Home / Opinion / Theo-politics of the Middle East, Netanyahu’s War for Zion

Theo-politics of the Middle East, Netanyahu’s War for Zion

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”- Matthew 5:9

Before I start, I want to make sure the read­er real­izes, I am not here to PLEASE any­one. I am here to INFORM as many as I can of the truth, to the extent that they will allow them­selves to become informed. I am not here to con­vert any­one. I have no pow­er over anyone’s mind, nor would I have it my way to pos­sess that pow­er. Every­one has free will. Even in the face of ulti­mate per­se­cu­tion, with life hang­ing in the bal­ance, I believe every­one with a clear mind has free will. For more on that, please read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

And ordi­nar­i­ly, I would not go where the fol­low­ing arti­cle takes us. I gen­er­al­ly try to stay out of people’s reli­gious beliefs. I try to stick with pol­i­tics. But any­time one speaks of the polit­i­cal nation of Israel, because that name has been effec­tive­ly co-opt­ed from thou­sands of years of Scrip­ture, it is prac­ti­cal­ly unavoid­able that a writer such as myself may appear to tread on the reli­gious beliefs of oth­ers. If that is the way you take this, I under­stand and will not argue with you.

Thanks for read­ing Hank’s Sub­stack! Sub­scribe for free to receive new posts and sup­port my work.

So, why am I ven­tur­ing into the top­ic of Israel, of Zion, of the land for­mer­ly Pales­tine and now known as Israel, as that name has been appro­pri­at­ed from Scrip­ture? Why am I tak­ing the chance of offend­ing cer­tain of my read­ers to the extent that, who knows, they may even drop sub­scrip­tions, call me names and say bad things about me? I ven­ture there because that which is most impor­tant to me, is and always has been, con­vey­ing the truth to as many as I can, and who want to know it. If you do not want to hear and under­stand the truth, as they say, “There’s the door.” If you decide to call me names after read­ing the truth, that’s on you.

And the truth is that the war present­ly destroy­ing the lives of poten­tial­ly mil­lions of inno­cent peo­ple in and around that land called Israel since 1948, is unjust, and needs to stop. In this war, no one is right, cer­tain­ly not right­eous, and every­one is wrong, even evil. The Unit­ed State Gov­ern­ment has the pow­er to stop it, today, right now, and refus­es to exer­cise that pow­er. The US Gov­ern­ment refus­es to stop it because there are pow­ers and per­haps even prin­ci­pal­i­ties oth­er than the peo­ple of the Unit­ed States who con­trol its actions, pur­pos­es and poli­cies. With respect to the war in and around Israel, those pow­ers pos­sess motives which go well beyond doing what is right and right­eous. They have motives of prof­it, of accru­ing polit­i­cal pow­er, of sti­fling dis­sent, and pos­si­bly of geno­cide and cre­at­ing an ever-enlarg­ing con­flict which aids in the accom­plish­ment of all oth­er relat­ed pur­pos­es. I am against all that. I want peace. Matthew 5:9 is clear, Blessed are the peace­mak­ers: for they shall be called the chil­dren of God.”

As I see it, peace­mak­ers are nowhere to be found in pow­er in today’s Israel. Devoid of peace­mak­ers, it is dif­fi­cult for me to imag­ine those in charge of its poli­cies being called, “God’s chil­dren.” Those poli­cies are any­thing but God­ly, and that is why I will share with you the fol­low­ing truth.

Netanyahu’s Words Cannot Be Trusted

One week after the Octo­ber 7, 2023 attacks on Israel, I post­ed the first of two arti­cles on the sub­ject of those attacks, the war which would nat­u­ral­ly ensue, and impor­tant­ly, who stood to gain.

In that arti­cle, I doc­u­ment­ed cer­ti­fy­ing evi­dence that Israeli Prime Min­is­ter Ben­jamin Netanyahu could not be trust­ed to speak the truth con­cern­ing the attacks. I ref­er­enced decades of fraud­u­lent state­ments by Netanyahu designed to pro­mote war and elic­it vio­lence in the Mid­dle East.

You may recall me writ­ing that in 1992, then-par­lia­men­tar­i­an Ben­jamin Netanyahu advised the Israeli Knes­set that Iran was “three to five years” away from reach­ing nuclear weapons capa­bil­i­ty, urg­ing that this threat must be “uproot­ed by an inter­na­tion­al front head­ed by the U.S.”

