Egyptian Uprising overthrows its Zionist Master

Global Strategic Factors

During the cold war period no liberation movement in any third world country was left to its own devices to fulfill the will of the people through the creation of democratic institutions and a more just society. They were continually corrupted by the superpowers seeking to enhance their global strategic interests in pursuit of global political dominion. The soviets generally tended to support secretive revolutionary movements which invariably aimed at creating one party states that would be sympathetic to their interests whilst the americans, aiming to take over from former colonial powers, sought to install dictators who would promote their interests. It might have been thought that, with the end of the cold war, the days when overarching global strategic factors were able to corrupt domestic struggles for a better society would be long gone but the january 15, 2011 uprising in egypt confirmed the existence of a new strategic factor. This threatened to stymie egyptians’ liberation struggle. Although this struggle was eventually successful, the new strategic factor could still end up deterring or delaying the completion of this struggle i.e. the creation of a new constitution and democratic institutions.

Since the second world war, most arab countries have been run by tyrants who have either been installed by america or have aligned themselves with american interests – even nasser made overtures to the americans but was rebuffed. Most of these dictators have enriched themselves, their families and friends, whilst ruthlessly suppressing domestic demands for political reforms and independent foreign policies. Like bank robbers they have stolen whatever riches their economies generated. As a consequence arab societies have ossified preventing indigenous economic development thereby locking tens of millions into poverty. Since 1979, one of the great turning points in middle eastern history, these dictators have increasingly implemented american/zionist friendly foreign policies.

At the start of the egyptian uprising western public opinion responded positively to the mostly young, middle class, people who took to the streets demanding greater political freedoms which many westerners interpreted as western style political institutions.[i] But western politicians and the western media quickly began to oppose egyptians’ prospects for liberation and their right to bring about a revolutionary foundation of democratic institutions. This opposition was couched in what seemed to be straightforward nationalist terms. ‘Mubarak has ensured stability in egypt and the middle east and has deterred the rise of both arab nationalism and islamic fundamentalism.’ ‘He may be a dictator but he’s our ‘son of a bitch’.’ The suggestion here was that it was in the west’s national interests to continue protecting this dictator. In order create doubts about the consequences of the egyptian protestors’ uprising, western politicians/commentators sought to popularize the fear that it would lead to the rise of an extreme islamic government hostile to the west. Egypt’s muslim brotherhood were touted as a major threat to western interests even though it was nothing of the kind.[ii]

The proposition that the egyptian uprising was against western interests, however, ran counter to the commonly held belief in western states that democracy is important not merely to protect political freedoms, guarantee property rights, and ensure justice, but to give people the opportunity to run and develop their own businesses and thus enhance national economic growth. So, if this belief is valid domestically then it must also be valid globally. It is therefore in the national interests of western states to encourage the widest possible democratic reforms in egypt, and in all other countries, not merely because this would narcissistically imitate western political principles but because, more mundanely, it would promote egyptian, and thus global, economic growth. Western companies would have another growing consumer market which would enable them to increase output and profits and thereby boost their own countries’ economy. A comparison between the economies of democratic turkey and dictatorial egypt suggests that democracy makes a critical difference to the economic development. “… its (egypt’s) economy is today a quarter the size of Turkey's (though both countries have populations of similar size).” (Daniel Levy ‘After Mubarak - What Does Israel Do?’ http://www.tfdnews.com/news/2011/02/11/79782-daniel-levy-after-mubarak-what-does-israel-do.htm%20class= Feb 11, 2011).

It is said that ‘imitation is the greatest form of flattery’ and so the west should have been proud that egyptian protestors wanted to emulate its humanitarian values, political principles, and prosperity. Surely what westerners want is a thriving egyptian democracy leading to a thriving economy with which they could freely do business? Surely westerners should have been exhilarated at the prospects of egypt becoming more westernized?

The Zionist State’s support for Mubarak

The question then is why so many western politicians/commentators insisted that it was in western interests to protect mubarak and thereby try so intensely to discourage democratic reforms? The critical strategic factor that, once again, was exposed by their attitude was the primary importance they attached to the security of the jews-only state in palestine. The all too obvious implication was that it didn’t matter to them what their country’s interests were: all that mattered was protecting the zionist colonial state.

The zionist state was virtually the only country in the world, outside of the world of arab dictators, who disapproved of what the egyptians were doing – even the iranians applauded events in egypt. It adamantly insisted that its security interests would be best served by the west continuing to support mubarak, and other arab dictators, no matter how much they crushed the will of their people for democratic reforms and nationalistic foreign policies.[iii] This was not unexpected since it has always helped to install and sustain arab dictators who have pledged their allegiance to zionist expansionism rather than the welfare of their own people.

Mubarak was a zionist puppet. He’d helped to establish the camp david accord which in effect gave the zionist state the freedom to wage war against the palestinians and surrounding arab states. He denounced hezbollah[iv]; urged the zionist state to crush hamas[v]; accused iran of fomenting an arc of shi’ite interests in the middle east[vi]; and even encouraged the jews-only state to bomb iran[vii]. It has also been alleged that he sold subsidized gas to the zionist state.[viii] Egypt had once been self sufficient in oil and food but such was the corruption and incompetence of the mubarak regime that the country was having to import both.[ix] Here was a leader of country which could no longer feed itself and in which tens of millions of people were living in poverty, who was exporting gas at subsidized rates to a far richer country. Quite revealingly, during the uprising, mubarak poured out his zionist heart to a zionist confidente.[x]

In the western world, zionist politicians and jewish lobbies echoed the jews-only state’s stance and went into over-drive pressuring western governments into propping up mubarak and his fellow arab dictators.[xi] The zionist owned western media put even more pressure on western politicians to stop sympathizing with egyptian protestors. No sooner had netanyahu raised the spectre that ‘egypt is iran’ than his minions were diligently spreading the message around the west. “We are watching these events, said Netanyahu, with “vigilance and worry.” The worry is rooted, he said, in the possibility that “in a situation of chaos, an organized Islamist body can seize control of a country. It happened in Iran. It happened in other instances.” No sooner had these words escaped his mouth than Israel’s amen corner in this country and around the world echoed the “Egypt is Iran” meme until it had found its way into nearly every news report, and virtually every public statement by a major politician on the Egyptian events.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It’s Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…’ http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011).

It was shocking that in the western world jewish lobbies and zionist politicians/commentators were simply regurgitating the zionist state’s line. It was even more shocking to hear supposedly democratic politicians/commentators defending a brutal and corrupt dictator. But what was even more shocking was that they were promoting the interests of a foreign state rather than their own country’s national interests. They were sacrificing their democratic principles and the interests of the country they were living in for the sake of a colonial state that was perpetuating dictators throughout the arab world. Most shockingly of all, however, was that they seemed entirely comfortable arguing that it was in the interests of democratic states to sustain dictators because they knew that nobody, not even those on the left, would challenge such nonsense and highlight their treachery. Zionist politicians/commentators in america were promoting blatantly un-american policies whilst, similarly, zionist politicians/commentators throughout the rest of the western world were promoting blatantly anti-western policies, and nobody was challenging them about why they were giving priority to the interests of a foreign state.

There is very little difference between the cold war bogey of ‘reds under the bed’ and zionists’ transformation of the moderate muslim brotherhood into an islamic bogeyman. Since the formation of the zionist state, zionists have fabricated a long list of islamic bogeymen from nasser to saddam hussein. They have become specialists at conjuring up nightmarish islamic threats to frighten the west into supporting zionist interests and it was easy for them to demonize the muslim brotherhood given that most westerners knew little about the group. Contrary to zionists’ accusations, the group was not run by islamic extremists. It had not triggered the uprising.[xii] And it had not orchestrated the protests.[xiii] What do facts matter to zionists when they can churn out lies to an ignorant western public which is usually disinterested in anything beyond their zionist inspired prejudices? Zionist propagandists invented, and popularized, a fear and loathing for the ‘muslim brotherhood’ to pressure western states into supporting mubarak solely in order to protect the security of the zionist state. Western citizens who regurgitated this new strategic bogey were gullible for not understanding that they were undermining their own country’s national interests for the sake of promoting the security of the warmongering colonial state in palestine.

The Dominance of Zionist Propaganda

This wouldn’t be the first time, however, that extreme zionist propagandists have managed to manipulate western states into pursuing policies supposedly promoting western interests when in reality all they were doing was undermining such interests for the sake of boosting the security of the zionist state. This was their great propaganda achievement in provoking the first and second gulf wars. If the zionist state could invent and then popularize amongst western politicians/media the gigantic fiction that saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction then it could easily dupe the west into believing the smaller lie that if it didn’t continue supporting mubarak then it wouldn’t be long before egypt was being run by an extreme islamic government intent on developing nuclear weapons aimed at the western world. After all, the zionist state had already succeeded in conning the west into believing that iran poses the same nuclear threat to the west as saddam was supposed to have done. “Beyond the Arab world, U.S. policy on Iran is dictated more or less totally by Israel.” (Kathleen Christison ‘The US as Israel's Enabler in the Middle East’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02162011.html February 16, 2011).

There are, of course, those who would scoff at the idea of jewish lobbies in the west corrupting western political principles, values, and national interests by trying to turn western public opinion against young, middle class, egyptian protestors in order to promote the strategic interests of the jews-only state. There are those who would be scornful of the idea of western zionist politicians pretending to pursue their country’s national interests whilst in reality undermining such interests for the sake of protecting the zionist state in palestine. And there are those who would dismiss the idea that much of the western media is owned, managed, or manned by zionists whose primary political goal is protecting a foreign state even if this is at the expense of the country in which they are living and working.[xiv] Surely the west cannot be dominated to such an extent by zionists putting the interests of a foreign state above that of the countries they are supposedly protecting?

