Analyses Leading toThe Bush Double Double Cross

On November 3, 2002, SenderBerl rendered an exceptional analysis regarding a detected deeply covert US strategic offering by some in the administraton to double cross both Israel and Arab/Islamic nations historically friendly to the US. The proffer has been received as potentially accurate and thereby we offer the analyses which led to the ultimate interpretation below. SenderBerl endeavors to suggest to the administration that there is an alternative course to the globally criticized National Security Strategy.

July 4, 2002: SenderBerl: The article below shows that President Bush has augmented Arafat while Sharon takes out every possible terrorist in the West Bank and Gaza. If this is part of the staging, one can now see how far and deep they take the illusion for forge a carved reality. In other words, if a staging, all remaining terrorists will be killed and Arafat now a national hero of ultimate courage will speak to the US (Saudi) peace plan. Perhaps when we relayed that Arafat was the safest man in the Middle East, it became too transparent that Arafat was himself, in one of his many roles, a pawn for the US agenda (and that he fingered those who were removed in Sharon's original onslaught into the West Bank). However, SenderBerl continues with the position that President Bush's remarks calling for new leaderships meeting the approval of President Bush will unleash terrorist attacks which will platform the US taking on Iraq, Syria and Iran. Regrettably the attacks has to be big with many deaths; for the scenario we have perceived from the very first will require Bush to tell China after massive deaths and casualties that he is going into Iraq, Syria and Iran and China better not get his way. Thus the US needs global moral outrage to take out states that sponsor terrorism. Of course the collateral benefit is the targeted key benefit: the ability to recapture the Middle East from China.

So what is the "one very important question?" The question is as follows:

The United States and Israel stood deliberately aloof for a decade while under the protection of the Oslo process Arafat instilled hatred for Jews and Israel into the Palestinian people. The United States knew that to uproot the recent peace initiative where it was moving to claimed success that it would only take one major terrorist deed to undermine it. As it were, it took two sequential Jerusalem bus bombings. Since it was -- in accord with our analysis -- so easy to uproot the recent US peace process, the only conclusion is that the US knew it was easy to uproot, expected it to be uprooted, and WANTED it to be uprooted. The only reason therefor was to escalate the Middle East to promote terrorist groups and cells to move against Americans and American targets. Why? Again, if a massive terrorist deed is committed against Americans and/or American interests, Bush can forge ahead with moral outrage to take out the current regimes in Iraq, Syria and Iran, and possibly Saudi Arabia. NO WONDER VP CHENEY WAS SO CONFIDENT IN PREDICTING IMMINENT TERRORIST ATTACKS!!!

We believe this has been the plan all along inasmuch from Israel's perspective giving back land under the secular political resolution was simply stupid when current regimes in the aforesaid countries would then mount new attacks against Israel now that it gave up militarily strategic land.

Conclusion: The conclusion is that we disagree with the US strategy which affirmatively creates a platform where Americans and American interests will be targeted for massive deaths and casualties in order to create the necessary environment of moral outrage in order to undermine state sponsored terrorist states in the Middle East while warning China to stand aside. There is a growing awareness throughout the country that the US did not do what it should have done to stop the 9-11 attacks and here we only point to the dire need of an investigation of why our military jets ready to defend the country were given an affirmative order to stand grounded to preclude an intervention against the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers. Moreover, a side benefit to a terrorist attack above and beyond 9-11 would be to misdirect focus from the need to answer questions concerning the 9-11 attack inasmuch as the country's focus would be on the new attack exceeding the first one.

If this sounds like it is sad, it is, and we only hope that our interpretation is wrong. However, if it unravels as we now interpret, you will understand the why behind the witnessed tragedies. VP Cheney was right! Americans will now die again!

We disagree with any US policy willing to sacrifice Americans for its long term global agenda. Who would believe it? That is what the sick minds who devise it count upon.

SenderBerl again reiterates that the only solution is a religious resolution of the conflict(s).

Joseph Ehrlich
Sender, Berl & Sons Inc.
July 4th 2002

ANALYSIS-US call to oust Arafat may be counter-productive

By Nidal al-Mughrabi

GAZA, July 4 (Reuters) - U.S. calls for Yasser Arafat's removal have prompted even Palestinians critical of their leader to rally behind him and could discourage some potential rivals from posing a challenge, political analysts said on Thursday.

President George W. Bush urged Palestinians to remove their president and demanded an overhaul of his Palestinian Authority in a speech last month, saying the Authority had failed under his leadership to halt suicide bombings against Israelis.

Although many Palestinians are disappointed by Arafat's failure to improve their lives, and by allegations of corruption in the Palestinian Authority, they balk at doing anything that smacks of taking orders from the United States.

Even before Bush's speech, Arafat would have been widely expected to secure re-election. Two days after the speech Arafat called presidential and legislative elections for early January 2003.

"You will not find anyone that now says (Arafat must resign)," Palestinian political analyst Hassan al-Kashif told Reuters. "Even those most critical of Arafat will not do that."

Kashif said many Palestinians regarded Bush's speech setting out a vision of Middle East peace as interference in internal Palestinian affairs.

The U.S. intervention had turned Arafat's future into a question of national honour, he said, discouraging people from casting a vote that could be seen as bowing to U.S. pressure.

