Egyptian Uprising overthrows its Zionist Master..??!

At the start of the Egyptian uprising western public opinion responded positively to the mostly young, middle class, people who took to the streets demanding greater political freedoms which many westerners interpreted as western style political institutions. Sunday, February 27,2011 14:03 by Bob Finch CounterCurrents.org During the cold war period no liberation movement in any third world country was left to its own devices to fulfill the will of the people through the creation of democratic institutions and a more just society. They were continually corrupted by the superpowers seeking to enhance their global strategic interests in pursuit of global political dominion. The Soviets generally tended to support secretive revolutionary movements which invariably aimed at creating one party states that would be sympathetic to their interests whilst the Americans, aiming to take over from former colonial powers, sought to install dictators who would promote their interests. It might have been thought that, with the end of the cold war, the days when overarching global strategic factors were able to corrupt domestic struggles for a better society would be long gone but the January 15, 2011 uprising in Egypt confirmed the existence of a new strategic factor. This threatened to stymie Egyptians' liberation struggle. Although this struggle was eventually successful, the new strategic factor could still end up deterring or delaying the completion of this struggle i.e. the creation of a new constitution and democratic institutions.

Since the second world war, most Arab countries have been run by tyrants who have either been installed by America or have aligned themselves with American interests –even Nasser made overtures to the Americans but was rebuffed. Most of these dictators have enriched themselves, their families and friends, whilst ruthlessly suppressing domestic demands for political reforms and independent foreign policies. Like bank robbers they have stolen whatever riches their economies generated. As a consequence Arab societies have ossified preventing indigenous economic development thereby locking tens of millions into poverty. Since 1979, one of the great turning points in Middle Eastern history, these dictators have increasingly implemented American/Zionist friendly foreign policies. At the start of the Egyptian uprising western public opinion responded positively to the mostly young, middle class, people who took to the streets demanding greater political freedoms which many westerners interpreted as western style political institutions. [i] But western politicians and the western media quickly began to oppose Egyptians' prospects for liberation and their right to bring about a revolutionary foundation of democratic institutions. This opposition was couched in what seemed to be straightforward nationalist terms. ‘Mubarak has ensured stability in Egypt and the Middle East and has deterred the rise of both Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism.' ‘He may be a dictator but he's our ‘son of a bitch'.' The suggestion here was that it was in the west's national interests to continue protecting this dictator. In order create doubts about the consequences of the Egyptian protestors' uprising, western politicians/commentators sought to popularize the fear that it would lead to the rise of an extreme Islamic government hostile to the west. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood were touted as a major threat to western interests even though it was nothing of the kind. [ii] The proposition that the Egyptian uprising was against western interests, however, ran counter to the commonly held belief in western states that democracy is important not merely to protect political freedoms, guarantee property rights, and ensure justice, but to give people the opportunity to run and develop their own businesses and thus enhance national economic growth. So, if this belief is valid domestically then it must also be valid globally. It is therefore in the national interests of western states to encourage the widest possible democratic reforms in Egypt, and in all other countries, not merely because this would narcissistically imitate western political principles but because, more mundanely, it would promote Egyptian, and thus global, economic growth. Western companies would have another growing consumer market which would enable them to increase output and profits and thereby boost their own countries' economy. A comparison between the economies of democratic Turkey and dictatorial Egypt suggests that democracy makes a critical difference to the economic development. “… its (Egypt's) economy is today a quarter the size of Turkey's (though both countries have populations of similar size).” (Daniel Levy ‘After Mubarak - What Does Israel Do?' http://www.tfdnews.com/news/2011/02/11/79782-daniel-levy-after-mubarak-what-does-israel-do.htm%20class= Feb 11, 2011). It is said that ‘imitation is the greatest form of flattery' and so the west should have been proud that Egyptian protestors wanted to emulate its humanitarian values, political principles, and prosperity. Surely what westerners want is a thriving Egyptian democracy leading to a thriving economy with which they could freely do business? Surely westerners should have been exhilarated at the prospects of Egypt becoming more westernized? The Zionist State's support for Mubarak The question then is why so many western politicians/commentators insisted that it was in western interests to protect Mubarak and thereby try so intensely to discourage democratic reforms? The critical strategic factor that, once again, was exposed by their attitude was the primary importance they attached to the security of the Jews-only state in Palestine. The all too obvious implication was that it didn't matter to them what their country's interests were: all that mattered was protecting the Zionist colonial state. The Zionist state was virtually the only country in the world, outside of the world of Arab dictators, who disapproved of what the Egyptians were doing – even the Iranians applauded events in Egypt. It adamantly insisted that its security interests would be best served by the west continuing to support Mubarak, and other Arab dictators, no matter how much they crushed the will of their people for democratic reforms and nationalistic foreign policies. [iii] This was not unexpected since it has always helped to install and sustain Arab dictators who have pledged their allegiance to zionist expansionism rather than the welfare of their own people. Mubarak was a zionist puppet. He'd helped to establish the Camp David accord which in effect gave the Zionist state the freedom to wage war against the Palestinians and surrounding Arab states. He denounced Hezbollah [iv] ; urged the Zionist state to crush Hamas [v] ; accused Iran of fomenting an arc of shi'ite interests in the middle east [vi] ; and even encouraged the Jews-only state to bomb