Once again we see the Zionists employing tactics they accuse their sworn enemy of repeatedly - without evidence.

Abramoff and al-Arian: Lobbyist's "Charity" a Front for Terrorism

The guilty plea of fabulously wealthy and highly corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff raised the question of whether he would roll over on congressmen involved in illegal fundraising and other crimes with him. Some twenty Republicans on Capitol Hill are said to be in danger.

Abramoff's dense network of illicit finances and phony charities might end some political careers in the United States. But the investigation into his activities by the FBI also shed light on the ways in which rightwing American Jews have often been involved in funding what are essentially terrorist activities by armed land thieves in Palestinian territory.

Indeed, it was this terror funding of Israeli far right militiamen that tripped Abramoff up, since the FBI discovered that he had misled Indian tribes into giving money to the Jabotinskyites, and then began wondering if he had defrauded the tribes in other ways. (You betcha!) The Indian leaders were furious when they discovered they had been used to oppress another dispossessed indigenous people, the Palestinians, calling it "Outer Limits bizarre" and saying that they would never have willingly given money to such a cause.

Newsweek's Mike Issikoff reported last May that Abramoff diverted $140,000 from a charity ostensibly to benefit inner-city youths to militant Israeli colonists who had usurped land in the Palestinian West Bank. Isikoff wrote:


"Among the expenditures: purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as "security" equipment. The FBI, sources tell NEWSWEEK, is now examining these payments as part of a larger investigation to determine if Abramoff defrauded his Indian tribe clients . . .

Abramoff, a legendary lobbyist particularly close to DeLay, is also a fierce supporter of Israel—"a super-Zionist," one associate says. That may explain why Abramoff's paramilitary gear ended up in the town of Beitar Illit, a sprawling ultra-Orthodox outpost whose residents have occasionally tangled with their Palestinian neighbors. Yitzhak Pindrus, the settlement's mayor, says that several years ago the town was confronting mounting security problems. "They [the Palestinians] were throwing stones, they were throwing Molotov cocktails," Pindrus says. Abramoff's connection to the town was Schmuel Ben-Zvi, an American emigre who, the lobbyist told associates, was an old friend he knew from Los Angeles. Capital Athletic Foundation public tax records make no mention of Ben-Zvi. But they do show payments to "Kollel Ohel Tiferet" in Israel, a group for which there is no public listing and which the town's mayor said he never heard of.



Beitar Illit is a colony that the Israelis plunked down in the northern part of the West Bank, which they conquered militarily in 1967. The partition of Palestine in 1948, tragic as it was, had a United Nations Security Council resolution behind it. And the 1949 armistice lines have been implicitly recognized by Egypt and Jordan in their peace treaties with Israel, as well as by the Arab League in its endorsement of then-Prince Abdullah's peace plan, which offered Israel recognition and peace for a return to 1949 borders. The 1967 Israeli conquest of the West Bank and Gaza is not of the same sort.

Although some of my readers are under the impression that in the civilized world it is all right to take your neighbor's land by winning it in warfare, actually the United Nations Charter (to which Israel is a signatory) and the whole body of post-1945 international law frowns on that sort of thing. Likewise both the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 forbid occupying powers to settle their citizens in militarily occupied territories, or, indeed, to make any major alteration in the structure of the conquered societies. Basically, the idea was that as of the late 1940s your nation is stuck with the land it has and you can't take anyone else's by force. And if you try, the United Nations Security Council has an obligation to stop you. The Geneva Conventions were framed to prevent further atrocities of a sort committed by the Nazis. It is not only the Nazis who were capable of atrocities; everyone is, which is why we need a rule of law, including international law.

You will note that even though Iraq([search]) invaded both Iran and Kuwait, neither Iran nor Kuwait has made any claim on Iraqi territory (nor are they entitled to do so, given that they are also signatories to the United Nations Charter). That is right. Iran has reacted more properly in the aftermath to the 8-year-long Iraq-Iran War (which Iraq launched) than Israel reacted to the 1967 war (which the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza did not launch). And, after all, the United States conquered Iraq in 2003. Would it be all right to kick the Basrans out of their homes and settle, say, the displaced New Orleans folks in Iraq, just because of this American military victory?

Isikoff is careful to avoid trouble by depicting the weaponry sent by Abramoff as essentially for self-defense. But the colonists are often aggressive, and anyway would not need to defend themselves if they weren't squatting on other people's land. And, Israel does have an army. Private militias are always an ugly thing, and have been used by Israeli colonists ethnically to cleanse nearby Palestinian villages.

The Hill reported on June 23, 2005 that some of the money Abramoff embezzled from the charity contributions of the Indian tribes "paid a monthly stipend and Jeep payments to a high-school friend of Abramoff who conducted sniper workshops . . ." The Hill suggested that the workshops were for Israeli army personnel, but the Israeli army does not need shooting lessons from Yitzhak Pindrus. The sniper lessons were for the colonists, practice for shooting Palestinians.

