America is a Jewish Colony: Update on Olmert’s bragging about his humiliation of Bush and the American people

Updated February 22, 2009.

How have America’s commentators reacted to Olmert’s confession?
Abraham Foxman defends Olmert.
Abraham foxman, national director of the jewish fascist organization the anti-defamation league, defended olmert by likening the incident to a private squabble between two friends. "I have no problem with what Olmert did," said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "I think the mistake was to talk about it in public. This is what friendships are about. He was not interfering in political issues. You have a relationship, and if you don’t like what is being done, then you go to the boss and tell him."" (Nathan Guttman ‘Olmert’s Boast of ‘Shaming’ Rice Provokes Diplomatic Furor’ http://www.forward.com/articles/14957/ January 15, 2009).

This is just blatant spin. A person does not publicly boast about revealing his friend’s stupidity (i.e. bush didn’t know the content of the resolution); he doesn’t enjoy boasting about humiliating a friend (bush); nor relish shaming another friend (rice).

Foxman is trying to diminish the seriousness of olmert’s major political gaffe. He wants to prevent the incident from becoming a full scale political controversy which might enable more americans to learn about the jews’ death grip over the bush regime and america’s political system. He doesn’t want the american public questioning the power that the jews-only state and its political agents have over america, the world’s sole military hyperpower. Such a controversy might end up destroying the taboos the jewish lobby has so carefully nurtured in america over the last six decades. It could harm the zionist state’s chances of dominating future american administrations. Foxman wants the american public to continue to believe in the zionist-nurtured fantasy that america is the greatest nation on Earth rather than a pathetic puppet which makes massive annual tribute payments, and supplies endless quantities of weapons and munitions, to its jewish masters on the other side of the planet.

Douglas Bloomfield defends Olmert.
"Douglas Bloomfield, a former chief lobbyist for the Washington-based pro-Israel lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, dismissed the episode as "a spitting match between two lame ducks." "This reinforces the perception that the Israeli prime minister and Israeli leaders have easy access to the leaders of the U.S.," Bloomfield said. "It is a fact that the Israeli prime minister can get the president on the phone. Not every prime minister in the world can do that. It is no secret that Israel tried to influence the U.S. regarding U.N. votes. It reinforces what the rivals of Israel say about the enormous clout Israel has in Washington, and I see nothing wrong with that." But Bloomfield added, "It is a mistake to talk about it."" (Nathan Guttman ‘Olmert’s Boast of ‘Shaming’ Rice Provokes Diplomatic Furor’ http://www.forward.com/articles/14957/ January 15, 2009). Bloomfield defends olmert but believes he was wrong to make such an incident public. In other words, the problem is not that olmert treats the american president as his whipping boy but that he tells everyone about it.

William Pfaff.
"Olmert told an Israeli audience that, last Friday, upon hearing of Rice’s position, he immediately telephoned George W. Bush. Told that Bush was delivering an address in Philadelphia, Olmert replied, "I’m not interested," demanding to speak to Bush. Bush then left his Philadelphia podium and, according to Olmert, the Israeli prime minister instructed the American president that "the U.S. cannot possibly vote in favor of this resolution." Bush then telephoned Rice and ordered her to abstain from the vote. That’s Olmert’s story, or Israeli megalomania, presented to the Israelis with pride, but unlikely to be received by Americans with pleasure." (William Pfaff ‘Who’s in Charge, Obama, the Pentagon or Israel?’ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090115_whos_in_charge_obama_the_pentagon_or_israel/ January 15, 2009). Pfaff couldn’t be more coy. The president of the jews-only state publicly brags about humiliating the president of the world’s military hyper-power but, according to pfaff, the only negative outcome is that it is "unlikely to be received by Americans with pleasure." Where’s pfaff’s raging denunciation of olmert’s insult to his president? Or does he really know who controls america and doesn’t want to be the one to spill the beans?

David Bromwich.
"American politicians exhibit an identification with Israel that is now in excess of the measurable effects of the Israel lobby. The blindness of the identification has led the US to respond with keen sensitivity to Israeli requests for assistance and moral support, and to underestimate the suffering caused by the Gaza blockade and by the settlements and checkpoints and the wall on the West Bank. Yet grant the potency of the lobby and the identification, even so, the arrogance with which Israel dictates policy is hard to comprehend on the usual index of motives. Ehud Olmert boasted to a crowd in Ashkelon on 12 January that with one phone call to Bush, he forced Condoleezza Rice to abstain from voting for the UN ceasefire resolution she herself had prepared. The depth, the efficacy and the immediacy of the influence are treated by Olmert as an open secret." (David Bromwich ‘LRB contributors react to events in Gaza’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/web/15/01/2009/mult04_.html January 15, 2009). Bromwich argues that americans just identify themselves with whatever the jewish nazis decide to do thereby implying that jewish extremists haven’t colonized america. Quite why americans desire to give away billions of dollars in non-refundable loans, weapons and munitions, and then suffer being reviled by the rest of the world when the jews use these loans/weapons to commit gross acts of barbarism, is not explained. But then advocating such nonsense is much easier than explaining how the jews have turned america into a huge warehouse from which they extract whatever resources they need to boost the jews’ regional supremacism in the middle east.

Eric Margolis.
"It now seems clear the last disastrous act of the Bush administration was giving Israel a green light to launch its final solution campaign against the Hamas government in Gaza." (Eric Margolis ‘Eradicating Hamas’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis132.html January 15, 2009). There is not the slightest bit of evidence that bush green lighted the jews’ slaughter of palestinians in gaza. Margolis is simply fantasizing on the basis that because america is a big, extremely rich, and militarily powerful country whilst the jews-only state is much smaller, then the former must be dictating, or at the very least greenlighting, what the latter must do. And yet if olmert can publicly humiliate bush, knowing that american politicians don’t have the power to punish him for what he’s said, then the proposition that olmert had to seek permission from bush before launching into this such a barbaric attack is clearly bogus.

Glenn Greenwald.
Greenwald more or less points out that america is a jewish colony but seems unable to come out and say it. "What possible justification is there for using American resources, the American military, to patrol the Red Sea in order to ensure that Gazans remain defenseless? That question is particularly pronounced given that the U.S. is already shoveling, and will continue to shovel, billions and billions of dollars to Israel in military and other aid. Why, on top of all of that, are increasingly scarce American resources, rather than Israeli resources, being used to bar Palestinians from obtaining weapons? And why, as it is more vital than ever that we extricate ourselves from Middle Eastern conflicts, are we making ourselves still more of a partisan and combatant in this most entrenched and religiously-driven territorial dispute over the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Israel is hardly the only country which the U.S. expends vast resources, including military resources, to defend and protect, and all of those commitments ought to be seriously re-examined. But none of those other commitments entail anywhere near the costs, on every level, of our seemingly limitless willingness, eagerness, to involve ourselves so directly and self-destructively in every last conflict that Israel has. Given what we are constantly being told is the grave economic peril the U.S. faces, shouldn't we be moving in exactly the opposite direction than the imperial expansion which we continue to pursue?" (Glenn Greenwald ‘Continuing Bush policies in Israel and Afghanistan’ http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/26/israel/index.html January 26, 2009).

James Petras.
Petras is one of the few commentators around the world who is willing to talk about americans’ subservience to their jewish masters. "The second example of Zionist belief in Israeli supremacy over US Middle East policy and Presidential servility came in response to Israeli Prime Minister Olmert’s boast that he successfully dictated and imposed White House policy in the United Nation. According to the Forward: "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert didn’t do anything wrong but he should have kept his mouth shut. That was the reaction of several Jewish leaders…’I have no problem with what Olmert did’, said Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League." (Forward, January 15, 2009) Former AIPAC chief lobbyist Douglas Bloomfield, stated that he (an American citizen) had no problem with Israel dictating US policies but ‘it is a mistake to talk about it.’ (Forward, January 15, 2009). By talking about Israel’s power in Washington, it exposes the role of the Zionist Power Configuration in deciding US policies. Prime Minister Olmert’s public boasting that he pulled President Bush off the stage from an official public appearance and successfully ordered him to instruct the Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice to abstain from voting on her own authored resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza before the Security Council has many profound meanings. On the most obvious level Olmert’s revelation confirms the power of Israeli leaders over the White House. Secondly, the public nature of the exercise of power, tells the world that Israel can openly flaunt its capacity to humiliate and ridicule the President of the United States and later brag before Israeli officials with no adverse consequences. Thirdly it tells us that Israel has a greater say in US foreign policy than the American Secretary of State (or Foreign Minister). Fourthly it tells us that Israel decides how the US behaves, votes, vetoes and abstains in the Security Council, subject to Israeli approval." (James Petras ‘From Gaza to Tehran: Israel Asserting Middle East Supremacy’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21878.htm January 31, 2009).

The American public’s response to Olmert’s statement.
The american public’s reaction, or more accurately non-reaction, to olmert’s dumping on the american president is highly revealing. In order to understand this non-event let’s suggest that in america there are three ideal types of personality. Firstly, the red blooded, working/middle class american patriot, who is proud of his country no matter what it does. Secondly, american jews i.e. those with a jewish genetic heritage who have assimilated into american society and are not interested in zionism and have no intention of emigrating to the jews-only state in palestine. Thirdly, jews living in america whose sole loyalty is to the racist state and who are willing to sacrifice american interests whenever this might be of benefit to jewish racism.

It might have been expected that there would be a huge public uproar from the first ideal type that their president had been so mercilessly humiliated by what, to them, must seem like the pip-squeak leader of a pip-squeak country. But where were american patriots’ mass displays of raging anger towards olmert and the zionist state? Janet jackson’s superbowl nipple display elicited a far greater scale of public indignation than olmert’s humiliation of bush.

This astounding non-reaction may have resulted from two factors. Firstly, america’s zionist dominated media refused to make a political issue out of the incident. The serious publications/broadcasters didn’t want to discuss it and the tabloids refused to hype it up. Secondly no patriotic american politician wanted to treat the issue seriously let alone hype it for the good of his country and its people.

A good example of the second ideal type is phillip weiss. His first reaction to the incident was that he didn’t notice the humiliation! "Clemons gets it right re Olmert and Condi, that it's a disgraceful attack. I missed the humiliation in this. Israel often treats our executive like the help, because Israelis know they have power in Washington. It's similar to Ehud Barak treating Bill Clinton like a peer in 2000, and Yitzhak Shamir lying to George Bush about not building more settlements, in '91. They always get away with it, because of the lobby. No wonder the fury at J Street has been coordinated by the Israeli embassy. They have so much to lose." (Philip Weiss ‘Where is Hillary on cease-fire?’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/01/where-is-hillary-on-ceasefire-.html January 13, 2009). Weiss knows that jewish leaders bully american presidents so to him it was nothing unusual and thus nothing to get unduly worked up about. It was just like the head of the household ticking off the domestic! But as an american it might have been thought he should have felt some animosity toward olmert and the racist state for humiliating what is supposedly his president and his country.

The third ideal type are those people living in america who are patriotic to the jews-only state in palestine but not america. They whip up american patriotism solely for the benefit of the jews-only state. (For example the jewish neocons fostered american patriotism for the war in iraq which was beneficial to the jews-only state but not america). This type of person would have felt proud that the latest of his tribe’s political leaders had the chutzpah to humiliate his american counterpart. Instead of condemning olmert they defended him. Instead of being outraged they feigned indifference. Instead of turning the incident into a political controversy they kept it marginalized. The last thing they wanted was to expose jewish power over american politicians, and thus the dominance of the squatter state over the world’s military hyper-power. It might undermine american patriots’ grandiose fantasies about the importance of their country and cast doubts in their minds its relationship to the zionist state.

Thus the american public’s non-reaction to the olmert incident can be explained in terms of the dominance of the third ideal type which wants to maintain jewish dominance over america. There were no patriotic american political leaders and no patriotic american commentators to politicize this revealing political story because most of them are members of the third ideal type i.e. traitors to america.

American patriots are proud of america’s military might, technological progress, and economic success. Some even go so far as talking about america’s destiny to make the world a better place. And yet the vast mass of them were indifferent to the political humiliation of their president. They seemed oblivious that olmert had not merely humiliated their president but exposed the servility of the american political system which gives billions of dollars a year in tribute payments to the rogue state. They seemed oblivious of america losing its global political reputation by giving the jews-only state unconditional political and diplomatic support even when it ruthlessly pursues racist policies and implements vile, barbaric onslaughts against unarmed civilians.

