This week on SOTT Talk Radio Niall and Joe discussed the ongoing conflict in Israel/Palestine and other major recent events in world news. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the world's longest running conflict, yet very few people know its actual history, when and why it began and why it continues to this day. Even fewer have any understanding of how, because of the conflict, the state of Israel and its 'intelligence agency' the Mossad, has wielded and wields vastly disproportionate (relative to its size and population) power on the world stage and has thereby contributed significantly to the course of our modern civilization.

Other topics discussed on this show include the recent spate of 'downed' commercial aircraft, the ongoing information war between the 'West' and Russia over Ukraine, and much more.

Running Time: 02:20:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript:

Joe: Hi and welcome to SOTT Talk Radio. I'm Joe Quinn and my co-hosts this week are: Niall Bradley and Pierre Lescaudron.

Pierre: Hello.

Niall: Hi there.

Joe: This week we are talking about a hot topic, you probably know what it is, it's one that's all over the media and newspapers and social media sites, etc. There's a few of them, but the one we're talking about is Israel and Palestine and the ongoing, some people say "war" but let's say from my perspective, the ongoing slaughter in Palestine at the hands of Israel. The other topics that we might get into a little bit later on, are obviously the ongoing situation in Ukraine vis-ร -vis - or as it relates to, Russia and the Ukrainian government and the US and the new "cold war", as it's being talked about officially by US military men, specifically referring to the cold war. But Israel, Palestine - the title of our show this week is, Israel: Global Pariah or Promised Land?

Now people who are listening are probably aware of our take on this particular situation. Maybe there's some people out there who are listening for the first time or haven't listened in before or don't know much about us and maybe think this is going to be kind of an open-ended, balanced, BBC News-type debate.

Niall: Finding the happy mean.

Joe: Exactly. It's not going to be that but it is going to be unbiased, in the sense of, it's not going to involve lies or disinformation or paramoralisms or psychopathic speak or rationale. It's going to involve as close as possible the truth of the situation. And some people would call that biased, but that's just from their perspective. We're talking from as close to an objective perspective as possible, i.e. the truth of the situation.

But having said all that, just to try and make it a bit more balanced or at least to provide the other side of the argument, Pierre has taken on the difficult role of presenting, at least, the Israeli side of things and essentially what the Israeli government through the spokespeople and probably most Jews and quite a lot of people in western countries actually think about the situation; what they think is going on. Just as a means to, as I said, presenting that narrative so we can discuss it and to see if there is anything valid or truthful about it and if there is we'll obviously recognize that. If not, we'll provide the alternatives.

Pierre: Yeah I will play the devil's advocate, Israel's advocate. Is it really different? We will see later. In any case, it's a painful but interesting exercise because during this show we won't have this biased, pro-Israeli version that is spread by mainstream media. We will use the same arguments but we will take time to analyse them, to develop an objective assessment of those arguments and to give what lies deserve: the truth. And maybe we can start with the core matter because it's rather pathetic when you start deconstructing the Israeli rhetoric. You conclude that there is basically one central argument; there are many secondary arguments, but there is one single, central argument and it goes this way. Usually you have the Israeli mouthpiece with their hand on their heart, that says, "Look at Hamas, terrorist organisation", they don't say activists or resistance, "The terrorists for Hamas, they are firing rockets at us, in Israeli territory, hundreds a day at our children." - emotional strike - "If terrorists were firing rockets at your children, what would you do? This is a simple case of legitimate defence. We are defending ourselves from terrorists and we are protecting our children."

So, what do you answer to this very moving and convincing argument?

Niall: Well, until this operation 'Protective Edge' was launched, I would have responded in the way I have done in recent years, until this conflict, with the argument: but hang on, your response is disproportionate. And look, the numbers don't lie. The amount of people killed in Gaza or the West Bank versus those killed in Israel is extremely disproportionate. However since this particular, current conflict began, I'm wondering; are there even any Hamas rockets being fired at all? I ask this because you would think there is a lot of propaganda value for Israel, to be able to rebroadcast to the international media footage of Hamas rockets being fired, flying through the air, landing and causing injury and death within Israel proper, but I haven't seen anything.

Pierre: If you check YouTube, you have some videos with titles like Hamas Rockets Over Israel or Iron Dome intercepting Hamas rockets. And sometimes there is footage as well of post-rocket impact scenes where you have a few Israeli citizens injured in the streets and there's some smoke. So there seems to be some video evidence.

Niall: Yeah, indeed. There have been certainly a few explosions of some kind going off. Since I asked the question and included it in our recent SOTT Focus, somebody sent me a link and it does look to be a rocket landing in Israel. I laugh because the footage shows what appears to be a very small explosion at the base of a tree in a park, somewhere in Israel, and the only movement or reaction to it, the only terror experienced, was a cat that was in the tree that ran out of it.

Pierre: Okay, you say that before this ongoing operation, the way you analysed this rocket issue was different. So you thought there were massive amounts of rockets. How would you have justified the fact that Hamas is firing rockets on Israeli territory because obviously violence is not the only solution. Look what Gandhi and what negotiation and diplomacy can do. It can do wonders. So why fall into terrorism and violence?

Niall: Well Joe here's been following these conflicts a lot longer than I have. Every time a new operation is launched in Gaza he's tracked them and he's given people a timeline of events that is not disputed; it's not contradictory; it's the timeline according to official sources. And you see that the provocation in all cases was either Israel confirmed, or if it was not actually confirmed, it's very, very dubious as to who started the fight. In other words, Hamas would say, for example, "Well we don't dispute that something happened at our end but it was news to us. We learned of it through your media. We certainly didn't order this." And this is a recurring theme.

Pierre: So, here you're getting a bit conspiratorial and you're implying that Hamas, or the Palestinian territories, are infiltrated by some Israeli agents that would fire rockets on Israel in order to give legitimacy to disproportionate retaliation.

Niall: Well our sources for that are: Yasser Arafat, Fatah party leaders, Hamas party leaders; very well respected international observers like Richard Falk, UN Human Rights top chief, I think,I don't know if he's still in that position. So these are "conspiracy theories" touted by some people who know what they're talking about. One last thing, to go back to the Iron Dome footage, I've seen the Iron Dome in action. If there's one kind of media presentation difference this time around, there's two things that we've seen that are new: One is Iron Dome; lots of video of it, sirens going off in Israel, people have their cameras ready or there are CCTV cameras on the street corners that pick up the footage. Sirens go off, (makes sound phshew! phshew!). One or two, usually two - I think they fire a pair of rockets.

Pierre: A pair, yeah.

Niall: Up. And they seem to do a spiral motion. And then poof! Now people are being told what they're seeing is Iron Dome missiles intercepting incoming Hamas rockets. But whether it's daytime footage or night-time footage, you never see the other rocket that's supposed to be coming in, which has me wondering if they are not just setting off Iron Dome sirens, rockets go up, poof! and that's it; to give the impression that they are actually under attack at that moment. It seems to be the logical conclusion. Hamas has gone from, it seems, actually having some kind of weaponry to use, to having very, very weak homemade rockets in more recent conflicts, to this conflict where they seem to have nothing. So it would be all pure theatre at this point, from Israel.

Pierre: They must have a few weapons because today, I think the death toll on the Palestinian side reached almost 1,000. On the Israeli side it reached 40.

Niall: Yeah, that's soldiers who are in Gaza.

Pierre: And a few civilians; the last time I checked it was two civilians.

Joe: Yeah, two civilians were supposedly killed by Hamas rockets in the past few weeks, before the ground offensive.

Niall: Yeah. And one of those was at the Eretz Crossing which is the main entrance into Gaza. So a Hamas rocket lands at the wall.

Joe: But, just on the question, or the claim by the Israelis, that what would the world do, or any country in the world do, if they were being attacked by rockets, that's pretty disingenuous because it's too far on in the narrative. It establishes a kind of scenario that's further down the actual sequence of events. If you want to present the situation of 'Look at what's happening to us', you have to present the whole situation and 'why what is happening to us, is happening to us'. You can't just say "This is happening to us". You have to present the whole picture.

And the whole picture is that to provide an analogy for the rest of the world, like people in New York or people in London for example, the scenario should be: what would the people of London do, if a large part of London was hemmed in by a wall with a security fence, with armed towers, with guards of some foreign country, and they were essentially prisoners in their own city and there was an economic blockade that stopped most goods from entering, and the infrastructure within London was extremely poor; the water supply was virtually non-existent, in terms of having clean water; there was a severe lack of food and of all sorts of raw materials to actually provide for a decent standard of living for the people in London. And they're all suffering and periodically, they could be attacked by missiles from this occupying power or have the army of the occupying power, enter into this enclosed area and shoot Londoners.

That's the scenario that should be presented in a 'what would you do?' situation. And in that situation I don't think any Londoners or New Yorkers, or people from any country or city around the world, would have a problem saying that, 'Yeah, we would try to fight back. We would want to address that situation, or redress that situation, and stop that kind of persecution of us by an outside power. And if that included trying to fire some rockets out of London, over the wall that was imprisoning you', then I don't think anybody would have a problem with that. So if you want to present the situation to the outside world, that's the way it should be presented.

Pierre: Resistance.

Joe: Well essentially, yeah. That's what's going on. To turn around and say, "What would you do if your country was being attacked by rockets?" isn't presenting the whole situation. And is disingenuously presenting it as if Hamas or the Palestinians are unilaterally attacking Israel and Israelis, just because: 'Hey, we don't like Jews! Let's fire some rockets at them today because they deserve it because they're Jews and we hate them!' That's the narrative that's presented but of course that's not the reason that Palestinians are doing this; if, like we were just discussing, they are doing it at all. I have no problem with the idea that they are cobbling together some primitive kind of projectiles that are lobbed over and I also think that it seems to be fairly true that the Iron Dome, the missile defence system, which was supplied by America, is massive overkill for defending against these kind of things because any rockets that do actually make it out of Gaza for example, generally speaking, they have no targeting system. So who knows where they're going to go and as far as I can see, most of them that have landed, not just this time but in recent years, to have no explosive head in them. They just kind of go "clunk" on the street.

So to invest in this massive missile defence system that is high-tech and then have it shooting off these missiles, supposedly as interceptors for Hamas rockets, I think there's bound to be a bit of theatre involved in that. Like Niall was just saying, they probably do shoot off a number of them, at nothing, because it's very useful from a propaganda point of view for the Israeli government, to keep the Israeli people on-side, on-song, in terms of: 'they're under attack and that we have to take this action against the Palestinians to justify, essentially, the carnage and the slaughter in Gaza', the Israeli people have to be convinced that they're under attack. And if they're not under attack, because the Palestinians generally don't have the means to really respond in any effective way, well then a little bit of theatre on the part of the Israelis that have got this system in place - shooting off a few rockets - yeah, you can imagine they would do that. It would be an "All's fair in love and war" type of thing.

