Three points need to be made. The first, and most important, is about environmentalists’ attitudes to the zionist-palestinian conflict. There are reasons to believe that american environmentalists, and to a lesser extent their european counterparts, are refusing to condemn the injustices being perpetrated by the zionist state in palestine because they fear that if they do so they will suffer electorally as a result of the groundswell of public opinion in favour of the crypto-nazi zionist state. It has to be suggested that environmentalists (to use a rather flabby concept) ought to forget short term electoral considerations and consider their long term principles.

Palestine is a microcosm of the world. The zionists clearly belong to the over-industrialized world whilst the palestinians belong to the third world - primarily, but by no means solely, because of zionist oppression. All environmentalists should know that the conflict between the rich world and the poor world is one of the basic causes of environmental destruction and that it is impossible to create a sustainable planet without the abolition of global inequalities. If environmentalists won’t demand the abolition of the inequalities between the rich world, and the poor world, in palestine then what chance do they stand of doing it around the rest of the world? Environmentalists aren’t going to heal the growing inequalities between rich and poor without the courage to condemn inequalities such as those in the middle east. They have got to show their allegiance to the third world if they are to stand any chance of creating a sustainable planet. If they don’t then what are the billions of poor people around the world going to think of environmentalists’ commitment to a better world and the creation of a sustainable planet?

Environmentalists ought to see themselves as planetary beings whose first and most fundamental loyalty is to the Earth and its Wildlife. This means ignoring patriotism to formulate decisions based solely on what is best for the Earth - which is not to imply a complete denial of patriotism. Environmentalists have got to be willing to condemn their own governments/countries for what they are doing to the Earth even when it’s not popular to do so - especially when it's not popular to do so. The main way for environmentalists to distinguish themselves politically from other parties is to show they care about the Earth’s life support system more than they do their own country.

The second point is that the zionist-palestinian conflict is not an everyday squabble between two tiny groups of belligerent people. The zionist lobby controls the american congress and has a huge impact on the american government. American unilateralism is a consequence of the zionists’ increasing grip over the american congress/presidency. Zionists’ contempt for other peoples, other countries, for international law, and for the world, is increasingly spilling over into a contempt for the Earth itself. This would hardly matter if such attitudes were confined to the messianic religious nutters in the zionist state in palestine but zionists have now managed to infect american politicians and the american military with such attitudes - the most obvious consequence of which is the ditching of the kyoto treaty. As the zionist controlled war against terrorism (wart) unfolds it is likely the zionists will push the american government even further in the direction of unilateralism. This will almost invariably mean it will become even more aggressive in defending and promoting its economic and political interests against the rest of the world whether this might be over the climate, global trade, or weapons’ treaties, etc. Zionist control of the american government will be a disaster for the Earth. Even worse is that scientific opinion will no longer find itself confronted by political sceptics and politicians protecting vested interests but by religious nutters whose only concern in life is abiding by the laws of a fictitious divinity. Zionists are concerned only about their zionist god - nothing else matters to them whether this might be international law or global justice or sustainability. As far as zionists are concerned, sustainability will occur only when the zionist messiah has made his/her appearance on Earth - although whether these evil nutters are capable of recognizing pure goodness is highly questionable. By taking control of the american political system, the zionists are dragging the world back into an era of religious intolerance in which religious myths are given greater credibility than scientific evidence. Zionists' outlook on life has no place for the Earth.

The third point is just some speculation. The ‘greenless greens’ have a peculiar focus on oil. They campaign primarily on reducing Carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuels - primarily oil. They refuse to believe that deforestation contributes to the destabilization of the climate and, correspondingly, for opposing Reforestation policies for combatting global burning. Left wing propaganda also has a bias against oil. Left wingers blamed the 1990 war against iraq and the 2001 attack on afghanistan on the allies' desire to secure their oil supplies.

The question that has to be asked is why the ‘greenless greens’ and left wingers have such an obsession over oil? Are their attacks on oil due to some underlying animosity to arab states? This line of thinking was reinforced after the zionists’ reoccupation of palestine in april 2002. American commentators accused europeans of being soft on palestinian freedom fighters (for retaliating against zionists stealing their land!) because of europe’s dependence on arab oil - neglecting to indicate that america suffers a similar dependence. If oil was so important then both america and europe would be siding overwhelmingly with the arabs and arming them against the zionists. What is so amazing about the politics of the middle east is that despite the west’s dependence on arab oil, its bias is overwhelmingly towards the zionist state in palestine. How is it possible for greens and lefties to keep repeating their views about the dominating influence of oil in the middle east when oil plays such a small role in that area? The materialist explanation is not adequate in understanding events in the middle east.