Release of the ‘Dancing Israelis’, Coincidence or Blackmail?

By Doug Steil | Aletho News | November 16, 2010

By now, after nine years, anyone who has seriously looked into the circumstances surrounding 9/11 has read about the so-called “five dancing Israelis“, who, according to reports, had set up across the Hudson River “to document the event” (in their own words) in Manhattan, even before the crash of the first airplane coming from the north into the World Trade Center tower.

These “dancing Israelis”, as we can all surmise, were Mossad operatives, who were involved in operational aspects of the Zionist attack on lower Manhattan that fateful day, September 11, 2001. Two additional “suspects”, who were surely also part of the same Israeli operational team, were arrested on the approach to the George Washington Bridge, and, as was reported live that evening on the televised News (before this aspect to the story was buried), their van was laden with tons of explosives. (Though media reports may not have explicitly identified the people in the vans with explosives as Israeli, there should be little doubt that they were all part of the same team.)

There are two important aspects in conjunction with the 9/11 event in New York that have been virtually ignored even in the alternative media, which deserve closer scrutiny. One point involves the possible large-scale catastrophe that may have been induced by these operatives with explosives if they had not been apprehended as their van was about to drive onto the George Washington Bridge. The second aspect concerns the suspicious circumstances surrounding the crash of Flight 587, on November 12, 2001, more than nine years ago, in conjunction with the inexplicable release, just a few days later, of the “dancing Israelis” and other agents who had been involved in the 9/11 operation, including those who may have been on their way to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

By stalling the van at the middle of the bridge and getting away in time, a directed high-power explosion at that spot along the side might certainly have done some serious damage to a section of this bridge, given the dual cables per side , each slightly less than 36 inches in diameter. Most likely a truck explosion in itself would not have ripped both cables. But then, perhaps such a truck explosion was merely meant to serve as a low-tech trigger – to provide an explanation to the public, for why both cables on one side could have ripped – which itself would have been achieved by detonating a prepared coat of micro-thermite around the cables, just as the WTC towers were detonated by micro-thermite placed at crucial points along the structure weeks in advance, though the Government unconvincingly blamed structural failure caused by impacting airplanes and resulting fires. In light of what is known about the explosive thermite at the three WTC towers that were imploded into their footprint, it is not implausible, that the George Washington Bridge was also targeted for destruction that day, but this aspect of the operation was completely botched due to the van being intercepted. Just a few months earlier, in May, modifications to the George Washingtom Bridge were completed. Who would have ever noticed if coatings of micro-thermite were being applied during this renovation project ? Below are some quotes from NYRoads:

The project involved the rehabilitation of girders, columns, bridge decks, drainage and electrical systems, and roadway surfaces. New roadway expansion joints, guardrails, crash barriers, signs and lighting were also installed. The $38 million project was completed in May 2001.

Some pertinent questions arise in this context. Might some “follow-up work” of minor scope have been performed after the reported May completion date, shortly before 9/11, under the guise that something had not initially been done properly and thus needed to be corrected? What companies were involved in that multi-million dollar contract, and which companies were involved in the subsequent project, which would have removed any traces of micro-thermite coating that, according to this presumptive scenario, was applied more than nine years ago?

In 2002, the Port Authority began work to repaint the 604-foot-tall towers and the underside of the upper deck. Workers are removing older coats of lead-based paint, and are applying a three-coat paint system that includes a zinc primer, epoxy intermediate coat and a urethane topcoat. The $85 million project was completed in 2006.

Some investigative scrutiny of this previously neglected topic could certainly help in putting more pieces of the puzzle together, regarding what appears to have been planned as a spectacular and explosive encore on that ‘Demolition Day’, featuring live helicopter video of a major suspension bridge falling into the Hudson River, with only its two towers remaining. If one assumes that these putative Israeli suspects, disguised in Arab clothing, were prevented by their arrest at the on-ramp to the bridge from perpetrating a major crime – this would subsequently have impacted millions of people who commute between New Jersey and Manhattan – one can understand that it would take substantial pressure to get them released from custody. And we know from numerous reports, that they were all released just before Thanksgiving.

