Israel's global propaganda blitzkrieg against Palestine statehood knows no bounds
Part I of a two-part report.
Israel has pulled out all the stops in its worldwide campaign to prevent further diplomatic recognition of Palestinian statehood and independence, as well as ensure that the UN General Assembly vote on Palestine's independence, scheduled for September, is not a landslide for Palestine. Israeli officials have expressed an interest in keeping the pro-Palestine vote below the two-thirds majority needed for passage of a "Uniting for Peace" resolution in the General Assembly that could overshadow an expected U.S. veto of support for Palestine independence in the Security Council.
At the very least, Israel is trying to ensure that at least 30 nations vote "no" on the Palestine independence resolution in the General Assembly. Israeli diplomats are traveling the world to pressure governments of large and small nations to vote "no" or abstain on Palestine independence. Similarly, foreign ambassadors in Tel Aviv and visiting leaders in Jerusalem are having their arms twisted to veto Palestine's bid for statehood.
Also being enlisted by Israel are its sizable assets in the news media and entertainment industry. This past weekend saw multiple airings of the movie "Exodus" on WETA-TV, the Public Broadcasting System station in Washington, DC. The showing of "Exodus" was intended to generate sympathy for Israel, just as its premier in 1960 was designed by its Zionist backers to increase support for Israel from a largely neutral American public. In 1956, President Eisenhower actually pressured Israel and its British and French allies to withdraw from the Suez Canal and Sinai, a move that split NATO and infuriated Zionists in the United States. Eleanor Roosevelt was enlisted as a supporter for the Israeli cause from the inception of the State of Israel in 1947 but it was a steady stream of propaganda, such as "Exodus," that began to see Americans slant to the Israeli cause. "Exodus," based on the novel by Leon Uris, was directed by Otto Preminger, with the screenplay being written by Dalton Trumbo. The film was pushed by United Artist's production chief, Arnold Picker, later the chair of the National Center for Jewish Film, and public relations guru Edward Gottlieb.
The "Exodus, formerly a Chesapeake Bay ferry called the "President Wakefield," was sold by American Zionist supporters of Israel in violation of a U.S. military embargo against the belligerents fighting in Palestine. The ferry had been bought through the suspices of the New York-based Sonneborn Institute, run by Zionist millionaire Rudolf G. Sonneborn. The ship set sail from France bound for Palestine on July 11, 1947, with 4515 passengers. After being rammed and boarded by British naval personnel, the vessel was towed to Haifa. Most of the passengers were deported to Germany.
In the Hollywood version, Paul Newman, who plays Haganah underground soldier Ari Ben Canaan, whose father is involved in the terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, is discussing with Eva Marie Saint, playing American Kitty Fremont, what the Israelis would do if the "Exodus" were boarded and what he describes is a full-blown false flag attack, with the intent of killing Jews, that would be the basis for generating worldwide sympathy for people who were up against the British Empire and "brutal" Arab thugs who had been allied with the German Nazis.
The following in the salient part of the script from "Exodus":
Saint: Either you compromise, or you lose.
Newman: We won't lose.
If the British give in and let us go, we've won.
And if we starve to death aboard this ship, we've still won.
Saint: They'll wait.
They'll wait until you're too weak and then come aboard and take you off.
Newman: It doesn't take much strength to set off 200 pounds of dynamite.
Saint: You'd still set it off, knowing you've lost?
Newman: Of course.
Saint: Without any regard for the lives you'd be destroying?
Newman: With every regard in the world for them.
Saint: I don't understand.
Newman: Each person on board this ship is a soldier.
The only weapon we have to fight with is our willingness to die.
Saint: But for what purpose?
Newman: Call it publicity.
Saint:-Publicity?
Newman: -Yes, publicity.
A stunt to attract attention.
A letter to the newspapers.
A help-wanted ad to the official journal of the United Nations.
"Wanted by 600 men, women and children, a country...
"...a native land, a home."
That's all they're dying for.
Just to call attention to Israel...
...without ever having seen it themselves.
Saint: Does the vulgarity of it shock you?
You can't fight the whole British Empire with 600 people.
It isn't possible.
Newman: How many Minutemen did you have at Concord when they fired...
...the "shot heard round the world"?
Saint: -I don't know. - .
Newman: 77
Saint: Look, please understand me.
I wish you could win.
I wish it were possible for you to have a country of your own.
But it isn't.
You're offering the lives of all these people
for something that can never happen.
I know. I've been in Palestine.
Newman: -When were you there?
Saint: -A year ago.
