America’s Fake Presidential Election.

America’s 2008 Presidential Election to chose a Likudnik to fight new Wars in the Middle East.
America’s democracy, fortified by a centuries old written constitution, is still commonly believed by many around the world to be the world’s greatest political system. However, such has been the rapid rise of america’s likunik elite, which now forms the country’s ruling elite, that the 2008 presidential election is well on the way to becoming a contest between likudniks whose primary allegiance lies with the likudnik party in the jews-only state in palestine (jos). It is still possible that a genuine anti-war candidate from one of the country’s two main likudnik parties or a third party candidate such as ralph nader might stand to rescue the credibility of the election. But the prospects are not good. In effect, americans will be presented with a choice as to which likudnik would be the best president to lead the country into further wars in the middle east: in the first instance most likely iran then, quite probably, syria and lebanon and, eventually, egypt, jordan, saudi arabia, and ultimately, pakistan.

The bush regime’s invasions of afghanistan and iraq were carried out under the rubric of the war against terrorism. In reality, they were part of a likudnik strategy: the zionofascist invasion of the middle east in order to consolidate the jewish occupation of palestine. These invasions have gone disastrously and are teetering on the edge of catastrophe. They have imposed a huge financial burden on the american economy and caused tens of thousands of american casualties – putting aside for the moment the far more important consideration: the near one million iraqi fatalities. If americans elect a new likudnik president to continue the zionofascist conquest of the middle east then america will eventually suffer a catastrophe which will threaten the survival of the country’s economic and political systems.

This article cursorily highlights the jewish lobby’s financing of america’s leading candidates in the 2008 presidential election. It is a remarkable feature of this election campaign that virtually all of the main candidates are being financed by the jewish lobby; their campaigns are being organized by significant numbers of likudniks; and their policies are almost uniformly in favour of zionofascism and the consolidation of jewish supremacism in the middle east. These likudnik candidates believe it is necessary for america to fight the jos’s enemies even though they pose no threat to america and even though further wars will have an increasingly catastrophic impact on america.

Sums of Money Raised in the Election Campaign so far.
"During the first three months of 2007, Obama's campaign raised $25 million, compared with $26 million raised by the Clinton campaign." (Claude R. Marx ‘A top Jewish fund-raiser shifts his support to Obama’ http://www.jta.org/cgi%2Dbin/iowa/news/article/20070522solomontobama.html May 22, 2007).

Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential Election Campaign.
The Zionists in and around Clinton's Election Campaign.
Hikind, Dov.
"Except that Hillary Clinton still stands by her vote for funding the invasion. And now she constantly makes the rounds of New York's sex-segregated Orthodox synagogues, seeking support from rabbis and male congregants who begin every day with a prayer to God: "Thank you for making me a man, not a woman." The 1/11/06 Village Voice described her ties to Brooklyn State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, Zionism's David Duke. The Klansman mainstreamed into the Republicans. Hikind went from Meir Kahane's Jewish Defense League, listed by the US and Israel as terrorists, to the Democrats. He is against giving even an inch of the West Bank back to the Palestinians. He opposed her 2000 campaign until she went to him. Now he's in and out of her office. "'Are you going to endorse Hillary Clinton?'.... Hikind said yes, stressing how great a friend she is."" The Democrats are more crucially dependent on Zionist campaign contributions than the Republicans." (Lenni Brenner ‘The Lobby and the Great Protestant Crusader’ http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner05172006.html May 17, 2006).

General Level of Jewish Financial Support.
"As one of the top Democratic recipients of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle, pocketing over $83,000, Clinton now has Iran in her cross hairs." (Joshua Frank ‘Hillary Clinton and the Israel Lobby’ http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=10372 January 23, 2007).

"New York’s junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is expected to snare the lion’s share of the Jewish community’s substantial political donations in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Democratic activists and operatives said Clinton will pull in large quantities of cash among Jewish donors not only because of what they described as her strong positions on Israel and domestic matters of interest to Jews, but also because of longtime ties with these activists dating back to her husband’s administration. The haul is important: Strategists say that serious candidates will need to raise at least $50 million - and probably more like $100 million - by the end of the year. They say that money from Jewish donors constitutes about half the donations given to national Democratic candidates (an extremely large pot of gelt long coveted by the GOP)." (E.J. Kessler ‘Hillary the Favorite in Race for Jewish Donations’
http://www.forward.com/articles/hillary-the-favorite-in-race-for-jewish-donations/ January 26, 2007).

Jewish Financial Supporters.
Lionel Kaplan, Steve Grossman.
"Among the top Jewish fundraisers who political hands expect to line up with Clinton’s campaign is New Jersey lawyer Lionel Kaplan, a former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who raised money for the former first lady’s 2006 Senate race. Also expected to turn up in Clinton’s camp is Massachusetts businessman Steve Grossman, another former Aipac president who chaired the Democratic National Committee in the late 1990s. Grossman told the Forward that he’s "not formally committed," but he added that "everyone knows I’m close to the Clintons."" (E.J. Kessler ‘Hillary the Favorite in Race for Jewish Donations’ http://www.forward.com/articles/hillary-the-favorite-in-race-for-jewish-donations/ January 26, 2007).

Jewish Fundraising Dinner.
"Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation. "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table." Clinton spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Some 1,700 supporters applauded as she cited her efforts on behalf of the Jewish state and spoke scathingly of Iran's decision to hold a conference last month that questioned whether the Holocaust took place." (‘Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel’ http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php February 1, 2007).

Trying to win Support from the Jewish Lobby/Electorate.
"During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered in December 2005, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, "I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israel Defense Forces], to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel's right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day. … It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel…." Hillary and her husband paid a visit to Israel in the fall of 2005. The former president was a featured speaker at a mass rally that marked the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. It was Hillary's second visit to Israel since she was elected to office in 2000." (Joshua Frank ‘Hillary Clinton and the Israel Lobby’ http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=10372 January 23, 2007).

John McCain's 2008 Presidential Election Campaign.
Support for the Apartheid Jews-only State.
"Two days later, the senator (McCain) traveled to Israel as part of weeklong trip to the region that also included stops in Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. While in the Jewish state, McCain’s delegation - which also included Senators Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Mark Kirk and Joseph Lieberman - met with a number of political leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas." (Jennifer Siegel ‘McCain Lines Up N.Y. Money Men, Raising Pressure on Rudy Giuliani’ http://www.forward.com/articles/mccain-lines-up-ny-money-men-raising-pressure-on/ January 05, 2007).

The Zionists in and around McCain's Election Campaign.
Goldman, Craig.
McCain's "exploratory committee spokesman Craig Goldman .." (Jennifer Siegel ‘McCain Lines Up N.Y. Money Men, Raising Pressure on Rudy Giuliani’ http://www.forward.com/articles/mccain-lines-up-ny-money-men-raising-pressure-on/ January 05, 2007).

Zeidman, Jay.
"On the staffing front, the Arizona senator has recruited Jay Zeidman - former White House liaison to the Jewish community - to help with finance and fundraising operations as well as with Jewish outreach. Zeidman’s father is Houston Republican Fred Zeidman, who is chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council and one of Bush’s closest donors. According to two Republican sources, the senior Zeidman has not ruled out throwing his weight behind Romney." (Jennifer Siegel ‘McCain Lines Up N.Y. Money Men, Raising Pressure on Rudy Giuliani’
http://www.forward.com/articles/mccain-lines-up-ny-money-men-raising-pressure-on/ January 05, 2007).

