wildcard
2nd May 2010, 05:41 PM
Full story and hot links:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/05/02/what%E2%80%99s-next-from-israel-entropy-or-outrage/
What’s Next from Israel: Entropy or Outrage?
May 2, 2010 posted by Jeff Gates
Israeli war-planners face a dilemma. After more than six decades of duplicitous behavior, their playbook is pretty well played out. Not that Tel Aviv will not deceive again. Or at least try. Odds are we’ll see another round of either entropy or outrage or some lethal combination.
Their outrage tactics are well understood. This serial agent provocateur has long shaped events from the shadows by provoking well-profiled targets to respond to well-planned provocations.
With in-depth profiling, the response becomes a matter of probabilities. Thus Israel’s well-deserved reputation as the master of mental manipulation based on their use of game theory algorithms that anticipate reactions to provocations along with the reactions to those reactions.
Control enough of the variables and the desired outcome becomes foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. Therein lies the genius (others say the psychopathy) of those for whom conflicts serve as a profitable sideline while they pursue broader geopolitical goals.
In game theory war planning, the reaction of “the mark†emerges in the foreground while the agent provocateur disappears into the background. The response to that reaction then enables the provocateur to slip even deeper into the shadows, further obscuring the genius of the instigator.
Game theory modeling is a useful skill for a nation that built much of its economy on arms sales. Much of the rest is reliant on information technology. Those technologies enable Israelis to operate undetected in that invisible domain where data is the most critical form of capital. That includes financial markets where timely information has long been the most valuable asset.
Game Theory and 911
When provoked by a mass murder on American soil, we had elected to office a president with a known array of easily profiled dysfunctions. With phony intelligence, he was induced to order the U.S. military to invade a nation that had no hand in that event. From a game theory perspective, that is genuine genius.
Consistent with game theory war planning, that invasion advanced an Israeli strategy for “securing the realm†while expanding its sphere of influence well beyond its borders.
Not only was the U.S. induced to discredit itself by that (easily modeled) reaction, our response over-extended our military, destroyed our credibility and further weakened our already debt-weakened economy. All these effects are consistent with game theory modeling.
Even a cursory review of history confirms that debt is always the prize for those skilled at catalyzing serial conflicts. Some commentators might call that financial genius.
According to Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz, the fiscal cost may reach $3 trillion, all of it borrowed—a first. At the end of WWII, the U.S. had half the world’s productive power.
That financial strength ensured our bonds would remain dominant for at least two generations. Look at us now. The interest expense alone for this conflict could cost us $700 billion.
These game theory-foreseeable results suggest how war can be waged on a nation from within that nation—while the instigators fade into the mist. That too is a form of genius.
Entropy and Presidential Longevity
The next step in this game theory warfare may involve an entropy operation. Though less well known than run-of-the-mill provocations, this component also suggests applied genius.
As with the source of the outrage from provocations, the instigators of entropy strategies seek refuge in the shadows. That era may soon come to a close as “the mark†(the American public) grasps the regularity—and the lengthy premeditation—with which such duplicity is deployed.
For instance, 47 years ago, President John F. Kennedy sought to halt in its infancy a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In June 1963, he wrote the last in a series of insistent letters to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Each of those letters sought what Israel now demands of Iran: international inspections of its nuclear facilities.
The key difference: JFK knew for certain that Israeli officials, while insisting the Zionist enclave was a loyal friend and ally, lied to him about their nuclear weapons program at the Dimona reactor facility in the Negev Desert. We now know the Israelis were then secretly shipping highly enriched uranium to Dimona from at least one U.S. nuclear facility in Pennsylvania.
Best estimates date to sometime between 1962 and 1964 when Israel produced its first weapon. Their nuclear arsenal is now estimated at 200-600 warheads plus possibly hundreds of “dirty†devices and other nuclear-related weaponry.
Kennedy’s letter to Ben-Gurion was not cordial. The words chosen were drawn not from diplomacy but from the instructions that a judge provides a jury to assess criminal culpability.