Mr. Ben Canaan, even if you get a partition and a free Jewish state...
...the Arabs won't let you keep it.
500,000 Jews against 50 million Arabs?
You can't win.
The other major reason for the full-court press of "Exodus" is the scene of the UN General Assembly vote on the 1947 resolution that partitioned Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. This is the basis for the Palestinian declaration of statehood. However, there is no mention of the word "Palestinian" in the film, only "Arab." Those Zionists who argue that it was the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan that was the Arab state created by the UN partition do so to falsely convey the notion that Arab Palestinians have no right to the part of Palestine UN-mandated territory: east Jerusalem and Gaza and, eventually, the West Bank after 1967, that was reserved for the nascent Arab state by the UN.
The following is the script from Exodus where Jews in Palestine are following the partition votge on the radio:
Norway votes...
...for partition.
Pakistan...
...against.
Cast member:
-Who cares?
Cast member: -How is it now?
20 for Partition, 8 against, and 8 abstaining.
If we get over the next 4 I think we're in.
Republic of Panama...
...for.
The Republic of Paraguay...
...votes...
...for partition.
The Republic of Peru...
...for.
The Philippines Republic votes...
...for.
We've got two-thirds. I'm going to announce it!
Cast member: -But we haven't got the final vote yet.
Cast member: -What's the difference? We won!
The Polish People's Republic votes...
...for . . .
"The final vote of the United Nations on
the question of the partition of Palestine...
"...into an independent Jewish state and an independent Arab state...
"...is as follows:
" for...33"
... 13 against, 2 abstentions."
The re-airing of the Zionist propaganda film "Exodus" is, once again, a clear attempt to confuse and propagandize the American public. It is a scheme being played out by Israel and its agents of influence around the world.
The Israelis are concentrating on nations that voted for the 1947 partition to now vote against the establishment of the Palestinian state. The United States and Canada are in Israel's pocket and the Obama administration is fully backing Israel against Palestinian statehood, with the two Zionist State Department spokespersons, Victoria Nuland, who is married to arch-neoconservative war-hawk Robert Kagan, and Mark Toner, echoing the Israeli line one hundred percent. Joining The Hillary Clinton State Department in pressuring the UN and its member states into supporting Israel is Representative Steve Chabot (R-OH), who has called for the U.S. to withhold funding for the UN if it votes to approve Palestinian statehood.
Other UN members that voted for the 1947 partition being pressed hard by Israel to vote no on Palestine are Australia; Belgium; Brazil; Costa Rica; the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the successor states of Czechoslovakia, which voted for partition; Denmark; Dominican Republic; France; Guatemala; Haiti, Iceland; Liberia; Luxembourg; Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway; Panama; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Poland; Sweden; Ukraine, the successor to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic; South Africa; Uruguay; Russia, the successor to the USSR.
It is unlikely that Belarus, the sucessor to the Byelorussian SSR; Venezuela; Bolivia; or Ecuador, all of which voted for the 1947 partition, will vote with Israel against Palestine.
Those nations that voted against the 1947 partition: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen can be expected to vote for Palestine.
The nations that abstained in 1947 are Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, and the United Kingdom, along with now-defunct Yugoslavia, are of special interest for Israeli diplomats. China has indicated it will vote for Palestine but Colombia will support Israel. Israel's ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, stated that Mexico will vote with Israel. In an interview Israel's "Globes," Prosor said: "We are not giving up on any country. We are currently mapping out the various countries. We are deciding which to approach, and how to approach them. There are 192 member nations in the UN. We are not giving up on Latin American countries, the Caribbean, or countries along the Pacific Ocean coastline and Asia." The one nation that was absent in 1947, Siam, now Thailand, is also subject to intense Israeli pressure to vote no on Palestine.
In Part 2, Israel's diplomatic and intelligence machinations, particularly in what Prosor referred to as "the Pacific coastline," will be revealed.
Israel using "super-power" clout to scare up UN votes against Palestine independence
Second part of a two-part series
Israel is using the kind of diplomatic clout usually exercised by a super-power in pressuring the nations of the world to vote "no" or abstain on an expected UN General Assembly resolution recognizing the independence of Palestine within 1967 borders. However, Israel does have the full backing of the United States and Germany, which are using their own diplomatic muscle to reward and threaten those nations based on their votes in the UN. Israel, through its lobbying arms, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the American Jewish Committee, has managed to get key Republicans in the House of Representatives to threaten to limit U.S. funding for the UN and its specialized agencies if the General Assembly votes to recognize Palestine.
