to accept what one is told, no matter whether or not it is accurate, and then reject later information is known as "belief perseverance." In either case, it reinforces what a well known cosmologist and top thinker named Stephen Hawkin’s had to say about knowledge and that was, "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
The way in which the mainstream media has portrayed Ernst Zundel over these last several decades is absolutely erroneous. The man is not the "hate monger," he has been depicted as. Ernst Zundel is dedicated, he is honest, intelligent, even frighteningly so and has a tremendous amount of integrity. I admire Ernst Zundel, despite his views, because he himself is an admirable individual. I do not necessarily care so much that his views offend other people; I don’t have to. If they don’t like him or his views, I know for a fact; Ernst isn’t going to make them listen; he only wants to be free to speak his mind to those interested in what he has to say. Unlike the current governments of Canada, Germany and the United States, Zundel, the so-called bigot believes in freedom of expression, and has never espoused otherwise.

We must remember that it wasn’t so long ago that the powers that be were referring to James Ennes, the author of Assault on the Liberty as an "anti-Semite, a racist and a Nazi," merely for telling the world that in 1967 the Israelis intentionally attacked an American ship killing dozens and wounding nearly a hundred American sailors. The facts behind this case have been known for decades, yet, quite honestly, the same powers that seek to silence Zundel today silenced Ennes twenty some years ago in the same manner they have traditionally attacked the purveyors of truth forever, by slandering them, and going after their livelihood, reputation, family, etc… Fortunately for Ennes, Mr. Ward Boston, the military officer in charge of the USS Liberty investigation in 1967 recently came forward signing affidavits testifying to the fact that Lyndon B. Johnson ordered the attack on the USS Liberty "covered up," so that the American people, his theoretical boss, would never learn the details of what really happened. Ennes was "rehabilitated," as Zundel will one day be, but Ennes was fortunate in that his ideas didn’t land him behind bars. We can no longer afford to allow media created leper Pariah’s like Zundel, and Ennes to suffer for speaking out, when we are either too ignorant or afraid to do so ourselves.
Ernst Zundel should never have been illegally arrested and unconstitutionally deported from the United States for having an opinion that differed from others. He should not have been thrown into a solitary confinement cell, denied access to the media and simple items, like blankets, chairs, and writing material, but he was. As previously mentioned, the man has not been charged with a crime, he is being held because his ideas implicate individuals belonging to a powerful and wealthy minority within our population in the commission of crimes. Crimes that they are in fact guilty of, and know that they are guilty of, for this reason they must imprison and silence courageous and incorruptible individuals out there like Zundel, who won’t sell out the truth, no matter what these people do to silence them. Zundel had a chance to sell out but refused.

It is for all of the above reasons that I admire Ernst Zundel, a man that refuses to apologize for having an educated opinion, a man that remains willing to sacrifice everything for others, even if they do not recognize or appreciate his efforts. Ernst Zundel is an oddity in our contemporary world, a man unwilling to accept the lies that have become such common fare in our nation – he believes in what he says, and therefore he will "never surrender," and we ought to thank him for it.

Curt Maynard

Write Ernst Zundel
Ernst Zundel
JVA Mannheim
Herzogenrieder Str. 111
68169 Mannheim
Germany

Why Did Israel Attack Syria?

By Jonathan Cook

09/27/07 "ICH" -- -- Nazareth -- Israel's air strike on northern Syria earlier this month should be understood in the context of events unfolding since its assault last summer on neighboring Lebanon.

From the leaks so far, it seems that more than half a dozen Israeli warplanes violated Syrian airspace to drop munitions on a site close to the border with Turkey. We also know from the US media that the raid occurred in close coordination with the White House. But what was the purpose and significance of the attack?

It is worth recalling that, in the wake of Israel's month-long war against Lebanon a year ago, a prominent American neoconservative, Meyrav Wurmser, wife of Vice-President Dick Cheney's recently departed Middle East adviser, explained that the war had dragged on because the White House delayed in imposing a ceasefire. The neocons, she said, wanted to give Israel the time and space to expand the attack to Damascus.

