Thursday, August 10, 2006

Jews Running the UN Security Council: Another Milestone in the Continuing Rise of the Global Jewish Empire.

Updated August 26, 2006

The Draft UN Resolution on Lebanon.
Putting aside the question of who started the cedar revolution war in lebanon (1), the jews’ psychotic blitz on lebanese civilians and infrastructure was welcomed by both the bush administration and a great many americans whose opinions have been shaped by the country’s jewish dominated media. In europe, most governments refused to demand an immediate ceasefire - including the germans "who shocked the world this week by opposing the call for a cease-fire." (Uri Avnery ‘Knife in the Back’ August 3, 2006). Some, like the blair government were complicit in the slaughter by facilitating the transfer of munitions from america to the jews-only state in palestine (jos). However significant sections of public opinion in europe, not merely europe’s substantial moslem minority, were outraged by the brutality and callousness of what the jews were doing. European leaders thus found themselves suffering from considerable political embarrassment over their support for the jos’s blatant pyscho-barbarism.

This situation was not politically tenable. European governments could not continue to condone the jos’s onslaught without suffering increasing public approbation and eventual electoral punishment. Something had to be done. Blair came up with the solution: a united nations’ peacekeeping force in lebanon and a cessation of hostilities. This idea was welcomed by other european governments. It was even welcomed by the jewish states in palestine and america when it was realized that a un resolution could be rigged entirely in the jos’s favour. A cessation of hostilities would legitimize the jews’ occupation of lebanon and make it illegal for hezbollah to resist the occupiers. Perfect. Even better, given that it would be a virtual certainty that hezbollah would end up breaking the cessation of violence, western governments could then denounce hezbollah not merely for being ‘terrorists’ but for breaking international law. In one deft, carefully worded, resolution the european public’s opprobrium towards their governments could be shifted onto hezbollah for breaking a un resolution – just as saddam had been pushed into similar breaches of un resolutions rigged by the jews and just like the current predicament being faced by syria and iran. The icing on the cake was that hezbollah’s breaches of the jewish peace would enable the un to introduce sanctions against lebanon along the lines of those imposed against iraq after the first gulf war.

Tony blair’s seemingly compassionate response to public demands for a ceasefire was nothing more than a public relations’ exercise. He gave the public exactly what it wanted - but only when the resolution achieved the exact opposite of what the public had hoped for. "Hens may believe the rooster who tells them his cock-a-doodle-doo brings the sunrise, and there may be a few gullible Labour MPs who think Tony Blair’s dash to "persuade" George W. Bush to pressure Israel has not been carefully choreographed by the Americans and the Israelis — but the rest of Britain will be harder to persuade." (Matthew Parris ‘How mad for Britain to be the US poodle: the neocons will fade away’,,1065-2289986,00.html July 29, 2006).

The jewish dominated media in the western world presented the discussions between france and america about the wording of the resolution as if the un was dealing even-handedly with the issue, arbitrating justly between the two sides in the conflict. It reported that tough negotiations were being carried out between the two countries as if france was representing the interests of lebanon and the arab world so that eventually a fair agreement would be reached. What the jewish dominated western media did not mention was that a third party was involved in the discussions - the jos. ‘If there were any remaining illusions about the purpose of Israel's war against Lebanon, the draft United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a "cessation of major hostilities" published at the weekend should finally dispel them. This entirely one-sided document was drafted, the Hebrew-language media have reported, with close Israeli involvement. The top adviser to the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, talked through the resolution with the US and French teams, while the Israeli Foreign Ministry had its man alongside John Bolton [yet another of Israel's men, Eds ] at the UN building in New York." (Jonathan Cook ‘Goliath Pretending to be David’ August 7, 2006). The jews refer to bolton as "our man at the un." (2).

Neither hezbollah, the lebanese government, nor representatives from the arab world, were asked to participate in drawing up the peace agreement over lebanon. That the jos was allowed to participate was bad enough but that it was the only side to the dispute to do so was shocking. The jews were determining the nature of the peace as they determined the nature of the war. In effect, they were determining what should, and should not, go into a un resolution. It’s possible that aipac had a hand in writing the resolution and then sent it to the un to be rubber stamped. In other words, the jews’ reward for their merciless aerial bombing of lebanese civilians, and their lebensraum against southern lebanon, was to write their own un resolution. No un reward for state terrorism then!

Reactions to the Draft UN Resolution.
Once the draft un resolution was published it was immediately condemned by hezbollah, the lebanese government, and the arab world. "The first draft of the US-French UNSC resolution looked very much like a "declaration of surrender" of the Arab side, as a discerning Hizbullah official commented. "If this is what they're suggesting after Israel lost the military confrontation, what would they have proposed if Israel had won?" asked the witty speaker of the Lebanese parliament, Nabih Berri, echoing a widely held view among Arab and international observers alike." (Omar Barghouti ‘Lessons for Palestine from Lebanon’ August 12/13, 2006).