But why were these Isareli operatives ever released given their involvement? According to a report written by Christopher Ketcham, the Ha’aretz newspaper claimed that high-level Zionists in America were actively involved in obtaining their release:

Following what ABC News reported were “high-level negotiations between Israeli and U.S. government officials”, a settlement was reached in the case of the five Urban Moving Systems suspects. Intense political pressure apparently had been brought to bear. The reputable Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported that by the last week of October 2001, some six weeks after the men had been detained, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified “prominent New York congressmen” were lobbying heavily for their release. According to a source at ABC News close to the 20/20 report, high-profile criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also stepped in as a negotiator on behalf of the men to smooth out differences with the U.S. government.

These high-level efforts may not have been sufficient, given that these captured agents were certainly involved in more than event documentation or simply driving moving vans. Perhaps a bit more high-level pressure was required to get these people ‘moving’ again. In this context, an interesting aspect that has not been widely reported is the fact that, just a week before their eventual release, American Airlines Flight 587 crashed after takeoff from Kennedy Airport in Queens. Though it was not widely reported – on the contrary, it appears that once again there was a big cover-up in this matter – the likely cause, according to a credible expert, was sabotage:

Expert Marshall Smith opined, “A single point failure, the in-flight actuation of the left engine thrust reverser, can account for all three observed phenomena of the clean breaking off of the tail and the failure of both pylons holding the engines.”

The mechanical engineer, aviation ground school instructor and former NASA adviser painted this scenario: During the night, a terrorist saboteur disguised as a ground crew mechanic reached up in the back of the left jet engine of the American Airlines Airbus and cut the hydraulic line going to the thrust reverser actuator and the control safety sensor lines.

Knowing the conventional path that the airliner would fly upon takeoff from Kennedy Airport on its course to Santo Domingo in the Caribbean Sea, the saboteurs could be almost certain that the plane would eventually crash into the water, thus making recovery of evidence and probable cause analysis more difficult, along with the minimized possibility of any inconvenient revelations possibly leaking out to the public. As it turned out, the jet crashed onto the narrow land strip, in a neighborhood in Rockaway Park, (“the Irish Riviera“).

Let us look at the timeline of the week long period between the crash of AA587 and the release of the Israeli agents a few days later. Flight 587 crashed on Veteran’s Day, Monday November 12, 2001. According to reports, the Mossad agents were released after “71 days” in custody. Anyone can easily verify the accuracy of the timeline implied by the headline, which indicates the week long period between the crash and the release of the agents: Assuming that September 11 already counts as a day, that yields 20 days in September, 31 days in October and 20 days in November (the last day presumably not a full day), thus Tuesday, November 20. The decision to release them must have come on the day before, Monday, November 19, in order to make arrangements to fly them back to Israel. On that day the New York Times published a prepared story, pushing the highly questionable notion of composite tail fin stress as the presumptive cause of the accident. This unsupported claim appears to be another case of contrived media misdirection (an endeavor the NYT is proficient in), to distract the public from the issue of sabotage.

It is reasonable to assume, however, that if by then the Government had already concocted and propagated a technically unlikely explanation — one that blamed the manufacturer Airbus for an alleged design flaw in conjunction with pilot over-reaction to vortexes from an airplane ahead — the technically far more plausible cause of the crash, which was consistent with observations from witnesses and physical evidence at the crash site, would have already been apparent to investigators and experts, such as the man whose assessment of sabotage is cited in the story cited above. Those who had the opportunity to examine the left engine could easily have corroborated the sabotage. (This raises the question, if one of the numerous investigators became upset that the matter was being covered up and talked about it with others.)

Based on the timeline, these Israeli operatives would have arrived back in Israel not before November 21. They appeared on the talk show sometime before the end of the month, after a few days of intensive de-briefing.

Thanksgiving Day was on November 22, so that any possible news of their release from custody and arrival back in Israel would have easily been drowned out as Americans were focusing on that major holiday.

Dandelion Root Kills Cancer Cells?

