Saturday 22nd of June 2024

killing the truth.....

First, the force that is ending freedom will be identified and described; and, then, the counter-force that they fear and hate the most (and are trying to destroy) will be identified and described.


The force that is ending freedom is empire.


Eric Zuesse (blogs at


Every empire is a dictatorship. No nation can be a democracy that’s either heading an empire, or a vassal-state (colony) of one. Obviously, in order to be a vassal-state within an empire, that nation is dictated-to by the nation of which it is a colony. However, even the domestic inhabitants of the colonizing nation cannot be free and living in a democracy, because their services are needed abroad in order to impose the occupying force upon the colony or vassal-nation — and are paid by the imperial nation’s taxpayers, not by the billionaires who derive the benefits from the empire. This is an important burden upon the ‘citizens’ or actually the subjects of the imperial nation. Furthermore, they need to finance, via their taxes, this occupying force abroad, to a sufficient extent so as to subdue any resistance by the residents in any colony.

Every empire is imposed, none is really voluntary. Conquest creates an empire, and the constant application of force maintains it. Every empire is a dictatorship, not only upon its foreign populations (which goes without saying, because otherwise there can’t be any empire), but upon its domestic ones too, upon its own subjects.

Any empire needs weapons-makers, who sell to the government and whose only markets are the imperial government and its vassal-nations or ‘allies’. By contrast, ‘enemy’ nations are ones that the imperial power has placed onto its priority-list of nations that are yet to become conquered.

There are three main reasons to conquer a nation:

1: in order to be enabled to extract, from the colony, oil, or gold, or some other valuable commodity.

2: in order to control it so as to be enabled to use that land as a passageway for exporting, from a vassal-nation, to other nations, that vassal-nation’s products.

3: in order to expand the empire.

International trade is the basis for any empire, and the billionaires who own controlling blocs of stock in a nation’s international corporations are the actual rulers of it, the beneficiaries of empire, the recipients of the wealth that is being extracted from the colonies and from the domestic subjects.

The idea of an empire is that the imperial nation’s rulers, its aristocracy, extract from the colonies their products, and they impose upon their domestic subjects the financial and military burdens of imposing their international dictatorship upon the foreign subjects.

Some authors say that there is a “Deep State” and that it consists of (some undefined elements within) the intelligence services, and of the military, and of the diplomatic corps, of any given dictatorship; but, actually, those employees of the State are merely employees, not the actual governing power, over that dictatorship.

The actual Deep State are always the aristocrats, themselves, the billionaires who run the revolving door between ‘the private sector’ (the aristocracy’s corporations) and the government. By this means, they own the decision-making Governing bureaucracy, just as they also own the private corporations that the Government serves. They control both the entrance-doors and the exit-doors, both sides of the revolving doors.

In former times, many of the aristocrats were themselves governing officials (the titled ‘nobility’), but this is no longer common. Nowadays, the aristocracy are the individuals who own controlling blocs of stock in international corporations (especially weapons-making firms such as Lockheed Martin and BAE, because the only markets for thosecorporations are the corporation’s own government and its vassal states or ‘allies’; and extraction-corporations such as ExxonMobil and BHP, which benefit from being backed up by the world’s largest military); and such individuals are usually the nation’s billionaires, and, perhaps, a few of the mere centi-millionaires. A small number, typically less than 100, of these extremely wealthy individuals, are the biggest donors to politicians, and to think tanks, and to other non-profits (these latter being also tax-write-offs to their donors, and so are tax-drains siphoning money away from the general public and paying the actual benefits, such as PR and increased control over the Government, to the billionaires) that are involved in the formation of the national government’s policies; and, of course, these billionaires also are owners of and/or advertisers in the propaganda-media, which sell the aristocracy’s core or most-essential viewpoints to the nation’s subjects, in order to persuade those voters to vote only for the aristocracy’s selected candidates, and not for any who oppose the aristocracy. These few, mainly but not exclusively billionaires, are the actual Deep State — the bosses over the dictatorship, the ultimatebeneficiaries in any empire.

In order to maintain this system, of international dictatorship or empire, the most essential tool is deceit, of the electorate, by the aristocracy.   

The method of control is: the bought agents of the Deep State (including the major ‘news’-media, etc.) lie to the public about what their polices will be if they win, in order to be able to win power; and, then, once they have won power, they do the opposite, which is what they have always been paid by the Deep State (the aristocracy) to do. Thereby, elections aren’t “democratic” but instead ‘democratic’: they are mere formalities of democracy, without the substance of democracy, because there can be no democracy where truth is suppressed and lies are spread instead. All of the well-financed candidates for the top offices are actually the Deep State’s representatives, and virtually none are the representatives of the public, because the voters have been deceived, and were given (by the DNC and RNC) choices between two or more candidates, none of whom will represent the public, if and when elected. Individuals who want to represent the public instead of the aristocracy get drowned by the aristocracy’s campaign-money.

Here are some recent examples of this system — the imperial system, international dictatorship, in action — as shown by its results:

During Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign, he said, “The approach of fighting Assad and ISIS simultaneously was madness, and idiocy. They’re fighting each other and yet we’re fighting both of them. You know, we were fighting both of them. I think that our far bigger problem than Assad is ISIS, I’ve always felt that. Assad is, you know I’m not saying Assad is a good man, ’cause he’s not, but our far greater problem is not Assad, it’s ISIS. … I think, you can’t be fighting two people that are fighting each other, and fighting them together. You have to pick one or the other.”Assad is allied with Russia against the Sauds (who are a main ally of the U.S. aristocracy), so the U.S. (in accord with a policy that George Herbert Walker Bush had initiated on 24 February 1990 and which has been carried out by all subsequent U.S. Presidents) was determined to overthrow Assad, but Trump said that he was strongly opposed to that policy.

Months before that, Trump had said“I think Assad is a bad guy, a very bad guy, all right? Lots of people killed. I think we are backing people we have no idea who they are. The rebels, we call them the rebels, the patriotic rebels. We have no idea. A lot of people think, Hugh, that they are ISIS. We have to do one thing at a time. We can’t be fighting ISIS and fighting Assad. Assad is fighting ISIS. He is fighting ISIS. Russia is fighting now ISIS. And Iran is fighting ISIS. We have to do one thing at a time. We can’t go — and I watched Lindsey Graham, he said, I have been here for 10 years fighting. Well, he will be there with that thinking for another 50 years. He won’t be able to solve the problem. We have to get rid of ISIS first. After we get rid of ISIS, we’ll start thinking about it. But we can’t be fighting Assad. And when you’re fighting Assad, you are fighting Russia, you’re fighting — you’re fighting a lot of different groups. But we can’t be fighting everybody at one time.”