It was transparent that all the expectations placed on france to protect the interests of lebanon and the middle east had been misplaced because it had basically capitulated to the jos. "A close analysis of the American-French draft - the fingerprints of John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, were almost smudging the paragraphs - showed just who is running Washington's Middle East policy: Israel. And one wondered how even Tony Blair would want to associate himself with this nonsense." (Robert Fisk ‘This draft shows who is running America's policy... Israel’ August 07 2006). There are times when fisk can be a real twit such as when he denounces hezbollah for triggering off the jews’ disproportionate attack on lebanon! Here is another example. Blair was not in the least bit embarrassed by the un resolution. Just before he went on holiday he was pleading for it to be implemented as the only way to peace. Well, what could anyone expect when the labour party’s chief fundraiser is a jew whose own million pound donation to the party was rewarded with a knighthood and an appointment as blair’s personal envoy to the middle east. Blair was wholly convinced that a fair and equitable solution to the lebanese crisis was one in which hezbollah ws disarmed and disbanded and the jos stays in lebanon to help bring peace and security. He buys completely into the jos’s perspective – or rather, was bought off by it. He has increasingly started to parade his role as a shabbt goy as a badge of honour – primarily because he has been offered a lucrative post in the rabid zionist, rupert murdoch’s zionist empire after he finally leaces office. (3) As for the questions of lebanese prisoners, the shabaa farms area, the golan heights, the jews’ landmines in lebanon, and the cost of rebuilding lebanon, nothing of this mattered to him at all.

Ran hacohen carried out a full body dissection of the corpse, "The UN Security Council resolution draft on Lebanon reflects a new stage of Western colonialism in the Middle East, and perhaps a historic precedent: for the first time, the UN Security Council – should the resolution draft be endorsed – breaches the fundamental principle of the right of people under occupation to resist, and in fact legitimizes the violent partition of the sovereign state of Lebanon." (Ran HaCohen ‘The End of Lebanon?’ August 8, 2006). The draft un resolution basically legitimized the jews’ ethnic cleansing of southern lebanon and their crimes against humanity in lebanon. Raimondo likened the resolution to the munich agreement, "One hopes the historical parallels will end there, but I fear not: just as the German push for Lebensraum ended in a world war, so an apparent campaign to give Israel a bit of elbow room may result in yet another global conflagration. The UN resolution, then, amounts to a new Munich agreement, which – if history teaches us anything – will serve to embolden the Israelis to go on the offensive against Syria, and, perhaps, Iran." (Justin Raimondo ‘The New Munich’ August 7, 2006).

So, in a matter of a few months the jos, in co-operation with its american colony, had forced the russians and the chinese to pass a security council resolution ordering iran to stop any further nuclear research even though iran has an inalienable right under international law to carry out such research. "Nevertheless, by falsely charging that (a) Iran had been in noncompliance with the NPT and its IAEA Safeguards Agreement, and that (b) Iran had "consistently and brazenly defied the international community by continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons," Bolton got the Security Council to pass Resolution 1696, which Bolton falsely claimed required Iran to comply with all the "requirements" listed in the Iranian IAEA dossier as well as requiring all UN Member states "to prevent the transfer of resources to Iran's nuclear and missile programs."" (Gordon Prather ‘Bolton Gets Sandbagged?’ August 12, 2006).

It then launched a pre-planned act of barbarism against lebanon which was supported by western governments even though it was condemned by large sections of western societies. It forced the indian government to stop broadcasting arabic channels in india showing the grim realities of the lebanese conflict. (4) Just to point out the obvious: the jos has a population of six million whereas the population of india is over a billion. It then steamrollered the french to get a un resolution on lebanon which gave it everything it asked for. More and more governments around the world are coming to accept and even admire jewish racism and the depths of its barbarism. It is becoming increasingly difficult for anyone but the worst pro-semitic bigots to avoid the conclusion that jews rule the world.

