EDITOR: Even the anti-Semites cannot invent this…

In an especially mad episode, a local leader and editor of a Jewish paper in Atlanta, is calling for Israel to assassinate his president… In Israel, this is hardly news – after all, some of Israel’s political leaders have called for Rabin to be killed, just before he was murdered. In the US it might be less normal, and maybe, just maybe, a little illegal? Rest assured, nothing will happen to this maniac, as he is Jewish, and Obama can hardly alienate the Jewish community in an election year. Good to see the stuff those guys are made of…

Uproar after Jewish American newspaper publisher suggests Israel assassinate Barack Obama: Haaretz

Op-ed in Atlanta Jewish Times says the slaying of the president may be an effective way to thwart Iran’s nuclear program.
By Chemi Shalev
NEW YORK – The owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, has suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu consider ordering a Mossad hit team to assassinate U.S. President Barack Obama so that his successor will defend Israel against Iran.

Adler, who has since apologized for his article, listed three options for Israel to counter Iran’s nuclear weapons in an article published in his newspaper last Friday. The first is to launch a pre-emptive strike against Hamas and Hezbollah, the second is to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and the third is to “give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

Adler goes on to write: “Yes, you read “three correctly.” Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If have thought of this Tom-Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?”

Adler apologized yesterday for the article, saying “I very much regret it; I wish I hadn’t made reference to it at all,” Adler told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. And in an interview with Gawker.com, Adler denied that he was advocating an assassination of Obama.

The American Jewish Committee in Atlanta last night issued a harsh condemnation of Adler’s article, saying that his proposals are “shocking beyond belief.”

“While we acknowledge Mr. Adler’s apology, we are flabbergasted that he could ever say such a thing in the first place. How could he even conceive of such a twisted idea?” said Dov Wilker, director of AJC Atlanta. “Mr. Adler surely owes immediate apologies to President Obama, as well as to the State of Israel and his readership, the Atlanta Jewish community.”

Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, also blasted Adler on Friday, saying “There is absolutely no excuse, no justification, no rationalization for this kind of rhetoric. It doesn’t even belong in fiction. These are irresponsible and extremist words. It is outrageous and beyond the pale. An apology cannot possibly repair the damage. Irresponsible rhetoric metastasizes into more dangerous rhetoric. The ideas expressed in Mr. Adler’s column reflect some of the extremist rhetoric that unfortunately exists — even in some segments of our community — that maliciously labels President Obama as an ‘enemy of the Jewish people.’ Mr. Adler’s lack of judgment as a publisher, editor and columnist raises serious questions as to whether he’s fit to run a newspaper.”

 

EDITOR: The Iran war is being prepared, and the western public is asleep again!

Richard Falk excellent analysis is unfortunately not published on the Guardian or Independent, of course. Please help to spread this message by forwarding to all and sundry.

Stop Warmongering in the Middle East: RichardFalk

The public discussion in the West addressing Iran’s nuclear program has mainly relied on threat diplomacy, articulated most clearly by Israeli officials, but enjoying the strong direct and indirect backing of Washington and leading Gulf states.  Israel has also engaged in covert warfare against Iran in recent years, somewhat supported by the United States, that has inflicted violent deaths on civilians in Iran. Many members of the UN Security Council support escalating sanctions against Iran, and have not blinked when Tel Aviv and Washington talk menacingly about leaving all options on the table, which is ‘diplospeak’ for their readiness to launch a military attack. At last, some signs of sanity are beginning to emerge to slow the march over the cliff. For instance, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, commented harshly on this militarist approach: “I have no doubt that it would pour fuel on a fire which is already smoldering, the hidden smoldering fire of Sunni-Shia confrontation, and beyond that [it would cause] a chain reaction. I don’t know where it would stop.” And a few days ago even the normally hawkish Israeli Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, evidently fearful of international panic and a preemptive response by Tehran, declared that any decision to launch a military attack by Israel is ‘very far off,’ words that can be read in a variety of ways, mostly not genuinely reassuring.

It is not only an American insistence, despite pretending from time to time an interest in a diplomatic solution, that only threats and force are relevant to resolve this long incubating political dispute with Iran, but more tellingly, it is the stubborn refusal by Washington to normalize relations with Iran, openly repudiate the Israeli war drums, and finally accept the verdict of history in Iran adverse to its strategic ambitions. The United States has shown no willingness despite the passage of more than 30 years to accept the outcome of Iran’s popular revolution of 1978-79 that nonviolently overthrew the oppressive regime of the Shah. We need also to remember that the Shah had been returned to power in 1953 thanks to the CIA in a coup against the constitutional and democratically elected government of Mohamed Mossadegh, whose main crime was to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. This prolonged unwillingness of Washington to have normal diplomatic contact with Iran has been a sure recipe for international tension and misunderstanding, especially taking into account this historical background of American intervention in Iran, as well as the thinly disguised interest in recovering access to Iran’s high quality oil fields confirmed by its willingness to go along with Israel’s militarist tactics and diplomacy.