In that same debate (15 December 2015) he also said: “In my opinion, we’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could’ve spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we’ve had, we would’ve been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now. We have done a tremendous disservice, not only to Middle East, we’ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have wiped away, and for what? It’s not like we had victory. It’s a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized. A total and complete mess. I wish we had the $4 trillion or $5 trillion. I wish it were spent right here in the United States, on our schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart.”

Did he do that? No. Did he instead intensify what Obama had been trying to do in Syria — overthrow Assad — yes. As the U.S. President, after having won the 2016 Presidential campaign, did Trump follow through on his criticism there, against the super-hawk, neoconservative, Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham? No. Did he instead encircle himself with precisely such super-hawks, such neoconservatives (such as John Bolton and Mike Pompeo)? Yes. Did he intensify the overthrow-Assad effort, as Graham and those others had advocated? Yes. Did America’s war against Syria succeed? No. Did he constantly lie to the voters? Yes, without a doubt. Should that be grounds for impeaching him? A prior question to that one is actually: Would a President Mike Pence have been any different or maybe even worse than Trump? If yes, then what would be achieved by removing Trump from office? Maybe it would actually have made things a lot worse. But how likely would the U.S. Senate have been to remove Trump from office if the House did impeach Trump? Two-thirds of the U.S. Senate would need to vote to remove the President in order for a President to be removed after being impeached by the House. A majority of U.S. Senators, 53 of them, were Republicans. If just 33 of them voted not to convict the President, then Trump wouldn’t be removed, and he wasn’t. In order to remove him, not only would all 47 of the Democrats and Independents have had to vote to convict, but 20 of the 53 Republicans would have needed to join them. That’s nearly 40% of the Republican Senators. How likely was that? Almost impossible. What would their voters who had elected them back home think of their having done such a thing? How likely would such Senators have then faced successful re-election challenges that would have removed those Senators from office? Would 20 of the 53 have been likely to take that personal risk? Why, then, were so many Democrats in the House pressing for Trump’s impeachment, since Trump’s being forced out of the White House this way was practically impossible and would only have installed a President Pence, even if it could have succeeded? Was that Democratic Party initiative anything else than insincere political theater, lying to their own gullible voters, Democratic Party voters, just being phonies who manipulated voters to vote for them, instead of who were actually serving them? Is that what democracy is, now: such insincere political theater? Is that “democracy”? America’s voters are trapped, by liars, so it’s instead mere ‘democracy’. It’s the new form of dictatorship. But it’s actually as ancient as is any empire. There’s nothing new about this — except for one thing: the U.S. regime is aiming to be the ultimate, the last, the final, empire, the ruler over the entire planet; so, it is trying especially hard, ‘to defend freedom, democracy and human rights throughout the world’, as Big Brother might say.

Trump’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, was just as evil, and just as insincere, as Trump, but a far more skillful liar, who deceived his voters to think that he would fight corruptionwork to improve relations with Russia, provide a public option in his health-insurance plan, and otherwise work to reduce economic inequality, to improve the economic situation for disadvantaged Americans, and to prosecute banksters. He abandoned each one of those stated objectives as soon as he won against John McCain, on 4 November 2008, and then yet more when he defeated Mitt Romney in 2012. And aren’t some of those promises the same ones that candidate Trump had also advocated and then abandoned as soon as he too was s‘elected’ by the aristocrats before being elected by the voters?

And what, then, about Trump’s successor, Biden? He’s at least as bad as Trump, but has been far less successful than that much slicker Obama, who actually succeeded in his top initiative, of grabbing control over Ukraine.


Empire always depends upon lies; it is always built upon lies; and, so, the biggest threat to it is the truth, and especially the champions of truth, who are the whistleblowers. The whistleblowers are up against two enemies: the aristocracy, and the aristocrats’ agents who censor-out truth and leave only lies which the aristocracy’s agents spread to the public. Censorship always serves liars, because it is imposed from above and serves the aristocracy, against the public. Every dictatorship needs censorship. No democracy does. Censorship is toxic to any democracy.

The heroic fighters for the freedom of everyone in the world are the whistleblowers, who report to the public the corruption and evil that they see perpetrated by their superiors, their bosses, and perpetrated by people who are on the public payroll or otherwise obtaining increased income by virtue of being selected by the government to become government contractors to serve an allegedly public function. All liars with power, hate whistleblowers, and want to make special examples of any part of the press that publishes their truths, their facts, their stolen documents. These documents are stolen because that’s the only way for them to become public and thereby known to the voters so that the voters can vote on the basis of truths as in a democracy, instead of to be deceived as in a dictatorship. Even if the truth is stolen from the liars, instead of being kept private (“Confidential”) for them, are the whistleblowers doing wrong to steal the truth from the liars? Or, instead, are the whistleblowers heroes: are they the authentic guardians of democracy, and the precariously thin wall that separates democracy from dictatorship? They are the latter: they are the true heroes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of such heroes are also martyrs — martyrs for truth, against lies. Every dictatorship seeks to destroy its whistleblowers. That’s because any whistleblower constitutes a threat to The System — the system of aristocratic control; the system of dictatorship.

In all of U.S. history, the three Presidents who pursued whistleblowers and their publishers the most relentlessly have been Trump, Obama, and Biden — America’s latest three Presidents. The public are fooled to think that this hiding of the truth is being done for ‘national security’ reasons instead of to hide the government’s crimes and criminality. However, not a single one of the Democratic Party’s many U.S. Presidential candidates is bringing this issue, of the U.S. government’s many crimes and constant lying, forward as being the central thing that must be criminalized above all else, as constituting “treason.” None of them is proposing legislation saying that it is treason, against the public — against the nation. Against the public.

