Israel and the American Jewish voter

---

By Lawrence Davidson
.
1 August 2011
.

Lawrence Davidson analyses the bizarre phenomenon of a Democratic and a Republican candidate fighting a congressional election in a New York district not over national or local issues, but over which of the two is more loyal to Israel.

The 27 July 2011 the New York Times had a front page article about the upcoming 13 September special election for New York City’s Ninth Congressional District seat.

The article opens a window on the political use of Israel as a campaign touchstone. The Ninth District, the most heavily Jewish District in the nation, is the one recently vacated by Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner who was, of course, a loyal supporter of Israel. Alas, he was also a man with a strong libido and no discretion. He was forced to step down after electronically sharing obscene pictures of himself with at least six women.

Campaigning for Israel, not New York

The Democratic and Republican candidates who seek to fill this seat are not known for gross indiscretion in their private lives (though who knows what skeletons lurk in which closets), yet in their public pursuit of this congressional seat they seem to be drawn, as by an irresistible political force, to follow Weiner’s lead and do obeisance at the alter of Zionism. Is this yet another form of folly?

Both candidates, Democratic Assemblyman David I. Weprin and his Republican opponent, Bob Turner (a retired cable television executive), are involved in a process of "one-upmanship on who is more pro-Israel".

One would think that Turner would have no chance in such a competition seeing as how Weprin is an "Orthodox Jew who keeps a kosher home, observes the Sabbath and has been to Israel at least eight times." Nonetheless, he is playing this game with some serious support.

"On Monday [25 July], former Mayor Edward Koch, [a Jew and] a Democrat, endorsed the Republican candidate" on the basis that a Democrat, even one who is a strong supporter of Israel, cannot be strong enough as long as President Barack Obama holds the White House. Koch argues that only the election of a strong Republican supporter of Israel will "rebuke" the president for saying "that Israel’s pre-1967 border should be the basis for a peace agreement." Former Mayor Koch, apparently not just physically but also mentally 87 years old, seems not to care that a Republican candidate may end up supporting domestic positions that can ruin the United States. He is obsessed with a single issue, Israel.

You would think that this obsession with Israel and its 1967 borders is pretty crazy in an election for someone to represent the interests of parts of New York City that have names like Queens, Kew Gardens, Flatbush and Sheepshead Bay. And aren’t there numerous other issues, vital to the health of the nation, such as the federal budget and deficit, the fate of Medicare and social security, etc. that ought to hold voters’ attention? So who cares about some foreign country approximately 6,000 miles away?

Well, according to Cynthia Zalisky, the executive director of the Queens Jewish Community Council, it is not only Ed Koch who is obsessed. She tells us that "how the candidates feel about Israel and the president’s concept of the pre-1967 borders is going to resonate in this district". Donald Schwartz, an Orthodox Jewish activist from Kew Gardens, agrees. He says that the Democratic candidate is not a sufficiently "fierce advocate" for Israel and his election would allow President Obama to "take the Jewish vote for granted".

All of this should raise eyebrows. Just how many Jewish voters are we talking about? And, how do we know that most care about what the Zionist activists care about? Why should it always be assumed that the Jewish vote turns on the question of Israel?

The New York Times article answers the first of the these questions. The Jewish voters in the Ninth district are numerous. Almost half of the population is Jewish, many of them observant, and a significant number of them, 30 to 35 per cent, regularly turn out to vote. Thus, as political consultant Jerry Skurnik puts it, "you can’t get wiped out in the Jewish vote and expect to win a district like this".

But why assume most of those 30 to 35 per cent of Jewish voters prioritize Israel when they vote, or are dissatisfied with President Obama on the issue of Israeli borders? You know, Mr Weprin didendorse same sex marriage and that has upset some of the Orthodox community. Yet the New York Times really has its focus on the question of loyalty to Israel and takes it for granted that those Zionist activists who shout loudest know what the silent majority is thinking. On the other hand, maybe the Ninth is somehow special. Maybe Israeli settlements do top social security. It is depressing to think so, but it is possible.

Countering Zionist activists

Just for argument sake, let’s go with the notion that the Ninth District is indeed special. So lets say that the candidates do have to cater to specifically Jewish opinion to win this district, and that enough Jewish votes turn on the issue of Israel’s 1967 borders that candidates have to play the Zionist card to win. What should those who oppose kowtowing to Zionist influence (and there are organizations of anti-Zionist Jews out there) do about this? Here are three possible approaches:

.

1. Find a way to increase the non-Jewish voter turnout. The political party that can do this can probably destroy the formula set forth above by Jerry Skurnik.

2. Find a way to get as many of the Jewish voters as possible to shed the single issue picture painted of them by the Zionists. There is probably an undercurrent of resentment about this one dimensional representation. Someone should tap into it. To this end, we proceed to number 3.

3. Find a way to form a Jewish, but non-Zionist, political cadre to compete for Jewish voter support within the Democratic Party in the Ninth District and others like it. Give the Democratic Jewish voters a democratic choice.

Number one is the least volatile of these efforts. The consequences of pushing numbers 2 and 3 really depend on just how deep the Zionist "Jewish activists" are entrenched.

Depending on that question, one of two things could happen. If the Israeli obsession is in fact only skin deep, that is only an issue for a relatively small, albeit vocal, minority of Jewish voters, it should be overcome pretty easily by insisting on the greater importance of domestic concerns. Those issues, closer to home, will then come to the fore as candidate touchstones and Israel will recede to the lower end of the list of important factors.

If, however, a notable percentage of the Ninth District’s Jewish voters are obsessed with Israel, then concerted efforts as described in 2 and 3 above could result in blood in the streets.

The perils-in-waiting of identifying with Israel

Either way, something really should be done to challenge the prevailing assumption that Israel is the touchstone political issue for American Jewish voters. Whatever might be the case in the Ninth District, this level of concern for Israel is probably not true of Jews nationally.

On a national level most US Jews vote Democratic and probably do so regardless of the candidates position on Israel. In fact, my bet is that both political parties don’t really scramble for Jewish votes which, except for rare places like the Ninth District, are minuscule. What they scramble for is Jewish lobby money. And the Jewish lobby is not only obsessed with Israel; for all intents and purposes it functions as unregistered agent of that country. So to get the money you have to do your obeisance at the alter of Zionism.

This situation is potentially more dangerous then most American Jews realize. The Zionist hold over US foreign policy in the Middle East has already cost the country dearly. It was at least part of the reason we were attacked on 9/11 and why we subsequently invaded Iraq. The Israel connection has alienated America from the entire Muslim world and helped encourage domestic racism in the form of Islamophobia.

What happens if this orientation continues and results in more wars, more terrorist attacks and greater debilitation of the domestic budget? At some point the American public, looking for reasons for these disasters, may well focus on lobby influence and the prioritizing of the interests of a foreign land 6,000 miles away. At that point it will not be just the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that will pay the price. The Zionist insistence that all Jews support Israel, as untrue as it is, will have stereotyped American Jewry and anti-Semitism will quickly become a serious issue.