Pierre: Now, about this analogy with London people being harassed by a foreign force, mainstream media and Israeli spokespersons have a narrative; they provide a historic background and in a nutshell it goes this way: the Nazis tried to kill all the Jews; the holocaust was the worst time in human history and the poor survivors have had to find a safe haven. They went to Israel. It was Palestine at the time but it was desert. There was no Palestinians there, only a few goats and olive trees. And they bravely settled in this arid land and they made it grow into Israel. And in 1967 when the Egyptian army was on the border, they were about to strike, so Israelis in a brave move struck first and because of their superior army; they won the war and they conquered some territories, which is one of the logical consequences of army victories; they grabbed the Golan Heights; they grabbed the West Bank and Gaza.

Joe: And the Sinai.

Pierre: And Sinai, yeah. And that's where we are today. And actually since 1948, the official creation of Israel recognised by international bodies, for 66 years Israel has been trying to reach peace with its neighbours and each time it's some terrorist act, conducted by 'Arab activists or terrorists', that stops the peace process and brings conflict back.

Joe: Well...

Niall: Where do you start?

Pierre: Well maybe you can start with the holocaust, maybe follow the historic Sinai...

Niall: Well okay, if you want to start with the holocaust, it doesn't start with the holocaust; Israel was being created long before. It's actually an interesting tie-in with the other big event going on vis-ร -vis Russia and Ukraine. Odessa, in Ukraine, appears to have been the operational centre for what would become the state of Israel. A lot of Jews came through Odessa from Ukraine, the rest of eastern Europe and Russia. At the time they called it the Gateway to Zion. They knew what was coming. They had their eyes set on this place then called Palestine. And the forerunner to what became the Mossad/Shin Bet in Israel, was called Irgun, then a designated terrorist organisation. It's operational centre was in Odessa, Ukraine, run by Jabotinsky.

So Israel as an entity was being created before the holocaust. So we cannot start there.

Joe: Although it's certainly used as a justification now, the holocaust did happen. Of course, it wasn't just Jews who were persecuted by the Nazis or killed en masse in some way or other by the Nazis. There were many other minorities who suffered as well. But it happened and it's used as a rationale. This is just the latest round of persecution of the Jews, during the Nazi era, because there had been pogroms going back, depending on your perspective you can go back a couple of thousand years if you want, but certainly a few hundred years into pogroms against Jews in various different countries, in Russia and Spain and different places, all conspiring to reduce the appearance, or the idea, that Jews are for some reason disliked by the peoples of the world, type of thing, and therefore a safe haven as you said, is necessary for them. I don't really believe that that's a solution. Just taking for example the idea that Jews have been persecuted and that going the anti-Semitic route, there's something about Jews that gentiles, non-Jews, don't like or can't abide when they're in the society. I don't think that's true.

For example, if you look at the pogroms and stuff, there were specific reasons for them. It wasn't just anti-Semitism, a hatred of Jews just for being Jews. But even so, there were long periods, and have been long periods, when Jews have been living all around the world within societies, in communities in different countries, where there were no problems. They were just like anybody else. In that situation, I think the solution, instead of a safe homeland for Jews, is that Jews should have done and continued to do what they had decided on, which was to disperse themselves around the world like many other people have done. There are more people of Irish extraction, Irish catholic descendency, in America, far more than there are in Ireland today. They don't have a problem with it.

So there's no reason that Jews cannot and should not be living everywhere around the world, practicing their religion amongst all the other religions of the world and just being citizens of the countries that they choose to live in. That's an extremely normal thing to do. What's abnormal is the idea of a group of people who never had a homeland in that sense, were not a people with a country essentially; they were just a sect, a group of people who identified themselves via their religion and lived in various different countries. The idea of that kind of a group of people suddenly saying that they wanted a piece of land of their own is abnormally strange. And then to go ahead and take land from someone else to establish that idea, to create the reality of that idea, is completely abnormal. I don't think it has any precedent in history in quite that way.

Pierre: You say taking a piece of land from local people; mainstream media usually claim that Palestine, in the beginning or middle of the 20th century, was pretty empty, it was some kind of desert, so it was not taken away from anybody when the Israelis went to this place, which in addition was the promised land. For 2,000 years it was where they originated and it was promised by god to them. So there is a religious legitimacy; it doesn't hurt anyone since it was empty.

Joe: I thought we gave up the idea of abusing and killing other people on the basis of religious books back in the 12th or 13th centuries, the last crusades.

Niall: Or at least with the 'Enlightenment'.

Joe: Yeah, at least with that. But certainly back then, the idea of invading other countries based on pushing your religion on them, or on the basis of your religion or what your religious book says, that's something from an uncivilised time that people today wouldn't ascribe to and that's why I find it quite strange that anybody today would put forward that rationale, or that reason, for what the Jews have done in Israel. And it doesn't seem very civilised essentially, and I don't think it's something that I personally would want to stand behind because it harks back to an extremely uncivilised time that is roundly condemned as not of enlightenment, certainly, but of bloodshed and barbarism.

Niall: The fact of the matter is there were people there. The very fact that there are 1.7 million descendents of them, and that's just a portion of them, Palestinians, original 'natives', in Gaza, directly descended from the people who were once living there.

Joe: Well no one, even the Israelis don't dispute the fact that 700,000 Palestinians were removed from the land.

Pierre: In 1948.

Joe: In 1948.

Pierre: Nakba.

Joe: So to turn around at the same time and then say that there was no one there is a bit schizophrenic.

Niall: Yeah, they don't argue that too forcefully. If it doesn't fly, you'll see that muted.

Pierre: True.

Joe: Some extremists maybe argue that there's various different ways you can argue our point. You can argue it from a rationale point of view, from a logic and reason point of view. And I think ultimately when you push that logic and reason point of view, as we've been doing, you force people who support Israel and what it's doing, into the narrative that you just came up with, which is: "god gave us this land and that's all there is to it!" And if you're going to bring it down to that level, well then fair enough. So you're saying that your religious book, which is not a history book, it's not based on fact or anything, it's based on mythology essentially; it's a fiction book. And if you're going to base what you're doing in the world today on the basis of a fiction book, you can't argue with anybody who takes that approach.

Pierre: It's not rational.

Joe: You say, "Well listen, it has to be a case of live and let live or agree to disagree on that one." But you would hope that rational-minded people would fall on the side of the people who are saying, "Well, you can't really justify dispossession of another people and persecution of them on the basis of a religious book". You would hope that most people in the world would agree with that, and that a few people certainly wouldn't be legitimised, officially by governments, as a reasonable argument for Israel to justify doing what it's doing.

Niall: Yeah. It doesn't actually matter where we start on a chronological timeline here because human memory is very short-term. That's the bad thing. It's also a good thing in another respect. People generally live and let live. Okay, we move on. Israel's now a fact on the ground. Of course the people who were originally there, the Palestinians and other Arabs basically accept that. They're not going to say "Israel has no right to exist" because, it's there, the people are there. There's no getting away from that. At any point in time since Israel's creation, fine, there could have been peace, cooperation. It would have naturally come about under normal circumstances. People would forgive, forget, even if there was a lot of hurt in the past because people tend to get on with what they've got to do today and like I said, they have short-term memory.
But the Israeli regime keeps reminding everyone; atrocious, uncivilised behaviour.

Pierre: One point I was wondering about is you have three occupied territories. You have this Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza. And most military operations seem to focus on Gaza. So why Gaza and not the two other occupied territories?

Joe: Because the Golan Heights are more or less empty. There's the name of a town there, that was a big town. It was part of Syria and was where Syrians were living and I think there were 130,000 Syrian people from the Golan Heights, who lived there, fled further into Syria after the 1967 war. They were essentially cleansed as well, by the Israelis. And then when the Golan Heights was still held by Israel, disputed the territory, then they didn't give it back.

Sinai they didn't want because it's desert. I suppose it wasn't of much interest to them. But Egypt, they tried to give Gaza to Egypt but Egypt didn't want Gaza. So Israel, in a certain sense, was stuck with Gaza and there's a lot of people living there. It's on the coast. It's the only Palestinian territory on the Mediterranean, and living on the coast is usually quite a popular place for people to live. If you look at Tel Aviv, it's on the coast, Israel's capital, i.e., not Jerusalem.

So that's why Gaza I suppose... It's just a densely populated part of what's left of the Palestinian territories.

Pierre: Can you describe Gaza - you mentioned the location - in terms of size and how many inhabitants.

Joe: Roughly about 25 miles or so, about 35, 40 kilometres long by 10 kilometres wide, at its widest part, but coming down to just a few kilometres wide because it's not exactly square. So it's quite a small area. And there's about 1.8 million Palestinians living there and so it's one of the most densely populated pieces of land in the world and I think it may have the youngest population, the highest youth population of anywhere, as well. I don't know the actual figures, but it's more than 50% of Gazans are under...

Pierre: Seventeen.

Joe: ...seventeen; essentially children. So it's a hell of a place to go bombing and then to try and claim that you don't target civilians or children, when the majority of the population are actually officially children. When you start sending missiles in, well you're going to kill children. Obviously despite what they say, the Israeli government knows that it kills children. They say they don't have a policy of targeting civilians or targeting children, but when you send a missile into a densely populated urban area, knowing that a lot of the people are children and civilians; well that's the same as having a policy of targeting civilians; I don't know how they wiggle out of that one. They don't have an official policy of doing it but they know that when they shoot a missile it's going to kill civilians. Well to me, that's the same thing.

Niall: They wiggle out of that one by saying that Hamas uses those children as human shields. So if children are blown up, it's because Hamas put them there.

Pierre: And along this narrative, Israeli mouthpieces say that actually Hamas is embedding rocket facilities within hospitals, schools, mosques.

Joe: There's no evidence for that.

Niall: The Israeli ambassador to the US was on CNN or CBS a couple of days ago and CBS played a report before turning to him to ask him for his thoughts. And he lost it. He shouted at them on air, "Why did you leave out the important detail in that report?" It was about the Israelis targeting and flattening two UN schools and killing at least 15 kids. "You left out the important detail that we warned them that we would go for the schools and that we know that they put those kids in the school deliberately as human shields." I can't even get my head around it. I'm trying to understand it from their point of view and...