American patriotism seems to be expressed only when america’s ruling jewish elite conjures it up because it suits their interests or those of the jews-only state. American patriots are just mindless cheerleaders in a choreography written for them by their invisible jewish masters.

What had Olmert to fear about his bragging?
Another important revelation arising out of olmert’s bragging about his control over bush was that he clearly felt no fear of retribution from the bush regime. A few days before olmert’s confession, the american congress had passed a resolution which wholly supported the jews’ slaughter of palestinian civilians in gaza even though the rest of the world opposed such a slaughter and despised america for giving the jews blanket support. "The latest illustration of this Washington puppet show, backed by the most modern weapons and billions of taxpayer dollars annually sent to Israel, was the grotesquely one-sided Resolutions whisked through the Senate and the House of Representatives. While a massive bombing and invasion of Gaza was underway, the resolution blaming Hamas for all the civilian casualties and devastation, 99% of it inflicted on Palestinians, zoomed through the Senate by voice vote and through the House by a vote of 390 to 5 with 22 legislators voting present. There is more dissent against this destruction of Gaza among the Israeli people, the Knesset, the Israeli media, and Jewish-Americans than among the dittoheads on Capitol Hill." (Ralph Nader ‘Punishing the Palestinians: State Terrorism Against Gaza’ http://www.counterpunch.com/nader01202009.html January 20, 2009).

Olmert knew not merely that bush was in a weakened political state because he was at the end of his presidency but that congress wouldn’t allow the bush regime to retaliate against him for what he’d said. He clearly knew that congress is more devoted to jewish presidents than to its own presidents. It would be more accurate to describe the american congress as the american knesset. Uri avnery sought, indirectly, to counter any political damage that could ensue from the incident by reiterating the politically conventional viewpoint that the zionist state is just an american colonial outpost. "The Israeli Barak understands that if the American Barack gets angry, that would mean disaster. Conclusion: the horrors of Gaza must stop before the inauguration. This week that determined all political and military decisions. Not "the number of rockets", not "victory", not "breaking Hamas"." (Uri Avnery ‘Livni's Smile: The Boss Has Gone Mad’ http://www.counterpunch.com/avnery01192009.html January 19, 2009). But avnery’s statement is just spin because he knows that if obama ever criticized the jews-only state, let alone threatened to reduce america’s massive tribute payments (or supplies of munitions) to the rogue state, he would immediately come under serious political flak from congress. It is the president of the united states who is terrified of jewish political leaders not the other way around. Avnery’s seemingly commonsensical statement is just jewish hasbara to cover up the current global balance of power in which the jewish lobby in america, jewish funded universities, the zionist dominated american media, the american knesset, and the jews-only state, have dominant political influence over the american president.

That olmert knew his humiliation of bush would not be the slightest impediment on the jews’ efforts to extract more military assistance from their yankee storehouse proved to be all too correct. "Despite all of that, the Bush administration, just days before it left office, entered into yet another new agreement with Israel pursuant to which the U.S. committed to use its resources to prevent guns and other weapons from entering Gaza. That agreement cites "the steadfast commitment of the United States to Israel's security" and "and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself," and vows that the U.S. will "address the problem of the supply of arms and related materiel and weapons transfers and shipments to Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza."" (Glenn Greenwald ‘Continuing Bush policies in Israel and Afghanistan’ http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/26/israel/index.html January 26, 2009).

The american congress should be the most patriotic institution in america but it has been transformed into a legislature whose rightful home would be somewhere on the west bank. Members of congress are loyal to their jewish financial paymasters and are thus not only traitorous to the american electorate but to the american president. They would criticize, perhaps even impeach, their own president but they would never dare to make the slightest criticism of a jewish leader or the jewish state. Whenever the crunch comes, the american knesset backs jewish leaders against their own president.

Pat buchanan should know better than most that there is no chance of the bush regime retaliating against olmert and yet he still can’t believe in his own analysis of the dominance of jewish power in america. "With Bush and Rice leaving office in hours, and Olmert in weeks, the story may seem to lack significance. Yet, public gloating by an Israeli prime minister that he can order a U.S. president off a podium and instruct him to reverse and humiliate his secretary of state may cause even Ehud's poodle to rise up on its hind legs one day and bite its master. Taking such liberties with a superpower that, for Israel's benefit, has shoveled out $150 billion and subordinated its own interests in the Arab and Islamic world would seem a hubristic and stupid thing to do." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Is Ehud's Poodle Acting Up?’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=14091 January 17, 2009). Buchanan is implying here that the superpower decides to give the jews "$150 billion and subordinated its own interests" whereas in reality the jews extract this money from america whether americans like it or not because americans don’t have the power to stop what is tantamount to daylight robbery. The jews steal money and resources from america as freely and easily as they steal land from palestinians. The only difference is that palestinians know the jews are stealing from them and resist whereas americans are too dumb to realize what is happening and wouldn’t resist even if they did know.

Glenn greenwald believes that one day there will be an american backlash against the jews’ gross theft from america’s political and financial warehouse. But, clearly, it hasn’t started yet. "A strong argument can be made that Americans are likely to be supportive of a democratic, long-standing ally like Israel and to sympathize with the need for America to protect all of its allies, including Israel, from genuine existential threats. But if Americans are being induced to support wars not in American interests but rather Israel's, and if American lives and treasure are being squandered in wars justified by false pretenses, by a hidden agenda, they will realize that at some point, likely at the point when such a war has gone particularly awry and they begin to search for the real reasons we entered it in the first place. When the realization begins to dawn that at least one substantial factor as to why America waged Middle Eastern war(s) is because influential individuals with an overarching devotion to Israel pushed for war against Israel's enemies, then an anti-Israeli backlash is highly likely to occur. And the backlash is likely to be far more severe and hostile than anything that would ever happen naturally, meaning in the absence of such manipulation." (Glenn Greenwald ‘A Confederation of War-Seeking Factions’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/greenwald.php?articleid=11193 June 26, 2007). Indeed whether it will start soon enough to eventually stop the jews from dragging the world into world war three is highly unlikely.

Where’s Olmert’s gratitude to Bush?
There are four main reasons why the jews owed a great debt of gratitude to the bush regime when it militarily pulverise gaza reducing large parts of it to rubble and slaughtering thousands of innocent palestinian civilians.

Firstly, the bush regime, like its predecessors, provided massive tribute payments to the racist state which meant the war would not put a financial strain on the jewish government’s budget or on the jewish economy.

Secondly, the bush regime supplied the rogue state with whatever munitions it wanted. "The supply of American weapons used in the massacres was authorized previously by such a margin. These included the Hellfire missile which sucks the air out of lungs, ruptures livers and amputates arms and legs without the necessity of shrapnel: a "major advance," according to the specialist literature. As a senator, then president-elect, Obama raised no objection to these state-of-the-art [sic] weapons being rushed to Israel, worth $22 billion in 2008, in time for the long-planned assault on Gaza's fenced and helpless population." (John Pilger ‘Come On Down for Your Freedom Medals’ http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/?articleid=14110 January 22, 2009). (1) This open-ended supply of weapons and munitions has had a critical impact on the jews’ military strategy. The zionist state adopted a military policy of grossly disproportionate retaliation against its adversaries because it could call upon an unlimited supply of munitions from its american warehouse. If the jews had to rely solely on their own financial resources they would never have been able to afford such an expensive military policy. The attack on gaza entailed such a financial extravagance it would have bankrupted many other countries even highly industrialized countries like britain.

Thirdly, the jews knew they could act as barbarically as they wanted against palestinian civilians because the bush regime would give them all the political and diplomatic protection they needed from the anger of the rest of the world. There would be no chance of the united nations or the security council agreeing on sanctions against the jewish state because the bush regime would just veto the proposal.

Finally, over the last eight years the bush regime has provided the jews-only state with a huge range of services. It has launched proxy zionist wars against afghanistan and iraq. In 2004, bush more or less handed the west bank to the squatter state.(2) He’d continually protected the jewish state in the united nations. And, in 2006, he’d deflected global condemnations of the jews’ slaughter of lebanese civilians onto himself and america.

It might have been expected then that olmert would have been hugely grateful to bush for his enormous financial, political, and military, generosity towards the jews-only state. And yet despite bush’s assiduous dedication to the cause of jewish racism, olmert still treated him with contempt. This wasn’t chutzpah so much as the ingratitude that a master bestows upon his slave. If olmert was really the leader of an american outpost in the middle east he’d have been overjoyed by the vast help the bush regime had provided. The fact that he treated bush so contemptuously showed that the zionist state was closer to being a global empire than america. The global jewish empire treats america as its colony from which it extracts whatever resources it needs and treats its presidents as colonial puppets.

Olmert’s outburst showed his willingness to humiliate bush, congress, and the american people. It showed that jewish dominance of the american knesset is so overwhelming that knesset members would never condemn an attack on their own president. It showed that the knesset would protect olmert from any retribution by the bush regime. It showed that olmert, with the support of the knesset and the zionist dominated american media, felt powerful enough to humiliate the american president without suffering any american patriotic outrage that would hurt the interests of the racist state. And it showed the sheer ingratitude that jewish leaders have towards their american minions no matter what they do for their jewish masters. Americans have sacrificed their wealth, their dignity, their political principles, and their decency, for the sake of supporting the barbaric jews-only state and yet jewish leaders still prefer to humiliate american presidents and the american people rather than show any gratitude. The jews have not merely colonized america they have colonized the minds of the american people. There’s no resistance to the jewish occupation of america. Americans deem it to be entirely legitimate to be governed by a jewish ruling elite whose allegiance is to another country. Americans have become laughably docile in comparison to the hugely resilient, courageous, and unconquerable, palestinians.

Notes
(1) "Frida Berrigan, a senior research associate with the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute, points out that the bulk of Israel's current arsenal is composed of military equipment supplied under U.S. assistance programs. Israel, she said, has been supplied with 226 F-16 fighter planes and attack jets, more than 700 M60 battle tanks, 6,000 armored personnel carriers and scores of transport planes, attack helicopters and utility and training aircraft, bombs and tactical missiles of all kinds." (Thalif Deen ‘Hamas Fights on Uneven Battlefield’ http://www.antiwar.com/ips/deen.php?articleid=14124 January 23, 2009); "He (obama) says we have to make sure that no arms are smuggled through the tunnels into the Gaza Strip. But he said nothing about the vast dispatch of far more lethal arms to Israel. In fact, right in the middle of the Gaza attack, December 31, the Pentagon announced that it was commissioning a German ship to send 3,000 tons of war material to Israel. That did not work out, because the government of Greece prevented it but it was supposed to go through Greece but it could all go through somewhere else. This is right in the middle of the attack on Gaza." (Noam Chomsky’ Obama's Emerging Policies on Israel, Iraq and the Economic Crisis’ http://www.counterpunch.com/chomsky01282009.html January 28, 2009).

(2) "As a result of Sharon’s dismantling of Jewish settlements in Gaza in 2005, many young people in the religious-nationalist camp have become further radicalised and alienated from the settler leadership. They saw the withdrawal as a bitter and unforgivable betrayal, and found fault with their own leaders for their failure to prevent it. They could not accept Sharon’s argument that the removal of the Gaza settlements was unavoidable if Israel was to hold onto Palestinian land in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. That was the deal Bush agreed to in a letter he handed Sharon at Camp David in 2004: in return for withdrawal, Bush stated his administration’s position that ‘in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centres, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.’" (Henry Siegman ‘Grab more hills, expand the territory’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n07/sieg01_.html April 04, 2008).


Comments
Anonymous asks, "Can I cross post this?"
Sure, but please provide a reference to this web page
http://themundiclub.blogspot.com/2009/01/america-is-jewish-colony-update-on.html

America is a Jewish Colony: Olmert reveals all.

Updated February 19, 2009.

On monday january 12, 2009, the leader of the jews-only state in palestine, ehud olmert, revealed to a jewish audience in ashkelon that he’d insisted george bush should tell condoleeza rice to vote against a united nations’ resolution calling for a ceasefire during the jews’ attack on gaza. Olmert did not inadvertently humiliate the president of the united states of america; the secretary of state, condoleeza rice; congress; and the american people, by divulging this information. On the contrary, he was boasting about his power to humiliate the president and thus the american people.