Therefore, it is in the best interests of the American Jewish community to shed the image of the single issue voter, to consciously begin to hold those Zionist activists at arms length, and to join with those groups, such as Jewish Voices for Peace, that reject any demand that they do obeisance at the alter of Zionism.

Quite frankly, the leaders of Israel are fanatics, the true believers of the American Zionist lobbies are fanatics, and Ed Koch is a fanatic. Most American Jews are not fanatics and it is time they let the rest of the country know it. 

This article written by Lawrence Davidson is submitted to PalestineFreeVoice by Redress.cc

_______________________________________________________

"Palestine is the heart of Arab countries" - PalestineFreeVoice ________________________________________________________

Opinions expressed are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Palestine FreeVoice.

The " Ayalon Institute " - Secret Israeli Terrorist Ammunition Factory

.

The " Ayalon Institute,"located between Nes Ziona and Rehovot
secret ammunition factory.Hidden underground set up by Jewish terrorist groups

"At one time, Kibbutzim were the backbone of Zionism. At the time of the Six Day War, a quarter of the IDF officers were kibbutzniks. Kibbutzim faded into the background, as right wing ideology gradually swept Israeli society. But young Israelis seeking to save Zionism are starting a New Kibbutz Movement........A kibbutz is not a place; it's an idea. We're not focusing on agriculture but education. We're trying to start a movement that gets into youth groups and schools and educates young people about the basics of the Zionist ethic: taking responsibility for the Jewish nation."..-Yuval Katzir,guide at the Ayalon Institute Bullet Factory in Rehovot, Israel

Hiyam Noir June 18 2008 -11:46 pm


Upon request republished Saturday July 30 2011 - 2:24 EST

The Jewish have never stopped their deliberate misleading of the world, about the true objectives and the gains of their "Kibbutzim'" so called "social collective projects ". In fact the life inside the Kibbutz was not the social virtue of teaching what is right and avoiding what is wrong - goodness or correctness of ones character and behavior.

The Zionist still deny the true purpose of the "Kibbutzim" , and have done so for over seven decades - concealing the Jewish activities, in training very young school children and the youth, in terrorism. How to use arms, in their aims of attacking the Palestinians people - meanwhile continue their thievery of Arab Palestinian lands. -

Also the Kibbutzim was used as " Summer Camp" - projects - where the camp-leaders use to teach the visiting " volunteers", the children and the youth (many came from Europe) - in Zionism and propaganda for the Jewish state.

One example is the Kibbutz "Ginossar" on the Sea of Galilee - there is also knowledge of a communal military training group for children, at the training camp of the Kibbutz "Ramat-Yohanan," in the northern part of Haifa.This Jewish military camp was affiliated with the Palmach, the "Jewish national citizen militia".Moreover, the "Haganah ", the underground terrorist group of the "Jewish Agency in Palestine,” also provided military and arms training for young school children.

The Zionists committed many massacres in the past, on the Palestine population - they conducted the worst of crime in modern history - the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.The Jewish terrorist organization Haganah and the Palmach ( another Jewish terror organization', created with the cooperation of the British in the year of 1941) - provided knowledge in teaching the Jewish children how to use arms and how to use explosives.

In the year of 1936,during the time when the Palestinian indigenous population, the Arab Palestinians, was in uproar using strikes and riots, as a weapon to stop the emerging Jewish invasion on Arab land.. - Jewish terrorists was operating in small cells - gangs of Zionist criminals also violently attacked the local Palestinian population.. -

During this time,the Jews had just began the teaching and training of their children, how to use weapons.One of the schools that use to teach how to use weapons and also provided full military training, was the Kadouri Agricultural School. Also the Kibbutzim were a camouflage for military training of young Jewish children and youth. One example is the Kibbutz "Ginossar" on the Sea of Galilee - there is also knowledge of a communal military training group for children, at the "training camp" of the Kibbutz "Ramat-Yohanan," in the northern part of Haifa.

This Jewish military camp was affiliated with the Palmach, the so called, "Jewish national citizen militia".Moreover, the "Haganah ", the underground terrorist group of the "Jewish Agency in Palestine,” also provided military and arms training for young school children. During the years of the Arab Palestinian strikes and riots, the Jewish terrorist organization Haganah and its armed gangs, protected the establishment of over 50 new settlements the Jewish had erected on confiscated Arab Palestinian land.

A type of "collective" settlement, also used as military training camps, for Jewish children and youth, was built as strongholds to withstand retaliation from the violated and outraged Arab Palestinian population.During the period of the British Mandate, the Zionists was strategically defending their illegally erected storage and watchtower settlements - and as a result of the British governments anti-Zionist policy - (White Paper of 1939)- the terrorist organization, Haganah , began to organize the illegal immigration of hundred of thousands of Jews from Europe and northern Africa and at the same time incite violent demonstrations against the British.

In the late 1930s, it became clear to the Zionists entity that they were going to need weapons for the future annexation of Arab Palestinian lands and the Israeli Zionist military offensive and occupation of Palestinian territories.They also needed weapons in the attacks of Arab landowners - to fight for their new created Zionist state and its future independence.The Jews also found ways to smuggle weapons and they established a clandestine smuggle- ring of arms.The Zionist weapon factories found out how to in an automatic manner they would manage to build Sten sub- machine guns, but the terrorist organization of Haganah had difficulty obtaining the 9 mm bullets needed for these weapons.

The Zionist, Yosef Avidar,at the time,the chief figure of the Israel blacksmiths weaponry, designated a plan how to smuggle in machines.To make the bullets in a secret black smith shop - factory.In the year of 1938, he purchased machines in Polen. - However the Zionists could only manage to bring the machines as far as, to the Lebanese capitol of Beiruth. Secretly the machines was stored for nearly four years, before the Zionists who served in the British army succeeded in bringing them to Palestine.

The facility of the ammunition factory, was built nearby a British military base.The site was a place where the first Jewish settlers ( pioneers)would go for military training,(kibbutz) before they begun moving around in the country of Palestine to confiscate land from Arab Palestinian landowners to build their kibbutz -cooperatives - terrorist cells and their 'watch towers".. movement and members of the terrorist organization.

Under the code name - "the Ayalon Institute," a group of Zionists from the Hatzofim Aleph Haganah, joined by members of the Palmach, dug a large underground chamber 300 square yards 13 feet underground with nearly 2-foot-thick walls and ceiling. The entire project was completed in 22 days. To conceal the clandestine project, the Jews built on the top a residential housing,a dining hall, a chicken coop, a cow barn, workshops, a laundry, a bakery, and a vegetable garden to give the outward appearance of an "ordinary" kibbutz..

At the other end of the factory was a bakery which to be able to provide clean air, the Jewish terrorist's constructed pipes, that they run through the bakery attached to the bakery furnace.The 10-ton baking oven ,also concealed a secret entrance to the factory, which was revealed only after the several ton oven was moved along a set of metal runners. Visitors today can go down the secret ladder in the laundry or use a circular staircase installed for tourists inside the bakery. One of the components needed for the factory was copper.

