Finch brings forward recent attempts to face Jewish supremacism. Inspiring
reading, though Finch limits himself to Israel connection. As if the Jewish
elites in the US have no other fish to fry, as if they do not carry their
relentless warfare against Christianity, against spirit, against art, against
labour, against equality, against family, against solidarity. One can understand
him, for there is much urgency in stopping Middle Eastern wars, but the readers
may be aware that America and Europe have many local reasons to object to Jewish
domination, beside their adventurism. His second fault is that he mainly limits
himself to discussing “likudniks”, as if Left Zionism is any better. But anyway,
a great essay, must be read to foster the spirit of resistance.
The Signs of Resistance to Jewish Supremacism
Since the second world war, Jewish elites in America and other western, over-
industrialized, countries have mushroomed in economic and political power until
today they compose either a significant part of these countries’ ruling elite
or, as is the case in America, its dominant part. These elites promote Jewish
supremacism. This ideology consists of the following components:
* Uncritical support for the Jews-only state in Palestine;
* Uncritical support for Jewish expansionism both inside, and outside,
* The continual extension of the definition of antisemitism;
* The vilification, and persecution, of critics of the Jewish apartheid state as
* The vilification, and persecution, of critics of Jewish interests as
* The hyping of islamophobia, the racial hatred of all Moslems; and,
* the manipulation of America and other western countries into fighting more
wars in the middle east in order to boost the military dominance of the
Jews-only state in the region i.e. Jewish race wars boosting Jewish supremacism.
Jewish elites around the world, but especially in America, are promoting what
they call ‘world war four’ against islamo-fascists. Jewish racists lump all
Moslems together as if they form one cohesive enemy called islamo-fascists not
merely Baathists but al Qaeda, and Shiite Iran and Hezbollah.
They believe Moslems pose “a threat equal to or
greater than World War II and the Cold War.” (Jim Lobe ‘Et Tu, Cal’
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=43 July 06,
It is remarkable that Jewish supremacists are pressuring and manipulating
western countries into fighting racist wars on behalf of the Jews-only state.
Even more remarkable is that it is not in the west’s interests to fight such
wars as the examples of Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate all too clearly. What
is even more remarkable is that western political leaders seem willing to fight
such wars for the benefit of the Jews-only state no matter what it costs western
countries in lives, treasure, and reputation. But what is most remarkable of all
is that these political leaders have become blatant quislings to the Jewish
cause who are willing to fight such racist wars no matter what public opposition
there is to these wars. The west’s invasion of Iraq has been a huge benefit to
the Jews-only state but a catastrophe for America and the west. An
attack/invasion of Iran is likely to make this contrast even more stark. Never
have so many dupes been willing to lay down their lives, their livelihoods, and
their countries, for so few and for such dishonourable objectives.
The mouthpieces of America’s ruling Jewish elite extolling Jewish supremacism
are not merely the neo-cons but neo-liberals, neo-libertarians, neo-christians
(so-called Christian Zionists), neo-lefties (such as Chomsky and Zunes),
neo-greenies, and neo-pacifists. They are willing to drive the whole world into
what many of them triumphally proclaim as the fourth world war because this
would provide an enormous boost for Jewish supremacism in the middle east even
though it would also throw the rest of the world into a political, military, and
economic, catastrophe. They put their loyalty to the Jews-only state above their
political or religious principles. They traitorously regard their loyalties to
the warmongering Jews-only state as being more important than their loyalties to
the countries in which they were born and raised despite publicly professing
their loyalty to the latter.
Since September 11, 2001 only a handful of commentators have been willing to
warn of the dangers posed by America’s ruling Jewish elite on America’s
political system. But, as the drumbeats for a proxy Zionist war against Iran
become faster and louder, more seem willing to challenge Jewish supremacism. The
choice is either challenge Jewish racism or allow Jewish supremacists to drive
the world into the ‘fourth world war’ with all the death and destruction and
mayhem this will cause.
The taboos against criticizing Jewish interests are beginning to weaken:
* Jewish economic power;
* the rise of Jewish elites;
* the existence of America’s Jewish lobby;
* the political power of America’s Jewish lobby;
* the New York money men who finance the Jews-only lobby and hard-line, likudnik
fundamentalist, think tanks;
* the zionist domination of the American media;
* the Jews-only lobby’s almost total domination of the American congress;
* the huge proportion of likudniks in the Bush regime;
* the Jewish elite’s major influence over the American president;
* the Jewish elite’s almost total dominance over candidates contesting what are
becoming America’s fake presidential election in 2008 in which the American
people are faced by a choice between various shades of likudnik extremism;
* the likudniks’ dominant influence (but not total control) over America’s
* the common policies, strategies, and tactics, pursued by all Jewish lobbies
throughout the western world;
* Jewish elites in western countries manipulating the west into fighting Jewish
race wars against middle eastern countries; and,
* the traitorousness of those willing to sacrifice their own countries’
interests for the sake of boosting the regional supremacism of the Jews-only
state in Palestine.
This article lists, in a roughly chronological order, some of the most prominent
opponents of the likudniks’ politically kosher paradigm.
Senator William Fulbright - 1962.
“Senator William Fulbright, then chair of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, conducted hearings on foreign influence-buying in Congress in the
1960s. He later said: "I hadn’t realized before the hearings that the Jewish
lobby was so powerful. … I didn’t know they were subverting the Congress." He
also said: "The lobby can just about tell the President what to do when it comes
to Israel. Its influence in Congress is pervasive and, I think, profoundly
harmful...to us and ultimately to Israel itself." These comments came from one
of the most influential U.S. senators of the twentieth century. Senator
Fulbright was known for his courage – for example, in 1954 he challenged Senator
Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his powers. Senator Fulbright also raised
strong objections to President Kennedy about the impending Bay of Pigs Cuban
invasion. In 1966, Fulbright published The Arrogance of Power in which he
attacked the justification for the Vietnam War and Congress’ failure to set
limits on it.” (Ron Forthofer ‘Lobbying
for a foreign country’
http://imeu.net/news/article006305.shtml August 27, 2007).
Hayden turned into a Quisling for the Likudniks - 1982.
In 1981 Tom Hayden, whose wife at the time was Jane Fonda, was seeking election
to California’s state assembly. He chose to contest a district only to find it
controlled by two brothers: Howard Berman and his chief operative Michael
Berman. “I was a neophyte running for the California Assembly in a district that
the Bermans claimed belonged to them. “I represent the Israeli defense forces,”
Michael said. I thought he was joking. He wasn’t. Michael seemed to imagine
himself the gatekeeper protecting Los Angeles’ Westside for Israel’s political
interests, and those of the famous Berman-Waxman machine. Since Jews represented
one-third of the Democratic district’s primary voters, Berman held a balance of
power. He (Michael Berman) and his brother were privately leaning toward an
upcoming young prosecutor named Adam Schiff, who later became the congressman
from Pasadena. But they calculated that Schiff couldn’t win without name
recognition, so they were considering “renting” me the Assembly seat, Berman
said. But there was one condition: that I always be a “good friend of Israel.””
(Tom Hayden ‘I Was Israel’s Dupe’
http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006).
