July 7, 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.


Post a Comment

<< Home