To conceal the purpose of the purchases, the Jews applied to import copper for what they said were cases for "Kosher" lipstick. The British accepted this explanation, which was reinforced by gifts from the Jews of lipstick cases to British officials. Forty-five people worked below ground in two shifts. The work was difficult, in a relatively dark, dusty, claustrophobic place. It was also dangerous,because engaging in such terrorist activities during the mandate period was death penalty. The kibbutz was constantly watched and often visited by soldiers.

At one point, a group of British soldiers came to the kibbutz and were given beer. The soldiers complained that the beer was not cold enough, so the kibbutz members said that if the British would give them advance notice of their visits, they would be sure the beer would be properly chilled. The British fell for the ruse and this allowed the kibbutz to prepare for the visits. Since the workers in the blacksmith shops were underground so long, the Jews quickly realized that they would look suspiciously pale from being out of the sun.

Someone came up with the idea of a way to use sunlamps, to allow the workers to tan their skin. After the ammunition was produced, the Jews still had to find a way to smuggle it to the Zionist " resistance" .At the beginning of the Zionist arms smuggling, the bullets were hidden in milk cans, but the milk cans became suspiciously heavy. So secret compartments were built in fuel trucks to hide them.Since the British has claimed that they didn't expect, that explosive bullets were hidden in fuel trucks, the Jews were able to distribute the bullets around the country without detection.

The bullet black -smith shop was kept secret even from some of the members of the kibbutz, who were referred to as “Giraffes.” It was only after they were considered trustworthy members were informed of the unfolding operations. The Zionist blacksmith shop-factory produced at its peak 40,000 bullets a day.The bullets were embossed with the letters EA, E for Eretz Israel and A for Ayalon .Between 1945 and 1948, two million 9 mm bullets was produced.This ammunition was crucial to the early success of Jewish terrorist organizations and its " fighters".

Shortly after the Al Nakba, the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and ( the erection of a Hebrew state on Arab Palestinian land) - the Israeli Zionists no longer had to conceal their criminal operations, so they moved them above ground.All of the terrorist organization Haganah's weapon manufacturing became centralized in what became - the "Israel Military Industries".. Meanwhile, the terrorist cell from the "Ayalon Institute"decided to stay together and established a new kibbutz, the Ma'agan Micha'el,by the sea near Zichron Ya'acov in 1949, the early settlement of Zichron Ya'acov ( Arab:Zammarin) - gained fame during World War I, for the establishment and the sheltering of the Nili spy ring that passed information to the British about Ottoman military capabilities and maneuvers).

Though the Zionists ceased the manufacturing of bullets in the year of 1948, it only became known to the public in 1975. In 1987, the Jews restored and turned the Zionists ammunition and weapon factory into a museum.

Referentials:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/ayalon.html

http://www.shimur.org/english/article.php?id=28

http://www.zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/06/kibbutz-future-of-zionism.html

Related: The cancer of Christian Zionist terror writer Khalid Amaireh


________________________________________________________
"Palestine is the heart of Arab countries" - PalestineFreeVoice ________________________________________________________


Opinions expressed are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the PalestineFreeVoice.

The American Policy Towards the Palestinian Issue in the Light of the Arab Developments

Summary 
Introduction 
Israel: One among Many American Interests in the Region 
Protection of Israel and the Expected Achievements 
The Arab Developments… A Pressure Factor on the US Position
Possibilities 
Recommendations

---

Summary

Israel is not the only US interest in the region; however, it remains the cornerstone for its Middle East policy. Thus, it is early to predict whether the Arab uprisings would reshuffle the priorities of the decision-maker in the White House. The Obama administration exercises pressure on Netanyahu’s government to take into account the US interests in the region and respond to the American perceptions of a solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict and especially the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. However, the impact of the American supporters of Israel and the strength of the Israeli lobby urged the Obama administration to back down in face of the Israeli intransigence.

In light of the above, it is possible to say that the American policy vis-à-vis the Palestinian issue will follow one of three trends:

1. It might pressure Israel to speed up the peace settlement. This depends on the extent to which the Arab uprisings could achieve their objectives while forming strategic spaces supportive of the Palestinian rights.

2. The American policy might continue its bias towards the Israeli side at the expense of Arab and Palestinian interests. This trend is enhanced by the impact of Israel on the US and the history of such issue over the past decades as well as the cultural and religious backgrounds affecting the US decision-making.

3. The Obama administration would not implement the Israeli demands, which include exercising pressure on the Europeans to refrain from recognizing the Palestinian State. This trend is likely due to the intransigence of the Netanyahu government and its refusal to respond to Obama’s perceptions.

Introduction

Needless to say, the American engagement in the Arab-Israeli conflict is not new and it dates back to the time of establishment of Israel on the ruins of Palestine and its people. This engagement is not a circumstantial involvement nor is it related to the change of the situation in the Middle East. Rather, it is a part of the American approach to the region where the US has been the major sponsor and supporter of Israel after the demise of the British and French empires.

Israel: One among Many American Interests in the Region 

The American approach to the conflict has always been marked by blatant bias to the Israeli side. However, America’s interests in the Middle East could not be limited to Israel as there are other interests which make it necessary for the US to be involved in the region. On one hand, there are the sources of energy and the strategic location of the region besides its control of several strategic land and sea locations. On another hand, there is the emergence of other factors represented in what Washington calls the war on terror and its relation to national and strategic security; especially regarding the prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in addition to the importance of the region with respect to the American economic stability.

Therefore, and despite its blatant bias to Israel, the US has sought to find peaceful solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict particularly after the war of June 1967. The American efforts have increased after the war of October 1973 as the US realized that the continuation of the conflict without root solutions would mean a threat to its strategic interests in the region.

Thus, the American position started to evolve over the past decades towards finding peaceful solution for the conflict in the Middle East. On the Arab-Israeli level, the US brokered for example the Camp David Accords in 1978 between Egypt and Israel. Later, it sought to find a comprehensive solution for the region which would include the Palestinians after the Gulf War in 1991. However, it is essential to keep in mind that the American bias to Israel is part and parcel of the American policy even if the American positions conflict with the Israeli stances.

The Arab Developments… A Pressure Factor on the US Position

The Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue have always been present on the American agenda throughout the past decades. As the American involvement in the Middle East has been influenced by pivotal events in the region, it would undoubtedly be affected by the “Arab spring.” In his speech which presented the American administration stance towards the Arab events, President Barak Obama said that “A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people—not just one or two leaders—must believe peace is possible.” This was, undoubtedly, an implicit reference to the need for Israel to accommodate the size and impact of the changes in the region and their future repercussions on its security.