Furthermore: no U.S. Presidential candidate has even proposed, and no U.S. President ever pushed for, a law that would end, terminate finally, this Government’s dictatorship of lies, by liars, and end the horrible punishment — by the U.S. Government and by employers — against whistleblowers. Here is the sort of thing that such a law would say:

“In any instance where civil law impedes, or conflicts with enforcement of, a criminal law, criminal law and its enforcement takes precedence and nullifies — makes inoperative — any such provision in any such contract.”

Such a law would, for example, free up all who work in the federal bureaucracy, and who work in the chemical and other corporations — individuals who right now are stymied by confidentiality agreements they’ve signed with their employer, which confidentiality agreement will strip them financially if they do go public and blow the whistle, but this law would end that fear they have — so that they will then become suddenly, because of this new law, they will suddenly be ABLE, to blow the whistle safely, because those are merely contracts they’ve signed, civil-law matters, and therefore any whistleblower who goes public revealing a criminal-law violation, such as poisoning and killing — murdering — people en-mass (by poisonous products or otherwise), which are common corporate and bureaucratic crimes, can then be revealed safely, as-if that confidentiality agreement didn’t even exist. The confidentiality agreement will then be null and void, because it then conflicts with enforcement of a criminal law. There are so many examples of this, such as the ones cited in this review of movies that have been made about these cases, “whistleblower movies,” such as “A Civil Action, and “Dark Waters”, all of which cases have ended badly for the whistleblowers, because NO LAW SUCH AS THIS YET EXISTS. That’s the problem. (I especially recommend watching the extraordinarily fine and factually truthful motion-picture reconstruction of perhaps the biggest of all corporate criminalities, the “Dark Waters” film. It’s a masterpiece. And it entirely honestly lays out the problem that existed and that still hasn’t yet been at all addressed. But this law would address it; and, I think, would effectively prevent the innumerable recurrences of it, from happening again.)

A law like that would transform America from what it is, an aristocracy, into a democracy, even though a limited one (because the U.S. Constitution’s system of “checks and balances” prohibits any complete democracy here). But that still would be vastly better than America’s current ruling system is.

Every aristocracy tries to deceive its public, in order to control its public; and every aristocracy uses divide-and-rule in order to do this; but it’s not only to divide the public against each other (such as between Republicans versus Democrats, both of which are actually controlled by the aristocracy), but also to divide between nations, such as between ‘allies’ versus ‘enemies’ — even when a given ‘enemy’ (such as Iraq in 2003) has never threatened, far less invaded, the United States (or whatever the given imperial ‘us’ may happen to be), and thus clearly this was aggressive war, and an international war-crime, though unpunished as such, because it was done by the empire. The public need to fear and hate some ‘enemy’ which is the ‘other’ or ‘alien’, in order not  to fear and loathe the aristocracy itself — the actual source of (and winner from) the systemic exploitation, of the public, by the aristocracy. It’s distract, and divide, and rule. That’s their method.

The pinnacle of the U.S. regime’s totalitarianism is its ceaseless assault against Julian Assange, who is the über-whistleblower, the strongest protector for whistleblowers, the safest publisher for the evidence that they steal from their employers and from their employers’ government. He hides the identity of the whistleblowers, even at the risk of his own continued existence. Right now, the U.S. regime is raising to a fever-pitch and twisting beyond recognition not only U.S. laws but the U.S. Constitution, so as to impose its will against him. President Trump was supported in this effort by the corrupt U.S. Congress, to either end Assange’s life, or else lock him up for the rest of his heroic life in a dungeon having no communication with the world outside, until he does finally die, in isolation, punishment for his heroic last-ditch fight for the public’s freedom and for democracy — his fight, actually, against our 1984regime. What Jesus of Nazareth was locally to the Roman regime in his region, Assange is to the U.S. regime throughout the world: an example who is martyred so as to terrify anyone else who might come forth effectively to challenge the Emperor’s authority.

A key country in this operation has been Ecuador, which became ruled by the dictator Lenin Moreno, who stole office by lying to the public and pretending to be a progressive who backed his democratically elected predecessor, Rafael Correa, but then as soon as Moreno won power, he reversed Correa’s progressive initiatives, including, above all, his protection of Assange, who had sought refuge in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London.

On 11 April 2019, RT headlined “Who is Lenin Moreno and why did he hand Assange over to British police?” and reported that:

Following his 2017 election, Moreno quickly moved away from his election platform after taking office. He reversed several key pieces of legislation passed under his predecessor which targeted the wealthy and the banks. He also reversed a referendum decision on indefinite re-election while simultaneously blocking any potential for Correa to return.

He effectively purged many of Correa’s appointments to key positions in Ecuador’s judiciary and National Electoral Council via the CPCCS-T council which boasts supra-constitutional powers.

Moreno has also cozied up to the US, with whom Ecuador had a strained relationship under Correa. Following a visit from Vice President Mike Pence in June 2018, Ecuador bolstered its security cooperation with the US, including major arms deals, training exercises and intelligence sharing.

Following Assange’s arrest Correa, who granted Assange asylum in the first place, described Moreno as the “greatest traitor in Ecuadorian and Latin American history” saying he was guilty of a “crime that humanity will never forget.”

Despite his overwhelming power and influence, however, Moreno and his family are the subject of a sweeping corruption probe in the country, as he faces down accusations of money laundering in offshore accounts and shell companies in Panama, including the INA Investment Corp, which is owned by Moreno’s brother. 

Damning images, purportedly hacked from Moreno’s phone, have irreparably damaged both his attempts at establishing himself as an anti-corruption champion as well as his relationship with Assange, whom he accused of coordinating the hacking efforts.

On 14 April 2019, Denis Rogatyuk at The Gray Zone headlined “Sell Out: How Corruption, Voter Fraud and a Neoliberal Turn Led Ecuador’s Lenin to Give Up Assange: Desperate to ingratiate his government with Washington and distract the public from his mounting scandals, Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno has sacrificed Julian Assange – and his country’s independence”, and he described some of the documentation for the accusations that Moreno was corrupt. 

On 12 April 2019, Zero Hedge headlined “Facebook Removes Page Of Ecuador’s Former President On Same Day As Assange’s Arrest”, and opened: “Facebook has unpublished the page of Ecuador’s former president, Rafael Correa, the social media giant confirmed on Thursday, claiming that the popular leftist leader violated the company’s security policies.”