Mohammed Dahlan, a former Palestinian security chief who has often been mentioned as a potential successor to Arafat, said in an interview published this week that he was muting his own criticism of the president and rallying to Arafat's side.

"I have huge criticisms of (Arafat) but when Bush and (Israeli Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon say they want to change Arafat, I become the head of his re-election committee," Dahlan told Britain's newspaper The Times.

Potential challengers could now be more reluctant than ever to stand against Arafat because they might be seen by ordinary Palestinians as tools for implementing the policies of the United States and Israel, some analysts said.

"Israel does not want an alternative to Arafat. They want a collaborator," said one commentator, Mustafa al-Barghouthi.

U.S.-PALESTINIAN RELATIONS "POISONED"

Although most Palestinians are not expected to vote against Arafat at the polls, Israeli political analyst Gerald Steinberg questioned whether Palestinian public opinion was monolithic.

"It is not true to say that all Palestinians agree on one thing. Simply we do not know because people do not speak openly now," he said.

So far only Abdel-Sattar Qassem, a prominent academic, has said he will challenge Arafat, elected president in the first Palestinian poll in 1996. A Palestinian cabinet minister said days ago he also expected Arafat to stand for re-election.

Palestinian Authority officials have responded to Bush's speech by saying they will not be dictated to although, under international pressure, Arafat has called elections and pledged reforms.

"There is no doubt that the last Bush speech has poisoned the Palestinian-American relationship," said Palestinian cabinet minister Imad al-Falouji, calling the address and follow-up remarks by U.S. officials a "declaration of war" against Arafat.

Barghouthi said many Palestinians believed the United States had relinquished its claim to be an honest broker in Middle East peacemaking and that its policy was being held hostage by its ally Israel.

But Steinberg said the United States felt it had no option but to voice its frustration with Arafat after repeated attempts to end 21 months of Israeli-Palestinian violence failed.

"They tried to work with him and they tried to work around him but all attempts failed," Steinberg said.

Sharon made clear in recent talks with Bush at the White House that peacemaking with the Palestinians would be possible only when Arafat was no longer in office.

FEARS OF ORDINARY PALESTINIANS

Ordinary Palestinians fear Israel will keep seven West Bank cities under occupation as the presidential election approaches and that it could intensify military strikes on the Gaza Strip until the day of the election to put pressure on voters.

"I am afraid the people will have to vote beside Israeli tanks," said Hassan Hanoud, a mechanic from Gaza.

"We will then have to choose to stick to Arafat and face their curse and threats, or to surrender," he added. "Arafat would represent national dignity then."

Palestinians acknowledge they are far from satisfied with Arafat, but refuse to do anything at the behest of Israel or the United States.

"We cannot slaughter him with an Israeli knife," said a taxi driver who gave his name only as Aziz. "Maybe he should step down and maybe all the other faces should change, but we cannot accept that under the presence of tanks or under pressure."

Mohammad Khaled, 25, shared this view.

"Look at Iraq. Were the Americans able to change Saddam Hussein? No. Did the Iraqis let their president down? No," he said. "It might be a great risk (backing Arafat) but Bush gave us no choice."

Arafat faces a tough task trying to carry out reforms that satisfy the United States, but not appear to be simply acting at Washington's beck and call.

"We think Arafat will carry out some of the things he was asked to do but certainly we do not expect him to concede any of our rights," said Salim Ghali, a tailor.


   07/04/02 09:25 ET

September 26, 2002: SenderBerl: So that we might offer a platform which may better give you insight into the important news story below (confirming one aspect of our interpretations regarding the truths of making Saddam the bogeyman to pursue this agenda at this point of time), capturing Iraqi oil permits the US (better said the new world order leadership or one major segment thereof in their recent split) to pursue its agenda of regime change which translated again is new world order control and domination which translated again means molding the Middle East nations into the image of the new world order leadership which translated again means separating the people of the Islamic nations from G-d as was done in Israel by installing the new world order controlled infrastructure. Since the Islamic nations are the last leg of the trilogy of nations under monotheism, this agenda will open the gateway to the abyss since our long standing interpretation is that the collapse of the third leg of the trilogy would shift the paradigm of world power from those countries under monotheism to the Chinese.

The United States of America instead of being in the forefront of protecting the independent sovereign interests of the PEOPLE of Iraq are using Saddam Hussein to colonize them to capture and control the country's oil which can platform a course the antithesis of fundamental precepts of our nation and Republic. To this end, we highlight that Saddam Hussein could have been removed from office many years ago, but now it appears to us that the suffering engendered in Iraq was allowed to mask the real agenda of keeping him in power until the 9-11 phase of the new world order agenda could be implemented.

Israel is being used as well in this phase. The new world order sets up the exact environment where Israel legitimately sees regime change as serving its long term interest for survival as a nation; rather than allowing it, because of the installation of a new world order infrastructure, to pursue a road for a religious resolution and thus true peace. Likewise, the American people are directed to issues of patriotism to remove a threat, Saddam Hussein, promoting the new world order one world government agenda rather than have an open and free media raise the multiplicity of issues which should have been raised since 1992 questioning why Saddam was not removed pursuing another road to resolving emerging issues with the Islamic world (don't forget flamed by the Princess Diana incident).

