Sunday, July 23, 2006

Jews keeping up the Pretence of America’s Global Empire.

Updated October 01, 2006
A Global Jewish Empire.
The jewish attack on lebanon in the summer 2006 provides a case study of the way that american and jewish politicians are conspiring to cover up jewish dominance over american politics. The american empire is just a smokescreen for the global jewish empire.

America is undoubtedly a military hyper-power but this does not mean that, politically, it is controlled by wasps. After all, it was the jewish lobby, the jewish dominated american media, the jewish dominated congress, and the jewish dominated bush administration, whose combined political power pushed the country into a proxy zionist invasion of iraq even though this ran counter to america’s geostrategic interests. America has suffered catastrophically, both politically and militarily, as a result of this invasion. The jews are currently pushing america into an attack on iran which will undermine america’s interests in the region on an even greater catastrophic scale.

Both america and the jos have a vested political interest in continuing to sustain the fantasy of an american empire and of the jos’s subservience to this empire. American politicians don’t want the world to ridicule them for possessing a military hyper-power whilst being the servants of a tiny nation of hysterical, paranoid racists who, to maintain their ethnic purity, surround themselves with apartheid walls, buffer zones, and security fences. Equally, neither the jos nor its jewish agents in america want the world to know they control the bush administration because then they would be blamed for the economic and military catastrophes america is suffering as a result of its occupation of afghanistan and iraq.

Sustaining the Fantasy of America’s Imperial Power.
During the jews’ massive onslaught against lebanese civilians in summer 2006, the jos maintained the illusion of american global domination by pretending to confer with the bush administration as to how long it could prosecute the war. Virtually all commentators in the western media, most of which are dominated by jews, talked about the bush administration giving the jos a green light to continue the blitz. "On the eve of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to Jerusalem, senior officials believe Israel has an American nod to continue operations against Hezbollah at least until next Sunday." (Aluf Benn, Shmuel Rosner and Shlomo Shamir ‘Senior officials believe U.S. will give Israel a week to complete military offensive in Lebanon’ July 23, 2006).

The hypothesis that after the jos launched its attack on lebanese civilians it asked the bush administration for a green light to continue the war, was shown to be a fabrication when it was revealed that america had foreknowledge of the attack. However, this revelation itself was only a variation of the green light hypothesis. Some reporters pointed out that the jos had given american officials a powerpoint presentation of the military strategy it would implement if america gave it permission for an attack. Others pretended that olmert had obtained bush’s permission for an attack when the two leaders held their first meeting. "At his meeting with Bush, according to Yitzhak Benhorin of Israel's YnetNews, Olmert pressed Bush on Israel's intelligence assessment that Iran would gain the technology necessary to build a bomb within a year and expressed fears that diplomatic efforts were not going to work. It seems likely that Olmert discussed Israel's plans for degrading Hezbollah's missile capabilities as a means of dramatically reducing the risk of an air campaign against Iran's nuclear sites, and that Bush gave his approval. That would account for Olmert's comment to Israeli reporters after the meeting, reported by the Israel's YnetNews, but not by U.S. news media: "I am very, very, very satisfied." Bush's refusal to do anything to curb Israel's freedom to wreak havoc on Lebanon further suggests that he encouraged the Israelis to take advantage of any pretext to launch the offensive. The Israeli plan may have given Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld new ammunition for advocating a strike on Iran's nuclear sites." (Gareth Porter ‘Was Israel's Aim to Clear Path for US War on Iran?’ August 9, 2006).

Another variation of the green light theory was that the jos’s attack on lebanese civilians was a proxy war on both sides. "Another U.S. official, who spoke about the Middle East turmoil on condition of anonymity, was more blunt. In Lebanon, the United States and Iran "are conducting a proxy war," he said, with Israel fighting for one side and Hezbollah for the other. "It is in our interest to see Hezbollah defeated," he said." (Doyle McManus ‘Iran Is Bush's Target in Lebanon’ July 30, 2006). Even the stepford jew george bush employed this analysis, "The stakes are larger than just Lebanon," the president told reporters Friday after meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "The root cause of the problem is you've got Hezbollah that is armed and willing to fire rockets into Israel; a Hezbollah … that I firmly believe is backed by Iran and encouraged by Iran."" (Doyle McManus ‘Iran Is Bush's Target in Lebanon’ July 30, 2006).

