Terra Firm no.24: The Zionists’ Rise to World Domination.

David aaronovitch emerged as a new face in the british media in 2004. He seemed to pop-up all over the place whether in newspapers or on tv. How did he manage to win so many invitations from the british media to air his views? Was it his dazzling intellect? Or his superior knowledge about topics which the media thought would provide invaluable illumination to the aworldy british public? Or was it because, and this is just the wildest of speculations, the zionists in the media like to swell their ranks so that, as a group, they can provide even more publicity for the zionist cause? Who were the tv producers/newspaper editors who chose aaronovitch? Just how helpful was the zionists’ old boys’ club in the media - a media dominated by some of the world’s worst pro-zionist bigots.

In a november 16th 2003 article in the ‘observer’ 'Why I say welcome ’, aaronovitch expresses his support for america’s occupation of iraq. "I don't want the Americans to go home. In fact I am terrified of what would happen if they did. Their going home in the past has often meant suffering for others. It is America, above all, that is bearing the cost of helping to create a new Iraq - a new Iraq which, despite the violence, is being born in towns such as Hilla and cities such as Basra." It is surely proof of his powers of foresight and perception that events have turned out to be the exact opposite of those he predicted. It wasn’t as if aaronovitch couldn’t have been aware that the invasion of iraq could become a catastrophe. He must have known that the coalition that ousted saddam from kuwait refused to go on to invade iraq precisely because it feared a civil war in the country. One commentator even predicted prior to the war that an invasion of iraq would "Open the gates of hell." What has unfolded in iraq used to be described as a catastrophe but it is clearly now much more accurately described as an apocalypse. Aaronovitch couldn’t see an oncoming apocalypse.

Aaronovitch’s ire is raised against neil clark because he suggests there are links between the likudnik members of the bush regime, russia’s zionist oligarchs, and the hardline likudnik extremists in the jews-only state in palestine (hereinafter referred to as the jos). "The degree to which America is held uniquely responsible for the sins of the world is remarkable. To give but one example, writing in last week's New Statesman, a journalist called Neil Clark accuses America of being behind the Russian oligarchs who President Putin is so wisely (if unconstitutionally) cracking down on at the moment. 'In the oligarchs,' says Clark, 'Perle... saw a way in which the US and Israel could, by proxy, gain political and economic power in Russia." Who could possibly have thought there were any links between three such disparate groups of people other than that they’re all zionists who adore ariel sharon and his terrorist policies against defenceless palestinians; support a continual series of wars against every islamic country in the middle east; strategize about ways of boosting the regional supremacism of the jos; and hold jewish passports? To a zionist like aaronovitch the links between likudnik oligarchs/politicians in russia, america, britain, and the jos, are invisible.

Aaronovitch employs a variation on the boring old zionist canard that those pointing out the existence of an international network of likudniks in russia, america, britain, and the jos, must be extreme right wingers who associate with david irving. "The 'and Israel' should have warned the editor of the New Statesman what he was dealing with here. I suggest he visits David Irving's home page or the revisionist Zundelsite website very soon." Fancy someone who joins the zionist dominated british media denouncing the existence of links between zionists around the world!! Aaronovitch not merely fails to see apocalypses he seems unable to spot the global likudnik network.

Aaronovitch argues that left wing criticisms of america’s foreign policies invariably result from double standards. "The double standards here are obvious but worth a reminder." One such double standard being that it didn’t protest about the massacres carried out by putin in chechnya. "Earlier this year the Chechnya-enmired President Putin escaped almost any kind of demonstration." This might or might not be true but what is of relevance here is that according to uri avnery, the russian prime minister claimed to have initiated the second war against chechnya. "By the way, Berezovsky boasts that he caused the war in Chechnya, in which tens of thousands have been killed and a whole country devastated. He was interested in the mineral resources and a prospective pipeline there. In order to achieve this he put an end to the peace agreement that gave the country some kind of independence. The oligarchs dismissed and destroyed Alexander Lebed, the popular general who engineered the agreement, and the war has been going on since then." (Uri Avnery ‘The Virgin of Democracy Became a Whore in US, Russia, Israel’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08032004.html August 03, 2004). Berezovsky was not merely a russian prime minister he is a russian oligarch, a jewish neocon. Apparently aaronovitch can’t see any links between america’s proxy zionist war against moslems in iraq and russia’s proxy zionist war against moslems in chechnya.

Aaronovitch’s zionist terminology erupts throughout his article. He starts off straightforwardly enough describing america’s invasion of iraq as ‘a costly foreign exercise’ but a few paragraphs later the "exercise" has mutated into something much more serious: "'Wilsonianism', the idea that the US should 'make the world safe for democracy'." Zionist propagandists in the west have been pretending that the reason the likudniks in the bush regime promoted the proxy zionist invasion of iraq was to spread democracy. In reality, america’s first proconsul in iraq, retired u.s. general jay garner, was sacked because he wanted immediate elections. "On April 20, 2003, 11 days after Saddam's statue was torn down in central Baghdad, Garner, already waiting in Kuwait, went to Baghdad with his small team. Garner was officially relieved by the White House 16 days later, not for his arms-dealership background, but for disagreement over who should be allowed to run Iraq. He told Frontline in an interview last August 11 that he was a lame duck the day he got to Iraq. Garner wanted early elections, 90 days after the fall of Baghdad, to produce a new government of local politicians, not returned expatriates, to run the severely damaged country and manage its oil assets, while the White House was concerned with Iranian influence on a democratically elected Shi'ite majority as a result of the mindless US de-Ba'athization policy." (Henry C K Liu ‘Iran and the failed US Iraq policy’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC21Ak03.html March 21, 2007).

The likudniks in the bush regime who manipulated america into a proxy zionist war against iraq didn’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts to help iraqis establish a democracy. They did it solely to boost the jos’s regional supremacism. Their goal was to replace what used to be an american dictator with a more up-to-date and reliable model, ahmed chalabi. This choice reflects on the likudniks’ powers of perception given that that chalabi was later shown to be working for the iranians.

Aaronovitch’s zionism also manifests itself when he argues, "It isn't America that gives the most effective support to Sharonic intransigence - it's Israeli insecurity that does that." Throughout his political life, sharon deliberately provoked palestinians into violence in order to make jews feel insecure in order to win their support for his hardline extremist measures against palestinians. It’s not palestinians who are making the jews in palestine insecure; it’s ariel sharon’s expansionist policies.

With zionists like aaronovitch in the british media praising bush’s likudnik foreign policies and sequential proxy zionist wars, there’s never going to be any peace in palestine or the middle east. All that will happen is that continued zionist violence against innocent palestinian people and continual western proxy zionist invasions of middle eastern countries will stir up more violent reactions from people in the middle east. Zionist commentators in zionist owned publications pretend that islamic violence or islamofascism emanates from the violent proclivities of the arab people rather than being a response to the west’s promotion of jewish racism.

Why is the british media disproportionately staffed by zionists who use their positions of power to denounce as anti-semites those who protest about america’s proxy zionist war in iraq? One week it's the zionist aaronovitch, the next week it's the zionist freedland, then the zionist naomi klein, then the zionist julie birchill, then the extreme zionist melanie phillips many of whom started their writing careers in the zionist loving guardian. And on and on it goes.

Aaronovitch’s article ‘PR man to Europe's nastiest regimes’ ends with the question, "in what way are Britain's media and financial interests "thoroughly enmeshed" with Israel's?" (The Guardian November 30, 2004). In other words, aaronovitch, a de jure citizen of the jews-only state in palestine, believes there are no media links between britain and the jews-only state. It’s not difficult dismissing this outrageous bit of zionist propaganda with the following names: robert maxwell, rupert murdoch, conrad black. What about britain's sale of arms equipment including torture devices to the jews-only state? Trust the zionist loving guardian to employ a zionist loving jew to write such zionist propaganda drivel.

Raimondo is right that aaronotich is a neocon blairite, "They don't have neocons in Britain: over there, they're called Blairites, or New Labourites. But it's essentially the same thing: they love the State, they love themselves, and, most of all, they love war in the name of idealism, you understand, which, in Blairite circles, amounts to what passes these days for "humanitarian" interventionism." (Justin Raimondo ‘Commissar Aaronovitch’ http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4092 December 1, 2004).

In many ways uri avnery can be described as a political progressive. He has boldly pointed out the influence of the zionist lobby on american politics, "In Europe, Jews already feel the pressure. But in the United States, they still feel supremely self-confident. In Europe, Jews have learned over the centuries that it is not wise to be too conspicuous and to display their wealth and influence. But in America, the very opposite is happening: the Jewish establishment is practically straining to prove that it controls the country. Every few years, the Jewish lobby "eliminates" an American politician who does not support the Israeli government unconditionally. This is not done secretly, behind the scenes, but as a public "execution". Just now this was done to the black Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, a young, active, intelligent and very sympathetic woman. She has dared to criticize the Sharon government, support Palestinians and (worst of all) Israeli and Jewish peace groups. The Jewish establishment found a counter-candidate, a practically unknown black woman, injected huge sums into the campaign and defeated Cynthia. All this happened in the open, with fanfares, to make a public example - so that every Senator and Congressperson would know that criticizing Sharon is tantamount to political suicide." (Uri Avnery ‘Manufacturing Anti-Semites’ October 2, 2002).

He insisted that the zionists in the bush administration pushed the country into a zionist proxy war against iraq. He concluded, "Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power." (Uri Avnery ‘The Night After: The Easier the Victory, the Harder the Peace’ Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html April 10, 2003).

