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?

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

Updated February 16, 2009

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

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

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

Barak, Ehud.
See Dichter, Avi.

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

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

Eitan, Rafael.
See Ze’evi, Rehavam.

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


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

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

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

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

Eisenkot, Gadi.
See Halutz, Dan.

Galant, Yoav.
See Halutz, Dan.

Gvir, Itamar Ben.
See Ari, Michael Ben.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olmert, Ehud.
See Dichter, Avi.

Marzel, Baruch.
See Ari, Michael Ben.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated February 16, 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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