Joe: It's nonsense. It's just made-up nonsense. It's the last resort of a completely discredited and psychopathic narrative essentially because that's already been taken down. It's already been exposed as false. It's hard to even give it any air time or any credence at all because there's no evidence for it. The BBC for example, just two days ago, there was a Middle East veteran correspondent for the BBC called Jeremy Bowen and he was in Gaza. And he wrote for the BBC, and you wouldn't expect this from the BBC but even allowing for the BBC's extreme bias towards Israel, even he was forced to, and was allowed to admit that, when he was in Gaza, he saw no evidence of Hamas using Palestinians as human shields.

So you can't have it both ways. There is no evidence, is what I'm saying. There's no evidence that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields, and that's just a cover for the fact that when the Israelis fire a missile into one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, they're going to kill civilians. So here's the thing: even if Hamas has no other option, let's say, because most of their rocket sites, their weapons caches have been targeted, they have no other option but to store some weapons beside a residential building; well, Israel is not justified in attacking that building to get at those weapons. They're facts on the ground. I'm sorry, you might want to, but you can't then claim that you are excused from the civilian deaths. So the whole argument is just nonsense.

Pierre: Israel's IDF is trying to show a veneer of humanitarianism despite their barbaric actions and there seems, during this operation, to be a new feature, this 'warning' you briefly alluded to previously; apparently the idea of before bombing this or that area in Gaza, issue a warning, which is very nice, so civilians can move away and there won't be any casualties. So that's quite a nice and clean way of conducting a war isn't it?

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: I've seen two videos of those 'knock on the roof' warnings. In one of them a small missile hits the roof of the building and one minute, 60 seconds later, the building is destroyed. And in the second one I saw there was 15 seconds between the first small missile and the second one which destroyed the entire building. Fifteen seconds.

Pierre: So they have to move very quickly.

Joe: You've got to be extremely quick. Let me just check to see if we have a caller on the line here. Hi, do we have a call on the line?

Kent: Yeah, this is Kent from West Virginia.

Joe: Hey Kent. What's going on?

Pierre: Hi Kent.

Kent: Gaza has the fifth highest population density in the world. Number one is Macao with 20.5 thousand per square kilometre; Monaco with 15,000, Singapore about 8,000, Hong Kong about 7,800 and then Gaza with 4,700. Now you know the first four are extremely wealthy enclaves and territories and have big, modern high-rise buildings. They're built upwards. So in Gaza they don't have 50-storey skyscrapers, I don't think. So they're all spread out on the ground and so it's really atrocious. And I think you talking about the behaviour of the Israelis, it's just been on my mind that the biggest problem in the world is not anti-Semitism, it's anti-non-Semitism, disregarding the fact that the reality of what a Semite is. That's been sort of wiped away in the propaganda with this anti-Semitism. But really there's anti-non-Semitism.

Joe: What do you mean by that?

Kent: Well, anti-non-Semitism, first of all: if you have anti-Semitism and if you divide the population into Semites and non-Semites, well then people who are opposed to the Israelis are opposed to non-Semites, so they're anti-non-Semitic. It's either or. You have two groups: Semites and non-Semites, black/white, red/blue. And so actually there's anti-non-Semitism. That's the Israelis' attitude. And if we start challenging them, it's really a schoolyard sort of tactic, but nevertheless you have to deal with it. That's the tactics they're using, so we just accuse them of anti-non-Semitism.

Joe: Yeah, it's interesting I think that I suppose what you're saying is anti-non-Semitism, the term that is used is Islamophobia, at least in reference to Muslims.

Pierre: Anti-goyim.

Joe: But the thing is, if you notice the way that's used, you've got anti-Semitism which is evil hatred of Jews, whereas Islamaphobia is a phobia. And phobias are generally a bit irrational but they're real and it's something people can relate to and it can often be a fear of things that are objectively scary. Arachnophobia is a fear of spiders and spiders can be scary. So Islam is associated with that term, with being something scary, whereas the opposite is anti-Semitism which is just a completely irrational hatred of Jews.

Kent: And well, I think it's right for us to say that Jews have an irrational hatred of non-Semites. Of course we the know the Palestinians are Semites and the Kasars aren't, but nevertheless those are the little facts that escape, but nevertheless they boil it down into an 'us versus them' and they define themselves as Semites and the world's against them, so conversely, we have a right to say anti-non-Semitism. And if we muddy the water and open up a discussion about that term that's been used all over the world, essentially it would neutralise it or at least open it to discussion about it. If somebody calls you on the schoolyard and says "Well you're a bully" you can turn around and say "Well you're a bully". Conversely, it's a stalemate. But if somebody says "You're a bully" and then you slink away, well then they win. Anti-non-Semitism. I think they're throwing words at us and so we just have to fight them on their own level, which is pretty basic and moronic, but nevertheless, I don't see why we shouldn't. Anti-non-Semitism. We're non Semitic and they hate us, so they're guilty of anti-non-Semitism. That's just the reality of it. They do hate us.

Pierre: I'm not sure every Jew hates every non-Jew or what they call 'goyim' in their writing, in the Talmud in particular, but what is clear in the Talmud, which is one of the holy scriptures for orthodox Jews, the goyim, the non-Jews, are described in the harshest terms and religious law allows the Talmudic Jew to cheat, lie, trick, deceive, even in some circumstances kill a goyim. So maybe we should not generalise but there is this tendency in the Talmud. This being said about the reversal of meaning of fundamental words, in Europe, in France in particular right now, if you're not a Zionist, i.e., you're an anti-Zionist, you will be labelled extreme right and a Nazi. You see? If you are not a Zionist, and the Zionist regime is a kind of Nazi regime, extreme right, so there is reversal of roles, and if you're not pro-Zionist, you will be called a Nazi. While you are just the opposite. It's mind-boggling.

Kent: So therefore this anti-non-Semitism, we have a right to use that and attack them on their own level. They definitely are, the ones that are strict followers, citing from the Talmud, they're definitely anti-non-Semitic. There's no doubt about that.

Joe: Alright Kent. Thanks for your call.

Kent: Okay.

Pierre: Thank you.

Niall: Thank you. Bye-bye.
Yeah, it's broader than that of course. It's the way in which the psychopathic mind captures terms, defines them, and you said mind-boggling. It has that crazy-making effect on people where the discussion is defined sharply into either/or, black and white.

Joe: Yeah. Not the Jews. What we're really talking about here is the Zionist leaders, going back to the original Zionist leaders and the current "Zionist" leaders of today, who have set or established the discourse and promoted it and encouraged Jews, as many as possible around the world, to feel like they are perennial and perpetual victims and that it effectively comes from the non-Jewish community. So there's a victim complex there that has been pushed on ordinary Jews. And of course it's adopted to different extents or not at all, depending on the Jewish person in question. Some of them are able to see through it and see that it's nonsense. But it's quite insidious I think. It's been pushed for so long that they create this 'fortress Israel' which is just a physical manifestation of this fortress or siege mindset they have, where they're under attack and have been for centuries. And that makes a people all the more willing to lash out and attack because they believe they're going to be attacked because they're told that there's a history of them being attacked for irrational reasons.

So it's a real set-up, a psychological mind job done on Jews. And of course, we could get into all of the different situations where the reality of that supposed hatred of gentiles against Jews has been manufactured to some extent. But it's very pernicious and it doesn't augur well for the Jewish people. It wouldn't augur well for any community of people who lived on this planet, in the kind of world that we live in today, to have that mindset and to have essentially a belligerent, knee-jerk reaction, fear-based mindset, that is prone to lashing out at the first manufactured sign of provocation or threat.

Pierre: And there's been a long-term and deep psychological operation, further than the Jewish population, because for most of the time, most of the Jews on the planet were brilliant, fully integrated in local societies, in Europe in particular, and they were successful. So the first step was to convince those highly educated, fully integrated Jews that they have to leave their country, their culture, their roots, their family, their friends, their jobs, to go to a piece of arid land in the middle of nowhere, in the Middle East, because they were victims, they were targeted; Nazism, anti-Semitism, etc. etc., Although they were fully integrated, that was the first...

Niall: Well, we could go down this road but it would be a whole other discussion. I'm currently looking into this: what were the conditions of Jews in Eastern Europe in the late 19th century? This is the era of pogroms that Joe referred to earlier; it's murky. Back then there was a lot of propaganda too about what was really going on. As far as I can make out, the Russian empire tried earnestly to deal with what was already then the perennial Jewish problem. And you ended up with a situation where they created a kind of territory in eastern Europe, that became known as 'the Pale of Settlement', in which Jews were allowed to live and do as they pleased, but 'please stay there. Don't come into other parts of the empire'. They tried to deal with it another way by creating another enclave further over in Siberia, in the far east, where they still live today. There's a large community; there's an autonomous Jewish region in the far east of Russia.

The reason I bring this up is because about half of the Jews living in Israel today are of eastern European or Russian descent. They didn't just come in waves in the 19th century and after the second world war. A large number of them came after the collapse of the USSR in the early '90s. So there's recent waves.

Joe: A large number actually came after the 1967 war, which for Israel and for Jews around the world - they were very proud of it, it was an event. The winning of the 1967 Arab/Israeli war was something that inspired and strengthened the Jewish communities around the world and allowed them to hold their heads up and see themselves as victorious and all that kind of stuff. And at that time - that was under the Soviet era - a lot of the Soviets were put under pressure to allow a lot of Soviet Jews to leave because at that time it was difficult to get out of the Soviet Union. And I think something like almost 300,000 were eventually given permits to leave the Soviet Union and about half of them went to Israel and the other half went to America. But that's quite a lot, about 150,000 Russian Jews in 1967 emigrated to Israel and there's a sizeable Russian Jewish population in Israel today. And they are, to some extent, treated sort of as second-class citizens, the Russian Jews.

We actually had a friend who mentioned this. She is of Russian extraction but she's Jewish and she lived in Israel for a while and she was telling us about how they're kind of seen as a community apart to a certain extent, but there is that undercurrent of discrimination amongst them. But the whole thing is ridiculous because all the Jews in Israel came from somewhere else.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: None of them can trace their families back to the supposed tribes of Israel or whatever, back 2,000 years. It's all nonsense despite the fact that they might throw the bible at you type of thing. It's just pure nonsense. And that's part of the problem for me, dealing with people who are Israel firsters, they don't have any rational explanation or argument to make for Israel, for what Israel is doing today. And that's obviously based mainly on the biblical narrative that, "this land was given to us" and they've even, from a modern day perspective, the "we're being attacked by Hamas", etc., that doesn't make any sense either when we actually explore the details of it and look at how it actually started and what the situation is on the ground, none of it makes sense either. So they essentially do not have a valid argument by any rational, logical, sane, civilised standards. There is no defence under those terms for what Israel is doing today in Palestine. It's all lies and obfuscation and manipulation of the data.