This conflict-oriented mentality is so strong in relation to Iran than when others try their best to smooth diplomatic waters, as Brazil and Turkey did in the May 2010, the United States angrily responds that such countries should mind their own business, which is an arrogant reprimand, considering that Turkey is Iran’s next door neighbor, and has the most to lose if a war results from the unresolved dispute involving Iran’s contested nuclear program. It should be recalled that in 2010 Iran formally agreed with leaders from Brazil and Turkey to store half or more of its then stockpile of low enriched uranium in Turkey, materials that would be needed for further enrichment if Iran was truly determined to possess a nuclear bomb as soon as possible. Instead of welcoming this constructive step back from the precipice Washington castigated the agreement as diversionary, contending that it interfered with the mobilization of support in the Security Council for ratcheting up sanctions intended to coerce Iran into giving up its right to a complete nuclear fuel cycle. Such criticism of Turkey and Brazil for its engagement with peace diplomacy contrasts with its tacit endorsement of Israeli recourse to terrorist tactics in its efforts to destabilize Iran, or possibly to provoke Iran to the point that it retaliates, giving Tel Aviv the pretext it seems to seek to begin open warfare.

Iran is being accused of moving toward a ‘breakout’ capability in relation to nuclear weapons, that is, possessing a combination of knowhow and enough properly enriched uranium to produce nuclear bombs within a matter of weeks, or at most months. Tehran has repeatedly denied any intention to become a nuclear weapons state, but has insisted all along that it has the same legal rights under the Nonproliferation Treaty as such other non-nuclear states as Germany and Japan, and this includes the right to have a complete nuclear fuel cycle, which entails enrichment capabilities and does imply a breakout capability. In the background, it should be realized that even the 1968 Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons contains a provision that allows a party to withdraw from the obligations under the treaty if it gives three months notice and ‘decides that extraordinary events..have jeopardized its supreme national interests.’(Article X) Such a provision, in effect, acknowledges the legal right of a country to determine its own security requirements in relation to nuclear weapons, a right that both the United States and Israel in different ways have implicitly exercised for decades with stunning irresponsibility that includes secrecy, a failure to pursue nuclear disarmament that is an obligation of the treaty, and a denial of all forms of international accountability. The real ‘threat’ posed by a hypothetical Iran bomb is to Israel’s regional monopoly over nuclear weapons. As three former Mossad chiefs have stated, even if Iran were to acquire a few nuclear bombs, Israel would still face no significant additional threat to its security or existence, as any attack would be manifestly suicidal, and Iran has shown no such disposition toward recklessness in its foreign policy.

To be objective commentators we must ask ourselves whether Iran’s posture toward its nuclear program is unreasonable under these circumstances. Is not Iran a sovereign state with the same right as other states to uphold its security and political independence when facing threats from its enemies armed with nuclear weapons? When was the last time resorted to force against a hostile neighbor? The surprising answer is over 200 years ago! Can either of Iran’s antagonists claim a comparable record of living within its borders? Why does Iran not have the same right as other states to take full advantage of nuclear technology? And given Israeli hostility, terrorist assaults, and military capabilities that includes sophisticated nuclear warheads, delivery style, and a record of preemptive war making, would it not be reasonable for Iran to seek, and even obtain, a nuclear deterrent? True, the regime in Iran has been oppressive toward its domestic opposition and its president has expressed anti-Israeli views in inflammatory language (although exaggerated in the West), however unlike Israel, without ever threatening or resorting to military action. It should also be appreciated that Iran has consistently denied an intention to develop nuclear weaponry, and claims only an interest in using enriched uranium for medical research and nuclear energy. Even if there are grounds to be somewhat skeptical about such reassurances, given the grounds for suspicion that have been ambiguously and controversially validated by reports from International Atomic Energy Agency, this still does not justify sanctions, much less threats backed up by deployments, war games, projected attack scenarios, and a campaign of terrorist violence.

So far no prominent advocates of confrontation with Iran have been willing to acknowledge the obvious relevance of Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal. Is not the actuality of nuclear weaponry, not only an Iranian breakout potential but a substantial arsenal of Israeli weaponry secretly acquired (200-300 warheads), continuously upgraded, and coupled with the latest long distance delivery capabilities, the most troublesome threat to regional stability and peace? At minimum, are not Israel’s nuclear weapons stockpile highly relevant both to bring stability and for an appraisal of Iran’s behavior? The United States and Israel behave in the Middle East as if the golden rule of international politics is totally inapplicable, that you can do unto others, what you are unwilling to have them do unto you!

We need, as well, to remember the lessons of recent history bearing on the counter-proliferation tactics relied upon in recent years by the United States. Iraq was attacked in 2003 partly because it did not have any nuclear weapons, while North Korea has been spared such a comparably horrific fate because it possesses a retaliatory capability that would likely be used if attacked, and has the capability to inflict severe harm on neighboring countries. If this experience relating to nuclear weapons is reasonably interpreted it could incline governments that have hostile relations to the West to opt for a nuclear weapons option as necessary step to discourage attacks and interventions. Surely putting such reasoning into practice would not be good for the region, possibly igniting a devastating war, and almost certainly leading to the spread of nuclear weapons to other Middle Eastern countries. Instead of moving to coerce, punish, and frighten Iran in ways that are almost certain to increase the incentives of Iran and others to possess nuclear weaponry, it would seem prudent and in the mutual interest of all to foster a diplomacy of de-escalation, a path that Iran has always signaled its willingness to pursue. And diplomatic alternatives to confrontation and war exist, but require the sort of political imagination that seems totally absent in the capitals of hard power geopolitics.

