Live: Al Jazeera coverage of Egypt’s growing revolution

[AlicetheKurious]

In the interest of not further derailing the other thread, I'm responding to your post about Egypt here, stefano.

I'm really convinced it isn't. I know you think all these stories are planted by the MB or by neoliberal operatives, but the concurring details from many sources and the largish number of people who were visible before getting the rough treatment from the security services convince me. For anyone else interested: torture, forced disappearances (sometimes ending in murder), shooting civilians dead in the street, whacking Brothers and then planting guns on them, secret slush funds, massive arms deals.

Yes, all these stories are indeed planted by the MB or by neoliberal operatives, or covered in a highly selective way that, by leaving out crucial information, totally distorts the truth. The US has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in Egypt alone over at least the past decade, by its own admission, on the creation of a number of NGO's headed by mercenaries. In return, the job of those mercenaries is to provide the illusion of "many sources" for media propaganda purposes. Not so much for domestic purposes any more, since most of them are very well known to the Egyptian public, with whom they've lost all credibility. Still, they earn their money by supplying all those "sources" with the necessary quotes to "convince" people like you, of the lies that serve the agenda of their paymasters.

Since I can't spare the time to address every one of the articles you linked to, I'll just take the case of poor "disappeared" Israa' Taweel as a typical example. Israa' is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a "photojournalist" with Al-Jazeera, and a founder of one of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood front groups. She was arrested on a number of charges, including incitement to murder, after she posted online the names, photos and home addresses of police officers that she wanted killed.

Here are some typical tweets from the little darling:



In the top left corner, she posted a photo of a slingshot, saying that it was her birthday present, "the slingshot that I'll use to geeeeet the eyes of officers."

In the top right corner, she tweets, "Where are the real explosions and the assassinations and the violence and destruction? If you want to form a real Black Block, then be up to it! Ouf!"

The bottom right corner is her, "expressing herself".

The bottom left corner is the sweet lamb weeping gentle tears after she was sentenced to 45 days in jail pending trial.

Here's another of her tweets, pointing people to a video that shows how to make a "smoke bomb" (perfect for causing public chaos and spreading panic):



It's a devilishly simple formula: all you have to do is activate your cadres to commit violent assaults, vandalism and other crimes. When they're arrested, claim that they've been "disappeared", and that "the regime" is "cracking down on dissent". Get the "activists" on your payroll to confirm the claim. Get their families to tearfully accuse the government of "disappearing" them, when in fact they were arrested according to charges laid by the Public Attorney's office. At no time admit even the possibility that the individuals in question committed actual crimes that warranted arrest, and suppress the evidence that contradicts your narrative. Voila!

It's the formula perfected by Al-Jazeera, whose operatives recruit and pay rioters, then mount campaigns to "free them" from the nasty, oppressive tyranny, campaigns that are adopted by Soros and CIA-funded NGO's and 'activists', then picked up by the international media, most of whom don't seem to know the first thing about real journalism. If there's even such a thing any more.

Stefano, a country's intelligence service is not autonomous, capable of formulating policy or making political decisions. Intelligence services can't be "in bed" with each other unless their bosses want them to be.

This is absolutely not true. It's different in Egypt right now because the president is a spook himself and has real executive power in a way that Western heads of state haven't had for a long time, but very many intelligence services operate independently of, and often contrary to the instructions of, a political superstructure that comes and goes. This has reached its culmination in the US - intelligence services (or networks within them, let's put it that way) killed one president and wounded another just in the past 55 years.

So, are you suggesting that rogue American intelligence agents are working for Egypt, against the wishes of the US' political rulers? That would be cool! But I doubt it.

Putin would have nothing to gain by "spinning it as being the work of IS".

I think he would: a surge of nationalist support for his war on terror. Not only in Syria but in the Caucasus, too.

Really. At a time when Putin is riding the crest of unprecedented popularity at home and globally, when he is viewed as a national hero and a champion against terrorism in Russia and by people all over the world, he just decides to murder 224 of his fellow Russians in cold blood? To make the Russians mourn, and feel that they're paying the price for Russia's victories in Syria. Whose agenda does that serve? Not Putin's and not Russia's, that's for sure.

On the contrary, it's "ISIS" that has been crowing that it "punished" Russia and declaring its great victory.

The authoritarians and the terrorists need each other, that's why they've found accommodations so many times in the past.

Let's not forget which "authoritarians" trained, supplied, transported and armed the terrorists. It wasn't Putin.

In any case, there's nothing to suggest that "ISIS", still less in Sinai, where it is pretty much wiped out, has the capability of shooting down an airplane in flight. It hasn't even been able to do that in Syria, or Iraq, or Libya, for that matter.

Yes, I know. I definitely don't think it really was them.

Praise the Lord.

As the former head of Egypt's Civil Aviation said in the article I posted above, only a state would have the capability to do that. And even if you didn't pick up his meaning, it was obvious which state he was referring to.

No, I got that. Bu if it was an Israeli missile I don't think we'll get to hear about it. And the A2/AD systems, as I have them, jam the radar and electronic signals of military jets, I don't think they could bring down a passenger jet in the daytime. Those things can still fly on altimeters and compasses and pilots looking out the window.

Not necessarily. Not if the plane's controls can be taken over electronically by remote control. Apparently, that is possible with 767s, which are reportedly equipped with so-called "anti-hijacking" technology. Israel supplies 60% of the world's drone aircraft, and is also very advanced in the field of electronic hacking. It's very possible that Israel and/or the US has developed the ability to electronically take over and control an airplane in flight. Of course, I'm speculating, and we don't know that it has. No doubt those who need to know will get to the bottom of it soon enough. Although I definitely agree with you that we won't be told.

Thanks, as always, for your posts. It's always a pleasure and an education to read you, I hope you'll stick around.

Thanks back. I hope you'll keep an open mind, and that you'll view the developments in Egypt in their regional and global contexts. Look at the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, and to the assault on Libya, and to what's been done to Syria, and the role of the media and foreign-funded 'democracy activists', all for the purpose of creating failed states and fragmenting these nations. The exact same methods have been, and are, being used to target Egypt, "the prize". So far, they're failing, but that doesn't mean they've given up. Far from it.

[AlicetheKurious]

I'm posting this here, in response to a post by jingofever in the Russian Military Buildup in Syria thread, to avoid cluttering and derailing the other thread.

The Soviets were expelled in the run-up but they were supplying the Egyptians and Syrians* during the war with their own airlift.

Yes, but after Sadat had kicked them out of Egypt, the Soviet provisions were not comparable to those the US supplied Israel, to say the least. Given their very poor relations with Sadat, the Soviets were concerned that Soviet weapons not be seen to be defeated by American weapons. At the same time, they held back their most advanced equipment. In contrast, Kissinger had literally taken over the presidency, and he placed the United States and all its resources, including state-of-the-art weaponry, and even its ability to destroy the planet, at the service of Israel (See below).

The United States went to Defcon III, which is not the highest alert, in reaction to a Soviet threat to intervene unilaterally to prevent the Israelis from breaking the cease-fire. The Israelis needed no assistance at that point. The United States would not burn the world for Israel's sake.

The United States wouldn't, but Kissinger almost did.

You may quibble, but the US global armed forces went on nuclear alert, bringing the world very close to nuclear war. Why? Why did Kissinger threaten the whole world? So that Israel could continue to violate the UN ceasefire resolution, and hold on to Egyptian territory it had obtained illegally.

Moreover, Kissinger and his protege Alexander Haig conspired to do this while deliberately keeping the President of the United States "out of the loop". The US was effectively hijacked by Kissinger and his precious little monster criminal state.

With the American airlift underway, the fighting turned against the Arabs. On October 16, IDF units crossed the Suez Canal. Sadat began to show interest in a ceasefire, leading Brezhnev to invite Kissinger to Moscow to negotiate an agreement. A U.S.-Soviet proposal for a ceasefire followed by peace talks was adopted by the UN Security Council as Resolution 338 on October 22. Afterward, however, Kissinger flew to Tel Aviv, where he told the Israelis that the United States would not object if the IDF continued to advance while he flew back to Washington. When Kissinger returned to the United States, he agreed to a Soviet request to seek another ceasefire resolution, which the Security Council adopted on October 23. Yet the Israelis still refused to stop. On October 24, Brezhnev sent Nixon a hotline message suggesting that the United States and the Soviet Union send troops to Egypt to “implement” the ceasefire. If Nixon chose not to do so, Brezhnev threatened, “We should be faced with the necessity urgently to consider the question of taking appropriate steps unilaterally.” The United States responded by putting its nuclear forces on worldwide alert on October 25. By the end of the day, the crisis abated when the Security Council adopted Resolution 340, which called for a ceasefire, the withdrawal of all forces to their October 22 positions, and U.N. observers and peacekeepers to monitor the ceasefire. This time, the Israelis accepted the resolution.