One of the global jewish empire’s courtiers contributed to the green light deception by stating that the jos’s inability to crush hezbollah meant it was failing to live up to its strategic role as an american asset in the middle east. "So it is not surprising that neocons like Charles Krauthammer are angry and confused. In his unique form of Israel bashing, Krauthammer in a column in The Washington Post blamed Israel for not playing its part as a "strategic asset" of the United States in the Middle East, based on his own America-and-Israel-defeat-the-bad-guys script. Suggesting that America had given Israel the green light to attack Hizballah in Lebanon not as a favor to Israel, but as an act of clear [U.S.] self-interest, Krauthammer explained: "America needs a decisive Hizballah defeat." Hence, it was "Israel's rare opportunity to demonstrate what it can do for its great American patron." The United States "has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen," counting on "Israel's ability to do the job." And "it has been disappointed." It seems that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's "search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well."" (Leon Hadar ‘Neocons Amid Lebanon’s Rubble: A Challenge to Krauthammer's Israel-as-Strategic-Asset Argument’ September 14, 2006).

In effect krauthammer was carving out a juicy political role for bush to play on the world stage. And bush duly grasped the opportunity to please his jewish masters. "According to correspondents, President Bush is frustrated. The Israeli army has not "delivered the goods". Bush sent them into war believing that the powerful army, equipped with the most advanced American arms, will "finish the job" in a few days. It was supposed to eliminate Hizbullah, turn Lebanon over to the stooges of the US, weaken Iran and perhaps also open the way to "regime change" in Syria. No wonder that Bush is angry." (Uri Avnery ‘Knife in the Back’ August 3, 2006).

Just how ludicrous this green light hypothesis has become was its extension to one of the jewish empire’s lesser muppets. "Slow news: When the Israeli army attacked the West Bank in 2002, flattening homes, killing civilians, and trashing homes and museums, Blair was forewarned and gave "the green light." He was also warned about the recent Israeli attack on Gaza and on Lebanon." (John Pilger ‘No News Is Slow News’ September 15, 2006).

The jos never asked the bush administration for a green light to attack lebanese civilians. It just informed jewish financed political leaders around the world what was going to happen so they could start rehearsing their lies for the political management of the war.

Déjà vu in Lebanon.
Ironically, in 1982 the jews had pressured their wasp slaves into protecting the jewish military during its first major invasion of lebanon. The wasps ended up suffering serious casualties for their jewish masters. "On September 16-18, 1982 Israeli forces allowed Lebanese Christian militias into the Sabra and Chatila Palestinian camps where they butchered men, women and children. President Ronald Reagan sent a new contingent of 1,800 Marines to Beirut, joined by 1,500 French Foreign Legion paratroopers, 1,400 Italian troops and, a few months later, a smaller British force. It was officially neutral, but meant to support the Lebanese government under President Amin Gemayel, who was allied with the US and Israel. But the Lebanese government was seen as Christian-dominated by many. On April18, 1983, a suicide bomber destroyed the US embassy in Beirut. In May the Israelis withdrew from around the capital. When Druze fighters drove the Lebanese army out of the mountains it was supported by gunfire from US vessels offshore and American aircraft. The US was deemed to have joined the Lebanese war on the side of the Christians and Israel's allies. Retaliation came when the US Marines and French paratroopers were slaughtered. (241 Marines died after their barracks were hit by a suicide bomber on 23 October 1983). The US blamed Hizbollah, Syria and Iran for the suicide attacks. By December the US was attacking Syrian anti-aircraft positions in the Bekaa valley, but lost two planes shot down. In February 2004 President Reagan ordered the surviving US troops out of Lebanon." (Patrick Cockburn ‘Bush and Blair Risk Repeating the 1982 Fiasco’ July 29/30 2006).