WINDSOR, Ont. — Extract from dandelion roots dug out of lawns by a University of Windsor scientist and his students make cancer cells “commit suicide.”

Oncologist Dr. Caroline Hamm got the idea to look into dandelions after two leukemia patients refused their next course of chemotherapy, yet returned to the cancer centre not on stretchers, but with improved test results after a steady diet of dandelion tea.

Hamm contacted University of Windsor biochemist Siyaram Pandey. Two cases “were nothing, it could be coincidental,” Pandey said, recalling his early skepticism. But he did some preliminary research and set his students loose.

They meticulously dug up dandelion roots — thanks to Ontario’s pesticide ban, they didn’t have to worry about toxins — and applied the root extract they formulated to leukemia cells.

“There it did great, it did work,” said Pandey, who added the leukemia cells effectively commit suicide within 24 hours of getting the dandelion treatment.

“It killed the cells very selectively. It only killed the cancer cells. The regular cells were not killed.”

The results were recently published in the Journal of Ethnopharmacy.

“Here you have a non-toxic alternative to chemotherapy,” said John Dufresne, a retired University of Windsor biochemist who administers the program. Pandey’s research could lead to a product that could treat cancers resistant to chemotherapy drugs, he said. “It’s almost in a sense a naturopathic approach to cancer treatment and to me that’s very exciting.”

Pandey and his team — Hamm and students Pamela Ovadje, Sudipa Chatterjee, Carly Griffin and Cynthia Tragrants — are getting $60,000 over two years from the Windsor and Essex County Cancer Centre Foundation’s Seeds4Hope program to conduct further research.

Parents in Christian-Newsom murders want more prosecution for Boyd

KNOXVILLE (WATE) – The parents of murder victims Channon Christian and Chris Newsom will always hold on to the memories of their children, but they’re also seeking more justice in court.

The couple was carjacked at gunpoint, robbed, tortured, raped and killed in January 2007.

Christian, a 5’7″ student at the University of Tennessee, was bound, put in garbage bags and stuffed in a trash can where she suffocated.

Newsom was bound, taken to a set of railroad tracks, shot three times and then set on fire.

Both wound up nearly unrecognizable on autopsy tables.

The randomness of the torture slayings evoked fear and disbelief from authorities and the community.

A massive investigation eventually brought four defendants to trial. Vanessa Coleman was sentenced to 53 years on lesser charges in the case.

Coleman’s boyfriend, Letalvis Cobbins, and his friend, George Thomas, will spend the rest of their lives in prison.

And Cobbins’ half-brother, LeMaricus Davidson, received the death penalty.

Still the parents of the victims say they have unfinished business.

“They kept saying Davidson was the ringleader. Well he may have been the ringleader, but he wasn’t the most evil of them all. He may have been the ringleader, but he did everything Eric Boyd said,” Deena and Gary Christian said.

Boyd is serving an 18 year prison sentence in this case. He was convicted in federal court as an accessory after the fact for helping Davidson hide from authorities.

However, Boyd was never charged with rape or murder. “I will always feel like Boyd is getting away with murder,” said Chris’ mother, Mary Newsom.

Cobbins told investigators it was Boyd and Davidson who launched the crime spree that started with the couple’s carjacking.

“They jump out of the car and run to a white SUV and, um, there was two people, a man and a woman at the SUV. They jump in, pointing guns at them and, and um, they carjacked them I guess,” Cobbins said during one interview by authorities.

“He is one of them that got in the (Toyota) 4Runner and put a gun on Channon. For that, he needs to face the death penalty,” Gary Christian said.

“Eric Boyd was the one that first took him (Chris) away and tied him up and raped him,” Mary Newsom said.

Most, if not all, of the defendants insinuated that Boyd was the one to first take Chris Newsom away after the carjacking. They said he returned a short time later without Newsom to Davidson’s rental home on Chipman Street, where Christian was held captive.

“I figured when he came back without him you know that he went ahead and did something with the old boy,” George Thomas told investigators in an interview.