The 1973 war thus ended in an Israeli victory, but at great cost to the United States. Though the war did not scuttle détente, it nevertheless brought the United States closer to a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union than at any point since the Cuban missile crisis. US Department of State; Office of the Historian

It's worth emphasizing that in the 1973 War, the Egyptians and Syrians and Soviets were fighting on the side of Right: the first two were exercising their legal right of self-defense, and trying to liberate their own territory illegally occupied by Israel. The Soviets wanted to intervene to implement a UN ceasefire resolution accepted by all the parties involved in the conflict. In contrast, Israel was fighting to hold on to stolen territory, and was blatantly violating the UN Resolution, with the complicity of Kissinger, who had usurped the authority of the elected president of the United States to enable Israel in its crimes, by threatening to spark a nuclear war.

Nixon was not informed of anything that was going on. He never received Brezhnev's proposal for a joint intervention to enforce the ceasefire, nor was he informed of Brezhnev's threat to unilaterally send Soviet troops to implement it if the US refuses to participate. It was not US President Nixon who responded to Brezhnev's communications by placing the US' global armed forces on nuclear alert.

The president was deeply preoccupied, and at times incapacitated by self-pity or alcohol.

On the morning of October 6—Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar—Egypt attacked Israeli forces in the Sinai even as Syria struck the Israelis in the Golan Heights. A combination of complete surprise and effective preparation initially gave Egypt and Syria the advantage.

From the outset Kissinger, who was now secretary of state as well as national-security adviser, centered control of the crisis in his own hands. The Israelis had informed him of the attacks at six a.m. that Saturday, but three and a half hours would pass before he felt the need to consult Nixon, who had escaped Washington for his retreat in Key Biscayne, Florida. At 8:35 a.m., Kissinger called Haig, who was with the president, to report on developments. He said, according to a phone transcript, "I want you to know … that we are on top of it here." To ensure that the media not see Nixon as out of the loop, Kissinger urged Haig to say "that the President was kept informed from 6:00 a.m. on." When Kissinger finally called Nixon, at 9:25 a.m., the president left matters in Kissinger's hands. But he asked, according to a transcript, that Kissinger "indicate you talked to me."

At 10:35 a.m., Kissinger again called Haig. They discussed how to work with the Soviets to bring the fighting to a halt. When Haig reported that Nixon was considering returning to Washington, Kissinger discouraged it—part of a recurring pattern to keep Nixon out of the process. Over the next three days, Kissinger oversaw the diplomatic exchanges with the Israelis and Soviets about the war. Israeli prime minister Golda Meir's requests for military supplies, which were beginning to run low, came not to Nixon but to Kissinger. Although he consistently described himself as representing the president's wishes, Kissinger was seen by outsiders as the principal U.S. official through whom business should be conducted.

On October 7, for example, a Brezhnev letter to Nixon was a response to "the messages you transmitted to us through Dr. Kissinger." On October 9, a telegram to King Hussein of Jordan urging continued non-involvement in the conflict came not from Nixon but from Kissinger.

Although Kissinger spoke to Nixon frequently during these four days, it was usually Kissinger who initiated the calls, kept track of the fighting, and parceled out information as he saw fit. On the night of October 7, according to a telephone transcript, Nixon asked Kissinger if there had been any message from Brezhnev. "Oh, yes, we heard from him," Kissinger replied, volunteering no more. Nixon had to press, asking lamely, "What did he say?"

At 7:55 on the night of October 11, Brent Scowcroft, Haig's replacement as Kissinger's deputy at the N.S.C., called Kissinger to report that the British prime minister, Edward Heath, wanted to speak to the president in the next 30 minutes. According to a telephone transcript, Kissinger replied, "Can we tell them no? When I talked to the President he was loaded." Scowcroft suggested that they describe Nixon as unavailable, but say that the prime minister could speak to Kissinger. "In fact, I would welcome it," Kissinger told Scowcroft.

What is striking is how matter-of-fact Kissinger and Scowcroft were about Nixon's condition, as if it had been nothing out of the ordinary—as if Nixon's drinking to excess was just part of the routine. They showed no concern at having to keep the prime minister of America's principal ally away from the president.

"Very Down, Very Down"

Between October 6 and 19, Washington and Moscow tried to outdo each other in supplying their respective Middle East clients. Initially, with the Egyptians and Syrians doing well in the fighting, the Soviets resisted calls for a cease-fire. But at the end of two weeks, with the conflict turning against them, Brezhnev became insistent on a truce. On October 19, he urgently asked that Kissinger fly to Moscow for discussions on ending the war. With Kissinger and Brezhnev agreeing to put a cease-fire before the U.N. Security Council, Haig, in a message to Kissinger, congratulated the secretary of state on "your Herculean accomplishment." But he warned that "you will be returning to an environment of major national crisis" brought on by the worsening fallout from the Watergate scandal.

The Middle East situation remained dangerous. On the afternoon of October 23, Moscow and Washington began exchanging messages on the hotline about Israeli and Egyptian violations of the cease-fire. The Soviets were particularly concerned about the Egyptian Third Army, which was cut off in the Sinai. The next day Brezhnev complained that Israel was ignoring the cease-fire, and he proposed a joint military intervention to implement the agreement. He warned that if the United States would not agree to this Moscow might decide to act alone. Kissinger cautioned the Soviets against unilateral intervention.

In the midst of these developments, Nixon called Kissinger. But it was not to discuss the Middle East. Nixon was, Kissinger would later write, "as agitated and emotional as I had ever heard him." The call confirmed what Haig had told Kissinger by phone a day earlier. "How is his frame of mind?," Kissinger had asked, according to a transcript. "Very down, very down," Haig replied.

Kissinger and Haig decided to convene a meeting of national-security officials to devise a response to Brezhnev. Kissinger acknowledges in his memoirs that Nixon was by then asleep, and that he and Haig decided not to get him up. "Should I wake up the President?," Kissinger asked Haig during a 9:50 p.m. phone conversation on October 24, according to the transcript. "No," Haig answered. A half-hour later, in another phone conversation, it is Kissinger who has become reluctant. "Have you talked to the President?," Haig asked. "No, I haven't," Kissinger replied. "He would just start charging around I don't think we should bother the President." Haig persuaded Kissinger to at least shift the meeting from the State Department to the White House, as a way to leave the impression that Nixon was "a part of everything you are doing." Was Nixon on sedatives that would not allow him to function effectively? Had he been drinking? Was he simply preoccupied, as Kissinger suggests in his official recollections? For whatever reason, Kissinger did not want the president involved.

It was an extraordinary turn of events. None of the seven officials who met for more than three hours, until two a.m., had been elected to office. Yet they were setting policy in a dangerous international crisis, and coming to a decision that should have rested with the president: directing U.S. forces to raise America's worldwide level of military readiness from Defense Conditions 4 and 5 to Def Con 3, a level reached only once before, during the Cuban missile crisis. (U.S. readiness would be raised on only two subsequent occasions, during the 1991 Gulf War and on September 11, 2001.)

The worldwide alert was coupled with a message delivered to the Soviet Embassy at 5:40 a.m. It described "your suggestion of unilateral action as a matter of the gravest concern involving incalculable consequences."

Although the White House issued a statement attributing to Nixon the decision to put the nation on high alert, and Kissinger repeated this assertion at a press briefing, it was Kissinger and the six other national-security officials in the early-morning hours who actually chose to do it, though presumably confident that they reflected Nixon's wishes. But how confident could they really have been? As Kissinger would remind Haig the next day, according to the transcript of a phone call, "You and I were the only ones for it. These other guys were wailing all over the place this morning."

The alert became worldwide news, and it also achieved its objective. The Soviets agreed to stay out. When Kissinger received word that the Soviets had backed down, he spoke with Haig, not Nixon, and in that 2:35 p.m. phone conversation he expressed concern about how the decision-making process would be viewed if it ever became public. According to a transcript of the call, Kissinger told Haig, "I think I did some good for the President." Haig replied, "More than you know." They agreed that, as Kissinger put it, without the alert "we would have had a Soviet paratroop division in there this morning." "You know it, and I know it," Haig responded. "Have you talked to the Boss," he asked. "No," Kissinger said. "I will call him. Let's not broadcast this all over the place otherwise it looks like we (cooked) it up." (The parentheses are in the original transcript.) Only afterward did Kissinger, at 3:05 p.m., place a call to Nixon, greeting him fulsomely with the words "Mr. President, you have won again."

Aware that the events of that night, if made public, would be controversial, Kissinger maintained that putting the country on alert was Nixon's order as commander in chief. According to a transcript of a phone conversation between Kissinger and Nixon, a reporter asked Kissinger at the press briefing, "Was this [alert] a rational decision by the President?" Kissinger told Nixon that in reply he had "said it was [a] combination of the advice of all of his advisors … that the President decided to do this." It is a careful formulation. But I have found no document or transcript showing or suggesting that the president signed off on the action. And there is a moment, at once haunting and pathetic, when Nixon seems to underscore his own passive role in a fait accompli, wanting to be seen as in the loop. Immediately after the 3:05 conversation, Nixon called Kissinger back, hoping to lure him to the White House for a display of public consultation: "I think it would be well for semantics, no semantics, I mean, if you could come over here, make an appearance, dash over to say hello. You know, to sort of, what are you doing now?"