On 16 April 2019, Jonathan Turley bannered “‘He Is Our Property’: The D.C. Establishment Awaits Assange With A Glee And Grudge”, and opened:

They will punish Assange for their sins

The key to prosecuting Assange has always been to punish him without again embarrassing the powerful figures made mockeries by his disclosures. That means to keep him from discussing how the U.S. government concealed alleged war crimes and huge civilian losses, the type of disclosures that were made in the famous Pentagon Papers case. He cannot discuss how Democratic and Republican members either were complicit or incompetent in their oversight. He cannot discuss how the public was lied to about the program.

A glimpse of that artificial scope was seen within minutes of the arrest. CNN brought on its national security analyst, James Clapper, former director of national intelligence. CNN never mentioned that Clapper was accused of perjury in denying the existence of the National Security Agency surveillance program and was personally implicated in the scandal that WikiLeaks triggered.

Clapper was asked directly before Congress, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.” Later, Clapper said his testimony was “the least untruthful” statement he could make.

That would still make it a lie, of course, but this is Washington and people like Clapper are untouchable. In the view of the establishment, Assange is the problem.

On 11 April 2019, the YouGov polling organization headlined “53% of Americans say Julian Assange should be extradited to America”.

On 13 April 2019, I headlined “What Public Opinion on Assange Tells Us About the US Government Direction”, and reported the only international poll that had ever been done of opinions about Assange. Its findings demonstrated that, out of the 23 nations which were surveyed, U.S. was the only one where the public were anti-Assange, and that the difference between the U.S. and all of the others was enormous and stark. The report opened:

The only extensive poll of public opinion regarding Julian Assange or Wikileaks was Reuters/Ipsos on 26 April 2011, “WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange is not a criminal: global poll”, and it sampled around a thousand individuals in each of 23 countries — a total of 18,829 respondents. The Reuters news-report was vague, and not linked to any detailed presentation of the poll-findings, but it did say that “U.S. respondents had a far more critical view” against Wikileaks than in any other country, and that the view by Americans was 69% “believing Assange should be charged and 61 percent opposing WikiLeaks’ mission.” Buried elsewhere on the Web was this detailed presentation of Ipsos’s findings in that poll. Here are what those findings were, as shown in slide 3:

Oppose Wikileaks:

61% U.S.

38% UK

33% Canada

32% Poland

32% Belgium

31% Saudi Arabia

30% Japan

30% France

27% Indonesia

26% Italy

25% Germany

24% Sweden

24% Australia

22% Hungary

22% Brazil

21% Turkey

21% S. Korea

16% Mexico

16% Argentina

15% Spain

15% Russia

15% India

12% S. Africa

Is the U.S. a democracy if the regime is so effective in gripping the minds of its public, as to make them hostile to the strongest fighter for their freedom and democracy?

On 13 April 2019, washingtonsblog headlined “4 Myths About Julian Assange DEBUNKED”, and here was one of them:

Myth #2: Assange Will Get a Fair Trial In the U.S.

14-year CIA officer John Kiriakou notes:

Assange has been charged in the Eastern District of Virginia — the so-called “Espionage Court.” That is just what many of us have feared. Remember, no national security defendant has ever been found not guilty in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Eastern District is also known as the “rocket docket” for the swiftness with which cases are heard and decided. Not ready to mount a defense? Need more time? Haven’t received all of your discovery? Tough luck. See you in court.

… I have long predicted that Assange would face Judge Leonie Brinkema were he to be charged in the Eastern District. Brinkema handled my case, as well as CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling’s. She also has reserved the Ed Snowden case for herself. Brinkema is a hanging judge.

On 20 May 2019, former British Ambassador Craig Murray (who had quit so that he could blow the whistle) headlined “The Missing Step” and he argued that the only chance that Assange had was if Sweden cancelled its rape-arrest-warrant against Assange and thus cancelled Sweden’s extradition-request from Britain. Sweden was then forced to drop its charge against Assange (because neither of the two alleged complainants would agree to testify against him), and so only Donald Trump and Boris Johnson (and now Biden and Sunak) were keeping him imprisoned until he will die.

How can it reasonably be denied that the U.S. is, in fact (though not nominally) a dictatorship? All of its allies are thus vassal-nations in its empire. They are mere colonies. This means acquiescence (if not joining) in some of the U.S. regime’s frequent foreign coups and invasions; and this means their assisting in the spread of the U.S. regime’s control beyond themselves, to include additional other countries. It reduces the freedom, and the democracy, throughout the world; it spreads the U.S. dictatorship internationally. That is what is evil about what in America is called “neoconservatism” and in other countries is called simply “imperialism.” Under American reign, it is now a spreading curse, a political plague, to peoples throughout the world. Even an American whistleblower about Ukraine who lives in the former Ukraine was being targeted by the U.S. regime even before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 — when such targeting was blatantly illegal.

This is how the freedom of everyone is severely threatened, by the U.S. empire — the most deceitful empire that the world has ever experienced. The martyrs to its lies are the canaries in its coal mine. They are the first to be eliminated.

Looking again at the top of that rank-ordered list of 23 countries regarding public sentiment concerning Assange, one sees the U.S. and eight of its main allies (or vassal-nations), in order: U.S., UK, Canada, Poland, Belgium, Saudi Arabia, Japan, France, Indonesia. These are countries whose subjects (‘citizens’) are already well-controlled by the empire. They already are vassals, and so these nations are ordained (accepted by America’s aristocracy) as being ‘allies’.

At the opposite end (as of 2011, when that poll was taken), starting with the most anti-U.S-regime, were: S. Africa, India, Russia, Spain, Argentina, Mexico, S. Korea, Turkey. These were countries where the subjects were not yet well-controlled by the empire, even though the current government in some of them is trying to change its subjects’ minds so that the country will accept U.S. rule. Wherever the subjects reject U.S. rule, there exists a strong possibility that the nation will become placed on the U.S. regime’s list of ‘enemies’ and be subjected to at least attempts at “regime-change.” Consequently, wherever the residents are the most opposed to U.S. rule, the likelihood of an American coup or invasion is real. The first step toward a coup or invasion is the imposition of sanctions against the nation. Any such nation that is already subject to them is therefore already in severe danger. Any such nation that refuses to cooperate with the U.S. regime’s existing sanctions — such as against trading with Russia, China, Iran, or Venezuela — is in danger of becoming itself a U.S.-sanctioned nation, and therefore officially an ‘enemy’ of today’s version of nazism (as Nuremberg defined it: imperialistic fascism).