The truth of these accusations is all too easy to appreciate when it is considered that the ruling elites throughout the western world have never mentioned that the jews-only state developed nuclear weapons in the 1960s. It is easy to measure the scale of zionist domination over the western world by the fact that no politician/commentator has been willing to mention zionists’ nukes. Even though this has been the most critical factor in middle eastern politics, western politicians/commentators ignore their existence and assiduously formulate policies on the grounds of their non-existence. They prefer to promote fantasies about saddam’s nuclear weapons, and more recently iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons, rather than telling the truth about zionists all too real nuclear weapons.[xv] What could be further from the west’s national interests than ignoring the threat that zionists’ nukes pose to the west?

Any visitor from outer space analyzing the views of the west’s mainstream politicians/commentators would be astounded to discover they were promoting foreign policies in the middle east that ran counter to western humanitarian values, political principles, and economic interests. That the west could support the zionists’ hideous oppression of palestinians shows that its humanitarian values are vacuous, that its political principles are a sham, and that its economic interests are being undermined because the palestinians, just like all arab people being oppressed by arab dictators, are being denied the right to establish businesses that would promote economic growth both nationally and globally. The west’s support for zionist colonialism and zionist domination over the middle east is shameful, grossly undemocratic, and counter to its economic interests.[xvi]

Hypothetically speaking, it was a fortunate that in 1948 zionists didn’t create a zionist state in the centre of europe, perhaps in place of Switzerland. If they had they would have inflicted on westerners the same miseries they have inflicted on arabs. They would have created zionist quisling dictatorships across the continent to defend their interests. European countries would have found themselves as impoverished as those in the arab world. America would also be poorer without its current vast trade with europe. Zionist politicians would have spent the next half century undermining the idea of neighbouring countries establishing democracies because of the threat they would supposedly pose to the security of the zionist state. They would have denounced european patriots seeking to liberate their country from zionist dictators as terrorists. Of course, on the bright side, if the zionist state had been founded in central europe, then the islamic world from morocco through to tajikistan would now be almost totally democratic and economically booming.[xvii] But, then again, zionist lobbies would have doubtlessly infiltrated these wealthy arab democracies and sought to develop an ideological alliance with them, based on a pseudo judeo-arabic civilization, invoking europhobia in order to win their support for propping up quisling zionist dictatorships across the european continent. It has to be suspected, however, that these rich arab democracies wouldn’t have been so gullible as to believe that it was in their economic and political interests to perpetuate fabulously wealthy, european dictators ransacking their impoverished economies. The zionist state is a black hole decimating democratic aspirations and economic opportunities in surrounding countries in order to preserve its economic and military supremacism.

What was so marvelous about egyptians’ uprising was not merely the overthrow of a tyrant, but the overthrow of a zionist puppet who’d been imposed upon them by the zionist state and its gigantic american satellite. It was also the western public’s refusal to be manipulated by zionists’ propaganda onslaught against the uprising. Many ordinary people continued to sympathize with the egyptian protestors despite zionist politicians/editors/commentators and jewish lobbies doing their best to provoke yet another wave of islamophobia. The efforts of the west’s zionist leaders to insist that western governments should continue propping up mubarak, and thereby keep sacrificing the lives of tens of millions of egyptians, was a revolting example of naked zionist self-interest. Fortunately, the more determined that protestors in egypt became to rid themselves of a zionist tyrant, the more the western public sympathized with their aspirations, the more revolting these reactionary zionists politicians/commentators/lobbyists appeared to become.

Yet again the zionists in the western world showed themselves to be a bunch of reactionary traitors who not merely supported a tyrant at the expense of people wanting democratic institutions but who were willing to sacrifice the interests of the countries they were living and working in for the sake of their beloved zionist state. Western zionists in politics and the media constantly denounce western moslems for their alleged dual loyalties but the uprising in egypt revealed they have no such duality: they are devoted to the interests of a foreign state.

During the eyptian uprising, it cannot be said, however, that all western politicians were total shrills to the zionist cause. President obama initially supported the uprising but was quickly forced to recant under pressure from the zionist think tanks dug in on the lawns of the white house. He sent a personal envoy to the paroah, supposedly to have a chat about him taking early retirement but, after the meeting, the envoy publicly announced that mubarak should stay in office. “After turning against Mubarak, he suddenly opined that he must stay in power, in order to carry out democratic reforms. As his representative he sent to Egypt a retired diplomat whose current employer is a law firm that represents the Mubarak family (much as Bill Clinton used to send committed Jewish Zionists to “mediate” between Israel and the Palestinians).” (Uri Avnery ‘Tsunami in Egypt’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery02142011.html February 14, 2011).

However, obama would not be beaten into submission by zionist politicians/media/lobbies. On the morning of thursday february 10, 2011, it was reported that mubarak would announce his retirement that evening. Obama couldn’t hide his jubilation even though he knew this would provoke zionist scorn and, sooner or later, revenge. When mubarak finally resigned who could doubt the adoration obama heaped upon the egyptian protestors? His speech outlined with crystal clarity the best of western political principles and values. Those who opposed egypt’s western style protestors were nothing less than un-american and anti-western traitors. It was all too symbolic that after his enforced resignation mubarak moved to a part of egypt which is as close to the zionist state as he could get without actually leaving the country. Clearly he feared that if the egyptian people launched a violent uprising which threatened his life and that of his family, then their safe haven would be only a few miles away.[xviii] Doubtlessly the zionist state would have welcomed into its midst yet another criminal with vast amounts of wealth just as it had done with robert maxwell and the russian oligarchs not to mention a few american-jews who’d fled there to escape justice in america.

There were two factors that might have persuaded mubarak to stay on in power albeit, in the end, only for less than 24 hours. Firstly, ehud barack, the zionists’ defence minister, flew to washington to denounce the obama administration for showing concern for the aspirations of egyptian protestors when it should have supported mubarak in crushing the uprising – doubtlessly with the same ferocity as the zionist state crushed palestinian protests.[xix] Secondly, the saudi leader, fearing an uprising in his own personal fiefdom, offered to fund mubarak’s armed forces if the obama administration ever decided to withdraw its annual funding for the egyptian military.[xx] These dramatic interventions must have convinced mubarak he still had enough international support to survive.

The State of Global Politics

So what does the egyptian uprising indicate about the state of global politics? America is commonly recognized as the only remaining superpower. Some commentators go much further and refer to it as an american empire. But most american politicians couldn’t muster the political power to celebrate egyptians’ democratic protests because of the pressure being exerted on them by the zionist state and its vastly wealthy allies in america. When american politicians turned their backs on people who seemed to be trying to replicate american values and democratic institutions this suggests there are profoundly suspicious factors at work. The reality is that america’s ruling elite consists substantially of zionists who care more about the zionist state in palestine than they do about america or american democracy and that they are willing to use american military power to promote that foreign state no matter how much it undermines america’s military capabilities or the country’s financial resources and political prestige around the world.

Since the end of the cold war, the key global strategic criterion guiding the west’s formulation of political policies has increasingly become whether these policies enhance or detract from the security of the zionist state in palestine.[xxi] Whether this political phenomenon can be categorized as a global zionist empire or zionist world domination is open to debate but when the west goes out of its way to prop up a tiny, virulently aggressive, illegal, colonial state with no raw resources and a tiny population of 6 million, and thereby alienates a multiplicity of arab/islamic countries with vast quantities of natural resources and a combined population of hundreds of millions, it has to be one or the other.

Over the last sixty years, the zionist state has heaped a flood of humiliations upon american presidents and politicians. These are humiliations that the powerful inflict on the powerless, not the pin pricks that satellite states occasionally inflict on their colonial masters. No american president has dared to criticize let alone insult political leaders in the zionist state but zionist politicians insult american presidents with impunity because they know that america’s zionist lobby is powerful enough to prevent american presidents from seeking revenge.

It doesn’t matter what shameful, disgusting, or downright criminal, acts the zionist state carries out whether this might be starving palestinians into submission, denying them medical supplies, slaughtering innocent people, or even attacking american military ships such as the u.s.s. liberty, american politicians cheer it on and protect it in the united nations. There is no barbarism carried out by the zionist state that american politicians have not slavishly defended to their utmost. There is no limit to the amount of hatred they are willing to suffer for the sake of by defending the barbarity of the zionist state. The zionist state beats its american Dog whenever it wants and the poor Dog’s inbred loyalty just keeps leading it back to its master for more abuse and punishment. It is a testimony to the zionist domination in america, that the zionist state can repeatedly humiliate american presidents and yet the American public shows no sense of patriotic anger about it.

Hannah arendt coined the phrase ‘the boomerang effect’ when colonial/imperial powers suffered ethically, financially, politically, and militarily, because of the appalling activities of their colonists/imperialists in foreign countries. America has suffered considerably, militarily, financially, and in terms of its political reputation, for its contribution to the growth of the zionist empire – the holding of american hostages during the first islamic revolution in iran, the wars against saddam hussein, the attacks of september 11, 2001 and the invasion of afghanistan. And yet still the american Dog faithfully serves its master.

Another, even more stark indicator that america is a gigantic satellite of the zionist state is that no american president has been able to limit, let alone withdraw, what are frequently referred to as subsidies to the zionist state in order to punish it for its misdeeds. The reason for this is that these are not subsidies but tribute payments. Satellites are supposed to make tribute payments to their colonial/imperial powers, not vice versa and this is precisely what is happening when america hands over vast sums of money to the zionist state which it then uses in whatever way it thinks fit even if it embarrasses america.

