677 Islamic fundamentalism: Who’s Really Pulling the Strings?

Islamic fundamentalism: Who’s Really Pulling the Strings?

Newsletter published on 22 August 2014

(1) & (2) Islamic fundamentalism: Mossad not calling the shots
(3) Islamic fundamentalism: Who’s Really Pulling the Strings?
(4) Israeli-controlled "Palestinian terrorists" - Ari Ben-Menashe
(5) Hasbara: Zionist Jew impersonates Anti-Semites in forums, then
refutes their extremist statements
(6) Israel got US weapons for Gaza war direct from Pentagon, without
Obama’s approval
(7) Obama halts flow of weapons to Israel; Hillary criticizes him,
endorses Israel's war strategy
(8) Congress appropriation for Israel's Iron Dome demonstrates AIPAC's
in charge
(9) British Conspiracy or Zionist? - Frank Verderber
(10) British Conspiracy or Zionist? - Reply to Frank Verderber
(11) David Cameron's Jewish ancestry; beholden to Jewish donors

(1) Islamic fundamentalism: Mossad not calling the shots

Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 05:21:25 -0400 (EDT) From:
"peter.sault@odeion.org" <peter.sault@odeion.org> Subject: Re: ISIS
leader "al Baghdadi" is Jewish and a Mossad agent; his real name is
Simon Elliot

Hi Peter Re: your comments on the so-called 'Intelligence Community':-
PM: I would say that it, too, has its factions. PS: Not since 9/11.
Since 9/11 there have been only individual whistleblowers who by their
own whistleblowing exclude themselves from further involvement and who
are apparently unaware of the singular global control of the circus of
terror. (Not to mention being 9/11 Liars - e.g. people's hero Edward
Snowden.) PM: Mossad is a law unto itself. PS: That would place Mossad
at the top. If Victor Ostrovsky is to be believed Mossad is essentially
stupid. Its apparent success must be due to guidance from above,
wherever 'above' might be. Kindest Regards Peter

Comment (Peter M.):

Ostrovsky says Mossad does false flag attacks to entice the West to
attack its enemies: http://mailstar.net/ostrovsky.html

Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception HarperCollinsPublishers
New York 1994.

{p. 197} The Mossad realized that it had to come up with a new threat to
the region, a threat of such magnitude that it would justify whatever
action the Mossad might see fit to take.

The right-wing elements in the Mossad (and in the whole country, for
that matter) had what they regarded as a sound philosophy: They believed
(correctly, as it happened) that Israel was the strongest military
presence in the Middle East. In fact, they believed that the military
might of what had become known as "fortress Israel" was greater than
that of all of the Arab armies combined, and was responsible for
whatever security Israel possessed. The right wing believed then - and
they still believe - that this strength arises from the need to answer
the constant threat of war.

The corollary belief was that peace overtures would inevitably start a
process of corrosion that would weaken the military and eventually bring
about the demise of the state of Israel, since, the philosophy goes, its
Arab neighbors are untrustworthy, and no treaty signed by them is worth
the paper it's written on.

Supporting the radical elements of Muslim fundamentalism sat well with
the Mossad's general plan for the region. An Arab world run by
fundamentalists would not be a party to any negotiations with the West,
thus leaving Israel again as the only democratic, rational country in
the region. And if the Mossad could arrange for the Hamas (Palestinian
fundamentalists) to take over the Palestinian streets from the PLO, then
the picture would be complete.

{end quote} http://mailstar.net/ostrovsky.html

(2) Islamic fundamentalism: Mossad not calling the shots

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 05:31:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "peter.sault@odeion.org" <peter.sault@odeion.org>

 > Ostrovsky says Mossad does false flag attacks
 > to entice the West to attack its enemies

Quite so but 9/11 was more than just Mossad, more than just Ariel
Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu and Larry Silverstein. 9/11
revealed/inaugurated the integration of the global 'Intelligence
Community' with organized crime and freemasonry

(3) Islamic fundamentalism: Who’s Really Pulling the Strings?

Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 18:24:46 -0700 Subject: Allegations: U.S. Allies
Back ISIS Islamic Terrorists Washington's Blog From: chris lancenet
<chrislancenet@gmail.com>

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/allegations-u-s-allies-back-isis-islamic-terrorists.html

Who’s Really Pulling the Strings?

The Times of Israel reported Wednesday:

{quote}
A Free Syrian Army commander, arrested last month by the Islamist
militia Al-Nusra Front, told his captors he collaborated with Israel in
return for medical and military support, in a video released this
week.Read more: Syrian rebel commander says he collaborated with Israel.

In a video uploaded to YouTube Monday … Sharif As-Safouri, the commander
of the Free Syrian Army’s Al-Haramein Battalion, admitted to having
entered Israel five times to meet with Israeli officers who later
provided him with Soviet anti-tank weapons and light arms. Safouri was
abducted by the al-Qaeda-affiliated Al-Nusra Front in the Quneitra area,
near the Israeli border, on July 22.

“The [opposition] factions would receive support and send the injured in
[to Israel] on condition that the Israeli fence area is secured. No
person was allowed to come near the fence without prior coordination
with Israel authorities,” Safouri said in the video. ***

In the edited confession video, in which Safouri seems physically
unharmed, he says that at first he met with an Israeli officer named
Ashraf at the border and was given an Israeli cellular phone. He later
met with another officer named Younis and with the two men’s commander,
Abu Daoud. In total, Safouri said he entered Israel five times for
meetings that took place in Tiberias.

Following the meetings, Israel began providing Safouri and his men with
“basic medical support and clothes” as well as weapons, which included
30 Russian [rifles], 10 RPG launchers with 47 rockets, and 48,000 5.56
millimeter bullets.
{endquote}

Also on Wednesday, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency – a 97-year old Jewish
wire service – reported:

{quote}
A senior employee of the Dutch Justice Ministry said the jihadist group
ISIS was created by Zionists seeking to give Islam a bad reputation.

Yasmina Haifi, a project leader at the ministry’s National Cyber
Security Center, made the assertion Wednesday on Twitter, the De
Telegraaf daily reported.

“ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. It’s part of a plan by Zionists who
are deliberately trying to blacken Islam’s name,” wrote Haifi ….
{endquote}

In March, Haaretz reported:

{quote} The Syrian opposition is willing to give up claims to the Golan
Heights in return for cash and Israeli military aid against President
Bashar Assad, a top opposition official told Al Arab newspaper,
according to a report in Al Alam.
***

The Western-backed militant groups want Israel to enforce a no-fly zone
over parts of southern Syria to protect rebel bases from air strikes by
Assad’s forces, according to the report.
{endquote}

World Net Daily reports that the U.S. trained Islamic jihadis – who
would later join ISIS - in Jordan.