If Hayden was to win the crucial Jewish vote in the district he was contesting
he needed to show his support for the Jews-only state in Palestine and win
approval from Jewish opinion formers. “However, all these rank-and-file
constituencies were attuned to the question of Israel, even in local and state
elections, and would never vote for a candidate perceived as anti-Israel or
pro-Palestinian. I had to be certified “kosher,” not once but over and over
again. The certifiers were the elites, beginning with rabbis and heads of the
multiple mainstream Jewish organizations, especially each city’s Jewish
Federation. An important vetting role was held as well by the American-Israel
Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a group closely associated with official
parties in Israel. When necessary, Israeli ambassadors, counsels general and
other officials would intervene with statements declaring someone a “friend of
Israel.” In my case, a key to the “friendship issue” was the Los Angeles-based
counsel general Benjamin Navon. The de facto Israeli endorsement would be
communicated indirectly, in compliance with laws that prohibit foreign
interference in an American election. We would be seen and photographed together
in public. Benny would make positive public statements that could be quoted in
campaign mailings. As a result, I was being declared “kosher” by the ultimate
source, the region’s representative of the state of Israel.” (Tom Hayden ‘I Was
Israel’s Dupe’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006).
The price Hayden had to pay to win approval from the Jewish community increased
dramatically in the summer of 1982 when the Jews-only state launched an illegal
and pre-emptive invasion of Lebanon to drive the Palestine liberation
organization out of the country. “Ever curious, and aware of my district’s
politics, I decided we (he and Fonda) should go to the Middle East, but only as
long as the Israeli “incursion,” as it was delicately called, was limited to the
10-kilometer space near the Lebanese border, as a cushion against rocket fire.
When we arrived at the Israeli-Lebanon border, the game plan promised by Benny
Navon had changed utterly. Instead of a localized border conflict, Israel was
invading and occupying all of Lebanon, with us in tow. Its purpose was to
destroy militarily the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) haven in
Lebanon. This had been Gen. Ariel Sharon’s secret plan all along, and I never
will know with certainty whether Benny Navon had been deceived along with
everyone else. For the next few weeks, I found myself defending Israel’s “right”
to self-defense on its border, only to realize privately how foolish I was
becoming. In the meantime, Israel’s invasion was continuing, with ardent Jewish
support in America. Finally, a close friend and political advisor of mine, Ralph
Brave, took me for a walk, looked into my eyes and said: “Tom, you can’t do
this. You have to stop.” (Tom Hayden ‘I Was Israel’s Dupe’
http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006). Hayden stopped
legitimizing the invasion but did not criticize or condemn it and, as a
consequence, “I easily won the general election in November.”
Hayden now describes his involvement in these events as “a descent into moral
ambiguity and realpolitick that still haunts me today.” Alexander Cockburn was
much more trenchant about Hayden’s quisling behaviour. “Twenty four years ago
Ariel Sharon’s artillerymen bombarded Beirut, causing huge terrible civilian
casualties, just as Israel’s bombs are doing today. The destruction was so
savage that NYT’s Beirut correspondent Thomas Friedman complained bitterly in an
indiscreet in-house memo when his editors axed the word “indiscriminate” which
Friedman had used to describe the bombing. I published that internal memo in the
Village Voice and Friedman thought he was going to lose his job. Standing next
to those Israeli gunners and cheering them on were Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda,
eager to promote Hayden’s political career in California. It was one of the most
disgusting political spectacles of the 1980s and I wrote angrily that “in the
halls of the National Gallery in Washington DC there are 54 portraits of
Benedict Arnold. None look alike. All resemble Tom Hayden.”” (Quoted in Tom
Hayden ‘I Was Israel’s Dupe’
http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006).
Fears the Likudniks are going to throw Mid East into Crisis - July 2006.
“An intellectual dean of the neoconservatives, Bernard Lewis, has long advocated
the “Lebanonization” of the Middle East, meaning the disintegration of nation
states into “a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and
parties.” This divide-and-conquer strategy, a brainchild of the region’s British
colonizers, is already taking effect in Iraq, where America overthrew a secular
state, installed a Shiite majority and its militias in power and now portrays
itself as the only protection for Sunnis against those same Shiites. The
resulting quagmire has become a justification for American troops to remain.”
(Tom Hayden ‘I Was Israel’s Dupe’
http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006).
Paul Findley - 1985.
“In my 1985 book, "They Dare to Speak Out," I detailed the tactics used to
silence criticism of Israeli policies. One of the groups employing these tactics
is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. On its Web site, AIPAC calls
itself "America's pro-Israel lobby" and boasts a New York Times description of
it as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with
Israel." All citizens have the right to band together and push for policies they
believe are right. But AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups do not plead the
case for Israel on the stage of public opinion. Instead, they often resort to
smear campaigns and intimidation to clear the floor so that only their side is
heard.” (Paul Findley ‘Carter
enters lions' den’
February 7, 2007).
Marlon Brando - 1994.
On a prime time television show, Marlon Brando criticized the Jewish domination
of Hollywood and his comments were published around the world. But everyone
knows Hollywood is dominated by Jews so what was unique about his outburst was
that he was willing to discuss the issue in public. What is also interesting is
what happened to Brando after he broke this Jewish taboo. "Jewish power is such
that they can make craven even the greatest of Hollywood icons. During an
appearance on the Larry King television show, actor Marlon Brando said that
"Hollywood is run by Jews. It is owned by Jews." Brando contended that Jews are
always depicted as humorous, kind, loving, and generous while they slander every
other racial group, "but are ever so careful to ensure that there is never any
negative image of the Kike." Jewish groups came down hard on Brando, stating in
their press releases that they would see to it that he "would never work again."
No one in the Jewish press seemed to notice that the threat simply validated
Brando’s observation of their unchallenged media power. Brando was so
intimidated that he had to arrange an audience with Wiesenthal himself. Brando
cried and got on his knees and kissed Wiesenthal’s hands, begging for
forgiveness for his truth-telling. Wiesenthal absolved him for his sin, and
Brando has said nothing but positive things about Jews ever since." (David Duke
‘Who Runs the Media?’ http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter19_06.html).
William Cash - October 1994.
In the early 1990s Britain’s right wing political magazine, the Spectator,
was edited by Dominic Lawson
and was owned by Conrad Black, a Canadian Jew, who also owned the
Jerusalem Post. Nevertheless, Lawson published an
article by William Cash about the rise of Jewish power in America.
Cash, the son of the right-wing Tory mp Bill Cash,
commented on an article in the October 1994 issue of America’s Vanity
Fair magazine, 'Redefining Power in America:
The New Establishment', listing America’s 100 richest
and most powerful people. He drew a conclusion from the article that Vanity Fair
had carefully evaded: that many of those listed were Jews. Just in case he might
be thought a tad antisemitic he shored up his contention by quoting from a book
about Jews in Hollywood written by a Jewish author. “It should first be
said that there is nothing remotely surprising about all this. As Neal Gabler
clearly demonstrated in his acclaimed book, An Empire of Their Own, How the Jews
Invented Hollywood, the early Jewish movie pioneers such as Louis B. Mayer and
Irving Thalberg (Fitzgerald's model for The Last Tycoon) who founded the studios
of today came to Hollywood because they felt barred from power in the east.” (William
Cash 'Kings of the Deal' The Spectator October 29th 1994).