Jewish Financial Supporters.
Lewis Eisenberg.
"Arizona Senator John McCain has scored an early victory in the battle between GOP presidential frontrunners by locking up support from several New York-area Republican moneymen also coveted by his northeastern rival, former Big Apple mayor Rudy Giuliani. McCain’s stable of national finance co-chairs includes Lewis Eisenberg, a multimillionaire financier from Rumson, N.J. who previously served as finance chairman for the Republican National Committee and was a key fundraiser for former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. According to a 140-page memo leaked to the New York Daily News and published earlier this week, Eisenberg’s name - along with that of fellow Jewish financier and McCain supporter Henry Kravis - was originally included on a "prospective leadership" list drafted by the Giuliani campaign. The disclosure of the former mayor’s campaign plan - which acknowledges the concern that Giuliani might "drop out of [the] race" due to potentially "insurmountable" personal and political vulnerabilities - has underscored his scramble for some of the same deep-pocketed donors recruited by McCain. The New York-area Republicans are "moderate in their approach to things - they are not big radical ideologues [so] who are these guys going to go to? Either they go to Giuliani or they go to McCain," said David Twersky, director of international affairs for the American Jewish Congress. Twersky, a longtime observer of Garden State affairs and former editor of the New Jersey Jewish News, added, "This is a very good sign for McCain, that he is getting Republican establishment moderates." While insisting that the heavy representation of Jews among McCain boosters is not based on a "religious thing," exploratory committee spokesman Craig Goldman embraced the suggestion that the list reflects well on the senator’s campaign. "We are honored and thrilled" to have their support, Goldman said, adding that McCain "is by far [the] frontrunner for the president of the United States. They believe in his message, they believe in what he says and what he believes in, and it doesn’t hurt that he’s a strong supporter of Israel, as well."" (Jennifer Siegel ‘McCain Lines Up N.Y. Money Men, Raising Pressure on Rudy Giuliani’
http://www.forward.com/articles/mccain-lines-up-ny-money-men-raising-pressure-on/ January 05, 2007).

Fred Zeidman.
"The leadership of the Republican Jewish Coalition - a key group of fundraisers who have raised millions for GOP causes - is splitting its support in the 2008 presidential race. RJC board member Fred Zeidman, a Houston venture capitalist and lobbyist who’s close to Bush, will be raising money for Senator John McCain. "I think [McCain’s] an outstanding patriot and American and will make an excellent president," Zeidman told the Forward on Sunday. "He has a 20-year demonstrated record of support for Israel. Our community couldn’t be in better hands." Also helping McCain is RJC board member Ned Siegel, who was tapped to head McCain’s finance team in Florida." (E.J. Kessler ‘Hillary the Favorite in Race for Jewish Donations’ http://www.forward.com/articles/hillary-the-favorite-in-race-for-jewish-donations/ January 26, 2007).

McCain's Finance Committee.
"McCain’s heavily Jewish finance committee includes Kravis; Mark Broxmeyer, a Long Island real estate magnate; Dr. Ben Chouake, president of the New Jersey-based pro-Israel political action committee Norpac, and Barbara Sobel, whose husband, entrepreneur Clifford Sobel, is a major GOP fundraiser who was appointed by President Bush as ambassador to the Netherlands and later Brazil. According to Chouake, members of the New York-area finance committee have pledged to raise a minimum of $50,000 each. He said that he personally had approached the campaign with an offer of support, based on his concern about the situation in the Middle East. "The 800-pound gorilla in the room right now is Iran," Chouake told the Forward. "You have the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who represents the first country in the world to openly state, ‘We intend to get nuclear weapons, and we intend to commit genocide.’ This is an immense threat to the United States, and this is an immense threat to Israel. So who are you going to support?… For me, the person that is the most capable, most experienced, most courageous to defend our country, would be John McCain." For years, McCain, who has been calling for more American troops to be sent to Iraq, has developed strong ties with neoconservatives in Washington, sharing their hawkish voices on several key fronts. In recent weeks, McCain has been signaling that an attention to Jewish issues will remain on his agenda as his campaign moves forward." (Jennifer Siegel ‘McCain Lines Up N.Y. Money Men, Raising Pressure on Rudy Giuliani’ http://www.forward.com/articles/mccain-lines-up-ny-money-men-raising-pressure-on/ January 05, 2007).

Joe Biden's 2008 Presidential Election Campaign.
Jewish Financial Supporters.
Michael Adler.
"The chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Michael Adler, is raising money for Biden’s bid. "The biggest concern the American electorate has is security," Adler said, citing the fact that Biden has chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and that he has done "tremendous work on the crime bill." Adler said that since Biden hasn’t pursued the presidency since 1988, "he’s not caught fire" with the public as have some other contenders. But he maintained that Biden has shown on the campaign trail that he "understands the American public" and his public performances "create a lot of loyalty and passion."" (E.J. Kessler ‘Hillary the Favorite in Race for Jewish Donations’
http://www.forward.com/articles/hillary-the-favorite-in-race-for-jewish-donations/ January 26, 2007).

Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential Election Campaign.
Jewish Financial Supporters.
Geffen, David.
"another Jewish tycoon, the movie and record producer David Geffen, one of the founders of Dreamworks with Steven Spielberg. Geffen is much more of a political figure than Zell, having been an early supporter of Bill Clinton. More recently, he raised $1.3 million (£650,000) for Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama at a star-studded Hollywood fundraiser." (Alex Brummer ‘A yiddishe revolution in America's media’ http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/07/04/JChron_200407.html April 20, 2007).

Sher, Linda.
"Linda Sher, a Chicago-area Democratic activist who founded the Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs, a pro-Israel and pro-choice body, is raising money for Obama. Several Democratic hands said Obama would attract money from the more liberal precincts of the Jewish community. That proved true during his 2004 Senate bid, when he grabbed the support of the heavily Jewish "Lakefront liberals" in his state’s hotly contested primary. "I’m getting a good response," Sher said of her efforts. "The people I’m calling seem enthusiastic. They want to do more than give money. They want to be part of it."" http://www.forward.com/articles/hillary-the-favorite-in-race-for-jewish-donations/ January 26, 2007).

Solomont, Alan.
"Alan Solomont, a longtime leader in Jewish philanthropic and national Democratic political circles, is one of the go-to men when big money is needed. Now, despite his longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, he is applying his skills on behalf of the presidential campaign of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). "He respects people, including the Jewish community, too much to tell them what they want to hear," said Solomont, Obama's Northeast finance chairman. Solomont, who has worked on five previous presidential campaigns and was nationalfinance chairman for the Democratic National Committee, once organized an event that raised $4 million for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign." (Claude R. Marx ‘A top Jewish fund-raiser shifts his support to Obama’
http://www.jta.org/cgi%2Dbin/iowa/news/article/20070522solomontobama.html May 22, 2007).

Sam Brownback's 2008 Presidential Election Campaign.
Jewish Fundraiser.
"Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who announced his bid for the GOP presidential nomination Saturday, is staking a claim to the most conservative element of the Jewish community - the Orthodox. Jeff Ballabon, an Orthodox activist and GOP fundraiser from Long Island, N.Y., who signed on to Brownback’s exploratory committee, said that Brownback is well known to the Washington representatives of the Orthodox community "because he’s been one of the top go-to guys on a range of issues," including Israel, Jerusalem, religious liberties and faith-based initiatives. Ballabon dismissed the notion that Brownback’s opposition to Bush’s Iraq troop surge might hurt Brownback among this most hawkish element of American Jewry. When Brownback explains his opposition in context, "the pro-Israel community will be pleased," Ballabon said. There is an element of the Jewish community "that believed Oslo was a fool’s errand all along," Ballabon said. When Brownback was on the Near East subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he was one of the "leaders who pointed out the weakness of that approach. Many agreed with him then, and many more agreed with him now. His instincts are outstanding." (E.J. Kessler ‘Hillary the Favorite in Race for Jewish Donations’ http://www.forward.com/articles/hillary-the-favorite-in-race-for-jewish-donations/ January 26, 2007).

Rudy Giuliani's 2008 Presidential Election Campaign.
The Likudnik Candidate.
"Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani announced his foreign-policy advisory team Tuesday, and it looks from the membership as if he’s bidding for the Likud vote (for which he will no doubt receive tough competition from John McCain, Fred Thompson, and, eventually perhaps, Newt Gingrich)." (Jim Lobe ‘Giuliani, the Likud Candidate?’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=45 July 10th, 2007).