The National Security Strategy of President Bush released September 20, 2002, has distanced this country permanently from a large segment of the world, has now united them in their resolve to offset it, and has confirmed that those leading this country, behind the facade of the presidency, look now very much like the oil cartel group, who care very little for the lives lost and to be lost for them to get their way. For decades the US has very well managed a solid relationship with Middle East countries without the need to go out and fight an unjust war for the asset. Why did it set us up to do it? The price we paid was that the new world order forces were blindsided by China. It surprised them but did not surprise us because when we saw during Clinton's tenure that he only could shed crocodile tears for the drug epidemic sweeping the children and schools of the nation, and otherwise stood passive to the loss of this country''s bedrock precepts connected to G-d, permitting desensitization of the American people and allowing pagan precepts to take over the minds and hearts of our children, then it was no surprise to us.

However, now the message to us is that if we (reflected by our Congress in existence to protect us from excesses of the Executive Branch) remain passive, events will unfold which will shake every man and woman to the very core of their existence, and when they wake up, understanding that to remain passive is to await death, perhaps then in the face of Chinese taskmasters they will regain their fervor and passion for justice, when they are denied it and lose their daily lifestyle, a gift which has been taken for granted and soon will be yearned for as they pray to G-d for His intervention.

Future generations of Americans will woe and rue this generation of leadership and correctly so in the pain and suffering of their daily lives.

Joseph Ehrlich
Sender, Berl & Sons Inc.
September 26, 2002 8:00AM

26 September 2002 01:17 BDST
Russia fears US oil companies will take over world's second-biggest reserves

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington

26 September 2002Internal links

Oil companies from around the world are manoeuvring for the multibillion-dollar bonanza that would follow the ousting of Saddam Hussein.

Russia is so concerned that it has been holding secretive talks with the Iraqi opposition to shore up its economic interests in the country which still owes Moscow $7bn dollars from Soviet times.

With the second-biggest reserves in the world, Iraq's underdeveloped oilfields have become a key negotiating chip and a backdrop to talks between the US and the other permanent members of the UN Security Council – all of which have major economic stakes in regime change in Iraq.

It has also given fuel to critics of America's war plans who say the desire for regime change is at least partly driven by economics.

Oil industry experts say there is growing concern that America would dominate the Iraqi oil industry after Saddam. As a result, a number of oil companies have reportedly held talks with the Iraqi opposition to ensure they are involved in any future deals.

The Independent has learnt that the Russian government – which is friendly towards Iraq – recently dispatched a diplomat to hold talks with a senior official from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the US-backed opposition umbrella group. At that meeting in Washington on 29 August – the first for seven years – the diplomat expressed worries that Russia would be kept out of the oil markets by the US.

James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA and a commentator on the relationship between oil and global security, told The Washington Post: "It's pretty straightforward. France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government we'll do the best we can to ensure the new government and American companies work closely with them.

"If they throw in their lot with Saddam it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them." Iraq has confirmed oil reserves of 112 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia, with perhaps double that in undiscovered reserves. With sanctions in place, the current production is just 2.8 million barrels a day – a capacity it struggles to reach because of deteriorating equipment.

Under the United Nations' oil-for-food programme, it exports about one million barrels a day. Since 1998, two subsidiaries of Houston-based Halliburton, the company previously headed by the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, have done $24m (£15.3m) of business to repair Iraqi oil pipelines under the UN programme.

Experts say that given sufficient further foreign investment, Iraq could be producing a total of 6 million barrels a day within five years, making it the world's third biggest producer behind Russia and Saudi Arabia.

But which companies will benefit from these rich pickings? Since the end of the Gulf War, companies from more than a dozen nations – including Britain – have had discussions with Iraq about developing oilfields. In 1997, Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4bn deal to develop the West Qurna oilfield while last year another Russian company, Slavneft, signed a $42m (£27m) deal to drill in Tuba.

The French TotalFinaElf company has negotiated the rights for the vast Majnoon oilfield, which is near the Iranian border.

It is unclear whether such deals would be honoured by a post-Saddam Iraqi government. Faisal Qaragholi, an official with the INC, said that all such deals would be reviewed. "If the deal [helps] the Iraqi people then it will be carried on, if it does not, it will be renegotiated," he said.

The INC's chairman, Ahmed Chalabi, believes the US should head a consortium to develop Iraq's oil. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," he said.

Such comments horrify the Russian government, which as a major oil exporter has much to lose should America assume a dominant position in Iraq's oil industry.

Thane Gustafson, senior director with the Cambridge Energy Associates (Cera) consultants, said the issue was almost certainly a factor in Russia's negotiations with the US about a new UN resolution over weapons inspectors. "Oil is bound to be on [President Vladimir] Putin's mind because of the importance of oil exports," he said. "It's bound to worry Putin. He would probably prefer things pretty much as they are now."

Russia's concern led it to dispatch Andrew Kroshkin, a diplomat, to hold talks with the INC's Washington director, Entifadh Qanbar. Mr Qanbar said that during the two-hour meeting at the INC office, Mr Kroshkin said the Iraq policy of Russia – which has estimated debts of $100bn (£64m) – was "100 per made by money".

"He told me that he had been told that if the Americans overthrow Iraq they will not let the Russians do business in Iraq," he said. "We have seen this in the Balkans. He wanted to say that Russia's dealings with Iraq are based on historical and economic relations, not on relations with Saddam."