Based on the direct American involvement in the conflict, the Obama administration has begun to get engaged in the peace process in the region since the very first day of Obama’s advent to presidency in January 2009. This engagement was culminated in Obama’s speech addressing the Muslim world from Cairo in June 2010 where he equated the historical suffering of the Palestinians with the historical suffering of the Jews (this in itself is a departure from the traditional American speech which brought criticism upon Obama from the American right and the Israel lobby despite the unjust comparison from the Arab point of view as well). In this speech, Obama called on Israel to stop settlement building in the West Bank including what Israel calls the “natural growth.” However, we shall not ignore the context within which Obama talked about the strong “unbreakable” bonds between the US and Israel let alone the requirements he set for the Palestinian side. Obama stressed that “the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.” This, in Obama’s perception, would be “in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest.”

In the context of protecting the American interests in the region besides Israel, Obama sought to reassure the Arabs and the American public opinion by stressing that he would start troop withdrawal from Iraq. In addition, he would seek to resolve the battle of Afghanistan besides exercising pressure on Israel. Hence he will try to improve the image of his country before the Arab and Muslim public opinion and to ensure the security and stability of the US interests in the region. Yet, all these efforts were faced with Israeli intransigence where American observers mentioned that Obama’s first failure in foreign policy was represented in his inability to urge Israel to freeze settlement in the West bank. This caused tension in the relations between Obama and Netanyahu.

Nonetheless, the Obama administration had to back down from its demands to the Israeli side. Thus, after Obama stressed in his Cairo speech that Israel had to stop settlement building in the West Bank, he excluded East Jerusalem at a later stage then he excluded demands to the Israeli “natural growth.” Ultimately, he talked about the need to restrain settlement building activities. This was explained later by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in October 2009 where she said that the cessation of settlement building is not a requirement to return to direct negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

The American retreat before Israel’s intransigence did not mean the end of debate in the US regarding the other American interests and the negative impact of Israeli policies which do not take into account the interests of the American ally. In a testimony of the Commander of Central Command Gen. David Petraeus before the US Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2010, Petraeus said that the Arab-Israeli conflict have a negative impact on the ability of the US to maintain its other interests in the Middle East. He added that the conflict contributes to the escalating aggression against the US and limits America’s strategic relation with the Arab governments.

These stances had an echo in the Obama administration especially via the then National Security Advisor James Jones. Yet, once again the US interests conflicted with the Israeli interests. In this context, Israel’s supporters in the US employed the deterioration of Obama’s popularity due to the deterioration of the American economy in order to exercise pressure on Obama. This prevented the latter from taking advantage of the package of inducements presented to Netanyahu to extend settlement freeze in the West Bank for another three months. Consequently, the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations came to an end before they even started.

Protection of Israel and the Expected Achievements 

The Arab uprisings have contributed to pushing the American interests, besides Israel, to the fore. The American decision-maker was convinced that the US could not maintain its strategic interests in the region in the light of the Arab peoples’ quest to increase the margin of their freedom and eliminate assumed dependence of some Arab regimes on the US and Israel.

Thus, the parties to the American domestic debate, regarding the definition and approach to the American interests in the Middle East, tried to employ the events in the Arab world. As for Netanyahu, he was weary of the American negligent stance in dealing with the Arab uprisings especially in Egypt where the Mubarak ally regime was uprooted. He wanted to abort any American attempt to exercise pressure on Israel. Thus, based on advice from his allies in the US, he requested a permission to address the Senate and House of Representatives regarding the recent developments in the Arab world and the Palestinian determination to resort to the United Nations and Security Council to obtain recognition of the Palestinian State. Netanyahu wanted to put the Congress in confrontation with the US President. Netanyahu was not satisfied with the US willingness to veto the recognition of the Palestinian State; he also wanted Washington to exercise pressure on its European allies, especially Britain and France, to not recognize the Palestinian State.

Indeed, the Republican leadership of the US Congress agreed to allow a foreign prime minister to challenge the US President from its platform and set 24/5/2011 to deliver his speech.

The Obama administration realized that Netanyahu wanted to provoke the Congress against it. Hence, it was determined not to allow the Israeli prime minister to address the Congress except after President Obama would deliver his speech. Accordingly, Obama delivered his speech regarding the American approach to the developments in the Middle East on 19/5/2011, a few days before Netanyahu addressed the Congress.

The American administration informed the Israeli government, shortly before the President’s speech, about Obama’s stance regarding the stalled Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Netanyahu was agitated by the content of the speech which talked about the establishment of a Palestinian State within the 1967 borders, including permanent borders with Jordan and Egypt besides an agreed-upon exchange of lands. The speech also referred to the suffering and humiliation of the Palestinian people because of the Israeli occupation and stressed that the dream of a Jewish democratic state would not be achieved through permanent occupation. Thus, Netanyahu made an angry phone call with Clinton before Obama delivered his speech that day.

Obama’s assurances and commitment towards Israel did not attract Netanyahu’s attention whose main focus was the establishment of a Palestinian State within the ‘67 lines. In addition, Netanyahu was disturbed as Obama considered the issues of Jerusalem and refugees postponed until after reaching an agreement on the borders. In fact, Netanyahu wanted a clear and explicit stance from the American President that the refugees would not return to the “Jewish state” and Jerusalem would be “the united and eternal capital of Israel.”

However, Obama’s speech did not hide his bias to the approach which considers Israel one among other American interest in the region. Thus, he talked about the unsustainable current situation and referred to the weariness of the international community from endless negotiations stressing that the current situation does not serve Israel’s interests. He also mentioned that the American interests require adjustment of American policies towards the region and its people.

In the context of the conflict of wills between Obama and Netanyahu, the latter visited the American President one day after his speech. In that meeting, Netanyahu refused any talk about the return to the lines of ‘67 even if it included land exchange pointing out that this means limiting Israel’s ability to defend itself.

However, and since the American decision-making process is subject to many considerations and factors including the presence of the influential Israel lobby in the US, President Obama had to defend his vision of solving the conflict in his speech before AIPAC two days after he met Netanyahu.

In that speech, Obama had to explain his perception to the audience of the influential Organization. Interestingly, even when Obama tried to reduce the impact of his new project for resolving the conflict, he adhered to it stressing that what he said in public was very well-known in secret. He also added that even despite the US absolute support for Israel, the Americans could not wait a decade or two or three to achieve peace. Obama stressed that the inclination to isolate Israel on the international level and the Palestinian insistence to boycott the negotiations would be enforced in light of the absence of credible peace process.

However, the most important part of Obama’s speech was his attempt to clarify his position on the establishment of a Palestinian State within the borders of 1967. Here, he considered that his words were “misinterpreted” while in fact they were not controversial and not new since this was the general framework of all previous American administrations including that of former President Bill Clinton. In addition, Obama complained about the media focus on his talk about the 1967 borders while neglecting reference to land exchange agreed upon between the two parties. He added that he meant that the Israelis and the Palestinians will negotiate will negotiate a border that is different from the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Obama stressed that “It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides.” In addition, he said that “The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.”

These assurances did not convince Israel and its supporters, including Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney who accused Obama of having “thrown Israel under the bus.”