The Jerusalem Post added on April 24, 2005 of Abramoff's funding for sniping lessons and "security equipment":


"Emily Amrussi, a spokeswoman for the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, known by its acronym, Yesha, said, I have never before heard of this episode." The Yesha Council under increasing financial scrutiny itself now receives its entire budget - in the millions of dollars this year, - from charity she said. "But it is often impossible to know where the funds originated she added. She said that this particular case has no bearing on the Yesha Council because it is specific to a single West Bank community.

The Interior Ministry froze all state funding to the Yesha Council following a petition to the High Court of Justice last month by the settlement watch-dog group Peace Now. The petition accuses the settler leadership of chronic improper use of state funds for allegedly illegal activity such as setting up unrecognized outposts."



Illegal outposts, i.e. establishing foreign colonies on stolen land, is a way of terrorizing the indigenous inhabitants, and it requires a local militia to defend the colonists, along with sniper lessons and night-vision binoculars.

Now here's the thing. If a Palestinian-American had diverted $140,000 from a Muslim charity to "security equipment" and "sniper lessons" for Palestinians on the West Bank, that individual would be in Gitmo so fast that the sonic boom would rattle your windows.

In fact, it seems to me that Sami al-Arian is the mirror image of Abramoff.

But here's a prediction. None of the Jewish extremists, some of them violent, who are invading the West Bank and making the lives of the local Palestinians miserable will ever be branded "terrorists" by the US Government, and Abramoff's foray into providing sniper lessons will be quietly buried.

Terror isn't terror and aggression is not aggression when it has lobbyists in Congress who can provide luxury vacations and illegal campaign funding.

----

Because propaganda of the sort people like Abramoff paid for has substituted itself for rational discourse on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, postings like this always elicit a certain number of responses full of special pleading or simple errors of fact.

 http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/01/1793770.php

In protecting Abramoff, Bush([search]) proves that he is no enemy of "terrorism", and his aggression wrapped in the guise of "fighting terror" is no more than fancy wrapping paper on Zionist-driven Fascism.

Abramoff Scandal Threatens GOP
But Media Runs Interference
By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor

On January 3, GOP Super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s plead guilty to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion charges, agreeing to cooperate in a federal corruption probe that could implicate dozens of lawmakers and their staffs. Time magazine soon reported that 13 FBI field offices across the country were working on the case, “with two dozen agents assigned to it full time and roughly the same number working part time. ‘We are going to chase down every lead,’ Chris Swecker, head of the FBI’s criminal division, told Time.”
That day, as part of MSNBC’s breaking coverage, Hardball’s Chris Matthews said, “I’m not sure it’s partisan. I’m not sure that people are going to see him as part of any Republican culture of corruption. I think [Rep. Randy] Duke Cunningham [R-CA] also was sort of a lone wolf in that department. I think we’re gonna see this case, basically––What’s the right word? ––It’s gonna be kept to itself. It’s not going to be part of a larger story of Washington this year, I think.”
But Matthews himself had his own ties to Abramoff—a symptom of how deep the scandal goes, and why it may be difficult for the public to get the full story.
Just four days later, former GOP House Majority Leader Tom DeLay gave up his attempt to regain his leadership. He was apparently tipped off that the all-Republican Texas Court of Appeals was about to reject his attempt to halt a criminal trial against him in Texas. The trial concerns the laundering of corporate donations in order to circumvent a Texas law forbidding such money from being used in state legislative races.
Although the two cases are unrelated, DeLay is involved (thought not yet charged) in both—a reflection, some charge, of a pervasive culture of corruption, typified by DeLay’s masterpiece, the so-called “K-Street Project” that was designed to purge lobbying firms of Democrats and turn them into footsoldiers for the GOP. The man now set to replace him, Roy Blount (R-Mo), is a close DeLay associate, dubbed “Mini-Me to DeLay’s Dr. Evil,” by David Donnelly, the National Campaigns Director of Public Campaign Action Fund.
“The era of Tom DeLay is over,” Donnelly said, “But his legacy will still continue unless Congress takes up a big, bold reform agenda, which must include public financing of elections, in order to take power away from the big money drowning Washington. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have yet proposed a comprehensive reform package which puts voters in control.”
PCAF has tried to run ads criticizing DeLay on Houston TV, but the stations have refused to sell air-time, a common symptom of how the media protects the political establishment.
While the media can’t avoid talking about the Abramoff Scandal, they can—and do—blow smoke and spread confusion and misinformation. A most popular example is the false claim that Democrats as well Republicans took money from Abramoff. In fact, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees between 2001 and 2004, and nothing to Democrats.
Indeed, TV pundits themselves have closer ties to Abamoff. In March, 2003, Hollywood Reporter online reported that “Fox News Channel’s Tony Snow is master of ceremonies, and Fox’s Brit Hume and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews are aboard” for an event whose “purpose is to raise about $300,000 for the Capital Athletic Foundation.”
The Capital Athletic Foundation is one of Abramoff’s various slush fund fronts. Ostensibly devoted to “needy and deserving” sportsmanship programs, the Washington Post discovered that though it collected nearly $6 million in its first four years of operation, “less than one percent of its revenue has been spent on sports-related programs for youths.”
The fundraiser was cancelled because of the invasion of Iraq. But the Beltway newsmen’s involvement raises serious questions about their objectivity and distance from the subject of scandal. No one is saying they are dirty. But neither can they be considered objective in reporting about a widespread scandal that they themselves have gotten entangled in, however innocently. And yet, they are among the leading voices telling America how to think about it.