The kind of way that I was looking at it was, for whatever reason - and we know the reasons - it's kind of like someone who has kidnapped another person and held them in a cellar or somewhere, in a cage or something, for quite a long time and treated them quite badly. And the kidnapper now, many years having passed with him having treated this other person quite badly, is afraid because he expects that: "Well this person's going to be angry at me. They're going to want to attack me. They're going to want to get revenge". So that's like an undercurrent where they can't open up the whole situation and essentially give freedom, or give independence or stop the occupation of Palestine, because they expect that there would be serious repercussions.

But of course there probably wouldn't be because the Palestinians simply want independence and freedom from the siege and from the occupation. Stop the occupation and you solve the problem. But the Israelis don't want to do that. So that's one angle where they would be afraid. They would think that the Palestinian, and maybe even other Arab 'hordes', once Israel backs down or shows a kind of weakness in that sense - and the Israelis see it as a weakness - and say "Stop the occupation. End the occupation", that they would be attacked not just by Palestinians but maybe by the other Arabs in the region as well because it would be seen as a kind of weakness.

But also you have to remember that the Israelis don't just want a state of their own, they want a Jewish state and they're very adamant about this, that it has to be a Jewish state. And anything that threatens the Jewish nature, i.e., predominantly Jewish nature of Israel, is to them, the death of Israel. It has to be Jewish for them. That's why in all of the supposed peace treaties they blame the Palestinians for rejecting it; that's why they never seriously allowed or considered the possibility of the right of return, i.e., those 700,000 and their descendents that were ethnically cleansed in 1948, and then more again in 1967. The Israelis will never allow them to come back because demographically Israel would no longer be a clearly Jewish state. It would be a mixed Arab and Jewish state. And that's the other inexcusable thing about the Israeli stance, they're unwilling to even accept that. Because the whole thing is founded on Zionist ideals and the idea of Jewish homeland for the Jewish people based on a mythological book that has no historical backing to it. So the whole thing is completely nonsensical.

Pierre: Another major inconsistency: you emphasise this duality, Jewish/non-Jewish, in this case, Muslim for the most part. And when you think about the word anti-Semitism based on 'Sem', one of the bibles patriarchs, so we bring it back to religion here; victim, book, bible. But you have the patriarch and there were two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. Sem is the father of the Semitic branch. Isaac embraced Judaism, Ishmael embraced Islam. So within the Semitic population you have Jews, the Sephardi Jews, the historical Jews mostly located in northern Africa and the Middle East and you have the descendents of Ishmael, Muslims. So in the Middle East you have, mostly, a historic Semitic population that embraced two different religions, but these are the same people. Okay?

And now centuries later, in Europe, you have the Sephardi, eastern European for the most part, a population that embraces widely Judaism and that would lead Zionism. And where I'm going to is, I thought about that when you mentioned this Jewish friend of Russian extraction. I have a friend who is a Sephardi Jew, northern Africa, Arabic type, who told me in Israel he was considered as second-class because sure he was a Jew, but he was of Arabic extraction, which is in opposition with - there's almost this Aryan or elected or superior race...

Niall: Absolutely. It's the same in India.

Pierre: ...dogma where to be a top citizen in Israel you have to be white, eastern European Ashkenazi and Jew, of course. So Sephardis' are kind of: 'What do we do with them? They're Arab. They're not really Arab. They're Jews but they're dark skinned.'

Joe: We might have another call on the line here. Let me just check. Hi, do we have a caller on the line?

Charles: Hello, yeah. Can you hear me?

Joe: Yes.

Charles: Yes, I just wanted to bring up a point in that a lot of times in the US, when they're talking about these wars in other lands, they say "Well these people have been fighting each other for thousands of years. They'll never settle it." I just wanted to turn people on to two films: One is Jaffa, I believe it's called, about this orange-growing region where Palestinians and Jews worked together before the current hysteria. And also a good movie on what it's like to be a Palestinian in occupied Palestine, called Five Broken Cameras.

Joe: Yes.

Niall: Yeah, I've heard of that one.

Charles: Yeah, that was it guys. Thank you.

Joe: Okay.

Niall: Awesome. Thanks very much for your call.

Charles: Okay, bye-bye.

Niall: I haven't heard of the first one. Have to check it out.

Joe: Five Broken Cameras is very good. But Jaffa is a part of Tel Aviv and Jaffa is a Hebrew name for a Palestinian name, but it was originally a Palestinian town. The bottom line is that every Israeli town was a Palestinian town essentially, or there were Palestinians living on it.

Niall: Just to get back to your historiography there Pierre, in citing it you've kind of fallen into the same problems that all other histories have, which is that you began with Sem, the fictional biblical character...

Pierre: Of course!

Niall: ...and then you develop these branches and you said "Oh, well I have a friend today who's 'a'..." and you gave the definition of a term based on that myth - of a Sephardi Jew. We don't actually know what - look, the origins of Islam are unknown. Officially Islam conquered Europe and spread like this marauding civilisation. Actually, it's probably more like they just simply moved into land that had been wiped out by cometary bombardment.

Pierre: Yes, so what I wanted to point out...

Niall: Completely eliminating any bible stories from the time before that.

Pierre: What I want to point out is that Israel is very prone to quote the bible and to base its actions on biblical legitimacy.

Niall: Yeah.

Pierre: And one of the main points in their rhetoric is anti-Semitism and I was trying to show how - there's a paradox. They claim anti-Semitism is rampant. At the same time Israel and Zionism, led by Ashkenazi eastern European Jews, is destroying Semites, Muslim ones, and considers them as lower class in their own country. Sephardi Jews are Semites as well, according to their own definition. So Israel that points the finger of anti-Semitism, according to this definition based on their books, the Torah, is the most anti-Semitic country.

Niall: The most anti-Semitic country in the world is Israel.

Pierre: Well exactly!

Joe: I find when you look into all the Israeli narrative, about their history and about what they're saying, you'll find that all of it is essentially something that's been turned on its head and the truth is generally 180 degrees from what they say. There's something that I based my last article on Telegenically Dead Palestinians and the Subversion of your Soul, a quote by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, who said it just a few days ago: "We have to protect ourselves. We try to target the rocketeers, we do. And all civilian casualties are not intended by us but actually intended by Hamas who want to pile up as many civilian dead as they can because somebody said they use telegenically dead Palestinians for the cause. They want the more dead the better." So that's what Netanyahu was 'forced' to say essentially, to justify what's going on. And that's pretty pathetic because that's really stretching the limits of most people's disbelief or credulity, when you effectively blame the people who are being killed, or you accuse them of wanting to be killed to further their own cause. That's really getting close to the edge there of sanity. But of course, there's a lot of people who are so mind programmed by the 'Israel is under attack' and 'Israel is the victim' and 'everybody hates Jews', etc., that they would probably believe that.

I was thinking about it again and it seems to me that it's almost close to the truth in a certain sense because there is a war going on, but it's a strange kind of war in Israel/Palestine now, and it's a war between people who have high tech missiles and a high tech army and on the other side people who don't have anything really except their own bodies. If you look at the information war that's going on around this, you see that those dead bodies of Palestinians and Palestinian children are being used, not deliberately, not in the sense that Netanyahu was saying, that they're deliberately sacrificing their children for example, to use them for propaganda purposes, but by the fact that Israel is killing Palestinian children, they are providing the Palestinians with...

Niall: Just cause.

Joe: Well with a propaganda weapon that Palestinians aren't using. It's simply happening and it's affecting the western populations who are looking at this war. They see these dead Palestinians that are being killed by Israel and that is a weapon against the Israelis that the Israelis themselves have produced for the opposition. And that's why Netanyahu has to come out with his claim. It's almost like he's aware of that; Who couldn't be aware of the negative image of dead Palestinian children and the effect that it's having on the West and the world population. So he has to turn around and try and say that they're doing this deliberately.

Niall: Yeah. This is the same thing John Kerry says when images of people being blown up in Ukraine show up "Oh, but that's just Russian propaganda".

Joe: Yeah, it's scurrilous to turn around...

Niall: It's scurrilous but he may actually believe it. Anything that runs counter to...

Joe: What they believe.

Niall: ...what he believes.

Pierre: But there's a very important point here I think. From what I see now, the only solution for Palestinians is not weapons, it's not those inoffensive rockets, it's not the few weapons they have; it's not insurrection because it's so asymmetric. I think their only chance is an international uproar due to the horrific sight, recurring sight, of dead Palestinian children, in this sense.

Joe: Well the only weapon the Palestinians have...

Pierre: It's their only hope.

Joe: The only weapon the Palestinians have to fight against the brutal occupation and siege of Gaza, for example, is to die. Their weapon is to effectively die and to not give in. And this is massively to the Palestinians' credit, you would think in that kind of a war, as you said, it's so asymmetric and so disbalanced where people are just being shot like fish in a barrel and can do nothing about it, you would think that the Palestinian people, or you would think that any people subjected to that kind of brutality would give in, would wave the white flag, surrender and say "Stop! Whatever your demands are we'll meet them, just stop killing us!"

But it's amazing the strength of the Palestinian people to not do that and to continue to not put themselves in harms way, but to choose not to be threatened by the worst kind of threat, which is that you will be killed; to choose not to succumb to that threat and lie down and be quiet, or leave maybe, like emigrate somewhere else, get out of there. They choose not to succumb or bow down in the face of that brutality and they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice which is to give up their lives simply by saying: "We're not going anywhere. You can kill us from now until doomsday but we're not going anywhere".

And like you just said, the best hope they have and what the international community has to do, is to at the very least recognise the suffering and death of these people who put their lives on the line, to stand up against the psychopathic regime in Israel which is slaughtering them. The international community has to at least recognise their suffering and their death for what it is, which is the only way these people can actually resist against the psychopathic regime that will not accommodate them; will not enter into any meaningful peace agreements with them; will not give them any quarter; will not give them back any of their land effectively, and wants to imprison them and continue to brutalise them until something happens. I don't know, maybe they'll all disappear or run away. That's what they hope. But the Palestinians are not doing that and the international community has to recognise that and that has to be used as leverage against the Israeli regime to make it stop because it's an attack on humanity.

It's an attack on everybody's humanity what is going on because your basic humanity cries out against the murder of children, and it should do, and against the murderers of children. Yet somehow there is this strong force in the world that is attempting to convince the people of the world that it is, in some way, justified to kill children. And that's what I was saying in my last article; that I reckon that this must have some kind of an effect on people who choose to condone the murder of children, that it must in some way destroy part or all of their humanity within them and who knows what implications that will have for those people.