For his part, Netanyahu tried in his speech before the Congress to reposition the debate on the American interests in the region where he explicitly said that Israel is the only anchor of stability in a region where alliances change constantly. Moreover, Netanyahu elaborated in his speech about Israeli democracy claiming that freedoms and democracy which the Arab peoples are striving for today are the same freedoms which have been enjoyed by a million Arab Israelis since decades.

On another hand, Netanyahu claimed that two years ago he announced his acceptance for two states for two peoples, a Palestinian state alongside a “Jewish state” on the “historic land of the Jewish people.” Thus, he continued, the Jews in the West Bank are not “foreign occupiers” although he realizes that the Palestinian people shared them that little area of land; but he did not mention that this goes against the International Law and the UN resolutions. Then, he listed the achievements of the PA in the West Bank on the construction and economic levels referring these achievements to the Israeli tolerance and support. Netanyahu wondered why peace was still not achieved and referred the reason to the Palestinians’ refusal for a Palestinian State if it meant accepting a Jewish state next to it. He ultimately demanded President Mahmud ‘Abbas to show enough courage to declare his acceptance of a Jewish state just like he himself declared his acceptance of a Palestinian State.

Possibilities 

As long as the US administration is not able to determine its priorities in the region and till the Arab uprisings yield their fruits, the possibility to change the US policy will assume one of the following tracks:

First: Exercising Pressure on Israel and Speeding up the Settlement of the Palestinian Issue

The change of the political map in the Middle East region, the deterioration of American economic hegemony, the decline of its reputation due to its aggressive and unilateral policies besides its inability to use its massive military power... All these are factors which might create counter pressure elements on the American decision-making institution in its approach to the Middle East region.

There is no doubt that if the Arab spring achieves its objectives, it will be one of these factors pushing towards a more balanced American approach. However, this will not be achieved soon and the American bias to Israel will continue at least in the foreseeable future.

Speeding up the pressure on the US to adopt a more balanced approach towards the region requires a unified Arab strategy. This strategy must be both comprehensive and coordinated and takes into consideration the demands of the Arab public. Then, Washington will have to choose between sacrificing its vital and strategic interests in the region for the sake of Israel or maintaining all its interests—including Israel—through the adoption of more just policies which respect the region and its people.

Second: Proceeding with the Biased Policy towards Israel at the Expense of the Arabs and the Palestinians

Obama’s attempt to exercise pressure on Israel does not mean his divergence from the blatant bias towards Israel. Indeed, Israel has moral, historical and political weight in the US which makes its immune from partisan conflicts. Talking about Israel’s weight and importance is talking about the project which is above the government and the political parties and which is perceived in the US as a remarkable success within an environment of instability. Thus, the abandonment of Israel as the “oasis of democracy” amidst a desert of dictatorships is perceived as an ultimate moral decline which is the primary reason for slowing down Obama’s efforts. The immense Israeli influence appears in the Congress with its two houses where the Israel lobby has huge financial and media potentials. This influence makes any member of the Congress think twice before challenging it. On top of that, the approaching presidential elections, which will be held within a year and a half, make exercising pressure on Israel more difficult.

Third: Not Exercising any Pressure on the Europeans who will Recognize the Palestinian State

This scenario makes us understand the media reports published by some American newspapers this month reporting that Obama administration has given the Netanyahu government one month to endorse the American President’s plan as declared in his speech on May 19th. American press reported that Steven Simon, the US National Security Council senior director for the Middle East and North Africa, told the Jewish Community representatives on Friday (10/6/2011) that the Netanyahu government had one month to respond to the President’s plan to start direct negotiations. The stance of the American administration garnered strong support from the international Quartet which called on Israel to adopt Obama's principles as a basis for direct negotiations. Newspapers also quoted American officials expressing their complaint over repeated Israeli demand that the US exercise pressure on its European allies, especially Britain and France. The Israelis want to ensure that the Europeans do not support the Palestinians in the United Nations and the Security Council regarding their pursuit of international recognition of the Palestinian State next September. According to those officials, the US will veto any resolution to recognize the Palestinian State outside the scope of bilateral negotiations. However, the problem, according to these officials, is that the Israeli government refuses to endorse Obama’s vision, and this will not help the American administration to exercise pressure on the Europeans.

Recommendations

1. The Arab uprisings must include the Palestinian issue as a key title in their revival projects.

2. Light must be shed on America’s bias to Israel, which is at the expense of Arab interests in general and the Palestinian issue in particular. This will pressure the American administration to reconsider its positions in light of its interests in the region.

3. Popular events must be launched in the context of Arab uprisings in support of the Palestinian people and its just cause, and due to the continued Israeli aggression and the American constant bias.

4. The official Palestinian leadership must speed up the implementation of the reconciliation agreement and unify the reference for Palestinian leadership. This should help in the crystallization of a national strategy, which is independent from any American conditions and determinants. 

---

Al-Zaytouna Centre thanks Osama Abu-Irshaid for authoring the original text on which this Strategic Assessment was based.

_______________________________________________________
"Palestine is the heart of Arab countries" - PalestineFreeVoice ________________________________________________________

 Opinions expressed are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Palestine FreeVoice.

The cancer of Christian Zionist terror

By Khalid Amayreh


July 25 2011 

Gloating over the recent killings in Norway of dozens of innocent people at the hands of an Israel-inspired Christian Zionist terrorist, Glenn Beck, the American right-wing talk show host, compared the victims of the shooting at a Norwegian summer camp to Hitler Youth in his radio program on Monday, according to a Daily Telegraph report.

The "Hitler Youth" organization was a paramilitary youth organization comprising teenagers and children, entrusted with task of harassing and attacking and terrorizing perceived or real enemy of the Third Reich. It existed from 1922 to 1945.

Beck, a self-proclaimed Christian Zionist and Israel-firster, described the brutal carnage “as a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth. I mean who sends their kids to a political camp? Disturbing."

He stopped short of praising the murderer, suggesting that the victims got what they deserved.

Torbjon Eriksen, a former press secretary to Jens Stoltenberg, Norway's Prime Minister, dismissed Beck's comments as "ignorant, incorrect and hurtful."

"Young political activists have gathered at Utoya for over 60 years to learn about and be part of democracy, the very opposite of what the Hitler Youth was about," he told The Daily Telegraph. "Glenn Beck's comments are ignorant, incorrect and extremely hurtful."

Beck is an ardent supporter of Israel. He is totally against any peace arrangement between the Jewish state and the Palestinians, especially one involving territorial "concessions" by the Zionist state.

Beck visited Israel last week during which he admonished Israeli leaders to refrain from "giving land" to the Palestinians, the authentic rightful owners of the land, because "you have no right to give away God's land to the goyem or Gentiles."

In the past, Beck and his other Christian Zionist fellows lauded and cheered Israeli massacres of Palestinians, including the intentional murder of hundreds of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in Israeli aerial bombing and artillery bombardment.

There is no doubt that Beck's comments are grave and serious for what they represent and signify. This is no less than a new kind of Nazism raising its ugly head.

Christian Zionism is the new Nazi beast, a kind of a Fourth Reich, looming on the horizon. It is evil, murderous and genocidal.