The global Jewish Empire: a global Zionist conspiracy.
There are a handful of commentators in the western world who have been compiling the evidence that america, the world’s greatest democracy and military hyper-power, has been taken over by a jewish elite which acts on behalf of the jews-only state in palestine. America’s ruling jewish elite’s most well known political operatives are the jewish lobby and the jewish neocons. These israel-firsters have been corrupting the bush regime into implementing policies for the benefit of the racist state even though they have become increasing catastrophic, economically, militarily, politically, and morally, for america and the american people.

After al qaeda’s attacks on new york and the pentagon, zionists imported into america the jews’ decades-old ‘war against terrorism’ and, ever since, the bush regime has been implementing this disastrous zionist doctrine. They succeeded in setting the global political agenda: an invasion of afghanistan, an invasion of iraq, an invasion of lebanon, continued ethnic cleansing of palestinians, and an attack on iran to trigger a regional, perhaps even a global, war to boost the jews-only state’s military dominance of the greater middle east.

The mainstream media in the western world is dominated by zionists who relentlessly pump out zionist propaganda which many westerners welcome because of the disgusting islamophobia in which it is wrapped. Jewish power in america is now so blatant that jewish extremists are commissioned to publish articles in the country’s most prestigious newspapers advocating world war three. It has to be asked: what normal, sane, decent person in america (or around the world) wants another world war? The only people insane enough to demand world war three are hysterical, paranoid, warmongering, jews.

The irony of the politically kosher worldview which pervades america and the rest of the western world is that the jewish propagandists who ridicule the idea of a global jewish conspiracy to dominate the world are themselves advocates of a global islamic conspiracy. In their hollywood-like concoction osama bin laden, al qaeda, the taliban, hezbollah, hamas, iran, saddam hussein, etc, etc, have all been secretly working together to exterminate the jews, overthrow western civilization, and establish a global islamic caliphate. Jewish commentators are spewing out such fantastic drivel solely to cover up the global jewish conspiracy for world domination.

After the second world war any decent, open-minded, person observing american politics would have become aware of the way that the country was increasingly being colonized by an increasingly powerful jewish elite. What is so remarkable about this feat is not so much that a tiny minority could colonize one of the world’s superpowers, and now the sole hyperpower, but that it could ensure there was no public debate about the colonization even though the facts themselves have been screaming out to anyone who could be bothered to listen.

In the politically kosher western world, anti-zionist propositions are deemed so outlandish they are usually ignored but occasionally they are ridiculed or denounced in passing. However, when one of the jewish leaders at the centre of the global zionist conspiracy gives a clear cut example of his being able to treat the president of the united states as a whipping boy, then the deniers are put in an awkward position. This is especially so since olmert’s order to bush was in the best interests of the jews-only state but was in bush’s (and america’s) worst possible interests because it provoked the rest of the world to despise him even more for his continued warmongering. So, the question arises, how are the west’s mainstream commentators going to confront olmert’s shocking and indisputable revelation? The truth about jewish control over america’s political system has been lit up by a spectacular firework display so are they now going to pretend they can’t see the fireworks? Just as they upheld, in the recent past, the jewish fantasy that saddam possessed nuclear weapons. Just as they currently uphold the latest jewish fantasy that iran is getting closer to acquiring nukes? Even whilst pretending that the jews don’t have them? This article looks at commentators’ response to olmert’s sudden revelation of the truth.

What Olmert said.
Statement.
Many mainstream american publications covered the story of olmert’s abusive and humiliating treatment of bush. Although they quoted from his speech the vast majority used only a few selective quotes and often quoted from different parts of the speech. It is only when the entire speech is heard that the intensity of olmert’s taunting of bush becomes clear. The zionist dominated american media thus limited its use of quotes perhaps partly to avoid undermining the authority of the president of the united states but also to protect the racist state by preventing americans from appreciating the viciousness of olmert’s attack on bush.

The three quotes following provide a fullish account of olmert’s speech. "According to Olmert, he called the White House upon hearing of the upcoming UN Security Council resolution. "I said, 'Get me President Bush on the phone.' They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care: 'I need to talk to him now.' He got off the podium and spoke to me," Olmert said, according to multiple media reports. As a result of his conversation with President Bush, Olmert claimed, the president called Rice and forced her to abstain from voting on the measure, which she herself had helped author. "He gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favor of it, a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized, and maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged," Olmert said." (Daniel Luban ‘Olmert's Claims Revive Israel Lobby Controversy’ http://www.antiwar.com/ips/luban.php?articleid=14061 January 14, 2009); "According to Olmert, he told Bush that the US should not vote for the resolution, and Bush then directed Rice to abstain. "She was left pretty embarrassed," Olmert said. Like Olmert's aides, an official in the Prime Minister's Office said "the Prime Minister's comments on Monday were a correct account of what took place."" (Herb Keinon, Allison Hoffman ‘'PM stands by his version in diplo spat'’ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231866576464&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter January 14, 2009); "So, here, in Olmert's words, is what happened next. "In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a cease-fire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favor. I said, 'Get me President Bush on the phone.' They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now.' He got off the podium and spoke to me." According to Olmert, Bush was clueless. "He said: 'Listen. I don't know about it. I didn't see it. I'm not familiar with the phrasing.’ I told him the United States could not vote in favor. It cannot vote in favor of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favor."" (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Is Ehud's Poodle Acting Up?’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=14091 January 17, 2009).

U.S. State Department response.
America’s state department expressed its anger with olmert but whether this was because it didn’t like the president being humiliated or because they were furious that olmert had given the game away is not clear. "The U.S. State Department fiercely denied claims made by Ehud Olmert about his influence over President George W. Bush, in an incident that has stirred up old debates about the role of the Israeli government and the so-called "Israel lobby" in formulating Middle East policy in Washington." (Daniel Luban ‘Olmert's Claims Revive Israel Lobby Controversy’ http://www.antiwar.com/ips/luban.php?articleid=14061 January 14, 2009).

Olmert not backing down.
"The State Department immediately contradicted Olmert’s claims, insisting that "the government of Israel does not make US policy." Spokesman Sean McCormack also suggested that Israel might want to "clarify or correct the record" with respect to the comments. Rice has dismissed Olmert’s claims as "fiction." The comments have sparked no small concern in Israel, where the fear is that Olmert’s claims to be able to order the President of the United States around will only increase public opposition in America to Israel’s influence on its foreign policy. Yet spokesmen for Olmert say that the prime minister stands behind his version of events." (‘Olmert Stands Behind Rice-Shaming Claim: Rice Calls Prime Minister's Comments "Fiction"’ http://news.antiwar.com/2009/01/14/olmert-stands-behind-rice-shaming-claim/ January 14, 2009).

Haaretz suggests Olmert closer to the truth than Rice.
"Inquiries with people uninvolved in the spat between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reveal that his version of the lead-up to America's vote on last week's Security Council resolution is closer to the truth than hers. The whole story would have ended well had Olmert behaved like a responsible adult and restrained his own impulses. Even his close associates admit that he would have done better to skip the public boasting about how he persuaded Bush to overrule Rice. Quite aside from the fact that this embarrassed the U.S. administration, Olmert's associates understand all too well that this story merely provides fresh ammunition to those who claim the Jews are the ones who really control America." (Akiva Eldar ‘Inquiries show Olmert version of UN Gaza vote spat closer to truth than Rice's’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055966.html January 01, 2009).

How have America’s commentators reacted to Olmert confession?
In the past, american commentators have adamantly refused to discuss jewish economic, financial, or political, power in america. Indeed, their silence is yet another piece of evidence pointing towards the existence of such power. So, will olmert’s confession set them free to challenge the jews’ colonization of america and its calamitous consequences for the country (and many other countries around the world)? Or will they just go on living comfortably in the zionist fantasy world created for them by america’s jewish ruling elite?

Juan Cole picks up on Olmert’s confession to propose that Jewish nazis are exercising their power in America not merely through Bribery but Blackmail.
Cole covered olmert’s outburst in detail and speculated that zionist power in america might derive from mossad’s ability to blackmail bush. For a respectable political commentator such as cole, a high profile member of america’s nearly defunct wasp establishment, to resort to such a wacky, fringe, idea is unusual to say the least. But then again what alternative does he have since he won’t talk about america’s ruling jewish elite, its colossal economic power, nor zionists near total domination of congress and the american media.

Steven C Clemons.
Clemons personalizes olmert’s statement so that it is merely a kick in the face for the president and condoleeza rice. He doesn’t seem to see it as a statement of shame about the jewish elite’s gross corruption of america’s much vaunted democratic system; the subservience of the country’s political leaders to a foreign power; or the ignominious position of the american people whose political leaders are more devoted to protecting jews on the other side of the planet rather than looking after their own citizens. "No matter what one may think of Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic record, which I think is better than many liberal critics gauge, the fact that Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave her a kick in the teeth as she departs her office is obnoxious and harmful all around. Shaming a US President and Secretary of State may not change the course in policy and may not shift America's general approach to the region, at least for the time being, but it does take the fizz out of the unique relationship." (Steven C Clemons ‘Defending Condi: Olmert Shames Himself in Kick-in-the-Teeth Attack on Rice’ http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/01/defending_condi/ January 12, 2009). Clemons has no interest in questioning the viability of america’s democratic system, once reputed to be the best in the world, even though its president and members of congress have become vassals to a rogue state, a hive of paranoid, warmongering, jewish racists, in the middle east.

Philip Weiss.
"Clemons gets it right re Olmert and Condi, that it's a disgraceful attack. I missed the humiliation in this. Israel often treats our executive like the help, because Israelis know they have power in Washington. It's similar to Ehud Barak treating Bill Clinton like a peer in 2000, and Yitzhak Shamir lying to George Bush about not building more settlements, in '91. They always get away with it, because of the lobby. No wonder the fury at J Street has been coordinated by the Israeli embassy. They have so much to lose." (Philip Weiss ‘Where is Hillary on cease-fire?’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/01/where-is-hillary-on-ceasefire-.html January 13, 2009). Here’s one jewish writer making a determined effort to learn the truth about american politics.

Xymphora points out Kouchner’s Zionist Treachery.
A conspiracy theorist welcomes cole’s speculation about mossad’s influence over bush. "Juan Cole, who seems to be letting his freak flag fly recently, has an excellent detailed posting on the automatic control that the Israeli government has over the American government, exemplified by Olmert picking up the phone and ordering Bush around to the extent that the United States changed its mind and abstained, rather than voted for, the latest UN cease-fire resolution. This was a public slap in the face for Rice, who actually helped draft the resolution, and Olmert is crowing about it. Note the behind-the-scenes trickery of the Jew Kouchner, who valiantly worked for his homeland, Israel, naturally, not France, to try to block the resolution. Cole concludes by raising the most important issue of all, the consideration of which is necessitated by the lack of any obvious motive for Bush to act as he did, the conspiracy theory that the mysterious hold of Zionism over American politicians is connected to blackmail. Israeli intelligence, with the aid of the secret cadre of dual-loyalty American Jews, gathers dossiers of information on characters like Bush, people who have a lot of embarrassments in their pasts, and holds it over them. Other than direct payments of cash, which probably explains Cheney, this is by far the most plausible theory for why American politicians consistently and blatantly act against American interests (sorry Noam). I wonder what the Israeli dossier on Obama looks like?" (Xymphora ‘The mysterious hold of Zionism over American politicians’ http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2009/01/mysterious-hold-of-zionism-over.html January 13, 2009).

Matthew Yglesias.
"The State Department has some not-terribly-convincing denials out. But one way or another it seems both telling and unseemly that Olmert is going around bragging about this." (Matthew Yglesias ‘Olmert Claims to Control US Foreign Policy’ http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/01/olmert_claims_to_control_us_foreign_policy.php January 13, 2009). Olmert should be applauded for telling the truth not criticized for bragging. Now that the truth is out why doesn’t yglesias spend his time outlining its fundamental political implications and ramifications?

Paul Craig Roberts.
The inimitable paul craig roberts is a unique and fearless commentator: a former politician who speaks truth to power. "Israeli politicians have been bragging for decades about the control they exercise over the US government. In his final press conference, President Bush, deluded to the very end, said that the whole world respects America. In fact, when the world looks at America, what it sees is an Israeli colony. What is happening to the Palestinians herded into the Gaza Ghetto is happening because of American money and weapons. It is just as much an attack by the United States as an attack by Israel. The US government is complicit in the war crimes. "Our" president was a puppet for a cabal led by Dick Cheney and a handful of Jewish neoconservatives, who took control of the Pentagon, the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, and "Homeland Security." From these power positions, the neocon cabal used lies and deception to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, pointless wars that have cost Americans $3 trillion, while millions of Americans lose their jobs, their pensions, and their access to health care." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The White House Moron Stumbles to the Finish: The Humiliation of America’ http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts01142009.html January 14, 2009).

Steven Spiegel.
"Middle East expert Steven Spiegel described the episode as "the worst faux pas by an Israeli prime minister in history. You really do wonder what the prime minister was thinking, if it's true, you'd really want to keep it as quiet as possible, and if it's not true, why would you want to make up a story that would embarrass both the Bush administration and the Israeli government and draw criticism from those who are antagonistic to Israel?" asked Spiegel, director of the Center for Middle East Development at UCLA. "No matter how you play it, exaggeration, falsehood, whole truth, the whole thing makes them all look bad," Spiegel told The Jerusalem Post." (Herb Keinon, Allison Hoffman ‘'PM stands by his version in diplo spat'’ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231866576464&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter January 14, 2009).

Justin Raimondo.
In the past, raimondo has been edging towards stating that the jews-only state in palestine, with the aid of its political agents in america, controls america’s foreign policies. It might have been thought he would have taken olmert’s statement as a great opportunity to highlight this fundamental reality of american politics. At first it seems he would. "It (Olmert’s statement) tells us who is used to giving orders, and who is accustomed to obedience." (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel versus America: Is the 'special relationship' over? http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14075 January 16, 2009). But, in the end, he doesn’t. "What Gaza signals is a new turn for the Israelis, a clean break, if you will, with their status as an American puppet in the Middle East. They are clearly going off on their own, intent on waging a war of unmitigated aggression against all their neighbors." (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel versus America: Is the 'special relationship' over? http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14075 January 16, 2009). According to raimondo, the apartheid state has always been an american puppet but has now suddenly freed itself from the gravitational pull of the american imperial power and decided to go off on its own. Such an argument would make sense if the racist state had decided to forgo the vast annual tribute payments, and endless quantities of weapons and munitions, which it extracts from its american warehouse. Oh well, seems like raimondo’s back in the closet.

Patrick J. Buchanan.
Over the last couple of decades, buchanan has been one of the few mainstream american politicians who have criticized the jews-only state and jewish power in america and has suffered the consequences. And yet he’s been quite restrained about olmert’s confession. "With Bush and Rice leaving office in hours, and Olmert in weeks, the story may seem to lack significance. Yet, public gloating by an Israeli prime minister that he can order a U.S. president off a podium and instruct him to reverse and humiliate his secretary of state may cause even Ehud's poodle to rise up on its hind legs one day and bite its master. Taking such liberties with a superpower that, for Israel's benefit, has shoveled out $150 billion and subordinated its own interests in the Arab and Islamic world would seem a hubristic and stupid thing to do." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Is Ehud's Poodle Acting Up?’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=14091 January 17, 2009).

Brian Cloughley.
Cloughley enters the fray, "And the President of the United States of America jumps to obey the Israeli prime minister." (Brian Cloughley ‘The Power of AIPAC: Who Runs America?’ http://www.counterpunch.com/cloughley01162009.html January 16-18, 2009). However, one of the reasons that america’s ruling jewish elite is so powerful is because those on the left, like cloughley, refuse to outline, let alone challenge, its power.

Cloughley points out that members of congress are funded by jews but he doesn’t generalize beyond this to expose america’s ruling jewish elite. "There is one thing certain: the US Congress is going to continue its unconditional support for Israel, no matter what war crimes are committed by its disgusting thugs-in-uniform. The Reps need the money, after all, which they get through political action committees which are generously funded by American Jews. And they are scared to political death by the threat that pro-Israel agencies will destroy them politically if they dare say a word against Israel. There are very few Representatives of the people of America who would dare challenge Israel, or who might possibly criticize Israel, or who have the courage to condemn atrocities committed by Israel." (Brian Cloughley ‘The Power of AIPAC: Who Runs America?’ http://www.counterpunch.com/cloughley01162009.html January 16-18, 2009).

He criticizes the american media for not telling the truth. "Not many Americans know anything about the hideous barbarity in Gaza, because US cable networks and newspapers rarely carry pictures of disfigured blood-splashed children who have been killed, maimed or orphaned by the Israelis. But here in Europe we have access to some TV channels and newspapers that are very different from the pliant pro-Zion patsies of the major news outlets across the Atlantic." (Brian Cloughley ‘The Power of AIPAC: Who Runs America?’ http://www.counterpunch.com/cloughley01162009.html January 16-18, 2009). But he fails to tell the truth by failing to denounce the fact that the american media is zionist owned and controlled. The media in any country is a reflection of that society’s ruling class. No ruling class rules without the help of a cheerleading media. The reason that america’s mainstream media supports the jews-only state is because it is owned and staffed primarily by members of america’s ruling jewish elite. Until commentators like cloughley recognize the existence of america’s ruling jewish elite and the zionist dominated mainstream media then jewish power will continue to devastate the world.

Tony Karon.
As far as is known karon has made no comment about olmert’s confession. However, the confession raises major questions about the validity of karon’s proposition about rice’s supervision of the jewish war against lebanon in 2006. "It was clear, at the time, that the neophyte Olmert was outsourcing his decision-making to Condi Rice. I wrote at the time of the sense that Israel was waging a proxy war for the Bush Administration, a sense confirmed at the time by the hawkish dean of Israeli military correspondents, Ze’ev Schiff, who wrote at the height of the conflict: "U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the figure leading the strategy of changing the situation in Lebanon, not Prime Minister Ehud Olmert or Defense Minister Amir Peretz. She has so far managed to withstand international pressure in favor of a cease-fire, even though this will allow Hezbollah to retain its status as a militia armed by Iran and Syria." (Tony Karon ‘Olmert: His Own Shlemiel, or Bush’s?’ http://tonykaron.com/2008/01/31/olmert-his-own-shlemiel-or-bushs/ January 31, 2008). If olmert was capable of humiliating rice over the united nations’ gaza resolution is it likely that, two years earlier, he’d allowed her to virtually command the jewish military in its attacks on lebanese civilians?


Olmert as Sharon’s successor.
What has not been pointed out by commentators on olmert’s confession was that he was referencing a statement made by ariel sharon a few years earlier. In september 2001, sharon had publicly humiliated bush by calling him a chamberlain. "Don't repeat the terrible mistake of 1938 when the enlightened democracies of Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to placate the Arabs at our expense ... Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terror." (‘Israel consumed by victim culture’ Guardian 5.10.2001). A few days later, sharon compounded the humiliation, "Every time we do something, you (Shimon Peres) tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear. Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel; we, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it." (Zionist Prime Minister Ariel Sharon October 3, 2001 IAP News).

Olmert’s jewish audience would have picked up on this reference and understood that olmert was trying to cloak himself with sharon’s mantle as one of the jews’ most belligerent warmongers (although whether they believed olmert deserved such a comparison is another matter).

George Bush, the Jews’ whipping Boy.
Olmert’s humiliation of bush could not be a more fitting finale to bush’s presidency. His presidency began not so much on september 11, 2001 with al qaeda’s attacks on new york and the pentagon but with sharon’s success in forcing him to accept the likudnik interpretation of this event. The bush regime did not respond to this event by implementing policies to protect and promote american interests. On the contrary, sharon, and the jewish neocons/lobby in america, pushed the bush regime into implementing policies that boosted the interests of the jews-only state in palestine even though these policies would have a catastrophic impact on america’s interests. In other words, the president of the united states failed to interpret this critical event, even though it happened in his own country, because he was overwhelmed by the narrative put forward by the leader of a shitty little country on the other side of the planet and by jewish neocons in america loyal to that country. Al qaeda attacked america because of its unconditional support for the jews-only state. Bush and america could have realized that such support was against america’s interests, but the rogue state and its jewish agents in america pressured the president into adopting even more extreme zionist policies which put american interests at even greater risk.

Al qaeda’s payback on america was a major turning point in american history but americans had nothing to do with the direction in which their own country then moved. "Common wisdom has it that after 9/11, a new era of geo-politics was ushered in, defined by what is usually called the Bush doctrine: pre-emptive wars, attacks on terrorist infrastructure (read: entire countries), an insistence that all the enemy understands is force. In fact, it would be more accurate to call this rigid worldview the Likud doctrine. What happened on September 11, 2001 is that the Likud doctrine, previously targeted against Palestinians, was picked up by the most powerful nation on earth and applied on a global scale. Call it the Likudisation of the world: the real legacy of 9/11." (Naomi Klein ‘The Likud doctrine’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1301504,00.html September 10, 2004); "But the idea of a super-power behaving in a similar way, responding to terrorist threats or guerrilla incursions by flattening another country just to preserve its own deterrent credibility, is odd in the extreme. It is one thing for the US unconditionally to underwrite Israelis’ behaviour (though in neither country’s interest, as some Israeli commentators at least have remarked). But for the US to imitate Israel wholesale, to import that tiny country’s self-destructive, intemperate response to any hostility or opposition and to make it the leitmotif of American foreign policy: that is simply bizarre. Bush’s Middle Eastern policy now tracks so closely to the Israeli precedent that it is very difficult to see daylight between the two. It is this surreal turn of events that helps explain the confusion and silence of American liberal thinking on the subject (as well, perhaps, as Tony Blair’s syntactically sympathetic me-tooism). Historically, liberals have been unsympathetic to ‘wars of choice’ when undertaken or proposed by their own government. War, in the liberal imagination (and not only the liberal one), is a last resort, not a first option. But the United States now has an Israeli-style foreign policy and America’s liberal intellectuals overwhelmingly support it." (Tony Judt ‘Bush’s Useful Idiots’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n18/judt01_.html September 21 2006).

Bush was the first american president to call for a palestinian state. The fact that he failed to deliver it, despite the successive, nonstop, diplomatic efforts of colin powell and then condoleezza rice; america’s massive funding of the apartheid state; and the widespread international support for the two state solution in palestine; clearly reveals his subservience to zionist power and influence. Brent scowcroft was one of the few to expose such fundamental realities of the bush regime when he stated that ariel sharon had bush wrapped around his little finger. It is a remarkable testimony to americans’ capability for living in their highly leveraged zionist fantasy world that they ignored scowcroft’s insider remark and continued their patriotic bleats about how america is the most powerful country in the world with the world’s sole military hyper-power.

For a number of other blatant examples of how sharon continually beat up bush and got him to support extreme zionist policies which have had devastating economic, political, and military, consequences for america please see ‘America is a Jewish Colony: Bush is Sharon’s Muppet’
http://themundiclub.blogspot.com/2009/01/america-is-jewish-colony-bush-is.html

The bush presidency began ignominiously when ariel sharon humiliated bush into adopting the likudniks’ defence strategy and foreign policies. It has ended ignominiously when another hysterical, paranoid, warmonger from the jewish nazi state boasted to the whole world that bush was, in effect, his whipping boy. Why should olmert fear retribution for his gross humiliation of bush and the american people when he has the allegiance of america’s ruling jewish elite?

America is a Jewish Colony: Bush is Sharon’s Muppet

Preface.
I’ve decided to publish this old article (from june 2004) on this blog because it not merely outlines the fundamental transformation of american foreign policies brought about by ariel sharon and the jewish neocons, thereby revealing just how much america has become a jewish colony, but because it also provides a critical insight into jewish tactics to ethnically cleanse palestinians from palestine. In 2004, sharon pressured bush into a major policy transformation. He promised to withdraw jewish squatters from gaza in return for being allowed to expand the jewish squatters movement in the west bank. What is happening now during the jews' latest slaughter in gaza is that, having pocketed the west bank, the jews are going back on their word to leave gaza to the palestinians and are now trying to reclaim the area. The palestinians were not consulted about sharon's unilateral peace proposal but they lost out in the west bank and are now losing out in gaza which will leave them in a worse position now than ever before. The jews vacated the west bank for a period before sharon reoccupied it and he would almost certainly have reocupied gaza if he’d still been in power. It almost seems like a trick. Get vast concessions from america and the international community for vacating some area to palestinians and then concoct bogus excuses to go back in and reoccupy those areas pushing palestinians out to make way for more jewish settlers. The jews win out on both accounts: through concessions gained by withdrawing from certain areas and then later by reoccupying the areas from which they had supposedly withdrawn.


Bush is Sharon’s Muppet
Over the last couple of decades, zionists have gained increasing control of the american congress until now they are unchallengeable - only those who have left congress dare to expose and criticize the dictatorial power of the zionist lobby. However, it was only after the pentagon and new york bombings in september 2001 that they began to exert critical control over the american president and, through him, the american military. There is now overwhelming evidence that zionists control not merely the american media, american financial institutions, and the american congress, but the bush presidency. For those who ideologically dismiss such arguments there is one unavoidable problem: the extraordinarily bizarre master/slave relationship between sharon and bush. Bush is supposedly the leader of the world’s sole hyperpower and yet sharon treats him with contempt, insults him, and forces him to implement zionist policies. When it comes to writing the history of the bush administration it’s most overwhelming characteristic will be that the president spent most of his time in office implementing policies initiated by ariel sharon. In effect, ariel sharon is the real president of the united states and thus president of the world.

Sharon’s Defiance over Zionists’ Use of American Jets to Kill Innocent Palestinians – May 2001.
In May 2001, dick cheney told sharon to stop using american jets to attack civilians. Sharon ignored the order, "Israel should stop using American built jets in attacks on Palestinian areas, US vice-president Dick Cheney said yesterday. F-16s were used by the Israelis last week for the first time since 1967 in response to a suicide bomb." (Mirror 21.5.2001 p.4).
The use of jets in such operations has now become so commonplace they do not merit any public discussion let alone public protest. "One was the action of a fellow Israeli pilot who fired a 1-ton bomb from his F16 fighter jet, as ordered, at a house in Al-Deredg, where a suspected Palestinian terrorist was staying. Yonatan identifies Al-Deredg as one of the most crowded districts of Gaza, and indeed of the world. Besides the targeted Palestinian, 13 local people were killed in that attack: 2 men, 2 women, and 9 children, one of whom was 2 years old. 160 other people were wounded in the explosion. A 1-ton bomb, Yonatan calculates, has approximately 100 times the explosive power of the type of lethal belts worn by Palestinian suicide bombers. In proportion to the US population and the fatalities of the original 9/11 disaster, now an icon and classic measure of terrorist devastation, the fatalities of that single attack on tiny Gaza (population 1,200,000) were greater by 10% than the fatalities in America’s own 9/11. Nor was the bombing of Al-Deredg unique in the scale of its impact on civilian life. Yonatan has cited the casualties resulting from 7 other targeted assassinations conducted in Palestine by the Israel Defense Forces, where, along with 7 other targeted individuals, 44 bystanders were killed. Taking Palestine’s overall population at 3,500,000 and that of the US at 290 million, those 44 bystander deaths would represent, in proportion to the US population, another one and a-third 9/11’s." (Ralph Nader ‘Nader to Anti-Defamation League: Criticizing Israel is not Anti-Semitism’ http://votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=276 October 12, 2004).

Sharon’s Denunciation of Bush as a Neville Chamberlain – September 2001.
In the aftermath of the p*ny bombings, sharon denounced president bush as a nazi appeaser. The prelude to this gross insult is worth recalling as it provides a clear insight into sharon’s insanity.

After the attacks of september 11, 2001, sharon claimed that arafat was the zionists’ bin laden, "Israel’s right wing prime minister ariel sharon was accused of fuelling the tension by calling palestinian leader yasser arafat, "Israel’s osama bin laden."" (Mirror 14.9.2001 p.10). Sharon has always regarded arafat as a terrorist especially after 1988 when arafat renounced the use of violence and recognized the zionist state’s right to exist.

A few days later, ariel sharon likened bin laden to adolf hitler so that, in effect, he was creating a moral equivalence between yasser arafat and adolf hitler (insane or what?). With his head spinning around with historical analogies to long dead politicians, sharon then launched a wild attack on bush accusing him of being neville chamberlain: the logic being that if arafat was hitler then, by definition, bush must be chamberlain, "Don't repeat the terrible mistake of 1938 when the enlightened democracies of Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to placate the Arabs at our expense ... Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terror." (‘Israel consumed by victim culture’ Guardian 5.10.2001). A paralytic basil brush would be proud of such a rant, "Boom, Boom’.

Bush was none too chuffed at being exposed as the moral equivalent of neville chamberlain, "American relations with Israel plunged to their lowest point in a decade yesterday when the White House denounced as "unacceptable" statements by the Israeli prime minister comparing the US coalition-building in the Arab world to British appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s. The Bush administration was reported to be furious with Mr Sharon's actions, and the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told journalists that the president felt personally affronted by the comparison to Neville Chamberlain and the discredited policies of appeasement in the run up to the second world war. In a blunt response, Mr Fleischer (a great admirer of ariel sharon) said: "The president believes that these remarks are unacceptable. Israel could have no better or stronger friend that the United States and no better friend that President Bush."" (Suzanne Goldenberg and Julian Borger ‘Furious Bush hits back at Sharon’ Guardian 6.10.2001).

Sharon refused to apologize for his insult to the so-called president of the united states. It showed what little power bush had over sharon that he didn’t dare to try and extract a public apology from him, "A chastened Ariel Sharon has moved swiftly to mend a rupture with Washington after his invocation of a Nazi comparison triggered the most heated diplomatic exchange between America and Israel in a decade. In a hurriedly arranged telephone conversation with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, Sharon stopped short of a direct apology to President George W. Bush for remarks that accused Washington of selling out Israel to win favour in the Arab world for its war coalition." (Suzanne Goldenberg ‘Sharon calms US after appeaser jibe backfires’ Observer 7.10.2001. There is something profoundly incongruous in the relationship between america, a supposed superpower, and the zionist state, a supposed satellite state, when sharon can call bush a ‘neville chamberlain’ and the president of the united states doesn’t dare to insist on a public apology. In contrast, blair goes snivelling around bush as if he was a prized pet. It’s difficult imagining blair calling bush a ‘neville chamberlain’ and the president just brushing it aside). It’s a wonder sharon didn’t make bush apologise to him for pushing him into yet another outbreak of his explosive personality disorder. The president’s public relations’ team called on their zionist chums in the zionist owned american media to keep the incident off the front pages to minimize the president’s embarrassment. But, a rubicund had been crossed. Ariel sharon now knew he could get away with publicly denouncing, and defying, the president of the united states. Bush was left trying to cover up his humiliation by pretending that two good friends had made up their differences: as if sharon regarded bush with anything other than contempt.

Sharon’s Mini Invasion of Palestine - October 2001.
It wasn’t long before sharon once again humiliated bush. The following month, october 2001, sharon defied bush by launching an invasion of what, nominally, were supposed to be palestinian controlled areas. Suzanne goldenberg stated, "Ariel Sharon further signalled his contempt yesterday for the US diplomatic strategy of mending fences with the Arab world, by launching the heaviest Israeli military offensive since the start of the Palestinian uprising last year." (Suzanne Goldenberg and Julian Borger ‘Furious Bush hits back at Sharon’ Guardian 6.10.2001). This opinion was shared by julian borger, "The Bush administration has known for months that its control over the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, is tenuous at best. Yesterday's raid on Beit Rima was a neon-bright indicator of Mr Sharon's complete disregard for Mr Bush's opinions. The usual tools of US diplomacy in the region now look flimsy. The secretary of state, Colin Powell, has been planning for several weeks to make a landmark policy speech laying out a clear blueprint for Israeli-Palestinian cohabitation, including the creation of a viable Palestinian state, with a share of Jerusalem as its capital. "That can be one of the threats held over Sharon's head," said Judith Kipper of the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. "But in the end it is just a speech. It is just words, and it is not going to have much effect on Sharon."" (Julian Borger ‘Bush 'doesn't have the stomach to use big guns' on Israel’ Guardian 25.10.2001).

Sharon’s Defiance over the Construction of new Zionist Settlements – October 2001.
In october 2001, suzanne goldenberg pointed out that sharon broke his promise to bush to stop the construction of illegal zionist settlements, "According to an aerial survey by Israeli human rights group Peace Now last week, 25 new outposts have sprouted on the stony hills of the West Bank since Sharon became Prime Minister despite his promise to the US not to build any new settlements." (Suzanne Goldenberg ‘Sharon calms US after appeaser jibe backfires’ Observer 7.10.2001). What is so ominous about this is that in april 2004 bush had to remind sharon that he had promised not to assassinate arafat. But sharon is treacherous and will even ignore his own promises if he can further the goal of zionist expansionism.

Sharon’s Claim that Jews Control America – October 2001.
Sharon knows that zionists control the american media and have a powerful grip over the american congress. In september 2001 he discovered he could insult bush with impunity. So, it was not surprising when he blurted, "Every time we do something, you (shimon peres) tell me americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear. Don’t worry about american pressure on israel; we, the jewish people, control america and the americans know it." (Zionist Prime Minister Ariel Sharon October 3, 2001 IAP News).

Bush’s War against Al Quaeda becomes Sharon’s `War against Terrorists threatening the Zionist State in Palestine’ - January 2002.
In the months following the pentagon and new york bombings, sharon succeeded in radically transforming american foreign policy. America’s war against al quaeda’s threats to america was transformed into a war against the terrorists threatening the zionist state in palestine i.e. hezbollah, hamas, saddam hussein, the palestinians, syria, iran, libya, and iran: none of which are a threat to america. Bush’s formal adoption of sharon’s policies was announced in january 2002, "The transformation to support of a wider war was complete with Bush's January 29, 2002, State of the Union speech, in which he officially decoupled the "war on terrorism'' from the specific events of 9/11. Bush did not even mention bin Laden or al Qaeda. The danger now was said to come primarily from three countries, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, which he dubbed "an axis of evil" that allegedly threatened the world with their weapons of mass destruction. According to Bush: States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic." (Stephen J Sniegoski 'The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel' www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc3.htm c.February 2003).

Naomi klein has rightly pointed out that bush has adopted sharon’s policies, "Common wisdom has it that after 9/11, a new era of geo-politics was ushered in, defined by what is usually called the Bush doctrine: pre-emptive wars, attacks on terrorist infrastructure (read: entire countries), an insistence that all the enemy understands is force. In fact, it would be more accurate to call this rigid worldview the Likud doctrine. What happened on September 11, 2001 is that the Likud doctrine, previously targeted against Palestinians, was picked up by the most powerful nation on earth and applied on a global scale. Call it the Likudisation of the world: the real legacy of 9/11." (Naomi Klein ‘The Likud doctrine’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1301504,00.html September 10, 2004).

It ought to be pointed out, however, that klein believes that bush borrowed some of sharon's ideas rather than sharon force feeding him zionist propaganda. "Sharon is not the commander-in-chief of the war on terror; that dubious honour stays with George Bush. But on the anniversary of 9/11, he deserves to be recognised as this disastrous campaign's guru, a trigger-happy Yoda for all wannabe Luke Skywalkers out there, training for their epic battles of good vs evil." (Naomi Klein ‘The Likud doctrine’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1301504,00.html September 10, 2004). However, as a zionist it’s not surprising that she suffers from such myopia.

Sharon’s Major Invasion of Palestine - March 2002.
At the end of march 2002, the zionist state launched a second, but much more comprehensive, invasion of palestine and reduced the Jenin refugee camp to rubble (the real Ground Zero) using U.S.-supplied arms and bulldozers. Bush acquiesced in the invasion for the first four days but, much more significantly, applauded the invasion as being the second phase of the war against terrorism (hereinafter referred to as the wart). This was the logical outcome of the radical new foreign policy he’d been given by sharon and had formally adopted in january. In effect, bush was confirming that the zionists had co-opted themselves onto the wart and that sharon’s state terrorism towards palestinians was now a part of america’s war on terrorism. The fact that dumbo bush now saw palestinians as being indistinguishable from al quaeda meant that sharon’s state terrorism against palestinians could become far more ferocious than it had been before. The zionists’ war against defenceless palestinians, which was one of the main causes of the pentagon and new york bombings, was now officially part of america’s war on terror!

Sharon’s Defiance of Bush over the Invasion of Palestine – April 2002.
On thursday april 04, 2002, bush demanded that sharon withdraw his troops from palestinian controlled areas, "President bush last night demanded that israel withdraw its invading troops from palestinian territories." Sharon showed no interest in responding. The following sunday, bush repeated his demand. This time sharon didn’t just ignore the president of the united states. As leader of god’s chosen people, sharon went out of his way to humiliate the president of the united states by going on a tour of his front line troops occupying palestinian areas in order to reassure them he wouldn’t be withdrawing the zionist army.

The following tuesday, bush made a third demand, with a little expression of anger, for the withdrawal of the zionist army. This time sharon took the media along with him to make sure the whole world could see him defying the president of the united states by telling his troops there would be no early withdrawal. On april 15 it was reported that sharon had stated he would not end the occupation "until he was ready". Bush’s humiliation was further compounded by the impotence of secretary of state, colin powell’s peace efforts in the middle east. Powell was supposed to visit the zionist state for peace talks to end the invasion but he’d been forced to spend a week waiting for the worst of the slaughter to abate, before being allowed to visit jerusalem.

Sharon’s humiliation of bush was complete when, a fortnight later, bush resorted to making excuses to the american public to explain why sharon still hadn’t obeyed the leader of the world’s sole superpower. At a white house press briefing, bush’s zionist spokesman ari fleischer told reporters that bush regarded sharon as "A man of peace", but reporters didn’t seem to understand that what he meant was that sharon was entitled to yet another ‘piece’ of palestine. On april 22, 2002, three weeks after the start of the invasion, sharon announced, "The first phase of military operations in palestine has come to an end." Weeks later bush was still demanding the zionists’ total withdrawal from the occupied areas.

After bush’s serial humiliation, nobody around the world could seriously believe that he, nor powell, carried any weight in bringing peace to the area. What use could bush be in negotiations between palestinians and zionists after such humiliations? Jonathon steele draws the most obvious conclusion about sharon’s humiliation of bush and america’s sudden adoption of zionist foreign policies, although few other commentators were brave enough to reach such an obvious conclusion, "The Israeli prime minister's humiliating refusal to heed the White House's call last month for an immediate halt to Israel's West Bank incursions should have prompted a debate on whether Bush or Sharon makes US foreign policy. Instead, the leaders of most American Jewish organisations sided with Sharon and were pleased when Bush backed down." (Jonathan Steele Guardian 16.5.2002).

Jeffrey blankfort has pointed out, "Now, jump ahead to last Spring, when Bush Jr. forthrightly demanded that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdraw his marauding troops from Jenin, saying "Enough is enough!" It made headlines all over the world, as did his backing down when Sharon refused. What happened? Harsh criticism boomed from within his own party in Congress and from his daddy's old friends in the media. George Will associated Dubya with Yasser Arafat and accused Bush of having lost his "moral clarity." The next day, Safire suggested that Bush was "being pushed into a minefield of mistakes" and that he had "become a wavering ally as Israel fights for survival." Junior got the message and, within a week, declared Sharon to be "a man of peace." Since then, as journalist Robert Fisk and others have noted, Sharon seems to be writing Bush's speeches." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004).

Bush's Middle East speech written by Sharon – June 2002.
"If anyone still has doubt as to who writes Bush's speeches or who controls America, listen to the comments on Bush's Middle East speech to remove Arafat on 25/06/2002, and Israel's political commentator Mahum Burmea in Yediot Ahromat, Israel's largest newspaper, who says: "The mouth was President Bush's, but the hand that wrote the speech was Ariel Sharon's. The last two years killed the Oslo Accords; President Bush's speech buried it in the annals, of history." (Anver Suliman ‘Who is driving the war against Iraq?’ No War for Israel http://www.nowarforisrael.com/Driving%20War.htm February 25, 2003).

Sharon orders Bush to Install a Zionist into the Pentagon to bring America’s Foreign Policies into line with those of the Zionist State – December 2002.
By the end of 2002, sharon was able to reap some political fruits for his control over the bush administration by getting one of his acolytes, elliott abrams, appointed to a prestigious post in the pentagon. Abrams then set about consolidating zionist control over american foreign policy to bring it into line with that of the zionist state in palestine. "Ten days ago, Washington voted for the first time ever against a UN General Assembly resolution that called on Israel to repeal the "Jerusalem Law" that declares that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel". In the past, Washington has abstained on the issue, consistent with its long-held stand that Jerusalem's status must be determined by negotiations between the parties. More important, efforts by "the Quartet", the European Union, the UN, Russia and the United States, to produce a "road map" leading to the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state in 2005 have come to a screeching halt since Abrams' appointment. Over the strenuous objections of the State Department, as well as other Quartet members, the White House has decreed that work on the roadmap will remain frozen until at least after the elections in Israel January 28. The decision represents a total caving in to demands by Sharon, who stands to profit tremendously by the fact that international pressure on him to move toward renewed peace talks or accept a peace plan will now be nil, at least until the elections are finished." (Jim Lobe ‘Bush's trusty new Mideast point man’ Asia Times Online http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL19Ak01.html 19.12.2002).

The Washington Post can't spot the difference - February 9th 2003.
A zionist commentator sought to camoflauge bush’s abject slavery to ariel sharon by suggesting that american and zionist policies were similar. It is not difficult to appreciate that the reason they are similar is because sharon has pressured bush into adopting zionist policies, "The Washington Post supplied a less glib, more systematic attempt to demonstrate an unprecedented political partnership between Sharon and Bush, in a 2,100-word front-page story February 9 by Robert Kaiser, headlined " Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy." The story also included a paragraph outlining a supposed rightward shift among American Jewish organizations. "Over the past dozen years or more, supporters of Sharon's Likud Party have moved into leadership roles in most of the American Jewish organizations that provide financial and political support for Israel," Kaiser wrote." (Ami Eden ' Israel's Role: The 'Elephant' They're Talking About' http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.02.28/news4.html 28.2.2003).

Sharon Orders Bush to Invade Iraq – March 2003.
The idea of america invading iraq was concocted primarily by the israelis working inside the bush administration – many of whom had been members of reagan’s administrations. They were ably assisted by the israeli owned media in america and the israeli lobby in america. These zionists lied about iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and saddam’s links to international terrorism, etc to trick bush and the american public into supporting the invasion of iraq that would benefit only the zionist state in palestine. So far, this invasion has cost vast amounts of money (that could have been used for better purposes) and the lives of over 1000 american military personnel. The aim of the invasion was to abolish saddam’s defiance to the zionist state of palestine and install a zionist friendly iraqi government. In effect, sharon ordered bush to invade iraq and then used his israeli compatriots working inside the bush administration to implement the policy. Please see, ‘Jewish Zionists Initiated America’s Invasion of Iraq for the Benefit of the Zionist State in Palestine’.

Bush's Speeches written by Sharon’s Acolytes – April 2003.
It is not surprising that bush sounds like sharon. After all, bush has hired sharon’s men to work for him, "If the speeches of Bush and Cheney often sound as if they came from the lips of Sharon, one of the reasons may be that their speechwriters, Joseph Shattan, Mathew Scully and John McConnell, are neo-cons, as is Cheneys Chief-of-Staff, Lewis Libby. (Uri Avnery ‘The Night After: The Easier the Victory, the Harder the Peace’ Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html April 10, 2003).

Sharon forces Bush to accept Sharon’s Assassinations of Palestinian Leaders – March-April 2004.
Successive american presidents have opposed the zionist state’s policy of assassinating palestinian leaders. Bush is the first president to not feel disturbed by such a policy. Stephen zunes believes the reason for bush’s change of heart was due to the power of the christian zionists, "After the Bush administration’s initial condemnation of the attempted assassination of militant Palestinian Islamist Abdel Aziz Rantisi in June 2003, the Christian Right mobilized its constituents to send thousands of e-mails to the White House protesting the criticism. A key element in these e-mails was the threat that if such pressure continued to be placed upon Israel, the Christian Right would stay home on Election Day. Within 24 hours, there was a notable change in tone by the president. Indeed, when Rantisi fell victim to a successful Israeli assassination in April 2004, the administration, as it did with the assassination of Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin the previous month, largely defended the Israeli action." (Stephen Zunes ‘The Influence of the Christian Right on U.S. Middle East Policy’ Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org June 2004).

Zunes argues that sharon isn’t politically powerful enough to force bush to change his mind. It is only america’s christian zionists who can force bush to change his mind. "It appears, then, that right-wing Christian Zionists are, at this point, more significant in the formulation of U.S. policy toward Israel than are Jewish Zionists, as illustrated by three recent incidents." Zunes’s analysis is laughable. It represents a bizarre new theory of modern democracy: any group of people can change the american president’s policies by sending in some emails. A thousand emails will lead the president to condone a state assassination; 50,000 postcards are enough to sink any peace plan; and 100,000 emails lead to a change of policy.

Zunes’s is a left wing zionist, a neo-leftie. The bush administration wasn’t forced to change its mind because it received 100,000 emails from christian zionists: these emails provided it with an excuse to drop a policy, supported by the international community, which it didn’t support. The christian zionist movement was set up in part by zionists so it can hardly be regarded as being a mere christian movement. What’s the betting that the majority of the emails sent to bush came from jewish zionists posing as christian zionists rather than christian zionists? Did all those sending in emails/postcards identify themselves as christian zionists?

Bush’s Capitulation to Sharon’s Plan for further Zionist Terrorism: A "mini-Munich" – April 2004.
Sharon is a terrorist, mass murderer, war criminal, and now a state terrorist. He believes there is only a military solution to the palestinian problem. If he wanted peace he would have negotiated with arafat and the rest of the palestinian leadership but he has consistently refused to negotiate with any palestinian. Sharon feared that after the second proxy zionist war against iraq there would be severe international pressures on him to reach a peace agreement with the palestinians: as had happened after the first proxy zionist war against iraq in 1991 when the zionists were dragged to the madrid conference. Sharon’s new peace plan is the ‘gaza withdrawal’, which it can be reliably predicted, will never happen. He presented the plan to bush on april 14th 2004. In return for the withdrawal of zionist settlers from the gaza strip, america should, firstly, end its support for palestinian refugees’ right of return to their homeland and, secondly, legitimize zionist settlements in the west bank. "Bush outraged Palestinians last month when he gave Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon letters saying Israel could not be expected to give up all its settlements or accept the return of Palestinian refugees." (‘UN rebuke for Bush over Israel’ Aljazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C8617BFB-0B0A-49C5-9021-97DCD5D3F5DF.htm 07.05.2004).

The gaza withdrawal plan is a stroke of political genius. Firstly, it sabotages bush’s ‘road map’ peace agreement. Secondly, it demands huge political concessions from america in return for a zionist promise to carry out a future plan of action. Thirdly, given the passing of time and endless excuses, sharon need not carry out his side of the plan: this is exactly like all the loans that the americans give to the zionist state without being repaid a penny. Fourthly, the settlements in gaza are a huge financial, and military, burden on the zionist state which sharon was pleased to jettison. So, for the sake of promising to sacrifice settlements which he wanted to get rid of anyhow, sharon had obtained two huge political concessions from the bush administration. These concessions were a huge political benefit to the zionist state, even if they would also have made peace even less likely than before. But since sharon doesn’t care about peace this was of no concern to him. It was staggering that bush instantly acceded to sharon’s plan even though it had fundamental repercussions for american foreign policies in the middle east. It was staggering that bush simply agreed to sharon’s plan without any prior discussion either with the american congress, the american public or the international community. Bush’s approval of the plan was an ignominious surrender to zionist power.

Patrick j. buchanan pointed out, "According to the New York Times, Sharon threatened not to come to Washington unless Bush, in advance and in writing, agreed to capitulate. "In a moment of diplomatic brinkmanship," writes James Bennet, Sharon threatened to cancel his trip if Bush refused to give him "the guarantees he wanted in exchange for his plan to withdraw settlers from the Gaza Strip." Sharon's ultimatum: In return for giving up Gaza, Bush must give him title to more desirable Palestinian lands on the West Bank. What did Bush give up? None of the Palestinians driven out of their homes by the Irgun massacre at Deir Yassin and during the 1948 war will ever be allowed to return. Palestinian rights in that 78 percent of Palestine that is already Israel, and in the sectors of the remaining 22 percent Sharon plans to annex, are forfeit forever. Second, major Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank, planted by Sharon in violation of international law, which every U.S. president has called "obstacles to peace," are now deeded to Israel. Like Lord Balfour, Bush is surrendering title to Arab lands he does not own and surrendering Palestinian rights that are not his to give up. As for the Sharon Wall that snakes in and out of the West Bank, incorporating Palestinian fields, olive groves, homes and villages, Bush no longer insists it be confined to Israeli territory." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Bush Outsources Mideast Policy’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2350 c.May 2004).

Sharon’s Celebrations at Bush’s Capitulation – April 2004.
Sharon was jubilant when he returned to the zionist state in palestine after his meeting with the hapless bush, "Speaking of the Palestinians, they were dealt a lethal blow," exulted a jubilant Ariel Sharon, "It will bring their dreams to an end." Sharon bragged about his trip to Washington where he’d bullied Bush into selling out the Palestinians as thoroughly as Neville Chamberlain sold out the Czechs at Munich. "Sharon Got It All" blared a banner headline in Israel. Indeed, he did. And Raging Bull celebrated his diplomatic victory by ordering up a Saturday night hit on Abdel Rantisi, the Hamas leader who replaced Sheik Yassin, whom Sharon had assassinated by Apache gunship in March as the crippled sheik was being wheeled out of a mosque after dawn prayers. As he surely intended, Sharon left the Arab world with the clear impression that the Americans had given a green light to his "extrajudicial" killings. Sharon seeks to make his war on the Palestinians America's war. If Bush lets him succeed, we are finished in the Middle East." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Bush Outsources Mideast Policy’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2350 c.May 2004). It ought to be pointed out that once again sharon was equating bush with neville chamberlain but bush made no protest this time.

Rachelle marshall has argued, "Having decided that using the army to guard a few thousand settlers in Gaza was becoming too risky and too expensive, Sharon had found a way for Bush to claim credit as a peacemaker and still allow Israel to retain control of the area. As the Israeli leader hoped, Bush gave him everything he asked for. In doing so Bush defied U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for Israel’s return of the occupied territories, ignored international laws declaring Israel’s settlements illegal, scrapped his own "road map to peace," and reversed longstanding U.S. Middle East policy. Bush not only approved of Sharon’s land grab, but praised it as "historic and courageous," citing Israel’s willingness to leave Gaza and dismantle a few West Bank settlements. In reality, Israel will keep permanent control of Gaza’s borders, seaport and airport, and widen the security strip between Gaza and Egypt. The 1.2 million Arab residents of Gaza will be locked inside a prison guarded by the Israeli army. The four West Bank settlements to be dismantled house a total of no more than 500 Israelis, a fraction of the 400,000 settlers who will remain. After his meeting with Bush, Sharon said the Palestinians "were dealt a lethal blow."" (Rachelle Marshall ‘The Fact Behind the Fictions: the U.S. and Israel Plan Permanent Occupations’ Washington Report on Middle East Affairs June 2004, pages 6-8).

Sharon also got the tacit support of the blair government: which was not surprising considering that blair is little more than a zionist quisling.

Further Humiliation for Bush. The Likud Party dismisses Sharon’s Plan – April 2004.
If bush’s approval of sharon’s plan was an ignominious surrender to zionist global power what made it even more embarrassing for the so-called leader of the world’s sole superpower was that sharon couldn’t get his own party, the likud party, to endorse the deal. In other words, sharon had used bush to try to win support for the plan from his own party. It was staggering that sharon was willing to put the credibility of the united states’ presidency on the line in an internal debate within the likud party. And, even more staggering that bush allowed him to do so. As a consequence, when the likud party rejected the plan, bush was left as its only supporter. At this point, bush retracted his support for the plan but by then the damage to what was left of his tattered reputation had been done.

Sharon is a Racist who forces Bush (and Blair) into supporting the Democratization of the Middle East.
Ariel Sharon’s Policy for Reforms of Palestinian Institutions.
Ariel sharon insisted that before he would be willing to discuss peace with the palestinians there should be widespread reforms of palestinian institutions and the election of a new democratic palestinian leader. "Asked to outline the plan, Mr Sharon restated his position that Yasser Arafat had to be stripped of power, a prime minister should be appointed to head a Palestinian administration and there should be fundamental reform of security organisations." (Chris McGreal ‘Sharon derides EU peace efforts. Israeli leader says only the US view is relevant’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,878272,00.html January 20, 2003).

Bush Supports Ariel Sharon’s Policy for Reforms of Palestinian Institutions.
Sharon’s tactic for deposing arafat was, of course, purely and simply a means for delaying peace negotiations with the palestinians since he has never supported peace negotiations with them at any time. Sharon managed to persuade both bush and blair to support his policy. Under severe pressure from the american, and british, governments the palestinians duly organized the election of a new leader. Only a few days after the election, sharon denounced the newly elected leader and refused to negotiate with him. For sharon, the whole process of palestinians electing a new leader was an irrelevance. "Zealotry can also lead to a myopic focus on the wrong issues in a conflict or crisis, as is occurring among all Bush policymakers with regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The administration's obsessive focus on deposing Yasir Arafat, a policy suggested by the neo-cons years before Bush came to office, is a dodge and a diversion that merely perpetuates the conflict by failing to address its real roots. Advocates of this policy fail or refuse to see that, however unappealing the Palestinian leadership, it is not the cause of the conflict, and "regime change" among the Palestinians will do nothing to end the violence." (Kathleen and Bill Christison Counterpunch ‘A Rose By Another Other Name: The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html 13.12.2002).

Bush Supports Ariel Sharon’s Policy for the Democratization of Iraq.
Sharon’s idea for the democratization of palestinian institutions evolved rapidly into the idea of bringing democracy to iraq. Originally, both bush and blair supported an invasion of iraq because they professed that saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction which, they believed, posed a direct military threat to america and britain. As it became more and more obvious that there were no such weapons, both leaders began to employ sharon’s idea that the invasion should rid the country of a tyrant in order to create a democracy. The idea that america wants to bring democracy to iraq is as fallacious as the idea that saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Bush Supports Ariel Sharon’s Policy for the Democratization of the Middle East.
Sharon’s idea for the democratization of palestinian institutions also evolved into the idea that america should invade countries in the middle east in order to install democracies. Just as the idea of the democratization of the palestinians had been a tactic only to delay negotiations with palestinians, and the idea of the democratization of iraq had been an excuse to dispose of one of the zionist state’s enemies, so the zionists’ promotion of the democratization of the middle east is currently being used in a number of extraneous ways. Firstly, as another delaying tactic to avoid peace negotiations between palestinians and zionists; secondly, as a means of diverting attention away from the need for peace negotiations between palestinians and zionists. Thirdly, as a pretext for the invasion of both iran and syria. In other words, it is a simple bit of zionist propaganda to ensure zionist domination of the middle east. It is amazing that, yet again, bush and blair adopted more policies initiated by ariel sharon. Freedland regards bush as being blessed with "semi-Churchillian gravitas" and has argued, "He (bush) has in mind not only the Iraqi nation but all the people of what he calls the Greater Middle East. The "liberation of Baghdad" is but the first step towards the transformation of the entire region. It is not a secret plan, contained only in classified memoranda. On the contrary, Bush has declared it loud and proud, returning to the theme again in Istanbul yesterday. He articulated it most clearly in a November 2003 speech to America's National Endowment for Democracy where he set out how, though there were now 120 functioning democracies in the world, the wave of self-rule had barely touched the Middle East. Democracy had made inroads in Latin America and Asia, but had still failed to make a dent in the Arab world. Why not, the president asked: "Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism?" (Jonathan Freedland ‘The west's Arab racket’ The Guardian June 30, 2004).

"Sharansky's emphasis on "democracy" provided the ideological rationale for ending any Israeli negotiations with the Palestinians. His idea was straightforward: no concessions, funds, or legitimacy for the Palestinians unless they first adopted "democracy." The Israeli policy of disengagement with the Palestinian government would induce the United States to act likewise and demand that Palestine must first establish a democracy before there could be talks with Israel. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote: "By coincidence (or something more) the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan Sharansky published in the Jerusalem Post on May 3 [2002] sounds a lot like the peace proposal Bush delivered in the Rose Garden on June 24." The wording was so similar that Milbank asked, "Is Natan Sharansky working in the White House speechwriting office?" Sharansky was not; his neocon clones, however, were. And they were involved not just in speechwriting but in the actual making of American policy for the Middle East, though "involved"' is an understatement." (Stephen j. Sniegoski ‘Sharansky, Weissglas, and the Inaugural address: The Israeli connection continues’ February 2, 2005).

The idea that america wants to bring democracy to the middle east is as fallacious as the idea that saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. If americans wanted to bring democracy to the middle east then, after the first gulf war, they would have insisted that kuwait created a democracy. They did nothing of the kind. If americans really wanted to bring democracy to the middle east then the first thing they should have done is stop funding the racist zionist state in palestine which is the prime cause that prevents palestinians from creating a democratic state.

There is, however, a much more recent example showing bush’s disinterest in the establishment of democracies in the islamic world. The bush administration is refusing to provide the help needed to bring democracy to afghanistan. "Tony Blair may have pledged that Afghanistan would not be abandoned, but after the Taliban was ousted, Washington and London's focus shifted east to Iraq. Meanwhile, the toll of dead and maimed is rising. The infrastructure is non-existent, opium production is rocketing, warlords control large swathes of the country, and the Taliban are back. Afghanistan is unraveling piece by piece. This is the most immediate need, for Afghanistan, and for Karzai. The Afghan elections have been postponed once already, from June, due to the endemic violence. A second cancellation may just finish off what is left of the Afghan president's credibility. According to international agencies, out of 10.5 million eligible to vote, only 1.6 million have been registered. (President Karzai maintains at least five million names are now on the electoral list)." (Kim Sengupta ‘Afghanistan As A 'Role Model' Of US Foreign Policy: The Unraveling And Destruction Of A Nation 'Liberated' By The West’ The lndependent 1.07.04).

Bush’s Adoption of Zionist Terrorism – May 2004.
Even after bush’s appalling humiliations over sharon’s ‘peace’ plan, he continued to follow in his master’s footsteps. "What both incidents share (the american attack on the wedding party in the village of Mukaradeeb, Iraq, and the zionist attack on Rafah) is the view that the war on terror justifies extreme behaviour - a view long urged by Ariel Sharon that has now been endorsed by George Bush. Wednesday's slaughter came one day after Mr Bush had drawn a direct parallel, in a speech to the pro-Israeli AIPAC lobby, between the two countries' "struggles against terrorism", while failing to repeat early criticism of the Rafah onslaught by secretary of state Colin Powell. After the shelling, the White House was again more reluctant than the state department to condemn Israel." (Leader ‘Lies about crimes’ The Guardian 21.5.2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221511,00.html).

Bush’s Adoption of Sharon’s Policy concerning Iran’s Alleged Acquisition of Nuclear Weapons – May 2004.
Bush is also supporting another sharon policy, "The issue of Iran's nuclear weapons program was discussed by President George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon during the latter's visit to the White House on April 14. The sources said the two men were alone during the brief discussion in an effort by the president to gauge a likely Israeli response to the completion of an Iranian nuclear bomb. "It would be intolerable for the Middle East if they [Iran] get a nuclear weapon," Bush said after meeting Sharon." (‘US Prepares For Israeli Attack On Iran’ Rense.com 9.05.04 Article taken from Middle East Newsline http://menewsline.com/stories/2004/may/05_07_2.html).

Bush invaded iraq because of saddam’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction and is now intent on doing the same to iran’s non-existent wmd: even though iran is perfectly justified in constructing such weapons as a means of deterrence against the zionist state.

Sharon Pushing Bush into a war with Iran.
The zionist state has been making increasing noises about attacking iran to prevent it from acquiring wmd, "The Israelis have reportedly practiced strikes on Iran by crossing Turkish airspace and have special forces in the Kurdish regions of Iraq. There are rumors Sharon has told the White House that if we do not effect the nuclear castration of Iran, Israel will do the surgery herself, because she cannot live under the cloud of an atomic bomb in the possession of the patrons of Hezbollah." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Neocons Seek Vindication in Escalation’ August 23, 2004).

Sharon has insisted that america should support a zionist attack on iran, "Ledeen and Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, recently created the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI) to lobby for a more aggressive policy there. Their move coincided with suggestions by Sharon that Washington adopt a more confrontational policy vis-a-vis Teheran." (Jim Lobe ‘Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network’ http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0807-02.htm August 7, 2003). Despite the fact that the zionist state is threatening to launch a pre-emptive attack on iran, the bush administration has agreed to send the zionists the airplanes and munitions needed to carry out the attack.

Yet More Humiliations for Dimwit Bush during the Resurrection of Sharon’s Plan – July 2004.
Unfortunately for the dimwit bush, even more humiliations were in store for him when sharon managed to resurrect his ludicrously named peace plan. Sharon resurrected the plan by dumping recalcitrant members of his party and forming an alliance with the labour opposition party. Bush is so dumb he failed to realize that the gaza withdrawal plan was a replacement for his road map plan. According to uri avnery, "President Bush's famous Road Map is dead. (I can hear him exclaiming: "Road Map? What Road Map? The only Map I need is of the road to the White House!")." (Uri Avnery ‘Drought in Texas: Israel and the American Elections’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08182004.html August 18, 2004).

It was left to sharon to announce america’s current foreign policy in the middle east, "Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in remarks on Wednesday repudiated the American-sponsored "road map" to a peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Sharon insists on acting unilaterally, intends to occupy the Palestinian population indefinitely, and intends to permanently incorporate much of the West Bank, conquered in 1967, into Israel, while leaving the Palestinian population stateless. They lack so much as a passport or a country, many of their children are hungry, unemployment is astronomical, and their lives are ruined by a dense network of Israeli roads and checkpoints that make it difficult even just to go to the hospital." (Juan Cole ‘Sharon Repudiates the Road Map’ http://www.juancole.com/ September 17, 2004). Given such incidents, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that there is now overwhelming evidence of zionists’ global domination.

Sharon Pushes Bush into Acceptance of Further Illegal Settlements - August 2004.
These days bush simply accepts whatever policy sharon decides to pursue, "Ariel Sharon's decision this week to launch a new round of Jewish settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank is a further indication of his government's intention to foreclose on the possibility of a viable Palestinian state in the territories Israel conquered in the 1967 six-day war. While that is unsurprising, the Bush administration's decision to give something between a green and an amber light to this new violation of international law is inflammatory and irresponsible." (Financial Times ‘Israeli tail wags American dog: US backing for Jewish settlers in West Bank is inflammatory’ August 26, 2004); "President Bush's .. demand for a freeze on all building activity in the settlements, "even for the natural increase", is becoming a joke. Sharon has just openly flouted this by announcing plans for 600 new houses in the Ma'aleh Adumim settlement." (Uri Avnery ‘Drought in Texas: Israel and the American Elections’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08182004.html August 18, 2004); "After Sharon solemnly promised President Bush to dismantle some of the "outposts", dozens of new one have sprung up. All the ministries are actively helping the outposts that were officially defined as "illegal". Not only is the army defending them, thereby putting its soldiers in harm's way, but it is actually telling the "hill-boys" where to set up their outposts and secretly advising them how to go about it." (Uri Avnery ‘How the Settlers' Movement Has Infiltrated the IDF’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery10252004.html October 25, 2004).

Sharon Pushes America into Pariahdom with the Zionist State.
Ever since it came into existence the zionist state has ignored united nations’ resolutions, ignored the geneva convention on the treatment of palestinian prisoners, and the settlement of occupied land, and, consequently, has been a rogue state. Neither the bush administration nor congress has ever made the slightest effort to force the zionist state to abide by un resolutions or the geneva convention. On the contrary, both have increasingly moved to legitimize zionist colonialism in palestine. "In supporting this resolution, Congress has effectively renounced UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which call on Israel, in return for security guarantees from its Arab neighbors, to withdraw from territories seized in the June 1967 war. All previous U.S. administrations of both parties had seen these resolutions as the basis for Arab-Israeli peace. These Israeli settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deem it illegal for any country to transfer any part of its civilian population onto territories seized by military force. UN Security Council resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471 explicitly call on Israel to remove its colonists from the occupied territories. The vast majority of these settlements that the Bush-Sharon plan seeks to formally annex into Israel were built after these resolutions were passed. More fundamentally, Congress’ effective endorsement of an Israeli annexation of land it conquered in the 1967 war is a direct challenge to the United Nations Charter, which forbids any country from expanding its territory through military conquest. The vote, therefore, constitutes nothing less than an overwhelming bipartisan renunciation of the post-World War II international system, effectively recognizing the right of conquest." (Stephen Zunes ‘Congress Overwhelmingly Endorses Ariel Sharon's Annexation Plans’ Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org June 25, 2004).

Whilst the zionist state has never belonged, or contributed, to the post-World War II international system, america has been the backbone of the united nations – financially, morally, and politically. What has happened during the bush administration is that rather than the united states forcing the zionist state back into the fold of the international community, the zionists have forced the bush regime and its western allies into joining the zionist state as a rogue nation. In effect then, the united states has thus decided it would rather be associated with the zionist state outside the international community than disassociate itself with the apartheid state and remain within the united nations. It has become a rogue nation alongside the rogue zionist state. It would rather follow the zionist state into pariahdom than remain a member of the international community. This indicates without doubt that america is the servant and the zionist state is the master. The fact that this new american policy was initiated and designed by zionists is not a coincidence. The fact that america invaded iraq in order to protect the zionist state is not a coincidence. What they indicate is that america is dominated by zionists and implements policies designed by zionists for the benefit not america but of the racist zionist state.

Concluding Remarks.
The american government forks out roughly $3-6 billion a year to finance the zionist state in palestine and yet ariel sharon not merely gets away with insulting, defying, and humiliating, the president of the united states but forces him to adopt zionist policies. This shows that the american government is not giving zionists this money as a means of exerting influence over the zionist state, but that the zionists are so powerful they are able to extract this money as tribute from american taxpayers with no political strings attached.

It can’t be long before the zionist lobby in america declares its intention of financing ariel sharon's candidacy in the 2008 election for the presidency of the united states. It would be a good thing if sharon became president of the united states since it would then no longer be necessary to maintain the charade of that there is no such thing as a global zionist conspiracy for world domination. It would be better for zionists too who could then make their intentions clear to everyone. Of course half the arab world would likely be wiped out shortly after sharon’s accession to the zionist occupied government of america but then what else can be expected from such a mass murderer?

If bush was all powerful he would not merely order sharon to do things in america’s interests but ensure that the american public and the american media appreciated that sharon was having to do as he is told. But, this is not the case. Bush is so weak he even allows the appearance of sharon’s dominance over him to intrude into public and media perceptions of him. It is increasingly the case that bush’s slavish role towards the zionist state and the jewish lobby has turned him into a figure of ridicule.

Commentators’ Views on the Sharon’s dominance over Bush.
The following commentators have hinted that bush has become sharon’s muppet:

Cole, Juan.
Juan cole is correct in his assessment of the relationship between the leader of the world’s hyperpower and the leader of a tiny, powerless, country surrounded by a sea of hostile arab/islamic nations. "Bush has just lain down on the ground and pleaded with Sharon to walk all over him with hobnail boots, and then smiled for the privilege. Arab satellite television shows Israelis repressing Palestinians every day. The Bush administration has actually endorsed the forcible Israeli annexation of Palestinian land, which violates the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Accords!" (Juan Cole ‘Arguing with Bush yet Again’ http://www.juancole.com/ July 14, 2004); "It is September 11. It is obvious to me that what September 11 really represented was a dragooning of the United States into internal Middle East political conflicts." (Juan Cole ‘Dual Loyalties’ http://www.juancole.com/ September 9, 2004).

Nader, Ralph.
"Finally, treat yourself to a recent column on February 5, 2004 in The New York Times, by Thomas Friedman, an author on Middle East affairs, who has been critical of both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership. Mr. Friedman writes: "Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he’s had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who’s ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year: all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing." (Quoted in Ralph Nader ‘Nader Writes to the Anti-Defamation League on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=119 August 5, 2004).

Raimondo, Justin.
"Think of that famous photo of Lynndie England holding a leash connected to some poor slob of an Iraqi writhing naked on the floor, and you have a pretty good idea of Bush's relationship with AIPAC at the present conjuncture – and AIPAC is holding the leash." (Justin Raimondo ‘Indict the War Party For treason’ http://antiwar.com/justin/ September 20, 2004).

Roberts, Paul Craig.
"If Bush were aware that his army has failed to "secure Iraq," he might wonder at the neocon-likudnik plans to attack Iran. Bush might even stop being Richard Perle's puppet. Or Ariel Sharon's poodle." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Not One Bad News Bearer in Bush's Inner Circle’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01202005.html January 20, 2005).

Scowcroft, Brent.
"Quite aside from partisan attacks coming from the Kerry camp, the most biting critique has come from Brent Scowcroft, who mused to Britain's Financial Times the other day that while the transatlantic relationship is "in general bad," George W. Bush's attention is elsewhere: "[Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger. I think the president is mesmerized. When there is a suicide attack [followed by a reprisal] Sharon calls the president and says, 'I'm on the front line of terrorism', and the president says, 'Yes, you are. . . ' He [Mr. Sharon] has been nothing but trouble." (Justin Raimondo ‘Bizarro Bush’ http://antiwar.com/justin/ October 22, 2004).


Notes on Sharon's Claim to rule the World.
Sharon is alleged to have stated, "Every time we do something, you (shimon peres) tell me americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear. Don’t worry about american pressure on israel; we, the jewish people, control america and the americans know it." (Zionist Prime Minister Ariel Sharon October 3, 2001 IAP News).

The quote was heard on 'Kol Yisrael' a radio station in the zionist state in palestine. It was then publicized by IAP, the Islamic Association for Palestine. It became known in the west through the syndicated columnist georgie anne geyer who mentioned it in an article reprinted in a number of american newspapers.

The quote has been used by those on the extreme right e.g. David Duke 'America on the brink. Why we must oppose this Zionist war against America!' http://www.core.binghamton.edu/~bleep/september11/stormfront.html c. Feb 2002. But zionists have either denied the statement was made or attempted to cast doubt over its authenticity - even though it is a close reflection of what sharon is likely to believe.

The quote was investigated by jim moore, "A short while back I read a report that at a Knesset meeting Ariel Sharon had said to his deputy, Shimon Peres, "Don't worry about the Americans. We own America." Not willing to accept that at face value, I contacted a reporter in Hebron to try to verify Sharon's outburst. Sure enough, the reporter told me that news of Sharon's offhand remark had, in fact, been broadcast from an Israeli radio station, and that both Israelis and Palestinians had heard it and were talking about it." (Jim Moore 'When Sharon says Jump Bush says How High?' Ether Zone http://www.etherzone.com/2003/moor022403.shtml 24.2.2003).

Camera explored the issue. The zionists running camera were none too happy about such bad publicity for ariel sharon and thus attempted to find the source for the quote. It contacted the radio station in palestine on which the remark was supposed to have been made and was told that such a statement was never broadcast. Camera thus concluded the quote was a hoax. See http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=34&x_context=2

dharley, a poster on guardian unlimited talk even argued, "The radio show that is allegedly the source for this remark is totally mythical. I defy themundiclub to produce solid evidence for this pernicious claim. (Thread: The Facts pointing to Zionist World Domination. 04:28pm Jul 25, 2004 #93).

Camera attempted to pile further doubt about sharon's outburst by pointing out that IAP is a pro-hamas organization, "The hoax originated with an October 3, 2001 press release from the pro-Hamas group, the Islamic Association for Palestine."

A number of points need to be made.

Firstly, camera is not exactly an impartial observer of middle eastern affairs since it issues action alerts about bias in the media about jews but none about the bias against palestinians.

Secondly, it is highly unlikely that the zionist radio station is going to admit that it broadcast sharon’s statement given the bad publicity it would create for sharon and the zionist state in palestine.

Thirdly, the argument that the quote can be dismissed because it came from a pro-hamas source is absurd. On these grounds, it would not be possible to believe anything reported in the zionist-owned media in america and brutland. If push comes to pull then I’d trust aljazeera more than I would the bbc which, after research carried out by the glasgow media group, has been exposed as a blatantly pro-zionist organization.

At the end of the day I place a degree of trust in the veracity of jim moore who seems like a decent journalist since he’d made the effort to check the source.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has a story on this issue which suggests it believes the quote is authentic. See http://wrmea.com/html/newsitem_s.htm