Even more critical for appreciating america’s subservient role to the zionist master is that america has no influence over the zionist state’s domestic policies especially those affecting the palestinians. Indeed, it could be argued the zionist state has more influence over america’s domestic policies than the reverse. And the same is true in terms of foreign policies. America has little control over zionists’ foreign policies but zionists have a critical influence over america’s foreign policies. America’s foreign policies are being determined by its so-called satellite across an ever increasing area of the world not merely the middle east nor even the greater middle east but the entire moslem world. “… Israel is at the center of virtually every move the United States makes in the region.” (Kathleen Christison ‘The US as Israel's Enabler in the Middle East’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02162011.html February 16, 2011). [xxii]

Prospects for Democracy in Egypt

The prospects for democracy in egypt do not look good but, then again, just a few months ago the prospects for overthrowing mubarak seemed non-existent.[xxiii] The egyptian uprising seemed to be an entirely modern, high tech, liberation brought about with the aid of mobile phones and social networking websites. Such websites are notorious for organizing spontaneous, one-off, anarchic, street parties so whether they are suitable for formulating a revolution has yet to be seen. However, the protests seemed so highly co-ordinated and tactically astute, successfully managing to maintain the momentum of the protests despite the efforts made to counter them, that this bodes well for the next, much more difficult, stage of founding democratic institutions.[xxiv]

Although social networking websites creep into the public domain the egyptian protestors seemed to be able to organize themselves either without the authorities and international secret agencies being aware of what they were doing or, if the authorities were aware, of being unable to counter what the protestors were doing. [xxv] Little is known about the protestors or what motivated them. Western commentators are only now beginning to ascertain such motivations. “It's fair to say that at this stage the Egyptian street keeps close to its heart those that supported it, from al-Jazeera and assorted Arab nationalists to Hezbollah in Lebanon. And knows very well those that despised it - from the House of Saud and assorted Wahhabi extremists to Israel. No one will forget that Saudi King Abdullah accused the street of "meddling in the security and stability of Arab and Muslim Egypt".” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011).

Having been so successful in liberating themselves, it is to be hoped they can take the next revolutionary step. Whether they will be able to do so is difficult to assess especially since the protestors relinquished their main political leverage, the occupation of tahrir square, within days of the pharaoh’s overthrow. It has to be suspected that the egyptian army will be reluctant to stop issuing communiqués. “There's no way a new Egypt may be born without overthrowing this whole system. Ergo, the street has to take on the army. Expect major fireworks ahead. Forget about the army swiftly handing over power to a civilian-led interim government.” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011).

However, egypt’s protestors face an even more insidious enemy than the egyptian army - the zionist state and its global allies who will pressure the army to stay in power. The zionist state will do its utmost to restore another zionist quisling as dictator. The zionists may have been thrown off guard by the spontaneity of egypt’s struggle for liberation but they are not going to allow the much longer, and far more complex, process of establishing democracy to proceed without doing their best to manipulate events in order to restore their power. Watch out for fabrications such as ‘Iraqi soldiers bayonet babies in incubators’.

In a future democracy, egyptians may wish to change or abandon the camp david accords. They may refuse to continue supporting the siege of gaza, the continuing war crimes against the palestinian people, and the zionist colonization of palestine They may refuse zionist ships passage through the suez canal,[xxvi] and stop subsidizing gas exports to the zionist state.[xxvii] They may oppose zionist wars against its neighbours and its regional supremacism.[xxviii] They will want to develop new, independent, foreign policies. Such policy changes would be unacceptable to the zionist state but there may be even worse to follow. Faced with dwindling fossil fuel resources, the egyptian people will invariably demand precisely what westerners enjoy and what the iranian people also want: nuclear energy. This will almost certainly lead to demands for the acquisition of nuclear weapons to ensure their military defence and bring about a less unbalanced military situation in the middle east.

Although such changes in egypt may not be in the least bit detrimental to the long term interests of the zionist state, they would certainly be perceived as anathema by the current bunch of warmongers occupying palestine. From the perspective of the warmongering zionist state it would lose too much for it to allow democratic reforms in egypt especially if this might lead to the country acquiring nuclear weapons. They will deem it imperative to scupper any move to democracy in favour of restoring a zionist quisling who would once again put zionist interests before those of the egyptian people.

The west’s values, political principles, and national interests, would be best served through the creation of a democratic egypt similar to that in turkey. Its primary strategic concern would be the suez canal but given egyptians’ open attitude to the west this shouldn’t be a problem. The west doesn’t have to fear egypt’s development of an independent foreign policy – only those suffering from zionist paranoia would fear the worst.[xxix] But given zionist domination of america’s political system, zionist propagandists will doubtlessly terrify american politicians and the american public by conjuring up even more fantastical islamic bogeymen in egypt. The foundation of freedom in egypt is thus a test of zionist world domination. ZIonists may have lost out because of the egyptian uprising, and the refusal of a significant part of western public opinion to denounce egyptian freedom fighters, but they will certainly try to restore their dominance.

After the second world war, the cold war became the primary global political preoccupation. The foundation of the zionist state was a relatively insignificant issue in the worldwide competition for global supremacy. But during this time the zionists’ military successes led them install pliant arab dictators and to use islamophobia to whip up opposition against palestinian freedom fighters and hostile moslem states across the african-asian continents. After the demise of the cold war, the west’s zionist ruling elites, its zionist owned media, and its zionist lobbies succeeded in pressuring western politicians into adopting their islamophobia. Western political leaders increasingly see zionist colonialism as their own cause. Zionists’ achievement of manipulating the west, and the rest of the world including russia and china who also have their islamic minorities who object to their second class status, into adopting the zionist creed is the most blatant manifestation of zionist global dominion. After the demise of the russian empire, many commentators in the west wondered what the next global conflict would be since both superpowers seemed to rely on a cold war conflict to keep their military-industrial complexes in profit and an ideology that unified their peoples. Many thought it might be china or asian tigers. The zionists have successfully conned the west into supporting Zionism against fictitious islamic bogeymen. The best way that people in the west can help egyptian protestors to defeat their adversaries i.e. the egyptian army and zionist colonialists, is to challenge zionist dominance at home.

Notes

---

[i] Some commentators have suggested the uprising was not entirely political but had economic roots. “… turning the story into a fairytale about democracy. Rage over food costs played a major role in getting people out into the streets.” (Matthew Wild ‘Peak Oil, Climate Change, Political Turmoil: The Lesson From Egypt’ http://countercurrents.org/wild150211.htm February 15, 2011). There is much to be said for environmentalism and the impact that global burning is having around the world but, as will be noted, just as the moslem brotherhood didn’t get involved in the protests until the last minute, so the same was also true of egypt’s workers. Industrial strikes may have played a critical contribution to the eventual success of the uprising but they did not seem to initiate it.

[ii] "The hysteria in American media about Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is not only ignorant and demagogic, it is hypocritical.” (Juan Cole ‘Fear Not the Muslim Brotherhood Boogeyman’ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/fear_not_the_muslim_brotherhood_boogeyman_20110215 February 15, 2011); “Such a hostile attitude toward the MB is also unfounded. As Nathan Brown describes them, “a lot of their program is just standard reform stuff—independence of the judiciary, the end of corruption, protecting the environment. Especially when they got more political over the last 10 years or so, what they really began to push was a very general reform language that takes Islamic coloration in some areas. But an awful lot of it is consistent with other reform programs coming from reformists all over the political spectrum.”” (Elizabeth Shakman Hurd ‘Misrepresenting Egypt – the Mubarak myth of “secular” vs “Islamic”’ http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/02/14/guestview-misrepresenting-egypt-the-mubarak-myth-of-secular-vs-islamic/ February 14, 2011).

[iii] “Indeed Israel's own reaction to the momentous events in Egypt, that this might not be the time for democracy in Egypt (thus allowing it to keep the title of "the only democracy in the Middle East"), has been as implausible as it has been self-defeating.” (Robert Fisk ‘Hypocrisy Is Exposed By The Wind Of Change’ http://countercurrents.org/fisk100211.htm February 10, 2011); “Israeli leaders have made it clear they oppose elections in Egypt on general principle, and believe that an elected government would end the 1979 peace deal. This does not, of course, mean that a war would break out, but a number of Egyptians are unhappy with restrictions the deal places on travel in Sinai, and well as obliging them to comply with the Gaza blockade.” (Jason Ditz ‘Netanyahu on Egypt: Israel Must ‘Prepare for Worst’ http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/16/netanyahu-on-egypt-israel-must-prepare-for-worst/ February 16, 2011).

[iv] “In 2006, during the Israeli war on Lebanon, Mubarak argued that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah was an adventurer who had done Lebanon a great disservice by going to war against Israel - words that echoed what had been said in Riyadh.” (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011).

[v] “As far as he (mubarak) was concerned, given Iran’s alliance with Hamas, if the Palestinian group was not crushed, he would eventually have Egyptian borders not with Gaza, but with the Islamic Republic of Iran. That is why he struck with an iron fist, sealing the Rafah crossing into Gaza, preventing pro-Hamas demonstrations in Egypt, and urging Israel - behind closed doors - to continue in its war, hoping that they could crush the Islamic resistance in Palestine. (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011).

[vi] “Mubarak sent shockwaves throughout Iran when he appeared on al-Arabiyya TV in 2006 and said that Shi'ites of the Arab world were more loyal to Iran than they were to their own countries, echoing what King Abdullah of Jordan had earlier described as a "Shi'ite crescent".” (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011).

[vii] “As WikiLeaks revealed, Mubarak was one of the loudest advocates of a US (or Israeli) strike on Tehran …” (Justin Raimondo ‘It’s Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…’ http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011).

[viii] “... re-examining the export of natural gas to Israel at subsidized rates …” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011).

