How thousands of Palestinian and Israeli women are waging peace

The thousands of Palestinian and Israeli women who marched in Jerusalem and Jericho this month are not only demanding peace from their societies, they are reaching through stereotypes and artificial boundaries to find true partners.

By Riman Barakat

 

.

Thousands of women from ‘Women Wage Peace’ march on the Israeli Prime Minister’s Residence Jerusalem, October 19, 2016. (Hadas Parush/Flash90)

Less than a year ago a group of Palestinian and Israeli women spent a weekend in Tantur, situated between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, brainstorming what we could possibly do to break the cycle of violence and political stagnation. Everyone had their own personal reason for being there, whether it was the Israeli mothers who had to send their children to war or the Palestinian women who were exhausted by the daily incursions of the Israeli army, checkpoints, and the inability to live freely and imagine a hopeful future for their children. Personally, I felt torn apart having seen Jerusalem split into a hundred pieces, a place that should be the inspiration for coexistence instead oozing with the blood of Palestinians and Israelis on a near daily basis.

Over the last 11 years I have done my best to be involved in any possible initiative that attempts to bring about Israeli-Palestinian peace. Why is Women Wage Peace different? My belief has always been that if any group professes that they will bring about Israeli-Palestinian peace, they must have to want it so much so that they are willing to wed themselves to the cause. These women are of that character; they are unstoppable and determined but most of all, they believe they can create their own future. In order to create a different reality, we believe that we have to be that reality.

“We need to think outside of our surroundings,” Lily kept saying, and together we visualized the March of Hope, a march of togetherness — a cry to the whole world, coming from a mother’s womb, to stop the violence. We resolved not to stop, even in the midst of most terrible acts of violence. We met and shouted out, “ Enough! Enough!” in Arabic, Hebrew and English. We resolved to propose a shared language of hope, of humanity, of an unshakable commitment to peace, and we rejected the language of separation.

Riman-Barakat-

The author, Riman Barakat, addressing the Women Wage Peace rally at Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam, October 17, 2016. (Gili Getz)

When I stood in front more than 500 women at Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam earlier this month, I was not yet sure everyone truly understood or believed what was about to happen two days later — a joint march of thousands of Palestinian and Jewish women. As I called on the mostly Jewish group of women gathered there that day to come join hands with the Palestinian women, I felt the crowd cheering, moved by the thought of Palestinian partnership. Two days later, as the march commenced, a seemingly endless stream of Palestinian women descended from bus after bus, from Nablus, Hebron, East Jerusalem, Jericho, Jenin, Bethlehem. And mind you, they were there to really participate, and participate the did, singing out the words of peace.

We need to allow ourselves to bring down the barriers within and without, to dare to look each other in the eye and see the humanity. A long time has passed with us here and them there. The first step is to breach that psychological barrier and allow ourselves to be welcomed by those we call the “other.” I can’t recall the last time so many Israelis and Palestinians met and walked together. I believe I was much younger then, during the Oslo Accords. Yet after more than 20 years of separation, thousands of women are once again uniting for a common cause. It is a historic moment, and even those who try to ignore it will find it harder and harder to do so as it continues to grow.

.

Thousands of Palestinian and Israeli women from ‘Women Wage Peace’ march near the West Bank city of Jericho, October 19, 2016. (Flash90)

When my dear friend Huda Abuarqoub from Hebron stood on the podium at the end of the march outside the Prime Minister’s Residence in Jerusalem, declaring loudly, bravely and clearly, “Enough with the myth, I promise you, you have a partner,” it almost felt like a dream, like we were on a different planet. I watched the shock and elation of my Israeli friends. It was as if Huda herself was from another planet. But she was real, here, in the flesh, loud and clear. And everyone saw the magic that morning, only it wasn’t magic. There is a partner and the partner is real. It’s time to stop constantly demanding proof.

Nobel Laureate Leymah Gbowye, who came from Liberia to join us in our march, invited the audience to take part in what she called “the open mind challenge,” picking up on what I said earlier in my speech about seeing the humanity of the other. She told us a story from her childhood about an old woman who lived on top of a hill in the forest, whom everyone thought was a witch who ate little children. Leymah’s grandmother insisted on taking the children to visit her. What was the point? The moral of Leymah’s story is that we need to cross those borders within ourselves, to deconstruct the stereotypes we’ve built about each other — an accumulation of many “thin walls,” as she called them. All it takes is one simple act of courage to traverse a border or boundary of fear, to challenge ourselves, and dare to truly meet the other.