Iran [vii] . It has also been alleged that he sold subsidized gas to the Zionist state. [viii] Egypt had once been self sufficient in oil and food but such was the corruption and incompetence of the Mubarak regime that the country was having to import both. [ix] Here was a leader of country which could no longer feed itself and in which tens of millions of people were living in poverty, who was exporting gas at subsidized rates to a far richer country. Quite revealingly, during the uprising, Mubarak poured out his zionist heart to a zionist confidente. [x] In the western world, zionist politicians and Jewish lobbies echoed the Jews-only state's stance and went into over-drive pressuring western governments into propping up Mubarak and his fellow Arab dictators. [xi] The zionist owned western media put even more pressure on western politicians to stop sympathizing with Egyptian protestors. No sooner had Netanyahu raised the spectre that ‘Egypt is Iran' than his minions were diligently spreading the message around the west. “We are watching these events, said Netanyahu, with “vigilance and worry.” The worry is rooted, he said, in the possibility that “in a situation of chaos, an organized Islamist body can seize control of a country. It happened in Iran. It happened in other instances.” No sooner had these words escaped his mouth than Israel's amen corner in this country and around the world echoed the “Egypt is Iran” meme until it had found its way into nearly every news report, and virtually every public statement by a major politician on the Egyptian events.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It's Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…' http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011). It was shocking that in the western world Jewish lobbies and zionist politicians/commentators were simply regurgitating the Zionist state's line. It was even more shocking to hear supposedly democratic politicians/commentators defending a brutal and corrupt dictator. But what was even more shocking was that they were promoting the interests of a foreign state rather than their own country's national interests. They were sacrificing their democratic principles and the interests of the country they were living in for the sake of a colonial state that was perpetuating dictators throughout the Arab world. Most shockingly of all, however, was that they seemed entirely comfortable arguing that it was in the interests of democratic states to sustain dictators because they knew that nobody, not even those on the left, would challenge such nonsense and highlight their treachery. Zionist politicians/commentators in America were promoting blatantly un-American policies whilst, similarly, zionist politicians/commentators throughout the rest of the western world were promoting blatantly anti-western policies, and nobody was challenging them about why they were giving priority to the interests of a foreign state. There is very little difference between the cold war bogey of ‘reds under the bed' and zionists' transformation of the moderate Muslim Brotherhood into an Islamic bogeyman. Since the formation of the Zionist state, zionists have fabricated a long list of Islamic bogeymen from Nasser to Saddam Hussein. They have become specialists at conjuring up nightmarish Islamic threats to frighten the west into supporting zionist interests and it was easy for them to demonize the Muslim Brotherhood given that most westerners knew little about the group. Contrary to zionists' accusations, the group was not run by Islamic extremists. It had not triggered the uprising. [xii] And it had not orchestrated the protests. [xiii] What do facts matter to zionists when they can churn out lies to an ignorant western public which is usually disinterested in anything beyond their zionist inspired prejudices? Zionist propagandists invented, and popularized, a fear and loathing for the ‘Muslim Brotherhood' to pressure western states into supporting Mubarak solely in order to protect the security of the Zionist state. Western citizens who regurgitated this new strategic bogey were gullible for not understanding that they were undermining their own country's national interests for the sake of promoting the security of the warmongering colonial state in Palestine. The Dominance of Zionist Propaganda This wouldn't be the first time, however, that extreme zionist propagandists have managed to manipulate western states into pursuing policies supposedly promoting western interests when in reality all they were doing was undermining such interests for the sake of boosting the security of the Zionist state. This was their great propaganda achievement in provoking the first and second gulf wars. If the Zionist state could invent and then popularize amongst western politicians/media the gigantic fiction that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction then it could easily dupe the west into believing the smaller lie that if it didn't continue supporting Mubarak then it wouldn't be long before Egypt was being run by an extreme Islamic government intent on developing nuclear weapons aimed at the western world. After all, the Zionist state had already succeeded in conning the west into believing that Iran poses the same nuclear threat to the west as Saddam was supposed to have done. “Beyond the Arab world, U.S. policy on Iran is dictated more or less totally by Israel.” (Kathleen Christison ‘The US as Israel's Enabler in the Middle East' http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02162011.html February 16, 2011). There are, of course, those who would scoff at the idea of Jewish lobbies in the west corrupting western political principles, values, and national interests by trying to turn western public opinion against young, middle class, Egyptian protestors in order to promote the strategic interests of the Jews-only state. There are those who would be scornful of the idea of western zionist politicians pretending to pursue their country's national interests whilst in reality undermining such interests for the sake of protecting the Zionist state in Palestine. And there are those who would dismiss the idea that much of the western media is owned, managed, or manned by zionists whose primary political goal is protecting a foreign state even if this is at the expense of the country in which they are living and working. [xiv] Surely the west cannot be dominated to such an extent by zionists putting the interests of a foreign state above that of the countries they are supposedly protecting? The truth of these accusations is all too easy to appreciate when it is considered that the ruling elites throughout the western world have never mentioned that the Jews-only state developed nuclear weapons in the 1960s. It is easy to measure the scale of zionist domination over the western world by the fact that no politician/commentator has been willing to mention zionists' nukes. Even though this has been the most critical factor in middle eastern