Many americans blamed hezbollah for the deaths of american marines but, in reality, if the jews hadn’t forced president reagan into providing military assistance for their illegal invasion then the marines wouldn’t have suffered such a tragedy. Twenty five years later, the wasps still don’t seem to have learnt any lessons about the dangers of protecting their racist jewish masters. Once again the wasps seem willing to sacrifice their troops and treasure by contributing to an international force in lebanon which is intended not to protect the lebanese people but to stop the lebanese from retaliating against unprovoked attacks by the jos. There is little the supposedly civilized western world will not do to protect an apartheid, colonialist, state. Incidentally, after the loss of 240 marines in 1982, americans might have expected the jews to be grateful to america for protecting them militarily in lebanon. But this was far from being the case. Jewish leaders despised reagan for failing to use america’s military might to force lebanon into becoming a jos dependency. And twenty years later they all boycotted his state funeral.

The Long History of the Jos’s Defiance of American Presidents.
Contrary to the all pervasive propaganda that the jos is an american colony, the reality is that jewish leaders have never taken the blindest bit of notice of what their supposed american masters have ordered them to do. When american presidents try to force the jos to obey their orders, jewish leaders ignore, or even publicly humiliate, them. The following are a couple of examples which provide the background to the jos’s recent attack on lebanon.

In 1982, "Sharon’s forces killed maybe 20,000 people, and let Lebanese Christians slaughter hundreds of Palestinian refugees in the camps of Sabra and Chatilla. The killing got so bad that even Ronald Reagan awoke from his slumbers and called Tel Aviv to tell Israel to stop. Sharon gave the White House the finger by bombing Beirut at the precise times - 2.42 and 3.38 - of two UN resolutions calling for a peaceful settlement on the matter of Palestine." (Alexander Cockburn ‘Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel: Everything You Need To Know’ July 21, 2006).

In 2002, on four separate occasions, bush II ordered sharon to stop the jews’ psychotic demolition of jenin. On each occasion, sharon not only ignored bush he went out of his way to publicly humiliate him. He called bush "a chamberlain". The jewish lobby in america even got their congressional livestock to write a letter to bush criticizing him for trying to curb sharon’s military objectives seemingly not being bothered that they were supporting jewish war crimes. Eventually, bush surrendered by announcing that sharon, a terrorist and war criminal, was "a man of peace".

Quite why bush II decided to challenge his jewish masters when he must have known he would end up being humiliated is a mystery. In 1990 the jos requested $10 billion in loan guarantees from the bush I administration to provide for the resettlement of russian jews. Bush I sought to delay this gigantic tribute payment and was faced with uproar from the jewish lobby. He complained that "1000 Jewish lobbyists are on Capitol Hill against little old me." Bush’s attempt to curb the jos and its political agents in america "would prove to be his epitaph." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ c.2004). The jewish lobby and the jewish dominated american media punished bush I by sabotaging his chances of getting re-elected in the presidential elections in 1992.

When bush II was elected president in 2000, he was determined not to repeat his father’s mistake. And yet despite this bitter family experience he still challenged sharon directly over the invasion of jenin. Perhaps he’d just got carried away by the propaganda that, as president of the united states, he was the leader of the world’s sole hyper-power and thus world’s most powerful politician. However, once sharon had put him in his place, bush was clever enough to realize that if he wanted to win the next presidential election he had to try and make amends for his mistake of offending the jews by proclaiming sharon as a man of peace.

This was the political context to the jews’ 2006 attack on lebanon. Bush knew it was pointless to try and stop the jos from attacking lebanon or confronting the jos over its grossly disproportionate attacks on lebanese civilians because he would either be ignored or humiliated. He knew he could do nothing to stop the jews even though most of the world condemned him for supporting their war crimes. So this time he made a virtue out of his political powerlessness by claiming to give the jews a green light for their military operation. It was much more politically beneficial for him to be perceived as giving the orders for what the jews were doing, and be heralded as the instigator of the war, rather than challenging the jews and being publicly humiliated. Bush was politically astute over lebanon in a way he hadn’t been over jenin.

Jewish propaganda in america is so overwhelming that despite the jos’s long history of ignoring and defying american presidents, the fantasy persists that the jos is a rock solid american colony. Contrary to the propaganda that the jos is america’s asset in the middle east, the reality is that the jos has never looked upon itself as an american asset and it has no intention of acting as such an asset. It has never sacrificed any of its troops for america even whilst demanding that american troops ought to be sacrificed for the benefit of the jos. If america was the empire and the jos a mere asset then jewish troops would be dying for america – but this has never happened. On the contrary, it has been american troops dying for the jos thereby suggesting the only global empire these days is jewish. If jewish leaders can get away with the massive deception that the jos is america’s closest ally, without having to do anything to live up to this role, then why shouldn’t they? This clearly indicates the subservience of american politicians to the jos.