The importance of Iraqi oil is also to be discussed next week at a US-Russian energy summit in Houston at which more than 100 US and Russian energy companies are expected to be represented.

In this environment, it is likely that most leading oil companies are actively trying to position themselves to operate in Iraq if Saddam is overthrown. The US oil giants ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco both refused to say whether they had been holding talks with Iraqi opposition. Both said, however, that they would be interested in operating in Iraq if sanctions permitted.

A spokesman for Royal Dutch Shell, the British-Dutch company which held discussions with President Saddam about developing the Ratawi oilfield several years ago, said it had not approached the INC. But if sanctions were lifted, the company would be interested in dealing with Iraq, he said.

James Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities, said: "There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in the future."

SenderBerl: A Very Important Question for Israel
An extreme analysis but one which certainly should not be discounted.
October 17, 2002

Sender, Berl & Sons Inc. has a very good record in geopolitical analysis and interpretations. The reason for it is because we have computer systems which aid us but otherwise we have experience and honed insights from years of dealing with unfolding world events. In this very regard, we were able to make the important connections we have made regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. On one important plane we have successfully argued and interpreted that the collapse of the towers platformed the moral outrage necessary for the new world order to pursue its current course of world control and domination, the next step of which is seizure and control of Middle Eastern Oil.

Thus, we now posit an important question to Israel. Assume for the moment that among the new world order leadership there exists those who would not shed any tears if the State of Israel lost a major war. Thus, if such may be the case, what benefit would this group of new world order leaders first see in the collapse of the Jewish State?

SenderBerl answer: They would see that the collapse of the Jewish State would create the very necessary condition of moral outrage for the Congress to give President Bush the green light to take out all Middle Eastern regimes involved directly or indirectly in the collapse of the Jewish State. Thus the US (new world order) can with world silence go in and seize it all (the oil) obtaining full operational control of the Middle East.

So if Israel has concluded, which we believe it has, that the Bush administration may have had advance knowledge of 9-11 and allowed it to happen to platform moral outrage for what is now the attack on Iraq per the released National Security Strategy, formally adopting world domination and control as the official new US international policy, then it should not come as shock that Israel itself as a country may be expendable for the ability to realize the true end and goal of the new world order, seizure of Middle Eastern oil, silencing the rest of the world in the successful pursuit thereof.

What the World Trade Center towers dynamically has been to justifying domestic policy, Israel, the collapse of Israel as a nation, will be for the new world order in justifying international policy and action under the National Security Strategy.

If Israel hasn't factored this putative reality from the amoral new world order leadership into the equation, then it better do so and quickly.

The new world order leadership particularly the oil cartel segment is ruthless, and we believe the world is about to see it in action since it obviously is in operational control of the United States.

We believe that even those counting themselves within the pale of the new world order crew see for the first time a hierarchy which they previously discounted. The brilliance of the true new world order leadership is how they entice the powerful to join up with them and stand ready to discard them when able to do so, making those once seeing themselves as insiders realize that they have been nothing other than pawns and poodles themselves.

Joseph Ehrlich
Sender, Berl & Sons Inc.
October 17, 2002

PS. The US stock market has shown new life. The only possible new nexus to it is that the Bush administration on the eve of important elections has sold a bill of goods to the financial world that the US will be the major oil producing nation in the world, or in control of it, platforming a steaming US recovery and economy to the benefit of corporate America.

PPS. You can see from the argument above that the true road for peace between Israel and the Arab states was through the religious resolution of the conflict because they both may fail, on this dimension then engendering the conflict between China and the US. Again, no matter what road man takes at this juncture of history, if man fails to honor the need for the religious resolution, all roads and dimensions lead to devastation and death on wholesale levels. Again and again, the operating dynamic will shift the paradigm of power from those countries under monotheism to the godless Chinese as a punishment for failing to learn what those under monotheism should have learned in obtaining the blessings they have received as nations and as a people.

News story: Israel Radio reported today that Bush guaranteed to give Israel two weeks' advance notice before attack on Baghdad, so that Israel could make the appropriate preparations.
   
SenderBerl: Once Israel starts fully preparing it will open the gateway to major escalation of world terrorism against America and Americans. It gives Saddam and the rest of world anticipating being Bush's next target, the type of advance notice which can only hurt US and Israeli interests. Thus, one can expect that Israel will not get two weeks advance notice and Sharon knows it or should know it. It is disinformation.

News story: He said that Israel has never had as good relations with a US president as it has with President Bush.    

Barak said the same thing about Clinton and he was willing to give up Jerusalem and the West Bank. Sharon now says it about Bush and he has been willing to let Israel collapse as a terrorist victim to platform its role in undermining Middle East states to allow the new world order to capture and control Middle Eastern oil to assure Israel on the bodies of its citizens and children the promise of a blossoming economy and future.

Israeli leaders have always bowed to man not G-d and now comes the consequences of their follies. They have been pawns and poodles thinking themselves more than what they are.

Joseph Ehrlich
Sender, Berl & Sons Inc.
October 17, 2002
   

November 5, 2002

SenderBerl: A reference in today's Jerusalem Post not to be overlooked!

Although the US "road map" has been generally accepted on both sides, he said, he was a little worried about it in terms of implementation.