In that brusque letter, a U.S. commander-in-chief demanded proof “beyond a reasonable doubt†that Zionists were not developing nuclear weapons. His insistence left no room for this purported ally to maneuver—except to deploy entropy as a means to avoid accountability.
The day after that June 15th letter was cabled to Tel Aviv for delivery by the U.S. ambassador, Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned citing undisclosed personal reasons. Because his resignation was announced before the cabled letter could be physically delivered, Israeli authors claim that Kennedy’s message failed to reach Ben-Gurion.
That interpretative gloss ignores what we now know about Israeli operations inside serial U.S. presidencies. And about Tel Aviv’s routine intercept of White House communications, particularly those most critical to our national security.
That duplicity has only rarely been made public. Typical was the behavior of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard who provided Tel Aviv more than one million pages of classified materials. This Israeli operation—run from inside our government—compromised the entirety of our national security apparatus in which U.S. taxpayers had invested trillions of dollars.
When Ben-Gurion deprived President Kennedy of an Israeli government with which to negotiate, the resulting entropy denied the U.S. a critical strategic advantage. That entropy also set in motion the nuclear dynamics that JFK and his advisers feared a half-century ago.
When assessing the cost of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, what cost in dollars, lives and foregone opportunities should Americans put on this trans-generational deceit?
The consistency of Israel’s duplicitous conduct raises difficult questions about the ability to hold such religious extremists accountable—particularly a nuclear-armed enclave that considers its people Chosen by God and accountable only to God.
The Khazars vs. the Kennedys
During this same 1962-63 period, Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council. The AZC received funds from the Jewish Agency, the predecessor to the state of Israel.
As a recipient of U.S. funds, the Agency used those funds to lobby for more funds. Under U.S. law, that conduct required the AZC to register as a foreign agent.
In seeking that registration, Fulbright was joined by Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Their effort was delayed by the fledgling Israel lobby and then ended with JFK’s assassination.
Concerns about Zionist influence on U.S. policy continued to grow among well-informed legislators. By 1973, Senator Fulbright could announce with confidence: “Israel controls the U.S. Senate.†In 1974, he lost his Senate seat.
Fast-forward to today and imagine a Middle East without an enclave of nuclear-armed Zionist extremists. The threat that JFK posed to their arsenal—and to their geopolitical goals—was resolved five months after Ben-Gurion’s resignation.
When Vice President Lyndon Johnson was sworn in as Kennedy’s successor, he immediately increased the U.S. budget for arms to Israel.
Imagine the Zionist influence on U.S. policy had Fulbright and the Kennedys succeeded in requiring that the lobby register as what it was and remains: a foreign agent.
See: “How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy.â€
Following John Kennedy’s removal in November 1963, Johnson appointed Nicholas Katzenbach as his Attorney General to replace Robert Kennedy who LBJ loathed. Soon thereafter, the AZC evaded registration as it morphed into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and began the pretense, still ongoing, that AIPAC operates in the U.S. as a domestic lobby.
[AIPAC and dozens of affiliate organizations coordinate a transnational network of pro-Israeli political operations commonly known as “the Israel lobby.â€]
The Kennedy-Fulbright threat to the Zionists’ geopolitical goals reemerged five years later when Robert Kennedy announced his candidacy for the presidency during the height of an unpopular war. That war was vastly expanded under Johnson’s leadership.
Resolving the Kennedy Problem
From a game theory perspective, a second Kennedy presidency presented Tel Aviv with at least four troubling variables to manage.
First, Robert Kennedy’s peace candidacy offered the possibility of a speedy end to the war in Vietnam. Less war meant not only less debt but also less ability to arm Israel with U.S. weapons.
Second, his election so soon after the Six-Day War presented the possibility that a U.S. commander-in-chief might inquire into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that left 34 Americans dead and 175 wounded. Covered up by Johnson with the help of Admiral John McCain, Jr., an open inquiry threatened the carefully orchestrated perception that Israel was a victim rather than an aggressor in taking land that fueled outrage throughout the region.
