Illuminati Conspiracy Archive

Betrayed by Our 'Friends'

- by Barry Chamish ©, Mar. 1st, 2005

Foreign Affairs Magazine EmblemIn late February I put my book table inside Jerusalem's Convention Center where the Chabad had organized an anti Gush Katif surrender gathering. As I sold a book a minute, I was interviewed by the literary editor of the Jerusalem Post, Eliot Jager. He is writing an article about the spread of "conspiracy theories" in Israel and who better to talk to than the "father" of this nefarious turn of literary events. I didn't take notes, he did. But this is how I recall part of the interview went:

EJ - Don't you get hurt by the rejection you suffer from the mainstream writers?

BC - No Israeli writer born in an English-speaking country sells nearly as many books as I do in Israel. Can you name another writer who can put a table down and sell 100 books in three hours? I am the mainstream.

EJ - How did that happen?

BC - At a time of our nation's biggest distress, we needed brilliant writers and thinkers to emerge. Instead we got mediocrity and dullness. It's not the first time that Jewish "thinkers" failed their people. How many pre-Holocaust writers can you name? Once again, the Jews are being betrayed by their writers who have no clue who the enemy is.

EJ - Give me an example.

BC - Ruth Matar comes to mind. She is among the vanguard of protest leaders and I admire that. But every week she writes another confused political analysis that does no good for her cause. This week she explained why she recommended voting for Bush instead of Kerry, like she tipped the elections or it made any difference who won. You get this same confusion among literally all the protest writers. Bush is right wing and is fighting terror in Iraq. Therefore, he is Israel's friend. Any American right wing politico must also be a friend of Israel's Right. Every one of them got it wrong and their political stupidity is going to cost us a country.

At that moment Ruth Matar passed by and gave me a nod. I rushed her over to Eliot to give her side of things to him. We await the article. I say his editors nix[ed] the whole thing. Look at the following two Jerusalem Post writers to understand why.

Example one: There is a writer for the Jerusalem Post called Caroline Glick. Incredibly, she has a reputation in some circles for being informed. As my readers know, there is a huge mass of evidence proving that Yigal Amir could not have murdered Yitzhak Rabin. If this evidence was properly exploited, we could bring down Israel's so-called peace camp better than any demonstration and put Shimon Peres on trial for murder as well. But Miss Glick "writes" over and over, every chance she gets, that Amir is the, "assassin" of the prime minister. Moshe Feiglin makes the same dumb mistake. Instead of pursuing our goals with the vast store of ammunition available, they apologize for a crime the Right never committed.

At least my readers know that PM Sharon is a flunkie of the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR), the little 4000 member Manhattan think tank which is behind the "Roadmap" and the Gush Katif sellout. Look how one of them analyzes Ms. Glick's "thinking."

Israel is no longer an independent, sovereign "State", it is a laboratory, a test course for the Council on Foreign Relations. Friends in Israel tried for years to warn us of this takeover, few listened, fewer still cared. CFR members are highlighted in RED.

Our World: Look who's 'representing' Israel

As US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice embarked on her maiden voyage, it was reported that she departed from America armed with a new policy paper on how to implement the Quartet's road map produced by the James Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.

According to Edward Djerejian, the former US ambassador to Syria who directs the Baker Center, the paper, with its detailed recommendations, is a "street map to the road map."

One of the things that make the paper significant is that it bears former US secretary of state James Baker's name. Not only did Baker serve under the president's father, he now plays a formal role in mobilizing international support for Iraqi reconstruction efforts.

As well, the team that composed the report included senior policy makers from the US, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Canada and the World Bank. The US was represented by current Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns as well as by Norman Olsen, the political counselor at the US embassy in Israel. The PA was represented by security strongman Jibril Rajoub and by senior aides to Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Arafat and Ahmed Qurei. Egypt was represented by Dictator Hosni Mubarak's senior adviser Osama El Baz and by General Hossam Khair Allah.

- Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 8, 2005

Now we turn to another Post columnist, Ruthie Blum, who happens to be the daughter of Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz. Another reader added the bold letters for emphasis. To understand this piece we shall turn to our list of CFR members

Who's Right?

In Bush, both Israeli and American conservatives believed the US had found a president who not only recognized this threat, but who was willing to put his money where his mouth was and do something about it. That he unapologetically surrounded himself with what his attackers called the "neoconservative cabal" (his administration included the likes of Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz and others) – and simultaneously befriended Sharon – deepened the natural three-way alliance between Washington, Jerusalem and the conservatives, who finally felt their ideas were being adopted by the leaders of both countries. And that, for the first time in decades, America was not pressuring Israel to make concessions that would be harmful to its interests...

But most others, including [Norman] Podhoretz, his wife, Midge Decter, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer and Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, are behind Sharon. As a result, Commentary and the Weekly Standard, which published numerous pieces against the Oslo Accords, have been relatively quiet over the disengagement plan.

Hudson Institute head Herb London, who supports the plan, says the split on the Right over disengagement is not as peculiar as it appears.

"Such disagreements are not unusual among conservatives," he said. "We've had many such arguments, including over the war in Iraq – not the principle behind it, but the details. The idea is for the Palestinians to democratize. It is the way to achieve this that's being debated."

Like London, Podhoretz and Decter consider the plan to be completely different from Oslo in terms both of its goals and of the risks involved, mainly because of Bush.

"The toppling of Saddam, and Bush's determination to reshape the entire region, have created an entirely new context," Podhoretz said.

"You can't compare today's world, in which Bush is president, Sharon is prime minister and Arafat is dead, to the Oslo years, when Clinton and Barak were the main players, and when Arafat and Shimon Peres won the Nobel Peace Prize," Decter added.

Gaffney, though an opponent of disengagement, agrees with London's assessment that the split among conservatives over this issue is "not so much ideological, as tactical."

"The conservatives who support withdrawal from Gaza at this stage think of it as a stratagem," he said, "different from Oslo precisely because it is Sharon implementing it. This bolsters the arguments of Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and others who see Sharon as a robust security man," and the plan as "a relatively low-risk experiment."

- Ruthie Blum, The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 17, 2005

Now let us see if our insightful political analysts note a pattern:

  • Douglas Feith - CFR
  • Elliott Abrams - CFR
  • Midge Decter - CFR
  • Charles Krauthammer - CFR
  • William Kristol is not CFR but his father Irving is.
  • Herbert London - CFR
  • Norman Podhoretz - CFR

Well, could it be that the American Jewish Conservative and Right Wing thinkers fooled the Israeli Conservative and Right Wing writers? Is it possible the Israeli "thinkers" were betrayed from day one and are too petty to admit it?

end part one

Well thank goodness, at least my readership has caught on. Here are a few typical letters received this week:



Hi Barry ~

I just want to let you know I've heard evidence that your take on Daniel Pipes (CFR) is correct. I heard him speak at an AIPAC fundraiser and membership drive in Denver in March 2004, and was stunned at the insubstantial, non-committal tepidness of his support for Israel's protection in a mere 19-minute talk, for which I surmise he was paid big bucks. Later, in another room at the event where he was answering questions privately, he dodged my precise questions about the "Toady Map" being a ploy to facilitate the destruction of Israel. Rather than answer them, he told me he was "a big picture guy," and was not able to answer such detailed questions. I was rather shocked and immediately "grokked" that his agenda is other than what he advertises. I then felt like saying to him, "Et tu, Brute?"

As you may be aware, I am a regular contributor on Arutz Sheva, among other places. I have been aware of Pipes for a while, having been tipped off about to him 18 months ago by a member of the Hudson Institute who loves Israel and despises the CFR.

Some advanced Sabbataian knowledge available at:

Sites of readers:

As always, my books Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin; Israel Betrayed, Shabtai Tzvi, Labor Zionism And The Holocaust; The Last Days Of Israel; and Save Israel!, as well as my videos and CDS, The Dirty Secrets Of Oslo are available by writing me at