91 Steve Rosen Accuses AIPAC of Espionage

(1) Egypt destroys 10 more of Gaza's survival tunnels
(2) Steve Rosen Accuses AIPAC of Espionage
(3) Richard Goldstone on UN War Crimes investigation  in Gaza
(4) UN probe: evidence of war crimes in Gaza conflict
(5) Elements of U.S. Peace Plan Revealed
(6) New weapon in Mea Shearim: Raspberry syrup
(7) How Israel Gained Control of American Foreign Policy and Public Opinion - Hesham Tillawi

(1) Egypt destroys 10 more of Gaza's survival tunnels

From: ummyakoub <ummyakoub@yahoo.com> Date: 17.09.2009 05:03 PM

Egypt destroys 10 more Gaza's survival tunnels

Tue, 15 Sep 2009

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=106210§ionid=351020202

The network of tunnels are being used to import vital supplies to the impoverished Gaza Strip.

In another act of tightening the screws on the people of Gaza, Egypt destroys ten more tunnels north of its border town of Rafah used to import vital supplies into the besieged Gaza Strip.

Egyptian security forces found the exact location of the cross-border tunnels and blew them up on Monday after receiving a tip-off from a Palestinian runner who was arrested last week.

Muhammad al-Shaer was arrested at the Rafah border crossing as he tried to enter Gaza on false documents. Egyptian officials say more tunnels will be uncovered following his arrest.

As a result of the crippling land, sea, and air blockade of the Gaza Strip imposed by Israel and Egypt since June 2007 when Palestinian resistance movement Hamas took control of the enclave, Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants have had to heavily rely on 'illicit' and perilous tunnels as the sole means of obtaining essential supplies such as food and medicines.

The cross-border tunnels -- also known as Gaza's feeding tubes -- along Rafah, are frequently being attacked by Israeli and Egyptian security forces.

(2) Steve Rosen Accuses AIPAC of Espionage

From: ummyakoub <ummyakoub@yahoo.com>  Date: 17.09.2009 05:01 PM

by Grant Smith

September 02, 2009

http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2009/09/01/steve-rosen-accuses-aipac/

Steven J. Rosen's defamation lawsuit against the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is now entering a critical phase. A series of cross-filings stakes out the critical court terrain. Rosen intends to show that obtaining and leveraging classified U.S. government information in the service of Israel is common practice at AIPAC. He claims it was unfair for AIPAC to fire and malign him in the press after he was indicted on espionage charges in 2005. AIPAC's defense team is committed to getting the case thrown out on technicalities before it goes to trial early next year.

On March 2, 2009, Rosen filed the civil lawsuit against his former employer, directors, and an outside public relations firm for libel and slander. Rosen, AIPAC's former foreign policy chief, seeks $5 million in damages from AIPAC, and punitive damages of $500,000 from each former board member, for a total claim of $21 million. AIPAC made statements to the news media Rosen believes were "knowingly false and defamatory and issued in reckless disregard." AIPAC fired Rosen and fellow employee Keith Weissman after they were criminally indicted under the 1917 Espionage Act in 2005. Both were caught up in an FBI sting operation receiving classified information from Department of Defense employee Col. Lawrence Franklin, who pled guilty and turned state's witness. After years of pretrial maneuvers during which presiding Judge T.S. Ellis steadily raised the standards for conviction, U.S. government prosecutors reluctantly dropped [.pdf] their case in May 2009.

AIPAC's spokesman told the New York Times in April 2005 that Rosen's actions differed from "the conduct that AIPAC expects from its employees." On July 7, 2005, the spokesperson told the New Yorker that "Rosen [and his colleagues] were dismissed because they engaged in conduct that was not part of their jobs and because this conduct did not comport with the standards that AIPAC expects and requires of its employees." Rosen's legal counsel David H. Shapiro gruffly advised AIPAC's attorney Thomas L. McCally that he would be seeking "serious discovery" on Rosen's behalf during a status hearing on June 5, 2009. It is this sort of public intrusion guided by knowledgeable insiders, following already devastating FBI raids, that AIPAC probably wants to avoid at all costs.