Third, RFK’s global perspective on peace suggested that he might pursue his brother’s agenda and target Israel’s nuclear arsenal in order to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Fourth, with Fulbright still wielding substantial influence on U.S. foreign policy, a second Kennedy administration revived concerns about renewed restrictions on the domestic activities of the expansive Israel lobby.
When this charismatic presidential contender surged in nationwide political polls, those strategic variables were transformed from possibilities into probabilities. All four were resolved on June 5, 1968 at a campaign event held in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.
Robert Kennedy’s death at the hand of Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian émigré, coincided with the first anniversary of the Six-Day War.
The assassin later cited as his motive Kennedy’s campaign pledge to provide more fighter jets to Israel. That claim was used by Tel Aviv to argue its case for more U.S. arms.
With that second high-profile murder, the road to the presidency was cleared for former Vice-President Richard Nixon. When lobbied by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, he agreed to embrace the “ambiguous†status that the Zionists sought for their nuclear arsenal.
When waging game theory warfare, uncertainty is often a powerful persuader and a force multiplier.
Were these assassinations part of an entropy strategy? Was murder used to manage variables that posed a threat to a non-transparent geopolitical goals? Though the evidence remains murky, the outcome is consistent with an oft-recurring game theory modus operandi.
Neither U.S. national security nor federal law enforcement recovered from that entropy. The Israeli nuclear arsenal has grown steadily larger and far more lethal while the Israel lobby has grown steadily larger and far more influential.
Precluding Peace at Any Price
Entropy often emerges as part of a broader game theory strategy. After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Bill Clinton realized the terms that he and Israel offered the Palestinians were unacceptable. In December, he proposed “parameters†that both sides accepted with reservations.
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators then met in Taba, Egypt in January 2001 to resolve their differences. As progress was being made, Tel Aviv canceled the negotiations, ending official progress. Unofficial discussions led to the Geneva Accord in 2003 that Israel rejected.
Were these developments part of an entropy strategy that remains ongoing?
As progress became detectible on the Road Map to Peace [proposed by the Quartet comprised of the U.S., the European Union, Russia and the U.N.], the coalition government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert collapsed citing a long-brewing scandal that brought his resignation in July 2008.
After negotiations were put on hold for eight months, the right-wing coalition government of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promptly disavowed even the tentative progress made by the Olmert government. That stance not only ensured more delay, that entropy ensured an opportunity to stage more provocations and catalyst more conflict.
Should the Netanyahu government detect that progress toward peace is possible, watch for the collapse of yet another Israeli coalition. One possible scenario: the Shas Party will withdraw citing its unhappiness that the status of Jerusalem is raised as part of a final agreement.
Of course everyone knows that Jerusalem must be at the center of any final status agreement. The Shas Pary stance suggests a pending entropy maneuver. Note also that the possibility of this next game theory tactic makes transparent a critical element in game theory math.
The math enables those who are few in numbers to operate with a force-multiplier that remains opaque to analysts unfamiliar with how Zionist warfare is waged “by way of deception.†That’s the motto of the Israeli Mossad, Israel’s intelligence and foreign operations directorate.
To succeed, deception must be hidden in plain sight. In this case, the central deceit is Israel’s “special relationship†with the U.S. For this duplicity to work, the U.S.-Israeli relationship must be sustained.
Over the past two weeks, pressure applied by the Israel lobby resulted in letters to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from four-fifths of the U.S. Congress. Those letters urged that the Obama administration restate an “unbreakable bond†between the U.S. and Israel.
That entangled relationship enables the game theory math that becomes the force-multiplier. By that bond, the U.S. agrees to maintain an Israeli government with which to negotiate. If another Israeli government collapses, progress toward peace stalls—to the detriment of our interests. Thus it becomes in our interest to keep the coalition intact—regardless of its policies.