Giuliani's Foreign Policy Advisory Team.
The Views of Philip Giraldi.
"The naming of leading neoconservative Norman Podhoretz as one of Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani’s senior foreign policy advisers is disconcerting to those Americans who have hoped that the current disagreements with Iran might be resolved short of war. Giuliani, together with Mitt Romney and John McCain, has publicly advocated a military strike against Iran to keep it from acquiring nuclear weapons. He has also not ruled out the use of America’s own nuclear weapons if that should prove necessary to deter Tehran. The acquisition of Podhoretz as an adviser confirms that Giuliani’s statements should be taken seriously and are not just political rhetoric designed to obtain the support of the influential Israeli lobby. Podhoretz has recently called on the United States to bomb Iran and he describes the current situation, pitting Washington against what he describes as "the Islamofascist threat", as World War IV. Podhoretz basically advocates a world-wide conflict not unlike World War II to defeat Islamists everywhere they are to be found. Giuliani is already the U.S. presidential hopeful who is perceived most favorably in Israel because of his uncompromising stance on issues like the Iranian threat and terrorism, and the addition of Podhoretz will certainly be viewed favorably by many influential neoconservatives. Podhoretz is himself an uncompromising advocate of what he sees as Israeli national security imperatives very much in the mold of the right-wing Likud party. He continues to be a leading supporter of the Iraq War and is one of the few remaining apologists for the WMD claim, insisting that they were spirited away to Syria prior to the start of the fighting. In addition to Iran, Podhoretz advocates regime change policies for Syria and renewing warfare in the south of Lebanon to eliminate Hizballah. He has also supported regime change for Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinians. His advocacy of foreign policy positions for the United States will be decidedly Israel-centric. Even in Israeli terms, he is from the far right, advocating simplistic military solutions to solve what are complex and multifaceted international problems." (Philip Giraldi ‘Inside Track: Rudy’s New Foreign Policy Posse’ http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=14960 July 12, 2007).

The Views of Jim Lobe.
"Heading the team is Charles Hill, a retired career foreign service officer who worked as former Secretary of State George Shultz’s executive officer during the Reagan administration and is currently a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Of the seven other members of Giuliani’s "Senior Foreign Policy Advisory Board," several have also been associated with PNAC and the CPD, most spectacularly, the legendary former editor of Commentary magazine, Norman "World War IV" Podhoretz, whose most recent contribution to Western-Islamic understanding was his article, "The Case for Bombing Iran" (an eight-minute "must-see" video version of which is available on YouTube. A founding father of neo-conservatism, Podhoretz is also, of course, the father-in-law of Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams whose own work in frustrating serious peace efforts between Israel and its Arab neighbors has been second only to Dick Cheney’s. Apparently relying on inside information, Podhoretz still believes that Saddam Hussein secreted his weapons of mass destruction to Syria for safe-keeping. Also noteworthy on the advisory board is Martin Kramer, a long-time Lewis disciple, who is also closely associated with Daniel Pipes and particularly his Campus Watch program which many in the Middle East studies field have denounced as McCarthyite. Kramer, a frequent contributor to The National Review Online, is a senior fellow at the Jerusalem-based Shalem Center, which in turn is closely linked to former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Rounding out the group are former Wisconsin Sen. Bob Kasten, who, along with his fellow-Wisconsonian, Rudy Boschwitz, was among the most pro-Likud members of the Senate during his service there between 1981 and 1993; Enders Wimbush, a senior fellow at the neo-conservative Hudson Institute, protege of the late Albert Wohlstetter and long-standing disciple of the Pentagon’s Net Assessment guru, Andrew Marshall; Steve Rosen, a Harvard professor who contributed to PNAC’s 2000 report, "Rebuilding America’s Defenses;" and Kim Holmes, a fixture at the Heritage Foundation’s foreign policy unit since 1985, who served during Bush’s first term as assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs." (Jim Lobe ‘Giuliani, the Likud Candidate?’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=45 July 10th, 2007).

Newt Gingrich's Prospective 2008 Presidential Election Campaign.
Political Views
The Views of Paul Craig Roberts.
"On January 23, former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, a leading neoconservative, told a conference in Herzliya, Israel, that the United States and Israel were in danger of nuclear attack from Iran. The crazed Gingrich, who is considering a run for the US presidency in 2008, said: "Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany, and more determined than the Soviets. Our enemies will kill us the first chance they get. There is no rational ability to deny that fact." Gingrich says: "We don't have the right language, goals, structure, or operating speed, to defeat our enemies. My hope is that being this candid and direct, I could open a dialogue that will force people to come to grips with how serious this is, how real it is, how much we are threatened."" (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Evils of Escalation. Bush's State of Deception’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01252007.html January 25, 2007).

Mitt Romney's Prospective 2008 Presidential Election Campaign.
Political Views
The Views of Paul Craig Roberts.
"Another American presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, told the Israeli audience that Islamic jihadism was "the nightmare of this century." Israel, Romney declared, "is facing a jihadist threat that runs through Tehran, to Damascus, to Gaza." Hezbollah, he declared, is not fighting for a Palestinian state but for the destruction of Israel. The world has not experienced this level of warmongering since Hitler." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Evils of Escalation. Bush's State of Deception’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01252007.html January 25, 2007).

The Views of Gary Leupp.
"Bizarre though it sounds, more and more public figures in the U.S., echoing Israeli officials, are accusing Iran of genocide. More accurately, of planning genocide, although past and future get all confused in the increasingly reckless rhetoric. Former Massachusetts governor and presidential aspirant Mitt Romney is the latest important politician to level the accusation. In an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos February 17, he characterized Iran as "a genocidal nation, a suicidal nation, in some respects."" (Gary Leupp ‘Mitt Romney Joins Iran's Hysterical Accusers’ http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp02192007.html February 19, 2007).
The Political Views of America’s Main Candidates in the 2008 Presidential Elections.
"And Democrats are not going to let Bush get to their right. At the Herzliya Conference, John Edwards said that keeping Iran from nuclear weapons "is the greatest challenge of our generation." "To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. Let me reiterate - all options." At AIPAC, Hillary echoed Edwards: "In dealing with this threat … no option can be taken off the table. … We need to use every tool about our disposal including … the threat and use of military force." To Mitt Romney, this was wimpish. For Hillary had said she favors "engagement" with Iran. Roared Romney to Hill Republicans, "[W]e don’t need a listening tour about Iran. … Someone who wants to engage Iran displays a troubling timidity toward a terrible threat of a nuclear Iran." Anybody think that Giuliani and McCain will let Edwards, Hillary, or Mitt be more menacing toward Tehran than they?" (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Who Will Stop The Next War?’ http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_02_26/buchanan.html February 26, 2007).

Conclusion: Likudnik Hedge Funding
The Secondary Danger of Electoral Bribery.
The political danger exposed by the above analysis is not merely that the jewish lobby is bribing america’s leading presidential candidates to promote likudnik policies. When lobbyists donate money to a candidate’s electoral campaign in the hope of receiving legislative favours after the candidate has been elected they are taking a major gamble. Firstly, that the candidate has not also taken money from a rival lobbying organization with different objectives. And, secondly, that the elected candidate will later avoid living up to his/her promise to support the lobbying organization’s policies. There are all sorts of ways for politicians to evade promises they have made to lobbying organizations just as much as they can escape promises made to their voters. If bribery was the sole issue of concern it would not be that serious a matter since bribery does not always achieve the desired objective.

Likudniks hedging their Presidential Bets.
The primary political danger is the jewish lobby’s funding of all america’s main presidential candidates. This danger is far greater than bribery alone. At first glance, it might not seem to be of any great significance. Why should anyone bother that the jewish lobby is wasting money on donations to candidates who are unlikely to get elected? Indeed, it might be argued, the more money the jewish lobby wastes on electoral losers the better, since this might mean the winner is likely to be less beholden to the lobby.

In reality, however, the jewish lobby doesn’t waste any money, not even that spent on electoral losers. Its hedge funding transforms the electoral contest into a competition between candidates to promote policies that will garner the most funding from the jewish lobby.

This phenomenon can be appreciated more easily through a contrast with what happens in britain where trades unions fund the labour party whilst rich individuals/companies fund the tory party. In other words, one group of lobbying organizations fund one lot of candidates who contest seats against candidates funded by a different set of lobbying organizations. What is happening in american politics is not competition between various lobbying organizations to get their respective candidates elected but one enormously wealthy lobbying organization financing all candidates thereby forcing them into competition with each other to promote the lobby’s policies. The jewish lobby’s introduction of competition between presidential candidates for jewish funding is a highly successful tactic for the jewish lobby but is highly destructive as far as america’s democracy is concerned. It forces each candidate to do their utmost to show that they are more committed to the zionist cause than any other candidate. This competition becomes even more intense as the election campaign draws to its denouement. As a consequence, candidates not merely have to focus on promoting policies which will win the widest number of votes, they also have to focus on promoting policies to maximize their funding from the jewish lobby so they have the wherewithal for their campaign. After all, there’s no point in candidates having the most populist policies if they have no money to publicize these policies and stimulate electors to go to the polling booths to vote for those policies.

