The Mundi Club

Egyptian Uprising overthrows its Zionist Master

2011-02-21T12:54:00.004Z

Global Strategic Factors

During the cold war period no liberation movement in any third world country was left to its own devices to fulfill the will of the people through the creation of democratic institutions and a more just society. They were continually corrupted by the superpowers seeking to enhance their global strategic interests in pursuit of global political dominion. The soviets generally tended to support secretive revolutionary movements which invariably aimed at creating one party states that would be sympathetic to their interests whilst the americans, aiming to take over from former colonial powers, sought to install dictators who would promote their interests. It might have been thought that, with the end of the cold war, the days when overarching global strategic factors were able to corrupt domestic struggles for a better society would be long gone but the january 15, 2011 uprising in egypt confirmed the existence of a new strategic factor. This threatened to stymie egyptians’ liberation struggle. Although this struggle was eventually successful, the new strategic factor could still end up deterring or delaying the completion of this struggle i.e. the creation of a new constitution and democratic institutions.

Since the second world war, most arab countries have been run by tyrants who have either been installed by america or have aligned themselves with american interests – even nasser made overtures to the americans but was rebuffed. Most of these dictators have enriched themselves, their families and friends, whilst ruthlessly suppressing domestic demands for political reforms and independent foreign policies. Like bank robbers they have stolen whatever riches their economies generated. As a consequence arab societies have ossified preventing indigenous economic development thereby locking tens of millions into poverty. Since 1979, one of the great turning points in middle eastern history, these dictators have increasingly implemented american/zionist friendly foreign policies.

At the start of the egyptian uprising western public opinion responded positively to the mostly young, middle class, people who took to the streets demanding greater political freedoms which many westerners interpreted as western style political institutions.[i] But western politicians and the western media quickly began to oppose egyptians’ prospects for liberation and their right to bring about a revolutionary foundation of democratic institutions. This opposition was couched in what seemed to be straightforward nationalist terms. ‘Mubarak has ensured stability in egypt and the middle east and has deterred the rise of both arab nationalism and islamic fundamentalism.’ ‘He may be a dictator but he’s our ‘son of a bitch’.’ The suggestion here was that it was in the west’s national interests to continue protecting this dictator. In order create doubts about the consequences of the egyptian protestors’ uprising, western politicians/commentators sought to popularize the fear that it would lead to the rise of an extreme islamic government hostile to the west. Egypt’s muslim brotherhood were touted as a major threat to western interests even though it was nothing of the kind.[ii]

The proposition that the egyptian uprising was against western interests, however, ran counter to the commonly held belief in western states that democracy is important not merely to protect political freedoms, guarantee property rights, and ensure justice, but to give people the opportunity to run and develop their own businesses and thus enhance national economic growth. So, if this belief is valid domestically then it must also be valid globally. It is therefore in the national interests of western states to encourage the widest possible democratic reforms in egypt, and in all other countries, not merely because this would narcissistically imitate western political principles but because, more mundanely, it would promote egyptian, and thus global, economic growth. Western companies would have another growing consumer market which would enable them to increase output and profits and thereby boost their own countries’ economy. A comparison between the economies of democratic turkey and dictatorial egypt suggests that democracy makes a critical difference to the economic development. “… its (egypt’s) economy is today a quarter the size of Turkey's (though both countries have populations of similar size).” (Daniel Levy ‘After Mubarak - What Does Israel Do?’ http://www.tfdnews.com/news/2011/02/11/79782-daniel-levy-after-mubarak-what-does-israel-do.htm%20class= Feb 11, 2011).

It is said that ‘imitation is the greatest form of flattery’ and so the west should have been proud that egyptian protestors wanted to emulate its humanitarian values, political principles, and prosperity. Surely what westerners want is a thriving egyptian democracy leading to a thriving economy with which they could freely do business? Surely westerners should have been exhilarated at the prospects of egypt becoming more westernized?

The Zionist State’s support for Mubarak

The question then is why so many western politicians/commentators insisted that it was in western interests to protect mubarak and thereby try so intensely to discourage democratic reforms? The critical strategic factor that, once again, was exposed by their attitude was the primary importance they attached to the security of the jews-only state in palestine. The all too obvious implication was that it didn’t matter to them what their country’s interests were: all that mattered was protecting the zionist colonial state.

The zionist state was virtually the only country in the world, outside of the world of arab dictators, who disapproved of what the egyptians were doing – even the iranians applauded events in egypt. It adamantly insisted that its security interests would be best served by the west continuing to support mubarak, and other arab dictators, no matter how much they crushed the will of their people for democratic reforms and nationalistic foreign policies.[iii] This was not unexpected since it has always helped to install and sustain arab dictators who have pledged their allegiance to zionist expansionism rather than the welfare of their own people.

Mubarak was a zionist puppet. He’d helped to establish the camp david accord which in effect gave the zionist state the freedom to wage war against the palestinians and surrounding arab states. He denounced hezbollah[iv]; urged the zionist state to crush hamas[v]; accused iran of fomenting an arc of shi’ite interests in the middle east[vi]; and even encouraged the jews-only state to bomb iran[vii]. It has also been alleged that he sold subsidized gas to the zionist state.[viii] Egypt had once been self sufficient in oil and food but such was the corruption and incompetence of the mubarak regime that the country was having to import both.[ix] Here was a leader of country which could no longer feed itself and in which tens of millions of people were living in poverty, who was exporting gas at subsidized rates to a far richer country. Quite revealingly, during the uprising, mubarak poured out his zionist heart to a zionist confidente.[x]

In the western world, zionist politicians and jewish lobbies echoed the jews-only state’s stance and went into over-drive pressuring western governments into propping up mubarak and his fellow arab dictators.[xi] The zionist owned western media put even more pressure on western politicians to stop sympathizing with egyptian protestors. No sooner had netanyahu raised the spectre that ‘egypt is iran’ than his minions were diligently spreading the message around the west. “We are watching these events, said Netanyahu, with “vigilance and worry.” The worry is rooted, he said, in the possibility that “in a situation of chaos, an organized Islamist body can seize control of a country. It happened in Iran. It happened in other instances.” No sooner had these words escaped his mouth than Israel’s amen corner in this country and around the world echoed the “Egypt is Iran” meme until it had found its way into nearly every news report, and virtually every public statement by a major politician on the Egyptian events.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It’s Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…’ http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011).

It was shocking that in the western world jewish lobbies and zionist politicians/commentators were simply regurgitating the zionist state’s line. It was even more shocking to hear supposedly democratic politicians/commentators defending a brutal and corrupt dictator. But what was even more shocking was that they were promoting the interests of a foreign state rather than their own country’s national interests. They were sacrificing their democratic principles and the interests of the country they were living in for the sake of a colonial state that was perpetuating dictators throughout the arab world. Most shockingly of all, however, was that they seemed entirely comfortable arguing that it was in the interests of democratic states to sustain dictators because they knew that nobody, not even those on the left, would challenge such nonsense and highlight their treachery. Zionist politicians/commentators in america were promoting blatantly un-american policies whilst, similarly, zionist politicians/commentators throughout the rest of the western world were promoting blatantly anti-western policies, and nobody was challenging them about why they were giving priority to the interests of a foreign state.

There is very little difference between the cold war bogey of ‘reds under the bed’ and zionists’ transformation of the moderate muslim brotherhood into an islamic bogeyman. Since the formation of the zionist state, zionists have fabricated a long list of islamic bogeymen from nasser to saddam hussein. They have become specialists at conjuring up nightmarish islamic threats to frighten the west into supporting zionist interests and it was easy for them to demonize the muslim brotherhood given that most westerners knew little about the group. Contrary to zionists’ accusations, the group was not run by islamic extremists. It had not triggered the uprising.[xii] And it had not orchestrated the protests.[xiii] What do facts matter to zionists when they can churn out lies to an ignorant western public which is usually disinterested in anything beyond their zionist inspired prejudices? Zionist propagandists invented, and popularized, a fear and loathing for the ‘muslim brotherhood’ to pressure western states into supporting mubarak solely in order to protect the security of the zionist state. Western citizens who regurgitated this new strategic bogey were gullible for not understanding that they were undermining their own country’s national interests for the sake of promoting the security of the warmongering colonial state in palestine.

The Dominance of Zionist Propaganda

This wouldn’t be the first time, however, that extreme zionist propagandists have managed to manipulate western states into pursuing policies supposedly promoting western interests when in reality all they were doing was undermining such interests for the sake of boosting the security of the zionist state. This was their great propaganda achievement in provoking the first and second gulf wars. If the zionist state could invent and then popularize amongst western politicians/media the gigantic fiction that saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction then it could easily dupe the west into believing the smaller lie that if it didn’t continue supporting mubarak then it wouldn’t be long before egypt was being run by an extreme islamic government intent on developing nuclear weapons aimed at the western world. After all, the zionist state had already succeeded in conning the west into believing that iran poses the same nuclear threat to the west as saddam was supposed to have done. “Beyond the Arab world, U.S. policy on Iran is dictated more or less totally by Israel.” (Kathleen Christison ‘The US as Israel's Enabler in the Middle East’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02162011.html February 16, 2011).

There are, of course, those who would scoff at the idea of jewish lobbies in the west corrupting western political principles, values, and national interests by trying to turn western public opinion against young, middle class, egyptian protestors in order to promote the strategic interests of the jews-only state. There are those who would be scornful of the idea of western zionist politicians pretending to pursue their country’s national interests whilst in reality undermining such interests for the sake of protecting the zionist state in palestine. And there are those who would dismiss the idea that much of the western media is owned, managed, or manned by zionists whose primary political goal is protecting a foreign state even if this is at the expense of the country in which they are living and working.[xiv] Surely the west cannot be dominated to such an extent by zionists putting the interests of a foreign state above that of the countries they are supposedly protecting?

The truth of these accusations is all too easy to appreciate when it is considered that the ruling elites throughout the western world have never mentioned that the jews-only state developed nuclear weapons in the 1960s. It is easy to measure the scale of zionist domination over the western world by the fact that no politician/commentator has been willing to mention zionists’ nukes. Even though this has been the most critical factor in middle eastern politics, western politicians/commentators ignore their existence and assiduously formulate policies on the grounds of their non-existence. They prefer to promote fantasies about saddam’s nuclear weapons, and more recently iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons, rather than telling the truth about zionists all too real nuclear weapons.[xv] What could be further from the west’s national interests than ignoring the threat that zionists’ nukes pose to the west?

Any visitor from outer space analyzing the views of the west’s mainstream politicians/commentators would be astounded to discover they were promoting foreign policies in the middle east that ran counter to western humanitarian values, political principles, and economic interests. That the west could support the zionists’ hideous oppression of palestinians shows that its humanitarian values are vacuous, that its political principles are a sham, and that its economic interests are being undermined because the palestinians, just like all arab people being oppressed by arab dictators, are being denied the right to establish businesses that would promote economic growth both nationally and globally. The west’s support for zionist colonialism and zionist domination over the middle east is shameful, grossly undemocratic, and counter to its economic interests.[xvi]

Hypothetically speaking, it was a fortunate that in 1948 zionists didn’t create a zionist state in the centre of europe, perhaps in place of Switzerland. If they had they would have inflicted on westerners the same miseries they have inflicted on arabs. They would have created zionist quisling dictatorships across the continent to defend their interests. European countries would have found themselves as impoverished as those in the arab world. America would also be poorer without its current vast trade with europe. Zionist politicians would have spent the next half century undermining the idea of neighbouring countries establishing democracies because of the threat they would supposedly pose to the security of the zionist state. They would have denounced european patriots seeking to liberate their country from zionist dictators as terrorists. Of course, on the bright side, if the zionist state had been founded in central europe, then the islamic world from morocco through to tajikistan would now be almost totally democratic and economically booming.[xvii] But, then again, zionist lobbies would have doubtlessly infiltrated these wealthy arab democracies and sought to develop an ideological alliance with them, based on a pseudo judeo-arabic civilization, invoking europhobia in order to win their support for propping up quisling zionist dictatorships across the european continent. It has to be suspected, however, that these rich arab democracies wouldn’t have been so gullible as to believe that it was in their economic and political interests to perpetuate fabulously wealthy, european dictators ransacking their impoverished economies. The zionist state is a black hole decimating democratic aspirations and economic opportunities in surrounding countries in order to preserve its economic and military supremacism.

What was so marvelous about egyptians’ uprising was not merely the overthrow of a tyrant, but the overthrow of a zionist puppet who’d been imposed upon them by the zionist state and its gigantic american satellite. It was also the western public’s refusal to be manipulated by zionists’ propaganda onslaught against the uprising. Many ordinary people continued to sympathize with the egyptian protestors despite zionist politicians/editors/commentators and jewish lobbies doing their best to provoke yet another wave of islamophobia. The efforts of the west’s zionist leaders to insist that western governments should continue propping up mubarak, and thereby keep sacrificing the lives of tens of millions of egyptians, was a revolting example of naked zionist self-interest. Fortunately, the more determined that protestors in egypt became to rid themselves of a zionist tyrant, the more the western public sympathized with their aspirations, the more revolting these reactionary zionists politicians/commentators/lobbyists appeared to become.

Yet again the zionists in the western world showed themselves to be a bunch of reactionary traitors who not merely supported a tyrant at the expense of people wanting democratic institutions but who were willing to sacrifice the interests of the countries they were living and working in for the sake of their beloved zionist state. Western zionists in politics and the media constantly denounce western moslems for their alleged dual loyalties but the uprising in egypt revealed they have no such duality: they are devoted to the interests of a foreign state.

During the eyptian uprising, it cannot be said, however, that all western politicians were total shrills to the zionist cause. President obama initially supported the uprising but was quickly forced to recant under pressure from the zionist think tanks dug in on the lawns of the white house. He sent a personal envoy to the paroah, supposedly to have a chat about him taking early retirement but, after the meeting, the envoy publicly announced that mubarak should stay in office. “After turning against Mubarak, he suddenly opined that he must stay in power, in order to carry out democratic reforms. As his representative he sent to Egypt a retired diplomat whose current employer is a law firm that represents the Mubarak family (much as Bill Clinton used to send committed Jewish Zionists to “mediate” between Israel and the Palestinians).” (Uri Avnery ‘Tsunami in Egypt’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery02142011.html February 14, 2011).

However, obama would not be beaten into submission by zionist politicians/media/lobbies. On the morning of thursday february 10, 2011, it was reported that mubarak would announce his retirement that evening. Obama couldn’t hide his jubilation even though he knew this would provoke zionist scorn and, sooner or later, revenge. When mubarak finally resigned who could doubt the adoration obama heaped upon the egyptian protestors? His speech outlined with crystal clarity the best of western political principles and values. Those who opposed egypt’s western style protestors were nothing less than un-american and anti-western traitors. It was all too symbolic that after his enforced resignation mubarak moved to a part of egypt which is as close to the zionist state as he could get without actually leaving the country. Clearly he feared that if the egyptian people launched a violent uprising which threatened his life and that of his family, then their safe haven would be only a few miles away.[xviii] Doubtlessly the zionist state would have welcomed into its midst yet another criminal with vast amounts of wealth just as it had done with robert maxwell and the russian oligarchs not to mention a few american-jews who’d fled there to escape justice in america.

There were two factors that might have persuaded mubarak to stay on in power albeit, in the end, only for less than 24 hours. Firstly, ehud barack, the zionists’ defence minister, flew to washington to denounce the obama administration for showing concern for the aspirations of egyptian protestors when it should have supported mubarak in crushing the uprising – doubtlessly with the same ferocity as the zionist state crushed palestinian protests.[xix] Secondly, the saudi leader, fearing an uprising in his own personal fiefdom, offered to fund mubarak’s armed forces if the obama administration ever decided to withdraw its annual funding for the egyptian military.[xx] These dramatic interventions must have convinced mubarak he still had enough international support to survive.

The State of Global Politics

So what does the egyptian uprising indicate about the state of global politics? America is commonly recognized as the only remaining superpower. Some commentators go much further and refer to it as an american empire. But most american politicians couldn’t muster the political power to celebrate egyptians’ democratic protests because of the pressure being exerted on them by the zionist state and its vastly wealthy allies in america. When american politicians turned their backs on people who seemed to be trying to replicate american values and democratic institutions this suggests there are profoundly suspicious factors at work. The reality is that america’s ruling elite consists substantially of zionists who care more about the zionist state in palestine than they do about america or american democracy and that they are willing to use american military power to promote that foreign state no matter how much it undermines america’s military capabilities or the country’s financial resources and political prestige around the world.

Since the end of the cold war, the key global strategic criterion guiding the west’s formulation of political policies has increasingly become whether these policies enhance or detract from the security of the zionist state in palestine.[xxi] Whether this political phenomenon can be categorized as a global zionist empire or zionist world domination is open to debate but when the west goes out of its way to prop up a tiny, virulently aggressive, illegal, colonial state with no raw resources and a tiny population of 6 million, and thereby alienates a multiplicity of arab/islamic countries with vast quantities of natural resources and a combined population of hundreds of millions, it has to be one or the other.

Over the last sixty years, the zionist state has heaped a flood of humiliations upon american presidents and politicians. These are humiliations that the powerful inflict on the powerless, not the pin pricks that satellite states occasionally inflict on their colonial masters. No american president has dared to criticize let alone insult political leaders in the zionist state but zionist politicians insult american presidents with impunity because they know that america’s zionist lobby is powerful enough to prevent american presidents from seeking revenge.

It doesn’t matter what shameful, disgusting, or downright criminal, acts the zionist state carries out whether this might be starving palestinians into submission, denying them medical supplies, slaughtering innocent people, or even attacking american military ships such as the u.s.s. liberty, american politicians cheer it on and protect it in the united nations. There is no barbarism carried out by the zionist state that american politicians have not slavishly defended to their utmost. There is no limit to the amount of hatred they are willing to suffer for the sake of by defending the barbarity of the zionist state. The zionist state beats its american Dog whenever it wants and the poor Dog’s inbred loyalty just keeps leading it back to its master for more abuse and punishment. It is a testimony to the zionist domination in america, that the zionist state can repeatedly humiliate american presidents and yet the American public shows no sense of patriotic anger about it.

Hannah arendt coined the phrase ‘the boomerang effect’ when colonial/imperial powers suffered ethically, financially, politically, and militarily, because of the appalling activities of their colonists/imperialists in foreign countries. America has suffered considerably, militarily, financially, and in terms of its political reputation, for its contribution to the growth of the zionist empire – the holding of american hostages during the first islamic revolution in iran, the wars against saddam hussein, the attacks of september 11, 2001 and the invasion of afghanistan. And yet still the american Dog faithfully serves its master.

Another, even more stark indicator that america is a gigantic satellite of the zionist state is that no american president has been able to limit, let alone withdraw, what are frequently referred to as subsidies to the zionist state in order to punish it for its misdeeds. The reason for this is that these are not subsidies but tribute payments. Satellites are supposed to make tribute payments to their colonial/imperial powers, not vice versa and this is precisely what is happening when america hands over vast sums of money to the zionist state which it then uses in whatever way it thinks fit even if it embarrasses america.