It should be obvious to all but the most dogmatic warmongers that the path to peace and greater stability in the region depends on taking two steps long overdue, and if not taken, at least widely debated in public: first, establishing a nuclear free Middle East by a negotiated and monitored agreement that includes all states in the region, including Israel and Iran; secondly, an initiative promoted by the United Nations and backed by a consensus of its leading members to outline a just solution for the Israel/Palestine conflict that is consistent with Palestinian rights under international law, including the Palestinian right of self-determination, which if not accepted by Israel (and endorsed by the Palestinian people) within twelve months would result in the imposition of severe sanctions. Not only would such initiatives promote peace and prosperity for the Middle East, but this turn to diplomacy and law would serve the cause of justice both by putting an end to the warmongering of recent years and to the intolerable denial of rights to the Palestinian people that goes back to at least 1947, and was later intensified by the oppressive occupation of East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza that resulted from the outcome of the 1967 War.

These manifestly beneficial alternatives to sanctions and war is neither selected, nor even considered in the most influential corridors of opinion-making. It is simple to explain why: world order continues to be largely shaped by the rule of power rather than the rule of law, or by recourse to the realm of rights, and no where more so than in the Middle East where the majority of the world’s oil reserves are located, and where an expansionist Israel refuses to make real peace with its neighbors while subjugating the Palestinian people to an unendurable ordeal. Unfortunately, a geopolitical logic prevails in world politics, which means that inequality, hierarchy, and hard power control the thought and action of powerful governments whenever toward strategic interests are at stake. Perhaps, a glance at recent history offers the most convincing demonstration of the validity of this assessment: Western military interventions in Iraq and Libya, as well as the intimidating threats of attacks on Iran, three states in the region with oil and regimes unfriendly to the West. Egypt and Tunisia, the first-born children of the Arab Spring, were undoubtedly politically advantaged by not being major oil producing states, although Egypt is not as lucky as Tunisia because Israel and the United States worry that a more democratic Egyptian government might abandon the 1978 Peace Treaty and show greater solidarity with the Palestinian struggle, and are doing what they can to prevent Cairo from moving in such directions.

Fortunately, there is a growing, although still marginal, recognition that despite all the macho diplomacy of recent years, a military option is not really viable. It would not achieve its objective of destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and it would in all likelihood confirm the opinions among Iranian hawkish factions that only the possession of nuclear weapons will keep their country from facing the catastrophe brought on by a military attack. Beyond this, attacking Iran would almost certainly unleash retaliatory responses, possibly blocking the Straits of Hormuz, which carry 20% of the world’s traded oil, and possibly leading to direct missile strikes directed at Israel and some of the Gulf countries. Given this prospect, there is beginning to be some indication that the West is at last beginning to consider alternatives to hot war in responding to Iran.

But so far this realization is leading not to the peaceful initiatives mentioned earlier, but to a reliance on ‘war’ by other means. The long confrontation with Iran has developed its own momentum that makes any fundamental adjustment seem politically unacceptable to the United States and Israel, a sign of weakness and geopolitical defeat. And so as the prospect of a military attacked is temporarily deferred for reasons of prudence, as Barak confirmed, but in its place is put this intensified and escalating campaign of violent disruption, economic coercion, and outright terrorism. Such an ongoing effort to challenge Iran has produced a series of ugly and dangerous incidents that might at some point in the near future provoke a hostile Iranian reaction, generating a sequence of action and reaction that could plunge the region into a disastrous war and bring on a worldwide economic collapse.

The main features of this disturbing pattern of covert warfare are becoming clear, and are even being endorsed in liberal circles because such a course of action is seen as less harmful to Western interests than an overt military attack, proceeding on the assumptions that are no better alternatives than confrontation in some form.  Israel, with apparent American collaboration, assassinates Iranian nuclear scientists, infects Iranian nuclear centrifuges used to enrich uranium with a disabling Stuxnet virus, and recruits Iranians to join Jundallah, an anti-regime terrorist organization in Iran, to commit acts of violence against civilian targets, such as the 2009 attack on the mosque in Zahedan that killed 25 worshippers and wounded many others. The New York Times in an editorial  (January 13, 2012) describes these tactics dispassionately without ever taking note of their objectionable moral or legal character: “An accelerating covert campaign of assassinations, bombings, cyber attacks and defections—carried out mainly by Israel, according to The Times—is slowing..[Iran’s nuclear] program, but whether that is enough is unclear.” The editorial observes that “a military strike would be a disaster,” yet this respected, supposedly moderate, editorial voice only questions whether such a pattern of covert warfare will get the necessary job done of preventing Iran from possessing a nuclear option sometime in the future.

