"Both candidates stand for more war. Why pretend otherwise? Kerry doesn't. He has repeatedly stated about Iraq, "I want victory. I want to win. And I have a better plan to win than George Bush does." These cannot be interpreted as the words of a peace candidate, despite the tremendous efforts of Kerry's left apologists to imply otherwise."

"Kerry is perhaps more virulent than Bush in supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine, calling Israel "the only true democracy in the Middle East"- despite its ongoing occupation of Palestinian land, and apartheid oppression and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people. As Kerry wrote in February, "In this difficult time, we must again reaffirm we are enlisted for the duration--and reaffirm our belief that the cause of Israel must be the cause of America."" (Sharon Smith ‘Which Side Are You On? Guilt Trippers for Kerry’ http://www.counterpunch.org/smith10222004.html October 22 / 24, 2004).

Zionists in the democratic party probably also found nader’s anti-zionist comments equally disturbing. It is true that all democrats, zionist and non-zionist, wanted to prevent both the green party and nader from contesting in states where kerry and bush were level in the opinion polls. But once nader opened up the zionist issue, the zionists in the democratic party would have had additional reasons for undermining his electoral successes. Perhaps this explains the vehemence of the democrats’ tactics to keep nader off the ballot in so many states. Zionist dominance of american politics is highly inconspicuous because of politicians’ refusal to discuss the influence of zionism on the media, congress, the presidency, and the middle east, so zionists in the democratic party would have desperately wanted to prevent him from discussing such issues during the presidential election.

Even if democrats did not believe their accusation that, in 2000, nader and the green party were responsible for helping to elect george bush jnr, they were politically astute enough to realize that since many greens believed the hypothesis, then it could be a useful propaganda tool for deterring the green party from contesting states where kerry and bush were neck and neck. In the machiavellian world of politics it is possible that many democrats did not believe this proposition but since they could see greens wincing at this political cudgel, they would have been foolhardy not to use it. The more they blamed nader and the green party for the democrats’ 2000 election disaster, the greater the anxiety they induced in greens, the more willing the green party became to sacrifice its own, and nader’s, political prospects.

Once the green party had divorced itself from nader, the democrats went onto the offensive to prevent nader from becoming a candidate in all states. Merely by contesting nader’s attempts to get onto ballots, they managed to waste a huge amount of his time and resources. These tactics had a serious impact on nader’s ability to campaign during the election, "Organized labor can't get Kerry to promise working people more than a hike in the minimum wage to $7, but here's the SEIU putting $65 million of its members' dues into the Kerry campaign and deploying hundreds of organizers across the country, working 24 hours a day to keep Nader off the ballot. It's tying Nader down. He's fighting 21 legal cases in 17 states, and as Nader himself concedes, "The ballot access has drained our time and our resources"." (Alexander Cockburn ‘Go to Baghdad; Then Visit the West Bank: C'mon Ralph, You've Got Nothing to Lose’ http://www.counterpunch.org/ September 25 / 6, 2004).

The democrats’ tactics, however, went far beyond contesting nader’s ballot registration. Some of the tactics they used were highly undemocratic, exposing serious flaws in the american constitution.

The democrats spent more time and effort undermining nader than they did registering new democratic voters. Nader sent the following message to the few progressives left in the democratic party, "Also, Jesse Jackson Sr. told me that the Democratic Party is not actively registering 9 million African American voters whose high preference for the Democrats could swing key states. Instead of unleashing hordes of lawyers, operatives and infiltrators to block our access to the ballot and voters' choices in the various states, tell your party to focus on millions of votes that may not be counted or cast because of Republican shenanigans, as well as the 90 million non-voters." (Ralph Nader).

At the very least, the electorate lost out for not having a wider choice of candidates, "They will not have the right to vote for the first presidential candidate of Arab descent, nor the first Latino vice presidential candidate. Their civil rights are being trampled on by the Democrats in Oregon, Illinois, and California, just as their rights were assaulted by the Republicans in Florida." (Todd Chretien ‘The Dem Plot Against Nader: Florida Comes to California’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/chretien08052004.html August 5 2004).