And this is why freedom and democracy are ending.

Unless and until the U.S. regime itself becomes conquered — either domestically by a second successful American Revolution (this one to eliminate the domestic aristocracy instead of to eliminate a foreign one), or else by a World War III in which the U.S. regime becomes destroyed even worse than the opposing alliance will — the existing insatiable empire will continue to be on the war-path to impose its dictatorship to everyone on this planet.

The force that is ending freedom is empire, and it’s now being wielded by the U.S.A. Like all empires, it thrives on lies, and therefore its biggest enemies are whistleblowers.

The only possible peaceful solution to this would be if a law were to become passed in the U.S. saying, “In any instance where civil law impedes, or conflicts with enforcement of, a criminal law, criminal law and its enforcement takes precedence and nullifies — makes inoperative — any such provision in any such contract.”


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.



hiding reality.....

A report critical of Australian generals’ leadership in Afghanistan was given to the Defence Minister Richard Marles in November 2023, but was not published until after the McBride sentencing. Stuart McCarthy on a travesty of justice.

After six months of obfuscation until the day whistleblower David McBride was jailed last week for trying to expose wrongdoing by senior defence force officers in relation to Afghanistan war crimes, Defence Minister Richard Marles released a report that largely vindicated McBride’s actions.

The final report of the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel was sent to Marles in November last year. Efforts for the report to be published included three Senate orders for the production of documents, numerous freedom of information requests, and a Royal Commission hearing.

Marles’ repeated attempts to conceal the report until the announcement of McBride’s five-year prison sentence obliterate Prime Minister Albanese’s remaining platitudes about improved government transparency, accountability and whistleblower protections.

The oversight panel was established in response to the 2020 report of the Brereton Inquiry, which found evidence of 39 murders of civilians or detainees by Australian special forces soldiers in Afghanistan.

Chaired by former Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Dr Vivienne Thom, the panel was given the explicit remit by then Prime Minister Morrison to be “the government’s – and the public’s – independent body to ensure that Defence is making the changes recommended by the [Brereton] inquiry to help ensure we can address any underlying issues. Its role will be an essential part of ensuring ongoing confidence in our defence force.”

Refusing to investigate

Months before the panel’s final report was sent to Marles late last year, government refusals to properly investigate senior defence force commanders had already provided the trigger for those officers to be referred to the International Criminal Court prosecutor.

Under Article 28 of the ICC Statute – on which Australia was a founding signatory – commanders are criminally liable where they “knew or should have known” crimes were being committed but failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the commission of those crimes.


Having hidden behind the flawed Brereton report for years, Marles’ credibility is further tainted by his stalling tactics with the oversight report. Thom and her colleagues demolished the key Brereton findings on command responsibility, namely that no disciplinary action should be taken against any defence personnel above the rank of Sergeant.

International lawyer and defence analyst Dr Glenn Kolomeitz told MWM that Brereton’s “blanket exemption” from investigation given to the higher commanders “is based on a flawed application of the law of command responsibility and a fundamental lack of understanding of the trigger for the ICC to assume jurisdiction.”

Kolomeitz’s 2023 PhD paper studied the application of Article 28 under Australian criminal law, using the Brereton Inquiry as a case study.

Avoiding responsibility

The oversight report says the panel “did not agree with the Brereton Inquiry’s view that some accountability and responsibility could not fall on the most senior officers.”

Echoing the command responsibility doctrine codified in the ICC Statute, the panel found “multiple signs” of war crimes were ignored, concluding “personal knowledge or direct involvement of the senior officers in the causes or behaviour that led to the corporate failure are not required.” The oversight report also says:

“More senior officers have to take some level of responsibility for what goes wrong in their organisation or at least for any circumstances or policies that permitted or facilitated it. If no one at an appropriate level of authority knew anything about the misconduct, that is an organisational failure in itself.”

What the report doesn’t mention is that senior Defence and government officials were, in fact, directly informed of at least some of the alleged murders almost immediately after they occurred, for example, at Sola then Darwan in Afghanistan’s Uruzgan province in September 2012.

McBride’s affidavit to the ACT Supreme Court said that in 2013, he became concerned about the subsequent scapegoating of innocent soldiers aimed at masking command accountability for unlawful killings and decisions by those commanders about what information was or was not being disclosed to the public. 

His public interest defence was disallowed by Justice David Mossop and he was forced into pleading guilty after crucial evidence was literally removed from his defence lawyers on national security grounds.

Not only do the Afghanistan oversight panel’s findings and conclusions vindicate McBride’s concerns and echo the command responsibility doctrine codified in the ICC Statute, Marles’ and his department’s handling of the report further highlights the abuse of security classifications as a means of preventing scrutiny of wrongdoing by senior government officials.





Nehme Hamie

May, 26/2024

A shocking international report prepared jointly by 5 respected international organizations, (intergovernmental) organizations, in cooperation with 3 (Israeli) non-governmental organizations. The report is facing pressure, especially American and Western, so that it does not come to light. Among the most prominent points in the prison report are the following:

 1. 112 cases of sexual assault were documented in the occupation prisons of female prisoners from Gaza, three of which occurred to (virgin) girls. The rape was gang-rape, and one of these cases was transferred under international supervision to a secret location, and she is now pregnant.

 2.  The occupation forces executed 87 Gazan detainees in their detention centers by shooting directly from pistols in the head and dumped the bodies in different areas of the streets of Gaza.

 3.  Torture in detention centers is barbaric and insane, and what is happening is more horrific than what happened in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and secret prisons.

 4.  (Israel) deliberately bombed, within the chain of command, families and children belonging to Palestinian organizations, and the occupation army approved from the second day the plan to exterminate the families of activists, and that the target bank includes 150,000 civilians.

(Israel) used mercenaries excessively and contracted with 22 military services companies, and there is an American ship that is a floating morgue with 1,327 bodies of mercenaries whose families have not yet been informed of their death.