The Jerusalem Post reports that an ISIS fighter says that Turkey funds
the terrorist group. Turkey is a member of NATO and – at least until
very recently – a close U.S. ally.

A former high-level Al Qaeda commander has repeatedly alleged that ISIS
works for the CIA.

In June, investment adviser Jim Willie alleged:

{quote}
The [Isis] troops that are working there [in Syria and Iraq] are Langley
[i.e. CIA] troops. They’re trained, funded, and armed by Langley.

What I’m hearing… the U.S. military – Pentagon regulars - and you have
to be careful when you refer to U.S. military anymore. What kind of U.S.
military? Is it the Pentagon U.S. Army, or is it the Langley military,
which has unmarked uniforms and 10¢s of thousands of mercenaries?

They’re about to encounter each other in Iraq. The U.S. military
Pentagon regulars evacuated Iraq, and what filled the vacuum was the
Langley mercenaries, trained for Syria, that migrated South and
announced their new agenda.

If and when the Pentagon regulars encounter the Langley mercenaries in
Iraq, Obama’s going to get a house call, because U.S. military will be
fighting U.S. military. Pentagon vs. Langley.
{endquote}

While we don’t know which – if any – of the above-described allegations
are true, two things are certain:

The U.S. armed Islamic jihadis in Syria, and their weapons ended up in
the hands of ISIS; and

Wealthy donors in close U.S. allies Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar back
ISIS … and Western intelligence officials say that those governments
must be approving the support.

Why would the U.S. and its allies back ISIS, when they are barbarian
Islamic terrorists? Well – assuming it’s true – oil and gas could be the
explanation.

After all, there is evidence that the U.S. and her allies have wanted to
break up the nations of Iraq and Syria for decades. And ISIS has done so.

In any event – whether or not it’s true of ISIS – it’s well-documented
that the U.S., Saudis and Israelis have been backing the world’s most
dangerous and radical Muslim terrorists for decades. And see this.

And anyone who looks at the battle against ISIS as a religious war is
being played.

{Comment (Peter M.): He claims it's a war for Oil}

(4) Israeli-controlled "Palestinian terrorists" - Ari Ben-Menashe

Ari Ben-Menashe, Profits of War: The Sensational Story of the World-Wide
Arms Conspiracy, Allen & Unwin,  Sydney 1992.

{p. 120} Second, the slush fund helped finance the intelligence
community's "black" operations around the world. These  included funding
Israeli-controlled "Palestinian terrorists" who would commit crimes in
the name of the  Palestinian revolution but were actually pulling them
off, usually unwittingly, as part of the Israeli propaganda  machine.

{p. 122} An example is  the case of the "Palestinian" attack on the
cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985. That was, in fact, an Israeli
"black" propaganda operation to show what a deadly, cutthroat bunch the
Palestinians were.

The operation worked like this: Eitan passed instructions to Radi that
it was time for the Palestinians to make an  attack and do something
cruel, though no specifics were laid out. Radi passed orders on to Abu'l
Abbas, who, to follow such  orders, was receiving millions from Israeli
intelligence officers posing as Sicilian dons. Abbas then gathered a
team to attack the cruise ship. The team was told to make it bad, to
show the world what lay in store for other  unsuspecting citizens if
Palestinian demands were not met. As the world knows, the group picked
on an elderly American  Jewish man in a wheelchair, killed him, and
threw his body overboard. They made their point. But for Israel it  was
the best kind of anti-Palestinian propaganda.

{end quotes} http://mailstar.net/vanunu.html

(5) Hasbara: Zionist Jew impersonates Anti-Semites in forums, then
refutes their extremist statements

From: "Kristoffer Larsson krislarsson@gmail.com [kl-updates]" Date: Thu,
21 Aug 2014 11:48:13 +0200
Subject: [kl-updates] The Double Identity of an "Anti-Semitic" Commenter

A Common Dreams investigation has discovered that more than a thousand
of these damaging comments over the past two years were written with a
deceptive purpose by a Jewish Harvard graduate in his thirties who was
irritated by the website's discussion of issues involving Israel. (...)

On Vanguard, where this African-American persona posted more than 1,400
times, he encouraged the malevolence of Frazier Glenn Miller, the
neo-Nazi accused of killing three people whom he believed were Jews
outside a Jewish community center and retirement home in Kansas in
April. The character Williams was engaged in a comment thread more than
200 times with Miller, whose screen name was Rounder.

In a Vanguard post under the Williams screen name the commenter asked
rhetorically, "Are left wing folks finally waking up to the jew?" He
then referred the Vanguard online community to a thread of anti-Semitic
comments on Common Dreams--most of which he had written himself under
several screen names.

A typical DeShawn Williams comment might include: "Israel is a stain on
the world that needs to be expunged once and for all." Or: "The jews are
the most racist people on earth. Just look at their Talmud. They
consider the 'goyim' (non-jews) to be cattle whose only purpose on earth
is to serve them." (...)
Beck said he got involved in an "ill-advised intellectual exercise,"
using "extremely poor judgment," that became a "psychological
obsession," a kind of "tic." It was a particular "error in judgment" to
use the university's computers. His aim, he claimed in one email, was
"to gauge how pervasive anti-Semitism really was on websites like CD."

http://www.commondreams.org/hambaconeggs

Published on Wednesday, August 20, 2014

The Double Identity of an "Anti-Semitic" Commenter

Smearing a Progressive Website to Support Israel

by Lance Tapley

Like many other news websites, Common Dreams has been plagued by
inflammatory anti-Semitic comments following its stories. But on Common
Dreams these posts have been so frequent and intense they have driven
away donors from a nonprofit dependent on reader generosity.

A Common Dreams investigation has discovered that more than a thousand
of these damaging comments over the past two years were written with a
deceptive purpose by a Jewish Harvard graduate in his thirties who was
irritated by the website's discussion of issues involving Israel.

His intricate campaign, which he has admitted to Common Dreams, included
posting comments by a screen name, "JewishProgressive," whose purpose
was to draw attention to and denounce the anti-Semitic comments that he
had written under many other screen names.

The deception was many-layered. At one point he had one of his
characters charge that the anti-Semitic comments and the criticism of
the anti-Semitic comments must be written by "internet trolls who have
been known to impersonate anti-Semites in order to then double-back and
accuse others of supporting anti-Semitism"--exactly what he was doing.
(Trolls are posters who foment discord.)

The impersonation, this character wrote, must be part of an "elaborate
Hasbara setup," referring to an Israeli international public-relations
campaign. When Common Dreams finally confronted the man behind the
deceptive posting, he denied that he himself was involved with Hasbara.