What we witnessed on October 19 was an unsurprising surprise, that yes, those on the other side are human beings, full of love, who also want life and peace. Yet there we were, all of us aghast, my Israeli friends and I, as we listened to Huda stating nothing but the obvious. The myth of the evil witch on the top of the hill was shattered right then and there, and the partner for peace was among us, present in every shape and form.

 

Riman Barakat is a Palestinian peace activist, the CEO and founder of Experience Palestine for International Missions and Delegations, and a board member of ALLMEP ( The Alliance for Middle East Peace). Previously she was co-director of IPCRI (Israel Palestine Creative Regional Initiatives) as well as he Palestinian executive director for Breaking the Impasse.

A comprehensive overview on the Palestine/Israel Conflict

The preface of Psyclone states that ‘whatever you see on television, hear on the radio, or read in the newspapers has been, at the very least, allowed. More often than not though, it has been meticulously designed using principles of behavioural psychology and linguistics toward very specific aims. Put another way, if your channels of information are confined to those listed above, then your awareness, your reality, is being manipulated and compromised.

Information that backs up that statement can be found within the extensive appendix of the novel. Talking with people recently has proved the final sentence, and moved me to edit and repost an article written five years ago in 2009, the last time Gaza was experiencing an all-out air attack from one of the most well-equipped armies in the world. As the title of the article says, Those Who Forget History Are Condemned to Repeat it

How to Deal With Raised Levels of Radioactivity in the Food Chain

1297541458598_ORIGINALThere has recently been an uptick in discussions regarding elevated levels of radiation in seafood as a result of the Fukushima incident. Prompting the discussions have been reports of the findings of an Alberta, Canada student who tested samples of seafood with a Gieger counter. Bronwyn Delacruz’s findings contradict the statements of the ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’ who have been downplaying the effects of the Fukushima incident.

But one doesn’t have to be an expert to reasonably presume that the hundreds of tonnes of contaminated water used in an attempt to cool the damaged reactors and then flushed into the sea would result in increased levels of radiation in the oceans and their content. This post progresses from that assumption and concentrates on immediately implementable strategies for mitigating that situation.

The most immediate strategy would be to stop eating seafood, which would address that potential source, but would ignore other areas that have been contaminated. Caesium 134, an isotope made exclusively by fission has been found in rainwater in British Columbia. Again, elementary school level science tells us that given the mechanics of the water cycle, contaminated seawater is bound to fall as rain on land. In another example, a report from the Atomic Weapons Establishment in the UK showed that DU aerosols from the ‘Shock and Awe’ bombing of Baghdad had been carried over the UK in concentrations that were high enough to warrant notifying the Environment Agency. (The page listing the report also contains a report on  evidence of global contamination from alpha-emitting particulates from Fukushima.)

A distressing aside to these examples is that the scientists and experts getting any airtime are downplaying the potential effects, which may move one to question just who these spokespeople are and on whose payroll.

So if we can’t avoid it, what can we do about it? Fortunately, Nature provides an answer. Spirulina and Chlorella are known to bind to radioactive particles thus facilitating their removal from the body. Bentonite clay has the same effect. Each was used extensively and effectively following the Chernobyl incident. Below are links to articles elsewhere on this website with more information.

Radiation Strategy – Spirulina

Radiation Strategy – Bentonite

A Dirty Dozen in Afghanistan

Today is the 12th anniversary of the US/NATO invasion of Afghanistan and the launching of the “Global War on Terror” which has resulted in over a million deaths in Iraq, untold thousands of deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan, millions displaced from their homes, and institutionalised torture.

I thought now would be a good time to reflect on a little history. But don’t worry, this isn’t a wade through the mire of the most recent debacle in that unfortunate piece of ground. Rather it’s a glance back some one hundred and sixty six years to another ‘Afghan campaign’.

José Maria de Eça de Queiros
From Afghanistan and Ireland (1880)
Translated by Ann Stevens

In their troubled Indian Empire the English are attempting to discover whether there is any truth in the eighteenth-century witticism that ‘History is like an old woman who keeps on repeating herself.’