It's like Niall was saying last night; it's like selling your soul to the devil. But it's even worse than that. You're not consciously selling it; you're allowing yourself to be manipulated by the devil to give up your soul. And everybody's aware of the idea that your soul could be destroyed, or your humanity could be destroyed. Well that's what's happening, or that's the attempt going on at the minute; to subvert the humanity within so many people around the world, by getting them to accept the murder of children as somehow justified.

Pierre: Yeah, it's a war for our souls, the soul of every human being on this planet. And here I see a logical chain of events Israel brutalities and murders; pictures of dead Palestinian children; reaction in various countries from the masses, demonstrations in particular, and then western elites being forced to react.

Concerning the first step, there's a new development we didn't notice in previous Israeli operations, in some countries, we see in France, demonstrations for Palestine are being banned. So how do you analyse this move? Does it mean that the elites are becoming aware of this growing discontentment amongst the masses and they have to ban it in order to hide the growing anger? What's your take on it?

Niall: It's the next logical step. If you think about all of the things people in the west have accepted since 9/11, you accepted that torture was okay under some circumstances; you accepted that it's okay to invade and occupy another country and steal its resources. You step-by-step accept. It's got to the point where 'Oh well there's precedent. Demonstrations were already banned in the UK.' They banned demonstrations. And they also make it harder and harder. You have to petition. You have to apply for the right to demonstrate, choose your day and they're making it very, very hard to do so. So this is the next logical thing they can get away with. I don't think it's really a direct feeling of: 'Oh we're being threatened by these particular protests therefore we'll shut them down.'

Joe: Well, I think in France they're obviously very influenced or very under the control of the Israel lobby, so I think that decision to ban certain pro-Palestinian protests in France, that the French prime minister, Manuel Valls, was being a bit of a rabid Zionist himself, he probably didn't need much encouraging, but certainly he would have taken instructions from the Israel lobby in France to do something about this. And that doesn't augur well for France, to have someone like that to officially take a stance, or take a position of pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian and essentially pro-slaughter of children stance, for France in the name of France. But again on the other side, maybe that provides the opportunity for people in France to see what's going on and to take a further step down that path of awakening to just who these people are, our so-called leaders and what motivates them and what's in their head, the kind of nature that they have.

So on the one hand it's bad but on the other hand, every move that these psychopaths in power take provides an opportunity, at least in potential, for the people to wake up to what's going on. So even if they do see it as a kind of threat, by clamping down on those threats, they end of pushing themselves closer to the possibility of the situation that they're trying to avoid, which is the people turning on them, actually becoming a reality. So they're playing a kind of difficult game there and it doesn't look good for them ultimately.

Pierre: It's tricky and that raises the question of the possibility of exporting the conflict because by banning those demonstrations, somehow it leads the people in those countries to make a choice: either agree with authorities and don't demonstrate; or I demonstrate although it's illegal and I'll put my life at risk to some extent. I might be arrested, etc. etc., which reflects the choice made by Palestinian people as described by Joe, they are heroes, sacrificial martyrs, showing something very important to all of us. So what is your take on it? What would you advise people, for example in France? Okay, demonstrations for Palestine are banned. Do you go there, take the risk? Don't you go there?

Joe: I think the people who are inclined to do that, to get out on the street and protest, they serve a very useful and important purpose. It's necessary in the sense that I think there will always be good people who will do that, who will take to the streets, particularly in France where there's a sizeable...

Pierre: Tradition?

Joe: Well, population of Muslims of North African extraction and stuff, there's going to be a natural affinity with the persecution of Muslim and Arab people. So that's always going to happen in France I think and that's always useful and it's important for those people to do that. But I think it's not necessary for everybody to get out in the streets because as we were just saying, the battle or the war that's going on, the attacks that people in the west for example, are being subjected to, is at the level of an information war where your opinions and your beliefs about things, that you maybe took for granted before, are being challenged. And the things I'm talking about here is your sense of decency and humanity and civility, and all that kind of stuff, and you're being asked to choose between whether you'll accept inhumanity and brutality and the murder of children as good or as acceptable, or at least whether you condone it or turn your face away. That's what people are being challenged to do, or, to take a stand.

For me in the broad scale of evolution of human civilisation, that's a very important thing that people will be challenged because as we were saying to Niall a while ago, it's kind of interesting that because of the information age, which has dawned over the past 20 years really, since 1995 or whatever, most people have computers and have access to a lot more information. And also in the last 50 years, television and basically the information age, where media is all around the world and there's the availability for instant communications and pictures of stuff going on all around the world, that someone in a rural area of some country in western Europe would never have had access to a few decades ago. And because of that, these kind of situations where there's an attempt to justify brutality and inhumanity of something good or positive, that's all now available, whereas that might have happened in secret or in private or it certainly wasn't available. The awareness of those events wasn't available to most of a large percentage of the population, it now is, and it's being shoved onto people's plates now to decide, make a decision here.

Had this happened let's say in 1948, when 700,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from Palestine, someone where we are in France or someone in rural Ireland didn't know about it. There was bit here and there in the papers, the Times of London gave a sanitised version of it and it didn't really relate to those people. But now with the ability to see it all happening in real time, the choice is really being forced on people and it's really put in their laps and they have to choose. And people need to choose very wisely.

Pierre: There's no mitigating circumstances.

Joe: Exactly.

Pierre: You cannot invoke ignorance because the information is out there.

Joe: Yeah, and that's a good thing because it separates the wheat from the chaff and that needs to be done on this planet because for too long there's been too much of a mixing of people of heart and of conscience, and people without it who manipulate, and the mixing of those two viewpoints essentially. Because there is clearly a difference between people on this planet in the broad sense. I'm not saying you can divide it quite clearly or equally, but there seems to be a kind of a difference that is being manifested or shown now, for example, by this situation in Israel/Palestine and also by the situation with Russia and the US and this "new cold war". We see people who just are exposed to the information and the data on it and some of them go to one side and some of them go to the other. Now for me, that's evidence of some kind of a pretty fundamental difference in people when they're all...

Niall: Exposed to the same...

Joe: to or have available to them the same information, they make very different choices, come down on one side or the other. And for me that's a good thing.

Pierre: Another symptom of this very fundamental choice for or against your soul, your conscience, is that I notice this Israeli/Palestinian conflict is very emotionally charged and it may be proof or evidence that indeed people, at least unconsciously, know that something important is at stake.

Niall: Yeah.

Pierre: And the position about this topic matters. Now the next question I'm wondering about: If, as you've shown, the case is quite clear cut, why in social medias like Facebook or YouTube where people are free to post, why do you have so many positive comments about Israel?

Joe: Why do you have so many positive comments about Israel?

Pierre: About Israel, yeah.

Joe: By who?

Niall: By a lot of people.

Pierre: By commentators.

Joe: Well we've already discussed that. There are some people who are just mind programmed by the information, the media, the goverrnment. They're authoritarian followers essentially and they're a bit afraid to rely on their own faculties. They don't have something within them where they can say, "Well I'm going to make my own decision, make up my own mind about this". They always tend to defer to the higher authority and they want an authority to make decisions for them and to tell them what's happening. And they want to be attached to or associated with that authority because they think it gives them protection and security and it's maybe like a surrogate for a kind of a god in a certain sense. They believe in god but they also seriously believe in the government and "our country". There's different names for it, but it's all a kind of an authoritarian allegiance to something higher than them, something stronger than them.

And those people who are that way inclined will believe the established authorities of the day and what they say. So those people on Facebook who are pro-Israel, are essentially westerners, western Europeans and Americans, who are watching the news in the evening and getting their daily dose of what is true from the news. And that's what they come and then repeat. And I've seen it over and over again, that they repeat verbatim what they just watched on the news. And more than once I've responded to such people by telling them that: "You've just said exactly what was in that article that you just read and I can cite the article to you. You just repeated it. Maybe you copied and pasted it or maybe you put it in your own words." And I say, "In which case, you don't really need most of your brain because a large part of your brain is dedicated to kind of critical thinking, higher faculties in your brain and you're obviously not using them. You don't want to use them." So I suggest they go and have a lobotomy and donate at least half of their brain to science and at least get some use out of it because they're not using it.

Niall: That reminds me I saw another report today about how scientists confirmed that 90% of human DNA is junk and for 90% of the population (laughing), they actually believe that to be true. And behave as if it were true.

And then of course Israeli numbers, when it comes to social media, they're very vocal. Obviously there's Jewish or Zionist connected control of the media when it comes to traditional forms of information. Then online we know that they have concerted efforts to try and 'get Israel's message out there. Get out there and fight those lies', from their perspective. Hasbara of course is the official Israeli semi-state propaganda organ that encourages Jews to do their bit for defending their name, by essentially fighting on behalf of the lies that the Israeli government pushes out there. And you get a lot of really persistent people but their numbers aren't that great.

Pierre: How do you become a Hasbara activist? Are there some informations, some guidelines? Are you paid?

Joe: Yeah, you have to have a lobotomy (laughter).

Pierre: First. You have to show the half brain in the jar.

Niall: I think money changes hands. I think there are various schemes.

Joe: You get paid $2,000 for five hours work.

Niall: There you go. They get students to do it for some pocket money. Not just students in Israel but abroad too. I still remember I was going to university in Scotland, and I was still ignorant about the Israel/Palestine situation, when I first came across this kind of manual. In fact there was a whole box full of them sitting on the table in this guy's apartment. And he was Jewish. He was Austrian I think by birth, but Jewish, and I think he was staying in a Hillel House; it's kind of like when most students go to a new place, they're looking forward to meeting people from other countries and they integrate and you end of living with people from all over the place. A lot of Jews will go and live with other Jews, from other countries mind you, but still other Jews. And they're given, if they so choose, to do their part for the Zion project; they're given materials to be able to hand out to other Jews, others who are maybe learning about the situation for the first time, going to their first protest against Israel. It was only in retrospect that I realise the extent of these kind of informal, partially formal networks, that are ready and waiting to counter those 'evil lies they say about Israel'. It's really astonishing to see.

Joe: Yeah. They're everywhere. No, but there's another angle to the problem that is pretty clear cut and definitive in terms of dismissing the Israeli point of view, as you have so eloquently put forward today Pierre, and it's that Israel is in violation of international law. Now Israel likes to think of itself as a little slice of civilisation in the Middle East, surrounded by barbarian hordes of Muslims, and it promotes itself as this and has done for quite a few years. But if it pretends to that status, it needs to, I would assume, join the 'civilised' international community that adheres to international law, that at least gives lip service to it. But it doesn't because Israel hasn't even signed up, for example, to the Fourth Geneva Convention which was signed after the second world war, specifically to deal with all the problems caused by the second world war. Israel hasn't signed up to that, but it doesn't really matter because so much time has passed since the Geneva Convention and so many other countries have adopted it, it's seen as binding on all countries in the world. So even if Israel hasn't signed it, it's still required officially to adhere to it.