His posting on Common Dreams illustrates the susceptibility of website
comment threads to massive manipulation. As another illustration, he
even audaciously tricked the white-supremacist Vanguard News Network,
posing as "DeShawn S. Williams," a "Pro-White/Black, anti-jew."

DeShawn S. Williams Profile 1One of "DeShawn S. Williams" profile
pictures on the Vanguard News Network.On Vanguard, where this
African-American persona posted more than 1,400 times, he encouraged the
malevolence of Frazier Glenn Miller, the neo-Nazi accused of killing
three people whom he believed were Jews outside a Jewish community
center and retirement home in Kansas in April. The character Williams
was engaged in a comment thread more than 200 times with Miller, whose
screen name was Rounder.

In a Vanguard post under the Williams screen name the commenter asked
rhetorically, "Are left wing folks finally waking up to the jew?" He
then referred the Vanguard online community to a thread of anti-Semitic
comments on Common Dreams--most of which he had written himself under
several screen names.

A typical DeShawn Williams comment might include: "Israel is a stain on
the world that needs to be expunged once and for all." Or: "The jews are
the most racist people on earth. Just look at their Talmud. They
consider the 'goyim' (non-jews) to be cattle whose only purpose on earth
is to serve them."

But on Common Dreams, DeShawn S. Williams was only one among dozens of
screen-name characters this poster created. They seemed to be in
competition to revile Jews. Here's how "HamBaconEggs," the site's most
prolific anti-Semitic persona, began a conversation last October:


A few posts later the HamBaconEggs character was taken to task for his
hatred of Jews by the JewishProgressive character, who responded to
another (sincere) poster who had pointed out the anti-Semitism :


JewishProgressive frequently followed HamBaconEggs with an expression of
disgust. Here's an exchange begun at 11:57 a.m. on January 14:

HamBaconEggs: ". . . There are reasons beyond mere 'anti-Semitism' why
these people were kicked out of 109 countries. You don't elicit that
degree of anger and hostility from host populations without
significantly contributing to the problem through your antisocial,
predatory behavior."

JewishProgressive replied 12 minutes later: "You are singlehandedly the
most vicious Jew-hater I have ever encountered among those professing to
be 'progressives.' Do you actually post about anything on CD other than
'the jews,' or is that your sole agenda? No true progressive could be so
unrelentingly malicious against an entire group of people the way you are."

At 2:49 p.m., HamBaconEggs responded:

"Oy vey! Cry me a river, you Talmudic parasite. Direct your criticism at
your sociopathic tribe of money-grubbers, warmongers, and land thieves."

Here's one more example of this back-and-forth:



When Common Dreams examined hundreds of posts in this ugly charade, the
aim appeared clear-cut: to cast a deep shadow on, and drive support
from, one of the largest and oldest progressive-news websites.

The man who was the source of the charade, however, claimed he didn't
want to hurt Common Dreams.

Detection

It was during their daily efforts to block objectionable commenters from
using the site that the Common Dreams staff got an inkling that
significant manipulation was going on.

The website's executive director, Craig Brown, was personally appalled
at the anti-Semitic comments--and had a financial motivation to block
these commenters. One generous funder had told him, he said, referring
to the stream of anti-Semitism, "I gave you five thousand dollars last
year, but I'm not doing it again."

"We've had hundreds of donors say similar things," Brown added. "People
are right to be offended by the anti-Semitism, and it has a serious
impact on our reputation and our fundraising." But when Common Dreams
tried to block DeShawn, HamBaconEggs, et al, they kept coming back.

DISQUS, the comment-hosting system used by Common Dreams and many other
websites, makes commenter Internet Protocol addresses visible to a
website's moderators. The Internet Protocol address is a unique number
the internet assigns to every computer or, in some cases, a set of
computers in an office. An IP address looks like "99.88.77.666." (If you
want to see your IP address, Google: "What is my IP address?")

One day when Brown was looking at the IP address of an offensive
commenter he noticed that commenters using other screen name had the
same IP address. "We eventually found," he said, "that many, many
different comments were coming from a very few IP addresses."

Next, Brown plugged the IP numbers into one of the specialized search
websites--cqcounter.com/whois/--that give a non-numerical "name" of a
computer and the name and location of the company, government agency,
university, or other institution providing internet service to that
computer. Many of the IP addresses turned out to be camouflaged by being
sent through internet "proxy," IP-address-hiding services, such as
ZenMate.com. Those IPs led only to the proxy websites.

But sometimes the IPs didn't lead to proxies. Sometimes--presumably when
the poster just didn't take the time to go through a proxy--they led to
an internet-service provider in a Midwestern city or to a university
campus in that same city. That's how Common Dreams determined that one
major, constant stream of anti-Semitic posts--as well as posts
condemning the anti-Semitism--came from a few, close-in-proximity computers.

Then a big mistake was discovered. Comments under the screen name
HamBaconEggs and a few others had occasionally been posted from an IP
address with a name that included a personal email address and a
university domain name. Email addresses are often part of the user names
given to students and faculty by a university to enable them to access
the institution's computer network.

A few minutes on Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn led Common Dreams to the
owner of the email address, a graduate student at the Midwestern campus.
The student also had made the same mistake by using a university
computer that had the name of his tiny academic unit.

Let's call the student Jason Beck. Common Dreams is not revealing his
identity because, as a Jew who for years tricked Vanguard News Network,
a major neo-Nazi website that has harbored people committed to violence,
he could be put in danger by such a revelation.

Confession

Beck nervously denied everything and hung up when he answered a phone
call from this reporter, who then informed him by email that "soon"
university officials would be told about what he was doing, including
his use of a university computer for his posts. The email listed a few
of his online aliases.

Minutes later, Beck replied by email with an apology to Common Dreams,
which he continued in subsequent emails and phone interviews.

Beck said he got involved in an "ill-advised intellectual exercise,"
using "extremely poor judgment," that became a "psychological
obsession," a kind of "tic." It was a particular "error in judgment" to
use the university's computers. His aim, he claimed in one email, was
"to gauge how pervasive anti-Semitism really was on websites like CD." [...]

Going Rogue?

  This Hasbara that Beck's characters brought up and that he denied
being involved with--what is it? Numerous other commenters on Common
Dreams and other news websites refer to Hasbara.

  The word means "explanation" in Hebrew, and it's somewhat synonymous
with "p.r." It's used to mean the Israeli government's specific
public-relations efforts to influence opinion across the globe through
news and social media, but the word also has come to encompass a slew of
private efforts to help generate good publicity for Israel and to defend
it from, and attack, critics. [...]