[ix] “Egypt, formerly an oil exporter that was self-sufficient in food, now imports both – and cannot afford to feed itself.” (Matthew Wild ‘Peak Oil, Climate Change, Political Turmoil: The Lesson From Egypt’ http://countercurrents.org/wild150211.htm February 15, 2011); “The nation, whose arable land is only the size of Maryland, cannot feed its 84-85 million people and has become the world’s largest wheat importer through a major U.S. food-aid program, authorized by Congress—a program that has been rife with egregious illegalities and kickbacks.” (Eric Margolis ‘Fall of the Raj’ http://www.amconmag.com/blog/fall-of-the-raj/ February 17, 2011).

[x] “It’s interesting to note that Hosni Mubarak, holed up in his presidential palace at the height of the protests, put in a call not to the US State Department, or the White House, but to a member of the Israeli Knesset, one Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a former cabinet minister who dealt with the Egyptian tyrant during the negotiations that set up the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It’s Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…’ http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011).

[xi] “… the highly influential leading pro-Israel organizations in the US (AIPAC, the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations) and their army of scribes have mobilized congressional leaders to pressure the White House to continue backing Mubarak, as Israel is the prime beneficiary of a dictator who is at the throat of the Egyptians (and Palestinians) and at the feet of the Jewish state.” (James Petras ‘Washington Faces the Arab Revolts: Sacrificing Dictators to Save the State’ February 10, 2011).

[xii] “The Brotherhood joined this year’s protest movement only at the last minute and was not a leading force in it.” (Juan Cole ‘Fear Not the Muslim Brotherhood Boogeyman’ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/fear_not_the_muslim_brotherhood_boogeyman_20110215 February 15, 2011).

[xiii] “Fox News has already told its viewers in America that the Muslim Brotherhood, about the "softest" of Islamist groups in the Middle East, is behind the brave men and women who have dared to resist the state security police ...” (Robert Fisk ‘Hypocrisy Is Exposed By The Wind Of Change’ http://countercurrents.org/fisk100211.htm February 10, 2011).

In the united kingdom, jane corbin, married to a member of the house of lords who is a prominent member of the british zionist lobby, produced another panorama special, bbc1, february 07, 2011, on the unfolding situation in egypt. Egyptian protestors welcomed her behind the scenes to give her a first hand experience of the violence they faced but, when entering tahrir square, she stated she was just going to meet the moslem brotherhood “organizing the protests”. The cute and cuddly but ferociously conventional, andrew neil, one of the bbc’s top political commentators, repeatedly ask his interviewees whether the west should be supporting egyptian protestors when it might lead to islamic extremists i.e. the moslem brotherhood or even al quaeda, gaining political power.

[xiv] In britain the most blatant example of this was robert maxwell who used his publishing empire to denounce moredechai vanunu’s expose of the jews-only state’s nuclear weapons industry. He also contributed enormously to whipping up anti-saddam fervour in the months leading up to the first gulf war. He not only looted british workers’ pensions but after his suicide was given a state funeral in Jerusalem. He also received state honours for the services he’d rendered, not to britain where he’d become a thief and an outcast, but to the jewish state.

[xv] Over the last decade zionists in the west have launched a torrent of criticisms against iran for having (non-existent) nuclear weapons. By refusing to mention the jews-only state’s nukes their insistence that iran is developing nuclear weapons makes iran seem like the aggressor when, in reality, the acquisition of such weapons would be entirely defensive. Such criticisms seem even more ridiculous given that if iran wanted to develop such weapons it could easily use the rationale employed by british politicians in the 1980s. They continually rebuffed demands for unilateral nuclear disarmament by arguing that britain had to have nuclear weapons to counter russia’s huge nuclear arsenal. Why do these same politicians now refuse to accept that iran has the same right to defend itself against the jews-only state’s nukes? Is it not entirely understandable that the iranian people want nuclear weapons to defend themselves from the threat of nuclear annihilation by the war mongers running the jews-only state? Objectively speaking, iran’s most powerful motive for acquiring nukes is to defend itself from zionist nuclear warmongers.

[xvi] Historically, british democracy evolved around the issue of property rights. Those with property wanted political rights in order to protect their property and their profits. For many centuries the right to vote was based solely upon the ownership of sizeable landholdings. The right to own property and not have it confiscated was the backbone of british politics. Echoes of these past developments still reverberate in contemporary british politics in many ways. Most parliamentarians see one of their main duties as protecting property rights. They are proud of living in what they call a property owning democracy. But these property owning democrats would never dream of condemning the zionist state for confiscating palestinian property. Tory politicians were outraged when a local farmer was convicted of murdering and maiming robbers intent on stealing his property and insisted he had the right to defend his property. But this is not a right they would extend to palestinians.

[xvii] This is a feasible scenario. The egyptians had a democracy in the 1950s before it was overthrown by a military coup and the eventual rise of abdul nasser. Iran had a democracy until, in 1953, bp and the cia conspired to overthrow the mossadegh government. And in 1991 in algeria’s moderate islamists won a landslide victory before “Paris and Washington quickly backed the Algerian army in crushing the vote and jailing its victors.” (Eric Margolis ‘Fall of the Raj’ http://www.amconmag.com/blog/fall-of-the-raj/ February 17, 2011). The army launched a wholesale slaughter of islamists in which tens of thousands of innocent people lost their lives. Hamas too was elected by free and fair elections until the zionists decided to quosh the result. Hezbollah has been demanding greater democratic participation in lebanon. Turkey is currently the great beacon of democracy in the Islamic world. If these countries, some of the biggest in the islamic world, had managed to ensure the survival of their democracies this would have helped to spread democracy around the region. This, in turn, would have enabled such countries to boost economic growth and national prosperity.

[xviii] The same point has been made by eric margolis. “It was no coincidence that Mubarak holed up at Sharm el-Sheikh in Sinai, a short helicopter ride to Israel.” (Eric Margolis ‘Fall of the Raj’ http://www.amconmag.com/blog/fall-of-the-raj/ February 17, 2011).

[xix] “Israel's military chief Ehud Barak has expressed concern that if power transition happens quickly in Egypt, Muslim brotherhood (MB) will come into power. Following a Thursday statement by the embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the Israeli official, who is in Washington, emphasized on the need to prevent Egypt from falling into the hands of what he described as ‘extremists’€ saying the country needs more time for change. “The real winners of any short-term election, let's say within 90 days, will be the (opposition) Muslim Brotherhood,”€ Reuters quoted Barak as saying.” (‘Israel vows fear of MB's gain in Egypt’ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/Israel-vows-fear-of-MBs-gain-in-Egypt.html February 11, 2011).

[xx] “On Thursday morning Mubarak probably told Suleiman and the US that he was going to quit, then forgot and, braced by a supportive call from the Israelis and a pledge by the Saudis to give him $1.4 billion if the US withheld it, announced that he would be around till September.” (Alexander Cockburn ‘Ain't That Good News!’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02112011.html February 11 - 13, 2011). The zonists, americans, and saudis have worked together for many years e.g. in propping up the lebanese government. The zionists got their American muppets to give feldman the job as ambassador to lebanon so that he could act as their point man in the country. He struts around diminishing areas of the country like a zionist viceroy issuing orders to his lebanese subjects.

[xxi] “A transformative uprising in Egypt or Tunisia comes to be seen as being about Israel ..."” (James Zogby ‘Politics and Nonsense on Egypt’ http://www.counterpunch.org/zogby02112011.html February 11 - 13, 2011).

[xxii] Alexander cockburn talks about “the American Empire” even in the same article where he points out the realities of modern american politics. “… the White House is being besieged by the Israel Lobby which is following the script being hysterically written in the press in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, with headlines such as "We're on our own," "Obama's betrayal of Mubarak," and "A bullet in the back from Uncle Sam.” (Alexander Cockburn ‘The God That's Failing’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02042011.html February 4 - 6, 2011).

It seems as if its too much to expect lefties, even compassionate ones such as alexander cockburn, to change their weltanschaaung and rid themselves of such redundant phrases as the american empire. Those on the left continually argue that one of the best means for understanding political power is to follow the money and yet they refuse to accept the conclusions that are derived from such an analysis. America gives huge amounts of money, both directly and indirectly, to the jews-only state. Even mubarak subsidized the zionist state through cheap gas exports. The answer to the question of which country is the master and which is the slave becomes even more blatant if the left’s follow the trail maxim is explored in terms of who initiates global policies. Anyone who explores a ‘follow the source and distribution of the policy’ analysis will discover that, over the last forty years or so, by far and away the biggest proportion of the west’s foreign policies have originated in the zionist state. Whilst for a decade the americans praised saddam as their dictator, the zionists were condemning him as a menace to their security. When saddam positioned his army on the kuwaiti border for three weeks the bush administration said nothing seeing an invasion as iraq’s reward for the terrible losses it suffered waging its eight year long war against iran. But, once the invasion took place, the zionist lobby succeeded in forcing bush into betraying his close ally and waging war against him. The idea that iran is pursuing nuclear weapons originated as a paranoid zionist fantasy.

On the other side of the political spectrum, justin raimondo knows all too well the political power the jewish lobby in america and the threat it poses to anyone who highlights its dominance of american politics. Whilst he often argues the zionist state dominates american foreign policy he sprinkles his work with enough caveats about zionist domination to deter the zionist lobby from exacting revenge. “Change is coming to the Middle East, whether the Israelis, or their American patrons, like it or not. And these changes will necessitate a change in US foreign policy, which up until now has been cravenly Israeli-centric.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It’s Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…’ http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011).

[xxiii] The egyptian people faced formidable odds in trying to rid themselves of mubarak because of the vast security apparatus at his disposal. According to james petras, this consisted of not merely the 468,500 members of the egyptian army but 325,000 in the central security forces and 60,000 in mubarak’s own personal presidential guard.