They mendaciously call themselves Christians. However, their hateful speech, vindictive behavior and the nefarious way they relate to those who disagree with them suggest that they possess no iota of true Christian morality.

The message of Christ is based on love and peace, but the Christian Zionist manifesto is based on death and destruction. This means these people take their cue, not from Christ and his values, but rather from Old Testament savageries and other hateful ideologies that represent the ultimate antithesis of everything that Jesus taught.

Like their Jewish Zionist colleagues in hate, Christian Zionists would like to induce and expedite violence, tribulations, wars and genocides on a huge scale in order to accelerate the second advent of Jesus. This is why these genocidal monomaniacs wouldn't mind if Israel exterminated millions of Palestinians, Muslims as well as Christians, as long as the genocide would effect and speed up Jesus' second coming.

Likewise, these criminal fanatics, utterly immune to rationality, reasonability and common sense, wouldn't mind a no-holds-barred approach to those who disagree with them. Hence, liberal-minded people, leftists, Muslims and other Christians, such as Roman Catholics, would have to be slaughtered and annihilated, all in Jesus' name.

Even their current strange bed-fellows, the Zionist Jews, would eventually have to convert or die.

The ostensible embrace by a key representative of the American evangelical Zionist camp of the recent Oslo massacre and its perpetrator exposes naked a pornographically violent cult that calls itself Christian while actually doing Hitler's work.

Just imagine the fact that we are talking about a combination of evil forces at work, including the nefarious powerful freemason cult, which penetrates many societies and governments, the Zionist movement, and neo-fascist Islamophobes seeking to ignite an internecine clash between Islam and the West.

The evil forces are enemy to both true Christianity and Islam, which necessitates that the followers of both great religions put up a united stand against a common enemy that is hell-bent on exterminating millions to fulfill its morbid whims and vagaries.

Today, it is Oslo; tomorrow it may be London, Paris, Berlin and Rome. The Catholic world is especially at risk of being a chief target of these mindless fanatics who think that the Pope is enemy number-1 to Jesus Christ. Hence, one would have to be constantly vigilant because these highly-motivated fanatics are capable of doing the unthinkable.

Finally, there are many short-sighted Jews who are effectively shooting themselves in the foot by joining ranks with these genocidal Christian extremists. Zionist Jews may be prompted to think that these mindless fanatics and gullible extremists are "useful idiots" who can be used to malign Islam and help the Israel win "the public relations battle."

However, it should be understood that befriending, let alone embracing these dangerous people, would be akin to placing a venomous snake in one's lap.

It could kill you. (end)


This article written by Palestinian journalist Khalid Amaireh is also published in PIC.
___________________________________________________________


Editors note:


According to Israel Shahak in his book " Jewish History, Jewish Religion" :


"Close relations have always existed between Zionists and anti-Semites,exactly like some of the European conservatives, the Zionists thought they could ignore the 'demonic' character of anti-Semitism and use the anti-Semites for their own purposes...Herzl allied himself with the notorious Count von Plehve, the anti-Semitic minister of Tsar Nicholas II;Jabotinsky made a pact with Petlyura, the reactionary Ukrainian leader whose forces massacred some 100,000 Jews in 1918-1921...Perhaps the most shocking example of this type is the delight with which Zionist leaders in Germany welcomed Hitler's rise to power, because they shared his belief in the primacy of 'race' and his hostility to the assimilation of Jews among 'Aryans.' They congratulated Hitler on his triumph over the common enemy--the forces of liberalism.
.

Editors note :


Who is Glenn Beck ?

What good has Glenn Beck accomplished for humanity ?
Ignore him, dont waist time on people like him ! We know of his kind.
_________________________________________________

The Jewish children/youth spend their summers in Kibbutzim so called "social collective projects",where they were taught political education but not in democracy,( as is the beautiful tradition on the summer camps in Scandinavian countries including the summer camp at the island of Uyouya). The Jewish children/youth were raised in an environment of hate and indoctrinated by a dogma, Zionism, which teachings was expected not to be questioned or critically examened. On the Kibbutzim there were also teachings how to kill Palestinians and how to digg weapon smuggle tunnels to be used by their parents whom where members of Jewish/Zionist terrorist gangs.

Related here ( the Ayalon " Institute" secret Israeli terrorist ammunition Factory.

Written by Hiyam Noir ( June 18 2008 )

___________________________________________________

"Palestine is the heart of Arab countries" - PalestineFreeVoice ___________________________________________________


 Opinions expressed are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Palestine FreeVoice.

The Development of "Privacy Killing Technologies": A Link to the Murdoch Scandal?

Black Ops for Major U.S. Banks and Corporations

By Tom Burghardt

July 25, 2011

Antifascist Calling

Following revelations earlier this year by The Tech Herald that security firms with close ties to the Pentagon ran black ops for major U.S. banks and corporations, it became clear that proprietary software developed for the military and U.S. intelligence was being used to target Americans.

Those firms, including now-defunct HBGary Federal, parent company HBGary, Palantir (a start-up flush with cash from the CIA's venture capital arm In-Q-Tel) and Berico Technologies had partnered-up with the Bank of America's law firm Hunton & Williams and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and devised a sub rosa plan of attack against WikiLeaks and Chamber critics.

And when the cyber-guerrilla collective Anonymous published some 70,000 emails and documents filched from HBGary servers, it was off to the races.

In the intervening months since that story first broke, journalists and researchers have turned their attention to a dark web of security firms developing surveillance software for law enforcement, the Pentagon, and repressive foreign governments.

Last week, Wired revealed that one such firm, TruePosition, "a holding of the Liberty Media giant that owns Sirius XM and the Atlanta Braves," is marketing "something it calls 'location intelligence,' or LOCINT, to intelligence and law enforcement agencies," investigative journalist Spencer Ackerman disclosed.

The Pennsylvania-based company has sold their location services system to NSA surveillance partner AT&T and T-Mobile, allowing those carriers to pinpoint "over 60 million 911 calls annually."

"For the better part of decade," Ackerman writes, "TruePosition has had contracts to provide E-911 services with AT&T (signed originally with Cingular in 2001, which AT&T acquired) and T-Mobile (2003)."

Known as "geofencing," the firm explains that location tech "collects, analyzes, stores and displays real-time and historical wireless events and locations of targeted mobile users."

Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported that amongst the services TruePosition offers clients are "products for safety and security applications, including family monitoring, personal medical alert, emergency number service, and criminal tracking."

Additionally, BusinessWeek reports, the company tailors its "enterprise applications" to corporations interested in "workforce management, asset tracking, and location-based advertising; consumer applications, including local search, traffic, and navigation."

But what should concern readers is the firm's "government applications" market which includes everything from "homeland security" and "military intelligence" to "force tracking."

According to a press release posted on the firm's web site, the "TruePosition Location Intelligence Management System (LIMS)" is a "a multi-dimensional database, which uses probes within mobile networks to capture and store all mobile phone network events--including the time and the location of events. Mobile phone events are items like calls made and received, text messages sent and received, a phone powered on and off, and other rich mobile phone intelligence."

