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

Updated February 22, 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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).