Aug 8, 2014

Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby on Free Speech Laws

Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby on Free Speech Laws

Brenton Sanderson

Australian Prime Minister John Abbott
Australian Prime Minister John Abbott
In the face of a coordinated and sustained campaign initiated and led by Jewish activists, the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has abandoned his 2013 election promise to water down or remove Section 18C of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act which makes it unlawful to act in a manner likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone on the basis of race. Abbott said he had made a “leadership decision” to walk away from his pledge despite having promised to remove this outrageous restriction on the free speech after the law was used successfully against conservative columnist Andrew Bolt in 2011. It is a measure of the power wielded by organized Jewry in Australia that the Prime Minister would rather damage his political credibility by breaking a clear election promise than suffer the consequences of defying the single most powerful group in Australian society. Abbott, who made the announcement while outlining an extension of anti-terrorism laws, attempted to justify his broken promise by claiming “I don’t want to do anything that puts our national unity at risk at this time and so those proposals are now off the table.” Abbott’s apparent desire to not further alienate Australia’s problematic Islamic community by repealing Section 18C (at a time when the government is set to strengthen laws against terrorism) is an obvious political smokescreen. The veteran Jewish journalist, Michael Gawenda, writing in the Business Spectator, identified the real reason behind the Prime Minister walking away from his election commitment:
While Abbott said that the decision to ditch the plan to rid the Racial Discrimination Act of section 18C was taken because of “complications” in dealing with Islamic communities in the context of the proposed tough new terrorism laws, it seems likely that more was involved in this decision. The conflict in Gaza and the coverage and reaction to this appalling, heartbreaking conflagration, in my opinion, made it virtually certain that any move to change or abolish section 18C would extract too high a political price. The repeal of section 18C was vigorously opposed by the leadership of virtually every ethnic community in the country. But it would be fair to say — without wishing to give succor to those who reckon the Jews are too powerful — that Jewish community leaders have played a crucial role in organizing the opposition to any potential change to the RDA.  It is the opposition of the Jewish communal leaders that had been of major concern to [Attorney General] Brandis and, to a significant extent, Tony Abbott.


Gawenda notes that the Jewish community’s overwhelming support for Section 18C (which was itself originally the legislative result of submissions by organized Jewry to the National Inquiry into Racist Violence and the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in 1995) is linked to the broader Jewish commitment to “multiculturalism” in Australia.
The main reason that Brandis and Abbott were most concerned about the opposition of the Jewish communal leadership to any changes to section 18C is because the Jewish community is generally seen as a role model for successful multiculturalism. It is for these reasons that the Jewish communal leadership has played such an outsized role in the campaign against the watering down or elimination of section 18C. If the Jewish community is a prime example of successful multiculturalism, then its support for the retention of 18C, its highly effective campaign against any change to the RDA on the basis that any change would seriously undermine multiculturalism and free the racists to say whatever they please, represented serious political pain for Brandis and Abbott.
Gawenda is disingenuous in claiming that the source of the Jewish community’s power in this debate resides in its being a “role model for successful multiculturalism” rather than in its status as a group with the kind of financial, political and media clout to instil genuine fear in those who oppose its interests. As in the United States, Jewish money exerts a dominating influence over Australian politics, which guarantees that most politicians are willing to put the Australian Defense Forces (and Australian taxpayers) to the service of an ethno-nationalist state in which Australia has no economic or strategic interest. The Jewish academic and activist Dan Goldberg acknowledges that: “The annual report of the Australian Electoral Commission always includes Jewish names and Jewish-owned companies donating large sums to both sides of politics.”[i] The sway held by organized Jewry over Australia’s political leaders was highlighted earlier this year when the former Foreign Minister Bob Carr hit out at the “pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne,” saying it wielded “extraordinary influence” on Australia’s foreign policy during his time in former Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s cabinet.Asked how the lobby achieved this influence he said: “I think party donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists to Israel. But that’s not to condemn them. I mean, other interest groups do the same thing. But it needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level.” Carr’s observations were later corroborated by the former Australian Prime MinisterMalcolm Fraser who said Carr was “absolutely correct” in his view that the Jewish lobby wielded too much power. Gawenda asserts that, unlike the vast majority of Australian Jews, he was originally in favor of the proposal to water down Section 18C of the Act until recent events gave him pause for thought: in particular the widespread criticism of Israel and its supporters for their attempts to justify the appalling massacre of Palestinian civilians in Gaza:
But here’s the thing. I believe that in recent days, in the light of what has been published about Jews and the conflict in Gaza, the clearly anti-Semitic cartoon in the Sydney Morning Herald, for instance — for which the SMH has issued an apology in an editorial that I found unsatisfactory —\ not to mention the astounding amount of outright racist filth to be found on social media, it may no longer be the case that we can trust editors and executive producers when it comes to ensuring that what amounts to vilification is not given any room in mainstream commentary and analysis.
So, for Gawenda, the recent (and entirely legitimate) criticism of the actions of the ethno-nationalist state of Israel and its Zionist cheerleaders in the West only serves to confirm that Jewish leaders were right to oppose any changes to Section 18C. The criticism of the Israeli government and those who would defend its barbarity in Gaza simply confirms for Gawenda that Australians cannot be trusted with unfettered free speech. Incidentally, the supposedly “anti-Semitic” cartoon in the Sydney Morning Herald to which he refers is less an anti-Semitic caricature and more an accurate representation of actual events — of Israeli citizens sitting outside to watch and cheer the bombing of the helpless Palestinian civilians as entertainment.
Gaza cartoon
The “anti-Semitic” Sydney Morning Herald cartoon
An “anti-Semitic” photograph?
An “anti-Semitic” photograph?
Likewise, for the Australian Jewish academic and activist Danny Ben-Moshe, the slaughter in Gaza “has led to the crossing of new anti-Semitic thresholds with the potential to take us down a dangerous path. It is a path not laid with guns and bullets, but with loose and manipulative language.”  According to Gawenda, it was the sudden outbreak of truth-telling about Israel and the dishonesty of its apologists that reinvigorated the campaign by Australian Jewish leaders to oppose any changes to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act:
It is this that made Jewish community leaders more determined than ever to oppose any change to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. And in the main, Jews in Australia support the communal leadership on this issue. No one can doubt that there has been an alarming rise in anti-Semitism in Europe, something that is hardly reported in most of the Australian media. Jews feel under threat — in some cases physical threat — in France and Belgium and Germany and even in England. Not to mention Hungary, where an openly anti-Semitic party has garnered significant support. Thousands of French Jews have left France for Israel and other places. The numbers leaving every month are growing.Though there has not been a similar rise in virulent anti-Semitism in Australia, Jews in Australia nevertheless have good reason to believe that if the virus of anti-Semitism is spreading in Europe, it might one day reach these shores. In this environment, Tony Abbott decided that the plan to change section 18C, a solemn promise he had made to Bolt and to his supporters at the Institute of Public Affairs had to be abandoned. Will there be a better political time to resurrect these proposed changes? Almost certainly not.
Note the standard pathologization of anti-Jewish sentiment as a “virus” that has nothing whatever to do with Jewish behavior. On the other hand, the reflexive Jewish hostility toward Europeans (which has led to the demographic transformation of Western nations over the last few decades) is apparently not a virus, but stems, rather, from some highly developed sense of fairness and universal brotherhood that is inherent in all Jews. Of course, what Gawenda won’t acknowledge is that the only reason Jews are increasingly subject to anti-Semitic attacks in countries like France and England is because of mass non-White (particularly Muslim) immigration and multiculturalism — both of which are the malignant outgrowths of Jewish ethnic activism. A disappointedAndrew Bolt observed that Jewish leaders would ultimately regret opposing changes to the Act, noting that: “The Jewish leaders now should look very, very deeply into their souls at what they have helped wrought and ask themselves, are you seriously safer now as a result?” Bolt’s reasoning is that under Section 18C Australian Jews will in future be precluded from criticizing the beliefs and actions of a growing and increasingly militant Australian Islamic community which will be increasingly hostile to Israel and the interests of Australian Jews. As with Gawenda, Bolt fails to mention that the only reason there are any Muslims in Australia at all (with all their myriad problems and social dysfunctions) is because Jewish activism succeeded in ending the White Australia policy and establishing multiculturalism as the basis for social policy in Australia. As The Jewish academic Dan Goldberg proudly acknowledges: “In addition to their activism on Aboriginal issues, Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-White immigration to Australia.” It is clear that the Jewish fear and loathing of White Australia trumps any concern about the anti-Semitic tendencies among non-White immigrants that are being imported into the nation. The Jewish writer Peta Jones-Pellach is not alone in expressing the view that Australian Jews should always back the Muslim minority in any conflict with White Australia, arguing that “We recognize that our ongoing harmonious acceptance into the Australian community depends on forging bonds with the increasing numbers of non-Jewish Australians who might be our theological opponents or even our enemies.”[ii] The supposed benefits to Australian Jewry that multiculturalism has bestowed – most notably the diminished threat of the emergence of a mass movement of anti-Semitism from White Australians — is seen as having far outweighed any negative effects of large scale Islamic immigration such as the fact that: “Some Australian Jews fear that migrants arriving from Muslim countries will contribute to anti-Semitic currents in Australia, inflame extremist groups and pose a threat to the relative peace they currently enjoy.”[iii] The rise of Islamic anti-Semitism in the West reveals a paradoxical element of the overwhelming Jewish support for multiculturalism; an element which resulted in the emergence and growth of neoconservatism. Kevin MacDonald notes that: “Although multiculturalist ideology was invented by Jewish intellectuals to rationalize the continuation of separatism and minority-group ethnocentrism in a modern Western state, several of the recent instantiations of multiculturalism may eventually produce a monster with negative consequences for Judaism.”[iv] Australian Jewish activists like Dan Goldberg recognize the danger, and he notes that:
Herein lies an underlying tension that exists in the psyche of Australian Jews in the new millennium: on the one hand understanding the fundamental wrong in tarring all Muslims with the same extremist brush; on the other hand feeling great unease in showing support for Muslims, some of whose brothers are waging jihad against Israel and the Jews. … Many Australian Jews are therefore caught between these tides, ostensibly supportive of minority rights but cognizant of the fact that among the Muslim community are radical elements who seek our destruction. [v]
Despite these concerns, most Australian Jews see themselves as the longer-term beneficiaries of policies explicitly designed to dilute the power of the traditional European-derived Australian majority. Australian Jewry has therefore sought to make alliances with various immigrant groups in opposition to the White majority, including Muslims. Attempts to form a political coalition with Australian Muslims date from the earliest days of Australian multiculturalism. Australian Jews sought Muslim support for the enactment of the racial discrimination legislation recommended by the Lippmann-chaired Committeeon Community Relations in the mid-1970s. In the years since, Jews have repeatedly sought the support of the Muslim community in lobbying for various multicultural policies, including those relating to “access to government services, recourse for victims of discrimination, and protection from harassment.” Jewish activism organizations such as the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council was quick to enlist Australia’s Muslim leaders in their campaign to oppose any changed to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. According to Jeremy Jones, the director of international and community affairs of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, “the relationship between Australian Jews and Muslims has developed positively over the past decade.” Nevertheless, he believes that “maintaining the momentum will require leadership and determination, but there are good grounds for optimism given the network of relations and shared fruitful experiences in contemporary multicultural Australia.” Clearly, Australian Jewry believes that, despite the threat to Jews represented by the strong anti-Jewish sentiment in growing sections of the Australian Islamic community, the relationship is basically manageable in the longer-term. Having won the battle over Section 18C, it is certain that activist Jews will push for even tougher restrictions on freedom of speech in Australia, and indeed throughout the West. The attempt to confine public discourse to within parameters that do not threaten Jewish interests has been a central preoccupation of Jewish activists for many decades. American Jewish activist organizations like the ADL and the SPLC certainly do not view the American constitution as an insuperable barrier to the imposition of laws like to Section 18C in the United States. ——————- [i] Goldberg, D. (2006) ‘After 9/11: The Psyche of Australian Jews,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. 151 [ii] Peta Jones Pellach, “Interfaith Dialogue and the State of Israel,” In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski (Melbourne, Black Inc., 2006), 139. [iii] Marcus Einfeld, “We Too Have Been Strangers: Jews and the Refugee Struggle,” In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski (Melbourne: Black Inc., 2006), 311 & 314. [iv] MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), 313. [v] Goldberg “After 9/11: The Psyche of Australian Jews,” 145 & 146
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

CrossTalk: Gaza's Grief

The Virtue & Necessity Of Deconstructing 'Anti-Semitism' By Mark Green

The Virtue & Necessity Of
Deconstructing 'Anti-Semitism'
By Mark Green
August 4, 2014

Those of us who dare to challenge Israel's centrality in American life are at a real disadvantage. We are disgusted by what we see, but contemporary protocol requires us to show respect and tolerance to the very people who inspire our disgust in the first place. Worse still, our tormentors have no reciprocal obligation for civility. The deck of cards in this dispute is stacked. Saying the wrong word, uttering an indelicate phrase, and one can be smeared as an 'Anti-Semite'. This label has become the scarlet letter of our time.

Have Jews been mistreated, shunned, defamed and killed? Certainly. Have Jews done the same? Most definitely. And to make mattes worse, they're still at it.

Unfortunately, 'post-Holocaust' rules of discourse now dictate extreme rhetorical deference on this subject. This favors the opposition. There are linguistic land-mines everywhere. And they're been laid out almost exclusively by the other team. Fortunately, one Jewish blogger has recently provided the non-Jewish world with a 19-point guide on what NOT say about Jews and Israel if you wish to avoid the stigma of 'anti-Semitism' (

But as Gaza burns and Israeli criminality goes unpunished, the time has come to turn the tables on the world's most privileged victims. Consider this possibility: what would happen if Jews everywhere were reduced to being treated and viewed just like normal, average, everyday human beings? Think of it. The repercussions would be colossal. All special political and cultural considerations that presently confer privilege on Israel and its minions would be ended. US sovereignty could even be restored. Perhaps justice and the rule of law could guide our nation's policies in the Middle East. Might censorious speech codes even be repealed? It's possible.

I concede that this is a radical proposal. There would surely be 'outrage' from the usual suspects. But the present levels of privilege, benefits and deference now accorded global Jewry are wreaking havoc on humanity. And in no small way, I blame entrenched 'anti-Semitic theory' for this, since it is an ideology that denies the yin and yang (or the sharing of any blame) within the historic narrative that purports to explain the enduring tensions between Gentiles and Jews. Entrenched 'anti-Semitic theory' also confers perennial victim status on Jews. They're all 'survivors'. But is this conclusion really justified? Surely there's room for legitimate doubt. But the political payoff is there all the same. And the payoff palpable and huge and across-the-board. 'Anti-Semitic theory' therefore is Zionist trope. Even the term 'anti-Semitism' is a ruse. After all, the intermittent animus directed towards Jews has has little to do with their Semitic origins or even 'Semitism' itself--whatever that may be. Arabs, of course, are a Semitic people; yet Americans are continuously steered towards mistrusting them, despising them, and bombing them.

Another fallacy that's baked into anti-Semitic theory is the contention that irrational Gentile 'prejudice' and the unflattering portrayal of Jews in the New Testament are the primary sources of contemporary 'anti-Semitism'. Those explanations are pure kosher boloney. Anti-Semitism in the modern world is all about what Jews do in the modern world. And their collective footprint is enormous. At the same, no one is actually allowed to even examine--openly and critically--the full scope of what might be called 'Jewish power'. In fact, just contemplating such an endeavor is likely 'anti-Semitic'. Don't look there!

This degree of self-censorship a unique accomplishment. And it confers unique privilege.

But entrenched Jewish privilege flies in the face of the 'equal treatment' clause of the US Constitution since it provides special consideration and elevated status to one ethno-religious group operating officially out of Tel Aviv but living everywhere from NY to Singapore. Indeed, anti-Semitic theory has helped lay the groundwork for America's 'special relationship' with the Jewish State. And this unique relationship dictates uninterrupted US support at all times for one small, distant country. The game plan is basically this: US support for Israel must be continuous, unsurpassed and unconditional. This is power. Jewish power. Anti-Semitic theory also advances the astonishing view that Jews are never safe and that they always deserve special consideration and unique protection.

As for the intermittent discord between the two parties (Jews/Gentiles), anti-Semitic theory strategically places blame. It is a one-sided and self-exonerating exercise. Thus, anti-Semitic theory functions as a bracing ideology within a larger power structure that includes formal lobbying organizations such as AIPAC, ADL, ZOA, AJC, WINEP, CPMJAO, SPLC, AEI and dozens more.

Regarding the aforementioned guide (for Gentiles) on 'How to Criticize Israel without Being Anti-Semitic', this manual is designed for one thing: to constrict and manipulate political discourse. It is emblematic of a broader movement whose objective is to convince its target audience (non-Jewish whites) that self-censorship must (at the very least) be imposed on all individuals whose political talking points 'aren't fair' to Jews, 'aren't completely true' about Jews, and should therefore be eschewed by non-Jews if they want to avoid the stigma of 'anti-Semitism'. These prescribed 'dos' and 'don'ts' are not only hair-splitting, but insufferably self-serving. This 'guide' is nothing less than a laundry list of ever-expanding Jewish-friendly speech codes. These restrictions on speech will never end unless non-Jews reject them aggressively and categorically.

This pro-Israel guide even inveighs against the false notions (very false!) of Jews having "dual loyalties" (oh never!) concerning Israel and America or that Jews play an oversized role in banking or media (another anti-Semitic canard!) and that even if a lot of Jews "do happen to be" numerically over-represented in certain key professions, one must never accuse them of using their access to power to advance Jewish causes, interests, and so on. The 'guide' is replete with the usual tricks, falsehoods, denials and implicit double-standards for which organized Jewry is famous. The entire enterprise would be laughable if it wasn't so invidious and effective. Many Jews, regrettably, are simply addicted to telling Gentiles how to think and what not to say. They are the world's most accomplished censors, with their latest team effort directed towards writing and enacting 'hate speech' legislation.

So watch out. 'Anti-Semitism', say the experts, is a 'virus' with no rational basis. That's the official decree. But real history is not so black and white. This is why the entire paradigm of anti-Semitic theory needs to be revised, deconstructed and junked.

In a free and normal world, one should be permitted to like Jews or not like Jews. It depends upon how they act and what they do. I'll be the first to concede that Jews are a very talented bunch. They are also very 'goal-oriented'. But identifying one’s friends or enemies should always be an autonomous and rational exercise. No one however has the right to initiate physical violence. But these core values, incredibly, have been turned on their head. Anti-Semitic theory maintains that a 'hostility' to Jews (regardless of how they conduct themselves) is a dark, ever-present and inherent 'sickness'. On the other hand, Jews (and their allies) may initiate horrific violence to achieve any number of noble political objectives. This bizarre mindset now guides official Washington. This fixed double-standard goes a long towards explaining why both the US Senate and House unanimously passed resolutions (Senate 498 & 526, House 107) standing firmly behind Israel's recent attacks on Gaza and declaring the puny Palestinian resistance there 'unprovoked'. Washington meanwhile is funneling 'emergency supplies' (weapons and money) to mega-powerful, hyper-militarized Israel even though it's the people of Gaza--not Israel--who face annihilation. Like 'anti-Semitic theory' itself, Washington's political balance is completely out of whack. The Israel/Palestine conflict is immensely complex and morally ambiguous, to say the least. Yet not one US Senator or Representative--from Bernie Sanders to Rand Paul--broke ranks with the Israel lobby on any of these remarkable resolutions. Not one.

In America today, one can unashamedly root loudly and publicly for the Jews/Israelis--even when it spells existential disaster for others. So why then aren't a free and independent people allowed to root against the Israelis? I'm not here to claim that all pro-Zionist positions are indefensible. But America's elected 'leaders' have become Zionized robots. Being reflexively pro-Zionist is now a job requirement in our nation's capitol. Have we Americans lost control of our own country?

Indeed, political dissenters who challenge Pro-Zionist policies in Washington have been targeted and removed from elected office for years. Former US Congressman Paul Findley identified this phenomena 30 years ago in his groundbreaking book 'They Dare to Speak Out'. Unfortunately, conditions in Washington have only worsened. Today, there are no politicians who even remotely qualify as 'anti-Israel' left in our nation's capitol. In official Washington, all traces of resistance to Zionist orthodoxy have been eradicated. This is not healthy.

Remember also: organized Jewry can be unscrupulous. The outside world sees this and understands this. Average people worldwide now understand that pro-Israel organizations inside Washington pushed America into an unnecessary and barbaric war against Iraq in 2003 that lasted nearly ten years. Iraq today is a disaster. Yet these same people and organizations now want to inflict similar damage on Iran. This is a criminal enterprise. The persistent phenomena of ‘anti-Semitism’ cannot be separated from this deplorable pattern. Thus, the misnamed phenomena of ‘anti-Semitism’ should be understood as a (sometimes) legitimate defense mechanism. It is a fear of dangerous or harmful Jewish actions. Yet this rational phenomena is commonly and deliberately misidentified by many Jewish experts and falsely diagnosed by them. By deception they do war.

For instance, consider how Jewish influence-peddlers (Adelson, Zuckerberg, Soros, and virtually all of America’s leading Jewish liberals) are welcoming still the boatloads of ‘poor and needy’ non-white immigrants into America. This is sabotage. Meanwhile, these same do-gooders manage to tolerate the ethnic-cleansing of ‘poor and needy’ indigenous Arabs in and around Israel. Anti-Semitic theory downplays or ignores this glaring inconsistency. But we evil 'anti-Semites' don’t. So who’s being honest here?

When non-Jews become fed up with the often-destructive machinations of organized Jewry, protests and even violence can ensue. Jewish experts however routinely classify these rebellions as ‘outbreaks of anti-Semitism'. This is a self-serving crock, though it succeeds in quieting dissent. Are we to believe that only Jews are victims or heroes in this back-and-forth drama? If you believe that, you’ve been watching too much television.

Indeed, Jews are not inherently (or historically) a particularly righteous, or virtuous, or benevolent people. If they were, they’d be far more popular. Jews are a tribal, intelligent, cohesive, ambitious, and ethnocentric people. It’s therefore the job of us (non-Jewish) outsiders to level the political playing field. Step one: take back control of the English language by dumping the tribe-friendly term ‘anti-Semitic'. Call anti-Semitism what it really is: a widespread and understandable aversion to what Jews do. That’s one working definition anyway. Like it?

I hope that someday we can honestly make peace with organized Jewry. But they must first reform their ways. In the meantime, why not examine the phenomena of 'Jewish supremacism'?--and then keep on examining it. Let's put the heat where it belongs.

In the real world, there is now some necessity --and even virtue-- in the complex phenomena commonly derided as ‘anti-Semitism'. After all, it takes courage and stamina to speak out against the genuine misdeeds of organized global Jewry. It can be a perilous venture. Let's begin our journey then by collectively rejecting the insidious term ‘anti-Semitism'.

Mark Green is the former host of the TV talk show 'Flashpoint' and the editor/publisher of 'Persecution, Privilege & Power'. Mark can be reached at

The Gaza Bombardment - What You're Not Being Told



David Haddad - Jew Caught Framing Gentiles For Anti Semitic Hate Crimes ...

North Carolina Restaurant Discontinues Praying Customer Discount

North Carolina Restaurant Discontinues Praying Customer Discount

Fox Guest: Native American Genocide Didn't Happen


Thomas Dalton  (August 8, 2014)

Here’s what it has come to:  The fucking hypocrite Obama, the man who is surely the most unprincipled, spineless, and murderous leader on the planet today, has decided to resume killing Muslims in Iraq, rather than address the on-going slaughter of Palestinians by the Israeli criminals. Rather than take concrete action to aid 1.8 million trapped and beleaguered civilians in Gaza, Obama has authorized yet more air strikes on Arab Muslims, in nominal defense of some group of previously unknown “Christians and Yazidis” in Iraq.  If this isn’t the height of craven hypocrisy, I don’t know what is.
With this latest unapproved, illegal, and profoundly unethical attack on a sovereign nation, Obama further entrenches his own war-criminal status.  He also reveals himself as an ideological compatriot to the Jewish murderers in Tel Aviv.  He is happy to join them in the slaughter of Arabs and Muslims, and to do anything he can to distract from their heinous actions in Gaza:  1800 hundred dead, and counting.
We can be sure that our Jewish-dominated media will have little or no criticism of Obama, just as they have offered little to no criticism of the Jewish atrocities in Palestine.  Similarly, our Jewish-dominated Congress will put up little resistance to the president’s actions—a Congress who is ready to oppose him on virtually every other issue, save those that cover up Israeli crimes or lead to further Arab and Muslim deaths. 
Obama’s cowardly “late night address” to the nation yesterday was sickening.  Out of nowhere, this suddenly aggrieved and distraught leader approves deadly air strikes in Iraq, interjecting our nation once again into sectarian battles that we cannot hope to resolve.  All he will succeed in doing is killing yet more innocent people, creating yet more anti-American and anti-Western “terrorists,” and further eroding the already-dismal reputation of the United States around the world. 
In a rational and just America, things would be much different.  In such an America, Obama’s fine and lofty words would be directed against the real menace—the criminal regime in Tel Aviv.  In a different, rational, more ethical America, here’s a news story that we might see:
UPI—President Obama today ordered an initial round of targeted air strikes on Tel Aviv, Haifa, Rishon LeZion, and Ashdod—the four largest Israeli cities outside of Jerusalem—in retaliation for continued Israeli attacks on 1.8 million civilians in Gaza.  “Today I authorized two operations in Israel,” said the president.  They were intended as “a humanitarian effort to help save 1.8 million Palestinians citizens who are trapped in Gaza, with limited food and water, and facing almost certain death at the hands of the Israeli assassins.” 
“The Judeo-terrorists in Israel,” said Obama, “have continued to relentlessly target innocent civilians, schools, UN facilities, and places of worship.”  He continued:  “For decades, the Jews have waged a ruthless campaign against innocent Palestinians.  These terrorists have been particularly barbaric towards religions minorities.  Over the past seven decades, countless Palestinians have been displaced.  And chilling reports continue to emerge, describing Israeli torture, abuse, and murder of innocent women and children.”
“The situation in Gaza is reprehensible,” said the president.  “They’re without food, they’re without water.  People are starving.  And children are dying of thirst and disease, in addition to missile attacks.”  He added this dire note:  “Jewish leaders have called for the systematic destruction of the entire Palestinian people, which would constitute genocide.” 
Justifying his actions, Obama explained, “We cannot intervene in every crisis, but when we face a situation like we do now in Gaza, and when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye.  We can act to prevent a potential act of genocide.  That’s what we’re doing in Israel.”
Obama indicated that the strikes on Israel would continue until the murderous regime in Tel Aviv halted their slaughter of innocent Gazans, ended unconditionally the blockade, returned sovereign control to Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, and allowed full right of return to all Palestinians, and their descendants, who were forcibly driven out in 1948. 
“Hamas is the legitimately-elected government in Gaza,” emphasized the president.  “We will work with them to understand and address their grievances, and to provide all necessary financial assistance to minimize suffering there.” 
“The murderous criminals in Tel Aviv will not go unpunished,” said Obama.  “I call for immediate regime change in Israel.  Netanyahu, Lieberman, Livni, Ya’alon, Shalom, Steinitz, and the rest will be brought to The Hague and tried as war criminals.  I will not rest until a rational, humane, law-abiding, and truly democratic government comes to power in Israel, one that will respect international law, end its crushing and illegal dominion over Palestine, and strive to rejoin the society of civilized nations.” 
Obama closed his statement on a high note:  “When many thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians are faced with the danger of being wiped out, and we have the capacity to do something about it, we will take action.  That is our responsibility as Americans.  That’s a hallmark of American leadership. That’s who we are.”
Obama’s actions were roundly criticized by the now-discredited Jewish Lobby.  But having long been exposed as a manipulative, lying, deceitful, and brutally self-interested force in American politics, they no longer have any credibility with either the American people or the US government.