Bush's Powerlessness.
Perhaps these historical examples of the jos defying american presidents may not be regarded as convincing evidence of jewish power. So let’s imagine what would happen if president bush had tried to prevent, or call a halt to, the jos’s psychotic war against lebanese citizens. There are four main reasons bush would have been unable to have stopped the jos’s warmongering.

Firstly, a significant proportion of the bush administration is composed of traitorous, dual passport, jews whose main loyalty is to the jos not america. They promote policies for the benefit of the jos even though they undermine america’s strategic interests – for example when they fabricated evidence to manipulate america into an invasion of iraq. They are more than powerful enough to discourage bush from acting against the jos’s interests.

Secondly, the american congress is composed primarily of politicians who have been bought and paid for by the jewish lobby like cattle in a livestock market. "The place is about 98 percent bought and paid for by the Lobby." (Alexander Cockburn ‘The Triumph of Crackpot Realism’ July 31, 2006). The jewish dominated members of congress give their assenting moos when legislation, usually written by the jewish fundamentalist organization aipac, comes before them for their approval. "On July 18, the Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution "condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense." After House majority leader John Boehner removed language from the bill urging "all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure," the House version passed by a landslide, 410 to 8. AIPAC not only lobbied for the resolution; it had written it. "They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare one."" (Ari Berman ‘AIPAC's Hold’ July 29, 2006). Fancy america, the supposed leader of the civilized world, refusing to offer innocent lebanese civilians any moral protection. Bush would have faced a huge rebellion from congress if he’d tried to stop the jos’s warmongering.

Thirdly, the republican party is financed largely by jewish billionaires and many of its key activists are jewish fundamentalists – as is the case in the democratic party. The two parties are now in intense competition with each other to show their jewish masters who gives the jos the most support in the hope of receiving the biggest jewish bribes. Bush would have faced a huge backlash from the republican party if he’d tried to stop the jos’s warmongering. The republican party is more concerned with promoting the interests of the jos than it is in supporting its own president.

Fourthly, america’s media is dominated by jews. The jewish-dominated media would have launched a massive propaganda attack on bush if he’d opposed the lebanese war. It would have turned public opinion against him and thus jeopardized the republican party’s chances of winning the november 2006 congressional elections. "This supine indulgence of Olmert, moreover, suggests Western leaders suspend common sense when dealing with Israel. Olmert's claim that Israel will settle for nothing less than the destruction of Hezbollah is nonsense, as only Israel's occupation and virtual annexation of Lebanon could raise this goal even to the level of a slim possibility. Olmert and his cabinet know this and are relying on the cowardly fear Western leaders have of their pro-Israeli voters – aren't there U.S. congressional elections in about 90 days? – to give Israel's military a free hand for as long as possible." (Michael Scheuer ‘Doing bin Laden's Work for Him’ July 21, 2006).

In conclusion, america’s jewish elite controls all the country’s main political institutions. It owns the first, second, and fourth, estates in america. It is the country’s ruling elite. It takes its orders from the jos not the american people. The jewish lobby in america is an agent of a foreign power no different from the way that in the 1930s and 1940s communist parties in the west took their orders from russia. The jews didn’t need a green light from america to attack lebanon because they control the country’s political system.

America’s Subservience to the Jos.
America’s role in the 2006 war against lebanon was simply to provide whatever the jews needed to fight their war of choice. It provided the fighter planes and munitions to enable the jews to slaughter lebanese civilians and lebanon’s infrastructure, and even provided the jos with the aviation fuel to enable the jos’s fighter jets to bomb innocent people. "A striking aspect of the crisis is, indeed, America's total political, diplomatic and strategic support for Israel - even to the point of rushing to give it $300 million of aviation fuel with which to continue smashing Lebanon!" (Patrick Seale ‘Why Is Israel Destroying Lebanon? July 25, 2006). America’s provision of weapons, munitions, and fuel, to the jos is not indicative of its power to bribe the jos to do what it wants because the only consequence of its helping the jos was being reviled around the world for assisting in the slaughter of innocent people.