The German government of Chancellor Angela Merkel is reportedly threatening a cut-off in economic aid to developing nations that vote for Palestine. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle and International Aid Minister Dirk Niebel have been at the forefront of the pressure operations.
Israel's new ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, has been twisting the arms of delegates from large and small countries to vote with Israel and against Palestine. Prosor's replacement as the ambassador in London, Daniel Taub, was chosen for the job because he and his wife Zehava were both born in London and educated in the UK before emigrating to Israel. The Taubs are well-connected to Britain's Jewish community, including Labor Opposition Leader Ed Miliband, and can use their influence to try and dissuade the Tory-Liberal Democratic coalition government from voting for Palestine at the UN.
Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has been making his rounds to suppress the pro-Palestine vote in the UN. Even the Vatican City micro-state has not been ignored by Israel. Although only a UN observer, the Vatican has diplomatic clout with majority Catholic countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as nations in Africa with sizable Catholic populations. Ayalon met with Vatican Under-Secretary for Relations with States Monsignor Ettore Balestrero at the Vatican a few weeks ago to discuss various "political issues."
A few days after returning to Jerusalem from Europe, Ayalon requested Vietnam to vote no on Palestine. Ayalon had been meeting with Vietnamese Minister of Information and Communications Le Doan Ho. Earlier in June, Ayalon traveled to El Salvador to address the summit of the Organization of American States where he held bilateral discussions with several delegates to lobby for a no vote on Palestine. Ayalon's trip was designed to convince those Western Hemisphere nations that had previously recognized Palestine to abstain or vote against Palestine in the General Assembly. Mexico was a key target of the Israeli arm-twisting and Prosor later stated in New York that Israel had bagged Mexico's vote.
The former Soviet states of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan have been lobbied by Israeli President Shimon Peres who paid visits to both nations in 2009.
Ayalon later claimed success in stemming the tide of Palestinian support in Latin America and Europe.
Israel's rabidly anti-Arab racist Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has sent classified cables to Israel's ambassadors around the world instructing them to seek promises from nations to vote against Palestine by stressing that a yes vote for Palestine would somehow "de-legitimize" Israel. Lieberman has visited Albania, Croatia, and Austria soliciting no votes on Palestine. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will visit Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Poland to persuade them to also vote no on Palestine.
Israel's strategy is to see 60 members of the UN vote no or abstain on the Palestine vote. At they very least, Israel wants some members to be absent on the day of the vote.
Prosor has stated that one of Israel's main targets in its campaign are "countries along the Pacific Ocean coastline." That strategy was part of the reason Israeli Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin visited the south Pacific island nation of Tonga in April.
Three former U.S. Trust Territories that vote with the United States and Israel in a manner reminiscent of the lockstep support that the former Byelorussian and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republics gave to the USSR in the United Nations are expected to vote against Palestine. In May, Stuart Beck, the UN ambassador of Palau, one of these " freely Associated States," which are bound to the U.S. by treaty, said, "Palau is the number one friend of the US, ahead of everyone, including Israel. We overtook Israel this year." Palau's voting record with the United States in the UN is 96.5 percent. Palau is followed by the Federated States of Micronesia at 94 percent, Israel at 91.8 percent and the Republic of the Marshall Islands at 81 percent. The United States, Israel, and the three "associated states" often vote as a unified small minority block against a vast majority of the UN member states.
Vanuatu: A case of just how far Israel and its allies are willing to go
The South Pacific island nation of Vanuatu is best known to Americans as the scene of one of the "Survivor" television shows. However, its history of diplomatic poker playing between China and Taiwan has made it well-known as a nation that can be swayed easily on the global stage.
In May, when Vanuatu decided to recognize the Georgian breakaway region of Abkhazia as independent, joining Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Vanuatu's South Pacific partner Nauru, alarm bells went off not only in Georgia but in Israel, a close ally of Georgia. A number of dual Georgian-Israeli citizens have served or are serving as members of the Georgian government of President Mikheil Saakashvili and Israel counts Georgia as a major diplomatic ally at the UN.
Almost immediately after the Vanuatu government of Prime Minister Sato Kilman recognized Abkhazia, Vanuatu's ambassador to the UN, Donald Kalpokas, stated that Vanuatu recognized only Georgia and not Abkhazia. It is quite clear that Kalpokas was taking his orders not from his own government but from the US and Israeli ambassadors, Susan Rice and Prosor, both ardent supporters of Georgia. However, Vanuatu Foreign Minister Alfred Carlot, who had been on a visit to China, confirmed that Vanuatu had, in fact, recognized Abkhazia and appeared on a YouTube video confirming the recognition.