The reasoning was simple: before an attack on Iran could be countenanced, Hizbullah in Lebanon had to be destroyed and Syria at the very least cowed. The plan was to isolate Tehran on these two other hostile fronts before going in for the kill.

But faced with constant rocket fire from Hizbullah last summer, Israel's public and military nerves frayed at the first hurdle. Instead Israel and the US were forced to settle for a Security Council resolution rather than a decisive military victory.

The immediate fallout of the failed attack was an apparent waning of neocon influence. The group's program of "creative destruction" in the Middle East -- the encouragement of regional civil war and the partition of large states that threaten Israel -- was at risk of being shunted aside.

Instead the "pragmatists" in the Bush Administration, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, demanded a change of tack. The standoff reached a head in late 2006 when oilman James Baker and his Iraq Study Group began lobbying for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq -- presumably only after a dictator, this one more reliable, had again been installed in Baghdad. It looked as if the neocons' day in the sun had finally passed.

Israel's leadership understood the gravity of the moment. In January 2007 the Herzliya conference, an annual festival of strategy-making, invited no less than 40 Washington opinion-formers to join the usual throng of Israeli politicians, generals, journalists and academics. For a week the Israeli and American delegates spoke as one: Iran and its presumed proxy, Hizbullah, were bent on the genocidal destruction of Israel. Tehran's development of a nuclear program -- whether for civilian use, as Iran argues, or for military use, as the US and Israel claim -- had to be stopped at all costs.

While the White House turned uncharacteristically quiet all spring and summer about what it planned to do next, rumors that Israel was pondering a go-it-alone strike against Iran grew noisier by the day. Ex-Mossad officers warned of an inevitable third world war, Israeli military intelligence advised that Iran was only months away from the point of no return on developing a nuclear warhead, prominent leaks in sympathetic media revealed bombing runs to Gibraltar, and Israel started upping the pressure on several tens of thousands of Jews in Tehran to flee their homes and come to Israel.

While Western analysts opined that an attack on Iran was growing unlikely, Israel's neighbors watched nervously through the first half of the year as the vague impression of a regional war came ever more sharply into focus. In particular Syria, after witnessing the whirlwind of savagery unleashed against Lebanon last summer, feared it was next in line in the US-Israeli campaign to break Tehran's network of regional alliances. It deduced, probably correctly, that neither the US nor Israel would dare attack Iran without first clobbering Hizbullah and Damascus.

For some time Syria had been left in no doubt of the mood in Washington. It failed to end its pariah status in the post-9/11 period, despite helping the CIA with intelligence on al-Qaeda and secretly trying to make peace with Israel over the running sore of the occupied Golan Heights. It was rebuffed at every turn.

So as the clouds of war grew darker in the spring, Syria responded as might be expected. It went to the arms market in Moscow and bought up the displays of anti-aircraft missiles as well as anti-tank weapons of the kind Hizbullah demonstrated last summer were so effective at repelling Israel's planned ground invasion of south Lebanon.

As the Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld reluctantly conceded earlier this year, US policy was forcing Damascus to remain within Iran's uncomfortable embrace: "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad finds himself more dependent on his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, than perhaps he would like."

Israel, never missing an opportunity to wilfully misrepresent the behavior of an enemy, called the Syrian military build-up proof of Damascus' appetite for war. Apparently fearful that Syria might initiate a war by mistaking the signals from Israel as evidence of aggressive intentions, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, urged Syria to avoid a "miscalculation". The Israeli public spent the summer braced for a far more dangerous repeat of last summer's war along the northern border.

It was at this point -- with tensions simmeringly hot -- that Israel launched its strike, sending several fighter planes into Syria on a lightning mission to hit a site near Dayr a-Zawr. As Syria itself broke the news of the attack, Israeli generals were shown on TV toasting in the Jewish new year but refusing to comment.

Details have remained thin on the ground ever since: Israel imposed a news blackout that has been strictly enforced by the country's military censor. Instead it has been left to the Western media to speculate on what occurred.

One point that none of the pundits and analysts have noted was that, in attacking Syria, Israel committed a blatant act of aggression against its northern neighbor of the kind denounced as the "supreme international crime" by the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal.