It should be obvious that if it was Iran that was engaging in similar tactics to disrupt Israeli military planning or to sabotage Israel’s nuclear establishment liberal opinion makers in the West would be screaming their denunciations of Iran’s barbaric lawlessness. Such violations of Israel sovereignty and international law would be certainly regarded by the West as unacceptable forms of provocation that would fully justify a major Israeli military response, and make the outbreak of war seem inevitable and unavoidable.

And when Iran did recently react to the prospect of new international sanctions making its sale of oil far more difficult by threatening to block passage through the Straights of Hormuz, the United States reacted by sending additional naval vessels to the area and warning Tehran that any interference with international shipping would be ‘a red line’ leading to U.S. military action. It should be incredible to appreciate that assassinating nuclear scientists in Iran is okay with the arbiters of international behavior while interfering with the global oil market crosses a war-provoking red line. These self-serving distinctions illustrate the dirty work of geopolitics in the early 21st century.

There are some lonely voices calling for a nuclear free Middle East and a just settlement of the Israeli/Palestine conflict, but even with credentials like long service in the CIA or U.S. State Department, these calls are almost totally absent in the mainstream discourse that controls debate in the United States and Israel. When some peaceful alternatives are entertained at all it is always within the framework of preventing Iran doing what it seems entitled to do from the perspectives of law and prudence. I am afraid that only when and if a yet non-existent Global Occupy Movement turns its attention to geopolitics will the peoples of the Middle East have some reason to hope for a peaceful and promising future for their region.

IDF strikes Gaza site after mortar shells fired into Israel: Haaretz

IAF aircraft strikes south Gaza site; earlier three mortars exploded in southern Regional Council, no damage or injuries reported.

IAF aircraft struck a site in the southern Gaza Strip on Saturday morning, after three mortar shells were fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip.

“A short while ago, Israel Air Force aircraft struck a terror site in the southern Gaza Strip seconds after high-trajectory fire towards the state of Israel,” the IDF spokesperson said in a statement.

A direct hit on the site was confirmed, the statement said.

“The IDF will not tolerate any attempt to harm Israeli civilians and IDF soldiers, and will continue to operate with strength and determination against anyone who uses terror against the State of Israel. The Hamas terror organization is solely responsible for any terrorist activity emanating from the Gaza Strip,” the statement said.

Earlier on Saturday morning, three explosions thought to be from mortars were reported in the southern area of the Eshkol Regional Council. No damage or injuries were reported.

Earlier this week, an IDF Strike close to the border fence in the Gaza Strip killed one Palestinian and left another critically wounded, Hamas police said.

An IDF spokesperson confirmed that troops had opened fire, both from aircraft and tanks, near the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun, and said that the strike had targeted a militant cell laying explosive devices near the border fence.

EDITOR: The Wild East!

When Palestinian citizens of Israel are involved, it is quite ok, it seems, to shoot at them in the street, after what is a traffic incident. This reflects the rule of law in Israel, as well as the equality under the law…

Police officer opens fire on vehicle during car chase in Tel Aviv; two lightly injured: Haaretz

Policeman fired six shots at tires of fleeing vehicle, after the driver refused to pull over on Dizengoff street in the heart of Tel Aviv.

Two people were lightly injured on Friday after a police officer opened fire on a vehicle during a police pursuit in Tel Aviv.

At around 8:45 P.M., a patrol officer from the Lev Tel Aviv police station noticed a reckless driver that passed a red light on the intersection of Dizengoff and Basel streets. The officer called the driver to pull over, but when his call was not answered the policeman pulled out his weapon and fired six shots toward the moving car.

The police officer aimed for the car’s tires, but fired the shots at the heart of Tel Aviv while many people and cars passed by. The policeman did not succeed in puncturing the tires of the vehicle, which continued to flee. When it got to the intersection of Dizengoff and Yirmiyahu, the driver lost control of the car and hit two pedestrians, who were injured lightly.

Several patrol vehicles that were called to the scene later managed to pull over the car and arrested four Nazareth residents, who were brought to the police station for questioning.

EDITOR: Obama reacts to the plan for Israel to assassinate him, above…

He obviously wants to stay alive, as well as to be re-elected…

In scandalous new campaign video, Obama takes Israel pandering to dangerous levels: Thre Electronic Intifada

Submitted by Ali Abunimah on Sat, 01/21/2012 – 14:19
Is Barack Obama running for reelection as President of the United States or Prime Minister of Israel? A new Obama campaign video makes it increasingly hard to tell, and even more ominously ratchets further the Israelization of US politics.

False hopes of change
US President Barack Obama was elected in 2008 amid expectations that he would be the president who would at last bring some balance – and less abject subservience – to the US relationship with Israel.

I knew this consensus was wrong, as I had documented Obama’s early pandering to extreme Zionists from the moment he decided to seek the US Senate seat he won in 2004, and wrote about it in “How Barack Obama learned to love Israel.”

