Something Is Rotten in the State of America: Israel

by Wendy Campbell
, an American-American



Sept. 28, 2007

In a recent article (9-27-07) by professional whistle-blower and veteran anti-war activist/journalist Daniel Ellsberg who is most famous for releasing the Pentagon Papers, at top-secret Pentagon study of government decision-making during the Vietnam War, he declares that he has come to the realization that "A Coup Has Occurred".

The article can be found at:

It was taken from a speech Ellsberg delivered on September 20, 2007. Some key points he makes are:

"I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state.

If there's another 9/11 under this regime... it means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans and so forth.

Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of us? ... They may be to the limit of their technical capability now, or they may not. But if they're not now they will be after another 9/11.

And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran - an escalation - which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention camps.

I could go through a list going back before this century to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and before that the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of those presidents were in fact what I would call quite precisely the current administration: domestic enemies of the Constitution.

When I say this I'm not saying they are traitors. I don't think they have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and what they think is best for this country - but what they think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders of this country and Constitution thought."

Please note the part where Ellsberg only alludes to the fact that is indeed a growing question regarding an "allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power." He dares not mention the foreign country by name.

Well, we all know the neocons including Bush, Cheney and all their Israeli-American handlers directing the so-called "war on terror" don't really care about helping Iraq, except for helping themselves to Iraq's oil. They certainly don't care about helping Palestinians. No, Ellsberg can only be referring to one country which the US government funnels billions of tax-dollars to each year to help it along, as well as even fighting wars on behalf of its "security" and that country is, of course: the Jewish state of Israel.

My, how funny that he is too timid to mention Israel by name. Of course, Daniel Ellsberg is himself Jewish , and you could refer to him as Israeli-American. Perhaps he is afraid of the backlash from his own community. Or perhaps he is genuinely conflicted and, like so many Jewish people, they "drink their own Kool-aid", wishing to believe that their precious Zionist Jewish state of Israel is not really the driving force behind all of this "war on terror" and the resulting damage it is causing Americans on many fronts: economy, security, standing in the world and Constitutional rights. Many Jewish people and some others prefer to think that it's really the big, bad USA which is somehow just using Israel for its own benefit, but this is really too far-fetched to even attempt to justify in any truthful manner.

But I was quite surprised to read something very revealing today in my local paper, which has a Jewish editor and Jewish publisher, but is actually owned by the huge Gannett Corporation which publishes gazillions of newspapers including USA Today.

It really struck me, the chutzpah of this article.

It was written by some local man by the name of Richard Sanders. Apparently Sanders is often a Jewish name. Even if this man is not Jewish , he certainly thinks like a true neocon.

The name of the article was "Wars Must Be Sold to Public For Support".

Hmmm... it seems to me that that is exactly what 9-11 was all about for example, which many believe was an inside job by the government and Israeli agents by the way. At any rate, the Bush administration uses 911 as an excuse to wage this so-called "war on terror" and the US media goes along with it for the most part - very little "whistle-blowing" going on these days in the US mainsream media which constantly refers quite falsely to Israel as "the only democracy in the Middle East", even though clearly it is a theocratic, apartheid state which has been guilty of ethnically cleansing non-Jews from Palestine since 1948 - in essence wiping Palestine off the map, in order to create and expand a Jewish - supremacist state. 9-11, the "war on terror", Palestine and the Jewish state of Israel are all closely inter-locking pieces of the puzzle.

But let's get back to article in my local paper aptly named "War Must Be Sold to Public for Support". This is an obvious statement because if indeed the American public does not support these wars at all, then we must realize we do not have a true democracy.

Of course, the Bush administration and all the neocons in the administration, think-tanks and media which happen to be mostly Israeli-Americans, have been feverishly trying all along to "sell" these wars to the American public.

That's what all those repeated lies about WMD and ties between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein were about, just for two examples. That's why the media repeats the lies about Israel, how it shares the same democratic values as Americans, which is completely false, as it is a Jewish supremacist state where non-Jews do not share the same rights, where Palestinian homes are demolished on a daily basis with bulldozers, where Jews cannot legally marry non-Jews, and so on and so forth. Too many examples to list here.

The US government and the media constantly try to create fear among the American people with regards to some terrorist threat, and big, bad bogeymen like bin Laden. It's ridiculously obvious what their game plan is once you start to really look into it, especially from alternative media sources such as the internet, documentaries and foreign papers. Even Israeli newspapers glean more light on the Truth than American papers - that's because the US media wants the American people to keep paying up for Israel, but Israelis do not have to be so coddled and conned. The US is clearly Israel's cash cow and Israeli-Americans in the US media want to keep that going.

So, are you ready for what the author of the article "Wars Must Be Sold to Public for Support" thinks that President Bush should have told the American public to get support for the war?

You're not going to believe this.

Here it is:

"Had President Bush said - "My fellow Americans, to protect America, to preserve our way of life, we must secure Iraq's oil" - would we have supported him?

What were the alternatives? To give up our trucks and SUVs? To accept a lower standard of living? To allow our enemies to get the oil, and the money and power it represents?

Had President Bush framed the issues this way in 2003, after first killing or capturing bin Laden, and had he properly planned for both the invasion and post-invasion occupation, including committing to a military force size that could succeed, he might have both the support and the victory today.

After the fall of Bagdad in the spring of 2003, US troops secured Iraq's oil ministry while Halliburton seized control of Iraq's oil fields. Today, when the president talks of Iraqis coming to an agreement on oil revenue sharing, he's not talking only of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias sharing those revenues, but US oil companies, too."

He fails to mention that Israel also expects to be included in on oil revenue sharing, as in a free oil pipeline from Iraq to Haifa, as a "bonus" for its "support" for the war on Iraq, as any internet search will reveal from many reliable sources such as the Christian Science Monitor and many others.

Sanders finishes up the article with this last paragraph:

"Last week, the president said we can't leave Iraq and must keep a military presence there indefinitely. He's right. We can't leave, unless we're willing to give up the oil and also put Israel in jeopardy. It is too late to tell the American people this? Sadly, yes, because the president's credibility is shot, as is the public's support for this war."

Certainly the only thing this author Sanders is right about is that last sentence. Let me repeat it: "The president's credibility is shot, as is the public's support for this war."

Earlier in his article he stated bluntly:

"What are the those strategic American interests in the Middle East? Two things: oil and Israel."

Well, now the cat is really just about totally out of the bag. The oil issue is rather bogus - we could have easily negotiated and fairly bought Iraq's oil and we have many other sources for oil, which is actually abundant and many sources have yet to be revealed and new harvesting techniques refined. At any rate, Saddam Hussein cooperated with the US government on many levels and issues except for one: Israel.

The Jewish state of Israel and its on-going ethnic-cleansing campaign against the non-Jewish Palestinian people, in essence wiping Palestine off the map since 1948, was being challenged by Saddam Hussein, whose Ba'athist Party, a secular, socialistic party aiming to unite Arab countries into a union along the lines of the European Union--was something Israel was violently opposed to. Israel wants hegemony over the Middle East, and won't tolerate any other Middle East country having any nuclear anything, although Israel itself has over 350 nuclear warheads. Saddam Hussein also helped to fund the Palestinians' quest for freedom, justice and equal rights in their own ancestral homeland of Palestine, but of course, Israel is also brutally and lethally against that.

So it all comes down to Israel. And oil for Israel, and financial rewards for the elite insider war-time profiteers / corporate thieves who go along with this.

Are the American people willing to support the Jewish state of Israel which persecutes non-Jews in the worst way, worse than apartheid South Africa? I doubt it.

Are the American people willing to continue to have politicians just funnel billions of their tax dollars to such an apartheid country and also fight wars on its behalf?

I sincerely doubt it.

As is often repeated, the first victim in times of war is often the Truth.

Sanders is really drinking his own Kool-aid if he thinks that Americans, especially if they know the Truth about racist, apartheid Israel, would want to continue on with supporting the Jewish state at such high costs, including human lives lost in war, rising gas prices, taxes for Israeli interests, long security lines at US airports, national debt and so on.

As for oil, I believe fair-minded, educated Americans would rather buy the oil from the Iraqis than steal it.

The fact is that oil prices have not, until recently, kept up with inflation. The fact is that the problem is, and has been for some time now, the US government's and mainstream media's support for the racist, apartheid state of Israel. This must end. We the people must demand that our government boycott and place sanctions against Israel until it transforms into a true secular, democracy with equal rights for all regardless of race, religion, or gender.

Something is rotten in the state of America and that is Israel.

It's time to cut the cords with Israel now.