Also, no one pointed out the obvious double standard applied to Israel's attack on Syria compared to the far less significant violation of Israeli sovereignty by Hizbullah a year earlier, when the Shia militia captured two Israel soldiers at a border post and killed three more. Hizbullah's act was widely accepted as justification for the bombardment and destruction of much of Lebanon, even if a few sensitive souls agonized over whether Israel's response was "disproportionate". Would these commentators now approve of similar retaliation by Syria?

The question was doubtless considered unimportant because it was clear from Western coverage that no one -- including the Israeli leadership -- believed Syria was in a position to respond militarily to Israel's attack. Olmert's fear of a Syrian "miscalculation" evaporated the moment Israel did the maths for Damascus.

So what did Israel hope to achieve with its aerial strike?

The stories emerging from the less gagged American media suggest two scenarios. The first is that Israel targeted Iranian supplies passing through Syria on their way to Hizbullah; the second that Israel struck at a fledgling Syrian nuclear plant where materials from North Korea were being offloaded, possibly as part of a joint nuclear effort by Damascus and Tehran.

(Speculation that Israel was testing Syria's anti-aircraft defences in preparation for an attack on Iran ignores the fact that the Israeli air force would almost certainly choose a flightpath through friendlier Jordanian airspace.)

How credible are these two scenarios?

The nuclear claims against Damascus were discounted so quickly by experts of the region that Washington was soon downgrading the accusation to claims that Syria was only hiding the material on North Korea's behalf. But why would Syria, already hounded by Israel and the US, provide such a readymade pretext for still harsher treatment? Why, equally, would North Korea undermine its hard-won disarmament deal with the US? And why, if Syria were covertly engaging in nuclear mischief, did it alert the world to the fact by revealing the Israeli air strike?

The other justification for the attack was at least based in a more credible reality: Damascus, Hizbullah and Iran undoubtedly do share some military resources. But their alliance should be seen as the kind of defensive pact needed by vulnerable actors in a Sunni-dominated region where the US wants unlimited control of Gulf oil and supports only those repressive regimes that cooperate on its terms. All three are keenly aware that it is Israel's job to threaten and punish any regimes that fail to toe the line.

Contrary to the impression being created in the West, genocidal hatred of Israel and Jews, however often Ahmadinejad's speeches are mistranslated, is not the engine of these countries' alliance.

Nonetheless, the political significance of the justifications for the Israeli air strike is that both neatly tie together various strands of an argument needed by the neocons and Israel in making their case for an attack on Iran before Bush leaves office in early 2009. Each scenario suggests a Shia "axis of evil", coordinated by Iran, that is actively plotting Israel's destruction. And each story offers the pretext for an attack on Syria as a prelude to a pre-emptive strike against Tehran -- launched either by Washington or Tel Aviv -- to save Israel.

That these stories appear to have been planted in the American media by neocon fanatics like John Bolton is warning enough -- as is the admission that the only evidence for Syrian malfeasance is Israeli "intelligence", the basis of which cannot be questioned as Israel is not officially admitting the attack.

It should hardly need pointing out that we are again in a hall of mirrors, as we were during the period leading up to America's invasion of Iraq and have been during its subsequent occupation.

Bush's "war on terror" was originally justified with the convenient and manufactured links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, as well as, of course, those WMDs that, it later turned out, had been destroyed years earlier. But ever since Tehran has invariably been the ultimate target of these improbable confections.

There were the forged documents proving both that Iraq had imported enriched uranium from Niger to manufacture nuclear warheads and that it was sharing its nuclear know-how with Iran. And as Iraq fell apart, neocon operatives like Michael Ledeen lost no time in spreading rumors that the missing nuclear arsenal could still be accounted for: Iranian agents had simply smuggled it out of Iraq during the chaos of the US invasion.

Since then our media have proved that they have no less of an appetite for such preposterous tales. If Iran's involvement in stirring up its fellow Shia in Iraq against the US occupation is at least possible, the same cannot be said of the regular White House claims that Tehran is behind the Sunni-led insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few months ago the news media served up "revelations" that Iran was secretly conspiring with al-Qaeda and Iraq's Sunni militias to oust the US occupiers.

So what purpose does the constant innuendo against Tehran serve?