"Today many supporters of Israel worldwide are becoming digital
ambassadors," Neil Lazarus, a prominent Israeli public-relations
consultant to the government, wrote in theTimes of Israel in 2012. "The
internet is transforming the battle lines of Israel's public relations
war. ... As Hasbara becomes a grass-roots movement, the very essence of
the relationship between Israel and Diaspora Jewry is being
transformed." [...]

(6) Israel got US weapons for Gaza war direct from Pentagon, without
Obama’s approval

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/without-approval-bombshell.html

Israel got tank shell that killed 20 at UN school from US without
Obama’s approval — WSJ bombshell

Philip Weiss on August 14, 2014

Jabaliya school after Israeli strike that killed 20, photo by Mohammed
Saber/EPA
<http://f8wee1vvia32pdxo527grujy61.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/mideast-israel-palestinians-conflict.jpg>


When Walt and Mearsheimer published their book on the Israel lobby in
2007, I thought, they’ve scratched the surface, we don’t know the half
of it. Well here you go, friends.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that even as Barack Obama and
Secretary of State John Kerry were trying to brake Israel during the
slaughter in Gaza, Israel relied on its “allies” in “Congress and
elsewhere in the administration” to dip into American weapons stocks to
refill its guns, without Obama’s approval.
<http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sway-over-israel-on-gaza-at-a-low-1407979365>


And those tank shells were used on a UN school on July 30, killing 20
Palestinian civilians. The US is a partner to this war crime, a
Palestinian says in the WSJ article.

It’s a shocking report about Israel’s autonomy inside the US government,
in defiance even of the president.

Adam Entous at the Wall Street Journal reports that the Obama
administration has responded with quiet anger to the encroachment.
<http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sway-over-israel-on-gaza-at-a-low-1407979365>


His first three paragraphs:

{quote}
White House and State Department officials who were leading U.S. efforts
to rein in Israel’s military campaign in the Gaza Strip were caught off
guard last month when they learned that the Israeli military had been
quietly securing supplies of ammunition from the Pentagon without their
approval.

Since then the Obama administration has tightened its control on arms
transfers to Israel. But Israeli and U.S. officials say that the adroit
bureaucratic maneuvering made it plain how little influence the White
House and State Department have with the government of Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu —and that both sides know it…

In addition, current and former American officials say, U.S.-Israel ties
have been hurt by leaks that they believe were meant to undercut the
administration’s standing by mischaracterizing its position and delay a
cease-fire. The battles have driven U.S.-Israeli relations to the lowest
point since President Barack Obama took office…
{endquote}

Will the Obama administration ever go public with this estimation of
what Israel is, “reckless and untrustworthy”? We can just hope.

{quote}
Today, many administration officials say the Gaza conflict—the third
between Israel and Hamas in under six years—has persuaded them that Mr.
Netanyahu and his national security team are both reckless and
untrustworthy.
Israeli officials, in turn, describe the Obama administration as weak
and naive, and are doing as much as they can to bypass the White House
in favor of allies in Congress and elsewhere in the administration.
{endquote}

Allies elsewhere in the administration? What’s that mean? The lobby’s
moles? The piece explicitly references the power of the Israel lobby:

{quote}
American officials say they believe they have been able to exert at
least some influence over Mr. Netanyahu during the Gaza conflict. But
they admit their influence has been weakened as he has used his sway in
Washington, from the Pentagon and Congress to lobby groups, to defuse
U.S. diplomatic pressure on his government over the past month.
{endquote}

So the tail really can wag the dog. Now let’s argue about how much.

Here’s the nuts and bolts of that weapons transfer. Even as Israel was
negotiating with the White House and Congress over the means of getting
replacement parts/supplies for its Iron Dome rocket-defense–

{quote}
Unknown to many policy makers, Israel was moving on separate tracks to
replenish supplies of lethal munitions being used in Gaza and to
expedite approval of the Iron Dome funds on Capitol Hill.
On July 20, Israel’s defense ministry asked the U.S. military for a
range of munitions, including 120-mm mortar shells and 40-mm
illuminating rounds, which were already kept stored at a pre-positioned
weapons stockpile in Israel.
The request was approved through military channels three days later but
not made public. Under the terms of the deal, the Israelis used U.S.
financing to pay for $3 million in tank rounds. No presidential approval
or signoff by the secretary of state was required or sought, according
to officials.

The watershed moment came in the early morning in Gaza July 30. An
Israeli shell struck a United Nations school in Jabaliya that sheltered
about 3,000 people. Later that day, it was reported in the U.S. that the
120-mm and 40-mm rounds had been released to the Israeli military.

“We were blindsided,” one U.S. diplomat said.
{endquote}

The Wall Street Journal says what we all know, but that the liberal
Israel lobby groups Peace Now and J Street are unable to say, the
Israeli attacks on civilian settings were indiscriminate.

{quote}
White House and State Department officials had already become
increasingly disturbed by what they saw as heavy-handed battlefield
tactics that they believed risked a humanitarian catastrophe capable of
harming regional stability and Israel’s interests.
They were especially concerned that Israel was using artillery, instead
of more precision-guided munitions, in densely populated areas. The
realization that munitions transfers had been made without their
knowledge came as a shock…
{endquote}

Here’s the Palestinian angle:

{quote}
The Palestinians, in particular, were angry, according to U.S. diplomats.
“The U.S. is a partner in this crime,” Jibril Rajoub, a leader in
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s Western-backed Fatah party, said
of the decision to provide arms to Israel during the conflict.
{endquote}

And it’s a crisis for the Israel lobby. Or you’d think it would be:

{quote}
The last straw for many U.S. diplomats came on Aug. 2 when they say
Israeli officials leaked to the media that Mr. Netanyahu had told the
U.S. ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, that the Obama administration
was “not to ever second-guess me again” about how to deal with Hamas.
The White House and State Department have sought to regain greater
control over U.S.-Israeli policy. They decided to require White House
and State Department approval for even routine munitions requests by
Israel, officials say.
{endquote}

So is the special relationship at an end? What will the Obama
administration do to make that happen, and to educate the American
public about the influence of a passionate faction over US policymaking?

(7) Obama halts flow of weapons to Israel; Hillary criticizes him,
endorses Israel's war strategy

From: My Catbird Seat <donotreply@wordpress.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 06:22:41 +0000
Subject:  Has Clinton Made Her Second Pro-War Mistake?

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2014/08/67810-has-clinton-made-her-second-pro-war-mistake/

For his part, as the man who holds the reins of responsibility,
President Obama has called a halt to U.S. Hellfire missile shipments to
Israel until arrangements are made to clear with the White House all
future transfers of Hellfire missiles.

The President is clearly disturbed over his discovery of the
free-flowing weapons pipeline from the U.S. to Israel via the Pentagon.

by James M Wall

August 15, 2014 at 4:22 pm

Cease fire talks between Israel and Hamas have been extended for an
additional five days.