UN Resolution 1701.
After the lebanese and arab governments were allowed to comment on the draft resolution, fundamental changes were made to the resolution. "The draft of the text which arrived from Lebanon on Friday is a significantly altered version of Thursday's draft." (Aluf Benn, Amos Harel, Yoav Stern and Eli Ashkenazi ‘PMO: Offensive to continue; Cabinet to vote Sunday on UN truce deal’ August 12, 2006); "Take a look at Resolution 1701: it is quite a lengthy document, which goes well beyond the call for a cease-fire and lays the groundwork for a comprehensive solution to the current crisis in the Middle East – one in which Israel gains not an inch. If implemented – and that, of course, is the key – it endorses the seven-point program of the Lebanese government, first put forward at the international conference of July 26. This means a mutual exchange of prisoners – not only the two Israeli soldiers, but the many Lebanese still being held by the Israelis – and the return of the disputed Shebaa Farms enclave to Lebanon. Resolution 1701 also harkens back to the 1989 Taif Agreement, brokered by the Arab League, that put the West's imprimatur on the Syrian "occupation," ending the Lebanese civil war." (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel, Defeated’ August 14, 2006).

It is believed these changes were introduced to reflect hezbollah’s military victories against the jos. "Only a few days after that draft was first made public the text underwent dramatic changes to the extent that its final version was seen by many, with some embellishment, as a declaration of Hizbullah's victory over Israel. What on earth could have compelled America's most undiplomatic, arrogant and viceroy-ish ambassador to the UN to make such an uncharacteristic U-turn? While Arab officials on the delegation that negotiated the outcome are likely to take credit for their claimed deftness and newly discovered diplomatic skill, the truth is that this relative triumph was created on the ground in South Lebanon, from Bint Jbail to Aita ash-Shaab and Khiyam, where the able Lebanese resistance inflicted upon the Israeli invading forces in less than a week massive losses including tens of destroyed or impaired fortified tanks and other armored vehicles, a badly damaged state-of-the-art military vessel and dozens of dead soldiers, quite a few among them from the army's elite units. The radical shift of the balance on the ground in Hizbullah's favor, the political steadfastness in Beirut and the resulting loss of direction and embarrassing wobbling among Israel's political and military leaders together painted a picture of what can be accurately perceived as the very first Arab military victory over Israel's much feared, "unbeatable" army." (Omar Barghouti ‘Lessons for Palestine from Lebanon’ August 12 / 13, 2006).

The resolution was passed unanimously on friday august 11, 2006. The jews treated the un resolution as a green light to launch a mock ground offensive to provide them with some military achievements in what had otherwise been for them a disastrous war. "The Israeli army said on Saturday it had started broadening its ground offensive in south Lebanon and its forces were pushing toward the Litani river. Troops were carrying out orders issued by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz, the army said after the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution calling for an end to the month-old war between Israel and Hizbollah." (Israeli Troops push Towards Litani River’ August 12, 2006). As soon as the ceasefire deadline passed, the jewish military scarpered from lebanon as quickly as it could.

The Western World Rushing to the Military Aid of the Jos: The Christian Crusader Crescent in the Middle East.
In 1948 the jos was established through terrorism and lebensraum – now known as ethnic cleansing. It has remained a jews-only racist state. It is a kleptomaniac state which has continually stolen land from palestinians, eqyptians, jordanians, syrians, and the lebanese. When people have resisted jewish occupation and tried to regain the land stolen from them, the jews denounced them as terrorists. No civilized person could possibly support jewish occupation, theft/colonialism, and racism. Only those who have become jewish slaves could believe that the jos is a legitimate state.

France and italy are now willing to sacrifice their soldiers’ lives in lebanon to protect the jos and to promote the global jewish empire. It is possible they will play the same role as the south lebanon army after the jews’ 1982 invasion. "To reduce the burden on its own forces, the Israelis created a species of Milice in the form of the locally recruited South Lebanon Army – first under Major Saad Haddad, who had broken from the Lebanese army in 1976 with a few hundred men, and later under General Antoine Lahad. Both were Christians, and their troops – armed, trained, fed and clothed by Israel – were mainly Shia Muslims from the south. About a third of the force, which grew to almost 10,000, were Christians. Some joined because they resented the Palestinians’ armed presence in south Lebanon. Others enlisted because they needed the money: the region has always been Lebanon’s poorest. The SLA had a reputation for cruelty, confirmed when its torture chambers at Khiam were opened after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, and for a high rate of desertions. As Israel pulled back from Beirut, the high-water mark reached during its 1982 invasion, its share of Lebanon contracted further and further. Having seized 3560 square kilometres, about a third of the country, containing around 800 towns and villages, Israel found itself in 1985 with only 500 square kilometres and 61 villages, mostly deserted. Hizbullah, which led the resistance that had forced the Israelis to abandon most of their conquest, demanded the unconditional return of all Lebanese territory. Its attacks intensified, resulting in a loss of IDF soldiers that became unpalatable to most Israelis. The Israeli army placed the SLA between itself and Hizbullah so that it could pay the price that Israel had decided it could not afford." (Charles Glass ‘Learning from Its Mistakes’ London Review of Books Vol. 28 No. 16 August 17, 2006).

The jos, the jewish dominated american media, the jewish lobby in america, the jewish controlled congress, and the jewish dominated bush administration, helped to push the world’s military hyper-power into afghanistan to protect the jos from what the jews called al quaeda terrorism. The duty of protecting the jos from its enemies in afghanistan was later passed on to nato e.g. britain and canada. The jews also pushed america into the invasion of iraq to protect the jos from what they called iraqi terrorists. It was supposed to be a cakewalk but turned into a calamitous, vietnam-like, military disaster. Now the jews have pushed a range of western countries into lebanon to protect the jos from what the jews refer to as hezbollah terrorism. The global jewish empire is so powerful it has been able to force virtually all countries in the western world into providing the racist, kleptomaniacal, jos with military protection – nato in afghanistan; america and britain in iraq; and europe in lebanon. The western world is now willing to lay down its lives, its treasure, and its civilized values, solely to protect racist, jewish fundamentalist, crackpots. A military christian crusader crescent stretches across the middle east from lebanon in the west to afghanistan in the east whose sole function is to protect its jewish masters.

In comparison to the first draft formulated by america and france, un resolution 1701 was a setback for the rise of the global jewish empire. However, this setback was only of minor significance since it was just a reflection of the much more profound setback brought about by the jos’s military catastrophe in lebanon. Ever since the origins of the kleptomaniacal, terrorist, and racist, jos the jews have been used to winning easy victories against arab armies and this has boosted jewish supremacism the inspiring force behind the growth of the global jewish empire. The jews have now been defeated twice by a guerilla organization and what effect this will have in boosting the morale of the arab world in challenging the jos’s military supremacy in the region, and the global jewish empire, remains to be seen. Whether western european forces in lebanon will attempt to do what the jews could not do remains to be seen. Their actions will show whether they are impartial between the jos and lebanon or agents of the global jewish empire.

Note 1.
The jos and america financed and organized the cedar revolution in lebanon in spring 1995 not to bring about democracy but solely to push syria out of the country in order to make it possible to attack hezbolla.

Note 2.
The jews representative at the un was dan gillerman who’d become notorious for describing hezbollah as Animals. "Mr Gillerman said "something very important was missing" from Mr Annan's speech: any mention of terrorism. Hizbullah were "ruthless indiscriminate animals", he told reporters. "We must first address the core and the root cause of why these hostilities started in the first place, and who started them ... If there's a ceasefire while this cesspool continues to fester, we'll leave Hizbullah with the capability to do time and time again what they've done this time."" (Oliver Burkeman in New York and Ewen MacAskill "Israel angry, US wary as Annan peace plan calls for ceasefire",,1825727,00.html July 21, 2006).

Note 3.
Blair’s prime motivating force is his love of power. He likes accumulating power but his primary passion is to be in the company of the rich and powerful. Hence he sucked up to the zionist rupert murdoch in the most blatant way in order to win his support for the labour party in the 1997 general election. He went out of his way to protect the royal family during its turbulent times after the death of diana windsor. He poured nearly £10 billion into resuscitating the landowning aristocracy after the Animal exploitation industry was ruined by bse and then foot and mouth disease. He refused to carry out democratic reforms to the house of lords because he prefers to use it to reward his friends and those who donate large funds to the two main political parties. It was not surprising that he was friendly with clinton because he was a natural ally, but he then sucked up to bush even though he was not. Over the last year or so, as pressure has grown for him to retire from office, he seems to have cast aside all political responsibility. He has drifted off into the stratosphere and become a fervent neocon – after all it provides him with access to more powerful people around the world. He has become so desperate to hold onto power that he is willing to sacrifice not merely his party but the country itself for the sake of continuing to associate with the rich and evil. "Isolated within his party, with lukewarm cabinet support; isolated in Europe apart from Germany; and very much isolated in the wider world he appears to be driven by a personal obsession with leadership." (Leader ‘Defiance and isolation’,,1836001,00.html August 3, 2006).

Note 4.
"In a country widely referred to as the world’s largest democracy, the Indian government has succumbed to mounting Israeli pressure and ordered a nationwide ban on the broadcast of Arab television channels. The Indian government’s ban on Arab television stations is in complete contrast to the friendship that Arab countries imagine exists with their neighbor across the Arabian Sea. It seems the ban is a move to ensure that Indians do not get to see the atrocities that are presently being committed by Israel in Lebanon and the occupied territories." (Shahid Raza Burney ‘India bans Arab TV channels under pressure from Israel’ August 06, 2006).


Post a Comment

<< Home