SenderBerl: When Peres expresses rare, very rare, concern over  the US, we can only look at the statement in support of our propositions in "Bush's Double Double Cross."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1036406774223

The Bush Double Double Cross

This is going to be a very deep and scary analysis and interpretation on top of the ones we have already issued concerning President Bush and his administration. Those with a nexus to the putative amoral creation of requisite moral outrage for the war against terrorism really may have exceeded all bounds of decency in planning out new world order world domination and control.

Let's go back to the Saudi initiative in late March 2002. In accordance with our interpretation, the Arab League in Beirut was unified across the board in the Saudi initiative. This only suggested to us that Israel and the US had already agreed to it. Notably, within 24 hours, Sharon initiated the claimed "criminal" incursion into the West Bank, without anyone, anyone at all, bolting from the Beirut unified position or threatening to. This immediately ratified our interpretation that Arafat was the safest man in the Middle East and our truly incredible but sadly true interpretation that what was playing out was staged and orchestrated.

What is critical to see at this juncture is what were the Arab League and Israel told by the Bush administration to persuade them to undertake the staging and orchestration? Were both parties told the same thing to manifestly further the Saudi initiative or was each party told something highly beneficial to it at the expense of the other?

Israel no doubt immediately recognized what we ourselves concluded: simple serious acts of terrorism would undermine the entire Saudi initiative. Thus the Bush administration in our respectful opinion sold the Israeli government on the absolute need to eliminate all Arab/Islamic regimes who would ultimately undermine or uproot the planned peace to wit: Iraq, Syria and Iran. Sharon was told to go into the West Bank and Gaza and eliminate every known terrorist (after the platform was created with the lives of innocents including children), and once doing so that the United States would then proceed against Iraq as a prelude for the US and Israel to effectuate regime change in Syria and Iran.

It all looked good to Israel. The United States would be in control of all enemy states and Israel could only be a major beneficiary of the US agenda.

What Israel never saw was that it fell into the Chinese trap and design when it went into the West Bank to reoccupy it in punishment for the terrorism (as a mask to undertake elimination of all terrorist cells). What Israel could not itself see even with all its intelligence and analytic brilliance was that the US strategic design of having Israel suffer from Palestinian terrorism to predicate its incursion into the West Bank and Gaza to eliminate local terrorists cells, put them into a reality of economic malaise approaching economic collapse (foreseen by Chinese intelligence working in parallel with the Arab/Islamic nations, the Chinese urging the Arab/Islamic nations not to trust the US when it came to Israel).

Israel lost its vital tourism industry and compounded the financial implosion by pulling out reservists from the already damaged and sinking economy. Sharon very soon thereafter realized the trap he fell into and adjusted the depth of the planned reoccupation of the West Bank. He went to President Bush seeking additional financial assistance to escape the Chinese design (which was seen in microcosm under the sniper spree in the Washington, DC metropolitan area). President Bush has put Sharon into a quagmire telling him that he is compelled to close the dollar window for political reasons at this time for both Israel and the Palestinians (Bush telling Sharon not to worry --Sharon worried has submitted a plea for $10 billion is US aid to compensate for the staged and orchestrated terrorism and its unforeseen consequences).

Moreover, what Israel never expected, once committing to the Bush plan, was that on June 24, 2002, Bush would escalate the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians to one between Islam and the West (the US). President Bush came out and ratified what we had been saying all along: that the US wanted to mold the Arab/Islamic nations into the image of the new world order agenda to wit: remove Allah from His central role for the Arab/Islamic people.

Israel already in the abyss had to endure the reality of the National Security Strategy, which announced that President Bush and his administration was out for world domination and control. What must have petrified the Israeli government was what we immediately concluded: President Bush deliberately went out to unify the Arab/Islamic world and China against not only the United States, but Israel as well. Why was President Bush so openly brazen about it?

The only reason we could see for him doing so is that it committed the United States to the attack against Iraq. It was long apparent to us that Saddam Hussein despite his being the personification of evil was never the target of US policy but the bogeyman for its true pursuit: Islamic oil. When President Bush post 9-11 went into Afghanistan, we immediately noted his global language praising the Saudis and Pakistanis for their support of the US military effort and incursion.

The Saudis and Pakistanis leaderships no doubt called President Bush and told him thanks but no thanks: no need to praise their cooperation with the US agenda. Sender, Berl & Sons Inc. proffered to the House and Senate Intelligence committees that President Bush's true agenda was to initiate rebellion against both governments so that he could intervene to seize and control Islamic nuclear and oil.

Rebellion did not materialize. What did materialize was the Saudi initiative, suicide bombings against Israel, Sharon's incursion into the West Bank to eliminate terrorist cells, to lay the groundwork for the US design to now attack Iraq on the basis of undertaking regime change of all countries supporting terrorism and operating against Oslo or the Saudi initiative, what one preferred to believe.

However, two new developments. First, Sharon when he realized the trap he fell into, decided to turn the tables and put the West Bank and Gaza into a similar dynamic, so to his mind if anyone was trying to engender the collapse of the Jewish State, he was responding by encouraging the Palestinian people to abandon the West Bank and Gaza by making their lives equally unpalatable.

