Zionists have been campaigning for a couple of decades to transform the definition of anti-semitism. The anti-deformation league has been at the forefront of such a change, "the Anti Defamation League (adl) definition of "anti-Semitism" is so broad that it largely includes even the mildest criticism of Israel that doesn't happened to be framed in the particular parameters that the ADL determines to be acceptable." (Michael Collins Piper ‘Schools Not Teaching Pro-Israel Views To Lose Funding. Congress To Pass 'Ideological Diversity' Legislation’ American Free Press americanfreepress.net 21.03.04 http://www.rense.com/general37/idleg.htm). Richard cohen has mentioned the adl’s publicity drive to equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism, "I cannot say the same about America. Here, criticism of Israel, particularly anti-Zionism, is equated with anti-Semitism. The Anti-Defamation League, one of the most important American Jewish organizations, comes right out and says so. "Anti-Zionism is showing its true colors as deep-rooted anti-Semitism," the organization says in a full-page ad that I have seen in the New Republic as well as other magazines. "No longer are the Arab nations camouflaging their hatred of Jews in the guise of attacking Israel." (Richard Cohen ‘Who's Anti-Semitic?’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5425-2002Apr29¬Found=true April 30, 2002). The magazine Commentary "has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites." (Patrick J. Buchanan ' Whose War?' The American Conservative (magazine) http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html 24.3.2003).

A few years ago, the zionists achieved a notable political victory when they succeeded in getting a renowned dictionary publisher to adopt their definition of anti-semitism. Robert fisk has stated, "I tried to check the spelling of "diddums" in Webster's, America's inspiring, foremost dictionary. No luck. But then, what's the point when Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "anti- Semitism" as "opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel". Come again? If you or I suggest that the Palestinians are getting a raw deal under Israeli occupation, then we are "anti-Semitic". It is only fair, of course, to quote the pitiful response of the Webster's official publicist, Mr Arthur Bicknell, who was asked to account for this grotesque definition. "Our job," he responded, "is to accurately reflect English as it is actually being used. We don't make judgement calls; we're not political." Even more hysterically funny and revolting, he says that the dictionary's editors tabulate "citational evidence" about anti-Semitism published in "carefully written prose-like books and magazines". Preposterous as it is, this Janus-like remark is worthy of the hollowest of laughs." (Robert Fisk ‘A Warning To Those Who Dare To Criticize Israel In The Land Of Free Speech Another Case Study: Mary Robinson’ The Independent 26.04.04).

American zionists gradually became discontent with only social and political changes to the definition of anti-semitism. They wanted the new definition institutionalized in american law so they could make it enforceable through the police and judiciary. However, much more significantly, they wanted this law to apply not merely to america but to the whole world. Zionists believe that america’s political and military power will enable it to enforce this law on people in any country around the world. Such a law will entrench zionists’ world domination. Zionist success in transforming the definition of anti-semitism into a legal concept concerning criticisms of the jews-only state could be used as an indicator of the degree of zionist world domination.

Terrell e. arnold confirms piper’s analysis, "Scholars and journalists who for years have studied, written and talked about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict suddenly are facing a potential brick wall. This wall, not unlike the concrete barrier now being built by Israel to keep out the Palestinians, is designed to silence all discussion of Middle East issues that involves any form of criticism of Israel on any American university campus. The wall, if it were built, would be created in law by senators Rick Santorum (Pa) and Sam Brownback (Kan.) through an amendment to Title VI of the Higher Education Act. Deceptively to be called an amendment to include "ideological diversity and "sexual equality as prerequisites for federal funding, the real purpose of the measure is to require denial of federal funds to any university whose faculty or students, perhaps even guest lecturers, make statements that are in any way critical of Israel. The argument is that any action or statement critical of Israel is perforce anti-Semitic." (Terrell E. Arnold ‘Against The Law To Criticize Israel?’ Rense.com 12.05.04 (DMY)).

Barbara ferguson reiterates the same point, "Major Jewish organizations are lobbying the Senate to approve a bill that would authorize federal monitoring of government-funded Middle East studies programs throughout US universities. The bill, which was overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives and is now before a Senate committee, would establish a federal tribunal to investigate and monitor criticism of Israel on American college campuses. On Sept. 17, 2003, the House Select Subcommittee on Education unanimously approved H.R. 3077, the "International Studies in Higher Education Act." The chief sponsor of the legislation was Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a conservative Republican from Michigan. H.R. 3077 calls for the establishment of a seven-member advisory board that would have the power to recommend cutting federal funding for colleges and universities, which have offered a venue for academic and public debate on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Two members of the board would be appointed by the Senate, two by the House, and three by the Secretary of Education - two of whom are required to be from US federal security agencies. The American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League, "made passing the bill a major goal," according to Forward, a Jewish weekly based in New York, and "based their charges of bias at Middle East centers on some independent research and anecdotal complaints, but mainly on a book published two years ago by Martin Kramer," a Middle East scholar at Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies." (Barbara Ferguson ‘US Jewish Groups Back Bill To Monitor Universities Rense.com http://www.rense.com/general50/bll.htm 19.03.04).

This law was enacted in october 2004, "The conference, which began on Tuesday, is the first to be held on the subject since the October 2004 enactment of the new law and the January 2005 release of the US State Department's first survey on global anti- Semitism. It represents the joint efforts of Cairo University's Centre for Political Research and Studies (CPRS), the non-governmental Arabs Against Discrimination (AAD), and the Egyptian Society of International Law (ESIL)." (Al Ahram ‘Rejecting the US anti-Semitism act’ http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/733/eg3.htm March 10th 2005).

The enactment of this law is a milestone in zionists’ domination of the world. It unambiguously indicates that zionists’ possess world domination. They will now be able to use america’s vast economic, political, and military, clout to combat not merely anti-semitism but all criticisms of ariel sharon’s policies in palestine. The bill will have profound political consequences. Zionists around the world will, in effect, become spies who could report criticisms of sharon’s policies to this american monitoring committee in the hope that it will take punitive action against those making the criticisms. Whatever the outcome, one thing is for sure: the special office that will be set up within the state department to monitor criticisms of ariel sharon and the zionist state won’t be staffed by palestinians or moslems. The zionist domination of the american government will ensure it is staffed overwhelmingly by zionists. This will be another example of (zionist) jobs for the (zionist) boys.

The issue of combatting anti-semitism around the world was also debated at the international level, "In Berlin, the high and mighty including U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, German President Johannes Rau and Israel's president, Moshe Katsav gathered for a Conference of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) dedicated to the struggle against anti-Semitism. They proclaimed that "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is serving as a cover for worldwide anti-Semitic sentiment" as Haaretz reported today." (Israel Shamir ‘Children Of A Lesser God’ Rense.com http://www.rense.com/general52/children.htm 01.05.04). However, colin powell is on record as saying that he does not believe that criticism of the zionist state is anti-semitic.

Since the leading figures in the american administration demanding a war against iraq were jewish neocons it then becomes clear that outlawing anti-semitism would not only protect sharon’s policies in the zionist state but bush’s policies too. Criticizing the bush administration for invading iraq to protect the zionist state in palestine would be deemed anti-semitic - and therefore a crime. Indeed, any policy planned or implemented by jews in an american administration could not be criticized on the grounds that it would be an anti-semitic crime. Perhaps in the future, an astute american administration will employ only zionists thereby deterring anyone from criticizing its policies for fear of being fined or imprisoned for anti-semitism.

What this seems to indicate is that the zionist state is perfectly willing to propose zionist international laws but will not abide by any other types of international law.

The zionist inspired gulf war in 1991, and the zionist inspired invasion of iraq in 2003, are evidence of zionists’ power within various american presidential administrations. They reveal the depths of pro-semitic bigotry in the american (and brutish) governments. In the past, if anyone objected to the zionist state’s warmongering, its appalling oppression of palestinians, or its apartheid system of government, then many jews would have responded with a rational defence of the zionist point of view. But these days, zionists in america and brutland have so much power they don’t need to argue their case, they simply intimidate people with threats, accusations, fabrications, and hysteria. They just seem to be enjoying their power to oppress non-jews and drive them into silence. Anyone who mentions the fact that ariel sharon was a terrorist, or that the zionist state is an apartheid system of government, etc, is now condemned for being anti-semitic. Their chances of finding employment in any zionist owned company are much reduced. Zionists have used people’s repugnance of anti-semitism as a means of silencing protests about the zionist state’s racist policies.

It is amazing that zionists, within a decade of obtaining their first taste of global domination, have managed to promote, according to their own analysis of recent history, three regional wars and two world wars. But, whenever a new political group takes power it immediately seeks to transform the world around it. And reshaping the world to protect, and promote, zionists’ interests is exactly what the zionists controlling american politics have been doing.

Over the last few decades, the zionist state’s illegal, immoral, and inhumane, treatment of palestinians and its growing military dominance over the middle east has enraged politically conscious moslems all over the world. It has made increasing numbers of moslems more politically aware and has driven many into support for violent retaliation. The one crumb of comfort that can be drawn from zionists’ injustices against palestinians and the moslem/arab world is that, in effect, zionism is giving birth to modern islamic political consciousness. Since the end of the second world war, political activism in many moslem countries, heavily suppressed by dictatorships propped up by western interests, has been almost non existent but this is rapidly changing in the face of increasing zionist oppression in palestine and in the middle east as a whole. Many of the zionist state’s political leaders have been former terrorists e.g. yitshak shamir and ariel sharon, and it is they who are producing terrorists like bin laden. It is to be hoped that islamic attacks on zionists will help to expose zionism’s control over global politics especially zionist domination of the american and brutish governments.

The originator of this analysis was the israeli neocon eliot cohen, "For these reasons, I agree with one of our leading contemporary students of military strategy, Eliot A. Cohen, who thinks that what is generally called the "cold war" (a term, incidentally, coined by Soviet propagandists) should be given a new name. "The cold war," Cohen writes, was actually "World War III, which reminds us that not all global conflicts entail the movement of multimillion-man armies, or conventional front lines on a map." I also agree that the nature of the conflict in which we are now engaged can only be fully appreciated if we look upon it as World War IV. To justify giving it this name - rather than, say, the "war on terrorism" - Cohen lists "some key features" that it shares with World War III: that it is, in fact, global; that it will involve a mixture of violent and nonviolent efforts; that it will require mobilization of skill, expertise, and resources, if not of vast numbers of soldiers; that it may go on for a long time; and that it has ideological roots." (Norman Podhoretz ‘World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win’ http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm September 2004). Stephen sniegoski concurs, "Kagan and Kristol seem to be looking forward to this gigantic conflagration. In a November 20, 2002, article in The Wall Street Journal, Eliot Cohen dubs the conflict "World War IV," a term picked up by other neocons. Cohen proclaims that "The enemy in this war is not 'terrorism' ... but militant Islam.... Afghanistan constitutes just one front in World War IV, and the battles there just one campaign." Cohen calls not only for a U.S. attack on Iraq but also for the elimination of the Islamic regime in Iran, which "would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden."" (Stephen J Sniegoski 'The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel' www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc3.htm February 10th 2003). This analysis is now common amongst israeli neocons and has even received the backing of a high ranking israeli member of the bush administration, "Keynoters for the symposium, titled "World War IV: Why We're Fighting, Whom We're Fighting, How We're Fighting," included Woolsey, who has long spoken of the fight against "Islamofascism" ­ defined as including "the mullahs of Iran," the Ba'athist parties of Iraq and Syria, and "the Wahhabis," of which the al-Qaeda terrorist group is a part ­ as the equivalent of a world war. On hand was Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, whose participation appeared not only to provide an official sanction of the radical agenda, but also to confirm that the neocon faction within the Bush administration is alive, kicking and unashamed despite the quagmire in Iraq. Neoconservative godfather Norman Podhoretz, who has also used "World War IV" as his favored description for the challenges Washington faces in the Near East, in particular, made a rare public appearance. He called Israeli tactics in the occupied territories a "model for how to fight this kind of war," and asserted that "Iran is unquestionably on the agenda" of a second Bush administration." (Jim Lobe ‘Sidelined Neocons Stoke Future Fires’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3735 October 8, 2004); "I mention this ancient history only because, to listen to the neoconservatives and their various allies now embedded in the top ranks of the Bush administration (or in well-connected think tanks and front groups scattered inside Washington DC's Beltway), we are in fact enmeshed in nothing less than "World War IV" today. Eliot Cohen, professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University, first proclaimed us there as the Afghan War was underway, just a couple of months beyond September 11, 2001. Former CIA Director James Woolsey swore we were there as the invasion of Iraq began in 2003. The grandfather of the neocons, Norman Podhoretz, reaffirmed that World War IV was the only war in town, the only thing that mattered, last September in a gargantuan piece in Commentary magazine. Others regularly say the same. It's become a commonplace trope of the imperial right. They even have full-scale World War IV conferences (happily attended by Paul Wolfowitz among others) and arguments over the term's exact nature abound. Woolsey, who seems to be making a profession of roaming the country, preaching World War IV to the unconverted, is already dubbing it "the longest war of the 21st century," or as Steve Clemons, President of the New American Foundation, puts it, the new "Hundred Years' War."" (Tom Engelhardt ‘Tomgram: Which War Is This Anyway?’ http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml March 10th 2005).

This zionist analysis places zionism as the critical factor in the last three world wars: the second world war was zionists against nazi germany whilst the third world war was zionists against the soviet union. Zionists played a key role in ‘the third world war’ firstly by encouraging presidents ford and reagan to challenge russia’s military power around the world; secondly, by arming and financing extreme islamic fundamentalists to oust russia from afghanistan; and, thirdly, by promoting a human rights’ campaign which pressured the soviet union into allowing the emigration of russian jews. The fourth world war is basically zionists whipping up global support for a war against moslems. But perhaps zionists ought to be a little more careful about such an analysis since most people in the western world have never thought of the second world war as basically a zionist war against nazi germany. Or perhaps the zionists are telling the truth after all?

Zionists’ ultimate objective, however, is world war five: the dismantling of russia, "The implications of the Bush agenda for permanent war go beyond rearranging the Middle East to Israel's liking. The logical conclusion to their policy is eventually to make war against Russia and China whom they regard as potential rivals. In effect, they want to make war against the whole world. They want to fight World War V after they have won WW3, the war against terrorism, and WW4 the war against militant Islam. It remains to be seen how far the world will allow them to pursue their goals. Noam Chomsky has suggested that their desire to crush any perceived challenges to U.S. power "poses serious dangers" and could even lead to "extinction of the species." ("Deep Concerns, March 20, 2003, distributed over the internet by Znet.) Extinction of the human species may actually be slightly ambitious even for these superhawks, but Chomsky's concern is a serious one. The threats of global warming, resource scarcity and the political tensions they generate are indicators of extraordinary pressures on our modern technological civilization and the Bush regime's prescription for global war can only hasten a day of reckoning." (Ronald Bleier ‘Invading Iraq: Converging u.s. and Israeli Agendas’ http://desip.igc.org/ConvergingAgendas.html April 2003).

This proposition, however, is not as accurate as it could be. It is often said that ariel sharon and the rest of the zionist fundamentalists in his government (and the american and brutish governments) are haunted by the spectre of the second world war. Although the sharonites claim to have launched the war against terrorism, in a way, they still seem to be fighting the second world war ­ especially, for instance, when they denounced yasser arafat, a man without a country and an army, for being the new hitler. The belief that arafat, a moderate, was the new adolf hitler is indicative of the levels of insanity currently prevalent amongst zionists in and around the american and brutish governments.

To take the latest example of zionist madness. In brutland, richard desmond, a jew, owns the ‘daily express, the ‘sunday express’ and the ‘daily star’ which he uses to promote his rabid brand of zionist fundamentalism. Desmond's acquisition of express newspapers had been financed by a german bank, "The frankfurt-based Commerzbank bankrolled the former pornographer's £125m acquisition of the Express group four years ago." In april 2004, desmond attended a business meeting with telegraph executives to discuss a joint express-telegraph printing venture. A few days earlier he'd been told that the telegraph organization would not consider his bid for ownership of telegraph newspapers and so he was probably not in a good mood when he arrived for the meeting, "Witnesses at last week's meeting with Telegraph executives said Mr Desmond accused all Germans of being Nazis. He is understood to have greeted the Telegraph team with "guten Morgen" (good morning) before holding a finger under his nose and lifting his arm in a "Sieg Heil" salute. The Telegraph executives then left the meeting as Mr Desmond instructed his minions to join him in a rendition of Deutschland über Alles. Mr Desmond has not apologised, in spite of condemnation of his behaviour." The guardian also reported that he "goosestepped around" the meeting." (Jane Martinson and Dan Milmo ‘Desmond says Commerzbank link will survive anti-German outburst’ Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1204705,00.html 28.4.2004).

Desmond was angry with the telegraph organization for rejecting his takeover of the telegraph newspapers and doubtlessly saw the meeting with telegraph executives as an opportunity to express his annoyance with the organization they were working for. But why should he have taken out his anger on germans especially when it was a german bank which had financed his takeover of express newspapers? It seems that psychologically, zionists are so preoccupied by nazism that they regard anyone who opposes them (and even those who help them) as being a nazi, capable of resurrecting concentration camps for jews around the world. It also has to be wondered just how many more times that germans are going to take such racist abuse from zionists seeking to exploit events that happened over 60 years ago.

Desmond’s absurd behaviour might seem like an isolated incident. It isn’t. In a recently published article, israel shamir quotes matti golan, the former editor-in-chief of the leading zionist newspaper ‘haaretz’ and of the ‘globes’, the paper for the jewish economic elites. "My problem is not only with Germany. It is with everything German, anywhere. I neither argue nor get upset. I have simply wiped Germany and its people off my globe". Shamir explains that, "Golan is not a firebrand; he is not one of Jewish religious fanatics who deny goyim even descent from Adam. Golan is not a Cabbalist and extremist but one of the sane, non-religious mainstream influential Jewish intellectuals. When this article was discussed on IsraelForum.com in the internet, a typical Jewish response was this: "Matti Golan is a prominent journalist and columnist. He represents ideas held by the vast majority of Israeli Jews in this subject. My opinion included." If I were a German, I would have second thoughts before providing Matti Golan's country with nuclear-capable submarines lest he will 'simply wipe Germany and its people off our globe'. In my view, Golan sounded a call for racist hatred and genocide." (Israel Shamir ‘Children Of A Lesser God’ Rense.com http://www.rense.com/general52/children.htm 01.05.04).