The extent to which Kissinger had come to believe that decision-making should rightfully rest in his own hands rather than the president's can hardly be exaggerated. As he prepared to travel to the Middle East on November 5, Kissinger wanted Haig and Scowcroft to assure him that Nixon was under control. Specifically he worried that the Soviet ambassador, Anatoly Dobrynin, might get in to see the president and extract unwise commitments. "I have to talk with you about how to conduct yourself while I am gone," he told Scowcroft, according to the transcript of a telephone call. "I am sure the Russians will try something … to get hold of the President. It is essential they don't get anything I didn't give them." Link

[slimmouse]

Without wishing to derail this thread in any way, I would just like to say that if anyone epitomises what an archontically possessed human would look like ( still lying, murdering, and stealing from humanity at 100 plus years old), then there, in Dr Kissinger you have it

[Occult Means Hidden]

Stefano, a country's intelligence service is not autonomous, capable of formulating policy or making political decisions. Intelligence services can't be "in bed" with each other unless their bosses want them to be.

This is absolutely not true. It's different in Egypt right now because the president is a spook himself and has real executive power in a way that Western heads of state haven't had for a long time, but very many intelligence services operate independently of, and often contrary to the instructions of, a political superstructure that comes and goes. This has reached its culmination in the US - intelligence services (or networks within them, let's put it that way) killed one president and wounded another just in the past 55 years.

So, are you suggesting that rogue American intelligence agents are working for Egypt, against the wishes of the US' political rulers? That would be cool! But I doubt it. .

Alice, i'm not sure you are understanding this point. These agencies are working with independent agendas and have privatized most of their operations. Also as I contend again. There are no U.S. "rogue" intel agents working for Egypt. The two countries' intel services share a strong bond.

[jingofever]

Why did Kissinger threaten the whole world? So that Israel could continue to violate the UN ceasefire resolution, and hold on to Egyptian territory it had obtained illegally.

Why did he raise the alert level and supply Israel? Because the goal of the United States was to isolate the Soviet Union and move the Arabs out of the Soviet orbit. Israel was our client state, Egypt was a Soviet client state and they both needed to fail. We could not have a Soviet client state defeat our client state. The Arabs needed to see that the only way they could achieve their objectives was by aligning with us, which I understand was Sadat's intention anyway. Every country needed to see that the Soviets were impotent, that they could not project their forces wherever they pleased, and that our guys will win. What do you think would have changed on the ground in regards to Israel's holding of territory if Soviet troops had been allowed to enforce a cease-fire?

Presidents are often out of the loop or otherwise not calling the shots. Cheney was running things on 9/11, and probably other times. Reagan either didn't know about Iran-Contra or didn't know he knew. Eleanor Roosevelt was supposedly the acting president near the end of Franklin Roosevelt's life. The Monroe Doctrine was the work of John Quincy Adams. Even George Washington was Alexander Hamilton's puppet. Presidents are manipulated and lied to all the time, it's an American tradition. When the president is drunk, discredited, and facing criminal charges it is probably not prudent for him to be handling a situation like this. The Saturday Night Massacre was on the 20th of October. It is no shock that Nixon was not in charge.

[AlicetheKurious]

Why did he raise the alert level and supply Israel? Because the goal of the United States was to isolate the Soviet Union and move the Arabs out of the Soviet orbit.

What you're describing WAS America's goal during the Eisenhower and Kennedy presidencies, and that ended with Kennedy's assassination. In the 1950s and 60s, the US invested enormous efforts to portray itself as an honest broker and a powerful, much better alternative to both the British empire and the Soviet Union in the oil-rich Middle East. Thus, it pursued an 'even handed' policy toward the parties, based on international law and UN resolutions. This strategy, explicitly described by Eisenhower in his personal diaries, aimed to convince the Arabs that it is in their interest to join the American "camp", not only because of America's enormous power, but because the US is fair and impartial and has the will to use that power to defend weaker nations' rights and arbitrate between the parties. In 1956, Eisenhower forced France and Britain to cease their war of aggression against Egypt, and threatened Israel with global economic and military sanctions if it didn't end its illegal occupation of Sinai. This won the US enormous capital among the Arabs, and emphasized to Israel, and the world, who's the boss. In the early 1960s, Kennedy once again harnessed the US' power and authority to ensure that Israel did not acquire nuclear weapons, which put Israel into a desperate corner.

The US strategy registered some important successes, especially economically. There were also failures; the CIA overthrow and assassination of Iran's democratically-elected Prime Minister Mossadegh badly damaged the US' image, as did the attempt to force friendly Arab states into the Baghdad Pact, a NATO-style military front wielded by the US against the Soviet Union. Another big failure was the rise of the Non-Aligned Movement, or the Third World, which aimed to liberate the wold's former colonies and promote each new country's sovereignty through economic and military collaboration among them, empowering it in the face of predatory empires.

But during this turbulent period of transition, in the aftermath of WWII and the codification of a new system of international law and the establishment of the UN, it seemed that the world had finally come up with a way to create a new system with the potential to make war obsolete, by preventing the factors that lead to war. In international law, "war of aggression" is the ultimate war crime:

"The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." -- Nuremberg Judgement

International law aimed to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations, and to isolate and punish those states which violate the sovereignty and territory of other states. Its purpose is to codify the rights of peoples, and to establish a legal system of redress for victims of injustice, other than by warfare.

The US, in the 1950s and 60s, was in the luxurious position of setting its own independent foreign policy objectives and pursuing them around the world. Unlike almost all other states, the US was unique in that its own territorial sovereignty was not in serious danger, its economy was based on a solid industrial and agricultural foundation, it had plenty of natural resources, it was militarily and technologically advanced, and it enjoyed unprecedented prestige globally in the aftermath of WWII. It was also the world's leading proponent of international law. Whether or not its purposes were self-serving is not the issue. All nations have not only the right, but the duty to pursue their own interests. In the Middle East, that self-interest was one reason the US was very anxious to maintain its image as the leading proponent of law and order, and justice for all.

This was intolerable to the Zionists. Israel is a terrorist, criminal entity that does not meet the definition of a viable nation-state, as I've demonstrated elsewhere. Its very existence depends on its ability to kill, invade and occupy at will, without regard for any laws, and to violate other nations' sovereignty and rights with impunity. Thus it was crucial that the US' massive military and economic might be harnessed in service of the Zionist project, and that the relationship between Israel and the US be reversed. Instead of the US dictating terms to Israel, it had to be the other way around. The process began when Kennedy was replaced with Johnson, when for the first time in America's history, the Zionists made America's foreign-policy decisions, using the US president as a willing front. It accelerated during the Nixon period, to the point where the president himself was deliberately kept out of the loop, and all communications and decisions were kept firmly and directly in the hands of Kissinger, even the decision to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war.

Israel was our client state, Egypt was a Soviet client state and they both needed to fail. We could not have a Soviet client state defeat our client state. The Arabs needed to see that the only way they could achieve their objectives was by aligning with us, which I understand was Sadat's intention anyway. Every country needed to see that the Soviets were impotent, that they could not project their forces wherever they pleased, and that our guys will win. What do you think would have changed on the ground in regards to Israel's holding of territory if Soviet troops had been allowed to enforce a cease-fire?

Among Kissinger's triumphs was the spread of the idea that the US "needed", even depended on Israel to act on its behalf in the Middle East. Both Eisenhower and Kennedy treated Israel as just another among several states in the Middle East that could be useful or needed to be reigned in, depending on America's own objectives in the region. It was Kissinger that came up with the idea of vesting Israel with the US' own authority, and mobilizing the US' massive power to serve Israel's narrow interests at the expense of the Arab states and even at the expense of the US' own national security.

One illustration of how well he succeeded was the 1975 "Memorandum of Understanding" signed between Henry Kissinger and Yigal Allon, Israel's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. It is an extraordinarily one-sided document, in which the US pledges to supply Israel with advanced weapons, money and to enforce Israel's freedom of movement, without one word about what Israel pledges to do for the US in return, or one caveat in which Israel agrees to abide by international law. In this 1975 document, the United States of America basically becomes Israel's enforcer, in whatever Israel wants to do. Among its most telling provisions, the US commits itself to maintaining and paying for the supply of oil that Israel had been stealing from Sinai during its illegal occupation, and to ensuring that Israel's oil needs are met even at the expense of the US' own needs.

In determining the overall annual figure which will be requested from Congress, the United States government will give special attention to Israel's oil import requirements and, for a period as determined by Article 3 above, will take into account in calculating that figure Israel's additional expenditures for the import of oil to replace that which would ordinarily have come from Abu Rodeis and Ras Sudar (4.5 million tons in 1975). Link

If the oil Israel needs to meet all of its normal requirements for domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances where quantitative restrictions through embargo or otherwise also prevent the United States from procuring oil to meet its normal requirements, the United States government will promptly make oil available for purchase by Israel in accordance with the International Energy Agency conservation and allocation formula as applied by the United States government, in order to meet Israel's essential energy requirements. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to transport such oil to Israel, the United States government will make every effort to help Israel to secure the necessary means of transport.

Israeli and United States experts will meet annually or more frequently at the request of either party, to review Israel's continuing oil requirement.

This document is just one tiny exhibit in a mountain of compelling evidence that shows the extent to which the United States has been subjugated and transformed, under the guidance of Henry Kissinger and his network of cronies and proteges, into Israel's bulldog.