Now as Obama faces a tough reelection – and accusations from Republicans that he is insufficiently subservient to a foreign state – Obama is doubling down with a shocking video in which leaders of a foreign state – many themselves responsible for war crimes – are drafted in to attest to the US president’s commitment to this foreign state and his willingless to do whatever it takes in its service.

It’s all part of a “phony war over which US party loves Israel most.”

America & Israel: An Unbreakable Bond
The 7-minute film titled America & Israel: An Unbreakable Bond alternates video and audio of Obama speaking before the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and other Zionist groups, and clips of Israeli leaders endorsing Obama’s leadership. It begins and ends with the US flag and the Israeli flag side by side – thus bringing the Israeli flag directly into the US election campaign.

Although the clips of Israeli leaders, including President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy and Ambassador Michael Oren appear to have been taken from interviews, they are cut to look as if they were provided specifically for the purpose of endorsing the president.

The film even includes a clip of Danny Ayalon, Israel’s deputy foreign minister from the Yisrael Beitenu party whose extreme anti-Palestinian policies include advocating the transfer of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Obama wants us to know he is proud to have the support of Israeli ethnic cleansers.

As such, Obama is legitimizing the role of foreign – although certainly only Israeli leaders – to participate directly in US campaigns. Can we imagine Obama issuing a video in which he is endorsed as pro-Mexican by the President of Mexico, or pro-Canadian by Canada’s prime minister? It’s inconceivable.

And suppose any of the Israeli leaders featured in the video feel their words were twisted by the Obama campaign. Should they now be asked whether or not they were indeed endorsing Obama’s re-election as the video appears to suggest? It’s an open secret that Netanyahu does not want to see Obama reelected. So this only invites Israel deeper into US politics.

Recently, Sheldon Adelson a US-Israeli billionaire, whose main issue is support for Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu, donated $5 million to a campaign organization linked to Republican contender Newt Gingrich.

Putting Israel first
The themes of the video touch all the familiar messaging of extreme Zionist groups that Obama has used from his early AIPAC speeches: There is a focus on the Holocaust, Hamas rockets, Israeli children suffering, and Iran, Iran, Iran.

Who can now doubt that US Iran policy is largely about appeasing Israel lobbyists, when Obama is heard boasting in a campaign video that his administration has imposed “the hardest hitting sanctions the Iranian regime has ever faced”? Confrontation if not outright war with Iran is a key message of the Israel lobby these days.

Of course there’s no word about Israel’s war crimes, occupation, routine murder and imprisonment of Palestinian civilians and children, the siege of Gaza or the ongoing theft of Palestinian land in the West Bank for Jews-only colonies.

On the contrary, Obama boasts in the video about how he helped stymie justice and torpedo the Goldstone report, and pulled the US out of participation in the UN Durban conference on racism.

The video also reassures viewers that:

Under Obama, US military aid to Israel increased to “unprecedented levels”

“Obama 2012 budget has rise in US aid to Israel”

“We are making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies.”

While Obama boasts of his willingness to cut the federal budget – even as services for Americans are being slashed – he obviously feels politically safe increasing foreign aid, as long as the recipient is Israel.

Fighting for lobby support
Obama’s video comes as Republicans have intensified their attacks on the president, including a smear campaign on Obama-linked think tank the Center for American Progress alleging that some of its bloggers used “anti-Semitic” language.

It also follows anti-Palestinian statements by Republican contenders. Newt Gingrich notoriously declared that Palestinians are an “invented people” and that he would order the CIA to murder freed Palestinian prisoners, and Rick Santorum one-upped him, saying Palestinians don’t exist at all.

Paper Owner Apologizes for Obama ‘Hit’ Column: Forward

Secret Service Probes Atlanta Jewish Times’ Andrew Adler
By Nathan Guttman
Published January 20, 2012.
The owner of an Atlanta Jewish newspaper has apologized for a column in which he discusses the possibility of Israel ordering the assassination of President Obama.
The Secret Service says it is investigating and a parade of Jewish leaders quickly moved to denounce Andrew Adler, publisher and owner of the Atlanta Jewish Times.

