January 26, 2009

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.

(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).


Anonymous asks, "Can I cross post this?"
Sure, but please provide a reference to this web page

Labels: , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home