Israel was consumed with offsetting the economic phase of the attack upon it, and regretting how it fell into the trap, now having to beg for billions from the US on the basis that it should not suffer in this manner from following the US guidelines "for peace."  It could not see the forest again from the trees.

We then offered our extreme interpretation that Israel was at the mercy of the Bush administration, pointing out that Israel was overlooking the tragic obvious: how could the US justify its design for Arab/Islamic oil bringing along Israel before the world as a co-beneficiary of its design and ultimate effort?

This was a pretty good point we were making. We pointed out that the US design, even before the NSS and the Rose Garden remarks, was for oil (see below). Now, since the Rose Garden remarks, it became very clear that President Bush and his administration were out for all the oil, any lingering doubt removed with the National Security Strategy. Thus, when the US attacked, the game plan as understood by Sharon, was for Israel to engage Syria (helped along by the fact that the Congress now only allows Bush to attack Iraq), to remove Hussein and Assad in one major swoop. Israel's problems would be essentially over. But would they be over? Or would the reality be no Israel or an Israel barely clinging to life?

When Sharon recently went to Washington for final consultations with President Bush prior to the planned US attack on Iraq, he without doubt posited this disturbing dynamic: how was the US going to face the consequences of a victorious Israel when the US was going to undertake an occupation of Iraq and capture and seize all its oil?

Were there those in his administration who were touting to the President the material benefits of a failed Israel? Would massive deaths in Israel provide the US with the requisite moral outrage to control if not seize all Middle East oil?  Would such results give the US what it wanted and needed: oil and removal of the Chinese presence and design in the Middle East? It became increasingly apparent to Israel that if Israel was victorious in the US occupation and campaign that it would cause the US many long term problems and that with a failed Israel it would solve the remainder of the US's problems.

We now interpret that Sharon who just the other day proclaimed to the world that Israel never had a better friend in the White House than Bush 43, now carries serious concerns about what answers he received from President Bush.

It is multi dimensional and deep but this is all historically important. We were concerned a short time ago that Sharon was a possible target for assassination. We interpreted that with an imminent attack against Iraq, the NWO was not happy in having a supreme military man like Sharon in control of Israel. He may launch counter attacks out of preset boundaries; Sharon like Rabin was committed to the best interests of the Jewish State when under attack. Similar to the times of Rabin, if something happened to Sharon, Shimon Peres would assume the Prime Minister post and the Minister of Defense was already another NWO pawn and poodle.

However, what happened since that putative assassination assessment is that President Bush got slammed big time at the UN by all the other countries fully knowing his agenda against Iraq and the rest of the region and taking the US to task for it.

While it was always crystal clear to us, it seems that since the NSS document it has become more clear to the rest of the world, who was now intent to tell the President that his policies of unilateralism were going to be rejected and that his attempt to obtain a cloak of approval was not going to succeed.

So now, we have Sharon going back to Israel after getting his final marching instructions regarding the US attack on Iraq, and Israel's overt and covert roles, and we are shocked to see that Peres and Ben-Eliezer, the NWO Foreign Minister and Defense Minister resign on the flimsiest of pretexts.

The original news reports are focused on Ben-Eliezer, that he undertook the strategy to serve himself in his attempt to rest control of the Labor party. However, these claimed political machinations are minimized by the overlooked fact that Shimon Peres agreed to resign and he controls Ben-Eliezer not vice versa.

THIS TELLS US THAT BUSH WILL NOT NOW INITIATE THE ATTACK ON IRAQ BUT THAT HE PLANS ON FORCING ISRAEL TO INITIATE A REGIONAL WAR WHERE BUSH WILL INTERCEDE ON BEHALF OF ISRAEL AGAINST SYRIA AND IRAQ.

To understand this new perceived path, we have to now look over the dynamics from the Arab/Islamic side of the equation. First, why would the entire Arab League in Beirut support the Saudi initiative? Second, why when Sharon within 24 hours went into the West Bank would not a single state including Syria and Libya not bolt from the accord reached just hours before in Beirut?

One has to today conclude that while the Bush administration was selling Sharon on the ultimate end of undermining Arab/Islamic regimes, that the Arab/Islamic states were being sold by the Bush administration that there would be no Israel or a drastically reduced Israel and that the Holy City would be theirs to share as they pleased.

It wasn't just that the 67 portion of Israel was going to revert to the Arab world, but everything. This is the only incentive which could make sense to the entire Arab League playing along with a strategy which required Sharon to make an incursion into the West Bank without anyone bolting from the Arab League accord in Beirut.

The US specified its interests in terms of eliminating the threat of terrorism, especially suicide bombers, hitting the shores of the US, with the Arab League, we surmise, not understanding that once Israel reverted in full to the Arab world that there would be no need to eliminate terrorists.

Thus, this suggested that the need to eliminate terrorism had to do with what the Arab League thereafter saw was that the true goal of the US was not the mask of WMD or suicide bombers, but its critical asset oil (previously seeing it as a pretext to set up Israel for the inevitable under the Bush NWO agenda). Not only Iraqi oil and oil reserves but control of all other regional oil, especially Saudi oil. This was not supposed to be so obvious and clear to the Arab League but we below cite the dates and language of some of our analyses making it clear that we concluded we could not agree with US policies which preemptively went out not to protect our nation but to illegally seize and control Middle Eastern oil because the government didn't like the reality that China went out during the Clinton term and captured the Middle East and now the NWO oil cartel was not going to lose its relationship with Middle East oil powers and  indirect historical control of Middle East oil.

