268 -Wikileaks video; Botched Afghan raid; Karzai bites Obama's hand

The Wikileaks video is at
http://wikileaks.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_vfm3Elc3M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu8QyxuLCn4

Wikileaks video; Botched Afghan raid; Karzai bites Obama's hand

(1) & (2) Wikileaks video of American helicopter killing Iraqi men & children in Baghdad
(3) Botched Afghan raid kills 2 pregnant women, a teenage girl, a police officer & his brother
(4) Karzai bites Obama's hand - Eric Walberg
(5) India rebuffs US calls to shun Iran gas talks
(6) Obama featured in "Bamba" Israeli snack advertisement

(1) Wikileaks video of American helicopter killing Iraqi men & children in Baghdad

From: Dr. Gunther Kümel <sapere--aude@web.de> Date: 06.04.2010 06:38 AM

Video Shows American Killing of Photographer

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

Published: April 5, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html?src=me

WASHINGTON — The Web site WikiLeaks.org released a graphic video on Monday showing an American helicopter shooting and killing a Reuters photographer and driver in a July 2007 attack in Baghdad.

Reuters had long pressed for the release of the video, which consists of 38 minutes of black-and-white aerial video and conversations between pilots in two Apache helicopters as they open fire on people on a street in Baghdad. The attack killed 12, among them the Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and the driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40.

At a news conference at the National Press Club, WikiLeaks said it had acquired the video from whistle-blowers in the military and viewed it after breaking the encryption code. WikiLeaks edited the video to 17 minutes. ...

The American military in Baghdad investigated the episode and concluded that the forces involved had no reason to know that there were Reuters employees in the group. No disciplinary action was taken.

Late Monday, the United States Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, released the redacted report on the case, which provided some more detail.

The report showed pictures of what it said were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of those killed. It also stated that the Reuters employees “made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.”

Brian Stelter contributed reporting from New York.

(2) Wikileaks video of American helicopter killing Iraqi men & children in Baghdad

From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: 07.04.2010 05:39 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack

Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians

Footage of July 2007 attack made public as Pentagon identifies website as threat to national security

Chris McGreal in Washington

guardian.co.uk, Monday 5 April 2010 20.52 BST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack

A secret video showing US air crew falsely claiming to have encountered a firefight in Baghdad and then laughing at the dead after launching an air strike that killed a dozen people, including two Iraqis working for Reuters news agency, was revealed by Wikileaks today.

The footage of the July 2007 attack was made public in a move that will further anger the Pentagon, which has drawn up a report identifying the whistleblower website as a threat to national security. The US defence department was embarrassed when that confidential report appeared on the Wikileaks site last month alongside a slew of military documents.

The release of the video from Baghdad also comes shortly after the US military admitted that its special forces attempted to cover up the killings of three Afghan women in a raid in February by digging the bullets out of their bodies.

The newly released video of the Baghdad attacks was recorded on one of two Apache helicopters hunting for insurgents on 12 July 2007. Among the dead were a 22-year-old Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40. The Pentagon blocked an attempt by Reuters to obtain the video through a freedom of information request. Wikileaks director Julian Assange said his organisation had to break through encryption by the military to view it.

In the recording, the helicopter crews can be heard discussing the scene on the street below. One American claims to have spotted six people with AK-47s and one with a rocket-propelled grenade. It is unclear if some of the men are armed but Noor-Eldeen can be seen with a camera. Chmagh is talking on his mobile phone.

One of the helicopter crew is then heard saying that one of the group is shooting. But the video shows there is no shooting or even pointing of weapons. The men are standing around, apparently unperturbed.

The lead helicopter, using the moniker Crazyhorse, opens fire. "Hahaha. I hit 'em," shouts one of the American crew. Another responds a little later: "Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards."

One of the men on the ground, believed to be Chmagh, is seen wounded and trying to crawl to safety. One of the helicopter crew is heard wishing for the man to reach for a gun, even though there is none visible nearby, so he has the pretext for opening fire: "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." A van draws up next to the wounded man and Iraqis climb out. They are unarmed and start to carry the victim to the vehicle in what would appear to be an attempt to get him to hospital. One of the helicopters opens fire with armour-piercing shells. "Look at that. Right through the windshield," says one of the crew. Another responds with a laugh.

