Bernie Sanders: Israel has a ‘right’ to US protection

It is as common a mantra as it is to discuss the manner by which organized Jewish interests wield seemingly unchallenged control over the political process in the west that those seeking political office will ‘say anything’ in order to get elected. It is common knowledge that candidates lie in order to pass the screening process, and no one in their right mind would challenge this assertion.

BUT, seemingly, for perplexing and indecipherable reasons, suddenly this application is not used when it comes to Trump. People who claim to be wise to the ways of Zion take him at face value whenever he says something favorable about Israel, choosing to apply only selectively the same well-deserved suspicion that is applied in 11 out of 10 cases to other candidates, which is to assume that if their mouths are open, they are lying.

My theory (s) as to why this ‘selectivity’ exists for Trump is as follows–

1. To simply state that he is ‘owned by the Jews’, basing it on a few superficial criteria, is a lazy-man’s method for understanding/explaining the political process in America today. Rather than expend the necessary brain power needed to think outside the box, they choose instead to apply simplistic mathematic formulae to what is a complicated and complex political equation rather than admit that they are just too damned lazy to do the work, similar in some respects to someone who is morbidly overweight blaming their condition on a ‘thyroid problem’ rather than admitting that they forgo any kind of physical exercise in favor of sitting in front of the tv eating chocolate chip cookies all day, no disrespect intended to those with a serious weight problem.

2. My other theory is that there are some people, strange as it may sound, who derive a certain amount of security from the cocoon of ‘the jews control everything’ position. It is a type of fatalism to which some subscribe as a means of explaining/understanding what’s wrong with the world, because as long as it can all be blamed on an exterior force over which they have no control, they are in effect absolved of any responsibility/culpability for the problem.

3. The other possibility of course is that they are professional disruptors typing away at some computer terminal in Tel Aviv, NY, or DC who are paid to wage psychological warfare on society, something that has been demonstrated to be a fait accompli now without any dispute.

or,

Must disagree with you however on Trump being ‘jingoist’–he may not come off like a peacenik, but he does not want any more wars, one of the reason that OJI are out to prevent his candidacy.

AS far as Adelson’s endorsement, we have already commented on the WHY” of that–‘keep your friends close, but your enemies closer’.

Each and every one of the quotes you listed are perfectly expectable from someone like Trump who is not in this thing to ‘run’, but in it to win, and, as I already said, many, many, many, many times, the Jews are not buying it. What amazes me is the credibility that people afford him in considering that he actually means what he says when he talks about Israel.

I find myself somewhat perplexed in discussions like this in the sense that I can’t decide whether to say ‘mamma mia,’ ‘leaping lizards,’ ‘jumpin Jehosephat’, or just plain old ‘good grief.’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnLDMqPBeKQ

And on that note, this will be the last ’round and round’ on this issue here.

The list of things Trump has said favorable towards Israel would fill up one sheet of loose leaf paper, whereas the amount of commentary, the lists or articles and other piece of prime efface evidence that Israel and her supports do not want him president would fill up a book. We have Netanyahu’s top gun in America, none other than William Kristol, threatening to form a 3rd party to keep Trump from getting elected. We have ARCH neocons such as Robert Kagan writing opeds for the Washington Post throwing his support behind Hillary Clinton because he fears what a Trump presidency will do vis a vis Israel. We have an entire list of Arch Neocons–ALL Israel-firsters to a man and woman, writing in Kristol’s National Review and listing their reasons why Trump MUST not be Prez. I could literally sit here–not just for hours, but days, and tick off all the evidence indicating that indeed Israel and her 5th column both in America and in Europe–is gunning to shoot down a Trump presidency, and all that the other side can bring are a handful of quotes attributed to Trump ‘proving’ otherwise.

Perhaps it is best compared to the situation that existed when another candidate for president–JFK–bent over backwards to curry the Jewish vote, but then once elected, did things his way, including targeting Israel’s nuclear weapons program and putting pressure on the American Zionist Council to abide by Federal Law and register as a foreign agent under the FARC rules, as convincingly laid out by investigative journalist Michael Collins Piper in his book ‘Final Judgement’ to wit–

Ch 5–JFK’s Secret War With Israel

The history books have told us of John F. Kennedy’s epic struggles with Fidel Castro and the Soviets in the Bay of Pigs debacle and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Yet, only in recent years have we begun to learn of Kennedy’s secret war with Israel. Much of the conflict stemmed from Israel’s determination to build a nuclear bomb.

This is a hidden history that helps explain in part the dynamic forces at work resulting in Kennedy’s assassination.

By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a threat to the very survival of the Jewish State.

One of John F. Kennedy’s first presidential appointments was naming his former campaign aide Myer (Mike) Feldman as his point man for Jewish and Israeli affairs—an important post, especially considering JFK’s tenuous relationship with Israel and its American lobby.

According to author Seymour Hersh, “The President viewed Feldman, whose strong support for Israel was widely known, as a necessary evil whose highly visible White House position was a political debt that had to be paid.” 79

However, the administration was determined to make certain, according to Hersh, that nobody—Feldman in particular—would be able to circumvent any administration policy insofar as the Middle East was concerned.

“The President’s most senior advisors, most acutely McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, desperately sought to cut Feldman out of the flow of Middle East paperwork.” 80 Hersh quotes another presidential aide as having said, “It was hard to tell the difference between what Feldman said and what the Israeli ambassador said.”

‘ZIONISTS IN THE CABINET ROOM’

President Kennedy himself had his own suspicions about Feldman, according to the president’s close friend, Charles Bartlett (to whom Kennedy in 1960 had previously voiced concerns about Israeli influence as noted in Chapter 4).

Bartlett recalls a visit with the new President at his home in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts one Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath). Talk turned to Feldman’s role in the White House bureaucracy. “I imagine Mike’s having a meeting of the Zionists in the cabinet room,” the president said, according to Bartlett. 82

The President’s brother, Robert Kennedy, himself said that his brother admired Feldman’s work, but added, “His major interest was Israel rather than the United States.” 83

However, while Myer Feldman was busy promoting Israel’s interests at the White House, the president was sending out a message to the rest of the foreign policy-making establishment in Washington.

Kennedy was making it clear that he was very much interested in finding a path to peace in the Middle East and was, in particular, looking for ways to solve the problem of finding a home for the Palestinian refugees who had been displaced by Israel in 1948.

KENNEDY’S GOOD INTENTIONS

According to Hersh, “State Department Arabists were pleasantly surprised early in 1961 to get word from the White House, according to [one source], that ‘just because 90 percent of the Jewish vote had gone for Kennedy, it didn’t mean he was in their pocket.’”84

Former high-ranking U.S. diplomat Richard H. Curtiss, writing in ‘A Changing Image: American Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli Dispute,’ elaborated on Kennedy’s attitude toward the Middle East controversy. In a chapter appropriately titled: “President Kennedy and Good Intentions Deferred Too Long,” Curtiss comments: “It is surprising to realize, with the benefit of hindsight, that from the time Kennedy entered office as the narrowly-elected candidate of a party heavily dependent upon Jewish support, he was planning to take a whole new look at U.S. Mideast policy.

“He obviously could not turn the clock back and undo the work of President Truman, his Democratic predecessor, in making the establishment of Israel possible. Nor, perhaps, would he have wanted to.

“Kennedy was determined, however, to develop good new personal relationships with individual Arab leaders, including those with whom the previous administration’s relations had deteriorated.

“As a result, various leaders of newly independent countries were surprised to find their pro forma messages of congratulations upon Kennedy’s assumption of office answered with personalized letters from the young American President.” 85

OLIVE BRANCH TO NASSER

The key Arab leader at the time was Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, the voice of Pan-Arabism. Kennedy was especially intrigued with the possibility of opening up relations with Nasser.

According to Kennedy associate, Theodore Sorensen, “Nasser liked Kennedy’s Ambassador, John Badeau, and he liked Kennedy’s practice of personal correspondence. Kennedy put off, however, an invitation for a Nasser visit until improved relations could enable him to answer the political attacks such a visit would bring from voters more sympathetic to Israel.” 86

(Unfortunately, however, as noted by Richard Curtiss, “As with most good intentions deferred, the invitation to Nasser for a personal meeting with Kennedy was never issued.” 87)

Thus, it was that upon assuming office, Kennedy made positive attempts to contact Arab heads of state asking how the U.S. could help each country in its individual disputes with Israel.

STANDING BY TRADITION

However, Kennedy wanted one thing in particular understood by all sides in the conflict: the new U.S. president wanted “to make it crystal clear that the U.S. meant what it said in the Tripartite Declaration of 1950—that we will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor.” 88 This policy was directed not only to the Arabs, but Israel as well. Kennedy did indeed mean business.

ISRAEL’S LOBBY REACTS

Soon after Kennedy assumed office, Israel and its American lobby began to understand the import of Kennedy’s positioning in regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel was not happy—to say the very least—and began putting heat on the White House through the egis of its supporters in Congress, many of whom relied upon support from the Israeli lobby for campaign contributions and political leverage.

According to America’s most noted longtime Jewish critic of Israel, Dr. Alfred Lilienthal: “While the President, more often through Vice President Lyndon Johnson, gave much lip service to Israelist aspirations, his administration continued to resist pressures, including a round-robin petition signed by 226 Congressmen of both parties (aided by a large New York Times advertisement on May 28, 1962) to initiate direct Arab-Israeli negotiations. Kennedy had decided to shelve his pledge in the Democratic platform to bring Israeli and Arab leaders together around a peace table in order to settle the Palestine question.”

–end