Deploying technology dubbed Uplink Time Difference of Arrival (U-TDOA), the system, installed on cell phone towers, identifies a phone's approximate location--within 30 meters--even if the handset isn't equipped with GPS.

Undoubtedly the system can save lives. "In one case," Ackerman reports, "a corrections officer ... was abducted by a recent parolee. But because her cellphone was turned on and her carrier used TruePosition's location tech, police were able to locate the phone along a Kentucky highway. They set up a roadblock, freed the officer and arrested her captor."

All well and good. However, in the hands of repressive governments or privacy-invading corporations, say Rupert Murdoch's media empire, there just might be far different outcomes.

A Link to the Murdoch Scandal?

The relevance of location intelligence in general and more pointedly, TruePosition's LIMS cellphone surveillance products which may, or may not, have been sold to London's Metropolitan Police and what role they may have played in the Murdoch News of the World (NoW) phone hacking scandal have not been explored by corporate media.

While the "who, what, where" aspects of the scandal are now coming sharply into focus, the "how," that is, the high-tech wizardry behind invasive privacy breaches, and which firms developed and profited from their sale, have been ignored.

Such questions, and related business entanglements, should be of interest to investigators on both sides of the Atlantic.

After all, TruePosition's parent company, the giant conglomerate Liberty Media currently holds an 18 percent stake in News Corporation.

With corporate tentacles stretching from investments in TimeWarner Cable to Expedia and from QVC to Starz and beyond, Liberty Media is a multi-billion dollar media behemoth with some $10.9 billion in revenue in 2010, according to an SEC filing by the firm.

With deep pockets and political clout in Washington the company is "juiced."

In 2011, Liberty's CEO, John C. Malone, surpassed Ted Turner as the largest private landowner in the United States, controlling some 2.1 million acres according to The New York Times.

Dubbed "Darth Vader" by The Independent, Malone acquired a 20 percent stake in News Corp. back in 2000 and "was one of the main investors who rode to the rescue of Mr Murdoch in the early 1990s when News Corp was on its knees."

The New York Times reported back in 2005 that Malone's firm was "unlikely to unwind its investment in the News Corporation" because he considered "the stake in the News Corporation a long-term investment, meaning that the relationship between him and Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of the News Corporation, was not likely to be dissolved any time soon."

After acrimonious mid-decade negotiations that stretched out over two years, the media giants cobbled together a deal in 2006 resulting in a $11 billion asset swap, one that gave Liberty control of the DirectTV Group whilst helping Murdoch "tighten his grip" on News Corp., according to The New York Times.

Interestingly enough during those negotiations, investment banking firms Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase along with the white shoe law firm Hogan & Hartson advised News Corp., while Liberty was represented by Bear Stearns and the Baker Botts law firm, long time Bush family consiglieres.

All this can be chalked-up to an interesting set of coincidences. However, the high stakes involved and the relationships and connections forged over decades, including those amongst players who figured prominently in capitalism's 2008 global economic crisis and Bush family corruption, cannot be ignored.

A Suspicious Death

Last week's suspicious death of former NoW whistleblower Sean Hoare should set alarm bells ringing.

When the scandal broke, it was Hoare who told The New York Times last year that senior editors at NoW and another Murdoch tabloid, The Sun, actively encouraged staff to spy on celebrities and others, including victims of the London terror attacks, British soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq and the murdered teenager Milly Dowler; all in pursuit of "exclusives."

The Guardian reported that Hoare said that "reporters at the NoW were able to use police technology to locate people using their mobile phone signals, in exchange for payments to police officers."

"He said journalists were able to use 'pinging', which measured the distance between a mobile handset and a number of phone masts to pinpoint its location," The Guardian revealed.

Hoare described "how reporters would ask a news desk executive to obtain the location of a target: "Within 15 to 30 minutes someone on the news desk would come back and say 'Right, that's where they are.'"

Quite naturally, this raises the question which "police technology" was used to massage NoW exclusives and which firms made a pretty penny selling their wares to police, allegedly for purposes of "fighting crime" and "counterterrorism"?

It was Hoare after all who told The New York Times just days before his death that when he worked for NoW "pinging cost the paper nearly $500 on each occasion."

According to the Times, Hoare found out how the practice worked "when he was scrambling to find someone and was told that one of the news desk editors, Greg Miskiw, could help."

The Times reports that Miskiw "asked for the person's cellphone number, and returned later with information showing the person's precise location in Scotland."

An unnamed "former Scotland Yard officer" interviewed by the Times said "the individual" who provided confidential information to NoW and other Murdoch holdings "could have been one of a small group entitled to authorize pinging requests," that is a senior counterterrorism officer charged with keeping the British public "safe."

Hoare told the Times "the fact that it was a police officer was clear from his exchange with Mr. Miskiw."

"'I thought it was remarkable and asked him how he did it, and he said, 'It's the Old Bill, isn't it?'"

"At that point, you don't ask questions," Hoare said.

Yet despite the relevance of the reporter's death to the scandal, police claimed Hoare's sudden demise was "unexplained but not thought to be suspicious." Really?

As the World Socialist Web Site points out: "The statement is at the very least extraordinary, and at worst sinister in its implications."

Left-wing journalist Chris Marsden wrote that "Hoare is the man who broke silence on the corrupt practices at the News of the World and, most specifically, alleged that former editor Andy Coulson, who later became Prime Minister David Cameron's director of communications, was fully aware of phone hacking that took place on an 'industrial scale'."

Aside from the secret state, what other entities are capable of intercepting phone and other electronic communications on "an industrial scale"? Given Rupert Murdoch's close ties to the political establishment on both sides of the Atlantic, is it a stretch to speculate that a "sympathetic" intelligence service wouldn't do all they could to help a "friend," particularly if cash payments were involved?

How could Hoare's death not be viewed suspiciously?

Indeed, "the morning after Hoare's body was found," Mardsen writes, "former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and his former deputy, John Yates, were to give evidence before a home affairs select committee. Stephenson had tendered his resignation Sunday and Yates Monday."

Conveniently, for those with much to hide, including police, "the death of Hoare means that his testimony will never be heard by any such inquiry or, more importantly, by any criminal investigation that may arise."

Yet, despite a pending coroner's inquest into the exact cause of the reporter's death, corporate media have rushed to judgement, labeling anyone who raise suspicions as being, what else, "conspiracy theorists."

This despite the fact, as the World Socialist Web Site reported Saturday that information has surfaced "regarding the extent of News International links to known criminals."

Indeed, on July 6 left-wing journalist Robert Stevens reported that "Labour MP Tom Watson told Parliament that News International chief executive and former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks 'was present at a meeting with Scotland Yard when police officers pursuing a murder investigation provided her with evidence that her newspaper was interfering with the pursuit of justice'."

"'She was told of actions by people she paid to expose and discredit David Cook [a Detective Superintendent] and his wife Jackie Haines so that Mr. Cook would be prevented from completing an investigation into a murder'.

