Rehmatpedia

Ramadan 24, 1430

Tel Aviv and its Israel Lobby in the US and EU – have been beating drums about Tehran going nuclear and then would pose a great threat to the western countries. The fact is – most of western countries have their nuclear arsenal in place. Zionist entity itself alledly posess between 240-400 nuclear bombs. The American intelligence agencies in their report has admitted that Tehran abandoned its nuclear research for military purposes in 2003. International Atomic Energy Agency too has reported on several ocasions that its inspectors did not find proof that Tehran’s intention to pursue nuclear technology for military purpose.

Iran is a signatory to NPT – under which it has every right to develop nuclear technology for civilian purposes. Isral, India, and N. Korea are not signatory to NPT – and all being nuclear power – are not considered a threat to the West or theworld at large. All those four countries had conducted wars against their neighbours while Iran has no history of war with its neighbours.

A 2003 survey conducted among 500 people from each of the 15 EU countries with the question: “Tell me in your opinion it presents or not a threat to peace in world,” – Zionist entity was picked 59% of the people.

Jeff Gates in his recent article How Israel’s nuclear arsenal endangers us all wrote:

On September 24th, U.S. President Barack Obama will preside over a U.N. Security Council session on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. In March 2010, Moscow will host a Global Nuclear Summit that the U.S. has agreed to attend.

The next six months could prove hopeful or harmful—depending on the impact on Israel’s nuclear arsenal. With U.S. backing, Tel Aviv has thus far avoided compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—joining North Korea, India and Pakistan.

President John F. Kennedy tried to stop Israel from starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In a June 1963 letter to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, he insisted on proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Israel was not developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona reactor facility. Though his letter was cabled to the U.S. embassy, Ben-Gurion resigned (citing undisclosed personal reasons) before the message could be physically delivered.

With Israel’s nuclear ambitions under attack by its key ally, that strategically well-timed resignation duped an inexperienced young president and denied him a diplomatic victory that might well have precluded the wars now being waged in the Middle East.

With Ben-Gurion’s resignation, JFK was left without an Israeli government with which he could negotiate. By the time a new government was formed, the Kennedy threat had been eliminated and Tel Aviv could start haggling from scratch with successor Lyndon Johnson who was far more sympathetic to the goals of the Zionist state.

That strategy resurfaced in the recent resignation of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert just as the Road Map gained traction and the threat of peace loomed on the horizon. Olmert’s successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, then used the terms of the Road Map as a bargaining chip to start haggling—with an inexperienced young president—over sanctions against Iran.

Democrat Lyndon Johnson proved himself a reliably pliant pro-Israeli president as did his successor, Republican Richard Nixon. Described by Prime Minister Golda Meir as “the best friend Israel ever had,” Nixon agreed in 1969 to endorse “constructive ambiguity” as a means for Tel Aviv to obscure its nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile Colonial Zionists brandished the threat of that arsenal to seize land they sought for Greater Israel.

Israeli incursions provoked the reactions one would expect, enabling Tel Aviv to portray itself as a hapless victim in need of U.S. support in a hostile and anti-Semitic neighborhood. Four years after Kennedy wrote to Ben-Gurion, Israel mounted a massive six-day assault on neighboring nations, occupying lands that remain at the heart of the hostilities against which Tel Aviv insists it needs nuclear weapons to defend itself.

With the war in Iraq poised to expand to Iran, the next six months offer a rare opportunity to revisit not only Israel’s nuclear arsenal but also—in light of the consistency of its behavior over six decades—the legitimacy of the Zionist enterprise.

Managing the Threat to Zionism: JFK, RFK and Fulbright
In 1962, Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, convened hearings to ensure that the American Zionist Council—funded by the Jewish Agency—register as the agent of a foreign government. JFK was then president and brother Robert his attorney general. Edward (”Ted”) Kennedy was elected to the Senate that year to fill his brother Jack’s seat. In October 1963, the Department of Justice—led by Robert Kennedy—demanded that the Council register as a foreign agent.

Following the Kennedy assassination in November 1963, Nicholas Katzenbach succeeded RFK as Attorney General for Lyndon Johnson. To avoid registration, the Zionist Council morphed into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). That umbrella organization—still disguised as a domestic lobby—continues to coordinate the efforts of dozens of organizations that sustain a U.S. policy environment favorable to a foreign nation.

The Kennedy brothers shared a little-known insight into the confidence with which Israel wields political influence across party lines. In the closing weeks of his 1960 presidential campaign, candidate Kennedy traveled to New York to seek financial support from Jewish business leaders. On his return to Washington, he called his old friend Charlie Bartlett who had introduced Jack to Jackie.