Even more critical for appreciating america’s subservient role to the zionist master is that america has no influence over the zionist state’s domestic policies especially those affecting the palestinians. Indeed, it could be argued the zionist state has more influence over america’s domestic policies than the reverse. And the same is true in terms of foreign policies. America has little control over zionists’ foreign policies but zionists have a critical influence over america’s foreign policies. America’s foreign policies are being determined by its so-called satellite across an ever increasing area of the world not merely the middle east nor even the greater middle east but the entire moslem world. “… Israel is at the center of virtually every move the United States makes in the region.” (Kathleen Christison ‘The US as Israel's Enabler in the Middle East’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02162011.html February 16, 2011). [xxii]

Prospects for Democracy in Egypt

The prospects for democracy in egypt do not look good but, then again, just a few months ago the prospects for overthrowing mubarak seemed non-existent.[xxiii] The egyptian uprising seemed to be an entirely modern, high tech, liberation brought about with the aid of mobile phones and social networking websites. Such websites are notorious for organizing spontaneous, one-off, anarchic, street parties so whether they are suitable for formulating a revolution has yet to be seen. However, the protests seemed so highly co-ordinated and tactically astute, successfully managing to maintain the momentum of the protests despite the efforts made to counter them, that this bodes well for the next, much more difficult, stage of founding democratic institutions.[xxiv]

Although social networking websites creep into the public domain the egyptian protestors seemed to be able to organize themselves either without the authorities and international secret agencies being aware of what they were doing or, if the authorities were aware, of being unable to counter what the protestors were doing. [xxv] Little is known about the protestors or what motivated them. Western commentators are only now beginning to ascertain such motivations. “It's fair to say that at this stage the Egyptian street keeps close to its heart those that supported it, from al-Jazeera and assorted Arab nationalists to Hezbollah in Lebanon. And knows very well those that despised it - from the House of Saud and assorted Wahhabi extremists to Israel. No one will forget that Saudi King Abdullah accused the street of "meddling in the security and stability of Arab and Muslim Egypt".” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011).

Having been so successful in liberating themselves, it is to be hoped they can take the next revolutionary step. Whether they will be able to do so is difficult to assess especially since the protestors relinquished their main political leverage, the occupation of tahrir square, within days of the pharaoh’s overthrow. It has to be suspected that the egyptian army will be reluctant to stop issuing communiqués. “There's no way a new Egypt may be born without overthrowing this whole system. Ergo, the street has to take on the army. Expect major fireworks ahead. Forget about the army swiftly handing over power to a civilian-led interim government.” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011).

However, egypt’s protestors face an even more insidious enemy than the egyptian army - the zionist state and its global allies who will pressure the army to stay in power. The zionist state will do its utmost to restore another zionist quisling as dictator. The zionists may have been thrown off guard by the spontaneity of egypt’s struggle for liberation but they are not going to allow the much longer, and far more complex, process of establishing democracy to proceed without doing their best to manipulate events in order to restore their power. Watch out for fabrications such as ‘Iraqi soldiers bayonet babies in incubators’.

In a future democracy, egyptians may wish to change or abandon the camp david accords. They may refuse to continue supporting the siege of gaza, the continuing war crimes against the palestinian people, and the zionist colonization of palestine They may refuse zionist ships passage through the suez canal,[xxvi] and stop subsidizing gas exports to the zionist state.[xxvii] They may oppose zionist wars against its neighbours and its regional supremacism.[xxviii] They will want to develop new, independent, foreign policies. Such policy changes would be unacceptable to the zionist state but there may be even worse to follow. Faced with dwindling fossil fuel resources, the egyptian people will invariably demand precisely what westerners enjoy and what the iranian people also want: nuclear energy. This will almost certainly lead to demands for the acquisition of nuclear weapons to ensure their military defence and bring about a less unbalanced military situation in the middle east.

Although such changes in egypt may not be in the least bit detrimental to the long term interests of the zionist state, they would certainly be perceived as anathema by the current bunch of warmongers occupying palestine. From the perspective of the warmongering zionist state it would lose too much for it to allow democratic reforms in egypt especially if this might lead to the country acquiring nuclear weapons. They will deem it imperative to scupper any move to democracy in favour of restoring a zionist quisling who would once again put zionist interests before those of the egyptian people.

The west’s values, political principles, and national interests, would be best served through the creation of a democratic egypt similar to that in turkey. Its primary strategic concern would be the suez canal but given egyptians’ open attitude to the west this shouldn’t be a problem. The west doesn’t have to fear egypt’s development of an independent foreign policy – only those suffering from zionist paranoia would fear the worst.[xxix] But given zionist domination of america’s political system, zionist propagandists will doubtlessly terrify american politicians and the american public by conjuring up even more fantastical islamic bogeymen in egypt. The foundation of freedom in egypt is thus a test of zionist world domination. ZIonists may have lost out because of the egyptian uprising, and the refusal of a significant part of western public opinion to denounce egyptian freedom fighters, but they will certainly try to restore their dominance.

After the second world war, the cold war became the primary global political preoccupation. The foundation of the zionist state was a relatively insignificant issue in the worldwide competition for global supremacy. But during this time the zionists’ military successes led them install pliant arab dictators and to use islamophobia to whip up opposition against palestinian freedom fighters and hostile moslem states across the african-asian continents. After the demise of the cold war, the west’s zionist ruling elites, its zionist owned media, and its zionist lobbies succeeded in pressuring western politicians into adopting their islamophobia. Western political leaders increasingly see zionist colonialism as their own cause. Zionists’ achievement of manipulating the west, and the rest of the world including russia and china who also have their islamic minorities who object to their second class status, into adopting the zionist creed is the most blatant manifestation of zionist global dominion. After the demise of the russian empire, many commentators in the west wondered what the next global conflict would be since both superpowers seemed to rely on a cold war conflict to keep their military-industrial complexes in profit and an ideology that unified their peoples. Many thought it might be china or asian tigers. The zionists have successfully conned the west into supporting Zionism against fictitious islamic bogeymen. The best way that people in the west can help egyptian protestors to defeat their adversaries i.e. the egyptian army and zionist colonialists, is to challenge zionist dominance at home.

Notes

[i] Some commentators have suggested the uprising was not entirely political but had economic roots. “… turning the story into a fairytale about democracy. Rage over food costs played a major role in getting people out into the streets.” (Matthew Wild ‘Peak Oil, Climate Change, Political Turmoil: The Lesson From Egypt’ http://countercurrents.org/wild150211.htm February 15, 2011). There is much to be said for environmentalism and the impact that global burning is having around the world but, as will be noted, just as the moslem brotherhood didn’t get involved in the protests until the last minute, so the same was also true of egypt’s workers. Industrial strikes may have played a critical contribution to the eventual success of the uprising but they did not seem to initiate it.

[ii] "The hysteria in American media about Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is not only ignorant and demagogic, it is hypocritical.” (Juan Cole ‘Fear Not the Muslim Brotherhood Boogeyman’ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/fear_not_the_muslim_brotherhood_boogeyman_20110215 February 15, 2011); “Such a hostile attitude toward the MB is also unfounded. As Nathan Brown describes them, “a lot of their program is just standard reform stuff—independence of the judiciary, the end of corruption, protecting the environment. Especially when they got more political over the last 10 years or so, what they really began to push was a very general reform language that takes Islamic coloration in some areas. But an awful lot of it is consistent with other reform programs coming from reformists all over the political spectrum.”” (Elizabeth Shakman Hurd ‘Misrepresenting Egypt – the Mubarak myth of “secular” vs “Islamic”’ http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/02/14/guestview-misrepresenting-egypt-the-mubarak-myth-of-secular-vs-islamic/ February 14, 2011).

[iii] “Indeed Israel's own reaction to the momentous events in Egypt, that this might not be the time for democracy in Egypt (thus allowing it to keep the title of "the only democracy in the Middle East"), has been as implausible as it has been self-defeating.” (Robert Fisk ‘Hypocrisy Is Exposed By The Wind Of Change’ http://countercurrents.org/fisk100211.htm February 10, 2011); “Israeli leaders have made it clear they oppose elections in Egypt on general principle, and believe that an elected government would end the 1979 peace deal. This does not, of course, mean that a war would break out, but a number of Egyptians are unhappy with restrictions the deal places on travel in Sinai, and well as obliging them to comply with the Gaza blockade.” (Jason Ditz ‘Netanyahu on Egypt: Israel Must ‘Prepare for Worst’ http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/16/netanyahu-on-egypt-israel-must-prepare-for-worst/ February 16, 2011).

[iv] “In 2006, during the Israeli war on Lebanon, Mubarak argued that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah was an adventurer who had done Lebanon a great disservice by going to war against Israel - words that echoed what had been said in Riyadh.” (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011).

[v] “As far as he (mubarak) was concerned, given Iran’s alliance with Hamas, if the Palestinian group was not crushed, he would eventually have Egyptian borders not with Gaza, but with the Islamic Republic of Iran. That is why he struck with an iron fist, sealing the Rafah crossing into Gaza, preventing pro-Hamas demonstrations in Egypt, and urging Israel - behind closed doors - to continue in its war, hoping that they could crush the Islamic resistance in Palestine. (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011).

[vi] “Mubarak sent shockwaves throughout Iran when he appeared on al-Arabiyya TV in 2006 and said that Shi'ites of the Arab world were more loyal to Iran than they were to their own countries, echoing what King Abdullah of Jordan had earlier described as a "Shi'ite crescent".” (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011).

[vii] “As WikiLeaks revealed, Mubarak was one of the loudest advocates of a US (or Israeli) strike on Tehran …” (Justin Raimondo ‘It’s Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…’ http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011).

[viii] “... re-examining the export of natural gas to Israel at subsidized rates …” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011).

[ix] “Egypt, formerly an oil exporter that was self-sufficient in food, now imports both – and cannot afford to feed itself.” (Matthew Wild ‘Peak Oil, Climate Change, Political Turmoil: The Lesson From Egypt’ http://countercurrents.org/wild150211.htm February 15, 2011); “The nation, whose arable land is only the size of Maryland, cannot feed its 84-85 million people and has become the world’s largest wheat importer through a major U.S. food-aid program, authorized by Congress—a program that has been rife with egregious illegalities and kickbacks.” (Eric Margolis ‘Fall of the Raj’ http://www.amconmag.com/blog/fall-of-the-raj/ February 17, 2011).

[x] “It’s interesting to note that Hosni Mubarak, holed up in his presidential palace at the height of the protests, put in a call not to the US State Department, or the White House, but to a member of the Israeli Knesset, one Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a former cabinet minister who dealt with the Egyptian tyrant during the negotiations that set up the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It’s Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…’ http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011).

[xi] “… the highly influential leading pro-Israel organizations in the US (AIPAC, the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations) and their army of scribes have mobilized congressional leaders to pressure the White House to continue backing Mubarak, as Israel is the prime beneficiary of a dictator who is at the throat of the Egyptians (and Palestinians) and at the feet of the Jewish state.” (James Petras ‘Washington Faces the Arab Revolts: Sacrificing Dictators to Save the State’ February 10, 2011).

[xii] “The Brotherhood joined this year’s protest movement only at the last minute and was not a leading force in it.” (Juan Cole ‘Fear Not the Muslim Brotherhood Boogeyman’ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/fear_not_the_muslim_brotherhood_boogeyman_20110215 February 15, 2011).

[xiii] “Fox News has already told its viewers in America that the Muslim Brotherhood, about the "softest" of Islamist groups in the Middle East, is behind the brave men and women who have dared to resist the state security police ...” (Robert Fisk ‘Hypocrisy Is Exposed By The Wind Of Change’ http://countercurrents.org/fisk100211.htm February 10, 2011).

In the united kingdom, jane corbin, married to a member of the house of lords who is a prominent member of the british zionist lobby, produced another panorama special, bbc1, february 07, 2011, on the unfolding situation in egypt. Egyptian protestors welcomed her behind the scenes to give her a first hand experience of the violence they faced but, when entering tahrir square, she stated she was just going to meet the moslem brotherhood “organizing the protests”. The cute and cuddly but ferociously conventional, andrew neil, one of the bbc’s top political commentators, repeatedly ask his interviewees whether the west should be supporting egyptian protestors when it might lead to islamic extremists i.e. the moslem brotherhood or even al quaeda, gaining political power.

[xiv] In britain the most blatant example of this was robert maxwell who used his publishing empire to denounce moredechai vanunu’s expose of the jews-only state’s nuclear weapons industry. He also contributed enormously to whipping up anti-saddam fervour in the months leading up to the first gulf war. He not only looted british workers’ pensions but after his suicide was given a state funeral in Jerusalem. He also received state honours for the services he’d rendered, not to britain where he’d become a thief and an outcast, but to the jewish state.

[xv] Over the last decade zionists in the west have launched a torrent of criticisms against iran for having (non-existent) nuclear weapons. By refusing to mention the jews-only state’s nukes their insistence that iran is developing nuclear weapons makes iran seem like the aggressor when, in reality, the acquisition of such weapons would be entirely defensive. Such criticisms seem even more ridiculous given that if iran wanted to develop such weapons it could easily use the rationale employed by british politicians in the 1980s. They continually rebuffed demands for unilateral nuclear disarmament by arguing that britain had to have nuclear weapons to counter russia’s huge nuclear arsenal. Why do these same politicians now refuse to accept that iran has the same right to defend itself against the jews-only state’s nukes? Is it not entirely understandable that the iranian people want nuclear weapons to defend themselves from the threat of nuclear annihilation by the war mongers running the jews-only state? Objectively speaking, iran’s most powerful motive for acquiring nukes is to defend itself from zionist nuclear warmongers.

[xvi] Historically, british democracy evolved around the issue of property rights. Those with property wanted political rights in order to protect their property and their profits. For many centuries the right to vote was based solely upon the ownership of sizeable landholdings. The right to own property and not have it confiscated was the backbone of british politics. Echoes of these past developments still reverberate in contemporary british politics in many ways. Most parliamentarians see one of their main duties as protecting property rights. They are proud of living in what they call a property owning democracy. But these property owning democrats would never dream of condemning the zionist state for confiscating palestinian property. Tory politicians were outraged when a local farmer was convicted of murdering and maiming robbers intent on stealing his property and insisted he had the right to defend his property. But this is not a right they would extend to palestinians.

[xvii] This is a feasible scenario. The egyptians had a democracy in the 1950s before it was overthrown by a military coup and the eventual rise of abdul nasser. Iran had a democracy until, in 1953, bp and the cia conspired to overthrow the mossadegh government. And in 1991 in algeria’s moderate islamists won a landslide victory before “Paris and Washington quickly backed the Algerian army in crushing the vote and jailing its victors.” (Eric Margolis ‘Fall of the Raj’ http://www.amconmag.com/blog/fall-of-the-raj/ February 17, 2011). The army launched a wholesale slaughter of islamists in which tens of thousands of innocent people lost their lives. Hamas too was elected by free and fair elections until the zionists decided to quosh the result. Hezbollah has been demanding greater democratic participation in lebanon. Turkey is currently the great beacon of democracy in the Islamic world. If these countries, some of the biggest in the islamic world, had managed to ensure the survival of their democracies this would have helped to spread democracy around the region. This, in turn, would have enabled such countries to boost economic growth and national prosperity.

[xviii] The same point has been made by eric margolis. “It was no coincidence that Mubarak holed up at Sharm el-Sheikh in Sinai, a short helicopter ride to Israel.” (Eric Margolis ‘Fall of the Raj’ http://www.amconmag.com/blog/fall-of-the-raj/ February 17, 2011).

[xix] “Israel's military chief Ehud Barak has expressed concern that if power transition happens quickly in Egypt, Muslim brotherhood (MB) will come into power. Following a Thursday statement by the embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the Israeli official, who is in Washington, emphasized on the need to prevent Egypt from falling into the hands of what he described as ‘extremists’€ saying the country needs more time for change. “The real winners of any short-term election, let's say within 90 days, will be the (opposition) Muslim Brotherhood,”€ Reuters quoted Barak as saying.” (‘Israel vows fear of MB's gain in Egypt’ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/Israel-vows-fear-of-MBs-gain-in-Egypt.html February 11, 2011).

[xx] “On Thursday morning Mubarak probably told Suleiman and the US that he was going to quit, then forgot and, braced by a supportive call from the Israelis and a pledge by the Saudis to give him $1.4 billion if the US withheld it, announced that he would be around till September.” (Alexander Cockburn ‘Ain't That Good News!’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02112011.html February 11 - 13, 2011). The zonists, americans, and saudis have worked together for many years e.g. in propping up the lebanese government. The zionists got their American muppets to give feldman the job as ambassador to lebanon so that he could act as their point man in the country. He struts around diminishing areas of the country like a zionist viceroy issuing orders to his lebanese subjects.

[xxi] “A transformative uprising in Egypt or Tunisia comes to be seen as being about Israel ..."” (James Zogby ‘Politics and Nonsense on Egypt’ http://www.counterpunch.org/zogby02112011.html February 11 - 13, 2011).

[xxii] Alexander cockburn talks about “the American Empire” even in the same article where he points out the realities of modern american politics. “… the White House is being besieged by the Israel Lobby which is following the script being hysterically written in the press in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, with headlines such as "We're on our own," "Obama's betrayal of Mubarak," and "A bullet in the back from Uncle Sam.” (Alexander Cockburn ‘The God That's Failing’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02042011.html February 4 - 6, 2011).

It seems as if its too much to expect lefties, even compassionate ones such as alexander cockburn, to change their weltanschaaung and rid themselves of such redundant phrases as the american empire. Those on the left continually argue that one of the best means for understanding political power is to follow the money and yet they refuse to accept the conclusions that are derived from such an analysis. America gives huge amounts of money, both directly and indirectly, to the jews-only state. Even mubarak subsidized the zionist state through cheap gas exports. The answer to the question of which country is the master and which is the slave becomes even more blatant if the left’s follow the trail maxim is explored in terms of who initiates global policies. Anyone who explores a ‘follow the source and distribution of the policy’ analysis will discover that, over the last forty years or so, by far and away the biggest proportion of the west’s foreign policies have originated in the zionist state. Whilst for a decade the americans praised saddam as their dictator, the zionists were condemning him as a menace to their security. When saddam positioned his army on the kuwaiti border for three weeks the bush administration said nothing seeing an invasion as iraq’s reward for the terrible losses it suffered waging its eight year long war against iran. But, once the invasion took place, the zionist lobby succeeded in forcing bush into betraying his close ally and waging war against him. The idea that iran is pursuing nuclear weapons originated as a paranoid zionist fantasy.

On the other side of the political spectrum, justin raimondo knows all too well the political power the jewish lobby in america and the threat it poses to anyone who highlights its dominance of american politics. Whilst he often argues the zionist state dominates american foreign policy he sprinkles his work with enough caveats about zionist domination to deter the zionist lobby from exacting revenge. “Change is coming to the Middle East, whether the Israelis, or their American patrons, like it or not. And these changes will necessitate a change in US foreign policy, which up until now has been cravenly Israeli-centric.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It’s Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…’ http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011).

[xxiii] The egyptian people faced formidable odds in trying to rid themselves of mubarak because of the vast security apparatus at his disposal. According to james petras, this consisted of not merely the 468,500 members of the egyptian army but 325,000 in the central security forces and 60,000 in mubarak’s own personal presidential guard.

[xxiv] Sami moubayed rather naively takes it for granted that the democracy is on its way to egypt. “Mubarak was a dictator while the new president will certainly be elected to office through a parliamentary democracy and not stay in power for more than two terms. The ex-president was hostile to Hamas and Hezbollah and was radically pro-American and pro-Israeli. The new president will probably be way less pro-American or pro-Israeli than his predecessor, which makes him by default, closer to resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.” (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011).