Sitting behind the windscreen were two children who were wounded.

After ground forces arrive and the children are discovered, the American air crew blame the Iraqis. "Well it's their fault for bringing kids in to a battle," says one. "That's right," says another.

Initially the US military said that all the dead were insurgents. Then it claimed the helicopters reacted to an active firefight. Assange said that the video demonstrated that neither claim was true.

"Why would anyone be so relaxed with two Apaches if someone was carrying an RPG and that person was an enemy of the United States?" he said. "The behaviour of the pilots is like a computer game. When Saeed is crawling, clearly unable to do anything, their response is: come on buddy, we want to kill you, just pick up a weapon ... It appears to be a desire to get a higher score, or a higher number of kills."

Wikileaks says it will shortly release a second secret US military video showing the deaths of civilians in an attack in Afghanistan. The Pentagon has been seeking ways to prevent classified material appearing on Wikileaks, including through "criminal sanctions". Wikileaks has made public classified US army reports on weapons, military units and battle strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon report, reflecting the depth of paranoia about where Wikileaks is obtaining its material, speculates that the CIA may be responsible. But perhaps most embarrassing leak for the US defence department was that of the 2008 report itself which appeared on the Wikileaks site last month.

(3) Botched Afghan raid kills 2 pregnant women, a teenage girl, a police officer & his brother

From: Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date: 07.04.2010 05:12 PM

"Collateral" Murder in Afghanistan and Iraq

US Special Forces 'Tried to Cover-up' Botched Khataba Raid in Afghanistan

By Jerome Starkey, Kabul

April 05, 2010 The Times (London) -- US special forces soldiers dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath of a botched night raid, then washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened, Afghan investigators have told The Times.

Two pregnant women, a teenage girl, a police officer and his brother were shot on February 12 when US and Afghan special forces stormed their home in Khataba village, outside Gardez in eastern Afghanistan. The precise composition of the force has never been made public.

The claims were made as Nato admitted responsibility for all the deaths for the first time last night. It had initially claimed that the women had been dead for several hours when the assault force discovered their bodies.

“Despite earlier reports we have determined that the women were accidentally killed as a result of the joint force firing at the men,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Todd Breasseale, a Nato spokesman. The coalition continued to deny that there had been a cover-up and said that its legal investigation, which is ongoing, had found no evidence of inappropriate conduct.

The Kabul headquarters of General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and Nato forces, claimed originally that the women had been “tied up, gagged and killed”.

A senior Afghan official involved in a government investigation told The Times: “I think the special forces lied to McChrystal.”

The official, who asked not to be named until the results of the investigation have been made public, said that the assault force sealed off the compound from 4am, when the raid started, to 11am, when Afghan officials from Gardez were finally allowed access to the house.
At least 11 bullets were fired during the raid, the investigator said, and the shooting was carried out by two American gunmen positioned on the roof of the compound. Only seven bullets were recovered from the scene.

“I asked McChrystal, ‘why did the Americans clean some of the bullets from the area?’ They don’t have the right to do that,” the official said.

Haji Sharabuddin, the head of the family who were attacked, told The Times last month that troops removed bullets from his relatives’ bodies, but his claims were impossible to verify. The hallway where four of the five victims were killed had been repainted and at least two bullet holes had been plastered over.

Video footage of the raid’s aftermath, collected by Afghan investigators, shows close-up shots of one man’s bloodstained and punctured torso and walls with blood on them.

The Afghan investigation differed in one respect from The Times’ findings. Survivors told this newspaper that Saranwal Zahir, the police officer’s brother, was shot when he tried to shout that his family was innocent. The women, who were crouching behind him, were killed in the same volley of fire. Afghan investigators believe that Mr Zahir was carrying an AK47 and wanted to avenge his brother’s killers. The women were clustered around him, trying to pull him inside the house, when the second US gunman opened fire, killing all four of them.

