Bloody Diamonds in the hands of Soros

The African continent over the long decades after its apparent independence from European occupation has been the victim of a strategic plan against its diamonds and has been destroyed. The diamond cartels constantly change the African governments and create wars so that they could bring their armies, the British special forces and other illegal armies, to interfere with African affairs.

The destruction of the African continent in the last few years has been accomplished under the banner of progress led by the imperialistic forces whose only purpose is ending national governments and destroying any African government that stands in their way.

This movement is being openly cooperative with the cartels led by George Soros, a billionare drug smuggler (Brazil: George Soros wants to legalize drugs). They have led the African continent into continuous war and hunger.

The Open Society Institute (OSI) and other companies connected with Soros which are financially independent, constitute a large number of independent and international groups which try to destroy African governments under the banner of a war against oppression and corruption. They also fight against the natural resources of this continent.

OSI was established in 1993 by the Jewish Soros with the purpose of supporting established foundations in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. These foundations which started to form in 1984 announced that their purpose was aiding the countries who were changing from Communism. After this, OSI started its activities moving from the Soros Foundations Network to other areas of the world. Its main purpose was to regime-change; making non-democratic countries democratic. The Soros Foundations Network covers 60 countries, including America.

One of the controversial plans of the OSI is the Lindesmith plan and other plans which have a connection to the drug trade. The purpose of OSI, which is an independent organization, officially form the policies of governments in making them democratic and forming ‘human rights’ on the political, judicial, and economical scale. This foundation has performed many social activities such as showing a support of laws, teaching general health, and media services on local levels. But, at the same time, in order to achieve an international unity they followed the path of fighting corruption and any opposition to human rights. One of the announced goals of OSI is to encourage people to participate democratically.

But, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) presents a face to the nightmare. This foundation started its activities with the organization Publish What You Pay, under the leadership of George Soros, which was advertised by Global Witness, another organization financially supported by Soros. This foundation wanted countries who had expensive natural resources to give all of their archived dealings regarding these resources to a multi-national cartel and the English government.

It should be said that EITI officially announced that its purpose is to create worldwide commotion so that companies that benefit from mines must pay a portion of their profits and the countries where they work must pay a portion of their income. This foundation stated that 5.3 billion people live in countries that are rich in oil, gas, or mineral and with a correct government they could benefit from the profits of these resources. They believe that this would help put an end to poverty. But, if there are bad governments there will be nothing but poverty and corruption.

In 2002, the English Prime Minister, Blair, announced in Johannesburg that he agreed with the proposal of Soros. In 2003, Blair established EITI as an international organization based in London, trying to attract American support, and trying to openly control the natural resources of the world. The member-companies of EITI, which originally started with three companies: Anglo-Dutch Shell Oil, DeBeers, and Anglo American. Today, mineral companies such as AngloGold Ashanti, Barrick Gold, BHP Billiton, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Gold Fields, Katanga Mining Limited, Newmont, and Rio Tinto, and oil companies such as Chevron, ConocoPhilips, Eni, ExxonMobil, Hess Corporation, Pemex, and Petrobras are included in it.

In 2006, the main chair of EITI settled in narudhj and lived with the capital of the companies under George Soros, the Jewish billionaire. In order to make EITI a branch of Soros, Paul Wolfowitz, who was the president of the World Bank at the time and who was one of the leaders of the Iraq fiasco, came to narudhj and participated in a conference with the aim of guiding third world countries to the industrial world.

With the passing of time, the public opinion started to recognize the bloodshed that was caused over diamonds – the expensive stone that is used as money for the mafia and para-military groups. Here, the foundation Global Witness (under the supervision of George Soros) which the cooperation of the most important diamond sellers brought the issue of bloody diamonds to London.

In 2000, the international diamond council circled Brussels, London, and South Africa. They were led by DeBeers, by Moris Tempelsman, the president of the diamond company Lazare Kaplan International in New York, and by Dan Gertler who was a billionaire Israeli diamond merchant. Change in the international diamond council in industrially usurping diamonds was confirmed by Global Witness and became a program of EITI.

Moris Tempelson, was born in Belgium and started his work in the Congo. After the Patrice Lumumba, the nationalist prime minister, was killed in 1961 Larry Devlin, the former CIA station chief who receive the order to kill Lumumba (although he claims that someone did the dirty job), became the liaison of the temporary government. Tempelson participated from this station in the British coup d’état of Kwame Nkrumah, the president of Ghana. He has now become an important figure in the American branch of DeBeers, an international diamond cartel based in London. Tempelson lived with Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (the widow of John F. Kennedy) until her death in 1994. Alongside Felix Rohatyn and George Soros he is a power in the post-JFK Democratic Party. He runs the National Democratic Institute which is a part of the National Endowment for Democracy which is funded by Global Witness and many other companies under Soros.