Adler wrote in a January 13 opinion piece that one of Israel’s options in confronting a threat from Iran would be to put out “a hit” on Obama. The story was first reported Friday by the website gawker.com and later picked up by ABC News and The Guardian, among other outlets.
“Did I go too far? Yes. Do I regret it? Yes,” Adler told the Forward on Friday. “I should have thought about it twice and three times.”
Offering up a series of options that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might pursue, Adler wrote that one choice would be to, “Take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel.”
The publisher went on to forcefully reiterate his opinion: “Yes, you read … correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it.”
“You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table,” he wrote.
The opinion piece does not appear on the web site of the paper, but is available here.
The option for Israel to assassinate Obama was the third in a series that Adler laid out as choices for Netanyahu to confront the threat posed by Iran. Adler denied that he was advocating that Israel consider ordering Obama’s assassination. He claimed he only wrote the piece to provoke readers.
“I don’t stand behind what I wrote and my intention was never to stand behind it. I just wanted to get a reaction from the local community, to see what they would do,” he told the Forward.
Adler said the reaction had been “very negative.” He vowed to write a column explaining himself, and insisted he has nothing against Obama.
“My view of the President is favorable,” Adler said.
The Secret Service, which investigates threats against the president, confirmed it is aware of the article.
“We are conducting appropriate investigative steps,” said Secret Service spokesperson George Ogilvie, withuot elaborating.
Adler, who is a member of the Chabad Movement and has been active in the Atlanta Jewish community for years, bought the paper 2-1/2 years ago. It has a circulation of between 3,000 and 4,000.
The Anti-Defamation League denounced the opinion piece as “outrageous and beyond the pale.”
“There is absolutely no excuse, no justification, no rationalization for this kind of rhetoric,” said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman. “These are irresponsible and extremist words. It is outrageous and beyond the pale. An apology cannot possibly repair the damage.”
The National Jewish Democratic Council blasted Adler’s column, calling in the “height of irresponsibility.”
“To dare to give such despicable ideas space in a newspaper … is beyond the pale,” said NJDC President David A. Harris in a statement.
The Jewish Federation of Atlanta contacted Adler shortly after the article was published and urged him to retract the piece.
“We don’t agree with his sentiment,” Atlanta Federation marketing director Tali Benjamin said. She stressed that the Atlanta Jewish Times is a private and independent newspaper that does not receive support from the federation.

Inciting to kill Obama: Another Judeofascist from Chabad: 972 Mag

Larry Derfner

Chabad is the largest, most energetic Jewish movement on earth, and it gives a place of honor to people like Andrew Adler, the Atlanta Jewish Times publisher who suggested that the Mossad kill Obama.
Unfortunately, Chabad enjoys this heimishe image for bestowing yiddishkeit on Jews the world over, holding Passover seder for young Israelis traveling in the East, laying tfillin at the airport – strictly mitzvah-doers. The other side of Chabad – the violent, Jewish supremacist side – is less well-known. Maybe that will change now, though, with the op-ed by Chabadnik Andrew Adler, publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, who suggests that Israel assassinate Obama so it’ll be free to bomb Iran. (Disclosure: I wrote about Israel for the Atlanta Jewish Times in the 1990s, years before it was sold to this lunatic.)
Among the most prominent Chabad rabbis in Israel is Yitzhak Ginsburgh, author of Baruch Hagever, a tribute to Baruch Goldstein, and of the opinion that if a Jew needed a liver transplant, Jewish law would allow him to cut out a gentile’s liver. Another revered Chabad rabbi here is Shalom Dov Wolpe, who has praised the murder of Yitzhak Rabin and called for the murders of Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni – and I’m sure that’s only a partial list.
Yossi Gurvitz notes that a Chabadnik, Harry Shapiro, was convicted of planting a pipe bomb in a Jacksonville, Fla. synagogue when Shimon Peres was visiting. Further on the Florida-Chabad-”death-to-Peres” connection, I have an Orthodox Jewish friend in Fort Lauderdale who used to pray at a Chabad shul because it was close by, and he told me that after Rabin’s assassination, some of the congregants were jubilant, openly saying they wished Yigal Amir had gotten Peres, too.
At a Jerusalem rally a month before the assassination, it was two students at a Chabad yeshiva who printed up the photomontages of Rabin in an SS uniform that were held aloft in the crowd. During Netanyahu’s first term, a Chabadnik in Safed was arrested for threatening to kill him. During the wild protests against disengagement from Gaza, Chabadniks were involved in much of the worst violence – closing the highway to Jerusalem by spreading oil and nails on it, commandeering a Palestinian house in Gaza, writing “Muhammad is a pig” on the walls and finally setting it on fire.
I know that not every Chabadnik is like this, and if any Chabad leader comments on Adler’s op-ed, he’ll of course condemn it. Furthermore I know there’s a split within Chabad between the messianics and the mainstream – but it doesn’t matter. This is the largest, most energetic Jewish movement on earth, and it gives a place of honor to bloodthirsty Judeofascists like Ginsburgh, Wolpe, Adler and others.
Remember that the next time a couple of grinning Chabadniks on the street invite you over for Shabbes.

Atlanta Jewish Times owner says sorry for Obama ‘hit’ column: Guardian

Andrew Adler says he deeply regrets writing a column suggesting Mossad agents should consider ‘a hit’ on the president if he fails to support Israel
Chris McGreal
Andrew Adler said he wrote the column on Obama to get a reaction from readers. Photograph: Shahar Azran/WireImage
The owner of a Jewish newspaper in Atlanta has said he deeply regrets writing a column suggesting that Israel consider “a hit” on Barack Obama if he stands in the way of the Jewish state defending itself.

Andrew Adler told the Guardian he wrote the column in the weekly Atlanta Jewish Times “to get a reaction” from the paper’s readers.

“The headline for the column was: ‘What would you do?’ That’s what I wanted to see,” he said. “It’s got like a Dr Phil reaction: what were you thinking? I feel really bad it did that.”

The column, first brought to light by Gawker, asks readers to imagine that they are the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, confronting the threat posed by Hezbollah and Iran’s nuclear programme while also under pressure from a US president with an “Alice in Wonderland” belief in diplomacy over force.

Adler lays out what he says are the three options available to Netanyahu: attack Hezbollah and Hamas; defy the US – which is willing to let “Israel take a lethal bullet” – by striking against Iran’s nuclear facilities; or a third option.

“Three, give the go-ahead for US-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice-president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies,” Adler wrote in a column that appeared in print by not online.

“Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?”

Adler went on to ask: “How far would you go to save a nation comprised of 7 million lives – Jews, Christians and Arabs alike? You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.”

Adler said he understood why readers might interpret his writing as suggesting that Israel is seriously considering assassinating the US president but that is not what he meant.

“No, no, no. It’s unfathomable, unthinkable,” he said, adding: “I’m definitely pro-Israel to the max.”

Adler said he intends to repudiate the column in the next edition of the paper.
“I’ve put my pen in my mouth,” he said. “I’m writing a retraction to the column.”

The Atlanta Jewish Times was founded in 1925 as the Southern Israelite. Adler bought the paper three years ago. It has a circulation of several thousand copies a week.

MAD ISRAELIS: From the Horse’s Mouth

In response to popular demand, this feature is back to the website… There is no better way to gauge Israeli madness than reading the Op-Ed pages of Yediot Ahronot, where the most deluded and denuded can be found every week. For the protection of our readers, the author’s names are marked in RED, as reading this stuff can give you a stiff headache.

Israel’s water apartheid?: YNet

Op-ed: Slanderous European accusations put State of Israel’s very existence at risk
Giulio Meotti
The French parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee just published an unprecedented report accusing Israel of implementing “apartheid” in its allocation of water in Judea and Samaria. The report said that water has become “a weapon serving the new apartheid.”

The French report, authored by Socialist Party MP Jean Glavany, who in the past served as cabinet secretary for President Francois Mitterrand, is a powerful blood libel against the Jews, because it establishes the false comparison between Palestinians and South Africa’s blacks, who were obliged to use separate and neglected water fountains.
Located on the fringe of a desert, Israel, which is now a “water technology superpower,” is wholly dependent on the Mountain Aquifer extending from the slopes of Mt. Carmel to Beersheba and from the crests of mountain ridges in Judea and Samaria to the coastal plain. This is the principle reservoir of drinking water not for “the settlers,” but for Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem and Beersheba.

Israel’s claims on the Mountain Aquifer are based on historical use. The aquifer’s water, which emanates from rainfall over areas in the territories, was utilized by Jewish pioneers who settled during the Turkish rule and then under the British Mandate.

When Jordan occupied all the territories between 1948 and 1967, some 80% of the Arab population in Judea and Samaria was not connected to a water network. Israel then supplied almost all Arab communities in Judea and Samaria with water pipes, bringing the number of homes with indoor plumbing to 90%. The total water supply doubled from 64 million cubic meters a year to 120 million as a result of improved water access.

More dangerous than rockets
Even though the water quota was mutually agreed upon in the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians are now claiming that they own “all the water that falls on the hills.” Israel’s argument that the water settles primarily on its side of the Green Line has not affected the Arabs, nor are they concerned that Israel is totally dependent on this water.

Supported by European countries, Arabs see this as “a theft” of Arab water, going so far as to demand compensation for water pumped since 1948.

The land God promised the Jews may have been flowing with milk and honey, but it has no water. That’s why Palestinian control of water sources would be more dangerous than Katyusha rockets fired over the northern border, as even coastal plain residents would be at the mercy of the Arab autocracy of the highlands.

This is no doomsday scenario. It is an eminently feasible eventuality, one which could easily materialize. Past Arab attempts to deprive Israel of water were the cause of clashes on the Israeli-Syrian border. Although advocates of withdrawal have long been trying to diminish the importance of this concern, Israel’s most important aquifer knows no Green Line.

Could Israel survive such loss? Clearly not. Either Israel has sole control and shares water with the Arabs, or Israel’s very survival is at risk.

The French slander also carries a more mystic appeal. During the Black Death in Europe, Jews were accused of poisoning water and promoting disease among Christians. The false charge was adopted by the Islamic world in 1840, with a series of brutal pogroms in Syria. At that time the French consulate in Damascus played a pivotal role in the blood libel. Now, Paris is spreading the “Israel’s water apartheid” myth. What’s the objective? Drying up the Jews, again.

Clear and present danger: Ynet

Op-ed: Given her views and extra privileges, MK Zoabi poses grave threat to our security
Yigal Walt
The debate on the legitimacy of some of Israel’s Arab Knesset members usually boils down to the issue of freedom of speech. “A democratic state can and should allow harsh and even outrageous criticism,” say various champions of democracy, usually from the left side of the political spectrum. The Right, on the other hand, tends to be less forgiving, arguing that “we must not allow criticism that constitutes incitement against State itself and harms it.”

However, in light of the latest declarations made by Knesset Member Hanin Zoabi, it appears that both sides of the debate are getting it wrong. The core of the issue has long ago deviated from the debate on the very right of Knesset members to utter foolish words; by now it pertains to the State of Israel’s national security.

Ms. Zoabi crossed the red line more than a year ago, when she joined the “flotilla of peace” to Gaza, where activists displayed their pacifist tendencies by beating IDF soldiers with iron rods. The honorable MK of course claimed that she was unaware of the presence of any weapons onboard, despite being photographed near armed peace lovers, yet her very presence on the Mavi Marmara constituted active solidarity with our worst enemies.

Yet now it turns out that Zoabi does not make do with souvenir photos near Turkish terrorists, but rather, holds a deep desire for the real thing – dirty dancing with Hamas. As opposed to her past denials, this time Zoabi admitted that she indeed met Hamas members, yet her statements on the issue constitute a grave warning sign, and especially the following quote: “The entire world recognizes Hamas now and I think it’s time Israel did so as well. We don’t consider Hamas to be a terror organization.”

Revoke her rights at once
Beyond the fact that Zoabi again displays her “confusion,” or rather, her tendency to twist reality in line with her own twisted views (after all, most of the Western world does not recognize Hamas’ government, but certainly views the movement as a terrorist organization,) the very legitimacy she grants Gaza’s terrorists should be a grave concern to us all.

In Zoabi’s view, a group whose activity is highlighted by blowing up buses, butchering civilians at coffee shops and firing rockets at residential buildings does not engage in terror. This implies that any meeting with members of such organization, not to mention active support and assistance, are permitted and even desirable.

While Israel’s citizens, both Arab and Jewish, are certainly permitted to espouse delusional or odd views, Hanin Zoabi is not a regular citizen. As an MK she is granted access to the holy of holies of Israel’s democracy, the Knesset, as well as various other privileges and immunities. One cannot discount the possibility that one of these days, she may decide to put her extra rights at the service of Hamas – after all, she claims that the Jewish state is the real terrorist, while the Gaza group is merely an innocent victim of Israel’s occupation.

In this equation, aiding Hamas in carrying out actions that Zoabi considers legitimate would constitute the proper moral choice, according to her worldview at least.

Some will say that the burden of proof lies with law enforcement authorities, and that as long as we cannot prove that Zoabi intends to commit such offences we should not revoke her privileges. This argument may have held water had the danger posed by the Zoabi been minimal. However, in this case we are dealing with a citizen who enjoys almost unfettered access to many of the State of Israel’s most sensitive junctions. Hence, we do not have the luxury or moral right to assume such grave risk.

The combination of Zoabi’s radical views and her exceptional capacity, given her position as MK, to cause grave damage to the State and its citizens makes her a clear and present danger to our national security. One may debate whether she belongs behind bars, yet by now there is no question that she does not belong in Israel’s Knesset. We must revoke her extra privileges as a parliamentarian at once, before she uses them at Hamas’ service.

The mission: Protecting Israel: Ynet

Op-ed: Israeli hacker who leads group that hit Arab sites explains team’s actions
Yoni, Israeli hacker
Have you ever thought of what goes through the mind of a general in charge of his soldiers when heading to battle? Who will be sent to the front, and who will remain close by because his presence is required for continuing the offensive? I’ve been pre-occupied with these kinds of thoughts in recent days. While we face a virtual battlefield, the decisions are the same – who will I “sacrifice” when I ask him to publish classified information, and who will I “dispatch” to strike the targets?

After the credit information of Israeli nationals was leaked, I was infuriated. I couldn’t believe it was happening. How could it be that organizations that receive daily inquiries alerting them to such grave security lapses ignore them, until it’s too late?

These alerts contribute nothing, and the common folk would continue to be harmed, so I therefore decided to take action. I formed a pro-Israeli group of hackers that would fire back against the threats directed at Israel in recent weeks.

Identifying people who wish to take part in the group’s activity, which is illegal, took longer than expected. Most of my inquires were rejected for one reason: Israel’s computer laws, whereby any online breach could result in a prison term of up to five years. However, eventually I managed to bring together a group of people who believe in the same principles and are wiling to sacrifice themselves if needed, in order to offer a proper response to the “Saudi hacker.”

This is war
In the first stage, we struck several Saudi-owned shopping sites in order to elicit sensitive data that includes credit card information. Regrettably, we faced a difficult start. Most attacks failed to bear fruit and despair started to malign group members. Yet then came a surprising announcement from one teammate: “I found what we’ve been looking for.”

We finally had a lead that allowed us to progress in order to elicit as many details as possible. As hours passed by, we managed to identify more and more sources of information. After a few more hours we had enough information to confront the “Saudi hacker.” As a team, we came up with an “arsenal of responses” to guide our actions. From now on, all that’s left is to wait for the right time and identify the right moment in order to utilize the information in our possession.

As the group’s leader, it’s very important for me to emphasize that we do not operate against any specific nationality, and any person who operates against the group’s principles will be harmed, regardless of religion, creed or gender. In addition, I wish to note that the group regrets harm done to innocents and tries to avoid it as much as it possible. However, such moves are necessary in this war, and we have no choice but to do it.