[xxiv] Sami moubayed rather naively takes it for granted that the democracy is on its way to egypt. “Mubarak was a dictator while the new president will certainly be elected to office through a parliamentary democracy and not stay in power for more than two terms. The ex-president was hostile to Hamas and Hezbollah and was radically pro-American and pro-Israeli. The new president will probably be way less pro-American or pro-Israeli than his predecessor, which makes him by default, closer to resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.” (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011).

[xxv] “The House and senate committees on intelligence are grilling defensive personnel of the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) for their alleged failure to catch the pulse of youth movements and online chat rooms, which ended up damaging US assets in the Middle East much more than violent Islamist terrorist cells of al-Qaeda.’ (Sreeram Chaulia ‘The spies who got it wrong’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB19Ak02.html February 19, 2011); “The Mossad, pride and joy of Hollywood producers, presented as a ‘model of efficiency’ by their organized Zionist colleagues, were not able to detect the growth of a mass movement in a country right next door. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was shocked (and dismayed) by the precarious situation of Mubarak and the collapse of his most prominent Arab client – because of Mossad’s faulty intelligence. Likewise, Washington was totally unprepared by the 27 US intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, with their hundreds of thousands of paid operatives and multi-billion dollar budgets, of the forthcoming massive popular uprisings and emerging movements.” (James Petras ‘Egypt: Social Movements,the Cia and Mossad – February 16, 2011).

[xxvi] Zionists seem to believe they control who uses the suez canal. “Financial markets the world over are in turmoil and Brent North Sea Crude has reached a new short-term high today after Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman accused Iran of planning to send two warships through the Suez Canal later this evening and suggested this could provoke an Israeli attack on the nation.” (Jason Ditz ‘Israeli FM Threatens War With Iran Over Suez Warship Claim’ http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/16/israeli-fm-threatens-war-with-iran-over-suez-warship-claim/ February 16, 2011).

[xxvii] “Things may start at a minimum with lifting the siege of Gaza and re-examining the export of natural gas to Israel at subsidized rates; then they will move to reconsidering the safe passage of the US Navy in the Suez Canal and finally rediscuss the holy of holies - the 1979 Camp David accords with Israel.” .” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011).

[xxviii] “With Egypt out of the picture and indeed often assisting, Israel has been free to launch military assaults on several of its neighbors, including Lebanon twice and Gaza and the West Bank repeatedly, and free to expand settlements, absorb Palestinian territory, and severely oppress Palestinians without fear of retaliation or even significant disagreement from any Arab army.” (Kathleen Christison ‘The US as Israel's Enabler in the Middle East’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02162011.html February 16, 2011).

[xxix] Pepe escobar suspects that, “Way beyond the inevitable clash in Egypt of demographic explosion and economic crisis, what is literally freaking out the West is that its elites know what the vast majority of Egyptians don't want. A truly democratic, sovereign Egyptian government cannot possibly remain a slave of US foreign policy.” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011). Raimondo shows similar concerns, “As WikiLeaks revealed, Mubarak was one of the loudest advocates of a US (or Israeli) strike on Tehran: with the despot deposed, that kind of political support for military action will no longer be forthcoming. This is a major blow to the War Party in the United States, and this alone justifies opponents of US intervention cheering the Egyptian revolution no matter what kind of government comes to power.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It’s Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…’ http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011).

Obama wins in America but is soundly defeated in the Jews-only State in Palestine.

The Likudniks lose out thrice in America’s 2008 presidential election.
Members of america’s ruling jewish elite funded all the country’s mainstream candidates in the 2008 presidential election.(1) Although this hedge funding strategy meant the likudniks couldn’t fail to get one of their candidates elected as president, they still lost three significant battles during the course of the election campaign.

The likudniks’ favoured candidate in the contest for the democratic party’s nomination for president was hillary clinton. Her defeat by obama proved to be the likudniks’ first electoral setback.

In the republican party, mccain’s personal choice for vice presidential running mate was joe lieberman, a rock solid zionist who would have been a prominent member of the likudnik party in occupied palestine if he’d moved back home. Thus, when karl rove pressured mccain into appointing sarah palin as the republicans’ nominee for the vice presidency, the likudniks lost a second time.

Mccain’s appointment of palin was intended to increase the republican party’s chances of mobilizing more christian zionists to vote in the presidential election. In the short term, the appointment proved popular and boosted the republican party in the opinion polls. However, it also led many american jews to desert mccain for obama and their votes helped elect him as america’s 44th president.

The lukudniks’ preferred candidate in the presidential election was john mccain. The same was also true in 2000 when bush beat mccain to the republican nomination for the presidency. The reason the likudniks sided with mccain was not merely his devotion to the jews-only state in palestine, his islamophobia, his reckless support for american military action against iran in support of the jews-only state, but his willingness to embark on further proxy zionist wars leading to world war three whose primary objective is the enhancement of jewish supremacism in the greater middle east.

In stark contrast, during his rise to power obama had made various, albeit isolated, statements that had not been wholly favourable to the zionist state. He hinted about his sympathies for the suffering of the palestinian people; that he wanted peace in palestine; that he didn’t need to be a likudnik to support the zionist state;.and he hinted about talking to iran.(2)

Many jews in palestine were petrified by such attitudes. Jewish leaders were fearful that talks with iran could prove dangerous to the survival of the racist state. "Leading Israeli officials are concerned that if the United States begins talks with Iran in an effort to halt its nuclear program and development of additional nuclear programs in the Middle East, Washington will call for restrictions on Israel's nuclear capability as well. Such concerns are heightened by the support expressed by Obama and Hillary Clinton, who is expected to be appointed secretary of state, for global nuclear disarmament, a plan raised by four top American foreign policy officials: former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former defense secretary William Perry and former senator Sam Nunn." (Aluf Benn ‘Israel asks Bush to explain its 'special relationship' with U.S. to Obama’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1040967.html November 26, 2008). More fundamentally, if the obama administration started talking to ahmadeinejad, it might discover it has far more interests in common with iran than with the zionist state. Objectively, as far as america has been concerned over the last half century, propping up the racist state has proved to be a geopolitical nightmare, whilst an alliance with iran would prove to be a huge geopolitical bonanza.

Likudnik traitors in america provided some of the most vicious denunciations of obama during his campaign for the nomination of the democratic party and his campaign for the presidency. "The whispering campaign against Obama was first started by Sen. Hillary Clinton and continued thereafter by a consortium of Republican operatives, all directly or indirectly impugning Obama was a closet Muslim, shamelessly using the term in the pejorative, and ergo, dangerous. In September, a shadowy ‘nonprofit’ organization called The Clarion Fund (subsequently discovered to be synonymous with the fundamentalist Israeli group Aish HaTorah or "Fire of the Torah") distributed the anti-Muslim DVD "Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West" to 28 million households. It was a transparent attempt to bolster Sen. John McCain’s chances in battleground states using fear-mongering tactics." (Rannie Amiri ‘The Blue and White Elephant in the Oval Office: Dual Loyalties Will Doom Obama’ http://www.counterpunch.com/amiri11172008.html November 17, 2008).(3)

Whatever obama’s panderings to the jewish lobby in america and to the jews-only state in palestine, he seemed suspect to many jews and american likukudniks in comparison to mccain’s total absorption into likudnik causes. As a consequence, although obama won the political and financial backing of a number of likudniks, he was not the america jewish lobby’s ideal candidate.(4)

The likudniks lost out for the third, and most important, time when obama defeated mccain for the presidency. In effect they had to settle for their fourth choice. Given this threefold defeat, the jewish lobby clearly did not enjoy a totally successful intervention into america’s recent presidential election campaign.

The likudniks would love to elect a president who was totally committed to their cause. However, their failure to do so is not critical to their continuing exercise of political power and influence in america. This can be seen plainly as regards george w bush’s presidency. In the contest for the presidential election in 2000, the likudniks favoured candidate was john mccain but their failure to get him elected did not prove to be a major political setback because they had at their disposal the zionist dominated congress and the zionist dominated american media to pressure bush into implementing many of their policies. As far as the likudniks are concerned, getting their anointed candidate elected as president of the united states would be a major bonus but the key to maintaining their political power in america is maintaining their grip over congress and the media. With the aid of the american knesset and the zionist dominated mainstream media, the jewish lobby can pressure the president into implementing most of their policies.

The impact of Obama’s election on the Jews-only state in Palestine.
America’s 2008 presidential election had a critical impact on domestic politics in the rogue state where most jews fancied john mccain as president and were decidedly wary of, if not hostile to, obama despite his efforts to woo them over.

Over the summer, mccain maintained a slight lead in opinion polls on the presidential race. However, in august, the credit crunch hit america. As banks collapsed and economic misery began to spread, mccain’s presidential campaign faltered whilst obama’s popularity began to rise. In palestine, olmert continued to govern whilst benjamin netanhayu languished on the political sidelines. The likudniks needed to boost their political prospects. One of mccain’s likudnik funders decided to feed information to the jewish press about olmert’s acceptance of bribes and, in september 2008, the prime minister was forced to resign. After livni failed to establish a new coalition government, olmert announced the date for a general election thereby giving netanhayu a chance to return to power. By sheer luck, netanhayu’s prospects for winning the jewish elections were helped considerably by political changes taking place in america.

The more likely it seemed that obama would win the american presidency, the more it produced a counter-reaction amongst the jewish electorate in occupied palestine. Jewish racists didn’t like obama and the more extreme they were, the more they hated him. Firstly, because, given the sharp racial stratification of jewish society, they were frightened by a so-called black president. Secondly, because they didn’t like his policies. They didn’t want peace negotiations with palestinians, let alone hamas. They didn’t want talks with iran, hezbollah, or syria, and any american presidential candidate who even hinted he would be willing to pursue peace with their ‘enemies’ was deemed suspect.(5) And, thirdly, many seemed to believe that if obama was elected then they wanted someone with the forceful character and extreme views to block obama’s efforts towards peace. For the last couple of decades, jews in occupied palestine have extracted huge political, economic, and military, tribute payments from america because successive jewish prime ministers have intimidated american presidents into helping their jewish ally. They believed netanhayu was the politician most likely to extract concessions from obama. Thus, te more likely it seemed that obama would win the american presidential election, the greater became netanhayu’s popularity.

