Tuesday, February 28, 2006

What’s in a Name? The Jews-only State in Palestine.

Updated March 5th 2006
This article is a personal account of my reasons for using the phrase ‘Jews-only state in Palestine’ in preference to commonly accepted phrases such as ‘the Israeli state’ or ‘the Israeli government’.

The catalyst for the change in terminology was a political protest. In September 2001 Jack Straw, the left-leaning British foreign minister, went on a tour of Middle Eastern countries in order to ascertain whether there was any common ground for reviving peace negotiations in Palestine. He promptly ran straight into a zionist brick wall. While he was on tour a letter he’d written prior to the tour was published and members of Ariel Sharon’s cabinet reacted to it with rage. "Mr straw, who started a four day tour of the middle east yesterday, prompted controversy by writing a letter in which he twice referred to Palestine. The Israelis do not recognize the term for that part of the middle east. An Israeli cabinet minister called Mr Straw’s comments an "obscenity" which, he said, turned Israel from the victim of terrorism into the accused." (Mirror 25.9.2001 p.5). In what would have been an unprecedented political rebuff, Ariel Sharon refused to meet him. The meeting went ahead only after the personal intervention of Tony Blair who agreed that henceforth his foreign secretary would comply with Sharon’s wishes. "The row began when Mr Straw said anger over the plight of the Palestinians was helping to breed terror. He also referred to Palestine, a term Israel does not recognize. Downing street said "no offence was intended" by Mr Straw’s remarks. The Prime Minister’s spokesman said the government will go back to referring to the "Palestinian controlled authorities" instead of Palestine. Mr Straw said, "I stand very firmly against the terrorism which the Israeli people have suffered."" (Mirror 26.9.2001 p.5). Just in case this might be thought to have been solely a matter between Britain and the Jews-only state it ought to be pointed out that according to one commentator, "(Jack Straw) dares to say the "P" word - Palestine - which Washington fights shy of." (Paul Routledge Mirror 26.9.2001 p.5).

Despite my long acquaintanceship with middle east politics, I was shocked to learn of a ban on the word ‘Palestine’. How was it going to be possible to bring peace to Palestine when Jewish racists were able to force western governments to stop using the name of the country to which those governments were trying to bring peace? Thereafter, as a personal political protest, I stopped using the phrases ‘Israeli state’ or ‘Israeli government’. I tried various replacements such as ‘the Zionist state in Palestine’ before settling on the admittedly rather ugly, and convoluted, phrase ‘the Jews-only state in Palestine’ or ‘Jews-only state’ for short. I thought it objectionable to allow racists to define which concepts I should use. The use of racist concepts such as ‘the Israeli state’ makes racism seem normal and thus politically acceptable. Incidentally, Jack Straw returned to England a politically chastened man and thereafter never failed to reiterate the zionist line emanating from the Jews-only state.

At the time I decided to stop using the word ‘Israel’ I supported the United Nations’ two state solution to the conflict in Palestine. I then came across an article by Joseph Massad proposing a single state solution. Without realizing it, I’d become so conditioned into supporting the conventional two-state solution it took me a long time to think through the merits of his arguments and change my mind. The more I agreed with Massad, the more redundant terms like ‘Israel’ and ‘Israeli state’ seemed to become. This added to the political necessity for finding an alternative formulation.

One of the alternative phrases which attracted my attention was "the Jewish state". Its implication of a monocultural state seemed to correctly convey the Jewish racism rampant in Palestine. And yet gradually I realized the phrase was not merely far from satisfactory but highly dangerous. It was a phrase used by Jewish racists to indicate their desire for the complete ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The big political advantage of their use of the phrase was that to non-racists it created a favourable impression of the Jews-only state as being as harmless as the British state or the French state. It implied ‘the Jewish state’ was as multi-cultural as Britain and France. But ‘the Jewish state’ is not multi-cultural - members of different cultures do not have exactly the same rights. On the contrary, it is a racist state. Jewish racists were thus cleverly using the phrase to parade their racist goals whilst camoflauging the racist nature of the Jewish state behind benign connotations of multi-culturalism. Whilst it was transparent that a Jews-only state was a Jewish state, it was not at all transparent that a Jewish state was a Jews-only state. There is surely something wrong with racists and anti-racists sharing a common terminology.

I began using the phrase ‘Jews-only state in Palestine’ because it explicitly denotes an apartheid state. The Jews-only state denies Palestinians in the Jews-only state the same rights as Jews. The use of the phrase Israeli Palestinians was being used to deceive the world into believing that the Palestinians inside the Jews-only state had the same rights as Jews. Even today there are anti-zionists in the peace movement who promote the idea that Palestinians and Jews have the same rights within the Jews-only state. Whether these peace activists are ignorant of the truth or zionists just pretending to be Jews in order to promote zionist propaganda is difficult to say. But, either way, they shouldn’t be allowed in the peace movement. Of course, Palestinians in the occupied territories have no rights, and thus no protection, from the Jews-only state. For instance, the Jews-only state in Palestine has recently decreed the newly elected Hamas government to be part of an axis of evil and has thus embarked on a policy of crippling the Palestinians’ economy in order to starve them into submission and perhaps even forceing them to leave their own country.

Another benefit of the phrase Jews-only state was its historical accuracy. The Jews-only state is becoming increasingly a state only for Jews. Ever since the establishment of the Jews-only state Palestine has been acquiring an increasingly Jewish identity whilst correspondingly losing its Palestinian identity. For example, Palestinian villages have been demolished and all traces of Palestinians’ connection to the land deliberately eradicated. Even to this day Palestinian property homes continue to be expropriated and demolished. The Jews then build new homes to give the land a Jewish identity. Jennifer Loewenstein indicates the variety of ways in which the Jews-only state is removing all traces of Palestinian existence from Palestine. "With every new brick laid for the settlements, every new road paved to Ariel, Maale Adumim, Illit, Gush Etzion and beyond, with every permit denied for work, education, medical care and travel, every truck left waiting with rotting produce at Sufa and Karni, every tax and customs dollar stolen from a people interned on their own land, Israel parades its contempt for human decency and gets standing ovations in the US Congress and elsewhere." (Jennifer Loewenstein ‘Watching the Dissolution of Palestine’ http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein02242006.html February 24, 2006). Palestinians, whether inside or outside the Jews-only state, now own far less land in Palestine than they did in the past. Even if Palestinians still own land within occupied areas, the squatter state has placed so many restrictions on their freedom of movement that Palestinians’ attachment to their property is being increasingly severed.

Historically, the Jews-only state is also increasing the political rights of Jews whilst decreasing the political rights of Palestinians. Eventually the Palestinians trapped inside the Jews-only state will be made as stateless as the Palestinians outside the Jews-only state, "Here we are really talking about almost genocide, in the future. Although I don’t think this will really happen and I hope that the world will not stand aside. But for the Palestinians in Israel, where this danger is not that imminent, the future means even less rights, social rights, civil rights, human rights, than they have now. They still have limited of these, but it will become worst. The Jewish state will become more ethnic, more racist, more exclusive, and anyone who is not a Jew, or is not regarded as Jew, will suffer from it more in the future than he or she suffers today." (Prof. Ilan Pappe quoted in Steve Zeltzer ‘Ilan Pappe on the Israel-Palestine conflict’ Labor Video Project cable TV program http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=16276 October 29, 2005).

The phrase Jews-only state is also more politically accurate than its alternatives in the sense that it implies there are many Jewish racists in Palestine, and around the world, who want to deport, or exterminate, the Palestinians still left in Palestine. Genevieve Cora Fraser is but the latest commentator to conclude that the Jews are intent on genocide against the Palestinians. "If Israel gets its way, how long will it be before Palestine is in a similar situation – especially if, once again, Israel unleashes a reign of terror through unrelenting military assault? For nearly six decades Palestinians have been systematically ethnically cleaned - driven off their land, and Israel has all too often prevented food deliveries as well as access to medicines and water (as documented by hundreds of UN Resolutions against Israel). However, the complete economic deprivation that Israel insists on, in this writer’s opinion, is far beyond a slap in the face at democracy by refusing to acknowledge a Hamas-led government, but an attempt to commit genocide against the Palestinian people." (Genevieve Cora Fraser ‘Israeli Defense Minister Declares Palestine "Axis of Evil" http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Fraser23.htm February 23rd 2006). Yes indeed, for some Jews the best way to eradicate the stigma of living in an apartheid state would be to remove all traces of Palestinians from Palestine!

What adds to the legitimacy of the phrase ‘Jews-only state in Palestine’ is a tendency amongst Jews in the west to set up ‘Jews-only’ organizations. In Britain, there is ‘Jews for Justice for Palestinians’; ‘Jews Against Zionism’; ‘Jews for a Just Peace’; ‘the Jewish Socialists Group’. In Scotland, ‘Scottish Jews for a Just Peace’. In America, ‘Jewish Voice for Peace’. A new organization has just been formed called ‘Jews against anti-Christian Defamation’. It’s objective is to do for Christians what the Anti-Defamation League has done for Jews! Is it possible we’re now going to get Jews spying, and compiling files, on Americans for the sake of protecting Christianity? These are just groups I’ve come across by accident so it has to be wondered how many more could be found with a bit of research. Personally, I’d never come across so many examples of political separatism outside of feminists’ women-only groups.

The above mentioned groups are not blatantly jewish supremacist organizations like the World Zionist Organization or AIPAC dedicated to furthering the political dominion of Jews around the world. On the contrary, some are supposedly pro-Palestinian; others avowedly anti-zionist. But there is a self-evident common denominator between the Jews-only state and Jews-only organizations. Beyond the common elements of separatism and exclusivism, however, it has to be wondered how much the specialness or even supremacism of the former is dripping into the assumptions of the Jews in the latter organizations.

Paul Oestreicher seems to have personal knowledge of some of those involved in a Jews-only organization which dispels any misgivings he might have had towards such organizations, "In Britain, Jews for Justice for Palestinians organises to give Jewishness a human face. Tell them they are anti-semites and they will laugh bitterly, for the charge hurts deeply and is a lie." (Paul Oestreicher ‘Israel's policies are feeding the cancer of anti-semitism’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329416218-103552,00.html February 20, 2006). Despite Oestreicher’s moral authority his personal ratification of Jews-only organizations is not going to make the doubts disappear. Jews-only organizations raise a host of questions about their real agenda. Why do Jews feel a need to organize by themselves? What are they hiding? What are they frightened about? Are they trying to promote a sense of Jewish victimhood? Why can’t they organize an anti-apartheid movement in which everyone could help to fight Jewish racism? Are they secretly trying to nullify Jewish opposition to the Jews-only state? Are they radical gatekeepers for criticisms of the Jews-only state? What are the benefits of excluding non-Jews? The questions go on and on. At the very least, non-Jews are going to waste time pondering on what these organizations are really up to. There is also the problem that such organizations will distract attention from the causes for which they are allegedly fighting. At worst, they are going to breed suspicion and mistrust. It is virtually impossible for such Jews-only exclusivism not to raise doubts about latent supremacism especially given the supremacism of Jewish racists in the Jews-only state. It is absurd for Jews-only organizations to copy the practices of the Jews-only state and then expect non-Jews to believe they are opposed to the Jews-only state. Israel Shamir’s quip about such organizations exposes their preposterous political stance, "The concept of Jews for Justice, Jews for Peace and other separatist all-Jewish groups in pursuit of common goals appears to me about as justifiable as that of Whites against Apartheid. Equality in South Africa was achieved by overcoming such dubious groupings, by the color-blind force of the ANC. It appears that the cause of justice in Palestine should not be different. Why, then, such groups exist?" (Israel Shamir ‘The New Bund at Old Tricks’ http://www.israelshamir.net/Left/Left1.htm July 11th 2005).

Jeff Blankfort also questions such organizations but from a different perspective, "In this country it has been used to silence so many people. And this is one of the reasons I am against specifically Jewish organizations wanting to lead the fight for Palestine. What happens is that there are many anti-Zionist Jews, or who claim to be anti-Zionist, who say "we, as anti-Zionists Jews, should provide the leadership so that other people will see that not all the Jews are for Israel". And I am totally against that because all Americans pay their taxes and thus support Israel. And this is an American issue. And by putting it out that Jews are the leaders, that Jews, anti Zionists Jews are doing this, what it says to non-Jews is: they can do this because they are Jewish. It has been tried, so far it has been a failure." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006).

The phrase ‘Jews-only state’ also acquires legitimacy because it encompasses the phenomenon of the holocaust industry’s myopic transformation of totalitarian slaughters during the 1930s and 1940s into a Jews-only slaughter. As someone who still regards the works of Hannah Arendt as being of profound political and historical significance, the massacre of Jews has to be understood within the broader context of the rise and fall of totalitarianism. During the lifetime of totalitarianism tens of millions of people were killed. However, today ask any British person (and probably any westerner) what they understand by ‘the Holocaust’ and they will almost invariably regurgitate "the slaughter of six million Jews". Although the nazis sent Jews, Communists, POWs, the aged, the sick, homosexuals, Seven Day Adventists, Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Italians, Poles, Ukrainians, Gypsies, etc. into the concentration and extermination camps, the holocaust industry has transformed this avalanche of death into a Jews-only slaughter. Uri Avnery has described the way that many Jews have come to believe that Jews were the only people killed by the nazis or, even worse, that amongst those slaughtered the only people that mattered were Jews. "The centrality of the Holocaust in Jewish consciousness caused the Jews to insist on its absolute exclusiveness. We are shocked and furious when somebody tries to remind us that the Nazis exterminated other communities too, such as the Roma, the homosexuals and the mentally ill. We get very angry when somebody comes and compares "our" Holocaust with other genocides: Armenians, Cambodians, Tutsis in Ruanda and others. Really! How can one compare?" (Uri Avnery ‘Memory of the Holocaust - from Jewish property into human possession’ http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives.html#articles March 19th 2005). The highly profitable Shoah business has transformed totalitarianism into a racist Jews-only holocaust.

A huge number of British people were killed during the second world war. It was one of the biggest losses the country has ever suffered. Since that disaster the British media has continually produced documentaries about, or dramas set against the backdrop of, the second world war. The British try to remember their losses, they honour their war dead each year, and celebrate their military victories which brought peace to Europe. And yet despite these losses, and there are still many people alive today who lost relatives or friends because of the war, despite the continual remembrance of those dark days, if you ask British people what is meant by ‘The Holocaust’ they will overlook their own history, their own suffering, and their own losses, and say, "The slaughter of six million Jews." Perhaps this concern for other people rather than themselves is just a product of the compassion of the British people. But it has to be suspected that this is not true. The British show next to no interest in the horrendous losses suffered by the Russians during the rise and fall of totalitarianism. It has been estimated that around twenty million Russians died during this time. In other words, three times more Russians were killed than Jews and yet nobody in Britain, or the west, ever mentions a Russian holocaust, or thinks about 20 million dead Russians, and there is no Russian Holocaust Day in Britain. This situation is even more anomalous since it could be argued that if the Russians had not sacrificed their lives in such vast numbers to defend themselves against, and help to defeat, the nazis then it is quite possible Britain would have lost the war. The British people therefore owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Russian people. And yet amazingly even though the Russians did far, far more than the Jews to help Britain in the war British people are not even aware of the need to feel any gratitude to the Russians but instead devote their sympathies to the Jews caught up in the so-called Holocaust.

As a student I was an enthusiastic supporter of Hannah Arendt’s works ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’ and ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem’. I believe these works are still valid and I have not yet come across an author who has a better interpretation of the events leading to the rise and fall of totalitarianism or a better political analysis of this novel form of government. I remain confident about the facts she presented and on her political theory of totalitarianism. In the past I looked upon revisionists with contempt. However, after reading Norman Finkelstein’s book on the holocaust industry I became much more suspicious about the conventional view of the past and when I re-read Arendt’s great works I’ll keep in mind some revisionist questions to check the validity of her facts and analysis. I remain confident about the historical veracity of her works. I am not what I would call an empirical revisionist or an empirical holocaust denier. In other words, I do not challenge the facts about the rise and fall of totalitarianism. However, I have become a conceptual revisionist or a conceptual holocaust denier. What I deny, or more accurately condemn, is ‘the Holocaust’ as a Jews-only slaughter. Such a concept is inherently racist. I would indeed wear a badge "Conceptual Holocaust Denier" with pride.

Totalitarianism is fading into the past but it has undergone a vital distillation so that politically it serves as a fundamental lesson of history, a warning of political dangers that ought to be avoided. However the slaughter of the Jews is not fading into the past. On the contrary, it has been hyped up out of all proportion, like a Hollywood blockbuster, into ‘The Holocaust’. Political emotions over the issue are constantly being fanned until it has become a fanatical secular crusade sucking everyone in the western world into a vortex of hysteria or guilt. Throughout his life Ariel Sharon denounced everyone who disagreed with him as a new Hitler – he even denounced George WMD Bush as a Chamberlain. Every single anti-Jewish comment no matter how mild or innocent is instantly reported to Jewish authorities and converted into cast iron evidence that the concentration camps are on their way back. These days whenever someone mentions ‘The Holocaust’ as the slaughter of six million Jews I usually retort ‘And what about the Jewish dehumanization, demonization, of six million Palestinians?’ It is the height of human folly to allow Holocaust propaganda to reach such levels of pathological irrationality that it can be used to bring about the genocide of six million Palestinians who played absolutely no part in the slaughter of Jews during the rise and fall of totalitarianism. Sympathy for the suffering of the Jews in the long distant past cannot under any circumstances be allowed to condone what the Jews-only state is currently doing to Palestinians. There is a clear difference between keeping the past alive as a guide to a civilized future and using it as a cudgel to re-enact the past. Jewish racists in the Jews only state are inflicting on the Palestinians what the nazis inflicted on European Jews. They are becoming increasingly indistinguishable from nazis. They cannot be allowed to play out their nazi nightmares on an innocent people such as the Palestinians.

The phrase ‘Jews-only state’ is also superior to its alternatives in that it possesses obvious overtones from other apartheid systems where public signs such as ‘Blacks-only’ or ‘Whites-only’ were commonly in evidence. Considering the degree to which many Jews around the world have tried to pretend that the Jews-only state in Palestine is nothing like the former apartheid state in South Africa, the phrase ‘Jews-only state’ makes such a comparison unavoidable. It might also draw attention to the fact that a great deal of support for the racist Jews-only state currently emanates from former apartheid states in America’s deep south.

Of course, Jews are free to define their state in whatever way they think fit. But I have no desire to use their concepts and provide them with any terminological justification for their illegal, murderous, racist, and genocidal, state. The Jews-only state, and its Jewish allies in the west, proclaims itself to be a modern, secular, liberal, democratic, western state but it is easy to dismiss such claims. It is time to get more fundamental and challenge the name that racist Jews give to their state. I believe the phrase ‘the Jews-only state’ is much more historically, politically, and morally, precise than the alternatives.

For a more in depth look at the Jews-only phenomenon please see
‘The Jews-Only State in Palestine: The Utter Filth of Jews-only Racism’

The same work also appears on my blog site at

Commentators Highlighting Jews-Only Phenomena.
Edward S. Herman.
"Second, the Israeli state has been allowed to ignore numerous Security Council resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding its occupation of the West Bank, as well as the International Court of Justice ruling on its apartheid wall, and simply dispossess the Palestinians of a large fraction of their land and water, demolish thousands of their homes, cut down many thousands of their olive trees, destroy their infrastructure, and create a modern network of roads through the occupied West Bank for Jews only while imposing serious obstacles to Palestinian movement within the West Bank." (Edward S. Herman ‘Western Approval for Long-Term Israeli Ethnic Cleansing’ Z Magazine March 2006).

Jennifer Loewenstein.
"Judea and Samaria which are, or were, the northern and southern West Bank, have been subdivided and parceled out over decades to hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers for their houses and orchards and gardens. They have been crisscrossed and circled with Jewish-only roads that bind the land, the houses and orchards and gardens, to Israel. They have been manned with guards and gunmen and tanks and blue and white Israeli flags that defend, protect and assure the settlers, their houses and orchards and gardens, that they are in fact Israelis belonging to a single Jewish state." (Jennifer Loewenstein ‘Watching the Dissolution of Palestine’ http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein02242006.html February 24, 2006).

Ilan Pappe.
"Israel controls the life of two groups of Palestinians: there are the Palestinians citizens inside Israel and there are the Palestinians under Occupation. These are very two different groups. I think the group under Occupation is under grave threat, there is still a very serious possibility that this people will be ethnically cleansed, once again, and that mass killing will be performed against it." (Prof. Ilan Pappe quoted in Steve Zeltzer ‘Ilan Pappe on the Israel-Palestine conflict’ Labor Video Project cable TV program http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=16276 October 29, 2005).

John Spritzler.
"This is why Israel makes Palestinians prisoners inside of refugee camps and inside areas surrounded by military checkpoints, why it subjects them to harsh curfews, excludes them from Jews-only roads …." (John Spritzler ‘Should People Opposed to Bigotry and Anti-Semitism Support Israel?’ http://newdemocracyworld.org/War/Should-People.htm February 6, 2005).

The Jewish Nazis’ Final Solution.

Hamas’s victory in the january 25th 2006 palestinian elections was a turning point for the jews-only state. "According to Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, the Palestinian people have made their government part of the 'Axis of Evil' along with Syria and Iran. As a result, "punitive measures" will be taken by Israeli forces against all the Palestinian people, he stated." (Genevieve Cora Fraser ‘Israeli Defense Minister Declares Palestine "Axis of Evil" http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Fraser23.htm February 23rd 2006). The jews have vilified hamas to such an extent that they are now prepared to starve the palestinians out of palestine. This is a new policy – albeit one to which they have been heading remorselessly over the last few years by deliberately destroying the palestinian economy. It is their final solution to the ‘Palestinian problem’.

Almost immediately after hamas’s victory the jews’ announced they would not talk to a new hamas government and refused to hand over tax returns belonging to the palestinians. They were intent on totally isolating the palestinians from the rest of the world. The jews sat back and waited for the world’s reaction. "With every new brick laid for the settlements, every new road paved to Ariel, Maale Adumim, Illit, Gush Etzion and beyond, with every permit denied for work, education, medical care and travel, every truck left waiting with rotting produce at Sufa and Karni, every tax and customs dollar stolen from a people interned on their own land, Israel parades its contempt for human decency and gets standing ovations in the US Congress and elsewhere." (Jennifer Loewenstein ‘Watching the Dissolution of Palestine’ http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein02242006.html February 24, 2006). The jews received a positive response from the war criminal, and shabbat goy, tony blair and europe’s neocon rulers who decreed they will no longer continue to provide any aid for the palestinians. Once the jews realized they had diplomatically and economically isolated the palestinians they felt safe to let it be known they were going to starve the palestinians into submission.

In 2001 sharon decided to refuse to talk or negotiate with yassir arafat because he was a terrorist. He forced bush into foisting democratic elections on the palestinians in order to try and get rid of arafat but arafat won. So jews and their american minions forced the palestinians into holding presidential elections to elect someone with whom the jews could negotiate with. But no sooner had abbas been elected than sharon announced he wouldn’t negotiate with him. "After boycotting Yasir Arafat since his election in 2001, it was assumed that the Sharon government would be more forthcoming with his moderate and democratically elected successor who, after all, ended the intifada. It wasn’t. Sharon refused to negotiate with Abbas and simply ignored Israel’s responsibilities under the roadmap (freezing settlement expansion, for one). Other than calling Abbas a "partner," Sharon treated him no differently than Arafat, and the Americans didn’t press him. He ended violence and got almost nothing in return. To Palestinians, Abbas looked like a dupe." (M.J. Rosenberg ‘Who Elected Hamas?’ http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_02_27/feature.html February 27, 2006).

It was not surprising then that when the palestinians elected hamas, the jews refused to negotiate with them. The pattern is obvious: the jews won’t negotiate with any palestinians because all palestinians are terrorists. They don’t want peace with the palestinians they want to deport the palestinians. "Zionism is all about running Palestinians off the land. "I support compulsory transfer," or ethnic cleansing, declared David Ben-Gurion in 1937. "I don’t see anything immoral in it." For Zionists, the Palestinians are "the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path," as Chaim Weizmann saw it. Weisglass’ mentor, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, believed there was "no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews of Eretz Israel." According to Yitzhak Avira, a Haganah Intelligence Service officer, the Zionist view in 1948 was that "the [Palestinian] Arabs are nothing. Every [Palestinian] Arab is a murderer, all of them should be slaughtered, all the [Palestinian] villages that are conquered should be burned." Of course, in 2006, it would be impossible to kill every Palestinian and burn every Palestinian village, so instead the Zionist state has decided to slowly asphyxiate the Palestinians." (Kurt Nimmo ‘Olmert: Starving Palestinians to Death’ http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=251 February 27th 2006). The jewish nazis are implementing a genocidal policy – whether this is a policy which could be described as filthy is a question of conscience.

Gideon Levy.
"The Hamas team had not laughed so much in a long time. The team, headed by the prime minister's advisor Dov Weissglas and including the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, the director of the Shin Bet and senior generals and officials, convened for a discussion with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on ways to respond to the Hamas election victory. Everyone agreed on the need to impose an economic siege on the Palestinian Authority, and Weissglas, as usual, provided the punch line: "It's like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won't die," the advisor joked, and the participants reportedly rolled with laughter. And, indeed, why not break into laughter and relax when hearing such a successful joke? If Weissglas tells the joke to his friend Condoleezza Rice, she would surely laugh too." (Gideon Levy ‘A Chilling Heartlessness: As Israel's Hamas Team Laughs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/levy02202006.html February 20, 2006).

Jennifer Loewenstein.
"Hamas' reward for coming to power just in time to provide all the aspiring Sharons the most perfect, served-up-on-a-silver-platter pretext for continuing their well-worn policies with a vengeance, has been for the Kadima party - the party of the future - to announce that it will put the Palestinians on a starvation diet for presuming to exercise their rights." (Jennifer Loewenstein ‘Watching the Dissolution of Palestine’ http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein02242006.html February 24, 2006).

Genevieve Cora Fraser.
"For nearly six decades Palestinians have been systematically ethnically cleaned - driven off their land, and Israel has all too often prevented food deliveries as well as access to medicines and water (as documented by hundreds of UN Resolutions against Israel). However, the complete economic deprivation that Israel insists on, in this writer’s opinion, is far beyond a slap in the face at democracy by refusing to acknowledge a Hamas-led government, but an attempt to commit genocide against the Palestinian people." (Genevieve Cora Fraser ‘Israeli Defense Minister Declares Palestine "Axis of Evil" http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Fraser23.htm February 23rd 2006).

Kurt Nimmo.
"It should now be obvious Israel fully intends to starve as many Palestinians to death as possible." (Kurt Nimmo ‘Olmert: Starving Palestinians to Death’ http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=251 February 27th 2006).

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Americans groveling at the feet of their Jewish Masters.

Published February 26th 2006
America is more than just the world’s most powerful military. It spends more on its military than the rest of the world put together. It is a hyper-power. Under these circumstances, it might be expected that american politicians, business people, religious leaders, as well as ordinary americans, would be determined to protect and enhance their country’s political, economic, and military, interests. It would hardly be surprising if they were prone to extreme displays of patriotism. What would be more natural than outbursts of american supremacism? And yet what is evident is the exact opposite of such expectations. The phenomenon of americans grovelling at the feet of their jewish masters is certainly one of the most shocking historical phenomenon of the 21st century. Whilst america is a hyper-power, americans have sold their country and their souls to the jews-only state in palestine. They are traitors not merely to their own country but to themselves. This phenomenon affects virtually all americans – few seem immune to this zionist infestation. "That is the state of American politics today. The Israeli lobby has put together so much money power that we are daily witnessing US senators and representatives bowing down low to Israel and its US lobby." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004).

* American politicians are bought by america’s biggest jewish lobby, aipac. "Founded in 1959, with each passing year, the organization gets bigger and stronger. With a base in Washington, offices across the country, 85,000 energized members, a staff of 165, and a $33.4 million annual budget, AIPAC is at the pinnacle of a massive complex of Jewish organizations and Political Action Committees (PACS) across the country, from the national to the local, that are devoted to maintaining Israel’s privileged status in the nation’s capitol." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005). Aipac has bribed american politicians to vote in favour of policies that are in the interests of the jews-only state in palestine but contrary to america’s interests. "The reason that the pro-Israel lobby has to give so much more money to the politicians than the other lobbies such as arms manufacturers, oil, etc., is that supporting Israel is arguably not in the US interest from any perspective and the contributions are necessary to buy the politicians' cooperation." (Jeffrey Blankfort’s comments on Mitchell Plitnick’s ‘Myth and Reality: Jewish Influence on US Middle East Policy’ May 24th 2005). Blankfort points out that, "In 2002, an Israeli-American, Haim Saban, donated $12.3 million to the Democratic Party. All of the arms industry PACs together gave $14 million to both political parties the same year. It was headlines when Enron was reported to have given the Republican Party $6 million over 10 years, but the item on Saban’s donation - twice as much in only one year - rated only a few paragraphs in the NY Times. Moreover, Mother Jones 400 list of the leading individual donors for the 2000 election showed that 8 of the top 10 were Jews, and 13 of the top 20, and at least 125 of the top 250 were Jewish. At that point I stopped counting. While these donors obviously had other interests besides Israel, "There’s only one thing members [of Congress] think is important to American Jews -Israel, Sen. Bernard Metzenbaum, told the 500 delegates to the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council in 1991 (Forward, 2/22/91)." (Jeffrey Blankfort’s comments on Mitchell Plitnick’s ‘Myth and Reality: Jewish Influence on US Middle East Policy’ May 24th 2005).

* American politicians prefer to fund the jews-only state in palestine rather than improve conditions for americans themselves, "Over the years Congress has been at the ready to give Israel additional funding, even when money has been unavailable for essential domestic programs, as happened in 2002 when the Senate, after defeating a bill that would have provided $150 million for inner-city schools that had been impacted by 9-11, turned around and tucked an additional $200 million for Israel into the Homeland Security Bill as if Israel had been targeted that day and not New York and Washington." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005).

* The bush administration allows aipac to write legislation which is then passed by the jewish-owned congress. "And they also write the legislation that Congress passes regarding the Middle East. For example, the recent Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, which was passed a couple of years ago and which lead to what we see in Lebanon and Syria today was written by AIPAC which later bragged about it. It is not a secret. The only people that pretend they don't know it is the Left. It's on AIPAC's website, it is in their publications." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006).

* Successive american administrations pretend that aipac is not a lobby for a foreign government even though that is precisely what it is. "In every hearing in the Congress that involves Middle East issues, you have staff members of AIPAC sitting in these committee hearings. No other lobbies, foreign lobbies, have this privilege." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006).

* The jewish-owned american congress has frequently passed legislation, written and promoted by the jewish lobby, which boosts the political or military interests of the jews-only state in palestine whilst undermining the economic interests of the united states, "as a result of pressure that pro-Israeli groups were able to exert on Congress, a set of antiboycott laws was passed that severely limit [US] business in the Arab world. As a result, American companies and the United States economy suffer an estimated $1 billion loss per year." (Professor Cheryl Rubenberg quoted in Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005).

* American presidents have provided military protection for the jews-only state in palestine which has alienated arab/moslem countries thereby undermining america’s economic interests. In 1973, president nixon airlifted weapons to the jews-only state in palestine to help it defeat arab armies even though he must have known this would result in economic retaliation. The arab countries organized an oil embargo which threw the american, and global, economies into a decade long recession.

* American presidents have initiated boycotts against other countries in favour of the jews-only state in palestine even though this undermined the interests of america’s biggest multi-national corporations. In 1995, president clinton banned american energy companies from investing in iran to exploit the country’s vast fossil fuel reserves. The consequence has been that over the last decade america’s oil industries have lost out on hundreds of billions of dollars in profits. For more details please see ‘How the Jewish Neocons are Bleeding America to Death’ http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26mm.html

* Israelis currently control vast slabs of the bush administration. "The neoconservatives … control the Office of the President, the Office of the Vice President, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the police-state apparatus known as "Homeland Security." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Outfoxed by bin Laden’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=4898 February 21, 2005). Wayne madsen has suggested they’re aiming to take control of the super secret National Security Agency (NSA) - America's premier electronic surveillance body. "What has some NSA officials worried is that with pro-Israeli neocons now engrained within the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), State Department, and National Security Council, NSA is ripe for penetration by Israeli intelligence. With outside contractors now permeating NSA and a major Israeli espionage operation being discovered inside the Pentagon, once again there is a fear within NSA that foreign intelligence services such as the Mossad could make another attempt to penetrate America's virtual "Fort Knox" of intelligence treasures and secrets." (Wayne Madsen ‘The neocon power grab at NSA and an attempt to stifle the press’ http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/052405Madsen/052405madsen.html May 24th 2005).

* In the past, america’s foreign policies were designed to promote the interests of american multi-national corporations around the world. However, in the aftermath of the collapse of the soviet union, the jews-only state in palestine, and its israeli supporters in america, have taken complete control of america’s foreign policies in the middle east. America’s middle eastern foreign policies are almost exactly the same as those pursued by the jews-only state. But even this was not enough. In recent years israelis have acquired such extensive control over the bush administration they have focused america’s foreign policies almost exclusively on the middle east whilst ignoring foreign policy issues in south america and the far east. Over the last few years, a number of south american countries have undergone a political transformation which poses a considerable threat to american interests and yet the bush administration virtually ignores these developments because the israelis in his administration are concerned solely with the interests of the jews-only state in palestine. "The passionate attachment to Israel, the dual loyalty felt by many Americans -whereby Israel's interests are put on the same or higher level than U.S. interests - has come back to haunt the United States through the agency of a President willing to adopt the most extravagant dreams of right wing Israelis and pro-Israeli hawks. The result is that the full might of the world's only super power has been dragged into Israel's service despite the costs, and the dangers and the folly of such a policy. Attachment to Israel has come back to haunt America by enabling a decisive shift in U..S. policy away from helping to preserve the peace and security of the world and turning the U.S. into an aggressor nation, just as Israel has been and continues to be." (Ronald Bleier ‘Invading Iraq: Converging u.s. and Israeli Agendas’ http://desip.igc.org/ConvergingAgendas.html April 2003).

* Successive american presidents have refused to recognize the existence of the jews-only state’s nuclear weapons. As far as american politicians are concerned the jews-only state in palestine is not a nuclear power. "The U.S. government has never acknowledged that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, even though the world knows otherwise, thanks to the whistleblower, Mordechai Vanunu. (London Sunday Times, Oct. 5, 1986) The continuing policy of denial can only hinder efforts to "rein in" Israel in the event of a nuclear crisis. One could hardly imagine a more explosive mix." (Mark Gaffney ‘Will Iran Be Next?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article3288.htm May 8th 2003).

* The american military seems willing to sacrifice its own troops, and their own honour, to fight wars for the benefit of the jews-only state.

* There is no such thing as a wasp military industrial complex. There is however, what blankfort calls a the Military-Industrial-Israeli complex, "In other words, what JINSA represents can best be described as the Military-Industrial-Israeli complex." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003).

* Tens of millions of american christians have become zionists who now believe in the judaic god of vengeance not the christian god of forgiveness. They care more about the jews-only state in palestine than their own country. See, ‘The Prospects of a New Race War’ http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26mk.html

* American oil companies allowed their country to be pushed into an invasion of iraq they didn’t support. Perhaps even more remarkable is that america’s gigantic multi-national oil companies failed to protect their vast investments in new orleans because the bush administration was more concerned about providing tribute payments to the jews-only state in palestine – despite the fact that both george bush and dick cheney have connections to the oil industry. See the chapter ‘Katrina Exposes the dominance of Zionism over America’s Oil Industry’ in The Amazing Spectacle of America’s Self-Destruction: Zionists and Katrina (Part Three) http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/2005/11/amazing-spectacle-of-americas-self.html

* American trade unionists invest their pension funds in the jews-only state in palestine and thus have an economic incentive for supporting the racist state even at the expense of palestinian workers. "While not officially part of the lobby, since the establishment of Israel in 1948, the AFL-CIO has been one of its most solid cornerstones. It has provided millions of dollars for pro-Israel Democrats; it has blocked all international efforts to punish Israel for its exploitation and abuse of Palestinian workers, and it has encouraged its member unions to invest millions of dollars of their pension funds in State of Israel Bonds, thereby linking their members' retirement to the health of the Israeli economy. Over the past year, the lobby has cemented ties with the Christian evangelical right, which gives it clout in states where there are few Jews and access to hundreds of thousands of new donors to Israel's cause." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004). When the jews-only state launched an illegal invasion of lebanon, june 6th 1982, it was supported by the AFL-CIO which took out a full page ad in the NY Times, declaring "We Are Not Neutral. We Support Israel!" paid for by an Israeli lobbyist with a Park Avenue address." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005).

* American universities also invest funds in the jews-only state in palestine and thus have an economic incentive to propping up the apartheid state. "investing in Israeli companies and in State of Israel Bonds of which US labor union pension funds, and many states and universities have purchased hundreds of millions of dollars worth. These purchases clearly obligate those institutions to lobby Congress to insure that the Israeli economy stays afloat." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005).

* American lefties have been duped by the chief rabbi of the left, noam chomsky. These neo-lefties blame their own country for what the jews-only state in palestine is doing to the palestinians rather than ariel sharon and the racists in the likud party, "He (chomsky) would have us believe that Israel’s occupation and harsh actions against the Palestinians, its invasions and undeclared 40 years war on Lebanon, and its arming of murderous regimes in Central America and Africa during the Cold War, has been done as a client state in the service of US interests. In Chomsky’s world view, that absolves Israel of responsibility and has become standard Chomsky doctrine." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005). Chomsky is to the left what richard perle is to the right. See also http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26n.html#Chomsky

* American greens sold out ralph nader for the sake of the racist, pro-war, democratic party. The greens running the green party are neo-greenies – see the article ‘Zionist Machinations in the American Green Party?’ http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26j.html

* America’s peace movement refuses to criticize the war-mongering apartheid state in palestine. Jeffrey blankfort provides one of many examples of the attitude of the neo-peaceniks, "Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a long-time activist with impeccable credentials, assured the Jewish weekly, Forward, that United for Peace and Justice, organizers of the February 15th anti-war rally in New York, "has done a great deal to make clear it is not involved in anti-Israel rhetoric. From the beginning there was nothing in United for Peace's statements that dealt at all with the Israel-Palestine issue." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004). See the article, ‘2004: The Year of the Traitors’ http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26mc.html#00

* America’s liberals have been duped by the holocaust industry. It’s bad enough that jews profit from the tragedy that befell the jewish people during the second world war. But it’s even more amazing when the holocaust industry makes americans feel guilty for what happened to the jews in order to push them into supporting the racist jews-only state.

* Given that america is a hyper-power what is so remarkable about america’s leaders is their slavish devotion to another country, their identification with another country, their public expressions of loyalty to another country, and perhaps most shocking of all, their willingness to lay down their lives for another country. The following is just a smattering of examples which suggest americans are suffering from a total collapse in their national identity.

Daniel Inouye.
"In September 1991, with the war over, the Bush administration presented AIPAC with its greatest crisis since the battle with Ford. In the midst of the administration’s efforts to assemble the cast for what became the Madrid "peace conference," much to the consternation of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Israel sprang a surprise on the President–a demand for $10 billion dollars in US guaranteed loans over a five year period. Congress, of course, was ready to jump through Israel’s hoops again over the opposition of President Bush. Angered at Israel’s demand and fearing, perhaps, that approval of the loan guarantees would allow Israel to withdraw from the conference while antagonizing the Arab invitees, Bush asked Shamir to postpone the loan application for 120 days, and made its approval conditional on Israel freezing Jewish settlements. When Bush indicated that he was going to ask for the delay, Arens recalled, "[Sen. Daniel] Inouye [D-HA] was not equivocal at all. He said, ‘I am putting on my yarmulkle; we’re going to war." (It was no coincidence that his first paying job after getting out of the Army after WW 2 had been as a salesman for State of Israel Bonds)." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict – April 2005).

Tom Delay.

President Bill Clinton.
"I would die for Israel."

Kay Arthur.
Kay arthur is a popular "Christian Zionist" author and minister, who blurted out, "I love America. But if it came to a choice between Israel and America, I would stand with Israel." (Quoted in Justin Raimondo ‘Putting Israel First’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=0 March 6th 2005).

Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi seems perfectly willing to push the world into a third world war to protect her beloved jews-only state, "The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology." (Nancy Pelosi quoted in Joshua Frank ‘Israel Comes First: Pelosi at AIPAC’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank05312005.html May 31, 2005).

In conclusion, the neocons, israeli traitors living in america, control the american media, the republican and democratic parties, (not forgetting many fringe parties such as the green party), congress, the pentagon, the office of homeland security, the cia, the defence intelligence agency, the state department, the national security council, and the presidency. "The Congress, the Executive branch, state and local governments, and national and local media have all come under the influence of the Jewish "lobby’s" pro-Israel agenda to the point that none or few dare to criticize Israel or its US representatives." (James Petras ‘The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective’ http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=12606 January 2005).

It is as if americans have totally lost sight not only of their country’s national interests but their national identity and their patriotism. It’s almost as if the zionists have hypnotized them into becoming their devoted slaves. Americans have become the world’s white niggers, eunuchs to the court of the terrorist, war criminal, ariel sharon. Americans even seem willing to sacrifice their own freedoms, their own constitution, their own values, the values of western civilization, solely in order to serve their racist jewish masters. The scale of jewish indoctrination of americans is so staggering that americans can’t see what a laughing stock they are, what ridiculous idiots they’ve become. It can be suggested that as a result of the west’s proxy zionist invasion of iraq, western civilization can now be portrayed by the man on the cross – you know, the one with the electrodes attached to his legs and arms.

Summary Dismissal from Antiwar.com

I’ve just been summarily removed from antiwar.com’s email group. I thought I would publish the exchange of messages leading up to my removal so that readers can judge for themselves whether the decision had merit.

Under the heading ‘Filthy Jewish Nazis’ I posted Genevieve Cora Fraser’s article ‘Israeli Defense Minister Declares Palestine "Axis of Evil"’ http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Fraser23.htm February 23rd 2006. I posted no comment on her article as I thought the outrageousness of the jews-only state’s new policy of starving the palestinians into submission was obvious enough.

The following exchange ensued.

From Norm Cohen February 24th 2006 Message 43483
Hi John,
Wow. You must have had a tough day. Hope you feel better now that you've got this all off your chest. But don't despair. Sasha Cohen didn't get gold.
The evil Jews don't always win. ;-)


From mundi February 24th 2006
The phenomenon of americans grovelling to their jewish masters is certainly one of the most shocking historical phenomenon of the 21stc. America might be the world’s hyper-power but americans have sold their country to the jews-only state – traitors to their own country. American politicians bought by jack abramoff and aipac; the christian zionists; the american oil companies which allow their country to be pushed into wars they don’t want and fail to protect their vast investments in new orleans because subsidies have to be paid to the jews-only state; the trade unionists who invest their pension funds in the racist jews-only state; the lefties duped by the chief rabbi of the left noam chomsky; the greens selling out ralph nader; the american military who sacrifice their own troops and their own honour to fight wars for the benefit of the jews-only state; the peace movement which never criticizes the war-mongering apartheid state in palestine; and the liberals duped by the holocaust industry. It is as if americans have totally lost sight not only of their national interests but their national identity and their patriotism. It’s almost as if the zionists have hypnotized them into becoming their devoted slaves. Americans have become the world’s niggers, eunuchs to the court of the terrorist, war criminal, ariel sharon. Americans even seem willing to sacrifice their own freedoms, their own constitution, their own values, the values of western civilization, solely in order to serve their jewish masters. The scale of jewish indoctrination of americans is so staggering that americans can’t see what a laughing stock they are, what ridiculous idiots they’ve become.

From mundi February 24th 2006
Hi Norm,
Came across a quote I thought you might like, "Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a long-time activist with impeccable credentials, assured the Jewish weekly, Forward, that United for Peace and Justice, organizers of the February 15th anti-war rally in New York, "has done a great deal to make clear it is not involved in anti-Israel rhetoric. From the beginning there was nothing in United for Peace's statements that dealt at all with the Israel-Palestine issue." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004). Looks like you’ve been outed!

Sorry I don’t know who sasha is. I’ve been supporting the Palestinian delegation at the winter olympics. With all those wonderful facilities the jewish master race provides for its captive slaves I expect the palestinians to be near the top of the medals league table. Best of all I hear the olympics committee is going to introduce some new winter sports which I’m sure the palestinians will do well at. Firstly, dodging bullets from filthy jewish racists. Secondly, dodging attacks by F-16s being flown by filthy jewish racists. Thirdly, seeing how many palestinians can be crammed into a walled off open prison. Fourthly, seeing how long palestinians can go without resources until the filthy jewish racists starve them to death.


From bill_by_the_river February 24th 2006
Much of this would be accurate if applied to israel, or even zionists in general, but the fact of the matter is that most American Jews were not advocates of the invasion of Iraq and a much higher percentage of American Jews are advocates of withdrawal from Iraq than Americans in general.

"Approximately 70 percent of Jews in the United States oppose the war in Iraq, compared to 28 percent who support the war"

My guess is that even many zionist Jews were opposed to the Iraq invasion.

Saying that the Iraq war is due to "Jewish control" of the US government doesn't pass the smell test. The indication is that if Jews, in general, controlled the US government then we would NOT have invaded Iraq.

Once again, you're identifying the more aggressively zionist Jews with every Jew in the world, which is a highly inflated falsehood.

From mundi February 24th 2006 Message
American jews, like non-jewish americans had the chance to vote for an anti-war presidential candidate in the 2004 presidential elections. They voted overwhelmingly for pro-war candidates.

I agree that the jews who pushed america into the war against iraq, the same ones who are pushing america into a war against iran, are primarily elite jews in the jewish dominated media, the jewish lobby, the jewish-owned congress, and the israelis in the bush administration. I believe that most american jews accept the policies of their jewish leaders. There is no civil war within the jewish community over support for the zionist proxy wars against iraq and iran.

I don’t hear american jews protesting about what the jews-only state in palestine is doing to the palestinians. In american there is no jewish opposition to the theft, racism, and the state terrorism being carried out by the jews-only state.

Most american jews are as arabophobic as their jewish counterparts in the jews-only state.

Making statements like, "Once again, you're identifying the more aggressively zionist Jews with every Jew in the world, which is a highly inflated falsehood." is just a means of covering up jewish racism and the jewish theft of palestinian resources. Do jews really want to be known as a people who use god to steal other people’s resources?

It was at this point that an entirely new poster suddenly appeared on the scene. During the eighteen months I’ve been on antiwar.com he had never once posted a message.

From Sam Bradley February 25th 2006
Hi Mr. Carbonomics, Even though, I`m not Jewish, I would take offense of the term, "Filthy Jewish Nazis". While I`m in total aggreement with your opposition to the Israeli occupation, I dissaprove of your rather anti-semetic tone that you chose to use in redressing your justified grievance. Do you wish Israel to be wiped off the map as well? Do you support Hamas? We must learn to separate our justifed grivance over the occupation from any inflammatory rhetoric that could be misconstued as antisemetic. The Jewish people suffered a great deal under Fascist oppression,and to even suggest that becuse of rhe occupation, that they must be Nazis, that would be equivalent to calling a black person a member of the Ku Klux Klan or a "cracker". I think you owe the jewish people, and those whose grandparents that suffered under Fascist oppression, an apology. Be against the occupation, but don`t call them, "Filthly Jewish Nazis". Peace & Power to the People!, Sam.

Sam bradley then seemed to undergo something of a personality change when he quickly posted a follow up message.

From Sam Bradley February 25th 2006
Mr.Lynch, I`m redress my grievances at your intolerable anti-semetic remarks. You sound no different than Hamas or the Nazis, (see, your`e the filthy Nazi). I happen to like Sasha Cohen, & I think she should have won. Don`t take it out on Jewish people for the war or the occupation of Palestine. This should not be a forum to express hate. To do that would be to give in to the right-wing extremists would use this to divide us as they did with COINTELPRO in the `60s. I am very grateful for the many jweish people that I have come to know as friends, neighbors, classmates, etc. I remember when I was a kid, I came home from school, my folks and sister were out, and I was locked out of my house, but a nice Jewish family let me stay with them until my folks returned. Half of my girlfriends were Jewish,as well as my teachers, plus, I was born in a country that had a President of the Jewish pursuation. (it was Panama, surprised?). As I write this, in Downtown Orlando, U.S.A., there`s is a Fascist rally taking place, I`m sure if they heard the rhetoric you`ve shamelessly displayed, they would welcome you, and perhaps, invite you to speak. Be against the war. Be against the occupation of Palestine, but don`t you use them as a justifaction for your anti-semetic propaganda. BTW, Sasha won a Silver. How do you feel about Black. (and proudly say, BLACK), people? Say a big "Seig Heil" to your friends in Hamas. Sincerely, (I think), Sam. This is what I think of you & your Fascist remarks.

I posted the following message to antiwar.com but yahoo informed me they weren’t accepting my posts.

From mundi February 26th 2006
It’s funny that neither you nor norm say anything about the article I posted in which the jews-only state has started on the final lap of trying to starve the palestinians into submission – possibly as a prelude to their deportation.

I do indeed support hamas. I support hamas in the same way that I support the jewish resistance in warsaw to the nazis. Hamas have used the same tactics as ariel sharon.

As to your inflammatory rhetoric concerning whether I would like to see the jews-only state wiped off the map. Yes, indeed, I support the one state solution in palestine where jews and arabs live peacefully together under non-racist laws.


Sunday, February 19, 2006

The Global Intifada against the Jewish Master Race.

In 2000, ariel sharon marched into the al aqsa mosque protected by a couple of thousand heavily armed jewish troops. He wasn’t protesting about any infringement on his freedom of movement. He was acting as a provocateur in the hope of provoking a violent response from palestinians which would bring to an end all peace negotiations with the palestinians and enable the jews-only state in palestine to carry out even more repressive measures against palestinians. But he was also warmongering. He was making a statement of intent that one day jewish racists would demolish the al aqsa mosque and push all palestinians out of their own country. The palestinians responded violently not because they are violent by nature nor because they were upset that someone had trespassed on sacred moslem land or had insulted their prophet but because the world’s most renown terrorist, mass murderer, and war criminal, was announcing an act of war against them. In the hail of a million and a half bullets, the heroic palestinians battled against one of the most highly trained, and barbaric, armies in the world.

Five years later, the same warmongering tactic was used by europe’s jewish-owned media. Once again racist jews were announcing their promise of another war against the moslem world in the hope of provoking a violent reaction from moslems which would help to boost popular support in the west for such a war. Anyone who believes the cartoon issue is about freedom of speech is seriously out of touch with current political realities. It is ludicrous to believe that the large numbers of commentators in the western media who see the cartoon issue as a question of free speech, care anything about human rights when they have done nothing to protest about the gross infringements of human rights in palestine. Whilst these highly educated, highly sophisticated, buffoons were trying to turn the publication of the cartoons into a matter of free speech, the people on the streets in the moslem world saw what cartoons were really about – an announcement by the jewish racists controlling the european media of a war against the innocent people of the middle east. The jewish- commissioned cartoons were not merely blasphemous and anti-moslem, they were a declaration of war by europe’s jewish racists against the decent people in the middle east who are revolted by the racism of the jews-only state in palestine. "The publication of the 12 cartoons, and the reaction on both sides, is a classic case of how propaganda of the crudest sort is utilized to mold mass attitudes and whip up entire populations into a state of hysteria. Hate and fear are created out of thin air by the most skillful means, and stereotypes take the place of reality as the world prepares for war. That's what this is all about: the hate propaganda emanating from certain quarters in Europe and the U.S. amounts to preparations for war just as much as the manufacture of arms and the mobilization of armies at the border. We are being psychologically prepared for another world war, and the first shots are being fired from the pages of Jyllands-Posten. I have the sinking feeling that they won't be the last…" (Justin Raimondo ‘Rotten in Denmark: Flemming Rose and the clash of civilizations’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512 February 8, 2006).

The jewish owned media in europe declared war against the islamic world and they got a war like response from people sick to death of having to suffer because of jewish racism. It would have been better for moslems to have reacted against these jewish racist cartoons not with violence but with peaceful and dignified street demonstrations and a political boycott of danish goods to try and show the danes, and their european allies, that europe’s jewish neocons are a threat to the economic and national interests of denmark and all other european countries. It is to be hoped everyone will help to boycott danish goods. It is important to punish the danes as an example to all those who pledge their allegiance to the cause of jewish racism and jewish supremacism. Hopefully it will make the danes realize their national and economic interests are the opposite of the interests of the jews-only state in palestine and the jewish traitors who seem to have infiltrated danish society and politics. The palestinians are leading the way in resisting jewish racism and jewish world domination. It is up to the rest of the world to join them in their intifada against the evil jewish empire.

Friday, February 03, 2006

The Left, and Right, Wing Anti-War Commentators Promoting the War on Iran

Originally published as ‘Mike Whitney Promoting war on Iran?’ February 3rd 2006
Updated March 11th 2006
A number of commentators hold that the primary reason america will attack iran is to defend the dollar as a global currency. Iran is alleged to be threatening the role of the dollar as the sole currency for oil transactions by setting up an oil bourse on which oil can be bought and sold for euros – just as saddam threatened the dollar by selling iraqi oil for euros. Paradoxically, most of those supporting such an hypothesis are anti-war commentators – both on the left and the (paleo) right wing.

The big political danger of the petro-dollar explanation of the war against iran is that both left, and right, wing anti-war activists are in effect providing a justification for the war they are supposedly seeking to avert. Although the proponents of the petro-dollar hypothesis are anti-war, and personally do not regard the petro-dollar hypothesis as a justification for an american attack on iran, it has to be suggested that for many americans this hypothesis would provide sufficient justification for war. If americans are told that iran is devaluing the dollar in their pocket and threatening to bring about the collapse of the american economy they are going to want to know why america hasn’t started bombing iran. In their eyes, such a war would be self-defence, defending their way of life. There is a considerable danger that anti-war critics are going to find their explanation for the likelihood of an american attack on iran is a self fulfilling prophesy which helps to win popular support for the war.

This article highlights the commentators promoting the petro-dollar hypothesis but does not seek to examine the merits of this hypothesis. For an exploration of the merits of the petro-dollar hypothesis please see the chapter ‘The Dollar as a Global Currency’ in ‘The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran’.

The Economic Origins of the Petro-Dollar/Oil Bourse Thesis.
The idea that iran’s proposed oil bourse would pose a threat to the global supremacy of the dollar started primarily as an economic speculation.

William Clarke.
"The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse. In 2005-2006, The Tehran government developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market." (William Clark ‘The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target’ http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html October 27th 2004).

Krassimir Petrov.
"The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar." (Krassimir Petrov ‘The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm January 17th 2006).

Emilie Rutledge.
"This is primarily because of Iran's reported intention to invoice energy contracts in euros rather than dollars. The contention that this could unseat the dollar's dominance as the de facto currency for oil transactions may be overstated, but this has not stopped many commentators from linking America's current political disquiet with Iran to the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB)." (Emilie Rutledge ‘Iran - a threat to the petrodollar?’ http://english.aljazeera.net/english/Templates/YourComments.aspx?NRORIGINALURL=%2fNR%2fexeres%2fC1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9%2ehtm&FRAMELESS=false&NRNODEGUID=%7bC1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9%7d&NRCACHEHINT=Guest November 03 2005).

Craig Paul Roberts.
"The US has become the world's largest debtor, in hock to foreigners for one-fourth of our Gross Domestic Product. The ratio of US external debt (what we owe to foreigners) and US exports is approaching the crisis ratios of banana republics. It is inevitable: America's mounting debts will produce a crisis. The dollar's value will plummet, and US living standards will drop. Everything will become more expensive for Americans. The perilous condition of the dollar is one of the reasons Bush invaded Iraq. What keeps the overvalued dollar up is the fact that it is the currency in which the Middle East bills its oil. Every country has to purchase dollars in order to pay for its oil, and these purchases keep the dollar afloat. Just prior to the US invasion, sanctions on Iraqi oil had run their course and were about to be removed. Saddam Hussein intended to bill Iraqi oil in Euros, which could have started the abandonment of the dollar by the oil producing countries. Instead of fixing our economic problems, we started a war." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘War, Outsourcing and Debt’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09292004.html September 29, 2004).

He continued to support such an idea even up to the beginning of 2006, "Indeed, a number of thinkers (William Clark and Krassimir Petrov, for example) have concluded that the reason that the Pentagon has plans to attack Iran is Iran's intention to establish an international oil exchange in which anyone can buy or sell oil in any currency. Such an exchange, it is argued, would spell the dollar's death as the currency in which oil is billed. With countries no longer needing dollars in order to pay their oil bills, the demand for dollars and dollar denominated assets would decline. The dollar would further depreciate, bringing crisis to import-dependent America." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Cheney's War Workshop Plots Another Attack’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01232006.html January 23, 2006).

The Left Wing, Anti-war Commentators who have taken up the Oil Bourse Thesis.

The left/anti-war wing of the political spectrum (in both america and britain) is so dominated by jews that it will support any fantasy to avoid blaming the jews-only state in palestine, the jewish owned media in america, the jewish lobby in america, and the israelis in the bush administration, for pushing america into an invasion of iraq and an attack on iran. The petro-dollar hypothesis has three main advantages for the jewish dominated left wing, anti-war movement. Firstly, it reinforces the idea of an american empire thereby implying that the jews-only state in palestine and the jewish lobby in america are insignificant agents of american global power. Secondly, it suggests that america’s economic/financial interests are under threat when they are not. Thirdly, it diminishes the role played by the jews-only state in palestine, the jewish dominated american media, the jewish lobby in america, and the israelis in the bush administration, in pushing america into a war against iran for the benefit of the jews-only state.

The jewish dominated left finds it impossible to countenance the idea that jews have taken control of the american political system and are using america’s colossal military power to boost the regional supremacy of the jews-only state in palestine – at the expense of american interests. For the jews on the left, the petro-dollar hypothesis is invaluable because it helps to protect the jews-only state in palestine from adverse political criticism.

The influence of jews on the left/ anti-war movement has become so poisonous and corrupting that in order to protect the jews-only state in palestine they are willing to promote a thesis which provides the american public with a rationale for an attack on iran. Although left wing jews pretend they are opposed to the war against iran many would secretly applaud such a war because of the benefits it will bring to the jews-only state in palestine - even though it will have calamitous consequences on america’s economic and military interests.

Mike Whitney.
"Iran's future oil and natural gas wealth foreshadow its growth into a regional competitor to Israel as well as an energy-independent powerhouse. Their stated intention to sell resources via their own, homegrown bourse, is a direct threat to the existing economic system. It would greatly increase trade in petro-euros and send the dollar into a downward spiral. The importance of this cannot be overstated. The heart-and-soul of the empire is the Greenback; that flaccid, debt-ridden hoax that props-up the entire rickety structure of state-terror. The $8 trillion dollars of accumulated debt that underwrites the greenback requires that the world continue to buy oil in dollars. The transition from dollars to petro-euros is a direct assault on a system that forces the lavish debt of the wealthiest nations onto the shoulders of the world's poorest people." (Mike Whitney ‘Edging Towards Disaster with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com October 9th 2005). See also, "the proposed "euro-based" bourse and the devastating effects it will have on the greenback." (Mike Whitney ‘Battle Plans for Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060131_battle_plans_for_ira.htm January 31, 2006).

Thierry Meyssan.
"At the same time, Iran is preparing « a world without Israel and the USA ». Tehran is optimistic about putting in place an oil spot market which doesn’t accept dollars. This is already working at an experimental stage. If no nation has officially announced its participation, many are encouraging participation through private companies acting as intermediaries. Now, the dollar is an overvalued currency whose value is maintained essentially by its role as a petro-currency. Such a spot market, once really up and running, would provoke a collapse of the dollar, comparable to hat of 1939, even if its transactions only amounted to a tenth of the world turnover. US power would be undermined by the falling dollar and, in time, Israel would also find itself bankrupt." (Thierry Meyssan ‘The hidden stakes in the Iran crisis’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MEY20060204&articleId=1885 February 4, 2006).

Michael Keefer.
"The coming attack on Iran has nothing whatsoever to do with concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Its primary motive, as oil analyst William Clark has argued, is rather a determination to ensure that the U.S. dollar remains the sole world currency for oil trading. Iran plans in March 2006 to open a Teheran Oil Bourse in which all trading will be carried out in Euros. This poses a direct threat to the status of the U.S. dollar as the principal world reserve currency - and hence also to a trading system in which massive U.S. trade deficits are paid for with paper money whose accepted value resides, as Krassimir Petrov notes, in its being the currency in which international oil trades are denominated. (U.S. dollars are effectively exchangeable for oil in somewhat the same way that, prior to 1971, they were at least in theory exchangeable for gold)." (Michael Keefer ‘Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Understanding the Planned Assault on Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20060210&articleId=1936 February 10, 2006).

Geov Parrish.
"It preferably wants regime change before Tehran follows through on its threat to convert the currency in which it sells its oil from dollars to euros - a precedent-setting move that could have dire global consequences for the dollar as the international currency of choice, and, hence, ugly long-term consequences for the debt- and trade-deficit-riddled American economy." (Geov Parrish ‘The next war?’ http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20367 February 15th 2006).

Toni Straka.
"A decline of the dollar's position in oil trading might also open the floodgates in other commodity markets where the dollar is the medium of exchange but where the US has only a minority market share." (Toni Straka ‘Killing the dollar in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html Aug 26, 2005).

John Pilger.
"the prospect of an American attack on Iran, which is very real and probably imminent. Blair knows this. He also knows the real reasons for an attack and the part Britain is likely to play. Next month, Iran is scheduled to shift its petrodollars into a euro-based bourse. The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant, if not, in the long term, disastrous. At present the dollar is, on paper, a worthless currency bearing the burden of a national debt exceeding $8trn and a trade deficit of more than $600bn. The cost of the Iraq adventure alone, according to the Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz, could be $2trn. America's military empire, with its wars and 700-plus bases and limitless intrigues, is funded by creditors in Asia, principally China. That oil is traded in dollars is critical in maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency. What the Bush regime fears is not Iran's nuclear ambitions but the effect of the world's fourth-biggest oil producer and trader breaking the dollar monopoly. Will the world's central banks then begin to shift their reserve holdings and, in effect, dump the dollar? Saddam Hussein was threatening to do the same when he was attacked." (John Pilger ‘The Next War: Crossing the Rubicon’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021006A.shtml February 10th 2006).

The Laboratoire Européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe.
"The Laboratoire Européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe 2020, LEAP/E2020, now estimates to over 80% the probability that the week of March 20-26, 2006 will be the beginning of the most significant political crisis the world has known since the Fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, together with an economic and financial crisis of a scope comparable with that of 1929. This last week of March 2006 will be the turning-point of a number of critical developments, resulting in an acceleration of all the factors leading to a major crisis, disregard any American or Israeli military intervention against Iran. In case such an intervention is conducted, the probability of a major crisis to start rises up to 100%, according to LEAP/E2020. The announcement of this crisis results from the analysis of decisions taken by the two key-actors of the main on-going international crisis, i.e. the United States and Iran:

- on the one hand there is the Iranian decision of opening the first oil bourse priced in Euros on March 20th, 2006 in Teheran, available to all oil producers of the region ;

- on the other hand, there is the decision of the American Federal Reserve to stop publishing M3 figures (the most reliable indicator on the amount of dollars circulating in the world) from March 23, 2006 onward[1].

These two decisions constitute altogether the indicators, the causes and the consequences of the historical transition in progress between the order created after World War II and the new international equilibrium in gestation since the collapse of the USSR. Their magnitude as much as their simultaneity will catalyse all the tensions, weaknesses and imbalances accumulated since more than a decade throughout the international system." (The Laboratoire européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe 2020, LEAP/E2020 ‘Iran-USA, beginning of a major world crisis’ http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3513&Itemid=85 February 25 2006).

Heather Wokusch.
"In the eyes of the Bush administration, however, Iran's worst transgression has less to do with nuclear ambitions or anti-Semitism than with the petro-euro oil bourse Tehran is slated to open in March 2006. Iran's plan to allow oil trading in euros threatens to break the dollar's monopoly as the global reserve currency, and since the greenback is severely overvalued due to huge trade deficits, the move could be devastating for the US economy." (Heather Wokusch ‘WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran’ http://www.heatherwokusch.com/ Feb. 19, 2006).

Whilst heather wokusch’s sympathies clearly lay on the left and are anti-war she does surprisingly manage to slip an extreme right wing zionist idea into her article, "It would incite the Lebanese Hezbollah, an ally of Iran's, potentially sparking increased global terrorism." (Heather Wokusch ‘WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran’ http://www.heatherwokusch.com/ Feb. 19, 2006).

She even peddles chomsky argument that turkey will support a zionist attack on iran, "Given what's at stake, few allies, apart from Israel, can be expected to support a US attack on Iran. While Jacques Chirac has blustered about using his nukes defensively, it's doubtful that France would join an unprovoked assault, and even loyal allies, such as the UK, prefer going through the UN Security Council. Which means the wildcard is Turkey. The nation shares a border with Iran, and according to Noam Chomsky, is heavily supported by the domestic Israeli lobby in Washington, permitting 12% of the Israeli air and tank force to be stationed in its territory. Turkey's crucial role in an attack on Iran explains why there's been a spurt of high-level US visitors to Ankara lately, including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director Porter Goss. In fact, the German newspaper Der Spiegel reported in December 2005 that Goss had told the Turkish government it would be "informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened" and that Turkey had been given a "green light" to attack camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran "on the day in question." (Heather Wokusch ‘WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran’ http://www.heatherwokusch.com/ Feb. 19, 2006).

The Right Wing, Anti-War Commentators who have taken up the Oil Bourse Thesis.

Ron Paul.
"It’s not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq, nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s connection to 9/11, were false. The dollar’s importance is obvious, but this does not diminish the influence of the distinct plans laid out years ago by the neo-conservatives to remake the Middle East. Israel’s influence, as well as that of the Christian Zionists, likewise played a role in prosecuting this war. Protecting "our" oil supplies has influenced our Middle East policy for decades." (Ron Paul ‘The End of Dollar Hegemony’ http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm February 15, 2006).

Paul Sheldon Foote.
Paul sheldon foote accepts the iranian oil bourse thesis. He circulated an article highlighting the supposed dangers of an iranian bourse, "The neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) have been lying about exporting American democracy and values. These are some of the real reasons why these American traitors want to bomb Iran and establish a totalitarian regime for the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists." (pfoote@fullerton.edu February 5th 2006).

The Bush Administration’s Disinterest in the Petro-Dollar/Oil Bourse Thesis to Promote a War against Iran.
Despite the fact that both left and right wing anti-war commentators believe that the real reason for the war against iran is the establishment of iran’s oil bourse nobody in the bush administration or the neocon media has made any comment about it.

The Right Wing use of the Petro-Dollar/Oil Bourse Thesis to Promote a War against Iran.
The petro-dollar hypothesis is a legitimate economic speculation but politically it could be used to provide america with a seemingly legitimate excuse for a war against iran. This section highlights the commentators seeking to do precisely that.

Jerome R. Corsi
The first right wing commentator to start using left wing arguments to support the war is jerome r. corsi who acknowledges the source of his ideas, "Many administration critics argue today that the real reason for invading Iraq in 2003 was not to remove WMD from Iraq or to establish freedom but to preserve the dollar dominance of the world's oil market. These same critics argue today that the real reason for the ramp-up of concern over Iran has nothing to do with Iran's secret nuclear weapons program or with President Ahmadinejad's threats to destroy Israel but everything to do with oil." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48652 February 3, 2006).

Corsi points out that, "Today, about 70 percent of the world's international foreign currency reserves are held in dollars. If the petroeuro begins to challenge the petrodollar, this percentage could diminish drastically. The United States depends on the dollar foreign-currency reserves in order to sell the Treasury debt that sustains budget deficits. What if foreign-exchange portfolios from oil sales fell to 60 percent being held in dollars – would that cause a crisis in the U.S. economy? Or would it take 55 percent? Most Americans are completely unaware of this threat Iran represents to the U.S. economy." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48652 February 3, 2006). He points out the dangers of a challenge to the petro-dollar to america’s poor, "Clearly, any threat to petrodollar holdings could undermine social programs in the U.S., including Medicare and key welfare programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48652 February 3, 2006). He concludes, "If the Iranians persist in creating a market mechanism to settle world oil transactions in the euro, the United States will attack just to preserve the oil market for the dollar. If Iran does open an oil bourse next month, we should expect the warplanes will soon thereafter begin to fly." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48652 February 3, 2006). Corsi is the author of some highly illuminating works such as co-authoring with John O'Neill the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry." and the sizzler, "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians."

"In "Black Gold Stranglehold," Jerome Corsi and Craig Smith expose the fraudulent science that has made America so vulnerable: the belief that oil is a fossil fuel and that it is a finite resource. This book reveals the conclusions reached by Dr. Thomas Gold, a professor at Cornell University, in his seminal book "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels" (Copernicus Books, 1998) and accepted by many in the scientific community that oil is not a product of fossils and prehistoric forests but rather the bio-product of a continuing biochemical reaction below the earth's surface that is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation." (Review of Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. and Craig R. Smith ‘Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil’ http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1769 c.February 2006).

Critics of the Petrodollars Hypothesis.
Paul Craig Roberts.
It was pointed out above that craig paul roberts was one of the main economists highlighting the danger of iran’s oil bourse. He has recently changed his mind. "Will an Iranian oil bourse hurt the dollar? Not really. The dollar's value depends on the world's willingness to hold dollar denominated assets, not on the currency used to pay oil bills. If payments were not made in dollars, there could be a slight negative impact on the dollar from countries reducing their dollar cash balances and from the psychological shock of pricing oil in Euros (or some other currency). However, what really counts is what do the oil producers, for example, do with the currency that they are paid. If they are paid in dollars, but exchange the dollars for Euros or Yen and purchase equities or bonds or real estate in Europe and Japan, it doesn't help that oil is billed in dollars. Or if they are paid in Euros but exchange the Euros for dollars and purchase US assets, it doesn't hurt that the oil is billed in Euros." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Paul Craig Roberts on the Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2643 February 11th 2006). "The negative impact on the dollar will be far greater from the additional red ink necessary to finance an attack on Iran than from an oil bourse." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Paul Craig Roberts on the Iranian Oil Bourse’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2643 February 11th 2006).

Jeff Blankfort.
Blankfort sent out the following email concerning michael keefer’s article ‘Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation’ http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0602/S00157.htm February 15th 2006. "I am forwarding this, not because I agree with the writers' premise, that there will be a US attack on Iran -which I don't -but because it has become typical of the scholarship, or lack of same, that has come to distinguish what passes for the opposition to US foreign policy. I am also aware that it will be spread by unthinking, well-meaning others as the gospel truth. Apart from the glaring absence of any mention what effect an attack on Iran would have on the situation in Iraq which has a very long border with Iran, Keefer's noting that "Michel Chossudovsky wrote in May 2005, [about] widespread reports that George W. Bush had "signed off on" an attack on Iran," is but one example of the lack of scholarship as well as analysis on the writer's part, a failing he shares with other pundits who have taken that allegation seriously.

First, there were no "widespread reports" of Bush taking this action. It was dropped as an aside by Scott Ritter, in February, 2005, when he was speaking in Seattle, and neither he nor anyone else has been able to substantiate it. Why Ritter, an ex-Marine and now a famous ex-WMD inspector (as well as a strong supporter of Israel, who acknowledges having worked with Israeli intelligence under Barak) would have access to such information, he and no one else, did not seem to trouble those who were sure that the US was going to bomb Iran last June as Ritter had stated (and which he subsequently rationalized when it didn't happen as did the unoriginal Chussodovsky in the statement below).

It is also curious that when Ritter recently stated and has written that John Bolton's speech writer told him that he has already written the speech Bolton will make at the UN to justify a forthcoming US attack, that no one, at least publicly, has wondered why this speech writer would not only violate a speech writer's required anonymity, but why he would tell this to someone who appears, at least publicly, to oppose the US war on Iraq. So let me express my wonderment and my doubts, not only about that but about the US attacking Iran, at all.

What Keefer and the others never write about is critical and its absence from their analysis is inexcusable, namely, that given that a sizeable segment of the Iraqi troops being trained in Iraq are loyal to the pro-Iranian SCIRI and Dawa parties, both of which were founded in Iran in 1982, it is logical that their guns would be turned on the US and British soldiers as Mokata Sadr has already promised to do with his Mahdi army should the US attack Iran. Add to this, the ability of Iran to block the Straits of Hormuz and block shipping in the Gulf would be devastating for the world oil market and, sooner or later, for all of the Western economies. In an election year, gas at $6 and $7 a gallon is not what the voters want to see. The conversion of Iran to euros, also mentioned, as a reason, does not stand up to analysis either. What we are seeing is a game of international poker, with the US spreading this disinformation about a pending attack as a high stakes bluff, aided, ironically, by a host of the administration's critics whose shallow analysis seems to be part of our daily email fare. The Iranians know they have the winning hand for this round, at least." (Jeff Blankfort" jblankfort@earthlink.net February 15th 2006).

Chris Cook.
Whilst commentators talk as if iran’s oil bourse will definitely be established in march 2006, iran is nowhere near to opening the doors of its new exchange. One of the financial directors involved in setting up the bourse is amused at the prospect that he is about to bring down the global economy, "It is therefore with wry amusement that I have seen a myth being widely propagated on the Internet that the genesis of this "Iran bourse" project is a wish to subvert the US dollar by denominating oil pricing in euros." (Chris Cook ‘What the Iran 'nuclear issue' is really about’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA21Ak01.html Jan 21, 2006). He points out the difficulties he’s experienced setting up the bourse. Firstly, the "turf battles between the Oil Ministry and the Ministry for the Economy". Then, after the election in 2005 of the new iranian president, the three attempts to appoint a new oil minister. "Three times over a period of three months an oil minister was nominated by the new president, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, from among his trusted colleagues and three times they were turned down by the majlis (Iranian parliament), until finally an experienced insider was appointed in early December." Further delays followed because, "Ahmadinejad is on record as saying that he favors transparency in the Iranian oil market. As anyone familiar with the City of London and Wall Street will know, transparency is the enemy of private profit, and it is this factor that was behind the delays in developing the bourse project."

Mathew Maavak.
The iranians have not even decided on a marker for the oil to be sold. "The Iranians so far have not indicated whether they have come up with an oil marker - a euro-denominated oil pricing standard - like the dollar denominated West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude." (Mathew Maavak ‘Beware The Ides Of March’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11826.htm February 7th 2006).

Ann Berg.
"If you're waiting for the Iranian oil bourse (IOB) – the proposed euro-based petroleum futures exchange in Tehran – to overthrow the global dollar-based economy, don't hold your breath. Establishing a futures-trading mechanism to compete with the powerhouses of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) for the oil trade is as probable as U.S. energy independence in our lifetime." (Ann Berg ‘Is the IOB DOA?: The Iranian oil bourse: theory and reality’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/berga.php?articleid=8612 February 28, 2006).