Meanwhile, New Zealand's conservative and pro-Israeli Prime Minister John Key, made some comments about Russian influence in the South Pacific at the same time his Foreign Minister Murray McCully was touring the island states on a mission tied to continued New Zealand economic assistance, a mission that may have been in concert with Germany's threat to withhold aid to nations that voted with Palestine at the UN. McCully's mission took him to Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, with Papua New Guinea being dropped at the last minute after its foreign minister was fired.
After Abkhazian authorities produced the document signed by the prime ministers of Abkhazia and Vanuatu establishing diplomatic relations, a funny thing happened to Vanuatu Prime Minister Kilman. The nation's Supreme Court fired Kilman and appointed his predecessor Edward Natapei, dismissed in December 2010 after he lost a no-confidence vote. The court ruled that Kilman's election as prime minister was null and void because the parliamentary vote was by a show of hands rather than a secret ballot.
One of Natapei's first actions was to nullify Vanuatu's recognition of Abkhazia. But there is yet another wrinkle to the ouster of Kilman. Natapei's acting foreign minister Joe Natuman, in "de-recognizing" Abkhazia, also announced that Australian attorney Ari Jenshel, an official with the Australian Agency for International Development (AUSAID), as rife with Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) agents as the US Agency for International Development (USAID) is with CIA agents, would be welcomed back to Vanuatu after his expulsion by the Kilman government for espionage. Natapei charged that Kilman's government was receiving "bribes" from businessmen from unnamed foreign countries. Jenshel, who is close to Australian Jewish circles, worked for five years in the Vanuatu Attorney General's office under an AUSAID program.
From the Kilman government's vantage point, Jenshel was in a position to rifle through documents and other sensitive material, copy them, and send them to Canberra. The Vanuatu government, in fact, charged Jenshel with copying sensitive documents and sending them to Australia. Jenshel was also accused of copying classified communications between the Kilman government and that of Fiji's military ruler, Commodore Frank Bainimarama. Fiji's vote on Palestine at the UN and its possible following Vanuatu in recognizing Abkhazia may have been the subject of the classified communications, which would have been of interest to ASIO, Mossad, and the CIA.
After his dismissal by the Supreme Court, Kilman was re-elected by the Vanuatu parliament with 29 out of 52 votes, defeatinf rival Serge Vohor by six votes. Kilman's entire government, including Foreign Minister Carlot, who arranged for the recognition of Abkhazia, was re-instated. There is no indication that the Kilman government will abide by the "de-recognition" decision of interim Prime Minister Natapei and with more evidence surfacing about Australian, Israeli, and U.S. intrigue behind Vanuatu's "constitutional coup," something that Australians are painfully aware of as a result of the CIA's 1975 constitutional coup against Australian Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, Vanuatu may be an example of an intelligence operation "blow back," with Kilman and his South Pacific partners voting for Palestine at the UN General Assembly as a warning to Canberra, Wellington, Tel Aviv, Tbilisi, and Washington to stay out of South Pacific affairs.
But, as is normal, the Obama administration has not gotten the message from the South Pacific. In a throwback to "gunboat diplomacy," it is dispatching the USS Cleveland (LPD-7), a Navy amphibious ship with a Marine contingent, on a "goodwill" tour of Vanuatu, Tonga, Micronesia, Timor-Leste, and Papua New Guinea as part of "Pacific Partnership 2011." The CIA's official diplomatic cover "political officers" will undoubtedly be on hand to ensure that the five nations visited by the ship are "on side" for the General Assembly vote.
It has been over two weeks since the orchestrated ever-changing Bin Laden Death. The question of what happened remains the same except it doesn’t seem to matter any longer. The US media is done after making their initial splash, and the majority is left with one conclusion: the SOB is dead, and who gives a da… how it happened. Whether Osama held an AK-47 while using some damsel in distress as a shield, whether there was a real fight or not, whether it was really Osama’s body in an organic edible shell we fed to the endangered sharks, whether the full credit goes to the CIA or the White House or the Pentagon …no longer seems to matter. Dizzy-fying confusion induced by dozens and dozens of lies and discrepancies and denials has given way to post-adrenaline-rush exhaustion. The question of what happened has been classified as moot and irrelevant. Right or wrong I’ll leave that question behind, at least for now, and instead, go back to focus on the more important question- the question of ‘why and why now.’