 6.  The amount of gold and money stolen, according to secret army estimates, is approximately $370 million.

 7.   (70%) of the bombs dropped on Gaza were treated with depleted uranium, and the soil in the Strip is highly contaminated with uranium elements, which contain 60% of natural uranium radiation, and it consists of three isotopes of uranium: uranium 234, uranium 235, and uranium 238.  The depleted uranium that was dropped on Gaza contains the same types of radiation emanating from natural uranium, except in smaller quantities, and the radiation emanating from depleted uranium represents 40% of the radiation emitting from natural uranium.  Uranium 238 – which represents 99.8% of depleted uranium – emits alpha rays, and its half-life to disappear from Gaza is approximately 450 years, and the smoke of depleted uranium during the explosion planted cancer in the chest of everyone who inhaled it.

 8.  (90%) of the women and children of Gaza suffer from deep psychological trauma, and medical centers in the Strip recorded more than 5,000 cases of complete insanity, most of which were women who lost their children.

 9.  About 213 (Israeli) pilots refused to carry out air sorties to bomb targets that contained dozens. One of the pilots recorded in his testimony before an Israeli organization that he refused to bomb a residential tower in Tal al-Hawa in which there were 48 children monitored by thermal monitoring planes. However, another pilot carried out the bombing after  17 minutes later, everyone in the building was killed, and the result was the death of 128 civilians.

 10. The goal of establishing a temporary port is the mass transportation of Palestinians and facilitating their crossing to Europe, and 3 European countries are fully involved in an agreed upon plan to empty the Gaza Strip of its population.

 11. The Zionist War Council approved in late November the use of starvation as a weapon.

 12. The (Israeli) intelligence services made more than 3 million phone calls to the residents of Gaza and threatened to bomb homes and kill families if they did not obtain field information from them.

 13. Two Arab countries made very attractive financial offers to South Africa in exchange for withdrawing the case from the Supreme Court of Justice.

 14. The dropping of aid into Gaza by Western aircraft was based on advice from legal advisors to ward off the risks of being accused of participating in genocide, especially those that supplied weapons without restrictive conditions for their use against civilians.





false flags....

Author’s Introduction

There is a complex history behind Israel’s October 2023  Plan to “Wipe Gaza off the Map”.

It’s Genocide, An Absolute Slaughter:

 “We are going to attack Gaza City very broadly soon,” Israel’s chief military spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, said in a nationally broadcast address, without giving a timetable for the attack.”

It’s a criminal undertaking based on Israel’s doctrine of “Justified Vengeance” which was first formulated in 2001.

(See below: my January 2009 article published at the very outset of Israel’s 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Led”)  

The “Justified Vengeance” doctrine propounds in no uncertain terms that (despite its limited military capabilities) Palestine rather than Israel is “the Aggressor” and that Israel has the right to defend itself.

It is now established that the Hamas October 7, 2023 attack was False Flag operation carried out by a “faction” within Hamas, in liaison with Mossad and U.S. intelligence:

“U.S. intelligence say they weren’t aware of an impending Hamas attack. 

Did Netanyahu and his vast military and intelligence apparatus (Mossad et al) have foreknowledge of the Hamas attack which has resulted in countless deaths of Israelis and Palestinians.

Was a carefully formulated Israeli plan to wage an all out war against Palestinians envisaged prior to the launching by Hamas of  “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm”?

This was not a failure of Israeli Intelligence, as conveyed by the media. Quite the opposite”

 Video. Justified Vengeance and False Flags. Michel Chossudovsky

Lux Media Video recorded on October 16, 2023

Below: detailed analysis and history of Israeli False Flag Operations against the People of Palestine


 The History of False Flags: “The Green Light to Terror” (1997), The “Bloodshed as a Justification” to Wage War

The late  Prof Tanya Reinhart confirms the formulation in 1997 of a False Flag Agenda entitled “The Green Light to Terror” which consisted in promoting (engineering) suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, citing “the Bloodshed as a Justification” to wage war on Palestine: 

“…This is the “green light to terror” theme which the Military Intelligence (Ama”n) has been promoting since 1997, when its anti-Oslo line was consolidated. This theme was since repeated again and again by military circles, and eventually became the mantra of Israeli propaganda… 

The ‘Foreign Report’ (Jane’s information) of July 12, 2001 disclosed that the Israeli army (under Sharon’s government) has updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority” 

The blueprint, titled “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”, was presented to the Israeli government by chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, on July 8 [2001].

The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification.” (Tanya Reinhart, December 22, 2001)

Ariel  Sharon: “A 1948 Style Solution”

According to the Prof. Tanya Reinhart; “Mass expulsion could occur at some later stage  of the ground invasion [2002- ], were the Israelis to open up Gaza’s borders to allow for an exodus of population … Expulsion was referred to by Ariel Sharon as the “a 1948 style solution”. For Sharon “it is only necessary to find another state for the Palestinians”. -‘Jordan is Palestine’ – was the phrase that Sharon coined.” (Tanya Reinhart, op cit)

The “Hamas-Mossad Partnership”

What is now unfolding in Gaza is part of a longstanding intelligence agenda, which has been on the drawing-board of successive  Israeli governments for more than twenty years. Founded in 1987 with the support of Israel, “The Hamas-Mossad partnership” is confirmed by Netanyahu: 

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (March 2019 Statement quoted by Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)

“Support” and “Money” for Hamas

“Transferring Money to Hamas” on behalf of Netanyahu is confirmed by a Times of Israel October 8, 2023 Report: 

“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.” (emphasis added)

Benjamin Netanyahu’s position defined several years prior to the October 7, 2023 “State of Readiness For War” consists in the total appropriation of Palestine  Lands as well as the outright exclusion of the Palestinian people from their homeland:

“These are the basic lines of the national government headed by me: The Jewish people have an exclusive and unquestionable right to all areas of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan, Judea and Samaria.” (January 2023)

The Role of Mossad

The doctrine of “Justified Vengeance” initiated in 2001, is the cornerstone of Israel’s intelligence narrative. It provides a justification to carry out acts of genocide, with the support of the International community, first in Gaza, then in the West Bank. 

 “With an annual budget of about $3billion and 7,000 staff, Mossad is the second-largest espionage agency in the Western world after the CIA.”

These official figures are meaningless, intelligence agencies do not reveal the sources of their funding or the size of their staff (which are in excess of the figures quoted above).

Mossad (Foreign Intelligence) together with Shin Bet (Domestic National Security) and Aman (Military Intelligence) is the main actor in the conduct of  “false flag operations”. It’s covert capabilities are extensive. It has over the years infiltrated both  Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority, It also exerts –in liaison with US intelligence– control over Al Qaeda operatives, ISIS and Daesh throughout the Middle East.

Mossad’s mandate is to create “divisions” within the Palestinian Resistance Movement, while sustaining fear and routine terrorist false flag events against innocent Israeli civilians, which sustains the legitimacy of the “Justified Vengeance” narrative. 


Let us briefly review the history, the various stages following the:

Failure of Oslo I and II (1993-95) and The Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (1995) 2001. “Operation Justified Vengeance”

Presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff  Shaul Mofaz, under the title:

“The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.

See the Analysis of  Tanya Reinhart and the Jane Report quoted above and in the article below).

“Operation Justified Vengeance” was also referred to as the “Dagan Plan”, named after the late General Meir Dagan, who headed Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency from 2002-2011. 

The longer term objective of  “Operation Justified Vengeance” (2001) was and remains the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland. 

2002. Decision to Build the Infamous Apartheid Wall by Sharon government2004. The Assassination of Yasser Arafat

It was ordered by the Israeli Cabinet in 2003. It was approved by the US which vetoed a United Nations Security Resolution condemning the 2003 Israeli Cabinet decision. It was undertaken by Mossad. (See details in article below).

2005. The Removal, under Orders of PM Ariel Sharon of all Jewish Settlements in Gaza.

Proposed in 2003 by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, implemented in August 2005 and completed in September 2005. 

A Jewish population of over 7,000 was relocated. This relocation was required to transform the Gaza Strip into “An Open Air Prison”

2006. The Hamas election victory in January 2006.

Without Arafat, the Israeli military-intelligence architects knew that Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would loose the elections.

2008-2009. “Operation Cast Lead”

In 2008 the “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda, which was first formulated in the 2001 “Operation Justified Vengeance”: 

“The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”

The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.”  as formulated in the “Operation Justified Vengeance Report”. 


Michel Chossudovsky, May 15,  2021, October 23, 2023, November 8, 2023,

Below is my article published in early January 2009, at the height of  the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead 

The Invasion of Gaza:Part of a Broader Israeli Military-Intelligence Agendaby Michel Chossudovsky 

January 2009


“Operation Cast Lead”

The aerial bombings and the ongoing ground invasion of Gaza by Israeli ground forces must be analysed in a historical context. Operation “Cast Lead” [2008] is a carefully planned undertaking, which is part of a broader military-intelligence agenda first formulated by the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001:

“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

It was Israel which broke the truce on the day of the US presidential elections, November 4:

“Israel used this distraction to break the ceasefire between itself and Hamas by bombing the Gaza strip.  Israel claimed this violation of the ceasefire was to prevent Hamas from digging tunnels into Israeli territory.

The very next day, Israel launched a terrorizing siege of Gaza, cutting off food, fuel, medical supplies and other necessities in an attempt to “subdue” the Palestinians while at the same time engaging in armed incursions.

In response, Hamas and others in Gaza again resorted to firing crude, homemade, and mainly inaccurate rockets into Israel.  During the past seven years, these rockets have been responsible for the deaths of 17 Israelis.  Over the same time span, Israeli Blitzkrieg assaults have killed thousands of Palestinians, drawing worldwide protest but falling on deaf ears at the UN.” (Shamus Cooke, The Massacre in Palestine and the Threat of a Wider War, Global Research, December 2008)

Planned Humanitarian Disaster

On December 8, [2008] US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was in Tel Aviv for discussions with his Israeli counterparts including the director of Mossad, Meir Dagan.

“Operation Cast Lead” was initiated two days day after Christmas. It was coupled with a carefully designed international Public Relations campaign under the auspices of Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

Hamas’ military targets are not the main objective. Operation “Cast Lead” is intended, quite deliberately, to trigger civilian casualities.

What we are dealing with is a “planned humanitarian disaster” in Gaza in a densly populated urban area. (See map below)

The longer term objective of this plan, as formulated by Israeli policy makers, is the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestinian lands:

“Terrorize the civilian population, assuring maximal destruction of property and cultural resources… The daily life of the Palestinians must be rendered unbearable: They should be locked up in cities and towns, prevented from exercising normal economic life, cut off from workplaces, schools and hospitals, This will encourage emigration and weaken the resistance to future expulsions” Ur Shlonsky, quoted by Ghali Hassan, Gaza: The World’s Largest Prison, Global Research, 2005)

“Operation Justified Vengeance”

A turning point has been reached. Operation “Cast Lead” is part of the broader military-intelligence operation initiated at the outset of the Ariel Sharon government in 2001. It was under Sharon’s “Operation Justified Vengeance” that  F-16 fighter planes were initially used to bomb Palestinian cities.

“Operation Justified Vengeance” was presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, under the title “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.

“A contingency plan, codenamed Operation Justified Vengeance, was drawn up last June [2001] to reoccupy all of the West Bank and possibly the Gaza Strip at a likely cost of “hundreds” of Israeli casualties.” (Washington Times, 19 March 2002).

According to Jane’s ‘Foreign Report’ (July 12, 2001) the Israeli army under Sharon had updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority, force out leader Yasser Arafat and kill or detain its army”.

“Bloodshed Justification”

The “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda. The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.” Israeli military operations were carefully timed to coincide with the suicide attacks:

The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001, emphasis added)

The Dagan Plan 

“Operation Justified Vengeance” was also referred to as the “Dagan Plan”, named after General (ret.) Meir Dagan, who currently heads Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.