The extension in the talks was made possible because Hamas is standing
firm in its humanitarian demand that Israel lift the siege on Gaza,
while Israel is feeling the negative worldwide vibes over its massive
military assault.

The vibes are negative everywhere, that is, except in the U.S., where in
an Atlantic interview, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
appeared to kick off her 2016 presidential campaign with a ringing
endorsement of Israel's massive assault on the Palestinians of Gaza.

For his part, as the man who holds the reins of responsibility,
President Obama has called a halt to U.S. Hellfire missile shipments to
Israel until arrangements are made to clear with the White House all
future transfers of Hellfire missiles.

The President is clearly disturbed over his discovery of the
free-flowing weapons pipeline from the U.S. to Israel via the Pentagon.

The story of his decision to halt sales, originated in the Wall Street
Journal and was beamed into Israel and internationally on the internet
by Haaretz. <http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.610493>

 > The White House has instructed the Pentagon and the U.S. military to
put on hold a transfer of Hellfire missiles that Israel had requested
during its recent operation in the Gaza Strip, the Wall Street Journal
reports. > > According to the report, during Israel's Operation
Protective Edge, White House officials were dismayed to discover how
little influence they wield over the topic of Israeli arms shipments,
against the backdrop of the U.S. government's unhappiness with the
widespread damage inflicted upon Palestinian civilians. > > During the
Gaza war, the report said, White House officials came to realize that
large amounts of weaponry are being passed to Israel via direct channels
to the Pentagon, with little oversight by the political arena. .  .  . >
 > Against the backdrop of American displeasure over IDF tactics used in
the Gaza fighting and the high number of civilian casualties caused by
Israel's massive use of artillery fire rather than more precise weapons,
officials in the White House and the State Department are now demanding
to review every Israeli request for American arms individually, rather
than let them move relatively unchecked through a direct
military-to-military channel, a fact that slows down the process.

The extended cease fire negotiations, and the President's decision to
halt missile shipments, are the good news during cease fire negotiations.

Is there more bad news on the political front?  It depends on reactions
to the big political story in the U.S., which is either good or bad,
depending on one's political preferences.

Goldberg now hangs his media hat at the Atlantic, his latest media stop
following the completion of his IDF tour of duty during the first
Palestinian uprising in 1990. Earlier Goldberg assignments included a
stint at The New Yorker.

After his tour with the IDF, Goldberg wrote a book about his role as an
Israeli guard, Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror. The book
received supportive reviews in the U.S.

Clinton could have given her interview to any media outlet in the
country. It is no accident that she chose a well-known Jewish journalist
who has never hidden his pro-Israel proclivities.

Which is why, depending entirely upon one's views of Clinton, and her
impending race to become Obama's successor, the interview in the
Atlantic ( http://theatln.tc/1yj4Y9i )  will either delight or dismay
readers.

The New Yorker ( http://nyr.kr/1payMUG ) 's John Cassidy, in an essay
entitled, Can Hillary Play This Game?, examined media responses to
Clinton's interview. His conclusion: If her intent was to bolster her
conservative credentials, she succeeded.

As for "progressives and centrists, she might need to think again". [...]

What could she, and her handlers, have been thinking? Clinton already
has the pro-Israel votes, media and money, strongly embedded in the
Clinton orbit. As for winning progressive and centrist support, she
herself has acknowledged that her Senate 2003 pro-war Iraq vote was wrong.

Is her Atlantic interview her second pro-war stumble that could derail
her 2016 road to the White House the way her 2003 Iraq pro-war vote
helped Obama defeat her in the 2008 primaries?

Clinton has been in and around the White House long enough to have known
that when the president is deeply involved in foreign policy decisions,
from Ukraine to Syria to Gaza, it is not a good time for his former
Secretary of State to launch her 2016 presidential campaign by attacking
his foreign policy.

She did not just critique his policy, she told a pro-Israeli interviewer
that Obama lacks a coherent foreign policy strategy. After waiting for
the media feedback and the word to spread, Clinton told Politico's
Maggie Haberman ( http://politi.co/1r7kabA )  she did not mean to
"attack" the President:

 > Hillary Clinton called President Barack Obama on Tuesday to "make
sure he knows that nothing she said was an attempt to attack him" when
she recently discussed her views on foreign policy in an interview with
The Atlantic, according to a statement from a Clinton spokesman.

That sounds like a not so artful dodge especially when describing an
interview in which she:

 >  dismissed the Obama administration's self-described foreign policy
principle of "Don't do stupid stuff." And while she also praised Obama
several times, Clinton nonetheless called his decision not to assist
Syrian rebels early on a "failure."

 > > Earlier Tuesday, longtime top Obama aide David Axelrod took a swipe
at Clinton on Twitter, writing: "Just to clarify: 'Don't do stupid
stuff' means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a
tragically bad decision."

But wait, there is more from Politico.

 > In defending Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's deadly
response to Hamas's rocket attacks, she sounded almost like a
spokesperson for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

 > > In talking about the threat of militant Islam more generally, her
words echoed those of Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, who
has called for a generation-long campaign against Islamic extremism (
http://nyr.kr/1pPVj8o ) --a proposal that one of his former cabinet
ministers dubbed "back to the Crusades". ( http://dailym.ai/1nfeHsR )

Glenn Greenwald, writing in his new media outlet, Intercept (
http://bit.ly/VdFwpd ) , lifted quotes from Hillary Clinton in her
Atlantic interview with Jeffrey Goldberg that mirror almost precisely
the line Prime Minister Netanyahu has followed since this current
conflict began. These are all Clinton quotes:

 > 1) "Israel has a right to defend itself. The steps Hamas has taken to
embed rockets and command-and-control facilities and tunnel entrances in
civilian areas, this makes a response by Israel difficult." > > 2)
"Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets."

 > > 3) On civilian casualties in Gaza: "That doesn't mean, just as the
United States [tries to] be as careful as possible in going after
targets to avoid civilians, that there aren't mistakes that are made.
We've made them. I don't know a nation, no matter what its values are --
and I think that democratic nations have demonstrably better values in a
conflict position -- that hasn't made errors, but ultimately the
responsibility rests with Hamas."

 > > 4) Asked about the bombing of UN schools and killing of Palestinian
children: "It's impossible to know what happens in the fog of war. Some
reports say, maybe it wasn't the exact UN school that was bombed, but it
was the annex to the school next door where they were firing the
rockets. And I do think oftentimes that the anguish you are privy to
because of the coverage, and the women and the children and all the rest
of that, makes it very difficult to sort through to get to the truth."

 > > 5) On civilian casualties in Gaza: "There's no doubt in my mind
that Hamas initiated this conflict. ... So the ultimate responsibility
has to rest on Hamas and the decisions it made."