Footage collected by the Afghan team also shows a man in United States Army uniform taking pictures of the bodies. The findings have not been made public. The Interior Ministry is expected to pass a report to the Attorney-General’s office, which will decide whether or not it can press criminal charges.

The family had more than 25 guests on the night of the attack, as well as three musicians, to celebrate the naming of a newborn child.

“In what culture in the world do you invite ... people for a party and meanwhile kill three women?” asked the senior official. “The dead bodies were just eight metres from where they were preparing the food. The Americans, they told us the women were dead for 14 hours.”

In a statement yesterday, Brigadier-General Eric Tremblay, a Nato spokesman, said: “We deeply regret the outcome of this operation, accept responsibility for our actions that night, and know that this loss will be felt forever by the families.

“The force went to the compound based on reliable information in search of a Taleban insurgent, and believed that the two men posed a threat to their personal safety. We now understand that the men killed were only trying to protect their families.”

(4) Karzai bites Obama's hand - Eric Walberg

From: efgh1951 <efgh1951@yahoo.com> Date: 07.04.2010 02:48 PM
Subject: [shamireaders] Karzai and Obama: Biting the hand that feeds

Karzai and Obama: Biting the hand that feeds

 Monday, 05 April 2010 15:24

http://ericwalberg.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=247:karzai-and-obama-biting-the-hand-that-feeds&catid=40:middle-east&Itemid=93

Lieutenant colonel Brian Christmas (I'm not making this up) recently threatened the village elders in Sistani, a village near Marja, with "the choice between American guns and American resources". Read: turn stoolie. The Afghan president begs to differ, says Eric Walberg

There can be no doubt that Washington is in the throws of a mental breakdown over what to do about Afghanistan. The very unenthusiastic surge now underway is a disaster on the ground, as NATO, Taliban and civilian deaths skyrocket in Marja and Kandahar, with Kunduz coming up in the brutal Afghan summer. The staunchly noncombatant Germans are supposed to spearhead the latter operation, but there is a revolution brewing at home after three of them died in a few seconds last week, and nearby their comrades gunned down five Afghan soldiers in a case of "friendly fire". To make matters worse, far worse, America's political hope, President Hamid Karzai, is doing his best to scuttle the occupiers' plans, however altruistic and noble they might be.

A petulant Karzai invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to Kabul 10 March and listened approvingly as America's nemesis gave a fiery anti-American speech, condemning the US drive for control of the Middle East and Central Asia and for promoting terrorism in the region. While Karzai can be commended for the perfectly reasonable initiative -- after all Iran is Afghanistan's most powerful neighbour and getting it onside in search of peace is eminently sensible -- what prompted this nonetheless bizarre performance was Karzai's anger over being "uninvited" to Washington the previous week. Not that Washington was well within its rights, after Karzai decided that his election commission in future should be composed exclusively of his friends rather than any pesky UN officials.

Another new development is Karzai's sudden love for his former comrades in the Taliban, whom he betrayed in the late 1990s to take up a job as Unicol lobbyist and to parachute in with the US when it invaded Afghanistan in 2001. Apparently on his own initiative, he had recently undertaken negotiations with second-in-command Taliban leader Abdul Ghani Baradar, who the Pakistanis or Americans immediately arrested in February, much to his displeasure. Undaunted, two weeks after  the Iranian visit, Karzai entertained representatives of the Afghan insurgent group Hezb-e Islami led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who, in 2003, the US State Department honoured as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" for his work with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

This is a strange peace partner for Karzai considering Hekmatyar tried to assassinate him in 2008. His reputation is far worse than the run-of-the-mill Taliban; even Iran expelled him and his handful of followers in 2002, albeit under US pressure. Karzai's photo-op with Hizb-e Islami hardly constitutes a breakthrough, and most knowledgeable sources have little hope for negotiations with the real Taliban (as opposed to the megalomaniac Hekmatyar or the soft Taliban defectors now under house arrest in Kabul). Still, Karzai can only be commended yet again for another perfectly reasonable initiative -- the only way to salvage his own corrupt and incompetent regime is to bring in people who have the respect of the Afghans for what they surely see as a selfless struggle to protect Afghan culture from the invader Christmases.