Fate, or Providence, or whatever Being it is up there that directed the events of the Afghan campaign in 1847, is simply making a slavish copy now, thus apparently showing an exhausted imagination.

In 1847 the English, ‘for a reason of State, a need for scientific frontiers, the security of the Empire, a barrier to the Russian domination of Asia…’ and other vague things that the politicians concerned with India solemnly mutter as they twist their mustaches – invaded Afghanistan, and proceeded to annihilate ancient tribes, destroy towns, lay waste cornfields and vineyards; finally they took possession of the holy city of Kabul: they turned out a terrified old Emir from the seraglio and installed another of a more submissive race, whom they had brought with them ready in their baggage, along with some slave-girls and carpets; and as soon as the newspaper correspondents cabled the victory, the army camped beside the streams and in the gardens of Kabul, undid their belts and smoked the pipe of peace…And that is exactly what is happening in 1880.

At the moment, precisely as in 1847, energetic leaders, native Messiahs, are travelling through this territory and with fine words like Homeland and Religion, are inciting their brethren to a holy war: the tribes are assembling, feudal families hasten to offer their mounted troops, rival princes join forces in their hereditary hatred for the foreigner, and in a short time all will be a-glimmer with the lights of encampments on the hill-tops overlooking the narrow paths which form the route to India….And when the bulk of the English army appears on the approaches to Kabul, with a mass of artillery, and makes its hurried way through narrow passes in the mountains or along the dry river beds, with its long caravans of camels, the savage horde falls upon them and annihilates them.

So it was in 1847 and so it is again in 1880. The disbanded remains of the army then seek refuge in one of the frontier cities, which might be Ghazni or Kandahar; the Afghans rush in pursuit, and set siege to them, a slow siege, an Oriental, leisurely siege: the besieged general, who in these Asiatic wars can always communicate with the outside world, cables to the Viceroy of India, indignantly demanding reinforcements, sugar and tea! (This is literally true: it was General Roberts who made this gluttonous appeal a few days ago; the Englishman without his tea fights only half-heartedly.) Then the Indian government spends millions of pounds like water and hastily sends off enormous parcels of restorative tea and white mountains of sugar and ten or fifteen thousand men. Enormous black war-transports leave England, like great steam-powered Noah’s arks, carrying camping equipment, numerous horses, parks of artillery, a complete, awesome invading force. So it was in 1847, and so it is in 1880.

This host disembarks in Hindustan, joins up with other columns of Indian troops, and is led day and night to the frontier in express trains at a speed of 40 miles an hour; then an exhausting march begins with fifty thousand pack-camels, telegraphists, hydraulic machines, and an eloquent company of newspaper men. One morning Kandahar of Ghazni is sighted; and in a flash the poor Afghan army is wiped out, dispersed in the dust of the plain, with its melodramatic scimitars and its venerable culverins of the same model that fired in former days at Diu. Ghazni is liberated! Kandahar is liberated! Hurrah! Immediately a patriotic song is made of this, and the exploit is popularized all over England by an engraving where the liberating general and the besieged general can be seen passionately shaking hands in the foreground, amid rearing horses and grenadiers as handsome as Apollo who are nobly breathing their last! So it was in 1847, so it must be in 1880.

In the meantime, on hill-tops and narrow paths, thousands of men who either defended their homeland or died for the sake of the scientific frontier, lie there, food for the crows – which is not, in Afghanistan, a respectable rhetorical image: there it is the crows which clean up the streets in the cities, eating the filth, and on the battlefield purify the air by devouring the remains of the defeated.

And what is eventually left after so much blood and agony and mourning? A patriotic song, an idiotic engraving in a few dining rooms, later on a line of prose in a page of some chronicle…

A consoling philosophy of wars!

In the meantime England enjoys the prestige of ‘the great victory of Afghanistan’ for a short while – certain of having to begin once more in ten or fifteen years, because they can neither conquer and annex a vast kingdom, as large as France, nor allow the existence of a few million hostile fanatics at their side. Their policy, therefore, is to weaken them periodically with a devastating invasion: such violence is required of a great Empire. Far better to possess only a little garden with a cow for milk and a couple of lettuces for summer snacks…

Brookings Institution: “Which Path to Persia?”

