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

Updated February 22, 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

America is a Jewish Colony: Olmert reveals all.

Updated February 19, 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Nakba: an historical event or a continuing political process?

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.