But both his initiatives have infuriated his patrons in Washington, as both very much undermine the raison d'etre of the occupiers' new surge, which is to kill anyone who dares call himself Taliban and to outlaw any admiration of the Islamic republic to the west.

Karzai has burned just about all his bridges at this point. US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry concluded privately in November that Karzai is "not an adequate strategic partner. ... His circle assume we covet their territory for a never-ending `war on terror' and for military bases to use against surrounding powers." Alas Mr Karzai, you can lead a horse like Karl to water, but you can't make him drink.

Since then things have gone from bad to worse. In January, Karzai reiterated this "theory", complained the US opposes striking a peace deal with the Taliban, and that he is the only one who can stand up to the goddam Yankees. Again, perfectly sound arguments, though hardly music to his sponsors' ears. His silence since the surge in Marja began -- except to criticise civilian deaths -- is just as deafening as his loud rhetoric.

US pundits such as Thomas Friedman angrily attack him: "That is what we're getting for risking thousands of US soldiers and having spent $200 billion already."  By ignoring the fraudulent presidential election last year and the widespread corruption, Friedman says Obama is getting what he asks for. "If Karzai behaves like this when he needs us, when we're there fighting for him, how is he going to treat our interests when we're gone?" he wails. "He is going to break our hearts."

In a frantic attempt to bring Karzai to heel, United States President Barack Obama made an unannounced visit to Afghanistan -- his first as president -- 28 March, after Karzai returned from Teheran where he celebrated Navruz the previous day with his new friend. Obama attempted to smooth over the spat with Karzai about the election commission and of course give succour to the troops, though it's unlikely that either goal was achieved. As Obama flew home, the Afghan president threw another dagger at Obama's back. Defending the presidential elections last year, he said, "There is no doubt that the fraud was very widespread, but this fraud was not committed by Afghans, it was committed by foreigners." He pointed his finger at the American Peter Galbraith, deputy UN special representative, who exposed the real fraud and was fired for his pains, and who considered this latest outburst of Karzai an April Fools' Day joke, "underscoring how totally unreliable this guy is as an ally."

Karzai also made the very obvious and very valid point: if Western forces are seen as invaders and the Afghan government their mercenaries, the insurgency "could become a national resistance." Hello? Who has been supporting the Taliban for almost a decade? As NATO soldiers "mow the grass", who are the young men who continue to sacrifice their lives for their country?

The White House called the speech "troubling" and said it was seeking clarification through the State Department, which is diplo-speak for "He's no longer our SOB." But the State Department is in as much of a quandary as the military and Obama. Karzai must have had second thoughts about his comments and in a 25-minute phone call to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week expressed surprise that his remarks are seen as critical of the US, that he really just meant to criticise Western media. Mrs Clinton soothed her troubled ward, assuring him of America's commitment to Afghanistan and bemoaned she had no control over American news coverage. As relations between the Obama administration and Karzai become more tense, Karzai has increasingly turned to Clinton, a development that can only be interpreted as a naughty boy appealing to a mother figure -- hardly something to reassure Obama that he has a tough, unflinching warrior-prince who can prevail against all odds.

But this political snake pit is not all that different than the Iraqi one, where the former (and incumbent?) president Nouri Al-Maliki regularly visited and hosted delegations from Iran, and where America's darling (and incumbent?) former prime minister Ayad Allawi defected from the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein into UK exile, founded the Iraqi National Accord, and in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq earned his keep providing "intelligence" about weapons of mass destruction to MI6. Allawi has lived half of his life in the UK and his wife and children still live there. He too parachuted in with his patrons, when they began their "Shock and Awe" devastation of Baghdad in 2003, and now is refashioning himself as the grand compromiser, bridging all chasms, no matter how wide, deep and made-in-the-USA.

The big difference with Karzai, of course, is that the US occupiers in Iraq are in control of elections, with no UN or other observers, something that irks Karzai, who is no doubt as suspicious of Allawi's surprising "victory" there as the rest of us, a victory which will conveniently put paid to any more love-ins with the demon Iran.

