The Crisis Provocateurs: Israel’s Sabotaging of U.S. Negotiations with “Evil” North Korea

You confront evil, you do not negotiate with it.

— Natan Sharansky

While it may be a long way from Tel Aviv to Pyongyang, Israel bears considerable responsibility for North Korea’s increasingly fraught relations with the world. Indeed, through its small but influential support network in the United States, the self-styled Jewish state has played a rarely acknowledged but arguably decisive role in undermining progress towards a peaceful resolution of America’s longest running conflict. Though totally oblivious to this unwarranted intervention by a seemingly distant and irrelevant power, hundreds of millions of Koreans, Chinese and Japanese could have paid, and may yet pay, a terrible price for Israel’s covert meddling in East Asian politics.

In his State of the Union Address delivered on 29 January, 2002, George W. Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea an “Axis of Evil” that was allegedly supporting terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. It later emerged that the provocative phrase which arbitrarily linked Pyongyang to Israel’s two greatest regional rivals had been written by David Frum, Bush’s Canadian speechwriter. An ardent Zionist, Frum recently said that the occupied West Bank belongs to Israel but that Palestinians living there shouldn’t have the vote. He is also the co-author with Richard Perle of An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, in which the Likudnik neo-conservatives advocated a confrontational approach to North Korea.

Even more threatening from a North Korean perspective than being officially designated “evil” was the National Security Strategy of the United States announced by Bush in September 2002. Charles Krauthammer, a neo-conservative columnist for the Washington Post, coined the phrase “Bush doctrine” to describe the policy of preemptive strikes, which specifically targeted Iraq, Iran and North Korea. However, Philip Shenon, a New York Times reporter, claims in his book The Commission that it was Philip Zelikow, a neo-conservative member of Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board later appointed executive director of the 9/11 Commission, who wrote the policy that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq on the pretext that its supposed “weapons of mass destruction” posed a threat to the United States.

Yet, on the eve of the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia, “I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is, and actually has been since 1990. It’s the threat against Israel.” No doubt because this would not be, as Zelikow admitted, a “popular sell” to the American people, the grandiose words given Bush to read were somewhat less candid: “Our responsibility to history is clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.”

The “Zelikow doctrine” had an immediate, and probably foreseeable, catalysing effect on an already fearful North Korean regime. Bruce Cumings, a specialist in modern Korean history, wrote, “From October 2002 onward they acted as if their only deterrent to this irresponsible administration was a nuclear one, a decision that any general sitting in Pyongyang (or Tehran) would have made.” Writing in 2004, Cumings predicted that if North Korea were to develop a nuclear deterrent, it would be known as “Bush’s bomb.” But since it was the Israel-centered neo-conservatives in the Bush administration that scuttled the 1994 Agreed Framework which had frozen Pyongyang’s nuclear developments for eight years, perhaps it might be more accurate to call it “the neo-con bomb.”

If the North Koreans really had the capacity to hit America with a missile — and if Kim Jong-Il were sufficiently “crazy” (as the pro-Israeli media portrays him) to start a war with a global superpower that has up to 5,000 nuclear warheads in its arsenal — they may have considered their own preemptive strike against one particular target in Washington D.C. For the building at 1150 17th Street, home to such neo-con strongholds as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the now defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and The Weekly Standard, is the source of much of Washington’s apparent animus toward Pyongyang.

It was there on November 22, 2004, for example, that William Kristol, the editor of the Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard, wrote a PNAC memo to “opinion leaders” entitled “Toward Regime Change in North Korea.” In the memo, Kristol praised an article in The Weekly Standard by Nicholas Eberstadt, “one of AEI’s in-house hawks on North Korea.” In “Tear Down This Tyranny,” Eberstadt had called for the ouster of Kim Jong-Il, to be achieved in part by “working around the pro-appeasement crowd in the South Korean government.”

For neo-cons like Kristol and Eberstadt, it is seemingly preferable to risk provoking war with North Korea than to “appease” an “evil tyrant” like Kim Jong-Il — as if Kim were another genocidal Hitler and the then South Korean leader Roh another naive Chamberlain. Such “moral clarity” presumably comes easier to those who live at a comfortably safe distance from the firing zone.

Eberstadt is also the author of The End of North Korea, whose title summed up the Bush administration’s policy toward Pyongyang, as a New York Times reporter was once told by Eberstadt’s AEI colleague John Bolton, Bush’s Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, whose hawkishness did much to wreck arms control. Bolton, described by the Zionist Organization of America as “one of Israel’s truest friends in the world,” sabotaged Secretary of State Colin Powell’s attempts to start nuclear disarmament negotiations with North Korea.

Project for the New Israeli Humanitarianism

While the infamous militarist policies of the pro-Israel neo-conservatives undoubtedly intimidated Pyongyang, the Israel lobby’s lesser known “humanitarian” activism played a complementary role in provoking the North Korean nuclear crisis.

The appointment of Bill Kristol’s friend and fellow neo-con Jay Lefkowitz as special envoy for human rights was one of the Bush administration’s more provocative acts toward North Korea.Lefkowitz, who considers legitimate criticism of Israel to be “anti-Semitism,” was not slow to criticize Pyongyang’s abuses, however. In January 2008, speaking at the AEI, he said, “The way the North Korean government treats its own people is inhumane and therefore deeply offensive to us. It should also offend free people around the world.” Leaving aside the hypocrisy of Lefkowitz’s selective condemnation, his undiplomatic language was hardly calculated to promote a smooth dialogue with the North Koreans.

Drawing on a study entitled “The Hidden Gulag: Exposing North Korea’s Prison Camps,” Lefkowitz advocated linking humanitarian aid to human rights issues, a counterproductive strategy opposed by career diplomats in the State Department. As chief U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill put it, “We have no interest in weaponizing human rights.” The same, however, could not be said for Lefkowitz. As Suzy Kim and John Feffer wrote in Foreign Policy in Focus, “Lefkowitz deliberately overstepped his bounds to undermine the nuclear talks by linking them to human rights.”

“The Hidden Gulag” report had been published by the U.S. Committee on Human Rights in North Korea, an NGO which has among its officers and directors more than a fair share of pro-Israelis. It should, of course, strike people as a little odd to see the likes of Nicholas Eberstadt, Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Congressmen Stephen Solarz and Gary Ackerman, and Carl Gershman, the president of the National Endowment for Democracy, championing North Koreans’ human rights while at the same time condoning Israel’s human rights abuses against Palestinians.

Lefkowitz’s appointment as human rights envoy came about as a result of the U.S. Congress passing the North Korea Human Rights Act in 2004, legislation which his cousin, Michael Horowitz, played a key role in instigating. Horowitz, a senior fellow at the hawkishly pro-Israel Hudson Institute, hailed the passing of the bill as a “miracle” in an interview with Christianity Today. As director of Hudson’s Project for International Religious Liberty, he had mobilized Christian evangelicals to support the legislation based on the religious persecution of North Korea’s approximately 10,000 Christians.

Meanwhile, the plight of the rapidly dwindling Christian population in Israel and occupied Palestine, down from 350,000 in 1948 to about 175,000 today, goes unheeded by Horowitz’s evangelicals, many of whom are misled by Christian Zionist leaders like John Hagee to believe that the Bible endorses the modern state of Israel’s appropriation of Palestinian land.

But the prize for chutzpah in Israel’s human rights advocacy for North Koreans must surely go to Natan Sharansky. In 2005, the “acclaimed human rights activist” told a Freedom House sponsored symposium advocating regime change in North Korea, “The people of North Korea must be free!” That same year Sharansky resigned from the Israeli cabinet in protest over then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s removal of Jewish settlers from Gaza. As Housing Minister, Sharansky had, according to Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery, “systematically enlarged the settlements on expropriated Arab land in the West Bank, trampling on the human and national rights of the Palestinians.”

Nevertheless, Sharansky was such a major influence on George W. Bush’s foreign policy that he has been dubbed “Bush’s guru.” The thought that someone more extreme than Sharon helped shape the worldview of the world’s once most powerful leader is, as Avnery put it, “rather frightening.”

“You confront evil,” Sharansky told the Freedom House symposium, “you do not negotiate with it.” And that in a nutshell is the policy prescription pushed by Frum, Perle, Zelikow, Kristol, Eberstadt, Bolton (proof that you don’t have to be Jewish to be a Zionist), Lefkowitz, Horowitz, et al. on the Bush administration in its dealings with “evil” North Korea. The result of heeding that dangerously simplistic advice — a nuclear North Korea — has been an unmitigated failure for American diplomacy in East Asia.

But does Israel’s American lobby see its efforts to undermine negotiations with Pyongyang as a failure? Or to put it another way, does Israel actually benefit from the North Korean nuclear crisis?

With the U.S. having been induced by neo-con lies about weapons of mass destruction to eliminate the Iraqi threat to Israel, the focus of Israeli security concerns has shifted to the alleged Iranian threat. And the threat that an “unpredictable” nuclear-armed North Korea now supposedly poses to the United States is invariably cited by pro-Israelis in their efforts to push Washington toward war with Iran before its “mad Mullahs” too acquire nuclear weapons.

The real threat to Israel, however, is not that Iran is going to “wipe it off the map” (a mistranslation endlessly repeated by the media), but that its monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East might end. For without that monopoly on the ultimate weapons of mass destruction, not only would Israel’s regional hegemonic ambitions be forestalled, but the apartheid Jewish state might be forced to pay a little more attention to the egregious human rights abuses closer to home.

Maidhc Ó Cathail writes extensively on U.S. foreign policy and the Middle East. Read other articles by Maidhc, or visit Maidhc's website.

44 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. b99 said on September 1st, 2009 at 11:27am #

    Somehow I knew there’d be a Zionist connection to the North Korea issue. Couldn’t pin it down until this article.

    BTW – the best pronunciation I can give of the author’s name is Mike O’ Ka-hal.

  2. bozh said on September 1st, 2009 at 11:30am #

    I am antisemitic and in the meaning i choose and not as any nonshemite wld choose for me. This is the difference that makes huge difference.

    Actually, i am not, nor can i be against long-ago-disappeared shemitic people called “hebrews”. Why, wld I? They are no more!
    And i am much proshemitic. However, i do reject their cult!

    Khazaro-europeans with cult are not shemitic; or semitic, if one will.
    And i strongly reject their cultishnes, crimes against all of us. tnx

  3. Deadbeat said on September 1st, 2009 at 1:26pm #

    “War for Oil” — my ASS!

  4. brian said on September 1st, 2009 at 3:01pm #

    Lovely people!

  5. Max Shields said on September 1st, 2009 at 5:09pm #

    DB precisely where you have your head.

  6. bozh said on September 1st, 2009 at 5:14pm #

    it bears repeating: no land or empire in ’03 had complaiened ab. price or flow of oil.
    Thus, there was no need to wage war for what one already had; unless, of course, it was to enrich some individuals or force up the price of oil so that the extra profits pay for iraq invasion.
    And indeed price of Liter of oil did at one time rise to $1.46. Now it’s just over a $.

  7. Max Shields said on September 1st, 2009 at 6:51pm #

    bozh With all due respect, your comment makes no sense. So, if some land/empire was complaining about the price oil then there would be cause to associate the US invasion of Iraq as oil related?

    This is really quite a flight of illogical summation. You have not followed the events leading to this invasion, apparently. If you had then your “repeating” statement would not have been stated the first time.

  8. Deadbeat said on September 1st, 2009 at 7:37pm #

    DB precisely where you have your head.

    And YOU can keep on breathing the “GAS” fumes being spews by the Chomsky “Left”.

  9. Deadbeat said on September 1st, 2009 at 7:52pm #

    bozh With all due respect, your comment makes no sense. So, if some land/empire was complaining about the price oil then there would be cause to associate the US invasion of Iraq as oil related?

    This is where you are wrong again Mr. Shields. First this article is about the neo-con’s (Zionists) influence regarding U.S. policy towards North Korea. You make no effort to debate or add any comment on the author’s premise.

    Your argument is once again a Chomskyesque distortion. No one has stated that oil has NO influence in any foreign policy decision. The dominant narrative oil is the PRIMARY if not SOLE influence for all U.S Wars and that Zionism plays NO role whatsoever. Prominent members representing the “Left” use their persuasive powers to obfuscate and to outright deny any possibility of Zionism influencing U.S. Foreign policy. The author of this article clearly shines a light on the influence of Zionism upon U.S. foreign policy.

    North Korea is not known for having “oil” Max so can you explain why the Zionist are interested in the destruction of North Korea? Or are you just going to waste reader’s time here throwing out insults?

    If you have some real points to make refuting the author of this article Max I’d like to hear some.

  10. Deadbeat said on September 1st, 2009 at 7:58pm #

    Max did you see the Christison’s on Grit TV. Very interesting stuff they had to say about Zionism’s influence upon U.S. Foreign Policy. Do you have any constructive critiques? I’ll even supply you with a link.

    Grit TV

  11. Mulga Mumblebrain said on September 1st, 2009 at 11:15pm #

    I’d say that the most frequent time Anatoly Scharansky ‘..confronts evil’ is in the morning when he stares into the bathroom mirror. The Soviets were, in my opinion, so right to lock him up as a menace to society.
    To understand the malignant motivation of the Zionists one must, first, of course, dismiss the nauseating rubbish about concern for ‘human rights’. These creatures have as little respect for humanity, if the victims in question are Arab, Islamic or Palestinian ‘two-legged animals’, as the Nazis had for Jews, Roma, Slavs and gays. They are, I would be certain, true believers in Rabbi Kook the Elder’s infamous aphorism that ‘There is a greater difference between the soul of a Jew and the soul of a non-Jew…than there is between the souls of non-Jews and the souls of animals’.
    Zionism’s malignant creation, the apartheid state Israel, exists only due to the protection of the US hyper-power, whose political, media and business elites are dominated by Judaic money-power. If the US veto at the UN was to disappear, Israel would cease to exist in its present form as a belligerent, aggressive, racist apartheid state and bolt-hole for Judaic organised crime. That, I believe, would be good not just for the world, the Palestinians in particular, but for Jews as well. Judaic claims of moral and ethical excellence, always a bit of a self-delusion, have been utterly disproved by Israel’s monstrous crimes, above all else its racist and sectarian sadism, just as anti-Zionist Jews long ago predicted.
    The racist, chauvinistic and deeply criminal Zionist elites represented by these ‘neo-conservatives’ see the maintenance of US global hegemony as absolutely vital. That is why they are prime movers against not just the ‘Axis of Evil’, but against Russia and China as well. Most of the upsurge of Sinophobic agitation of recent years can quickly be traced backed to Zionist Jews, working in concert with goy collaborators. The anti-Chinese nature of the cynical hypocrites of the ‘Save Darfur’ rabble, a Zionist enterprise through and through, is often quite plain, as China is involved so deeply in the Sudan. The Tibetan and Uighurs separatists are aided and abetted in their attempts to foment ethnic strife, a la Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, by Zionists.
    In Australia, for example, the anti-Chinese push is being led by the Murdoch-Moloch (a fanatic Zionist, and with a Jewish mother [inexplicably, apparently a delightful woman-so much for heredity] an honorary Jew, at least) flagshit ‘The Australian’. Its ‘Foreign Editor’ Greg Sheridan, in my opinion perhaps the most hysterically demented ultra-Right ideologue in our media (and that means he beats an awful lot of competition)is leading the charge, with what I would call his habitual disregard for the facts and rational argument. In the political field the Rightwing ‘Liberal’ Opposition have taken a truly amoral and opportunistic approach, as could have been confidently expected, at one stage starting a whispering campaign that Rudd, the PM, was a ‘Manchurian Candidate’ in the pocket of the ChiComs, because he speaks ‘Mandarin’ Chinese, then agitating against Chinese investment in minerals here, then blaming Rudd as the atmosphere soured.
    But the strangest development of all, one never mentioned by the media despite its blatancy, and censored from most blogs I have seen, is the leading role of the Labor MHR for Melbourne Ports the Hon.(sic) Michael Danby. You see Mr Danby pop up everywhere anti-Chinese agitation is blossoming. A few years ago he appeared in one of Murdoch-Moloch’s tabloid shit-rags, The Sydney Daily Telegraph, accusing China of complicity in the (non-existent) ‘genocide’ in Darfur. How this fitted with Rudd’s ambitions, he then being still in opposition, to establish a new relationship with China, no-one knows or dares speculate in print. Then Danby popped up, over and over, greeting the Dalai, visiting him in Dharamsala, praising him and, of course, attacking China’s ‘repression’ of the Tibetans. Then Danby emerged as the prime mover in obtaining a visa for the Uighur separatist CIA ‘asset’ Reeba Kadeer to visit Australia in time for a propaganda hagiography concerning her ‘struggle’ to be shown at the Melbourne Film Festival. The film festival aesthetes were moved to high dudgeon by Chinese complaints concerning Kadeer’s role in the recent bloody riots in Xinjiang, which, with typical inversion of reality and Western civilizational, and, I don’t doubt, racialist, contempt, was characterised as Chinese interference in our affairs. Chinese feting of separatist leaders in the pay of hostile foreign powers intent on destroying our country’s territorial and social integrity would, no doubt, meet with the polar opposite reaction, but that’s cynical hypocrisy, the very essence of Rightwing groupthink for you. The milieu from which the film buffs originate could be guessed at by their enthusiastic and abusive slagging-off of Ken Loach for withdrawing his film Cantona from the festival because the festival receives finance from the blessed Israeli Government, of such good repute.
    Mr Danby even communicated fraternal greetings from the old rogue, the Dalai, to his fellow CIA ‘asset’, Kadeer. The point of all this verbiage is that Danby is the only Jewish member of our Federal Parliament, a bellicose and belligerent defender of every Israeli crime, a ready caster of the ‘anti-Semite’ vilification and somehow he has been allowed to take over running of our relations with our greatest trading partner, a country with whom friendly relations are an absolute necessity. As I say, even the mention of Danby’s activities, let alone speculation as to his motives, is absolutely verboten. But, without resort to any malicious speculation, I think a clear picture of what drives Danby and his ilk throughout the Zionist apparatus is rather easy to discern. China’s rise means the US’s comparative eclipse. As there is no chance of a Confucian-Zionist or Maoist-Zionist connection in the manner of Christian-Zionism, and as the Chinese political apparatus is not up for sale to the highest bidder like that of the US, the Zionist empire-building project requires that China’s rise is de-railed. In my opinion all Danby is doing is what he and other Zionists always do-he is, I am certain, putting what he sees as Israel’s interests before those of this country, his ostensible homeland.

  12. Max Shields said on September 2nd, 2009 at 5:30am #

    Deadbeat, you’re a little disturbed, my friend. You’re the one who makes the comment – “War for Oil” — my ASS

    Where in the article was mention “War for Oil”????? Where? You introduce it and than have the audacity to say I “make no effort to debate or add any comment on the author’s premise”????

    Your comment was about “War for Oil” – my ASS” was meat only to provoke that oil is NOT the primary basis for US intervention – begin coy NOW doesn’t fool anybody, but perhaps you think it buys you some “credibility” – unlikely.

    My other response, the one you quote, above was to bozh, NOT you. Bozh seems to be making that no one was complaining about the price of oil, ipso facto, why would oil have anything to do with the invasion of Iraq…before that I had not mentioned Iraq. This article is about N. Korea and Zionist. Fine. SO STICK TO THAT AND STOP IT WITH THE UNNECESSARY PROVOCATIONS DEADBEAT. WE’RE ON TO YOU, BUDDY!

  13. bozh said on September 2nd, 2009 at 7:09am #

    i said, “No land or empire complained…..”
    That means that US also was satisfied about supply of oil and its prices.
    So, i conclude, US invaded on basis of its telos, rationaliazations, half truths, lies, etc.
    Yes, i still think that if iraq wld have unilaterally stopped supplying a land with oil that land cld bring its grievance to UN.
    If iraq wld have continued to cut flow of oil to a land [friendly to US] even after UN interevention of some kind, that wld represent a legitimate casus belli.

  14. bozh said on September 2nd, 2009 at 7:16am #

    max, with respect,
    You have also misquoted me; i.e., you left the vital word “flow” of oil, while mentioning only price of it.

  15. bozh said on September 2nd, 2009 at 7:41am #

    i am very strong socialist; however, i do say that uighur has the right to secede from china.
    At this stage of panhuman development, being ethnocentric is not wrong.
    I do not know what majority of uighurs want. But if they want separation or greater autonomy or whatever or even going fascist after separation, like so many lands of former yugoslavia and ussr, so be it.
    Even in canada, most ethnoses are quite a bit ethnocentric. This is what the ruling class, i educe, want.
    US’ ruling class also favors ethnic divisions while favoring one or two more than any other. It’s called “divide et impera”
    And then there is division on individual and intercultish level.
    It’s so bad that even a gang of twelve people cld rule with iron fist mns.
    The twelve might actually be twelve mns. But, howmany, structure is like cosa nostra for the twelve and cosa mia for the ?330mn.
    And which cosa [cause] prevails? tnx

  16. Max Shields said on September 2nd, 2009 at 10:00am #


    First Iraq was not invaded solely because it HAS oil but because of its relatively position vis a vis the region and its oil. It appears from all indications that the US government thought this would be a “cake walk” to bump off Saddam than replace with a loyal (to US interests) government. We know that it was not to be that easy, but that is 20/20 hindsight (at least for the powers that be).

    So, it was not the price of the flow of oil, and who here has said anything about “price or flow” except your post. Control of a vital resource is not purely about price. It is about assuring such a resource is available and that access not be controlled by anyone else (OPEC, China, etc.).

    The connection between Israel/Zionism and North Korea does not lead to the conclusion that the US invaded Iraq PRIMARILY because of Israel/Zionism. I’ve always said there is a confluence of ideologies which played their role, but that the overriding interest in the Middle East is oil. What else does it have that the West (and others) would be particularly interested in? Since Deadbeat never answers that question, simple and forthright as it is, he’s constant beating of the Zionist drum is a weak argument…

    To say, or imply, that, oil prices or “Big Oil” was not the issue in the invasion of Iraq…actually the whole US ME policy, begs the question. That there are Zionists in American government who influence and add to this policy does not remove the centrality of oil.

    Do Zionists want to control the ME? If so: Why?

  17. Max Shields said on September 2nd, 2009 at 10:09am #

    Bozh, I would ask that you take a little walk down memory lane regarding Iraq, particularly around 2000/2001. You have Kuwait, Iraq, Iran very unstable indeed. Saddam goes to war with Iran and oil flow is significantly upended. Then he invades Kuwait.

    The game the US empire plays is to back one side and then another based on how the outcome plays out for US interests. It is apparent in all US policy as it switches “sides” to suit what it sees as an advantage regarding a regions value to US interests. The US, with exception of some EU and Israel relationships, keeps its bonds very loose so it can shift gears. The policy doesn’t change, just who can be used to sustain the policy.

    Since reality is complex and frequently doesn’t fit with such policies you get a hodgepodge result: the “cake walk” has unintended consequencies…take it from there. Big Oil needn’t be in favor of an invasion; a particular price for the flow of oil may not be the reason, the reason is to secure the oil and the control of it. When oil is viewed as national interest it trumps any particular oil companies interests.

  18. Suthiano said on September 2nd, 2009 at 10:31am #

    This debate over oil has been going on for a long time, and doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, so here’s my opinion:

    Iraq war occurred for many reasons. These vary from very influential (“Neo-con” desire to assert American hegemony (PNAC), which of course is linked to zionism) to almost incidental (public was convinced about WMD, so even non-existent WMDs played role). Soldiers thought they were liberating, getting justice, etc, so these outlooks play role in “reasons” Iraq war happened/was possible.

    oil relates to zionism, american hegemony (other catalysts for war) because for all these visions to become realities, EMPIRE KNOWS IT MUST HAVE LAST ARMY MOVING, LAST TANKS, LAST PLANES, LAST AIR-CRAFT CARRIERS, etc.

    Oil is not an end in itself, it is currently the key means to most ends sought by elites.

    It is a difference between strategy and goal. controlling oil is part of strategy for hegemony, not “goal”, just as fueling ethnic divisions is a strategy for conquering region. Perhaps confusion is because all strategies require several stages of “goals” to be met before “main goal” is accomplished. So, in this sense it is a “goal” of zionists, elitists, etc to control oil, but it is not end goal, not “purpose”.

    This is all confusing because of way words are used. but we would not find it strange within sports context: “of course we want to win the championship, but our first goal is to make the playoffs…. of course in order to do so we have to win so many games, and we will have to score “goals” to do so.”

    We have no problem understanding how all these goals can be held contemporaneously within that context, so why this perpetual debate between the regulars on dissident voice?

    just my opinion

  19. bozh said on September 2nd, 2009 at 11:22am #

    max, respectfully

    iraq aggression lasted 9 yrs. It seems to me, that the christo-talmudic crowd had not ever objected to that war; it actually, supported and egged on Iraq aggression.

    I do not recall any land demading war stop because it affected oil deliviries or caused wild flucuation inprises.
    Prices went to &1.46 a L in ’07, is it?; not before ’78 nor ’03 . I do not know why. I can only guess.

    as a meber of StopWar. ca., i had held banners and distributed leaflest that condemned coming war against iraq.
    Even then i have stated to several members of the StopWar [ab. 500 active members] that the sole purpose of that war was to establish permament bases in iraq.

    I have even stated in ’03 that US aggression was a ‘brilliant’ success. It is, i say even now, a success. And if anyone thinks that the cosa nostra cares a hoot ab. anyone’s cosa mia, i think that wld be mistake.

    US is ruled by gangsters and for only one cause: self-enrichment. There are no means a cosa nostra gang like biker, mafia, street, country wld not use for their cause.
    And, cosa nostras are not that dumb to allow two parties. In my house, too, there is only one party; i’d never allow two, three.. tnx

  20. bozh said on September 2nd, 2009 at 11:43am #

    Max, with respect; since u do not engage in personality of my personage.
    The proper meaning was, i think, that oil flowed in desired volume and and int mutually, methinks, agreed price.
    In any case, i do not recall any ptotest ab. iraq withholding or raising prices of oil
    From this, i concluded that not even a protest about oil was necssary let alone to wage war for it. I do cannot say it clearer than that.

    If any land wld unilaterally cease with delivery with any vital commodity to anothre country, that country [if sanity prevailed] wld first go to world court or UN.

    If the court or UN cld not obtain a fair solution for the agrieved country, that country cld wage war against culprit country.
    Withdrawing oil to any land wld constitute a casus belli. Whether aggrieved country goes to war or not is s’thing else again.
    I do know if this satisfies u. I can’t do any better than that. tnx

  21. bozh said on September 2nd, 2009 at 12:02pm #

    To US/world plutos there is no longer laws, countries, nationalism, or ownership of anything.

    Much of the planet belongs de facto and de jure not only to US rich but also europe’s, japanese, et al.

    Thus this class is not invading, occupying, waging war against any country; since no country now exists de jure or de facto.
    This class is not breeaking any law either. This is what, i think, some ‘jews’ see!
    And they know what is good for them! Not, necessarily, what’s good for israel as there won’t be any country left if plutos get russia onside and destroys china.

  22. Max Shields said on September 2nd, 2009 at 2:28pm #

    But bozh you still have not answered the simplest of questions, if not oil, what? (Zionism a ideological frame not a reason to occupy the Middle East).

    Suthiano indicates there was a blend of reasons but while these were confluent with the US policy they are NOT the policy. Zionism is NOT US policy while it may be confluent with Middle Eastern hegemony.

    Making a case, as bozh, you seem to be, that oil flow and price were not an issue with the major players that would lead to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, that is NOT the point I am making.

    Oil can (and is) the force behind what the Middle East has. Control of that is enough to make it central to US interests.

    What geologists and major oil companies and now US reports indicate, is that we oil is peaking and the fields in the Middle East are depleting their reserves. Ironically some of the largest reserves are in Iraq, BECAUSE, oil HAS NOT flowed out as desired.

    It is true that oil is the source of US empire existence. All empires run on energy. As that energy is depleted or as the empire is overextended, the empire collapses. It is energy that makes it happen. And there is simply no alternative to fossil – and particularly oil.

    But instead of arguing with me, posters like Deadbeat and, now it appears, bozh, side step these issues.

    Never once has Deadbeat, for instance, made a case for why oil is not central to US interests in the Middle East. Instead he rambles on about Big Oil and Zionism. There are facts. The US empire may do very stupid things but it understands its energy needs.

    Tell me what would exist of this US empire without massive supplies of oil? What? To say this is all about Zionism, or even mostly about Zionism is to use the ultimate red herring. What is Zionism? Say it is evil. Why is it evil? Because it is a preditory nation occupying stolen land. Why has this Zionism chosen to occupy this land of other people…and to continue to expand?

    Yes, 9/11 happened. Yes, the empire chose to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan with guns blazing. Stupid. Damn right. Then, the empire, stepped back and put in motion, what had been planned years invade and occupy Iraq. Why? Because neocons said to? Hardly. Neocons were just the whipping-boys for the liberal blogs. The real power is not with them. They were eager. Absolutely, but they did NOT decide anything.

  23. bozh said on September 2nd, 2009 at 4:25pm #

    well, you may have not asked anyone or me what i or anyone else thought the US telos is.
    I’ve, nevertheless, went on a limb, positing that the final solution for wordl plutos is to obtain the planbet or as much of it as they can an dto utterly eradicate even traces some basic human rigts.

    I’ve said this at least 20 times. You may have not read any of my posts where i sate that or you may have forgotten ab. it.
    This is not a novel idea; Thruout history empires sought to obtain as much of the earth as it cld.
    Americas and auatralia weren’t conquered because nobody knew of their existence.
    I am wondering if you read some of my previous posts on this page?
    I repeat my affirmation that save russia and china plutos own the world and the laws and have enough power to smite any region.
    All wars i know of [except trojan, if it happened] were waged for land and everything that was in it or on it.
    In modern time, people of vanquished lands were allowed to stay while in palestine, croatia, serbia people were not allowed to stay.

  24. bozh said on September 2nd, 2009 at 4:46pm #

    you make a good point about oil peaking and then depleting in the future.
    In case any empire or set of lands attempted to [by invading oil-producing lands] secure enough oil for selves at the expense of some other lands or empires, oil wld have caused such invasions.
    But we don’t know that such a move inthe future may not cause a world-wide nuclear war.
    US by invading and now occupying iraq appears not to have to date interfered with oil deliveries to any land. In short, as far as i know, invasion nor occupation of iraq has changed oil deliveries or price.
    Prices did fluctuate in ’07 but even US did not know why; or, at least, hadn’t explained why. Somebody, tho, made oodless of money.
    And nato is now in afgh’n and has no oil.tnx

  25. bozh said on September 2nd, 2009 at 4:55pm #

    i forgot to say that US always had enough {or enough in uncle sam’s estimation; am i right ab. this?} of oil.
    And it goes w.o. saying that if US was not getting enough oil to cover all of its needs, US wld have at least raised hell ab. it?!! Right?!
    But most likely it wld have gone to war to secure enough for self; or so i expect. tnx

  26. Deadbeat said on September 2nd, 2009 at 7:29pm #

    Never once has Deadbeat, for instance, made a case for why oil is not central to US interests in the Middle East. Instead he rambles on about Big Oil and Zionism. There are facts. The US empire may do very stupid things but it understands its energy needs.

    In this one sentence we clearly understand Max Shields relationship with Zionism. Mr. Shields is essentially supportive of the Chomskyite narrative of the obfuscation the influence of Zionism upon U.S. policy.

    I would argue that Mr. Shields needs to answer the contradictions that are raised by framing the issue as a war for “Big Oil”. It was the “Left” that has presented the wars in the Middle East as “War for Oil” ignoring as well as obfuscating any evidence of the influence that Zionism has on U.S. policy making. Thus the question is WHY HAS THE LEFT acted in this manner to outright mislead and obfuscate Zionism’s INFLUENCE upon U.S. policy. This behaviour runs counter to what the Left should stand for.

    The dominate line (conventional wisdom) is that the War in Iraq is a “War FOR Oil”. I didn’t make that up. That IS the dominate line. Mr. Shields now want to convince onlookers here that the world is running out of oil. He states…
    What geologists and major oil companies and now US reports indicate, is that we oil is peaking and the fields in the Middle East are depleting their reserves. Ironically some of the largest reserves are in Iraq, BECAUSE, oil HAS NOT flowed out as desired

    The fallacy that Mr. Shields engages is called a red herring. Here is what a red herring fallacy looks like:
    * Topic A is under discussion.
    * Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
    * Topic A is abandoned.

    The topic of discussion is why is the “Left” engaged in promoting “Big Oil” as the “raison d’etre” of war in the Middle East (especially Iraq and potentially Iran) when there are serious contradiction to that explanation and why is the Left engaging in the obfuscation of Zionism — an ideology whose influence upon U.S. policy making has grown enormously over the past 10 years.

    Mr. Shield ASSUMES only through conjecture that the U.S. is fighting in the Middle East for oil. Let examine some of the contradiction Mr. Shields ignores and offers no reasonable explanation:

    [1] oil is peaking and the fields in the Middle East are depleting their reserves
    The contradiction here is that this assumes the price spike was related to supply. However the Saudi’s INCREASED production during the Bush years and therefore there was sufficient supply in order to maintain price. The cause of the increase was SPECULATION in the commodity market caused huge spikes in oil prices. In addition Hugo Chavez has stated that Venezuela has a 200 year supply and so long as oil prices remain about $50.00/barrel, the heavy oil that Venezuela supplies will be profitable.

    [2] Suthiano indicates there was a blend of reasons but while these were confluent with the US policy they are NOT the policy. Zionism is NOT US policy while it may be confluent with Middle Eastern hegemony.
    This is total bait-and-switch by Mr. Shields. The ones with the mono-thesis are Chomskyites like Antonia Juhasz who only offer “War for Oil” explanation. Naomi Klein offered a clever approach by throwing “neo-liberalism” in the mix. The big contradiction with here premise however was that she faulted Milton Freedman, who she attributes as being the father of neo-liberalism, was AGAINST the War on Iraq.

    [3] Never once has Deadbeat, for instance, made a case for why oil is not central to US interests in the Middle East.

    The argument is NOT — why oil is not central to U.S. policy in the Middle East. The argument is why Mr. Shields and his ilk desire to obfuscate Zionism. Is Mr. Shields a racist in whose interest it is to see the continued subjectation of the Palestian people and the growth of power and influence of this racist ideology in the United States? This has been the result of Chomskyism on the Left and is the main reason why the anti-war movement crumbled. It is why the “Z-Mag” left supported the “anybody but Bush” (acquiese to John Kerry’s run) notion and created the vacuum on the Left that opened the door for the 2008 Obama campaign.

    The question that is being ignored is why are these people who claim to want to fight the empire deliberately misleading activists with fallacioius, dubious, contradictory explanations.

    In order to accepted the “Big Oil” explanation means NOT asking serious questions. I have also presented links to other critics such as Jeffery Blankfort and most recently Bill & Kathleen Christison. Needless to say thank goodness the editors of DV have printed Dr. James Petras who articles are fully footnoted has raised serious questions about the “Big Oil” explanation of all things.

    Max Shields unfortunately respresents the DOMINATE strain on the “Left” in the United States and unless this strain is confronted it will most definately RETARD solidary and will only lead to kinds of betrayals we have already witnessed in the anti-war movement and the Green Party.

  27. Max Shields said on September 2nd, 2009 at 8:30pm #

    Deadbeat your a dull soul, with this empty Chomsky stuff.

  28. Suthiano said on September 3rd, 2009 at 12:38am #

    You are all caught in classic philosophical trap (a linguistic trap).

    You seek “cause” as if the world was composed of a series of chains of cause and effect.

    This is the same view held by many theologians. They argue that God must exist because of “prime mover” (aka first cause, ie something must have put everything else into motion). You have all fallen into using this erroneous metaphor of cause and effect as “chain”. In reality causes and “effects” are web like.


    ball B goes into corner pocket.
    what caused this?
    ball a hit ball b.
    what caused this?
    cue striking ball a.
    what caused this?
    -muscle of character holding cue
    what “caused” this?
    -will of character?
    -brain of character?
    what “caused” this?
    -rules of the game
    -any number of “atmospheric” conditions (What caused these),
    -location (what caused this)


    What we learn from every case study is that the more we try to pin point the “prime cause” the more we shackle ourselves to meaningless language.

    How is prime cause (prime mover) anything but a trickery of language?

    It’s nothing but a combination of two ideas that we never see converge in reality: primacy and “cause”. Once we bite the hook on the end of the “chain of causation” we are snared. It is a false metaphor.

    When “elites” go to “sub-elites” who (though lacking same “drivers” as elites) to propose a war, they structure reasoning around paradigm of those being addressed. If “zionists” want war in Iraq to further “zionist cause”, how is it unreasonable to consider that convincing “big oil” of profits in Iraq is essential to manipulating the herd towards the war? That is assuming that all decision makers are not zionists… even if the most important ones all are. We have more than an ideology to proclaim here, and in order to follow it we have a herd to control and direct.

    Likewise, how is it unreasonable to consider that “zionists” recognize irrelevance of controlling Iraq’s oil to “big oil’s” profits, but seek to use the argument to gain support anyway?

    We on this site, with people who are so intelligent (I’m talking about you guys, who always amaze me with the depth of your knowledge, even if I don’t agree with conclusions), must always recognize the multiplicity of causes, while at the same time seeking to pinpoint most “useful” connections within the web.

    I turn to a historical example to finish.

    When Vatican funded exploration of “new world” was it because of gold, or was it because of desire to “spread word of christ”, or hegemonic desire?

    Do you claim to be the sure eyed scientist who can amputate along such lines? Would you be as ignorant as the pope, drawing a line of demarcation, and then sending your minions to fight for inches in the trenches?

    my apologies if i’ve misrepresented anyone’s ideas…

  29. Iconoclast said on September 3rd, 2009 at 1:36am #

    Israel supporting N. Korea? Isn’t that just a bit of a stretch?

  30. Deadbeat said on September 3rd, 2009 at 2:33am #

    Deadbeat your a dull soul, with this empty Chomsky stuff.

    Then DEBATE me Mr. Shields otherwise you offer no arguments to defend your “War for Oil” conjectures.

  31. Don Hawkins said on September 3rd, 2009 at 2:51am #

    Deadbeat up early? Oil, coal nasty stuff and the Earth put it in the ground for a reason and now us human’s with that bigger brain fight over it and why, lazy.

  32. Don Hawkins said on September 3rd, 2009 at 2:58am #

    Oh different kinds of lazy the lazy we see in the States is easy way out while eating a 3 pound sandwich. Taking a walk and thinking is a good lazy. Playing checkers in the park and good conversation good lazy. Consume consume.

  33. Deadbeat said on September 3rd, 2009 at 3:02am #

    Suthiano writes …
    You are all caught in classic philosophical trap (a linguistic trap).
    You seek “cause” as if the world was composed of a series of chains of cause and effect.

    I disagree. Your premise is totally based on a strawman argument. If the level of the debate was based on your premise there would be NO DEBATE. You present the debate as if there is already an agreement between the counter-parties that there is an equivalence of influence among Zionism and “Big Oil” upon U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East. If that was the case then you would see organizing against BOTH Big Oil AND Zionism with ACKNOWLEDGMENT on the Left that BOTH needs to be equally challenged.

    Unfortunately Suthiano, the Left refuses to acknowledged the influence of Zionism upon the body politics of the United States. In fact Suthiano the “Left” has used its power of persuasion to obfuscate and to OUTRIGHT DENY any influence of Zionism upon U.S. policy DESPITE the obvious evidence.

    The “Big Oil” thesis that PREDOMINATES and PROMOTED by the “Left” crumbles under the weight of not only evidence but of COMMON SENSE. In order to ACCEPT the “Big Oil” explanation means NOT TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS but to ACCEPT the premise AS IS.

    What you are doing Suthiano is setting up a strawman that essentially obfuscates the main problem. WHY IS THE LEFT SO DETERMINED TO SELL A PREMISE THAT HAS OBVIOUS CONTRADICTIONS. It opens the door that questions the MOTIVES of so-called Left in the United States and questions the VERACITY of the Left.

    This means that the real focus of activist is to take a good look at its own ranks and to question why the Left has drifted away from organizing around race and class issues. Is one of the reason to protect Zionism? If so why? If not then why did the anti-war movement fall apart when challenging Zionism was raised among anti-war activists? Why did the Left promote the War on Iraq as a “War for Oil” when evidence indicate otherwise? Why did Noam Chomsky dismiss Miershiemer and Walt? These are serious questions that calls into question whether or not the Left can be trusted. Why should people, especially people of color, put their trust in the Left? This lack of trust will only wind up in betrayal and the retarding of solidarity.

    Unfortunately Suthiano you are not adding to the discussion here and you are only poisoning the well with your strawman. It only muddies the water rather than offer any clarification to the main premise which deeply examines the behavior of the Left.

  34. Deadbeat said on September 3rd, 2009 at 3:06am #

    Don Hawkins writes …
    Deadbeat up early? Oil, coal nasty stuff and the Earth put it in the ground for a reason and now us human’s with that bigger brain fight over it and why, lazy.

    Don let’s stop with the conjectures and offer some evidence that the U.S. went to war in Iraq for Coal, Oil and other nasty stuff put in the Earth. I raising serious question about the veracity of the Left. Questions of RACE and CLASS.

  35. Don Hawkins said on September 3rd, 2009 at 3:20am #

    The US didn’t go into Iraq for oil it never came up it was WMD’s a known fact and the Earth was created in seven day’s and seven night’s. That’s why I play checkers not chess simple.

  36. Deadbeat said on September 3rd, 2009 at 3:26am #

    So then why did the Left say it was a “War for Oil”? thx

  37. Don Hawkins said on September 3rd, 2009 at 3:47am #

    Who is the left who is the right who is right who is wrong a witch is an illusion and so far on the present path into the abyss the real war for oil hasn’t started yet. I think we waited a little to long so now a Herculean effort is the way if we wish to try or the easy way out. High upon the hill first it’s breakfast then lunch with a few call’s from lobbyists in between and maybe a little air time and some pat’s on the back then in the Senate they sit and watch the paint dry as they talk to each other in lawyer talk and what is lawyer talk well the truth is something to always’ be avoided. An example is say in Copenhagen someone will say ok if the ice melts it will come back, right and never mind human’s will not be here when it does. Third grade level thinking.

  38. Max Shields said on September 3rd, 2009 at 5:32am #


    You raise faux issues and turn them into an “argument”. I’ve asked you a question, “Why is the Middle East important to the US Empire?”

    You say the “left” said it was “Big Oil”. Since no one person speaks for the nebulous, you’re already basing an “argument” on vapor. Then there’s the “Big Oil” contention for invading Iraq. Well since I haven’t read anything on this site about Big Oil being the reason for the US invading and occupying Iraq, you seem to be arguing with yourself.

    As far as oil, you have finally conceded (somewhere) that you never said oil was not important. But you march on with that limp acknowledgement to continue to rant about Zionism/Chomsky/American Left and “Big Oil”.

    It’s very hard to argue with such baseless frivilousness.

    If you were serious, you’d pick some “leftist” who claims “Big Oil” and say you disagree with this and that. Then you may actually find me agreeing. But you are not serious, you just want to kick the can down the road and so will never deal with the core issue because calling it Zionism just feels to good to you and your limited worldview.

  39. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 3rd, 2009 at 6:29am #

    I am not sure how many christians are for a destruction of palestine? Is 98%?
    But even if it may be 80%, it is a lotof people. Probably at least one bn.
    Adding to this number the 15 mn zionist `jews`, doesn`t bring any signifacant change.
    The master of israel and christian lands are the rulers of those lands and
    not rulers of israel.
    To say that israel and a few hundred americo-jewish zionists control over a bn of christians; plus korea, japan, singapor, afrika, much of s. america and asia wld amount to saying that ab. 3-5 bn nonjews are controled and to quite a degree by a few- far less powerful- mns of `jews`.

    So why have all that econo-military-diplomatic-educational power only to be a follower of a much, much weaker side.
    And Israel receives money, arms, and technology from a side that may be at least 1K times stronger.
    Go figure! tnx

  40. Suthiano said on September 3rd, 2009 at 10:50am #

    Deadbeat, I’m far from thinking “big oil” should be the primary focus of the “left”. And I agree with you that there is definitely a “fraud” “left” (gatekeepers).

    However, when you tell me that I’m “obfuscating” this debate, I strongly disagree. My goal is to define/describe what is happening so that less time is spent on ego clashes (debates). I must say you are constantly “muddying the waters” through your careless labeling. Maybe I know what you’re saying, but how do you expect most to take you seriously?

    When you say Iraq war was not about big oil it was about zionism, you’re using what is obscure language to most. I met a zionist two days ago who is a university student (undergrad) Canadian… what possible role did this person play in the Iraq war?

    zionism is a pyramid ideology as any other. It is driven by few elites at top, and bought into by millions below them for VARIOUS reasons.

    Deadbeat, you think my argument was a strawman, and yet you do fall into the trap I described:

    if zionism was the cause of the Iraq war, what is the “cause” of zionism? Is it the Rothschilds or is it money, or is it judaism, or is it the holocaust? Who are the individual actors at the very top? who are the prime movers of zionism? Deadbeat, do you know who these people are? Do you ACTUALLY KNOW what they BELIEVE?

    You and I know zionism existed long before the holocaust, and yet I guarantee I could find you some “zionist” who thinks that Israel was awarded to the Jews because of WW2. Well isn’t this partially true? Wasn’t the “holocaust” a cause for immigration to Palestine? Wasn’t the holocaust a cause of zionism? Why can’t I make this observation (which is USEFUL because now we can address such ignorant zionists on their paradigm and expose the inaccuracies in their outlook)? You say I am obscuring something, yet i will openly name names of the global elite, while you continue to through around labels that mean different things to the elite than they do to the herd.

    It’s like wmd argument. YOu can say war in Iraq wasn’t caused by WMD (obviously true on some level as their were no WMDs), and yet, how would the war have been fought without U.S. soldiers, U.S. public buying into this reason for the war? If public opinion isn’t important then why have zionists, elitists been using “public relations” (propaganda) for over a century? practicing it as a science?

    But please deadbeat, don’t take this as a challenge and start calling me names. I think it would be wonderful if you started calling out the most powerful “zionists” by name and describing exactly what it is that these people believe…. if you have footage of them practicing human sacrifice that would be an added bonus.

    The Iraq war wasn’t fought beCAUSE (prime cause) of Big Oil. The Iraq war could be fought in part cause of “Big Oil,” ie, because there were corporations eager to move in and start building and pumping. If “big oil” didn’t exist, and our energy needs were controlled by vegan pacifists, then the “big energy” faction of the pyramid would not have bought into “zionist” war… that’s it. It’s not that confusing, but it allows us to debate on multiple levels… unlike the way you through around labels which seems to put everyone into camps, which is not a good way to build solidarity, and is actually a lot closer to the “divide and conquer” scheme practiced by those who you spend so much time criticizing.



  41. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 3rd, 2009 at 12:07pm #

    deadbeat, max, suthiano with respect.
    Let me go on record by asserting that ALL ‘jews’ appear as zionists!
    And ALL those people who call selves “jews” must, perforce, be wedded to torahic, talmudic, mishnahic [mis]teachings, or their respective cultishness.

    People do not espy an astounding fact of utmost import: we are much more a symbolic class of life than any other animal; thus, it matters much what we call any living being or thing.
    E.g., spade is not an instrument. The label “jew” does not stand as a symbol for a human, national, nor ethnic; it stands for a connection/conversion to hebraic cultisheness.

    The word “jew” derives from the word “judean” or “yehud”. And khazaro-europeans have no connection {or a connection hadn’t yet been established} whatsoever with any hebrew tribe.
    Hundreds of different nationals and ethnics have accepted hebraic ‘faith’ [please read: cult].

    Mizrahic ‘jews’ are definitely shemitic but not necessarily of hebraic origin.
    If one wants to call them “jews” it is OK with me. I prefer to call them “shemites” of arabic descent. Or call them “arabs”.
    A pole or italian does not call self “catholic”. A pole or an irishperson is first a pole and irish and only thereafter a catholic, but also cultish to me.

    For sanity, natural order of evaluation is first of all to be human; then wife, mother, friend, social being and only thereafter a jew, catholic, protestant, muslim, etc.
    Unfortunately both muslims and ‘jews’ reverse the natural order in which jewishness/mosheism or mohammedanism comes ahead in importance of being human, etc.
    Because of that and being small in numbers, Hebrews have undergone two shoahs and kazhars one.
    Is another shoah that far behind? Nobody likes cults. “Jewish’ cult wld be hated forever or until its evanescence.
    And world plutos are least likely to tolerate “jewishness” – a sense of ‘quality’ of being supranatural.
    I believe, this is what chomsky and other ‘ziontsts’ fear. Still, they are “jews”; thus are married to mosheism/zionism as well. tnx

  42. Shabnam said on September 3rd, 2009 at 1:08pm #


    Palestine is given to Jewish colonists who have no connections with either Palestine or the region because of Rothschild family’s control over the British Empire to bring the resources of the region under the Jewish aristocracy’s control (Zionists) over long period of time. Please read the link I have provided earlier under this article. Nathan Rothschild told the world in 1815: {The British Empire is controlled by Rothschild family through supply of money.} Do you think he was lying?
    Today, however, many including Gore Vidal , believe that the 5th column, Jewish Lobby , runs foreign policy of the United States not to mention Walt and his co author, many from military elite who believe Israel exerts too much influence over US foreign policy. Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes:
    [Gates is a servant of Gen. David Petraeus’s “long war” mafia, a cabal that includes Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, senior Iraq commander Gen. Ray Odierno and Gen. Stan McChrystal, our man in the Bananastans. That makes Gates a servant of the American neocons, whose objective since the ‘90s has been permanent U.S. occupation of the Middle East. It also makes him a tool of the Israeli right, whose objective is to sucker us into bullying their neighbors for them. During a recent trip to Israel, Gates said that U.S. overtures to Iran are not “open ended.” He gave the impression that he wheedled and begged enough during the visit to stay Israel’s hand for a little while longer. “Our hope still remains that Iran will respond to the president’s outstretched hand in a positive and constructive way,” Gates said, “but we’ll see.”]
    Jeff Huber believes US is putting Israeli’s interest ahead of American’s interest and paints Gates, the secretary of defense, as a puppet of Israel, “He gave the impression that he wheedled and begged enough during the visit to stay Israel’s hand for a LITTLE WHILE LONGER.”

    Why a retired Commander write these lines?
    On the other hand the Zionist racists and terrorist such as Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says the following with great confidence:
    [Believe me; America accepts all our decisions,] Lieberman told the Russian daily Moskovskiy Komosolets.
    [The Obama Administration will put forth new peace initiatives only if Israel wants it to, said Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in his first comprehensive interview on foreign policy since taking office.
    Have you ever heart Canada or France repeats these kind of rubbish? Forget about Saudi Arabia where has injected billions of dollars into the US economy yet does not have the same power as Israel has over the US goverment or close to it where ables SA to repeat the same rubbish as Lieberman or Sharon’s spread.

  43. Deadbeat said on September 3rd, 2009 at 4:18pm #

    Suthiano writes …
    If “big oil” didn’t exist, and our energy needs were controlled by vegan pacifists, then the “big energy” faction of the pyramid would not have bought into “zionist” war… that’s it. It’s not that confusing, but it allows us to debate on multiple levels… unlike the way you through around labels which seems to put everyone into camps, which is not a good way to build solidarity, and is actually a lot closer to the “divide and conquer” scheme practiced by those who you spend so much time criticizing.

    Suthiano you argue a STRAWMAN FALLACY. Your premise is a NON-EXISTENT SUPPOSITION wherby you formulate a conclusion based on an NON-EXISTENT SUPPOSITION. Zionism was develop long before there was an “entity” known as “Big Oil”. So therefore your argument is in severe contradiction.

    Where have I heard this rhetoric… unlike the way you through around labels which seems to put everyone into camps

    This is an ad hominem that doesn’t address my argument that the issue is the LEFT’s willingness to obfuscate up to the DENYING of Zionism being influential upon U.S. Foreign Policy and analyzing and addressing THAT BEHAVIOR and its consequenes (like the diffusion of the anti-war movement) upon activists and upon solidarity.

  44. Deadbeat said on September 3rd, 2009 at 4:44pm #

    To put it succinctly Suthiano, you are arguuing conjecture. Please don’t waste my time with conjecture.