The jos extracts whatever it wants from its american serfs. America is just a vast warehouse from which the jews take what they want under the pretense of using the material to promote american interests. As long as the jews say that what they are doing is promoting american interests, americans are gullible enough to allow them to do whatever they like - even if it means destroying american interests. Dumb americans believe whatever they’re told by their jewish masters.

The jews’ barbaric slaughter of lebanese civilians confirms what has become increasingly clear over the last decade and a half: that presidents of the united states of america are politically incapable of curbing global Jewish power. Bush can confront russia or europe or china but he cannot impose his will against jewish world domination. Even worse is that his confrontations with russia, europe, and china are usually at the behest of the jewish lobby seeking to promote the interests of the global jewish empire.

The role of america’s wasp politicians is to go around the world sweeping up the mess created by their jewish masters. They did their best to impose on the united nations’ security council the jews’ chosen ‘peace plan’ for lebanon. "Rice will first explore ways with Israel's leadership to end the crisis and begin to shape a new order in Lebanon. She will return next Sunday to try to implement a cease-fire. From Jerusalem, Rice will go on to Rome to meet senior delegates from the United Nations and Arab states. They will discuss formulating a political arrangement and a plan to rehabilitate Lebanon. From Rome she will travel to an Asian conference in Malaysia, from where she will return to Israel." (Aluf Benn, Shmuel Rosner and Shlomo Shamir ‘Senior officials believe U.S. will give Israel a week to complete military offensive in Lebanon’ July 23, 2006). In other words, rice went to the jos to pick up her orders, then told america’s allies what the jews’ plan was, and finally returned to the jos to tell the jews that everyone would now support their plans.

Flashes of realism but no Real Illumination.
There are times when jewish control over american politics is so blatant that even politically kosher commentators find it difficult resisting the temptation of telling it like it is. But invariably sooner or later jewish propaganda kicks in and the commentators revert back to form. On one occasion, robert fisk blurted out that not merely america but all western governments are following the jews’ orders. "And now the US and UK -following Israeli policy to the letter -are allowing Israel to destroy Lebanon and call it peace." (Robert Fisk ‘Bush and Blair: "Keep It Up!" July 29/30 2006). However, he does not believe america is a colonial asset of the global jewish empire, "It (America) is encouraging Israel to continue its destruction of the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza and the West Bank." (Robert Fisk ‘Bush and Blair: "Keep It Up!" July 29/30 2006).

Juan cole assumes that america is the hyper power and the jos is its satellite. Furthermore, he believes america’s strategic interests overlap with the jos’s regional interests. "The Bush administration's perceived economic and geopolitical interests thus overlap strongly with Israel's perceived security interests, with both benefiting from an Israeli destruction of Hizbullah. It is not impossible that the US Pentagon urged the Israelis on in this endeavor. They certainly knew about and approved of the plan." (Juan Cole ‘War on Lebanon Planned for at least a Year’ July 23, 2006).

Cole is another advocate of the green light hypothesis. However what is of interest here is that he promotes another fantasy – that america and the jos have overlapping or identical interests. In order to make this fantasy seem plausible cole has to rewrite history. He argues the reason america is anti-iranian is because iran refuses to allow america’s massive multi-national oil companies to invest, and make huge profits, in iran. "For the Bush administration, Iran and Hizbullah are not existential threats. They are proximate threats. Iran is hostile to US corporate investment in the oil-rich Gulf, and so is a big obstacle to American profit-making in the region." (Juan Cole ‘War on Lebanon Planned for at least a Year’ July 23, 2006).