This post has been motivated by an increasing dismay in the face of people’s goldfish memory of recent global events and chronic ignorance/lack of awareness regarding how US foreign policy is formulated and executed. Although the country being discussed is Iran it’s easy to see how this kind of thinking, planning, and execution reflects what went on/is going on in……….(fill in from the list of Balkan/Middle Eastern countries).

This article, by one of the best sociopolitical analysts and commentators around, is valuable not only for it’s insights, but also for the simple and direct suggestion for individual and collective action, the former making very clear the need for the latter. Pass it on.

 

February 13, 2011
Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer Activist Post

While the corporate owned media has the plebeians arguing over whether or not Iran should have nuclear weapons or if it intends to commit genocide against the Jews (the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel actually resides in Iran), the debate is already over, and the war has already quietly begun. Before it began, however, someone meticulously meted out the details of how it would unfold. That “someone” is the mega-corporate backed Brookings Institution.

Background

Which Path to Persia?” was written in 2009 by the Brookings Institution as a blueprint for confronting Iran. Within the opening pages of the report, acknowledgments are given to the Smith Richardson Foundation, upon which Zbigniew Brzezinski sits as an acting governor.

 The Smith Richardson Foundation funds a bizarre myriad of globalist pet projects including studies on geoengineering, nation building, meddling in the Caucasus region, and even studies, as of 2009, to develop methods to support “indigenous democratic political movements and transitions” in Poland, Egypt, Cuba, Nepal, Haiti, Vietnam, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, and Burma. Also acknowledged by the report is the Crown Family Foundation out of Chicago.

The Brookings Institute itself is a creation of the notorious globalist funding arms including the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, all who recently had been involved in the fake “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy. Today, Brookings boasts a full complement of support and funding from America’s biggest corporations. Upon the Brookings Institution’s board of trustees one will find a collection of corporate leaders from Goldman Sachs, the Carlyle Group, the insurance industry, Pepsi (CFR), Alcoa (CFR), and various CFR affiliated consulting firms like McKinsey & Company.

Full details can be found within the pages of their 2010 annual report here.

To say Brookings is of big-business, by big-business and for big-business is a serious understatement. This is crucial to keep in mind as we examine their designs toward Iran and consider the terrible cost every single option they are considering has towards everyone but, unsurprisingly, their own bottom-lines.

Motivations Should be Obvious
We must look into the minds of those that shape US foreign policy and sweep aside the distracting rhetoric they feed us. US foreign policy is shaped by organizations like the Brookings Institute which consist of members of the largest corporations and banks on earth. These corporations are not only disinterested in security, but thrive on the war and conflict insecurity breeds. (See “War is a Racket” and Eisenhower’s Warning.)

Iran not only possesses massive oil reserves and an economic, political, and militarily strategic location in relation to Russia and China, it also boasts a population of 76 million. This is a large population that if left sovereign and independent can viably compete against the West’s degenerate casino economy, or if invaded and corrupted, can become 76 million more consumerist human cattle.

The sheer scale of the military options considered by Brookings’ strategy would be a boon alone for the defense contractors that sponsor it, whether the operation was a success or not. The incentive to domineer over Iran is quite obvious and only made more attractive from a corporate American point of view when considering all the risks of such domineering are completely “socialized,” from the dead troops, to the broke tax payers. No matter how insane the following report may sound, keep in mind, “they have nothing to lose.”

The globalists run think-tanks all over the world like Brookings where their policy wonks generate an immense amount of strategic doctrine. This doctrine then converges to form a general consensus. Knowing the details of this doctrine beforehand can give us clues as to what to look for on the geopolitical chessboard as their gambits play out.

Green revolutions, resigning admirals, bizarre troop build-ups in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorist attacks within Iran, and high profile assassinations all make sense if you are aware of the playbook they are working from. The hyped and very fake “war on terror” being ratcheted up on the home-front is also a telling and alarming sign, perhaps the most alarming of all.

Page 1: Bottom Line

With frank honesty, the report opens by declaring Iran a confounding nation that undermines America’s interests and influence in the Middle East. Not once is it mentioned that the Islamic Republic poses any direct threat to the security of the United States itself. In fact, Iran is described as a nation intentionally avoiding provocations that would justify military operations to be conducted against it.