For now, this is what I want you to take from the above on Obama’s Neoconistic objectives: fiercely counter China-Russia when it comes to establishing US hegemony, especially in Central and South Asia, with emphasis on Afghanistan. Next, let’s look at the strategic importance of the 
It is important to remember how Obama passed AIPAC neocons’ test on Pakistan during his presidential campaign in 2007. Obama 
Suffice it to say that not all cards have been placed on the table. As the famous Kenny Rogers’
Jon Gold Says:
The United States pointing fingers at Pakistan is like Al Capone pointing fingers at Frank Nitti.
http://911truthnews.com/death-of-bin-laden-may-distract-from-a-more-disturbing-story/
http://911truthnews.com/scapegoating-the-pakistani-isi/
Sibel, please read both… they are both extremely relevant to all of this.
Bill Bergman Says:
Things appear to be heating up on this score, e.g.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110520/wl_nm/us_pakistan_blast
It seems like we have to read mainstream news with two eyeballs, one eyeball taking it for granted that they are trying to tell the truth, and the other eyeball considering how and why they might be lying to us, and then putting the messages from both eyeballs together in our brains, and try to make sense out of it.
yoshi Says:
For those of you here who think that Ron Paul will be the answer to Obama, consider some points.
We live in a hypervigilant world (thanks largely to MSM and govt. conditioning). We must defeat the terrorists! We must protect the Homeland at all costs! Also, politicians being what they are (with some rare exceptions), can you can name one national name that would dare to oppose that mentality?
Set aside the dump-the-Fed-and-fire-Bernanke stuff for a moment. What other examples has Paul done to really differeniate himself from the neocons? No, cable news soundbites don’t count. I’m talking about actual hearings or bills that he’s introduced that have been passed and signed into law.
Answer? He doesn’t have any.
If he really opposes the wars that we’re in, why doesn’t he hold a press conference and announce that until we withdraw from said wars, he won’t pay his taxes? Why doesn’t he take a taypayer-funded “Congressional delegation” trip to Gaza to show the world what our “Israeli aid” is really doing there? Why doesn’t he publically back Ken O’Keefe and his efforts to finally bring peace to the Midddle East? Why doesn’t he stand up to Obama and say that he’s using terrorist tactics to “stop terrorism” which is only making it worse?
Because here politicians don’t stand up to AIPAC. When most members of the House signed a letter pleding their “loyal support” to Israel, did Paul sign it as well? Just making appearances on “Hardball” or some neocon think tank that C-SPAN decides to show really means nothing.
This tell me that his “campaign strategists” want him to be everything to everybody. He’s not a Democrat, but he’s also not your typical neocon. What does THAT mean?
Before going into the House, Paul was a Naval flight surgeon. This means that he was under Tri-Care (the military’s national health care). Now, he’s under govt. national health care. I’ve never heard him say that health care is a human right. Coming from a doctor, that’s frankly really disappointing. Why is he entitled to the best care possible but I’m not?
IMO, Paul has no chance. Millions will vote for Obama because they’re conditioned to think that he’s the lesser of two evils. So that makes it ok. The other thing is that not all but many just don’t care any more. If that’s not true, then we’d have daily millions-in-the-streets protests that the MSM couldn’t avoid talking about. What else could it be?
Blackflag Says:
Sibel,
I will re-review your post in more detail later, but off the top of my head….
I would suggest rather that Iran is the center piece of the geo-political play here.
The invasion of Iraq does not support the isolation tactics over China. I cannot connect this dot directly to a China play.
However, Iraq invasion specifically connects the dot to an Iranian play.
With Pakistan, Iran is totally surrounded by America -
-bases (and troops?) in Turkmenistan
-NATO ally Turkey on one border
-US-occupied Iraq on one border
-US-occupied Afghanistan on one border
-(maybe) US-occupied Pakistan on one border
-Arabian sea full of US carriers.
Iran has no outs.
Now, it could be argued that Iran is a sub-play in a large China play….
Blackflag Says:
Further,
Iran has been a oozing sore since Truman. It was also the first country that Eisenhower doctrine (you are either with us or against us) was applied.
The overthrow of the Shah significantly disrupted American geo-political position as Iran was one of the two cornerstones of the US projection of power in the region (the other being Israel).
I think this game over Iran has been in the works since Reagan took office in 1980’s.
Sibel Edmonds Says:
@Bill: Many thanks for the link; fits well.
@Jon: I’ll check them out later today; thanks.
@Blackflag: Have you seen the headlines today on 9/11 suit against Iran? Interesting, ey?!
@Yoshi: Thanks for sharing, but I disagree with you. He is the only chance I see; currently.