This is such a gross distortion of the truth it’s almost a lie. Over the last decade or so, iran would have positively welcomed american energy companies investing in, and using their advanced technology, to exploit the country’s vast fossil fuel reserves. It was the jewish dominated media in america, the jewish lobby, and the jewish neocons in the clinton administration who, in 1995, forced the president into passing an executive order banning american energy companies from investing in iran. In other words, american jews determined america’s policies towards iran, not american wasps eager to promote an american empire nor america’s massive multinational energy companies. At the time, even dick cheney protested about clinton’s ban on investments in Iran. "Go back to March 1996. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, which was eagerly seeking to win energy business in Iran. The Clinton Administration had imposed sanctions on Iran a year earlier. "I think," said Cheney, "we Americans sometimes make mistakes. There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what's best for everybody else and that we are going to . . . get everybody else to live the way we would like." Two years later, in a speech at the Cato Institute, Cheney was even more scathing toward American sanctions on Iran. He said that in 1997 America's partners in the Middle East had refused to allow U.S. military forces to be based on their territory in anticipation of taking "military action against Iraq in order to get [it] to honor the U.N. resolutions." And why were our friends being so recalcitrant? In part, Cheney explained, because the United States "had been trying to force the governments in the region to adhere to an anti-Iranian policy, and our views raised questions in their mind about the wisdom of U.S. leadership. They cited it as an example of something they thought was unwise and that they should not do . . . The nation that's isolated in terms of our sanctions policy in that part of the globe is not Iran. It is the United States. And the fact that we have tried to pressure governments in the region to adopt a sanctions policy that they clearly are not interested in pursuing has raised doubts in the minds of many of our friends about the overall wisdom and judgment of U.S. policy in the area."" (Ken Silverstein ‘Dick Cheney, Dove’ May 17, 2006); "Mr. Indyk criticized the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act signed by President Clinton as "counterproductive." He said it had split America from its allies in Europe. The bill had been championed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." (Ira Stoll ‘‘Israel Lobby' Caused War i n Iraq, September 11 Attacks, Professor Says’ September 29, 2006). Cole knows this sequence of events so why does he refuse to acknowledge that the jewish lobby has been preventing america from promoting its strategic interests?

How is Bush boosting American Interests by slaughtering Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians in the Middle East and Alienating Global Opinion?
If america was promoting its own geostrategic interests in the middle east, it would be protecting arab countries which provide it with oil and it would be opposing countries which undermined this relationship. And yet since 1948 america’s support for the jos has undermined its relationship with virtually all of the oil producing countries in the middle east. American support for the jos’s utter barbarism in lebanon has dramatically undermined moslem people’s willingness to tolerate vile dictatorial regimes which survive only because of american support. "The Arab street is cheering for Hezbollah, often across the Sunni-Shi'ite divide, while the governments of states such as Egypt hide under the bed. The goal of Islamic fourth generation forces is the destruction of most, if not all, Arab state governments, so Hezbollah is winning strategically as well. One can almost watch the legitimacy drain away from the region's decrepit states, with incalculable consequences for American interests. Not that Washington is doing anything to protect those interests. On the contrary, it has rushed more bombs and aviation fuel to Israel, lest there be any unwelcome letup in the destruction of Lebanon. Perhaps the neocons have convinced President Bush that Israeli olive oil can substitute for Arab petroleum as fuel for America's SUVs." (William S. Lind ‘Welcome to My Parlor’ July 29, 2006).

The jos is supposedly promoting america’s economic interests in the middle east but how is this possible when its military objective is to destroy the economic activities of countries opposed to its racism and military expansionism? The jews do not aim merely to defeat an enemy militarily on the battlefield. They try to destroy their enemies’ economic infrastructure in order to prevent them from financing the military means to defend themselves from the global jewish empire. Over the last few years the jews have deliberately devastated palestinians’ economic capacity. And, the main objectives of the jews’ aerial onslaught against lebanon was to slaughter civilians and destroy the country’s economic infrastructure. "The Middle East is boiling over yet again. Israel is resorting to the one strategy it has perfected since the day it was created, murdering civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure. The Israeli defense doctrine, old as Israel itself, considers bombing of civilian targets a means for pressuring "militants" and uncooperative governments. So Israel bombs bridges and villages in South Lebanon, power plants in Gaza, orchards, fields, schools, hospitals, residential neighborhoods, beach barbecue parties, etc. Everything is a legitimate target. Israeli ministers announce publicly that their chief strategy is to cause civilian suffering. Every day sees its Guernica, and the U.N., which proudly displays a reproduction of the painting, is mum in the face of a hundred Guernicas." (Gabriel Ash ‘Israel's Terrorism’ July 18, 2006); "One hope the Israeli hawks appear to entertain is that they can permanently depopulate strips Lebanon south of the Litani river. Since most Shiites vote Hizbullah and offer political support and cover to it, fewer people means fewer assets for the party-militia. This project would require the total destruction of large numbers of villages and the permanent displacement of their inhabitants north to Beirut. That is why the massacre at Qana occurred. The Israelis had bombed Qana 80 times. They were destroying all of its buildings. Therefore, of course, they destroyed the building where dozens of children and families were hiding. This tactic is both collective punishment and ethnic cleansing all at once. It is not only a matter, as the Israelis claim, of hitting Hizbullah rocket launchers. They are destroying all of the buildings." (Juan Cole ‘What is Hizbullah?’ July 31, 2006). Anyone interested in appreciating the scale of the jews’ attacks on lebanon’s economy rather than hezbollah should read the list provided by brian whitaker in his article ‘Battered Lebanon Counts the Cost of Israeli Onslaught’ July 21, 2006.

The american, and british, governments supported the jos’s attack on lebanon even though this threatened to jeopardize their military forces occupying iraq and afghanistan. What sense did it make for america and britain to expose their military forces by supporting the jews’ gross war criminality against lebanese people? "(Grand Ayotalloah) Sistani has issued a warning to the United States. He wants Bush to intervene to arrange a ceasefire, i.e. the cessation of israeli air raids on Lebanon in general. What could he do if he were ignored? Sistani could call massive anti-US and anti-Israel demonstrations. Given Iraq's profound political instability, this development could be extremely dangerous. US troops in Baghdad and elsewhere are planning offensives against Shiite paramilitary groups, so tensions are likely to rise in the Shiite areas anyway. But big demonstrations could easily boil over into actual attacks on US and British troops. Both depend heavily on fuel that is transported through the Shiite south. Were the Shiites actively to turn on the US for its wholehearted support of continued Israeli air raids, the US military could be cut off from fuel and supplies. The British only have around 8,000 troops in Iraq, and they would be in profound danger if Iraq's Shiites became militantly anti-occupation. The US is already not winning against a Sunni Arab insurgency, backed by around 5 million Iraqis. If 16 million Shiites turned on the US because of its wholehearted support for Israel's actions in Lebanon, the US military mission in Iraq could quickly become completely and urgently untenable. In this case, the British troops in particular would be lucky to escape the country with their lives." (Juan Cole ‘Sistani Threatens US over Israeli War on Lebanon’ July 31, 2006). The longer the war persisted, the greater the threat that was posed to america’s and britain’s military forces.

The jews’ slaughter of civilians in lebanon was supposed to destroy terrorists (i.e. decent people who object to jews bombing their homes and economic infrastructure and stealing their land and water) but all it did was boost the numbers of those outraged by such appalling acts of barbarism. "In giving unconditional support to the invaders, Israel's amen corner in the U.S. has to answer this question: how does it further American interests? The answer is, it doesn't. Quite the contrary: it strengthens the deadliest of our enemies, the terrorist network associated with Osama bin Laden, and threatens to recruit Hezbollah – the "A-team" of Middle Eastern paramilitary factions – into a worldwide Islamic insurgency directed primarily against the United States." (Justin Raimondo ‘Lebanon: Are the Yanks Coming?’ July 28, 2006).

America’s strategic interests are firstly, to preserve peace and stability around the world so that its multinational corporations can exploit the world’s resources and, secondly, to encourage a love of american culture that global consumers will want to buy american goods and services. But it has become impossible to understand how america benefits from supporting a hysterical, megalomaniacal, pathologically violent, racist state which continually wages war against its neighbours and is currently starving palestinians to death; turning iraq into a cesspit of civil war; allowing afghanistan to degenerate into a narco-state which it had never been under the taliban; undermining pakistan’s national interests to such an extent it has pushed musharraf into an accommodation with the taliban; and, finally, allowing the jos to obliterate large parts of lebanon? These are not merely pro-jos policies they are jews-only policies since only the jews have derived any benefit from them. The jews’ attack on lebanon had no political, moral, or economic, benefit for america. William s. lind correctly concludes. "In no previous Israeli-Arab war has the United States revealed itself so nakedly as a de facto political satellite of Israel." (William S. Lind ‘Welcome to My Parlor’ July 29, 2006).


Post a Comment

<< Home