Ehud olmert, tzipi livni, and ehud barak, watched obama inadvertently boost netanyahu’s popularity. They knew that if obama was elected in november then netanhayu’s popularity might accelerate at their expense. As soon as it became obvious that obama was going to win the presidential election, olmert acted to prevent this from happening by breaking the ceasefire with hamas and tightening sanctions even more vindictively against palestinians in gaza.(6)

The tactic didn’t work. After obama’s presidential victory, opinion polls continued to predict a netanhayu election victory. "Benjamin Netanyahu could coast to victory in Israel's election two months from now, opinion polls showed on Wednesday, and he plans to take a detour on what Palestinians had hoped would be a U.S.-paved road to statehood." (Jeffrey Heller ‘Netanyahu on course for Israeli election win –polls’ http://wire.antiwar.com/2008/12/10/analysis-netanyahu-on-course-for-israeli-election-win-polls/ December 10, 2008).

Olmert, livni, and barak realized their last hope of defeating netanyahu was a military onslaught on hamas and gaza. Although many commentators in america noted that olmert’s barbaric onslaught against palestinian civilians in gaza was a desperate effort to win over the more extreme elements of the jewish electorate, they failed to mention that it was also an effort to counter the obama effect: the boost he was giving to netanhayu.(7) However, just as was the case with the tactic they had implemented in early november, the slaughter of palestinian civilians did not reverse the trend in the opinion polls. Obama’s election to the american presidency pushed the jewish electorate to the extreme right and the jewish military’s massacre of unarmed palestinians pushed it even further rightwards.(8) The more americans who decided to vote for obama, the more jewish voters turned against him. Obama won a comprehensive victory in america but was comprehensively rejected by jewish racists in palestine. As much credit must be given to obama for losing the election in occupied palestine as he must be given for winning the american presidential election.

Confrontations between American presidents and Jewish leaders.
The victory of the extreme right in the jewish elections may lead to netanhayu’s election as prime minister. A confrontation with obama will be unavoidable. In the past, jewish leaders have almost invariably been victorious in their confrontations with american presidents. The jewish terrorist, menachem begin fobbed off jimmy carter’s efforts to bring about peace in palestine. The jewish terrorist yitzhak shamir led bush the elder on a merry dance and ruined his chances of being re-elected. The jewish nazi benyamin netanhayu relentlessly evaded clinton’s peace efforts in palestine.(9) The jewish terrorist ariel sharon twisted bush the younger "around his little finger".

Obama may have the intellectual credentials to challenge netanhayu’s extremism but whether he has the political support to combat the likudniks’ vast network of political agents in america is an entirely different matter. "If Likud's "Bibi" Netanyahu wins the Israeli election, he will push hard for U.S. air strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, and push back against any Obama deal with Tehran. With the Israeli lobby and a Jewish community that gave Barack 80 percent of its votes, plus the neocons and Evangelical right calling for strikes against Iran's nuclear sites, would the Obama-Clinton team stand united, against war? Would Hillary, a former senator from New York who relied even more heavily than Barack on Jewish contributions and votes, stand by Barack if the two disagree on whether the survival of Israel is at stake? On second thought, the antiwar left is right to be nervous." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Can This Marriage Last?’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=13861 December 5, 2008).(10) It’s more than likely that obama will be bullied in the same way as his presidential predecessors and that he’ll end up playing the same servile role to his jewish master as previous american presidents.(11)

Why should Obama pander to a Jewish society which detests him?
Whilst commentators in america emphasized olmert’s electoral motive for the jewish military’s obscene attack on gaza, none of them sought to highlight obama’s negative impact on jewish voters in occupied palestine. America’s zionist dominated media ignored this clear cut political correlation because they don’t want it to become widely known that whilst a majority of americans (including american jews) were happy to vote for obama, jews in the racist state were so opposed to him they voted for extreme, right wing, jewish nazis. It has been stated, "Obama's political vision has engendered hope not only in the United States, but around the world." (Neve Gordon ‘It's Up to Obama and the World Now: Few Peacemakers in the New Israeli Knesset’ http://www.counterpunch.com/gordon02112009.html February 11, 2009). This is true except in one place: jewish occupied palestine. There are two main reasons why zionists in america have no interest in mentioning this state of affairs.

Firstly, it might make many americans query why they should go on pandering to jewish racists especially when such support is inevitably at their moral, political, and economic, expense. Americans might conclude that they (and their american jewish counterparts) are so different from jews in occupied palestine that they have no responsibility for looking after them let alone continuing to lavish vast subsidies upon them.

Secondly, it might also make obama question his support for the jews-only state. Why should he continue making huge tribute payments to this rogue state, especially during an economic recession in america, when jews detest him so much? Why should he continue supplying it with such vast quantities of munitions when such largesse is used to implement obscene slaughters of innocent people that result in him having to endure global opprobrium? Why should he go on protecting jewish racists in united nations’ fora when this leads people around the world to conclude he is no different from them? It does not make political sense for obama to keep supporting a jewish society which despises him, makes a mockery of america’s democratic system, and corrupts its national interests. These are critical questions given that, sooner or later, the next jewish leader will invariably try to humiliate him in the same way previous jewish leaders have humiliated their american counterparts. Even an Animal abuser wouldn’t give his Dog a kicking in public like sharon/olmert gave george bush.

The Likudnik campaign to push America into a war against Iran.
Although the jewish lobby financed all of the main candidates in america’s presidential election this should not be taken to mean it is a tightly knit, monolithic group in which everyone pursues the same strategy and tactics. Some likudniks are more extreme/militant than others. Although they share common goals, they don’t always adopt the same tactics. In the 1990s, some likudniks wanted america’s foreign policy priority to be an attack on iran. Some wanted the priority to be an invasion of iraq; some demanded it should be syria; whilst others believed the biggest threat to the jews-only state came from pakistan. The latter feared that pakistan’s islamic bomb posed a genocidal threat to the zionist state and that america should make efforts to undermine the pakistani state and break up the country into a number of ethnic based statelets.

After their successes in pushing the bush regime into the invasions and occupations of afghanistan and iraq, most likudniks believe their main political priority is an american attack on iran. As soon as obama was elected president, the jewish lobby and the racist state launched a joint campaign to pressure him into supporting a proxy zionist war against iran.(12)

An american (or jewish, or american/jewish) attack on iran would undermine america’s national interests. America needs a rapprochement with iran firstly, to exploit its fabulous fossil fuel resources and, secondly, to play a major geostrategic role in countering russian power in europe/central asia and chinese power around the world. American patriots should find the idea of an attack on iran wholly against their interests. The only people who support such a war are jewish likudniks in america who are solely concerned about the interests of the jews-only state in palestine. An attack on iran could even unleash a third world war which would be even more detrimental to american interests. It would mean that jewish extremists had been solely responsible for provoking world war three. That an attack on iran has been at the top of america’s political agenda for the last five years testifies to the existence of the country’s ruling jewish elite.

Obama treads a different path.
It was obama who initiated the idea of a military surge in afghanistan. He insisted his own foreign policy priority was not iran but afghanistan and thus, by implication, pakistan.(13) Within a matter of days of becoming president he was giving the go-ahead for air strikes on alleged militants in pakistan. "On 22 January, the day he described Afghanistan and Pakistan as "the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism," 22 Afghan civilians died beneath Obama's bombs in a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds and which, by all accounts, had not laid eyes on the Taliban. Women and children were among the dead, which is normal." (John Pilger ‘Obama and the Politics of Bullocks’ http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/?articleid=14199 February 6, 2009). He gave this order even though he must have known precisely, from all the previous attacks, what the political consequences would be.(14)

Firstly, the deaths of innocent pakistani civilians. Secondly, public outrage in pakistan resulting in more recruits for mujahdeen freedom fighters. Thirdly, the erosion of the authority and legitimacy of pakistan’s civilian government which, after every american slaughter, has to ritually deny it has any secret agreement with america to permit such slaughters. Fourthly, further divisions within the pakistani military between those who deplored america’s infringement of pakistani sovereignty and those who looked forward to further american funding for the country’s armed forces.

America’s war on afghanistan seems senseless causing vast social and economic devastation to the afghan people and involving a huge military expenditure for america when it is suffering economically at home. America has no unique geostrategic interests in afghanistan i.e. none that are not also shared by neighbouring countries.(15) Extending the war to pakistan makes even less sense. What is the point of the american military continuing to slaughter increasing numbers of pakistani civilians, provoking the hatred of some 130 million pakistanis, radicalizing more and more young people into fighting against those committing such a barbaric slaughter, whilst pushing the world inexorably towards world war three.

Raimondo is rightly bewildered that obama initiated the policy but has failed to provide a rationalization for it.(16) Paul craig roberts believes obama must have been tricked into adopting the strategy.(17) An increasing number of american commentators have criticized obama’s south asian policy because they suspect it could be his vietnam.

