One of the main propaganda devices that zionists have been using to persuade the american public to support the continued presence of american troops in iraq is stoking up fear of islamic terrorists ­ just as they stoked up fears about russia thirty years previously. They have done this by alleging that international terrorists are roaming iraq attacking the american military. There is, however, little evidence of al quaeda activities in iraq. "U.S. officials have for months publicly promoted the notion that foreign fighters and terrorists are playing a major role in the anti-American insurgency in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq. By blaming foreigners, U.S. authorities hope to quash the idea that Iraqis are rising up against military occupation and frame the conflict as part of the wider war on terror. However, foreigners play a tiny role in Iraq's insurgency, many military experts say." (Guardian Jim Krane ‘Foreigners' Role in Iraq Insurgency Small’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0%2C1280%2C-4047925%2C00.html 3.5.2004); "The LA Times dispatch stated that "despite an intense focus on the network of Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab Zarqawi by U.S. and Iraqi officials, who have insisted that most Iraqis support the country's interim government, American commanders said their best estimates of the proportion of foreigners among their enemies is [sic] about 5 percent." (Norman Solomon ‘Will the Real 'Iraqi Forces' Please Stand Up?’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/solomon.php?articleid=4008 November 19th 2004). The invasion of fallujah was supposed to destroy the islamic militants who’d moved into iraq but only 5% of those captured during the invasion were deemed to be foreign. The zionists are therefore hoping to keep the withdrawal option off the american agenda.

It should be pointed out that there is a total divergence of interests between the american state, and the zionist state, as regards the invasion of iraq. Non-zionist americans want to rebuild iraq, establish a rich market economy, create a democracy, and then leave the country to govern itself. On the other hand, zionists in and around the american government, and the zionist state in palestine, want to keep the american military bogged down in iraq for as long as possible to impoverish iraq and prevent it from ever again becoming a threat to the zionist state.

In both america (and brutland), zionists in the media, especially television, are not merely giving direct political support for the war against terrorism, they are deliberately conditioning the american (and brutish) people for this war by producing programmes that are a variation of ‘The Black and White Ministrel Show’. Kosher producers are incorporating black people, especially black males, into television programmes/commercials in order to promote anti-racism and thereby cement the alliance between whites/jews and blacks. But, at the same time, they also exclude moslems/arabs from such programmes. This common media phenomena of promoting blacks (and appearing to be anti-racist) whilst, at the same time, excluding moslem/arab people is an example of anti-racist racism.

On a personal level, i’ve become pretty tired of watching films and television programmes produced by the politically kosher and starring politically kosher actors. It’s almost as if kosher media producers are deliberately promoting kosher actors in order to hype them up into stars and thus increase kosher wealth, power, and influence, around the world. The whole world loves charlton heston, kirk douglas, captain kirk, colombo, michael douglas, mike myers, madonna, the cohen family in OC, etc so how could non-jewish people hate jews - despite the fact that more and more of them are becoming zionist fundamentalists? Whether it’s in films or tv programmes (or indeed in newspapers) the global kosher elite seem intent on promoting their own kind at the expense of all other peoples.

The implication of this criticism of zionist world domination is that both zionists and non-zionists pursue their own policies quite independently of each other and it is just a coincidence when these policies overlap. This criticism of zionist world domination is refutable on a number of grounds.

It has to be suggested that christian zionists are more accurately described as dechristianized zionists. The god that the so-called christian zionists believe in is not the christian god but the zionist god. The christian god is a compassionate, loving, and forgiving god whilst the jewish god, or master of the universe, is a vengeful and violent god. The christian god is to be found in the new testament whilst the zionist god is to be found in the old testament and most dechristianized zionists are fixated on the old testament. Indeed "the land of israel is the native homeland of multiple millions american christians. They know the history of ancient israel better than they know the history of their own city, state, or the US itself."

It is highly unlikely that christians became dechristianized zionists as a result of their own internal religious deliberations ­ as if they just slid down a long intellectual ladder from christianity to zionism. It is not possible to move from christianity to zionism simply through an internal intellectual development of christian theology because there is a huge gulf between christianity and judaism. Given that the nature of the christian god is the exact opposite of the nature of the jewish god, then the phrase ‘christian zionists’ is a theological contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as christian zionists. These people are dechristianized zionists.

America’s neocons, with the help of the zionist lobby and the zionist owned media, played a major role in persuading america’s christian leaders to change their religious affiliation and their view of god in the same way as they managed to change the american public’s view of saddam hussein from a bulwark against communism to anti-american terrorist. Allan c. brownfeld was the first to highlight the way that zionists wooed christian evangelical leaders, "In 1978, Jerry Falwell traveled to Israel on a trip sponsored and paid for by the Israeli government. In 1979, the Israelis extended another free trip, during a period when Prime Minister Menachem Begin was in a rush to build Jewish settlements throughout the West Bank. The Rev. Falwell traveled the road toward the Palestinian town of Nablus and turned off the highway and stood at a cluster of prefabricated houses built by Jewish settlers. At that time, Falwell declared that God was kind to America only because "America has been kind to the Jews." At a gala dinner in New York in 1980, Prime Minister Begin bestowed upon Falwell a medal named for Vladimir Jobotinsky, the right-wing Zionist leader. In 1981, when Israel bombed the nuclear reactor in Iraq, Begin immediately called Jerry Falwell for support." (By Allan C. Brownfeld ‘Some Fundamentalists Ache for Armageddon’ The Orange County Register http://iraqwar.org/fundamentalists.htm May 19, 1987). According to charles e. carlson. "Israel is said to have given Jerry Falwell a jet plane in the 1980s ..." (Charles E. Carlson ‘Israeli Hate-Bus Tours American Churches’ We Hold These Truths http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/UCIBusP.htm July 1st, 2004). Uri avnery has stated, "The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush's Republican party. The founding fathers were Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority, who once got a jet plane as a present from Menachem Begin, and Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition and the Christian Broadcasting Network, which help to finance the Christian Embassy in Jerusalem of J.W. van der Hoeven, an outfit that supports the settlers and their right-wing allies." (Uri Avnery ‘The Night After: The Easier the Victory, the Harder the Peace’ Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html April 10, 2003). Zionists have been very kind to falwell but, it can be suggested, falwell’s been very willing to stimulate their kindness. Once the leaders of the christian evangelist movement had been converted to dechristianized zionism they persuaded their followers to follow suit. If zionists manage to persuade non-jewish people to adopt their view of the world then in effect they have become zionists. This is not a coincidence of interests between two equal, independent groups ­ it is the cultural indoctrination of one group by another so that the converted follow the orders of those who have carried out the conversions.

Jim lobe has hinted that the zionist organization of america tried to woo the christians into supporting zionism .. "the Zionist Organisation of America (ZOA), which, unlike other mainstream Jewish groups in the United States, has consistently supported Likud positions and the settlement movement in the occupied territories and actively courted the Christian Right." (Jim Lobe ‘Feith is the Answer’ Inter Press News Service Agency http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=20952 Nov 5 2003). The zionist lobby group the Ethics and Public Policy Center was created to bring christians closer to the zionist movement, "Created in 1976, EPPC was the first neocon institute to break ground in the frontal attack on the secular humanists. It explicitly sought to unify the Christian right with the neoconservative religious right, which was mostly made up of agnostics back then. A central part of its political project was to "clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and the public debate over domestic and foreign policy." (Tom Barry ‘The Ambassador of Lies Elliott Abrams: the Neocon's Neocon’ http://www.counterpunch.org/barry02092005.html February 9, 2005);

The success of zionists’ efforts to lobby christian religious leaders shouldn’t be regarded as unusual when zionists’ lobbying of other sectors of american society are taken into consideration. Zionists spend a great deal of time, money, and effort, on lobbying the top echelons of the american military. There is a long history of zionist groups taking high-ranking members of the american military on all expenses paid junkets to the zionist state in palestine, so it is not surprising that the american military favours the zionist cause. "It is JINSA's second mandate that demands our attention. "Under a program called ‘Send a General to Israel,' hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax-deductible contributions bankroll an annual tour of Israel by retired U.S. generals and admirals." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003). It is not merely generals in the american military who are sent to the zionist state for zionist indoctrination, "Looking towards the future, JINSA makes sure it is not just generals and admirals who get the grand tour. It also provides a study program in Israel for cadets and midshipmen from the Naval Academy, West Point and the Air Force Academy, from whose ranks will come the next generation of generals and admirals." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003).

Zionist lobby groups also hire some of america’s military leaders as directors providing them with a lucrative remuneration and continued access to the rich and powerful. "Judging from a look at JINSA's board of advisers, at least 25 of these ex-generals and retired admirals have subsequently been recruited into the organization, as have executives from a number of the major arms manufacturers. (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003).

Blankfort has indicated that zionists also lobby american politicians, "It should be noted that both of these programs (the lobbying of the top echelons of the american military and up and coming military personnel) are in keeping with the practice of Jewish organizations and federations across the country that routinely send public officials, such as mayors, supervisors, city councilors, police chiefs, etc. - the pool from which future members of Congress are likely to arise - on all-expense paid trips to Israel, thereby virtually assuring their support for the Jewish state in the future. No base is left uncovered." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003).

And what happens to the americans cordially invited to the apartheid state in palestine? "The FBI has investigated several incidents of suspected intelligence breaches involving Israel since the Pollard case, including a 1997 case in which the National Security Agency bugged two Israeli intelligence officials in Washington discussing efforts to obtain a sensitive U.S. diplomatic document. Israel denied wrongdoing in that case and all others, and no one has been prosecuted. But U.S. diplomats, military officers and other officials are routinely warned before going to Israel that local agents are known to slip into homes and hotel rooms of visiting delegations to go through briefcases and to copy computer files. "Any official American in the intelligence community or in the foreign service gets all these briefings on all the things the Israelis are going to try to do to you," said one U.S. official." (Bob Drogin and Greg Miller ‘Israel Has Long Spied on U.S., Say Officials’ http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-spyprobe3sep03,1,4068220.story?coll=la-home-headlines September 3, 2004).

The zionist lobbying of america’s religious leaders, retired military generals, military personnel, and political leaders, has resulted in the zionization, the zionist indoctrination, of vast swathes of the american public.

Firstly, zunes’s conclusion about dechristianized zionists arises from his anarchist theory that america is far more militarily and industrially powerful than the zionist state and that, as a consequence, bush issues orders to sharon who is left with no alternative but to obey such orders. In this theory, by definition, sharon and the zionist lobby in america isn’t politically powerful enough to force bush to change his mind. The only political power great enough to change bush’s policies comes from the dechristianized zionists. Zunes cites three instances of bush caving in to the dechristianized zionists.

Zunes’ analysis is laughable. It represents a bizarre new theory of modern democracy ­ any group of people can change the american president’s policies by sending in some emails or postcards. A few thousand emails will lead the president to condone a state assassination; 50,000 postcards are enough to sink a peace plan; and 100,000 emails leads to a change in american policies.

Let’s contrast zunes’ fantasy, his gross over-estimation of the power of the dechristianized zionists, with political realities. In brutland, just before the start of the zionist proxy war against iraq, nearly three million people spent a vast amount of time, effort, and money, to attend two demonstrations against the war ­ both were by far the biggest demonstrations ever seen in the country. The protestors didn’t just spend three minutes sitting in front of a computer to send off an email to the prime minister. They travelled many miles, spent money on travel fares, and put aside one of their treasured days off work. According to zunes’ protest theory of modern democracy, these two demonstrations should have been more than enough to bring about a change in blair’s pro-war policies. It didn’t, of course, because the british state is run by zionist bigots who simply ignored the demonstrations and got on with the job of sacrificing the country for the good of the zionist state in palestine.

Zunes’ is clearly politically naïve. The bush administration wasn’t forced to change its mind in these three instances because it received a lot of emails/postcards. On the contrary, these instant formal protests provided it with an excuse to change policies it didn’t like but which it was expected to support for the sake of the international community. Whilst it is true that the goyim zionists seem to have considerable power this is just an illusion because the zionists in power wanted so-called christian protests in order to get them off their commitments to the international community. In total contrast, the blair administration ignored three million protestors because it was intent on promoting zionist policies. Zunes is doing his best to over-estimate the power of the goyim zionists in order to underestimate the role of zionism in american political affairs. This would minimize their responsibility and thus guilt for the wars they are promoting. Perhaps, like chomsky, he has ethnic affiliations with the zionist state that cloud his judgment.

The second example highlighting the political weakness of the dechristianized zionists is their failure to turn america into a christian state - a major policy which would institutionalize their power. If the dechristianized zionists were as powerful as zunes thinks they are, then they would have been able to bring about such a major constitutional change. And yet their efforts to do this have been blocked - primarily by the superior power of the zionist lobby which insists, for obvious reasons, on a separation of church and state ­ a separation which they support only in america not the zionist state where religion has a stranglehold over the state.

The third example of dechristianized zionists’ weakness is their failure to protest about the massacres of christians in east timor. But, as zunes rightly points out, "Interestingly, even though the East Timor situation involved a predominantly Muslim country conquering, occupying, and terrorizing a predominantly Christian country, virtually no protests arose from the Islamaphobic Christian Right." (Stephen Zunes ‘The Influence of the Christian Right on U.S. Middle East Policy’ Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org June 2004). The reason for this is that zionists weren’t interested in the east timor issue so they didn’t bother to channel goyims energies over this issue. Dechristianized zionists are not organized enough to launch such a campaign for themselves.

If a large group of people belonging to one religion suddenly converts to another religion as a result of persuasion by apostles of that religion then real power does not lay with the converted but with those who have done the converting. If christians decide to become the dechristianized zionists, and support zionist goals, then political power lays with the zionists not the christians. It isn’t dechristianized zionists who are shaping america’s domestic and middle east policies ­ it is zionists who get goyim to act on zionists’ behalf. Dechristianized zionists follow zionists’ lead - they don’t formulate zionist policies. Christians’ failure to protest about east timor shows how much they rely on zionists to organize their political campaigns. Zionists saw no reason to release their dechristianized zionist rottweilers on this issue. It is only when their zionist masters let them off the leash that they sink their teeth into an issue of their masters choosing.

Lila rajiva is one of the few commentators who believe that if zionists have been able to manipulate vast numbers of americans then it is the zionists who have the power, not americans, "But are Bush’s policies driven largely by the rise of the fundamentalist right? Don Wagner, an expert in fundamentalism believes that the current hard-line pro-Israel movement in the U.S. draws its strength from these evangelicals and is "predominantly gentile." But he may be placing the cart before the horse. It is true that Christian Zionists are numerically powerful, but a look at history quickly lets us know that their rise in importance in American politics coincided with the desire of Jewish Zionists to broaden their constituency and goes back to the late 60’s and 1970’s to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, the Arab defeat, and then during the Yom Kippur War in 1973 an oil crisis caused by an embargo by OPEC, the oil cartel, of the western nations that supported Israel in that war. As oil prices sent shock waves into the Western economies and apprised them of the power of Arab nationalist sympathy for Palestine, other new intellectual currents in Western thought were also strengthening support for that power - feminism, third world nationalism, anti-colonialism, environmentalism, and a peace movement aimed at de-nuclearizing the world, under the impact of which Western Europe, including the U.K. and Japan, began to rethink its reflexive support for Israel. The influence or beliefs of the Christian right can be denounced - and is so routinely - without heads rolling but any imputation of a pro-Israeli bias is liable to call down an avalanche of letter-writing orchestrated by the Anti-Defamation League, the B,nai Brith and a host of Jewish groups whose influence on Capitol Hill is the elephant in the room that everyone acknowledges and no one talks about. Jewish Zionists have made an alliance of convenience with the Christian right, but there is little doubt who the senior partner is. In any case, Jewish groups themselves boast of their influence, and as Michael Kinsley puts it, "you shouldn't brag about how influential you are if you want to get hysterically indignant when someone suggests that government policy is affected by your influence." (Lila Rajiva ‘An Ideological Tower of Babel’ http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva01152005.html January 15 / 16, 2005).

The argument against zionist world domination that "Jews by themselves could not determine U.S. Middle East policy" is also fallacious because there are many jews who are repelled by the barbarity of the zionist state and the utter lies and deceptions being peddled by the zionist lobby and the zionist owned media in america.

Firstly, contrary to public opinion, it is not the zionist state that is oppressing palestinians but americans. Jeffrey blankfort is one of the few to have criticized chomsky’s and zunes’ views, and his interpretation of their views is that america is forcing the zionist state to exploit and oppress the palestinians. "According to Zunes, the Israelis have been forced to assume a role similar to that assigned to members of the Jewish ghettos of Eastern Europe who performed services, mainly tax collection, as middlemen between the feudal lords and the serfs in earlier times. In fact, writes Zunes, "US policy today corresponds with this historic anti-Semitism." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004). Blankfort’s comment on this proposition is rightly that, "Anyone comparing the relative power of the Jewish community in centuries past with what we find in the US today will find that statement absurd."

Secondly, these two anarchist gurus believe the american government is responsible for forcing the zionist state to pursue an expansionist policy in palestine. American imperialism is the cause of zionist expansionism not belligerent zionist fundamentalists, "An additional component of Chomsky's analysis is his insistence that it is the US, more than Israel, that is the "rejectionist state," implying that were it not for the US, Israel might long ago have abandoned the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians for a mini-state. Essential to his analysis is the notion that every US administration since that of Eisenhower has attempted to advance Israel's interests in line with America's global and regional agenda." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004).

Thirdly, the american government uses the zionist state in palestine to pursue american interests in the middle east. "Earlier in the evening, he (chomsky) had asserted that Israel received support from the United States as a reward for the services it provides as the US's "cop-on-the-beat" in the Middle East." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004); "The U.S. supports Israel's dominance so it can serve as "a surrogate for American interests in this vital strategic region." "Israel has helped defeat radical nationalist movements" and has been a "testing ground for U.S. made weaponry." Moreover, the intelligence agencies of both countries have "collaborated," and "Israel has funneled U.S. arms to third countries that the U.S. [could] not send arms to directly,…Iike South Africa, like the Contras, Guatemala under the military junta, [and] Iran." Zunes cited an Israeli analyst who said: "'It's like Israel has just become another federal agency when it's convenient to use and you want something done quietly."' Although the strategic relationship between the United States and the Gulf Arab states in the region has been strengthening in recent years, these states "do not have the political stability, the technological sophistication, [or] the number of higher-trained armed forces personnel" as does Israel." (The above text is based on remarks by Stephen Zunes ‘U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship’’ 26 January, 2001).

Fourthly, the american government also determines the zionist state’s foreign policies. Allan c brownfeld has borrowed from chomsky to argue, "But if the U.S. is clear about what it believes is the right and necessary thing to do, Israel will eventually do it. When U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared, without equivocation, that the l956 invasion of Egypt by Israel, Great Britain and France was wrong and needed to be reversed, all three countries pulled out promptly." (Allan C. Brownfeld ‘Increasingly, Thoughtful American Jews Are Re-Thinking Zionism’ Washington report on Middle East Affairs http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May_2004/0405067.html May 2004, pages 67-69).

Fifthly, the american government provides financial aid to the zionist state in palestine to enable zionists to carry out american imperialist policies, "He (stephen zunes) explored the strategic reasoning behind the aid, asserting that it parallels …. the role "Israel could play in advancing U.S. strategic interests in the region."" (The above text is based on remarks by Stephen Zunes ‘U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship’’ 26 January, 2001).

Sixthly, america also provides financial aid to the zionist state as a subsidy to american manufacturers, "He (stephen zunes) explored the strategic reasoning behind the aid, asserting that it parallels the "needs of American arms exporters ….."" (The above text is based on remarks by Stephen Zunes ‘U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship’’ 26 January, 2001); "Matti Peled, former Israeli major general and Knesset member, told Zunes that he and most Israeli generals believe this aid is "little more than an American subsidy to U.S. arms manufacturers," considering that the majority of military aid to Israel is used to buy weapons from the U.S. Moreover, arms to Israel create more demand for weaponry in Arab states. According to Zunes, "the Israelis announced back in 1991 that they supported the idea of a freeze in Middle East arms transfers, yet it was the United States that rejected it." (The above text is based on remarks by Stephen Zunes ‘U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship’’ 26 January, 2001); "In the fall of 1993 - when many had high hopes for peace - 78 senators wrote to former President Bill Clinton insisting that aid to Israel remain "at current levels." Their "only reason" was the "massive procurement of sophisticated arms by Arab states." The letter neglected to mention that 80 percent of those arms to Arab countries came from the U.S. "I'm not denying for a moment the power of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], the pro-Israel lobby," and other similar groups, Zunes said. Yet the "Aerospace Industry Association which promotes these massive arms shipments … is even more influential." This association has given two times more money to campaigns than all of the pro-Israel groups combined. Its "force on Capitol Hill, in terms of lobbying, surpasses that of even AIPAC. We didn't need a pro-Indonesia lobby to support Indonesia in its savage repression of East Timor all these years." This is a complex issue, and Zunes said that he did not want to be "conspiratorial," but he asked the audience to imagine what "Palestinian industriousness, Israeli technology, and Arabian oil money…would do to transform the Middle East…. [W]hat would that mean to American arms manufacturers? Oil companies? Pentagon planners?" " (The above text is based on remarks by Stephen Zunes ‘U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship’’ 26 January, 2001).

Finally, the american public has believed for a couple of decades that zionist political lobby groups have dominated the american congress and, in more recent times, the american presidency. According to chomsky and zunes, however, these lobby groups are not powerful. "It was 1991 and Noam Chomsky had just finished a lecture in Berkeley on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and was taking questions from the audience. An Arab-American asked him to explain his position regarding the influence of America's Israel lobby. Chomsky replied that its reputation was generally exaggerated and, like other lobbies, it only appears to be powerful when its position lines up with that of the "elites" who determine policy in Washington." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004). This argument has led zunes to the conclusion that the "general thrust of U.S. policy would be pretty much the same even if AIPAC didn't exist." (The above text is based on remarks by Stephen Zunes ‘U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship’’ 26 January, 2001).

These assumptions are blatantly false. Today, the main engine of american economic growth is the media, entertainment, and computer, industries. The media industries are the biggest and most profitable industries in the world. They outstrip what used to be called the military-industrial complex. A considerable proportion of these new industrial giants are owned or run by zionists. A jewish author has stated, "Today, though barely 2% of the nation's population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews." (Benjamin Ginsberg ‘The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State’ 1993. Quoted in Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004). Zionists own or control most of america’s media industries from films, television, magazines, newspapers, and the internet. Ginsberg has pointed out that, "The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times." (Benjamin Ginsberg ‘The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State’ 1993. Quoted in Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004).

Zionists do not merely own and control the american media. They use it to promote policies and propaganda which are favourable to the zionist state in palestine. Even if every single member of the american congress was implacably neutral between zionists and palestinians in palestine, the zionist controlled media, having moulded the american public into supporting the zionist state, is able to force american congresspeople into promoting zionist policies.

But zionist pressure on the american congress/presidency is not just a matter of zionists shaping public opinion and then using it to apply severe pressure on those in power. It also consists of zionists using their vast financial wealth to buy american politicians to sing from the zionist hymnsheet.

Over the last decade or so, as zionist lobbyists have bribed american politicians and created a public mood favourable to the zionist state, the likud party has dominated as much in america as it has in the zionist state in palestine. In america, the republican party is the extreme right wing branch of the likud party whilst the democrat party is the centre right branch of the likud party. Only a bigot could dispute the fact that today, in america, "The Likudniks are really in charge now." (Quote from a senior U.S. official in an article by Robert Kaiser in a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post. See Patrick J. Buchanan ' Whose War?' The American Conservative (magazine) http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html 24.3.2003).

The extreme zionist policies being promoted by the bush administration do not come from the long deceased, wasp controlled american military industrial complex but from zionists in the military industrial media complex who want to use american military power to promote the interests of the zionist state in the middle east. Since the p*ny bombings, zionists in the american administration have transformed america’s foreign policies ­ not non-zionist americans.

It is quite true that in the past, american imperialism was strong enough to exert its will over the zionist state. The epiphany of this power came during the 1956 suez crisis, when the american government forced britain, france, and the zionist state to withdraw their armies from the suez canal. This incident is now nearly 50 years old. Since then, zionist economic power has grown enormously; zionists have acquired political control over the american congress; and, for the first time, zionists have been able to control the american presidency. The days when wasps controlled the american government and told the zionist state in palestine what to do are long gone. These days, the balance of power has shifted significantly towards the zionist state: the leader of the zionist state can humiliate the american president by calling him a neville chamberlain and get away with it without having to apologize or even being punished. The leader of the zionist state now simply ignores orders given to him by the president of the united states ­ such as withdrawing from the invasion of jenin. Even more revealing about the balance of power between america and the zionist state, is that the leader of the zionist state can simply take a set of policies to the american president for him to rubber stamp ­ as was the case with the april 2004 agreement concerning what is euphemistically called the zionists’ plan for disengagement from gaza.

If america ruled the world it would not allow the zionist state to build settlements in occupied palestine which are against international law. The leader of the zionist state would not dare to say that he controlled america. The conclusion, that bush is sharon’s muppet, is unavoidable.

What chomsky and zunes seem to imply is that, during the second world war, america sent jews to palestine so that they would set up a zionist state, trigger constant wars with the arab/moslem countries in the middle east, in order for the military industrial complex to make vast profits by selling arms to both sides. It has to be suggested however that it is difficult to imagine there being any major problems in the middle east if the zionist state did not exist or if it abided by un resolutions.

Chomsky’s and zunes’s criticism of zionist domination over america is not merely absurd, it is scandalous. It is ludicrous for them to ignore zionists’ accumulation of economic and financial power in america. And it is ludicrous for them to believe that zionists are not using this economic and financial power to lobby for support from all the major political centres of power in america.

According to jeffrey blankfort, the implication of these views is that, "Prof. Stephen Zunes, who might be described as a Chomsky acolyte, would not only relieve Israeli Jews from any responsibility for their actions, he would have us believe they are the victims." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that zunes and chomsky are apologists for the zionist state in palestine. No matter how much they dislike what is being done in palestine, when they blame american imperialism for the oppression of palestinians then they are removing all responsibility and guilt from the zionists.

Secondly, it has to be suggested that, as a jew, chomsky’s loyalties to the zionist state have never evaporated. He has stated, "I was part of the Zionist movement, in fact, a Zionist youth leader .. I lived there on a kibbutz for a while." (Noam Chomsky ‘South Africa, Israel-Palestine, and the Contours of the Contemporary World Order’ Znet http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=5489 May 10, 2004). It is not surprising, therefore, that he is opposed to sanctions against the zionist state in palestine, "No. In fact I've been strongly against it in the case of Israel. For a number of reasons. For one thing, even in the case of South Africa, I think sanctions are a very questionable tactic. In the case of South Africa, I think they were [ultimately] legitimate because it was clear that the large majority of the population of South Africa was in favor of it." (Noam Chomsky ‘South Africa, Israel-Palestine, and the Contours of the Contemporary World Order’ Znet http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=5489 May 10, 2004).

There may be a time in the future when wasps, in alliance with blacks and hispanics, are able to wrest back control of america from the american branches of the likud party but it won’t be for another generation at the very least. It’s one thing for mealy-mouthed politicians to continually denounce the idea of zionist world domination but when it’s done by one of the greatest critics of global politics it becomes laughable. If chomsky wants to continue ignoring the Elephants in the corner of the room then one day he is going to find himself trampled under foot.

The zionist state has never belonged, or contributed, to the post-World War II international system. In effect then, by associating itself so closely with the zionist state, the united states has decided to join the zionist state outside the international community. It has become a rogue nation like the rogue zionist state. It would rather follow the zionist state into pariahdom than remain a member of the international community. This indicates without doubt that america is the servant and the zionist state is the master. The fact that this new american policy was designed by zionists is not a coincidence. The fact that america invaded iraq in order to protect the zionist state is not a coincidence. What they indicate is that america is dominated by zionists and implements policies designed by zionists for the benefit of zionists.

Zunes has argued, "And though a strong case can be made that U.S. support for the Israeli occupation ultimately hurts U.S. interests, there remains a widely held perception that Israel is an important asset to American strategic objectives in the Middle East and beyond. (Stephen Zunes ‘The Influence of the Christian Right on U.S. Middle East Policy’ Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org June 2004). Prior to the american invasion of iraq many people around the world were grossly disappointed by the hypocrisy of american politicians supporting a racist apartheid regime in palestine but they still admired the country’s political freedoms and its culture. When zionists pushed america into the war against iraq america lost a great deal of international prestige. After the evil committed by american and brutish troops in iraq, much of what is left of this prestige has also disappeared.

Zunes has argued, "Ultimately, Washington’s championing of Israel - like its approval of other repressive governments - is part of a strategic calculation rather than simply ethnic politics." (Stephen Zunes ‘The Influence of the Christian Right on U.S. Middle East Policy’ Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org June 2004). But, america isn’t championing zionism, zionism is chomping on america. The zionist state has done nothing but bring shame upon america and western values. The world’s disenchantment with america may not have yet had much of an economic impact but the invasion and occupation of iraq is a huge financial burden which will have serious financial and economic impacts on america.

Any objective observer watching the american and brutish governments removing saddam from kuwait, attacking iraq for thirteen years before invading the country, and insisting on the disarming of arabic/moslem states, whilst allowing the zionist state in palestine to occupy more and more palestinian land and build up more and more frightening weapons of mass destruction, could reach only one conclusion. Zionists rule the world.

The christisons concur with blankfort’s observations about the left, "Most of the vociferously pro-Israeli neo-conservative policymakers in the Bush administration make no effort to hide the fact that at least part of their intention in promoting war against Iraq (and later perhaps against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians) is to guarantee Israel's security by eliminating its greatest military threats, forging a regional balance of power overwhelmingly in Israel's favor, and in general creating a more friendly atmosphere for Israel in the Middle East. Yet, despite the neo-cons' own openness, a great many of those on the left who oppose going to war with Iraq and oppose the neo-conservative doctrines of the Bush administration nonetheless utterly reject any suggestion that Israel is pushing the United States into war, or is cooperating with the U.S., or even hopes to benefit by such a war." (Kathleen and Bill Christison Counterpunch ‘A Rose By Another Other Name: The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html 13.12.2002).

The most that can currently be expected from these zionist-loving liberal/lefty/progressive/peace groups as regards zionists’ total domination of the palestinians is neutrality, "Neutrality in any conflict in which there is a gross imbalance of power is probably an impossibility and certainly immoral. Treading a middle path between one utterly powerless party and another party with total power, effectively removes all restraints on behavior by the powerful party. Yet this is the posture of those American peace groups that put themselves forward as advocates for Palestinian-Israeli reconciliation. They take no position between the Palestinians and Israel, but only promote peace plans such as the unofficial Geneva Accord, without also taking action or even speaking out forcefully against Israel's occupation. The consequence is that these groups have given Israel the time and the license to devastate the land, begin its ethnic cleansing, and destroy any prospect for Palestinian independence. Their refusal to take a clear stand against Israel's oppressive policies is a statement that might makes right, that oppressive policies are acceptable, and most particularly that justice for Palestinians is less important than power for Israel." (Kathleen Christison ‘The Problem with Neutrality Between Palestinians and Israel’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/ July 10/12, 2004).

It is not possible to protect the Earth’s biosphere until the dominance of global zionism has been abolished. Zionists are trying to shape the world in their image. Unless they are stopped they will destroy the Earth and every living thing on it. Global burning is the biggest threat to ooman survival on Earth. Zionists’ attempts to dominate the world through world war three make it impossible for the world to unite to protect the global environment. The cruelty and barbarity of the zionist state is splitting the global community apart making any global response to global burning impossible. Lakhdar brahimi was only partially right when he called the zionist state a "poison in the region". It is a poison throughout the world. (Quoted in Ami Eden ‘Jewish Congresswoman says Bush's Policies a Danger to Jews’ Information Clearing House http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6263.htm May 28, 2004).

Crackpot zionists, like their crackpot zionist-christian fellow travellers in america, don’t fear the destruction of the Earth. On the contrary, they welcome it because to them it means the arrival of the messiah as predicted in the old testament. Quite why a messiah would want to grant ever-lasting life to such vile, narrow-minded, barbaric, crackpots is beyond understanding but the fact that such people believe they are going to inherit what will be, by then, a dead Earth is indicative of the gross illusions that oomans have about themselves.

It has been reported that, "Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen". (Nigel Morris ‘Livingstone says Bush is 'greatest threat to life on planet'’ Independent 18.11.2003 http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=464783). It has to be suggested that this is not the case. Ariel sharon, a former terrorist, war criminal, and currently a zionist state terrorist, is the world’s political leader not george bush and he is without doubt the most dangerous person on Earth. For him global burning is an utter irrelevance in comparison to the armageddon which will precede the arrival of the new messiah, the saviour of the chosen people. There is no chance of protecting the Earth when poisonous, armageddonist, minds such as his are in control of the world. The world will know that it is back on the path to insanity when ariel sharon is arrested and put on trial for his war crimes. Until that happens the world will continue to slide into self destruction. It will be a race to see what destroys all life on Earth first: ooman induced wars or ooman induced global burning.