Waiting for the coming election in the US I remembered last time when I wrote the article “Will the World Change Now?“(In full text below). I also came to think of the beautiful song by Bob Dylan, as he was in Sweden recently: “The times they are A-Changing” (1964).
This famous and moving song was also performed by Simon and Garfunkel, who also were in Sweden recently.
It is a long time since these boys sang “The times they are A-Changing”, and they had a great impact on the feelings and spirit of us then, and may still have … But as far as I remember, their beautiful songs/music was not connected by the movement or media to the Palestinians or the war down there 1967. It was mostly about the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam war. There was never really any place for Palestine in the leftist 68-movement, as the Jewish state is neither traditional colonialism nor an outcome of imperialism.
My generation really loved all three of them. They happened all to be born in 1941 as myself and we all are of Jewish descent. However I never thought of them as Jews, at that time, but since I myself made some genuine personal changes, I wondered what happened to them. So I made a fast check on the net.
Simon & Garfunkel were honored in Tel Aviv just a few years ago. I thought it might have been because they just happened to be Jews and good musicians, no harm in that. In the press-conference Paul Simon talked about his visit to the Wall (but not which one). Hmm …
Bob Dylan had already 1971 positive connections to the militant Jewish Defense League (JDL) and praised its founder Meir Kahane a friend of Zeew Jabotinsky. He has apparently been a hard core Zionist since then.
Bob Dylan at the Wailing Wall.
The story about Bob Dylan as a Human Rights activist is very sad, as it seems as it was and still is possible to at the same time be a hard core racist, without this being questioned in wider circles. And why did Paul Simon go to be honored by the Jews-only state without even mentioning the Palestinians?
What change did these musical icons really sing about?
Barak Obama talked a lot about change last time he was elected president of US. Does anyone seriously think it matters who will become president this time? That said, of course there have been a lot of change since then. The awakening of the Arab World, the transparency of Jewish Power, and the deepening of the economic crisis which always seems to end in a great war. But I wonder if this is really new, or just more of the same? That is to say, the final implementation of the Oded Yideon plan for the Middle East, 1982 that was followed by The Clean Break and the Project for a New American Century.
Are we not still waiting for the people of the world to wake up and realize that we now all are Palestinians? Isn’t that the change we are waiting for?
Uppdate after the elections with thanks to Gilad Atzmon:
PRESIDENT BARAK OBAMA HAS BEEN RE-ELECTED
Dear president, this is your second and last chance to save us all, please don’t disappoint us again.
You must give it a try – four years without Yarmulka.
Will the world change now?, by Lasse Wilhelmson four years ago
The American people have now taken a stand against the policy eight years of the Bush Administration has come to represent. That is: the neo- colonial wars and the economic crisis. This is what history will remember. Peoples and governments worldwide now hope their expectations will come to be fulfilled.
Many run the risk of being disappointed, however. The election is in many respects a theatre, directed by the owner-constellations in the circles close to America’s privately-owned (!) central bank, the Federal Reserve (Fed). They are as well main figures in the economic crisis. These people own or control the better part of the mass media and have– going back far–made pivotal contributions to both parties in U.S. election campaigns.
The world is to a large extent ruled through institutions such as the privately-owned (!) Council for Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission (TC), and the Bilderberg Group. These are the same people that hold key positions within all these institutions, the Fed included. With the exception of Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Fed, they are conspicuous by their absence in the coverage of current events of world importance. And the same goes for the obvious questions about who financed the election campaigns, and where did all the money lost in the economic crisis go?
Every journalist who has done his homework fairly well is of course familiar with this and has already asked himself these questions. Unfortunately, most of them chose to act like prostitutes and help uphold the illusionary reality that makes up this theatre, instead of unmasking it and go on digging for answers, which would preserve the honour of their profession.
So what can we expect when, for example, it comes to future U.S. foreign policy? The Israeli influence in this matter is by now widely known as significant. They have accomplished this thanks to the most influential lobby in the United States, namely the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), through innumerable think-tanks and, not least, through the executive power the Zionist neo-cons, a group of civilian militants in and around the White House. This has resulted in a hazardous policy on international level which is not of benefit to traditional U.S. interests and which the American people has taken a stand against by electing Barack Obama as their president.
The EU leadership, currently headed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner–both Zionists of Jewish stock–now has a new American president to co-operate with. Sarkozy has earlier declared that he, just like Bush, would view an Israeli attack on Iran as defensible. Upon winning the nomination as Democratic candidate, the president elect made the mandatory oath of loyalty towards Israel at an AIPAC meeting. According to Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet, Kouchner welcomed Barack Obama’s victory by saying, “France, Europe and the international community need his energy, his rejection of injustice and his determination to go forward to build a safer, fairer and more stable world.”
However, to the best of my knowledge, Obama has said nothing other than that he wants to re-prioritise by moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, and he has never objected to Israel’s genocidal policies towards the Palestinians. In order to co-ordinate and govern these and other tasks, Obama has now appointed Rahm Emanuelas his White House Chief of Staff. He is the son of one of leaders of the Irgun, the Jewish terrorist organisation responsible for the worst deeds committed during the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948. Emanuel was active as a volunteer during the Gulf War of 1991 not in the U.S. Army, but in the Israeli Army, stationed at base in the Galilee. He has also been mentioned in connection with the Monica Lewinsky Affair, which was a typical trap set by the Mossad for Clinton.
Emanuel has for long been a hawk among the warmongers in the White House, and in 2006 he was involved in evaluating and picking the Democratic candidates for the Congressional election of 2008. Obama’s Chief of Staff is certainly not just anybody; he has for long been a strategically-placed Jewish Zionist in the Democratic Party, who–just like his colleagues–normally puts Israeli interests over American interests.
Kouchner, Sarkozy and the EU can now sleep tight with Obama as newly-elected president and Emanuel as his White House Chief of Staff. There is a lot that indicates U.S. foreign policy also from now on will be governed by Israeli interests. And Sweden, like other Western countries, can easily continue its submission policy and participation in criminal, neo-colonial wars. Obama will by far surpass Bush in eloquence and social competence, and his family background will make it more difficult to criticise him.
As usual I do of course hope I am wrong. In such an event it would be due to the American people’s clear will in this election, how it will work to make its expectations materialise, but perhaps foremost on how it will handle its disappointments.