In his 1995 book, “Fight­ing Ter­ror­ism,” Netanyahu once again lied to his read­ers, repeat­ing his claim that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in “three to five years,” appar­ent­ly for­get­ting the expi­ra­tion date of his pre­vi­ous time frame.

In 2002, dur­ing con­gres­sion­al tes­ti­mo­ny in Wash­ing­ton, Ben­jamin Netanyahu con­vinced con­gress to autho­rize Pres­i­dent George W. Bush to invade Iraq, an act of aggres­sion unsup­port­ed by any fact no mat­ter how insignif­i­cant, a deci­sion even­tu­al­ly respon­si­ble for 5000 Amer­i­can deaths, 33,000 Amer­i­can wound­ed and 200,000 Iraqi civil­ian deaths. In 2023, the Pen­ta­gon esti­mat­ed a $728 bil­lion price tag on the costs of the Amer­i­can mil­i­tary involve­ment between 2003 and 2012.

Thanks for read­ing Hank’s Sub­stack! This post is pub­lic so feel free to share it.

Share

To make all that hap­pen, dur­ing his tes­ti­mo­ny, Netanyahu lied unmer­ci­ful­ly tes­ti­fy­ing there was “no ques­tion” that Iraq was “advanc­ing towards to the devel­op­ment of nuclear weapons.” Netanyahu fooled con­gress to believe his alle­ga­tions that Sad­dam was oper­at­ing “cen­trifuges the size of wash­ing machines.” Ben­jamin Netanyahu’s tes­ti­mo­ny became a hinge-point in his­to­ry. I say that because, with­out Netanyahu’s com­plete­ly fab­ri­cat­ed and self-serv­ing con­gres­sion­al tes­ti­mo­ny, Amer­i­ca could nev­er have invad­ed Iraq in 2003 and the world would be a dif­fer­ent, more sta­ble and much safer place today. As we learned in the after­math of the inva­sion, every alle­ga­tion uttered by Ben­jamin Netanyahu con­cern­ing the devel­op­ment of weapons of mass destruc­tion in Iraq was a lie, beg­ging the ques­tion why the Israeli Prime Min­is­ter has any cred­i­bil­i­ty on the world stage today.

The fact is that major west­ern cor­po­rate, finan­cial and oil inter­ests were behind the inva­sion of Iraq. Those inter­ests pro­vid­ed both the intent and con­tent of Netanyahu’s tes­ti­mo­ny. We know west­ern finan­cial and oil inter­ests under­wrote Netanyahu’s alle­ga­tions because in 1999 Sad­dam spurned them all as he stopped exchang­ing Iraqi oil for US dol­lars, opt­ing for Euros in their place. At that time, oth­er oil-pro­duc­ing nations were look­ing to do the same.

From Glob­al Pol­i­cy Forum, Pub­lished March of 2003

As a result of Saddam’s deci­sion against trad­ing oil for dol­lars, Wall Street banks could no longer cre­ate mon­ey “out of thin air” to buy Iraqi oil. Instead, they would have to pur­chase Euro’s, bid­ding up the price of a cur­ren­cy they did not con­trol or issue, devalu­ing the dol­lar, or as an alter­na­tive, spend pre­cious gold reserves to pur­chase Iraqi oil. Those cir­cum­stances would prove intol­er­a­ble for Wall Street finan­cial inter­ests. Like­wise, they were intol­er­a­ble for west­ern oil inter­ests. In the end, Pres­i­dent GW Bush invad­ed Iraq, tak­ing out Sad­dam, leav­ing Iraq in chaos and send­ing the world on a course of desta­bi­liza­tion. Bush sub­se­quent­ly exer­cised US con­trol over the Iraqi oil fields and placed JP Mor­gan Chase Bank in charge of restor­ing, and enforc­ing petrodol­lar trade with respect to Iraqi oil.

Thus, we know from his­to­ry, the inva­sion of Iraq had noth­ing to do with WMD. We know that Ben­jamin Netanyahu was the “cred­i­ble voice” cho­sen to con­vince con­gress that Sad­dam was a viable threat to the world, and we know that in the end Wall Street finan­cial inter­ests, along with west­ern oil inter­ests, were the pri­ma­ry ben­e­fi­cia­ries of the 2003 inva­sion. We also know the Amer­i­can peo­ple paid the cost of the inva­sion, both in dol­lars spent and lives inex­tri­ca­bly altered and lost.