And, he recently wrote a first class article about the way that zionist oligarchs in russia stole the country’s resources and then used those resources to re-elect a shabbat goy, boris yeltsin, "The "oligarchs" are a tiny group of entrepreneurs who exploited the disintegration of the Soviet system to loot the treasures of the state and to amass plunder amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. In order to safeguard the perpetuation of their business, they took control of the state. Six out of the seven are Jews." (Uri Avnery ‘The Virgin of Democracy Became a Whore in US, Russia, Israel’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08032004.html August 3rd 2004).

Avnery, however, is not simply interested in telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. He is too concerned with the zionist state in palestine to support events which could easily rebound on the zionists. He feared that if the zionist proxy war in iraq started going wrong then people might blame the jews, "The pro-Israel lobby - which consists of Jews and extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists - is pushing the American administration to start a war. This, too, openly, in full view of the American public. Dozens of articles in the important newspapers point this out as a plain political fact. What will happen if the war ends in failure? If it has unexpected negative results and many young Americans die? If the American public turns against it, as happened during the Vietnam War? One can easily imagine a whispering campaign starting: "The Jews have pushed us into this," "The Jews support Israel more than they support America," and, finally, "The Jews control our country." (Uri Avnery ‘Manufacturing Anti-Semites’ October 2, 2002).

Whilst he believes the neocons have a tight grip over american foreign policies he is fearful that the zionist state in placing too much reliance on support from america, "But this tendency troubles me. We are like a gambler, who bets all his money and his future on one horse. A good horse, a horse with no current competitor, but still one horse. The neo-cons will cause a long period of chaos in the Arab and Muslim world. The Iraqi war has already shown that their understanding of Arab realities is shaky. Their political assumptions did not stand the test, only brute force saved their undertaking." (Uri Avnery ‘The Night After: The Easier the Victory, the Harder the Peace’ Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html April 10, 2003).

He exposed the zionist oligarchs in russia but expressed his fear that what they were doing might have a detrimental impact on the zionist state, "Since all the exploits of the oligarchs occurred in public, there is a danger that the affair might cause an increase in anti-Semitism in Russia. Indeed, the anti-Semites argue that these doings confirm the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", a document fabricated by the Russian secret police a century ago, purporting to reveal a Jewish conspiracy to control the world." (Uri Avnery ‘The Virgin of Democracy Became a Whore in US, Russia, Israel’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08032004.html August 3rd 2004).

This concoction implies that the seemingly homely george bush is just like the evil ariel sharon, who has progressed from being a terrorist, mass murderer, war criminal until now he’s a state terrorist. It suggests that sharon and bush promote the same policies. It does not, however, say much about the relationship between them. It doesn’t indicate whether bush is the master and sharon the slave or vice versa. If anything, the word’s failure to provide a clue about this relationship implies there is no master-slave relationship at all just two, like minded, buddies working together to implement mutually beneficial policies. As far as zionists in the progressive/leftie/greeny/liberal/tribalist/peacenik movement are concerned the word is a useful propaganda devise since it enables them to parade their political credentials i.e. suggesting george bush is as much of a terrorist as ariel sharon, without having to discuss the critical issue of who is the puppet and who is the puppeteer. This is an issue they must avoid at all costs since it raises fundamental questions about america’s foreign policies and the nature of the zionist state in palestine, their racially pure homeland, which some people inconveniently still refer to as palestine.

Avnery is one of the few zionists to confront this issue. He argues that the relationship between america and the zionist state in palestine is a symbiosis, "Some people say, only half in jest, that the USA is an Israeli colony. And indeed, in many respects it looks like that. President Bush dances to Ariel Sharon's tune. Both Houses of Congress are totally subservient to the Israeli right-wing - much more so than the Knesset. It has been said that if the pro-Israeli lobby were to sponsor a resolution on Capitol Hill calling for the abolition of the Ten Commandments, both Houses of Congress would adopt it overwhelmingly. Every year Congress confirms the payment of a massive tribute to Israel. But others assert the reverse: that Israel is an American colony. And indeed, that is also true in many respects. It is unthinkable for the Israeli government to refuse a clear-cut request by the President of the United States. America forbids Israel to sell an expensive intelligence-gathering plane to China? Israel cancels the sale. America forbids a large-scale military action, as happened last week in Gaza? No action. America wants the Israeli economy to be managed according to American precepts? No problem: an American (circumcised, to be sure) has just been appointed as Governor of the Central Bank of Israel. As a matter of fact, both versions are right: The USA is an Israeli colony and Israel is an American colony. The relationship between the two countries is a symbiosis, a term defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "an association of two organisms living attached to each other or one within the other" (from the Greek words for "living" and "together".) (Uri Avnery ‘King George’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery01242005.html January 24, 2005).

It would be useful to assess his analysis to see whether there is a symbiosis between america and the zionist state or a different relationship.

On the one hand, avnery asserts that "in many respects" Israel is an American colony. Firstly, "It is unthinkable for the Israeli government to refuse a clear-cut request by the President of the United States." This is a zionist deception. Let’s look at what sharon has done to bush.

* In may 2001, dick cheney told sharon to stop using american jets to attack civilians. Sharon ignored the order, "Israel should stop using american built jets in attacks on palestinian areas, us vice-president dick cheney said yesterday. F-16s were used by the israelis last week for the first time since 1967 in response to a suicide bomb." The use of jets in such operations has now become so commonplace they do not merit any public discussion let alone public protest.

** In september 2001 sharon called bush a neville chamberlain. "American relations with Israel plunged to their lowest point in a decade yesterday when the White House denounced as "unacceptable" statements by the Israeli prime minister comparing the US coalition-building in the Arab world to British appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s. The Bush administration was reported to be furious with Mr Sharon's actions, and the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told journalists that the president felt personally affronted by the comparison to Neville Chamberlain and the discredited policies of appeasement in the run up to the second world war. In a blunt response, Mr Fleischer (a great admirer of ariel sharon) said: "The president believes that these remarks are unacceptable. Israel could have no better or stronger friend that the United States and no better friend that President Bush."" Sharon refused to apologize for his insult to the so-called president of the united states. It shows what little power bush has over sharon that he didn’t dare to try and extract a public apology from him.

*** As regards the so-called agreement between sharon and bush in april 2004, patrick j. buchanan pointed out, "According to the New York Times, Sharon threatened not to come to Washington unless Bush, in advance and in writing, agreed to capitulate. "In a moment of diplomatic brinkmanship," writes James Bennet, Sharon threatened to cancel his trip if Bush refused to give him "the guarantees he wanted in exchange for his plan to withdraw settlers from the Gaza Strip." Sharon's ultimatum: In return for giving up Gaza, Bush must give him title to more desirable Palestinian lands on the West Bank. What did Bush give up? None of the Palestinians driven out of their homes by the Irgun massacre at Deir Yassin and during the 1948 war will ever be allowed to return. Palestinian rights in that 78 percent of Palestine that is already Israel, and in the sectors of the remaining 22 percent Sharon plans to annex, are forfeit forever. Second, major Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank, planted by Sharon in violation of international law, which every U.S. president has called "obstacles to peace," are now deeded to Israel. Like Lord Balfour, Bush is surrendering title to Arab lands he does not own and surrendering Palestinian rights that are not his to give up. As for the Sharon Wall that snakes in and out of the West Bank, incorporating Palestinian fields, olive groves, homes and villages, Bush no longer insists it be confined to Israeli territory." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Bush Outsources Mideast Policy’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2350 c.May 2004).

**** Bush asked sharon to stop building new settlements but sharon just ignored him, "President Bush's .. demand for a freeze on all building activity in the settlements, "even for the natural increase", is becoming a joke. Sharon has just openly flouted this by announcing plans for 600 new houses in the Ma'aleh Adumim settlement." (Uri Avnery ‘Drought in Texas: Israel and the American Elections’ CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08182004.html August 18, 2004);

Secondly, avnery states, "America forbids a large-scale military action, as happened last week in Gaza? No action." This is another zionist deception. Once again there are a number of incidents which show this is simply not the case.

* In october 2001, sharon defied bush by launching an invasion of what, nominally, were supposed to be palestinian controlled areas. According to julian borger, "The Bush administration has known for months that its control over the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, is tenuous at best. Yesterday's raid on Beit Rima was a neon-bright indicator of Mr Sharon's complete disregard for Mr Bush's opinions. The usual tools of US diplomacy in the region now look flimsy. The secretary of state, Colin Powell, has been planning for several weeks to make a landmark policy speech laying out a clear blueprint for Israeli-Palestinian cohabitation, including the creation of a viable Palestinian state, with a share of Jerusalem as its capital. "That can be one of the threats held over Sharon's head," said Judith Kipper of the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. "But in the end it is just a speech. It is just words, and it is not going to have much effect on Sharon.""

** On thursday april 4th 2002, bush demanded that sharon withdraw his troops from palestinian controlled areas, "President bush last night demanded that israel withdraw its invading troops from palestinian territories." Sharon showed no interest in responding. The following sunday, bush repeated his demand. This time sharon didn’t just ignore the president of the united states. As leader of god’s chosen people, sharon went out of his way to humiliate the president of the united states by going on a tour of his front line troops occupying palestinian areas in order to reassure them he wouldn’t be withdrawing the zionist army. The following tuesday, bush made a third demand, with a little expression of anger, for the withdrawal of the zionist army. This time sharon took the media along with him to make sure the whole world could see him defying the president of the united states by telling his troops there would be no early withdrawal. On april 15th it was reported that sharon had stated he would not end the occupation "until he was ready".

For an elaboration of the master-slave relationship between sharon and bush please see ‘Bush is Sharon’s Muppet’ http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26g.html

Having pointed out how the zionist lobby in america controls the american congress and presidency, avneri condemns those who suggest that the zionist state controls america, "Israel's aging self-professed 'leftist peacenik', Uri Avneri, has taken of late to charging all those who have pointed the finger of blame and guilt at the Jewish Neocons and the Israeli-Jewish Lobby in Washington as 'anti-semites'. They who dare point such fingers of responsiblity at the Neocons, the Lobby, and by extension Israel itself are modern-day descendants, according to Avneri's latest blast, of those who professed the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'." (Israel's Uri Avneri http://www.middleeast.org/mernew.htm Oct 2004).

It can be suggested that the likud party governs the zionist state just as much as it does the american state. Indeed, the likud party has two political respresentatives in america: the right wing republican likud party and the slightly less right wing democratic likud party. The zionist lobby in america boasts of its huge influence over american politicians but there is no american lobby in the zionist state trying to implement american policies.

Noam chomsky believes that america’s infamous military-industrial complex has created a massive military hyper-power which is capable of forcing any government around the world to do its bidding including the zionist state in palestine, "Israel will of course do whatever it can as long as the U.S. authorizes it. As soon as the U.S. tells it no, that's the end. The power relations are very straight forward. It's not pretty, but that's the way the world works." (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).

The first implication of chomsky’s analysis is that it is american imperialism which determines the policies of the zionist state in palestine. In other words, zionist expansionism results from american imperialism not belligerent zionist fundamentalism, "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).

The third implication is that the american military-industrial complex has much more power over congress and the american presidency than the zionist lobby in america. The zionist lobby does not have as much political power as is popularly believed. "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 proposition has led stephen zunes, a chomsky acolyte, 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).

The fourth implication is that chomsky believes america invaded iraq solely as a means of gaining control over iraqi oil, "In the desperate flailing to contrive justifications as one pretext after another collapsed, the obvious reason for the invasion was conspicuously evaded by the administration and commentators: to establish the first secure military bases in a client state right at the heart of the world's major energy resources, understood since World War II to be a "stupendous source of strategic power" and expected to become even more important in the future. There should have been little surprise at revelations that the administration intended to attack Iraq before 9-11, and downgraded the "war on terror" in favor of this objective. In internal discussion, evasion is unnecessary. Long before they took office, the private club of reactionary statists had recognized that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (Noam Chomsky ‘The Resort to Force’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=3591 September 17th 2004). In other words, zionist neocons were not responsible for pushing america into an invasion of iraq for the benefit of the zionist state in palestine.

Chomsky’s analysis is that the american military-industrial complex sustains a military capability which dominates the rest of the world including the zionist state in palestine. American financial institutions and businesses enable the american government to pursue imperialist policies around the world that benefit american financiers/industries and thus american society. The corollary of this view is that it is primarily white, anglo-saxon, protestant, americans who run the military-industrial complex with little critical input from other members of america’s ethnic groups. The existence of the military-industrial complex was first muted in the 1940s and developed by chomsky in the 1960s. Chomsky's belief in the supremacy of the wasp dominated military-industrial complex ignores a number of important factors.

One of the main factors ignored by the theory of the supremacy of the wasp dominated military-industrial complex is the power and influence of america’s jewish financiers. Many of america's biggest banks, some of which are amongst the biggest in the world, are owned by jews. 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). Given the awful events of the second world war it is not surprising that, after the second world war, many commentators were loathed to talk about the political influence of jewish financiers but those events took place half a century ago. Today, it is absurd to ignore the role of jewish financiers and it is even more absurd to believe that jewish financiers would not use their vast wealth to influence the american government's policies towards the zionist state. Jewish financiers probably have far more economic clout than america's military-industrial complex.

The second factor that chomsky ignores is the dramatic change that has occurred in america’s industrial structure over the last half century. The theory of america's wasp dominated military-industrial complex is that it is by far and away the biggest, most profitable, and most powerful, part of the american economy. This assumption is no longer true. Today, the media, telecommunications, and computer, industries are america's biggest economic complex. They are the main engines of american economic growth. Indeed, they are the biggest and most profitable industries in the world. A considerable proportion of this new communications’ complex is owned or run by zionists. Zionists own or control most of america’s media companies whether in films, television, magazines, newspapers, or 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). Given that it is now the zionist run communications’ complex that is the biggest, most profitable, and most powerful, part of the american economy then this suggests that zionists are more likely to control the american government and american foreign policy not wasps.

The third factor ignored by chomsky’s analysis is the influence of the zionist dominated media over american public opinion. Zionists are able to influence the policies pursued by the american presidency because of their ability to shape american public opinion. Zionists do not merely own and control the american media. They use it to promote policies favourable to the zionist state in palestine. The zionist propaganda continually pumped out by the zionist dominated media, encourages americans to support the efforts of the american government to protect the zionist state in palestine. So great is this zionist influence over the american public that it could be argued that even if every single member of the american congress was implacably neutral between zionists and palestinians, the zionist controlled media would be able to whip up support for the zionist state which would, in turn, force american politicians into promoting zionist policies.

The fourth factor that chomsky downplays is the role of the zionist lobby. It is absurd for chomsky to believe that this lobby has little influence over american politics when politicians are forced into expressions of fielty to the zionist state - such as tom delay, a republican from texas, who stated, "I'm an israeli by heart" - not forgetting bill clinton’s bizarre proclamation that he was willing to lay down his life for the zionist state. The zionist lobby is able to mobilize a vast amount of wealth and media support to ensure that american politicians sing from the zionist hymnsheet. The impact of the zionist lobby is so profound that america’s two main political parties have almost become branches of the likud party - the republican party has become the extreme right wing branch of the likud party whilst the democrat party has become the centre right branch of the likud party. The likud party dominates american politics as much as it does politics in the zionist state in palestine. Only a pro-semitic 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).

Jeffrey blankfort provides a clear-cut example of the way that chomsky has misinterpreted the power of the zionist lobby presumably because of his zionist rose coloured spectacles. "In 1991, the same year as Chomsky's talk, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir asked the first Bush administration for $10 billion in loan guarantees in order, he said, to provide for the resettlement of Russian Jews. Bush Sr. had earlier balked at a request from Congress to appropriate an additional $650 million dollars to compensate Israel for sitting out the Gulf War, but gave in when he realized that his veto would be overridden. But now he told Shamir that Israel could only have the guarantees if it freezes settlement building and promised that no Russian Jews would be resettled in the West Bank. An angry Shamir refused and called on AIPAC to mobilize Congress and the organized American Jewish community in support of the loans guarantees. A letter, drafted by AIPAC was signed by more than 240 members of the House demanding that Bush approve them, and 77 senators signed on to supporting legislation. On September 12, 1991, Jewish lobbyists descended on Washington in such numbers that Bush felt obliged to call a televised press conference in which he complained that "1000 Jewish lobbyists are on Capitol Hill against little old me." It would prove to be his epitaph. Chomsky pointed to Bush's statement, at the time, as proof that the vaunted Israel lobby was nothing more than "a paper tiger. It took scarcely more than a raised eyebrow for the lobby to collapse," he told readers of Z Magazine. He could not have been further from the truth. The next day, Tom Dine, AIPAC's Executive Director, declared that "September 12, 1991 is a day that will live in infamy."Similar comments were uttered by Jewish leaders, who accused Bush of provoking anti-Semitism. What was more important, his friends in the mainstream media, like William Safire, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer, not only criticized him; they began to find fault with the economy and how he was running the country. It was all downhill from there. Bush's Jewish vote, which has been estimated at 38% in 1988, dropped down to no more than 12%, with some estimates as low as 8%. Bush's opposition to the loan guarantees was the last straw for the Israel lobby. When he made disparaging comments about Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem in March, 1990, AIPAC had begun the attack (briefly halted during the the Gulf War). Dine wrote a critical op-ed in the New York Times and followed that with a vigorous speech to the United Jewish Appeal's Young Leaders Conference. "Brothers and sisters,"he told them as they prepared to go out and lobby Congress on the issue, "remember that Israel's friends in this city reside on Capitol Hill." Months later, the loan guarantees were approved, but by then Bush was dead meat." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004).

The final factor ignored by chomsky’s analysis is the huge number of jews working for the american administration - most of whom are vehemently pro-zionist. If chomsky’s assumptions about the american government dominating the zionist government were true then there would be a clear delineation between the wasps serving in the american government and zionists serving in the zionist state. But there is no such separation. There are huge numbers of jews working for the bush administration - some are true americans serving only american interests but most are zionists serving the interests of the zionist state in palestine. These israelis are fifth columnists serving the interests of a foreign government. They are traitors to america. It can be speculated that if america dominated the zionist state then non-jewish americans in the american government would be issuing orders to the zionist state in palestine. However, what is happening, is quite the opposite: the zionist state is issuing orders to the israelis in the american administration who then work towards getting the american state to obey these orders. "The Israeli connection to this covert campaign (for an american war against iraq) is only now coming to light, with the revelation that an Israeli agent in the Pentagon Iran analyst Lawrence A. Franklin has been "turned" and is cooperating with the FBI. Like Whittaker Chambers, Franklin may be the key to exposing an extensive, longstanding network of spies that has burrowed so deeply into the highest councils of our government that American policy has been indisputably distorted and perhaps even decisively shaped by their machinations." (Justin Raimondo ‘Indict the War Party For treason’ http://antiwar.com/justin/ September 20, 2004).

Over the last decade or so, jewish financial and economic businesses have mushroomed; zionist lobbyists have constantly bribed american politicians to support the zionist state in palestine; the zionist owned media has created a public mood favourable to the zionist state; and increasing numbers of israelis have infiltrated into the american administration in order to promote zionist policies. Any one of these factors by themselves would have had a significant impact on american politics but when all of these factors are taken into consideration their overall impact is profound. Chomsky ignores all of these influences so it is not surprising that he can’t countenance the idea that zionists forced the american government to invade iraq in order to protect the zionist state in palestine. 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.

There may be a time in the future when wasps, perhaps in alliance with blacks and hispanics, are able to wrest back control of america from the american branches of the likud party but this is unlikely to happen for another generation at the very least. The extreme zionist policies being promoted by the bush administration do not come from the defunct, wasp controlled american military-industrial complex but from jewish financiers, zionists in the communications’ complex, the zionist controlled media, the zionist lobby and the zionists in the bish administration. Since the pentagon and new york bombings, it is zionists who have transformed america’s foreign policies not non-zionists.

It is indisputable that america is more economically, financially, and technologically, powerful than the zionist state in palestine. However, chomsky is wrong to assume this gives america dominance over the zionist state because a substantial part of america’s wealth is owned by zionists rather than wasps. It is not surprising that american zionists use their vast wealth and their control of the media to promote policies which benefit the zionist state rather than the american state.

Thirdly, sharon sidelines bush’s initiatives and forces bush to accept his own initiatives. For example, sharon has discarded bush’s ‘road map’ to peace in palestine in favour of his gaza disengagement initiative an initiative which enables the zionist state to occupy even more palestinian land than it has at present, "Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in remarks on Wednesday repudiated the American-sponsored "road map" to a peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Sharon insists on acting unilaterally, intends to occupy the Palestinian population indefinitely, and intends to permanently incorporate much of the West Bank, conquered in 1967, into Israel, while leaving the Palestinian population stateless. They lack so much as a passport or a country, many of their children are hungry, unemployment is astronomical, and their lives are ruined by a dense network of Israeli roads and checkpoints that make it difficult even just to go to the hospital." (Juan Cole ‘Sharon Repudiates the Road Map’ http://www.juancole.com/ September 17, 2004).

Fourthly, the zionist state offers refuge to any zionist criminal around the world even those who have committed crimes in america, "Israel has steadily become a safe haven for East European oil billionaires and organized crime figures of Jewish origin. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Israeli authorities have been complicit in issuing passports to men wanted on international warrants or others who have been identified by western intelligence agencies as prominent organized crime bosses. The advantage of fleeing to Israel is that it does not have extradition treaties with most European nations and maintains a policy of not handing over Jews to any nation, including the United States, its "closest ally." (Fred Lingel ‘Israel Offers Sanctuary to Accused Billionaire-Murderer’ http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=63569 August 16, 2004).

The leader of the zionist state humiliates the american president by calling him a neville chamberlain. He ignores orders given to him by the president. He dismisses plans put forward by the american president and forces the american president to rubber stamp his own zionist plans. Given these events it is bizarre to believe that the american president is the leader of the world’s sole hyperpower. It would be truer to the underlying realities of american politics if sharon was elected as the new president of the united states rather than either of his sidekicks george bush or john kerry.

It’s one thing for chomsky to continue publicizing the defunct theory of the global dominance of america's military-industrial complex. It is an entirely different matter to continue adocating such a theory whilst ignoring the influence of jewish financiers; the economic clout of the zionist dominated media/telecommunications/computer industries; the all-pervasive zionist propaganda pumped out by the zionist owned media; the blatant political influence of america's zionist lobby; and the vast infiltration of israelis in the bush administration. For chomsky to ignore these facts is either self-indoctrination, gross stupidity, or an attempt to cover up zionists' dominance of modern american society. The question has to be posed, ‘why does chomsky ignore these factors?’

Firstly, chomsky developed his views in the 1950s and 1960s when wasps controlled the military- industrial complex and, when the military-industrial complex was the biggest economic power block in the american economy. 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. Chomsky seems to have interpreted everything that has happened since then from this perspective. He seems to have been unable to take recent developments on board where zionists have gained increasing dominance over a number of facets of american life which have led to their dominance over the american political process. 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 zionists and the zionist state.

Firstly, chomsky 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).

Secondly, Chomsky's proposition that bush gives orders to sharon, is not merely wrong, it is immoral. To argue that sharon only does what bush orders him to do relieves sharon of any responsibility for the appalling injustices he is inflicting on the palestinians. According to jeffrey blankfort, "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 chomsky is not merely letting sharon off the hook but is an apologist for the zionist state in palestine. No matter how much chomsky dislikes what is being done in palestine, when he blames american imperialism for the oppression of palestinians then he is removing all responsibility and guilt from the zionists. This is unethical.

Thirdly, in the 2004 presidential election campaign, chomsky is a supporter of jeff cohen's 'Vote to Stop Bush' campaign which seeks to discourage ralph nader from contesting states where kerry has a chance of defeating bush. "In two days this week, we've seen minor-office elected Greens go after Nader and the next day over 70 academics, actors, authors and nonprofit professionals from Nader's 2000 Citizens Committee sent out a statement "urg(ing) support for Kerry/Edwards in all "'swing states,' even while we strongly disagree with Kerry's policies on Iraq and other issues...Progressive votes for John Kerry in swing states may prove decisive..." This surrender doc was signed by Noam Chomsky, Ben Cohen, Phil Donahue, Barbara Ehrenrich, Jim Hightower, Bonnie Raitt, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Cornel West and Howard Zinn among others." (Michael Donnelly ‘The Nuance Comes Off’ Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly09142004.html September 14, 2004); "Another group led by Jeff Cohen, founder of the media watchdog group FAIR, is heading an election cartel by the name of Vote to Stop Bush. This group, made up of ex-Nader supporters, is also urging progressive voters to pull the lever for John Kerry in swing-states. Vote to Stop Bush is made up of many long-time radicals, and activists including heavy hitters such as Noam Chomsky, Phil Donahue, Barbara Ehrenreich, Jim Hightower, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Saul Landau, Ed Vedder, and Howard Zinn. Unlike the Greens for Impact, this group does not call for voting against Nader in every state, only in states that truly matter in the electoral outcome." (Joshua Frank ‘Swing-Along-With-Ralph: Nader in the Battleground States’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank09162004.html September 16, 2004).

Nader is the first prominent presidential election candidate who has an arab background and who criticizes america’s policies towards the zionist state. "For decades as a consumer advocate and social justice activist, and even during his 2000 presidential campaign, Nader downplayed his ethnic background and offered few observations on foreign policy issues important to the Arab-American community. However, since his first major address on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the national convention of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in June 2003, Nader has become sharply critical of US support for Israeli policies."" (Hussein Ibish ‘Nader draws ire of pro-Israeli Americans’ Daily Star http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10
&categ_id=2&article_id=7432 August 18, 2004). Nader is also one of the few major national politicians in america who has broken the zionist taboo against public discussion of zionists’ influence over the american government, "The subservience of our congressional and White House puppets to Israeli military policy has been consistent. They’re almost all puppets. There are two sets: Congressional puppets and White House puppets. When the chief puppeteer (sharon) comes to Washington, the puppets prance." (Ralph Nader ‘Ralph Nader: Conservatively Speaking’ The American Conservative http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html June 21, 2004).

For chomsky to undermine ralph nader's presidential campaign for the sake of kerry is not merely a disgrace but is unforgivable. It seems the last thing a zionist lover like chomsky wants is for nader to use his presidential campaign to protest about congress and bush being zionist puppets. Like all other zionists, chomsky doesn't want any publicity being given to such propositions.

Chomsky’s analysis has had a dire political impact on anarchist/left wing/green activists. As jeffrey blankfort has argued, "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).

The most that can currently be expected from these zionist-loving lefties and peace groups who condone 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).

Chomsky has been a leading light of the left and anarchism for the last three decades. His influence has been pervasive. It is time to take a more critical look at his influence firstly, in protecting the likes of terrorists, mass murderers, and war criminals, such as sharon. And, secondly, in discouraging the left and anarchists from protesting about the apartheid zionist state in palestine. Chomsky has been an utter disaster for the left and sooner his analysis is exposed for the nonsense it is the better.

Cohen also presents an interesting proposition that the john major government had, for many years, blocked american attempts to combat milosovic’s policy of ethnic cleansing in yugoslavia. He thus turns the un-american charge against those who had used it so often in the past, “The most anti-american british government of our time was john major’s. During the yugoslav wars, the foreign office and ministry of defence saw washington as the home of gullible cowboys who lacked the sophistication to realize the pointlessness of stopping ethnic cleansing in a world that could never be made better.”[43]

6. The Views of the Intelligentsia about Zionism.
		Aaronovitch, David. Amiel, Barbara. Avnery, Uri. Chomsky, Noam. Cohen, Nick. Cole, Juan. Fisk, Robert. Foot, Paul. Francis, Wayne. Freedland, Jonathan. Friedman, Thomas L. Hersh, Seymour. Hirst, David. Hutton, Will. Jacoby, Jeff. Klein, Naomi. Marks, Benjamin. Mercer, Ilana. Monbiot, George. Moore, Michael. Parsons, Tony. Pilger, John. Raimondo, Justin. Reade, Brian. Routledge, Paul. Sacks, Jonathan - Chief Rabbi. Scheuer, Michael. Shawcross, William. Torode, John. Toynbee, Polly. Zunes, Stephen.

6. The Views of the Intelligentsia about Zionism.