According to Bartlett, Kennedy was livid after those he met in Manhattan assured him that the funds he sought were available but only if he turned over to them the formulation of U.S. policy in the Middle East. With brother “Bobby” his chief campaign strategist, that experience doubtless came to mind when, in 1963, JFK confirmed that Israel—while portraying itself a U.S. ally—repeatedly lied to him about its development of nuclear weapons.

Israel vs. the Kennedys
At the height an unpopular war in Vietnam, Robert Kennedy emerged to challenge the policies of the Texan who replaced his brother as president in 1963. No one knows for sure that, as president, RFK would have followed JFK’s stance on the Zionist state’s nuclear arsenal. Nor do we know for certain that he would have renewed his insistence that the Israel lobby register as the agent of a foreign government.

When a second Kennedy threat was eliminated with an assassination in June 1968, Tel Aviv welcomed to the White House Richard Nixon who supported Israel’s strategically essential “ambiguous” policy on nuclear arms. Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell was a partner in the same New York law firm (Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander) that Nixon joined in 1963 after his failed bids as president, losing to JFK in 1960, and as governor of California two years later. In honor of Nixon’s arrival, the dominantly Jewish firm was renamed Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander.

In 1973, five years after RFK’s death, Senator Fulbright could announce with confidence that “Israel controls the U.S. Senate.” By 1974, he was replaced in the Senate. Journalist Helen Thomas was then covering Nixon, one of ten presidents in her lengthy career as White House correspondent. In Obama’s first press conference, she sought to clarify the ambiguity about just who posed a nuclear threat in the region. Her question for this latest Commander in Chief: which nation in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?

In response, Chicagoan Barack Obama did the “Tel Aviv Two-Step.” Rather than answer the question, he spoke about the need for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Not since then has Thomas been allowed to ask another question. Instead she was subjected to a withering barrage of personal attacks by pro-Zionist broadcasters who sought to make it appear that she—not the answer to her question—is the problem.

At every opportunity, Tel Aviv insists that Tehran’s nuclear energy program poses an “existential threat.” That claim is correct though not for the reason that the Israel lobby would have Americans believe. If Israel cannot persuade the U.S. to join (or condone) an attack on Iran, some faint semblance of stability may yet be attained in the Middle East. With stability will come an opportunity to confirm the common source of the fixed intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in response to the mass murder of 911.

Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and, importantly, the stable nation state intelligence to mount such a deception inside the U.S. As that fact becomes apparent, an informed American public will insist that its leadership revisit the legitimacy of the Zionist enterprise along with the costs that this “special relationship” has imposed on the U.S. in blood, treasure and hard-earned credibility.

Israel is the Real Threat to Israel
The existential threat to Israel is real but its source is not Iran. The real threat is the facts that Tel Aviv may again obscure if it succeeds in provoking yet another crisis in the region. Those facts confirm the illegitimacy of the Zionist enterprise as a nation state.

The threat to Barack Obama could become existential should he act consistent with his oath of office. As yet he has shown no inclination to address the perils that this entangled alliance with Jewish extremists imposes on U.S. national security and on the prospects for peace.

As the source of the duplicity that induced the U.S. to war becomes known, Americans will insist on accountability. Zionist fanatics may choose another course. A modern-day Masada is a nuclear possibility. With their vast arsenal (estimates range from 200 to 400 warheads), these religious extremists could preempt accountability by creating chaos worldwide while affixing blame on “Islamo” fascists in an attempt to keep their victim status plausibly intact.

To eliminate the existential threat posed by nuclear-armed religious extremists requires that the U.S.—as Israel’s key ally—isolate the Zionist enterprise, withdraw its recognition as a legitimate state and reclassify its advocates as foreign agents. That long overdue change in the legal status of the Israel lobby—first sought in 1962—will enable U.S. law enforcement to pursue its operatives for giving aid and comfort to an enemy within.

The focal point for peace in the Middle East should not be those nations that do not have nuclear weapons but the one nation that does. Absent external pressure, Israeli behavior will not change. Those who seek peace in the region must boycott Israeli exports, divest from Israeli firms and insist on sanctions against Israel akin to those it seeks against others. Anything less will ensure that Zionist extremists continue to endanger us all.

Last year, Israeli ambassador in Ottawa, Alan Baker, openly denounced federal Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and other Quebec politicians for taking part in a weekend a pro-Lebanese rally in Montreal: – what he called as “incited” Muslims who have taken over Canadian streets.

“We are seeing the leaders of opposition parties marching in Montreal under Hezbullah flag – Hezbullah, which is an organization, a terrorist organization which has been outlawed by Canadian law. Anythe expresses surprise at the fact that Canada, a democratic country, is supporting the right of another democratic country to defend itself really doesn’t understand where they’re coming from…”     

Canadian author, Greg Felton’s latest article titled It is a dog life for Israel\’s pet politicians could be a good answer to the Zionist thug’s allegations of Muslim power in Canada.