The Geneva Convention specifically outlaws things like collective punishments. Article 33 says "No persons may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed". This speaks directly to, for example, the reason why Israel launched this massacre in Gaza which has killed over 1,000 civilians so far and they blamed Hamas for the kidnapping and murder of three Israel teenagers; it has since been admitted by the Israeli police that Hamas was not responsible. But Israel went ahead and obviously collectively punished the people of Gaza on the basis of that and that is in breach of international law. There's also proscriptions against occupation as part of the Geneva Convention and Israel is clearly occupying Palestinian land. Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law.

Pierre: And just to add one point: while occupation is deemed illegal by Geneva Convention, resistance to occupation is deemed legal.

Joe: Of course, yeah. So people under occupation, that is quite clearly the Palestinians, are entitled under international law to resist that occupation which would include the firing of these not very effective rockets. So Israel's justification for bombing and killing so many civilians in Palestine, that they were being attacked by Hamas rockets, is not legitimate under international law. Hamas and the Palestinian people are legally entitled to resist occupation. The occupation is illegal and the Palestinians are entitled to resist it and Israel can do nothing about it. Israel is actually legally not entitled to respond to that resistance, to try and reinforce the occupation. So across the whole front of the situation in Israel/Palestine, Israel is in breach of international law, which the civilised world adheres to and is upheld supposedly, by the UN and all that kind of stuff. It's in breach of it. So effectively in terms of the question posed as the title of our show, Israel is, from a legal perspective, a pariah state, internationally a pariah state. Not that other countries in the world aren't in breach of international law as well but the problem with Israel is that it pretends to be a civilised nation. It pretends to be, like I said, a slice of the west in the Middle East, but it clearly is not if it is not going to adhere to the norms and standards and laws of the civilised west. So it needs to make a choice.

Pierre: We've seen Israel bombing UN facilities, UN schools, hospitals; blocking Red Cross employees as well in 2009. Not giving a darn to international law, behaving boldly towards the US. It seems to me that somehow we are all Palestinians in the sense that this very small country seems to terrorise not only Palestine but the whole world and has control of most aspects of world life. In the media, politicians; a fraction of the population seems to be under the thumb of Israel, a tiny country lost in the Middle East. How come?

Joe: Well, there's many people who've put forward an explanation for that of course. There has been some evidence to back it up as well. And the evidence I'm pointing to here is evidence about Israeli spying - spy rings in various different countries; professors Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer from the US wrote a book called The Israel Lobby that exposed the strength of the lobby in Israel. And lobby is just another word for a gang of blackmailers essentially, at some level of blackmail. Israeli spy rings have been exposed in the US. Allegations of what they get up to is kind of actual real blackmail, in the sense of getting the dirty goods on certain politicians, for example their less than savoury or less than publicly acceptable activities, sexual activities or other criminal activities - especially criminal activity - having details about that and thereby putting pressure on, i.e., blackmailing politicians, to make sure that they stay in line.

There was a story recently that just came out. It's a long time ago but the Monica Lewinski affair with Bill Clinton, that that was effectively an Israeli operation. I think that Lewinski herself was Jewish, so it's kind of a direct link, but that they were putting pressure on Clinton at that time over the situation in Israel and Palestine. So once you've got a few bits of evidence, that point to that happening, you can extrapolate out a little bit and imagine just to what extent it happens and is going on and is not reported and goes on in secret and in many different countries. Because it is really the only rational explanation for why so many people in other countries, who are not Jewish have no ties with Israel or no reason to be such ardent supporters of Israel, why they do that.

Like for example, there's a foreign minister in Ireland right now who was responsible for the recent UN resolution on Israel/Palestine which was condemning the Israelis for the civilian slaughter and the Irish abstained, and the Irish foreign minister who was only just recently made a foreign minister, he's an Irish Catholic and he has no ties to Israel. He's not Jewish or anything like that, so I have no idea why someone like that would support Israel in this situation where it's a clear-cut breach of all humanitarian norms and the murder of children and all that kind of stuff; why someone like that and other people similar to him with no ties to Israel, would come out in support of Israel. There has to be some mechanism that forces those people to do that, unless they're pathological themselves, and for some reason they just identify with what Israel is doing. Maybe they like seeing dead children. But that argues quite strongly, at least circumstantially, for there being a serious infiltration of governments around the world by Israeli operatives or agents of the state of Israel, in positions of political power in those countries. Of course we could talk about AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), different Jewish lobby groups that are operating and have been operating for a long time. It's all there for people to put the clues together and see that that's what's going on.

And I think it's motivated by this paranoia that we've talked about earlier on, the victim status that Jewish people have. Of course at the political level, that kind of victimhood status is mixed with a self-interest, where that idea of the Jewish people being a special case and under attack and needing special treatment and special conditions, facilitates the acquisition of power and control as well. So I'm not at all suggesting that it's merely a case of these people being under some psychological delusion, that they are victims and they genuinely feel that there's something wrong psychologically with anybody who would actually believe that the Jews are under existential threats from the rest of the world and they must do everything that they do to protect their people because at any moment the gentiles will turn on them and destroy them just like the Nazis. Some people might believe that, but if they do, there's something wrong with them. I think a lot of other people use that to acquire power and influence.

Niall: Not many years after 9/11, the former president of Italy went on public record as saying that Mossad was primarily responsible for 9/11. I would reckon that this is fairly commonly known in halls of power, not just 9/11, but as a general status quo of how things work, that the Israelis or 'people who are embedded within the Israeli structure' have an inordinate, enormous amount of influence over world affairs. How did that happen? I do not know. That's the big $64,000 question.

Joe: The deviousness with which they go about the job, I think they must be informed to some extent by the idea that they're special and also there may be an actual genetic or psychological construct behind it, where they are actually quite good at insinuating themselves into positions of power; they have a drive to do that. But when you get to that level of a drive to insinuate yourself into positions of power, you don't need the idea of Jewish victimhood to motivate it. That drive for power is the motivation in itself.

We might have a call. Hi, do we have a call on the line?

Kent: Yeah, this is Kent calling you back. You were talking about Ireland. I called you a couple of months ago and conveniently you have this guy named Alan Shatter, who's the defence minister and justice minister and has all sorts of powerful position there, so I think that tells you what's going on in Ireland.

Joe: Yeah, pretty much.

Kent: Ireland always had the reputation for being a very humane and humanitarian country and that's pretty shocking. I think there you go, that tells you everything right there. So that's all I wanted to say. Thanks.

Joe: Alright, thanks Kent.

Pierre: Thanks. Bye.

Joe: Yeah, that guy Alan Shatter, it's strange, it's weird. You can try to come up with some kind of explanations of why Jewish people are over-represented in politics around the world and that they're over-represented in terms of the wealthy. In the US, in terms of billionaires, they're over-represented; in terms of the heads of major corporations in the US, that's a fact. You can accuse me of anti-Semitism for stating the facts, but there you go. Is it true or not? If it's anti-Semitism, does that mean it's false? Or can it be true and also anti-Semitism.

Niall: No, when people hear you say that and they scream at you 'anti-Semitism', what they're saying is: "shut up!"

Joe: Okay, so it's not false?

Niall: No. They're not arguing with you. They're just saying "shut up!"

Joe: Okay, for a while there I was starting to think that the truth was anti-Semitic.

Pierre: More and more. And the thing is, there might be negative traits leading to this over-representation and positive ones. Maybe both are true. There might be a dark side; the drive to power; the use of deception, cunningness, and at the same time there might be some true intellectual abilities, reasoning capacities and both may go well, hand-in-hand, to explain this surprising over-representation. It's striking actually.

Joe: But in Israel they've gone too far. They've taken it to the point where there is going to be a backlash because that kind of a push and a drive to dominate and control, and thinking that you can basically manipulate and control the whole world, eventually has a breaking point where there will be a kick-back because you can't do it; especially when you're using increasingly ridiculous, obnoxious, obtuse and just plain wrong excuses or claims for why you should be allowed to do it. For example, in terms of the faulty thinking behind the political class in Israel and their policy towards Palestine, they have this idea of the power of deterrence, which is they think that their military and what they're doing in Palestine is there to deter...

Niall: Everyone else.

Joe: ...well, in particular, Palestinians, from taking any action against them. But that power of deterrents, if you think about it, what is it? An analogy would be that if there's a guy planning to rob a store, if he knew that the store owner has a gun, that's the power of deterrence. The robber will think twice about robbing the store if he knows that the guy's got a gun and he might shoot him. So he probably won't rob the store. And that's what they try to apply to Palestine. But that doesn't apply to Palestine because the Palestinians are not opportunistically attacking Israel. They're fighting for their freedom from Israeli occupation.

So that kind of a deterrent is just more of the occupation. It's more brutality. So it doesn't actually work as a deterrent. The Palestinians will continue to resist, as we described earlier on, against that brutality. So the very term 'power of deterrence' - and they push that and they think that this is what we need to have and it's in the media and all this kind of stuff, but it doesn't make any sense when applied to the situation because the reality of the situation is not understood because they've basically ignored it because it doesn't fit with their narrative of them, as the victims, and them defending themselves.

So they ignore the actual reality on the ground and follow this policy that is based on a completely and deliberately wrong analysis of the situation because it doesn't suit them; it's not comfortable. And they're going to follow that policy and that ends in disaster ultimately for the Israelis because like we said, it's self-destructive. They are effectively destroying themselves. And as Gilad Atzmon said recently, they think they're fighting to prevent the destruction of the Jewish state, when the policies that they're following right now is going to usher that in, quite clearly, if you follow it through plain logic, accepting and allowing for the actual facts of the situation.

Niall: Speaking of plain logic...

Joe: Hang on.

Pierre: I was going there. Niall, you were mentioning the tremendous power of Mossad but in France, as a joke to explain everything, when you don't know the reason you say, "Oh, it's Mossad". It's become a popular joke.

Niall: You said that before I did.

Pierre: So I was going to ask you why Mossad is guilty of everything. You mention 9/11, possibly. They're not behind the crash of MH17, right, that crash in Ukraine a few days ago? Or are they?

Niall: Well, given the circumstantial situation as described by Joe just now, where they are in a position to do such a thing, they have the means to do it, you're asking then do they have a motive?

Pierre: Exactly. Cui bono?

Niall: Cui bono. You can certainly see how this plane crash stands out from all the other ones around it, ones that have happened since, ones that happened just before and going back in decades. The way in which this was capitalised on for political purposes. That right there is your first big red flag that something went down here that runs totally contradictory to what we're being told happened. So that's when I started looking at: whose missiles were where, who fired what, what planes were in the air at the same time, and yeah, we're being lied to.