The latest accusations should be seen as an example of Israel and the neocons "creating their own reality", as one Bush adviser famously observed of the neocon philosophy of power. The more that Hizbullah, Syria and Iran are menaced by Israel, the more they are forced to huddle together and behave in ways to protect themselves -- such as arming -- that can be portrayed as a "genocidal" threat to Israel and world order.

Van Creveld once observed that Tehran would be "crazy" not to develop nuclear weapons given the clear trajectory of Israeli and US machinations to overthrow the regime. So equally Syria cannot afford to jettison its alliance with Iran or its involvement with Hizbullah. In the current reality, these connections are the only power it has to deter an attack or force the US and Israel to negotiate.

But they are also the evidence needed by Israel and the neocons to convict Syria and Iran in the court of Washington opinion. The attack on Syria is part of a clever hustle, one designed to vanquish or bypass the doubters in the Bush Administration, both by proving Syria's culpability and by provoking it to respond.

Condoleezza Rice, it emerged at the weekend, wants to invite Syria to attend the regional peace conference that has been called by President Bush for November. There can be no doubt that such an act of détente is deeply opposed by both Israel and the neocons. It reverses their strategy of implicating Damascus in the "Shia arc of extremism" and of paving the way to an attack on the real target: Iran.

Syria, meanwhile, is fighting back, as it has been for some time, with the only means available: the diplomatic offensive. For two years Bashar al-Assad has been offering a generous peace deal to Israel on the Golan Heights that Tel Aviv has refused to consider. This week, Syria made a further gesture towards peace with an offer on another piece of territory occupied by Israel, the Shebaa Farms. Under the plan, the Farms -- which the United Nations now agrees belongs to Lebanon, but which Israel still claims is Syrian and cannot be returned until there is a deal on the Golan Heights -- would be transferred to UN custody until the dispute over its sovereignty can be resolved.

Were either of Damascus' initiatives to be pursued, the region might be looking forward to a period of relative calm and security. Which is reason enough why Israel and the neocons are so bitterly opposed. Instead they must establish a new reality -- one in which the forces of "creative destruction" so beloved of the neocons engulf yet more of the region. For the rest of us, a simpler vocabulary suffices. What is being sold is catastrophe.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth. He is the author of the forthcoming "Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State" published by Pluto Press, and available in the United States from the University of Michigan Press. His website is www.jkcook.net

EXCLUSIVE-Money trail to Hamas begins with Israeli banks

Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:32am EDT

By Adam Entous

TEL AVIV, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Israeli authorities tracking Hamas's funds said they made an unexpected discovery last month -- cash from one of Israel's biggest banks had found its way to a security force loyal to the Palestinian Islamists in Gaza.

Officials, speaking to Reuters this week on condition of anonymity, said the incident sparked a inquiry by the Justice Ministry's anti-money laundering authority and fuelled debate within the Israeli government and banking community over whether to cut financial links to Palestinian banks in the Gaza Strip.

That debate came to a head when Israel's largest commercial bank, Bank Hapoalim (POLI.TA: Quote, Profile, Research), said on Tuesday it would stop providing Israeli shekel notes and coins to Gaza. Hapoalim attributed the move to last week's declaration by Israel that Gaza, where Hamas seized control in June, is an "enemy entity".

Israeli regulators said banks including Hapoalim have been pushing for months to sever banking ties to Gaza, arguing there was little profit in it and no way to know whether their shekels could end up with Hamas, putting the banks in legal jeopardy.

Laws in Israel and the United States bar the transfer of funds to Hamas, which they deem a "terrorist" organisation.

Regulators say Discount Bank (DSCT.TA: Quote, Profile, Research) and other Israeli banks plan to follow Hapoalim's lead, threatening Gaza's money supply and President Mahmoud Abbas's ability to pay public sector wages -- part of a U.S.-led, Israeli-backed strategy to bolster his West Bank-based administration and weaken Hamas.

"This is a political issue," said a senior official with Israel's central bank, the Bank of Israel.

"Allowing coins and notes into Gaza is the same as water and medicine -- part of it can go to ... members of Hamas."