During his democratic, and presidential, election campaigns obama portrayed himself as something of an anti-war candidate who wanted talks with iran and sought peace between palestinians and jews. But he was also supported and funded by hysterical, paranoid, likudnik warmongers. If obama persists with the current policy in afghanistan and pakistan, and perhaps even escalates it over time as a result of his surge in afghanistan, it will eventually result in the collapse of the pakistani state. The only plausible rationale for this policy is that it will cause the breakup of pakistan and thus the demise of the ‘islamic bomb’ so feared by the likudniks because none of the statelets that would emerge in its place could afford to maintain such weapons. Whether he understands it or not, obama is pursuing a radical likudnik strategy, at the expense of america’s military, economic, and political, interests, to dismantle pakistan in order to enhance the jews’ military supremacism in the greater middle east.(18)


Notes
(1) James petras invented the phrase "zionist power configuration" to describe jewish power in america and joel kovel gives credence to the phrase. "But while there are definitely lobbies among these networks, the overall network is no lobby. It would be better to call it, as sociologist James Petras has, a "Zionist Power Configuration," or perhaps we could say, a "Zionist Apparatus." What we call it is not especially important; what matters is that we understand that the loose and decentralized character of the network floats atop an attitudinal sea that supports the basic notions of Zionism, and functions to structure the Israeli cause in the collective mind." (Joel Kovel ‘Overcoming Impunity’ http://ameu.org/printer.asp?iid=284&aid=605 February 05, 2009). Petras’s phrase is aesthetically unappealing and ambiguous. Much clearer and more precise is the idea that america’s jewish elite, which had been around throughout the 20th century, has since the turn of the millennium become america’s ruling elite.

America’s ruling jewish elite does not have a monopoly on political power. It still has to compete with remnants of the white, anglo-saxon, and protestant, ruling elite. But it has become the dominant elite and, if not stopped, could become even more dominant.

Ruling elites, by definition, are a tiny minority in comparison to the general population and they cannot survive without the support of those they rule. America’s jewish elite has been hugely successful in persuading americans to support its legitimacy. Many of its american supporters even readily identify themselves as zionists e.g. the christian zionists. America’s jewish ruling elite is supported by jews across the political spectrum from the neo-cons, the neo-liberals, the neo-socialists, the neo-greenies, to the neo-peaceniks, etc and, in each case, many non-jewish americans are also involved.

America’s so-called christian zionists are not a political force in their own right. They are a political force that was created, funded, and moulded, by america’s jewish elite to suit its own purposes. They are powerful only as regards issues sanctioned by the ruling jewish elite. They have no independent political power of their own separate from the jewish elite. This should be transparent given that they have achieved no political changes that run counter to jewish interests in america. For example: zionists in america support the separation of church and state. Christian zionists do not and yet this issue is not even on the country’s political agenda because the jewish elite marginalize the issue.

Christian zionists are a mere adjunct to america’s ruling jewish elite. They are 1% christian and 99% zionist. They are quislings who are so gullible they can’t even appreciate that zionists have replaced the christian god of love and forgiveness with the jewish god of war.

Kovel argues, "It is impressive that two of the four presidents prior to Obama have been steeped in the ways of the Christian Right." (Joel Kovel ‘Overcoming Impunity’ http://ameu.org/printer.asp?iid=284&aid=605 February 05, 2009). This is not impressive. It is frightening that zionists could bring about the transmutation of christianity into its polar opposite, zionism, not only amongst american presidents but tens of millions of ordinary americans.

(2) "In a Chicago speech before activists of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby, the Jewish lions' den, Obama made it clear that he has no intention of becoming a Likudnik in order to prove his support for Israel. Even in the midst of the election campaign, when he needed every Jewish vote, Obama left to his rival Senator John McCain of Arizona the standard commitment to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's unrecognized capital." (Akiva Eldar ‘Perfect English or not, Netanyahu shares no common language with Obama’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1063057.html February 11, 2009).

(3) See also, "As I've documented previously, the very same right-wing advocates who scream "anti-semitism" at anyone, such as Klein, who raises the issue of devotion to Israel themselves constantly argue that American Jews do, and should, cast their votes in American elections based upon what is best for Israel. They nakedly trot out the "dual loyalty" argument in order to manipulate American Jews to vote Republican in U.S. elections (e.g.: "the GOP supports Israel and Obama doesn't; therefore, American Jews shouldn't vote for Obama"), while screaming "anti-semitism" the minute the premise is used by their political opponents. The Weekly Standard ran articles openly arguing that American Jews should vote Republican because the GOP is better for Israel, and Joe Lieberman runs around South Florida telling Jewish voters that they should vote for McCain because Obama isn't good for Israel." (Glenn Greenwald ‘The right's game-playing with "dual loyalty" and "anti-Semitism" accusations’ http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/02/israel_iran/index.html July 2, 2008).

(4) "The conversion and promotion of Obama as an Israel-Firster is an excellent case study of the methods the ZPC (zionist power configuration) has used to build a near invincible power base in the US political system. The construction of the ZPC is not the result of a cabal with a preplanned centrally controlled operation. Obama’s conversion began through an ideologically diverse, individual, family and community-based effort. As Obama rose from local to national political office, Zionist promotion evolved from local into a nationally organized and concerted effort including campaign funding, business career appointments and paid propaganda and indoctrination junkets to Israel." (James Petras ‘Barack Obama: "America’s First Jewish President"’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21449.htm December 2008). Paradoxically, whilst many likudniks tended to be highly sceptical, if not opposed, to obama, american jews tended to be much more supportive.

(5) "The results clearly testify to the fact that a large majority of the elected politicians are against an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement based on the two-state solution." (Neve Gordon ‘It's Up to Obama and the World Now: Few Peacemakers in the New Israeli Knesset’ http://www.counterpunch.com/gordon02112009.html February 11, 2009). A large majority of jewish society also feel the same.

(6) The jewish nazis broke their ceasefire with hamas on election day in america, november fourth.
Karin Laub and Jeff Blankfort.
"I just read the J Street statement and there is nothing either bold or brave about it, since it used the word, "justified," to rationalize Israel's attack rather than pointing out, as did Karin Laub in today's AP story, that it was Israel that broke the cease-fire on Nov.4 (which was by no coincidence) the night Obama was elected. Nor does it point out that Israel has been deliberately starving the people of Gaza since Hamas took over since initiating such a blockade is an act of war. Rather than see The Lobby crumble, you will see one Democrat after another not waiting for a statement from the wimpering, simpering Obama ("there is only one president at a time") and supporting Israel's air strikes and ground invasion, should that be coming, as well." (Jeff Blankfort quoted in ‘Is Gaza curtains for the Israel lobby? Ross and Blankfort debate’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/12/jack-ross---may-god-help-me-but-i-am-going-to-offer-my-own-cautiously-optimistic-assessment-about-obama-and-the-events-in-g.html December 30, 2008).

One of those commenting on weiss’s blog, stevieb, stated, "Completely agree with Blankfort. When I attempted to leave a post saying the same thing about Israel's breaking of the cease fire and the blockade - on Antiwar.com - it was rejected. Antiwar! This was after a post claiming that Hamas must accept some of the blame for Israel breaking the ceasefire and starving and murdering Palestinians. The lobby is alive and kicking and jumping onto the new left 'revival'."

Mel Frykberg.
"Following a six-month cease-fire, Israel launched a cross-border military incursion into Gaza last month, provoking a barrage of missiles." (Mel Frykberg ‘Gaza Becomes a Chessboard for Israeli Leaders’ http://www.antiwar.com/ips/frykberg.php?articleid=13977 December 31, 2008).

Seumas Milne.
"Hamas is likewise blamed for last month's breakdown of the six-month tahdi'a, or lull. But, in a weary reprise of past ceasefires, it was in fact sunk by Israel's assassination of six Hamas fighters in Gaza on 5 November and its refusal to lift its siege of the embattled territory as expected under an Egyptian-brokered deal." (Seumas Milne ‘Israel's onslaught on Gaza is a crime that cannot succeed’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/30/israel-and-the-palestinians-middle-east December 30, 2008).

Sara Roy.
Since Nov. 4, when Israel effectively broke the truce with Hamas by attacking Gaza on a scale then unprecedented, a fact now buried with Gaza's dead, the violence has escalated as Hamas responded by sending hundreds of rockets into Israel to kill Israeli civilians. It is reported that Israel's strategy is to hit Hamas military targets, but explain that difference to my Palestinian friends who must bury their children." (Sara Roy ‘Israel's 'victories' in Gaza come at a steep price’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0102/p09s01-coop.html December 31, 2008).

Norman Finkelstein.
"As far back as March 2007 Israel had decided on attacking Hamas, and only negotiated the June truce because "the Israeli army needed time to prepare." Once all the pieces were in place, Israel only lacked a pretext. On 4 November, while the American media were riveted on election day, Israel broke the ceasefire by killing seven Palestinian militants, on the flimsy excuse that Hamas was digging a tunnel to abduct Israeli soldiers, and knowing full well that its operation would provoke Hamas into hitting back." (Norman Finkelstein ‘Behind the Bloodbath in Gaza: Foiling Another Palestinian "Peace Offensive"’ http://www.counterpunch.com/finkelstein01282009.html January 28, 2009).

(7) The jews’ barbarous onslaught on palestinian civilians in gaza in december 2008 also served as a clear warning to obama not to become deluded that being president of the united states meant anything in comparison to the far greater political power of the jews-only state and its political agents in america. It would also make any peace efforts launched by obama that much less likely to succeed. However its primarily objective was making much of gaza even more uninhabitable in order to bring about the ethnic cleansing of palestinians from palestine.