Reserve General Meir Dagan was Sharon’s national security adviser during the 2000 election campaign. The plan was apparently drawn up prior to Sharon’s election as Prime Minister in February 2001. “According to Alex Fishman writing in Yediot Aharonot, the Dagan Plan consisted in destroying the Palestinian authority and putting Yasser Arafat ‘out of the game’.” (Ellis Shulman, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: a Secret Plan to Destroy the Palestinian Authority, March 2001):

“As reported in the Foreign Report [Jane] and disclosed locally by Maariv, Israel’s invasion plan — reportedly dubbed Justified Vengeance — would be launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing, would last about a month and is expected to result in the death of hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians. (Ibid, emphasis added)

The “Dagan Plan” envisaged the so-called “cantonization” of Palestinian territories whereby the West Bank and Gaza would be totally cut off from one other, with separate “governments” in each of the territories. Under this scenario, already envisaged in 2001, Israel would:

 “negotiate separately with Palestinian forces that are dominant in each territory-Palestinian forces responsible for security, intelligence, and even for the Tanzim (Fatah).” The plan thus closely resembles the idea of “cantonization” of Palestinian territories, put forth by a number of ministers.” Sylvain Cypel, The infamous ‘Dagan Plan’ Sharon’s plan for getting rid of Arafat, Le Monde, December 17, 2001)

From Left to Right: Dagan, Sharon, Halevy

The Dagan Plan has established continuity in the military-intelligence agenda. In the wake of the 2000 elections, Meir Dagan was assigned a key role. “He became Sharon’s “go-between” in security issues with President’s Bush’s special envoys Zinni and Mitchell.”  He was subsequently appointed Director of the Mossad by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in August 2002. In the post-Sharon period, he remained head of Mossad. He was reconfirmed in his position as Director of Israeli Intelligence by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in June 2008.

Meir Dagan, in coordination with his US counterparts, has been in charge of various military-intelligence operations. It is worth noting that Meir Dagan as a young Colonel had worked closely with defense minister Ariel Sharon in the raids on Palestinian settlements in Beirut in 1982. The 2009 ground invasion of Gaza, in many regards, bear a canny resemblance to the 1982 military operation led by Sharon and Dagan.

Continuity: From Sharon  to Olmert 

It is important to focus on a number of key events which have led up to the killings in Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead”:

1. The assassination in November 2004 of Yasser Arafat.

Olmert and Sharon

This assassination had been on the drawing board since 1996 under “Operation Fields of Thorns”.

According to an October 2000 document

“prepared by the security services, at the request of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak, stated that ‘Arafat, the person, is a severe threat to the security of the state [of Israel] and the damage which will result from his disappearance is less than the damage caused by his existence’”. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001. Details of the document were published in Ma’ariv, July 6, 2001.).

Arafat’s assassination was ordered in 2003 by the Israeli cabinet. It was approved by the US which vetoed a United Nations Security Resolution condemning the 2003 Israeli Cabinet decision. Reacting to increased Palestinian attacks, in August 2003, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz declared “all out war” on the militants whom he vowed “marked for death.”

“In mid September, Israel’s government passed a law to get rid of Arafat. Israel’s cabinet for political security affairs declared it “a decision to remove Arafat as an obstacle to peace.” Mofaz threatened; “we will choose the right way and the right time to kill Arafat.” Palestinian Minister Saeb Erekat told CNN he thought Arafat was the next target. CNN asked Sharon spokesman Ra’anan Gissan if the vote meant expulsion of Arafat. Gissan clarified; “It doesn’t mean that. The Cabinet has today resolved to remove this obstacle. The time, the method, the ways by which this will take place will be decided separately, and the security services will monitor the situation and make the recommendation about proper action.” (See Trish Shuh, Road Map for a Decease Plan, November 9 2005

The assassination of Arafat was part of the 2001 Dagan Plan.

In all likelihood, it was carried out by Israeli Intelligence. It was intended to destroy the Palestinian Authority, foment divisions within Fatah as well as between Fatah and Hamas. Mahmoud Abbas is a Palestinian quisling.

He was installed as leader of Fatah, with the approval of Israel and the US, which finance the Palestinian Authority’s paramilitary and security forces.

2. The removal, under the orders of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005, of all Jewish settlements in Gaza.

A Jewish population of over 7,000 was relocated.

“It is my intention [Sharon] to carry out an evacuation – sorry, a relocation – of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements…. I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza,” Sharon said.” (CBC, March 2004)

The issue of the settlements in Gaza was presented as part of Washington’s “road map to peace”.

Celebrated by the Palestinians as a “victory”, this measure was not directed against the Jewish settlers. Quite the opposite: It was part of  the overall covert operation, which consisted  in transforming Gaza into a concentration camp. As long as Jewish settlers were living inside Gaza, the objective of sustaining a large barricaded prison territory could not be achieved. The Implementation of “Operation Cast Lead” required “no Jews in Gaza”.

3. The Building of the Infamous Apartheid Wall

This was decided upon at the beginning of the Sharon government in 2002. (See Map below).

 4.  The Hamas Election Victory in January 2006.

Without Arafat, the Israeli military-intelligence architects knew that Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would loose the elections. This was part of the scenario, which had been envisaged and analyzed well in advance.

With Hamas in charge in Gaza, using the pretext that Hamas is a terrorist organization, Israel would carry out the process of “cantonization” as formulated under the Dagan plan. Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would remain formally in charge of the West Bank. The duly elected Hamas government would be confined to the Gaza strip.

Ground Attack, 2008-2009

On January 3, [2009] Israeli tanks and infantry entered Gaza in an all out ground offensive:

“The ground operation was preceded by several hours of heavy artillery fire after dark, igniting targets in flames that burst into the night sky. Machine gun fire rattled as bright tracer rounds flashed through the darkness and the crash of hundreds of shells sent up streaks of fire. (AP, January 3, 2009)

Israeli sources have pointed to a lengthy drawn out military operation. It “won’t be easy and it won’t be short,” said Defense Minister Ehud Barak in a TV address.

Israel is not seeking to oblige Hamas “to cooperate”. What we are dealing with is the implementation of the “Dagan Plan” as initially formulated in 2001, which called for:

“an invasion of Palestinian-controlled territory by some 30,000 Israeli soldiers, with the clearly defined mission of destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian leadership and collecting weaponry currently possessed by the various Palestinian forces, and expelling or killing its military leadership. (Ellis Shulman, op cit, emphasis added)

Nakba 2.0: Mass Expulsion and a Ground Invasion Contemplated

The broader question is whether Israel in consultation with Washington is intent upon triggering a wider war.

Mass expulsion could occur at some later stage of the ground invasion, were the Israelis to open up Gaza’s borders to allow for an exodus of population.

Expulsion was referred to by Ariel Sharon as the “a 1948 style solution”. For Sharon

“it is only necessary to find another state for the Palestinians. -‘Jordan is Palestine’ – was the phrase that Sharon coined.” (Tanya Reinhart, op cit)

The original source of this article is Global Research