And there you have the essential Hillary Clinton commenting on Israel's
assault against Gaza. [...]

Will her endorsement of Israel's war strategy embellish her political
credentials for 2016, or will that endorsement become her second major
pro-war political stumble?

(8) Congress appropriation for Israel's Iron Dome demonstrates AIPAC's
in charge

    MJ Rosenberg<mjrosenberg1881@outlook.com> 7 August 2014 01:33
To: Peter <myerspeterg@gmail.com>

AIPAC's Phony Iron Dome Vote

The last item Congress voted on before going on vacation for five weeks
was a $225 million appropriation to "replenish" Israel's Iron Dome system.

That makes sense. The system is protecting Israelis from rocket assault
  Of course we want to replenish Israel's arsenal?

The answer is simple. No replenishment was necessary now. Nor will the
vote speed up the resupply which was in the pipeline anyway.

According to my sources on Capitol Hill, several of whom spoke to the
Pentagon, the sole reason for the vote was to enable AIPAC and its House
and Senate cutouts to demonstrate their support for the war.

One Democratic House aide put it like this: "It's crazy. We represent a
minority district that is hurting in every way you can imagine. But it's
Israel we appropriate extra money for on the last day before recess!
I'll tell you. As a Jew working for a minority member, it is just so
f---ing embarrassing. Only 8 House members voted no but a lot more than
that were thoroughly pissed. When does the grovelling stop? "

A Republican Senate aide said, "The worst part was having to vote for
this at a time we are all so upset by the killing in Gaza. It's as if
AIPAC knows how angry we are so the whole Senate has to take their test.
They will make us cast a totally symbolic vote, just to show who's in
charge. It's so telling that the only issue we come together with
Democrats is on an AIPAC vote. We don't even come together on our wars,
when our soldiers are in the field. The senator (her boss) was sick
about it."

The bottom line is that the lobby and senior senators (Harry Reid, Dick
Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell and Barbara Boxer) and House
members (Steny Hoyer, Nita Lowey, Steve Israel) put on a show to
demonstrate to President Obama that, dead kids or no dead kids, they
stood with Netanyahu.

They wanted to send a message. It was that no matter how unnecessary the
vote was, and no matter how much their constituents might be in pain
over Gaza, they will always stand with the Israeli government. Although
they (Democrats in particular) will compromise on other issues that
directly affect the United States--minimum wage, climate change, health
policy, immigration--there is one thing they will never compromise on:
AIPAC's agenda.

What a shameful bunch. Playing games as children and young Israeli
soldiers die in a terrible war. All to prove loyalty to AIPAC.

(9) British Conspiracy or Zionist? - Frank Verderber

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:41:14 -0400
From: frank.verderber@doctrinesofchristianity.net {also from
fjv@doctrinesofchristianity.net}

Peter,

FINDING THE WAR MONGER IN THE MIDDLE EAST

After reading many of the blog entries, I gained some understanding of
your reader’s rationale – concerning the contemporary Middle Eastern
affairs.   I agree in part with much of what was presented: United
States, Turkish and Saudi involvement and as well, ties to restructure a
Caliphate.

However, what I find missing in all the blogs is a far reaching
historical understanding of the Middle East.  They all start with the
1990’s and then through characteristic bias, place the blame on the 6
million or so Israelis, who are surrounded by a sea of 100 million
Muslims.  The second round of bias comes in the form of
anti-Americanism, simply because our presence is in the Middle East, and
we still hold title as a super-state.

May I be so bold as to offer a few corollaries.

Why is the USA in the Middle East?  It does not need the oil, and if we
are so concerned about Islamic terrorists why does the US administration
have many Muslims in the Cabinet structures?

Who has been Turkey’s friend since the early 1800’s?  Has it not been
Germany?

Have not the Palestinians and Arabs been anti-Jewish since the mid
1800’s, when Jews started to return?

Who started the Crimean War?  Was it not England?

Who coined the idea of a Liberal World Order lead by the English system
of culture and finance?  Was it not Cecil Rhodes, and the regent of the
Crown, Lord Robert Cecil, together with Sir Alfred Milner and their
Secret Society – later called the Kindergarten, then the Royal Institute
of International Affairs [RIIA], and finally, Chatham House in London?
Did they not form the Rhodes Scholars who, as do the Fabian Socialists,
infiltrate a country’s leadership and steer pro-British agendas?

Who started the world cabal of financial elites called the 300, and
encouraged fiat currencies in 1929?  Was it not The British Crown, its
nobles and its mega rich, together with a few American Industrialists?
Was it not Britain?

Who stole South African wealth, by warring with the Republic of
Transvaal, and engineered the first concentration camps for women and
children?  Was it not Britain?

Who threatened the German Kiser in the 1880’s with war if he dared to
build a rail line past Basra, Iraq?  Was it not Britain?

Where did Karl Marx write his Manifesto? Was it not in London?  Is he
not buried in London?

Who gave 6 million pounds of Czechoslovakia reserve gold to Hitler in
early 1939 as a bribe to accept an Anglo-German Global financial and
commodities trust?  Was it not Britain?

Who was it that encouraged France to war with Hitler and at the same
time bated the Soviets to war with Germany, while they talked peace?
Was it not Britain?

Who was it that promised Poland and Czechoslovakia an alliance while
selling them out to Hitler in WWII?  Was it not Britain?

Who was it that encouraged Stalin and Roosevelt at the Tehran and Yalta
Conferences, to divide the world into three spheres of world financial
and commodities trusts?  Was it not Churchill of Britain?

Who took the Middle East as war booty, after WWI and divided up the
Middle East territories willy-nilly – making Kings from camel herders?
Was it not Britain and France?

Who needs Middle East oil?  Is it not Britain and the rest of Europe?

After WWII, who created the world financial trust in banking, the IMF
and the World Bank, the UN, to go along with the Atlantic and Pacific
Councils, and from the RIIA, the cloned CFR?  Was it not Britain with
the help of the USA?

Have you not read the “Anglo-American Establishment,” and “Tragedy and
Hope,” by Carol Quigley – “...esteemed professor at the School of
Foreign Service at Georgetown University and was the mentor for William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the USA, and a Rhodes Scholar?

Have you not read, “Union with Britain Now” by Clarence Streit, friend
of Lord Latham and the RIIA crowd?

Have you not read “One World or None,” an anthology of opinions by the
Nuclear Scientists of WWII, and a few pro-Anglo toads, such as Walter
Lippmann?