For presidential hopefuls, winning the support of the jewish lobby has become far more important than winning the support of the american electorate because the jewish lobby’s financial support will ensure they are able to fund the mobilization of their electoral supporters. The converse is not the case: no presidential candidate stands any chance of winning the presidency in the face of opposition from the jewish lobby no matter how popular that politician might seem to be at the start of the presidential contest. In effect, the jewish lobby, with the aid of the considerable influence of the zionist dominated media, tells the american electorate who it should vote for.

Wealthy jews, some of whom are "new york money men" i.e. jewish financiers making billions from hedge fund investments, provide campaign contributions to specific candidates. From one perspective, it almost seems as if they might be treating america’s presidential election as a Horse race. Some donors might simply enjoy taking a flutter on the biggest Horse race in the country. Some gamble cautiously on the most favoured candidate whilst others take bigger risks on rank outsiders in the hope of a massive upset at the finishing line. The more knowledgeable donors might want to show that by picking the right Horse they’re the most politically astute. Others might aim to bask in the presidential spotlight when their Horse wins the race. Professional donors might seek fame for funding the best campaign tactic or the best election slogan that decisively turns an election in their candidate’s favour.

But the presidential election is not a mere Horse race. Whatever the motives that drive wealthy jews to make campaign donations these become secondary because the jewish lobby co-ordinates their donations. This transforms individual donations into collective support for the likudnik cause. In any case, the bulk of the wealthy donors are likudniks who want american presidents to promote likudnik policies to boost jewish supremacism in the middle east.

Whilst the lobby’s hedge funding might seem unnecessary and wasteful, in reality by forcing all the candidates into direct competition with each other, the lobby reaps enormous additional political dividends. Each candidate is compelled to show ever greater support for the global likudnik cause in order to win the most funds which will virtually guarantee them victory in the presidential election.

It might be countered that the jewish lobby is merely hedging its bets by funding all the major presidential candidates because it doesn’t want to take any risk over who wins the election. But this is much too superficial. If the jewish lobby didn’t fund all candidates, there would be no competition between them to promote the likudnik cause, and the jewish lobby’s political rewards wouldn’t be anything like as significant as those gleaned as a result of such competition.

The Consequences of Likudnik Hedge Funding.
The jewish lobby’s hedge funding has created a situation in which the american people’s only choice in the next presidential election is between likudnik candidates. Even worse is that the next likudnik president will implement policies for the benefit of the jos even at the expense of the interests of the american people themselves.

Democratic elections are supposed to allow electors to choose a candidate who seems best able to protect and promote voters’ interests and yet, in america's presidential elections, the jewish lobby has succeeded in turning this principle upside down. If no anti-war candidate emerges then america’s 2008 presidential election will be the world's only election in which electors are faced by a choice between likudnik traitors who will do their best to ruin their country’s national interests. The 2008 presidential election will then be a fake election to elect a fake president in a fake democratic system.

Americans still have a choice before these fraudulent elections take place. They could liberate themselves from their likudnik leaders before these hardline likudnik fundamentalists unleash a catastrophe upon the country from which it is unlikely to recover. Americans need to align themselves with hamas to overthrow the jewish occupation of palestine, and with hezbollah to overthrow the judaeo-american occupation of lebanon, if they are to stand any chance of liberating themselves from their likudnik masters.

Commentators’ Views on Likudnik Hedge Funding
Jeff Blankfort.
"Those who wonder which candidate the Jewish Zionist Lobby will support in the 2008 presidential elections should stop wondering. They will support all of the major candidates in order to assure that whoever wins will represent Israel's policies as the lobby determines them. It is very much like sports bookmaking which, coincidentally, is a predominantly Jewish business, both the legal and the illegal, in which the bookie tries to set the odds so whatever the result of the match or the game, the bookie ends up a winner. The cynical manner in which presidential candidates are supported by the lobby with Israel's interests placed ahead of those their fellow Americans certainly lends credence to the charge that the lobby is, in fact, a fifth column within the American political scene." (Jeff Blankfort ‘Forward: McCain Lines Up N.Y. [Jewish] Money Men’ jablankfort@earthlink.net January 18 2007).

James Petras.
"Major Democratic Party Presidential hopefuls have made an extraordinary effort to secure the Lobby’s approval: All back Bush’s ‘military option’ toward Iran; all support the annual $2.4 billion dollar foreign aid package to Israel, despite Israel’s $25,000 per capita income and booming high tech industry. Speaking before the National Jewish Democratic Council, New York Senator Hillary Clinton called on the US to confront Iran militarily (Jerusalem Post, April 26, 2007). Taking advantage of the fawning behavior of all the candidates, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz promoted a panel of Israeli ‘experts’ to evaluate US Presidential candidates on the basis of their servility to Israeli interests. This, in turn, led Senator Obama to send his latest, most crass and bellicose pronouncements regarding Iran to the Israeli panel (see Robert Kagan, ‘Obama the Interventionist’, Washington Post, April 29, 2007). Nonetheless, it is Hillary Clinton who leads the pack in securing Jewish campaign financing. The Lobby’s high regard for Clinton is not merely because of her total and complete identification with Israel, as stated as the March 2007 AIPAC Convention, but by the family’s notorious track record." (James Petras ‘The Pro-Israel Lobby and US Middle East Policy: The Score Card for 2007’ http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/the-pro-israel-lobby-and-us-middle-east-policy/ May 14, 2007).

Jim Lobe.
"Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani announced his foreign-policy advisory team Tuesday, and it looks from the membership as if he’s bidding for the Likud vote (for which he will no doubt receive tough competition from John McCain, Fred Thompson, and, eventually perhaps, Newt Gingrich)." (Jim Lobe ‘Giuliani, the Likud Candidate?’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=45 July 10th, 2007).

The Jews had no Motive for Attacking Hezbollah.

A review of Zunes' article ‘Sometimes the Dog Wags the Tail’

Updated July 24, 2007

First Coat of Whitewash.
Zunes’ first attempt to whitewash the jews-only state in palestine (jos) of responsibility for its july 2006 invasion of the lebanon was his article ‘The Logic of War’. In this article the evidence he cited, that the war was the fault of america’s wasp imperialists, consisted of statements made by "a pentagon consultant"; "donald rumsfeld"; "some Israeli officials, including top military officials"; jewish commentators in the american media; and selected jewish opinion polls. These are not what might be called cast iron, primary historical sources. For zunes, hezbollah’s capture of two jewish soldiers necessitated that the jos slaughter lebanese civilians and decimate large parts of the country’s infrastructure. "Hezbollah's provocative capture of the two Israeli soldiers that prompted the Israeli attacks". Hezbollah attacked the jewish military but the jews’ attacked lebanese civilians but zunes seems impervious to the illegality of the jos’s response. In conclusion, no blame could be attached to the jos either for initiating the war nor for its disproportionate and illegal attacks on lebanese civilians.

Bush goaded the Jews into the war against Hezbollah.
The main tenet of zunes’ latest whitewashing effort ‘Sometimes the Dog Wags the Tail’ is that america "goaded" the jos into attacking lebanon. The bush regime forced the jos to abandon its policy of "containment" and attack lebanon in order to promote american wasps’ goal of global supremacism. This tenet is a part of zunes’ wider project of absolving the jos of any responsibility for all the monstrous evils it has perpetrated since its illegal and violent inception in 1948. Blame americans, absolve the jews, wails this high priest of jewish racism from his supposedly left wing pulpit.

The implication of zunes’ stance is that the jos was not merely forced against its will into attacking and invading lebanon but that it had no desire, no motive, no national nor geostrategic, interest, for such an attack. Clearly, the more of a desire the jos had for a war against lebanon, the greater its complicity in the war. But zunes will not accept the jos is to blame in any way. To him, the hypothesis that the jos initiated the attack on lebanon with only cursory approval from the bush regime is not merely unrealistic, it is also grossly anti-semitic. As zunes’ ideological worldview drifts further away from reality, he denounces those who disagree with him as anti-semites.

Zunes implies the jos had no motive, and was thus blameless for attacking lebanon, in a number of ways.

Firstly, he fails to explore the possibility that the jos wanted revenge against hezbollah for kicking the jewish military out of lebanon six years earlier.

Secondly, he argues that during the six years from the end of the jewish occupation of lebanon to the jos’s invasion in july 2006, hezbollah posed no military threat to the jos. "Though Hezbollah had hardly renounced their extremist ideology (sic), major acts of terrorism were largely a thing of the past." Therefore, the jos had no military reason to attack hezbollah or lebanon.