JUDITH: “Hey mom, what channel is that reality show of yours on?”

MOTHER: “87.”

JUDITH: “It’s not here. There’s some kind of political talk show.”

MOTHER (comes in from the kitchen) Oh, I forgot! Damned cable company shuffled the channels again. Try channel…Hey, isn’t that Brian Cohen? Oooh, I like him! He made mincemeat of that idiot Stephen Harper on Face of the Nation. Looks like he’s got a new show. (She sits down next to Judith) Turn it up! Turn it up!”

BRIAN COHEN: “… and welcome again to Pet Politicians, the show where we talk to politicians and the animals they love. Today, I’m pleased to welcome to the show Alan Baker, Israel’s ambassador to Canada. Welcome, Alan.”

ALAN BAKER: “Good to be here, Brian.”

COHEN: “And I see you brought two friends along.” (The two men are sitting in club chairs across from each other in a den-like room. Two dogs are sitting in front of Alan Baker and jumping up for attention.) “Who’s this” (pointing to the shar-pei).

BAKER: “This is Harper. I’ve had her for about four years now.”

COHEN: “Harper? Did you name her after Harper Lee, who wrote To Kill a Mockingbird?”

BAKER: “Nope—the prime minister. Despite the difference in sex, it seemed like the logical thing to do.” The four-legged one here (Baker starts petting Harper enthusiastically) doesn’t bark and is easy to please.”

COHEN: “Er, how do those factors relate to the two-legged Harper?”

BAKER: “The prime minister can absolutely be relied on not to make Israel look bad. No matter what news might get reported by anti-Israeli news hounds or other governments, Stephen doesn’t say anything. He’s absolutely loyal. It’s almost as if he doesn’t know any bad news is going on. (To Harper) Just like you, huh girl? Who doesn’t make a fuss, eh? Who’s a good dog! (Harper jumps up and licks Baker’s face repeatedly.)

COHEN: “That’s not very complimentary of the prime minister, though, is it?”

BAKER: “Sure it is! Canada doesn’t need to hear the story of how Israelis are killing Palestinians for their organs to sell on the black market. Just because some anti-Semitic Swedish newspaper chose to print this ‘blood libel’ doesn’t mean Harper has to give it credibility by talking about it. Also, when Israel threw two Arab families out of their homes in East Jerusalem where they had lived for 56 years, many in the world turned on Israel. Not Stephen! Not a peep.”

COHEN: “But these stories are true. Israel has been killing Palestinians for their organs, at least since 1992, and Israel has no right to any part of East Jerusalem. That’s Palestinian land under international law and…

BAKER: “True? False? International law? What’s the difference! If news makes Israel look bad it’s anti-Semitic!” (Baker is starting to get a little testy.)

COHEN: (changes tack fast) “So-o-o, Harper the shar-pei…she looks pretty healthy.”

BAKER: (calmed down) “Yes, we take good care of her. I stroke her regularly, give her treats when she’s been especially good, and feed her a special food, the same one she had when she was a pup.”

COHEN: “Did you get her from a breeder?”

BAKER: “Yes, we went to B’nai Brith Kennels. They have an excellent record in breeding and developing dogs in Ottawa. All their animals are fed Hasbara, a food specially formulated to make them look good and feel good. B’nai Brith also spays and neuters all its animals and conducts rigorous obedience training.”

COHEN: “So she listens to you?”

BAKER: “Does she ever! She rolls over and plays dead on command, always keeps two steps behind me….”

COHEN: “I assume this trait is also analogous to the PM.”

BAKER: “Of course. What else but ‘obedient’ can you call a politician who puts Israel’s interests ahead of his own citizens’ constitutional rights? For example, Abousfian Abdelrazik, tortured in his native Sudan, was kept in the Canadian embassy for a year before being allowed to return home to Canada.

“Suaad Hagi Mohamud, a Toronto woman, was stopped at Nairobi’s airport because an official (chuckle!) didn’t think her lips matched her passport photo. Rather than help her, Harper upheld our policy of Muslim profiling and forced her to endure an 11-week ordeal and a DNA test to prove her identity.
“Of course, Harper’s refusal to do anything to bring child soldier Omar Khadr home from Guantánamo is legendary.” (The other dog, a chihuahua, has been yipping throughout the interview and now Baker finally picks her up.) “Yes, Kenney, I see you, there! I haven’t forgotten you!”

COHEN: “Kenney?! Do I have to ask?”

BAKER: “Probably not, but you might as well.”

COHEN: “Is she named after immigration minister Jason Kenney?”