Iran’s motivations are listed as being ideological, nationalistic, and security driven – very understandable considering the nations to its east and west are currently occupied by invading armies. This is the crux of the issue, where it’s America’s interests in the region, not security, that motivate it to meddle in Iran’s sovereignty, and is a theme that repeats itself throughout the 156-page report.

Page 11: The Nuclear Non-Threat

The report concedes that Iran’s leadership may be aggressive, but not reckless. The possession of nuclear weapons would be used as an absolute last resort, considering American and even Israeli nuclear deterrence capabilities. Even weapons ending up in the hands of non-state actors is considered highly unlikely by the report.

Similar reports out of RAND note that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of “terrorists.” The fact that Iran’s extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to this conclusion.

Brookings notes on page 24, that the real threat is not the deployment of these weapons, but rather the deterrence they present, allowing Iran to counter US influence in the region without the fear of an American invasion. In other words, the playing field would become level and America may be forced to recognize Iran’s national sovereignty in regards to its own regional interests.

Page 23: Persuasion

The first option on the table is a means to coerce the Iranian government, without regime change, through crippling sanctions verses incentives. The incentives, in turn, seem more a relief from American imposed torment than anything of actual substance.

One incentive in particular is very telling. Brookings suggests “security guarantees” from an American invasion to address the very real concerns that would motivate Iran to construct nuclear weapons in the first place. Brookings notes that concrete action would would be needed by the US in order to fulfill this incentive, including drawing down US forces in the Middle East, a concession Brookings itself admits is highly unlikely over the next several decades.

Brookings interjects at this point, a brazen admission that under no circumstance should the US grant Iran a position of dominance nor should there be any ambiguity about what the US sees as Iran’s role in the region. It is most likely postures like this that have driven Iran to such extremes to protect itself, its interests, and its very sovereignty.

This option of “persuasion” appears to have already played out and failed, both in drawing concessions from Iran through meaningless offers and at marshaling the international support needed to make additional sanctions effective.

Page 65: Total War

Indeed a conventional war with Iran is currently impossible. The globalists at the Brookings Institute acknowledge that. What is worrying is that they believe it would not be impossible if only America was presented with the “proper” provocations. Brookings’ experts go on to say that Washington could take “certain actions” to ensure such provocations took place.

Furthermore, Brookings states that Iran has already gone through extreme measures specifically not to react to American provocations, raising the specter that provocations may take the shape of a staged event instead, should full-scale invasion be sought.

This is where the tireless efforts of 9/11 Truth have paid off and now stand between the American people and a costly, unprecedented war. They have at the very least made the term “false flag” mainstream, raising the stakes exponentially for anyone attempting to stage provocations.

Page 103: Supporting a Color Revolution

Hailed as the “most obvious and palatable method” of bringing about the Iranian government’s demise, Brookings suggests fostering a popular revolution. It brazenly admits the role of the “civil society organizations” in accomplishing this and suggests massive increases in funding for subversive activities in Iran.

Of course the United States has already passed the Iran Freedom Support Act, directly funding Iranian opposition groups inside of Iran with the explicit objective of overthrowing the current government. The passage of the act was followed by the 2009 “green revolution,” which Iranian security forces were able to put down.

Currently, the “green revolution” in Iran is gearing up again. The US State Department and corporate sponsored Movements.org has been following and supporting the US-backed Iranian uprisings since the beginning. Iranian-American Cameran Ashraf, described as a senior fellow at Movements.org, participated in the 2009 event. Movements.org featured on their front page recently, information on the upcoming “green” revolution set to feed off the US backed overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt.

Indeed this option is currently being pursued. Brookings specifically mentions threatening Iran with instability as a means to leverage concessions from the government. It goes on to explicitly call for the promotion of unrest within Iran’s borders, and when coupled with the crippling sanctions Iran is already under, constitutes an overt act of war as pointed out numerous times by Congressman Ron Paul.

Brookings also suggests the use of military force in conjunction with their staged color revolutions, recognizing Iran’s well developed internal security apparatus. This was not done in 2009, but should be considered and looked out for each time the “green” revolutionaries come out into the streets.