In 2009, Wik­ileaks released two Amer­i­can diplo­mat­ic cables in which Ben­jamin Netanyahu mate­ri­al­ly lied, this time to per­son­nel of the US Sec­re­tary of State, cry­ing wolf again that Iran was “prob­a­bly one or two years away” from devel­op­ing nuclear weapons, and that Iran already had the capa­bil­i­ty to make one nuclear bomb, and “could wait and make sev­er­al bombs in a year or two.” As a reminder to the read­er, that was over 15 years ago.

In 2012, Netanyahu addressed the UN, car­ry­ing with him a com­ic book cutout rep­re­sent­ing the stages of nuclear bomb devel­op­ment in Iran. Dur­ing his speech, Netanyahu indi­cat­ed Iran would be 90% com­plete with the pro­gram, at the lat­est by Sum­mer of 2013, twen­ty years after his first such state­ments, yet anoth­er false dead­line which passed with­out inci­dent almost twelve years ago.

Thus, on the sub­ject of Iran, we know there is no truth in Israeli Prime Min­is­ter Ben­jamin Netanyahu. Rec­og­niz­ing the his­to­ry of pur­pose­ful and strate­gic fab­ri­ca­tions flow­ing from Netanyahu’s mouth, leav­ing the deaths of untold num­bers of inno­cents in his wake, why would the world lis­ten to him today, unless those in charge and pro­mot­ing the Israeli Prime Minister’s pro­nounce­ments, such as the west­ern news media, are lying to us as well?

Iran Nuclear Review Act (INRA)-A Ruse on the American People

I wrote about this at the time, that the 2015 Iran Nuclear Review Act (INRA), passed by Repub­li­cans and Democ­rats in both hous­es of con­gress, was a ruse on the Amer­i­can peo­ple, and nev­er about nuclear weapons. That act was designed to cre­ate suf­fi­cient author­i­ty for then Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma to nego­ti­ate and sign an agree­ment with Iran, alleged­ly to lim­it Iran’s abil­i­ty to devel­op the same nuclear weapons Ben­jamin Netanyahu has been lying about for the pre­vi­ous quar­ter cen­tu­ry.

The real pur­pose behind INRA was to cre­ate the means to loosen up $1.7 bil­lion dol­lars imme­di­ate­ly, includ­ing $400 mil­lion in untrace­able cash, and send that cash to anony­mous recip­i­ents in the Mid­dle East or beyond, on a US mil­i­tary car­go plane, and to dis­trib­ute that cash among those cen­tral to the deal, all paid for by, you guessed it, the Amer­i­can tax­pay­ers. That $1.7 bil­lion would mere­ly be a down pay­ment on the full deal, to be paid out in install­ments, a deal osten­si­bly struck to pre­vent Iran from devel­op­ing the same nuclear weapons Ben­jamin Netanyahu claimed Iran would be ready to deploy twen­ty years before­hand.

In 2017, I pub­lished an arti­cle explain­ing how the INRA ruse worked. You see, pri­or to INRA pass­ing both hous­es of con­gress, Barack Oba­ma had no author­i­ty to sign any agree­ment what­so­ev­er less­en­ing exist­ing statu­to­ry sanc­tions against Iran. Should con­gres­sion­al Repub­li­cans have real­ly desired to stop the deal, all they had to do is vote NO on INRA, which was eas­i­ly with­in their grasp to accom­plish. INRA set up a “heads-Oba­ma-wins-tales-Repub­li­cans-in-Con­gress-lose” rule, the result being Obama’s absolute author­i­ty to nego­ti­ate and sign a prac­ti­cal­ly irrev­o­ca­ble deal, an agree­ment which, once signed, could only be can­celled by con­gress pass­ing a “res­o­lu­tion of dis­ap­proval” with a veto-proof 2/3 mar­gin. That res­o­lu­tion would have to pass both hous­es of con­gress, includ­ing a 60 vote major­i­ty to cut off debate in the sen­ate. In oth­er words, the Iran Nuclear (P5+1) Agree­ment, once autho­rized by INRA, would nev­er be able to be stopped by con­gress once Oba­ma nego­ti­at­ed and signed it. Con­gress knew all that, and Repub­li­cans rep­re­sent­ing you and me here in Geor­gia, they being Sen­a­tors John­ny Isak­son and David Per­due, along with every Repub­li­can rep­re­sen­ta­tive from our state, under­stood that once INRA passed, only Barack Oba­ma him­self, or a pres­i­dent suc­ceed­ing Oba­ma, would have suf­fi­cient author­i­ty to dis­con­tin­ue the pro­gram. Obvi­ous­ly, all those Repub­li­cans in both hous­es, as much as they argued and debat­ed against it, want­ed INRA to pass. And once Oba­ma signed it, the mon­ey began flow­ing imme­di­ate­ly.

Thanks for read­ing Hank’s Sub­stack! Sub­scribe for free to receive new posts and sup­port my work.

Where did that plane­load of untrace­able cash end up? Into uniden­ti­fied pri­vate hands, of course, which was one major rea­son for INRA in the first place. You will recall, in one of his first acts as pres­i­dent, Don­ald Trump can­celled Obama’s Nuclear deal with Iran, includ­ing the sched­ule of pay­ments the US would be required to make with tax­pay­er fund­ing under its pro­vi­sions. Trump then restored the Iran­ian sanc­tions, caus­ing Iran’s econ­o­my to suf­fer immea­sur­ably over the next four years, lim­it­ing Iran’s abil­i­ty to wage the war it is attempt­ing to wage today.

Coun­ter­ing Trump’s move, after the 2020 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion, in Feb­ru­ary of 2021, among his first acts in office Joe Biden removed Trump’s sanc­tions on Iran, allow­ing oil dol­lars to once again flow into Iran thus restor­ing to Iran the means to make war.

US Defense Industry Getting Richer and Richer While People Die, Murdered in Middle East

Recall that in my first arti­cle after the Octo­ber 7 attacks, I showed you the finan­cial con­di­tion of the US defense indus­try. At that time, con­gress had approved no addi­tion­al fund­ing for Ukraine. Defense indus­try prof­its and stock prices had been steadi­ly drop­ping for sev­er­al months.

As I wrote in Octo­ber of 2023, those graphs not only indi­cat­ed dwin­dling indus­try prof­its, but also iden­ti­fied the very moment defense stock prices began to rebound. That moment was Thurs­day, Octo­ber 5, 2023, TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THE ATTACKS. The fix was in. And as I also wrote at the time, some­how the “Iron Dome” sys­tem designed and deployed to pro­tect the Israeli peo­ple from air attacks, paid for by Amer­i­can tax­pay­ers at the cost of $2.6 bil­lion, did not work, the only rea­son­able answer being that the sys­tem had been deac­ti­vat­ed by the Israeli Gov­ern­ment. In my sub­se­quent arti­cle enti­tled, Pur­suit of Cor­po­rate Prof­its Dri­ving Israel-Hamas War and World Con­flict, which I pub­lished three and a half months lat­er, I showed you what had hap­pened to US defense indus­try stock prices since the Octo­ber 7 attacks. At that time, the defense index had risen 22% to an all-time high:

Just for fun, today let’s take anoth­er look at the Dow Jones US Aero­space & Defense Index today. As of Fri­day last, the index closed 51% high­er than its pre­vi­ous low, which occurred two days pri­or to the Octo­ber 7 attacks, and there appears to be no end to the ris­ing prof­its and stock prices at this time.

The index con­tin­ues to rise in lin­ear fash­ion because the rav­aging war Israeli Prime Min­is­ter Netanyahu pur­sues, much of it against inno­cent vic­tims in Gaza and else­where, con­tin­ues to esca­late. Aid­ing in that pur­pose, this past week­end, Netanyahu alleged to the world that Iran attempt­ed to assas­si­nate him, osten­si­bly send­ing a drone to attack his week­end home. Of course, the drone missed and hit near­by prop­er­ty, leav­ing Netanyahu with­out need of con­tact­ing State Farm to file an insur­ance claim on his res­i­dence. I guess Iran had the wrong address. Notice the bump that mere news of an inef­fec­tive drone strike had on defense indus­try stock prices on Mon­day morn­ing this week:

And as a result, Israeli Prime Min­is­ter Netanyahu now pos­sess­es a renewed jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for esca­lat­ing attacks any­where and every­where in the vicin­i­ty. That is what he wants. This is what they do, friends, all in the pur­suit of extra­or­di­nary prof­its and expand­ing polit­i­cal pow­er.

Did Iran real­ly send a drone to attack Netanyahu’s home? I can­not say. All I can say is that truth­ful­ness has nev­er been Ben­jamin Netanyahu’s strong suit with respect to Iran and Israel’s neigh­bors. What will be the effect of the alleged attack by Iran on Netanyahu’s home? Obvi­ous­ly, one effect will be yet anoth­er esca­la­tion of mur­der­ous war-mak­ing by Ben­jamin Netanyahu, this time in Lebanon.

I say that because most recent­ly, Netanyahu has con­cen­trat­ed his attacks on the down­town Beirut finan­cial dis­trict, an area pop­u­lat­ed with an over­whelm­ing num­ber of inno­cent civil­ians.

Is Iran Innocent?

So is Iran inno­cent in all this? Look, friends, what we have here is a case in which no one is right and every­one is wrong, includ­ing the US, which if you will remem­ber, over­threw the demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly-elect­ed Iran­ian Gov­ern­ment in 1953. The pri­ma­ry rea­son for that oper­a­tion was that the new­ly-elect­ed Prime Min­is­ter, Mohammed Mossadegh, had just can­celled an exist­ing 25-year deal with British Petro­le­um, a deal which dur­ing the pre­vi­ous quar­ter cen­tu­ry allowed BP free reign over the Iran­ian oil fields in exchange for lit­er­al­ly pen­nies on the val­ue of oil extract­ed by the British oil giant. To gain back access lost to west­ern oil inter­ests, the CIA over­threw the Mossadegh gov­ern­ment in a coup planned and exe­cut­ed in much the same man­ner it over­threw the demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly-elect­ed gov­ern­ment of Ukraine in 2014. Once Mossadegh was in exile, the US installed the Shaw of Iran, a US pup­pet who ruled Iran ruth­less­ly for the next quar­ter cen­tu­ry, final­ly being deposed in 1979 dur­ing the Islam­ic rev­o­lu­tion that effec­tive­ly end­ed the admin­is­tra­tion of Pres­i­dent Jim­my Carter. Know­ing what I just wrote, and regard­less of any oth­er fac­tors, can you think of any rea­son Iran should ever trust Amer­i­ca?

Well, I can’t.

Marching to Zion

Five years pri­or to the CIA coup top­pling the Iran­ian Gov­ern­ment, the UN char­tered the nation of Israel as part of a “two-state solu­tion” to a prob­lem no one had ever real­ly com­plained about, a “solu­tion” foist­ed upon the native res­i­dents of the region, which altered the own­er­ship and polit­i­cal bound­aries with­in a land for­mer­ly known and rec­og­nized sole­ly as Pales­tine, under Pales­tin­ian local con­trol. The fol­low­ing maps indi­cate the region known as Pales­tine, occu­pied pri­mar­i­ly by Pales­tini­ans pri­or to 1948, and what has hap­pened to that region since:

Now, objec­tive­ly I ask you, what is so dif­fi­cult to under­stand regard­ing the fact that the for­mer land of Pales­tine has been tak­en from a peo­ple who iden­ti­fy as native Pales­tini­ans, with their own pre­dom­i­nant reli­gion, and giv­en over to a peo­ple who iden­ti­fy them­selves as Jews, with a dif­fer­ent and, frankly, incom­pat­i­ble reli­gion to theirs, the movers hav­ing no real author­i­ty to do so, while offer­ing no real com­pen­sa­tion, as if one could tru­ly imag­ine a valid and ade­quate exchange that could sat­is­fy all par­ties?

What am I miss­ing here?

Thanks for read­ing Hank’s Sub­stack! This post is pub­lic so feel free to share it.

Share

Oh, I can hear the com­ments now. What about the set­tle­ment of North Amer­i­ca? What about all the indige­nous tribes dis­placed by a pol­i­cy politi­cians invent­ed and termed, “man­i­fest des­tiny,” a polit­i­cal­ly-cor­rect way of say­ing ‘We are tak­ing your land,’ an egre­gious pol­i­cy pro­mot­ed by the US Gov­ern­ment? I get it. Yes, I under­stand cer­tain sim­i­lar­i­ties. And I have noth­ing to say in defense of that pol­i­cy, except to rec­og­nize that through­out his­to­ry there have been the vic­tors and the van­quished. To the vic­tors go the spoils, almost as a nat­ur­al law of human inter­ac­tions. And that is what hap­pened as Amer­i­ca was set­tled. In what would become Amer­i­ca, cer­tain nations, Britain, France, Spain to begin with, claimed land with­in cer­tain bound­aries, cre­at­ed legal records of own­er­ship, took advan­tage of pow­er­ful mil­i­taries, set­tling the land, and in the end, offered indige­nous peo­ples cer­tain land termed “reser­va­tions” and the oppor­tu­ni­ty to peace­ful­ly meld into Amer­i­can soci­ety.

But, that’s not what we have in what is now the land called Israel.

Pri­or to any mean­ing­ful set­tle­ment by those final­ly entrust­ed with the land, in 1948 the land of Pales­tine was divid­ed, becom­ing “Israel,” and “Pales­tine,” as res­i­dent Pales­tini­ans began to be dis­placed from their homes and new set­tle­ments by a new regime, prac­tic­ing in a dif­fer­ent reli­gion, began in earnest. Israel would become a theoc­ra­cy, a “Jew­ish State” auto­mat­i­cal­ly cre­at­ing con­flict regard­ing the reli­gious beliefs of the over­whelm­ing local pop­u­la­tion. The gov­ern­ment of Israel began a pol­i­cy of invit­ing indi­vid­u­als from around the world, osten­si­bly with her­itage dat­ing back to Abra­ham of the Old Tes­ta­ment, to set­tle with­in its new­ly-estab­lished bor­ders. Now just think how unrea­son­able that would be were it to hap­pen where you live. What if we Geor­gians were told we had to leave our homes, go set­tle some­where else, with real­ly no place else to go, receiv­ing very lit­tle or no com­pen­sa­tion to do so, and a peo­ple prac­tic­ing a reli­gion for­eign to ours, and in con­flict with ours, began set­tling all around the state in which we used to live. Is that even remote­ly rea­son­able? Of course not. But what I describe is what hap­pened in Pales­tine, now Israel, begin­ning in 1948.

And each time Pales­tini­ans would resist, more of their land would be tak­en, until final­ly, the stand­ing result is that there is no more “two-state solu­tion,” there is no more Pales­tine, and the entire area has been claimed by Israel. Now I ask you, was that even­tu­al out­come not pre­dictable, even planned in 1948 when all this start­ed? Is that not what those claim­ing to be Zion­ists had in mind from the begin­ning? Of course it is. Zion­ists have no inter­est in a two-state solu­tion. Zion­ists have no inter­est in rec­og­niz­ing Pales­tin­ian rights with­in the land for­mer­ly known as Pales­tine, now regard­ed Israel. What we are see­ing in the maps above has been the plan all along, includ­ing the foment­ing of vio­lence in the Mid­dle East, those in con­trol of Israel rely­ing on the Con­gress of the Unit­ed States to spend enor­mous sums of Amer­i­can tax­pay­er mon­ey to sup­port the State of Israel, both eco­nom­i­cal­ly and mil­i­tar­i­ly.

You will hear no com­plaints of Mid­dle East war-mak­ing from the US arms indus­try. For decades, con­gres­sion­al appro­pri­a­tions have been used to make Israel a nuclear pow­er, effec­tive­ly cre­at­ing a nuclear bel­liger­ent state in the very heart of its nat­ur­al ene­mies in the Mid­dle East. And as long as Ben­jamin Netanyahu has been involved in the polit­i­cal frame­work of Israel, he has been pro­ject­ing the image that a nuclear Israel is not the prob­lem, that a nuclear Iran or Iraq is the only prob­lem. Giv­en the his­to­ry of the area since 1948, is it not evi­dent that those who stand against the con­tin­ued purg­ing of Pales­tin­ian inter­ests in the region see that same prob­lem, but as its mir­ror image?

Middle East Peace-Makers Will Be Neutralized

I have lived through both Kennedy assas­si­na­tions. I lived through Mar­tin Luther King’s assas­si­na­tion, which occurred the night before my birth­day in 1968. I lived through the tumul­tuous 1960’s, had friends just a cou­ple of years old­er than myself draft­ed and sent to Viet­nam, a war fought over a false and fraud­u­lent premise, the Gulf of Tonkin inci­dent. 58,000 Amer­i­cans have their names carved into a wall in Wash­ing­ton, DC because of the deci­sion to go to war based upon a known lie. Hun­dreds of thou­sands of Amer­i­cans were per­ma­nent­ly dis­abled and affect­ed in ways from which they would nev­er recov­er. Mil­lions in South­east Asia suf­fered mer­ci­less­ly and died as a con­se­quence of that same deci­sion.

John Kennedy was a peace­mak­er. Broth­er Robert was a peace­mak­er. Mar­tin Luther King was a peace­mak­er. Even Richard Nixon made peace in Viet­nam and was soon forced out of office.

Dur­ing the admin­is­tra­tion of Jim­my Carter, Pres­i­dent Carter played the role of a peace­mak­er, nego­ti­at­ing the Camp David Accords in 1978. The result was a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, the accords’ doc­u­ments signed on Sep­tem­ber 17, 1978 by Egypt­ian Pres­i­dent Anwar Sadat, Pres­i­dent Carter, and Israeli Prime Min­is­ter Men­achem Begin. The actu­al treaty con­clud­ed the fol­low­ing year. On Octo­ber 6, 1981, Pres­i­dent Sadat, a peace­mak­er, was assas­si­nat­ed dur­ing a mil­i­tary parade. The infil­tra­tors who mur­dered Sadat were report­ed to be mem­bers of the Islam­ic Jihad osten­si­bly feel­ing Sadat had dou­ble-crossed the Pales­tini­ans.

1981 Assas­si­na­tion of Anwar Sadat

Keep in mind, in all these assas­si­na­tions there are pat­sies, indi­vid­u­als or sets of indi­vid­u­als who seem­ing­ly have motive, who are gen­er­al­ly killed them­selves, or put away such that their sto­ries can nev­er be heard. Effec­tive peace­mak­ers are prac­ti­cal­ly always killed, in this case, it was Sadat’s turn.

Anoth­er peace-mak­er, Egypt­ian Vice-Pres­i­dent Hos­ni Mubarak, sit­ting next to Sadat and wound­ed that same day, would become the new pres­i­dent, and would remain in office until the so-called Arab Spring of 2011. The Arab Spring was anoth­er CIA oper­a­tion designed to over­throw the var­i­ous gov­ern­ments of North Africa and replace them with US pup­pets. Appar­ent­ly, Mubarak had refused Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma the oppor­tu­ni­ty to use the west­ern Egypt­ian desert to train and equip Obama’s “Libyan Rebels,” Islam­ic mer­ce­nar­ies akin to Al Qae­da, charged with the assign­ment to remove and assas­si­nate Libyan leader Muam­mar Gaddafi. Gaddafi’s crime had been sim­i­lar to that of Sad­dam Hus­sein. As Pres­i­dent of the African Union, Gaddafi had mount­ed an effort to cre­ate a gold-backed African cur­ren­cy, which would be nec­es­sary for west­ern inter­ests to pur­chase raw mate­ri­als from nations with­in the Union. Oba­ma took Mubarak’s refusal to help oust Gaddafi as a betray­al by the long-time US ally and had him removed as part of the Arab Spring oper­a­tion.

Mubarak was forced out and resigned on Feb­ru­ary 11, 2011. Muam­mar Gaddafi was mur­dered by Islam­ic mer­ce­nar­ies, eight months lat­er. Oba­ma reward­ed the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood for their help in both respects, plac­ing the mil­i­tant Islam­ic orga­ni­za­tion in charge of both Egypt and Libya. In the case of Egypt, Oba­ma placed Broth­er­hood fig­ure, Mohamed Mor­si in charge.

The Egypt­ian peo­ple soon had enough of Mor­si, as he pressed for­ward to install Sharia Law in a large­ly sec­u­lar coun­try. The Egypt­ian mil­i­tary arrest­ed the prime min­is­ter and tried him for crimes. Mor­si died in cus­tody.

 

In Libya, Oba­ma left the Broth­er­hood and Islam­ic mer­ce­nary war­lords to fight out who would be in charge. All Oba­ma cared about was restor­ing oil exports, based upon the US dol­lar, for the ben­e­fit of west­ern finan­cial and oil inter­ests. That’s who Oba­ma worked for.

So, you see, all of the play­ers I’m talk­ing about, them­selves have cor­po­rate and finan­cial own­ers. Oba­ma has own­ers. Hillary and Bill Clin­ton have their own­ers. The Bush’s have own­ers. Ben­jamin Netanyahu has own­ers. And those own­ers call the shots. They call the shots because they have access to all the mon­ey it takes to do what­ev­er they want to do. Wall Street banks have the legal capac­i­ty to cre­ate mon­ey for their own pur­pos­es. Mul­ti-nation­al cor­po­ra­tions can raise all the mon­ey they need in order to car­ry out what­ev­er pur­pos­es they decide, mere­ly by mak­ing a phone call to Wall Street.

BTW, Don­ald Trump has no own­ers, and appar­ent­ly can­not be owned. That’s their prob­lem with Don­ald Trump.