Thirdly, he ignores the possibility that hezbollah’s killing of eight jewish soldiers and its capture of two others constituted a motive for the jos’s attack on lebanon.

Fourthly, he implies the jos had no motive for attacking lebanon because its military strategy was based on "containment". "Nor did the commission directly address the reason as to why Israel, in the words of the report, decided to "launch a military campaign and deviate from the policy of containment."

Fifthly, he believes the jos wants peace with its neighbours which, once again, implies it had no motive for attacking lebanon.

Sixthly, he suspects the jos could not have had a motive for attacking lebanon given that condoleezza rice, not ehud olmert, directed the jos’s military operations. "As veteran Israeli journalist Uri Avnery put it, "Rice was back and forth, dictating when to start, when to stop, what to do, what not to do. America is fully complicit.""

Finally, zunes does not raise even the slightest suspicion that the jos could have been motivated by the desire to acquire a vital resource: southern lebanon’s water supplies.

The Jews’ manifold motives for a war against Hezbollah.
In the real world, the jos had a number of motives for attacking lebanon which were more than enough to suggest it would have invaded lebanon even without american approval.

Firstly, the jos’s military, and many of its political parties especially the likudniks, were desperate to exact revenge on hezbollah for forcing the jewish army out of lebanon in may 2000. This was the jos’s first military defeat. Hezbollah freedom fighters had succeeded in killing or injuring thousands of jewish troops who’d been illegally occupying the country for eighteen years. Some jewish politicians continue to regard the jos’s withdrawal from lebanon as a mistake. "Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu harshly criticized the 2000 Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, led by then prime minister Ehud Barak, saying the move was irresponsible, and that Barak's administration "brought [Hezbollah leader Hassan] Nasarllah to our fence."" (Yossi Verter ‘Netanyahu: Barak is responsible for Hezbollah on our border’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/880417.html July 11, 2007). Zunes’ denial that the jos had a desire for revenge suggests that he ignores the reality of the jos as a jingoistic militaristic state.

Secondly, after hezbollah forced the jewish military to retreat from lebanon in may 2000, it had constantly taunted jewish political and military leaders, mocked the jos’s military capabilities, and had become a considerable thorn in the jos’s side. Nato has documented the jews’ psychotic aggression against hezbollah. "violations of Lebanese airspace and territorial waters which, according to UNIFIL exceeds 18,000 since 1978, when the UN began keeping records." (Franklin Lamb ‘The Approaching Prisoner Exchange: The Edginess of Lebanon’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb07032007.html July 3, 2007). Hezbollah’s main impact on the jos was psychological rather than military. "Over the next decade, Katyusha rocket attacks on Israel became common combat methods for Hezbollah, usually in response to Israeli attacks, but they rarely caused real physical or military damage inside Israel. The psychological damage on Israeli citizens, however, was paramount and the Israeli media would portray them as "terror attacks"." (Sami Moubayed ‘Lebanon guided by the Nasrullah factor’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB26Ak03.html February 26, 2005).

Thirdly, the killing of eight jewish soldiers and the capture of two others was a major challenge to the jos which it could not ignore. Just how important this motive was could be seen from the jews’ reaction to palestinians’ capture of a jewish soldier the previous month. However, whilst hezbollah’s daring military attack warranted a response it did not justify the jos’s illegal and disproportionate attacks on lebanese civilians.

Fourthly, the jos’s defence policies were not based on the principle of containment as zunes suggests but on the notion of deterrence. Hezbollah’s success in ending the jewish occupation of lebanon seriously undermined the jos’s policy of deterrence. Jewish military leaders had made it plain on many occasions that it was imperative to restore the jos's deterrent capability.

Fifthly, the jos has never been interested in peace in the middle east because conflict enables it to continually steal land from palestinians and its neighbours. Its foreign policy is to establish regional hegemony. Once america and the jos had successfully used the united nations to demand the withdrawal of the syrian military from lebanon, it was only a matter of time before the jews stepped into this military vacuum to re-establish its military supremacism over the country. "It matters only that Israel demands total military domination of the Middle East." (Chris Hedges ‘A Declaration of Independence From Israel’ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070702_a_declaration_of_independence_from_israel/ July 02, 2007).

Sixthly, quite bizarrely, there is no one else on the planet who even remotely suspects that condolezza rice was personally running the jews’ military operations against hezbollah. Even if she had more of an input in directing the war than the jos’s democratically elected prime minister, ehud olmert (which she didn’t) this wouldn’t be conceding anything of importance since the prime minister’s role is to put a democratic gloss on decisions made by military leaders. "A close reading of the interim report of Judge Eliahou Winograd's report on the summer war shows clearly that it was the Israeli army which ran the military, strategic and political campaign. Again and again in Winograd's report it is clear that Mr Olmert and his Defence Minister failed to challenge "in a competent way" (in the commission's devastating phrase) the plans of the Israeli army." (Robert Fisk ‘Olmert Comes Undone’ http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk05032007.html May 3, 2007).

Condoleezza rice has survived in the bush regime primarily because she remains loyal even when the likudniks banish her to the political sidelines. It is not only commentators who have ridiculed her frequent trips to the middle east which never result in any political success. Even members of the bush regime publicly proclaim that her role is to sustain the charade that america is trying to bring about a peace process in palestine and the middle east in order to allow the jos to implement its supremacist policies. "As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice presses Israelis and Palestinians to meet a new set of policy benchmarks, the White House is reassuring Jewish groups and conservatives that the president has no plans to pressure Jerusalem. Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams told a group of Jewish communal leaders last week that the president would ensure that the process does not lead to Israel being pushed into an agreement with which it is uncomfortable. Also last week, at a regular gathering of Jewish Republicans, sources said, Abrams described President Bush as an "emergency brake" who would prevent Israel from being pressed into a deal; during the breakfast gathering, the White House official also said that a lot of what is done during Rice’s frequent trips to the region is "just process" - steps needed in order to keep the Europeans and moderate Arab countries "on the team" and to make sure they feel that the United States is promoting peace in the Middle East." (Nathan Guttman ‘Top Bush Adviser Says Rice’s Push For Mideast Peace Is ‘Just Process’’ http://www.forward.com/articles/top-bush-adviser-says-rice-s-push-for-mideast-p/ May 11, 2007). To believe that this marginalized woman was guiding the jos’s military operations against lebanon is bizarre.

Finally, the jews’ coveting of vital resources in lebanon cannot be overlooked. Indeed, during the war, whilst the jews were temporarily occupying parts of southern lebanon, they took the opportunity to pump as much water as they could from the al-wazzani river back into the jos. "Meanwhile, an Israeli bulldozer carried out digging work on Tuesday before laying water pipes in the Wazzani River in Marjayoun in a bid to funnel water to the town of Ghajar, the National News Agency (NNA) reported this week." (Mohammed Zaatari ‘Israelis use bulldozers to wreck crops in South’ http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=75576 September 20, 2006). Such theft confirms once again that the jos is a kleptomaniacal state which never misses an opportunity to steal its neighbours’ resources.

It is striking that zunes doesn’t refer to the jos’s desire for such a vital resource. He can’t bring himself to believe the jos would attack lebanon over water even though, to the jos, it is as much of a vital resource as oil. This is despite the fact that, firstly, he almost invariably explains wars in terms of conflicts over scarce resources. Indeed, he insists the sole reason for america’s invasions of afghanistan and iraq had been to gain control over these countries’ oil resources. Secondly, that one of the main reasons the jews won’t return the golan heights they stole from syria is because water supplies from the area are vital for the expansion of the jewish economy. Thirdly, the jews have been intent on acquiring the waters from the litani river for nearly a hundred years. Zunes always resorts to a materialistic explanation for conflict and yet he refuses to do so as far as the jos is concerned. It’s zunes’ highly selective use of this "vital resources" explanation that raises the suspicion that his sole concern is protecting the jos rather than impartially assessing the situation. This is yet another example of zunes’ adherence to jewish exceptionalism.

It should also be considered that if bush pushed the jos into a war it did not want, why did the jos blitz southern lebanon with cluster bombs at the very end of the war when it had no military value? Even if the bush regime had been able to push the jos into the war (which it couldn’t) it couldn’t control the degree to which the jos would prosecute the war. Countries forced into wars they do not want minimize their war campaign. The jos’s excessive use of cluster bombs at the end of the war was a clear example of the jos going far beyond what the bush regime might have wanted to get out of the war. This appalling war crime which continues to murder and maim children and vulnerable people in lebanon was an expression of the jews’ hatred of hezbollah showing the intensity of their motives for this war.