Israeli rightwinger Dan Gertler is the grandson of Moshe Schnitzer, founder of Israel’s diamond industry, and the nephew of Schmuel Schnitzer, vice chairman of the World Diamond Council in charge of the Council’s liaison with governments and the UN. In the Bush-Cheney era, Gertler has taken over from Maurice Tempelsman the role of unofficial representative of the U.S. government in the Congo. In partnership with other Israeli billionaires and with rightist politicians such as Avigdor Lieberman, Gertler arranged with former Congo president Laurent Kabila to set up a diamond monopoly in exchange for Israeli arms and military training. In 2006, Gertler gave London-Zimbabwe-South Africa arms trafficker John Bredenkamp $60 million for mineral property in the Congo, shortly before police raided Bredenkamp’s home and office in England in the (soon aborted) probe of BAE Systems arms-deals corrupton in South Africa. The Bredenkamp deal allowed Gertler to become top shareholder in London’s Camec, the copper and cobalt mining giant in Congo.

With this apparatus behind him, George Soros is doing to Africa what he did in his native Hungary in 1944, when he helped the Nazi occupiers in the extermination of the Jews.

Islam Times


The Tale of Two Apartheids

IN APRIL 1976, John Vorster, president of the then-racist apartheid regime of South Africa, paid an official state visit to Israel, where he was given the red-carpet treatment.

Israeli television showed him on his first day, visiting the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem. At an official state banquet held for Vorster, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin toasted the “ideals shared by Israel and South Africa.”

Why was an outspoken member of a Nazi militia in South Africa during the Second World War and a leading member of the party that crafted official apartheid policies in South Africa being feted in Israel?

A statement in the South African government’s yearbook made two years after Vorster’s visit provides an answer: “Israel and South Africa have one thing above all else in common: they are both situated in a predominantly hostile world inhabited by dark peoples.”

These close ties came from the identification that both states had for each other’s cause. Both were settler states that claimed to be bringing “civilization” to so-called backward peoples. And both were committed to using any and all means to maintain their regional domination over the “natives” that they had conquered–in South Africa, to create a white state based on the exploitation of Black labor; in Israel, to create an exclusively Jewish state through the systematic removal of the indigenous Palestinian population.

In an excellent two-part article in the Guardian in 2006, Chris McGreal quotes Ronnie Kasrils, then the intelligence minister in the post-apartheid government led by the African National Congress. Kasrils, who is Jewish and had co-authored a petition protesting Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, explained why such a close affinity could develop between the two countries:

Israelis claim that they are the chosen people, the elect of God, and find a biblical justification for their racism and Zionist exclusivity.

This is just like the Afrikaners of apartheid South Africa, who also had the biblical notion that the land was their God-given right. Like the Zionists who claimed that Palestine in the 1940s was “a land without people for a people without land,” so the Afrikaner settlers spread the myth that there were no black people in South Africa when they first settled in the 17th century. They conquered by force of arms and terror and the provocation of a series of bloody colonial wars of conquest.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

VORSTER’S VISIT signaled an acceleration of economic, diplomatic and military cooperation between the two countries, a collaboration that already had a lengthy history.

South African Gen. Jan Smuts, who had a close relationship with the Zionist leader Chaim Weizman, Israel’s first prime minister, had been instrumental in convincing Britain to sign the Balfour Declaration that agreed to the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” After 1948, South Africa was one of the first countries to recognize Israel.

N. Kirschner, a veteran South African Zionist leader, wrote in 1960 in an Israeli publication: “There exists a bond between Jewish aspirations and the aspirations of the people of South Africa.”

That bond was expressed chiefly in growing military and secret nuclear cooperation. Each country shared its intelligence and counterinsurgency techniques with the other, and South Africa purchased arms from Israel. Israel purchased nuclear materials from South African in order to develop its secret weapons program, and in return, Israel provided scientific and technical assistance to help South African build its nuclear bombs.

Hundreds of white South Africans graduated from Israeli military training schools. “It is a clear and open secret,” wrote an Israeli journalist in 1976, “that in army camps, one can find Israeli officers in not insignificant numbers who are busy teaching white soldiers to fight black terrorists, with methods imported from Israel.”