Pierre: About the one who fired the missile you mean?

Niall: Yeah, and even about how the plane came down.

Pierre: How did it go down?

Niall: Well my main suspicion is because there is zero evidence for there being a missile - and that was the very first thing they said happened. They had a story of how it happened and who did it from the beginning. And when that happens you've got to go "Wait a minute!"

Pierre: Even Russia mentioned the missile.

Niall: No, Russia's just responding to the accusations. But they haven't actually insinuated that Kiev, in fact, fired a missile at the plane. All they've done in response is said: "No, there's no evidence for the rebels in Donetsk and Lugansk firing a missile, but what we do have is evidence of" - they show their radar and satellite footage, showing that the Kiev and Washington line on what happened to that plane is a lie.

Pierre: So, no rocket in Palestine and no rocket in Ukraine. How did the plane go down?

Niall: It's kind of a pattern isn't it?

Pierre: Yes. If I understand your reasoning, they create missiles or rockets and they attribute the firing of those rockets to the one they want to target.

Joe: Yeah, there's a definite correlation there. You can't not notice the similarity in the two scenarios and also with the fact that the same kind of psychopathic types in power are bombing civilians. In Eastern Ukraine there's increasingly more and more pictures and evidence of the Kiev forces indiscriminately targeting urban areas of various towns in Eastern Ukraine and killing many civilians. Really, as bad as pictures you're seeing from Palestine; people with their heads blown off, legs, arms blown off; a woman lying with her leg barely intact with her baby in her arms, both of them dead on the ground. It's hard not to draw a parallel between the two.

Pierre: And if we follow Niall's remark a few minutes before, it's not surprising to perceive the same behaviour in Ukraine and in Israel because, if I correctly understood you, the population comes from the same geographic area. It's the same...

Niall: Well...

Joe: Not really.

Niall: That's kind of circumstantial. There are historical points of interest here. But I was looking for that and found it. When it came to me that what I'm seeing happening in Gaza is the same as what is happening in Eastern Ukraine, obviously there are a lot of conflict points all over the world, they come and go, but the sheer brutality of it matched with the level of propaganda working to convince people that it's the opposite. Those two are really top of the list right now.

Joe: And there are some Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine, Kolomoyskyi for example, is one who is implicated repeatedly by the people in Eastern Ukraine and the rebel forces as being the point man for the operations by the Kiev government, against Eastern Ukraine and the targeting of civilians. He's a Jewish multi-billionaire. We're talking here about Mossad and that kind of stuff but these people are known people, they're known individuals. But at the level of Mossad and taking down airliners and that kind of stuff, that's all very obscure and dark. Other aspects of the taking down of the plane is the black boxes...

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: ...that were taken away.

Niall: So normally when a plane goes down everyone knows at this point the black boxes contain a lot of data. They were priming people five days ago for there to be nothing of value in the black boxes. Headline in a British newspaper on the 22ndJuly: "Is the data on MH17's black box useless?" - useless is in capital letters - "Readings on flight recorders will reveal nothing about the attack, experts claim." That's exactly the opposite of what flight data recorders reveal. The following day a US publication: "MH17's black box of little use in events of instant decompression caused by Buk missile strike". That's already been made a fact of course. 'Instant decompression', that's the first time we hear that. And now...

Pierre: It's seems the circumstance with missile impact, no? A missile impacts the fuselage, it opens a big hole, all the air goes out and you have instant decompression.

Niall: No because the Russians reported that the plane slowed down to about 200 kilometres per hour initially and then crashed. It didn't just...

Joe: Fall out of the sky.

Niall: ...fall out of the sky there and then.

Joe: Before we get further in that we have another call on the line. I'm just going to go ahead and take it. Hi do we have a call?

Charles: Yes, sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to get you the actual name of that movie. It's: Jaffa, the Orange Clockwork, because there's a lot of other YouTube videos called Jaffa. So just wanted to get back with you on that.

Joe: Okay, no problem.

Charles: Okay, thanks for the show guys.

Joe: Alright.

Niall: I think we need to get Kent over here.

Joe: That wasn't Kent.

Niall: Oh, it was the other guy.

Joe: He didn't give his name. (Charles, frequent caller). I can't remember his name.

Niall: I don't think we got his name.

Pierre: What would have been the motive? Maybe go on with the black box.

Joe: Hang on. So instant decompression. They try to conflate instant decompression with the destruction of a black box, or that's what renders the black box useless.

Pierre: It's designed for that.

Joe: Instant decompression poses serious problems for the passengers and for the structure of the plane itself. So a big hole and people get sucked out or suffocate or whatever. But the black box is designed, as you said, to withstand all sorts of stresses because it's the one thing that's left afterwards. But as he was saying, they're priming everybody to not expect anything from this because it seems to us that based on previous crashes, and the one I'm thinking of here specifically is the Air France flight that disappeared, flying from Rio I think, to Paris...

Pierre: Yes.

Joe: 2009.

Pierre: AF447.

Joe: AF447, yeah. And I wrote an article on that at the time and I looked at all of the data because they shared the data from the black boxes, or part of the data from the black boxes. In fact the information was only partially shared, but the information that was made public revealed a host of different details, all of which were very instructive about what was actually happening to the plane and what happened to the plane in some kind of a catastrophic situation - failure of the systems on the plane, specifically what systems go down first. And we're talking here about - within either milliseconds or seconds of each other and it shows a cascade of different failures of systems and that can then be analysed to see if in the case of, for example, they're talking about a missile taking down MH17, that would give some indication of maybe where the missile struck or if it was a missile at all because there may be some differences. Because what we have put forward as a hypothesis, in the absence of any evidence that anybody fired a missile at that plane, that there was perhaps a bomb on it. Because bombs on airliners are more common even than missiles shooting at airliners.

Pierre: But you know the security right now in airports is so stringent that I don't know how you can put a bomb in a plane. In 2014?

Joe: Well, security is one way that you would put a bomb in a plane.

Pierre: Where did the plane take off?

Niall: (laughing) Yeah, it took off at the one airport that we know Mossad has a long history with.

Joe: Israeli intelligence.

Niall: We have it on good information that Mossad/the Israeli government has its own exclusive use of a hanger and apron at Schiphol airport...

Joe: Where MH17 took off from.

Niall: them means, again, if such were the case, if there was a bomb onboard. Our main point though is that there is no evidence for it being a missile. Nobody saw a missile; nobody saw a missile trail. The data that we have got comes from a Russian satellite and radar imagery.

Joe: The Americans...

Niall: And that says it doesn't point to a missile either.

Joe: The Americans had a satellite over the area, according to the Russians, which is believable given that the NSA is spying on the entire world with their satellites and their satellites can provide very high resolution images right down to ground level. So if they had a satellite over the area, which is quite likely, they have data on what happened to it. But guess what? The state department, Jen Psaki and her little minion, whatever her name is...

Niall: Marie Harder.

Joe: Marie Harder, are telling the world that "No, we can't share that data because..."

Pierre: There's no missile.

Joe: No, because it's secret data.

Pierre: Oh, sorry. (laughing)

Joe: "It's secret data and we can't tell you. We can just tell you basically what we think and that there was a missile." "But do you have any data?" "We can't tell you if we have data or not. We're just telling you that our data suggests that there was a missile." "But can you share what the nature of that data is?" "No, because it's secret data."

Niall: But, they said, "If you go to social media..."

Joe: Exactly.

Niall: "'ll see that everyone's talking about it being a missile, therefore..."

Pierre: That's evidence isn't it?

Joe: Well it is. And common sense. That's what they're saying, that common sense in the absence of, for whatever reason, CIA or the NSA providing high resolution images or even video of what was happening over that area when it came down, in the absence of that, because they're not willing to share it for whatever reason, they say: "Everybody should rely on social media, YouTube, Facebook and common sense". 'It's common sense that Putin did it because everybody knows Putin shot JFK, tried to kill Pope Jean Paul in 1982 and also...'

Pierre: Franz-Ferdinand.

Joe: And he shot Franz-Ferdinand and he was instrumental in the death of our lord. (laughter)

Pierre: So let's assume for a minute that Mossad put a bomb in MH17 before it took off from Schiphol airport, in Holland: what would be the motive?

Joe: Well, first of all it distracted attention away from the Israelis for a good week there.

Pierre: Oh, good timing.

Joe: The Israeli...

Niall: They launched their operation into Gaza, direct tank invasion, that day.

Pierre: Perfect timing.

Joe: It was very good timing, yeah.

Niall: But that alone wouldn't cut it. No, it's bigger than that.

Joe: Well it was the demonization of Putin. Suddenly, as Yats said, it blew the whole Ukrainian situation and Russia's interfering in Ukraine and trying to help the people there who are trying to assert their independence, it made that an international situation. It brought the world's attention to it and made it internationalise that conflict in the context of Russia being completely evil, for - in some way, or for largely being responsible for shooting down this plane because they supplied the weapons for the rebels to shoot down the plane. Why the rebels are going to shoot down a plane, nobody knows. But again, as we said, there's no evidence for any of it.

Pierre: That's interesting. Let's follow this interesting theory. If it's valid, it means that - you don't place a bomb in a plane overnight. It requires planning, timing; a lot of intelligence; a lot of resources. So it would mean that Mossad planned the bombing not long before the very beginning of the operation, already knowing in advance that they would have to create a diversion along the path, maybe during the ground invasion with tanks. And then implemented it a few weeks after the beginning of the operation; this diversion manoeuvre bringing down MH17.

Joe: I think if you look at the result of it...

Niall: That and more goes into the thinking...

Joe: ...If you look at the result of it, it distracted attention away from the Israeli attack on Gaza...

Pierre: It did.

Joe: ...and it also demonized Putin in a really serious way. It ramped up the propaganda offensive against Putin by the west. So if you're going to look at plausible culprits for it, then you look at Israel and the west and the US specifically, because it's the US that has the most invested in turning Putin into evil incarnate and this was one attempt to do that via the media and via this event.

Niall: It also happened the day after the conclusion of the BRICS summit in Brazil, in which Putin was there for two days with all the leaders from South America, the leaders of BRICS: Brazil, China, India and so on. And they set up a number of deals, among which are the creation of what has the potential to become an alternative to the IMF.

Pierre: Exactly.

Niall: When you're getting there, you're stepping on...

Joe: Serious toes.

Niall: ...every toe that is invested. It's beyond just investment in bombing the crap out of Gaza or spite.

Joe: You're stepping on some very big psychopathic toes.

Pierre: Yeah. Because the IMF is one of the main tools the western elites use to keep other countries into slavery.

Niall: Yeah, debt slavery.