Though a neutral observer might sympathise with Karzai's initiatives with Iran and the insurgency considering the fix he is in, it is hard to sympathise with his staunch support of his brother Ahmed Wali Karzai, chairman of the Kandahar provincial council, infamous for his involvement in the drug trade, money laundering, racketeering and electoral fraud. He even pays insurgents not to attack his business interests. As the surge reaches Kandahar, its chief landlord is now seizing land he thinks NATO may want to rent. "What's really fuelling the insurgency is groups being disenfranchised, feeling oppressed by the institutions of state and criminal syndicates," said Mark Sedwill, NATO's top civilian official in Afghanistan. But as there is no one left outside his family that Karzai can really trust, Ahmed stays.

An editorial in the New York Times goes as far as to suggest that Karzai is losing his marbles with his latest "rambling speech" full of "delusional criticism", that at times he seemed to be having a conversation with himself, saying that he needed to let go of his anger over the election, but was unable: "We have a knot in our heart; our dignity and bravery has been damaged and stepped on." Karzai apparently thinks "that American lives are being sacrificed simply to keep him in power. It's hard to think of a better way to doom Afghanistan's future, as well as his own."

Fighting words, those. Has Karzai read his Vietnam history and the fate of nationalist premier Ngo Dinh Diem, who was murdered in a coup sponsored by the CIA in 1963? Closer to his heart -- and neck and other appendages -- is the gruesome fate of his predecessor Mohammad Najibullah. By openly criticising the occupiers and reaching out to his old friends, like Allawi he is desperately refashioning himself as the grand compromiser, hoping to strike a deal with enough of the Taliban to bring the insurgency under control. No matter how much he badmouths his patrons, he still figures it is less likely he will die at their hands than at the hands of the Taliban. Karzai is right to think that "after me the deluge", that the US has no one else remotely credible to take over. Waiting in the wings is runner-up in last year's presidential election, the mysterious Abdullah Abdullah, a native Tajik from the Northern Alliance, unswerving foe of the Pashtun-majority Taliban, who will incite outright civil war.

Given his D- report card, there are no American officials on Karzai's side anymore and it is hard not to imagine a scenario where his American guards fail to shield him from the next assassination attempt. But he should watch out. It may not be Hekmatyar, the Taliban or the CIA that takes the next shot at him. Ahmed runs armed mercenary groups said to be behind the assassinations of provincial officials such as Sitara Achekzai and Yunus Hosseini. Fratricide is a time-honoured way to seize power. ***

Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ . You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/

(5) India rebuffs US calls to shun Iran gas talks

From: WVNS <ummyakoub@yahoo.com> Date: 05.04.2010 05:24 PM

Saturday, April 3, 2010
Press TV
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/india-rebuffs-us-calls-to-shun-iran-gas-talks/

India has rejected a call from the US to shun participation in gas talks with Iran, saying "energy security" is a priority for New Delhi.

Iran and Pakistan signed a deal in March to construct a multi-billion dollar natural gas pipeline connecting the two neighboring countries — a project that was strongly opposed by the US. The deal is part of the long-delayed 7.5-billion-dollar Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project. ...

Israel destroys Gaza dairy for second time

From: Dr. Gunther Kümel <sapere--aude@web.de> Date: 07.04.2010 04:24 PM

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11185.shtml

Rami Almeghari writing from the occupied Gaza Strip, Live from Palestine, 5 April 2010

It was not a chemical plant, nor a nuclear facility, nor a manufacturer of weapons of mass destruction. But almost all the rubble of the entirely destroyed factory was covered in white, with white chunks everywhere. These were pieces of cheese, butter and yoghurt -- some of the products made by the Dalloul dairy factory in southern Gaza City.

Israeli warplanes bombed the factory shortly after midnight last Thursday through Friday night, 1-2 April, leaving the building, all its equipment and the distribution van completely destroyed.

"At 12:30am we heard a very loud explosion nearby," said owner Mutassim Dalloul as he inspected the wreckage on Friday morning. "I got downstairs to find my factory completely destroyed. Everything inside, including the machines, the power generator and all our products, [was destroyed]."

This was not the first Israeli attack on the factory.

"During the January 2009 war on Gaza, Israeli warplanes hit my factory, inflicting an estimated loss of half a million dollars. However, my brothers and I decided to rebuild it, so we now have a newly-destroyed dairy," Dalloul said. He estimated the losses from the latest attack to be at least $100,000.

The Dalloul dairy is located in southern Gaza City, far away from the Gaza-Israel boundary. The factory distributed its products all over the city.

"At least 60 family members used to be supported from the work at this diary. I myself have a family of nine, including myself and my wife. My two brothers along with a number of other workers used to work at this factory, trying to get by under these harsh circumstances," Dalloul patiently explained, despite his loss.

The attack on the Dalloul factory was part of about a dozen air raids carried out across the Gaza Strip in what Israel said was a response to rockets fired from Gaza into nearby Israeli towns (Palestinian resistance factions for their part say their rocket fire is a response to constant Israeli attacks on Gaza). Israeli leaders have publicly threatened harsh attacks on the territory after Palestinian resistance fighters killed two Israeli soldiers when an Israeli patrol made an incursion into the Gaza Strip last week. ...

Rami Almeghari is a journalist and university lecturer based in the Gaza Strip.

(6) Obama featured in "Bamba" Israeli snack advertisement

From: Roy Tov <tovroy@gmail.com> Date: 06.04.2010 03:33 PM

Bamba - a Popular Israeli snack: Obama racially attacked

http://www.roytov.com/articles/obama.htm

President Obama Racially Attacked on the Hebrew Media

The picture above <http://www.roytov.com/articles/obamba.jpg> was published on the Israeli media; I downloaded it from the web. It displays the package of a well known Israeli snack, named "Bamba," with a few changes.

1. The name reads now "Obamba."

2. Above the company logo it reads "Special Issue for the US Elections."

3. The Hebrew word for "snack," which also means "that can be kidnapped." Did the author mean it in the ideological sense? It seems so:

4. A small text at the bottom reads “under the control of the B.D.Tz.” The last is the inner judicial court of the Haredim.

5. The specific taste variety of the snack mentioned here does not exist. The difference is that in the fake picture, the well known peanut flavored snack is filled with nougat cream. Since the basic taste of "bamba" is salty, I do not think such a product with nougat cream would be ever developed. There is no pun here, unless it refers to racial issues. This opinion is strengthened by the fact that the baby’s skin color was changed from white on the original product to black in the fake one. Moreover, in the 1980s a nougat cream filled chocolate (named Rosemarie) was released into the Israeli market. It was advertised by the black supermodel Naomi Campbell. Since then, a linkage between skin color and that product was created in the Israeli mind.

Bamba | a Popular Israeli snack <http://www.roytov.com/articles/bamba.jpg>

Probably, most American readers are chuckling at the picture and the whole issue. Worse things have been published elsewhere. To them, I want to clarify two points.

First, a similar attack on the Israeli Prime Minister cannot be published on the Israeli media. It would be censored.

Second, mentioning such a publishing by, let’s say, Al-Jazeera would lead to them being blamed of being anti-Semitic by the ADL or any other similar organization.

In Israel, racism is relative.

== Are America's leaders testing God?

{caption} Temptation of Christ | Israel's Arrogance of Power {end}

http://www.roytov.com/articles/test.htm

“Are America's leaders testing God?” This is the title of an article by Earl Cox, published on March 18, 2010, by the Jerusalem Post. The last is an Israeli newspaper in English. Even by Israeli standards, this is a right wing publication. After Israel was defined a terrorist entity by the Goldstone Report and its subsequent ratification by the UN Human Rights Commission, that probably means I’m on safe ground while defining this as a quasi-terrorist publication. Sue me if not.

The key statement of the article (repeated twice!) is: “Anyone with any discernment knows there would be peace tomorrow, if only Israel's Arab enemies would renounce terrorism and recognize the right of the Jewish state to exist.”

