Why the New York Times Is Now a Yellow Journal, A Gutter Rag -- Gilead Ini Removes Its Pretentious Veil
Gilead Ini explains the sins of the Times:
The state of Palestine, based on the 4th of June, 1967, borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, is a state under occupation, as was the case for many countries during World War II.
. . . . the 'filthy feet' of Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount desecrate it. . .A fuller quote has:
“Al-Aqsa is ours and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet. We won’t allow them to do so and we will do whatever we can to defend Jerusalem.” [WAFA, PA/PLO press agency]This claim of Jews having dirty or filthy feet actually goes back to medieval Muslim notions and prejudices against Jews which have been upheld in places from Persia [Iran] to Morocco.
In referring to 'filthy feet', Abbas seemed to be quoting a hadith "You must clean your courtyards and do not follow in the footsteps of the Jews" [here]Given the extensive laws of cleanliness in the Jewish tradition, the ritual washing of hands before meals, the ritual bathing in the miqveh, etc, this slur from Muslim tradition is a smear reflecting deep prejudice.
Jewish 'dirt' was taken to its logical extreme in Sh'ia tradition, where the Jew was najas or impure: To wine and other spirits, dogs, swine, dead animals that were not ritually slaughtered, blood, excrement, and the milk of animals whose meat Muslims are not allowed to eat Shi’a jurists traditionally add dead bodies and non-believers.
Thus Jews in Iran were not allowed to handle fruit and vegetables in the market, lest they contaminate them, and Jews were even known to have been executed in 19th century Persia for brushing up against Muslims in the rain, thus rendering them impure.Abbas also added his approval to war and violent terrorist acts:
As recently as 2006, Mohamed Ali Ramin, an adviser to president Ahmadinejad of Iran, said: "Jews are a dirty people. That is why one has accused them throughout history of spreading deadly diseases and plagues*." [here]
We welcome every drop of blood spilled [referring especially to the riots on the Temple Mount]Is it fair to say that Abbas is bloodthirsty?
But there exists, as we have said already, a point of saturation that the Jews must not go beyond under the penalty of finding themselves exposed to the danger of anti-Jewish persecutions, as in Russia, Rumania, Morocco, etc. . . . It is now high time to create a place of refuge . . . [translated from Autoemancipation! Avertissement d'un Juif Russe a Ses Freres (Paris: Mille et Une Nuits 2006), p 63 (emph. added)]So Pinsker wrote of Morocco as one of the principal places where Jews were threatened with or suffered from persecutions, like Russia and Rumania. And that Moroccan Jews needed and deserved a refuge as the Russian and Rumanian Jews did. Georges Bensoussan, the editor of a French edition of Pinsker's book, Autoemancipation! A Warning from a Russian Jews to His Brothers (first ed. 1882) that I have quoted, remarks in a footnote (p 63) that Pinsker should have added the Persian Jews to his list of most threatened Jewish communities. He goes on to point out that two of these countries, Morocco and Persia, "belong to the Muslim sphere," which, he adds, ought to "defang the legend of an Islamic world tolerant overall towards its minorities." The two countries, at opposite ends of the Islamic world, had never been under Ottoman rule, he points out, which was more tolerant, at least towards the Jews. I add that at that time neither country was under European rule and had not been since the Arab conquest of the two countries in the 7th century [Morocco became a French Protectorate in 1912]. Rumania, by the way, a Christian country, had been under Ottoman control until 1878, just four years before Pinsker wrote his book.
Herzl was primarily a man of action who wished to translate his ideas into reality. His basic premise, that Zionism constituted an effective antidote to antisemitism, led him to the conviction that the countries most plagued by this problem were his potential allies. As early as June 9, 1895, he jotted down in his diary, "First I shall negotiate with the Czar regarding permission for the Russian Jews to leave the country … Then I shall negotiate with the German kaiser, then with Austria, then with France regarding the Algerian Jews, then as need dictates." [see here]That was Herzl's diary, Here is a passage from his book, The Jewish State. He mentions the dangers to Algerian Jews near the beginning of Chapter 2:
Attacks [on Jews- note by Eliyahu] in Parliaments, in assemblies, in the press, in the pulpit, in the street, on journeys—for example, their exclusion from certain hotels—even in places of recreation, become daily more numerous. The forms of persecutions varying according to the countries and social circles in which they occur. In Russia, imposts are levied on Jewish villages; in Rumania, a few persons are put to death; in Germany, they get a good beating occasionally; in Austria, Anti-Semites exercise terrorism over all public life; in Algeria, there are travelling agitators; in Paris, the Jews are shut out of the so-called best social circles and excluded from clubs. Shades of anti-Jewish feeling are innumerable.Obviously, the claim is false that Zionism was founded with the intention of excluding Jews from Oriental countries.
“More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donor’s priorities.”
“The think tanks do not disclose the terms of the agreements they have reached with foreign governments. And they have not registered with the United States government as representatives of the donor countries, an omission that appears, in some cases, to be a violation of federal law, according to several legal specialists who examined the agreements at the request of the Times”
One of the toughest of the country’s hard-nosed security experts, Bruno Tertrais, wrote last month in the Canadian newspaper Le Devoir that “with pressure from the Obama administration” European negotiators’ original intent deteriorated from a rollback of Iran’s nuclear ambitions to their containment. [John Vinocur in the Wall Street Journal, 24 August 2015]So Obama's administration pressured the supposed "Western allies" of the USA to go easy on Iran and give in to Iranian demands rather than forcing Iran to give in to Western demands, through sanctions for instance. Moreover, Obama's Iran nuke deal is:
. . . . what France knows is a lousy Iran nuclear deal. [same article, John Vinocur in the Wall Street Journal, 24 August 2015]A French negotiator at the P5 + 1 talks with Iran was one Jacques Audibert. He met two American congressmen visiting France and told them that if Congress voted down the deal it would most likely NOT mean war. Rather, congressional disapproval of the deal would likely lead to renewed negotiations and a better deal. Here is the story from Bloomberg:
ABC This Week
KERRY: The United Nations resolution which brought about the sanctions in the first place said that if Iran will suspend its enrichment and come to negotiations, all the sanctions would be lifted. Now, they've done more than just come to negotiations. They've actually negotiated a deal. And three of the seven nations thought they shouldn't therefore be held to any kind of restraint. We prevailed and insisted, no, they have to be.
CBS Face the Nation
KERRY: ... [T]he reason that we were only able to limit them to the five and eight, which is quite extraordinary that we got that, was that three of the nations negotiating thought they shouldn't have any and were ready to hold out to do that. And we said under no circumstances, we have to have those...
Fox News Sunday
KERRY: This is a nuclear negotiation about a nuclear program. The United Nations, when they passed the resolution, contemplated that if Iran came to the negotiation and they ponied up, all the sanctions would be lifted. We didn't lift all the sanctions. We left in place despite the fact that three out of seven countries negotiating wanted to do away with them altogether. We won the five years for the arms and eight years for the missiles.
CNN State of the Union
KERRY: ... [T]his UN process that started the – that allowed the sanctions to be put in place in the first place contemplated the lifting of all sanctions once Iran had lived up to its obligations with respect to the NPT. So if the IAEA found in X number of years that they've lived up to this, then all the sanctions would be gone. So we, in fact, succeeded against three countries that didn't think they should have to do anything.
NBC Meet The Press
KERRY: And by the way, even though the arms and the missiles were put to – by the – they were thrown in as an add-on to this nuclear agreement. It was always contemplated that if Iran did come and deal on their nuclear program, that was going to be lifted.
ABC This Week
KERRY: But we have ample other resolutions that allow us to hold them accountable for moving any weapons. President Obama is committed to doubling down on the enforcement of those measures. So I really think that a mountain is being made out of a molehill here.
CBS Face the Nation
KERRY: ... [T]hey add on to additional mechanisms that we have to hold them accountable on arms and missiles. We have the missile control technology regime. We have other missile restraints on them. We also have other UN resolutions that prevent them from moving arms to the Houthi, prevents them from moving arms to the Shia, prevents them from – to the Shia militia in Iraq, prevents them from moving arms to Hizballah.
CNN State of the Union
QUESTION: ... Why is lifting the embargo part of this deal?
KERRY: Well, we're not lifting it. It has eight years out of a 10-year component of the UN resolution. Eight years it will be applied, and we have other UN resolutions and other mechanisms for holding Iran accountable on missiles.
Fox News Sunday
KERRY: But we have many other sanctions still applicable, and we can bring other sanctions to push back against any of their behavior. They're not allowed to send arms to Hizballah. That's a separate resolution. They're not allowed to send arms to the Shia militia in Iraq. A separate resolution. They're not allowed to send arms to the Houthis. Separate resolution. So we, in fact, have a huge ability to be able to bring any number of efforts against Iran for any bad behavior here whatsoever.
Fox News SundayQUESTION: Under this deal, we lift the arms embargo on Iran being able to buy weapons and even ballistic missiles between five and eight years. And the sanctions against General Soleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Qods Force, are also lifted. What we end up with, Secretary Kerry, is an Iran with billions, hundreds of billions of dollars more, able to buy weapons, and a Revolutionary Guard with fewer restraints. Isn't that potentially an even more dangerous state sponsor of terror in the Middle East?
KERRY: First of all, Chris, don't exaggerate. It's not hundreds of billions of dollars. It's $100 billion.
QUESTION: That's in the first year.
KERRY: But – it's their money that they have had frozen.
QUESTION: I understand. But it's a hundred --
KERRY: Well, let me – but let me just finish.
QUESTION: A hundred fifty billion is the first year.
KERRY: Please. Chris, this is not supposed to be a debate. You're supposed to ask a question and we're supposed to be able to answer it.