We must interject that if there was any chance of saving it, President Bush irrevocably lost it and played into China's hand by releasing the National Security Strategy, the dumbest move for US interests one could ever imagine.

The Bush administration is probably on serious medication having to play this deeply dangerous game of telling Israel that it is its best friend, and still having the nerve to tell the Arab League that the US is simply doing all these convoluted maneuvers to set up the environment so that they can have back the Holy City and that Israel will no longer be an issue in a future relationship between the US and the Arab world (saying that they have reason to align for the future with the US rather than China, who the US tells the Arab world, especially Saudi Arabia, cannot be trusted).

Conclusions: The reality is that now both Israel and the Arab world do not trust the Bush administration, and quite frankly, no doubt Americans will no longer as well as the Bush administration's amoral nexus to 9-11 and other designs unravels. However, the point is that Sharon came back to Israel, knowing that his life was at risk, and also now knowing that the US may very well be setting up Israel to take a fall for the reasons articulated. He cannot take the chance that it may be the case. Thus, he will not go by the Bush game plan, allowing Israel to succumb while he is at the helm.

Thus, Peres reporting about Sharon's concerns, was no doubt directed to leave the Sharon government. The question is for what purpose? The US (NWO) no doubt has reached the new conclusion offered above that its interests are now better served by having Israel initiate the attack  and then having the US intercede for it.

You have to understand the depth of this new design. In each step, depending on the results, the Bush administration is situated to play either scenario, or the one we believe is now in play: the Bush double double cross, where both Israel is lost and the Arab regimes undermined per US ends.

With the Arab world under US control (in punishment for the devastation to Israel), those who are livid over the loss of Israel are assuaged, while with Israel lost, a new platform for a renewed US relationship with the Arab world is created over time, giving them the Holy City as a prize for losing the oil and their sovereignty. This leaves the Bush administration only with China to deal with, now having effectively removed it from the Middle East.

Now, assuming that China, Israel and the Arab League understands what we proffer, what can we expect to see to offset this design?

SenderBerl hopes you understand that all the above represents our contention that all roads lead to the same result unless Israel primarily in here undertakes the religious resolution with the Arab/Islamic world.

What you have just read represents mutuality of interests between them, because they are both being set up for the Bush double double cross. Thus, we are here to promote the religious resolution between Israel and the Arab/Islamic world for this will permit as we argued long ago the US to clean shop from the NWO influences who take us on the road to our own destruction here at home, and that is where China comes into the picture.

Succinctly put, we believe that China has given Syria for its steadfastness, in not caving in to US pressures, protection against US design to overthrow its regime, and we believe it has given the same assurances to Iran, and thus you can see how close we are to not only regional but global war, and the reasons therefor.

However, in this paper, we are detailing the perceived double double cross strategy of the Bush administration, made even more evident to us with the forced collapse of the Sharon government. Sharon's new Defense Minister is a hawk, and the US no doubt, will encourage Israel to defend itself, and there will no doubt be enough terrorism for Israel to initiate a regional conflict in its legitimate defense, where the US will enter to "save the region and the world." 

While we can envision strategies Israel and the Arab world can or may independently deploy to offset Bush's double double cross, they will be to no avail, for again, but for the religious resolution, all roads lead to disaster.

Look at some of the things below SenderBerl wrote in early 2002 and see how true they have become. The US had turned its back not only on G-d, but on its own Constitution, and for the stock market wealth given under Clinton, they looked aside as corruption and greed became institutionalized in the American infrastructure. Payment for that error is now being extracted.

With Peres gone from the government of Israel, the gateway has opened for Sharon to pursue a true peace.

We respectfully submit that you do everything possible to convince the Prime Minister that any course other than the religious resolution will lead to the devastation of the State of Israel.

The Arab nations are not Israel's enemies. By failing to recognize the correct course, Israel and the Arab/Islamic world will succumb, each in their own way, and open the gateway to the ultimate conflict and contest between the US and China, where the US will pay for its grievous errors and sins.

Thus, the US, Israel and Arab/Islamic world should all recognize that the only course to serve their own futures is the religious resolution. Abandon G-d and the future can only be dark and dire without His intervention.

Joseph Ehrlich
Sender, Berl & Sons Inc.
November 3, 2002

Key dates: June 24, 2002, President Bush's Rose Garden Remarks
                      September 20, 2002, National Security Strategy


SenderBerl wrote:

March 30, 2002: China is telling Arab nations that Israel is dying economically from the terrorist attacks.

April 11, 2002: China drives President Bush's decisions and concerns.

April 12, 2002: The US is now committed to a course where it must undermine all regimes aligned with China (under the banner of supporting terrorism).

May 5, 2002: US tells Israel that it accepts responsibility to neutralize Iraq, Iran, Syria, which responsibility it does not assume with great reluctance.

May 5, 2002: Upsetting the Saudi peace initiative is a doable project for China.

June 17, 2002 (days before the President's Rose Garden Remarks!): ... replacing regimes will secularize the subject countries diluting Islam. This is an intended or unintended end which the Qu'ran proscribes and demands unbridled resistance....However, from US statements since 9-11, it has become clear that part of the US agenda is to mold the Islamic world to its perception of its place in the new world order. PRESIDENT BUSH SAYS THIS SEVEN DAYS LATER.