Presidents are often out of the loop or otherwise not calling the shots. Cheney was running things on 9/11, and probably other times. Reagan either didn't know about Iran-Contra or didn't know he knew. Eleanor Roosevelt was supposedly the acting president near the end of Franklin Roosevelt's life. The Monroe Doctrine was the work of John Quincy Adams. Even George Washington was Alexander Hamilton's puppet. Presidents are manipulated and lied to all the time, it's an American tradition. When the president is drunk, discredited, and facing criminal charges it is probably not prudent for him to be handling a situation like this. The Saturday Night Massacre was on the 20th of October. It is no shock that Nixon was not in charge.

With that attitude, it's no wonder that your country has been so easily hijacked, and that Americans are so blase or oblivious to the cost to themselves and the world. As a nation of slaves, you've become accustomed to being plundered and conscripted into enslaving others in the name of "freedom" and to mindlessly justifying and collaborating in your masters' contempt for international law, morality, other nations' right to defend their sovereignty and all those other obstacles to their insatiable greed. A greed that will sooner or later consume you, too, just as it has consumed millions of innocent people and entire nations, already.

[backtoiam]

alice wrote
and that ended with Kennedy's assassination.

Key phrase, if there ever was one. Yes, and you bet. This was not a scenario that could be considered fake. Leave us to wonder. Some leaders that seemingly get killed, do not get killed, but we are led to believe they that they did. They live their lives in secrecy until they die of old age because they did their job and got rewarded.

He got killed in broad daylight. The implications of this are profound. He did not get a pass. This was not one of some hoax that has been perpetrated over and over in history.

He got pounded in public. The message was absolute, and the message was "don't fuck with us."

Henry Kissinger gave Clinton a Monica in a blue dress, but Clinton was an asshole anyway, that bit women's lips off as he raped them, so he deserved what he got. I don't what he did that pissed Kissinger off, but whatever it was, he only got a slap on the wrist from Henry.

never fuck with henry.

[AlicetheKurious]

I recently came across this very enlightening article, though it was published back in 2012. The quote at the end is explosive, and provides compelling evidence that the Zionist planning for the "Arab Spring" began at least as far back as 2002, and almost certainly long before that, as the groundwork was being laid for 9/11. It also confirms what many Egyptians (and Arabs) have learned the hard way, but that is studiously ignored by ALL Western media, mainstream and "alternative". Egypt is, and remains, the ultimate target for fragmentation and destruction. Because, as the Arabs say, Egypt is the "tent-pole": once it falls, none of the other Arab states can remain standing. But forewarned is forearmed, and Egypt is definitely both.

Interestingly, all references to Murawiec's explanation (the quote at the end) appear to have been scrubbed from the internet, leaving people to speculate and wonder about what arch-Zionist Richard Perle's guest speaker meant when he said "Egypt the prize." In effect, he let the cat out of the bag.

‘Egypt the Prize’
The American campaign to hijack the Arab Spring backfires

by Justin Raimondo, January 02, 2012

Imagine the following scenario: a wealthy foreign country decides that the United States is insufficiently democratic. They launch a program to “teach” us the ABCs of “democracy” via a plethora of organizations devoted to “human rights” and “election monitoring,” directly funded by themselves, shipping millions of taxpayer dollars to thousands of well-compensated “activists.” As election time draws near, this foreign money is poured into the coffers of “activist” groups whose main purpose is to instigate street protests that often end in violence, as well as finance political parties whose platforms are conducive to the foreign policy objectives of their generous patron.

How long would such an operation be allowed to exist? The answer is: not long.

The US has laws against foreign funding of political parties and other groups: such an operation would be shut down before it even had a chance to get off the ground.

Egypt – and virtually every other country on earth – has similar laws on the books. Which is why the manufactured “outrage” over the Egyptian government’s recent crackdown on foreign-funded “human rights” groups is so baffling. In a coordinated series of raids, Egyptian police accompanied by investigative judges entered the headquarters of several such groups throughout the country, seizing computers, sealing offices, and confiscating bundles of cash. According to the Associated Press, an Egyptian Interior Ministry official “said the military on Thursday found 70,000 Egyptian pounds ($11,600) in the office of one unidentified group, and seized half a million Egyptian pounds ($83,000) from the National Democratic Institute.”

The National Democratic Institute is the international arm of the US Democratic party: it receives its funding directly from Uncle Sam and a number of “private” contributors whose identities are kept under wraps. NDI chief honcho Kenneth Wollack is a former legislative director of the America-Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israel lobby in the US.

Given the historical enmity between Egypt and Israel, do you think the Egyptians might be justifiably wary of such a group spreading cash around? Yet Wollack pretends there is something highly unusual about the Egyptian government’s actions: “Cracking down on organizations whose sole purpose is to support the democratic process during Egypt’s historic transition sends a disturbing signal,” he said in a statement.”

Make no mistake about the “sole purpose” of US-funded groups: it is about serving the interests of those who pay their bills and their salaries.

Also raided: the International Republican Institute – the foreign arm of the GOP – Freedom House – the historic home of right-wing Social Democrats and international busybodies – as well as the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (funded by the German government) and fourteen other foreign-funded groups.

Washington’s reaction to the raid was immediate and virulent: while an official US State Department spokeswoman gave out the usual we’re-“deeply-concerned” boilerplate, the New York Times reported:

“Another senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that in private channels, the United States had sent an even stronger message: ‘This crosses a line.’”

The nature of that line was laid out in more detail by Charles Dunne, director of Middle East and North Africa Programs at Freedom House, who said:

“It is a major escalation in the Egyptian government’s crackdown on civil society organizations, and it is unprecedented in its attack on international organizations like Freedom House, which is funded in large part by the United States government. The military council is saying we are happy to take your $1.3 billion a year, but we are not happy when you do things like defending human rights and supporting democracy.”

None of these “civil society” groups denies getting their funding from foreign sources – sources which are actively promoting their own interests in post-Mubarak Egypt. Indeed, they openly proclaim it. Pursue this crackdown, they say, and Uncle Sam will stop the foreign aid gravy train.

Here is a particularly vivid example of what “foreign aid” is really all about. As Ron Paul points out, our foreign aid program takes money from poor people in the US and ladles it out to rich people overseas – all in the interests of directing the internal political life of foreign nations from behind the scenes.

Is it really so impossible to understand why Egyptians – or any foreign people – might resent this kind of open meddling? As the condescending saviors of US-funded “human rights” groups move in to dictate the terms of the “transition to democracy” in Egypt, is there a chance of a backlash – “blowback,” in CIA parlance? The question answers itself.

Just as the US government’s ability to pick economic winners on the home front – GM, Solyndra, etc. – is highly problematic, so their record is even worse when it comes to picking political winners in countries about which they know little and understand even less. This is a connection that American conservatives, who continue to support such meddling, have so far failed to make: and as for the liberals, “soft power” is their preferred approach to interventionism, and the weapon of choice of Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Rather than being a substitute for neocon-style military intervention, however, it is instead merely a prelude to it, as in Libya.

The Egyptians have long warned their American patrons they were investigating the foreign funding sources of Egyptian NGOs, so these professions of shock and surprise sound just a little bit hollow. In any event, no government anywhere allows such open interference in its internal politics by foreigners, and it is disingenuous, to say the least, to claim the crackdown was unexpected. As the Times reports:

“In a television interview last month, Maj. Gen. Mamdouh Shaheen suggested several times that the investigation into foreign financing of nongovernment organizations would shed light on the unnamed instigators who he said were behind the protests and clashes in the streets.

“’There are hidden hands playing in the country,’ he said. ‘We tell the Egyptian people, and the Egyptian people are smart, that there are people who are trying to demolish the country.’”

In Egypt, however, there is nothing “hidden” about the hand of Uncle Sam as he seeks to shape the post-Mubarak political order to this liking. Foreign patronage of the Egyptian “opposition” is relatively out in the open, while elsewhere the financial link between Washington and its overseas agents is more covert.

The new year is witnessing the ratcheting up of US efforts to hijack the “Arab Spring,” not only in Egypt – which will see the next round of parliamentary elections take place in a week – but in Syria as well. The last bastion of Ba’athist secular rule in the region has been rocked by anti-government riots, with groups of well-armed men taking on the Syrian military and hundreds killed and wounded in violent street demonstrations. What’s interesting is that we hear much about the latter in the Western media, while the former is downplayed or not reported at all.

As the intensity of the anti-Syrian propaganda war picks up in the “mainstream” media – which focuses on alleged atrocities committed by government forces while maintaining a soft focus on the violence of armed rebel groups – the news that the Obama administration is making plans to intervene comes as no surprise. Indeed, the Americans are already intervening behind the scenes: the question is, will they come out in the open and call for “regime change”?

The Libyan intervention marked a turning point in US policy in the region, one aimed at utilizing the “Arab Spring” to maintain control of our formerly subservient client states, such as Egypt. Yet the effort is bound to fail due to the history of US support for Hosni Mubarak, who ruled with an iron fist – and with Washington’s unambiguous support – for decades. Do the bureaucrats in Washington really think spreading around a few million to Egypt’s cosmopolitan elite is going to win over Egypt’s millions, who remember – and resent – our real record?

The much touted “soft power” option isn’t just a waste of money, it also leads to the exact opposite of its intended result. Instead of buying good will, it generates hostility toward Americans – which is then used by our enemies to advance genuinely anti-American objectives under the rubric of nationalism. It is the old problem of “the ugly American,” who goes into a country with bundles of cash and an excess of hubris, convinced he’s making friends when he’s just sowing a fresh crop of enemies.

The US government has no business determining Egypt’s political future, and its clumsy efforts to do so are ridiculous on their face. What’s more, there’s no way to make this “soft power” campaign less clumsy because the whole notion that liberal democracy can somehow be implanted by a foreign power is false – and any attempt to do so can only result in some pretty unpleasant “blowback.”

The US campaign to shape the Middle East underscores the principle of continuity in our foreign policy. The Bush administration undertook a project to “transform” the entire region, and utilized as its chief means the military option: sponsoring the Iraqi National Congress as the chief Iraqi “opposition” group, and then putting troops on the ground to achieve the final victory. The Obama administration is continuing this general strategy of “regime change,” albeit with a few minor tactical variations thrown into the mix: the deployment of “soft power” options, as in Egypt, as well as military aid to rebel groups (as in Libya and Syria).

In summing up the results of this Mideast campaign so far, I am reminded of nothing so much as the remarks of former LaRouche cultist-turned-neocon Laurent Murawiec, delivered to Bush’s Defense Policy Board in the summer of 2002. Among other seemingly fantastical propositions in his PowerPoint presentation, Murawiec projected the possibility of a US takeover of the Saudi oil fields, and – in a section devoted to “A Grandiose Strategy” – averred:

Iraq is the tactical pivot

Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot

Egypt the prize

The text of Murawiec’s 76-page speech wasn’t uncovered until recently, and the mystery about the exact meaning of “Egypt the prize” has been cleared up. Here is what Murawiec had to say about the future of Egypt:

“Mubarak’s ability to gyrate with the prevailing winds offers us the temptation of relying on his opportunism: why not let him crack down on the Islamists once we have terminated their power elsewhere, and benightedly allow him to stay in power without policies being changed—isn’t he our friend after all? That would be a sure recipe for disaster. The pivot of the Arab world is the most important one to transform in depth. Iraq may be described as the tactical pivot, the point of entry; Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot; but Egypt, with its mass, its history, its prestige and its potential, is where the future of the Arab world will be decided. Egypt, then, in the new Middle Eastern environment created by our war, can start being reshaped.”

The neocons were way ahead of the Obamaites in 2002, but Hillary Clinton’s State Department is playing catch-up fast. The new year will see a renewed thrust of US power – “soft” and hard – into the most volatile region on earth, and the results are sure to be explosive. Link

[jingofever]

What you're describing WAS America's goal during the Eisenhower and Kennedy presidencies...

You are pining for the days when the Dulles brothers ran our foreign policy. Assassinations, coups, meddling of every sort in the affairs of other countries. But we were mean to Israel that one time so everything is forgiven. We may have been a proponent of international law but we certainly did not follow it. The cables and transcripts that detail Kissinger's diplomacy during these years show that he had the same anti-Soviet goals as Eisenhower.

to the point where the president himself was deliberately kept out of the loop, and all communications and decisions were kept firmly and directly in the hands of Kissinger, even the decision to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war.

Nixon put himself out of the loop. If he didn't want Kissinger running things he would not have run down to Florida to cry in Bebe Rebozo's arms.

One illustration of how well he succeeded was the 1975 "Memorandum of Understanding" signed between Henry Kissinger and Yigal Allon...

You act as if that was an out of the blue declaration of our fealty to Israel signed in blood. That agreement was part of the peace process, Sinai II, and another memorandum was signed with the peace treaty in 1979. The United States committed itself to selling oil to Israel, should Israel be cut off from markets and unable to acquire oil normally. The United States and Israel have never needed to invoke those provisions. And that oil agreement was not renewed by the Obama administration, by the way. The United States made a similar agreement with Egypt in 1979, giving Egypt billions of dollars in military and economic aid. What did we get in return for that?

[stefano]

I'll just take the case of poor "disappeared" Israa' Taweel as a typical example.

Right, so she has a case to answer for membership of a banned organisation, illegal protest and incitement to murder. No arguments there. But after her arrest her family didn't know where she was for two weeks, and she has been detained without trial for five months. Why? Is that good strategy? It fires up the Islamists, who see it as more evidence of brutality of the illegitimate this that and the other. It fires up the let's-eradicate-the-beardies fascists, who would happily dispense with a trial completely. And it disappoints people like me, who think suspects should have rights and a speedy trial. Lots of emotions getting stirred up here.

Also, how come State-owned Egyptian media report news in the same way? Do they just run the wire service reports? Has there not been an effort to set up a media organisation to counter this kind of disinfo? The State Information Service is... well, terrible.

So, are you suggesting that rogue American intelligence agents are working for Egypt, against the wishes of the US' political rulers? That would be cool! But I doubt it.

No, I'm saying that even if it were policy to lock the US out of intelligence co-operation, elements in the services would still keep open the channels they have built over decades. Just as the services didn't harmoniously start working with the executive in Morsi's term and the MB relied on parallel structures. Even the Interior Ministry didn't, as I have it. And I'm not convinced the politicians really are locking the Americans out to as great an extent as you're saying.

Really. At a time when Putin is riding the crest of unprecedented popularity at home and globally, when he is viewed as a national hero and a champion against terrorism in Russia and by people all over the world, he just decides to murder 224 of his fellow Russians in cold blood? To make the Russians mourn, and feel that they're paying the price for Russia's victories in Syria. Whose agenda does that serve? Not Putin's and not Russia's, that's for sure.

You're right. Statements so far make it clear that it's the US and UK who are trying to pin it on IS (and maybe it was an IS bomb plot they knew about in advance), in an attempt to hurt Putin at home and probably also affect Egyptian exchange receipts from tourism. Pushing for business in the week that Sisi's in London, and also dangling approval of the report on the MB for the same reason.

Thanks Alice. Again, is there anything in English along the lines of your posts? Or even in Arabic (not video, though)?

[AlicetheKurious]

You are pining for the days when the Dulles brothers ran our foreign policy. Assassinations, coups, meddling of every sort in the affairs of other countries. But we were mean to Israel that one time so everything is forgiven. We may have been a proponent of international law but we certainly did not follow it. The cables and transcripts that detail Kissinger's diplomacy during these years show that he had the same anti-Soviet goals as Eisenhower.

No, I'm not "pining" for the pre-Johnson days. But maybe, as an American, you should. The death of Kennedy marked the hostile takeover of America, and the end of American sovereignty. All those dirty tricks continued and multiplied but, instead of serving America's national objectives, were used to serve a foreign state at America's expense. As for Kissinger's goals, like with any other con artist, watch the hands and ignore the patter. And follow the money. It's fascinating how easily people fall for the illusion, even those who should know better. Judging by his stated goals, Kissinger's entire career has been a series of spectacular and incredibly costly failures for the US, economically, politically and in terms of American lives. Yet, oddly enough, he continues to be glorified as a brilliant strategist and statesman, whose advice is eagerly sought by American presidents from both parties. On the other hand, if you judge his career by how well he served the Zionists' goals, and particularly how he managed to convert America into Israel's servant, it has indeed been extraordinarily successful.

Nixon put himself out of the loop. If he didn't want Kissinger running things he would not have run down to Florida to cry in Bebe Rebozo's arms.

It would be very interesting to shed some light on who was behind the Watergate scandal "breaking" at that particular, crucial time, and also if Nixon was given drugs to "help him cope" with the resulting stress. By all accounts, Nixon didn't like Kissinger and certainly didn't trust him, yet Nixon's own words seem to indicate that Kissinger had some kind of power over him, and that he felt trapped. In any case, Kissinger's telephone transcripts show only that he deliberately chose, time after time, to keep Nixon uninformed about vital matters of national security, citing the president's supposed incapacity as the reason. We only really have Kissinger's word for what was really going on with Nixon.

Certainly the stakes for Israel couldn't have been higher, and it was very, very fortuitous that Kissinger was at the helm at just the right time to make sure Israel got everything it wanted, and to remove any obstacles in its way, regardless of the cost to the US and the world.

You act as if that was an out of the blue declaration of our fealty to Israel signed in blood.

It should have been. Maybe it was, figuratively as well as literally.

That agreement was part of the peace process, Sinai II, and another memorandum was signed with the peace treaty in 1979. The United States committed itself to selling oil to Israel, should Israel be cut off from markets and unable to acquire oil normally. The United States and Israel have never needed to invoke those provisions. And that oil agreement was not renewed by the Obama administration, by the way.

Did Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger Agree to Starve Americans for Israel in the Event of an Oil Crisis?
by Adam Bilzerian

Author Adam Bilzerian sheds light on a secret 1975 Memorandum of Understanding masterminded by Henry Kissinger, whereby the U.S. guaranteed all Israel’s oil needs in the event of a crisis, even at the risk of a domestic shortage. Renewed, in principle, every five years and theoretically still in force, its potential impact in the current Middle East context does not need to be explained. However, other examples of U.S. subservience to Israel’s interests abound, the latest one being the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012, which ensures Israel’s “qualitative military edge” over all of its neighbors at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.

In 1975, the US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, secretly brokered a deal in which the United States of America guaranteed Israel’s oil supply in the event of a crisis. The 1975 Israel-United States Memorandum of Understanding (see the full text below) required the United States to maintain an oil reserve for Israel and guarantee the shipping of that oil to Israel in times of emergency. This deal has cost the United States more than a hundred billion dollars since it was first enacted. The most troubling aspect of this deal was not the cost however, but the stipulation that in case of an oil emergency in which both the US and Israel needed oil, the US would give its oil to Israel. Section 3 (b):

- If the oil Israel needs to meet all of its normal requirements for domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances where’ quantitative restrictions through embargo or otherwise also prevent the United States from procuring oil to meet its normal requirements, the United States Government will promptly make oil available for purchase by Israel in accordance with the International Energy Agency conservation and allocation formula as applied by the United States Government, in order to meet Israel’s essential requirements. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to transport such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport.

This is oil that would have been used to heat homes during the winter, power ambulances, and provide the fuel for tractors to farm America’s agricultural lands. To put this into perspective, in the event of an oil crisis, the fuel that Americans would need to heat their homes, get them to work, and produce food would go to Israel. This agreement very well could have starved tens of thousands of Americans in order to save Israelis if an oil crisis would have taken place.

President Nixon seriously doubted whether Kissinger could be impartial on Middle East policy saying, “Anybody who is Jewish cannot handle” Middle Eastern policy. He was proven right in 1973 when Kissinger purposefully withheld news of Israel’s attack on Egypt and Syria during the Yom Kippur War for three and a half hours so Nixon would not intervene in the conflict. Kissinger then tried to cover up his treason by telling Nixon’s Chief of Staff to lie to the media and say that Nixon was informed immediately after the attack. This unfortunately was a pattern.

On October 7, a telephone transcript between Nixon and Kissinger revealed that Kissinger was purposefully keeping relevant information from Nixon regarding Soviet perspectives on Middle East policy. And on October 23, Kissinger secretly drafted a letter to the Soviet leader without Nixon’s consent, and even raised America’s military readiness level to DEFCON 3 without discussing it with the president.

Although the US gave up some extremely costly and strategic concessions as a result of Kissinger’s 1975 memorandum, there was absolutely no tangible benefit for the United States of America in the agreement. As a result of these facts, the 1975 Israel-United States Memorandum of Understanding was kept secret from the American people. In fact, the only reason the agreement is even known today is because the New York Times uncovered the agreement, which forced the government to quietly put it into the Congressional records.

The 1975 Israel-United States Memorandum of Understanding was quietly renewed in 1979 for another 10 years, and may still be in effect today. Given the government's propensity to keep this arrangement secret, it is impossible to find out if it was secretly renewed for a third or fourth time. This treasonous pattern of sacrificing American interests for Israeli interests has not been altogether uncommon in American politics.

Most Americans are unaware of the fact that the US guarantees much of Israel’s public debt. For the financial layman, if Israel defaults, Americans will be on the hook to pay off their debt. And what does America get out of this arrangement? Absolutely nothing. These guarantees are part of the $15-$20 billion that the American government gives Israel every year in indirect and direct aid. This money has continued to flow during the 2008 financial crisis, even while growing numbers of poor Americans are living in abject poverty. To compound matters, Israel is in little need of aid, having weathered the financial storm better than almost any nation on the planet and maintaining its status as a wealthy country with more than 10,000 millionaires.

One could argue that Israel is also one of the least deserving countries to receive this aid with their treatment of the Palestinians closely resembling the South African apartheid. As unbiased former CIA officers like Michael Scheuer and authors like Mearscheimer and Walt acknowledge, not only does the US-Israel relationship provide absolutely no strategic benefit to America, it actually hurts America’s standing around the world. If sacrificing the economic prosperity and security of Americans for the citizens of another nation isn’t treason, it would be hard to imagine what would qualify.

The treason does not stop there unfortunately. The Israel lobby in America, AIPAC, was largely responsible for America’s disastrous war with Iraq, as former AIPAC officials later admitted. A reasonable person must come to the conclusion that the Iraq War was unquestionably for Israel’s security. Saddam Hussein had no weapons that could reach the US, or close ties to terrorists that would have been willing to perpetrate a major attack on the US.

Many Americans foolishly believe the Iraq War was for oil, but America produces 50% of its own oil and gets the vast majority of the rest from Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, and Nigeria. If the US wanted energy security it could have spent 1/50th of the money it spent invading Iraq and built an oil pipeline from Canada. As most knowledgable Middle East experts will admit, Israel was extremely supportive of an American war with Iran, and the same man responsible for the 1975 oil guarantee, Henry Kissinger, advised George W. Bush to commit more troops to the effort.

While it is understandable for Kissinger to have an affinity for his fellow Jews in Israel, it was unacceptable for him to use his political position to sacrifice the energy security of America for Israel. For that matter, it is wholly unacceptable for American members of AIPAC to lobby their government to give America’s resources to another nation, or to lobby for a war on behalf of another nation. These people should be held accountable for their actions.

Israel-United States Memorandum of Understanding - September 1, 1975

The United States recognizes that the Egypt-Israel Agreement initialed on Sept. 1, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the agreement), entailing the withdrawal from vital areas in Sinai, constitutes an act of great significance on Israel’s part in the pursuit of final peace. That agreement has full United States support.

1. The United States Government will make every effort to be fully responsive, within the limits of its resources and Congressional authorization and appropriation, on an ongoing and long-term basis, to Israel’s military equipment and other defense requirements, to its energy requirements and to its economic needs. The needs specified in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 below shall be deemed eligible for inclusion within the annual total to be requested in fiscal year ’76 and later fiscal years.

2. Israel’s long-term military supply needs from the United States shall be the subject of periodic consultations between representatives of the U.S. and Israeli defense establishments, with agreement reached on specific items to be included in a separate U.S.-Israeli memorandum. To this end, a joint study by military experts will be undertaken within three weeks. In conducting this study, which will include Israel’s 1976 needs, the United States will view Israel’s requests sympathetically, including its request for advanced and sophisticated weapons.

3. Israel will make its own independent arrangements for oil supply to meet its requirements through normal procedures. In the event Israel is unable to secure its needs in this way, the United States Government, upon notification of this fact by the Government, of Israel, will act as follows for five years, at the end of which period either side can terminate this arrangement on one year’s notice.

(a) If the oil Israel needs to meet all its normal requirements for domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances where no quantitative restrictions exist on the ability of the United States to procure oil to meet its normal requirements, the United States Government will promptly make oil available for purchase by Israel to meet all of the aforementioned normal requirements of Israel. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to transport such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport.

(b) If the oil Israel needs to meet all of its normal requirements for domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances where’ quantitative restrictions through embargo or otherwise also prevent the United States from procuring oil to meet its normal requirements, the United States Government will promptly make oil available for purchase by Israel in accordance with the International Energy Agency conservation and allocation formula as applied by the United States Government, in order to meet Israel’s essential requirements. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to transport such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport.

Israeli and U.S. experts will meet annually or more frequently at the request of either party, to review Israel’s continuing oil requirement.

4. In order to help Israel meet its energy needs and as part of the over-all annual figure in paragraph 1 above, the United States agrees:

(a) In determining the over-all annual figure which will be requested from Congress, the United States Government will give special attention to Israel’s oil import requirements and, for a period as determined by Article 3 above, will take into account in calculating that figure Israel’s additional expenditures for the import of oil to replace that which would have ordinarily come from Abu Rudeis and Ras Sudar (4.5 million tons in 1975).

(b) To ask Congress to make available funds, the amount to be determined by mutual agreement, to the Government of Israel necessary for a project for the construction and stocking of the oil reserves to be stored in Israel, bringing storage reserve capacity and reserve stocks, now standing at approximately six months, up to one year’s need at the time of the completion of the project. The project will be implemented within four years. The construction, operation and financing and other relevant questions of the project will be the subject of early and detailed talks between the two Governments.

5. The United States Government will not expect Israel to begin to implement the agreement before Egypt fulfills its undertaking under the January 1974, disengagement agreement to permit passage of all Israeli cargoes to and from Israeli Ports through the Suez Canal.

6. The United States Government agrees with Israel that the next agreement with Egypt should be a final peace agreement.

7. In case of an Egyptian violation of any of the provisions of the agreement, the United States Government is prepared to consult with Israel as to the significance of the violation and possible remedial action by the United States Government.

8. The United States Government will vote against any Security Council resolution which in its judgement affects or alters adversely the agreement.

9. The United States Government will not join in and will seek to prevent efforts by others to bring about consideration of proposals which it and Israel agree are detrimental to the interest of Israel.

10. In view of the long-standing U.S. commitment to the survival and security of Israel, the United States Government will view with particular gravity threats to Israel’s security or sovereignty by a world power. In support of this objective, the United States Government will in the event of such threat consult promptly with the Government of Israel with respect to what support diplomatic or otherwise, of assistance it can lend to Israel in accordance with its constitutional practices.

11. The United States Government and the Government of Israel will, at the earliest possible time, and if possible within two months after the signature of this document, conclude the contingency plan for a military supply operation to Israel in an emergency situation.

12. It is the United States Government’s position that Egyptian commitments under the Egypt-Israel agreement, its implementation, validity and duration are not conditional upon any act or developments between the other Arab states and Israel. The United States Government regards the agreement as standing on its own.

13. The United States Government shares the Israeli position that under existing political circumstances negotiations with Jordan will be directed toward an over-all peace settlement.

14. In accordance with the principle of freedom of navigation on the high seas and free and unimpeded passage through and over straits connecting international waters, the United States Government regards the Straits of Bab el Mandeb and the Strait of Gibraltar as international waterways. It will support Israel’s right to free and unimpeded passage through such straits. Similarly, the United States Government recognizes Israel’s right to freedom of flights over the Red Sea and such straits and will support diplomatically the exercise of that right.

15. In the event that the United Nations Emergency Force or any other United Nations organ is withdrawn without the prior agreement of both parties to the Egypt-Israel agreement and the United States before this agreement is superseded by another agreement, it is the United States view that the agreement shall remain binding in all its parts.

16. The United States and Israel agree that signature of the protocol of the Egypt-Israel agreement and its full entry into effect shall not take place before approval by the United States Congress of the U.S. role in connection with the surveillance and observation functions described in the agreement and its annex. The United States has informed the Government of Israel that it has obtained the Government of Egypt agreement to the above.

Addendum on Arms

On the question of military and economic assistance to Israel, the following conveyed by the U.S. to Israel augments what the memorandum of agreement states.

The United States is resolved to continue to maintain Israel’s defensive strength through the supply of advanced types of equipment, such as the F-16 aircraft. The United States Government agrees to an early meeting to undertake a joint study of high technology and sophisticated items, including the Pershing ground-to-ground missiles with conventional warheads, with the view to giving a positive response. The U.S. Administration will submit annually for approval by the U.S. Congress a request for military and economic assistance in order to help meet Israel’s economic and military needs.

Assurances to Egypt

1. The United States intends to make a serious effort to help bring about further negotiations between Syria and Israel, in the first instance through diplomatic channels.

2. In the event of an Israeli violation of the agreement, the United States is prepared to consult with Egypt as to the significance of the violation and possible remedial action by the United States will provide technical assistance to Egypt for the Egyptian early-warning station.

Accord on Geneva

1. The Geneva peace conference will be reconvened at a time coordinated between the United States and Israel.

2. The United States will continue to adhere to its present policy with respect to the Palestine Liberation Organization, whereby it will not recognize or negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization so long as the Palestine Liberation Organization does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and does not accept Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The United States Government will consult fully and seek to concert its position and strategy at the Geneva peace conference on this issue with the Government of Israel. Similarly, the United States will consult fully and seek to concert its position and strategy with Israel with regard to the participation of any other additional states. It is understood that the participation at a subsequent phase of the conference of any possible additional state, group or organization will require the agreement of all the initial participants.

3. The-United States will make every effort to insure at the conference that all the substantive negotiations will be on a bilateral basis.

4. The United States will oppose and, if necessary, vote against any initiative in the Security Council to alter adversely the terms of reference of the Geneva peace conference or to change Resolutions 242 and 338 in ways which are incompatible with their original purpose.

5. The United States will seek to insure that the role of the co-sponsors will be consistent with what was agreed in the memorandum of understanding between the United States Government and the Government of Israel of Dec. 20, 1973.

6. The United States and Israel will concert action to assure that the conference will be conducted in a manner consonant with the objectives of this document and with the declared purpose of the conference, namely the advancement of a negotiated peace between Israel and its neighbors.

Memorandum of Agreement between the Governments of the United States of America and Israel - Oil; March 26, 1979

The oil supply arrangement of September 1, 1975, between the Governments of the United States and Israel, annexed hereto, remains in effect. A memorandum of agreement shall be agreed upon and concluded to provide an oil supply arrangement for a total of 15 years, including the 5 years provided in the September 1, 1975 arrangement.

The memorandum of agreement, including the commencement of this arrangement and pricing provisions, will be mutually agreed upon by the parties within sixty days following the entry into force of the Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel.

It is the intention of the parties that prices paid by Israel for oil provided by the United States hereunder shall be comparable to world market prices current at the time of transfer, and that in any event the United States will be reimbursed by Israel for the costs incurred by the United States in providing oil to Israel hereunder.

Experts provided for in the September 1, 1975 arrangement will meet on request to discuss matters arising under this relationship.

The United States administration undertakes to seek promptly additional statutory authorization that may be necessary for full implementation of this arrangement.

M. Dayan
For the Government of Israel

Cyrus R. Vance [at the time, Secretary of State]
For the Government of the United States

Annex to the Memorandum of Agreement Concerning Oil

Israel will make its own independent arrangements for oil supply to meet its requirements through normal procedures. In the event Israel is unable to secure its needs in this way, the United States Government, upon notification of this fact by the Government of Israel, will act as follows for five years, at the end of which period either side can terminate this arrangement on one-year’s notice.

(a) If the oil Israel needs to meet all its normal requirements for domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances where no quantitative restrictions exist on the ability of the United States to procure oil to meet its normal requirements, the United States Government will promptly make oil available for purchase by Israel to meet all of the aforementioned normal requirements of Israel. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to transport such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport.

(b) If the oil Israel needs to meet all of its normal requirements for domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances where quantitative restrictions through embargo or otherwise also prevent the United States from procuring oil to meet its normal requirements, the United States Government will promptly make oil available for purchase by Israel in accordance with the International Energy Agency conservation and allocation formula, as applied by the United States Government, in order to meet Israel’s essential requirements. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to transport such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport.

Israeli and United States experts will meet annually or more frequently at the request of either party, to review Israel’s continuing oil requirement.

Source: Israeli Foreign Ministry Link

More on the cost to the US taxpayer of this and other Memorandums of Understanding with Israel just during the decade from 1978 to 1988 here.

The United States made a similar agreement with Egypt in 1979, giving Egypt billions of dollars in military and economic aid. What did we get in return for that?

That is hilarious. No, the United States has never made anything close to such a treasonous agreement with any other state. As for the military and economic "aid", I'm not sure what the US got, other than a few jobs for the "experts" it sent to live luxuriously in Egypt, all at the expense of the American taxpayer, and a few jobs back home for workers in the defense industry. But for Israel, the benefits have been enormous. US "aid" was the lubricant that permitted enemy agents to deeply penetrate Egypt and literally destroy it from within. Every single sector that received hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in "aid", and was "reorganized" by America's experts was devastated: public education, public health, agriculture and infrastructure, among others. Just to cite one example, in the 1970s, Egyptian cotton, or "white gold" was Egypt's second-largest source of revenue. Thanks in large part to America's economic restructuring of Egyptian agriculture, Egypt is no longer a producer of Egyptian cotton. But Israel is. In fact, a huge range of indigenous seeds traditionally grown in Egypt have almost disappeared, while Israel now has an extensive catalogue and store of those same seeds.

In contrast to the era when Egypt was allied to the Soviet Union, when the Soviets helped to establish and modernize major industries such as iron and steel factories, cement, textiles, automobiles, electric appliances, etc., and assisted the Egyptians in building massive infrastructure projects such as the Aswan Dam, the era of American "aid" witnessed the neo-liberalization and selling off of Egypt's industrial assets to foreign buyers and to the new class of overnight billionaires (many of them closely linked to the US) that sprouted in Sadat's "Open Door Policy" and flourished in the Mubarak era. Within a record time, Egypt's industrial and agricultural sectors were virtually destroyed, and Egypt became dependent on imports for everything, including 70% of its food. Even so, by 2013, China was by far Egypt's largest single supplier of imports, cornering 12% of the market, followed by the US, which supplied 7.8%, with Germany and Italy combined supplying 10.7%

Moreover, unlike the aid provided by the US to Israel, which is unconditional, every penny spent by the US is parceled out a bit at a time and subject to stringent conditions. Economic aid to Egypt has been provided only on an approved project-by-project basis, with each project being carefully supervised to ensure it complied with the US' conditions. Israel's much larger economic aid (not counting the multi-billion dollar "loan guarantees" that are invariably paid off by the US and other under-the-table siphoning of US taxpayers' money to Israel) is supplied by the US as a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, with no oversight or conditions on how the money is spent. In other words, given the fact that the US is the world's biggest debtor nation, the US borrows money that it gives to Israel, and Israel not only gets the money, but also the interest that accrues on it until it is spent.

As for the military "aid" the US supplies to Egypt, that is an integral part of the US' commitment to Israel that Israel will always be given military superiority to all the Arab states combined (Israel's holy "qualitative military edge"). This is why military aid to Israel is so much more than to Egypt, even though under Mubarak, Egypt was so much more obedient to the US than Israel ever was.

In other words, all the American "aid" supplied by the US to Egypt is in fact detrimental to Egypt and serves Israel's objectives. This is why, when Obama froze the US' economic aid, most Egyptians reacted with delight, and the government didn't blink an eye. But when the US threatened to cut off military aid, the Israelis panicked, and mobilized all their global lobbies, including AIPAC, to get the US to resume the shipment of arms and parts. Too late, though.

I don't have time to educate you further about this particular topic, but I strongly suggest that you pursue your own independent investigations, so you won't just keep parroting Zionist talking points and propaganda that obscures rather than enlightens. Or don't.

[IanEye]

In contrast to the era when Egypt was allied to the Soviet Union, when the Soviets helped to establish and modernize major industries such as iron and steel factories, cement, textiles, automobiles, electric appliances, etc., and assisted the Egyptians in building massive infrastructure projects such as the Aswan Dam, the era of American "aid" witnessed the neo-liberalization and selling off of Egypt's industrial assets to foreign buyers and to the new class of overnight billionaires (many of them closely linked to the US) that sprouted in Sadat's "Open Door Policy" and flourished in the Mubarak era. Within a record time, Egypt's industrial and agricultural sectors were virtually destroyed, and Egypt became dependent on imports for everything, including 70% of its food.

I don't have time to educate you further about this particular topic, but I strongly suggest that you pursue your own independent investigations, so you won't just keep parroting Zionist talking points and propaganda that obscures rather than enlightens. Or don't.

How many pyramids does it take to store 70% of Egypt's food?

you won't see me crying
you won't hear me sighing

.

[AlicetheKurious]

Right, so she has a case to answer for membership of a banned organisation, illegal protest and incitement to murder. No arguments there. But after her arrest her family didn't know where she was for two weeks, and she has been detained without trial for five months. Why? Is that good strategy? It fires up the Islamists, who see it as more evidence of brutality of the illegitimate this that and the other. It fires up the let's-eradicate-the-beardies fascists, who would happily dispense with a trial completely. And it disappoints people like me, who think suspects should have rights and a speedy trial. Lots of emotions getting stirred up here.

The thing about the Brotherhood that is very important to keep in mind at all times, is that they lie like they breathe. Her Muslim Brotherhood parents, who brainwashed her in the first place, knew very well where she was for two weeks, but it makes better copy if they claim they didn't, to sympatico 'activists' and media that doesn't bother to check the facts before publishing. For her to be arrested, the police had to obtain a signed and dated warrant issued from the Attorney-General's office. Upon her arrest, she had to be brought to a police station, where a report had to be prepared, dated, signed by the receiving officer, and given a file number. Then, she was sent to one of the jails, where again, she was signed in, and given a file number. It's very complicated, and there are records for every stage, easily accessible by her lawyer, registered human rights organizations, or even her family members.

Any departure from, or violation of procedure and no judge would agree to try her, and would immediately order her released. So the very fact that she is being held for trial by a judge, means that all the legal conditions were met. This is not in question. It seems that Central Command has issued this new word du jour for hostile propaganda about Egypt: "disappeared", and suddenly, it's like the color change in the Wizard of Oz. I guess somebody thought it would be a good idea to piggy-back on people's memories about the actions of the US-backed juntas in Latin America.

About the desirability of speedy trials, you'll get no arguments from me, or from most Egyptians. There are two problems with that. First, Egypt, with a population of over 90 million, has only around 15,000 judges, and their caseload is insane, especially after the chaos of the past few years. Still, they're doing the best they can, even in some cases at the cost of their lives (many judges trying Brotherhood-related cases have had bombs planted in their buildings, courthouses have been attacked, judges have been beaten up, "accidented", and in some cases killed). Second, contrary to the propaganda, the Egyptian legal system provides so many built-in safeguards to guarantee a fair trial that each case becomes incredibly time-consuming as it slowly lumbers through each layer of appeals, counter-appeals, new trials, etc., etc. It can be maddening, especially in high-profile cases where the evidence of guilt is clear-cut, such as the Habara case, where he was actually sentenced to death for the mass murder of Egyptian soldiers and officers, confessed, provided all sorts of accurate details about how he did it, proclaimed that he was proud and would do it again, and after exhausting all his appeals, was finally sentenced to death. Then, after the final verdict was announced, when two of the judges' signatures were found to be missing on a document, he was given a totally new trial, and the whole ordeal is being repeated again, nearly two years after the massacre. Crazy.

But that's the law; the legal system can't be streamlined until a new parliament does it, and that will be part of a very long list of things that the new parliament will be tasked with.

Also, how come State-owned Egyptian media report news in the same way? Do they just run the wire service reports? Has there not been an effort to set up a media organisation to counter this kind of disinfo? The State Information Service is... well, terrible.

Indeed it is. Personally, I can't watch it at all. Forty-two thousand public employees working for the Radio and Television state media, and producing stuff that nobody watches or listens to, unless you're stuck in your car in traffic and desperate. Wading into that swamp and trying to make something useful out of it is yet another gargantuan task facing the new parliament.

I'm saying that even if it were policy to lock the US out of intelligence co-operation, elements in the services would still keep open the channels they have built over decades. Just as the services didn't harmoniously start working with the executive in Morsi's term and the MB relied on parallel structures. Even the Interior Ministry didn't, as I have it. And I'm not convinced the politicians really are locking the Americans out to as great an extent as you're saying.

I don't know about other country's intelligence services, but those of Egypt run a very, very tight ship. Very. If they didn't Egypt would be in ruins, and our babies would be found floating face down on some foreign shore, and Europeans would be wringing their hands about how to deal with the Egyptian refugee problem. Thank God they do.

As for the politicians, if you mean the political parties, the Americans are all over them. Many of the political parties are little more than boutiques, set up to receive foreign funds, headed by "activists" who have never done an honest day's work in their lives, but who have made a career of setting up dodgy but very well-financed NGO's. Then, there's the front-man of the Salafist Nour Party, Nader Bakkar, who, despite a very weak academic background, is in fact currently studying on a full scholarship at Harvard how to run countries, and he and his family are enjoying a $90,000 annual allowance to cover their living expenses. All supplied by the generous infidels. Still, it didn't stop him from traveling back to Egypt to campaign for a parliamentary seat for himself, his wife, his father-in-law, two uncles and an aunt, before flying back to Boston. Needless to say, the Egyptian voters gave him a swift kick in the ass to help him on his way.

Again, is there anything in English along the lines of your posts? Or even in Arabic (not video, though)?

No. We English-speakers are very frustrated. And the private media (newspapers, tv and online news sites) is a frenzied free-for-all of competing agendas, with very few professional journalists. Still fewer who adhere to any kind of code of ethics. With the huge amount of money involved, it's also a race for ratings, sales and 'hits' at any cost. I watch almost everything on tv, though, and peruse the newspapers, sifting through it. It's hard work, but I enjoy it. You could say it's a labor of love. Plus, though I hate to admit it, Facebook has been an invaluable tool. I use it to keep in touch with a lot of friends whom I trust and are well-informed about diverse fields. We discuss and add to each other's information, and though we sometimes disagree, we have a lot of respect for each other. As I've said before, it's an interactive process: there is no one source. But maybe that's true for all media. In fact, it is.

[IanEye]

“I know there’s nothing to say. Someone has taken my place.” - Gamal Abdel Nasser

Here in America we have a corporation called, “Hobby Lobby”.

The corporate entity known as Hobby Lobby got themselves in a real snit over the idea the money that had wound up in their coffers might pass on to things like birth control.
They saw this as an “unclean” use of the money in their safe keeping, so they went to court to complain.

The funny thing is, the whole time this case was in court, no one thought to ask Hobby Lobby the precise machinations of the screening process in which they determine that any incoming money they receive into their coffers in indeed “clean”.

One can assume they believe in a sort of magical Christ-Alchemy, a transubstantiation in which incoming dirty money is made clean by the goodness of Hobby Lobby.

Alice speaks of a time when the Soviet Union was doing all sorts of peachy keen things for Egypt.
Yay Egypt! Yay USSR!

Unfortunately for this mythos, this is also the same time that Wall Street, though the stewardship of the USA was doing all sorts of peachy keen things for the CCCP.

The only reason the USSR was able to help out Egypt to the degree they did was because of all of the help the USSR was getting from the USA.

Egypt is second hand news in the human ouroboros of life.

“One thing I think you should know. I ain’t gonna miss you when you go.” - Golda Meir

.

[AlicetheKurious]

Alice speaks of a time when the Soviet Union was doing all sorts of peachy keen things for Egypt.
Yay Egypt! Yay USSR!

Unfortunately for this mythos, this is also the same time that Wall Street, though the stewardship of the USA was doing all sorts of peachy keen things for the CCCP.

The only reason the USSR was able to help out Egypt to the degree they did was because of all of the help the USSR was getting from the USA.

I wasn't praising the USSR, merely alluding to the fact that after more than 40 years, and billions and billions of dollars in US economic and development "aid", every sector thus "assisted" was left in ruins; whereas in less than half that time, at a fraction of the cost, the USSR helped Egypt develop its industrial and agricultural sectors and built massive infrastructure projects that made a huge difference in people's lives and empowered the country economically.

Egypt is second hand news in the human ouroboros of life.

I don't know who this ouroboros is; presumably he's too busy keeping up with the Kardashians.

But not to Egyptians, my dear. And not to many non-Egyptians whose lives hang in the balance, as well.