Cash contrasted the Vanity Fair article with an article about America’s ruling
elite written by
Henry Fairlie for the Spectator in 1955. He proposed
three interesting generalizations about the shifts in economic and political
power in America that he believed had taken place between the publication of
these two articles. Geographically, a shift from America’s east coast to the
west coast. California is often referred to as the world’s fourth biggest
economy. Economically, from the military-industrial complex to the media,
entertainment, and information industries. (This was quite an insight given that
Silicon valley had only recently started to grow). And ethnically, from
the old wasp establishment to a new Jewish
Cash was worried that the old (wasp) establishment’s clannishness might also be
adopted by the new (Jewish) establishment but concluded the evidence was
extent to which this adds up to any sort of Jewish cabal behind the building of
the 21st-Century Entertainment Superhighway is difficult to assess.” (William
Cash 'Kings of the Deal' The Spectator October 29th 1994). He astutely noted
that although many wealthy Jewish parvenus in Hollywood’s early days had
imitated the social habits of the former wasp elite, this was not so noticeable
with the new Jewish elite. “The movie Jews joined the Hollywood Polo and
Riding Club in droves; they paid their expensive dues at the West Hills Hunt
Club with its own pack of Irish foxhounds, whose (mostly Jewish) members still
gallop every Saturday in season around the hills around Los Angeles in
sunglasses and full British hunting gear. The idea of 'New Establishment'
players like David Geffen (who refuses to wear a suit), Mike Ovitz or Steven
Spielberg dressing up in a tail-coat to go fox-hunting is ludicrous. Now that
they are the Power Elite, they view the creaky East Coast Wasp institutions and
such reserves as the LA Country Club (which still proudly excludes Jews and
showbiz types') as anachronistic jokes. Whilst Louis Mayer would have been
trying everything to get a photograph of himself shaking hands with Prince
Charles during his three-day visit (or escape) to LA, today's breed of
super-mogul couldn't care less.” (William Cash 'Kings
of the Deal' The Spectator October 29th 1994).
Cash’s article raised a few eyebrows in Britain but, after being circulated
through Hollywood’s Jewish elite, it unleashed a political storm in America. "As
I say, the article caused little comment in Britain when it was published.
However, Mr. Michael Williams-Jones, the chief executive of United International
Pictures in London, which distributes films abroad for MGM, Paramount and
Universal, took the trouble to send faxes of the article to his contacts in
Hollywood. Mr. Williams-Jones wrote in an accompanying note, 'The article is
odious in its innuendo and inaccurate in its facts.' At the other end the moguls
got in touch with Mr. Bernard Weinraub, the highly experienced Los Angeles
correspondent of the New York Times. While none of them wished to be quoted
personally, Mr. Weinraub reported that they were collectively of the view that
the Cash article was 'disgusting' 'despicable', 'bigoted' and 'odious'."
(Dominic Lawson ‘Taboo or not Taboo, That is the Question’ The Spectator, Nov.
The following week the Spectator published a selection of protest letters about
Cash’s article. The following letter provides a flavour of their content, "SIR:
William Cash worries about inevitable shrieks of antisemitism as a consequence
of his antisemitism. Not to worry. People as powerful as us have no need to
shriek. We will bide our time and silently see justice done. Maybe before
Passover. You run a filthy magazine. Leon Wieseltier Literary Editor, The New
Republic, Washington, DC." (The Spectator November 5th 1994).
Cash’s response to this paranoid hysteria was written in the same jaunty style
he’d adopted in his original article - clearly indicating he still wasn't aware
of the toxic sludge into which he was about to be pushed. He seemed to believe
he was on safe ground by pointing out he’d only been regurgitating the views of
a Jewish commentator. “The
attacks on me in the American media have been led by Neal Gabler, author of An
Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. What is so galling is that
all the historical data I present in my article about how Jews have always
worked together in the movie business, along with the very words that have been
objected to, came straight from his book, including the red-flag phrase 'Jewish
cabal', which he employs almost with relish on page 263.” (William
Cash Spectator Nov. 19, 1994). But such a seemingly solid defence proved
to be incapable of stemming the flood of abuse being hurled in his direction
because he’d failed to appreciate that he’d inadvertently broken a cardinal
Jewish taboo: anyone can praise Jewish power but no-one is allowed to criticize
Dominic Lawson came to Cash’s aid. He pointed out that Cash had drawn only an
obvious conclusion from the list of America’s most powerful people which Vanity
Fair had inexplicably omitted. “What
struck William Cash, was that, while strenuously pointing out that the New
Establishment was not Wasp, Vanity Fair had at no point in a survey the size of
a small book mentioned that most of the members of the soi-disant 'New
Establishment', particularly in Hollywood, are Jewish.” (Dominic
Lawson ‘Taboo or not Taboo, That is the Question’ Spectator November 19th 1994).
He explained how Jewish leaders organized their
retaliation against the Spectator for publishing Cash’s article. "Following Mr.
Weinraub's article, the Anti-Defamation League swung into action from its New
York office as a result of this one of our valued advertisers cancelled its
contract with us and the Los Angeles Times ran a leader page article to denounce
young William Cash." (Dominic Lawson ‘Taboo or
not Taboo, That is the Question’ Spectator November 19th 1994).
Lawson even exposed Leon Wieseltier’s
hidden agenda. “..the journalist Leon Wieseltier... the literary editor
of New Republic, is the nearest thing the political correctness mob have to a
cultural Gauleiter. In an interview with New York magazine earlier this year Mr.
Wieseltier referred grandly to 'part of my job of policing the culture'.” (Dominic
Lawson ‘Taboo or not Taboo, That is the Question’ Spectator November 19th 1994).
What comes out of this dispute is not a debate but mutual incomprehension since
this was like a tectonic shift between two different political paradigms. Lawson
tried dismissing criticisms of Cash as being examples of political correctness
gone mad without realizing that he too, like Cash, was in the process
undermining the politically kosher paradigm. Their adversaries on the other hand
simply ignored their infringements of the politically correct paradigm since
they could tolerate no infractions of their politically kosher paradigm. Clearly
Lawson rather naively believed that the politically correct paradigm trumped his
adversaries’ objections without realizing that the politically kosher paradigm
had already become the dominant paradigm. It is highly unlikely that Lawson
would repeat his infractions of what is now the clearly understood dominance of
the politically kosher paradigm. Cash himself ultimately justified his stance by
falling back upon what seemed to him to be the bedrock of the great
tradition of British journalism, “What Hollywood may have misunderstood is the
colorfully subversive and coruscating tradition of British journalism ..” (William
Cash Spectator Nov. 19, 1994). This too was quickly crushed under the
Jewish heels of the politically kosher paradigm and there has been no further
evidence of it since then.
In many ways the Cash affair was a foretaste of what happened twelve years later
when Mearsheimer and Walt published their essay on the Jewish lobby. Firstly,
just as Cash had drawn his conclusions from evidence provided by a Jewish
author, so Mearsheimer and Walt went out of their way to back up their
conjectures by citing copious Jewish sources. In both cases, such a tactic
proved to be no defence because whilst it is possible to praise Jewish interests
it is not possible to criticize them. Jews can boast about their achievements,
non-Jews can proclaim such achievements, but no-one, neither Jew nor non-Jew,
can criticize such achievements. In other words, Jewish taboos are not on topics
or ethnic groups but on criticisms. As far as the Jewish elite is concerned
criticisms are the first steps towards the re-establishment of extermination
camps and cannot be tolerated. Secondly, Cash’s focus had been on the Jewish
elite whilst the focus of Mearsheimer and Walt had been on the Jewish lobby, and
yet they were all were condemned for being antisemitic because the Jewish lobby
insisted their focus was on the Jewish people
There is some amusing speculation about Cash seeking forgiveness from those he’d
offended. And, even more hilariously, doing so in a way that upstaged the great
Marlon Brando who even at that time was often regarded as a legend.
George W. Ball.
“Words spoken years ago by George W. Ball, a distinguished diplomat, author and
champion of human rights, have vivid, new currency: “When Israel’s interests are
being considered, members of Congress act like trained poodles. They jump
dutifully through hoops held by Israel’s lobby.” In the same interview, Ball
said, “The lobby’s most powerful instrument of intimidation is the reckless
charge of antisemitism.” Sadly, his words ring true today, verified by my own
experiences and those of many of my colleagues in the U.S. legislature.” (Paul
Findley ‘Study shows undue Israeli influence on U.S. policy’
http://www.sj-r.com/sections/opinion/stories/83937.asp April 19, 2006).