That bond provides Israel with strategic leverage because even the potential for entropy is a force-multiplier in the hands of savvy game theory strategists. The relationship itself provides Tel Aviv with the indirect power it deploys to shape U.S. foreign policy.
When framed in game theory terms, who controls our policy in the region? At present, does the U.S. commitment to sustain this relationship (an unbreakable bond) enable the Shas Party to shape our options?
Who wields the real influence in this relationship? Who has the leverage—a U.S. president residing in Washington or Zionist extremists and religious fundamentalists living in Israel?
In practical effect, is U.S. foreign policy dominated by the goals of the most right-wing element of the most right-wing coalition in the most consistently right-wing government that the world community has endured since the defeat of WWII fascism?
Guilt By Association
By proclaiming an “unbreakable bond’ with this extremist enclave, American legislators enabled the very forces that undermine our security and put endangered our troops in the region.
Note that the Israel lobby did not ask that the Knesset pledge its allegiance to us. In this special relationship, loyalty flows in only one direction. If Israelis were loyal to us, why would their lobby insist on a loyalty oath from us?
U.S. diplomats have long defended Israel’s indefensible and lawless behavior. And we have done so in the world’s most high profile legal forum: the United Nations. By associating America’s goodwill with Zionism’s geopolitical goals, we enabled others to portray us as a fascist state.
By our own choice, we branded and discredited ourselves. There lies the genius in game theory.
Game theory warfare succeeds in plain sight. To betray, one must first befriend. To defraud, one must create a relationship based on trust. The relationship itself induced us to freely embrace the very forces that now jeopardize our freedom—from the inside out.
That’s why such deceit can only proceed in plain sight. And can only survive through a committed relationship—an “unbreakable bond†that the target freely chooses.
The challenge for Israel has suddenly turned deadly serious. Its trans-generational duplicity has become transparent not only to U.S. officials but also to a long-deceived American public. The Zionist state teeters on the brink of losing not only U.S. support but also its legitimacy as a state.
The U.S. Military vs. Zionism
Here’s the Big Question: what happens when the U.S. military grasps how their senior officers were deceived to wage war in Iraq? Obliged by a sworn oath to defend the nation from all enemies—both foreign and domestic—what conduct accompanies that oath of office?
From Tel Aviv’s perspective, what happens to Israel’s credibility as the “Jewish state†as this duplicity becomes transparent to the broader Jewish community? What happens when Jews grasp that they too were deceived? What conduct accompanies that realization?
Like many naïve Americans, naive Jews believed their interests were aligned with Israel. Yet since well before its founding Zionists consistently advanced what the Joint Chiefs in 1948 portrayed as “fanatical concepts.†Those concepts include efforts—still ongoing—to exert what the Pentagon then described as “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.â€
That assessment remains accurate. Thus the need for a U.S.-Israeli “bond†founded on deception. With applied game theory duplicity, our military could be induced to wage Zionist wars.
What happens when U.S. military leaders realize that the people in their command were put in harm’s way pursue the fanatical concepts of religious extremists?
Who then does their oath of office require them to obey in the chain of command?
Who then becomes the enemy?
Zionist fanatics duped commander-in-chief Harry Truman into extending to them the nation state status that Israeli operatives have since deployed to catalyze serial conflicts in plain sight. That duplicity includes waging war on the very nation that enabled this deceit.
The perception of nation state legitimacy was critical to the game theory-enabled warfare that can now be drawn to a close.
For those long deceived by this sophisticated treachery, it is difficult to imagine that such a devious mindset can survive in the Age of Transparency. In truth, it cannot.
Ensuring the earliest possible end to this treachery is the goal of these analyses: to sound the death knell for a trans-generational enterprise that never merited recognized as a state.
Israel has no place in a community of nations committed to the rule of law. Only an enemy within would suggest an “unbreakable bond†that undermines our national security. Though this form of treason remains ongoing, the forces are now coalescing to expose it and drive it out.