June 21, 2002 (still days before the Rose Garden Remarks): Sharon moving in troops, willingly calling up reserves, will put Israel into a serious financial bind.

June 21, 2002: US's best course may be to see Israel face a slow death, inevitable from a collapsed tourist industry and deployment of personnel to a reoccupation of the West Bank.

June 21, 2002: Many of the EU's and US's problems are resolved by Israel failing as a sovereign state and country.

June 21, 2002: If President Bush pulls away from a preemptive strike against Iraq, and Israel faces continual terrorist attacks (while the EU and US do not), Israel has an imminent survival crisis....If the State of Israel wants to act as though it is devoid of any major nexus to G-d, then G-d will not be with Israel in resolving the crisis. THIS NOW FORESHADOWS THE POINT WE ARE MAKING ABOVE.

June 21, 2002: We tell you right now that the Middle East will not return to its historic relationship with the U.S.....making it very clear to the Arab/Islamic nations that the US was intent on uprooting its nexus to Allah. This will prove to be an irreparable breach for the foreseeable future.

ROSE GARDEN REMARKS

July 4, 2002: The US needs global moral outrage to take out states that sponsor terrorism. Of course the collateral benefit is the targeted key benefit: the ability to recapture the Middle East from China.

July 4, 2002: The US knew major terrorism would derail the Saudi peace plan --only conclusion is that the US knew it was easy to uproot, expected it to be uprooted, and WANTED it to be uprooted.

July 20, 2002: Simply said, these men concluded that the American form of government was to be ultimately rendered antiquated.

July 20, 2002: Despite the misinformation to the contrary, the issue is oil.

July 26, 2002: (Religious resolution will) free the Congress from the coercive power of the power elite behind the one world government agenda. THIS MONTHS BEFORE THE CONGRESS GIVE BUSH THE GREEN LIGHT TO WAGE WAR AGAINST IRAQ.

July 29, 2002: The war against terrorism has all along been the war against China.

July 29, 2002: Powell says US troops will stay in Asia "to guard against nations that might have aggressive intent."

July 31, 2002: The US knows that China has prevailed and it is essentially going out and saying we are taking it back like it or not and if you don't like it we are ready to see what you are going to do about it. This represents nothing higher than adolescent logic and thinking.

July 31, 2002: SenderBerl believes that saying that we are going to take over the oil fields and put in a caretaker government is undertaking a course of insanity....The leadership is acting as though it is desperate. This is usually the nexus to making a mistake.

August 1, 2002: Issue not WMD but to obviate reality that Middle East has been lost...translates into a compromise of oil supplies for not only the US but the EU.

August 4, 2002: Is it Iraq or Saudi Arabia which is the first target? SenderBerl believes that President Bush has ordered an affirmative effort to replace the Saudi leadership. This is one of the best kept secrets in Washington (assuming we are correct). CONFIRMED BY THE WASHINGTON POST ON AUGUST 6TH AFTER OUR APPEARANCE ON THE POINT ON THE JEFF RENSE SHOW ON AUGUST 5TH.

August 9, 2002: Israel admits that it underestimated the significance of suicide bombings.

August 9, 2002: Assad given full assurances by China that it will protect Syria from US/Israel machinations.

August 12, 2002: America doesn't subscribe to a government that tells its citizens we are going to war with anyone who we don't like who could possibly pose a threat to us. If we subscribe to such a tenet or claim, then what stops China from proffering to its people the very same tenet or claim? If they did it first, the uproar from Washington would be deafening. THIS IS WRITTEN MORE THAN A MONTH BEFORE THE RELEASE OF THE NSS.

August 13, 2002: Why Sharon and why now? Sharon not inclined to follow US military directives when Israel under attack.... PM Sharon's death = moral outrage = attack on Syria.

ALL OF THE ABOVE WAS WRITTEN OVER A MONTH BEFORE THE NSS AND THE CONGRESS GIVING BUSH THE GREEN LIGHT TO ATTACK IRAQ. PRESIDENT BUSH NOW AWAITS THE ELECTION, THE CHINESE CONGRESS, AND THE UN RESOLUTION, BUT WE HAVE INTERPRETED THAT IT WANTS ISRAEL TO ATTACK OR FACE THE SPECTER OF ECONOMIC COLLAPSE. IF ISRAEL FACES FURTHER TERRORISM, WHAT OPTIONS DOES SHARON REALLY HAVE IF HE REFUSES TO UNDERTAKE A RELIGIOUS RESOLUTION? REMEMBER, ALL ROADS ABSENT A RELIGIOUS RESOLUTION LEAD TO ACROSS THE BOARD DEATH AND DEVASTATION FOR ALL THOSE UNDER THE PALE OF MONOTHEISM.


If Israel was following the correct course would it be in the rut it is in?
If the United States was following the correct course would it be in the rut it is in?

See www.senderberl.com/peres.pdf

The United States and Israel must move again back to their religious tenets.
Israel must assess what purpose Torah, its bible, and its beliefs, if the State of Israel losses it historical and intended nexus to G-d?

The answer is obvious and thus is both the solution and the consequence.