Robert Novak - December 2002.
"In private conversation, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has
insisted that Hezbollah, not al Qaeda, is the world's most dangerous terrorist
organization. How could that be, considering al Qaeda's global record of mass
carnage? In truth, Hezbollah is the world's most dangerous terrorist
organization from Israel's standpoint. While viciously anti-American in
rhetoric, the Lebanon-based Hezbollah is focused on the destruction of Israel.
Thus, Rice's comments suggest that the U.S. war against terrorism, accused of
being Iraq-centric, actually is Israel-centric. That ties George W. Bush
to Arik Sharon. What is widely perceived as an indissoluble Bush-Sharon bond
creates tension throughout Islam. On balance, war with Iraq may not be
inevitable but is highly probable. That it looks like Sharon's war
disturbs Americans such as Chuck Hagel, who have no use for Saddam Hussein but
worry about the background of an attack against him." (Robert Novak, Washington
Post, December 26, 2002. Quoted in Bill and Kathleen Christinson 'Israel,
American Jews, And Bush's War On Iraq. Too Many Smoking Guns To Ignore'
Rense.com January 2003).
Tony Judt - October 2003.
Bush as the Jews’ Ventriloquist's Dummy.
“The Middle East peace process is finished. Israel continues to mock its
American patron, building illegal settlements in cynical disregard of the "road
map." The President of the United States of America has been reduced to a
ventriloquist's dummy, pitifully reciting the Israeli cabinet line: "It's all
Arafat's fault."” (Tony Judt ‘Israel: The Alternative’
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671 October 23, 2003).
The Jews-only State dragging America’s Reputation through the Mire.
“This is where the US enters the picture. Israel's behavior has been a disaster
for American foreign policy. With American support, Jerusalem has consistently
and blatantly flouted UN resolutions requiring it to withdraw from land seized
and occupied in war. Israel is the only Middle Eastern state known to possess
genuine and lethal weapons of mass destruction. By turning a blind eye, the US
has effectively scuttled its own increasingly frantic efforts to prevent such
weapons from falling into the hands of other small and potentially belligerent
states. Washington's unconditional support for Israel even in spite of (silent)
misgivings is the main reason why most of the rest of the world no longer
credits our good faith.” (Tony Judt ‘Israel: The Alternative’
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671 October 23, 2003).
Gilad Atzmon - December 20, 2003.
Gilad Atzmon could be described as the foremost philosophical critic of
Jewishness and the Jews-only state in Palestine. He has launched a full scale,
full frontal, assault on virtually all aspects of Jewish supremacism. It is
impossible to do justice to the depth and breadth of his analyzes in a work such
as this and so the following quote will have to serve as being representative of
his work. In this quote he’s tackling head-on one of the most forbidden of
Jewish topics, the 'Elders of Zion' syndrome. “Zionists complain that Jews
continue to be associated with a conspiracy to rule the world via political
lobbies, media and money. Is the suggestion of conspiracy really an empty
accusation? The following list is presented with pride in several Jewish
Jews in Bush's Administration:
Ari Fleischer: White House Press Secretary
Josh Bolten: Deputy Chief of Staff
Ken Melman: White House Political Director
David Frum: Speechwriter
Brad Blakeman: White House Director of Scheduling
Dov Zakheim: Undersecretary of Defense (Controller)
Paul Wolfowitz: Deputy Secretary of Defense
I. Lewis Libby: Chief of Staff to the Vice President
Adam Goldman: White House Liaison to the Jewish Community
Chris Gersten: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children
and Families at HHS
Elliott Abrams: Director of the National Security Council's Office for
Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations
Mark D. Weinberg: Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for
Douglas Feith: Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Michael Chertoff: Head of the Justice Department's criminal division
Daniel Kurtzer: Ambassador to Israel
Cliff Sobel: Ambassador to the Netherlands
Stuart Bernstein: Ambassador to Denmark
Nancy Brinker: Ambassador to Hungary
Frank Lavin: Ambassador to Singapore
Ron Weiser: Ambassador to Slovakia
Mel Sembler: Ambassador to Italy
Martin Silverstein: Ambassador to Uruguay
Jay Lefkowitz: Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic
Let me assure you, in Clinton's administration the situation was even worse.
Even though the Jews only make up 2.9 per cent of the country's population, an
astounding 56 per cent of Clinton's appointees were Jews. A coincidence? I don't
think so. We have to ask ourselves what motivates American Jews to gain such
political power. Is it a genuine care for American interests? Soon, following
the growing number of American casualties in Iraq, American people will start to
ask themselves this very question. Since America currently enjoys the status of
the world's only super power and since all the Jews listed above declare
themselves as devoted Zionists, we must begin to take the accusation that the
Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously. It is beyond doubt
that Zionists, the most radical, racist and nationalistic Jews around, have
already managed to turn America into an Israeli mission force. The world's
number one super power is there to support the Jewish state's wealth and
security matters. The one-sided pro-Zionist take on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, the American veto against every 'anti-Israeli' UN resolution, the war
against Iraq and now the militant intentions against Syria, all prove beyond
doubt that it is Zionist interests that America is serving. American Jewry makes
any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic
document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionist) do try
to control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves
at least. Whether the Americans enjoy the deterioration of their state's affairs
will no doubt be revealed soon.” (Gilad Atzmon ‘On Antisemitism’
http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/onanti.html December 20, 2003).
The Jewish neocons, of course, are allowed to joke about such a conspiracy
firstly to demonstrate that they have the authority to talk about such issues
without any fear of chastisement but also to tempt critics to criticize Jewish
power so they can be denounced as antisemitic peddlers of Jewish conspiracy
theories. “Neoconservatives said they were generally
supportive of Giuliani's positions and saw them as being in line with those
taken by the other leading Republican presidential candidates. "I would say, as
a card-carrying member of the neoconservative conspiracy, that I think Giuliani,
McCain and Thompson are all getting really good advice - and Romney," said
William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard. Kristol said that none of the
leading Republican candidates "buys any of these fundamental criticisms that
Bush took us on a radically wrong path, and we have to go to a pre-9/11 foreign
policy."” (Michael Cooper and Marc Santora ‘Hawkish handlers guide Giuliani on
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/24/America/camp.php October 24, 2007).
It ought to be mentioned that although they’d been around as a cohesive
political force since the early 1970s, at the turn of the century the Jewish
neocons were still successfully denying there was any connection between them
and that there was any such thing as neoconservatism. They were able to denounce
those using the label as antisemites but, after the America’s proxy zionist
invasion of Iraq, the term has become so popular they’ve had to give up the
pretence that there’s no substance behind the concept. This is one of the few
battles the Jewish neocons have lost over the last thirty five years.
Thomas Friedman - February 2004.
“Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, dropped a bombshell this week when he
said he was laying plans to withdraw most Israeli settlements in Gaza and to
move others in the West Bank. It's not surprising that this potential
breakthrough move came from Mr. Sharon, since he has the two other main players
in the Arab-Israeli drama under house arrest. That is, Mr. Sharon has the
Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah,
and he's had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has
Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian
pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do
whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the president
not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year, all conspiring to make
sure the president does nothing.” (Thomas L. Friedman ‘A
February 5, 2004).
Ralph Nader - June 2004.
On June 21, 2004, Ralph Nader, the well known consumer rights’ activist and
prospective presidential candidate, took the dramatic, and radical, step of
accusing George Bush Jnr and the American Congress of being zionist puppets.