“Wow! Chutzpah!” would Rabbi Zalman of Zeinschmeck say, if he only existed and was honest. There is need of a lot of hypocrisy to say that. “Your opinion has any value only if it fits mine!” is the author saying here. His opinion denies the Goldstone Report. His opinion recognizes a religious/racist definition of the state (that is using the Pharisaic Rabbinical definition of Judaism which claims religion and ethnicity are one while used in respect of Judaism). His opinion is based on the assumption Israel commits no crimes.

“Blame the Israelis for the ‘years of mistrust,’…’Is he so naïve that he doesn't know who is responsible for the "mistrust"’?” continues the author. This is strange; he implies Israeli officials are trustworthy. I did comment in the past about the indefatigable conspirators; they obviously cannot be trusted. But it isn’t only that, Israeli officials are disgusting even on the personal level, as it was shown by the same newspaper on April 5, 2010. Turkish ambassador to Jerusalem Ahmet Oguz Celikkol was recalled to Ankara after a humiliating public debacle with Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and another Israeli diplomat at the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Celikkol was seated on a low stool, with no food and only an Israeli flag on the table. A pack of wild wolves are more courteous to a guest.

The author’s ongoing tirade against the American government is not surprising. Strangely enough, a reader contacted me a few days ago claiming the racist caricature of Obama on the Hebrew media was fake. Yet, Larry David’s atrocious act against Christianity is much worse, and the same reader didn’t react to this collateral proof on the Jewish attitude problem. (Rumors say Larry David is planning to paint God’s face using his own excrements during the next season. Rabbis have approved – it doesn’t contradict the Talmud – and a major movie studio in Hollywood promised making a movie about the event. “I’m Jew! I’m Jew!” he was heard saying repeatedly to an old wall.). Truth is that disrespectful and misleading remarks on Obama and Biden abound, especially on Hebrew texts and subtexts which are seldom translated.

In this article the author states: “However, all Israelis understand that President Obama has gone out of his way to reach out to the Arab and Muslim world. He gave his very first TV interview as president to the Al-Arabiya news channel. He sent private letters to Iran's dictator, who has vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the map. He spoke in Egypt and in Turkey of softening America's foreign policy. And he bowed to Saudi Arabia's Muslim king.” “Dictator?” Give me a break! And, does the author expect the US to have diplomatic relations only with countries approved by the terrorist State of Israel?

“Anyone with any discernment,” he says, so Obama and Biden have none.

“Again, he has obviously not been listening,” about Biden.

“Biden and Obama have no business pressuring the government and people of Israel,” he claims, while not denying the opposite statement. However, the people and government of Israel can pressure the US.

“Where has he been for the past 100 years or more,” he says about Biden, implying the last knows nothing.

However, I want to emphasize here another important aspect. I have commented on several occasions in this website and in The Cross of Bethlehem , about the obscene way in which Israelis (and Jews in general) use the Hebrew language. That’s not necessary; a Christian uses the same language in a pleasant way with no problems. In the Goldstone Report the Israeli Administration mindset is defined as “Arrogance of Power.” This reflects on the language, including in this article. The obscene parts are here dissimulated under typical Jewish double talk. You can read the article several times and find no direct obscenity, though, as shown, the author stops short – very short – of calling Obama and Biden fools.The Jerusalem Post article may just be on the right side of the line defining a respectful attitude, but I am much more worried about a different fact. The article’s title seems to be disconnected to the article’s body. Let me remind you, the article is called: “Are America's leaders testing God?” However, the article deals with the opinions differences between the American and Israeli governments with respect with the Palestinians. “Are America's leaders testing Israel?” would be a more accurate and equally arrogant title. The Israeli Administration is placing itself in the place of God. I had commented in The Cross of Bethlehem about several Israeli state agents that approached me claiming they have been sent by God or that they were working for Him. Eventually, one of them opened up to me and acknowledged her being filthy and unworthy, the event is described in The Cross of Bethlehem .

Israel has crossed a dangerous line here. “Are Israel's leaders testing God?” is the true lemma of our times. The answer is positive. And God will answer.