Ironically, Rosen's civil lawsuit, like the failed government prosecution, hinges on proving that circulating classified information is common practice inside AIPAC. AIPAC's counsel originally filed an immediate motion to dismiss [.pdf] on May 13, 2009, asserting that Rosen failed to show "factual allegations" that could be considered in any way defamatory. McCally also took Rosen to task for filing outside the one-year statute of limitations for defamation and suing AIPAC board members who have various immunities under District of Columbia statutes. In a July 8, 2009, rebuttal [.pdf], Rosen states his clear belief that the most relevant issue was AIPAC dumping two employees to save itself from being criminally indicted as a corporation.

"On February 17, 2005, only two weeks after awarding Mr. Rosen the $7,000 special bonus for excellence in job performance, the AIPAC Board of Directors placed him on involuntary leave. This was done immediately after AIPAC was threatened by the Justice Department in a meeting between AIPAC's counsel and its Executive Director Howard Khor and federal prosecutors on February 15, 2005. There the lead federal prosecutor stated that, `We could make real progress and get AIPAC out from under all of this,' if AIPAC showed more cooperation with the government. On February 16, 2005, AIPAC's counsel said that the lead federal prosecutor `is fighting with the FBI to limit the investigation to Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman and to avoid expanding it.' This warning implied that AIPAC's Executive Director and the AIPAC organization as a whole could become targets."

Rosen's lengthy – even rambling – rebuttal argues "no expressed standards existed at AIPAC" regarding the receipt and sharing of information from government officials. Rosen insists that in spite of AIPAC denials the information he provided from "intelligence" sources were passed to AIPAC's president with full disclosure of their origins.

In an Aug. 7, 2009, court filing, AIPAC fired back claiming Rosen "has misdirected his anger" by suing AIPAC rather than the "government agency that directly investigated him and indicted him for purported criminal activities." AIPAC claims Rosen failed to demonstrate AIPAC's intent to defame under the higher standards established for public figures like Rosen. "Malice is only required for public and limited purpose public figures to establish a defamation suit. Even with the heightened standard required of public figures, Plaintiff has not shown any…." AIPAC added insult to injury, claiming that "by any objective or subjective measure, being subject of a criminal indictment is not conduct an employer expects of any employee."

Rosen returned fire on Aug. 24, 2009, claiming ample legal precedents for allowing aggrieved parties to file lawsuits outside normal statutes of limitations for extenuating circumstances – in this case Rosen's criminal indictment and drawn-out pretrial maneuvers. Echoing the June 5, 2009, courtroom showdown threats, Rosen repeats he "will be in a position to prove his allegations with evidence following discovery."

Rosen's quest for elusive justice is oddly parallel to that of his former government prosecutors. They only wanted to prove the straightforward results of an FBI sting operation, during which Rosen both received and transmitted classified national defense information. The FBI and DOJ never expected a media circus, ongoing accusations of anti-Semitism, claims that U.S. and Israeli foreign policies are "the same," and speculation that their entire prosecution was covert attempt to overturn the 1st Amendment.

Rosen and former AIPAC chief lobbyist Doug Bloomfield have threatened to prove that AIPAC regularly dabbles in classified information-trading and sometimes even functions as a foreign agent – at least up until the moment of a confidential out-of-court financial settlement. If the court lets Rosen proceed to discovery, proving these contentions shouldn't be very difficult. Bloomfield worked at AIPAC around the time it was circulating a classified government report outlining the U.S. Trade Representative's secret negotiating position for the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area. With such inside information about precisely where the skeletons are buried, the duo should have no problem revealing AIPAC to the world as a hotbed of espionage and covert action. Broadcasting Rosen's unsavory activities to the world under such circumstances probably was defamation.