Nader responded, "The anti-Nader Democrats have spread their big lie to discredit Nader and silence his anti-war and progressive message that Kerry could not rebut. The anti-Naderites hired Stanley Greenberg to conduct surveys and focus groups to determine how best to smear Nader. They found that falsely claiming Nader was funded and controlled by Republicans was the most effective line they could use - a line that can't pass the laugh test when compared to the facts. They announced their findings at the Democratic Convention and then spread the lie through the Naderfactor.com and the United Progressives for Victory. But the reality was only 700 Republican contributions (no individuals, but individual contributions) had given donations to the Nader campaign and most of the contributors were people Nader had worked with on justice issues in the past. Even among these 700 the Democrats received more money than Nader/Camejo—$111,700 to $146,000. But, the Democrats continue to use the Big Lie—despite the facts." (http://www.voteNader.org October 18th 20040). Nader went on to point out, "Preliminary Center for Responsive Politics results: 50,000 contributions who have given to President Bush or the Republicans have given $10,697,198 in large contributions to Kerry. This means 100 times more Republican money has been contributed to the Democrats campaign than to the Nader-Camejo campaign. That amount is five times the entire budget of the Nader Presidential campaign! These are preliminary results because there are so many that it is too expensive for the Center to review the donations for final results. We're waiting for the full story on how the Kerry campaign is funded by the Republicans who play both sides of the two party duopoly." (http://www.voteNader.org October 18th 20040).

Just as the zionists in the green party turned the green party against nader, and as the zionists in the democrat party tried to turn the public against him, so zionist lefties/liberals/progressives sought to turn their political associates against him. Once again, they did not attack nader directly for his anti-zionist views ­ after all, this would break the zionist taboo against public discussion of such issues. Like zionist greens and zionist democrats, they argued that nader should be dismissed because he was an electoral threat to kerry ­ the assumption being once again that bush was so much worse than kerry.

Lefties/liberals/progressives fighting to undermine nader for the sake of john kerry surrendered their principles and policies to such an extent they’re no longer recognizable as a distinct political entity. One minute they’re participating in vast anti-war protests and the next they’re doing everything they can to vote for a pro-war presidential candidate whilst opposing a major anti-war politician. What we have here is the demise of the left and what is left is just left-overs.

As if nader hadn’t got enough to contend with given the intense and wide ranging attacks on him by zionists in the green party and in the democratic party, he was also attacked by lefties/liberals/progressives. There was even one group of lefty/liberal/progressives who campaigned on his behalf during the 2000 presidential election campaign but opposed his 2004 campaign.

The website of the ‘vote to stop bush’ campaign http://vote2stopbush.com/ lists the former naderites stabbing nader in the back, failing to promote radical policies, and refusing to confront kerry’s war-mongering stance. The website proclaimed, "We, the undersigned, were selected by Ralph Nader to be members of his 113-person national "Nader 2000 Citizens Committee." This year, we urge support for Kerry/Edwards in all swing states, even while we strongly disagree with Kerry's policies on Iraq and other issues. For people seeking progressive social change in the United States, removing George W. Bush from office should be the top priority in the 2004 presidential election. Progressive votes for John Kerry in swing states may prove decisive in attaining this vital goal."

Chomsky’s arguments have had a dire political impact on anarchist/left wing/progressive/green activists. "By accepting Chomsky's analysis, the Palestinian solidarity movement has failed to take the only political step that might have weakened the hold of Israel on Congress and the American electorate, namely, by challenging the billions of dollars in aid and tax breaks that the US provides Israel on an annual basis. The questions that beg asking are why his argument has been so eagerly accepted by the movement and why the contrary position put forth by people of considerable stature such as Edward Said, Ed Herman, Uri Avnery and, more recently, Alexander Cockburn, has been ignored." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004); "[T]he American left and pacificist groups, apart from fringe elements, have quite generally been extremely supportive of Israel (contrary to many baseless allegations), some passionately so, and have turned a blind eye to practices that they would be quick to denounce elsewhere." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004); "Earlier in the evening, he 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. Chomsky's response drew a warm round of applause from members of the audience who were no doubt pleased to have American Jews absolved from any blame for Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, then in the fourth year of their first Intifada. What is noteworthy is that Chomsky's explanation for the financial and political support that the U.S. has provided Israel over the years is shared by what is generically known as the Israel lobby, and almost no one else. Well, not quite "almost no one." Among the exceptions are the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress and the mainstream media and, what is equally noteworthy, virtually the entire American Left, both ideological and idealistic, including the organizations ostensibly in the forefront of the fight for Palestinian rights. That there is a meeting of the minds on this issue between supporters of Israel and the Left may help explain why the Palestine support movement within the United States has been an utter failure." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004).

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).

Soloman stirred up animosity towards nader because of the help that republicans foisted upon nader, "As Norman Solomon told The Socialist Worker, July 23, "In Oregon, right-wing groups - including a notorious antigay organization - have worked to get Nader on the ballot. The Oregonian (June 25) reported that the head of the Nader campaign in Oregon "said he saw nothing wrong with the Republican outreach efforts. 'It's a free country,' he said. 'People do things in their own interest.'" Building "a political alternative" while accepting tactical alliances with xenophobic and antigay forces? I'll pass."" (Greg Bates ‘Access of Evil? The Politics of Nader's Republican Support’ http://www.counterpunch.org/bates09252004.html September 25 / 6, 2004). Bates retorts, "Huh? Here Solomon argues against working with those whose values we detest. Yet he is a forceful advocate for voting for John Kerry, whose values Solomon detests."

Joshua frank concluded, "There were few other progressive superstars out there opposed to Ralph Nader's independent run for President this year than Solomon. His host of anti-Nader columns in 2004 may have even surpassed that of The Nation's own in house Nader-baiter, Eric Alterman. First, Norm begged Nader's running mate Peter Camejo to throw in the towel during a debate in early 2004, well before Nader or the Greens had even announced candidates. He believed Nader would indeed tilt the election to Bush. Sorry Norm, we can give that illustrious prize to your candidate-of-choice, John Kerry." (Joshua Frank ‘All the Rage. Mr. Solomon, Say You're Sorry’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank12112004.html December 11 / 12, 2004).

Joshua frank disputed this allegation because soros didn’t like nader, "the Nader-hating Democrat billionaire, George Soros …." (Joshua Frank ‘The Green Party Unravels From Within’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank09072004.html September 7, 2004). He repeats the same point in a follow up article, "George Soros, the billionaire tycoon who has deep ties to the Democratic Party, and hates Ralph Nader with a visceral fury." (Joshua Frank ‘Green House Party Gasses’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank09092004.html September 9, 2004).

One commentator has pointed out the war-mongering bias in moore’s anti-bush propaganda, "By the way, did you notice how Michael Moore didn’t even mention the word "Israel"? Or "Zionism"? Or even "NeoConservatism" in his documentary? Not surprising. His agent is top Hollywood Jewish Zionist Ari Emmanuel whose brother is Rahm Emmanuel, who served in the Carter administration, and is currently a hyper pro-Israel senator in Illinois. Another interesting note about Moore’s documentary: he even pointed out how none of the Saudis could reap any financial benefits from the war on Iraq, unlike American companies such as Halliburton. So his whole Arab-bashing approach basically backfires. It shows how cowardly Moore is in the face of Zionist Hollywood, not to mention how greedy he obviously is to go for the big bucks, which toeing the Zionist line assures anyone in the worlds of US media and politics. It’s ever so convenient and "somehow" politically "acceptable" to scapegoat Arabs and Muslims in Zionist Hollywood and US media." (Wendy Campbell ‘The Secret Relationship Between Israel and Oil: What the US Media Hides’ Al-Jazeerah http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/October
/6o/ The%20Secret%20Relationship%20Between%20Israel%20
and%20Oil%20What%20the %20US%20Media%20
Hides%20By%20Wendy%20Campbell.htm October 6, 2004).

Nader’s principles didn’t change between the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections. The only aspect of nader’s politics that changed was that he started talking publicly of zionists’ control of the american government and bush’s middle east foreign policy. What changed for those who supported him in 2000 was the belief that it was more important in 2004 to vote tactically for an allegedly lesser war monger than it was to stick by their principles. The main change amongst the zionists in green/democratic/leftie/liberal/progressive groups was that they were horrified that nader was breeching of zionist taboos. They were very successful in persuading their political allies to have nothing more to do with him.

The reason for america’s dramatic political transformation is only indirectly related to the p*ny bombings. Prior to this transformation, zionists had been gradually taking control of more and more aspects of american political life. All that the p*ny bombings succeeded in doing was giving zionists the motivation, and the excuse, to take over the american presidency ­ they would have done this sooner or later even if this event had never occurred. In response to this event, american zionists pushed america into wars against afghanistan and iraq ­ the latter having nothing to do with the p*ny bombings. The israeli traitors in the bush administration are basically using america to fight zionists’ war against moslem countries.

The reason that greens/lefties/liberals/progressives ditched nader during the 2004 presidential election had nothing to do with their fear of the ogre george bush because there is a strong case to be made that kerry would have been just as bad as bush - there is even a legitimate case to be made that he could have been worse than bush. The reason they deserted nader was because they were petrified by his comments about the zionist dominance of the american presidency, congress, and america’s foreign policy in the middle east. Their allegiance to the zionist state in palestine, and the zionist cause, means they would rather vote for a war monger like kerry rather than someone concerned with justice, peace, and truth, like nader.

The collapse of the anti-war movement is the most blatant manifestation of the political bankruptcy and moral depravity of the green/democratic/left/liberal/progressive movement. The movement’s failure to unequivocally condemn the appalling racism of the zionist state in palestine is yet another manifestation of its political bankruptcy and moral depravity. The traitorous treatment of a long term activist, who did more than anyone else to boost the cause of the green/ democratic/left/liberal/progressive movement, merely confirms the movement’s political bankruptcy and moral depravity. What has brought about this moral and political collapse is the dominant role of the zionists in this movement. As a consequence of this dominance, some non-jews in the green/left/liberal/progressive movement display as much rampant pro-semitic bigotry as jewish zionists whilst others quietly condone what is happening in the zionist state and do nothing about it. The wide-scale political corruption brought about by zionists becomes clear simply from comparing the huge effort made by the green/left/liberal/progressive movement against apartheid in south africa with their lack of effort to oppose the far worse apartheid system in the zionist state. The apartheid regime of the zionist state is bringing unutterable shame on western values, western civilization, and western politics which includes both the political establishment and the green/left/liberal/progressive movement.

For some of us who, for many years, have had to tolerate greens/lefties/liberals/progressives prevaricating, condoning, and equivocating, over the zionist state and pretending there is no such thing as zionist domination in the media/politics, their traitorous treatment of nader is the final straw. The awful truth is that it is not possible to replace the washington puppet show with the washington peace show because the peaceniks have become zionist warmongers supporting the zionist state in palestine.

"These documentaries and reports include particularly such widely circulated video presentations as Uncovered, which made a big splash late last year, and Hijacking Catastrophe, which is very popular right now. There is also Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Among the reports are at least two very serious in-depth studies done by Foreign Policy in Focus ("A Secure America in a Secure World," published in September 2004) and by a think tank at Notre Dame ("Toward a More Secure America: Grounding U.S. Policy in Global Realities," jointly published in November 2003 by the Fourth Freedom Forum and the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame). Both of these studies were signed on to by a wide range of highly respected scholars and former government experts. And, of course, there is the 9/11 Commission report, which is being taken in most circles as the definitive word on what went wrong before September 11 and whether U.S. foreign policy had anything to do with provoking the attack."

"‘Hijacking Catastrophe’ actually gets close to the Israeli connection by directly examining the neo-conservative plot to induce the fear in average Americans that would serve as Bush's mandate for implementing the plans for an invasion of Iraq that the neo-cons had formulated long before, largely for the benefit of Israel. But this film, as well as the others like it and the reports, all stop just short of examining the Israeli connection to U.S. war-mongering in the Middle East. These are all excellent exposés of Bush administration empire-building and oil greed, but film after film and investigative report after investigative report ignore one of the most important strategic motivators for the Iraq war: Israel and the effort to guarantee Israel's security by neutralizing its greatest threat, which was Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The neo-cons are now working on Iran, and you can bet that, if the U.S. attacks Iran, a year or two hence when that war begins to go bad, everyone will ignore Israel's connection to that one too - even though, with Saddam gone, Iran is now Israel's greatest threat."

"The bottom line here is that virtually no one - no analyst, no moviemaker - wants to touch the Israel issue. You can't sell a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11 if you talk about Israel; you won't have the same impact, and you certainly won't be able to make any money, if you are seen to criticize Israel in any way, so better just to ignore it. In actuality, it is impossible to get around the fact that most of the neo-conservatives in this current administration, who wield a great deal of influence over U.S. foreign policy, have long been active supporters of Israel, even to the point of opposing past U.S. policy on the peace process that went against the desires of Israel's right wing. It is also impossible to get around the fact that many of the neo-cons happen to be Jewish. But this is reality; in the surreal world of U.S. and Israeli politics, you cannot bring this up. It is anti-Semitic, you are told, to say that Jews have any power at all, because that begins to sound like the old canards, which really were anti-Semitic, that used to put forth a specious case for Jews trying to run the world."

"So no one wants to touch the issue. The result is that the moviemakers and commentators who mold public opinion too often steer away from it. This is true even of progressive journalists who know the realities. It is true also of virtually all politicians, most of whom don't know the realities, with the blessed exception of Ralph Nader. It is true of former diplomats. It's impossible to count on the fingers of two hands the number of retired diplomats who, called upon in various public forums to expatiate on U.S. policy toward Palestine-Israel, will spout meaningless formulas or beg off entirely because the subject is too sensitive, too dangerous, too set in the concrete determined by domestic politics." (Kathleen and Bill Christison ‘The Elephant in the Room of Empire: Israel as Sideshow’ http://www.counterpunch.org/ October 12, 2004).

"The second argument is completely tactical, and those who espouse it openly recognize that fact. This argument alleges that unity in the U.S. peace movement is important above all else, and that we will weaken the movement irretrievably unless we ignore the controversial Israel-Palestine problem. The fear is that media companies and publishers will refuse to distribute documentary videos, films, books, and articles if we challenge establishment positions on Israel and Palestine, and that fewer people will watch or buy or read our documentaries and writings. The rationalization is often put forward that there are so many other issues on which we can attack the bellicose policies of the U.S. that it is really not even necessary to deal with the particular hot potato of the American relationship with Israel."

"For starters, the argument goes, we have oil to talk about; the wrongs of global domination; the immoral wars against "terrorism" (which is nothing but a tactic) as self-servingly defined by Washington and its allies; killings of thousands of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq that the U.S. refuses even to count; the injustices of a U.S. version of economic globalization that has widened the gap between rich and poor throughout the world; ever-expanding military expenditures in the U.S.; more new American military bases almost everywhere; continuing U.S. support for authoritarian governments in the Arab world, Central Asia, and elsewhere; new nuclear weapons produced by a blatantly hypocritical U.S. government futilely trying at the same time to prevent unfriendly nations and non-state entities from obtaining nukes, etc., etc., etc."

"So, with so much to talk about, why bother with one more issue that is exceedingly troublesome? Just ignore the Israel-Palestine thing and the excessive pandering by both Republicans and Democrats to a terrible right-wing Israeli government. After all, criticizing any Israeli policy comes too close to anti-Semitism, and that would destroy the peace movement. So -- play on the team. At the same time, we must still deplore, and at great length, acts against Israelis such as the recent terrorism at Taba, whether committed by Palestinians, by al Qaeda, or by anyone else, and we must be careful to avoid serious criticism of any Israeli retaliation, even though that retaliation may be on a scale two or three times greater than the original terrorism. And of course it would also be better not to rile up Israel and its AIPAC supporters by talking loudly about Israel's recent excessive killings of Palestinians in Gaza -- many more than the number of Israelis killed at Taba. Just let all that go. Unity of the peace movement is far more important."

"At a time when most Republican and Democratic leaders already pander quite thoroughly to AIPAC and the present Israeli government, how can we change the situation? First, those leaders of the peace movement who believe such pandering is wrong should show some courage. They should forget about unity with anyone who believes that present U.S. policies toward Israel and Palestine are morally justifiable and beneficial to future global peace and stability. Then, they should also loudly and publicly announce their belief that criticizing Israel's cruel and oppressive policies toward Palestinians is not anti-Semitism, just as criticizing the present combined Republican and Democratic policy of supporting Israel so completely is not anti-Americanism. They should lead in the peace effort and cease trying to achieve unity with anyone who believes, absurdly, that criticism of any government's policies constitutes ethnic hatred."

"Certainly, there are multiple aspects of U.S. foreign and military policies that peace activists in this country should be working to change. But none of the elements of U.S. global policies in the list above is more important as a cause for hatred of U.S. policies around the world, and therefore as a potential cause of future terrorism against the U.S. and its allies, than the failure to impose meaningful restraints on Israel's occupation and its behavior toward Palestinians. By erasing U.S. policies toward Israel from the list of acceptable targets for criticism, too many peace movement spokesmen inevitably - and sometimes perhaps unconsciously - exaggerate the importance of other U.S. policies. What has been exaggerated the most, in part because it best suits the propaganda needs of Israel's Likud government, is the U.S. relationship to, and the role of, authoritarian Arab governments as a root cause of the September 11 terrorist acts." (Kathleen and Bill Christison ‘The Elephant in the Room of Empire: Israel as Sideshow’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison10122004.html October 12, 2004).

"Consider the title of a recent press release: "Israeli army must respect human rights in its operations". According to AI, the Israeli depredations on occupied land are acceptable as long as they "respect" human rights. This is analogous to recommending that a rapist should practice safe sex. It is also difficult to imagine that a military occupation could ever be imposed while observing "human rights".

"Consider the context. During September 2004 the Israeli army killed on average 3.7 Palestinians per day; it injured an average of 19.3 p/day; it demolished many houses affecting the lives of thousands; it has transformed vast areas of Gaza into a denuded moonscape. It is also clear that these gruesome statistics will be worse in October. The Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz openly states that the Palestinians should be punished, and the measures advocated entail collective punishment. The entire Palestinian population is taken hostage; pressure is exerted on them as a whole. Ethnic Cleansing is on going, and the construction of the grotesque wall stands as proof of the criminality of this policy."

"Given the devastation inflicted by the Israeli army and clear violations of international law, one would expect at least a tiny condemnation. However, this is the extent of AI's reaction: "[AI] is concerned that the Israeli army's use of excessive force in this latest incursion in the Gaza Strip will result in further loss of lives and wanton destruction of Palestinian homes and property. Reprisals against protected persons and property are prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention and Israel is obliged to ensure that any measures taken to protect the lives of Israeli civilians are consistent with its obligations to respect human rights and international humanitarian law."

"In May 2004 AI issued a press release headed "AI condemns murder of woman and her four daughters by Palestinian gunmen." The body of the text contains the following condemnation: "Such deliberate attacks against civilians, which have been widespread, systematic and in furtherance of a stated policy to attack the civilian population, constitute crimes against humanity, as defined by Article 7 (1) and (2)(a) of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal.""

"So, when Palestinians kill some civilians, then it constitutes a "crime against humanity" - one of the most serious crimes under international law, and a precursor to genocide. But, when Israel kills far more civilians "in furtherance of a stated policy" (the phrasing AI used against Palestinians) to "exact a price" (to use the words of Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz), all that AI can do is to wring its hands and worry about "the Israeli army's use of excessive force". Thus, we see that AI does not hesitate to use against Palestinians terms, such as "crime against humanity", which it has never unambiguously leveled against Israel."

"During the second intifada, AI has not issued any statement about settler violence."

"AI is not an anti-war organization, and this stance creates numerous contradictions. With the onset of the US war against Iraq, it issued statements about the means the US would employ in warfare, but curiously, AI didn't condemn the war! This is particularly curious given that the war was one of aggression and thus constitutes a supreme international crime."

"The situation may be awful in Darfur, and the measure suggested may be warranted. However, the curious aspect of this statement is that AI has never called on the UN or any other body to impose an arms embargo on Israel, although there are ample grounds for such a recommendation."

Paul de rooij concludes, "Anyone concerned with justice for the Palestinian cause or seeking to end the obscene war in Iraq will be disappointed with Amnesty International's stance. It is no use appreciating the bits of its reports that are useful; the problem is that its overall position on key issues is at best contradictory. Many of the well-intentioned and idealistic volunteers working on AI's campaigns may be wasting their efforts given that the AI framework adopts a blinkered understanding of the problems. Donating to AI doesn't translate into effective action for these causes, and given AI's record, the Palestinians certainly cannot expect fair coverage or representation. Will AI ever clearly and categorically condemn Israel for the large number of killings and the havoc and destruction it has caused in Jabalya or Beit Hanoun? Don't count on it. Each Israeli assault on Palestinian refugee camps, each US bombing of cities in Iraq, and each assassination of yet more Palestinians or Iraqis reveals AI's dubious stance. Today, most AI pronouncements range between moral flatulence and moral fraudulence."

The reason for the stance adopted by amnesty international has been provided by francis boyle (Professor of International Law at Univ. of Illinois Champaign) "When I was on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International USA near the end of my second term in 1990-92, we received the authority to call for an arms embargo against major human rights violators, which Israel clearly qualified for at the time and still does - even under United States domestic law. Of course no one at AI was going to do so because pro-Israel supporters were major funders of Amnesty International USA, which in turn was a major funder of Amnesty International in London. He who pays the piper calls the tune - especially at AIUSA Headquarters in New York and at AI Headquarters in London." (Paul de Rooij ‘Double Standards and Curious Silences’ http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij10132004.html October 13, 2004).

There could hardly be a clearer link than that between the funds provided by zionists and the zionist loving amnesty international. By being so critical of many terrible states and by saying little about the zionist state, the impression created by amnesty international is that there is little wrong with the zionist state’s continual invasion of palestine and its oppression of palestinians. The zionist backers of amnesty international could not expect the organization to come out with a completely fictitious report saying the zionist state was committing no political crimes. However, what these zionist backers got from amnesty international was something equally as good. By not publicizing the crimes committed by the zionist state, amnesty international was implying the zionist state was committing no crimes. After all, everyone in the western world knows that amnesty international has such integrity it investigates all cases of state oppression as thoroughly and impartially as possible. In other words, by discouraging amnesty international from telling the truth about the prevalent and persistent crimes being carried out by the zionist state, these zionist backers purchased a silent seal of approval for the zionist state.

The refusal to discuss zionist oppression and the refusal to support a boycott of the racist zionist state provides conclusive proof that the green/left/liberal/progressive movement has been taken over by zionist activists ­ probably in cooperation with the zionist media and the zionist lobby.

Even where zionists are at the forefront of protests against the zionist state all is not what it seems. It is becoming increasingly obvious that green/left/liberal/progressive groups are protesting about the zionist state simply to let off steam so that nothing is done rather than trying to organize a boycott of this evil regime. Medea’s Pink Groups are very outspoken on opposition to the zionist state in palestine but has this led to any action over disinvestment?

Those who refuse to talk about this issue condone zionist racism and the apartheid zionist state in palestine and thus have the blood of the palestinian people on their hands.

The measure of nader’s political stature is firstly, he is the only major politician who has broken zionist inspired taboos over zionists’ dominance of america’s political system and the american administration’s middle east policies. "The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States and meets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to Capitol Hill, where he meets with hundreds of other puppets ..." Secondly, only nader has the courage to tell the truth and to stand up to the zionist lobby. And, thirdly, only nader is likely to be able to stop the zionist juggernaut racing towards further proxy zionist wars. Zionist taboos have already driven america into two wars and are likely to provoke more in the future so breaking them is the sine qua non for preventing an escalation of wars in the middle east.

The christisons are amongst the few commentators who pay homage to the only presidential candidate with the courage to point out the centrality of the palestinian- zionist conflict to american foreign policies. "It is anti-Semitic, you are told, to say that Jews have any power at all, because that begins to sound like the old canards, which really were anti-Semitic, that used to put forth a specious case for Jews trying to run the world. So no one wants to touch the issue. The result is that the moviemakers and commentators who mold public opinion too often steer away from it. This is true even of progressive journalists who know the realities. It is true also of virtually all politicians, most of whom don't know the realities, with the blessed exception of Ralph Nader." (Kathleen and Bill Christison ‘The Elephant in the Room of Empire: Israel as Sideshow’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison10122004.html October 12, 2004).

The 2004 presidential election campaign between bush and kerry was less of a contest in which candidates tried to win the votes of ordinary american people than an attempt by the candidates to prove to ariel sharon that they would be best for implementing his policies ­ it was after all ariel sharon who first muted the idea of brining democracy to the middle east. This is the first american presidential election which is almost solely about who is the best at implementing the policies of the zionists’ controlling american politics.

It is difficult not to blame nader for wanting an apology from his former allies before it is possible to resume normal relations. Nader was asked in an interview, "I wanted to briefly ask you also what your relationship is like with people such as Jeff Cohen or Medea Benjamin, who among some other self-described "progressives," signed a letter against your candidacy in the so-called swing states." Nader’s reply was, "I think they have an apology to make to the Nader-Camejo campaign. It wasn't just their opposition. They spread lies. They endorsed lies about our being bankrolled by the Republicans. It was completely false. A hundred times more Republican money from donors went into the Democratic coffers. That's what I do not forgive them for. I think that involves Michael Moore, and Norman Solomon, and Jeff Cohen, and Medea Benjamin especially, as well as a number of others. If they want to open communications, they need to preface it by apology. It's one thing opposing us even though we had the agenda they believed in - that's ridiculous enough - but what's unforgivable was to lend their credibility to those lies that the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee disseminated all over the country to cover up their own dirty tricks against our right to be on the ballot." (Ralph Nader quoted in Merlin Chowkwanyun ‘The Prescient Candidate Reflects’ http://www.counterpunch.org/merlin12162004.html December 16, 2004). Joshua frank demanded an apology from norman solomon, "Some would say an apology is in order. Norman, say you are "sorry" to Ralph. Your teammate in the Kerry-or-die effort, Medea Benjamin, has already apologized in a round about way, and it's your turn now. As Medea recently told The Nation, "Many of us in the Green Party made a tremendous compromise by campaigning in swing states for such a miserable standard-bearer for the progressive movement as John Kerry. Well, I've had it. As George Bush says, 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." (Joshua Frank ‘All the Rage. Mr. Solomon, Say You're Sorry’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank12112004.html December 11 / 12, 2004).

The zionist bias of the american green party is obvious from the fact that it has no national policy for divestment from the zionist state in palestine. Perhaps some of the leading green zionists highlighted above are blocking attempts to turn this into a national policy?

For greens to sacrifice their presidential campaign for the sake of kerry is an utter political disaster. Without exerting an electoral threat to kerry, he will never take green issues seriously. Presidential candidates respond to financial and popular pressures. Most of the pressure on the democrat candidate came from those who financed the democrats’ presidential campaign. Without countervailing pressure from the greens kerry just drifted further and further to the right. In effect, greens utter timidity over challenging kerry was responsible for kerry’s seemingly unstoppable drift to the right which ended up with him becoming almost indistinguishable from bush. Joshua frank was correct, "The only way to force Kerry to differentiate himself from Bush, and win back voters, is for progressives to pressure him where it counts. In swing states. Perhaps that is where Nader should fight the majority of his campaign battles." (Joshua Frank ‘Swing-Along-With-Ralph: Nader in the Battleground States’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank09162004.html September 16, 2004).

Doubtlessly there are some zionists who are concerned about the environment and have joined the american green party to help save the world. Correspondingly, it would not be surprising if some fervent zionists joined the green party solely to discourage it from discussing zionist domination of american politics and the adoption of fair middle east policies. Whilst some might believe that zionists’ attitudes towards the zionist state are politically irrelevant to environmentalism what the above analysis shows i.e. their treatment of nader, is that this is far from being the case.

The american green party’s attitude to the middle east is as critical an issue as the zionist domination of american and global politics. If it does not support a fair and just settlement of the palestinian issue but accepts the politically conventional, pro-zionist stance of the main two parties in america then it will give environmentalism a bad name throughout the middle east and beyond. People in the third world will perceive environmentalism as just another western (zionist) ideology which is being used to exploit them. This will make it even more difficult for such people to take environmental issues seriously. In order to encourage more people in the third world to give environmentalism a high priority, the american green party must support a political agreement in palestine based around prevailing united nations resolutions. It must also divest from companies in the zionist state or companies which have business links with the zionist state.

See also ‘Zionist World Domination and the Environment.