America is Something that You Can Easily Maneuver | Bibi Netanyahu
But what if one can show the world that their sinister plans against Palestine, America and the rest of the world are extracted directly from the horse’s mouth, i.e. in this case, from Bibi Netanyahu himself?
Here’s the evidence that America, as it is today, is nothing more than a Sheeplehood of the State of Israel.
Netanyahu: Today everyone understands the slogan ‘The Settlements are here’. They are everywhere. What’s the difference? What do you think [Palestinian leader Yassir] Arafat wants? He wants one big settlement that is called Tel Aviv. As far as they are concerned, I think, the territorial waters are also theirs [Palestinians’]. That they want us to be pushed into the sea is obvious, but only further away…
The main thing is, first of all, to strike them, not once but several times, so painfully that the price they pay will be unbearable. So far, the price-tag is not unbearable. [I mean] a large-scale attack on the Palestinian Authority, causing them to fear that everything is about to collapse. Fear is what brings them to…
Host: Hold on, then ‘the world’ will again say that we’re aggressors.
Netanyahu: They can say whatever they want.
Host: Aren’t you afraid of what they’ll say?
Host: Especially today with the U.S. I know how they are…
Netanyahu: America is something that you can easily maneuver and move in the right direction. And even if they do say something, so then they say something… so what? 80% of Americans support us! It’s absurd! We have such support there, and here we’re thinking ‘what should we do if?’…
Look, I wasn’t afraid to maneuver [the Clinton Administration]. I wasn’t afraid to confront Clinton. I wasn’t afraid to go against the U.N. What happened with the Oslo Accords? The Accords, which were ratified by Parliament. I was asked before the  elections: “Will you fulfil them?”
I said: “Yes, subject to reciprocity, and minimizing pull-outs.” But how can one minimize the [obliged] pull-outs? I gave my own interpretation to the agreements, in such a way that will allow me to stop the race back to the 1967 borders.
Host: How did we manage to do this?
Netanyahu: Nobody defined what “Military Facilities” are. So I also defined them as being ‘security zones’. The entire Jordan Valley, for me, is a “military facility”. Nobody has…
Host: Yes. Like the Beit She’an valley.
Netanyahu: You see, go figure. But then there was the question of who will define these “military facilities”? I received a letter from [Secretary of State, Warren] Christopher, sent to me and to Arafat at the same time, saying that Israel and Israel alone will define the “military facilities”, their locations, and size.
Now, they didn’t want to give this letter so I refused to sign the Hebron Accords [of 1997]. I stopped the government meeting and I said: “I won’t sign.” And only when the letter arrived, during that meeting, to me and to Arafat, did I sign the Hebron Accords. Or ratified it, to be exact – it was already signed.
Why is this important? Because at that very moment, in fact, I halted the fulfillment of the Oslo Agreements.
It’s better to give 2% than 100%. This is the choice we’re facing. “You gave 2%, but you stopped the withdrawal, rather than 100%.” The wisdom is not to be there and break, but rather to be there and pay the minimum.
Now, is this Israel or Jew bashing?
How can it be when even a sizable number of American Jews are embarrassed by what their State of Israel is?
Increasingly, the orientation of many American Jews toward Israel is one neither of instinctive loyalty nor of pride but of indifference, embarrassment, or hostility.
… If age is one window into differences in attitude, politics is another. Pew reports that levels of attachment to Israel decrease, often dramatically, as one moves from right to left—that is, from conservative to liberal—on the political spectrum. Thus, half of Republican Jewish respondents describe themselves as “very attached” to Israel, but only a quarter of Jewish Democrats do so. Conversely, while only 2 percent of Jewish Republicans describe themselves as “not at all attached” to Israel, among Jewish Democrats the number is fully five times higher.
… The fundamental cause has to do with neither policies nor religious and ethnic fashions but with what Israel essentially, irrevocably, is.
Again, this truth will be labeled again as Jew-bashing by people who only care to listen to themselves.
Somebody even made the ridiculous argument that “Palestine didn’t even exist prior to Israel,” so it has no right to complain about the systematic stealing of their lands.
Just because the State of Palestine wasn’t incorporated yet prior to the incorporation of the State of Israel doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist at all, in much the same way that the American natives exist as a relatively advanced society prior to the incursion of the Europeans. They just don’t have a system of land ownership, or statehood, on paper.
Only the robber barons, now posing as statesmen, philanthropists, and royal bloodliners, have been doing that.
How Did the State of Israel Come to Be?
To better understand the Palestinian bid for membership in the United Nations, it is important to understand the original 1947 U.N. action on Israel-Palestine.
The common representation of Israel’s birth is that the U.N. created Israel, that the world was in favor of this move, and that the U.S. governmental establishment supported it. All these assumptions are demonstrably incorrect.
In reality, while the U.N. General Assembly recommended the creation of a Jewish state in part of Palestine, that recommendation was non-binding and never implemented by the Security Council.
… The passage of the General Assembly recommendation sparked increased violence in the region. Over the following months the armed wing of the pro-Israel movement, which had long been preparing for war, perpetrated a series of massacres and expulsions throughout Palestine, implementing a plan to clear the way for a majority-Jewish state.
It was this armed aggression, and the ethnic cleansing of at least three-quarters of a million indigenous Palestinians, that created the Jewish state on land that had been 95 percent non-Jewish prior to Zionist immigration and that even after years of immigration remained 70 percent non-Jewish. And despite the shallow patina of legality its partisans extracted from the General Assembly, Israel was born over the opposition of American experts and of governments around the world, who opposed it on both pragmatic and moral grounds.
Background to the U.N. Partition Recommendation
In 1947 the U.N. took up the question of Palestine, a territory that was then administered by the British.
Approximately 50 years before, a movement called political Zionism had begun in Europe. Its intention was to create a Jewish state in Palestine through pushing out the Christian and Muslim inhabitants who made up over 95 percent of its population and replacing them with Jewish immigrants.
As this colonial project grew through subsequent years, the indigenous Palestinians reacted with occasional bouts of violence; Zionists had anticipated this since people usually resist being expelled from their land. In various written documents cited by numerous Palestinian and Israeli historians, they discussed their strategy: They would either buy up the land until all the previous inhabitants had emigrated or, failing this, use violence to force them out.
When the buy-out effort was able to obtain only a few percent of the land, Zionists created a number of terrorist groups to fight against both the Palestinians and the British. Terrorist and future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin (pictured) later bragged that Zionists had brought terrorism both to the Middle East and to the world at large.
Finally, in 1947 the British announced that they would be ending their control of Palestine, which had been created through the League of Nations following World War I, and turned the question of Palestine over to the United Nations.
Since a founding principle of the U.N. was “self-determination of peoples,” one would have expected the U.N. to support fair, democratic elections in which inhabitants could create their own independent country.
Instead, Zionists pushed for a General Assembly resolution in which they would be given a disproportionate 55 percent of Palestine. (While they rarely announced this publicly, their stated plan was to later take the rest of Palestine.)
According to the UN, Israel has now established an apartheid regime.
The publication comes amid renewed debate about whether, through its settlement policy and rejection of Palestinian self-determination, the Israeli government is creating – or even has already created – a de facto “one-state”, which critics warn would constitute a form of apartheid.
It urged governments to “support boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] activities and respond positively to calls for such initiatives”.
The report – Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid – was commissioned and published by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) and launched in Beirut.
… “the expert consensus [is] that the prohibition of apartheid is universally applicable and was not rendered moot by the collapse of apartheid in South Africa“, the report argues that Israel is “guilty of policies and practices that constitute the crime of apartheid”, a “crime against humanity under customary international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court”.
Having said that, Israel is just a front by which the conquest of the Arabs could be waged from, to camouflage the Hidden Hand behind the curtain.
America needs to grow some balls. Both the facade and the Hidden Hand need to be eliminated at the same time, instead of colluding with them.
ER recommends other articles by Covert Geopolitics