“You don’t know if Chris felt the bullet, but he damn well felt what they did to him,” Gary Christian said. “I think Thomas shot him in the back and Eric Boyd shot him in the head.”

“He never told me he did any of that. He never told me he was involved in any of that,” said Boyd’s attorney, Phil Lomonaco, during a recent interview.

Lomonaco was appointed to represent Boyd during the federal trial. He says he took a lot of heat for taking Boyd’s case, but he had an obligation to uphold the Constitution.

Lomonaco also says if there’s tangible evidence against Boyd, the state should make a move. “If they have the evidence that there is probable cause, then they should do it.”

But even with all the accounts implicating Boyd, the Knox County District Attorney General’s Office by law can’t use the incriminating statements made to investigators by the other convicted killers, even if they did prosecute Boyd.

“I don’t feel like Chris got full justice,” said his father, Hugh Newsom.

The Newsoms know key evidence has to turn up to get any break in this case. “The longer it goes, the dimmer the memory gets, and you have witnesses, key witnesses, that disappear on you,” Hugh Newsom added.

The Knoxville Police Department and the DA’s office wouldn’t comment for this report, except to say the case is still open and under investigation.

However, “There is no doubt that Eric Boyd is going to be prosecuted in state court,” Gary Christian said. “Eric Boyd is not going to come on the streets in this country again.”

The Christians say the other convicted killers may not have been motivated by race, but they believe Boyd was. “Eric Boyd did what he did because he hated white people,” Gary said.

When asked if he feels this was a hate crime on the part of Eric Boyd, Hugh Newsom said, “Yes, absolutely.”

The parents have been to more than 200 court proceedings to seek justice for the children they only see now in photos and dreams.

“Between, I think all four of us, we will never stop until everybody that was involved is put behind bars,” Deena Christian said.

Boyd is being held at a medium security prison in West Virginia with 12 years of his 18 year sentence still to serve. He’s due to be released in 2022.

Boyd’s federal conviction in this case is under appeal.

The Truth About The California Missle

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

The submarine launch of an ICBM off the California coast on November 8 is a milestone in American history. The immediate denials that it was an American test were a public relations disaster. America’s government does little but lie to its people, 9/11, Osama bin Laden, we could go on forever. In fact, nothing coming out of Washington or the press is remotely credible and it has finally been proven. This is a private confirmation we received:

REDACTED: Finally there is something that has occurred, in which I am actually an expert and qualified to give a real answer about. I am a retired U.S. Navy FireControl Technician, who is platform certified in missile systems XXXXXXXXX, I have also worked with the Navy’s Harpoon, Tomahawk and ASROC missile systems.Anyway, what I saw in the recent video concerning the object 30 miles off the coast of CA is blatantly a foreign made, Large Cruise or ICBM missile, being launched by a sub-surface aquatic platform.

First I know its a large missile because it did not exhibit the typical “corkscrewing” trajectory of a beam riding missile as it trys to acquire the targeting beam. This tells me its a Big Boy with a complete guidance system installed in it, what is nicknamed a “fire and forget” missile, as once its launched its internal guidance system takes over and there is no real need for external guidance.

I’m fairly confident its not one of ours, as the vapor trail appears “dirty” it looks brownish. I have personally been involved in (5) SM2 missile launches, and (2) ASROC missile launches, and have been on safety observation for at least 15 more launches of Harpoons, Tomahawks and other missiles. We put a lot of sweat and money into our “birds” and part of that is the fuel cells, they burn very clean, a whitish-blue infact, not a dirty blackish brown. That missile had rather crude fuel cells, which tells me its not one of ours.

A submarine comes approaches America’s heavily guarded coast, through a network of defenses costing billions, and launches an ICBM capable of carrying up to 10 hydrogen bombs, launches the missile 2 minutes from Los Angeles, and we are utterly unaware? This is the same military we trust our children’s lives to?

This is the same military that spent a 9 years hunting for Osama bin Laden, knowing he was dead, hundreds of millions of dollars, endless lives lost, all over a lie. Keeping bin Laden’s death secret is a deception not unlike the phony Yemen bomb scare and the “crotch bomber” last Christmas, “third rate boogeyman” ploys to justify wasted money and airport passenger abuse.