Thrashing AIPAC in court is not something Rosen and Bloomfield, as lifelong Israel lobbyists, would do gladly, but in their eyes the lobby's principle of reciprocity and motto of "divided we fall" has been badly battered by AIPAC's mistreatment of its former operatives. Telling Rosen that he can't recover due compensation just because his civil lawsuit was filed too late will surely seem a travesty of justice to the hard core of the lobby. Americans, on the other hand, must continue to wait for the day that the DOJ finally begins enforcing sensible laws still on the books such as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the Logan Act, the Commercial Espionage Act, and others that create foreign lobby accountability, improve policymaking, and preserve American industrial innovation. The only current relief from AIPAC's onslaught against America may be that family legal troubles could delay its slow march to entangle the U.S. military in an ill-advised and costly attack on Israel's archnemesis, Iran.

(3) Richard Goldstone on UN War Crimes investigation  in Gaza

From: Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date: 18.09.2009 12:22 PM

Justice in Gaza 

By Richard Goldstone

September 17, 2009, NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/opinion/17goldstone.html?scp=1&sq=Justice%20in%20Gaza%20&st=cse

I ACCEPTED with hesitation my United Nations mandate to investigate alleged violations of the laws of war and international human rights during Israel's three-week war in Gaza last winter. The issue is deeply charged and politically loaded. I accepted because the mandate of the mission was to look at all parties: Israel; Hamas, which controls Gaza; and other armed Palestinian groups. I accepted because my fellow commissioners are professionals committed to an objective, fact-based investigation.

But above all, I accepted because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the laws of war, and the principle that in armed conflict civilians should to the greatest extent possible be protected from harm. In the fighting in Gaza, all sides flouted that fundamental principle. Many civilians unnecessarily died and even more were seriously hurt. In Israel, three civilians were killed and hundreds wounded by rockets from Gaza fired by Hamas and other groups. Two Palestinian girls also lost their lives when these rockets misfired.

In Gaza, hundreds of civilians died. They died from disproportionate attacks on legitimate military targets and from attacks on hospitals and other civilian structures. They died from precision weapons like missiles from aerial drones as well as from heavy artillery. Repeatedly, the Israel Defense Forces failed to adequately distinguish between combatants and civilians, as the laws of war strictly require. ...

Richard Goldstone, the former chief prosecutor for war-crime tribunals on Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, is the head of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.

(4) UN probe: evidence of war crimes in Gaza conflict

From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com>  Date: 16.09.2009 03:19 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/15/world/AP-UN-UN-Gaza-Probe.html?_r=1

By JOHN HEILPRIN (AP) – September 15, 2009

UNITED NATIONS — A U.N. investigation concluded Tuesday that both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, raising the prospect that officials may seek prosecution in the International Criminal Court.

The probe led by former South African judge Richard Goldstone concluded that "Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity," during its Dec. 27-Jan. 18 military operations against Palestinian rocket squads in the Gaza Strip.

In a 575-page report, Goldstone and three other investigators also found evidence "that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity."

Goldstone said the probe, which included 188 interviews, a review of 10,000 documents and 12,000 photos and video, was completed only Tuesday morning, just hours before the hastily called news conference.

"There should be no impunity for international crimes that are committed," he said. "It's very important that justice should be done."

Israel, which refused to cooperate with the investigation, said the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council that ordered it was biased.

The investigators recommended that the U.N. Security Council require Israel to launch its own credible investigation into the conflict within three months. If that is not done, the investigators called on the council to refer the matter for action by the International Criminal Court prosecutor within six months. However, Israel does not accept the court's authority.

The Palestinian group Hamas rules Gaza and has been accused by Israel of using human shields during the conflict, in which almost 1,400 Palestinians were killed — many of them civilians.

"The mandate of the mission and the resolution establishing it prejudged the outcome of any investigation, gave legitimacy to the Hamas terrorist organization and disregarded the deliberate Hamas strategy of using Palestinian civilians as cover for launching terrorist attacks," Israel's Foreign Ministry said.

Goldstone, who is Jewish and has strong ties to Israel, told reporters at U.N. headquarters that "to accuse me of being anti-Israel is ridiculous," anticipating such criticism. He said it was in the interest of both Israelis and Palestinians to establish the truth of what happened in the conflict.

In a joint statement, nine Israeli human rights groups said the findings join a "long series of reports" indicating that Israeli and Hamas violated the laws of war. It called on the Israeli government to conduct an "independent and impartial investigation."

"The groups expect the government of Israel to respond to the substance of the report's findings and to desist from its current policy of casting doubt upon the credibility of anyone who does not adhere to the establishment's narrative," it said.

In a preliminary investigation earlier this year, the army cleared itself of any systematic wrongdoing during the war and said any rights violations were isolated incidents. Since then, it has opened a series of separate investigations into the conduct of individual soldiers.

"Notwithstanding its reservations, Israel will read the report carefully," the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday of the U.N. report, noting that the military has examined more than 100 allegations regarding the conduct of its forces during the Gaza operation, resulting in 23 criminal investigations.

Hamas officials were not immediately available for comment.

The report said that Israel's attacks in the Zeitoun neighborhood of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to assemble, amounted to war crimes.

It found seven incidents in which civilians were shot while leaving their homes trying to run for safety, waving white flags and sometimes even following Israeli instructions, as well as the targeting of a mosque at prayer time, killing 15 people, were also war crimes.

A "direct and intentional attack" on the Al Quds Hospital and an adjacent ambulance depot in Gaza City "may constitute war crimes," the report said.

Several Palestinians told the mission they were used as human shields by the Israeli forces, the report said, noting the case of Majdi Abd Rabbo, a 39-year-old intelligence officer of the Palestinian authority who was forced to walk ahead of the troops as they searched his and his neighbor's house. Rabbo was forced to undress down to his underwear in front of the soldiers and his sons had to strip naked, the report said.

On the Palestinian side, the report found that armed groups firing rockets into southern Israel from Gaza failed to distinguish between military targets and the civilian population.

"Where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into civilian areas, they constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population," the report said. "These actions would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity."

Investigators called on Israel to immediately allow people and goods across borders "for the recovery and reconstruction of housing and essential services and for the resumption of meaningful economic activity in the Gaza Strip."

They also recommended that Israel ease up on fishing restrictions within 20 nautical miles from shore and allow farming to resume within the Gaza Strip "including within areas in the vicinity of the borders with Israel."

Associated Press writers Frank Jordans and Eliane Engeler in Geneva and Josef Federman in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

(5) Elements of U.S. Peace Plan Revealed

From: ummyakoub <ummyakoub@yahoo.com>  Date: 15.09.2009 09:39 AM

08 September 2009

http://www.palestinecenterblog.org/2009/09/elements-of-us-peace-plan-revealed.html

An elected Palestinian official unveiled today details of a U.S. peace plan for a "permanent peaceful solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict." It was recently drafted by U.S. President Barack Obama, who intends to officially declare it soon, according to Hassan Khraisha, deputy speaker of the Palestinian parliament.

Xinhua reported that according to Khraisha, the plan includes:

* Statehood: the establishment of Palestinian statehood first in the West Bank by 2011. Later, the Gaza Strip will be integrated.

* Normalization: Full recognition of and relations with by the Arab states.

* No Authority Over East Jerusalem: "The plan puts parts of East Jerusalem under the full Israeli sovereignty without any actual Palestinian control on it. But the holy sites will be under Arab and Islamic administration," said Khraisha.

* Security: Intensifying the Israeli-Palestinian security coordination in the West Bank.

* Palestinian Foreign Policy: It prevents the Palestinian state from making any foreign military alliances in the region, according to Khraisha.

* Limited Refugee Resettlement: Resettling "a limited number of Palestinian refugees in the Jordan valley and other areas in the West Bank" between Nablus and Ramallah, Khraisha said.

* Refugee Financial Assistance: "An international fund association to help the Palestinian refugees" would be set up.

* Not Clear on Refugees in Arab World: The "plan did not show what would be the fate of the Palestinian refugees living in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and other Arab and foreign countries."

* Settlements: the plan talks about keeping big settlements in the West Bank, and to start negotiations on smaller settlements within three months.

* Demilitarization: The Palestinian state would be demilitarized.

* Airspace: Israel exercises control of the airspace above the Palestinian state.

* Factions as Parties: "The new U.S. plan calls for turning the different armed Palestinian factions into political parties which condemn the use of violence against Israel," said Khraisha.

* Palestinian prisoners: The plan includes an Israeli release of a number of prisoners from its jails as soon as a permanent peace agreement is signed between Israel and the PNA. The prisoners' release would take three years.

Khraisha, who declined to say from where he got the draft, said that the U.S. administration had finalized the plan with the assistance of some Jewish figures specialized in the Israeli-Palestinian affairs.

Khraisha opposes the U.S. plan, saying "it means to dwarf the Palestinian political project and smashes the legitimate rights of the Palestinians in two basic issues, Jerusalem and the refugees return."

"The plans and declarations of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to start building up the establishments and the institutions of the future Palestinian statehood might be made in accordance with the U.S. peace plan," said Khraisha.

He said that the PNA "might deal with the plan, which is very dangerous and it comes in a status of Palestinian weakness due to the current political rift between Hamas and Fatah."

(6) New weapon in Mea Shearim: Raspberry syrup

What fate awaits youths who loiter in haredi neighborhood on Shabbat? Ultra-Orthodox residents of Jerusalem quarter smear sticky raspberry syrup on benches in order to deter young men and women from engaging in boisterous conversation with one another

Ari Galahar
Published: 09.14.09, 08:21 / Israel Jewish Scene

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3776316,00.html

A new initiative put together by anonymous Mea Shearim residents is making the lives of youths there just a little bit harder, and stickier. Every week, just before Shabbat comes in, raspberry syrup is smeared on all public seating areas in the neighborhood.

The campaign's objective is to prevent young men and women from sitting on the benches and engaging in conversation.

The bench smearing takes place mainly in the busy section of Malchei Yisrael Street and Shabbat Square, where dozens of young men and women gather every Saturday, which has the Eda Haredit group and Geula neighborhood council outraged.

"These are defensive moves taken by extremist residents of the neighborhood, who don't look favorably upon anything that takes place here," said Itzik, a resident of the neighborhood. According to him, the new status quo prevents residents fro sitting outside on Shabbat. Nor do they have any way of wiping the raspberry syrup from the benches.

"Furthermore, they operate inspectors on workdays who goad people to do their shopping quickly and prevent groups of young people from loitering in the streets," he added.

Those who choose to compromise and sit on the steps instead of the benches also know no rest. In recent weeks, the syrup brigades have made sure to pour syrup on the steps leading up to Mercantile Discount Bank in Shabbat Square. Young people who chose to sit on the steps were met with an unpleasant and sticky surprise.

(7) How Israel Gained Control of American Foreign Policy and Public Opinion - Hesham Tillawi
 
From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: 15.09.2009 11:26 PM

http://heshamtillawi.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/the-israeli-occupation-of-america-how-israel-gained-control-of-american-foreign-policy-and-public-opinion/

The Israeli Occupation of America: How Israel Gained Control of American Foreign Policy and Public Opinion

By Hesham Tillawi, PhD

"Israel need not apologize for the assassination or destruction of those who seek to destroy it. The first order of business for any country is the protection of its people."Washington Jewish Week, October 9, 1997

I came from a country occupied militarily by Israel to the land of "the free and the brave" only to find out it too was occupied politically by Israel.

The Palestinian people, holding on to whatever shred of hope they can, are counting on the day Americans see the error of their ways and change their opinion of the whole Middle East situation and understand it for what it truly is–A conquered, oppressed people living a hellish existence under a maniacal, occupying power and who will then contact their representatives in Congress and have them put the heat on Israel in fulfilling the agreements she made years ago with the PLO such as Oslo, Taba, Camp David, Wye River, the Road Map, or even Annapolis.

The sad fact however is that the Americans–as much as they champion themselves as a "free people"–are in no better shape than the Palestinians. On the contrary, the American position is worse than that of the Palestinians. The Palestinians can identify the enemy–he is the one with the gun and blowing away their loved ones. They KNOW they are occupied and oppressed. They KNOW how Israel occupied Palestine, killed its inhabitants and forced the majority of those who survived the carnage out of their homes and lands to then live as strangers in refugee camps.

The Americans however, have no idea. Like a drug addict who thinks he feels great after shooting up, he does not realize he is a slave, to his substance and to his pusher. The history of how the Zionists' controlled England is not shrouded in mystery. Through Jewish control of the British government the Balfour Declaration was drafted that "gave" the land of Palestine to the Jews after WWI, a land they did not own or possess.

But how in the world did they occupy the United States politically? There is no real "Balfour Declaration" we can point to as proof.

Or can we?

Jewish influence in American politics–while there from the earliest days and certainly apparent during the Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman administrations–did not become the force it is today until the Kennedy era, or, rather, AFTER the Kennedy era.

As all know, in 1961 John Kennedy became the 35th President of the United States, a presidency cut short as a result of his assassination in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Robert Kennedy, the president's younger brother was Attorney General of the United States and therefore the head of the Department of Justice.

What is little-known is that the Kennedy's realized early on that indeed the country was in trouble and that something needed to be done about it. The trouble in this case was the influence slithering its way into American political life from a far-away state only about 12 years old known as Israel. Both Kennedy brothers, learning politics at their father Joseph's knee, understood the dynamic of this thing known as "Jewish interests", how it would play out and what the repercussions would be for America.

Of the many issues revolving around Israel and the Zionist question the two more important as pertains the Jewish state were (A) Israel's nuclear program, and (B) the issue of an organization known as the American Zionist Council.

According to Pulitzer Prize winning author Seymour Hersh, President Kennedy was profoundly committed to nuclear nonproliferation and was categorically opposed to nuclear weapons in the Middle East, which meant opposing Israel's nuclear program. Hersh states that JFK exerted heavy pressure on Israel to stop the program and was serious about it. At the time Kennedy was in the middle of crises mode with the Russians in trying to arrange a nonproliferation treaty with them and therefore Israel's nuclear program would be a big embarrassment. In addition to being an embarrassment it would open up the possibility of a nuclear conflict with Russia, given her allies in the Middle East, something made all the more believable in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis that almost resulted in a nuclear war between the two giants. John Kennedy had nightmares about the prospect of nuclear proliferation, saying "I am haunted by the feeling that by 1970, unless we are successful, there may be ten nuclear powers instead of four, and by 1975, 15 to 20…. I see the possibility in the 1970s of the president of the United States having to face a world in which 15 or 25 nations may have these weapons. I regard this as the greatest possible danger and hazard."

Secret letters and secret meetings between Kennedy and Ben-Gurion give a clear picture of the difficulty Kennedy faced in negotiating with the Israeli Prime Minister who stated many times that nothing will save Israel but nuclear power. According to author Michael Collins Piper in his book Final Judgment Ben Gurion wrote Kennedy saying: "Mr. President, my people have the right to exist, and this existence is in danger."

It does not take a skilled translater to figure out what Ben Gurion was saying, namely that Kennedy's opposition to nuclear weapons in the Middle East was seen as an existential threat to the Jewish people and their newly-formed state. Going further, Kennedy insisted on inspections of Israel's program as evidenced in a secret letter sent to then-Israeli Prime Minister Levy Eshkol that stated that American support of Israel "could be jeopardized" if the Americans were not allowed to inspect the Israeli nuclear facilities.

As if the aforementioned were not enough, there was another front in this private war between Kennedy and the "Jewish state" equally important in its scope if we are to understand what kinds of forces were at play here that led to America's change of policy with regards to Israel. It involves the issue of spying, bribery and the direct controlling of American politicians by a foreign power and the one creature at the center of all of it was something known as the American Zionist Council and the Kennedys' insistence it register as a foreign agent under the provisos of FARA, the Foreign Agent Registration Act passed by Congress back in 1938 to prevent German agents in the U.S. from buying their way into the American system of government and public opinion. The purpose of FARA was "to insure that American public and its law makers know the source of information- propaganda intended to sway public opinion, policy, and laws."

In other words the Kennedy's understood the danger of the Zionist Movement on the United States of America and treated it just like Germany was treated during the Hitler years. The Kennedy's understood the reality of the situation as it existed during their days in government, that the AZC was an agent of a foreign government, Israel, which would prevent it from buying American politicians and exerting the kind of influence over public opinion making that for all intents and purposes is now is a fait accompli.

Negotiations went back and forth between the Department of Justice headed by the President's brother Robert and the American Zionist Council. The council refused to register and the DOJ tried to exert pressure on them, even going so far in one instance as giving them 72 hours to register, but at no avail. Examining the newly-de-classified documents containing the minutes of those meetings between the DOJ and the AZC one can see the language of gangsters being used. In one of those documents dated May 2, 1963 the head legal counsel Simon H. Rifkind for the AZC explained to the representatives of the DOJ the nature of the AZC, saying "The council is composed of representatives of the various Zionist organizations in the United States" and thereby, in effect, it represented "the vast majority of organized Jewry within this country." The message was clear here–As far as organizations go it is big and powerful. Judge Rifkind obviously wanted to make sure the Kennedy's knew they were picking a fight with a gorilla and not some small mouse.

He did not stop there but went further by stating that the vast number of Jews who adhered to the principles of Zionism could not understand how "our administration" could "do such harm to the Zionist movement and impair the effectiveness of the council by insistence on registration."

Here Judge Rifkind made sure he used the phrase "our administration" instead of "our government" to make a specific point, namely that he was talking about Kennedy personally, that it was the Jews responsible for him getting elected and that if he continued with his agenda he was in effect entering into a war with organized Jewry.

Another meeting very much worth noting was held on October 17, 1963 between DOJ and AZC. In this meeting Judge Rifkind insisted on non registering, citing that fact that "It was the opinion of most of the persons affiliated with the Council that such registration…would eventually destroy the Zionist movement" and adding that he did not believe his clients would "file any papers or sign any papers indicating that the organization was an agent of a foreign principal". In other words, "Screw You America and your laws, we'll do what we want" as well as threatening the administration and telling them who really ruled the country, not the Kennedy brothers but rather the persons "affiliated" with AZC. Once translated from Gangsterese into understandable political language, this statement was in effect a direct warning/threat to the Administration that the war was on. It is up for grabs whether or not the Kennedys understood this to be the real threat it was, but nevertheless the Administration decided to continue with its position.

On November 22, 1963 President John Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. As the AZC went away into the sunset, AIPAC came riding in, born and led by the same persons who created and managed AZC for the same purpose. This time however, the message went out clearly for all on Capitol Hill to hear and understand–"Do not stand in our way of influencing public opinion, policy, or laws."

Obviously, the message has been effective, as all American leaders save a few such as James Traficant have done as instructed. According to the former Congressman, Israel receives $15 Billion worth of aid from the American Taxpayers without a single discussion or a single argument on the floor of either the house of Representatives or the Senate. Why? Because no one dares to question it. Why is it that most of our politicians make pilgrimage to Tel Aviv and the "wailing wall" in Jerusalem to get the blessing of Israel before they are even approved by their own political parties here in the United States? Why is it our Congress is always split down the middle on all other issues presented to them except when it deals with Israel? We all still remember the comment made by former Israeli Prime Minster Ariel Sharon to his Foreign Minister Shimon Peres in October 2001: "Don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America." When people with eyes to see state that fact they are called anti-Semites, despite the fact that what is being said is the truth.

The "control" Sharon spoke about has been there for a long time now. Consider what the late Senator Fulbright (who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and who held hearings back in 1963 regarding the AZC and the fact it should be registered as a Foreign Agent registration) said when speaking on the CBS television program "Face the Nation" had to say–

"I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy not approved by the Jews…Terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on Congress… the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get Congress to do anything they (the Jews) don't approve of."

These words were not spoken by a researcher or a reporter but by a brave American hero who actually lived through and experienced the Jewish influence over our political system and media.

This Israeli political occupation of the United States should not go on unchallenged, and American Jewry should understand that secrets cannot be hidden from the people forever. Nothing less than a revolution will correct this situation. The corrective action should be taken at the ballot boxes by electing people who are not afraid to challenge AIPAC and the likes and make America's Foreign Policy truly American and not Israeli.

As a first step in this process, let us keep the words of our dear martyred President John F Kennedy in mind– "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable".