Israel Lobby

Lobbyist: Launch Staged Provocation To Start War With Iran

“We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 26, 2012

A member of the influential pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank has brazenly suggested that the United States should launch a false flag provocation in order to start a war with Iran.

Speaking at a Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy forum luncheon on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout,” WINEP director of research Patrick Clawson listed a raft of historical examples of where governments have either staged or exploited attacks in order to become embroiled in war.

Clawson is also a former senior economist with the IMF and the World Bank.

Lamenting how it is “Very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran,” Clawson added, “the traditional way [that] America gets to war is what would be best for U.S. interests.”

By the “traditional way,” Clawson clearly intimated that he thinks the U.S. should stage or provoke an attack in order to create a manufactured casus belli for striking Iran.

“We can do a variety of things to increase the pressure,” said Clawson as fellow attendees at the luncheon snickered, adding that sanctions are not the only option and that “we are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians, we could get nastier about it.”
“So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war,” Clawson said.

Mentioning an incident on August 17 when power cables serving the Fordow Enrichment Plant were severed by an explosion, Clawson stated, “Iranian submarines periodically go down, someday one of them might not come up – who would know why? – clearly hinting that the U.S. should attack Iranian ships in order to provoke a response.

Reeling off a number of incidents that the U.S. President “had to wait for” before taking America to war, Clawson mentioned the Gulf of Tonkin, the Lusitania, the attack on the USS Maine, Pearl Harbor, as well as the attack on Fort Sumter during Abraham Lincoln’s tenure.
Every one of those events is historically recognized to have been staged to some degree or at least known ahead of time and exploited.

The explosion which sunk the USS Maine on 15 February 1898 and drove the United States into a war with Spain was most likely an accident. However, an aggressive propaganda campaign run by the king of yellow journalism William Randolph Hearst ensured that Americans were hoodwinked into blaming Spain and throwing their support behind the war.
The sinking of the Lusitania, which helped bring America into World War One, was also a planned provocation. In September 2008, a diving expedition confirmed speculation that had raged for decades – the ship was carrying a huge amount of munitions and was a legitimate target for German U-boats. Before the ship sailed, the Germans made it clear they knew the boat was carrying munitions and would target the Lusitania.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was known ahead of time and allowed to happen. The McCollum memo, written on October 7, 1940, by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence, detailed eight actions that could be used to provoke Japan into attacking the United States. Freedom of Information Act files confirm that that United States had intercepted Admiral Yamamoto’s radio messages sent weeks before December 7 1941, one of which made it clear that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor.

In the case of the Gulf of Tonkin, the supposed second attack by the North Vietnamese which the White House cited in sending troops to Vietnam did not take place. In an interview for a documentary called The Fog of War, then Defense Secretary Robert S McNamara admits that the attack “didn’t happen.”

In listing these examples, Clawson is shamelessly calling for the United States to stage or provoke an incident as a means of manufacturing a pretext to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is a Washington-DC-based think tank and part of the so-called pro-Israel Lobby; WINEP was founded in 1985. WINEP was founded by AIPAC, and initially WINEP staff and offices overlapped; WINEP’s founding director was Martin Indyk, AIPAC’s former research director. While AIPAC sought to influence the US Congress directly, WINEP is seen as a means to influence US foreign policy, discussion of foreign policy in the media, to serve as a conduit to place its own personnel in key policy-making position, and to recruit important policymakers to its cause. WINEP’s means used to influence US foreign policy include the following:

Write policy papers[1]
Host seminars/discussions – WINEP hosts or appears in most foreign policy discussions in Washington DC.[2]
To recruit academics, out-of-office/revolving door policymakers, and wannabe policymakers as fellows to the institute
Influence US military staff by hosting military as “visiting Military Fellows”[3]
Place WINEP members in policymaking positions[4][5]
Issuing endless streams of press releases
Provide pundits or commentators for the US or Western media.[6]
Provide forums where it engages in discussions on policy in the Middle East with similar-minded academics, journalists, and policymakers in the Middle East[7]
Create new foundations or forums to affect specific policy issues or aspects of regional politics WINEP/AIPAC seek to influence[8]
sourcewatch

I've learned something about Israeli calisthenics. When the leader speaks, you sit down, stand up repeatedly.

ya....looks a lot like the old stalinist rallies.
whatever.

http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf

better read this, folks ^^^


Hasbara
Hasbara refers to the propaganda efforts to improve Israel's image abroad, to justify its actions, and defend it in world opinion. It is a public diplomacy effort undertaken by Israeli government officers, or individuals in target countries (public or private efforts; group or individual efforts). Israel portrays itself as fighting on two fronts: against the Palestinians/Arabs and world opinion. The latter is dealt with hasbara. The premise of hasbara is that Israel's problems are a matter of better propaganda, and not one of an underlying unjust situation.[1]

Hasbara Campus Manual

A Hasbara manual for students to use on US univesity campuses is now available online[2]. A summary of the techniques is provided from page 31 onwards:

Propaganda is used by those who want to communicate in ways that engage the emotions and downplay rationality, in an attempt to promote a certain message.

The manual goes on to describe seven propaganda techniques:

Name calling: through the careful use of words, then name calling technique links a person or an idea to a negative symbol.

Glittering generality: Simply put, glittering generality is name calling in reverse. Instead of trying to attach negative meanings to ideas or people, glittering generalities use positive phrases, which the audience are attached to, in order to lend positive image to things. Words such as "freedom", "civilization",…

Transfer: Transfer involves taking some of the prestige and authority of one concept and applying it to another. For example, a speaker might decide to speak in front of a United Nations flag, in an attempt to gain legitimacy for himself or his idea.

Testimonial: Testimonial means enlisting the support of somebody admired or famous to endorse and ideal or campaign.

Plain folks: The plain folks technique attempts to convince the listener that the speaker is a 'regular guy', who is trust-worthy because the are like 'you or me'.

Fear: Stressing that ignoring the message will likely lead to war, terrorism[3]

Bandwagon: Suggest that the stated position is mainstream and use polls to suggest this. [4]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hasbara

‘Freedom of speech has entered a dark age’

Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:32PM GMT

Interview with Gilad Atzmon, author and writer from London



The old concept of freedom of speech and tolerance is in a serious decay in Europe. In Britain, it already disappeared completely. We are living in a very Dark Age and it is now official.”

The concept of freedom of speech and tolerance enters a dark age as the Europe Union’s executive body orders a ban on several Iranian channels, an author tells Press TV.


European satellite provider Eutelsat SA says it has stopped the broadcast of several Iranian satellite channels following an order by the European Commission.

The company ordered media services company, Arqiva, to take the Iranian satellite channels off one of its Hot Bird frequencies on Monday.

In a separate statement emailed to Press TV, Arqiva said that the decision was made by the EU Council.

Moreover, head of Public Relations Department of Arqiva, Gary Follows, told Press TV that as a result of reinforced EU Council sanctions and repeated requests by France's broadcasting authority for the permanent switch-off of Sahar 1, which is broadcast in the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) multiplex, the IRIB broadcasts through Eutelsat Hot Bird have been terminated.

The Iranian channels being taken off the air include Press TV, al-Alam, Jam-e-Jam 1 and 2, Sahar 1 and 2, Islamic Republic of Iran News Network, Quran TV, and the Arabic-language al-Kawthar.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Gilad Atzmon, author and writer from London, to further discuss the issue. The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Firstly, I wanted to get your reaction to this decision.

Atzmon: It obviously doesn’t take me by a big surprise. The old concept of ‘freedom of speech and tolerance’ is in a serious decay in Europe. In Britain, it already disappeared completely. We are living in a very dark age and it is now official.

Press TV: How does this all tie in with the fact that the European Union was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and the various contradictions that that also brought up for the EU?

Atzmon: This is just there to prove how ridiculous is the Nobel Prize concept is. The whole concept of the Nobel Prize for peace has proven to be very misleading. But this is not the issue.

The issue is that we are living here and seeing our most elementary rights being jeopardized. Now, the West prided itself with human rights for quite a few decades now, and we’re obviously in a serious moment of regression on that front.

It’s pretty astonishing to see that Europeans themselves have for the time being kept silent about it. One of the reasons is because they are facing a financial turmoil, so probably are more concerned with bread and butter.

For me, the most crucial question as the person who specializes in analyzing and monitoring Jewish lobbying around the world is to try to identify the lobbies that are pushing for these measures. It seems to me, at least in Britain, you know, we have proved it beyond a doubt, it was the Jewish lobby that was pushing for silencing Press TV.

I guess that in the EU, the situation is very similar though...

Press TV: Mr. Atzmon, why exactly are we seeing this attack on the human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etcetera?

Atzmon: Because freedom of expression is the freedom to say what you think, feel and see.

At the moment it is clear beyond a doubt that the country I’m living in, Britain, is involved in more than a decade of an illegal war that left more than a million Iraqis dead.

The situation in Afghanistan is very grave.

It is clear beyond a doubt that at least in regard to Palestine, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, Press TV delivered a story that cannot be seen in Britain because it really contradicts everything the government here claims to support or possess.

http://presstv.com/detail/2012/10/15/266859/freedom-speech-enters-dark-age/


VIDEO INTERVIEW AT SITE

"ATZMON: For me, the most crucial question as the person who specializes in analyzing and monitoring Jewish lobbying around the world is to try to identify the lobbies that are pushing for these measures. It seems to me, at least in Britain, you know, we have proved it beyond a doubt, it was the Jewish lobby that was pushing for silencing Press TV.

I guess that in the EU, the situation is very similar though... "



The European Jewish Union is a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Brussels whose stated aim is to be "a uniting structure for all Jewish communities and organizations throughout Western, Eastern and Central Europe."[1] The group was founded in the Spring of 2011 by Ihor Kolomoyskyi and Vadim Rabinovich after the two failed to secure leadership positions in other European Jewish organizations.[2]

The EJU hopes to establish a European Jewish Parliament, comprising 120 members modeled on the Israeli Knesset.[3][4] This group would then represent the concerns of the Jewish community to the European Union.[5]

- Wiki

Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Did Israeli Lobby Stage a Coup Against Petraeus?

Did the Israeli Lobby Stage a Coup Against the Director of the CIA?

New York Times Hints that the Downfall of Petraeus was Politically-Motivated

By Michael Hoffman

One wonders if Petraeus was set up, like Mordechai Vanunu; only in this case Broadwell may have been a patsy: “On Monday night, F.B.I. agents went to Ms. Broadwell’s home in Charlotte, N.C., and were seen carrying away what several reporters at the scene said were boxes of documents. A law enforcement official said Ms. Broadwell had consented to the search” (NY Times online, Nov. 12).

Her surrender of documents from her house without a search warrant would appall any competent defense attorney. It is the action of a scapegoat, or a person under some type of duress or mind control.

In 2010, General Petraeus fingered the Israeli-Palestine conflict as making life difficult for US troops in the Middle East and Afghanistan. His assessment violated the Israeli lobby’s sacred taboo against any such linkage:

“In March 2010, when Petraeus was still head of the US Central Command, he gave testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee which included this observation about one of the “challenges to security and stability” faced by the United States:

"The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Area of Operations]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world...’

“Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was so alarmed he issued a statement condemning Petraeus’ testimony, asserting in part of it: ‘Gen. Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the U.S. and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived U.S. favoritism for Israel. This linkage is dangerous and counterproductive.’

“....Obama appointed Petraeus as CIA director after he made his Senate statement about Israel.” (Source: “When former CIA chief David Petraeus enraged the Israel lobby” http://electronicintifada.net/)

In this writer’s opinion, the Petraeus sex scandal may have been intended to break during the presidential election campaign to embarrass Obama and cost him votes. The fact that it became public only after Nov. 6 shows that Obama’s forces inside the Cryptocracy successfully kept it under cover, and that’s some feat.....

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/news.html