This is the same military that killed 5000 Americans in Iraq over more lies, always known to be lies. Behind the flag waving and patriotic blithering is a pack of greedy incompetents, many religious extremists, most up to their necks in right wing politics and too many willing to send us to war for their own personal reasons. A patriot wouldn’t last 5 minutes in Americas military.

They would tear the place down around them, screaming “thieves, liars and cowards” as they did it. This, however, this last insult, is just too much. The America people expected a decent lie. It is now nearly 10 days later and the military believes they can simply put their pointy little heads in the sand and the rest of us can go to hell? Not hardly!

Laid bare is the level of post Cold War leadership in the Pentagon, accustomed to wasting money, fabricating war news and trying to lie their way to empty victory in wars without plan or purpose, long proven unwinable.

WHO DID IT

Wayne Madsen, says the missile was fired from a Chinese submarine. Madsen has a fairly good track record on such things. There are 5 nations, all permanent members of the UN Security Council, that have such capabilities. (India soon) Madsen’s claim that China launched the missile just prior to announcing the lowering of America’s credit rating from A+ to AA, just above “junk bonds” is part of the story and certainly explains the timing. America’s ability to play world bully with someone else’s money is at an end.

However, it is more than economics, the move by the Federal Reserve to buy up its own debt, a shady currency manipulation aimed at China, or the push to continue the Bush era “free ride” tax breaks, all make America an unreliable investment. There are 5000 criminals in Wall Street that, if they lived in China, would have gotten a bullet in the brain. In stead, America gave them 2 trillion dollars in borrowed from China and jailed poor old Bernie Madoff. There are other reasons for China to mistrust America, a nation they clearly see as under the control of gangsters and extremists.

Thus the warning.

IS IT REALLY CHINA?

There is only one reason that the United States didn’t announce the usual “weather balloon” or “box cutters” cover stories. It means that the nation responsible, assuming it is China, warned us that they would go public and that the American military had to live with the humiliation as a punishment.

There is no other explanation. There also is no other “suspect” than China, who has the interests in the Pacific region, the technical capability and the complex “love-hate” relationship with the United States. China finances Americas debt, they are our largest trading partner, certainly our primary business partner in the world today in every way and are still continually presented to the American people as an enemy. Our homes are filled with Chinese products, without China, our local Walmarts would stand empty.

Assuming China, and without a denial from the Pentagon, we must assume China, what could the United States have done to push them this far? Is China telling the United States that we are ‘mad dogs’ ready to be “put down?”

WHO IS CHINA?

America’s ignorance of history will continue to assure that America remains a victim of history’s lessons. China forgets nothing.

The Opium Wars of the 19th century were an announcement to the world that China was open for business, not trade, certainly not development but for crime and exploitation at the hands of the colonial powers of Europe, Russia and Japan. Over the next half decade, culminating in the Boxer Rebellion, China was carved up, piece at a time, humiliated and crushed. Nobody stood up for China, nobody but the United States. American missionaries were in every region of China, running schools, orphanages and earning the trust and affection of the Chinese people. It is one of those bright spots in American history.

McKinley’s Secretary of State, John Hay sided with China against the ravages of the colonial powers with his Open Door circulars. America’s policy toward China was one of open and free trade, something impossible under the system of “treaty ports” and “extrality” being used to subjugate China into a checkerboard of “interest zones.”

China learned to hate the west but not America. American’s were raised on the books of Pearl Buck who presented the countless generations of suffering and perseverance of the Chinese people in an idyllic manner. These were the books I read as a child, before that, read by my mother, who grew up with them in a coal mining camp in Kentucky. Millions of Americans knew more of China than they did their own country, felt a bond, a kinship and a partnership of spirit.

With the Japanese invasion and its endless atrocities America was divided on China. Franklin Roosevelt and the majority of the American people sided with China. Wall Street and the oil companies sided with Japan and kept sending oil, scrap metal and other vital resources which allowed Japan to build a military machine to control, not only China but huge portions of the Pacific as well. This would lead to period of unpleasantness between Japan and the United States culminating with the incineration of most of Japan’s cities.