----------------------------------

Abramoff and His Vanishing Friends

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, January 6, 2006; A19

It almost makes you feel sorry for Jack Abramoff.

Republicans once fell all over themselves to get his "moolah," the term used famously by the disgraced superlobbyist, and to get his advice on dealing with that warm and cuddly entity known as "the lobbying community."

Suddenly, Abramoff enters two plea bargains, and these former friends ask, in puzzled tones, "Jack Who ?"

Over the past few days, politicians -- from President Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert on down -- raced to return Abramoff contributions, or compassionately sent the moolah off to charity. There's a scramble to treat him as a wildly defective gene in an otherwise healthy body politic, and to erase the past. But seeing the record of the past clearly is essential to fixing the future.

Abramoff, who used to pall around with close Bush allies Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed in the College Republicans and who has been a central figure in the rise of Republican dominance in Washington, is not a lone wolf. He is a particularly egregious example of how the GOP's political-corporate-lobbying complex has overwhelmed the idealistic wing of the Republican Party.

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, insisted on Wednesday that Bush does not know Abramoff personally. But the record makes clear that Abramoff was a loyal and serious player in Bush's circles.

According to an Oct. 15, 2003, story in Roll Call, Abramoff was one of a half-dozen lobbyists who raised $100,000 for Bush's 2000 campaign. When Bush was battling Al Gore's efforts to recount Florida's votes, Abramoff was there with the maximum $5,000 contribution Bush was taking for the effort. A September 2003 National Journal story noted that Abramoff was so confident he would meet his fundraising goals for the president's 2004 campaign that he was planning, as the lobbyist generously put it, "to try to help some other lobbyists meet their goals."

The administration, in turn, was open to Abramoff. As National Journal reported in its April 20, 2002, issue, "Last summer, in an effort to raise the visibility of his Indian clients, Abramoff helped arrange a White House get-together on tax issues with President Bush for top Indian leaders, including Lovelin Poncho, the chairman of the Coushattas," one of the tribes Abramoff represented.

When journalists would raise questions about Abramoff's role as a lobbyist-fundraiser just a couple of years ago, Bush's lieutenants played down his influence peddling and proudly claimed Abramoff as one of their own.

On an Oct. 15, 2003, CNBC broadcast, journalist Alan Murray asked Ed Gillespie, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, about fundraising by "people like Jack Abramoff, who represents Indian tribes here," and another lobbyist whose name I'll leave out because he has not been implicated in any scandals. "Are you going to sit here and tell us that their contributions to your party have nothing to do with their lobbying efforts in Washington?"

"I know Jack Abramoff," Gillespie replied. He mentioned the other lobbyist and insisted: "They are Republicans; they were Republicans before they were lobbyists. . . . I think they want to see a Republican reelected in the White House in 2004 more than anything."

Roll Call reported on March 12, 2001, that "GOP leaders on and off Capitol Hill are organizing a new drive to lean on major corporations and trade associations to hire Republicans for their top lobbying jobs." The article spoke of a "Who's Who of Republican lobbyists" who had held a meeting on the subject the week before. At the top of the list was Jack Abramoff.

Abramoff was always there for his party, with sound bites as well as money. In a May 2, 2001, article in the Hill newspaper (it ran under a wonderful headline: "Lobbyists Approve of Bush's Businesslike Style"), reporter Melanie Fonder noted that "Abramoff said the Bush team's careful and deliberate approach to leadership is the exact opposite of the Clinton team."

She quoted Abramoff directly: "The feeding frenzy which started even before Clinton was inaugurated, and continued to the final pardon, was perhaps best exemplified by the reckless and unprofessional handling of his responsibility to appoint honorable public servants."

This careful judge of what it means to be an "honorable public servant" had reason to prefer the Bush administration's taste in appointees. After the 2000 election, Abramoff was named to the Bush transition team for the Interior Department, which regulates the Indian casinos that paid Abramoff his inflated fees.

"What the Republicans need is 50 Jack Abramoffs," his friend Grover Norquist told National Journal in 1995. "Then this becomes a different town." Norquist got his different town. It's why the place so badly needs cleaning up.

postchat (at) aol.com

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/05/AR2006010501903_pf.html

Screw the Photos: Bush, Abramoff Smoking Gun is W Removing Prosecutor Twice

Twice now, Bush has removed the prosecutor in the Abramoff case. Twice!

 http://benfrank.net/blog/2006/01/28/bush_abramoff/