[xxv] “The House and senate committees on intelligence are grilling defensive personnel of the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) for their alleged failure to catch the pulse of youth movements and online chat rooms, which ended up damaging US assets in the Middle East much more than violent Islamist terrorist cells of al-Qaeda.’ (Sreeram Chaulia ‘The spies who got it wrong’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB19Ak02.html February 19, 2011); “The Mossad, pride and joy of Hollywood producers, presented as a ‘model of efficiency’ by their organized Zionist colleagues, were not able to detect the growth of a mass movement in a country right next door. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was shocked (and dismayed) by the precarious situation of Mubarak and the collapse of his most prominent Arab client – because of Mossad’s faulty intelligence. Likewise, Washington was totally unprepared by the 27 US intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, with their hundreds of thousands of paid operatives and multi-billion dollar budgets, of the forthcoming massive popular uprisings and emerging movements.” (James Petras ‘Egypt: Social Movements,the Cia and Mossad – February 16, 2011).

[xxvi] Zionists seem to believe they control who uses the suez canal. “Financial markets the world over are in turmoil and Brent North Sea Crude has reached a new short-term high today after Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman accused Iran of planning to send two warships through the Suez Canal later this evening and suggested this could provoke an Israeli attack on the nation.” (Jason Ditz ‘Israeli FM Threatens War With Iran Over Suez Warship Claim’ http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/16/israeli-fm-threatens-war-with-iran-over-suez-warship-claim/ February 16, 2011).

[xxvii] “Things may start at a minimum with lifting the siege of Gaza and re-examining the export of natural gas to Israel at subsidized rates; then they will move to reconsidering the safe passage of the US Navy in the Suez Canal and finally rediscuss the holy of holies - the 1979 Camp David accords with Israel.” .” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011).

[xxviii] “With Egypt out of the picture and indeed often assisting, Israel has been free to launch military assaults on several of its neighbors, including Lebanon twice and Gaza and the West Bank repeatedly, and free to expand settlements, absorb Palestinian territory, and severely oppress Palestinians without fear of retaliation or even significant disagreement from any Arab army.” (Kathleen Christison ‘The US as Israel's Enabler in the Middle East’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02162011.html February 16, 2011).

[xxix] Pepe escobar suspects that, “Way beyond the inevitable clash in Egypt of demographic explosion and economic crisis, what is literally freaking out the West is that its elites know what the vast majority of Egyptians don't want. A truly democratic, sovereign Egyptian government cannot possibly remain a slave of US foreign policy.” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011). Raimondo shows similar concerns, “As WikiLeaks revealed, Mubarak was one of the loudest advocates of a US (or Israeli) strike on Tehran: with the despot deposed, that kind of political support for military action will no longer be forthcoming. This is a major blow to the War Party in the United States, and this alone justifies opponents of US intervention cheering the Egyptian revolution no matter what kind of government comes to power.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It’s Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…’ http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011).

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

2009-02-12T22:14:00.004Z

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)

Notes
(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).

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

2009-01-26T11:19:00.004Z

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.

2009-01-18T12:05:00.003Z

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

2009-01-14T22:14:00.003Z

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

America is a Jewish Colony: The likudnik dominated bush regime and the American Knesset cheering on their Jewish masters’ war crimes in Palestine.

2009-01-10T13:20:00.004Z

Updated February 18, 2009

The jewish military’s disproportionate, merciless, and savage, attacks on the democratically elected hamas government have displayed the utter contempt that the jews-only state in palestine has for palestinian civilians in gaza just as its attacks on hezbollah in 2006 showed its contempt for lebanese civilians. The use of jet fighters to attack civilian targets, the jewish military’s use of white phosphorus in palestinian residential areas, its attacks on ambulances and united nations’ buildings, jewish soldiers standing by whilst palestinian babies starve to death, etc, etc, clearly demonstrates to people around the world that the jews regard palestinians as sub-humans. The jews’ massacres in gaza are a blatant outburst of jewish racism which they’ve carefully hidden for most of the last sixty years or so during their everyday, piecemeal, ethnic cleansing of palestinians.

American politicians’ response to this ongoing massacre of palestinian civilians was to pass two resolutions giving the racist state their wholehearted support. "Earlier this afternoon, the United States House of Representatives voted 390-5 in favor of H. RES. 34, voicing their support for the Israeli military effort in the Gaza Strip. The bill, co-sponsored by 11 representatives, demanded that Hamas end its rocket fire against Israel and renounce violence, while expressing "vigorous support and unwavering commitment" to Israel and declaring that its two weeks of attacks on the Gaza Strip were rightful acts of self-defense. The vote echoed a similar vote in the Senate yesterday, which "allows for the long-term improvement of daily living conditions of the ordinary people of Gaza" while likewise proclaiming attacks against them self-defense." (Jason Ditz ‘House Overwhelmingly Passes Bill Cheering Israeli War on Gaza: Bill Blames Hamas for All Civilian Casualties, Presses Egypt to Tighten Border’ http://news.antiwar.com/2009/01/09/house-overwhelmingly-passes-bill-cheering-israeli-war-on-gaza/ January 9, 2009).

That american politicians not merely endorsed, but lavished praise on, such a slaughter, which is just the latest phase in the jews’ six decades’ long campaign of ethnically cleansing palestinians from palestine, shows they are perfectly comfortable with jewish colonialism. American political leaders who support the jews’ massive bank robbery of palestinian assets have completely lost all sense of morality and justice. A state that was founded solely through the exercise of terror, and that has been sustained for six decades by the extravagant use of state terrorism, has not the slightest basis in morality for denouncing those who, having suffered at the hands of such terrorism, use whatever means they have at their disposal with which to fight back. The jews’ use of terrorism to establish and sustain their racist state justifies any tactic that palestinians believe will help to overthrow such a state. If the terrorist state is morally and politically bankrupt then so are american (and western) politicians who give it their overwhelming support.

So far there have been two good analyzes of congress’s support for the massacres in gaza. However, neither glenn greenwald(1) nor adam horowitz(2) mention that these congressional resolutions underline the current balance of power between america and the jewish colonial state in palestine. When one country give its wholehearted support to another country whatever it might do, then the former is obviously servile to the latter: no matter that it possesses the world’s most powerful military.

The votes in congress show beyond doubt that america is run by a jewish elite.(3) This elite funds the country’s jewish lobby which then bribes (and, if necessary, blackmails) american politicians to mouth militant jewish racist propaganda. American politicians are like participants in crufts’ ‘Dog of the year’ competitions. They’re the ones led around the arena by their jewish handlers who have lavishly groomed their pets for the big occasion. The Dogs show their appreciation for their masters by merrily wagging their tails. ‘Sit’, ‘beg’, ‘roll over’, ‘play dead. American politicians will do anything, say anything, for a few bite sized chews placed into their mouths by their zionist masters.

These jewish owned politicians could never get away with their blatant subservience to jewish racism if they weren’t defended by zionist propaganda being pumped out on a daily basis by america’s zionist dominated media.(4) In turn, the zionist flag wavers in congress and the zionist dominated media would have much more trouble glorifying jewish supremacism if it wasn’t for the complicity of america’s zionist funded universities. America’s protectors of the Truth have become propagandists for jewish racist lies and fabrications.(5) And, in turn, america’s politicians, its media, and its universities, would all find it difficult to extol the virtues of jewish racism if the country’s supposedly radical political opposition wasn’t also equally funded and run by jewish zionists. The left is dominated by left wing zionists (neo-lefties); environmentalist groups are dominated by green zionists (the neo-greenies); anti-war campaigns are dominated by zionists (neo-peaceniks); even libertarians are infested by zionists (neo-libertarians), etc. Virtually every sector of american society is funded, managed, or manned, by jewish zionists. Zionists even fund christian organizations to help them to spread christianity in america.(6)

The american congress is no longer a democratic institution representing, protecting, and promoting, the interests of americans living in america. It has become a jewish colonial outpost more concerned with financing, protecting, and cheerleading, for jewish racists on the other side of the world who are stealing palestinian land. The american knesset is just a branch of the jewish knesset just as america’s two mainstream political parties are merely competing branches of the likud party headquartered in occupied palestine.

The american knesset’s role is, firstly, to act as a cheerleader for the jews-only state’s continued illegal and immoral colonization of palestine. Secondly, to syphon american financial and military resources to the squatter state to enable jews to continue their ethnic cleansing of palestinians from palestine. Thirdly, to deter the rest of the world from protesting about, or taking action against, jewish colonization. And, fourthly, to boost jews’ efforts towards global dominion. "America is not using Israel to fight against communism or for economic advantage. Israel is using America to fight a race war, and America is too much of a dummy to understand. It fawns on Israel, mostly because it is befuddled, and partly because its politicians fear offending Jewish voters. But America is not the enemy here; it is aiding the enemy. The left is so fixated on American sinfulness that it treats present US support for Israel like past US sponsorship of true proxy regimes like Pinochet's Chile, and all but lets the real culprit off the hook. American weapons inflict huge harm on the Palestinians, but it is not America that is inflicting the harm: 'it's the Israelis, stupid!' Even without American arms, plucky little Israel would still manage to oppress the Palestinians and intimidate their reluctant allies." (Michael Neumann ‘Protect Me from My Friends’ http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0820.html August 20, 2002). America’s israeli-firsters are pushing the country’s national interests around the world down the plughole because they’ve succeeded in channeling the bush regime’s entire political and military energies into promoting jewish military dominance over the middle east.

The likudniks were the main funders and promoters of all the major political contenders in america’s recent presidential election so it is hardly surprising that one of their candidates won the election. Obama’s reward for winning the election was having the privilege of choosing his own dog handler, rahm emanuel, an out and out Israeli-firster who has fought for the country of his birth but not for the country he’s temporarily made his home. The question is why emanuel, such an ardent supporter of the racist state, a jewish supremacist, a super-zionist, should leave his beloved homeland to settle down in an alien country and get involved in its political process? Alexander Cockburn states that, "With men like Emanuel and "special assistant on the Middle East" Dan Kurtzer at Obama’s elbow, I imagine the Israeli embassy won’t have much difficulty in monitoring Obama’s plans .." (Alexander Cockburn ‘Israel's Onslaught on Gaza: Criminal, for Sure; But Also Stupid’ http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn01092009.html January 9-11, 2009). Emanuel will be able to convey the jewish prime minister’s orders directly to obama.(7)

The jews are hoping that if they can cut off hamas’s head they can present it as a gift to their new american president and then portray the jews-only state as dutifully acting in the interests of its superpower protector. This would have two beneficial political consequences for the jews. Firstly, it would uphold the politically kosher pretense that america is the master and the jews-only state its servant. And, secondly, it would put obama into the jews-only state’s debt which might lead him to reciprocate by ordering an american military attack on iran or, at the very least, permitting a jewish attack on iran.

The jews are thus hoping for a geopolitical jackpot by defeating or dismantling hamas. Firstly, they would have crushed palestinian resistance thereby giving a huge boost to their ethnic cleansing campaign in palestine. Secondly, they would be able to exert enormous political pressure on the obama administration to launch an attack on the jews’ main enemy, iran. And, thirdly, they hope a military attack on iran (whether initiated by america or the jews-only state) would lead to a regional war, perhaps even world war three. "Of course, any war Israel involves itself in will drag in the United States, its principal patron and protector. In this, America is truly an empire of unique type, one that has been taken hostage by one of its own satellites. That, at least, is the intention, and, so far, the plan seems to be working. Israel, not the U.S., is taking the initiative and leading its great ally and "protector" around by the nose, with the Lobby serving as an effective rein on any sudden spasms of self-interest. This can only end in one way: a general war, perhaps a world war, pitting the U.S. and Israel against virtually every nation in the region, in effect, the entire Muslim world." (Justin Raimondo ‘Gaza Is the Future: Israel's on a rampage – and here's why’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14046 January 12, 2009). This would further boost the jews-only state’s regional military dominance and enable further progress to be made in ethnically cleansing all palestinians from palestine.

At present the only people around the world who are making demands for a third world war are jews. If such a war occurs it would have been initiated and promoted solely by jews. If the jews’ defeat hamas this would give the neoconservatives/neoliberals such a huge political boost it would make war against iran, and world war three, almost inevitable.

Notes
(1) Glenn Greenwald ‘Both parties cheerlead still more loudly for Israel's war http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/08/israel/index.html January 08, 2009.

(2) Adam Horowitz ‘Did US Congress express support for democracy giving equality to only one religion?’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/01/did-us-congress-express-support-for-democracy-that-offers-freedom-for-only-one-religion-.html January 09, 2009.

(3) "The conventional wisdom which perceives world imperial powers dictating policy to lesser regional powers clearly fails to deal with the US Middle East Wars. The reason why this common sense notion is inadequate is because it fails to deal with a series of unique (at least in modern history) phenomena affecting the policy-making structure of the US Empire – the active role of a privileged and influential minority deeply embedded in the decision-making structure and whose primary loyalty is to another state. It is as if the State of Israel has ‘colonized’ the main spheres of political power in the imperial state. These ‘colons’ however are not exactly transplants or emigrants from their "mother country". Rather they have mostly grown up and have been educated in the imperial center, they have pursued lucrative careers in the US and have, in most instances, been strong supporters of US imperial expansion and militarism. They have risen to and influenced the highest spheres of political power. They have not been discriminated against, nor have they suffered any economic, social or political exclusion. They have not been marginalized, they are integrated in the centers of power. Yet they have set themselves apart from the rest of the US citizens and conceive of themselves as having a special mission, of being first Jews who unconditionally support the State of Israel and all of its international projections of power. How can we explain this irrational embrace of a militarist state by a set of individuals who only vicariously share its life and destiny?" (James Petras ‘The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective’ http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=12606 January 2005).

(4) "Western governments and most of the Western media have accepted a number of Israeli claims justifying the military assault on Gaza:
that Hamas consistently violated the six-month truce that Israel observed and then refused to extend it;
that Israel therefore had no choice but to destroy Hamas’s capacity to launch missiles into Israeli towns;
that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, part of a global jihadi network; and
that Israel has acted not only in its own defence but on behalf of an international struggle by Western democracies against this network. I am not aware of a single major American newspaper, radio station or TV channel whose coverage of the assault on Gaza questions this version of events." (Henry Siegman ‘Israel’s Lies’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html January15, 2009). Paul craig roberts makes a similar claim about the silence of the american media even though he rather bizarrely believes that the american media is owned by goyim. "It is the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, not the goyim media, that provides reports of Israel’s abuse of Palestinians. Gideon Levy’s "The Neighborhood Bully Strikes Again" was published in Haaretz (29 December), not in the goyim press. Levy’s words, "Once again, Israel’s violent responses, even if there is justification for them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law and wisdom", are not words that can appear in American print or TV media. Such words, printed in Israeli newspapers, never reach the goyim." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Are All Americans Guilty? Whatever Happened to Western Morality?’ http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts01022009.html January 02, 2009).

(5) "Consider the case of Lee Bollinger. Columbia University is dependent on Jewish money, faculty and students. If Bollinger were to take a stand against Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians, he would be denounced as an anti-semite. Presidents of competitor universities would not come to his defense. They would pile on in hopes of recruiting Columbia’s top faculty and students and redirecting the flow of financial resources from Columbia to themselves." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Are All Americans Guilty? Whatever Happened to Western Morality?’ http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts01022009.html January 02, 2009).

(6) "David Brog, former chief of staff for Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, has gone to work for Rev. Hagee. Brog, who is Jewish, says he works for Hagee's evangelical enterprise because "we're bringing into a pro-Israel camp millions of Christians who love Israel and giving them a political voice. Israel's enemies are our enemies, and this group instinctively understands that." Brog goes on to say that Hagee's evangelicals understand that they are not supposed to talk about Jesus, only about saving Israel: "Christians who work with Jews in supporting Israel realize how sensitive we are in talking about Jesus. They realize it will interfere with what they are trying to do."" (Paul Craig Roberts ‘We're Being Set Up for Wider War in the Middle East’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9317 July 17, 2006).

(7) He is what the jews call sayanim, an agent of a foreign government, the jews-only state in palestine. There is no need for the jews-only state to train secret agents to penetrate the american government to steal its secrets and discover its long term objectives when it can place jews in the american government to create policies which are wholly favourable to the racist state even at the expense of america’s own national interests.

Earlier editions of this article have been republished on the following sites:
http://ramallahonline.com/content/2724-america-is-a-jewish-colony-the-likudnik-dominated-bush-regime-and-the-american-knesset-cheering-on-their-jewish-masters-war-crimes-in-palestine-

Posted as Jewish Supremacism Rules America
http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/186569
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/10063
http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/01/jewish-supremacism-rules-america.html

The Jewish Nazis’ refusal to negotiate with Palestinians.

2009-01-07T19:26:00.003Z

Updated January 18, 2009.

Ever since the foundation of the jews-only state in palestine, through the use of terrorism, jewish leaders, most of whom have been members of terrorist organizations and personally involved in acts of terrorism, have never had any intention of negotiating with palestinians. This article is a compilation of examples showing the jews’ opposition to, or avoidance of, negotiations with palestinians.

Jews’ excuses for avoiding negotiations.
Palestinians don’t exist.
"From its first day, the Zionist movement has lived in total denial of the Palestinian issue. As long as possible, it denied the very existence of the Palestinian people. Since this has become ridiculous, it denies the existence of a Palestinian partner for peace. In any case, it denies the possibility of a viable Palestinian state next to Israel. This denial has deep roots in the unconscious of the Zionist movement and the Israeli leadership. Zionism strove for the creation of a Jewish National Home in a land in which another people was living. Since Zionism was an idealistic movement imbued with profound moral values, it could not bear the thought that it was committing a historical injustice to another people. It was necessary to suppress and deny the feeling of guilt engendered by this fact. The unconscious guilt feelings were deepened by the 1948 war, in which more than half the Palestinian people were separated from their lands. The idea of turning the West Bank over to the Hashemite kingdom was built on the illusion that there is no Palestinian people ("They are all Arabs!"), so it could suffer no injustice." (Uri Avnery ‘An Israeli Love Story’ http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=11258 July 9, 2007). After all, how can the jews negotiate with a people which doesn’t exist?

Opposition to Palestinians’ right of Return.
"Few noticed that the Right of Return has served successive Israeli governments as a pretext to reject all peace initiatives. The return of five million refugees would mean the end of Israel as a state with a solid Jewish majority and turn it into a bi-national state, something that arouses the adamant opposition of a minimum of 99.99% of the Israeli-Jewish public. This has to be realized if one is to understand the way Israelis view peace. An ordinary Israeli, even a decent person who sincerely desires peace, tells himself: the Arabs will never give up the Right of Return, therefore there is no chance for peace, and it isn't worthwhile even to start doing anything about it." (Uri Avnery ‘The Sixty Year Wound: To the Shores of Tripoli’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery05302007.html May 30, 2007).