...
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/05/02/what%E2%80%99s-next-from-israel-entropy-or-outrage/
What’s Next from Israel: Entropy or Outrage?
May 2, 2010 posted by Jeff Gates
Israeli war-planners face a dilemma. After more than six decades of duplicitous behavior, their playbook is pretty well played out. Not that Tel Aviv will not deceive again. Or at least try. Odds are we’ll see another round of either entropy or outrage or some lethal combination.
Their outrage tactics are well understood. This serial agent provocateur has long shaped events from the shadows by provoking well-profiled targets to respond to well-planned provocations.
With in-depth profiling, the response becomes a matter of probabilities. Thus Israel’s well-deserved reputation as the master of mental manipulation based on their use of game theory algorithms that anticipate reactions to provocations along with the reactions to those reactions.
Control enough of the variables and the desired outcome becomes foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. Therein lies the genius (others say the psychopathy) of those for whom conflicts serve as a profitable sideline while they pursue broader geopolitical goals.
In game theory war planning, the reaction of “the mark†emerges in the foreground while the agent provocateur disappears into the background. The response to that reaction then enables the provocateur to slip even deeper into the shadows, further obscuring the genius of the instigator.
Game theory modeling is a useful skill for a nation that built much of its economy on arms sales. Much of the rest is reliant on information technology. Those technologies enable Israelis to operate undetected in that invisible domain where data is the most critical form of capital. That includes financial markets where timely information has long been the most valuable asset.
Game Theory and 911
When provoked by a mass murder on American soil, we had elected to office a president with a known array of easily profiled dysfunctions. With phony intelligence, he was induced to order the U.S. military to invade a nation that had no hand in that event. From a game theory perspective, that is genuine genius.
Consistent with game theory war planning, that invasion advanced an Israeli strategy for “securing the realm†while expanding its sphere of influence well beyond its borders.
Not only was the U.S. induced to discredit itself by that (easily modeled) reaction, our response over-extended our military, destroyed our credibility and further weakened our already debt-weakened economy. All these effects are consistent with game theory modeling.
Even a cursory review of history confirms that debt is always the prize for those skilled at catalyzing serial conflicts. Some commentators might call that financial genius.
According to Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz, the fiscal cost may reach $3 trillion, all of it borrowed—a first. At the end of WWII, the U.S. had half the world’s productive power.
That financial strength ensured our bonds would remain dominant for at least two generations. Look at us now. The interest expense alone for this conflict could cost us $700 billion.
These game theory-foreseeable results suggest how war can be waged on a nation from within that nation—while the instigators fade into the mist. That too is a form of genius.
Entropy and Presidential Longevity
The next step in this game theory warfare may involve an entropy operation. Though less well known than run-of-the-mill provocations, this component also suggests applied genius.
As with the source of the outrage from provocations, the instigators of entropy strategies seek refuge in the shadows. That era may soon come to a close as “the mark†(the American public) grasps the regularity—and the lengthy premeditation—with which such duplicity is deployed.
For instance, 47 years ago, President John F. Kennedy sought to halt in its infancy a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In June 1963, he wrote the last in a series of insistent letters to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Each of those letters sought what Israel now demands of Iran: international inspections of its nuclear facilities.
The key difference: JFK knew for certain that Israeli officials, while insisting the Zionist enclave was a loyal friend and ally, lied to him about their nuclear weapons program at the Dimona reactor facility in the Negev Desert. We now know the Israelis were then secretly shipping highly enriched uranium to Dimona from at least one U.S. nuclear facility in Pennsylvania.
Best estimates date to sometime between 1962 and 1964 when Israel produced its first weapon. Their nuclear arsenal is now estimated at 200-600 warheads plus possibly hundreds of “dirty†devices and other nuclear-related weaponry.
Kennedy’s letter to Ben-Gurion was not cordial. The words chosen were drawn not from diplomacy but from the instructions that a judge provides a jury to assess criminal culpability.