Zunes’ argument that the jos had no motive for the war in lebanon, and can thus be deemed blameless, is as big a lie as bush’s rationale for america’s invasion of iraq - to destroy saddam’s wmds. Zunes willfully ignores the jos’s wide range of motives for attacking hezbollah not merely to protect the jos but to allow it to continue exercising its reign of terror around the middle east.

Once again the Jews are Victims.
According to zunes, the bush regime forced poor, innocent, peace-loving, jews against their will into the war against lebanese civilians. For him, one of the victims of the jews’ war against lebanese civilians were the jews themselves. "While the Lebanese people, their infrastructure, and their environment suffered the most from this immoral and misguided U.S. policy, Israel was a victim as well." The bush regime has now made the jews’ predicament far worse because they are now confronted by even more enemies throughout the middle east. This makes it still more difficult for them to find arab leaders with whom they could conclude ‘peace’ agreements. Thus, if it wasn’t for those horrible americans the jos wouldn’t have any enemies in the middle east and everyone in the region could live happily ever after. Zunes suggests the jews are appalled by the mess the americans, their supposed protectors, have caused them. However, the jews don’t seem that angry with the bush regime considering they’re still accepting american largesse.

As he has done before, zunes reaches back to the medieval period to find an illuminating parallel to explain the cause of the lebanese war. "Just as ruling elites of medieval Europe cynically used some members of the Jewish community as moneylenders and tax-collectors in order to maintain their power and set up this vulnerable minority as scapegoats, so the United States is cynically using the world's only Jewish state to advance its hegemonic agenda in the Middle East, thereby contributing to the disturbing rise of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiments in the Islamic world." The bush regime has taken a highly precautious approach to pressurizing north korea to give up its nuclear weapons even though it possesses only a mere eight nuclear devices of dubious potency. So the belief that america could coerce the world’s third biggest nuclear power, with advanced inter-continental missiles, with the world’s fourth largest and most advanced airforce, into acting against its own interests is just a fantasy.

Zunes summons up the medieval period to defend his beloved jos. But this is not an analogy. For zunes this is a real historical trend. As far as he is concerned, the jews have always been the victims of violence and oppression from biblical times to the present day. He portrays himself as elucidating a sophisticated, modern day, anti-imperialist theory but all that this theory is doing is updating the ancient jewish canard of the ‘jew as eternal victim’.

Zunes’ hypothesis that "the Bush administration, with the support of such a broad bipartisan majority of Congress, goaded Israel into waging an unnecessary war that cost the lives of scores of its citizens and emboldened anti-Israel extremists in Lebanon and beyond" is a modern day conspiracy theory. Even if it was true that the bush regime had somehow "goaded" the world’s third biggest nuclear weapons’ state into a war it opposed, it ought to be remembered that the person formulating america’s middle east policy was a jewish likudnik, elliott abrams. So, at the very least, it would be much more accurate to portray the lebanese war as one in which a member of the likudnik party in the bush regime used american power to pressure the kadima dominated jos government into carrying out the policy of a rival political party, the likudniks. Also relevant here is that according to a number of accounts from likudniks with direct connections to the likudnik dominated bush regime, during the jews’ war against lebanon, abrams had tried to push the jos into attacking syria. It refused. From the perspective of zunes’ analysis, is it not a little contradictory that the bush regime managed to push the jews into one war but not another?

Zunes’ gross anti-Americanism.
The converse of zunes’ pro-jos bigotry is his gross anti-americanism. Whilst many people around the world condemned the jews for slaughtering innocent lebanese civilians, zunes condemns the americans for sacrificing jewish lives. "there is still enormous bitterness that the Bush administration – with overwhelming bipartisan support from Congress – was so willing to sacrifice Israeli lives and Israel's long-term security interests to advance American imperial objectives."

No wonder the left in america is in such an appalling state of unpopularity when leading left wingers like zunes continually blame america for implementing what are clearly likudnik inspired policies designed solely for the benefit of the jos. Although he’s supposed to be a left winger he’s clearly willing to sacrifice the left’s prospects of winning popular support in america for the sake of protecting the jos and its succession of extreme right wing, crypto-nazi, governments. No matter what dreadful acts the jos commits, zunes will always blame americans for forcing the jews to commit such acts and then heap further blame on the americans for sacrificing jewish lives and interests. And the more he blames americans for the jews’ endless war crimes, the more bankrupt his left wing ideology becomes, and the greater the left’s unpopularity. If zunes had a choice he would undoubtedly alienate every american voter from left wing politics for generations to come as long as he could boost the interests of the racist jos. There is no difference between, on the one hand, wacky christian fundamentalists who have been fooled by perverse interpretations of the bible into giving total support to the jos and, on the other hand, wacky left wingers who have been deceived by perverse interpretations of american imperialism into sacrificing their political principles for the sake of protecting the racist jos.

The jos had been planning for a war against hezbollah since may 2000 when the jewish army was unceremoniously kicked out of lebanon. It wanted revenge for the killing and injuring of thousands of jews during the occupation of lebanon and has been intent on reasserting its military supremacy in the region. If all had gone well during its invasion of lebanon it might have depopulated southern lebanon and siphoned off the invaluable waters of the litani river. But the jews suffered a second major defeat at the hands of heroic hezbollah freedom fighters. No sooner was the war over than left wing commentators with likudnik sympathies launched into a propaganda campaign. Firstly, blaming america for pushing the jos into the war. And then, secondly, pointing out how badly the jos has lost out because of american global supremacism. The obvious implication of this perspective is that america owes the jos huge political and military debts for doing what america wanted. This leads to the conclusion that america should reward the jos with even more money and weapons so it can win the next war.

Zunes’ neo-lefty argument that america is to blame for anything the jews do is not so surprising given that his right-wing colleagues, the neoconservatives, blame the american people for america’s military defeat in vietnam and the pending defeat in iraq. "Tellingly, the Iraq war's intellectual boosters, while insisting the surge is working, are moving to assign blame for defeat. And they have already picked their target: the American people. This "blame the American people" approach has, through repetition, almost become the accepted explanation for the outcome in Vietnam, attributing defeat to a loss of public support and not to fifteen years of military failure." (Peter Galbraith ‘The Way to Go in Iraq’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11305 July 18, 2007).

The Jos’s Independence.
America did not force the jos into a war against lebanese civilians. The jos no more got permission from the bush regime for its attack on lebanon in july 2006 than earlier jewish governments got permission from america for the invasion of the suez canal in 1956, the bombing of the uss liberty in 1967, the attack on iraq’s osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, and the invasion of lebanon in 1982. The jos has never asked american permission for its incessant warmongering. At best, it informs america what it is going to do and then uses its political agent in america, the jewish lobby, to coerce administrations into joining in militarily or giving it political support. The jos does not implement american policies. On the contrary, america implements likudnik policies. "U.S. foreign policy, especially under the current Bush administration, has become little more than an extension of Israeli foreign policy." (Chris Hedges ‘A Declaration of Independence From Israel’ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070702_a_declaration_of_independence_from_israel/ July 02, 2007).

Likudnik Control over the Western World.
In 1991, jewish lobbies in the west coerced and manipulated western states into imposing united nations’ sanctions on iraq to aid and abet the interests of the jos. These sanctions killed an estimated half a million children. These same lobbies also forced the west to impose wholesale sanctions on palestinians in order to boost jewish supremacism. "The relentless destruction of Iraq is mirrored by similar devastation in Gaza. Twelve years of US-imposed, United Nations-approved sanctions literally destroyed Iraqi society. Western sanctions are meant to do the same to Palestinian society." (Pepe Escobar ‘Hamastan and Red Zoneistan’ Hamastan and Red Zoneistan’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IF29Ak03.html Jun 29, 2007 June 29, 2007). Western lobbies have also pressurized the un into imposing sanctions on lebanon to try and achieve diplomatically what the jews couldn’t achieve through military intervention. In december 2006, they forced the security council into imposing sanctions on iran – in all probability to weaken the country prior to a judaeo-american attack. The jos and its allies will force the security council to ratchet up these sanctions on iran until they become as draconian as those imposed on iraqis and palestinians.

Under the irresistible pressure of jewish lobbies, the west is currently imposing increasingly severe sanctions on millions of people in the greater middle east for the sake of protecting the apartheid state in palestine. Huge numbers of innocent middle eastern people are being starved, deprived of medicines, basic health services, domestic power, sanitation/refuse systems, basic security, basic civil liberties, etc. simply because they refuse to pledge allegiance to the racist jos. The west’s use of the starvation tactic is almost unprecedented in the modern age and indicates the old testamentary nature of the war it is launching on islamic peoples. These sanctions are just a prelude to further proxy zionist wars which will drive even more millions of people into even greater states of deprivation and destitution.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest the jos controls american and western politics. Most western politicians and commentators refuse to confront such evidence. At times it seems difficult to find conclusive proof that one country has compelled another into war. The truth about the likudniks’ dominance of america is somewhat opaque when considering international politics. However, it becomes much more transparent when looking at domestic changes in the two countries from a historical perspective.

After the second world war america was the leader of the western world, the most civilized part of the free world whilst the jos was a rogue state. Today, america has changed dramatically to become a rogue state in alliance with the jos. In other words, it is america that has changed not the jos. In the past, america was a multi-cultural, anti-racist, liberal, society whilst the jos was an apartheid state which practiced ethnic cleansing on a daily basis. Today, america has changed dramatically under pressure of the jos and the jewish lobby, to become an increasingly racist society spewing out a torrent of racial hatred against what are called islamofascists in which all moslems are denounced as terrorists. The jos’s apartheid system has become even more sophisticated in its racist oppression of the palestinians. There is little difference today between mainstream american politicians and the neo-nazis in the olmert cabinet. It is american politicians who have changed to become like jewish racists rather than jewish racists becoming more democratic and multi-cultural like former american politicians. "the neoconservatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Impeach Now’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07162007.html July 16, 2007).

In the past, america was the most democratic country in the democratic west, whilst the jos was just a vicious militaristic state with a democratic facade. Today, under pressure from the jos and the jewish lobby, american politicians are edging closer to creating a militaristic state trapping the american people in a fake democracy in which the only candidates in the 2008 presidential election will be warmongering likudniks intent on war with iran. In sum, whilst america has changed dramatically so that it has become the mirror image of the jos, the jos has remained steadfast as a racist, militaristic, rogue state. The likudniks have remodeled american domestic politics until it has become virtually identical to that in the jos. In the west it is now commonly argued that the jos is "an island of Western values in a sea of Arab Muslim barbarism." This is a likudnik fabrication. It is the exact opposite of the truth. The jos has popularized its racist values until they have become commonplace amongst western elites. Conversely, the west has totally failed to popularize its civilized and humanitarian values, its multi-culturalism and anti-racism, within the jos.

Neo-lefties resorting to Extrapolations.
Zunes, like his jewish master noam chomsky, proposes that the west invade afghanistan and iraq because of oil. They dismiss the alternative hypothesis that the jos and america’s jewish lobby, manipulated the bush regime into fighting proxy zionist wars against these two countries. To emphasize their analysis they speculate that if there was no oil in the middle east then america would never have invaded these countries. However, it is much more plausible to suggest that america would still have invaded these countries, even if they had no oil, because america’s jewish lobby would have manipulated american politicians into believing america was being confronted by a geostrategic threat i.e. saddam’s nuclear weapons. The bush regime would have had to act against this geostrategic threat even if iraq had no oil – just as america has had to act against korea even though it has no oil. That chomsky and zunes believe oil was the critical factor in america’s foreign policy reveals their failure to understand geostrategic issues. America had to confront iraq in the same way that it has had to confront korea because nuclear weapons are a geostrategic issue – it has nothing to do with whether these countries possess oil. The neo-lefty idea that if afghanistan and iraq had no oil then america would never have invaded them is just another device for minimizing the power of america’s jewish lobby to manipulate the bush regime into wars for the benefit of the jos. It could be speculated that if the jos didn’t exist then america would never have needed to invade afghanistan and iraq because these countries would have had democratic, multi-cultural, governments who would have guaranteed america’s oil supplies.

Currently, if america was promoting the interests of america’s oil companies it would be much more focussed on the rising anti-american opposition developing in south america rather than on arab rulers doing their best to supply the west with fossil fuels.

The judaeo-american invasions and occupations of afghanistan and iraq are as illegitimate and catastrophic as the jewish invasion and occupation of palestine. Even worse, the former were carried out overwhelmingly to enhance the jews’ occupation of palestine. There would never have been an invasion of iraq if it wasn’t for the jos and the jewish lobbies around the western world raising the spectre of saddam’s nuclear weapons. It is possible that some likudniks were so paranoid as to actually believe there was a possibility saddam possessed nuclear weapons whilst others believed the allegation was simply a geostrategic device to manipulate america into an invasion. The former believed they didn’t need to take any chance that saddam might have had such weapons, despite all the evidence that he didn’t, because they could manipulate america into an invasion of iraq to discover the truth.

The Rise of the Likudniks’ Quislings.
The jos and its jewish allies have succeeded in zionizing american society whilst americans have failed abysmally to americanize the jos. The corollary of this is that huge numbers of americans have been transformed into becoming quislings who are willing to sacrifice their own country for the sake of the jos. The most well known of the likudniks’ quislings are the religious right, formerly the moral majority, who have been transformed into the so-called christian zionists. The leading non-jewish politicians in america’s two mainstream parties are all likudniks who pledge their allegiance to the jos and would sacrifice their own country’s interests to the apartheid state. The democratic and republican parties are both likudnik parties. The same is also true throughout much of the west – especially in britain. Around the western world there are non-jewish leaders whose prime concern is not the interests of their own country but the interests of their likudnik paymasters’ country i.e. the jos. The most prominent likudnik quislings are bush, blair, brown, sarkozy, josé maría aznar, abbas, siniora, mubarak, prince bandar, king abdullah of jordan, etc. Many of these quislings are supported by a likudnik dominated media. The likudniks’ quislings are implementing the jos’s immizerization policies in the middle east. Virtually all journalists in america’s likudnik dominated media spew out likudnik propaganda. The likudniks also have quisling political commentators such as the neo-conservatives, the neo-lefties, the neo-liberals, and even most shockingly of all, the neo-peaceniks. The most prominent neo-lefties are noam chomsky and stephen zunes. Zunes isn’t just a traitor to america’s national interests. He’s a traitor to left wing political principles, to humanitarian and civilized values. He believes himself to be at the forefront of protest against american imperialism but, by failing to appreciate the distinctly likudnik nature of this imperialism, which is being implemented for the benefit of the jos rather than for america or the west, he ends up condoning the world’s most virulent imperialists. It is a remarkable testimony to the plasticity of zunes’ intellect that he has managed to turn his critique of american imperialism into a cover-up of likudnik imperialism thereby absolving the jews of all wrong doing. Zunes is the left wing version of the christian zionist leader, john hagee. Both marxism and christianity have been transformed, totally against their basic principles, to support jewish racism. Zunes is just the latest non-jewish commentator who, having adopted a likudnik theory, finds himself espousing quisling views by placing all blame for the jos’s warmongering on his own country. This is the age of likudnik quislings in religion, politics, and the media.

Zunes is wrong to suggest the bush regime had been willing to sacrifice jewish lives and the jos's long-term security interests by demanding it invaded lebanon. On the contrary, the bush regime has been willing to sacrifice american lives and america’s national and geostrategic interests for the sake of the jos by invading afghanistan and iraq. The jos was perfectly willing to sacrifice american lives and treasure for the sake of finding out the truth about saddam’s wmds in order to enhance the jews’ regional supremacism. The jos is currently manipulating america into sacrificing even more american lives and treasure to attack iran even though such an attack/invasion is not in america’s geostrategic interests. Ever since its establishment, the jos has inflicted a series of increasingly damaging catastrophes upon america. The biggest catastrophe it will inflict will be manipulating the country into attacking iran. Be sure that when the jews push america into such an attack, chomsky and zunes will be on hand to blame america for the disaster and absolve the jews of all responsibility for the catastrophe america will suffer.