Palestinians refuse to negotiate.
"When I was young, Jewish people in Palestine used to talk about our secret weapon: the Arab refusal. Every time somebody proposed some peace plan, we relied on the Arab side to say "no". True, the Zionist leadership was against any compromise that would have frozen the existing situation and halted the momentum of the Zionist enterprise of expansion and settlement. But the Zionist leaders used to say "yes" and "we extend our hand for peace", and rely on the Arabs to scuttle the proposal. That was successful for a hundred years, until Yasser Arafat changed the rules, recognized Israel and signed the Oslo Accords, which stipulated that the negotiations for the final borders between Israel and Palestine must be concluded not later than 1999. To this very day, those negotiations have not even started. Successive Israeli governments have prevented it because they were not ready under any circumstances to fix final borders. (The 2000 Camp David meeting was not a real negotiation, Ehud Barak convened it without any preparation, dictated his terms to the Palestinians and broke the dialogue off when they were refused.) After the death of Arafat, the refusal became more and more difficult. Arafat was always described as a terrorist, cheat and liar. But Mahmoud Abbas was accepted by everybody as an honest person, who truly wanted to achieve peace. Yet Ariel Sharon succeeded in avoiding any negotiations with him. The "Unilateral Separation" served this end. President Bush supported him with both hands." (Uri Avnery ‘The Palestinian Accords: Facing Mecca’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery02172007.html February 17/18, 2007).

Jews’ pantomime of having no partner for negotiations.
Tony Karon.
"Israel's longstanding, but constantly shifting, argument has been simple enough: It has no Palestinian partner. First that was thanks to PLO leader Yasser Arafat's duplicity; then it was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' weakness; next, it was Hamas' victory in the January 2006 elections (that the Bush administration had sponsored), followed by the decision of Abbas to join it in a "unity" government; now, with Hamas left to starve and die in blockaded Gaza, and Abbas setting up his own unelected government on the West Bank, we're back to Abbas' weakness as an explanation." (Tony Karon ‘Yes, Bush Is Naked, What of It?’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11317 July 20, 2007).

Uri Avnery.
"After the murder of Yassir Arafat, many Palestinians believed that if they elected Mahmoud Abbas as the new president, he would get from Israel and the US the things they would not give Arafat. They found out that the opposite was happening: No real negotiations, while the settlements were getting larger every day." (Uri Avnery ‘Good Morning, Hamas’ http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1204410372/ March 01, 2008).

Jews’ structural reasons for avoiding negotiations.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi.
"This time, however, with the stakes on Iran relatively higher, the discrete charm of the affable Livni is fully required to pave the way for another disastrous war in the Middle East, since Israel is incapable of peace with the Palestinians and is in dire need of other pretexts to channel public attention away from its oppressive policies against the Palestinian people. In conclusion, the waning months of the George W Bush administration represent a golden opportunity for Israel to ignite another Middle East conflict that, in essence, is rooted in Israel's structural inability to make peace with the Arab and Muslim world." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Israel raises the ante against Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC14Ak02.html March 14, 2008).

Helena Cobban.
"The history of Israel's FRC ("forced regime change") wars deserves close study. All have been "wars of choice" in that the "unbearable" situations that Israeli leaders have cited, each time, as giving them "no alternative" but to fight can all be seen as having been very amenable to negotiation, should Israel have chosen that path instead. Also, all these wars were planned in some detail in advance, with the Israeli government just waiting for, or even, on occasion, provoking, some action from the other side that they could use as a launch pretext. All have received strong financial, re-arming, and political support from the U.S., not least because they were waged in the name of counter-terrorism." (Helena Cobban ‘Israel's Wars of Forced Regime Change’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cobban.php?articleid=14032 January 10, 2009).

Jews provoked the Suez Crisis because Nasser wanted Peace.
Uri Avnery.
"In July 1952, the revolution of the Free Officers took place in Egypt. The appearance of Abd-al-Nasser frightened Ben-Gurion, because here was a new type of Arab: a young officer, energetic, charismatic, striving to unite the Arab world. From his ascent to power until his death, 18 years later, the Egyptian leader sent out feelers again and again to find out if a settlement with Israel was feasible. Ben-Gurion rejected all these efforts and systematically prepared for the war of 1956, in which Israel tried, in collusion with France and Great Britain, then two predatory colonial powers, to overthrow Abd-al-Nasser. Thus he fixed for generations the image of Israel as a foreign implant in the region, a bridgehead of the hostile West." (Uri Avnery ‘Missed Opportunities (Partial List)’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/avnery.php?articleid=9069 May 31, 2006).

Jews invaded Lebanon in 1982 because Arafat wanted Peace.
Alexander Cockburn.
"When Arafat and the PLO gave worrisome signs of being eager for an accommodation Israel's reply was to invade Lebanon." (Alexander Cockburn ‘Palestine: It's All Over’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06062006.html June 5, 2006); "In 1982 Israel had a problem. Yasir Arafat, headquartered in Beirut, was making ready to announce that the PLO was prepared to sit down with Israel and embark on peaceful, good faith negotiations towards a two-state solution. Israel didn’t want a two-state solution, which meant, if UN resolutions were to be taken seriously, a Palestinian state right next door, with water, and contiguous territory. So Israel decided chase the PLO right out of Lebanon. It announced that the Palestinian fighters had broken the year-long cease-fire by lobbing some shells into northern Israel. Palestinians had done nothing of the sort. I remember this very well, because Brian Urquhart, at that time assistant secretary general of the United Nations, in charge of UN observers on Israel’s northern border, invited me to his office on the 38th floor of the UN hq in mid-Manhattan and showed me all the current reports from the zone. For over a year there’d been no shelling from north of the border. Israel was lying. With or without a pretext Israel wanted to invade Lebanon. So it did, and rolled up to Beirut. It shelled Lebanese towns and villages and bombed them from the air. Sharon’s forces killed maybe 20,000 people, and let Lebanese Christians slaughter hundreds of Palestinian refugees in the camps of Sabra and Chatilla. The killing got so bad that even Ronald Reagan awoke from his slumbers and called Tel Aviv to tell Israel to stop. Sharon gave the White House the finger by bombing Beirut at the precise times, 2.42 and 3.38, of two UN resolutions calling for a peaceful settlement on the matter of Palestine." (Alexander Cockburn ‘Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel: Everything You Need To Know’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Cockburn07212006.html July 21, 2006).

James Bovard.
"In June 1982, a terrorist organization headed by Abu Nidal (the Osama bin Laden of the 1980s) attempted to assassinate the Israeli ambassador in London. Nidal’s forces had previously killed many Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) officials in numerous bomb and shooting attacks, since they considered Yasir Arafat a traitor for his stated willingness to negotiate with Israel. Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel exploited the shooting in London to send the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) into Lebanon to crush the PLO. Yet, as Thomas Friedman noted in his book From Beirut to Jerusalem, "The number of Israeli casualties the PLO guerrillas in Lebanon actually inflicted [was] minuscule (one death in the 12 months before the invasion)."" (James Bovard ‘A Legacy of Anti-Terrorist Failure in Lebanon’ http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0610c.asp January 29, 2007).

Norman Finkelstein.
"Although Israel (backed by the U.S.) persistently opposed this two-state settlement, the PLO signaled support for it in multiple venues long before the first intifada (let alone the 1993 Oslo Accord). Indeed, it was because the PLO sought "the establishment of a state next to Israel rather than in place of Israel" already in the early 1980s that Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. "Destroying the PLO as a political force capable of claiming a Palestinian state on the West Bank," Israeli strategic analyst Avner Yaniv concludes, was "the raison d'être of the entire operation."" (Norman Finkelstein ‘Pre-Packaged Opinions on Israel and Palestine: Jeffrey Goldberg's Prison’ http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein10062007.html October 6/7, 2007).

Madrid Peace negotiations, 1991.
The madrid conference was initiated after the west’s war with iraq over kuwait as a gesture to the arab world for its support of the war.

Jews’ sabotage Camp David Peace negotiations, 2000.
Jim Lobe.
"Now, let us recall what One Jerusalem stands for and who its founders were, at least according to its website last June. It was founded during the Camp David negotiations in late 2000 to rally public opinion in Israel and in the United States, in particular, against any peace deal, indeed, any negotiation, that could conceivably result in ceding any part of Jerusalem, including Arab East Jerusalem, to the Palestinians. It is thus opposed to the official policies, at least in principle, of both the current Israeli and U.S. governments. Indeed, in the run-up to last November’s Annapolis summit hosted by Bush himself, One Jerusalem ran a well-financed (thanks to Netanyahu buddy, Ronald Lauder), public campaign designed to discredit and undermine it in advance. One Jerusalem’s founders included Sharansky, Netanyahu adviser Dore Gold, Feith (who even opposed the original Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt), David Horowitz (of Islamofascism Awareness Week); and David Steinmann, the former chairman of the ultra-hawkish Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), among other hardline Likudists." (Jim Lobe ‘Is the Pentagon Policy Shop Funding Likudist Fronts?’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=118 March 18, 2008).

Uri Avnery.
"In 2000, Barak persuaded President Bill Clinton to convene a conference at Camp David, and Clinton pressured Yasser Arafat to attend. The whole initiative was a mixture of arrogance and ignorance as far as the Arab world was concerned, two of Barak's most obvious traits. Nothing was prepared in advance, no committee sat to identify the areas of agreement and disagreement, nobody even bothered to set an agenda. Yossi Sarid, then a minister in Barak's government, confirmed this week what I asserted then: Barak had brought with him an offer that he believed the Palestinians would not be able to resist. But in fact it was far from the minimum any Palestinian leader could possibly accept. To cover his shame, Barak invented the pretext that his real aim all along had been to "unmask" Arafat. Barak's real crime was not his conduct during the conference, but what he did afterwards. When he came home, he propagated a mantra consisting of five sentences: "I made unprecedentedly generous offers /I turned every stone to achieve peace /The Palestinians refused everything /There is nobody to talk with /We have no partner for peace." This mantra, repeated by the media thousands of times, is easy to absorb and frees one from any obligation to make concessions or efforts. It destroyed, in the hearts of the people, any belief in peace and caused terrible damage to the Israeli peace camp. The peace camp was turned into an arid desert, with only a few small oases left. This has not changed to this very day." (Uri Avnery ‘Nothing Succeeds Like Failure: On Generals and Admirals’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery06022007.html June 2 / 3, 2007).

Norman Finkelstein.
"The record shows that in every crucial issue raised at Camp David, then under the Clinton parameters, and then in Taba, at every single point, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. Israel didn’t make any concessions. Every concession came from the Palestinians. The Palestinians have repeatedly expressed a willingness to settle the conflict in accordance with international law." (Norman Finkelstein ‘Seeing Through the Lies: The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza’ http://www.counterpunch.com/finkelstein01132009.html January 13, 2009).

Ira Chernus.
"All of the suffering in Gaza, indeed, all of the suffering endured by Palestinians under Israeli occupation for the last eight years, could have been avoided if Israel negotiated a peace agreement with Yasser Arafat when it had the chance, in 2001." (Ira Chernus ‘Does Israeli Intelligence Lie?’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/chernus.php?articleid=14070 January 15, 2009).

Aaron David Miller.
"And in 2005, former U.S. peace negotiator Aaron David Miller complained that "many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as Israel's attorney, catering and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations."" (Daniel Luban ‘Olmert's Claims Revive Israel Lobby Controversy’ http://www.antiwar.com/ips/luban.php?articleid=14061 January 14, 2009).

Jews’ sabotage agreement between Arafat and Hamas to stop suicide attacks, 2001.
"The asymmetry of conquest and terror is clear. Plan D is now "Operation Cast Lead," which is the unfinished "Operation Justified Vengeance." The latter was launched by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 when, with Bush's approval, he used F-16s against Palestinian towns and villages for the first time. In the same year, the authoritative Jane's Foreign Report disclosed that the Blair government had given Israel the "green light" to attack the West Bank after it was shown Israel's secret designs for a bloodbath. It was typical of New Labor Party's enduring, cringing complicity in Palestine's agony. However, the 2001 Israeli plan, reported Jane's, needed the "trigger" of a suicide bombing which would cause "numerous deaths and injuries [because] the 'revenge' factor is crucial." This would "motivate Israeli soldiers to demolish the Palestinians." What alarmed Sharon and the author of the plan, General Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli Chief of Staff, was a secret agreement between Yasser Arafat and Hamas to ban suicide attacks. On 23 November, 2001, Israeli agents assassinated the Hamas leader, Mahmud Abu Hunud, and got their "trigger"; the suicide attacks resumed in response to his killing." (John Pilger ‘Holocaust Denied’ http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/?articleid=14015 January 8, 2009).

Jews want further delays before ruling out Peace Negotiations.
"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).

Jews’ refusal to negotiate over the Arab League deal, 2002.
"Now, a revolutionary development has taken place. The Arab League has offered Israel a peace plan: all 22 Arab states would recognize Israel and establish diplomatic and economic relations with it, in return for Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state. The offer did not ignore the refugee problem. It mentioned UN resolution 194, but added a qualification of fundamental importance: that the solution would be reached "by agreement" between the two parties. In other words: Israel would have the right of veto over refugees returning to Israeli territory. This put the Israeli government in a difficult position. If the Israeli public understood that the entire Arab world was offering a comprehensive peace agreement without the actual realization of the Right of Return, they might accept it gladly. Therefore, everything was done to obscure the decisive word. The guided (and misguided) Israeli media emphasized the plan's mention of Resolution 194 and played down the talk of an "agreed upon" solution. The government treated the Arab offer with manifest disdain, but nevertheless tried to derive advantage from it. Ehud Olmert announced his readiness to talk with an Arab delegation, provided that it did not consist of Egypt and Jordan alone. This way, Olmert and Tzipi Livni hope to attain an important political achievement without paying for it: to compel Saudi Arabia and other states to enter into relations with Israel. Since there are "no free lunches", the Arabs refused. Nothing came out of the whole affair." (Uri Avnery ‘The Sixty Year Wound: To the Shores of Tripoli’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery05302007.html May 30, 2007).

Sharon delays peace negotiations further by insisting on reforms of Palestinian political Institutions.
Ariel sharon insisted that before he would be willing to discuss peace with the palestinians there should be widespread reforms of palestinian political 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); "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).

Sharon’s demands for palestinians to develop democratic institutions were purely a delaying tactic whilst the jews continued to steal palestinian land and resources. The national elections that sharon demanded led to the election of abbas. Sharon ignored him once in office. When Hamas won palestinian national elections the jews immediately denounced the result, declared the election illegitimate, forced the western nations to ostracize the hamas government, and soon after imposed a blockade on gaza.

Jews’ withdrawal from Gaza was never supposed to lead to Peace, April 2004.
Sharon negates Bush’s Peace plan and substitutes it with his own.
Sharon was a terrorist, mass murderer, war criminal, and a state terrorist. He believed there was only a military solution to the palestinian problem. If he’d wanted peace he could have negotiated with arafat and the rest of the palestinian leadership but he consistently refused to do so. Sharon feared that after america’s 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 west’s first proxy zionist war against iraq in 1991 when the zionists were dragged to the madrid conference. So sharon came up with the idea of a peace plan of his own which was designed solely to pre-empt any international peace plan involving negotiations with the palestinians.

Sharon’s unilateral peace plan was to withdraw the jewish military and jewish squatters from gaza in exchange for major political concessions from the bush regime concerning the jews theft of palestinian lands. He presented the plan to bush on april 14, 2004. In return for the withdrawal of zionist squatters from the gaza strip, sharon demanded that the bush regime, 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 was a stroke of political genius. Firstly, it sabotaged an international peace negotiations between jews and palestinians. Secondly, it sabotaged bush’s ‘road map’ peace agreement. Thirdly, it allowed sharon to jettison the settlements in gaza because they were a huge financial, and military, burden on the zionist state. Fourthly, it demanded huge political concessions from america in return for a zionist promise to carry out a future plan of action. In other words, sharon knew he would be able to bank bush’s concessions without having to keep to his side of the bargain. (This is exactly like all the loans that the americans give to the zionist state on the understanding that the jews won’t have to repay the loans). So, for the sake of promising to sacrifice settlements which he wanted to get rid of anyhow, sharon obtained two huge political concessions from the bush regime. Fifthly, the political concessions sharon received from the bush regime were a huge political benefit to the zionist state because they made peace with the palestinians even less likely than before. In effect, sharon was negotiating with america over its stance towards the palestinians in order to avoid any negotiations with palestinians themselves. The palestinians lost out fundamentally as a result of these negotiations it had no influence over.

It was staggering that bush acceded to sharon’s plan even though it had fundamental repercussions for american foreign policies in the middle east and was agreed upon without any prior discussion either with the american congress, the american public, the international community let alone the palestinians. "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).

Patrick J. Buchanan.
Sharon was jubilant when he returned to the zionist state after his meeting with 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).

Rachelle Marshall.
"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).

Avi Shlaim.
"To the world, Sharon presented the withdrawal from Gaza as a contribution to peace based on a two-state solution. But in the following year, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank, further reducing the scope for an independent Palestinian state. Land-grabbing and peacemaking are simply incompatible. Israel had a choice and it chose land over peace. The real purpose behind the move was to redraw unilaterally the borders of greater Israel by incorporating the main settlement blocs on the West Bank to the state of Israel. The withdrawal from Gaza was thus not a prelude to a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority but a prelude to further Zionist expansion on the West Bank. It was a unilateral Israeli move undertaken in what was seen, mistakenly in my view, as an Israeli national interest. The withdrawal from Gaza was anchored in a fundamental rejection of the Palestinian national identity, and part of a long-term effort to deny the Palestinian people any independent political existence on their land." (Avi Shlaim ‘Israel and Gaza: rhetoric and reality’ http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/israel-and-gaza-rhetoric-and-reality January 07, 2009).

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).

Juan Cole.
"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).

The outcome of the Gaza withdrawal was the Gaza blockade.
Sharon faced considerable opposition from members of his likudnik government and party to his plan for the gaza withdrawal. In the end he left the likud party and created a new one, kadima, and formed an alliance with the labour opposition party to carry through his plan to withdraw the jewish squatters from gaza. However, what he always knew was that once the jews-only state had withdrawn from gaza it could easily impose a blockade and reinvade and reoccupy it if necessary. In other words, he could bank bush’s major political concessions and then recover all that he’d seemingly given away by decimating gaza. Although sharon suffered a stroke after the withdrawal from gaza he almost certainly would have decimated gaza in the same way that olmert did once the gazans began their protests against the blockades imposed upon them.

Jews’ refusal to negotiate through the Quartet's Road Map.
The views of Dov Weisglass.
"I heard a tremor of crisis in Ben-Ami's voice. The question of the hour was: What is the role of the U.S.? "Here too Ben-Ami broke ground. He said that some agreements, like the Quartet's Road Map, which Israel committed itself to following, are mere "shelf agreements." He explained that this means that the Israelis sign agreements and put them on the shelf, with no intention of following through. Dov Weisglass, a former Sharon aide, once said that Israel will begin implementing the Road Map "when the Palestinians become Finns." i.e., Never. Annapolis is going nowhere fast. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has told Ben-Ami that right now the discussions are purely "academic."" (Philip Weiss ‘Barring 2-State Solution, Israel Becomes South Africa: Without South Africa's 'Solution', Israeli Minister Warns’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/03/israeli-ministe.html March 19, 2008).