(8) "Led by Avigdor Lieberman, the Yisrael Beiteinu party is looking to gain enormously in the election, with the latest poll showing them at an unprecedented 19 seats. Perhaps trying to prevent the party’s far right from defecting, Netanyahu said today that he plans to give a "pivotal ministerial position" to Lieberman when he takes power." (‘Netanyahu Promises Lieberman Pivotal Ministership’ http://news.antiwar.com/2009/02/04/netanyahu-promises-lieberman-pivotal-ministership/ February 4, 2009); "Benjamin Netanyahu, who did much to bury the Oslo peace accords when he was last prime minister in 1996-99, will almost inevitably be the next prime minister, according to the latest opinion polls. His right-wing Likud party is likely to be the largest party, and the right-wing bloc of extreme religious and nationalist parties is likely to have a majority in the Israeli parliament. Mr Netanyahu would probably have won without the war in Gaza, but the conflict has shifted Israelis significantly to the right." (Patrick Cockburn ‘Resurgent right dashes peace hopes as Mitchell flies to Israel’ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/resurgent-right-dashes-peace-hopes-as-mitchell-flies-to-israel-1516806.html January 27, 2009); "Israel's Avigdor Lieberman, much-needed iron fist to some, racist to others, is steamrolling into elections next week as the poll's biggest spoiler, set to swing the balance of power sharply to the right. The Soviet immigrant's ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beitenu (Israel is Our Home) party is poised to become Parliament's third-largest, nudging out center-left Labor, which ruled Israel for more than half of its 60 years, polls say. "The winning gimmick of the 2009 elections," "the new trend," is how the press has described the pudgy, bearded former nightclub bouncer, whose vitriolic harangues of Palestinian-Israelis have previously earned him monickers of "fascist," "racist" and "embarrassment to democracy." Prior to the Gaza war, Lieberman's party was expected to keep to its 11 seats in the 120-member Knesset, most of them thanks to its core support from "Russians," fellow immigrants from the ex-Soviet Union. But after the war, with security topping the agenda, the 50-year-old emerged as the offensive's biggest winner as his backing surged way beyond the Russian base." (‘Lieberman barrels into elections on strongman image’ http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=99118 February 05, 2009).

(9) "It was Bill Clinton who drily observed after meeting the newly elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that "he thinks he is the superpower and we are here to do whatever he requires."" (Donald Macintyre ‘Netanyahu: The leader who struts like a superpower’ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/netanyahu-the-leader-who-struts-like-a-superpower-1570710.html February 07, 2009). Of the two, clinton was clearly the more deluded. His team of advisors involved supposedly acting as mediators in the so-called peace process between jews and palestinians was composed solely of american jews who took their opportunity to prolong the prospects of peace solely to allow jewish extremists to carry out a massive expansion of settlements in the west bank. See also, "Aaron David Miller, who was Ross' deputy, also documented the days of Bibi and Bill. In his book "The Much Too Promised Land," Miller relates that during their first meeting in the summer of 1996, Bibi lectured the president about the Arab-Israeli issue, prompting Clinton to expostulate when it was over, "Who the fuck does he think he is? Who's the fucking superpower here?"" (Akiva Eldar ‘Perfect English or not, Netanyahu shares no common language with Obama’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1063057.html February 11, 2009); "Experts said if Netanyahu gets the job, as experts believe is likely, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others in the Obama administration will recall president Bill Clinton's frustrated efforts at peacemaking in the 1990s when Netanyahu was premier. "Netanyahu revels in his reputation as a right-wing warmonger, who has made no secret of his refusal to negotiate a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River," said the Council for the National Interest Foundation." (Lachlan Carmichael ‘Israel vote bad omen for Obama peace plans’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090211/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisraelvoteusdiplomacy February 11, 2009).

(10) Walter rodgers took up buchanan’s point: "President-elect Barack Obama could be surprised to discover that the first foreign policy challenge he faces may not come from traditional adversaries, such as Iran or Russia, but from a perceived friend, Israel. If the Likud candidate for prime minister, Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, wins February elections in Israel, and polls now heavily favor his party, Mr. Obama may find that this ally can be very prickly. Recall Jimmy Carter's difficulties with Menachem Begin and George H.W. Bush's troubles with Yitzhak Shamir. Early in his presidency, George W. Bush apparently decided the best way to get along with Israelis was to unashamedly accommodate Israel, regardless of collateral consequences to US foreign policy. Mr. Netanyahu, who has already served a term as Israel's prime minister, has a history of political confrontation. He may decide to challenge Obama early on, as he did with Bill Clinton. Domestically, it would be easy because during the election, many Israelis viewed Obama skeptically, and still do. Some whispered that he was pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab." (Walter Rodgers ‘Israel's coming test for Obama’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1216/p09s01-coop.html December 16, 2008); "Enraged that Hamas was not destroyed or disarmed, Israelis are leaning toward the Likud Party of "Bibi" Netanyahu, who opposed the withdrawal from Gaza, opposes a withdrawal from the West Bank, will never share Jerusalem, and calls Gaza "Hamastan." Should he win, a Bibi-Barack collision appears inevitable. Backing Bibi will be the Israeli lobby, the Evangelicals, the neocons, and a Congress that could find only five members to oppose a resolution endorsing all the Israelis had done and were doing to the people of Gaza." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘A Bibi-Barack Collision?’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=14145 January 27, 2009).

(11) However, quite surprisingly, rodgers believes that emmanuel might come to obama’s rescue. "Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, like Netanyahu, has a reputation as a brawler and would not allow his boss to be buffaloed by Bibi. In 1996, when Mr. Emanuel worked for President Clinton, he toughly faced down Bibi in an earlier negotiating confrontation." (Walter Rodgers ‘Israel's coming test for Obama’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1216/p09s01-coop.html December 16, 2008).

(12) The likudniks campaign to force obama into a war against iran.
Justin Raimondo.
"The pressure on President Obama to humble Iran, and prove his "toughness," is going to be enormous, and one indication is that the War Party’s propaganda blitz, which should be reaching a crescendo by Inauguration Day, has already started in earnest." (Justin Raimondo ‘Stop Hillary! Yes we can!’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13796 November 21, 2008).

Robert Dreyfuss.
"Organizations like WINEP, AIPAC, AEI, BPC, and UANI see it as their mission to push the United States toward a showdown with Iran." (Robert Dreyfuss ‘Still Preparing to Attack Iran: The neoconservatives in the Obama era’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=13847 December 3, 2008).

Muhammad Sahimi.
"Sensing his victory as inevitable, the neocons and the War Party started an all-out campaign before Nov. 4 to convince Barack Obama that Iran is the biggest threat to the U.S. That was not, of course, unexpected. It is not even surprising that many members of Obama's NST routinely speak of Iran's "nuclear weapon program," a program that the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.S. intelligence community have declared to be nonexistent." (Muhammad Sahimi ‘The Mindset That Got Us Into War Is Alive and Well: Obama and Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sahimi.php?articleid=13914 December 17, 2008).

(13) Such a priority has the support of one of america’s top military leaders. "US Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff … "assessed that the challenges of Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan were the top priority for the United States, even before the threat of a nuclear Iran." (Hilary Leila Krieger ‘Mullen: Using force against Iran still an option’ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233050189990&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer January 27, 2009).

(14) "Since last August, 38 suspected U.S. missile strikes have killed at least 132 people in Pakistan, where allegedly we are not at war." (Bill Moyers ‘Welcome to the JOURNAL’ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01302009/transcript1.html January 30, 2009).

(15) F. William Engdahl believes the rationale behind the new strategy is for american military forces to encircle russia even though obama has never enunciated such a policy. "Moscow has correctly assessed that the announced Obama troop buildup in Afghanistan has no relevance to the stated aim of combatting the ‘Taliban’, but rather with a new attempt by the Pentagon strategists to encircle both Russia and China on Eurasia in order to retain US global military dominance. It is clear from the deliberate pattern over months, despite vehement protest from Pakistan’s government, of US bombing attacks on villages inside Pakistan, allegedly to hit Taliban targets, that the US intends to widen the conflict to Pakistan as well. What could be the possible aim?" (F. William Engdahl ‘Moscow Reacts to US Buildup in Afghanistan’ http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2009/0205.html February 5, 2009). It might seem sensible for america to stay in afghanistan to counter russia but why would obama risk brining about the disintegration of pkistan which has been one of america’s stauncest allies not merely in the war on terror but against the soviet union?

(16) "Well, the bad news, as Newsweek reports, is that the more things change …. "The Pentagon is prepared to announce the deployment of 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan as early as this week even as President Barack Obama is searching for his own strategy for the war. According to military officials during last week's meeting with Defense Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon's 'tank,' the president specifically asked, 'What is the end game?' in the U.S. military's strategy for Afghanistan. When asked what the answer was, one military official told NBC News, 'Frankly, we don't have one.' But they're working on it." He's searching for strategy, at this late date? Isn't this the same Barack Hussein Obama who told us Bush was neglecting the Afghan front, and that we had to redirect our efforts away from Iraq in order to invest more troops and treasure in Afghanistan, doing whatever it is we're supposed to be doing there? Surely he had some kind of plan in mind." (Justin Raimondo ‘Endgame? What Endgame? Afghanistan: A war without end’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14201 February 6, 2009).

(17) "Adding to the brewing disaster, Obama has been deceived by his military and neoconservative advisers into expanding the war in Afghanistan, a large, mountainous country." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Washington Morons: Driving Over the Cliff’ http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts02092009.html February 9, 2009).

(18) "It was the pro-Israeli crowd in the Republican Party that pulled the old switcheroo and refocussed on the Middle East rather than Eurasia. Now, powerful members of the US foreign policy establishment (Brzezinski, Albright, Holbrooke) have regrouped behind the populist "cardboard" presidential candidate Barak Obama and are preparing to redirect America's war efforts to the Asian theater. Obama offers voters a choice of wars not a choice against war." (Mike Whitney quoted in James Petras ‘Barack Obama: "America’s First Jewish President"’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21449.htm December 2008). Paul Craig Roberts also suspects a war with pakistan may be in the offing. "Here we are in the worst economic crisis in a lifetime, perhaps in our history, and on the brink of war in Pakistan and Iran while escalating the war in Afghanistan, and all we get is a government made up of the very people who have brought us to these crises.’ (Paul Craig Roberts ‘A Bankrupt and Discredited Country: The Death of American Leadership’ http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts02022009.html February 2, 2009).