US Foreign Aid, A Ruse In and Of Itself

US for­eign aid is not designed to help down­trod­den peo­ples of abroad nations in need of finan­cial assis­tance. US for­eign aid goes to the trea­suries of for­eign nations who pro­vide kick­backs to US politi­cians, the kick­backs sent upon receiv­ing promis­es to vote for more and more for­eign aid or per­form oth­er bid­ding for a for­eign enti­ty. US for­eign aid is mon­ey-laun­der­ing on an inter­na­tion­al, and world­wide scale. This is so cor­rupt.

If you lis­ten to Ken­tucky Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Thomas Massie, you will hear him describe how AIPAC, the Amer­i­can Israel Pub­lic Affairs Com­mit­tee, has a rep­re­sen­ta­tive assigned to each US con­gress­man and sen­a­tor, at least each Repub­li­can, an Israeli lob­by­ist who exer­cis­es pow­er over the votes of Massie’s col­leagues, AIPAC hold­ing suf­fi­cient resources to either keep them in their elect­ed offices, or seri­ous­ly pit chal­lengers to defeat them. AIPAC purs­es are full of US for­eign aid, fund­ed by US tax­pay­ers, dol­lars which can be and are used to influ­ence con­gress to appro­pri­ate more and more aid for Israel. Accord­ing to Massie, mem­bers of con­gress who do not coop­er­ate with AIPAC will not receive cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions, and well-fund­ed chal­lengers to their seats will soon sur­face. What I describe is an unhealthy rela­tion­ship, one at odds with a rep­re­sen­ta­tive form of gov­ern­ment, and must be stopped.

The Zionist Influence on Israel and the Middle East

Suc­cinct­ly stat­ed, those pur­port­ing to be Zion­ists desire to cre­ate a Jew­ish state in the land for­mer­ly known as Pales­tine with as much land, occu­pied by as many Jew­ish cit­i­zens, and as few Pales­tin­ian Arab cit­i­zens as pos­si­ble. That’s Zion­ism it in a nut­shell. Zion­ists project the belief that Jews from around the world have a God-giv­en right to own and occu­py the land of Israel. They owe that belief to var­i­ous inter­pre­ta­tions, and mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tions of promis­es made by God of the Bible, to Abra­ham in the Old Tes­ta­ment.

There are Zion­ist Chris­tians, in large num­bers, through­out Amer­i­ca and the world, who agree and spread the world view that Jews from around the world have a right to that land, that right giv­en to them by God. Obvi­ous­ly, I am not one of those who believe that.

I am not one of them because I believe in the New Tes­ta­ment. The New Tes­ta­ment offers no cre­dence to the notion that the Jew­ish peo­ple of today have a right to the land called Pales­tine pri­or to 1948. The New Tes­ta­ment reveals the exact oppo­site. The only way Chris­tians might believe in Zion­ism is to mis­un­der­stand, and/or mis­in­ter­pret the New Tes­ta­ment prac­ti­cal­ly in its entire­ty.

Through­out the New Tes­ta­ment, the writ­ers, be they Apos­tles Paul, Peter, or John, or the writ­ers of the four Gospels, who include Matthew, Mark and Luke, offer vast evi­dence AGAINST there being any favor by God strict­ly to the Jew­ish peo­ple by virtue of geneal­o­gy or any by any inher­it­ed promis­es by God to Abra­ham. Accord­ing to the New Tes­ta­ment, God’s Cho­sen Peo­ple, whether before or after the death and res­ur­rec­tion of Christ, are the believ­ers in the true Mes­si­ah, the New Tes­ta­ment view being that the true Mes­si­ah and Sav­ior of mankind being Jesus Christ.

Now, I am not going to go through all that Scrip­ture, here and now, but I will reserve that assign­ment for a future Sub­stack. Just know that if I under­take that assign­ment, New Tes­ta­ment Scrip­ture leaves me loaded-for-bear to accom­plish that pur­pose.

For today, how­ev­er, I sim­ply want to press the mes­sage that the war-mak­ing, mur­der­ing and vio­lence in the Mid­dle East must stop, and any politi­cian argu­ing that the killing should con­tin­ue, espe­cial­ly know­ing the expense to do so will be paid by Amer­i­can tax­pay­ers, should not receive our vote. I pray that God inter­vene quick­ly and bring peace to the region before some­one takes a regret­table step for­ward and sets the world on a course for total anni­hi­la­tion.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar