Unless blissfully unaware of the bullshit being peddled by the MSM you may have heard allegations of collusion between Team Trump and the Russians. The current smoking gun is an admission by Trump’s national security advisor, Michael Flynn, that he lied about having meetings with the Russians. This is being used to support unproven allegations that Russia interfered in the US election. In the Flynn scenario, the MSM ignores information pointing to collusion of US officials with Israel that relegates Russia to a bit player who wouldn’t cooperate.
Those meetings were not about the American election, which had already ended, but about a UN vote in Dec 2016 that would condemn Israel’s illegal settlement building in occupied territory. Israel wanted the President-elect to put pressure on other nations to vote against UN resolution 2334, after Obama enraged them by rebuffing their demands. Russia was asked by Flynn to obstruct the vote, and refused. It was passed anyway. During his trial Michael Flynn admitted that a “senior member” of Trump’s transition team had directed him to approach the Russians – widely assumed to have been his son-in-law Jared Kushner, a close friend of Israel.
Today, Trump is poised to announce moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a move that will enrage the entire Middle East and destroy any hopes of a 2-state solution for Palestine. This total divergence from US policy on Palestine, and that of the rest of the world, has clearly come about through collusion between Israel and the US presidential team.
Were Trump’s team colluding with Russia then perhaps moving the US Embassy in Ukraine to Crimea would be equivalent. The Trump-Russia connection is a diversion, plain and simple. The connection between Trump and Israel is the linkage that threatens world peace and America’s standing in the world.
6 thoughts on “Russia, the USA and Israel – Who colludes with whom?”
SO fucking depressing…
Depressing yes, but the same old shit that’s been going on for centuries. Misinformation from above that is primarily designed to keep our rulers in power. Nixon ramped up the war in Vietnam, clearly knowing it was un-winnable, solely in order to win his own re-election.
I am reminded of Mr Obama who spoke-out against the UK leaving the European Union, asserting that the move could hurt future trade deals with the US.
“I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a US-UK trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done,” he said at a joint conference with David Cameron in April. “The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.”
It is clear to my mind this comment was designed to influence the outcome of a foreign people’s democratic process (gosh imagine the USA being involved with any such anti-democratic shenanigans in another nation state) .
Of cause both Cameron and Obama were on the wrong side of how history was in-fact set to be played-out. My understanding (reading/belief) is that, over the coming times, the EU and Russia are intended to be brought togeather to form one ‘greater’ union. All be see between them, greatly now and much since the end of the USSR, is a ‘power-play’ between Russia and the EU as to which one between them is going to be the ‘top dog’ (think: the dog that wins is the one that mounts the submissive, weaker other).
The United Kingdom was never intended to be a part of this eventual EU/Russian ‘Greater Union’ though its close relationship with the EU is intentional to help to try and influence the character of the trans-continental union’s formation. The same ‘half in half out’ has existed for Norway though this is as much about it as a geo-political military/invasion foothold and denying their Atlantic facing ports as it is anything else so mundane as the political.
The occidental powers know that to form and dominate a political and economic global union the strategy needs to be a step-by-step process, one of forming ever greater unions, and one where – as much as it is possible – they remain, however remotely, able to influence and nudge the unwitting player towards the ultimate multi-generational goal.
Yep, they are constantly getting involved in each other’s politics. Quite amusing that there is such outrage over alleged Russian interference in US elections, for which there is no evidence. The American way of interference is straightforward bomb-em-out regime change, which hardly seems like a more acceptable option. Sigh.
It is true that the US use their hegemonic power to enact and enforce but, like a duck, whatever we see there is a great deal more going-on under the surface too.
A case in point, which is little understood, is that it was the US after WWII that greatly caused the embryo of the EU to come-about. What I do not have evidence of is that of their continued involvement all the way through to our modern times though it is apparent, from the Obama Brexit statement, there was a belief it would be useful to keep the UK in the EU a little longer than is happening.
Robert Schuman drew up the Schuman Plan – an initiative to control the production steel and so prevent future arms production. Published on the 9th of May 1950 this date is now regarded as the birth of the European Union. Schuman, it is now clear, was funded, supported and encouraged by an OSS (early CIA) operation: The American Committee on United Europe (ACUE), founded in 1948.
At this stage the UK was considered too anti-federalist as it appears to partially remain. But in terms of being a useful device for the ‘The Anglo-American Establishment’ to continue to influence and monitor the EU, no better device than the UK has been found.
American Committee on United Europe
OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe
Richard J. Aldrich
University of Nottingham,
Sorry to have apparently strayed from the key matter to which your main post alludes. It is not so far removed though as these matters are truly all just facets of the same multi-faceted multi-generational operation and one is illustrative of the other.
My perception broadly is that the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine was not honestly conceived to serve the interests of the Jews. If the establishment of Israel appears to be beneficial to Jews that is because such an idea is the honey in the trap – to help attract a viable population and to muster the broad support of Jewish people, and others, around the world.
The 100 year plus agenda for the establishment of Israel was to cause a perpetual ferment of disruption and have a military force, a foothold and an entry-point all provided there within the Middle East. This then helped prevent the establishment of an Arab empire, preclude an Arab industrial and financial economy from being fostered on the wealth provided by oil and an larger intellectual educated middle-class from developing.
The terrorist aggression originally directed towards Israel has been expanded to the wider world and, in turn, now brought back to attack itself. Without Israel this effect would not have occurred. The net result is a global ever deepening of state controls, endless security expenditure, endless war expenditure, perpetuated disarray across the Middle East and further too. It is easy to see the potential for all this to be the result of a geo-political strategy of causing such agitation. It is an old game. It is the Great Game.
Hi Gregory ….. didnt Balfour do that, with his Declaration, back in 1917 ?? ….. and the Clinton era ( etc ) statements ….. this is just the confirmation, By the UsofA of over 20 years of statements.
Balfour Declaration – Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a “national home for …