politics, western politicians/commentators ignore their existence and assiduously formulate policies on the grounds of their non-existence. They prefer to promote fantasies about Saddam's nuclear weapons, and more recently Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons, rather than telling the truth about zionists all too real nuclear weapons. [xv] What could be further from the west's national interests than ignoring the threat that zionists' nukes pose to the west? Any visitor from outer space analyzing the views of the west's mainstream politicians/commentators would be astounded to discover they were promoting foreign policies in the middle east that ran counter to western humanitarian values, political principles, and economic interests. That the west could support the zionists' hideous oppression of Palestinians shows that its humanitarian values are vacuous, that its political principles are a sham, and that its economic interests are being undermined because the Palestinians, just like all Arab people being oppressed by Arab dictators, are being denied the right to establish businesses that would promote economic growth both nationally and globally. The west's support for zionist colonialism and zionist domination over the middle east is shameful, grossly undemocratic, and counter to its economic interests. [xvi] Hypothetically speaking, it was a fortunate that in 1948 zionists didn't create a Zionist state in the centre of Europe, perhaps in place of Switzerland. If they had they would have inflicted on westerners the same miseries they have inflicted on Arabs. They would have created zionist quisling dictatorships across the continent to defend their interests. European countries would have found themselves as impoverished as those in the Arab world. America would also be poorer without its current vast trade with Europe. Zionist politicians would have spent the next half century undermining the idea of neighbouring countries establishing democracies because of the threat they would supposedly posed to the security of the Zionist state. They would have denounced European patriots seeking to liberate their country from zionist dictators as terrorists. Of course, on the bright side, if the Zionist state had been founded in central Europe, then the Islamic world from Morocco through to Tajikistan would now be almost totally democratic and economically booming. [xvii] But, then again, zionist lobbies would have doubtlessly infiltrated these wealthy Arab democracies and sought to develop an ideological alliance with them, based on a pseudo Judeo-Arabic civilization, invoking Europhobia in order to win their support for propping up quisling zionist dictatorships across the European continent. It has to be suspected, however, that these rich Arab democracies wouldn't have been so gullible as to believe that it was in their economic and political interests to perpetuate fabulously wealthy, European dictators ransacking their impoverished economies. The Zionist state is a black hole decimating democratic aspirations and economic opportunities in surrounding countries in order to preserve its economic and military supremacism. What was so marvelous about Egyptians' uprising was not merely the overthrow of a tyrant, but the overthrow of a zionist puppet who'd been imposed upon them by the Zionist state and its gigantic American satellite. It was also the western public's refusal to be manipulated by zionists' propaganda onslaught against the uprising. Many ordinary people continued to sympathize with the Egyptian protestors despite zionist politicians/editors/commentators and Jewish lobbies doing their best to provoke yet another wave of Islamophobia. The efforts of the west's zionist leaders to insist that western governments should continue propping up Mubarak, and thereby keep sacrificing the lives of tens of millions of Egyptians, was a revolting example of naked zionist self-interest. Fortunately, the more determined that protestors in Egypt became to rid themselves of a zionist tyrant, the more the western public sympathized with their aspirations, the more revolting these reactionary zionists politicians/commentators/lobbyists appeared to become. Yet again the zionists in the western world showed themselves to be a bunch of reactionary traitors who not merely supported a tyrant at the expense of people wanting democratic institutions but who were willing to sacrifice the interests of the countries they were living and working in for the sake of their beloved Zionist state. Western zionists in politics and the media constantly denounce western Moslems for their alleged dual loyalties but the uprising in Egypt revealed they have no such duality: they are devoted to the interests of a foreign state. During the Eyptian uprising, it cannot be said, however, that all western politicians were total shrills to the zionist cause. President Obama initially supported the uprising but was quickly forced to recant under pressure from the zionist think tanks dug in on the lawns of the white house. He sent a personal envoy to the paroah, supposedly to have a chat about him taking early retirement but, after the meeting, the envoy publicly announced that Mubarak should stay in office. “After turning against Mubarak, he suddenly opined that he must stay in power, in order to carry out democratic reforms. As his representative he sent to Egypt a retired diplomat whose current employer is a law firm that represents the Mubarak family (much as Bill Clinton used to send committed Jewish Zionists to “mediate” between Israel and the Palestinians).” (Uri Avnery ‘Tsunami in Egypt' http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery02142011.html February 14, 2011). However, Obama would not be beaten into submission by zionist politicians/media/lobbies. On the morning of Thursday February 10, 2011, it was reported that Mubarak would announce his retirement that evening. Obama couldn't hide his jubilation even though he knew this would provoke zionist scorn and, sooner or later, revenge. When Mubarak finally resigned who could doubt the adoration Obama heaped upon Egyptian protestors? His speech outlined with crystal clarity the best of western political principles and values. Those who opposed Egypt's western style protestors were nothing less than un-American and anti-western traitors. It was all too symbolic that, after his enforced resignation, Mubarak moved to a part of Egypt which is as close to the Zionist state as he could get without actually leaving the country. Clearly he feared that if the Egyptian people launched a violent uprising which threatened his life and that of his family, then their safe haven would be only a few miles away. [xviii] Doubtlessly the Zionist state would have welcomed into its midst yet another criminal with vast amounts of wealth just as it had done with Robert Maxwell and the russian oligarchs not to mention a few American-Jews who'd fled there to escape justice in America. There were two factors that might have persuaded Mubarak to stay on in power albeit, in the end, only for less than 24 hours. Firstly, Ehud Barack, the Zionists' defence minister, flew to Washington to denounce the Obama administration for showing concern for the aspirations of Egyptian protestors when it should have supported Mubarak in crushing the uprising – doubtlessly with the same ferocity as the Zionist state crushed Palestinian protests. [xix] Secondly, the Saudi leader, fearing an uprising in his own personal fiefdom, offered to fund Mubarak's armed forces if the Obama administration ever decided to withdraw its annual funding for the Egyptian military. [xx] These dramatic interventions must have convinced Mubarak he still had enough international support to survive. The State of Global Politics So what does the Egyptian uprising indicate about the state of global politics? America is commonly recognized as the only remaining superpower. Some commentators go much further and refer to it as an American empire. But most American politicians couldn't muster the political power to celebrate Egyptians' democratic protests because of the pressure being exerted on them by the Zionist state and its vastly wealthy allies in America. When American politicians turned their backs on people who seemed to be trying to replicate American values and democratic institutions this suggests there are profoundly suspicious factors at work. The reality is that America's ruling elite consists substantially of zionists who care more about the Zionist state in Palestine than they do about America or American democracy and that they are willing to use American military power to promote that foreign state no matter how much it undermines America's military capabilities or the country's financial resources and political prestige around the world. Since the end of the cold war, the key global strategic criterion guiding the west's formulation of political policies has increasingly become whether these policies enhance or detract from the security of the Zionist state in Palestine. [xxi] Whether this political phenomenon can be categorized as a global Zionist empire or Zionist world domination is open to debate but when the west goes out of its way to prop up a tiny, virulently aggressive, illegal, colonial state with no raw resources and a tiny population of 6 million, and thereby alienates a multiplicity of Arab/Islamic countries with vast quantities of natural resources and a combined population of hundreds of millions, it has to be one or the other. Over the last sixty years, the Zionist state has heaped a flood of humiliations upon American presidents and politicians. These are humiliations that the powerful inflict on the powerless, not the pin pricks that satellite states occasionally inflict on their colonial masters. No American president has dared to criticize let alone insult political leaders in the Zionist state but zionist politicians insult American presidents with impunity because they know that America's zionist lobby is powerful enough to prevent American presidents from seeking revenge. It doesn't matter what shameful, disgusting, or downright criminal, acts the Zionist state carries out whether this might be starving Palestinians into submission, denying them medical supplies, slaughtering innocent people, or even attacking American military ships such as the U.S.S. Liberty, American politicians cheer it on and protect it in the United Nations. There is no barbarism carried out by the Zionist state that American politicians have not slavishly defended to their utmost. There is no limit to the amount of hatred they are willing to suffer for the sake of by defending the barbarity of the Zionist state. The Zionist state beats its American Dog whenever it wants and the poor Dog's inbred loyalty just keeps leading it back to its master for more abuse and punishment. It is a testimony to the Zionist domination in America, that the Zionist state can repeatedly humiliate American presidents and yet the American public shows no sense of patriotic anger about it. Hannah Arendt coined the phrase ‘the boomerang effect' when colonial/imperial powers suffered ethically, financially, politically, and militarily, because of the appalling activities of their colonists/imperialists in foreign countries. America has suffered considerably, militarily, financially, and in terms of its political reputation, for its contribution to the growth of the Zionist empire – the holding of American hostages during the first Islamic revolution in Iran, the wars against Saddam Hussein, the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the invasion of Afghanistan. And yet still the American Dog faithfully serves its master. Another, even more stark indicator that America is a gigantic satellite of the Zionist state is that no American president has been able to limit, let alone withdraw, what are frequently referred to as subsidies to the Zionist state in order to punish it for its misdeeds. The reason for this is that these are not subsidies but tribute payments. Satellites are supposed to make tribute payments to their colonial/imperial powers, not vice versa and this is precisely what is happening when America hands over vast sums of money to the Zionist state which it then uses in whatever way it thinks fit even if it embarrasses America. Even more critical for appreciating America's subservient role to its zionist master is that America has no influence over the Zionist state's domestic policies especially those affecting the Palestinians. Indeed, it could be argued the Zionist state has more influence over America's domestic policies than the reverse. And the same is true in terms of foreign policies. America has little control over Zionists' foreign policies but zionists have a critical influence over America's foreign policies. America's foreign policies are being determined by its so-called satellite across an ever increasing area of the world not merely the middle east nor even the greater middle east but the entire moslem world. “… Israel is at the center of virtually every move the United States makes in the region.” (Kathleen Christison ‘The US as Israel's Enabler in the Middle East' http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02162011.html February 16, 2011). [xxii] Prospects for Democracy in Egypt The prospects for democracy in Egypt do not look good but, then again, just a few months ago the prospects for overthrowing Mubarak seemed non-existent. [xxiii] The Egyptian uprising seemed to be an entirely modern, high tech, liberation brought about with the aid of mobile phones and social networking websites. Such websites are notorious for organizing spontaneous, one-off, anarchic, street parties so whether they are suitable for formulating a revolution has yet to be seen. However, the protests seemed so highly co-ordinated and tactically astute, successfully managing to maintain the momentum of the protests despite the efforts made to counter them, that this bodes well for the next, much more difficult, stage of founding democratic institutions. [xxiv] Although social networking websites creep into the public domain the Egyptian protestors seemed to be able to organize themselves either without the authorities and international secret agencies being aware of what they were doing or, if the authorities were aware, of being unable to counter what the protestors were doing. [xxv] Little is known about the protestors or what motivated them. Western commentators are only now beginning to ascertain such motivations. “It's fair to say that at this stage the Egyptian street keeps close to its heart those that supported it, from al-Jazeera and assorted Arab nationalists to Hezbollah in Lebanon. And knows very well those that despised it - from the House of Saud and assorted Wahhabi extremists to Israel. No one will forget that Saudi King Abdullah accused the street of "meddling in the security and stability of Arab and Muslim Egypt".” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011). Having been so successful in liberating themselves, it is to be hoped they can take the next revolutionary step. Whether they will be able to do so is difficult to assess especially since the protestors relinquished their main political leverage, the occupation of Tahrir square, within days of the pharaoh's overthrow. It has to be suspected that the Egyptian army will be reluctant to stop issuing communiqués. “There's no way a new Egypt may be born without overthrowing this whole system. Ergo, the street has to take on the army. Expect major fireworks ahead. Forget about the army swiftly handing over power to a civilian-led interim government.” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011). However, Egypt's protestors face an even more insidious enemy than the Egyptian army - the Zionist state and its global allies who will pressure the army to stay in power. The Zionist state will do its utmost to restore another zionist quisling as dictator. The zionists may have been thrown off guard by the spontaneity of Egypt's struggle for liberation but they are not going to allow the much longer, and far more complex, process of establishing democracy to proceed without doing their best to manipulate events in order to restore their power. Watch out for fabrications such as ‘Iraqi soldiers bayonet babies in incubators'. In a future democracy, Egyptians may wish to change or abandon the Camp David accords. They may refuse to continue supporting the siege of Gaza, the continuing war crimes against the Palestinian people, and the zionist colonization of Palestine They may refuse zionist ships passage through the Suez canal, [xxvi] and stop subsidizing gas exports to the Zionist state. [xxvii] They may oppose zionist wars against its neighbours and its regional supremacism. [xxviii] They will want to develop new, independent, foreign policies. Such policy changes would be unacceptable to the Zionist state but there may be even worse to follow. Faced with dwindling fossil fuel resources, the Egyptian people will invariably demand precisely what westerners enjoy and what the Iranian people also want: nuclear energy. This will almost certainly lead to demands for the acquisition of nuclear weapons to ensure their military defence and bring about a less unbalanced military situation in the middle east. Although such changes in Egypt may not be in the least bit detrimental to the long term interests of the Zionist state, they would certainly be perceived as anathema by the current bunch of warmongers occupying Palestine. From the perspective of the warmongering Zionist state it would lose too much to allow democratic reforms in Egypt especially if this might lead to the country acquiring nuclear weapons. They will deem it imperative to scupper any move to democracy in favour of restoring a zionist quisling who would once again put zionist interests before those of the Egyptian people. The west's values, political principles, and national interests, would be best served through the creation of a democratic Egypt similar to that in Turkey. Its primary strategic concern would be the Suez canal but given Egyptians' open attitude to the west this shouldn't be a problem. The west doesn't have to fear Egypt's development of an independent foreign policy – only those suffering from zionist paranoia would fear the worst. [xxix] But given zionist domination of America's political system, zionist propagandists will doubtlessly terrify American politicians and the American public by conjuring up even more fantastical Islamic bogeymen in Egypt. The foundation of freedom in Egypt is thus a test of zionist world domination. ZIonists may have lost out because of the Egyptian uprising, and the refusal of a significant part of western public opinion to denounce Egyptian freedom fighters, but they will certainly try to restore their dominance. After the second world war, the cold war became the primary global political preoccupation. The foundation of the Zionist state was a relatively insignificant issue in the worldwide competition for global supremacy. But during this time the Zionists' military successes led them install pliant Arab dictators and to use islamophobia to whip up opposition against Palestinian freedom fighters and hostile Moslem states across the african-asian continents. After the demise of the cold war, the west's zionist ruling elites, its zionist owned media, and its zionist lobbies succeeded in pressuring western politicians into adopting their islamophobia. Western political leaders increasingly see zionist colonialism as their own cause. Zionists' achievement of manipulating the west, and the rest of the world including Russia and China who also have their Islamic minorities who object to their second class status, into adopting the zionist creed is the most blatant manifestation of zionist global dominion. After the demise of the Russian empire, many commentators in the west wondered what the next global conflict would be since both superpowers seemed to rely on a cold war conflict to keep their military-industrial complexes in profit and an ideology that unified their peoples. Many thought it might be China or Asian tigers. The zionists have successfully conned the west into supporting zionism against fictitious Islamic bogeymen. The best way that people in the west can help Egyptian protestors to defeat their adversaries i.e. the Egyptian army and zionist colonialists, is to challenge zionist dominance at home. Bob Finch has been an environmental and political thinker for many decades and has published many articles on a range of websites. His website can be found at www.carbonomics.com and blog at http://themundiclub.blogspot.com/ [i] Some commentators have suggested the uprising was not entirely political but had economic roots. “… turning the story into a fairytale about democracy. Rage over food costs played a major role in getting people out into the streets.” (Matthew Wild ‘Peak Oil, Climate Change, Political Turmoil: The Lesson From Egypt' http://countercurrents.org/wild150211.htm February 15, 2011). There is much to be said for environmentalism and the impact that global burning is having around the world but, as will be noted, just as the Moslem brotherhood didn't get involved in the protests until the last minute, so the same was also true of Egypt's workers. Industrial strikes may have played a critical contribution to the eventual success of the uprising but they did not seem to initiate it. [ii] "The hysteria in American media about Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is not only ignorant and demagogic, it is hypocritical.” (Juan Cole ‘Fear Not the Muslim Brotherhood Boogeyman' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/f ear_not_the_muslim_brotherhood_boogeyman_20110215 February 15, 2011); “Such a hostile attitude toward the MB is also unfounded. As Nathan Brown describes them, “a lot of their program is just standard reform stuff—independence of the judiciary, the end of corruption, protecting the environment. Especially when they got more political over the last 10 years or so, what they really began to push was a very general reform language that takes Islamic coloration in some areas. But an awful lot of it is consistent with other reform programs coming from reformists all over the political spectrum.”” (Elizabeth Shakman Hurd ‘Misrepresenting Egypt – the Mubarak myth of “secular” vs “Islamic”' http://blogs.reuters..com/faithworld/2011/02/14/guestview-misrepresenting-egypt-the-mubarak-myth-of-secular-vs-islamic/ February 14, 2011). [iii] “Indeed Israel's own reaction to the momentous events in Egypt, that this might not be the time for democracy in Egypt (thus allowing it to keep the title of "the only democracy in the Middle East"), has been as implausible as it has been self-defeating.” (Robert Fisk ‘Hypocrisy Is Exposed By The Wind Of Change' http://countercurrents.org/fisk100211.htm February 10, 2011); “Israeli leaders have made it clear they oppose elections in Egypt on general principle, and believe that an elected government would end the 1979 peace deal. This does not, of course, mean that a war would break out, but a number of Egyptians are unhappy with restrictions the deal places on travel in Sinai, and well as obliging them to comply with the Gaza blockade.” (Jason Ditz ‘Netanyahu on Egypt: Israel Must ‘Prepare for Worst' http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/16/netanyahu-on-egypt-israel-must-prepare-for-worst/ February 16, 2011). [iv] “In 2006, during the Israeli war on Lebanon, Mubarak argued that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah was an adventurer who had done Lebanon a great disservice by going to war against Israel - words that echoed what had been said in Riyadh.” (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011). [v] “As far as he (mubarak) was concerned, given Iran's alliance with Hamas, if the Palestinian group was not crushed, he would eventually have Egyptian borders not with Gaza, but with the Islamic Republic of Iran. That is why he struck with an iron fist, sealing the Rafah crossing into Gaza, preventing pro-Hamas demonstrations in Egypt, and urging Israel - behind closed doors - to continue in its war, hoping that they could crush the Islamic resistance in Palestine. (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011). [vi] “Mubarak sent shockwaves throughout Iran when he appeared on al-Arabiyya TV in 2006 and said that Shi'ites of the Arab world were more loyal to Iran than they were to their own countries, echoing what King Abdullah of Jordan had earlier described as a "Shi'ite crescent".” (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011). [vii] “As WikiLeaks revealed, Mubarak was one of the loudest advocates of a US (or Israeli) strike on Tehran …” (Justin Raimondo ‘It's Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…' http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011). [viii] “... re-examining the export of natural gas to Israel at subsidized rates …” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011). [ix] “Egypt, formerly an oil exporter that was self-sufficient in food, now imports both – and cannot afford to feed itself.” (Matthew Wild ‘Peak Oil, Climate Change, Political Turmoil: The Lesson From Egypt' http://countercurrents.org/wild150211.htm February 15, 2011); “The nation, whose arable land is only the size of Maryland, cannot feed its 84-85 million people and has become the world's largest wheat importer through a major U.S. food-aid program, authorized by Congress—a program that has been rife with egregious illegalities and kickbacks.” (Eric Margolis ‘Fall of the Raj' http://www.amconmag..com/blog/fall-of-the-raj/ February 17, 2011). [x] “It's interesting to note that Hosni Mubarak, holed up in his presidential palace at the height of the protests, put in a call not to the US State Department, or the White House, but to a member of the Israeli Knesset, one Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a former cabinet minister who dealt with the Egyptian tyrant during the negotiations that set up the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It's Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…' http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011). [xi] “… the highly influential leading pro-Israel organizations in the US (AIPAC, the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations) and their army of scribes have mobilized congressional leaders to pressure the White House to continue backing Mubarak, as Israel is the prime beneficiary of a dictator who is at the throat of the Egyptians (and Palestinians) and at the feet of the Jewish state.” (James Petras ‘Washington Faces the Arab Revolts: Sacrificing Dictators to Save the State' February 10, 2011). [xii] “The Brotherhood joined this year's protest movement only at the last minute and was not a leading force in it.” (Juan Cole ‘Fear Not the Muslim Brotherhood Boogeyman' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/fear_not _the_muslim_brotherhood_boogeyman_20110215 February 15, 2011). [xiii] “Fox News has already told its viewers in America that the Muslim Brotherhood, about the "softest" of Islamist groups in the Middle East, is behind the brave men and women who have dared to resist the state security police ...” (Robert Fisk ‘Hypocrisy Is Exposed By The Wind Of Change' http://countercurrents.org/fisk100211.htm February 10, 2011). In the United Kingdom, Jane Corbin, married to a member of the house of lords who is a prominent member of the british zionist lobby, produced another Panorama special, bbc1, February 07, 2011, on the unfolding situation in Egypt. Egyptian protestors welcomed her behind the scenes to give her a first hand experience of the violence they faced but, when entering Tahrir square, she stated she was just going to meet the Moslem Brotherhood “organizing the protests”. The cute and cuddly but ferociously conventional, Andrew Neil, one of the BBC's top political commentators, repeatedly ask his interviewees whether the west should be supporting Egyptian protestors when it might lead to Islamic extremists i.e. the Moslem Brotherhood or even al Quaeda, gaining political power. [xiv] In Britain the most blatant example of this was Robert Maxwell who used his publishing empire to denounce Moredechai Vanunu's expose of the Jews-only state's nuclear weapons industry. He also contributed enormously to whipping up anti-Saddam fervour in the months leading up to the first gulf war. He not only looted British workers' pensions but after his suicide was given a state funeral in Jerusalem. He also received state honours for the services he'd rendered, not to Britain where he'd become a thief and an outcast, but to the Jewish state. [xv] Over the last decade zionists in the west have launched a torrent of criticisms against Iran for having (non-existent) nuclear weapons. By refusing to mention the Jews-only state's nukes their insistence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons makes Iran seem like the aggressor when, in reality, the acquisition of such weapons would be entirely defensive. Such criticisms seem even more ridiculous given that if Iran wanted to develop such weapons it could easily use the rationale employed by British politicians in the 1980s. They continually rebuffed demands for unilateral nuclear disarmament by arguing that Britain had to have nuclear weapons to counter Russia's huge nuclear arsenal. Why do these same politicians now refuse to accept that Iran has the same right to defend itself against the Jews-only state's nukes? Is it not entirely understandable that the Iranian people want nuclear weapons to defend themselves from the threat of nuclear annihilation by the war mongers running the Jews-only state? Objectively speaking, Iran's most powerful motive for acquiring nukes is to defend itself from zionist nuclear warmongers. [xvi] Historically, British democracy evolved around the issue of property rights. Those with property wanted political rights in order to protect their property and their profits. For many centuries the right to vote was based solely upon the ownership of sizeable landholdings. The right to own property and not have it confiscated was the backbone of British politics. Echoes of these past developments still reverberate in contemporary British politics in many ways. Most parliamentarians see one of their main duties as protecting property rights. They are proud of living in what they call a property owning democracy. But these property owning democrats would never dream of condemning the zionist state for confiscating Palestinian property. Tory politicians were outraged when a local farmer was convicted of murdering and maiming robbers intent on stealing his property and insisted he had the right to defend his property. But this is not a right they would extend to Palestinians. [xvii] This is a feasible scenario. The Egyptians had a democracy in the 1950s before it was overthrown by a military coup and the eventual rise of Abdul Nasser. Iran had a democracy until, in 1953, BP and the CIA conspired to overthrow the Mossadegh government. And in 1991 in Algeria's moderate Islamist party won a landslide victory before “Paris and Washington quickly backed the Algerian army in crushing the vote and jailing its victors.” (Eric Margolis ‘Fall of the Raj' http://www.amconmag..com/blog/fall-of-the-raj/ February 17, 2011). The army launched a wholesale slaughter of Islamists in which tens of thousands of innocent people lost their lives. Hamas too was elected by free and fair elections until the zionists decided to quosh the result. Hezbollah has been demanding greater democratic participation in Lebanon. Turkey is currently the great beacon of democracy in the Islamic world. If these countries, some of the biggest in the Islamic world, had managed to ensure the survival of their democracies this would have helped to spread democracy around the region. This, in turn, would have enabled such countries to boost economic growth and national prosperity. [xviii] The same point has been made by Eric Margolis. “It was no coincidence that Mubarak holed up at Sharm el-Sheikh in Sinai, a short helicopter ride to Israel.” (Eric Margolis ‘Fall of the Raj' http://www.amconmag..com/blog/fall-of-the-raj/ February 17, 2011). [xix] “Israel's military chief Ehud Barak has expressed concern that if power transition happens quickly in Egypt, Muslim brotherhood (MB) will come into power. Following a Thursday statement by the embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the Israeli official, who is in Washington, emphasized on the need to prevent Egypt from falling into the hands of what he described as ‘extremists' €? saying the country needs more time for change. “The real winners of any short-term election, let's say within 90 days, will be the (opposition) Muslim Brotherhood,” €? Reuters quoted Barak as saying.” (‘Israel vows fear of MB's gain in Egypt' http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/Israel-vows-fear-of-MBs-gain-in-Egypt.html February 11, 2011). [xx] “On Thursday morning Mubarak probably told Suleiman and the US that he was going to quit, then forgot and, braced by a supportive call from the Israelis and a pledge by the Saudis to give him $1.4 billion if the US withheld it, announced that he would be around till September.” (Alexander Cockburn ‘Ain't That Good News!' http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02112011.html February 11 - 13, 2011). The zonists, americans, and saudis have worked together for many years e.g. in propping up the lebanese government. The zionists got their American muppets to give feldman the job as ambassador to lebanon so that he could act as their point man in the country. He struts around diminishing areas of the country like a zionist viceroy issuing orders to his lebanese subjects. [xxi] “A transformative uprising in Egypt or Tunisia comes to be seen as being about Israel ..."” (James Zogby ‘Politics and Nonsense on Egypt' http://www.counterpunch.org/zogby02112011.html February 11 - 13, 2011). [xxii] Alexander cockburn talks about “the American Empire” even in the same article where he points out the realities of modern american politics. “… the White House is being besieged by the Israel Lobby which is following the script being hysterically written in the press in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, with headlines such as "We're on our own," "Obama's betrayal of Mubarak," and "A bullet in the back from Uncle Sam.” (Alexander Cockburn ‘The God That's Failing' http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02042011.html February 4 - 6, 2011). It seems as if its too much to expect lefties, even compassionate ones such as Alexander Cockburn, to change their weltanschaaung and rid themselves of such redundant phrases as the American empire. Those on the left continually argue that one of the best means for understanding political power is to follow the money and yet they refuse to accept the conclusions that are derived from such an analysis. America gives huge amounts of money, both directly and indirectly, to the Jews-only state. Even Mubarak subsidized the zionist state through cheap gas exports. The answer to the question of which country is the master and which is the slave becomes even more blatant if the left's follow the trail maxim is explored in terms of who initiates global policies. Anyone who explores a ‘follow the source and distribution of the policy' analysis will discover that, over the last forty years or so, by far and away the biggest proportion of the west's foreign policies have originated in the Zionist state. Whilst for a decade the Americans praised Saddam as their dictator, the zionists were condemning him as a menace to their security. When Saddam positioned his army on the Kuwaiti border for three weeks the bush administration said nothing seeing an invasion as Iraq's reward for the terrible losses it suffered waging its eight year long war against Iran. But, once the invasion took place, the zionist lobby succeeded in forcing bush into betraying his close ally and waging war against him. The idea that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons originated as a paranoid zionist fantasy. On the other side of the political spectrum, Justin Raimondo knows all too well the political power the Jewish lobby in America and the threat it poses to anyone who highlights its dominance of American politics. Whilst he often argues the zionist state dominates American foreign policy he sprinkles his work with enough caveats about zionist domination to deter the zionist lobby from exacting revenge. “Change is coming to the Middle East, whether the Israelis, or their American patrons, like it or not. And these changes will necessitate a change in US foreign policy, which up until now has been cravenly Israeli-centric.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It's Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…' http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011). [xxiii] The Egyptian people faced formidable odds in trying to rid themselves of mubarak because of the vast security apparatus at his disposal. According to James Petras, this consisted of not merely the 468,500 members of the Egyptian army but 325,000 in the central security forces and 60,000 in Mubarak's own personal presidential guard. [xxiv] Sami Moubayed rather naively takes it for granted that the democracy is on its way to egypt. “Mubarak was a dictator while the new president will certainly be elected to office through a parliamentary democracy and not stay in power for more than two terms. The ex-president was hostile to Hamas and Hezbollah and was radically pro-American and pro-Israeli. The new president will probably be way less pro-American or pro-Israeli than his predecessor, which makes him by default, closer to resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.” (Sami Moubayed ‘Iran hopes for Egypt in new orbit' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB18Ak02.html February 18, 2011). [xxv] “The House and senate committees on intelligence are grilling defensive personnel of the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) for their alleged failure to catch the pulse of youth movements and online chat rooms, which ended up damaging US assets in the Middle East much more than violent Islamist terrorist cells of al-Qaeda.' (Sreeram Chaulia ‘The spies who got it wrong' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB19Ak02.html February 19, 2011); “The Mossad, pride and joy of Hollywood producers, presented as a ‘model of efficiency' by their organized Zionist colleagues, were not able to detect the growth of a mass movement in a country right next door. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was shocked (and dismayed) by the precarious situation of Mubarak and the collapse of his most prominent Arab client – because of Mossad's faulty intelligence. Likewise, Washington was totally unprepared by the 27 US intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, with their hundreds of thousands of paid operatives and multi-billion dollar budgets, of the forthcoming massive popular uprisings and emerging movements.” (James Petras ‘Egypt: Social Movements,the Cia and Mossad – February 16, 2011). [xxvi] Zionists seem to believe they control who uses the Suez canal. “Financial markets the world over are in turmoil and Brent North Sea Crude has reached a new short-term high today after Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman accused Iran of planning to send two warships through the Suez Canal later this evening and suggested this could provoke an Israeli attack on the nation.” (Jason Ditz ‘Israeli FM Threatens War With Iran Over Suez Warship Claim' http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/16/israeli-fm-threatens-war-with-iran-over-suez-warship-claim/ February 16, 2011). [xxvii] “Things may start at a minimum with lifting the siege of Gaza and re-examining the export of natural gas to Israel at subsidized rates; then they will move to reconsidering the safe passage of the US Navy in the Suez Canal and finally rediscuss the holy of holies - the 1979 Camp David accords with Israel.” .” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011). [xxviii] “With Egypt out of the picture and indeed often assisting, Israel has been free to launch military assaults on several of its neighbors, including Lebanon twice and Gaza and the West Bank repeatedly, and free to expand settlements, absorb Palestinian territory, and severely oppress Palestinians without fear of retaliation or even significant disagreement from any Arab army.” (Kathleen Christison ‘The US as Israel's Enabler in the Middle East' http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02162011.html February 16, 2011). [xxix] Pepe Escobar suspects that, “Way beyond the inevitable clash in Egypt of demographic explosion and economic crisis, what is literally freaking out the West is that its elites know what the vast majority of Egyptians don't want. A truly democratic, sovereign Egyptian government cannot possibly remain a slave of US foreign policy.” (Pepe Escobar ‘Under the (Egyptian) volcano' http://www..atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB15Ak01.html February 15, 2011). Raimondo shows similar concerns, “As WikiLeaks revealed, Mubarak was one of the loudest advocates of a US (or Israeli) strike on Tehran: with the despot deposed, that kind of political support for military action will no longer be forthcoming. This is a major blow to the War Party in the United States, and this alone justifies opponents of US intervention cheering the Egyptian revolution no matter what kind of government comes to power.” (Justin Raimondo ‘It's Always About Israel. Even when it isn't…' http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/13/its-always-about-israel/ February 14, 2011). Source of Reference: http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=28111