Jews’ refusal to negotiate with Hamas even though Hamas wanted a Ceasefire.
Avi Shlaim.
"Hamas, like other radical movements, began to moderate its political programme following its rise to power. From the ideological rejectionism of its charter, it began to move towards pragmatic accommodation to a two-state solution. In March 2007, Hamas and Fatah (the secular-nationalist movement led by Yasser Arafat until his death in November 2004) formed a national-unity government which was ready to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with Israel. Israel, however, refused to negotiate with a government which included Hamas. The problem with Israel's concept of security is that it denies even the most elementary security to the other community. The only way for Israel to achieve security is not through shooting but through talks with Hamas which has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with the Jewish state within its pre-1967 borders that would last twenty, thirty or even fifty years. Israel has rejected this offer for the same reason it spurned the Arab League peace plan of 2002 which is still on the table: it involves concessions and compromises." (Avi Shlaim ‘Israel and Gaza: rhetoric and reality’ http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/israel-and-gaza-rhetoric-and-reality January 07, 2009).

Uri Avnery.
"Several months ago Hamas proposed a cease-fire. It repeated the offer this week. A cease-fire means, in the view of Hamas: the Palestinians will stop shooting Qassams and mortar shells, the Israelis will stop the incursions into Gaza, the "targeted" assassinations and the blockade. Why doesn't our government jump at this proposal? Simple: in order to make such a deal, we must speak with Hamas, directly or indirectly. And this is precisely what the government refuses to do. Why? Simple again: Sderot is only a pretext - much like the two captured soldiers were a pretext for something else altogether. The real purpose of the whole exercise is to overthrow the Hamas regime in Gaza and to prevent a Hamas takeover in the West Bank." (Uri Avnery ‘The Blockade of Gaza: Worse Than a Crime’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery01272008.html January 26/27, 2008).

Norman Finkelstein.
"And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas. We have the Arab League, all twenty-two members of the Arab League, favoring a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We have the Palestinian Authority favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We now have Hamas favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. The one and only obstacle is Israel, backed by the United States. That’s the problem." (Norman Finkelstein ‘Seeing Through the Lies: The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza’ http://www.counterpunch.com/finkelstein01132009.html January 13, 2009).

Eric Margolis.
Israel's security establishment is committed to preventing the creation of a viable Palestinian state, and refuses to negotiate with Hamas. Unable to kill all of Hamas' men, Israel is slowly destroying Gaza's infrastructure around them, as it did to Yasser Arafat's PLO." (Eric Margolis ‘Israel's 'Fait Accompli' in Gaza’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis131.html January 5, 2009).

Patrick J. Buchanan.
"It is preposterous that, at the behest of Israel, we do not talk to a Palestinian Authority led by Hamas, after an election in which Bush himself demanded Hamas be included." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘On Talking With Terrorists’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9480 August 5, 2006).

Hamas and Fatah peace offer, March 2007.
"In fact, the situation took another turn for the worse in March 2007, when Fatah and Hamas came together to form a national unity government. Hamas’s stature and political power were growing, and Israel’s divide-and-conquer strategy was unraveling. To make matters worse, the national unity government began pushing for a long-term ceasefire. The Palestinians would end all missile attacks on Israel if the Israelis would stop arresting and assassinating Palestinians and end their economic stranglehold, opening the border crossings into Gaza. Israel rejected that offer and with American backing set out to foment a civil war between Fatah and Hamas that would wreck the national unity government and put Fatah in charge." (John J. Mearsheimer ‘Another War, Another Defeat’ http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/26/00006/ January 26, 2009)

Hamas peace offer, 2008-9.
"Hamas responded by continuing to fire rockets and mortars into Israel, while emphasizing that they still sought a long-term ceasefire, perhaps lasting ten years or more. This was not a noble gesture on Hamas’s part: they sought a ceasefire because the balance of power heavily favored Israel. The Israelis had no interest in a ceasefire and merely intensified the economic pressure on Gaza." (John J. Mearsheimer ‘Another War, Another Defeat’ http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/26/00006/ January 26, 2009); "Tell that to Ehud Barak, the defense minister, and Matan Vilnai, his deputy. This pair were plotting an invasion of Gaza throughout the six-month ceasefire with Hamas, and in fact much earlier. In truth, they ignored every diplomatic overture from Hamas, including offers of indefinite truces, while they invested their energies in the coming ground invasion. In particular they worked on plans, noted in the Israeli media back in spring 2008, to "level" Gaza's civilian neighborhoods and create "combat zones" from which civilians could be expelled." (Jonathan Cook ‘Israeli Assault Injures 1.5 Million Gazans’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=14082 January 17, 2009).

Hamas observes Ceasefire but Jews still refuse to Negotiate.
""But what choice did Israel have?" say those in its amen corner in the U.S. "No normal society would tolerate rocket fire on its territory. Hamas left it no option." Well, actually, as Jimmy Carter explains from first-hand experience, Israel had plenty of alternatives and chose to ignore them, because it remains locked into the failed U.S.-backed policy of trying to overturn the democratic verdict of the 2006 Palestinian election that made Hamas the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority. The primary Israeli-U.S.-European strategy here (tacitly backed by Arab autocrats from Mubarak to Mahmoud Abbas) has been to apply increasingly strict economic sanctions, in the hope that choking off the chances of a decent life for the 1.5 million people of Gaza would somehow force them to reverse their political choice. Collective punishment, in other words. So, even when Hamas observed a cease-fire between June and November, Israel refused to open the border crossings. When the exchange of fire began again on November 5 when Israel raided what it said was a Hamas tunnel, Hamas escalated its rocket fire but made clear that it would restore and extend the cease-fire if Israel agreed to open the border crossings. Israel’s answer, Carter explains, was if Hamas ceased firing, Israel would allow 15% of the normal traffic of goods into Gaza. And it’s any surprise that Hamas was not prepared to settle for just a 15% loosening of the economic stranglehold?" (Tony Karon ‘The War Isn’t Over, But Israel Has Lost’ http://tonykaron.com/2009/01/09/the-battle-isnt-over-but-israel-has-lost-the-war/ January 9, 2009).

Conclusion.
The examples outlined above clearly show that the jews-only state in palestine has never had any intention of negotiating with palestinians. Much more importantly, however, these examples constitute proof that, since its inception, the racist state has been engaged in a policy of ethnically cleansing palestinians from palestine and that it has successfully deceived the entire world, including many palestinians, about this objective. It will negotiate with palestinians only once it has forced the overwhelming bulk of them out of palestine.

The jews refuse to negotiate, or implement any temporary agreements, with palestinians because firstly they oppose a palestinian state and, secondly, and more importantly, they oppose palestinians living in palestine. The jewish racists’ point of view is what is the point of negotiating with people you wish to exterminate? "Unless Israel can make 5 to 7 million Palestinians disappear, it must find some way to coexist with them." (Eric Margolis ‘Israel's 'Fait Accompli' in Gaza’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis131.html January 5, 2009). The fact that for the last sixty years the jews have refused to negotiate with palestinians means that they refuse to co-exist with palestinians and that they are intent on ethnically cleansing palestinians from palestine.

The Nazis in the Jews-only state in Palestine, Hitler’s Second State.

2009-01-07T19:10:00.003Z

Updated February 16, 2009

Ari, Michael Ben.
The views of Efrat Weiss.
"Far Right activists Baruch Marzel and Itamar Ben Gvir will soon become regular visitors to the Knesset – one as new National Union Knesset Member Michael Ben Ari's advisor, and the other as his parliamentarian assistant. Dr. Ben Ari, who was placed in the fourth spot on National Union's list, is expected to attract great attention at the Knesset, both because of his aides and his views. Marzel, a Hebron resident who in the past served as an assistant for Kach movement founder Rabbi Meir Kahane, will serve as Mk Ben Ari's advisor. Meanwhile, Ben-Gvir, who is about to complete his law degree in the, will serve as Ben Ari's assistant for legal and media affairs. A close associate of the new arrivals at the Knesset told Ynet: "With these figures at the Knesset, we shall have a celebration every day. We are talking about colorful figures who will add plenty of color to the Knesset – mostly dark orange," the associate said. "It will certainly not be boring around there."" (Efrat Weiss ‘Far rightists coming to Knesset’ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3670568,00.html February 11, 2009).

The views of Adam Horowitz.
"It's scary when Avigdor Lieberman starts looking like a reasonable centrist. The YNet article "Far rightists coming to Knesset" reveals that Baruch Marzel will be following National Union Knesset Member Michael Ben Ari into the government as his advisor. Baruch Marzel is a Hebron settler who was Meir Kahane's "right-hand man." He was active in the Kach party and helped start the similar Jewish National Front which has just won its first ever seat in the Knesset. Recently Marzel has been in the news for trying to organize a march of Jewish supremacists through Umm Al Fahm, the second largest Palestinian city inside Israel. But simply referring to Marzel as a racist is selling him short. Marzel is also known for calling for Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery to be assassinated, for saying a bird flu outbreak in southern Israel was God's punishment for the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and for inciting violence against people attending Israel's Gay Pride festivities in Jerusalem. Marzel promised in 2006, "The stabbing incident during last year's parade will seem minor in comparison with what is anticipated this year. We have to declare a holy war." Welcome to the halls of power Baruch. Scary." (Adam Horowitz ‘Lieberman will have plenty of company: right-wing rogues gallery to enter the Knesset’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/02/lieberman-will-have-plenty-of-company-rightwing-rogues-gallery-to-fill-the-knesset.html February 11, 2009)

Ayalon, Danny.
The views of Adam Horowitz.
"Lieberman has run on an avowedly racist platform of forcing Palestinian Israeli citizens of Israel to take a loyalty oath to the state. Lieberman and his party (which includes former Israeli Ambassador to the US Danny Ayalon) have long advocated for removing Palestinian citizens of Israel (over 20% of the state) from the country into the West Bank. This call for ethnic cleaning has found a new and growing constituency in the wake of the war in Gaza." (Adam Horowitz ‘Kahane has won: the Israeli elections and the face of Zionism’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/02/kahane-has-won-what-to-expect-in-the-upcoming-israeli-elections.html February 08, 2009).

Barak, Ehud.
See Dichter, Avi.

Dichter, Avi.
"Israel was unapologetic with Internal Security Minister, Avi Dichter, saying the IDF must "eliminate the rocket fire from Gaza, irrespective of the cost to Palestinians." Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, added: "We are impacting the overall quality of life in Gaza and destroying the terror infrastructure." He meant civilians as did Ehud Olmert claiming: "We are trying to hit only those involved in terrorism, but also signaling to the population in Gaza that it cannot be free from responsibility for the situation."" (Stephen Lendman ‘A Prison State: Life in Occupied Gaza’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lendman02022008.html February 2 / 3, 2008).

Diskin, Yuval. head of the Israel Security Agency (ISA).
"Israel makes no distinction between civilians (including women and children) and resistance fighters, and B'Tselem stated that Yuval Diskin, head of the Israel Security Agency (ISA), "defines every Palestinian killed in the Gaza Strip as a terrorist," including small children and the elderly infirm." (Stephen Lendman ‘A Prison State: Life in Occupied Gaza’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lendman02022008.html February 2 / 3, 2008).

Eitan, Rafael.
See Ze’evi, Rehavam.

Eitam, Effi (Effi Eytam).
"Rehavam Ze'evi, whose memory was honored this week by a special commemoration session of the Knesset, proposed ethnic cleansing, and General Effi Eytam, the chief of the National Union party, uses similar language." (Uri Avnery ‘Lieberman and the Decline of Israeli Democracy’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery11022006.html November 2, 2006).

Eliyahu, Rabbi Mordechai.
The views of Kobi Nahshoni.
"Former Sephardi chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu called on the government to decree that for every life lost in the attack another yeshiva and township will be formed. ""Even when we seek revenge, it is important to make one thing clear, the life of one yeshiva boy is worth more than the lives of 1,000 Arabs. "The Talmud states that if gentiles rob Israel of silver they will pay it back in gold, and all that is taken will be paid back in folds, but in cases like these there is nothing to pay back, since as I said, the life of one yeshiva boy is worth more than the lives of 1,000 Arabs," added Rabbi Eliyahu." (Kobi Nahshoni ‘Rabbi Eliyahu: Life of one yeshiva boy worth more than 1,000 Arabs’ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3527410,00.html April 03 2008).

The views of Mike Whitney.
"Israel has been sharply criticized for its disproportionate use of force in Gaza. But there are some Israeli fanatics who believe that Israel should use even greater force, widespread lethal force. The Jerusalem Post reports on that Sephardi chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu has written a letter to Prime Minsiter Ehud Olmert informing him that "all civilians living in Gaza are collectively guilty for Kassam attacks on Sderot....Eliyahu ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings." "No moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians" Isn't this the definition of terrorism? One Israeli settler leader recently argued during a conversation with a visiting American peace activist that 'if it was right to commit genocide during Biblical time, why can’t it be right to commit genocide now. Has God changed his mind,' the settler wondered sarcastically."" (Mike Whitney ‘Israel's Moral and Political Insanity’ http://www.counterpunch.com/whitney01122009.html January 12, 2009).

The views of Matthew Wagner.
"All civilians living in Gaza are collectively guilty for Kassam attacks on Sderot, former Sephardi chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu has written in a letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Eliyahu ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings. The letter, published in Olam Katan [Small World], a weekly pamphlet to be distributed in synagogues nationwide this Friday, cited the biblical story of the Shechem massacre (Genesis 34) and Maimonides' commentary (Laws of Kings 9, 14) on the story as proof texts for his legal decision. According to Jewish war ethics, wrote Eliyahu, an entire city holds collective responsibility for the immoral behavior of individuals. In Gaza, the entire populace is responsible because they do nothing to stop the firing of Kassam rockets. The former chief rabbi also said it was forbidden to risk the lives of Jews in Sderot or the lives of IDF soldiers for fear of injuring or killing Palestinian noncombatants living in Gaza. Eliyahu could not be reached for an interview. However, Eliyahu's son, Shmuel Eliyahu, who is chief rabbi of Safed, said his father opposed a ground troop incursion into Gaza that would endanger IDF soldiers. Rather, he advocated carpet bombing the general area from which the Kassams were launched, regardless of the price in Palestinian life. "If they don't stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand," said Shmuel Eliyahu. "And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don't stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop." In the letter, Eliyahu quoted from Psalms. "I will pursue my enemies and apprehend them and I will not desist until I have eradicated them." Eliyahu wrote that "This is a message to all leaders of the Jewish people not to be compassionate with those who shoot [rockets] at civilians in their houses."" (Matthew Wagner ‘Eliyahu advocates carpet bombing Gaza’ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180527966693&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull May 30, 2007).

Eliyahu, Shmuel.
The views of Saul Landau.
"Compare the thugs who put Ross in the hospital to the words of Mordechai Eliyahu, former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel and key spiritual guide for Israeli settlers in Palestinian territory. In early June, he wrote to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. He offered his decree: having compassion with the civilian population of Gaza is incompatible with protecting Israeli soldiers' lives. Those holding supposedly humane feelings imperil Israeli lives. The rabbi's son, Shmuel, interpreted this decree: "if killing 100 Arabs is not sufficient to stop the launching of Qassam rockets at Israel, then 1,000 must be killed. And if that is not sufficient, then 10,000, and 100,000 and even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop." Eliyahu claimed that "all civilians living in Gaza" are "collectively guilty for Qassam attacks on Sderot" and that "there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings." Journalist Avnery found the letter in Olam Katan [Small World], "a weekly pamphlet to be distributed in synagogues nationwide. Eliyahu wrote that "This is a message to all leaders of the Jewish people not to be compassionate with those who shoot [rockets] at civilians in their houses." Eliyahu's son, Shmuel Eliyahu, chief rabbi of Safed, said his father "advocated carpet bombing the general area from which the Qassams were launched, regardless of the price in Palestinian life." (Avnery, Gush Shalom, June 9, 2007)." (Saul Landau ‘Meet the New Goliath: Israel is Bad for Jewish Ethics’ http://www.counterpunch.org/landau06302007.html June 30/July 1, 2007).

Eisenkot, Gadi.
See Halutz, Dan.

Galant, Yoav.
See Halutz, Dan.

Gvir, Itamar Ben.
See Ari, Michael Ben.

Halutz, Dan.
The views of Jonathan Cook.
"This is known as the "Dahiya Doctrine", named after a suburb of Beirut that was almost levelled during Israel’s attack on Lebanon in summer 2006. The doctrine was encapsulated in a phrase used by Dan Halutz, Israel’s chief of staff, at the time. He said Lebanon’s bombardment would "turn back the clock 20 years". The commanding officer in Israel’s south, Yoav Galant, echoed those sentiments on the Gaza offensive’s first day: the aim, he said, was to "send Gaza decades into the past". Beyond these soundbites, Gadi Eisenkot, the head of Israel’s northern command, clarified in October the practical aspects of the strategy: "What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. This is not a recommendation. This is a plan." In the interview, Gen Eisenkot was discussing the next round of hostilities with Hizbollah. However, the doctrine was intended for use in Gaza, too." (Jonathan Cook ‘Bombs Meant to "Send Gaza Back Decades": Israel's Doctrine of Destruction’ http://www.counterpunch.com/cook01202009.html January 20, 2009).

Israel's chief Ashkenazi rabbi.
The views of Saree Makdisi.
"Israel's methodical actions make it clear that it is systematically grinding down and now actually starving people for whose welfare it is legally accountable simply because it regards Gaza's 1.5 million men, women and children as a surplus population it would, quite simply, like to get rid of one way or the other: a sentiment made quite clear when Israel's chief Ashkenazi rabbi proposed, shortly after the current crisis began, that the entire Palestinian population of Gaza should just be removed and transferred to the Egyptian desert. "They will have a nice country, and we shall have our country and we shall live in peace," he said, without eliciting even a murmur of protest in Israel." (Saree Makdisi ‘Abbas Must Be Called to Account: Strangling Gaza’ http://www.counterpunch.org/makdisi02042008.html February 4, 2008).

Jager, Elliot.
The views of Philip Weiss.
"Elliot Jager, editorial page editor of The Jerusalem Post, talking to the New York Times: "This is a just war and we don’t feel guilty when civilians we don’t intend to hurt get hurt, because we feel Hamas uses these civilians as human shields. We do feel bad about it, but we don’t feel guilty. The most ethical moral imperative is for Israel to prevail in this conflict over an immoral Islamist philosophy. It is a zero sum conflict. That is what is not understood outside this country." (Philip Weiss ‘In their own words’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/01/in-th.html January 12, 2009).

Levi, Rabbi.
The views of Franklin Lamb.
"Why would Israel accept such an agreement? Especially given the racist views of so many leaders in Israel who over the years have vilified Arabs and Muslims as 'cockroaches, thugs, and animals and are worth nothing? (The 2006 statement of MK Rabbi Levi comes to mind: "One Jewish fingernail is worth more than one million Arabs")." (Franklin Lamb ‘The Approaching Prisoner Exchange: The Edginess of Lebanon’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb07032007.html July 3, 2007).

Lieberman, Avigdor.
The views of Uri Avnery.
"The spin managers of Olmert and Peretz try to calm us down. What's so special about Liberman, they ask us. So he advocates Transfer, the expulsion of the Arab citizens from Israel. He threatened to destroy Egypt by blowing up the Aswan Dam. He demanded the execution of the Israeli Arab Knesset members for meeting with Syrian and Hamas leaders. So what? Rehavam Ze'evi, whose memory was honored this week by a special commemoration session of the Knesset, proposed ethnic cleansing, and General Effi Eytam, the chief of the National Union party, uses similar language. The Liberman party is quite different from the fictitious Kadima Party and the decomposing Labor Party. It is organized on military lines, with Liberman as its one, unquestioned leader. This week he (amir peretz) also violated his undertaking not to sit in a government that includes Avigdor Liberman. Almost all the Labor Party ministers are partners to this blatant betrayal, with the honorable exception Ofir Pines-Paz, who has resigned. (Four of his colleagues in the Labor Party, including Ehud Barak, are competing to take his place). The betrayal of the Labor Party could have been expected. Amir Peretz did indeed swear that he would never sit in a government with Liberman, but in order to remain a minister he is quite prepared to sell his principles. No great outcry could be expected from Meretz either, after Yossi Beilin had his well publicized breakfast with Liberman and heaped praise on him and his herrings." (Uri Avnery ‘Lieberman and the Decline of Israeli Democracy’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery11022006.html November 2, 2006).

The views of Mel Frykberg.
"Avigdor Lieberman, a right-wing Israeli politician, suggested on Tuesday at Tel Aviv's Bar Ilan University that extreme measures were needed against Hamas. "We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II," Lieberman said. The Israeli media quoted him as saying that the U.S. nuclear strikes on Japan had rendered an "occupation of the country unnecessary."" (Mel Frykberg ‘Anger Begins to Knock at Israel's Borders’ http://www.antiwar.com/ips/frykberg.php?articleid=14062 January 14, 2009).

Livni, Tzipi.
"Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Thursday that the future of Israel's Arab citizens was in a future Palestinian state to be established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. 'My solution (for preserving Israel as a Jewish and a democratic state) is to establish two nation states with certain concessions and with clear red lines,' Livni, who heads Israel's ruling, centrist Kadima party, told high-school pupils in Tel Aviv. 'So I could also come to Israel's Palestinian citizens, those whom we call Arab Israelis and tell them: 'Your national solution is somewhere else.'' The idea of moving Israel's Arab citizens or the areas in which they live to the future Palestinian state is regarded as highly controversial in Israel and her remark was thought to be the first time Livni has spoken publicly in favour of it." (‘Livni: Future of Israel's Arabs is in Palestinian state’ http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1447786.php/Livni_Future_of_Israels_Arabs_is_in_Palestinian_state__Extra__ December 11, 2008).

Olmert, Ehud.
See Dichter, Avi.

Marzel, Baruch.
See Ari, Michael Ben.

Morris, Benny.
The views of Stephen Lendman.
"The small 150,000 Israeli Arab population in 1948 now numbers 1.5 million, and historian Benny Morris calls it a "time bomb" needing decisive action to defuse. His solution is mass expulsion. Israelis call it "transfer." World ethicists call it "ethnic cleansing." International law experts call it illegal." (Stephen Lendman ‘Jonathan Cook's "Blood and Religion"’ http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2008/03/jonathan-cooks-blood-and-religion.html March 27, 2008).

The views of Kathleen Christison.
Benny Morris … "this paragon of dispassionate Israeli scholarship had expostulated in an interview published in Ha’aretz on the benefits (if you’re Jewish) of ethnic cleansing, the critical miscalculation of David Ben-Gurion in not having completed the total ethnic cleansing of Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River in 1948 when he had a chance, and the barbarity of Arab and Muslim culture. "The Arab world as it is today is barbarian," Morris declared. Islamic and Arab culture is "a world in which human life doesn’t have the same value as it does in the West," in which freedom and democracy are alien, in which there are "no moral inhibitions." He was speaking in sweeping terms, of entire cultures, of the mass of individuals in the Arab and the Muslim worlds, not merely of governments that are oppressive or undemocratic. Palestinians in particular, Morris believes, are barbaric, "a very sick society," and should be treated "the way we treat individuals who are serial killers. . . . Something like a cage has to be built for them. Morris’s blunt soul-bearing has lifted the last barrier of propriety to the open expression of raw Arab hatred. One longs for some gigantic outcry of opposition or disgust over this confession of deep bigotry, but there has been none. Except for a few letters to the editor of Ha’aretz from American Jews, the interview has aroused little attention in the Jewish-American community: no denunciation, no shock, little or no discussion on any but the most progressive Jewish e-mail lists. You have to assume that, however awkward Morris’s blunt language may be, he is speaking for a large segment of American Jews who say they oppose the occupation, say they hate Sharon, say they hate Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, but who do nothing about any of these things and who in the end would not grieve, either for the Palestinians or for the Jewish soul, if Israel wiped the Palestinians off the map."" (Kathleen Christison ‘American Jewish sensitivities to criticism of Israel’ http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1676420.php February 07, 2004).

The views of Henry Siegman.
"In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them, and destroy the villages themselves.’ In a number of Palestinian villages and towns the IDF carried out organised executions of civilians. Asked by Ha’aretz whether he condemned the ethnic cleansing, Morris replied that he did not: "A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."" (Henry Siegman ‘Israel’s Lies’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html January15, 2009).

Netanyahu, Benjamin.
The views of Yaakov Lappin.
"The opposition leaders compared Iran's President Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler, saying, "A year ago, I said we are in 1938, and Iran is Germany. Well, it's 1939 now. Hitler first embarked on a world conflict, and then attempted to gain weapons of mass death. Ahmadinejad is going about it in the reverse order. And in the intermediate period, he is using proxies... while waiting until the nuclear program is complete," Netanyahu warned." (Yaakov Lappin ‘Netanyahu: We're in 1939’ http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3448033,00.html September 10, 2007).

The views of Roni Arison.
There is something truly psychotic about someone who condemns his enemies for something his side has just done. "SAFA ABU SEIF, 12, was fatally wounded as she stood in an upstairs room of her home in the Gaza City district of Jabaliya 10 days ago. She was one of 27 children identified by United Nations staff among the 107 Palestinians who were killed in five days last week. Another 25 dead, including five women, were identified as unarmed non-combatants. The status of 13 more dead victims could not be determined. At least three of the children were reportedly shot in their homes by Israeli small arms or sniper fire." (Ed O'loughlin ‘How Israeli Troops Invade Homes in Gaza, Brutalize, Smash and Steal’ http://www.counterpunch.com/oloughlin03112008.html March 11, 2008). Less than a week later netanyahu was arguing. "For a person to smash a baby's skull he needs to be brainwashed. This is what happened in the Nazi movements, the Islamist movements and the Communist movements at the time," he stated during a conference at Bar Ilan University commemorating 100 years since the birth of Lehi leader Avraham (Yair) Stern." (Roni Arison ‘Bibi: Terrorists' propaganda reminiscent of Nazis'’ http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3517325,00.html March 10, 2008).

The views of Uri Avnery.
"But it is impossible to ignore the main significance of this choice: Netanyahu symbolizes total opposition to peace, opposition to giving back the occupied territories, to the freezing of the settlements, and to a Palestinian state." (Uri Avnery ‘Ms. Tantalus' Choice’ http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=14253 February 16, 2009).

Ronsky, Avichai.
The views of Uri Avnery.
"In the last decades, the state-financed religious educational system has churned out "rabbis" who are more like medieval Christian priests than the Jewish sages of Poland or Morocco. This system indoctrinates its pupils with a violent tribal cult, totally ethnocentric, which sees in the whole of world history nothing but an endless story of Jewish victimhood. This is a religion of a Chosen People, indifferent to others, a religion without compassion for anyone who is not Jewish, which glorifies the God-decreed genocide described in the Biblical book of Joshua. The products of this education are now the "rabbis" who instruct the religious youths. With their encouragement, a systematic effort has been made to take over the Israeli army from within. Kippa-wearing officers have replaced the kibbutzniks, who not so long ago were dominant in the army. Many of the lower and middle-ranking officers now belong to this group. The most outstanding example is the "chief army rabbi," Col. Avichai Ronsky, who has declared that his job is to reinforce the "fighting spirit" of the soldiers. He is a man of the extreme Right, not far from the spirit of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose party was outlawed in Israel for its fascist ideology. Under the auspices of the army rabbinate, religious-fascist brochures of the ultra-Right "rabbis" were distributed to the soldiers. This material includes political incitement, such as the statement that the Jewish religion prohibits "giving up even one millimeter of Eretz Israel," that the Palestinians, like the Biblical Philistines (from whom the name Palestine derives), are a foreign people who invaded the country, and that any compromise (such as indicated in the official government program) is a mortal sin. The distribution of political propaganda violates, of course, army law. The rabbis openly called upon the soldiers to be cruel and merciless toward the Arabs. To treat them mercifully, they stated, is a "terrible, awful immorality." When such material is distributed to religious soldiers going into war, it is easy to see why things happened the way they did." (Uri Avnery ‘The Black Flag Is Waving’ http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=14176 February 2, 2009).

Shapira, Ya’akov.
The views of Khalid Amayreh.
"Meanwhile, a prominent rabbi has once again called the Palestinians Amalekites, which the Bible says "must be destroyed" and "wiped out from the face of earth." Amalekites were members of an ancient nomadic people of ancient Palestine which the Bible says were descendants of Esau's grandson, Amalek. The Rabbi, Ya’akov Shapira, who is also the current Director of Merkaz Ha’rav, suggested that all Palestinians would have to be exterminated. "The murderers are the Amalekites of our day, coming to remind us that Amalekites have not disappeared, just changed their appearance," the rabbi was quoted as saying." (Khalid Amayreh ‘Soldiers (not innocent students) killed at settler center’ http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7xuuuYm7oomTPYJk4BeOWi9mLJClAaA63K5veXEh2NaO3xfRKU1H1tafb1RMerIE1CDIHjC9ZHY6M009NrGmnxpzZRGkXe%2b%2fS%2f2aYKRl62IM%3d March 08, 2008).

Soffer, Arnon.
The views of Saree Makdisi.
"Listen to the words of Professor Arnon Sofer, the government consultant who did so much to help plan the isolation and imprisonment of Gaza, in a interview with the Jerusalem Post in 2004: "When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe," Sofer predicted. "Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure on the border is going to be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day." Sofer admitted only one worry with all the killing, which will, he says, be the necessary outcome of a policy that he himself helped to invent. "The only thing that concerns me," he says, "is how to ensure that the boys and men who are going to have to do the killing will be able to return home to their families and be normal human beings."" (Saree Makdisi ‘Despite the Bloodshed, Israel is Failing: What Kind of Security Will This Barbarism Bring Israel?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/makdisi01072009.html January 7, 2009).

The views of John J. Mearsheimer.
"Arnon Soffer, a prominent Israeli demographer who also advised Sharon, elaborated on what that pressure would look like. "When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day."" (John J. Mearsheimer ‘Another War, Another Defeat’ http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/26/00006/ January 26, 2009).

Vilnai, Matan. Inflict a holocaust on the Palestinians.
Media Report.
"Israeli leaders are warning of an imminent conflagration in Gaza after Palestinian militants aimed rockets at the southern city of Ashkelon. The deputy defence minister said the stepped-up rocket fire would trigger what he called a "bigger holocaust" in the Hamas-controlled coastal strip. Israeli air strikes have killed about 30 Palestinians, including six children in the past two days. Israel has activated its early warning system in Ashkelon for the first time. "The more [rocket] fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they (the Palestinians) will bring upon themselves a bigger holocaust because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," Matan Vilnai told Israeli army radio. Correspondents say the "holocaust" is a term rarely used in Israel outside discussions of the Nazi genocide during World War II." (‘Israel warns of Gaza 'holocaust'’ http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/102686/diff/1/2 February 29 2008).

Yeshai, Eli.
The views of Khalid Amayreh.
"On Tuesday, 6 January, one Israeli official, Eli Yeshai, called for the total extermination of Gaza. The leader of the ultra Orthodox Shas party argued that "extermination of the enemy is sanctioned by the Torah." Other Israeli political and religious leaders have lately spoken enthusiastically of the need for "wiping off Gaza from the face of earth" and "annihilating of every moving thing there." Interestingly, this is by no means a minority opinion in Israel. Indeed, one could safely argue that the "ideology of annihilation" now represents the mainstream in the Israeli society." (Khalid Amayreh ‘A Satanic Genocidal Israel’ http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/a-satanic-genocidal-israel/ January 07, 2009).

The views of Sheera Frenkel and James Hider.
"Eli Yishai, the Finance Minister and head of the ultra-Orthodox religious party Shas, said that Israel should have kept fighting until Hamas was destroyed. "Now Hamas will rebuild its infrastructure with Iranian money and then they will resume the smuggling and continue firing at Israel. We should have finished the job, pull out the ground forces and continue striking from the air. "We should have hit thousands more houses and reached a point in which they don’t dare shoot at Israel ever again."" (Sheera Frenkel and James Hider ‘Burns victim vows to be suicide bomber while Israelis ask: 'Was it all worth it?'’ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5567396.ece January 23, 2009).

Ze’evi, Rehavam (Ze'evi, Rehava'am).
The views of Henry Siegman.
"Over the years, some cabinet members, Rehavam Ze’evi, Rafael Eitan, Effi Eitam and Avigdor Lieberman, for example, have openly advocated ‘transfer’, a euphemism for ethnic cleansing." (Henry Siegman ‘Grab more hills, expand the territory’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n07/sieg01_.html April 04, 2008).

The views of Stephen Lendman.
"More extreme notions were also heard from extremists like former general, Sharon Tourism Minister, and outspoken racist, Rehava'am Ze'evi. He advocated "transfer(ing)" Palestinians to other Arab states and remove them by state-imposed policies of economic hardship, unemployment and restrictions of land, water and other essential services. Two other times he was more extreme. In a 2001 radio interview, he referred to Palestinians as a "cancer (and) We should get rid of the ones who are not Israeli citizens the same way you get rid of lice, but he topped that one in 1990 after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Then he advocated expulsion to Jordan where they could be human shields if Iraq attacked Israel." (Stephen Lendman ‘Jonathan Cook's "Blood and Religion"’ http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2008/03/jonathan-cooks-blood-and-religion.html March 27, 2008).

The Jewish Wehrmacht always targets Civilians: the Jewish Wehrmacht’s Insanely disproportionate use of Violence against Unarmed Civilians.

2009-01-07T19:01:00.002Z

Updated February 16, 2009.

The Jews’ Nazi Policy.
Uri Avnery.
"The stated aim was, as always, to stop the launching of the rockets. The means: killing a maximum of Palestinians, in order to teach them a lesson. The decision was based on the traditional Israeli concept: hit the civilian population again and again, until it overthrows its leaders. This has been tried hundreds of times and has failed hundreds of times." (Uri Avnery "Kill a Hundred Turks and Rest": The Five-Day War in Gaza http://www.counterpunch.com/avnery03102008.html March 10, 2008).

Saree Makdisi.
"In Gaza, the Israeli infantry won’t take a single step forward unless the ground in front of them, and everything and everyone in it, armed, unarmed, whoever and whatever they are, has been safely cleared away for them by the air or by artillery. "These are ‘Georgia rules,’ which are not so far from the methods Russia used in its conflict last summer," write Harel and Issacharoff in Ha’aretz. "The result is the killing of dozens of non-combatant Palestinians. The Gaza medical teams might not have reached all of them yet. When an Israeli force gets into an entanglement, as in Sajaiyeh last night [where three Israeli soldiers were killed], massive fire into built-up areas is initiated to cover the extraction. In other cases, a chain of explosions is initiated from a distance to set off Hamas booby-traps. It is a method that leaves a swath of destruction taking in entire streets, and does not distinguish military targets from the homes of civilians." I’m not sure where the "Georgia" reference comes from: the Israelis used the very same tactics in Jenin and Nablus in 2002, and in southern Lebanon in 2006 and 1982. And it would be an act of futility to point out, for the millionth time, that the Israeli method of warfare takes place in sweeping disregard for the principles of international humanitarian law, not to mention total contempt for innocent human life. This is not to mention that most of the casualties pouring into Gaza’s morgues and hospitals are the victims of the sheer indiscriminate unleashing on densely populated civilian areas of high explosive ordnance from land, sea and air that has been characteristic of Israel’s military style since at least the 1970s." (Saree Makdisi ‘Despite the Bloodshed, Israel is Failing: What Kind of Security Will This Barbarism Bring Israel?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/makdisi01072009.html January 7, 2009).

Zeev Maoz.
"Consider, finally, the tenets of Israeli security doctrine. According to former head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies Zeev Maoz, the anchor of this doctrine is periodic resort to disproportionate firepower. Because key policymakers believe that "Arabs understand only a language of force," he explains, Israel (in their view) "must demonstrate every so often that it is strong and able and willing to use force." On the other hand, Maoz observes, "one almost never hears in Israeli strategic circles that perhaps the reliance on military force as the principal (or even the only) instrument of policy is fundamentally misconceived." Echoing van Creveld, Maoz points to the IDF as the principal instrument of national integration and social cohesion, the "matrix of national identity." In order to preserve the army's centrality in Israeli society, as well as to mobilize the population and divert its attention from internal conflicts, Israeli leaders have fostered a "siege mentality," promoted "militarism," and preferred war to peace. Indeed, Maoz reports that they have utilized murderous reprisal raids for combat training and nurturing esprit de corps, and the theater of war and targeted assassinations for testing high-tech weaponry. "Israel's decision makers tended to overwhelmingly and systematically rely on the use of force," he concludes, as a favorite solution to both military and political challenges. This culture of trigger happiness characterized all of Israel's governments, regardless of period and of the person or party in power." (Norman Finkelstein ‘Pre-Packaged Opinions on Israel and Palestine: Jeffrey Goldberg's Prison’ http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein10062007.html October 6/7, 2007).

The Jews’ "Dahiya strategy".
During the 2006 Lebanon war Israel flattened the southern suburb of Beirut known as the Dahiya, where Hezbollah commanded much popular support. In the war’s aftermath Israeli military officers began referring to the "Dahiya strategy": "We shall pulverize the 160 Shiite villages [in Lebanon] that have turned into Shiite army bases," the IDF Northern Command Chief explained, "and we shall not show mercy when it comes to hitting the national infrastructure of a state that, in practice, is controlled by Hezbollah." In the event of hostilities, a reserve Colonel at the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies chimed in, Israel needs "to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate …. Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes." The new strategy was to be used against all of Israel’s regional adversaries who had waxed defiant, "the Palestinians in Gaza are all Khaled Mashaal, the Lebanese are all Nasrallah, and the Iranians are all Ahmadinejad", but Gaza was the prime target for this blitzkrieg-cum-bloodbath strategy. "Too bad it did not take hold immediately after the ‘disengagement’ from Gaza and the first rocket barrages," a respected Israeli columnist lamented. "Had we immediately adopted the Dahiya strategy, we would have likely spared ourselves much trouble." After a Palestinian rocket attack, Israel’s Interior Minister urged in late September 2008, "the IDF should…decide on a neighborhood in Gaza and level it." And, insofar as the Dahiya strategy could not be inflicted just yet on Lebanon and Iran, it was predictably pre-tested in Gaza." (Norman Finkelstein ‘Behind the Bloodbath in Gaza: Foiling Another Palestinian "Peace Offensive"’ http://www.counterpunch.com/finkelstein01282009.html January 28, 2009).

Operation Accountability in Lebanon, 1993.
Neve Gordon.
"Three years earlier, in Operation Accountability, Israel killed 120 civilians and displaced 300,000 more." (Neve Gordon ‘From Ghettos to Frontiers’ A review of ‘Frontiers and Ghettos’ by James Ron http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon05192005.html May 19, 2005).

Operation Grapes of Wrath in Lebanon, 1996.
Ran HaCohen.
"Ehud Barak will be remembered in Israel's history as the one who introduced the abuse of innocent civilians as political cards. Barak was probably not the first Israeli warrior to abuse civilians on a tactical level, but he was the one who turned it into a central Israeli strategy. Operation Grapes of Wrath in Lebanon, in 1996, with Barak as an influential cabinet member, openly targeted civilians, turning them into refugees to make them put pressure on Beirut's government. The recent siege on Gaza follows a similar logic: put pressure on civilians to achieve political goals. (A clear war crime, it goes without saying.)" (Ran HaCohen ‘Israel Says 'No'’ http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=12384 February 19, 2008);

Neve Gordon.
"In the fifteen-day operation dubbed Grapes of Wrath (1996) the Israeli air-force carried out 600 sorties, the military fired 25,000 artillery shells, killed 154 civilians, and displaced 400,000 Lebanese." (Neve Gordon ‘From Ghettos to Frontiers’ A review of ‘Frontiers and Ghettos’ by James Ron http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon05192005.html May 19, 2005).

Jews fire 1,300,000 bullets during first few days of Intifada.
Khalid Amayreh.
"Malka, in an interview with the Israeli paper Ha'aretz on 14 June, revealed that during the first few days of the intifada, Israeli occupation soldiers fired 1,300,000 bullets on Palestinian population centres and other targets. This massive firepower, which had no operational justification given the Palestinians' inherently inferior firepower (they possessed only light firearms and in limited numbers), showed that the Israeli army was interested more in decimating and harming the Palestinians and less in ending the violence. According to Israeli sources, then-Chief of Staff and now Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz didn't plan to bring about the end of the conflict. Instead, he thought he had finally seized the opportunity to "beat and vanquish" the Palestinians in order to "burn into their consciousness" and make them "internalise their weakness and inferiority vis-a-vis Israel's strength". Mofaz's ultimate aim, of which he later convinced Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was to hector Palestinians into negotiations in a weakened and exhausted state whereby they would have no choice but to accept Israel's dictates and demands. The new revelations, Palestinian officials argue, prove that the escalation of violence during the first few months of the intifada was, first and foremost, Israel's responsibility. "This is what we have been saying all along that this is not about Israeli security but rather about Israel's terrorising the Palestinian people for the purpose of arrogating their land and rights. Israel is now admitting that," said Michael Tarazi, adviser to Palestinian Authority leader Yasir Arafat." (Khalid Amayreh ‘The second intifada, an Israeli strategy’ July 04, 2004).

Lebanon 2006.
Alexander Cockburn.
"Now Israel says it wants to wipe out Hezbollah. It wishes no harm to the people of Lebanon, just so long as they’re not supporters of Hezbollah, or standing anywhere in the neighborhood of a person or a house or a car or a truck or a road or a bus or a field, or a power station or a port that might, in the mind of an Israeli commander or pilot, have something to do with Hezbollah. In any of those eventualities all bets are off. You or your wife or your mother or your baby get fried." (Alexander Cockburn ‘Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel: Everything You Need To Know’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Cockburn07212006.html July 21, 2006).

Omar Barghouti.
"This intentional and coldly calculated Israeli policy of targeting innocent Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructure stems from a time-honoured, but hardly ever successful, Israeli doctrine of applying intense "pressure" against a civilian population in order to compel them, in-turn, to pressure the resistance into submitting to Israeli dictates, thereby doing Israel's bidding by proxy. It has been consistently used against the Palestinians ever since the Nakba of 1948, and is still applied now in the ongoing barbaric offensive and hermetic siege against Gaza. Israel may have plagiarized this doctrine from the legacies of previous oppressors, but it has refined it to a degree that it no longer raises any moral qualms in most of Israeli society, where it is widely accepted by the public as a right, even a duty in the fight for Israel's "security."" (Omar Barghouti ‘The Massacre at Qana’ http://www.counterpunch.org/barghouti08012006.html August 01 2006).

Saree Makdisi.
"That was on August 30, by which time U.N. teams had identified 359 separate cluster-bomb sites. Since then, the true dimensions of the problem have become even clearer: 770 cluster-bomb sites have now been identified. And the current U.N. estimate is that Israel dropped between 2 million and 3 million bomblets on Lebanon, of which up to a million have yet to explode." (Saree Makdisi ‘Israel's Cluster Bomb War’ http://www.counterpunch.org/makdisi10232006.html October 23, 2006).

Gilad Atzmon.
"As Limor and Shelah reveal, in spite of the fact that the conflict on the ground took place on a very narrow strip of land (the Israeli border on the south and Litani River on the north), the Israeli artillery had managed to shoot over 170,000 shells. In comparison, in the 1973 war while fighting against two strong state armies over two very large fronts, the Israelis had launched only 53,000 shells. The figures relating to the Air Force are even more striking. Though less than a few concrete targets were available for the IDF intelligence, the IAF (Israeli Air Force) had launched as many as 17,550 combat missions, this translates into 520 missions a day, almost as many as in the 1973 war (605 a day). Yet, in 1973 the IAF was fighting two well-equipped air forces, it was engaged in a fair amount of air-to-air combat and a relentless struggle against the latest Soviet ground-to-air missiles. None of that happened in the Second Lebanon War. The IAF was engaged solely in hammering the Lebanese soil. It literally threw and launched everything it had in its disposal, presenting a merciless method that in places (southern Beirut for instance), had a similar effect to the infamous 1940s Anglo-American carpet bombardment." (Gilad Atzmon ‘Saying NO to the Hunters of Goliath’ http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/08/gilad-atzmon-saying-no-to-hunters-of.html August 13, 2007).

Matan Vilnai et al demands Shoah Business in Gaza.
"Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai’s much publicized remark last week about Gaza facing a "shoah", the Hebrew word for the Holocaust, was widely assumed to be unpleasant hyperbole about the army’s plans for an imminent full-scale invasion of the Strip. More significantly, however, his comment offers a disturbing indication of the Israeli army’s longer-term strategy towards the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Vilnai, a former general, was interviewed by Army Radio as Israel was in the midst of unleashing a series of air and ground strikes on populated areas of Gaza that killed more than 100 Palestinians, at least half of whom were civilians and 25 of whom were children, according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. Vilnai stated: "The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they [the Palestinians of Gaza] will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves." His comment, picked up by the Reuters wire service, was soon making headlines around the world. Presumably uncomfortable with a senior public figure in Israel comparing his government’s policies to the Nazi plan to exterminate European Jewry, many news services referred to Vilnai’s clearly articulated threat as a "warning", as though he was prophesying a cataclysmic natural event over which he and the Israeli army had no control. Nonetheless, officials understood the damage that the translation from Hebrew of Vilnai’s remark could do to Israel’s image abroad. And sure enough, Palestinian leaders were soon exploiting the comparison, with both the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the exiled Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal, stating that a "holocaust" was unfolding in Gaza. Within hours the Israeli Foreign Ministry was launching a large "hasbara" (propaganda) campaign through its diplomats, as the Jerusalem Post reported. In a related move, a spokesman for Vilnai explained that the word "shoah" also meant "disaster"; this, rather than a holocaust, was what the minister had been referring to. Clarifications were issued by many media outlets. However, no one in Israel was fooled. "Shoah", which literally means "burnt offering", was long ago reserved for the Holocaust, much as the Arabic word "nakba" (or "catastrophe") is nowadays used only to refer to the Palestinians’ dispossession by Israel in 1948. Certainly, the Israeli media in English translated Vilnai’s use of "shoah" as "holocaust". In charge of an open-air prison, Hamas has refused to surrender to Israeli diktats and has proven invulnerable to Israeli and US machinations to topple it. Instead it has begun advancing the only two feasible forms of resistance available: rocket attacks over the fence surrounding Gaza, and popular mass action. Meron Benvenisti, a former deputy mayor of Jersualem, noted that this scenario "frightens the army more than a violent conflict with armed Palestinians". Israel fears that the sight of unarmed women and children being executed for the crime of trying to free themselves from the prison Israel has built for them may give the lie to the idea that the disengagement ended the occupation. Vilnai’s remark hints at that solution, as do a series of comments from cabinet ministers over the past few weeks proposing war crimes to stop the rockets. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, for example, has said that Gazans cannot be allowed "to live normal lives"; Internal Security Minister, Avi Dichter, believes Israel should take action "irrespective of the cost to the Palestinians"; and the Interior Minister, Meir Sheetrit, suggests the Israeli army should "decide on a neighborhood in Gaza and level it" after each attack." (Jonathan Cook ‘Israel Plots Another Palestinian Exodus: The Meaning of Gaza's 'Shoah'’ http://www.counterpunch.com/cook03082008.html March 8-9, 2008).

Gaza, December 2008.
Thomas Friedman, Jewish state terrorism to educate resistors.
"Israel’s counterstrategy was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians, the families and employers of the militants, to restrain Hezbollah in the future. In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to "educate" Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population. If it is out to destroy Hamas, casualties will be horrific and the aftermath could be Somalia-like chaos. If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims." (Thomas Friedman ‘Israel’s Goals in Gaza?’ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/opinion/14friedman.html?_r=1 January 13, 2009).

James Petras.
"Israel’s defense ministry spokesman has emphatically reiterated the Jewish’s state’s totalitarian war concept emphasizing the targeting of civilians: "Hamas has used ostensibly civilian operations as a cover for military activities. Anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target." Moving directly from its totalitarian vision to its military blueprint to the savaging of Palestinian population centers, the Jewish state destroyed the principle university with over 18,000 students (mostly women), mosques, pharmacies, electrical and water lines, power stations, fishing villages, fishing boats and the little fishing port that provided a meager supply of fish for the starving population. They destroyed roads, transport facilities, food warehouses, science buildings, small factories, shops and apartments. They destroyed a women’s dormitory at the university. In the words of the Israel leader: "…because everything is connected to everything…" it is necessary to destroy each and every facet of life, which allows humans to exist with some dignity and independence. The vile depravity of the assault on the defenseless population is matched by the utter cowardice of the Israeli military command and its cheering bloodthirsty public ensconced behind their aerial monopoly. They suffered no threats of aerial retaliation, no wounded or dead pilots, helicopter gunners, as wave after wave swept in and over a defenseless imprisoned population in a crowded and besieged ghetto." (James Petras ‘The Politics of An Israeli Extermination Campaign: Backers, Apologists and Arms Suppliers’ January 2, 2009).

Avi Shlaim.
"Whatever the numbers, killing civilians is wrong - period. This rule applies to Israel as much as it does to Hamas but Israel's entire record is one of unbridled and unremitting brutality towards the inhabitants of Gaza. Israel also maintained the blockade of Gaza after the ceasefire came into force which, in the view of the Hamas leaders, amounted to a violation of the agreement. During the ceasefire, Israel prevented any exports from leaving the strip in clear violation of a 2005 accord, leading to a sharp drop in employment opportunities. Even by official estimates, almost half of the working-age population in Gaza is unemployed. At the same time, Israel restricted drastically the number of trucks carrying food, fuel, cooking-gas canisters, spare parts for water and sanitation plants, and medical supplies to Gaza. It is difficult to see how starving and freezing the civilians of Gaza could protect the people on the Israeli side of the border. But even if it did, it would still be immoral, a form of collective punishment which is strictly forbidden by international humanitarian law." (Avi Shlaim ‘Israel and Gaza: rhetoric and reality’ http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/israel-and-gaza-rhetoric-and-reality January 07, 2009).

Martin Kramer.
"As the pro-Israeli analyst Martin Kramer observes in his blog, economic sanctions against Gaza, that is, pressure on the civilian population, are an integral and entirely legitimate aim of Israeli policy. "Were Israel to lift the economic sanctions," Kramer writes, "It would transform Hamas control of Gaza into a permanent fact, solidify the division of the West Bank and Gaza, and undermine both Israel and Abbas by showing that violent 'resistance' to Israel produces better results than peaceful compromise and cooperation. Rewarding 'resistance' just produces more of it. So Israel's war aim is very straightforward, and it is not simply a total ceasefire. At the very least, it is a total ceasefire that also leaves the sanctions against Hamas in place. This would place Israel in an advantageous position to bring about the collapse of Hamas rule some time in the future, its long-term objective."" (Spengler ‘Suicide by Israel’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KA08Ak01.html January 08, 2009).

Spengler, a little more mass slaughter please.
"For the moment, Israel is treating Hamas as a state rather than as a state actor. As in any war, economic pressure on the civilian population, as well as military operations that kill civilians as collateral damage to the pursuit of military objectives, are legitimate instruments of warfare. It is hypocrisy to pretend otherwise. Perhaps what the Middle East requires in order to achieve a peace settlement is not less killing, but more. That is horrifying, but nonetheless true, and the international community simply may have to raise its threshold of horror." (Spengler ‘Suicide by Israel’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KA08Ak01.html January 08, 2009).

Yoel Marcus.
"Can someone please explain to me what Yoel Marcus means when he says, "Killing children is a matter of politics" in his Ha'aretz article titled, "It's not Israel's fault it has a strong, well-run army"? Then: "The smartest move now is not to give in to the bleeding hearts who have lost their nerve..." O.K. Got it now. Killing children is a matter of politics." (Adam Horowitz ‘'Killing children is a matter of politics'’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/01/killing-children-is-a-matter-of-politics.html January 13, 2009).

Glenn Greenwald.
"The war strategy which Friedman is heralding, what he explicitly describes with euphemism-free candor as "exacting enough pain on civilians" in order to teach them a lesson, is about as definitive of a war crime as it gets. It also happens to be the classic, textbook definition of "terrorism." It should be emphasized that the mere fact that Tom Friedman claims that this is Israel's motivation isn't proof that it is. The sociopathic lust of a single war cheerleader can't fairly be projected onto those who are actually prosecuting the war. But one can't help noticing that this "teach-them-a-lesson" justification for civilian deaths in Gaza appears with some frequency among its advocates, at least among a certain strain of super-warrior, Israel-centric Americans, e.g.: Marty "do not fuck with the Jews" Peretz and Michael "to wipe out a man's entire family, it's hard to imagine that doesn't give his colleagues at least a moment's pause" Goldfarb, who love to cheer on Middle East wars from a safe and sheltered distance. One might ordinarily find it surprising that our elite opinion-makers are so openly and explicitly advocating war crimes and terrorism ("inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large" and "'educate' Hamas by inflicting heavy pain on the Gaza population"). But when one considers that most of this, in the U.S., is coming from the very people who applied the same "suck-on-this" reasoning to justify the destruction of Iraq, and even more so, when one considers that our highest political officials are now so openly, even proudly, acknowledging their own war crimes, while our political and media elites desperately (and almost unanimously) engage in every possible maneuver to protect them from any consequences from that, Friedman's explicit advocacy of these sorts of things is a perfectly natural thing to see." (Glenn Greenwald ‘Tom Friedman offers a perfect definition of "terrorism"’ http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/14/friedman/ January 14, 2009).

John J. Mearsheimer.
The best evidence, however, that Israel is deliberately seeking to punish the broader population in Gaza is the death and destruction the IDF has wrought on that small piece of real estate. Israel has killed over 1,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 4,000. Over half of the casualties are civilians, and many are children. The IDF’s opening salvo on Dec. 27 took place as children were leaving school, and one of its primary targets that day was a large group of graduating police cadets, who hardly qualified as terrorists. In what Ehud Barak called "an all-out war against Hamas," Israel has targeted a university, schools, mosques, homes, apartment buildings, government offices, and even ambulances. A senior Israeli military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, explained the logic behind Israel’s expansive target set: "There are many aspects of Hamas, and we are trying to hit the whole spectrum, because everything is connected and everything supports terrorism against Israel." In other words, everyone is a terrorist and everything is a legitimate target." (John J. Mearsheimer ‘Another War, Another Defeat’ http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/26/00006/ January 26, 2009)

Uri Avnery.
"Our leaders are now boasting about their part in the Gaza War, in which unbridled military force was unleashed intentionally against a civilian population, men, women, and children, with the declared aim of "creating deterrence." In the era that began last Tuesday, such expressions can only arouse shudders." (Uri Avnery ‘On the Wrong Side’ http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=14134 January 26, 2009); "The war plan included a massive attack on the civilian population of the Strip. The real aims of a war can be understood less from the official declarations of its initiators than from their actions. If in this war some 1,300 men, women, and children were killed, the great majority of whom were not fighters; if about 5,000 people were injured, most of them children; if some 2,500 homes were partly or wholly destroyed; if the infrastructure of life was totally demolished, all this clearly could not have happened accidentally. It must have been a part of the war plan." (Uri Avnery ‘The Black Flag Is Waving’ http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=14176 February 2, 2009).

Norman Finkelstein.
"New York Times foreign affairs expert Thomas Friedman joined in the chorus of hallelujahs. Israel in fact won the 2006 Lebanon war, according to Friedman, because it had inflicted "substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large," thereby administering an "education" to Hezbollah: fearing the Lebanese people’s wrath, Hezbollah would "think three times next time" before defying Israel. He expressed hope that Israel was likewise "trying to ‘educate’ Hamas by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population." To justify the targeting of Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructure Friedman asserted that Israel had no other option because "Hezbollah created a very ‘flat’ military network…deeply embedded in the local towns and villages," and that because "Hezbollah nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians…to restrain Hezbollah in the future." Leaving aside Friedman’s hollow coinages, what does "flat" mean?, and leaving aside that he alleged that the killing of civilians was unavoidable but also recommends targeting civilians as a "deterrence" strategy: is it even true that Hezbollah was "embedded in," "nested among," and "intertwined" with the Lebanese civilian population? If Israel targeted the Lebanese civilian population and infrastructure during the 2006 war, it was not because it had no choice, and not because Hezbollah had provoked it, but because terrorizing the civilian population was a relatively cost-free method of "education," much to be preferred over fighting a real foe and suffering heavy casualties, although Hezbollah’s unexpectedly fierce resistance prevented Israel from achieving a victory on the battlefield." (Norman Finkelstein ‘Behind the Bloodbath in Gaza: Foiling Another Palestinian "Peace Offensive"’ http://www.counterpunch.com/finkelstein01282009.html January 28, 2009).

The operative plan for the Gaza bloodbath can be gleaned from authoritative statements after the war got underway: "What we have to do is act systematically with the aim of punishing all the organizations that are firing the rockets and mortars, as well as the civilians who are enabling them to fire and hide" (reserve Major-General); "After this operation there will not be one Hamas building left standing in Gaza" (Deputy IDF Chief of Staff); "Anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target" (IDF Spokesperson’s Office). Whereas Israel killed a mere 55 Lebanese during the first two days of the 2006 war, the Israeli media exulted at Israel’s "shock and awe" (Maariv) as it killed more than 300 Palestinians in the first two days of the attack on Gaza. Several days into the slaughter an informed Israeli strategic analyst observed, "The IDF, which planned to attack buildings and sites populated by hundreds of people, did not warn them in advance to leave, but intended to kill a great many of them, and succeeded." Morris could barely contain his pride at "Israel’s highly efficient air assault on Hamas." The Israeli columnist B. Michael was less impressed by the dispatch of helicopter gunships and jet planes "over a giant prison and firing at its people", for example, "70…traffic cops at their graduation ceremony, young men in desperate search of a livelihood who thought they’d found it in the police and instead found death from the skies." (Norman Finkelstein ‘Behind the Bloodbath in Gaza: Foiling Another Palestinian "Peace Offensive"’ http://www.counterpunch.com/finkelstein01282009.html January 28, 2009).

The Jewish Military’s chief chaplain, Rabbi Avichai Rontzki: ‘Christians show mercy, Jews don’t’.
"Israel's chief military chaplain distributed a booklet to soldiers fighting in the Gaza conflict containing a rabbinical edict against showing mercy to enemies, an Israeli human rights group said on Monday. The group, Yesh Din, which says it is dedicated to defending human rights in territory occupied by Israel, called on Defence Minister Ehud Barak to dismiss the chief chaplain, Rabbi Avichai Rontzki, who holds the rank of brigadier general." (‘Gaza war rabbinical edict draws protest in Israel’ http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/01/26/gaza-war-rabbinical-edict-draws-protest-in-israel/ January 26, 2009).

The Nakba: an historical event or a continuing political process?

2009-01-06T14:27:00.001Z

The nakba is commonly perceived around the world and even, unfortunately, by palestinians themselves, as a discrete historical event which happened in the late 1940s when jewish terrorists established a zionist state in palestine. However, looking back at what has transpired in palestine over the last six decades, it would be more accurate to describe the nakba as an ongoing political process in which the racist state has continually implemented its policy of ethnically cleansing and moved ever closer to its long term goal of becoming a jews-only state.

Adam horowitz linked to an article suggesting that the jews’ current military operation in gaza could be regarded as a new nakba as if, with the passing of time, this too will be seen as another discrete historical phenomena. "Palestinians reported that many families have left their homes in Beit Lahiya's al-Atatra neighborhood and are staying with relatives in "safer" areas. Hundreds of residents, who are afraid to travel in their own cars for fear of IDF strikes, could be seen leaving the neighborhood on foot toward central Jabalya. "It was a difficult site and reminded us of images we saw on television during the 1948 Nakba (displacement of Palestinians following Israel's inception)," one resident who left his home told Ynet. "The sense is that of a new Nakba."" (‘Gazans say experiencing 'another Nakba' January 05, 2009).

Philip weiss has added to the perception of the nakba as a discrete historical event by demanding that more effort should be given to commemorating the political disaster that befell the palestinians in the late 1940s. Given the way that the zionist dominated media in the western world has pushed the nakba into an historical ‘hole of oblivion’ it seems laudable trying to remind the global community about what befell the palestinians in the late 1940s. However, treating the nakba as an isolated historical event which happened long ago in the mists of time gives the impression that the racist jewish state has never since resorted to such an odious war crime as ethnic cleansing.

In a recently published article ilan pappe fell victim to such a fallacy in an otherwise invaluable essay. He pointed out that zionism is an ideology based on ethnic cleansing and that current events in gaza were being airlifted out of their historical context. "It seems that even the most horrendous crimes, such as the genocide in Gaza, are treated as discrete events, unconnected to anything that happened in the past and not associated with any ideology or system." And yet in the preceding paragraph he’d talked of the nakba as precisely such a discrete historical event! "And yet, we cannot allow 2009 to be just another year, less significant than 2008, the commemorative year of the Nakba, that did not fulfill the great hopes we all had for its potential to dramatically transform the Western world's attitude to Palestine and the Palestinians." (Ilan Pappe ‘Israel's righteous fury and its victims in Gaza’ http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10100.shtml January 02, 2009).

Pappe rightly argues that it is imperative that the historical context of the slaughter in gaza is understood. "Therefore, it is the role of an activist academia and an alternative media to insist on this historical context. These agents should not scoff from educating the public opinion and hopefully even influence the more conscientious politicians to view events in a wider historical perspective." (Ilan Pappe ‘Israel's righteous fury and its victims in Gaza’ http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10100.shtml January 02, 2009). But what seems to elude pappe is that the best way of providing such an historical context is by suggesting that every single jewish attack on palestinians over the last sixty years has been part of an ongoing nakba whose ultimate goal is a jews-only state in palestine. In other words, it is imperative to see the nakba as an ongoing political process not a one-off historical event.

From its formulation zionism was intent on removing all palestinians from palestine. This had to be done either by murdering palestinians, terrorizing them into leaving their homes and their own country, or by making the areas in which they lived uninhabitable whether by stealing water resources, damaging sewage systems, or simply by militarily pulverizing palestinian infrastructure and buildings. The zionist project is intent on ethnic cleansing and everything the zionists have done since they established their racist state has been to move remorselessly towards a jews-only country.

The assumption underlying the two nakba thesis (if for the moment we accept the proposition that gaza is a second nakba) is that the period in between these two political disasters was a time of peace and tranquility when the jews made little effort to implement their ethnic cleansing ideology. Of course, in reality during this period the jews were all too successful in advancing their piecemeal ethnic cleansing campaign. They have stolen a massive proportion of palestinian land during this period but always taking care to keep within the bounds of what is acceptable to political and public opinion in the western world.

But, it might be argued, if the jews were really pursuing their goal of ethnic cleansing then surely they would not only have stolen huge amounts of palestinian land, they would also have dramatically reduced the palestinian population. At present the population of palestinians and jews is roughly equal. But this demographic equality is highly deceptive. The jews have been pursuing their ethnic cleansing campaign by pushing palestinians into smaller and smaller enclaves. This leaves the palestinian population extremely vulnerable to economic blockade and military attack. Jewish society can be visualized as a broadly based pyramid spread out over large areas of palestinian land. In comparison palestinian society can be visualized as an inverted pyramid. All the jews have to do is quietly make these ghettoes less and less inhabitable and eventually these intense concentrations of palestinians will collapse leading to mass emigration. The jews’ policy seems to have been first, steal their land, then corral palestinians into ghettos, then make these ghettos increasingly uninhabitable until palestinians are confronted only with the option of emigrating.

The differences between the political implications of these two characterizations of the nakba are profound. The implication of the nakba as an historic event is that palestinians have a chance to create peace with the jews because jews haven’t been vile enough to pursue ethnic cleansing. The implication of the nakba as ongoing event is that palestinians do not have any chance of creating peace with such racist monsters and that any peace efforts they make, or hopes they may have, are an error, and a dangerous one because it leaves them highly vulnerable to annihilation. Of the two diametrically opposed perspectives the latter seems far more realistic, far truer to historical realities. The jews have never had any intention of allowing the palestinians to create a palestinian state. They stopped the palestinians from forming a state in 1948 and ever since they have sabotaged all peace negotiations between the two sides to prevent the creation of a palestinian state. Jennifer loewenstein is but the latest commentator to reach this obvious conclusion. "The answer is because Israel has no intention of allowing a viable, sovereign Palestinian state on its borders." (Jennifer Loewenstein ‘If Hamas Did Not Exist Israel Has No Intention of Granting a Palestinian State’ http://www.counterpunch.com/loewenstein01012009.html January 01, 2009). But it has to be suggested even this view does not get to the whole truth. Jewish racists have no intention of allowing palestinians to remain in palestine.

The great advantage of treating the nakba as a continuing political process is that the so-called ‘jewish holocaust’ is precisely what the nakba is deemed to be: a discrete historical event. (I say ‘so-called’ because I dispute the way the holocaust industry has transformed this event into humans’ greatest ever tragedy and not because I dispute the facts outlined by those such as hannah arendt). The nakba is more important politically than the holocaust for the simple reason that it is an ongoing political process affecting real people and not a distant historical event. It is remarkable, and exasperating, that on the one hand the jews have resurrected a dead historical event and are able to use it as an important factor in current political events whilst, on the other hand, palestinians have allowed their ongoing tragedy to lapse into a long forgotten historical event which is entirely without political relevance. The jews have hyped up their historical tragedy to such an extent that in the western world it is deemed to be more politically significant than the jews’ ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign against the palestinians. Indeed, this historical event continues to be the jews’ best propaganda weapon for justifying whoever they might wish to slaughter whether they are palestinians, lebanese, syrians, or iranians. The nakba should be accorded moral superiority over the ‘holocaust’ since it affects millions of real people whereas the holocaust is a mere chapter in human history. There is therefore no moral equivalence between the two because the holocaust is a long gone historical event whilst the nakba is a current event.

Pappe is correct, "By connecting the Zionist ideology and the policies of the past with the present atrocities, we will be able to provide a clear and logical explanation for the campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions." But the best means of doing this is by talking about jews’ continuing to inflict a nakba on the palestinians for the sake of a racially pure palestine. Every time palestinians are held up at checkpoints they are being forced to endure another manifestation of the nakba; every time pregnant palestinian women are denied medical facilities they are suffering because of the nakba; every time that palestinians are assassinated this is because of the jews continuing nakba on the palestinians. Jews have turned ‘the holocaust’ into a potent conceptual weapon which now bears considerable propaganda clout: the jews pretended they were being threatened by another holocaust by saddam’s and iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons. The palestinians don’t have to hype up their nakba in the same lurid way. All they have to do is show that the nakba still continues after six decades. The nakba should be treated as something that started in the late 1940s not that it finished soon after.

Over the last six decades or more, the efforts of jewish racists to create a racially pure jewish state have been highly successful. They have slaughtered tens of thousands of palestinians. They have stolen the overwhelming majority of the land in palestine not to mention virtually all of its resources. They have waged wars against their arab neighbours causing, whether directly or indirectly, the slaughter of millions of arabs. On the international front their political triumphs have been even more overwhelming. This rogue state pursuing nazi policies has managed to convince the western world to join its racist ‘war against terrorism’. This war against islamic people was invented and then branded by jewish racists who have persuaded the western world to buy the brand. Conversely, western politicians have totally failed to abolish the jewish apartheid state and bring it within the fold of the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, democratic, societies in the western world. On the contrary, western countries have adopted the rogue state’s racist ideology. Zionism has become the world’s dominant ideology determining the world’s political agenda. It is hyping up islamophobia in order to pressure the western world into engaging in world war three against the islamic world.

Jewish racists have been laughing all the way to the land bank. Surely jewish racists’ success in portraying the nakba as an historical event of no current political importance is their greatest ever political conjuring trick. What is so frightening about the current dominance of racist zionist ideology throughout the western world is that even the victims of jewish racism seem convinced that jewish racists are not involved in ethnic cleansing and that the nakba was a one-off event which has never been repeated.

Bryce on the Ethanol Explosion

2008-04-20T21:16:00.001Z

Robert bryce has emerged as a prominent critic of the bush regime’s push for a dramatic increase in biofuel crops to reduce america’s dependence on arab oil production. In a recent article he’s argued the explosion in ethanol production is both wrong and immoral. Wrong because "no matter how much of U.S. or world grain is diverted to make motor fuel, it will never make a large dent in global oil needs." (Robert Bryce ‘The Mandates Aren't Just Wrong, They're Immoral: The Ethanol Apologists’ http://www.counterpunch.com/bryce04172008.html April 17, 2008). And immoral because it is driving up world grain prices thereby pushing more of the world’s poor toward starvation.

But there is one criticism that bryce avoids about the massive expansion of biofuel crops: that it is highly destructive of the Earth’s life support system and thus the stability of the Earth’s climate. The reason for this omission is his agnosticism over global warming. "When it comes to the science of global climate change, I'm an agnostic. Again, I no longer care much about the science. To me, the central question, and the one that few are willing to discuss in depth, is: Then what?" (Robert Bryce ‘Beyond Group Think on Climate Change: If More CO2 is Bad ... Then What?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce02082008.html February 8/10, 2008). Bryce’s limited criticisms of biofuel expansion leads to distortions in his analysis.

Bryce argues that the expansion of biofuel crops is reducing food crops and thus driving up global food prices. However, he recognizes that food prices are not rising solely because of biofuels, "Several factors are driving food prices higher including growing global grain demand, crop failures in other countries, rising energy prices, and the weak dollar." (Robert Bryce ‘The Mandates Aren't Just Wrong, They're Immoral: The Ethanol Apologists’ http://www.counterpunch.com/bryce04172008.html April 17, 2008).

There are three flaws in his analysis. Firstly, although he believes that biofuel crops are driving up food prices he doesn’t know exactly by how much. It may not be that significant. During the 1990s in both america and europe, agricultural surpluses led to the establishment of major set-aside schemes. Agricultural land was taken out of production and allowed to regenerate as natural areas. It is all too likely that when bush announcement his drive for energy independence much of this set aside land in america was reclaimed for biofuel production: the same is also likely to be true in europe. This would have had no impact on food prices.

Secondly, he mentions that crop failures contribute to the rise in food prices but given his agnosticism towards global warming he can’t blame this on anthropogenic climate change. And yet the probability is that the damage that humans are inflicting on the Earth’s life sustaining processes is a significant cause of climate instability and thus crop failures. The greater the damage that humans inflict on the planet’s life sustaining processes e.g. through the creation of monocultural biofuel plantations, the greater the climatic instability, the more widespread and intense the crop failures are likely to be. Thus the expansion of biofuel production will contribute to increasing levels of starvation amongst the world’s poor not merely, as bryce suggests, through reducing food production but also through increasing crop failures.

Thirdly, another factor which bryce ignores when looking at the causes of food price rises is the increasing growth of the Animal exploitation industry. The more prosperous that developing countries become, the more their middle classes imitate the appallingly self-destructive consumption habits of their counterparts in the developed world. As a consequence, increasing quantities of grains are being fed to increasing numbers of livestock Animals some of which might otherwise have been used to feed humans. The huge increase in global meat and dairy production must have had a significant impact on global grain prices and thus global poverty. If the biggest contributor to recent food price increases has been the dramatic rise in energy costs, the huge increases in meat and dairy production can’t be that far behind as the second biggest contributor. However, this is not a fact that bryce wishes to confront since to him it would smack of blaming the developing world for the rising cost of food and increasing global poverty. He fears this might tempt the developed world to try and deter the developing world from eating meat. It should also be pointed out that the Animal exploitation industry is the biggest contributor to the destruction of the Earth’s life sustaining processes and thus anthropogenic global warming which boosts crop failures further adding to food price increases and global starvation. The continuing expansion of the Animal exploitation industry will increasingly destabilize the climate which could eventually result in ecocide.

In a global laisser faire system, the rich increasingly eat grain intensive meat and dairy products whilst the poor starve because the grains that would nourish them are given to livestock Animals. The Animal exploitation industry not merely deprives the poor of the grains they need to survive, it triggers climate instabilities leading to increasing crop failures and thus increasing levels of global malnutrition. There is only one way of avoiding this double calamity and this is to ration out grains to each country around the world.

Bryce admits that the expansion in biofuel crops is not "the main factor in rising food prices" but continues to stress its infamy by suggesting it is "the one that could have been easily avoided". But is this really true? Is meat and dairy consumption unavoidable especially given its colossal negative impacts on human health? Just how tasty are meat and dairy products given the stench of global starvation? Just how attractive is the consumption of meat and dairy products given the prevalence of obesity in the developed world in stark contrast to the repulsiveness of increasing numbers of people wasting away from malnutrition?

Bryce provides figures to support his thesis that biofuel production is increasing food prices but a closer analysis of these figures suggests the Animal exploitation industry is making a bigger contribution. For example, he points out, "Since 2000, the amount of corn used to make ethanol has increased nearly six fold. By next year, according to the National Corn Growers Association, some 4 billion bushels of corn, about one-third of the expected crop, will be used to make motor fuel." If one third of corn is being used for biofuels then what is the other two-thirds being used for? It is more than likely that a significant proportion is being used for livestock feed.

Another example. "The USDA estimates that global grain demand will grow by 5.4 percent this year. Fully half of that growth will come from U.S. consumption of corn for ethanol." But how much of total corn production goes to feed livestock Animals?

If biofuel production goes on expanding at the rate it has since bush’s declaration of energy independence then it will come into increasing conflict with the global Animal exploitation industry which has also been expanding at a rapid rate. Competition between biofuels, the livestock industry, and the needs of human consumption, will drive up grain prices. More crop production will be devoted to feeding cars and livestock Animals leaving less for the world’s poor. As the world’s rich appropriate increasing amounts of grains for their high grain diets and their grain-powered cars, more people will find themselves driven into malnutrition and starvation. This competition for grains will not eventually stabilize into the modern day equivalent of the medieval world where the rich remain comfortable as long as they can suppress food riots. As the biofuel and the Animal exploitation industries increasingly destabilize the climate, crop failures will become common enough to threaten even the survival of the rich. Its true that the poor will starve first but, as the momentum of global warming quickens, the rich will also eventually succumb.

The conflict between crops for livestock Animals, cars, and humans, will be fought between various political forces. Those supporting crops for livestock Animals include a significant section of the world’s landowning elites and lobbyists for the Animal exploitation industry such as "‘Balanced Food and Fuel’, a Washington, DC-based coalition of eight associations that represent the meat, dairy, and egg producers" (Robert Bryce ‘The Mandates Aren't Just Wrong, They're Immoral: The Ethanol Apologists’ http://www.counterpunch.com/bryce04172008.html April 17, 2008). Those supporting crops for cars include the biofuel industry, reformist environmentalists, the car industry, and, in america, a rather surprising defender, the jewish lobby. It was the jewish lobby that initiated and publicized the idea of energy independence and had the political clout to pressure the bush regime into adopting extreme policies that might help to undermine arab oil producers but which were otherwise not in america’s national interests. The jewish lobby will help the biofuel industry to compete for grains against the Animal exploitation industry and the world’s poor. The world’s poor do not stand a chance against these major political powers.

Bryce’s focus on the biofuels industry for increasing food prices is inadequate and dangerous. He ignores the important critique of biofuels as contributing to climate instability and exacerbating global poverty because he’s a global warming agnostic. He fails to mention the critical role of the Animal exploitation industry in driving up food prices, causing climatic instability, crop failures and thus further global starvation. What is the point of condemning the biofuel industry when the Animal exploitation industry is causing exactly the same problems but on an even grander scale? If it is so wrong to feed grains to cars why is it not also wrong to feed so many grains to livestock Animals?

The Animal exploitation industry is far more dangerous morally, politically, and environmentally, than the biofuel industry. Even if the biofuel industry was aborted the huge expansion of the global Animal exploitation industry would continue driving up food prices, destabilizing the climate, and boosting global starvation. It is quite true that if the Animal exploitation industry was abolished then, hypothetically, the biofuel industry could grow to replace it so it is imperative to tackle both industries as if they are one and the same. The competition for grains will lead, with malthusian certainty, towards mass immizerization and perhaps even ecocide. The only solution to this is to replace global capitalism with a rationing system to share out resources fairly and sustainably. No rationing, no survival.

Bryce’s political stance is odd. He claims to be concerned about the world’s poor and yet firstly, he ignores the criticism that biofuels contribute to climate instability and thus crop failures which boost global starvation. Secondly, he refuses to take a stand against global warming because he believes policies to oppose it would allegedly harm the world’s poor and yet, by not making a stand, global warming is likely to continue getting worse thereby exacerbating the plight of the world’s poor. And, thirdly, he condemns biofuels for adding to global poverty and yet ignores a vastly larger industry causing exactly the same problems but on a correspondingly larger scale.

If bryce was as concerned about the world’s poor as he says he is, he wouldn’t focus exclusively on biofuels. He wouldn’t believe that abolishing the biofuel industry is going to achieve anything given the colossal damages being caused by the Animal exploitation industry. It is a waste of time condemning the biofuel industry without also condemning the Animal exploitation industry.