“The subservience of our congressional and White House puppets to Israeli
military policy has been consistent. They’re almost all puppets. There are two
sets: Congressional puppets and White House puppets. When the chief puppeteer
(Ariel Sharon) comes to Washington, the puppets prance.” (Ralph Nader ‘Ralph
Nader: Conservatively Speaking’ The American Conservative
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html June 21, 2004).
Nader reiterated the same point a week later, "What has been happening over the
years is a predictable routine of foreign visitation from the head of the
Israeli government. The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington. The Israeli
puppeteer meets with the puppet in the White House, and then moves down
Pennsylvania Avenue, and meets with the puppets in Congress. And then takes back
billions of taxpayer dollars. It is time for the Washington puppet show to be
replaced by the Washington peace show."" (Nader's speech to the conference of
the Council for the National Interest entitled, "The Muslim Vote in Election
2004" quoted in ‘Ralph Nader Calls Israel a "Puppeteer"’ IsraelNN.com
http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=64895 June 30, 2004).
The national director of the Anti-Discrimination League, Abraham H Foxman,
complained that Nader was an antisemite. “He said Nader was continuing to spread
a "canard" about the Jews. "He fuels the conspiracy theory that the Jews control
the White House and the Congress. And it's a lot more sinister after Iraq."”
(‘Nader stands by claim that White House, Congress are Israeli "puppets"’
August 14, 2004).
On august 5, 2004 Nader responded to these
accusations by mentioning a zionist joke, “The
Israelis have a joke for the obvious, that the United States is the second state
of Israel.” (Quoted in Ralph Nader ‘Nader Writes to the Anti-Defamation
League on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’
http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=119 August 5, 2004). He
also endorsed Thomas Friedman’s statement quoted above.
On August 13, Abraham Foxman replied on the ADL’s website to Nader’s letter. “I
was disappointed to read your letter of August 5 because it merely confirmed my
concerns about your original comments, in which you characterized the Jewish
State and American Jews as being “puppeteers” who control foreign policy in
Congress and the Administration. Rather than allay our concerns, your letter
only furthers conspiracy theories about Jews and borders on bigotry.”
On august 12, a Washington Post editorial compared Nader's comments with the
views of neo-nazi white supremacist groups. "This is poisonous stuff. And if Mr.
Nader doesn't understand what such words actually mean, the less savory elements
of American society certainly know how to read such code.” The same comparison
was made a few days later in the same paper, “After all, both play on the
age-old antisemitic stereotype of powerful Jews dominating politics and
manipulating hapless non-Jewish puppets for their own ends. Yet if Mr. Nader is
at all disquieted by the company he is keeping by using such metaphors, he sure
isn't showing it.” (‘Mr. Nader's Baiting’ Washington Post August 14, 2004 Page
A20). Nader denounced this editorial as “shameful and unsavory”.
In October, Nader condemned the ADL for its usual trick of putting antisemitic
words in the mouths of its opponents in order to denounce them for being …
antisemitic! “My comments related to the Israeli government, with the fifth most
powerful and second most modern military machine in the world, through its prime
minister possessing the role of puppeteer to puppets in the White House and
Congress. You distorted the comment into “Jews controlling the U.S. government.”
Shame on you. You know better. If you do not see the difference between those
two designations, you yourself are treading on racist grounds.” (Ralph Nader
‘Nader to Anti-Defamation League: Criticizing Israel is not Antisemitism’
October 12, 2004). And this was the last time Nader spoke about this issue
which has become the most fundamental political issue in America and the rest of
the western world.
Naomi Klein - September 2004.
Naomi Klein has rightly pointed out that Sharon succeeded in foisting his
policies on the Bush regime after the bombings of September 11, 2001. Sharon
with the aid of America’s Jewish elite turned Bush’s so-called ‘war against
terrorism’ into America’s war against terrorists threatening the Jews-only state
in Palestine. “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
- September 2004.
Cole is correct in his assessment of the relationship between the leader of the
world’s hyperpower and the leader of a tiny, and supposedly much less powerful,
country in the middle east. “Bush has just lain down on the ground and pleaded
with Sharon to walk all over him with hobnail boots, and then smiled for the
privilege. Arab satellite television shows Israelis repressing Palestinians
every day. The Bush administration has actually endorsed the forcible Israeli
annexation of Palestinian land, which violates the United Nations Charter and
the Geneva Accords!” (Juan Cole ‘Arguing with Bush yet Again’
http://www.juancole.com/ July 14, 2004);
“It is September 11. It is obvious to me that what September 11 really
represented was a dragooning of the United States into internal Middle East
political conflicts.” (Juan Cole ‘Dual Loyalties’
http://www.juancole.com/ September 9,
Brent Scowcroft - October 2004.
“Quite aside from partisan attacks coming from the Kerry camp, the most biting
critique has come from Brent Scowcroft, who mused to Britain's Financial Times
the other day that while the transatlantic relationship is "in general bad,"
George W. Bush's attention is elsewhere: "[Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon
just has him wrapped around his little finger. I think the president is
mesmerized. When there is a suicide attack [followed by a reprisal] Sharon calls
the president and says, 'I'm on the front line of terrorism', and the president
says, 'Yes, you are. . . ' He [Mr. Sharon] has been nothing but trouble."
(Justin Raimondo ‘Bizarro Bush’ http://antiwar.com/justin/ October 22, 2004).
Scowcroft was duly punished for his sin of exposing Bush’s subservience to the
Jews-only state in Palestine. “Of particular concern
was his relationship with Sharon. Retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a master of
discretion with the media, saw fit to tell London's Financial Times two and a
half years ago that Sharon had Bush "mesmerized" and "wrapped around his little
finger." As chair of the prestigious President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory
Board under George W. Bush and national security adviser to his father,
Scowcroft was uniquely positioned to know, and to draw comparisons. He was
summarily fired after making the comments about Sharon and is now persona non
grata at the White House.” (Ray McGovern ‘Helping Israel Die’
February 10, 2007).
Roberts, Paul Craig - January 2005.
Roberts was a member of the Reagan administration so was doubtlessly privy to
the battles within that administration between neoconservatives and the
traditional conservatives or paleo-conservatives as they became known when the
term neoconservative became popular. He has become one of the most vehement and
outspoken critics of neoconservatism and the following quotes are representative
of his views.
Bush is Ariel Sharon's Poodle.
“If Bush were aware that his army has failed to "secure Iraq," he might wonder
at the neocon-likudnik plans to attack Iran. Bush might even stop being Richard
Perle's puppet. Or Ariel Sharon's poodle.” (Paul
Craig Roberts ‘Not One Bad News Bearer in Bush's Inner Circle’
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01202005.html January 20, 2005).
America is a Colony of the Jews-only State in Palestine.
“Bush has made the US into a colony of Israel. The US is incurring massive debt
and loss of both life and reputation in order to silence Muslim opposition to
Israel’s theft of Palestine and the Golan Heights. That is what the “war on
terror” is about.” (Paul
Craig Roberts ‘Bush Must Go: Only Impeachment Can Stop Him’
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01152007.html January 15, 2007).
The Likudniks are Nazis.
“Perhaps America could regain its reputation if General Pace would send a
division of US Marines to arrest Bush, Cheney, the entire civilian contingent in
the Pentagon, the neoconservative nazis, and the complicit members of Congress
and send them off to the Hague to be tried for war crimes.” (Paul
Craig Roberts ‘Is the Military the Last Hope? Cracks in the Pentagon’
February 14, 2007).
Bush’s attack on Iran would be a greater Evil than that committed by the Nazis’.
“Such an attack justified in the name of "American security" and "American
hegemony" would constitute the rawest form of evil the world has ever seen, far
surpassing in evil the atrocities of the Nazi and Communist regimes.” (Paul
Craig Roberts ‘Dump the Dollar! How the World Can Stop Bush’
February 12, 2007).