In that brusque letter, a U.S. commander-in-chief demanded proof “beyond a reasonable doubt†that Zionists were not developing nuclear weapons. His insistence left no room for this purported ally to maneuver—except to deploy entropy as a means to avoid accountability.
The day after that June 15th letter was cabled to Tel Aviv for delivery by the U.S. ambassador, Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned citing undisclosed personal reasons. Because his resignation was announced before the cabled letter could be physically delivered, Israeli authors claim that Kennedy’s message failed to reach Ben-Gurion.
That interpretative gloss ignores what we now know about Israeli operations inside serial U.S. presidencies. And about Tel Aviv’s routine intercept of White House communications, particularly those most critical to our national security.
That duplicity has only rarely been made public. Typical was the behavior of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard who provided Tel Aviv more than one million pages of classified materials. This Israeli operation—run from inside our government—compromised the entirety of our national security apparatus in which U.S. taxpayers had invested trillions of dollars.
When Ben-Gurion deprived President Kennedy of an Israeli government with which to negotiate, the resulting entropy denied the U.S. a critical strategic advantage. That entropy also set in motion the nuclear dynamics that JFK and his advisers feared a half-century ago.
When assessing the cost of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, what cost in dollars, lives and foregone opportunities should Americans put on this trans-generational deceit?
The consistency of Israel’s duplicitous conduct raises difficult questions about the ability to hold such religious extremists accountable—particularly a nuclear-armed enclave that considers its people Chosen by God and accountable only to God.
The Khazars vs. the Kennedys
During this same 1962-63 period, Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council. The AZC received funds from the Jewish Agency, the predecessor to the state of Israel.
As a recipient of U.S. funds, the Agency used those funds to lobby for more funds. Under U.S. law, that conduct required the AZC to register as a foreign agent.
In seeking that registration, Fulbright was joined by Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Their effort was delayed by the fledgling Israel lobby and then ended with JFK’s assassination.
Concerns about Zionist influence on U.S. policy continued to grow among well-informed legislators. By 1973, Senator Fulbright could announce with confidence: “Israel controls the U.S. Senate.†In 1974, he lost his Senate seat.
Fast-forward to today and imagine a Middle East without an enclave of nuclear-armed Zionist extremists. The threat that JFK posed to their arsenal—and to their geopolitical goals—was resolved five months after Ben-Gurion’s resignation.
When Vice President Lyndon Johnson was sworn in as Kennedy’s successor, he immediately increased the U.S. budget for arms to Israel.
Imagine the Zionist influence on U.S. policy had Fulbright and the Kennedys succeeded in requiring that the lobby register as what it was and remains: a foreign agent.
See: “How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy.â€
Following John Kennedy’s removal in November 1963, Johnson appointed Nicholas Katzenbach as his Attorney General to replace Robert Kennedy who LBJ loathed. Soon thereafter, the AZC evaded registration as it morphed into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and began the pretense, still ongoing, that AIPAC operates in the U.S. as a domestic lobby.
[AIPAC and dozens of affiliate organizations coordinate a transnational network of pro-Israeli political operations commonly known as “the Israel lobby.â€]
The Kennedy-Fulbright threat to the Zionists’ geopolitical goals reemerged five years later when Robert Kennedy announced his candidacy for the presidency during the height of an unpopular war. That war was vastly expanded under Johnson’s leadership.
Resolving the Kennedy Problem
From a game theory perspective, a second Kennedy presidency presented Tel Aviv with at least four troubling variables to manage.
First, Robert Kennedy’s peace candidacy offered the possibility of a speedy end to the war in Vietnam. Less war meant not only less debt but also less ability to arm Israel with U.S. weapons.
Second, his election so soon after the Six-Day War presented the possibility that a U.S. commander-in-chief might inquire into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that left 34 Americans dead and 175 wounded. Covered up by Johnson with the help of Admiral John McCain, Jr., an open inquiry threatened the carefully orchestrated perception that Israel was a victim rather than an aggressor in taking land that fueled outrage throughout the region.
Third, RFK’s global perspective on peace suggested that he might pursue his brother’s agenda and target Israel’s nuclear arsenal in order to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Fourth, with Fulbright still wielding substantial influence on U.S. foreign policy, a second Kennedy administration revived concerns about renewed restrictions on the domestic activities of the expansive Israel lobby.
When this charismatic presidential contender surged in nationwide political polls, those strategic variables were transformed from possibilities into probabilities. All four were resolved on June 5, 1968 at a campaign event held in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.
Robert Kennedy’s death at the hand of Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian émigré, coincided with the first anniversary of the Six-Day War.
The assassin later cited as his motive Kennedy’s campaign pledge to provide more fighter jets to Israel. That claim was used by Tel Aviv to argue its case for more U.S. arms.
With that second high-profile murder, the road to the presidency was cleared for former Vice-President Richard Nixon. When lobbied by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, he agreed to embrace the “ambiguous†status that the Zionists sought for their nuclear arsenal.
When waging game theory warfare, uncertainty is often a powerful persuader and a force multiplier.
Were these assassinations part of an entropy strategy? Was murder used to manage variables that posed a threat to a non-transparent geopolitical goals? Though the evidence remains murky, the outcome is consistent with an oft-recurring game theory modus operandi.
Neither U.S. national security nor federal law enforcement recovered from that entropy. The Israeli nuclear arsenal has grown steadily larger and far more lethal while the Israel lobby has grown steadily larger and far more influential.
Precluding Peace at Any Price
Entropy often emerges as part of a broader game theory strategy. After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Bill Clinton realized the terms that he and Israel offered the Palestinians were unacceptable. In December, he proposed “parameters†that both sides accepted with reservations.
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators then met in Taba, Egypt in January 2001 to resolve their differences. As progress was being made, Tel Aviv canceled the negotiations, ending official progress. Unofficial discussions led to the Geneva Accord in 2003 that Israel rejected.
Were these developments part of an entropy strategy that remains ongoing?
As progress became detectible on the Road Map to Peace [proposed by the Quartet comprised of the U.S., the European Union, Russia and the U.N.], the coalition government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert collapsed citing a long-brewing scandal that brought his resignation in July 2008.
After negotiations were put on hold for eight months, the right-wing coalition government of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promptly disavowed even the tentative progress made by the Olmert government. That stance not only ensured more delay, that entropy ensured an opportunity to stage more provocations and catalyst more conflict.
Should the Netanyahu government detect that progress toward peace is possible, watch for the collapse of yet another Israeli coalition. One possible scenario: the Shas Party will withdraw citing its unhappiness that the status of Jerusalem is raised as part of a final agreement.
Of course everyone knows that Jerusalem must be at the center of any final status agreement. The Shas Pary stance suggests a pending entropy maneuver. Note also that the possibility of this next game theory tactic makes transparent a critical element in game theory math.
The math enables those who are few in numbers to operate with a force-multiplier that remains opaque to analysts unfamiliar with how Zionist warfare is waged “by way of deception.†That’s the motto of the Israeli Mossad, Israel’s intelligence and foreign operations directorate.
To succeed, deception must be hidden in plain sight. In this case, the central deceit is Israel’s “special relationship†with the U.S. For this duplicity to work, the U.S.-Israeli relationship must be sustained.
Over the past two weeks, pressure applied by the Israel lobby resulted in letters to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from four-fifths of the U.S. Congress. Those letters urged that the Obama administration restate an “unbreakable bond†between the U.S. and Israel.
That entangled relationship enables the game theory math that becomes the force-multiplier. By that bond, the U.S. agrees to maintain an Israeli government with which to negotiate. If another Israeli government collapses, progress toward peace stalls—to the detriment of our interests. Thus it becomes in our interest to keep the coalition intact—regardless of its policies.
