Zealotry--How Many Rabbits Can Trump Pull Out Of A Hat?

At the heart of the current crisis of the West that has led to the Anglo-Zionist war on the world is the phenomenon of zealotry. This is something that Jeffrey Sachs brought up in discussion with Alexander Mercouris and Glenn Diesen, and which Alastair Crooke also raised this morning with Judge Nap. It’s the common thread that ties so much together that we see going on around us. When Judge Nap refers to the “donor class”—does anyone doubt that he’s referring to a class that is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of public influence and dollar amounts contributed to political campaigns? That’s simple fact, easily confirmed, and the effects are obvious both domestically (support for radical anti-normal leftist agendas) and abroad (support for forever wars in the Middle East and against Russia). This is not simply an American problem—it appears that way because of the brief unipolar moment in history which led to the deceptive appearance of America as a colossus bestriding the world. But the same influence is apparent in other parts of the West—especially in the UK and in Paris.

This is the situation that Trump will be stepping into—hopefully a wiser and more determined man than he may have been in 2016. The leverage that a zealous donor class has obtained over the structures of governance in the West will be mobilized to thwart, control, channel Trump. I offer here more transcripts—Sachs and Crooke—for insight into what Trump will be facing.

We begin with Jeffrey Sachs, who is basically simply pointing to the elephant in the room—Jewish zealotry over the centuries.

Will Trump Deliver Peace? - Jeffrey Sachs, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

If it's true in the United States that the politicians are, to an extent, a side show, in Israel it's Mossad and the IDF that call the shots, more than just about any other part of society. So this is a militarized state, this is a military regime, it's a security regime. It has all of the profound abilities of being a militarized regime, which is that there's no such thing as diplomacy. There's no understanding that the way to peace has a different route, which is, you actually talk to the other side. This is a country that for decades completely abandoned any diplomacy at all with the Arab world, or with the Islamic world more generally, or with the neighbors in general. None! No diplomacy.

The other fact about Israel which is really stunning and, when you do take a deep dive into it it's so perplexing, there is an extraordinary religious zealotry that is another fuel of this. I don't mean just zealotry of nationalism and zealotry of a Jewish State and so forth. I mean zealotry of 6th Century BC literal texts. This is something absolutely unusual. It exists almost nowhere in the world but the extremist zealous rabbis, the illegal settlers on the West Bank. Troops in the IDF are reading from sixth century texts like the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament, which is a book about genocide. It says God gave the Israelites this land and are instructed to wipe out every man, woman, and child that lives there.

As the Israeli historian Ilan Pappé has put it, Most Zionists don’t believe in God, but they do believe God gave them the land. It basically comes down to what could be called the paradigm of ‘chosenness.’ The God of Israel is not a God whose ways can be plumbed by human reason, or can be justified in any normal moral sense—or not consistently if one consults the ancient Israelite scriptures as a whole. As Stern Gang terrorist and Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir put it (to whom Sachs appears to be referring):

“We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: ‘Ye shall blot them out to the last man’.”

If one can believe that, the sky becomes the limit. In fact, the phenomenon of killing for the sake of killing that Seymour Hersh has documented becomes simply the programmatic participation in fulfilling the God of Israel’s assurance to those he has chosen in Dt. 2:25:

“Today and henceforth, I shall fill the peoples under all heavens with fear and terror of you; whoever hears word of your approach will tremble and writhe in anguish because of you.”

Or as RFK Jr.’s pal Shmuley Boteach puts it:

“It’s time for Jews to be feared!”

One of the interesting things about that zealotry is that the text says, 'No, this was not the primordial indigenous land of the Jewish people. This was conquered land--not just conquered, but conquered in a series of genocides.’ Well it's very unfortunate if public policy is shaped in this absolutely extraordinary way. What is so utterly tragic and alarming about this, from my own reading--I'm not a scholar of the ancient Middle East or of the 2600 years of Jewish history under these texts, but I will tell you as an observer, as a political observer--the zealots have lost their state on repeated occasions during this period. The ancient Jews had rebellions against powerful adversaries based on a zealotry that ended up getting them destroyed. One of the famous episodes is the [Jewish] Rebellion against the Roman Empire in 66 ad to 70 AD, which led to the destruction of the so-called Second Temple of Jerusalem. But the point is: Excuse me, it's 66 AD and you're going to rebel against the the Roman Empire, and you think that that's good statecraft?

Now if one steps back from zealotry, from literal readings of ancient sacred texts, if one looks at a region of 400 million people, if one looks at international law, simple justice, UN General Assembly Security Council, you don't want to lose the state of Israel by making demands that are so contrary to every norm, standard, law, that we have in the international scene. But that's the route that Israel is on, and that the United States has blindly fed.

But has the United States simply been blind? It has certainly been corrupted by the leverage of money. But could this have happened but for the susceptibility of Protestant fundamentalism to Zionist ideology and claims? That was certainly the case in the British Empire leading up to the Balfur Declaration—the purchase of Palestine for the Zionist project by the Rothschilds. Could president after president, and virtually our entire political establishment have gotten away with selling American policy to the Israel Lobby, but for that fundamental (!) susceptibility in America’s civic religion?

Now Alastair Crooke looks at the situation that Trump finds himself in—as a result.

Alastair Crooke: Should Trump Trust Netanyahu?

Judge: Is Israel an asset for the United States?

Crooke: Decidedly not. It's a huge liability because for all these years Israel has been taking America into forever wars across the region--four, five regime changes that were all instructed and ordered in this paper called A Clean Break written in 1996 by a group [headed by an Israeli spy, Richard Perle] that subsequently became The New American Century group [founded by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan]. They proposed all of these regime changes, ultimately ending with Iran. The consequence for the United States has been huge damage to its reputation and to its moral standing--it has no real moral standing anymore.

Judge: Does Iran have a nuclear weapon?

Crooke: I don't know. ... I don't think it would take very long for it to be assembled. I suspect the component parts are already there. It just requires for the fissile material to be loaded into the targeting, the bomb system, and then you have a nuclear weapon. I don't think it would be very difficult or take long for Iran to do that. It's a political judgment, a very fine judgment, that Iran is trying to make. They know they are being targeted.

In other words, this is a step that Iran could easily take—but, as it has maintained for years, doesn’t want to take. And herein lies the danger that Crooke points to in the next paragraph—the danger involved in Trump giving conflicting signals and allowing his “advisers” to make outrageous statements that would normally be take to reflect Trump’s own views. The danger is that foreign governments can’t simply wait for Trump to show his hand—they need to prepare for all eventualities, and that can include taking real actions, making strategic decisions with real consequences.

They don't know yet what Trump will do or what he thinks. Clearly this is going to be an issue that is going to come up very, very soon--before Ukraine--for Trump. It could become an extremely difficult issue for him. His envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, very clearly called for a reviving of the maximum pressure campaign against Iran. It was the audience Kellogg gave this statement to which underlines it so much, because this was the MEK, the terrorist group that fought against Iran in the Iran Iraq War and then subsequently committed terrorist attacks and assassinations throughout Iran. They are bitterly hated in Iran.

Allowing Kellogg to signal so clearly that Trump has not renounced the use of terrorists—just as the Zhou regime has done in Syria—is a very bad signal to the rest of the world. If we assume that Trump doesn’t actually agree with the policy of supporting terrorists of the most atrocious sort, then the signal can be interpreted to mean that Trump is not in control of his own national security establishment. Neither alternative can be reassuring to foreign governments.

So this is a decision that is going to be facing Trump very soon ... [The Zionists are] fanatical about creating Greater Israel and with zealots and fanatics they may do that even if it's self-destructive. It won't be the first time in Israel's history that a group of zealots have brought destruction down onto Israel. [But the big inducement that Netanyahu is presenting to them is that if we wait to get Trump on board we can go] for the bigger prize: an attack on Iran. This is what Kellog was hinting at: 'One little push, just one F-35 over Iran, and probably the regime would collapse. It's so weak, it's so corrupt, it would collapse in a trice. And then there'd be a revolution and then we could have'--I mean, it's really almost disgusting to hear it; then they say--'we could then have a democratic government in Iran!' I mean, this language of democracy has just become so degraded and so tarnished.

There is no moral argument to this. It is part of the deepest structures of United States politics: Israel. Israel and the foreign policy on Israel are not things that can be discussed in public, or haven't been until very recently. It is the deeply embedded structural element to America's foreign policy which is effectively untouchable by the Uniparty and by Congress. You do that at the risk of losing your job, your career--even if you're a congressman.

America and Trump will have three options--they're not mutually exclusive. One would be to threaten Iran and impose really harsh sanctions--rather like we saw happening to Syria--to facilitate a new round of negotiations. Or it could be to greenlight an Israeli preemptive strike in Iran and bear the consequences or to join with Israel in striking Iran ... If you go to the second the idea is that they can just wait out Trump talking to Putin and then do a deal on the back of that. But that's contingent on Trump succeeding in doing a deal with Russia, with Putin, and I'm a little bit skeptical of that. I think you may find that the third option is what is possible--Iran may decide to reestablish its power, its deterrent capabilities, its military capabilities to be able to negotiate from a position of strength having demonstrated in Israel that they're no pushover.

I believe in Trump's intentions. He doesn't want a war with Iran, but the question is, does he really understand where this could lead if he goes down this route of coercion?

In other words, he could push Iran into going nuclear.

Judge: Here's the danger, in my view. The president elect has little personal understanding of all of this and will rely on the people around him, and he has surrounded himself with arch Zionists and for the most part Neocons, and they want war.

However sometimes he acts on his own, like when he posted a clip of Jeffrey Sachs referring to Netanyahu as "a deep, dark son of a bitch.” There were many other criticisms in there. The essence of them was that Netanyahu and the Donor Class [a transparent code word] in the United States have led the United States into its disastrous Middle East Wars. What is the message sent by the president-elect posting this very articulate and very strong and very passionate piece by Jeff Sachs?

Crooke: I think it's a warning to Netanyahu which I think is well merited: Don't take me for granted, don't think that you can just maneuver me into a war. The United States has its own interests. ... The real issue both in Ukraine and also with Iran is, How far out on a limb can Trump go in respect to the Deep State? Russia and Iran are the most basic load bearing structures of American foreign policy, and Trump has to do a deal because he wants to get his key nominations into the domestic area and into the China trade. ... We only have to look at what's happened to Tulsi Gabbard in the last few days to understand that Trump has had to pay the entry price into this discussion, by appointing all these Israeli Firsters. We know that the Deep State is saying, 'Okay, you can do the domestic things. We won't give you everyone but we can give you some of these nominees but, with the others on foreign policy we will have our way. We will have our way over the National Security Council and other nominations.'

Before Trump can really do a deal either with Putin, or even with Netanyahu, about Iran he has to get that deal done, and it's not done yet. It may take a little time till it's done, but there's going to be a tradeoff. The Deep State are going to have their interests. Will they give up on Russia? Will they give up on Iran? It's going to be a very delicate balance.

Judge: The $64,000 Question this morning. Alastair, should Donald Trump trust Benjamin Netanyahu?

Crooke: [A moment of shocked silence, then] Absolutely not! Don't forget that series of six or seven regime changes that were demanded in a document to Netanyahu, it was commissioned by him, and this was the advice to Netanyahu. We started with Iraq and then went through Libya and Sudan, Somalia, and the last one on it was Syria, and then Iran--and we're still on that track. ... I can't guarantee you at all but I think there's a possibility actually that Iran is going to preempt this by taking military action themselves to demonstrate deterrence and in order to get into a position where they can negotiate with Trump not from weakness.