"Watson added," Stevens writes, that "'News International was paying people to interfere with police officers and were doing so on behalf of known criminals. We know now that News International had entered the criminal underworld'."

Although Hoare had suffered from years of alcohol and cocaine abuse, he was in rehab and by all accounts on the road to recovery. Hoare could have died from natural causes but this has not yet been established.

Pending histology and toxicology tests which will take weeks, and a coroner's inquest was adjourned July 21 until said test results were in, short of a definitive finding, nothing can nor should be ruled out, including murder, by a party or parties unknown.

While it would be a fatal exercise in rank stupidity for News Corp. to rub out Sean Hoare, would others, including police or organized crime figures caught up in the scandal and known to have been paid by News Corp. "people to interfere with police officers" and to have done so "on behalf of known criminals," have such qualms?

An Open Question

We do not know if TruePosition sold LIMS to London's Metropolitan Police, key players in the Murdoch hacking scandal, and the firm won't say who they sell to.

However, whether they did or did not is a relevant question. That security firms develop and sell privacy-killing products and then wash their hands of responsibility how and by whom their products are used--for good or ill--is hardly irrelevant to victims of police repression or private corruption by entities such as News Corp.

The issue here are the actions taken by our corporate and political minders who believe that everything in terms of smashing down walls between public and private life is up for grabs, a commodity auctioned off to the highest bidder.

While we are told by high-tech firms out to feather their nests and politicians that "law enforcement" require we turn over all our data to police to "keep us safe," the Murdoch scandal reveals precisely that it was police agencies corrupted by giant corporations which had allowed such criminal behavior to go unchecked for years.

And with Congress and Obama Justice Department officials pursuing legislation that will require mobile carriers to store and disclose cell-tower data to police and secret state agencies--all without benefit of a warrant, mind you--as well as encryption back doors built into the internet, we are reaching a point where a perfect storm threatens privacy well into the future, if not permanently.

A Looming Threat

Since LIMS 2008 introduction some 75,000 mobile towers in the U.S. have been equipped with the system, FoxNews, ironically enough, reported two years ago.

That same report informed us that "LOCINT continues to operate in Middle Eastern and Asia-Pacific nations where no legal restrictions exist for tracking cell phone signals."

TruePosition's marketing vice president Dominic Li told Fox "when you establish a geofence, anytime a mobile device enters the territory, our system will be alerted and provide a message to the customer."

Li went on to say, "we realize that this has a lot of value to law enforcement agencies outside of search and rescue missions. It gives rise to a whole host of new solutions for national security."

In keeping with the firm's penchant for secrecy, risk averse when it comes to negative publicity over the civil liberties' implications of their products, "citing security concerns," Fox reported that "company officials declined to specify which countries currently use the technology."

TruePosition claims that while wireless technology "has revolutionized communication" it has a "dark side" as "terrorists and criminals" exploit vulnerabilities to create "serious new threats to the security of nations worldwide."

Touting their ability to combine "location determination and network data mining technologies," TruePosition "offers government agencies, security experts and law enforcement officials powerful, carrier-grade security solutions with the power to defend against criminal and terrorist activity."

Never mind that most of the "serious new threats" to global citizens' rights come from unaccountable state security agencies and international financial cartels responsible for the greatest theft of resources in human history.

For interested parties such as TruePosition, "actionable intelligence" in the form of "data mining to monitor activity and behavior over time in order to build detailed profiles and identify others that they associate with," will somehow, magically one might say, lead to the apprehension of "those who threaten the safety of citizens."

Unasked is the question: who will protect us from those who develop and sell such privacy killing technologies?

Certainly not Congress which has introduced legislation "that would force Internet companies to log data about their customers," CNET News reported earlier this month.

"As a homeland security tool," Wired reported, LIMS is "enticing." Brian Varano, TruePosition's marketing director told Spencer Ackerman to "imagine an 'invisible barrier around sensitive sites like critical infrastructure,' such as oil refineries or power plants."

"The barrier contains a list of known phones belonging to people who work there, allowing them to pass freely through the covered radius. 'If any phone enters that is not on the authorized list, [authorities] are immediately notified,'" Varano told Wired.

While TruePosition's technology may be useful when it comes to protecting nuclear installations and other critical infrastructure from unauthorized breaches and may be an important tool for investigators tracking down drug gangs, human traffickers, kidnappers and stalkers, as we have learned from the Murdoch scandal and the illegal driftnet surveillance of Americans, the potential that governments and private entities will abuse such powerful tools is also likely.

According to Wired while "TruePosition sells to mobile carriers," the company is "cagey about whether the U.S. government uses its products." Abroad however, Ackerman writes, "it sells to governments, which it won't name. Ever since it came out with LOCINT in 2008," Varano said that "'Ministries of Defense and Interior from around the world began beating down our door'."

That technological "quick fixes" such as LOCINT can augment the power of secret state agencies to "easily identify and monitor networks of dissidents," doesn't seem to trouble the firm in the least.

In fact, such concerns don't even enter the equation. As Wired reported, the company "saw a growth market in a field" where such products would have extreme relevance: "the expanding, globalized field of homeland security."

"It really was recession-proof," Varano explained to Ackerman, "because in many parts of the world, the defense and security budgets have either maintained where they were or increased by a large percentage."

Small comfort to victims of globalized surveillance and repression that in many places, including so-called "Western democracies," are already an ubiquitous part of the political landscape.

Consider the ease with which police can deploy LIMS for monitoring dissidents, say anticapitalist activists, union leaders or citizen organizers fighting against the wholesale theft of publicly-owned infrastructure to well-connected corporations (Greece, Ireland or Spain for example) by governments knuckling-under to IMF/ECB demands for so-called "deficit reduction" schemes.

As Stephen Graham points out in his seminal book Cities Under Siege, "as the everyday spaces and systems of urban everyday life are colonized by militarized control technologies" and "notions of policing and war, domestic and foreign, peace and war become less distinct, there emerges a massive boom in a convergent industrial complex encompassing security, surveillance, military technology, prisons, corrections, and electronic entertainment."

   "It is no accident," Graham writes, "that security-industrial complexes blossom in parallel with the diffusion of market fundamentalist notions for organizing social, economic and political life."

Creating a climate of fear is key to those who seek to manage daily life. Thus the various media-driven panics surrounding nebulous, open-ended "wars" on "deficits," "drugs," "terror" and now "cyber-crime."

That firms such as TruePosition and hundreds of others who step in to capitalize on the highly-profitable "homeland security" market, hope to continue flying under the radar, we would do well to recall U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who strongly admonished us that "sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research,  he is a Contributing Editor with Cyrano's Journal Today. His articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press and has contributed to the new book from Global Research, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.

This article written by Tom Burghardh was submitted to PalestineFreeVoice by Global Research.

________________________________________________________

"Palestine is the heart of Arab countries" - PalestineFreeVoice ________________________________________________________

Opinions expressed are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Palestine FreeVoice.