That bond provides Israel with strategic leverage because even the potential for entropy is a force-multiplier in the hands of savvy game theory strategists. The relationship itself provides Tel Aviv with the indirect power it deploys to shape U.S. foreign policy.
When framed in game theory terms, who controls our policy in the region? At present, does the U.S. commitment to sustain this relationship (an unbreakable bond) enable the Shas Party to shape our options?
Who wields the real influence in this relationship? Who has the leverage—a U.S. president residing in Washington or Zionist extremists and religious fundamentalists living in Israel?
In practical effect, is U.S. foreign policy dominated by the goals of the most right-wing element of the most right-wing coalition in the most consistently right-wing government that the world community has endured since the defeat of WWII fascism?
Guilt By Association
By proclaiming an “unbreakable bond’ with this extremist enclave, American legislators enabled the very forces that undermine our security and put endangered our troops in the region.
Note that the Israel lobby did not ask that the Knesset pledge its allegiance to us. In this special relationship, loyalty flows in only one direction. If Israelis were loyal to us, why would their lobby insist on a loyalty oath from us?
U.S. diplomats have long defended Israel’s indefensible and lawless behavior. And we have done so in the world’s most high profile legal forum: the United Nations. By associating America’s goodwill with Zionism’s geopolitical goals, we enabled others to portray us as a fascist state.
By our own choice, we branded and discredited ourselves. There lies the genius in game theory.
Game theory warfare succeeds in plain sight. To betray, one must first befriend. To defraud, one must create a relationship based on trust. The relationship itself induced us to freely embrace the very forces that now jeopardize our freedom—from the inside out.
That’s why such deceit can only proceed in plain sight. And can only survive through a committed relationship—an “unbreakable bond†that the target freely chooses.
The challenge for Israel has suddenly turned deadly serious. Its trans-generational duplicity has become transparent not only to U.S. officials but also to a long-deceived American public. The Zionist state teeters on the brink of losing not only U.S. support but also its legitimacy as a state.
The U.S. Military vs. Zionism
Here’s the Big Question: what happens when the U.S. military grasps how their senior officers were deceived to wage war in Iraq? Obliged by a sworn oath to defend the nation from all enemies—both foreign and domestic—what conduct accompanies that oath of office?
From Tel Aviv’s perspective, what happens to Israel’s credibility as the “Jewish state†as this duplicity becomes transparent to the broader Jewish community? What happens when Jews grasp that they too were deceived? What conduct accompanies that realization?
Like many naïve Americans, naive Jews believed their interests were aligned with Israel. Yet since well before its founding Zionists consistently advanced what the Joint Chiefs in 1948 portrayed as “fanatical concepts.†Those concepts include efforts—still ongoing—to exert what the Pentagon then described as “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.â€
That assessment remains accurate. Thus the need for a U.S.-Israeli “bond†founded on deception. With applied game theory duplicity, our military could be induced to wage Zionist wars.
What happens when U.S. military leaders realize that the people in their command were put in harm’s way pursue the fanatical concepts of religious extremists?
Who then does their oath of office require them to obey in the chain of command?
Who then becomes the enemy?
Zionist fanatics duped commander-in-chief Harry Truman into extending to them the nation state status that Israeli operatives have since deployed to catalyze serial conflicts in plain sight. That duplicity includes waging war on the very nation that enabled this deceit.
The perception of nation state legitimacy was critical to the game theory-enabled warfare that can now be drawn to a close.
For those long deceived by this sophisticated treachery, it is difficult to imagine that such a devious mindset can survive in the Age of Transparency. In truth, it cannot.
Ensuring the earliest possible end to this treachery is the goal of these analyses: to sound the death knell for a trans-generational enterprise that never merited recognized as a state.
Israel has no place in a community of nations committed to the rule of law. Only an enemy within would suggest an “unbreakable bond†that undermines our national security. Though this form of treason remains ongoing, the forces are now coalescing to expose it and drive it out.
...