foreign policy
12 Nov 2008
So Now What?
Talking about morality in international affairs is easy. What about action? Antony Loewenstein examines the tough foreign policy challenges facing the President-elect
An unprecedented amount of hyperbole from the international media heralded last week's election of Barack Obama to the US presidency. Fortunately, a healthy dose of scepticism was also administered. Take Charlie Booker in The Guardian earlier this week:"President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. Nope, still can't get used to it. It's literally too good to be true. I must've died in my sleep and am now having an insane fantasy pumped into my head by the Matrix. Any minute now Salma Hayek is going to float through the door with a tray of biscuits and I'll know the game's up."
And The Onion joked: "[Obama's] win causes obsessive supporters to realise how empty their lives are."
Despite profound inequalities that won't disappear overnight, Obama undoubtedly represents a monumental achievement for race politics in America. As the hype dies down, however, the real task of assessing the political ambitions of the President-elect emerges.
His foreign affairs plans have been met with concern by analysts and activists who spend time on the ground in nations under American bombs and who don't inhabit think-tanks in Washington and New York.
In the first instance, Obama's decision to appoint Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff — a radical Zionist whose father was in the fascist Irgun in the 1940s in an attempt to form a Jewish state — indicates that he is not as progressive as some may hope. The editor of The Nation rightly urges caution.
Many on the global left have welcomed Obama as a rejection of the disastrous Bush Administration, but its difficult to know what he will deliver. The Los Angeles Times predicted last week that many of Obama's foreign policy picks would come from academia:
"The good news is that Barack Obama's intellectuals are fine scholars who have produced some thought-provoking books and articles on the best way to deploy American power. The bad news is that Walt Rostow and Paul Wolfowitz were also fine scholars who had produced interesting books and articles on the best way to deploy American power."
Beware the "humanitarian hawk", a concept that is proudly extolled by those on the left who love to use the American military to pursue a "moral" foreign policy. Many of these figures embraced the Bush Administration's policies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tony Judt has written eloquently in the London Review of Books of the acquiescence of liberals to "President Bush's catastrophic foreign policy".
Lest we forget too the infamous 1997 speech by late British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in which he announced an "ethical foreign policy". During his tenure, as Medialens reminds us, he "supplied Hawk fighter-bombers to the Suharto regime committing genocide in East Timor. He propagandised on behalf of US-UK sanctions that killed one million Iraqi civilians. He defended the cynical December 1998 bombing of Iraq and spread government lies about Iraq's alleged failure to cooperate with inspectors."
Talking about morality in international affairs is easy; putting it into action is far more difficult. Besides, many of the advisers congregating around Obama are former Bill Clinton hacks who pursued similar policies to Robin Cook.
Obama will face immediate foreign policy challenges in Israel/Palestine. The Jewish state may soon elect a man, Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposes any cessation of settlement building. Unless America decides to pressure Israel in an unprecedented way — such as cutting aid unless certain conditions are met — the occupation will only deepen. Jerusalem's mayoral race symbolises the racial fault-lines that are worsening by the day.
One Israeli commentator has already asked Obama to ignore his country, as "Clinton, our 'friend,' promoted Oslo, which cost us 1500 murder victims, and Bush brought Hamas to Gaza". Clearly colony expansion on Palestinian land, and the impossibility of the two-state "solution", is preferable to direct talks.
Even the Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said again last weekend that his Government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Political negotiations with Hamas, as Haaretz encourages, are essential if peace is to be achieved. Will Obama acknowledge the importance of engaging the Islamists? This is unlikely in the short term.
But perhaps Obama has already inspired the Rudd Government in subtle ways. The minor, but important, shift in Australia's position towards Israel at the UN should be celebrated but has already been condemned by the Zionist establishment. Does the Jewish community want the mainstream population to believe that condemnation of settlement building is against Israel's best interests?
Leading Palestinian thinker Ali Abunimah — who recently visited Australia — urges clear-eyed thinking on the President-elect:
"What does it say that the sort of things he [Obama] was prepared to do just a few years ago he is no longer prepared to do, that he didn't visit a single Muslim community centre or mosque or associate publicly with Arab Americans during the campaign? And it's not as if, the day after the campaign, he started to send more conciliatory signals. On the contrary, there could not be a more provocative appointment than Rahm Emanuel, if he wanted to send a signal that he is going to stick by a quite hard-line pro-Israel policy."
While the reality checks are vital, there is no doubt that great portions of the world have welcomed Obama as a breath of fresh air. The Arab blogosphere shouted loudly about the history-making event. An American friend living in Cairo blogged the following:
"A new day dawned in Cairo today. As it does every day. And it started as it always does: with birds, schoolchildren, and car horns. No national holiday here. I'm looking forward to going out in the streets to hear the reaction. The best reaction I've heard so far: 'Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job.' Bah humbug. I confess I'm moved."
Blogger 'Neurotic Iraqi Wife', who lives in a country destroyed by the American war machine, wrote:
"For me, this is not just about history, this is about someone who was able to bring down the very people that broke my country. It's a great punch to the very people that destroyed the individual Iraqi. And that to me is enough victory. I will only have to say to Mr Obama, don't let us down."
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Fingers are crossed, breath is held in the hope that Obama will actually bring change to the disasterous and blood-soaked American policy in the Middle East. Time will tell. So far the indications are not encouraging given the same over-weight of Israeli/Zionist interests in his ‘team’ that previous American administrations have had. What on earth do the Israelis have on them? They must be the most amazing set of photos for just about every American politician over the past 30 years. For anyone of reason the continued policies of tyranny and barbarism in the Middle East and the complete denial of anything approximating human rights, let alone sanity, is hard to grasp.
For everyone’s sake, but most particularly, for the sake of
Americans who are now morally bankrupt in the world and Israelis who have been morally bankrupt for half a century, let there be change. If the same policies are continued it will not be the Palestinians or Iraqis who will suffer …. they will merely sink deeper into the strength of their own suffering and persecution and find new courage because of it …. it will be the Americans who will be hated even more throughout the world and who will continue to represent the greatest threat to world peace, and the Israelis, who will sow the seeds for the complete destruction of their country.
Justice always wins it is merely a matter of time. The Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghans will ultimately win …. so too the Tibetans for that matter …. but the tyrant, the oppressor, the occupier will rot from within as his/her society becomes increasingly debased.
The biggest problem we all face is that in taking themselves down they may take the world with them.
As I said, fingers crossed, breath held …. there is much at stake and it is not only justice, human rights and common decency, but, the health of this fragile planet on which we live.
I’m sure the choice of Rahm Emanuel as Obama’s Chief of Staff has far more to do with the fact that he served in the Clinton White House, than the fact his father was a radical Zionist.
And while Palestine is represented by aggressive and hard-line Islamists, there is no doubt that Obama will be pro-Israel.
However, that does not mean that if Hamas recognised Israel and was willing to negotiate for peace over land and borders between the two nations, he wouldn’t alter his stance and also become pro-Palestinian.
Ye that’s right Denise, so what you are saying is that we can expect a Palestinian majority in the Knesset soon and a Palestinian Prime Minister of Israel?
Denise, Rahm Emanuel is a racist, and on that topic here is what a leading Jewish Israeli American wrote:-
"…Anyone that supports or is willing to tolerate Zionism is a racist. Racist American Zionists, Neocons, and Apocalyptic Evangelical Fundamentalists have formed an alliance against peace and justice on the basis of commitment to the maintenance of a racist Zionist colony in Palestine. When I watch how this alliance is driving the USA to betray fundamental American principles, I consider this alliance and Zionist/Neocon subversion a menace to me as an American.
The house is divided between two irreconcilable ideologies. One ideology is committed to American ideals, peace, justice, democracy and human rights; the other supports racist, genocidal, undemocratic, colonialism in ME and will destroy the fundamental principles of the USA to maintain the Zionist colony. A house so divided cannot stand.
Within 30 years we Americans will fight a civil war on this issue…"
Denise, Hamas will not recognise the illegal and patently racist foreign occupation of their lands, and for bloody good reason. It is we who need to recognise Hamas and Hezbollah as the indigenous native population of Palestine and not they who need to recognise us.
Rockjaw,
Any thoughts on why the Israeli/Zionist interests have such power in the US? The interesting thing is that they are not representative of American Jews and, clearly, are acting against their interests by the mere fact that the more powerful they become, the more they are resented and that resentment is aimed not just at Israelis in particular but Jews in general.
It is hard to see just whose interests are served by this blind support of Israel’s barbarous behaviour: it isn’t Israelis, that’s for sure; it isn’t American Jews and it isn’t Americans in general. No doubt it suits the armaments industry but is it as simple as that?
If any other racial or religious group were so over-represented in American politics there would be an outcry and questions asked as to how and why it was happening.
Denise,
Hamas does recognize the existence of Israel, that’s why it agrees to ceasefires (which Israel breaks). What Hamas does not recognize is the Occupation and the borders of occupation. Understandably. And, some members of Hamas are Christian so it’s hardly hard-line Islamist. And Hamas is willing to negotiate, it is Israel which refuses to end the occupation and the colonisation and continued theft of Palestinian land.
If Obama believed all that he said he believes then he would be on the side of the Palestinians for they are the people who have been dispossessed, colonised and who live under brutal occupation. They are the under-dogs, they are the victims. Just as The Iraqis are victims of American (and allies) occupation and oppression; the Tibetans of Chinese occupation and oppression; the Chechens of Russian occupation and oppression…. etc., There’s a basic principle: occupation is wrong, colonisation is wrong in this day and age and since it is not the Palestinians who are occupying and colonising, guess who is in the wrong? Simple really. Let’s see if Obama can work it out.
rosros, to answer that question it is my honest belief that one should study the history of the British Empire, of the British East India Company, of the Dutch "Oost Indiese Kompanje", the underlying reasons and causes of the American War of Independence, the life Ghandi, the Opium Wars in China, the Boer War, as well as the events leading up to the formation of the State of Israel with a specific view to discovering those issues which are common to these seemingly diverse events.
Schlomo Sand is an author which is essential reading (read "Comment Le Peuple Juif Fut InventÉ") - I think there is an English translation by now if you need one.
Illan Pappe is another author essential to an understanding of any answers to your question and for a fairly good understanding of how the events of the 20th century can all be ghathered into a rational collection of thoughts I have found William Engdahl’s "Century of War" very easy to read.
Rockjaw: Anyone wanting to be informed on the subject of the Middle East should read Robert Fisk, ‘The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East’.
If the unfortunate Rosross was to take your slightly absurd hypothesis to its ultimate conclusion, you might suggest he starts out on The Doomsday Book. This is neither a logical nor a sane proposition. All you are trying to do is prove how well read you are. I think Rosross was expressing an opinion, not asking for a lecture. Shame on you.
Did I forget Fisk?
I stand solitary in my shame Venise.
Thank you Rockjaw! :) :)
Rockjaw, you seriously need to substantiate these rants.
Saying "Rahm Emanuel is a racist, and on that topic here is what a leading Jewish Israeli American" (who wrote this? and no, it is not on topic). Enough of the hysterical ‘evil zionists running the globe’ drivel. Zionism=racism. How profound.
Rockjaw, thanks for the interesting suggestions. I have and do read Ilan Pappe as a matter of course. I was as Venise said, looking for an opinion from you, given that you have clearly formed one. But I am grateful all the same for the suggestions.
I agree that Fisk is good but he takes his own perspective, as does everyone and I feel that something more substantial, more broadly based, is needed if one is to understand the seeming insanity of America’s (and the world’s to a lesser degree)unthinking support of everything the Israeli state does even as it runs counter to all that we claim to be as a civilized, democratic and developed world. One could ponder that perhaps it is America which wants to destroy Israel, or rather, is happy to aid and abet the Israelis in destroying themselves … since that is what they are doing.
there is a reason for everything and everything must make sense … so far, allowing Israel to become the regional thug, and one of the most vicious occupiers in modern history, even more hated by its neighbours than it was from the beginning, does not make sense. Not to any Israeli who wants their nation to endure and take its place in the world; not to any Jews who want to retain their mythical homeland; not to Americans who don’t want to be hated any more than Israelis do and yet who are increasingly hated because of their thuggery in the Middle East (easy to forget though that their thuggery has a long history right around the world … although, no worse than the British Empire in its day).
Does it all really come down to power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and the Americans have been drunk on their own power for so long that they really do believe they can control the world by controlling the Middle East? There are elements of the:’we destroyed it to save it,’ line at work in the Middle East and what the Israelis probably don’t realise is that they are even more likely to be ‘destroyed to be saved’ than any of their neighbours.
So much blood for so little gain. How little we have changed.
Ringo, what do you mean "not on topic" - the discussion is American foreign policy and the morality of that policy - Rahm Emanuel, mentioned by name by the author of this piece, is very much a part of both foreign policy, international affairs and of the morality thereof.
What do I have to substantiate? Zionism is not only racist, it is racist in the extreme. Ask Ronnie Kasrils, Israeli anti apartheid hero and ANC Cabinet Minister in South Africa, or ask Nelson Mandela, or Bishop Desmond Tutu - all of whom have expressed their horror at the racism of Israel and of Zionism and since apartheid and Zionism share racism in common, they should know.
The "leading Jewish Israeli American" I referred to and quoted is Joachim Martilo, look him up here:- http://www.blogger.com/profile/00121944171459090792
The Jerusalem Post also reports that Benjamin Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel’s father, had this to say "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House." - which should adequately demonstrate how racist the family is to make a statement for this racist newspaper in a racist terrorist state which prides itself as the most anti Palestinian state in the world and which reserves special privileges for people of a certain faith at the expense of all others.
Here is the report:- http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225910047157&pagename=JPost%…
If you feel that quote from Rahm’s father is not a racist statement from a racist Zionist who is a member of a racist terrorist organisation with many innocent civilian lives on his hands, then you might want to provide your own definition of what a "racist" is and what Zionism is.
Nice one Rockjaw. Your leading Israeli American Jewish anti-Zionist is an IT expert from Boston, who works in the ME. He sounds more like a bored spook but he’s your expert. He let’s the world know, ‘Americans can probably thank me that they have any access over the Internet to news reports that have not been sanitized by US corporate media.’ Where do I send my tithe? No wonder you like him, his overblown ego must appear familiar! Another Ashkenazi against Zionism, good for him. Great blog though. I can see where you get all of your inspiration from.
And of course Benjamin Emanuel was a member of Ergun, what, 70 years ago? You know they killed Brits too? (I know you don’t like them either) Shame these things can’t cancel each other out. The old man from the old country makes a crass remark in the Jerusalem Post and this confirms Rahm Emanuel (being a racist zionist) is prepping the Obama administration to wipe out the Arab states. All makes sense now.
Interesting that you refer to Nelson Mandela. You know, he was something of a terrorist back in the day too. But you know that, just a different kind of terrorist….
"Mandela… was something of a terrorist back in the day too…" - was he? But Ringo, Mandela was born in Africa, the "old country" unlike your "old man" Benjamin who is clearly an anti-semite and very much a foreigner to the "old couintry" which you refer to.
Bored spook? Well he gets a whole lot more hits than anything you have ever written Ringo and at least the "bored spook" does not proudly display photos of his murdered victims all over his walls like your Benjamin Emanuel. I suppose your point is that murder and terrorism are okay just so long as the genocide happened 70 years ago? I can see what inspires you Ringo.
One could go a step further and refer to a less boring "spook", like American Palestinian Professor Rashid Khalidi who stated that he doesn’t care to be evicted from his ancestral home in order to make way for some settler from Brooklyn claiming to have God on his side, but you might find such views do not disfavour indigenous people enough for your taste Ringo.
Oh Rockjaw, I give up. Your omnipotence is too great. Yes, Benni Emanuel wasn’t born in Africa (?)and I’m unsure where I said terrorism is fine by me. I do think the standard "’x’ committed crimes, therefore ‘x’s children and ‘x’ children’s children are criminals" is great grist for Joachim Martilo’s mill but seriously, let’s have a rational debate. And the juvenile whine about murder victim’s photos? Yes, outrageous and deplorable but let’s not pretend Hezbollah make fairy floss for the children of Palestine. Your great at pointing the finger, shame you forget the other three pointing back at you (and no, I’m not suggesting you personally. I’ve no idea what sleepy hollow you belt this stuff out from).
Thanks for the debate but I can’t keep up with your self-righteousness.
Ringo and Rockjaw, spatting doesn’t help anyone, let alone the Palestinians.
The only thing which will work is what worked in South Africa, sanctions and boycotts. It’s a growing movement and is the one thing which will pull Israel into line.
http://www.bdsmovement.net/
I’ve lived in South Africa and while the place has major problems, everyone, black and white, are grateful that they were forced to change their ways and that it was done without violence. Israel will not change without being forced. The Occupation and continued colonisation will not end without force. Passive, peaceful force, which does not require government involvement, is available through sanctions and boycotts. South Africa had no choice but to end its racist, brutal ways and Israel will be the same.
Great site rosross - reminds me of the old anti-apartheid activist days. I can recall the the protests of the apologists back then too.
For some more "grist" check out Avichay Sharon on Canada’s "mill", the CBC, over here - http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2008/200811/20081112.html and listen to the national broadcast for a bit of who really makes all the "fairy floss".
The Canadians "get it" and the word is spreading around the globe faster by the day.
Rockjaw,
Breaking the Silence is excellent.
http://www.shovrimshtika.org/about_e.asp
It is sites like these which give some hope but, as he says, what is truly astounding is the way Israelis deny the reality of what they are doing - what is also astounding is the way the US and the international community, including Australia, denies the reality of what Israel is doing. However, one was heartened to see Rudd actually take a stand the other week in regard to calling Israel to abide by UN resolutions. What was truly astounding was the way Israel apologists thought that was unreasonable and were up in arms. Insanity! And the trouble with insanity is that it is not open to any kind of reason. Which is why the only thing which will work is the force of sanctions and boycotts.
Testing…testing, is there any intelligent life out there?
Oh OK.
Another cheap shot against Israel and the Jewish people from Antony Loewenstein.
For the record, that land between Philistia and Phoenicia is called Israel. Palestine was Rome’s name for the land they destroyed called Judea and Sumaria, the Promised Land in the Bible.
Calling zionists racists is like accusing the Pope of being Catholic.
It is encumbent on all Jews to remember Jerusalem and to establish/reestablish the Jewish State in the Holy Land.
Now if the authors on this site have a problem with Obama choosing Jewish advisers, then maybe they should take a long look in the mirror and then rethink whom they are calling racists.
Another thing, Obama has been carefully selecting his government in a climate of global financial turmoil.
Maybe a few intelligent advisers would’nt be a bad idea.
Obama is too astute an individual and a very savvy politician.
He knows better than to get funny with the Yids.
If he tried that stunt, he might find rather than Israel requiring financial aid from America, it may very well come about that the US will be asking for aid from Israel.
So goys and gals, come on let’s give the Schwartze a fair go, noo !
Shalom,
Tzvi AKA Oli
Revilo, the land of Palestine was originally the land of Canaan and was an Egyptian colony. Countless peoples have invaded and occupied the country for thousands of years. The Zionists are merely the most recent.
There is no archeological evidence for any State of Israel in Biblical times, merely, some evidence for some tribal kingdoms, which included Jewish as well as others. There never was a Jewish state in Palestine until now.
The name Palestine comes from the god of the Cannanites, Pales.
And there is a big difference between Zionists and Israelis and Jews. Zionists are the Jewish equivalent of Nazis if you want to find a comparison.
And, it is far more likely that the Palestinians of today are linked to the oldest inhabitants of Canaan/Palestine in a way which Israel’s immigrant citizens are not.
As to Obama, he may choose whom he wishes. But, you and I both know, if his government had the same over-representation of Hindus, or Muslims, or even fundamentalist Christians for that matter, as it does Jews, then questions would be asked. Muslims and fundamentalist christians, like Jews, would skew American government policy in ways which would not lead to peace in the Middle East. That is simply logical.
One can only hope that Obama is falling into line with the over-representation of Jewish and Zionist interests because he wants them in a safe place where he can control them while he does what everyone of sound mind wants him to do; end the occupation of Iraq and remove all troops and all bases; talk to the Iranians and reach civilized agreement on differences; and, force Israel to end the occupation and to return to pre:67 borders with compensation for the suffering of the Palestinians and a viable state, with contiguous borders, and a shared Jerusalem established.
At this point, while the signs do not look good, we may still hope that Obama will prove to be saner and more just than his predecessors. For the sake of Palestinians and Israelis alike we need to hope very hard.
Ollie, it is interesting how discussions concerning racism, zionism and Palestine are always tempered by the apologists who use the "Jewish" card in a way which presupposes that any Jewish person who opposes zionism is simply not Jewish.
That presupposition
Your presupposition isolates Jewish people who want no association with Zionism, who want no association with the horrors brought upon the Palestinian people and who do not want to be associated with the Islamophobic attitudes of people like the prowar lobbyists in Washington. People like AIPAC and Rahm Emanuel and others who falsely claim to represent Jewish people and Jewish values, who are attempting to negatively influence the culture of the American people in the interests, not of the American people, but of an ideology which is patently racist and barbaric and certainly neither Jewish nor American.
Jews have been isolated enough and it is offensive to us that fellow Jews should participate in attempts to further isolate fellow Jews over our beliefs.
There is no such thing as a "self hating Jew", there is only those Jewish people who hate what is being in their name.
It is time that the western nations began to properly educate their youth about more than just the Shoa, it is time we educated our children about the plight of the Palestinians and about the fact that much of the barbarism which has been committed in the name of all Jews was not committed with the support of "all Jews" but in the name of Zionism - which is a distinction which I would thank you to acknowledge when you describe Zionist concepts, ideas or ideologies as being "Jewish" - because the current political ideology described as "Zionism" is not Jewish.
Thank you
Rockjaw, You are right and it is an important point. Not all Israelis or Jews are Zionists, thank goodness. Many Jews and some Israelis are strongly and actively opposed to what is being done in their name. The actions of Israel and the actions of the US in supporting Israel as a brutal and barbarous occupier and coloniser run counter to the interests of Jews and Israelis, whether they recognise it or not.
Because Israel is a Jewish state, for the moment anyway, what it does reflects upon all Jews. And that is why many of them are speaking out against what it is and what it does.
You could be a German but not a Nazi and you can be an Israeli and not a Zionist. Zionism is a political organisation, like fascism and Nazism, which uses religion as a tool to achieve its ends. The taint of Zionism should not be applied to Israelis or Jews in general although Israelis must bear a greater responsibility for what is done in their name because it is their country doing it and they have the freedom as citizens of a democracy to change what their country does.
Rockjaw, You are right and it is an important point. Not all Israelis or Jews are Zionists, thank goodness. Many Jews and some Israelis are strongly and actively opposed to what is being done in their name. The actions of Israel and the actions of the US in supporting Israel as a brutal and barbarous occupier and coloniser run counter to the interests of Jews and Israelis, whether they recognise it or not.
Because Israel is a Jewish state, for the moment anyway, what it does reflects upon all Jews. And that is why many of them are speaking out against what it is and what it does.
You could be a German but not a Nazi and you can be an Israeli and not a Zionist. Zionism is a political organisation, like fascism and Nazism, which uses religion as a tool to achieve its ends. The taint of Zionism should not be applied to Israelis or Jews in general although Israelis must bear a greater responsibility for what is done in their name because it is their country doing it and they have the freedom as citizens of a democracy to change what their country does.
You folks on the side of "Light". I think, rosross, that you must get some indication of the virulent attacks against anyone who deviates from the Zionist inspired line. In the USA, as In Australia, and in all other Western countries, the Jewish people, or at least a few of them, may well not agree with what is being done in their name in Palestine, but I am sure that you can see that any of those, as well as anyone else, including pollies, who try to balance the way ME affairs are spoken of and written, are very swiftly bought into line by the Zionist Lobby, which is very powerful and well funded, being backed by some very well known Jewish (and Zionist) billionaires, both here and in other nations, incl. the USA. Obama has surrounded himself with ex-Clinton Zionists, and this must give cause for worry. But there are at least two things you must do to win any election in the USA. Back the Zionist line in relation to Palestine, and to be a rabid God Botherer. If you do not kowtow to the Jewish Lobby (which is totally controlled by Zionists) you will find that incoming Big Jewish Business moneys dry up completely, or are actively used against you. Big Jewish Money totally controls places such as New York. Witness Hillary Clinton! But Obama did his pilgrimage to a jewish Lobby group, and embarrassed a lot of people by his gutless and enthusiastic backing of their murderous regime in Palestine. I would go so far as to say that if he had not, he would not have been allowed to win, they are so powerful. The US Congress is totally controlled by Jewish money. There is no chance that Obama could ever get anything progressive past them anyway. In Australia, Rudd changes policy Oh So slightly on Palestine, and the Jewish (Zionist ) lobbies rise and howl! Just look at the billionaires here and see where they get rid of surplus moneys. Would be a very brave PM to thwart them, and I do not think Rudd (Elmer Fudd) has it in him. Quite a few of Rudd’s front bench owe their positions to Jewish moneys.
No, do not look for any change anywhere in the blind and insane support for murderous and colonial and racist israel, it is not going to happen. Our gutless and compromised Media will ensure that, anyway. He (she) who pays the piper always calls the tune!
Dazza.
p.s. I see that israel now has it’s very own home grown Fascist Nazis.
Quite understandable under the circumstances. They are aiming a little differently, that is all.
Dazza.