Every child in China is taught about the AVG, the American Volunteer Group, the “Flying Tigers.” American pilots, under the leadership of General Claire Lee Chennault, provided the only resistance to Japanese bombing attacks on Chinese cities. To the Chinese, Americans are heroes who stood by China during its darkest hour. Ask any American who travels to China.

Describing the tumultuous period of Chinese history during the 20s and 30s is a task best left elsewhere. Suffice it to say, the struggle between the Nationalists under Chiang kai-shek and the communist forces under Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai are filled with twists and turns. During the 1920s, they were forced to worked together for awhile but Chiang turned on the communists who escaped his trap in what is now called “the Long March.” Later, when America entered the war, the Nationalists and communists joined forces under the supervision of American General Joseph Stillwell.

It is noted that the communists under Mao made far better allies than Chiang’s nationalists. A recommended read on this is Edgar Snow’s Red Star Over China.

With the advent of the Cold War and American misconceptions about the nature of Soviet and Chinese communism, America chose the disastrous policy of supporting the hopeless Nationalist cause and, eventually, direct military confrontation with a fully communist China during the Korean war. China could just as easily have been an American ally against the Soviets, even with its communist government, if it weren’t for the McCarthy witch hunt and the leadership failures of the Truman administration, some being deeply paralleled by President Obama today.

China had never been America’s enemy. It took “ping pong diplomacy” and Richard Nixon to restore balance and sanity to American policy after decades of childish blithering about the menace of “Red China,” an imaginary threat, being continually harped on by neo-cons even today, whenever the public tires of the fictions about Islamic extremism.

Today, China’s friendship for America is all that is keeping the United States afloat.

IS AMERICA A “RABID DOG?”

China, once a country where, in famine years, baby girls were abandoned in fields to die, is now the richest country in the world. Where millions had starved each year, Chinese tourists can now be seen anywhere in the world. Their progress is a marvel and one of the greatest success stories in the history of mankind. China’s government is a hybrid of privatization and communism, ruled by a “technocracy” that manages the economy and maintains an unaligned position in world affairs.

China’s policies are based on both security of its borders and people and the assurance of access to natural resources, oil and minerals in particular, without which China’s “bubble” might well burst.

America, on the other hand, seems to be moving backward, hopelessly in debt, continually embroiled in military adventures and clearly a failed democracy at home, moving inexorably toward totalitarianism and extremism. Sound far fetched? This is how the world sees America, not just the Islamic world but Canada, Britain, Western Europe and Russia. The question now, does China see America as a threat, a “rabid dog?” Are America’s adventures in the Middle East and South Asia, which have killed hundreds of thousands, maybe more, a threat to China?

IRAN AND PAKISTAN

China and the world have seen Iraq and Afghanistan destroyed. They are watching Pakistan be destroyed by an American policy that can have no purpose other than to see Pakistan dismembered and crushed. America’s covert war against Pakistan, a nation that has been an American ally since its inception, is a senseless policy. Now, with the “sea change” toward increased Israeli influence in America’s government, the onset of the new extremist “Tea Party” wing of “Israeli firsters,” an attack on Iran, one of China’s closest allies and largest suppliers of crude oil, is expected at any time.

China has no doubts that America, as it is currently “misgoverned,” stands ready to do anything as a pretense for war even though its last two military adventures are both “unresolved,” a generous term for “failed.”

It is also clear to China and others that America’s ruling cabal, calling it a government is a certain misnomer, no longer functions in the national interest. If the Chinese missile launch, providing it was the Chinese, was a warning of something, it was a warning based on this knowledge.

“If America can’t be trusted to take care of its own people and exercise its position as world superpower with sensibility and restraint, “there’s a new sheriff in town.”

