February 12, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home