Blair Flees Britain

Updated July 16, 2007

When blair resigned as prime minister it was widely expected he would retire to the backbenches and start making arrangements for lucrative lecture tours to likudnik dominated universities in america as a fabulous remuneration for his many years of loyal service to the global likudnik cause. It should have been obvious however, that blair could not go back to an ordinary life in britain whether as an mp meeting his constituents or, going out in public doing everyday things such as shopping, going to restaurants, the theatre, etc. Blair is so despised and hated by millions of people in britain that if he’d tried to live a normal life then he would have had to have been protected by huge numbers of private security guards to stop members of the public from expressing their contempt for him. He had acted so treacherously towards his own country that he can no longer remain in the country doing ordinary, everyday things because of the abuse he would receive from ordinary members of the public.

What a striking contrast to 1997 when he won the general election. Before he became britain’s likudnik prime minister, blair was mobbed everywhere he went because he was deemed a breath of fresh air in comparison to the wide-scale corruption of the tory party. He was regarded as being honest, a man of integrity, who would foster more progressive civilized values in a society still stifled by repressive tory values. Today, he’d also be mobbed everywhere he went but for entirely contrasting reasons since many regard him as a mass murderer, war criminal, and likudnik quisling. "Britain's most despised and discredited man ended his 10 year reign June 27 when he stepped down from office transferring his ruling Labor Party's leadership to successor Gordon Brown. He had no choice because of seething public displeasure over his allying with George Bush's illegal wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Tony Blair is despised and discredited at home, hated across the world, and the Arab street condemns him." (Stephen Lendman ‘Reinventing A War Criminal’ http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman030707A.htm July 03, 2007); "The disaster in Iraq had made him a much hated politician and slowly support began to ebb." (Tariq Ali ‘Bush's Zombie Shuffles Off. Adieu, Blair, Adieu’ http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq05102007.html May 10, 2007). Although most of the british establishment adored him there were still those who took a more populist view. "This, too, is mild compared to what is said about Blair in the British Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. Senior diplomats have told me on more than one occasion that it would not upset them too much if Blair were to be tried as a war criminal." (Tariq Ali ‘Bush's Zombie Shuffles Off. Adieu, Blair, Adieu’ http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq05102007.html May 10, 2007).

Bush invented the post of ‘peace envoy to the middle east’ not merely because he wanted blair to play an important role with condoleezza rice in pretending to the world that america wanted peace in the middle east but primarily to give blair something to do out of britain. In other words, he was helping blair to flee britain to escape the hostility of a substantial proportion of the british people – the "natives" as that treacherous jew robert maxwell used to call them.

One section of british society which would have loved to have had the opportunity to meet blair were the relatives of dead british troops. But, just like ehud olmert who refused to meet the relatives of dead jewish soldiers killed during the jews’ attack on lebanese civilians in july 2006, blair refused to meet the relatives of dead british servicemen. "Tony Blair, who never had contact with relatives of British soldiers lost in Iraq or Afghanistan ..." (Raymond Whitaker ‘Brown's Wars Part 2: Meltdown on the frontline in Basra’ http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2725713.ece July 01, 2007). It has to be asked why should he try to console grieving relatives when his war against iraq was intended solely to benefit the jews-only state in palestine?

So the story of blair’s political career is now obvious. He won the approval of the hardline, likudnik fundamentalist, rupert murdoch which enabled him to win a landslide in the 1997 general election. He was funded by the likudnik fundraiser lord levy to implement likudnik foreign policies. And now he’s being paid to spin the likudnik illusion that the jews want peace in the middle east. It’s interesting that blair’s only other job offer was from the likudnik extremist murdoch.

Blair is britain’s first prime minister who has acted so treacherously towards his own country that he’s no longer welcome in it. The only country in which he’s welcome as a true hero is in the jos. No wonder he’s gone to live and work there.

Elliott Abrams makes America’s Middle East Policy not Condoleezza Rice.

Alastair Crooke and Mark Perry.
"The same confusion was apparent at the White House, where National Security Council (NSC) official Elliott Abrams, the architect of US policy in the Middle East, was growing increasingly irritated with Rice's attempt to restart Israeli-Palestinian talks. Abrams, supported by officials in the Office of the Vice President, had consistently argued that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a morass better left in the hands of the Israelis. That viewpoint was clear from the first days of the administration of President George W Bush, when Vice President Dick Cheney knocked down any attempt to re-engage with Israelis and Palestinians." (Alastair Crooke and Mark Perry ‘How the Saudis stole a march on the US’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC06Ak04.html March 06, 2007).

"Elliott Abrams was enraged and more surprised by King Abdullah's initiative than any other US official. (The first meeting of Abu Mazen, Meshaal and King Abdullah took place in Mecca on the morning of February 6, 2007). The Saudis had calculated his opposition and taken steps to dampen it. In the immediate aftermath of the Mecca meeting, Abdullah dispatched Bandar bin Sultan for consultations with Abrams, Cheney and Bush. Bandar reassured the Americans that Abdullah's initiative would have long-term positive consequences, weaning Hamas away from Iran and allowing the Fatah old guard to rebuild their organization. It was the only way they could hope to compete. . Privately, he remained convinced that Rice's opening with Abu Mazen to restart the peace process had undermined his own program of support for Fatah radicals. The biggest loser in Mecca, however, was not Fatah, but Elliott Abrams. Abrams' program of arming Fatah - first to spark a "hard coup" and then, when it was clear that that would not work, a "soft coup" - has failed. Abrams convinced the Quartet, the Europeans, the Israelis, the Saudis and even some Palestinians that his program to undermine Hamas would succeed. Give us one year, he had said. Now, one year later, two important supporters of his program - the Saudis and the Abu Mazen government - have changed their views. The Europeans are not far behind." (Alastair Crooke and Mark Perry ‘How the Saudis stole a march on the US’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC06Ak04.html March 06, 2007).

Nathan Guttman.
"As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice presses Israelis and Palestinians to meet a new set of policy benchmarks, the White House is reassuring Jewish groups and conservatives that the president has no plans to pressure Jerusalem. Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams told a group of Jewish communal leaders last week that the president would ensure that the process does not lead to Israel being pushed into an agreement with which it is uncomfortable. Also last week, at a regular gathering of Jewish Republicans, sources said, Abrams described President Bush as an "emergency brake" who would prevent Israel from being pressed into a deal; during the breakfast gathering, the White House official also said that a lot of what is done during Rice’s frequent trips to the region is "just process" - steps needed in order to keep the Europeans and moderate Arab countries "on the team" and to make sure they feel that the United States is promoting peace in the Middle East." (Nathan Guttman ‘Top Bush Adviser Says Rice’s Push For Mideast Peace Is ‘Just Process’’ http://www.forward.com/articles/top-bush-adviser-says-rice-s-push-for-mideast-p/ May 11, 2007).

Charles Hagel
"The columnist also said Hagel quoted foreign ministers, ambassadors and former Americans officials as saying they believe Abrams "is making policy in the Middle East." Israel, according to sources close to decision-makers in Jerusalem, also sees Abrams as the leading policy figure in the administration on Middle East issues, a status that has led Olmert to keep an open channel of communications with Bush’s senior adviser." (Nathan Guttman ‘Top Bush Adviser Says Rice’s Push For Mideast Peace Is ‘Just Process’’ http://www.forward.com/articles/top-bush-adviser-says-rice-s-push-for-mideast-p/ May 11, 2007).

Jim Lobe.
"If the reports prove true and Blair accepts the post, the move is likely to mark a victory by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over more hawkish forces within the administration led by Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and Vice President Dick Cheney's office. The latter have repeatedly frustrated her efforts to press Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to bolster Abbas by dismantling illegal Jewish settlements and to ease travel restrictions on Palestinians." (Jim Lobe ‘Tony Blair as Middle East czar’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IF22Ak03.html June 22, 2007).

Jonathan Steele.
"Arming insurgents against elected governments has a long US pedigree and it is no accident that Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser and apparent architect of the anti-Hamas subversion, was a key player in Ronald Reagan's supply of weapons to the Contras who fought Nicaragua's elected government in the 1980s." (Jonathan Steele ‘Hamas acted on a very real fear of a US-sponsored coup’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2108820,00.html June 22, 2007).

Patrick Seale.
Condoleezza Rice, the unfortunate U.S. Secretary of State whom some had thought was planning a new push for Arab-Israeli talks, has clearly been outgunned by pro-Israeli hawks, such as Elliott Abrams at the National Security Council." (Patrick Seale ‘Israel Seems Determined to Dig its own Grave’ http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/contributors/06-2007/Article-20070622-537a929a-c0a8-10ed-01b1-6996ee6d515a/story.html June 22, 2007).