| ||||||||||||||
Showing posts with label Greg Felton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greg Felton. Show all posts
Canadian Author: Mideast Peace Talks Doomed to Failure
by Greg Felton
TEHRAN (FNA)—Canadian columnist and political author Greg Felton believes that the new round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority will ultimately fail and lead to nowhere as the Israeli regime is continuing to insist on its illegitimate demands and also is not ready to engage in talks on an equal footing.
According to Greg Felton, the Palestinian Authority, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, is the sole loser of the talks as he already knows that he is “in the pay of Israel.”
“He [Mahmoud Abbas] and his cronies go through this moronic peace charade to give the illusion they are important and are the representatives of the Palestinians. In fact, all it does is giving diplomatic cover to Israel’s persistent expropriation of Palestine. The fact is, the only legitimate representatives of the Palestinians belong to the duly, and honestly elected Hamas government of Khaled Meshaal. Therefore, all these peace talks are illegitimate, like Israel itself,” Felton said in an exclusive interview with Fars News Agency.
Greg Felton is a journalist from Canada who has won several awards for investigative reporting. For seven years, he wrote a political column for the Arabic-English bi-weekly Canadian Arab News. In his recent book The Host and the Parasite—How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America, Felton gives an analysis on how agents of Israel came to control the US Middle East policy. He has written extensively on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In an interview with FNA, Greg Felton elaborated on his viewpoints regarding the future of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the dominance of the Israeli lobby over the Western mainstream media and the prospects of the latest round of peace talks between the representatives of the Israeli regime and the Palestinian Authority. What follows is the text of the interview.
Q: Greg: in one of your articles, you wrote about the under-representation of the pain of the Palestinian nation in the mainstream media as a result of the extensive dominance of the Israeli lobby over these media outlets. How has the Israeli lobby gained such an influence that prevents the press in the West from giving a fair and balanced coverage to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and presenting the Palestinian point of view, too?
A: This profoundly important question is the core of my book The Host and the Parasite—How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America, so a comprehensive, short answer is difficult. Essentially, the Lobby came to dominate the media because of three factors. First pro-Israeli Jews own the vast majority of print and electronic media, and similarly minded reporters and editors populate these media, so filtering out pro-Palestinian, pro-Arab, or Pro-Islamic news is virtually automatic.
Second, Zionist Jews are well represented in governments and the corporate plutocracy, and Israel has many trade relations with governments and corporations. Any reporter who wants access to influential people cannot risk giving respect to Palestine. Notice how repetitively inane most reporting is; it is safer to recycle official propaganda than to do real reporting.
Third, and most importantly, the cult of the Holocaust covers Israel in a cloak of faux legitimacy. There is, to all intents and purposes, no distinction in the media between Jews, Holocaust and Israel, so any accurate reporting on Palestine amounts to de facto criticism of Israel, and this invites the absurd slanders of “Holocaust denial” and “anti-Semitism.” The effect of all this intellectual terrorism and filtering is the active censorship of the Palestinian point of view.
Q: What’s your viewpoint regarding the UN General Assembly’s unanimous vote in 2012 to recognize the Palestine’s non-member observer status? How does the decision by the world countries in granting Palestine an interim membership to the UN contribute to the championing of the cause of the Palestinian nation and the alleviation of the pains of the subjugated people?
A: The vote was expected, but since the US, Canada and other pro-Israel mouthpieces actively sabotage the UN when it does useful work, the vote will have only marginal benefits for Palestine. Interestingly, the vote to admit Palestine was perfectly legal and consistent with UN procedures. In contrast, Israel’s membership was obtained illegally. In May 1947 it became the only state to be admitted conditionally. According to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 273, Israel’s membership was contingent upon making reparations to Arabs displaced in 1947-1948 and allowing them to return to their homes. Israel has never lived up to its terms of admission.
Q: The new round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority has started and is slated to last for nine months. However, past experience shows that these talks lead to nowhere as the Israeli side is adamantly persisting on its illogical and expansionist demands, such as the continuation of illegal settlement constructions, the Judaization of the East Jerusalem (Al-Quds) and the siege of the Gaza Strip. So, why has the Palestinian authority been deceived into holding new talks with Israel once again?