Likudniks’ Islamophobic Hysteria.
“In America today blind ignorant hate against Muslims has been brought to a
boiling point. The fear and loathing is so great that the American public and
its elected representatives in Congress offer scant opposition to the Bush
administration's plan to make Iran the third Middle East victim of American
aggression in the 21st century. Most Americans, who Harris believes to be so
reasonable, tolerant, and deliberative that they cannot defend themselves, could
not care less that one million Iraqis have lost their lives during the American
occupation and that an estimated four million Iraqis have been displaced. The
total of dead and displaced comes to 20 percent of the Iraqi population. If this
is not fanaticism on the part of the Bush administration, what is it? Certainly
it is not reason, tolerance, and deliberation.” (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The
Politics of Blind Hatred: Who Are the Fanatics?’
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09052007.html September 5, 2007).
Mearsheimer and Walt -
Mearsheimer and Walt published their tract, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign
Policy” in march 2006 and an edited version of the paper appeared in the London
Review of Books on March 23, 2006. In this essay the authors accused the
Jews-only lobby of seriously distorting America’s foreign policies and blamed it
for pushing the Bush regime into an invasion of Iraq which was not in America’s
interests. The essay received little attention from America’s mainstream, i.e.
zionist dominated, media.
Wesley Clark - January 2007
Arianna Huffington was lucky enough to be around when Wes Clark sounded off
about the corruption of American politics. “At the packed-to-the-rafters brunch
preceding Nancy Pelosi's formal swearing in, Melinda and I ran into Wes Clark
(and I mean that literally; like I said, it was packed). Clark was really angry
about what he'd read in this column by UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave.
In the piece, which Clark quickly forwarded to my BlackBerry from his Trio, de
Borchgrave details Bibi Netanyahu leading the charge to lobby the Bush
administration to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and paints U.S. air
strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal. "How can you talk about
bombing a country when you won't even talk to them?" said Clark. "It's
outrageous. We're the United States of America; we don't do that. Don't get me
wrong, I'm not saying the military option is off the table, but diplomacy is not
what Jim Baker says it is. It's not, What will it take for you boys to support
us on Iraq? It's sitting down for a couple of days and talking about our
families and our hopes, and building relationships." When we asked him what made
him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied:
"You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is
divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money
people to the office seekers." At one point Melinda reminded him that she was
taking down everything he said (a fact that would have been hard to miss, since
she was taking notes on a not-inconspicuous legal pad). His response: 'Yes, I
know." For Clark, this is the biggest foreign policy issue facing the U.S. "I'm
worried about the surge," he said. "But I'm worried about this even more."”
(Arianna Huffington ‘D.C. Notes: Wes Clark is Steamed’
January 4, 2007).
statement was inevitably lambasted by the Jews-only lobby in America and its
allies in the zionist dominated media and, like so many before him,
he was forced to retract by his likudnik masters.
“Within days, the general was in caught in a familiar crossfire, smeared as an
instigator of antisemitism by some Republican Jewish organizations, his remarks
headlined as “Protocols of the New York Money People” by a Wall Street Journal
columnist. Soon he was engaged in a humiliating apology and repentance ritual
with Abe Foxman of the ADL.” (Scott McConnell ‘Bloggers vs. the Lobby’
March 12, 2007). This retraction is why it’s possible Clark might still become
Hilary Clinton’s new secretary of state for defence if she’s elected president.
However, what was unusual about the reaction to Clark’s outburst was that there
were a small number of voices, Jewish ones, willing to insist he’d said nothing
wrong. “For within a day or two, one could read in the
blogs some surprising assertions that amounted to a truth defense of Wes Clark.
It seemed to come primarily from young, or comparatively young, Jewish bloggers.
Significantly, these were not voices from an older and more alienated Chomskyian
Left but from an American Prospect-like liberal mainstream.” (Scott McConnell ‘Bloggers
vs. the Lobby’
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/article.html March 12, 2007).
Matthew Yglesias - January 2007.
Yglesias was one of those who leapt to Clark’s defense.
“Everything Clark said, in short, is true. What's more, everybody knows it's
true. The worst that can truthfully be said about Clark is that he expressed
himself in a slightly odd way. This, it seems clear, he did because it's a
sensitive issue and he worried that if he spoke plainly he'd be accused of
trafficking in antisemitism. So he spoke unclearly and, for his trouble, got …
accused of trafficking in antisemitism.” (Matthew Yglesias ‘Smears for Fears’
January 23, 2007).
So here we have an open secret: a truth known to all but which nobody is allowed
to talk about. This is very much like the Jews’ nuclear weapons: everyone knows
they’ve got them but nobody is allowed to mention them. And if they do mention
them then they’re denounced as antisemites.
Yglesias goes on to mention another commonplace of Jewish dominance: it is
permissible for people to make approving remarks about Jewish political and
economic influence but it is not permissible to make critical remarks about such
influence. Anyone who is critical is condemned as antisemitic. “And,
indeed, it is interesting, for demonstrating the bizarre rules of the road in
discussing America's Israel policy. If you're offering commentary that's
supportive of America's soi-disant "pro-Israel" forces, as Barone was, it's
considered perfectly acceptable to note, albeit elliptically, that said forces
are influential in the Democratic Party in part because they contribute large
sums of money to Democratic politicians who are willing to toe the line. If, by
contrast, one observes this fact by way of criticizing the influence of
"pro-Israel" forces, you're denounced as an antisemite.” (Matthew Yglesias
‘Smears for Fears’
January 23, 2007). This phenomena has been noted above. It is permissible for
the Jews-only lobby to boast of its power over American politicians but if
anyone criticizes the lobby for having such power they are vilified and
persecuted as antisemites promoting the dangerous nonsense of a Jewish
conspiracy over national politics.
Greenwald was another Jewish commentator who came to
Clark’s defence. “In early February, Glenn Greenwald, a New York attorney who
recently published a book on the Patriot Act, wrote a blog entry that focused on
the New York AIPAC gathering attended by both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.
Greenwald quoted an article from the New York Sun, there is no more
unimpeachably right-wing Zionist source, that featured Democratic political
consultant Hank Sheinkopf’s claim that “New York is the ATM for American
politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community. If … you
want dollars from that group, you need to show that you’re interested in the
issue that matters most to them.” The issue that matters most, the article went
on to say, is Israel, and what this group most wants to hear with regard to
Israel is commitment to bellicosity toward Iran. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton did
their best to comply, though according to a report in the equally Likud-friendly
New York Post, Clinton apparently disappointed some in attendance by suggesting
that diplomacy might be attempted before war. “This is the wrong crowd to do
that with,” commented one attendee. Greenwald went on to point out that these
articles made exactly the same point that Clark made, adding, “It is simply true
that there are large and extremely influential Jewish donor groups which are
agitating for a U.S. war against Iran, and that is the case because those groups
are devoted to promoting Israel’s interests and they perceive it to be in
Israel’s interests for the U.S. to militarily confront Iran.”” (Scott McConnell
‘Bloggers vs. the Lobby’
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/article.html March 12, 2007).
James Petras - May 2007.
Petras is the foremost political and economic critic of Jewish power in America.
It is impossible here to do justice to his work so the following quote is, once
again, taken to be representative of his analysis. He argues that if Bush’s
foreign policies were dominated by America’s national interests, as represented
by the country’s gigantic multinational energy companies, they would
overwhelmingly favour Arab states which export 40% of the world’s oil rather
than the Jews-only state which has no resources of its own. It would have sought
peace between Jews and Palestinians. Perhaps even more strikingly, it would have
committed itself to a strategic alliance with Iran at the expense of the
Jews-only state. The fact that the Bush regime pursues foreign policies that
benefit the Jews-only state rather than those which benefit America, America’s
multinational energy companies, Arab oil states, and Iran, clearly reveals the
dominance of the Jews-only state and its Jewish allies in America. “The Council
of Gulf Cooperation composed of Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and
the United Arab Emirates are the world’s biggest oil suppliers (over 40%), made
up of conservative, pro-US regimes, housing US military bases, linked to the
largest US oil and financial houses and the biggest purchasers of military
hardware from the US military-industrial complex. They met in late March 2007
and called for the US to engage Iran diplomatically and not militarily or with
economic sanctions. Israel took a diametrically opposing view pushing for
tighter sanctions and a military confrontation. Automatically the ZPC echoed the
Israeli Party line (Daily Alert, March 26-30, 2007). Congress and Bush ignored
Big Oil, the military-industrial complex, its Arab clients and followed the
Zionist line: they escalated sanctions, increased commando operations, added to
the war-ships off the coast of Iran and offered to send fighter-planes into Iran
after British sailors, engaged in espionage, were captured (Blair, for once,
rejected the war provocation). Once again the ZPC out-muscled Big Oil and the
military-industrial complex in dictating US Middle-East policy.” (James Petras
‘The Pro-Israel Lobby and US Middle East Policy: The Score Card for 2007’
May 14, 2007).
Americans dying for the Jews.
“But let's lay out the undeniable facts. Israel considers Iran its main threat.
Israel wants a U.S. attack against Iran. The Israeli lobby does what the Israeli
government tells it to do. Anybody who claims the Israeli lobby is just another
lobby is either ignorant or lying. The Israeli lobby is the second most, if not
the most, powerful lobby in America. So, sit back and watch the Israeli amen
corner start the propaganda to push America to war with Iran just as it did in
the case of Iraq. In my opinion, Americans who want American youth to die and
bleed for the benefit of a foreign country are guilty of more than dual
loyalty.” (Charley Reese ‘Israel's
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=10276 January 6, 2007).
Opposition to America’s Likudnik policy of Pre-emptive War.
The Jews-only state in Palestine has long promoted a policy of pre-emptive war
against its defenceless neighbours. The Jews-only lobby, the zionist dominated
media and the neocons wanted the Bush regime to adopt the same policy to enable
it to attack enemies of the apartheid state. “The concept of a pre-emptive war
should be an abomination to every American. Pre-emptive war is a war of
aggression. It was the policy of Hitler's Germany and of the Japanese imperial
government. To our national shame, apparently many Americans support the
concept. They should never again criticize the Japanese for Pearl Harbor, the
Third Reich for the invasion of Poland, or the Soviet Union for the invasion of
Afghanistan. Click your heels and salute. You are no different from the people
who cheered for Hitler.” (Charley Reese ‘Who Cares?’
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=11430 August 13, 2007).
Chris Hedges - July 2007.
“U.S. foreign policy, especially under the current Bush administration, has
become little more than an extension of Israeli foreign policy. The United
States, which during the Cold War avoided direct military involvement in the
region, now does the direct bidding of Israel while Israel watches from the
sidelines. During the 1991 Gulf War, Israel was a spectator, just as it is in
the war with Iraq.” (Chris Hedges ‘A Declaration of Independence From Israel’
July 02, 2007).
Seymour Hersh - October 2007.
Wes Clark’s proclamation about New York money men triggered support from Seymour
Hersh, America’s premier commentator whose articles sometimes necessitates
responses from the president of the united states. During an interview with Amy
Goodman, he stated that the reason so many democratic presidential candidates
were supportive of the Jews-only state was that their campaigns were being
financed by wealthy Jews. Mike Gravel bitterly
criticized Hilary Clinton for voting in favor of a senate resolution calling on
the state department to designate the Iranian revolutionary guard corps a
terrorist organization. When asked to respond to Gravel’s criticism Clinton just
AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton laughing. Fifteen seconds, Seymour Hersh.
SEYMOUR HERSH: Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let's
not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading
American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat.
And I think it’s as simple as that. When you’re from New York and from New York
City, you take the view of, right now, when you’re running a campaign, you
follow that line. And there’s no other explanation for it, because she’s smart
enough to know the downside.
AMY GOODMAN: And Obama and Edwards?
SEYMOUR HERSH: I, you know, it’s shocking. It’s really surprising and shocking,
but there we are. That’s American politics circa 2007.” (Seymour
Hersh: White House Intensifying Plans to Attack Iran’
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/02/1438251 October 2nd,
Hersh’s statement seems to have elicited none of the usual hysterical, paranoid
denunciations from the Jews-only lobby in America. It has once again been warmly
greeted by a small number of (Jewish) commentators.
Philip Weiss - October 2007.
Weiss offered his support for Hersh. “This is a significant moment. Hersh is a
wild man, wild and brilliant. Yet in all his anti-Bush and -Cheney interviews
about Iraq over the last few years, I've heard him talk code on this issue. He's
attacked the neoconservatives as a crazy band of thinkers; but he's never put
the blame fully where it belongs, on a broader segment of the Jewish community
that has immunized the neocons from blame for the war, on the Israel lobby,
which includes many Democrats too. Now he's done so (though apparently not in
the New Yorker, which regards Walt and Mearsheimer as fueling hysteria). This is
a beautiful moment, too. Hersh is a progressive Jew. Now he is turning on other
Jews. "New York Jewish money," he says. The soul searching that I have called
for within the Jewish community has begun!!!!” (Philip
Weiss ‘Walt & Mearsheimer Perestroika Alert: Sy Hersh Says 'Jewish Money' Is
Pushing Iran War’
October 02, 2007).
Richard Dawkins - October 2007.
“In an interview with the Guardian, he said: "When you think about how
fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are
less numerous I am told, religious Jews anyway, than atheists and [yet they]
more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see.
So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would
be a better place."” (Richard Dawkins quoted in Ewen MacAskill ‘Atheists arise:
Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers’
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2180660,00.html October 1,
Daniel Finkelstein, editor of the London Times
comments’ section, criticized Dawkins comments. “So Dawkins, a liberal
hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power. And, judging from the
Guardian, it is now a part of mainstream debate to say so. Perhaps you think I
am over-reacting, but I am a little bit frightened.” (Daniel Finkelstein
‘Dawkins on the power of the Jews’
October 05, 2007).
Three points ought to be made about Finkelstein’s retort. Firstly, and most
obviously, Dawkins claimed the Jews-only lobby controls America’s foreign
policies not that Jews control the world.
Finkelstein condemns Dawkins in the same way that Abe Foxman, a hardline
likudnik fundamentalist, had condemned Ralph Nader i.e. by putting racist words
into his mouth. It is far from clear whether Finkelstein regards himself as
an English Jew or just Jewish.
Secondly, did Finkelstein really believe the role of Britain’s Jewish elite
could go on increasing without being noticed, commented on, or criticized? Did
he think suspicions weren’t being raised when their fundraising efforts for the
Labour party seemed to be going hand in hand with the Blair government’s
increasing support for the Jews-only state in Palestine? Blair’s increasingly
racist foreign policy reached such a stage of barbarism, no matter how well
covered up by his alleged commitment to humanitarian interventionism, that he
believed the best way to bring peace to Palestine was by starving Palestinians
Thirdly, given that Jewish racists and their allies around the world are
currently trying to starve Palestinians into submission perhaps more concern
ought to be given to innocent Palestinian civilians than Finkelstein’s
hyper-sensitive nervous system.
Vanity Fair’s Latest version of the New Establishment - October 2007.
William Cash suffered considerable abuse, and eventual political oblivion, at
the hands of the Jews-only lobby in America when he dared to point out that many
of those in Vanity Fair’s list of the top 100 most powerful people in America
were Jews. The controversy surrounding Cash’s article did not deter Vanity Fair
from making the list an annual publishing event. Indeed, the list has become
even more grandiose since it now consists of the most wealthy and powerful
individuals around the world. However, in October 2007 the magazine wasn’t
reticent about mentioning the disproportionate number of Jews on the list. “It's
a list of "the world's most powerful people," 100 of the bankers and media
moguls, publishers and image makers who shape the lives of billions. It's an
exclusive, insular club, one whose influence stretches around the globe but is
concentrated strategically in the highest corridors of power. More than half its
members, at least by one count, are Jewish. It's a list, in other words, that
would have made earlier generations of Jews jump out of their skins, calling
attention, as it does, to their disproportionate influence in finance and the
media. Making matters worse, in the eyes of many, would no doubt be the identity
of the group behind the list - not a pack of fringe antisemites but one of the
most mainstream, glamorous publications on the newsstands. Published between ads
for Chanel and Prada, Dior and Yves Saint Laurent, it's the 2007 version of "The
Vanity Fair 100," the glossy American magazine's annual October ranking of the
planet's most important people. Populated by a Cohen and a Rothschild, a
Bloomberg and a Perelman, the list would seem to conform to all the traditional
stereotypes about areas of Jewish overrepresentation. Printed over 15 pages
before an interview with Nicole Kidman, the rankings, described on the
magazine's cover as the membership of "The New Establishment", are less than
scientific, accompanied by a paragraph-long introduction that neither defines
power nor describes the methodology behind the list.” (Nathan Burstein ‘Jewish
power dominates at 'Vanity Fair'’
October 12, 2007).
Indeed, Burstein quoted one Jewish commentator who believed such a list was
something about which Jews ought to be proud. “Yet the list doesn't appear to
have generated concern so far, instead drawing expressions of satisfaction and
pride from the lone Jewish commentator who's responded in writing. Joseph Aaron,
the editor of The Chicago Jewish News, thinks it's a list his readers should
"feel very, very good about." "Talk about us being accepted into this society,
talk about us having power in this society," Aaron wrote this week, in apparent
reference to Jewish life in the United States. "Talk about antisemitism being a
thing of the past, talk about Jews no longer needing to be afraid to be visible
and influential."” (Nathan Burstein ‘Jewish
power dominates at 'Vanity Fair'’
October 12, 2007). This is sound advice which Finkelstein ought to heed.
Justin Raimondo provides a couple of interesting insights firstly, into the
likudnik fundamentalists publishing the magazine and secondly, about how the
Jews on the list like to boast of their membership of the global ruling Jewish
elite. “Some, like CBS's Leslie Stahl, have owned up to the temporary collapse
of their critical faculties (by failing to expose the lies used to boost support
for the invasion of Iraq); others, like Vanity Fair's David Rose, are silent. It
was Rose, after all, whose four-page spread in the glossy, perfumed pages of the
magazine the elites love to display on their coffee tables made the most extreme
claims about the imminent danger posed by Saddam: the Iraqis were feverishly
working on a long-range missile project, which was perilously close to becoming
operational. Not only that, but, according to Rose and his INC sources, the
Iraqis had a "dirty bomb" in the works, as well as blueprints and the means to
build chemical and biological warheads. The relentlessly visual Vanity Fair
editors even included a map that purported to show where these various sites
were located in Iraq, including a nuclear weapons development laboratory. When
none of this turned up in the aftermath of the invasion, did the editors of
Vanity Fair cry "mea culpa"? Certainly not. Instead, they ran a piece, "The Path
to War," that blamed "the media" for all that INC-generated misinformation, but
failed to mention their own role in promoting it. The piece was written by Bryan
Burrough, Evgenia Peretz, and, hold on to your seat, David Rose.” (Justin
Raimondo ‘How Did We Get Here?
October 24, 2007).
With Vanity Fair’s publication of the list of what is in effect America’s ruling
Jewish elite, the Jewish oppression of Americans is reaching new levels of
sophistication. Most dictatorships, like most democratic governments, do their
best to cover up bad news which would reflect badly on the regime. The greater
their dictatorial power the greater their chances of burying news that might
undermine their regimes. But clearly with Vanity Fair’s list, America’s ruling
Jewish elite is now so confident about its grip over American society that it no
longer feels there’s a need to cover up news that could be exploited to
undermine its control. America’s most powerful Jews can enjoy boasting about
their achievements knowing that the natives are unlikely to start questioning
the benefits of these achievements.
- October 2007.
If Gilad Atzmon is the foremost philosophical critic of Jewish supremacism, and
James Petras the foremost critic of Jewish political, and economic, power in
America, then Israel Shamir is the foremost intellectual critic of Jewish power.
Atzmon is probably in a better position than most to make the following
judgment. “An ex-Jew, Shamir is a very civil and peaceful man and probably is
the sharpest critical voice of ‘Jewish power’ and Zionist ideology.” (Gilad
Atzmon ‘The Protocols of the Elders of London’
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3220 c.2004). It is
not possible here to summarize Shamir’s many books so the following quotes,
taken from his latest article, serve as a sample of his work.
Shamir argues the conflict between Jews and Palestinians is not just an issue
affecting Palestine but has global ramifications because of the power of Jewish
elites around the western world, especially America, to win support for whatever
the Jews do in Palestine. The starting point of pre-apocalyptic politics is
clear. “Thus the distinction between Zionists and
non-Zionists is the most important distinction, the great divide between war and
peace, life and death.” (Israel Shamir ‘Right Ho, Lobby’
http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Eng23.htm October 10, 2007).
Given the torrent of propaganda lies and fabrications against Iran since the
turn of the millennia the following is also true. “The
real formidable power of the Jewish Lobby lies in its ability to unite people
against its enemy, and to block others’ attempts to unite.”.
It’s time for profound political choices to be made. Either succumb to Jewish
supremacism, support an attack, possibly a nuclear attack, on Iran, and promote
the ridiculous ‘fourth world war’ which could last for generations. Or, limit
the power of the west’s Jewish elites, curb likudnik warmongering, abolish the
Jews-only state in Palestine, and seek alliances with the Moslem world to secure
global peace. The ‘fourth world war’ would involve over half a billion people
from turkey to Pakistan. It would be a huge benefit for the Jews-only state but
would be devastating for the greater Middle East and a catastrophe for the rest
of the world. Why should the western world continue to fight Jewish racist wars
against virtually unarmed Moslems? Why should it go on sacrificing its own
lives, treasure, and reputation, for the sake of Jewish supremacism?
Only once the world is free from Jewish oppression will it then be able to
tackle the most profound issue of our time: protecting the Earth’s life support
system. The ‘fourth world war’ to boost Jewish supremacism by breaking up Middle
Eastern states into mini-states would provide a huge boost to global burning.
Jewish racists believe they can eventually carry out the Nazi policy of
lebensraum against the Palestinians but by the time they’ve created a racially
pure Jews-only state, the Earth’s life support system will be on the verge of
collapse and global burning will be accelerating out of control. The land they
are proud to have turned green with the blood of Palestinians will turn to sand.
Jewish supremacists believe they can create an island of racial purity in a
world of potential enemies. They do not want to rely on any other countries for
their own survival. They believe they are so special they do not need other
people. But the planetary reality is that they are totally dependent on people
around the world to protect the Earth’s life support system. No country can be
an island when the planet is heating up. The Jews are no more special than any
other people and no less dependent on people around the world than everyone