BAKER: “Not exactly, She’s named for the Jason Kennels, where we got her. It’s the small-dog subsidiary of B’nai Brith Kennels. Still, there are similarities with the minister.”

COHEN: “Such as?”

BAKER: “She’s very touchy and goes into barking hysterics at the least provocation. Quite the opposite of Harper, actually.”

COHEN: “How does that make her like Jason Kenney?”

BAKER: “Earlier this year, during Israel’s operation in Gaza, Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation, called Kenney a ‘professional whore who supports war.’ Kenney went barking mad! He went and cut off all federal funding to CAF. That was clearly an uncalled-for overreaction, but it’s understandable. It just kills Kenney to hear anyone condemn Israel’s right to defend its homeland.”

COHEN: “But the concept of a ‘Jewish people’ was debunked by no less than an Israeli scholar Professor Shlomo Sand, so the idea of a Jewish ‘homeland‘ is logically fallacious.” (Kenney starts to growl and bark.)

BAKER: “See what happens when you upset Kenney?”

COHEN: “Indeed. Well that’s all the time we have. Thank you, Alan Baker, for being our guest. (They reach across and shake hands.) And thank you for bringing Harper and Kenney. It just proves that there’s no bitch like a political bitch. See you next time on Pet Politicians.”

MOTHER: (presses the mute button) “Whoa! You don’t see that kind of honesty on regular TV. Now that’s reality! What channel is this?”

JUDITH: “WTFN.”

MOTHER: “Better make a note of it.”

Ramadan 9, 1430

“Under Obama’s engagement with friend and foe alike – diplomatic advances were expected to flow like wine. Instead, friends disregarded US pleas and released Megrahi, and foes received the convicted terrorist with fanfare,” – John Bolton, the former USrael ambassador at the UN – London’s Daily Telegraph. I bet the Crypto-Jew would not like to mention how many times the ‘the best friend (Israel)’ has told America to ‘go to hell’ when Washington asked Tel Aviv to do something which is in the interests of the US but not in Israel’s intersts?

The Jew Lobby is furious over the news that Libya’s dictator, Muamar Qaddafi is planning to make his first-ever visit to United Nations General Assembly next month. Most probably, he decided to attend the world forum because the President of 192-member world forum 46th session in September is a Libyan diplomat, Dr. Ali Abdussalam Tareki 71. The Jewish Lobby has already put into motion the venomous propaganda it has reserved for Iran’s President, Dr. Ahmadinejad, since his call for the removal of Zionism from world’s political culture.

America’s  Zionist-controlled mainstream media is flashing the news of the ‘furious’ families of the victims of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie and Jewish Lobby is arranging mass protests like the ‘Save Darfur’ protests in the past – to greet the Libyan leader in New York and New Jersey (former NJ Governor, James McGreevey had to resign in 2004 as result of his sexual experiment with a Jewish gay staff member, Golan Cipel, an Israeli Mossad mole).

Libyan officials were considering setting up a Bedouin-style tent at a Libyan-owned estate in the upscale suburb of Englewood to accommodate Qaddafi and his entourage to attend the upcoming 64th Session of the UN General Assembly on September 23. Relatives of the 38 victims from NJ had threatened to converge on New York to mount a protest when Gaddafi attends the United Nations General Assembly. However, the Zionist propagandists and the shameless families of the ‘vitims’ don’t want the public to know – is the generosity of Qaddafi for paying US$10 million to each of the family of the 270 victims (US$2.7 billion claim settlement). It is too generous as compared to the US paying US$61.8 million for killing 290 passengers on Iran Air Flight 655 – which was shot-down over Iranian territorial waters at Strait of Hormuz by USS Vincennes on July 3, 1988. Both the US and Israel refuses to pay any compensation to their civlian victims in Iraq, Palestine or Afghanistan (warning for horrible pictures on the link).

Habib Siddique in his column, Libya and Western hypocrisy, wrote:

“I have never been an admirer of the Libyan strongman. But I am not sorry to point out that all this fuss around Megrahi’s release from the Scottish prison and opposition to Gaddafi’s anticipated appearance in the UN is nothing but blatant hypocrisy and double standard. Much that we may hate to admit, by paying handsomely the victims of terrorism, both at home and abroad, Gaddafi has set a higher standard than the USA on a comparable basis. For years, when the USA and Israel were Apartheid South Africa’s best friends, Gaddafi was a trusted comrade of Nelson Mandela’s ANC. He has more rights than any of the Israeli leaders that have had attended the UN General Assembly. If Governor Corzine (NJ) and Mayor Bloomberg (NYC) had no problem in letting such mass murderers to enter New Jersey and New York City, they should not set a double-standard now for Libya’s Gaddafi….”