Aletho News


New demolitions in Jordan Valley

Jordan Valley Solidarity | 21 February 2011

Khirbet Yerza is a small village with few dozens of inhabitants. It used to count hundreds of inhabitants before the 1967 occupation as its underground is full of water and thus very fertile.

Today Khirbet Yerza is an area considered by Israel as a military training area. It is also very isolated. Only one dirt road goes there, and it is very hard to access with a normal car.

Three months ago, the army destroyed many houses and even the mosque. Last Thursday, around 20 soldiers and 2 bulldozers came to destroy Yerza again.

Soldiers told a 70 year-old woman that she has to move to Tubas. Fifteen years ago the army told her to go to Khirbet Yerza when she was living in Al Maleh. “Where can I put my cows in Tubas ?! They will have to shoot us here if they want us to leave !”

They destroyed the ground of the mosque that was demolished 3 months ago. People had cleaned the area and put carpets on the ground to pray at the same place. But the army destroyed even this.

Fourteen structures were demolished, among them tents that were given by the Red Cross three months ago.

Some families had taken off the roofs of their barracks before the army arrived in order to save some materials. But soldiers saw some hidden metal sheets and drove over it in order to destroy it

A Palestinian journalist was there during the demolitions and took pictures of the scene. The soldiers beat him and confiscated his camera.

Most of the families living in Khirbet Yerza own the land and have lived in this area for more than 100 years.

All the families of the area received a new demolition order before the army left the place .

February 22, 2011 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular | Comments Off on New demolitions in Jordan Valley

The Security Budget vs. the Necessities of Americans

By Kevin Zeese | The People’s Voice | February 22nd, 2011

President Obama and the Congress have taken 66% of discretionary spending in the federal budget off the table – the Security Budget – while proposing a freeze to the rest of the budget and deep cuts to some programs that provide necessities for the American people. His budget crystalizes a choice that U.S. presidents have been making since President Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex – investment in the military vs. investment in the civilian economy.

The bloated and sacrosanct security budget – the military, domestic security and intelligence budgets –all saw rapid growth under President Bush when the DoD doubled its budget. Under President Obama the trend has continued with record military, intelligence and domestic security budgets. And, while the so-called recovery has only been a recovery for Wall Street and big business, the administration and congress are focused more on the deficit than on re-starting the economy for the rest of us. But there is more talk of cutting Social Security and Medicare than cutting the security budget. In fact, these two items are called entitlements because they are a contract with working Americans who pay for them in every paycheck. For this reason they should not even be considered part of the deficit. Payroll taxes fund these two programs that are essential for older Americans in their retirement years. Both face budget challenges but can be fixed, indeed Social Security has more than $2.5 trillion in Treasury Notes in reserve.

President Obama has proposed the largest DoD budget since World War II, $553 billion (not including war funding or nuclear weapons funding in the Department of Energy). Much attention has been shined on Secretary of Defense Gates’ proposal to “cut” $78 billion in the Pentagon budget. Those “cuts” take place over five years with reductions taking place after the 2012 election in 2014 and 2015. And, the “cuts” do not include the cost of wars. The Afghanistan war alone could eat up projected “savings” and if the CIA’s war in Pakistan escalates that will be an even bigger budget item. Further, we have not seen what the continuing U.S. military footprint in Iraq will cost. These projected cuts are more image than reality.

How does military spending impact Americans? President Reagan’s former assistant secretary of defense Lawrence Korb describes the military budget as “an annual tax of more than $7,000 on every household in the country.” While increasing the security budget, Obama and the Democrats have proposed widespread cuts to critical programs from a 50% cut in low-income heating assistance to nearly a 30% cut to the clean drinking water fund. They have also proposed a 25% cut ($1.3 billion) to the community development block grants used to fund local community development including affordable housing, anti-poverty programs, and infrastructure development. These are essential services needed for Americans health, safety and economic security. Of course, Republican cuts in the House budget are even more extreme but Obama set the table for them by making the debate about deficits and both parties will not touch the security budget. Military analyst, William Hartung, writes “These cuts will be painful, and they will be felt in every middle- and lower-income household in America.”

Cities and states are cutting essential services to balance their budgets. U.S. taxpayers will spend $737 billion for Pentagon spending for FY2011 including war funding). To get a sense of what this means, for the same amount of money tax payers could provide funding for 11.3 million elementary school teachers for one year or 93.5 million scholarships for university students for one year… Instead all these programs face cutbacks, while military spending grows. […]

Cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget is the goal of the Obama administration deficit plan. All of these cuts could come from military spending and still leave the U.S. militarily dominant. In fact, since the administration has projected an increase in spending of $6.5 trillion from 2011 to 2020, even a trillion would be a slowing of growth more than a real cut. Lawrence Korb lays out a five point plan to reduce military spending by $1 trillion without jeopardizing national security and thereby protecting U.S. economic security.

He is not alone, the Sustainable Defense Task Force provides specific cuts without harming U.S. national security including:

•The $238 billion Joint Strike Fighter program: Canceling the program and relying instead on upgraded versions of current aircraft would save almost $50 billion over ten years.

•The MV-22 Osprey: Replacing this dangerous, overpriced, and under-performing aircraft with cheaper alternatives would save over $10 billion over ten years.

•Reducing the number of U.S. troops in Europe and Asia to 100,000 from current levels of 150,000 would save $80 billion over a decade.

•Reforming Pentagon health care systems so that retirees pay modest, reasonable premiums could save $60 billion over a decade.

•Scaling back missile defense and space weapons programs could save over $50 billion over a decade.

•Further reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including deployment of fewer ballistic-missile launching submarines, could save over $100 billion in a ten year period, much of it in operating costs

•Reducing the size of the Navy from 286 to 230 ships would save over $125 billion over ten years.

If you combine these recommendations of the five point plan of Lawrence Korb, which includes items like bringing home 50,000 of the 150,000 troops stationed in Asia and Europe, reducing the size of the Army and Marine Corps to their pre-Iraq invasion level and reducing nuclear weapons from 1,968 to the 311 the Military War College says is needed for defense, the U.S. would save another $200 billion.

For many, these would only be the starting points of correctly prioritizing military spending. President Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex 50 year ago. During that time, U.S. spending on the military adjusted for inflation has more than doubled and we have moved to a permanent war state. Columbia University’s Seymour Melman, a professor of industrial engineering, pointed out that “Industrial productivity, the foundation of every nation’s economic growth, is eroded by the relentlessly predatory effects of the military economy.” In fact, we have seen – as we see in the Obama budget – a constant conflict between the military economy and the civilian economy. The civilian economy is losing that battle.

Thomas Woods, Jr. recently wrote in the American Conservative that military spending is parasitic as it feeds off the economy rather than grows it. The scale of resources used by the military is exorbitant, Woods writes: “To train a single combat pilot, for instance, costs between $5 million and $7 million. Over a period of two years, the average U.S. motorist uses about as much fuel as does a single F-16 training jet in less than an hour. The Abrams tank uses up 3.8 gallons of fuel in traveling one mile. Between 2 and 11 percent of the world’s use of 14 important minerals, from copper to aluminum to zinc, is consumed by the U.S. military, as is about 6 percent of the world’s consumption of petroleum. The Pentagon’s energy use in a single year could power all U.S. mass transit systems for nearly 14 years.”

To get a sense of the competition between the civilian and military economy, the Department of Commerce estimated the value of the nation’s plants, equipment, and infrastructure (capital stock) at just over $7.29 trillion in 1985; and from 1947 to 1987 the military spent the equivalent, $7.62 trillion in capital resources.

With the long record of the ascendency of military spending it is not surprising to see the U.S. economy in collapse, industry disappearing and the infrastructure crumbling. Not only has the U.S. failed to win a major war since World War II, but the cost of the standing army has become a burden on all of us and a drag on the economy. Some describe the U.S. Empire in decline and others see a collapse as possible at any moment.

The failure of President Obama to confront military spending in this time of economic collapse and perceived deficit crisis, when tax dollars are needed to restart the domestic economy, is not only a short term budget failure but does not face up to the long-term damaging economic impact of the American military empire.


Kevin Zeese is executive director of Prosperity Agenda (www.ProsperityAgenda.US) and Voters for Peace (www.VotersForPeace.US) and an editor of the book ComeHomeAmerica.US (visit ComeHomeAmerica.US for more information and to purchase the book).


February 22, 2011 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | 1 Comment

Israeli bulldozers bury Bedouin village

Ma’an – 22/02/2011

HEBRON — The five tents giving shelter to some 50 Bedouin residents of Amniyr, a tiny community north of Susiya in the south Hebron hills, were torn down on Monday, their olive trees uprooted and water sources covered over.

An observer with the Christian Peacemaker Teams said Israeli demolition crews arrived before sunrise, at about 5:30 a.m., and began taking down the tents, then filled a well and a water cistern with earth.

“They uprooted several olive trees and buried them under the dirt,” he said.

All that was left of the small herding community was a cave, where residents took shelter during the demolition, and a small bread oven made of stone, the observer said.

Residents had moved back to the area during the winter, saying settler harassment at a second location one kilometer away had driven them out. Years earlier the same harassment had forced them from the location where the tents were demolished.

Residents said they had ownership papers for the land at one point, but according to the observer every week for the past month Israeli officials from the Civil Administration have delivered notices saying the community was living on state land and must evacuate.

“The demolition orders were delivered on 15 February,” the observer said.

Residents say they are planning to rebuild, and will contact the International Red Cross to supply tents.

“We need god’s help,” Hajj Mohammed, a resident of the community told Ma’an, “we don’t know what we are going to do.”

Representatives from Israel’s Civil Administration did not answer calls seeking comment.

On Sunday, UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for the Palestinian territories Maxwell Gaylard condemned a similar demolition targeting a community in the northern West Bank. In Khirbet Tana, residents have had their tent homes destroyed four times since January.

“If the authorities ultimately responsible for these demolitions could see the devastating impact on vulnerable Palestinian communities, they might reflect upon the inhumanity of their actions,” Gaylard said in a statement following the last demolition.

February 22, 2011 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | 1 Comment

Egyptian Uprising Overthrows its Zionist Master

By Bob Finch | The Mundi Club | February 21, 2011

Global Strategic Factors

During the cold war period no liberation movement in any third world country was left to its own devices to fulfill the will of the people through the creation of democratic institutions and a more just society. They were continually corrupted by the superpowers seeking to enhance their global strategic interests in pursuit of global political dominion. The soviets generally tended to support secretive revolutionary movements which invariably aimed at creating one party states that would be sympathetic to their interests whilst the Americans, aiming to take over from former colonial powers, sought to install dictators who would promote their interests. It might have been thought that, with the end of the cold war, the days when overarching global strategic factors were able to corrupt domestic struggles for a better society would be long gone but the January 15, 2011 uprising in Egypt confirmed the existence of a new strategic factor. This threatened to stymie Egyptians’ liberation struggle. Although this struggle was eventually successful, the new strategic factor could still end up deterring or delaying the completion of this struggle i.e. the creation of a new constitution and democratic institutions.

Since the second world war, most Arab countries have been run by tyrants who have either been installed by America or have aligned themselves with American interests – even Nasser made overtures to the Americans but was rebuffed. Most of these dictators have enriched themselves, their families and friends, whilst ruthlessly suppressing domestic demands for political reforms and independent foreign policies. Like bank robbers they have stolen whatever riches their economies generated. As a consequence Arab societies have ossified preventing indigenous economic development thereby locking tens of millions into poverty. Since 1979, one of the great turning points in middle eastern history, these dictators have increasingly implemented American/Zionist friendly foreign policies.

At the start of the Egyptian uprising western public opinion responded positively to the mostly young, middle class, people who took to the streets demanding greater political freedoms which many westerners interpreted as western style political institutions.[i] But western politicians and the western media quickly began to oppose Egyptians’ prospects for liberation and their right to bring about a revolutionary foundation of democratic institutions. This opposition was couched in what seemed to be straightforward nationalist terms. ‘Mubarak has ensured stability in Egypt and the middle east and has deterred the rise of both Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism.’ ‘He may be a dictator but he’s our ‘son of a bitch’.’ The suggestion here was that it was in the west’s national interests to continue protecting this dictator. In order create doubts about the consequences of the Egyptian protestors’ uprising, western politicians/commentators sought to popularize the fear that it would lead to the rise of an extreme Islamic government hostile to the west. Egypt’s Muslim brotherhood were touted as a major threat to western interests even though it was nothing of the kind.[ii]

The proposition that the Egyptian uprising was against western interests, however, ran counter to the commonly held belief in western states that democracy is important not merely to protect political freedoms, guarantee property rights, and ensure justice, but to give people the opportunity to run and develop their own businesses and thus enhance national economic growth. So, if this belief is valid domestically then it must also be valid globally. It is therefore in the national interests of western states to encourage the widest possible democratic reforms in Egypt, and in all other countries, not merely because this would narcissistically imitate western political principles but because, more mundanely, it would promote Egyptian, and thus global, economic growth. Western companies would have another growing consumer market which would enable them to increase output and profits and thereby boost their own countries’ economy. A comparison between the economies of democratic turkey and dictatorial Egypt suggests that democracy makes a critical difference to the economic development. “… its (Egypt’s) economy is today a quarter the size of Turkey’s (though both countries have populations of similar size).” (Daniel Levy ‘After Mubarak – What Does Israel Do?’ Feb 11, 2011).

It is said that ‘imitation is the greatest form of flattery’ and so the west should have been proud that Egyptian protestors wanted to emulate its humanitarian values, political principles, and prosperity. Surely what westerners want is a thriving Egyptian democracy leading to a thriving economy with which they could freely do business? Surely westerners should have been exhilarated at the prospects of Egypt becoming more westernized?

The Zionist State’s support for Mubarak

The question then is why so many western politicians/commentators insisted that it was in western interests to protect Mubarak and thereby try so intensely to discourage democratic reforms? The critical strategic factor that, once again, was exposed by their attitude was the primary importance they attached to the security of the Jews-only state in Palestine. The all too obvious implication was that it didn’t matter to them what their country’s interests were: all that mattered was protecting the Zionist colonial state.

The Zionist state was virtually the only country in the world, outside of the world of Arab dictators, who disapproved of what the Egyptians were doing. It adamantly insisted that its security interests would be best served by the west continuing to support Mubarak, and other Arab dictators, no matter how much they crushed the will of their people for democratic reforms and nationalistic foreign policies.[iii] This was not unexpected since it has always helped to install and sustain Arab dictators who have pledged their allegiance to Zionist expansionism rather than the welfare of their own people.

Mubarak was a Zionist puppet. He’d helped to establish the Camp David accord which in effect gave the Zionist state the freedom to wage war against the Palestinians and surrounding Arab states. He denounced Hezbollah[iv]; urged the Zionist state to crush Hamas[v]; accused Iran of fomenting an arc of Shi’ite interests in the middle east[vi]; and even encouraged the Jews-only state to bomb Iran[vii]. It has also been alleged that he sold subsidized gas to the Zionist state.[viii] Egypt had once been self sufficient in oil and food but such was the corruption and incompetence of the Mubarak regime that the country was having to import both.[ix] Here was a leader of country which could no longer feed itself and in which tens of millions of people were living in poverty, who was exporting gas at subsidized rates to a far richer country. Quite revealingly, during the uprising, Mubarak poured out his Zionist heart to a Zionist confidante, “a member of the Israeli Knesset, one Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a former cabinet minister who dealt with the Egyptian tyrant during the negotiations that set up the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.” [x]

In the western world, Zionist politicians and Jewish lobbies echoed the Jews-only state’s stance and went into over-drive pressuring western governments into propping up Mubarak and his fellow Arab dictators.[xi] The Zionist owned western media put even more pressure on western politicians to stop sympathizing with Egyptian protestors. No sooner had Netanyahu raised the spectre that ‘Egypt is Iran’ than his minions were diligently spreading the message around the west. “We are watching these events, said Netanyahu, with “vigilance and worry.” The worry is rooted, he said, in the possibility that “in a situation of chaos, an organized Islamist body can seize control of a country. It happened in Iran. It happened in other instances.” No sooner had these words escaped his mouth than Israel’s amen corner in the US and around the world echoed the “Egypt is Iran” meme until it had found its way into nearly every news report, and virtually every public statement by a major politician on the Egyptian events.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It’s Always About Israel. Even when it isn’t…’ February 14, 2011).

It was shocking that in the western world Jewish lobbies and Zionist politicians/commentators were simply regurgitating the Zionist state’s line. It was more shocking to hear supposedly democratic politicians/commentators defending a brutal and corrupt dictator. But what was even more shocking was that they were promoting the interests of a foreign state rather than their own country’s national interests. They were sacrificing their democratic principles and the interests of the country they were living in for the sake of a colonial state that was perpetuating dictators throughout the Arab world. Most shockingly of all, however, was that they seemed entirely comfortable arguing that it was in the interests of democratic states to sustain dictators because they knew that nobody, not even those on the left, would challenge such nonsense and highlight their treachery. Zionist politicians/commentators in America were promoting blatantly un-American policies whilst, similarly, Zionist politicians/commentators throughout the rest of the western world were promoting blatantly anti-western policies, and nobody was challenging them about why they were giving priority to the interests of a foreign state.

There is very little difference between the cold war bogey of ‘reds under the bed’ and Zionists’ transformation of the moderate Muslim Brotherhood into an Islamic bogeyman. Since the formation of the Zionist state, Zionists have fabricated a long list of Islamic bogeymen from Nasser to Saddam Hussein. They have become specialists at conjuring up nightmarish Islamic threats to frighten the west into supporting Zionist interests and it was easy for them to demonize the Muslim Brotherhood given that most westerners knew little about the group. Contrary to Zionists’ accusations, the group was not run by Islamic extremists. It had not triggered the uprising.[xii] And it had not orchestrated the protests.[xiii] What do facts matter to Zionists when they can churn out lies to an ignorant western public which is usually disinterested in anything beyond their Zionist inspired prejudices? Zionist propagandists invented, and popularized, a fear and loathing for the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ to pressure western states into supporting Mubarak solely in order to protect the security of the Zionist state. Western citizens who regurgitated this new strategic bogey were gullible for not understanding that they were undermining their own country’s national interests for the sake of promoting the security of the warmongering colonial state in Palestine.

The Dominance of Zionist Propaganda

This wouldn’t be the first time, however, that extreme Zionist propagandists have managed to manipulate western states into pursuing policies supposedly promoting western interests when in reality all they were doing was undermining such interests for the sake of boosting the security of the Zionist state. This was their great propaganda achievement in provoking the first and second gulf wars. If the Zionist state could invent and then popularize amongst western politicians/media the gigantic fiction that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction then it could easily dupe the west into believing the smaller lie that if it didn’t continue supporting Mubarak then it wouldn’t be long before Egypt was being run by an extreme Islamic government intent on developing nuclear weapons aimed at the western world. After all, the Zionist state had already succeeded in conning the west into believing that Iran poses the same nuclear threat to the west as Saddam was supposed to have done. “Beyond the Arab world, U.S. policy on Iran is dictated more or less totally by Israel.” (Kathleen Christison ‘The US as Israel’s Enabler in the Middle East’ February 16, 2011).

There are, of course, those who would scoff at the idea of Jewish lobbies in the west corrupting western political principles, values, and national interests by trying to turn western public opinion against young, middle class, Egyptian protestors in order to promote the strategic interests of the Jews-only state. There are those who would be scornful of the idea of western Zionist politicians pretending to pursue their country’s national interests whilst in reality undermining such interests for the sake of protecting the Zionist state in Palestine. And there are those who would dismiss the idea that much of the western media is owned, managed, or manned by Zionists whose primary political goal is protecting a foreign state even if this is at the expense of the country in which they are living and working.[xiv] Surely the west cannot be dominated to such an extent by Zionists putting the interests of a foreign state above that of the countries they are supposedly protecting?

The truth of these accusations is all too easy to appreciate when it is considered that the ruling elites throughout the western world have never mentioned that the Jews-only state developed nuclear weapons in the 1960s. It is easy to measure the scale of Zionist domination over the western world by the fact that no politician/commentator has been willing to mention Zionists’ nukes. Even though this has been the most critical factor in middle eastern politics, western politicians/commentators ignore their existence and assiduously formulate policies on the grounds of their non-existence. They prefer to promote fantasies about Saddam’s nuclear weapons, and more recently Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons, rather than telling the truth about Zionists all too real nuclear weapons.[xv] What could be further from the west’s national interests than ignoring the threat that Zionists’ nukes pose to the west?

Any visitor from outer space analyzing the views of the west’s mainstream politicians/commentators would be astounded to discover they were promoting foreign policies in the middle east that ran counter to western humanitarian values, political principles, and economic interests. That the west could support the Zionists’ hideous oppression of Palestinians shows that its humanitarian values are vacuous, that its political principles are a sham, and that its economic interests are being undermined because the Palestinians, just like all Arab people being oppressed by Arab dictators, are being denied the right to establish businesses that would promote economic growth both nationally and globally. The west’s support for Zionist colonialism and Zionist domination over the middle east is shameful, grossly undemocratic, and counter to its economic interests.[xvi]

Hypothetically speaking, it was a fortunate that in 1948 Zionists didn’t create a Zionist state in the centre of Europe, perhaps in place of Switzerland. If they had they would have inflicted on westerners the same miseries they have inflicted on Arabs. They would have created Zionist quisling dictatorships across the continent to defend their interests. European countries would have found themselves as impoverished as those in the Arab world. America would also be poorer without its current vast trade with Europe. Zionist politicians would have spent the next half century undermining the idea of neighbouring countries establishing democracies because of the threat they would supposedly pose to the security of the Zionist state. They would have denounced European patriots seeking to liberate their country from Zionist dictators as terrorists. Of course, on the bright side, if the Zionist state had been founded in central Europe, then the Islamic world from Morocco through to Tajikistan would now be almost totally democratic and economically booming.[xvii] But, then again, Zionist lobbies would have doubtlessly infiltrated these wealthy Arab democracies and sought to develop an ideological alliance with them, based on a pseudo Judeo-Arabic civilization, invoking Europhobia in order to win their support for propping up quisling Zionist dictatorships across the European continent. It has to be suspected, however, that these rich Arab democracies wouldn’t have been so gullible as to believe that it was in their economic and political interests to perpetuate fabulously wealthy, European dictators ransacking their impoverished economies. The Zionist state is a black hole decimating democratic aspirations and economic opportunities in surrounding countries in order to preserve its economic and military supremacy.

What was so marvelous about the Egyptians’ uprising was not merely the overthrow of a tyrant, but the overthrow of a Zionist puppet who’d been imposed upon them by the Zionist state and its gigantic American satellite. It was also the western public’s refusal to be manipulated by Zionists’ propaganda onslaught against the uprising. Many ordinary people continued to sympathize with the Egyptian protestors despite Zionist politicians/editors/commentators and Jewish lobbies doing their best to provoke yet another wave of Islamophobia. The efforts of the west’s Zionist leaders to insist that western governments should continue propping up Mubarak, and thereby keep sacrificing the lives of tens of millions of Egyptians, was a revolting example of naked Zionist self-interest. Fortunately, the more determined that protestors in Egypt became to rid themselves of a Zionist tyrant, the more the western public sympathized with their aspirations, the more revolting these reactionary Zionists politicians/commentators/lobbyists appeared to become.

Yet again the Zionists in the western world showed themselves to be a bunch of reactionary traitors who not merely supported a tyrant at the expense of people wanting democratic institutions but who were willing to sacrifice the interests of the countries they were living and working in for the sake of their beloved Zionist state. Western Zionists in politics and the media constantly denounce western Moslems for their alleged dual loyalties but the uprising in Egypt revealed that the Zionists themselves  have no such duality: they are devoted to the interests of a foreign state.

During the Egyptian uprising, it cannot be said, however, that all western politicians were total shills to the Zionist cause. President Obama initially supported the uprising but was quickly forced to recant under pressure from the Zionist think tanks dug in on the lawns of the white house. He sent a personal envoy to the Pharaoh, supposedly to have a chat about him taking early retirement but, after the meeting, the envoy publicly announced that Mubarak should stay in office. “After turning against Mubarak, he suddenly opined that he must stay in power, in order to carry out democratic reforms. As his representative he sent to Egypt a retired diplomat whose current employer is a law firm that represents the Mubarak family (much as Bill Clinton used to send committed Jewish Zionists to “mediate” between Israel and the Palestinians).” (Uri Avnery ‘Tsunami in Egypt’ February 14, 2011).

However, Obama would not be beaten into submission by Zionist politicians/media/lobbies. On the morning of Thursday February 10, 2011, it was reported that Mubarak would announce his retirement that evening. Obama couldn’t hide his jubilation even though he knew this would provoke Zionist scorn and, sooner or later, revenge. When Mubarak finally resigned who could doubt the adoration Obama heaped upon the Egyptian protestors? His speech outlined with crystal clarity the best of western political principles and values. Those who opposed Egypt’s western style protestors were nothing less than un-American and anti-western traitors. It was all too symbolic that after his enforced resignation Mubarak moved to a part of Egypt which is as close to the Zionist state as he could get without actually leaving the country. Clearly he feared that if the Egyptian people launched a violent uprising which threatened his life and that of his family, then their safe haven would be only a few miles away.[xviii] Doubtlessly the Zionist state would have welcomed into its midst yet another criminal with vast amounts of wealth just as it had done with Robert Maxwell and the Russian oligarchs not to mention a few American-Jews who’d fled there to escape justice in America.

There were two factors that might have persuaded Mubarak to stay on in power albeit, in the end, only for less than 24 hours. Firstly, Ehud Barack, the Zionists’ defence minister, flew to Washington to denounce the Obama administration for showing concern for the aspirations of Egyptian protestors when it should have supported Mubarak in crushing the uprising – doubtlessly with the same ferocity the Zionist state uses in crushing Palestinian protests.[xix] Secondly, the Saudi leader, fearing an uprising in his own personal fiefdom, offered to fund Mubarak’s armed forces if the Obama administration ever decided to withdraw its annual funding for the Egyptian military.[xx] These dramatic interventions must have convinced Mubarak he still had enough international support to survive.

The State of Global Politics

So what does the Egyptian uprising indicate about the state of global politics? America is commonly recognized as the only remaining superpower. Some commentators go much further and refer to it as an American empire. But most American politicians couldn’t muster the political power to celebrate Egyptians’ democratic protests because of the pressure being exerted on them by the Zionist state and its vastly wealthy allies in America. When American politicians turned their backs on people who seemed to be trying to replicate American values and democratic institutions this suggests there are profoundly suspicious factors at work. The reality is that America’s ruling elite consists substantially of Zionists who care more about the Zionist state in Palestine than they do about America or American democracy and that they are willing to use American military power to promote that foreign state no matter how much it undermines America’s military capabilities or the country’s financial resources and political prestige around the world.

Since the end of the cold war, the key global strategic criterion guiding the west’s formulation of political policies has increasingly become whether these policies enhance or detract from the security of the Zionist state in Palestine.[xxi] Whether this political phenomenon can be categorized as a global Zionist empire or Zionist world domination is open to debate but when the west goes out of its way to prop up a tiny, virulently aggressive, illegal, colonial state with no raw resources and a tiny population of 6 million, and thereby alienates a multiplicity of Arab/Islamic countries with vast quantities of natural resources and a combined population of hundreds of millions, it has to be one or the other.

Over the last sixty years, the Zionist state has heaped a flood of humiliations upon American presidents and politicians. These are humiliations that the powerful inflict on the powerless, not the pin pricks that satellite states occasionally inflict on their colonial masters. No American president has dared to criticize let alone insult political leaders in the Zionist state but Zionist politicians insult American presidents with impunity because they know that America’s Zionist lobby is powerful enough to prevent American presidents from seeking revenge.

It doesn’t matter what shameful, disgusting, or downright criminal, acts the Zionist state carries out whether this might be starving Palestinians into submission, denying them medical supplies, slaughtering innocent people, or even attacking American military ships such as the U.S.S. liberty, American politicians cheer it on and protect it in the united nations. There is no barbarism carried out by the Zionist state that American politicians have not slavishly defended to their utmost. There is no limit to the amount of hatred they are willing to suffer for the sake of by defending the barbarity of the Zionist state. The Zionist state beats its American dog whenever it wants and the poor dog’s inbred loyalty just keeps leading it back to its master for more abuse and punishment. It is a testimony to the Zionist domination in America, that the Zionist state can repeatedly humiliate American presidents and yet the American public shows no sense of patriotic anger about it.

Hannah Arendt coined the phrase ‘the boomerang effect’ when colonial/imperial powers suffered ethically, financially, politically, and militarily, because of the appalling activities of their colonists/imperialists in foreign countries. America has suffered considerably, militarily, financially, and in terms of its political reputation, for its contribution to the growth of the Zionist empire – the holding of American hostages during the first Islamic revolution in Iran, the wars against Saddam Hussein, the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the invasion of Afghanistan. And yet still the American dog faithfully serves its master.

Another, even more stark indicator that America is a gigantic satellite of the Zionist state is that no American president has been able to limit, let alone withdraw, what are frequently referred to as subsidies to the Zionist state in order to punish it for its misdeeds. The reason for this is that these are not subsidies but tribute payments. Satellites are supposed to make tribute payments to their colonial/imperial powers, not vice versa and this is precisely what is happening when America hands over vast sums of money to the Zionist state which it then uses in whatever way it thinks fit even if it embarrasses America.

Even more critical for appreciating America’s subservient role to the Zionist master is that America has no influence over the Zionist state’s domestic policies especially those affecting the Palestinians. Indeed, it could be argued the Zionist state has more influence over America’s domestic policies than the reverse. And the same is true in terms of foreign policies. America has little control over Zionists’ foreign policies but Zionists have a critical influence over America’s foreign policies. America’s foreign policies are being determined by its so-called satellite across an ever increasing area of the world not merely the middle east nor even the greater middle east but the entire Moslem world. “… Israel is at the center of virtually every move the United States makes in the region.” (Kathleen Christison ‘The US as Israel’s Enabler in the Middle East’ February 16, 2011). [xxii]

Prospects for Democracy in Egypt

The prospects for democracy in Egypt do not look good but, then again, just a few months ago the prospects for overthrowing Mubarak seemed non-existent.[xxiii] The Egyptian uprising seemed to be an entirely modern, high tech, liberation brought about with the aid of mobile phones and social networking websites. Such websites are notorious for organizing spontaneous, one-off, anarchic, street parties so whether they are suitable for formulating a revolution has yet to be seen. However, the protests seemed so highly co-ordinated and tactically astute, successfully managing to maintain the momentum of the protests despite the efforts made to counter them, that this bodes well for the next, much more difficult, stage of founding democratic institutions.[xxiv]

Although social networking websites creep into the public domain the Egyptian protestors seemed to be able to organize themselves either without the authorities and international secret agencies being aware of what they were doing or, if the authorities were aware, of being unable to counter what the protestors were doing. [xxv] Little is known about the protestors or what motivated them. Western commentators are only now beginning to ascertain such motivations. “It’s fair to say that at this stage the Egyptian street keeps close to its heart those that supported it, from al-Jazeera and assorted Arab nationalists to Hezbollah in Lebanon. And knows very well those that despised it – from the House of Saud and assorted Wahhabi extremists to Israel. No one will forget that Saudi King Abdullah accused the street of “meddling in the security and stability of Arab and Muslim Egypt”.” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano’  February 15, 2011).

Having been so successful in liberating themselves, it is to be hoped they can take the next revolutionary step. Whether they will be able to do so is difficult to assess especially since the protestors relinquished their main political leverage, the occupation of Tahrir square, within days of the pharaoh’s overthrow. It has to be suspected that the egyptian army will be reluctant to stop issuing communiqués. “There’s no way a new Egypt may be born without overthrowing this whole system. Ergo, the street has to take on the army. Expect major fireworks ahead. Forget about the army swiftly handing over power to a civilian-led interim government.” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano’ February 15, 2011).

However, Egypt’s protestors face an even more insidious enemy than the Egyptian army – the Zionist state and its global allies who will pressure the army to stay in power. The Zionist state will do its utmost to restore another Zionist quisling as dictator. The Zionists may have been thrown off guard by the spontaneity of Egypt’s struggle for liberation but they are not going to allow the much longer, and far more complex, process of establishing democracy to proceed without doing their best to manipulate events in order to restore their power. Watch out for fabrications such as ‘Iraqi soldiers bayonet babies in incubators’.

In a future democracy, Egyptians may wish to change or abandon the Camp David accords. They may refuse to continue supporting the siege of Gaza, the continuing war crimes against the Palestinian people, and the Zionist colonization of Palestine. They may refuse Zionist ships passage through the Suez canal,[xxvi] and stop subsidizing gas exports to the Zionist state.[xxvii] They may oppose Zionist wars against its neighbours and its regional supremacy.[xxviii] They will want to develop new, independent, foreign policies. Such policy changes would be unacceptable to the Zionist state but there may be even worse to follow, the Egyptian people will invariably demand precisely what westerners have and what the Iranian people have now also: nuclear energy. This will almost certainly lead to demands for the acquisition of nuclear weapons to ensure their military defence and bring about a less unbalanced military situation in the middle east.

Although such changes in Egypt may not be in the least bit detrimental to the long term interests of the Zionist state, they would certainly be perceived as anathema by the current bunch of warmongers occupying Palestine. From the perspective of the warmongering Zionist state it would lose too much for it to allow democratic reforms in Egypt especially if this might lead to the country acquiring nuclear weapons. They will deem it imperative to scupper any move to democracy in favour of restoring a Zionist quisling who would once again put Zionist interests before those of the Egyptian people.

The west’s values, political principles, and national interests, would be best served through the creation of a democratic Egypt similar to that in turkey. Its primary strategic concern would be the Suez canal but given the Egyptians’ open attitude to the west this shouldn’t be a problem. The west doesn’t have to fear Egypt’s development of an independent foreign policy – only those suffering from Zionist paranoia would fear the worst.[xxix] But given Zionist domination of America’s political system, Zionist propagandists will doubtlessly terrify American politicians and the American public by conjuring up even more fantastic Islamic bogeymen in Egypt. The foundation of freedom in Egypt is thus a test of Zionist world domination. Zionists may have lost out because of the Egyptian uprising, and the refusal of a significant part of western public opinion to denounce Egyptian freedom fighters, but they will certainly try to restore their dominance.

After the second world war, the cold war became the primary global political preoccupation. The foundation of the Zionist state was a relatively insignificant issue in the worldwide competition for global supremacy. But during this time the Zionists’ military successes led them install pliant Arab dictators and to use Islamophobia to whip up opposition against Palestinian freedom fighters and hostile Moslem states across the African-Asian continents. After the demise of the cold war, the west’s Zionist ruling elites, its Zionist owned media, and its Zionist lobbies succeeded in pressuring western politicians into adopting their Islamophobia. Western political leaders increasingly see Zionist colonialism as their own cause. Zionists’ achievement of manipulating the west, and the rest of the world including Russia and China who also have their Islamic minorities who object to their second class status, into adopting the Zionist creed is the most blatant manifestation of Zionist global dominion. After the demise of the Russian empire, many commentators in the west wondered what the next global conflict would be since both superpowers seemed to rely on a cold war conflict to keep their military-industrial complexes in profit and an ideology that unified their peoples. Many thought it might be china or Asian tigers. The Zionists have successfully conned the west into supporting Zionism against fictitious Islamic bogeymen. The best way that people in the west can help Egyptian protestors to defeat their adversaries i.e. the Egyptian army and Zionist colonialists, is to challenge Zionist dominance at home.

February 22, 2011 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Comments Off on Egyptian Uprising Overthrows its Zionist Master

Madison Wisconsin Budget Protest Movement

cinderbelle319 | February 19, 2011

I don’t feel that national news has been giving accurate coverage of the rallies in Madison, WI, so I’m here to tell you what people are REALLY protesting about. Hint: it’s not about pay-cuts.

Here’s the Legislative Fiscal Bureau Memo:…

Source for the $140 Million in tax breaks:…

And if you think that’s not bad enough, consider this: 2/3 of corporations in WI don’t pay any taxes AT ALL. Where do YOU think the money should be coming from?…

February 22, 2011 Posted by | Economics, Solidarity and Activism, Video | 3 Comments

UN vetoes for Israel

From WikiSpooks

The following table lists vetoes cast on proposed UN Security Council resolutions critical of the State of Israel since 1972. These are cases where there has been a single NO vote by just one of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council who alone have the power of veto over its resolutions. In every single case, the veto has been wielded by the USA. One or more of the other Permanent Members have occasionally abstained.

The USA, acting alone, has used its UN Security Council veto in support of Israel on 42 occasions since 1972

This table shows these resolutions up to, and including, the one vetoed on 18 February 2011 which was supposedly written to be in exact aligment with the US’s stated position on Israeli settlements.

Resolution subject Number Date For-Veto-Abstain
Palestine: Syrian-Lebanese Complaint. 3 power draft resolution S/10784 10 Sep 1972 13 – 1 – 1
Palestine: Examination of Middle East Situation. 8-power draft resolution S/10974 2 Jul 1973 13 – 1 – 0
Palestine: Egyptian-Lebanese Complaint. 5-power draft power resolution S/11898 8 Dec 1975 13 – 1 – 1
Palestine: Middle East Problem, including Palestinian question. 6-power draft resolution S/11940 26 Jan 1976 9 – 1 – 3
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Arab Territories. 5-power draft resolution S/12022 25 Mar 1976 14 – 1 – 0
Palestine: Report on Committee on Rights of Palestinian People. 4-power draft resolution S/12119 29 Jun 1976 10 – 1 – 4
Palestine: Palestinian Rights. Tunisian draft resolution S/13911 30 April 1980 10 – 1 – 4
Palestine: Golan Heights. Jordan draft resolution S/14832 20 Jan 1982 9 – 1 – 5
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, Jordan draft resolution S/14943 2 Apr 1982 13 – 1 – 1
Palestine: Incident at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 4-power draft resolution S/14985 20 Apr 1982 14 – 1 – 0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. Spain draft resolution S/15185 8 Jun 1982 14 – 1 – 0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. France draft resolution S/15255 26 Jun 1982 14 – 1 – 0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. USSR draft resolution S/15347 6 Aug 1982 11 – 1 – 3
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, 20-power draft resolution S/15895 1 Aug 1983 13 – 1 – 1
S. Lebanon: Condemns Israeli action in southern Lebanon S/16732 6 Sep 1984 13 – 1 – 1
Occupied Territories: Deplores “repressive measures” by Israel against Arab population S/17459 13 Sep 1985 10 – 1 – 4
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon S/17000 12 Mar 1985 11 – 1 – 3
Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places S/17769 30 Jan 1986 13 – 1 – 1
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon S/17730 17 Jan 1986 11 – 1 – 3
Libya/Israel: Condemns Israeli interception of Libyan plane S/17796 6 Feb 1986 10 – 1 – 4
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population S/19434 18 Jan 1988 13 – 1 – 1
Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory S/19868 10 May 1988 14 – 1 – 0
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988 S/20322 14 Dec 1988 14 – 1 – 0
Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention S/19466 29 Jan 1988 14 – 1 – 0
Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories S/19780 14 Apr 1988 14 – 1 – 0
Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel’s continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. S/20463 17 Feb 1989 14 – 1 – 0
Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories S/20677 9 Jun 1989 14 – 1 – 0
Occupied territories: Deplored Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied territories S/20945 7 Nov 1989 14 – 1 – 0
Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. S/21326 31 May 1990 14 – 1 – 0
Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 S/1995/394 17 May 1995 14 – 1 – 0
Middle East: Calling upon Israel to refrain from East Jerusalem settlement activites S/1997/199 7 Mar 1997 14 – 1 – 0
Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories S/1997/241 21 Mar 1997 14 – 1 – 0
Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza S/2001/270 27 Mar 2001 9 – 1 – 4
Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. S/2001/1199 14 Dec 2001 12 – 1 – 2
On the killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse S/2002/1385 19 Dec 2002 12 – 1 – 2
Demand that Israel halt threats to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat S/2003/891 16 Sep 2003 11 – 1 – 3
Seeks to bar Israel from extending security fence S/2003/980 14 Oct 2003 12 – 1 – 2
on the condemnation of the killing of Ahmed Yassin, the leader of the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas S/2004/240 25 Mar 2004 11 – 1 – 3
On the demand to Israel to halt all military operations in northern Gaza and withdraw from the area. S/2004/783 5 Oct 2004 11 – 1 – 3
On the demand for the unconditional release of an Israeli soldier captured earlier as well as Israel’s immediate withdrawal from Gaza and the release of dozens of Palestinian officials detained by Israel. S/2006/508 13 Jul 2006 10 – 1 – 4
On the Israeli military operations in Gaza, the Palestinian rocket fire into Israel, the call for immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and a cessation of violence from both parties in the conflict. S/2006/878 11 Nov 2006 10 – 1 – 4
That “Israel, as the occupying power, immediately and completely ceases all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem and that it fully respect its legal obligations in this regard” S/xxxxxxx 18 Feb 2011 14 – 1 – 0

February 22, 2011 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | 1 Comment