Have you not read “Propaganda” by Edward Bernays” WWI and WWII, war
propagandist for the USA and close friend of MI5, and Carnegie and
Astor’s?  All the liberal propaganda that oozes from the U.S. Democratic
Socialists can be found in this book of destiny.  Every political
sleight of hand - every social reforming experiment – every bribe –
every feminist, LGBT, and socially debauched experimental nightmare can
be traced to this book.

What we are witnessing in the Middle East is the British Plan of making
all things English in custom, law and finance, with the aid of U.S.
fools who believe they will get a piece of the rock  when all is said
and done.  Factually, the Templers are much smarter than the Bonesmen of
the US.  If, “money were your mouth is,” has been the rule setter - and
the USA has spent a lot of the cash - why do Western Banking interests
start at the LIBOR exchange in London?  While the Brits encourage the
USA to meld with Canada and Mexico to form the North American Dominion,
they are also encouraging us to meld with China.  They play one end
against the middle, and if a blow off comes, the Brits stand apart from
the mess that ensues.  The Brits are smooth when it comes to making
suggestions and tempting others to act on their behalf.  If the Devil
ever had a brother it would be Anglo-Saxons!

The Middle East debacle is no more than Britain attaining its goal of
cultural and financial domination of the Sovereign funds of the Arabs.
This is why Prime Minister Cameron told the world several months ago
that he would make London the Islamic Financial capital of the world.

“What makes British Royalty so fetid a culture - is not that they
disbelieve the grace of God - but that they have not yet found a way to
steal it!”  [fjv]

Clandestine operations and Wars have been the life blood of the British
Empire for 500 years.  It is their “Modus operandi.”  It is the nature
of this Whore of Revelation that sits upon the Beast and the peoples of
the world - but she is going to get burned!

(10) British Conspiracy or Zionist? - Reply to Frank Verderber, by Peter
Myers, August 22, 2014

Rhetorical questions are a feature of rhetoric and advocacy, not
scholarship. How many scholarly theses and research books consist of a
series of rhetorical questions? Their appeal is to the emotions rather
than the intellect.

Yes, there is a British Conspiracy. But there is also a Jewish
Conspiracy, something you seem to deny.

I have a webpage on this topic. The title is "Claims that the One-World
conspiracy is "British" (not Jewish)".

I first uploaded that webpage on May 19, 2004. Its address then was
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/british-conspiracy.html

The Internet Archive first archived that webpage on June 18, 2004:
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/british-conspiracy.html

Later, I moved it to Mailstar, at
http://mailstar.net/british-conspiracy.html

That webpage links to a graphic, which shows the relationship between
- the British Conspiracy
- the International Socialist (but anti-Stalinist) conspiracy which
operates through it, as a Left wing
- the Zionist conspiracy which operates through it, as a Right wing.

The graphic explains that there is a Jewish Conspiracy inside the
British Conspiracy: http://mailstar.net/british-conspiracy.gif

I was one of the first people in Australia to examine the original,
hardback edition of Carroll Quigley's book The Anglo-American Establishment.

I found it at the ADFA library in Canberra; when I went back the next
day, to photocopy it, it had disappeared - and stayed missing.

Stephen Zarlenga discovered the manuscript in some old papers, and
re-published it as a paperback. On October 14, 2001, I uploaded the most
important parts to my webpage http://mailstar.net/quigley.html

I also uploaded important parts of Tragedy and Hope to
http://mailstar.net/tragedy.html

Cecil Rhodes is the figurehead of the British Conspiracy. But who was
his banker (the one who loaned him the money)? - Lord Rothschild.

Rothschild was the Executor of Rhodes' will. He knew of the "British"
Conspiracy for world domination, but Rhodes and the "British" did not
know of Rothschild's own conspiracy for the same.

The crunch came in 1917, when the Balfour Declaration, a contract
between the British Empire and World Jewry, was addressed to Lord
Rothschild as head of the latter.

It lead to the creation of the modern state of Israel, in return for
Jewry's committment to use its media in the US and influence over the US
President (Wilson) to get US troops into the war speedily, to ensure
that Britain won. Prior to the fall of the Czar, only shortly before, US
Jewry had been pro-Germany, because they detested the Czar.

If Rothschild had been loyal to the "British" Conspiracy, he would never
have sought such a quid-pro-quo.

Michael Higger writes in his book The Jewish Utopia that "A Jewish
Utopia begins where Wells leaves off" (p. 6). That is, after Wells' and
Soros' International Socialist conspiracy for World Government:
http://mailstar.net/jewish-utopia.html.

That Left conspiracy favours Open Borders, Gay Marriage and the World
Court; the Zionist Right wants to rule the world from the Third Temple
in Jerusalem, built on the site where the Dome of the Rock now stands.

David ben Gurion, writing in LOOK Magazine of January 16, 1962,
envisaged it achieved by 1987. Despite the animosities of the Cold War
then under way, he saw  Eastern Europe being torn from the USSR and
joined with Western Europe; and China (even Mao's China) and Japan
joining the US  in what seems the first published depiction of APEC.

A World-Government has been created, with regional blocs in Europe, the
USSR and the Pacific Rim, and a Supreme Court for  Mankind has been
established in Jerusalem, as well as a shrine commemmorating the Jewish
role in the bringing-together of  mankind:
http://mailstar.net/bengur62.jpg.

The text is at http://mailstar.net/tmf.html.

(11) David Cameron's Jewish ancestry; beholden to Jewish donors

From: "Martin Webster" (martinwebstir@virginmedia.com) Date:  Thu, 07
Aug 2014 19:09:41 +0100

http://empirestrikesblack.com/2014/01/all-in-the-family-david-camerons-jewish-roots-and-the-coreligionists-who-brought-him-to-power/

EmpireStrikesBack – Tuesday 7th January 2014

All in the Family:
David Cameron’s Jewish roots and the coreligionists who brought him to power

by Martin Iqbal. <http://empirestrikesblack.com/category/blog/>

While speaking to a 500-strong group of Jewish lobbyists in London in
2007, UK Prime Minister David Cameron declared,[1]
<http://www.jpost.com/International/Cameron-declares-himself-a-Zionist>
  “I am a Zionist”. He went on to add, “I’m not just a good friend of
Israel but I am, as you put it, good for Jews.”

These comments can easily be explained merely as fawning attempts to
placate and appease the Jewish lobby – a necessary step for any who wish
to assume high office. One has to ask the question though: why does
‘Anglican’ David Cameron conceal his own Jewish identity?

David Cameron is not merely of Jewish descent; he hails from a bloodline
that can fairly be described as Jewish royalty, yet he claims never to
have known this. As he spoke to the Movement for Reform Judaism in 2010
he described his learning of his Jewish ancestry[2]
<http://news.reformjudaism.org.uk/press-releases/david-cameron-speaks-to-the-movement-for-reform-judaism.html>
  as the “highlight” of his year.