A: The Palestinian Authority is not deceived. It knows the corrupt reality that allows it to exist. The PA holds “power” by virtue of Israel’s sufferance and Mahmoud Abbas is essentially in the pay of Israel. He and his cronies go through this moronic peace charade to give the illusion they are important and are the representatives of the Palestinians. In fact, all it does is giving diplomatic cover to Israel’s persistent expropriation of Palestine. The fact is, the only legitimate representatives of the Palestinians belong to the duly, and honestly elected Hamas government of Ismail Haniyeh. Therefore, all these “peace” talks are illegitimate, like Israel itself, and designed solely to accomplish nothing short of Palestine’s acquiescence in its own destruction. It is a sad fact of history that oppressed peoples are betrayed by their leaders.
Q: The United States is maintaining its political and economic sponsorship of Israel, and seems to be unwilling to drop its unconditional support. As far as this support continues, Israel will obdurately defy international law, kill the Palestinian civilians, imprison political activists who oppose the occupation and confiscate the rights of the people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. What’s the reason the United States supports Israel so blindly that it doesn’t really pay attention to Israel’s lawlessness and violations?
A: The US does not support Israel blindly for the simple reason that “the US” as a republic no longer exists. As I explain in The Host and the Parasite, the 1980 presidential election that put Ronald Reagan in the White House amounted to a quiet coup d’état. Among other things, it opened Congress and the Pentagon to unfettered Israeli occupation and domination. Over the next 20 years the US would surrender its independence as it accelerated its mutation into Isramerica. It makes no sense to debate if the US supports Israel when Israel owns the government.
Q: What do you think of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement and the success it has made in achieving such goals as preventing Israel from infringing upon the rights of the Palestinian people, impeding the construction of illegal settlements and convincing the Tel Aviv leaders to abide by their obligations under the international law with regard to the Palestinian refugees and the besieged people of the Gaza Strip?
A: The BDS movement has had considerable success because it has attacked Israel where it is most vulnerable—its image. Like any unjust society, Israel needs to project the illusion of being civilized, and therefore campaigns that explode this illusion are most effective. Just recently, the EU banned all trade in goods manufactured in Occupied Palestine, a significant blow. The BDS movement is hobbled by servile governments that (of course!) denounce it as “anti-Semitic” and conclude free-trade agreements with Israel, but the popular movement is one hope for the future, just as the Jewish War Veterans of World War One led the successful worldwide boycott against Nazi Germany.
Q: What do you think about the Israeli lobby’s growing influence in such countries as Canada? Here in Iran, many politicians and a great number of people firmly believe it was Israel that stimulated the Canadian government to cease its bilateral relations with Iran and close its embassy in Tehran. It’s clearly understandable that the Israeli lobby is trying to sabotage Iran’s relations with the outside world. Do you agree?
A: Israel has always had a disproportionate influence in Canada. In fact, Canadians like Lester Pearson and Justice Ivan Rand have been at the centre of major decisions that benefited Israel at the expense of Palestine. The difference with Stephen Harper is that he is a thoroughgoing fascist and a devoted Zionist. He is not Canada’s prime minister; he is Israel’s satrap in Ottawa, and nothing emanating from this government should be considered “Canadian.”
Q: An important question regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the way the Western mass media stigmatize and vilify the critics of the actions and policies of the Israeli regime as anti-Semites. Anti-Semitism is an excuse that is blindly used to silence the voices critical of Israel’s misconduct and illegal behavior. However, the global public opinion needs to draw a line between opposition to the apartheid policies of Israel as an illegitimate political entity, and anti-Semitism, as it’s defined by the historians. What do you think?
A: To begin, “anti-Semitism” does not exist—never has. It is an artificial term invented in 1873 by Wilhelm Marr, an anti-Jewish German journalist who needed to redefine Jews as an ethnic, not a religious, group to justify official discrimination; hence, he coined the term Semitismus, based on the linguistic term “Semitic.” By this linguistic corruption, Marr was able to attack not only Jews but the larger concept of Jewishness. The fact that historians and others use this term shows how thoroughly Jewish fascists have co-opted the racialist mentality of German fascists, and how completely we have accepted it. I see little need to be precious about condemning Israel, given that Jews are not the least bit circumspect about smearing Arabs and Iranians because of their religion. The best treatment of the nature of Jews, Jewishness and zionism is Gilad Atzmon’s outstanding bookThe Wandering Who.
The price of victory is our damn(ed) nation
De•mo•cra•cy— n. a system of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
(dictionary.com)
(dictionary.com)
To•tal•i•tar•i•an•ism— n. a system of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens’ lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority. (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia)
gregfelton.com(May 23, 2012)
All culture is essentially exclusionary; beliefs and practices distinguish one people from another precisely because they are different. The two systems of government defined above, for example, look as dissimilar as any two dissimilar things could possibly be. One depicts a society of self-governing free citizens; the other depicts its polar opposite.
For much of the last 100 years, these two systems of government were in a state of war (hot or cold), and out of this bi-polar world came the Western, democratic conceit that ours is the best of all possible worlds: free elections vs. rigged elections; rule of law vs. police state; civil society vs. coerced conformity; peace vs. war.
To all intents and purposes, this superiority complex dates to 1945 with the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and effectively ended in 1989 with “victory” over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Having defeated both communism and fascism (however defined) we wallowed in our own crapulence, the din of triumphalism drowning out any understanding of how our nemeses helped form our democratic identity. In fact, we have gone out of our way not to learn.German fascism, for example, has been stripped of historical context and made into a cartoonish stereotype with its proponents reduced to simplistic pejorative clichés. Don’t like Iran’s president? Liken him to Hitler. Want to shut down criticism of Israeli war crimes? Play the Jew-as-victim card and invoke the Holocaust®. Don’t like having to obey a strict rule? Call the enforcer a fascist.
Yet if we do not make the effort to understand the Nazis, how do we avoid becoming like them in their absence? Hitler singled out Jews for persecution because he believed they represented a threat to the German people and were responsible for Germany’s failure in World War I. Though they were full citizens of Germany, Jews were not afforded protection to which they were entitled under the laws of the 1919 Weimar Constitution.
Democracies today single out Muslims for persecution—torture, denial of due process, warrantless searches, indefinite detention, assassination—because they are deemed to be “terrorists.” The rule of law does not apply to them, or for that matter to any citizen who protests official edicts. So how, exactly, does our persecutory police state differ from Hitler’s? How is it proper to flog the dogma that Hitler and the Nazis were evil, when we are so similar?
“Communism,” “Russia” and “Stalin” are abused even more, largely because they symbolized everything opposed to our worship of the individual and the Labour Theory of Value. We condemned the Soviet Union and other “red” countries for their centralized, planned economies that treated their people as mere economic factors of production for a soulless state-run apparatus.
We, on the other hand, are expected to accept the dogma that governmental control of the nation must be kept to an absolute minimum. Regulation, even taxation itself, is an attack on a corporation’s god-given right to maximize profit and exploit people’s labour. Raising taxes to pay for such public services as medical care, the post office, parks, broadcasting, government oversight agencies, or education is hysterically denounced as “socialist” or “communist” because redistributing wealth is something that “communists” do.
For example, when Israel’s U.S. governor Barack Obama, in one of his few acts on behalf of theAmerican people, tried to bring in a national health-care program to ensure that all citizens had a basic level of care, he was vilified as “communist,” and had his program mocked as “Obamacare.” In our “free” world, constitutional protections against exploitative economic or political extremism are being eviscerated as governments rewrite legislation to serve the new robber barons.
In a democracy, public spending does not equate with ruthless, centralized government. Citizens are people, not serfs, and the state exists to serve their interests, not the other way around. But anti-statist prejudice in Canada and the U.S. has reached such extremes that debate over the merit of social welfare is anathematized. The quasi-religious embrace of low corporate taxes, corporate lawlessness, and social Darwinism for everyone else have reduced free citizens to economic inputs in a parasitic corporatocracy.
The public good, far from being the summum bonum of our society, has been reduced to an accidental by-product of private greed. So, exactly, how is our “democracy” any different from the repressive communist societies we once held in contempt?
We used to boast that the free press was a defining characteristic of a democracy, that the press wasn’t merely a propaganda tool of the state. When I was in university, it was common to deride the Soviet daily newspaper Pravda as typical of false, inflammatory, distorted news. Yet we now know that the New York Times deliberately larded its Middle East reporting with false, inflammatory, distorted “news”—led by Pentagon stenographer Judith Miller—and these distortions were integral to selling unprovoked military aggression to the U.S. public.
Now, outright media fraud could become law. As columnist Juan Cole reports: “Two congressmen are attempting to insert a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the Department of Defense to subject the U.S. domestic public to propaganda. The bipartisan amendment was introduced by Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State.” Just how is our press superior to the state controlled propaganda mill of the former Soviet Union?
The contrast at the top of this essay isn’t really a contrast at all. It’s s false dichotomy. Our democracy is mutating into “democratic totalitarianism” because our victory over fascists and communists has caused our governments to take over their totalitarian roles. It is March 23, 1933. We are at war, but this time the enemy is us, and the war we will fight will be a civil one.
gregfelton.com(May 23, 2012)
All culture is essentially exclusionary; beliefs and practices distinguish one people from another precisely because they are different. The two systems of government defined above, for example, look as dissimilar as any two dissimilar things could possibly be. One depicts a society of self-governing free citizens; the other depicts its polar opposite.
For much of the last 100 years, these two systems of government were in a state of war (hot or cold), and out of this bi-polar world came the Western, democratic conceit that ours is the best of all possible worlds: free elections vs. rigged elections; rule of law vs. police state; civil society vs. coerced conformity; peace vs. war.
Advertisement | |||
 |  | ||
Click here to order from AmazonNow available in the U.K. and Europe! | |||
Yet if we do not make the effort to understand the Nazis, how do we avoid becoming like them in their absence? Hitler singled out Jews for persecution because he believed they represented a threat to the German people and were responsible for Germany’s failure in World War I. Though they were full citizens of Germany, Jews were not afforded protection to which they were entitled under the laws of the 1919 Weimar Constitution.
Democracies today single out Muslims for persecution—torture, denial of due process, warrantless searches, indefinite detention, assassination—because they are deemed to be “terrorists.” The rule of law does not apply to them, or for that matter to any citizen who protests official edicts. So how, exactly, does our persecutory police state differ from Hitler’s? How is it proper to flog the dogma that Hitler and the Nazis were evil, when we are so similar?
“Communism,” “Russia” and “Stalin” are abused even more, largely because they symbolized everything opposed to our worship of the individual and the Labour Theory of Value. We condemned the Soviet Union and other “red” countries for their centralized, planned economies that treated their people as mere economic factors of production for a soulless state-run apparatus.
We, on the other hand, are expected to accept the dogma that governmental control of the nation must be kept to an absolute minimum. Regulation, even taxation itself, is an attack on a corporation’s god-given right to maximize profit and exploit people’s labour. Raising taxes to pay for such public services as medical care, the post office, parks, broadcasting, government oversight agencies, or education is hysterically denounced as “socialist” or “communist” because redistributing wealth is something that “communists” do.
For example, when Israel’s U.S. governor Barack Obama, in one of his few acts on behalf of theAmerican people, tried to bring in a national health-care program to ensure that all citizens had a basic level of care, he was vilified as “communist,” and had his program mocked as “Obamacare.” In our “free” world, constitutional protections against exploitative economic or political extremism are being eviscerated as governments rewrite legislation to serve the new robber barons.
In a democracy, public spending does not equate with ruthless, centralized government. Citizens are people, not serfs, and the state exists to serve their interests, not the other way around. But anti-statist prejudice in Canada and the U.S. has reached such extremes that debate over the merit of social welfare is anathematized. The quasi-religious embrace of low corporate taxes, corporate lawlessness, and social Darwinism for everyone else have reduced free citizens to economic inputs in a parasitic corporatocracy.
The public good, far from being the summum bonum of our society, has been reduced to an accidental by-product of private greed. So, exactly, how is our “democracy” any different from the repressive communist societies we once held in contempt?
We used to boast that the free press was a defining characteristic of a democracy, that the press wasn’t merely a propaganda tool of the state. When I was in university, it was common to deride the Soviet daily newspaper Pravda as typical of false, inflammatory, distorted news. Yet we now know that the New York Times deliberately larded its Middle East reporting with false, inflammatory, distorted “news”—led by Pentagon stenographer Judith Miller—and these distortions were integral to selling unprovoked military aggression to the U.S. public.
Now, outright media fraud could become law. As columnist Juan Cole reports: “Two congressmen are attempting to insert a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the Department of Defense to subject the U.S. domestic public to propaganda. The bipartisan amendment was introduced by Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State.” Just how is our press superior to the state controlled propaganda mill of the former Soviet Union?
The contrast at the top of this essay isn’t really a contrast at all. It’s s false dichotomy. Our democracy is mutating into “democratic totalitarianism” because our victory over fascists and communists has caused our governments to take over their totalitarian roles. It is March 23, 1933. We are at war, but this time the enemy is us, and the war we will fight will be a civil one.
The Host and the Parasite - How Israel's Fifth Column Consumed America
Writes author Greg Felton, "The United States became midwife to a war crime when it endorsed the creation of Israel in 1948 and blackmailed European nations into supporting it. From this time forward, the Zionist parasite began leaching off the U.S." According to Felton, "The September 11 attack was to the Zionist junta what the Reichstag fire was to the Nazis. It created the seminal moment of contrived paranoia that allowed the junta to pass the Orwellian USA PATRIOT Act, by which the U.S. became a de facto police state, a necessary step to put the junta above the law so that it could bastardize the constitution to serve the greater good of Israel. The demonization of Muslims is the key tactic that makes mass murder, torture and gross violations of civil liberties possible. Al Qa?ida is a myth concocted to manufacture a common enemy so that people would accept invasions of privacy and tolerate the mistreatment of Muslims."
"This book is the a comprehensive, meticulously argued examination of how the the U.S. degenerated into a police state. It did not begin with George W. Bush ...The result is a Congress wholly incapable of defending the U.S. and wholly subordinate to the Lobby. Mr. Felton shows how the Lobby played the key role in destroying the U.S.'s political independence and turned the country into a warmongering brickbat for Israel. " OpenLibrary
"A lucid and timely compilation of information and questions that should be the fodder of discussions in America and beyond. Readers will find this book a worthwhile acquisition even when they may not agree with everything stated." -Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh, Yale University
"Greg Felton, an erudite journalist and historian, exposes the duplicity and hypocrisy of George W. Bush's 'war on terrorism.' His analysis of the alliance of neo-conservatism and Christian/Jewish Zionism is highly informative and well researched, a subject our media keep untold." -Ismail Zayid, President, Canada Palestine Association
"The Host and The Parasite is a profound reading of today's world. It forcefully brings to the surface historical injustices; injustices that today's powers-to-be buried in the trash bin of history, along with the hopes and dreams of entire peoples." -Sam Bahour, Ramallah, Palestine
Will Canada’s social-democratic party be able to prevent a leadership coup?
On March 24, Canada’s New Democratic Party will do more than elect a new leader; it will face a test of character.
by Greg Felton (gregfelton.com)
As it stands, the NDP is the only major national partynot led by an avowed zionist. Stephen Harper leads a cabal of governing “Likudniks,” who value subservience to Israel above all else, and the interim leader of the “Labour-Zionist” Liberals, Bob Rae, is on the board of the Jewish National Fund, an organization so criminal that it has been condemned in Israel as racist.
The NDP, therefore, is the only apparently Canadiangoverning choice that voters have, but even this modest fig leaf will be blown away if the blatant Israel-firster Thomas Mulcair becomes party leader.
On May 1, 2008, he told Canadian Jewish News: “I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in allcircumstances.” [my emphasis]
Does Mulcair mean to say that he “ardently supports” Israel’s collective punishment of Palestinians, which includes torturing children, bulldozing homes, and keeping Palestinians near starvation levels as a matter of national policy? Do these constitute morally defensible “situations and circumstances?” Based on his abject endorsement of Israel, the answer is clearly, “yes.” The fact that all of the preceding are contrary to Canadian and international law, to say nothing of basic humanity, doesn’t faze Mulcair one bit. What a mensch!
How this walking advertisement for sedition found a home in a left-of-centre, social-democratic party is bizarre. The NDP, after all, still cleaves to the quaint notions that the federal government should defend the Constitution, uphold the rule of law, oppose military aggression, stand up for victims of human rights abuses, and generally serve the public good. Such high-minded ethical standards clearly distinguish it from both “Likud” and “Labour,” which are financially and politically indentured to the Israel Lobby.
So, why would the NDP even allow someone like Mulcair in the front door? This question takes on added significance when we recall that Mulcair had first considered joining Harper’s Likudniks, and was even said to have been tempted by a cabinet appointment. That would at least have made sense. When questioned last July about the earlier offer, though, the NDP’s newly minted interim leader Nycole Turmel seemed curiously unconcerned: “[Mulcair] was contacted by a number of people, a number of political parties and he chose to come work with us. He chose the NDP and I’m proud of that. He’s a great candidate.”
When looked at a bit more closely, however, Turmel’s praise for this crypto-Likudnik comes across more as a perfunctory platitude than a genuine endorsement; in this case the riding, not the MP, is the prize.
Mulcair represents Outremont, a small, wealthy riding on the Island of Montreal, which he won in a 2007 by-election, thus making him the NDP’s (ta-da!) first MP from Quebec to go on to win in a general election. Outremont has a substantial Jewish population, more than 20%; in the larger Labour riding of Mount Royal just to the south, represented by Israel-firster extraordinaire Irwin Cotler, it is 36%. If the NDP expects to make inroads into Quebec it is logical for it to compete for the Jewish vote, but how far is the NDP prepared to go to mortgage its principles for electoral advantage?
As party leader, Mulcair would be expected to protect his caucus colleagues from harassment and abuse from other parties, but in 2010 he sided with Labour and Likud to call for the resignation of fellow MP Libby Davies as NDP House Leader. Davies’s “crime” was to state that Israel’s occupation of Palestine began in 1948, not 1967. Her statement is a fact supported by historical documents that include admissions from leading political and military Israelis like David Ben Gurion and Gen. Moshe Dayan.
Mulcair’s contemptible attack on Davies’s basic freedom of expression, to say nothing of historical honesty, showed Mulcair’s true allegiance, and the threat he poses to this country. It doesn’t matter if he believes the zionist bilge he spews or whether he’s merely pandering to the Jewish community. By rights, he should be have been expelled from the party for his misconduct.
If you are reading this and are a member of the federal NDP who plans to cast a vote at the leadership convention, ask yourself these questions before you vote:
1) Can Mulcair be trusted to put loyalty to Canada and the NDP ahead of his loyalty to Israel?
2) Would Mulcair stifle his MPs’ freedom of expression in the name of being an “ardent supporter”of Israel?
3) Would Mulcair’s overt zionism irreparably debase the NDP’s reputation as a party of law and justice?
If you answered 1) no; 2) yes; and 3) yes, then you can proudly claim to be a member in good standing of a national, Canadian political party. You know what not to do on March 24. No matter how much you may like Mulcair’s position on the environment or any other issue, anyone who bullies his own people, betrays his party’s principles, and sells out his country is unfit to lead the NDP, much less sit in the House of Commons.
As I said earlier, the NDP appears to many voters to be the only viable Canadian governing option left in this country. Don’t force them into a no-win scenario among Likud, Labour and Meretz!
Greg Felton is a freelance columnist, editor and the author of The Host and the Parasite—How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America, an analysis how agents of Israel came to control U.S. Middle East policy, and Exploding Middle East Myths—15 Years of Fighting Zionist Propaganda. He has a Bachelor’s degree in Russian Studies and a Master’s degree in Political Science from the University of British Columbia. Contact::gregf@gregfelton.com
The Host and the Parasite…
Greg Felton, a Canadian investigative reporter and author, spoke on Feb. 25, 2008 at the Vancouver Public Library about his controversial book, ‘The Host and The Parasite”
"Exploding Middle East Myths: 15 Years of Fighting Zionist Propaganda" ~new book by Greg Felton [you'll see the real Israel: brutal]
$19.95 at Amazon
$25 at AFP
Exploding Middle East Myths: 15 Years of Fighting Zionist Propaganda is the provocatively titled but undeniably heart-felt and humanitarian- minded new 235-page book by journalist Greg Felton. AMERICAN FREE PRESS is proud to be the publisher and proceeds from its sales will be put toward future publishing endeavors by AFP.
Best-known as the author of the previous hard-hitting work, The Host and the Parasite—a panoramic survey of the intrigues of the Israeli lobby in Washington in collaboration with the Christian Zionist “New Right”—Felton has once again come through. In this myth-smashing collection of essays, Felton has targeted media cover-up and misinformation and mis-direction about Israel and the problems of the Middle East and has laid bare the truth about the blunt political force, blackmail, intimidation, boycott and other perverse measures that Israel and its network of influence and intrigue use to achieve their aims.
It’s not a pretty picture, by any means, but it’s one that Americans need to know about. Felton’s essays address many different aspects of the whole problem and provide a valuable introduction to new readers who have never explored the issue of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. Softcover, 237 pages.
ORDER HERE.
A Talk With Greg Felton On The likelihood of Israel’s eventual demise
Join us for a great interview with Greg Felton of www.gregfelton.com, author of the book ‘The Host And The Parasite” as we discuss the likelihood of Israel’s eventual demise.
–note–there was obviously a slight glitch that prevented the entire show from uploading and I hope to have this corrected in a few hours.