The parallels between Israel and apartheid South Africa are striking. In South Africa, the white colonial settler minority conquered the Black majority, forcing them into Bantustans–so-called independent African homelands–that covered only 13 percent of the country. This allowed the whites to declare South Africa a white country.

Blacks, who outnumbered whites by 4-to-1, became the cheap labor that built South Africa’s economy, but they couldn’t be citizens.

Likewise, Theodore Herzl, known as the father of Zionism, sold the Jewish state to its potential imperial backers as “an outpost of civilization against barbarism.”

Variations on statements such as this one from Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department, can be found scattered throughout the writings of the founders of the state of Israel: “There is no room for both peoples together in this country…There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries. To transfer all of them; not one village, not one tribe should be left.”

These principles guided the Zionist armies and paramilitary gangs that used massacres and terror to drive 750,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1948 in order to create the state of Israel, and again led to the expulsion of 325,000 Palestinians from their land after the 1967 war.

These are not old, outdated views, but the deeply held conviction of leading Zionists today. Listen to the ravings of Israeli Professor Arnon Soffer, head of the Israel Defense Force’s National Defense College, speaking to the Jerusalem Post in 2004 about Israel’s unilateral pullout from Gaza:

We will tell the Palestinians that if a single missile is fired over the fence, we will fire 10 in response. And women and children will be killed, and houses will be destroyed. After the fifth such incident, Palestinian mothers won’t allow their husbands to shoot Qassams, because they will know what’s waiting for them.

Second of all, when 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful.

It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day…If we don’t kill, we will cease to exist…Unilateral separation doesn’t guarantee “peace”–it guarantees a Zionist-Jewish state with an overwhelming majority of Jews.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

THERE ARE some differences between South African and Israeli apartheid.

Israel’s relationship to Arab labor was different than that of the South Africa rulers to the Black majority. Rather than exploiting cheap Arab labor, the early Zionist settlers in Palestine built their state-in-embryo by excluding Arab labor, under the slogan “Jewish Land, Jewish Labor.”

After the formation of the state of Israel, Arabs did become a source of cheap labor, but Israel has never been dependent on Arab labor–whereas in South Africa, strikes threatened to bring down apartheid because Black labor was its lifeblood.

Yet the similarities are more striking than the differences. If apartheid South Africa declared itself a white state by creating the fiction of Black “homelands” and implementing pass laws to severely restrict the movement of Africans, in Israel, an exclusively Jewish state was creating by expelling the majority of Palestinians from their lands and legally barring their return.

A battery of laws were put in place after 1948 that grant the state legal authority, in various ways, to seize Arab farms, orchards, homes and businesses if the owners are absent for any length of time, or for “security” reasons. At the same time, any Jew in the world was granted the legal right to enter Israel and become a citizen.

Today, Israel treats the Arab minority within its current borders as third-class citizens (behind the Mizrahim, or the Middle Eastern, as opposed to European, Jews). Palestinians receive lower wages and education funding, face routine harassment and police brutality, and are subjected to high incarceration rates; they are restricted from owning land, and are victims of land seizures and expulsions that continue to this day.

A paper on Israel’s Arab minority by Eric Gust of the Center for Contemporary Conflict explained that “advancement of Arabs within Israeli society, whether in the demographic, economic, political or educational sectors, is viewed as occurring at the expense of the Jewish population, and could be perceived as a threat to the Jewish nature of Israel.”

Israel is also an apartheid state in form, if not in legal terms, because it has turned the lands it occupied in 1967–the West Bank and Gaza–into South African-style Bantustans, whose inhabitants face economic blockade and routine assaults from the Israeli army and settlers, and whose towns and refugee camps are cut off from each other by an apartheid wall and a system of checkpoints, while special roads crisscross the West Bank that can only be used by Jews.

Any “two-state” solution that Israel accepts will merely put a legal stamp on this fact.

Israeli leaders are usually loath to publicly admit that Israel is an apartheid-style state. Yet there are moments of candor.

Former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Force, Gen. Rafael Eitan, speaking at a closed meeting of Israeli professionals in 1983, gave a presentation that considered South Africa’s Bantustan policy as a possible solution to the Palestinian problem.

Last November, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made a statement that if Israel was unable to implement a two-state solution, it would “face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished.”

He had warned four years earlier: “We don’t have unlimited time. More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against ‘occupation,’ in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle–and ultimately, a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state.”

Israel leaders look with horror on the prospect of the struggle for a democratic, secular Palestine–a state for all its inhabitants–because the whole basis of the existence of Israel as an exclusively Jewish state would be destroyed.