Page 113: Supporting Real Terrorism

Despite the shameless bravado displayed throughout the entire report, no section is as shocking as the one titled “Inspiring an Insurgency.” Brookings is outright advocating the funding, training, and triggering of a a full-blown armed insurgency. The report specifically mentions Ahvazi Arab separatists, which would later be the subject of Seymour Hersh’s “Preparing the Battlefield” where he exposes the option as already being set in motion within Iran.

Kurds in the north, and Baluch rebels near Pakistan in the east are also mentioned as potential receipients of US aid in conducting their campaigns of armed terror against the Iranian people. The CIA is selected to handle supplies and training, while Brookings suggests that options for more direct military support also be considered.

In their subsection, “Finding a Proxy,” Brookings describes how the use of ethnic tensions could fuel unrest. It laments the fact that many ethnic minorities still hold nationalism as a priority along with their fellow Persians. And despite being on America’s official terrorist list for having previously killed US military men, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) are given ample consideration within Brookings’ report.

In their subsection, “Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven,” Brookings describes various methods of harboring their stable of US funded terrorists within the nations currently occupied by US troops and how to ferry them in and out of Iran between operations.

Page 145: Bringing it all Together

Brookings suggests that no single option is meant to stand alone. It suggests that options be pursued concurrently. Apparently Brookings’ advice has been taken to heart as we have seen in the news, from Seymour Hersh’s reports of covert US-backed terrorists, to the overtly staged “green” revolutions, to the sabotage and assassinations plaguing Iran’s nuclear program.

While it is quite obvious that many of Brookings’ policies are being carried out verbatim, what is most alarming is what’s suggested next should these combined ploys fail.

From the report itself, page 150:

“A policy determined to overthrow the government of Iran might very well include plans for a full-scale invasion as a contingency for extreme circumstances. Certainly, if various forms of covert and overt support simply failed to produce the desired effect, a president determined to produce regime change in Iran might consider an invasion as the only other way to achieve that end.

Moreover, the United States would have to expect Iran to fight back against American regime change operations, as it has in the past. Although the Iranians typically have been careful to avoid crossing American red lines, they certainly could miscalculate, and it is entirely possible that their retaliation for U.S. regime change activities would appear to Americans as having crossed just such a threshold.

For example, if Iran retaliated with a major terrorist attack that killed large numbers of people or a terrorist attack involving WMDs—especially on U.S. soil—Washington might decide that an invasion was the only way to deal with such a dangerous Iranian regime.

Indeed, for this same reason, efforts to promote regime change in Iran might be intended by the U.S. government as deliberate provocations to try to goad the Iranians into an excessive response that might then justify an American invasion.”

Considering Operation Northwoods, the falsified Gulf of Tonkin event, the myriad of lies that brought us into war with Iraq and Afghanistan, not the least of which was 9/11 itself, it is truly a frightening specter to think about what might come next.

We already see the absurd security apparatus being put into place across America and the various declarations by European leaders that “multiculturalism” has failed, setting the stage for a “clash of civilizations.” There is also an uptick in rhetoric by American leaders warning of an impending terrorist attack. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the US might attempt to provide their own “provocation” for war in the Iranians’ stead.

Final Thoughts

It is quite obvious Brookings’ suggestions and their execution are detrimental to all involved, from our brave but gravely misled troops, to the tax payers fleeced by underwriting the war, to the decimated Iranian people. Boycotting the very corporations sponsoring this policy undermines their self-serving objectives regardless of the means by which they try to accomplish them. Their very ability to fund studies like this, let alone carry them out is a direct result of our daily patronizing of their mega-corporations. Raising awareness that corporate interests, not security concerns, are the prime motivations for conflict with Iran is also essential in convincing citizens of both countries to step back from the brink.

In this world today, events seem astronomically bigger than any one of us. We feel there is no certainty we can succeed against such odds. What is essential to understand though, is that while acting does not guarantee success, not acting most certainly guarantees defeat. Follow the brave example of 9/11 Truth and other activists in the growing alternative media – fight against the manufactured consensus by adding yourself to a consensus on truth.

To read the entire Brookings Institution report, “Which Path to Persia?” click here.


Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer.