Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Did Jewish Diamond Merchants, Israeli Arm Smugglers and Jewish/Russian Mobsters Finance Al Qaeda?

Did Jewish Diamond Merchants, Israeli Arm Smugglers and Jewish ...

Did Jewish Diamond Merchants, Israeli Arm Smugglers and Jewish/Russian Mobsters Finance Al Qaeda?

December 29, 2002 Author: Various

The world diamond trade is a virtual monopoly controlled by DeBeers--the Oppenheimer family--and Lev Leviev--an Israeli citizen from Russia.

50% of all diamond rough is cut in Israel. Jewish cutters and dealers, in large part, control the Belgium diamond industry. Orthodox Jews run the business in NYC.

Yet, somehow, Al Qaeda (Al CIA-da) was able to penetrate this market. Over a year ago, the Washington Post reported that Al Qaeda was in the diamond business.


Web exclusive 11/12/01 Dirty diamonds By Michael Barone US

What do Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, and al Qaeda have in common?

The answer is: They all have been associated with the bloody Liberian dictator Charles Taylor.

Jackson first met Taylor in 1998, in what was billed as a friendly meeting, and in November 1998 called for the Sierra Leone government to "reach out to these RUF in the bush battlefield." Pat Robertson's tie to Charles Taylor is based on a financial connection. In 1999 Robertson's Freedom Gold company signed a deal to mine an area in southeastern Liberia . . .


UN Security Report:

Awhole network of Israelis was established, including Mr. Gertler in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lev Leviev in Angola and Shmuel Shnitzer in Sierra Leone. In all three cases, the pattern is the same. Conflict diamonds are exchanged for money, weapons and military training. These diamonds are then transported to Tel Aviv by former Israeli Air Force pilots, whose numbers have significantly increased both in UNITA-held territory in Angola and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Israel, these diamonds are then cut and sold at the Ramat Gan Diamond Centre. . .more


UK trying to get its hands on Sierra Leona's diamonds

According to John Pilger, in the New Statesman, 18 September 20000, 'Britain is recolonising Sierra Leone in an attempt to get its hands on the country's diamonds.'

New Statesman, Sept 18, 2000 by John Pilger

The ITN reporter in Sierra Leone described the killing by British troops of 25 Africans in their own country as a fine operation, an unqualified success. The rejoicing consumed the British media, which featured a coy appearance by paratroopers who had taken part in the massacre. There were exciting reconstructions of the "daring jungle raid". Much of it was stage-managed by British military public relations, which has learnt many lessons since Bloody Sunday. When you can turn a massacre in someone else's country into a heroic tale of British derring-do, you have indeed achieved an unqualified success in wiping out any vestiges of sceptical and independent journalism.

Had 25 people been gunned down by British troops in a country populated by white people, the stage-managers might have had their work cut out -- unless the killing was done by RAF aircraft flying at a safe distance of 30,000 feet dropping cluster bombs that tore apart children playing in the street. That happened in Yugoslavia last year to the accompaniment of tales about heroic pilots.

There is a craven element here. The Kosovo "moral crusade" has been discredited by most bar the journalists who promoted it. As the forensic findings show, there was no genocide in Kosovo, simply a low-level civil war, grossly inflamed by Nato, which has since facilitated the ethnic cleansing of almost a quarter of a million Serbs and Roma from their homeland. Unlike the Kosovar Albanians, these are media unpeople. Yet the apologists for this, the "cruise-missile liberals", maintain their less than heroic silence.

In a rare piece in the Guardian, Seamus Milne noted that Britain's bloodstained adventure in Sierra Leone was the third time in 18 months that new Labour had used armed force outside UN control, and that the people massacred by the parachute regiment had been erstwhile allies of the Freetown government whose commitment to democracy Britain was allegedly there to defend. He lamented "barely a murmur of public debate at home".

There is barely a murmur of debate because journalists, whose job is to keep the record straight, are yet again performing their shameful tasks as state propagandists -- yet again reporting the exploitation of impoverished humanity, and especially Africa, as acts of altruism: nonsense that serves to cover the rehabilitation of western imperialism. In Sierra Leone, the British are recolonising a country from where most of the world's diamonds originate. That is the unreportable news. The paratroopers are there because, as the Wall Street Journal disclosed, the British and Americans secretly met the RUE rebels in March, demanded access to the diamond mines and were rebuffed. The "democratically elected" government they purport to support is the result of rigged balloting and corruption.

Britain is also in Sierra Leone as the American proxy in a continent where, since George Bush's invasion of Somalia in 1992 (causing some 10,000 Somali dead, according to the CIA), Congress has decreed that no American blood is to be spilt. The current exercise is almost certainly a rehearsal for the coming recolonisation of the Congo, which slipped from direct control following the death of the tyrant Mobutu.

The west put Mobutu in power, then backed him as he stole the treasury of his country. Ninety per cent of the cobalt used in the American aerospace industry came from Zaire, as it then was, along with diamonds, uranium, manganese and tin. In Mobutu's final days, French paratroops secured the mines while the International Monetary Fund took over the running of the economy.

That is broadly the plan for both the Congo and Sierra Leone, with or without the fig leaf of the United Nations. In Britain, there is no real debate about this, nor about the lies of Kosovo, the illegal bombing of Iraq, the betrayal of the people of Diego Garcia, the rearming of the Indonesian military and the Pakistani military and the Turkish military, because the 400-year-old notion of a free press, Lord Macauley's famous "fourth estate", is dying behind the facades of the "information age".

The more media there are, the more repetition, the more subversive the truth. As global power advances, the western media are being integrated into an imperialism of ideas. Journalism is becoming George Orwell's Ministry of Truth, in which war is peace, and censorship is by omission.

You get a sense of this from what is happening to British television. The Third World and Environment Broadcasting Project, a respected body run by voluntary agencies, has found that only 3 per cent of peak-time television featured anything about the majority of humanity, and almost all of this was confined to minority channels. Africa and Latin America have ceased to exist, except as disasters. As the myth of a "global village" is promoted, the world is disappearing from television. In the past decade, programmes attempting to make sense of other people's lives, struggles and culture have halved. BBC2's output is down by 28 per cent; Channel 4's is down by 56 percent--a loss of nearly 100 programming hours.

Channel 4, home of Big Brother, has a remit to cater for interests not covered by the other channels and, specifically, international issues. Theirs is now the Murdochised world of "the market". In the 1920s, Alfred Hugenberg was the Rupert Murdoch of Germany. By backing what they deemed acceptable and censoring out what they deemed unacceptable, Hugenberg' s newspapers helped block the spread of democratic alternatives, thereby paving the way for the triumph of fascist imperialism. The point is, extremism and imperialism have other faces these days. That is the news.


De Beers, Sierra Leone, Angola, the Congo, Ghana...

Extract from an article by Janine Roberts in New Internationalist, May 2004.

Kimberley, South Africa, a place of fabulous diamond riches set in a sea of poverty...

This is the headquarters of De Beers, a company that has ruled the diamond world for over 100 years...

In the last few years, they have slashed the wages of many of the black mineworkers who live in the shanty towns. Many of these miners also live in decaying huts within the mines’ perimeters...

When Africa was ruled by colonial regimes, De Beers negotiated marketing control over rich diamond deposits in Angola, the Congo, Sierra Leone and Ghana....

In 1960 when Africa’s first elected president, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, decided to market his country’s diamonds independently, he was deposed in a coup.

Similarly, when Prime Minister Lumumba – the first and only elected leader in the Congo – said in 1960 that he wanted to use his country’s diamonds for his country’s development, he was murdered with the assistance of the CIA and Belgian Intelligence. His replacement, the corrupt dictator Mobutu, was funded by a secret diamond deal.

When Angola gained a freely elected socialist government, the CIA funded a rebellion led by local group UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola).

But after oil was discovered there, President Clinton decided that he could do business with its government and in 1993 ended CIA support for UNITA. The rebels then seized Angolan diamond mines and financed the continuation of this very bloody war to the tune of $3.7 billion by selling diamonds.

As Global Witness reported in 1998 in A Rough Trade: ‘De Beers’ annual reports during the 1990s clearly state the company’s heavy involvement in buying Angolan rough diamonds, at the height of resumed fighting and a time when UNITA controlled the majority of Angola’s diamond production.’

It may be that these purchases were made to keep Angolan stones from flooding the market and lowering the world’s diamond prices. This had long been believed to be De Beers’ policy. When Angola was first found to be rich in diamonds, Ernest Oppenheimer had warned: ‘If uncontrolled, these will be a very serious menace to the market.’

Likewise, when Sierra Leone was found to be rich in diamonds, a De Beers report said: ‘These fields are a real menace to De Beers.’ The diamond giant then protected itself by negotiating total control over these fields.

The continuation of the Angolan war was now against the interests of the West. Thus, when the NGO Global Witness pointed out how diamonds were funding the Angolan civil war, it gained surprising support from both the British and US governments and De Beers shortly came under pressure not to buy what were fast becoming known as ‘blood’ or ‘conflict’ diamonds.
De Beers announced for the first time ever that it would not buy any diamonds from these countries, even if they were not ‘conflict’ gems – trusting that the conflict diamond campaign would take them off the market. Perhaps for the first time, De Beers’ interests, the strategic needs of the US and human rights NGOs all seemed to coincide.

De Beers announced it would not buy any diamonds from Sierra Leone, since in that country diamonds had helped to finance, train and equip brutal insurgents. A fortunate side effect for De Beers’ from all this, was that by shunning conflict diamonds, it could expect to reap higher profits as the quantity of diamonds on the global market decreased thereby increasing their value.

The ‘Kimberley Process’, as the agreement to control the trade in conflict diamonds negotiated in the town of Kimberley became known, was set up between 2000 and 2003 with the support of the British and US governments and De Beers. It was designed to remove diamonds produced by armed rebels from the market.

Yet it contained a major oversight which reflects the interests of the powers that support it. The Kimberley Process exempts from its sanctions the diamonds produced by government-owned or sanctioned mines, even if these mines violate human rights.

In 2001 Amnesty International reported that while the richest diamond mine in the Congo, in which De Beers had a minority interest, was a scene of frequent murders, maiming and illegal imprisonment, its diamonds were sold as ‘conflict-free’ under the Kimberley process since the mine was not run by ‘rebels’. Sierra Leonean diamonds are now also said to be clean – but in March 2003 the UN reported that a major effort still needed to be put into ‘stemming the extensive use of children as labour in [its] diamond mines’.