While studying the Cameron family tree in 2009,[3]
<http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=4868>  Dr Yaakov
Wise – a University of Manchester historian who specialises in Jewish
history – found that David Cameron is descended from a highly
distinguished Jewish family line:

“And according to Dr Wise, who has been using archival material to
examine the Cameron family tree, the Tory leader could also be a direct
descendent of the greatest ever Hebrew prophet, Moses.

“Cameron is a descendent of banker Emile Levita, who came to Britain as
a German immigrant in the 1850s. Emile Levita was himself a descendent
of Elijah Levita, who lived from 1469-1549.

“During the last years of his life Elijah Levita produced, among other
works, two major books: the 1541 Translator’s Book, the first dictionary
of the Targums or Aramaic commentaries on the Hebrew Bible.

“His lexicon of 1542 explained much of the Mishnaic Hebrew language and
was a supplement to two important earlier dictionaries.

“Elijah Levita also wrote what is thought to be the first ever Yiddish
novel – called the Bove-bukh (The Book of Bove) written in 1507 and
printed in 1541.

“The book is based on an Italian version of an Anglo-Norman tale about a
queen who betrays her husband and causes his death.

“Emile Levita, who was granted citizenship in 1871, is Cameron’s great
great grandfather.”

Cameron’s great-great grandfather, Emile Levita was a German Jewish
financier who emigrated to Britain and obtained British citizenship in
1871. Levita was the director of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia
and China which in 1969 became Standard Chartered Bank. Levita himself
is descended from Elijah Levita, a Jewish scholar of out-and-out
luminary status whose writings included not only a dictionary explaining
much of the Talmudic Hebrew language (or ‘Mishnaic Hebrew’), but the
first ever Yiddish novel (Yiddish, meaning literally “Jewish” is a
language of German Ashkenazi Jews written in the Hebrew alphabet).

Considering the sheer historical eminence of his ancestors, it would
take real gullibility to believe that David Cameron ‘found out’ about
his roots one year before he assumed office. The question is not ‘why
did Cameron have no knowledge of his Jewish roots’, but rather, why
would he conceal his Jewish identity?

A 2006 report by the Jewish Chronicle[4]
<http://website.thejc.com/home.aspx?AId=46698&ATypeId=1&search=true2&srchstr=++%22big+jewish+backers+%22&srchtxt=0&srchhead=1&srchauthor=0&srchsandp=0&scsrch=0>
  cited here by Stuart Littlewood[5]
<http://www.redressonline.com/2013/06/david-camerons-torah-government/>
  perhaps goes some way in explaining this. The report titled ‘Team
Cameron’s big Jewish backers‘ is a laundry list of powerful members of
the Jewish community who donated over £1 million to David Cameron,
explaining his inexplicable rise to power after a relatively mundane and
unremarkable political career.

Aside from these donations from powerful Jewish figures, a ‘small but
influential’ group of Jewish Conservative officials and politicians were
also ‘key players’ in Cameron’s campaign for leadership, the Jewish
Chronicle report goes on to mention.[4]
<http://website.thejc.com/home.aspx?AId=46698&ATypeId=1&search=true2&srchstr=++%22big+jewish+backers+%22&srchtxt=0&srchhead=1&srchauthor=0&srchsandp=0&scsrch=0>

In the aforementioned piece,[5]
<http://www.redressonline.com/2013/06/david-camerons-torah-government/>
  Stuart Littlewood makes an observation about the extent to which Jews
are over-represented in the British parliament:

“While nobody is suggesting, I hope, that Jews have no place in our
law-making, it is not unreasonable to wish the number to reflect their
presence in the population. Three years ago the Jewish Chronicle
published a list of Jewish MPs in Britain’s Parliament, naming 24. The
Jewish population in the UK at that time was – and probably still is –
around 280,000 or just under 0.5 per cent. There are 650 seats in the
House of Commons so, on a proportional basis, Jews could expect three
seats. But with 24 they were eight times over-represented. Which meant,
of course, that other groups were under-represented.

“The UK’s Muslim population is about 2.4 million or nearly 4 per cent.
Similarly, their quota would be 25 seats but they had only eight – a
serious shortfall. If Muslims were over-represented to the same extent
as Jews (i.e. eight times) they’d have 200 seats. Imagine the hullabaloo.”

David Cameron appointed the UK’s first Jewish ambassador[6]
<http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/24808/interview-the-uks-new-jewish-ambassador-israel>
  to the Zionist regime, Matthew Gould.

Succeeded by David Cameron, the previous leader of the Conservative
party, Michael Howard, is also Jewish,[7]
<http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=51500>  as is the current
leader of the UK Labour party, Ed Miliband.[8]
<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100160496/the-jewishness-of-ed-miliband-labours-first-jewish-leader-bravely-faces-up-to-the-lefts-anti-semitic-streak/>
Not bad going for a group that constitutes less than 0.5% of Britain’s
population.

If the British public were to consider Cameron’s very real pursuance of
Zionist policies in the context of his rise to power on the back of
Jewish money, there would be a public awakening (which would no-doubt be
labelled as ‘anti-Semitism’). In light of this, the decision to conceal
his Jewish identity can easily be understood.

It is not democratic for a holder of high office to be put in place by
the money of powerful political pressure groups. Nor is it democratic
for one ethno-religious group to be grossly over-represented within the
corridors of power.

If the interests of the Zionist regime and the powerful Jewish community
were to conflict with those of the United Kingdom, who would David ‘I’m
a Zionist‘ Cameron really represent? If the recent wars on Libya and
Syria are anything to go by, this question need not be asked.

Notes:

[1] ‘Cameron declares himself a Zionist’ – The Jerusalem Post, 13 June 2007.
[2] ‘David Cameron Speaks to the Movement for Reform Judaism’ – Written
by Movement for Reform Judaism, 12 April 2010.
[3] ‘Illustrious Jewish roots of Tory leader revealed’ – The University
of Manchester, 10 July 2009.
[4] ‘Special report: Team Cameron’s big Jewish backers’ – Bernard
Josephs and Leon Symons – The Jewish Chronicle, 12 October 2006.
[5] ‘David Cameron’s “Torah” government: Britain’s unbearable shame’, by
Stuart Littlewood.
[6] ‘Interview: The UK’s new Jewish ambassador to Israel’ – The Jewish
Chronicle, 10 December 2009.
[7] ‘Britain’s Conservative Party To Elect First Jewish Leader’ – The
Jewish Federations of North America, 6 November 2010.
[8] ‘The Jewishness of Ed Miliband: Labour’s first Jewish leader bravely
faces up to the Left’s anti-Semitic streak’ – The Daily Telegraph, 25
May 2012