How Veterans Day Became A Farce

My children brought home the Scholastic News from school on Friday. For those who don’t know, it’s “America’s Leading News Source for Kids.” Its weekly editions are typically led by a theme, and students are encouraged to complete the exercises within. This one caught my eye: “Hi I’m Joe, I am a veteran. That means I was in a war. Meet my dog Benjamin. I’ll show you how he helps me everyday.”

On the front is a heartbreaking photo of a Marine with a “robot leg” in a wheelchair, his arm slung over a beautiful golden retriever. Inside, after more photos of the veteran and Benjamin, and the veteran and his young family, my child is asked, “how can we thank (soldiers)? … we can send them a care package!”

How about demanding they all come home now, legs intact? I think about this ruefully for a moment and realize that I had spent much of Veterans Day looking at photos of amputees.

FULL STORY

Anarchism, Reason, and History

SOURCE

January 24, 2002

Can any state have a “right to exist”? The question has been raised anew by Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in his book Democracy: The God That Failed. He answers it with a resounding No.

Hoppe is only the latest thinker in the tradition of philosophical anarchism. His mentor, the late Murray Rothbard, was another. Both owe their ideas to a great but little-known nineteenth-century American, Lysander Spooner.

Spooner’s position was simple. There is a moral law, which in essence we all learn in early childhood, even before we know our math tables. Basically it is this: Don’t harm other people. The principle is simple, even if its applications may occasionally be difficult.

From this, Spooner reasoned, it follows that no state should exist. Nobody can claim the power to change the moral law or a monopoly of the authority to enforce it. But the state claims the right to do both. It tries to change the moral law by legislation, which is falsely thought to add to the moral duties of its subjects; and it insists that only it may define, outlaw, and punish wrongs.

The results of the state’s claims include war, tyranny, slavery, and taxation. Human society would be better off without the state.

The best argument for anarchism is the twentieth century. One scholar, R.J. Rummel, calculates that states in that century murdered about 177 million of their own subjects — and that figure doesn’t even count international wars. It’s inconceivable that private criminals could kill that many. It would be interesting to know how much wealth states have confiscated and wasted.

But could society exist without the state? Is it a necessary evil of human existence? Can it even be a positive good?

Aristotle said that man is a political animal, but his conception of the community, or polis, was very different from the modern state. He thought the community should be small enough that its members could all know each other. Sound like any state you know?

St. Augustine saw the state, along with slavery, as a consequence of Original Sin. It could never be a good thing, but it was inescapable for fallen men. But we may ask whether this is really so; in Augustine’s day slavery seemed a necessary evil of social life, and a world without slavery was hard to imagine. Nobody could remember, and few could conceive, an economy without slaves.

Is it possible that we have likewise assumed that the state is inevitable only because we are used to it, and can hardly imagine a world without it? Just as the menial tasks once performed by slaves are now distributed differently among free men, perhaps, as anarchists argue, the functions of the state could be distributed among voluntary agencies.

The Renaissance philosopher Thomas Hobbes thought that anarchy — the “state of nature” — would be “a war of all against all,” making human life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” His solution was the state, which would quell quarrels among men. He didn’t foresee that the state itself might aggravate conflict and make social order far more miserable than anarchy could ever be.

Hobbes’s near-contemporary John Locke offered a more attractive alternative: the limited state, which would have the power to secure men’s natural rights but would lack the power to violate them. But such a state has never existed for long. Once a monopoly of power exists at all, it tends to degenerate into tyranny; anarchists argue that this decline is inevitable, because tyranny is inherent in the very nature of the state.

Oddly enough, the great conservative Edmund Burke began his career with an anarchist tract, arguing that the state was naturally and historically destructive of human society, life, and liberty. Later he explained that he’d intended his argument ironically, but many have doubted this. His argument for anarchy was too powerful, passionate, and cogent to be a joke. Later, as a professional politician, Burke seems to have come to terms with the state, believing that no matter how bloody its origins, it could be tamed and civilized, as in Europe, by “the spirit of a gentleman, and the spirit of religion.” But even as he wrote, the old order he loved was already breaking down.

Whatever the truth is, the anarchists have much reason on their side. And much history.

Israel is the Root Cause of Terrorism

Some of the most refreshing words I’ve heard come out of a politicians mouth.

 SOURCE

British Politician: ‘Israel is the Root Cause of Terrorism’

Liberal Democratic peer asks why world allows Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to continue – “Is it Holocaust guilt?”

By JONNY PAUL

November 15, 2010 “JPost” — LONDON – In the second attack on Israel by Liberal Democrat politicians in the same week that the party’s leader said the party got it wrong on Israel, Jenny Tonge claimed on Friday that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is the root cause of terrorism worldwide.

Possibly “Holocaust guilt” allows this treatment to go unchecked, Tonge said, adding that it might also be the “power of the pro-Israel lobby” in the UK and US.

The Liberal Democrat peer was speaking in the House of Lords at the Strategic Defense and Security Review, which sets out how the British government will deliver the priorities identified in its national security strategy.

On the issue of world conflict prevention, Tonge then said: “It is a disgrace to us all that problems such as Kashmir and Palestine are still alienating Muslims all over the world.

“The treatment of Palestinians by Israel is held up as an example of how the West treats Muslims,” she said, “and is at the root cause of terrorism worldwide.”

“Even [the Quartet’s Middle East envoy] Tony Blair has now admitted this publicly,” she claimed.

“Why do we let it continue? Is it Holocaust guilt? We should be guilty – of course we should. Is it the power of the pro-Israel lobby here and in the USA?” The peer went on say that “cynics might think” Britain is at the ready to help Israel attack Iran.

“Or is it the need, maybe, to have an aircraft carrier called Israel in the Middle East, from which to launch attacks on countries such as Iran? The cynic might think that that is why HMS Ark Royal and the Harriers [fighter jets] can be dispensed with [as part of UK defense cuts] – [since] we already have a static “Ark Royal” in a strategic position, armed to the teeth and ready to fight, provided that we do not offend Israel,” she said.

Tonge, a lifelong anti-Israel activist, continued: “I feel sorry for the people of Israel sometimes. Their government’s policies have made that country the cause of a lot of the world’s problems, yet now they are seen in the middle as the remedy and the base for the West to fight back.”

The party has distanced itself from Tonge’s comments, which “do not reflect the views of the Liberal Democrats,” a spokesman told The Jerusalem Post on Saturday. “Indeed, last week [party leader] Nick Clegg stressed that Israel’s right to thrive in peace and security is non-negotiable for Liberal Democrats.”

Last week, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Phillips told a meeting of the radical fringe group Palestine Solidarity Campaign in parliament that “Europe cannot think straight about Israel because of the Holocaust, and America is in the grip of the well-organized Jewish lobby.”

These two incidents came in the same week that Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg told a meeting of Liberal Democrat supporters of Israel that his party had got it wrong on Israel.

“I’m not certain that we have always made ourselves clearly heard on this, so let me say it again now: Israel’s right to thrive in peace and security is nonnegotiable for Liberal Democrats.

“No other country so continually has its right to exist called into question as does Israel, and that is intolerable. There can be no solution to the problems of the Middle East that does not include a full and proper recognition of Israel by all parties to the conflict,” he said.

“Campaigning for justice for the Palestinian people has been heard loud and clear from the Liberal Democrats, [and] it should always have been accompanied, equally loudly and equally clearly, by an awareness of the security challenges faced by Israel, and of the right of Israel to defend itself against the threats that it continually faces,” Clegg added.

In February, Clegg sacked Tonge as health spokeswoman in the Lords after she suggested that Israel set up an inquiry to refute allegations that its medical teams in Haiti “harvested” organs of earthquake victims.

It is not the first time the Liberal Democrat politician has been sacked by the party for her comments on Israel.

In 2006, then party leader Menzies Campbell dissociated the party from Tonge and condemned her for “clear anti-Semitic connotations” after she said that “the pro-Israeli lobby has got its grips on the Western world, its financial grips. I think they have probably got a certain grip on our party.”

In 2004, Tonge was sacked as a spokeswoman on children’s issues after suggesting she could consider becoming a suicide bomber.