Iraqi nationalists responded to the zionist state’s assassination of yassin by kidnapping four american security guards working in iraqi. According to juan cole, "There is increasing evidence that the brutal attack on the American security guards in Fallujah, and the desecration of their bodies, was the work of Islamists seeking vengeance for the Israeli murder of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Leaflets found at the scene said the operation was in the name of Yassin. al-Hayat reports in its Friday edition that responsibility for the attack has been taken by a group called Phalanges of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. The group said the deaths were a "gift to the Palestinian people." You put yourself in the shoes of an American military commander in Fallujah. He treats with the local clan leaders and Sunni clergy. He tries to get them on the side of the US. He faces hostility, but he is making some progress. And then Ariel Sharon sends US-made helicopter gunships to Gaza and has them fire missiles at people coming out of a mosque, killing 8 and wounding 24. One of the dead is a half-blind paraplegic Islamist named Sheikh Yassin. He could have easily been arrested, and had been in the 1990s. But he was incinerated in a piece of state terror instead. And all of a sudden the people of Fallujah in Iraq are pointing their fingers at the American troops and saying, 'you did this. You gave Sharon the green light.' And all the commander's hard work in building bridges collapses over night. And four US security personnel are dead, and 5 US troops are dead, and the fighting flares up. Thanks, Prime Minister Sharon. Thank you very much." (Juan Cole ‘Deaths of Americans in Fallujah: In revenge for Sharon's Murder of Sheikh Yassin?’ http://www.juancole.com/ 2.04.2004).

The slaughter, and hideous mutilation, of four americans led to the american army invading fallujah causing the loss of many innocent iraqi civilians and a few american troops. Rachelle marshall has stated, "A few days later, after four American security guards were killed in Fallujah and their bodies burned by a crowd, Marines responded by laying siege to the city. When Iraqis fought back, U.S. warplanes dropped 500-pound bombs on houses where the gunmen were thought to be hiding, Apache helicopters fired missiles into residential neighborhoods, and AC-130 gunships strafed the streets. An American soldier said he saw a helicopter fire a missile at a man holding a slingshot; a woman hanging laundry was killed along with several relatives when a missile destroyed their house; a severely wounded woman arrived at a hospital still holding a white flag." (Rachelle Marshall ‘The Fact Behind the Fictions: the U.S. and Israel Plan Permanent Occupations’ Washington Report on Middle East Affairs June 2004, pages 6-8).

The americans’ seige of fallujah was called off only when it was realized that the price of invading the city would have been completely out of proportion to the initial reasons for the invasion. However, here was a clear cut example of the spiral of violence starting off with the zionists in palestine and then ending up in iraq leading to the loss of iraqi and american lives.

The israeli neocons in the american government are fifth columnists, more loyal to ariel sharon and the zionist state in palestine than to george bush and the american government. They are like the succession of zionist crooks in brutland such as:-

It’s a great shame that dame shirley porter and lord conrad black weren’t also whisked back to zionist occupied palestine in a coffin.

Justin raimondo has argued, "No one is criticizing the ethnic and religious affiliations of the neoconservatives, many of whom happen to be Jewish. This is a debate about the radicalization of American foreign policy, which a growing number of conservatives as well as liberal Democrats agree is dangerous. Are we going to let ourselves be intimidated ­ mau-maued ­ into not asking questions about the origins and development of U.S. foreign policy for fear of offending the delicate sensibilities of professional victimologists? The neocons certainly hope so." (Justin Raimondo ‘The Neoconning of America: Neoconservatives under fire ­ and it's David Brooks to the barricades!’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j010704.html January 7, 2004). This is true. What in effect is happening is that zionist neocons (mostly jews) pushed america and britain into a war against iraq and are thus responsible for the deaths of american (and british) soldiers. It is quite true that these zionist neocons were not the only supporters of the war but they were the prime instigators. Those who cannot face up to this unpalatable fact, whether out of fear of being labelled anti-semitic or some other consideration, will never understand american foreign policy.

Zionists must be in bliss at the moment. They virtually run the american administration and dominate the brutish government. They pushed america and brutland into the invasion of iraq. The invasion resulted in the dismantling of the iraqi army thereby neutralizing the biggest threat to zionist domination of the region. American and brutish troops are being sent home in body bags rather than zionist troops. At the same time, american and brutish politicians are touring the middle east disarming more and more moslem/arabic countries e.g. gadafi’s recent capitulation to the west. The goyim are acting like zionist slaves and laying down their lives for the zionist cause.