SHEKEL-DEPENDENCY

The shekels that cash-strapped Gazans depend on arrive about once per month by armoured convoy across Israel from the West Bank. At the Gaza border, the trucks unload the cash, back to back, into armoured trucks waiting on the Palestinian side.

The cash convoys continued after Hamas's violent takeover in June, despite concerns voiced by some Israeli banks and regulators and with a nod from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office and defence officials.

The anaemic Gaza economy depends on a steady supply of Israeli shekels to finance imports, pay Palestinian Authority workers and carry out day-to-day transactions.

Security inside Gaza had been handled by forces loyal to Abbas since Israel withdrew troops and settlers in 2005. Now, bank officials say, Hamas's Executive Force provides protection.

"Our responsibility is only inside Israel," said Shlomo Dror, spokesman for the Israeli coordinator for the Palestinian territories -- Gaza and the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

A senior Israeli government official said Israel "for the moment" will not allow additional cash shipments to Gaza.

But that could change if the government accepts a proposal by the Bank of Israel to use the state-owned Postal Bank to keep Gaza's financial institutions supplied with shekels.

INVESTIGATION

The investigation by Israel's anti-money laundering authority centres on how shekels from Discount Bank, Israel's third biggest, ended up in accounts held by the Hamas Executive Force at the Palestine Islamic Bank in the Gaza Strip when Abbas's government paid salaries in early August.

Israeli officials involved in the probe said Discount Bank had no way to know the shekels were being diverted despite Israeli efforts to block funds from reaching Hamas.

According to investigators, the Palestine Islamic Bank received the shekels from the Bank of Palestine, which in turn got them from Discount Bank under a long-standing arrangement.

Israeli authorities said they were not aware at the time that the Bank of Palestine was supplying the shekels to the Palestine Islamic Bank in Gaza.

Abbas's government in the West Bank, led by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, thought the Executive Force had been purged from the payroll. Before the government discovered the payments, some 3 million shekels ($745,000) had been deposited in Executive Force accounts, Western diplomats and bank officials estimate.

A Palestine Islamic Bank official confirmed that its Gaza branches get their shekels from the Bank of Palestine. Bank of Palestine officials had no immediate comment.

"The (Israeli) anti-money laundering authority does not disclose details of investigations it is conducting," the Justice Ministry said in a statement to Reuters.

A Discount Bank spokeswoman said it did not have control over the money once it was transferred to the Bank of Palestine.

"Unbeknownst to Discount Bank, it was clearing money for the Executive Force," said a senior Israeli official.

For Israeli commercial banks worried about their public image and possible lawsuits, the official added, the move to sever financial ties to Gaza is "a relief". (Additional reporting by Mohammed Assadi in Ramallah and Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza)

My hunch is that India won't take the bribes. My next hunch is that India powers will be aware of these false flags - they will know who is really behind it.

If countries would just stop succumbing to these bribes and false flags - if they could just see into the future and realize their future is golden without zionist israeli influence and business dealing.....definitely the world would become fixed and healed.

I think that would happen...because the world is waking up.

Thank you greatly AZ for this excellent commentary on India.

Sorry if I don't respond to your posts in timely fashion.

"My hunch is that India won't take the bribes."

Hopefully you’re right, but it’s hard to get into any political office unless you take bribes. Once you are in office, what’s one more bribe?

"My next hunch is that India powers will be aware of these false flags - they will know who is really behind it. If countries would just stop succumbing to these bribes and false flags - if they could just see into the future and realize their future is golden without zionist israeli influence and business dealing.....definitely the world would become fixed and healed."

As with any nation, people at the top of the Indian government may know who perpetrates false flags, but they gain more power by remaining silent. It’s all about power. That is man’s downfall.

By the way…

I added a sentence near the beginning of the original post, saying the Bharatiya Janata Party – a Hindu supremacist party – got into power during the 1990s because majority Hindus were tired of affirmative action programs for minorities (i.e., for Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc.). The exact same thing happened at the same time in the USA. Republicans took power in Congress (1990s) because most Americans were tired of affirmative action programs for minorities.

When that happened in both India and the USA, the door to israel was opened wider than ever. As the zionists marched in, corruption in both nations became worse than ever.