Pierre: Fundamental tool.

Niall: Debt slavery is arguably the key in this information war. When you get to the level of money and how money is created, it's almost the realm in which physical control of other people - subjecting them by using violence and weapons, blurs into information, in the sense that money is just paper. Money nowadays is just numbers on a computer screen. And the decision to create the money and to use a sleight of hand and a bit of trickery to balance the books and make it look like that's how it's always been and that's normal, to just create money out of thin air, literally, that's pure information. And who holds the cartel power on that, is who has all the interest in the whole world in creating situations like they did with MH17. Does that make sense?

Pierre: If I understand your reasoning, there's a strong correlation between the different levels of power in this world; military, economic, financial, information, propaganda, media, and it seems that at the top there's a collusion between those different domains of power.

Joe: Absolutely. Before we call it quits for the night, I want to get back to one of the premises of the topics of our show: the Mossad and Israel and how it has wielded, and wields, vastly disproportionate power on the world stage and has contributed significantly to the course of modern history. But just on that topic, there's a PINAC document from 1996 called: A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Security the Realm. And PINAC is the Project for a New American Century that the neocons in the US, that were kind of involved in with the whole 9/11 business and the clash of civilisations and the projection of American power around the world and going into Iraq and all that kind of stuff.

But this document, produced in 1996, was a study group led by Richard Perle and it was produced for Benjamin Netanyahu, who was then at the time, in 1996, the Prime Minister of Israel. So the title, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Security the Realm, was all about how Israel could retool or reinvent itself in the Middle East and deal with the situation in the Middle East, to secure its future essentially. So it was US sponsored, albeit by Israel-firsters in the US, but for Netanyahu on what had to be done going forward type thing.

Pierre: Guidelines.

Joe: And it's just interesting because a few points on it made it clear that this document has been followed to the letter almost since then. The introduction, three points, and it was: "Rather than pursuing a comprehensive peace with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to contain, destabilise and roll back those entities that are threats." Now those entities that are threats to Israel then, was Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. And the other aspects were, "Changing the nature of relations with the Palestinians and reserving the right of hot pursuit" - they called it - " anywhere within Palestinian territory and promoting alternatives to Arafat's leadership".
So Arafat went by the wayside, apparently poisoned by polonium, and an alternative was Hamas. They also talked about essentially waging a proxy war against Syria. They just called it a proxy war but that's exactly what's happened.

Pierre: True.

Joe: It ties into the Free Syrian Army and the Al Nusra Front and the ISIS or ISIL in Iraq now, those entities that have sprung up that came from Syria. This document specifically said that they, as in Israel and the US I suppose, would get together to finance or promote or fund or create a proxy army to invade and destabilise Syria, and in the media to promote allegations of Syria's weapons of mass destruction. And they also talked about remaking Iraq, breaking Iraq up into three different countries.

Pierre: Wow!

Joe: When you read the details of it and then you think back, since 2003 really, since the invasion of Iraq, you see that this was a blueprint in 1996 for what has happened today and it was in the interests of securing Israel's position in the Middle East; taking out Arab governments in the Middle East that were a threat to Israel, that weren't going to play ball the Israeli way, and it more or less spelled out exactly what has happened since then.

Pierre: Eighteen years ago.

Joe: Yeah, and that was essentially for Israel. And obviously 9/11 is involved, but 9/11's referred to in the other PINAC document, where they refer to a new Pearl Harbour. And yeah, it involved 9/11, Iraq, Syria. They don't mention Libya specifically but Syria and Lebanon and dealing with the Palestinian situation.

Pierre: What is interesting is that it raises the question of who's pulling whose strings.

Joe: Yeah.

Pierre: Is Israel pulling the strings of the US or is the US pulling the strings of Israel, or a bit of both. Because here we have a document that seems to originate from US elites, Richard Perle, and that is basically defining the policy of Israel for the following decades.

Joe: Yeah. Actually they say specifically paralleling Syria's behaviour, by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israel proxy forces. 'Israeli proxy forces'.

Pierre: What it was showing as well, is the euphemistic way they describe their plans, 'an alternative to Yasser Arafat', and they kill Yasser Arafat with polonium, which is a signature of a Mossad operation, and then they created Hamas which was the alternative to PLO, the organisation directed by Arafat.

Niall: Yeah, they basically turned on Arafat when he turned to peace and that couldn't happen, so you create something else to be able to engage in, what Joe described as the 'hot pursuit'. And even on that front, Hamas has basically been replaced by other proxies behind them because Hamas, in turn, turns to peace because that's naturally where things always end up going. No matter how many times Israel will recreate a scenario where they come up with a new, darker, scarier bogey-man, everything naturally wants to go back to peace.

Pierre: It's human nature. And that's how you reconcile this apparent paradox, that Hamas on the one hand was created by Mossad but on the other end it was democratically elected by the people and it defends globally, overall, it defends the interests of Palestinian people.

Joe: Yeah, this document written by Richard Perle and other neocons in 1996 says specifically: "The effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, which is an important Israeli strategic objective, as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions. And then contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction and using Israeli proxy forces to attack Syria."

Niall: 'Israeli proxy forces being' - Al-Qaeda.

Pierre: Yeah, and ISIS.

Niall: Yeah, the main thing is that they will keep trying to divide people. Hamas is their ostensible enemy, yet it couldn't have happened, according to Yasser Arafat, without Israeli help. It couldn't have come about. And then you look at Hamas today and they're the enemy, and yet in 2012 Hamas' leadership relocated and they went to Qatar. And on their way out, they had been in Syria - pretty much on their way out - the official Hamas line, vis-ร -vis this proxy war by Israel against Syria, is that we support the Free Syrian Army. So what's going on there? Do you see the triangulation of Israel's interests being met in both cases.

Pierre: I'm surprised that in this document there's no mention of Iran.

Joe: They do mention Iran. Their nexus was Iraq/Iran/Syria/Lebanon and Palestine. But the other little note about the Israelis, is that one of the peace treaties that was signed out, which was the Oslo accords in December 1993, and I think that was the only Israeli leader that ever had the possibility of really pursuing a peaceful solution to the conflict in Israel/Palestine.

Pierre: Yitzhak Rabin?

Joe: Yitzhak Rabin, yeah. In 1983. That's the famous picture of Arafat and Rabin and Bill Clinton on the White House lawn. shaking hands and stuff. And shortly after that Rabin was murdered, in 1985, when he was the Prime Minister. And he was murdered supposedly by a rightwing radical orthodox Jew.

Niall: And then Benjamin Netanyahu became Prime Minister after him.

Joe: He did, yeah. Well immediately after him Shimon Perez who was the vice or whatever. He became Prime Minister, but that's set up so eventually the real rightwinger psychopaths can come to power. So Rabin was the last one. He was shot by Yigal Amir, a radical rightwing orthodox Jew. But it came out afterwards that this guy Amir was being handled by a member of Shin Bet, a guy who was working for Israeli intelligence and supposedly, how the narrative goes, in all of these cases he was there to try and keep tabs on the Israeli radical rightwingers, these extremist groups in Israel. So he had a friend who was posing as a member of this rightwing radical organisation, and was essentially handling him, who was a member of the Shin Bet. And it was eventually exposed that he was a member of Israeli intelligence. This guy was taken to trial, supposedly for failing to prevent the assassination, because he was meant to be keeping tabs on this guy. But it came out as well, that he was overhead - and this was reported by an Israeli journalist - telling the guy to "be a man and go ahead and kill him". So he was far from trying to stop him doing this.

Pierre: He did the opposite.

Joe: It was an operation to actually take out Rabin because Rabin was threatening to actually sign a realistic, plausible, peace agreement with the Palestinians. So the conclusion there is that the Israeli elites behind the scenes do not want any kind of an equitable solution to the Palestinian problem. I don't know what they want. Maybe they want them all dead.

Niall: This securing the realm, 20-year old thinking, strategically over the course of decades, suggests that they do think in these kind of long-term, strategic goals, behind all this. What could it be?

Pierre: It feels like totally unrealistic global domination; more and more control, more and more power, more and more domination.

Niall: Global. So when they said realm, they have in mind the whole realm.

Pierre: Oh yeah. I maybe go too far here, but as Joe said a few minutes ago, today France isn't controlled by French elite or by some French oligarchs. Today France is controlled by a Zionist lobby. So I think we can say that now, in 2014, the sphere of influence of the Zionist elite goes far beyond the Israeli borders.

Joe: Absolutely.

Pierre: And far beyond the Middle East borders. It's worldwide.

Joe: And it's not even Israeli at that level. It's not Israeli, it's not Jewish. They're just used. You're reaching the top of the Apex.

Niall: Yeah, I doubt the people up there are practicing Judaism.

Pierre: The top of the AIPAC you say? (laughter)

Joe: The top of the AIPAC, apex of the pyramid, at the top level, the power of these people obviously realise that religions and ideologies are just a means to an end.

Pierre: Tools.

Joe: And their goal seems to be just complete and absolute power and control of everything that happens everywhere, and they seem to also get a real kick out of death and destruction and murder. And that's the world we live in. But right now there's an opportunity, especially in Palestine with this new cold war business, where people can really see what's going on, at least to some extent, and to not fall for the bullshit and the lies anymore, because there are sources out there that can provide a different viewpoint on it, with actual evidence, as opposed to common sense and social media, and for people to really make a decision and make a choice for what they're going to go with. Are they going to go with barbarity and brutality and the condoning of the murder of children, or are they going to stand up for their humanity and the humanity of all the people on the planet against this psychopathic elite who seem to never really have had any humanity within them.

Pierre: Yeah, I think, as we've said, there are several layers of war. There's a war in Palestine, a very asymmetric war as they call it, but maybe more globally there is a war for our conscience and one of the most fundamental aspects of our conscience is hurting for others, and what's the most serious case may be the suffering and death of innocent children. So when a human being stops feeling for the suffering of innocent children, he shows sacrifice of one part of his conscience. When he makes this choice, conscious or not, one part of his conscience dies.

Joe: Yeah, that's a choice for all people right now, so get making your choices there. Inform yourself, read up on stuff and keep a watch on the skies and the planet because there's all sorts of other stuff going on as well that are probably associated with the chaos in the human realm. There's mounting chaos on a geological level on our planet, in case you haven't noticed. So it's very important to keep an eye on all of that as well. And enjoy the show such as it is, if you can manage to.

So I think we'll leave it there for this week folks. We hope you enjoyed the show. Thanks to our listeners, to our callers and to our chatters and we will be back next week with another show on another topic. We hope you will tune in.

Pierre: Bye-bye. Have a good one.

Joe: Have a good one.

Niall: Bye-bye.