For that same reason, those of us who oppose Zionism should welcome such a struggle with open arms.


Less Than Half the World Believes al Qaeda Was Behind 9/11 Attacks

9/11 Victims

9/11 Victims

An international poll released this week by the Project on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) found that outside the United States, many are skeptical that al Qaeda was really responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Sixteen thousand people in 17 countries — allies and adversaries in Asia, Europe, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East — were asked the open-ended question: “Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks?”

On average, fewer than half of all respondents said al Qaeda (although there was significant variation between countries and regions). Fifteen percent said the United States government itself was responsible for the attacks, 7 percent cited Israel, and fully 1 in 4 said they just didn’t know.

Among our closest allies, very slim majorities believe al Qaeda was the culprit. According to the study, “Fifty-six percent of Britons and Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans cite al Qaeda. However, significant portions of Britons (26%), French (23%), and Italians (21%) say they do not know who was behind 9/11. Remarkably, 23 percent of Germans cite the U.S. government, as do 15 percent of Italians.”

Whatever one thinks of “alternative” theories of who the perpetrators were that day, the results are an eye-opening indication of how profoundly the world’s confidence in the United States government has eroded during the Bush era. The researchers found little difference among respondents according to levels of education, or to the amount of exposure to the news media they had. Rather, they found a clear correlation with people’s attitudes toward the United States in general. “Those with a positive view of America’s influence in the world are more likely to cite al Qaeda (on average 59%) than those with a negative view (40%),” wrote the authors. “Those with a positive view of the United States are also less likely to blame the U.S. government (7%) than those with a negative view (22%).”

full article:

Neither respected nor feared

Elihu Root

Elihu Root

In an exalted phrase, the keynote speaker at the Republican convention reviewed the record of the administration, and asked, “When have we rested more secure in friendship with all mankind?” That wasn’t in St. Paul, where the Republicans are gathered this week, but at the 1904 Republican convention in Chicago, when the speaker was Elihu Root, a past Secretary of War and future Secretary of State.

His words were sonorous then, and they are haunting now. They will not be repeated this year, because they could not be. A senior American politician might have said something similar in 1920, or 1945 or 1960. But no Republican now – and no Democrat – could utter Root’s words without inviting utter derision.

Today there might be a more bitter question: When has America rested less secure in friendship with all mankind?

And that explains the intense interest which this year’s presidential election has inspired beyond the shores of the United States. It’s not just Obamania – there’s no point in denying that Senator Barack Obama is the man most people outside the United States would like to win – but he was one of three potential candidates until Senator Hillary Clinton conceded defeat who were all fascinating simply in personal terms: a septuagenarian war hero, a woman, a black man.

The election absorbs us in Europe – and others in Africa and Asia – because we can see that a general crisis spreading around the globe is directly linked to the follies and failures of American policy. In his new book, “The Much Too Promised Land,” about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which he used to be engaged as a State Department official, Aaron David Miller puts it with lapidary succinctness.

Having stumbled for eight years under the Clinton administration over how to make peace in the Middle East, and then for eight years under the administration of George Bush the Younger over how to make war there, the United States finds itself “trapped in a region which it cannot fix and it cannot abandon.” Still more to the point, throughout that region, for all of her seeming might, America is “not liked, not feared and not respected.”

full article:

We, the Salt of the Earth, Take Precedence

Which country is the rogue nation? Iraq? Iran? Or the United States? Syndicated columnist Charley Reese asks this question in a recently published article.

Reese notes that it is the US that routinely commits “acts of aggression around the globe.”

The US government has no qualms about dropping bombs on civilians whether they be in Serbia, the Middle East, or Africa. It is all in a good cause – our cause.

This slaughtering of foreigners doesn’t seem to bother the American public. Americans take it for granted that Americans are superior and that American purposes, whatever they be, take precedence over the rights of other people to life and to a political existence independent of American hegemony.

The Bush regime has come up with a preemption doctrine that justifies attacking a country in order to prevent the country from possibly becoming a future threat to the US. “Threat” is broadly defined. It appears to mean the ability to withstand the imposition of US hegemony. This insane doctrine justifies attacking China and Russia, a direction in which the Republican presidential candidate John McCain seems to lean.

The callousness of Americans toward the lives of other peoples is stunning. How many Christian churches ask God’s forgiveness for having been rushed into an error that has killed, maimed, and displaced a quarter of the Iraqi population?

Full article: