.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Friday, November 16, 2018

How Dare They Deny that the NYT Is Fake News?

If anyone is not yet convinced that the NYT often and deliberately publishes fake news, false pictures of contemporary reality, pictures distorted and twisted beyond all recognition, might take a look at a recent article by  one Megan Specia on Israel. The NYT accuses President Trump of lying. The NYT was lying before Trump was born. With the Specia piece it descends to the level of a simplistic agitprop rag. It is entitled: "What to Know about Gaza's Latest Flare-up." Consider:
"Hamas and other armed groups responded with force, launching rockets and mortar shells into southern Israel. One Palestinian civilian was killed inside Israel on Monday and Israeli airstrikes killed at least seven Palestinians in Gaza on Monday and Tuesday."
The paragraph above makes it look as if Israeli military action had killed the man. He was actually living in the Jewish city of Ashkelon and had permits from the Israeli govt to work and live inside the Green Line, inside pre-1967 Israel [according to the JPost]. The sentence says that seven "palestinians" were killled by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza but we are not told how the Arab was killed "inside Israel". One might reasonably infer that it was Israeli military action that killed him. However, a rocket from Gaza killed him. Here the NYT uses the passive voice ["One Palestinian civilian was killed"] to becloud what happened 

Then there are these lines:
"The border fence, which critics say virtually turns Gaza into an open-air prison, has been a source of friction ever since. So have the blockades imposed by both Israel and Egypt since Hamas seized power 11 years ago."
The NYT scribbler insinuates that Israel is imprisoning Gazans. However, she should explicitly say that since Gaza is ruled by Hamas --"Hamas seized power 11 years ago"-- it is Hamas that is jailing the population there not Israel or Egypt [Both Israel & Egypt border on the Gaza Strip and have border crossings with it]. Hamas and allied pro-Iranian terrorist organizations such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad regularly harass Israelis living around the Gaza Strip perimeter, sending incendiary kites and bombs that have burned thousands of dunams of farmland and forest, forcing these people to stay inside and keep their children there or send them away from the area. These incendiary kites and bomb-carrying balloons plus grenades and attacks on the perimeter fence have been going on since the end of March of this year. Not only has land been burnt but farm equipment has been destroyed. Miraculously only one soldier has been killed at the fence over those long months and no civilians, although many have been injured. In the attack by some 460 rockets earlier this week, one civilian was killed on the Israeli side. Ironically he was an Arab.

Finally, the very title of the piece, "What to Know about Gaza's Latest Flare-up" , is very patronizing toward the reader. It really means what the NYT wants the reader to know or believe. Which may be false.

Labels: ,

Sunday, November 04, 2018

Do American Jews Owe Their Votes to the Democratic Party?

expanded 11-4-2018

A number of my fellow American Jews seem to think that there is a moral imperative for them to vote for the Democratic Party. This is a tragic misunderstanding. Despite its egalitarian and inclusive rhetoric over the years, presidents and other high officials belonging to the Democratic Party have inflicted or helped to inflict incalculable harm on the Jewish people. We need only go back to the period of the German National Socialists, Hitler's Nazis, which coincided with the period of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the USA to see how FDR --despite his liberal rhetoric-- helped the Hitler regime to consolidate itself. Meanwwhile FDR and his State Dept made it difficult for Jewish refugees to come to the USA in order to flee from Hitler & his Nazis. Even German Jews who legally should have been covered by the large immigration quota for Germany, were kept out on various pretexts. David Wyman made this very clear in his books and articles.

After WW2 began in late 1939, this policy was maintained even as the Nazi policy of mass murder of Jews had begun to be implemented. Likewise, after the USA entered the war in 1941 the policy continued although the Shoah was now operating in high gear. Yet FDR and his administration tried to suppress the information known to Washington intelligence agencies as early as 1942 about mass murder concentration camps, However, the administration did hold a briefing on the subject for congressional leaders of both parties, although no Jewish congressemen were invited as far as I know. These congressmen were clearly told that genocide was going on against the Jews. And they were asked to keep the subject secret. Nevertheless, one brave congressman, Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania ---a Republican by the way-- released the info to an activist for the Committee for a Jewish Army that wanted the USA to sponsor the creation of a Jewish army to fight the Nazis under Allied command.

Later in the war, as the knowledge of the ongoing tragedy. of the mass murder became more widely known, Jewish leaders such as Haim Weizmann tried to move Allied leaders, Churchill and FDR, to do something to help stop or alleviate the mass murder process. They suggested bombing the railroad tracks leading to the concentration camps and perhaps asked also that the crematoria and gas chambers be destroyed by Allied air power, which was possible by mid-1943 when the USA had control of Tunisia. Of course no such help was given. Not long after the American army took Sicily putting American air power even closer to the murder camps in Germany and Poland. This subject has been studied by Arthur Morse, Monty Penkower, William Perl, David Wyman [a non-Jew by the way], Yitshak Ben-Ami, and others. Dwight MacDonald [who called himself an independent Marxist at that time, I believe] published a weekly of sophisticated political commentary called Politics. MacDonald spread knowledge of the Shoah during the war among independent "leftist" intellectuals so the so-called New York intellectuals were aware of the ongoing tragedy and FDR's refusal to act to alleviate it.

Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits wrote in his book, Faith after the Holocaust, that Western leaders wanted the Jews to die. Is there another rational explanation for FDR's inaction?

So much for Saint FDR whom Democrats still honor with yearly dinners honoring him. Obama took part in those dinners.

Without going into detail about other Democratic presidents, jimmy carter and his national insecurity advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski were fairly obvious in their antisemitism, both in regard to Israel and domestically. Abroad Carter and Zbig helped to put the Khomeini regime in power in Iran. Domestically, after General George Brown made derogatory, antisemitic comments about American Jews, the Carter administration refused to dismiss him. Instead Carter worked to get rid of Jewish Democratic congressman Joshua Eilberg, who ironically represented a Pennsylvania congressional district partly overlapping the one Republican Hugh Scott had represented during WW2. Eilberg had called for Brown's dismissal.

Since they took over Iran, the ayatollahs' regime has regularly threatened to destroy Israel and has funded the Lebanese Hizbullah which has made war on Israel, shooting rockets at Israeli population centers in order to kill civilians. The mullahs' Iran also denies the Holocaust but says in so many words that another Shoah would be deserved by the Jews and Israel. This brings us to Iranian efforts to build an A-Bomb or H-Bomb, a very heartwarming effort no doubt meant to bring peace and harmony to the Middle East. This effort has  also been done in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty which apparently bothers very few of those who constantly refer to the notion of interanational law when it comes to vilifying Israel. In 2015 Obama announced his JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal which left plenty of loopholes for Iran to go through in order to soon get The Bomb. One loophole is the ridiculously inadequate and ineffective inspection regime. In other words, Iran can foreclose IAEA inspectors from inspecting many of the suspect nuclear development sites in Iran.

Regarding Israel, Obama favors applying apartheid against Jews keeping them out of most or all of the Judea-Samaria region, the so-called West Bank, although all that region is part of the internationally recognized Jewish National Home [San  Remo 1920, League of Nations 1922]. That is part of the meaning of UN Security Council resolution 2334 passed when Obama was a lame duck president after the election of 2016. Obama worked hard to push that resolution through with approval of all Security Council members save for the US itself which abstained, pretending to US public opinion to be neutral on the matter. Furthermore, Obama subtly derided and defamed Israel in his speeches to the UN General Assembly. Besides that, Obama refused to identify the Jewish victims in the Hypercacher supermarket as Jews or the crime as antisemitism. Instead he called them "random folks in a deli." He repeated this offense in regard to the Pittsburgh massacre of last week by refusing to identify the victims as Jews [to quote him: "We grieve for the Americans murdered in Pittsburgh"]  although he did call for a fight against antisemitism. Of course the victims in Pittsburgh were Americans. But they were murdered because they were Jews. The problem  here is that politicians and anti-Jewish, anti-Israel ideologues define the word antisemitism to suit their own political and ideological purposes,

In light of all the above, and much much more that it would be tedious to include in this short piece, it is obvious that Jews do not owe their votes to the Democratic Party. Neither do Republicans  have a perfect record regarding Jews and Israel. Look at the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. Jews have a right and duty to evaluate candidates based on their records on life and death Jewish issues and not just on their rhetoric, and rather than on some ignorant simplistic "universal" values while not taking real facts into account [such as Franklin Forer's screed in the Atlantic]. At this time the Republicans are more sympathetic to Jews and Israel while the Democratic Party is more and more under the sway of the Muslim woman-abuser Keith Ellison and of Linda Sarsour who seems in turn  to be the favorite of wealthy and influential movers and shakers behind the scenes.

Labels: , ,

Friday, October 19, 2018

An Arab Country Builds a Wall Too

Everybody knows that there has been a great deal of international condemnation of Israel for building its anti-terrorist barrier about twelve years ago. But other countries build walls too for security. Spain built high, especially strong fences around its enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the coast of Morocco. By the way, these two enclaves have been ruled by Spain for more than 500 years. The Spaniards wanted to stop migrants from coming into Ceuta and Melilla. That's why Spain built the fence and that fence has gotten some world publicity, although not as much and not as unfavorable as the publicity for Israel's fence or barrier, often called The Wall.

But Tunisia's wall has hardly gotten any publicity at all. Well, of course, Tunisia is Arab so obviously few journalists will dare to criticize it. But this wall seems to also be motivated by genuine security concerns not altogether different from those  of Israel and Spain. But I only learned about it when I picked up some old articles I had brought home from a trip to Italy in 2015.

We read in Avvenire ("Popotus" 9 July 2015) that Tunisia was building the wall --no doubt finished by now-- because of the chaos in Libya which meant that many many terrorists were able to find refuge there. Apparently the Tunisians too were worried about terrorists crossing the border from Libya. And everybody knew that Arab terrorists kill Arabs too. Not only Jews get killed by Arab Muslim jihadis. The decision to build the wall was taken shortly after terrorists attacked Western tourists on a vacation beach in Sousse, Tunisia. The Tunisian prime minister stated he was building the wall:
"in order to prevent the infiltration of Libyan terrorists onto [our] territory"
[Avvenire 9 July 2015]
The barrier was to be 168 kilometers long along one-third of Tunisia's border with Libya. It was to be finished by the end of 2015.

So how is that? Even an Arab state felt a need to build a wall of its very very own.
So can we hear a little less hypocrisy about Israel's security barrier?

- - - - - - - -
The Spanish enclaves on the Moroccan coast go back to the 15th century.
Ceuta' was taken by Don Juan of Portugal in 1415 and the enclave later passed to Spanish possession under the treaty of Lisbon of 1640. Melilla was taken by Spain in 1497. The small island of Alhucemas just off the coast of Morocco was taken by Spain in 1490, while Arabs still ruled the kingdom of Granada in European Spain. Recall that Arab and Berber [= Moorish] forces conquered most of Spain in the early 8th century.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, September 30, 2018

The European Union Violates Its Ostensible Principles

The European Union claims not to be just an economic union that aims for prosperity and profits. It wishes to believe that it has principles and values. These include solidarity, transparency, peace [while also claiming to be a "world power" (puissance mondiale)], security, freedom, responsibility, (the two last being "the foundations of democracy"), "equal dignity for everyone," the refusal to exclude, respect for the diversity of cultures, preserving the environment, better health protection, protecting the interests of consumers, and a few more. I'll discuss some of these principles and values below.

First, let's take up security.  How about the EU's accomplishments in this field which overlaps with peace? The flyer published by the Mouvement Europeen - France that brings all of these cheery tidings, was published in April 2005. Since then Europe, the EU, has seen a few major and minor terrorist attacks. These include the 7-7 attacks in London on 7 July of that year, just a few months after this flyer, entitled "Que nous apporte l'Union Europeenne?" ["What Does the European Union Bring Us?"] was published. The flyer goes into detail on security:
Europe means struggling together for security. The terrorist attacks in New York [11 September 2001] and, closer to us, Madrid [11 March 2004] demonstrate the will and capacity of international terrorism to endanger freedoms and democracy. The nomination of a "Mr Terrorism" shows our determination to coordinate our efforts to struggle against this scourge. The police cooperation with Europol, the judicial cooperation with Eurojust and the European Arrest Warrant are going to be considerably reinforced in order to struggle against terrorism but also against international mafias, major banditry, the trade in human beings, corruption, etc . . .  The Schengen Zone of free circulation within 13 EU countries (except for the United Kingdom and Ireland), will only be open to ten entering countries after a period of transition. The Exterior Borders have been reinforced.
Isn't this paragraph above little more than a bad joke? Isn't it fair to say that their "security" efforts and endeavors have been a great failure? Think of the major terrorist attacks in France alone, Bataclan [Paris, November 2015 - about 130 murdered], la Promenade des Anglais, a seaside pedestrian walkway in Nice [July 2016 - about 85 murdered] plus a dozen or more minor attacks such as the Jewish school, 4 murdered, plus 3 soldiers murdered,Toulouse [March 2012], Charley Hebdo & Hypercacher [Paris January 2015], so forth and so on. Then there were major attacks in Brussels in 2016, in Manchester and London in 2017, plus Barcelona in 2017 plus a number of other attacks in France, Germany, etc. So the EU has been incapable of dealing with "the will and capacity of international terrorism" to carry out major terrorist attacks in EU member countries. And yet, after the Shoah which was a European product, the Euros now presume to tell the Jews in Israel how to protect themselves against mass murderous Arab jihad terrorism. The same Euros who are incompetent to defend even their own countries have the insolence to propose "peace plans" to Israel on how to make peace with Arabs inspired by a jihad ideology. Hence, if security is a value or principle of the EU, then it is a failure as an organization.

Just by the way, the Schengen Zone praised above facilitates the movement of terrorists from one country or one national jurisdiction to another. So Schengen should hardly be praised in a paragraph dealing with security. And the external borders of the Union have hardly been reinforced effectively. You could laugh at the Euro Fools if it were not so sad.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Labels: ,

Germany & Merkel Dominate the EU -- Right-winger F Philippot Agrees with Socialist M Renzi

Matteo Renzi, former socialist prime minister of Italy, wrote a book published in 2017 that complained about how Germany through Chancellor Angela Merkel dominated decision-making in the European Union. The EU is hardly a democratic political entity, although it may claim to be so. Nor does it meet the its own self-proclaimed standard of transparency, nor of solidarity, mutual aid.

I don't know how much attention the book got outside of Italy. But one of Renzi's ideas about the EU has been confirmed by Florian Philippot, the leader of the "right-wing" Patriots Party [Les Patriotes]. Philippot said last week on i24 (interviewed by Anna Cabana in French):
Merkel imposes her diktat on all of Europe.
Merkel impose sa diktat sur toute l'Europe.

This is precisely the situation that Renzi depicts in his book. And Renzi is no "right-winger". He is considered a "leftist." Maybe both Renzi and Philippot are telling the truth. Truth is not a matter of ideology, of a place on the so-called, conventionally imagined political spectrum.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Regis Debray says that the European Dream is exhausted [ici]

Labels: ,

Friday, September 14, 2018

The New York Times Lies by Commission & by Omission -- even about seemingly trivial things

Everybody knows that the NY Times often lies. But some may think that the NYT does this only by commission, by crude and blatant untruths. But it is easier to get away with a lie by omission  and it too can have a desired effect on public opinion, whereas much of the press/media usually aims to influence public opinion rather than to have intelligent, factual debates and discussions.

We all know that the Times hates Israel which was expressed a few years ago when the NYT falsely quoted Pope Francis calling Mahmoud Abbas [Abu Mazen] "an  angel of peace." Maybe they thought that they could get away with it but that did not occur. But here's a case of lying by omission and the Times was caught by Greer Faye Cashman, who writes a sort of society and diplomatic formality column for the Jerusalem Post [August 29, 2018]. The NYT published an article, a feel-good piece, about Spanish opera singer, Placido Domingo. He is now 77 and still performing [up to 120 years!!!]. The article outlined Domingo's life and career. Timesman Joshua Barone tells the reader that Domingo's parents took him from Spain to Mexico and it was there that he made his debut in Verdi's Rigoletto in 1959. But it skips from there to his performing with the New York Metropolitan Opera ten years later. The NY Times skips over the three years that he spent in Israel --1962-1965-- with the Israel National Opera in Tel Aviv in the decade before rising to the very prestigious New York Met Opera. Domingo must have liked working in Israel because he at first signed a six-month contract in 1962 but then extended his stay in Tel Aviv for two more years. None of that gets even a passing mention in the Times article, as Greer Faye Cashman complains.

She points out in her short item in the Jerusalem Post that Domingo himself has often mentioned his stay in Israel. ".. .  possibly not in Barone's hearing," she adds. Another link of Domingo to Israel was his being awarded the prestigious Wolf Prize here in 2012, the first vocal artist to be awarded that prize. Good for Ms Cashman for pointing out this subtle omission.

What seems to have gone on at the NYT was a deliberate attempt to avoid reporting something favorable about Israel in a feel-good story. Mustn't be nice to Israel, children!

The New York Times indeed furnishes a plentiful supply of fake news.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, September 09, 2018

Was Ben Rhodes the Anonymous Author of the Notorious NY Times Op Ed, supposedly written by a high administration official?

Expanded on 9-12-2018

The anonymous, hostile to Pres. Trump, op ed in the NYTimes the other day is shallow, superficial, full of platitudes, generalities and cliches, lacks specifics, and contains stock phrases and stupid hyperbole. It also lacks policy discussion, except on the shallowest, most simplistic level. Instead, it appeals to the emotions. For instance, the title of the piece starts out: "I am part of the Resistance . . ."
In both English and French this word resistance evokes  the romantic mystique of liberation. For educated Americans of the older generations, it evokes the real-life hero, Jean Moulin, of the French WW2 Resistance, or the fictional hero Rick [played by Humphrey Bogart] and the French police captain [played by Claude Rains] in the romantic WW2 film Casablanca. The use of the term resistance is thus an appeal to the emotions. [To be sure, Jean Moulin was executed cruelly by the Nazi German forces. No such fate awaits the author of the NY Times anonymous op ed.]

All these features of the piece lead me to think that the author was likely NOT a Trump administration official. Maybe, it was suggested to me, the anonymous author was one Ben Rhodes, a speechwriter for ex-president Obama. It contains certain stock phrases that Obama used to use in his speeches [written by Rhodes]. These phrases include "Don't get me wrong" and "To be clear." It also has "Take . . . " used to introduce an example.

Furthermore, it sounds as if it were written to be a speech. To be sure, the sentences are well-constructed --as if for a speech. Of course, speeches were and are Ben Rhodes' stock in trade.

What does the NY Times say? "The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration." Yes, so they say. But is the NYT above lying? The Times lies by commission and omission. The NYT falsified a quote from even the Pope. The Times had the Pope saying to suit-wearing terrorist, Mahmoud Abbas, "You are an angel of peace." Of course the Pope has made many mistakes, but to call Abbas "an angel of peace"? Instead the Pope said, "You could be an angel of peace if " you reached an agreement with Israel. But the Times preferred its own inaccurate translation. When this was pointed out to the NYT editors, they quietly changed the on-line text without acknowledging the mistake. So yes, the NYT has lied and does lie and no doubt will lie.

- - - - - - - Find below the anonymous letter, maybe crafted by wordsmith, Ben Rhodes- - - - -

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

President Trump at an event in August at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J.Tom Brenner for The New York Times
The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.
It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.
The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.
To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.
Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.
Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.
But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.
From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.
Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.
The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.
It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.
The result is a two-track presidency.
Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.
Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.
The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, August 09, 2018

The "palestinian people" was invented -- Never existed in all history, says Arab historian

The notion of a "Palestinian people," that never existed in all history, has been floating around in public discourse throughout the world since 1964. It was on 1 January of that year that the "palestine liberation organization" [PLO] was founded in Cairo. So you might say that the establishment of the PLO was what established the previously unknown "palestinian people." 

A second founding ceremony and conclave for the PLO took place later that year in eastern Jerusalem, then under Jordanian occupation. The Ambassador Hotel, where this second founding meeting took place, was very near the location of the former, pre-1948, Jewish Quarters of Shimon haTsadiq, Nahalat Shimon and Siebenbergen Houses from which the Jewish inhabitants were driven out by Arab irregular forces in December 1947 and January 1948. These Arab irregular forces were under the command of Abd al-Qader Husayni, nephew of the notorious Haj Amin al-Husayni [Husseini]. Thus the first refugees in the Israeli war of independence [1947-1949] were in fact Jews driven out by Arabs. Likewise, the first refugees in the war who could not go home after it were Jews from the quarters mentioned above.

In and around the year 1948, Arabs nationalists generally and Palestinian Arabs in particular, took a pan-Arab stance, declaring themselves to be proud Arabs. There was little talk if any in those years of a supposedly distinct "palestinian people," somehow fuzzily connected to the Arabs but somehow separate and different at the same time. That at any rate was the usual narrative in the Western media, although the PLO itself, in its charter, explicitly stated in its first article:

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland [watan or fatherland] of the Palestinian Arab people and an integral part of the great Arab homeland, and the people of Palestine is a part of the Arab nation [qawm or ummah].

The foregoing quote from the PLO charter is enough to tell us that there really is no "palestinian people" distinct from the Arabs but that the Palestinian Arabs are a territorial section or subdivision of the Arab nation, as the PLO itself says here in Article One of its charter.

The good news is that despite all the flim flammery in the media over the last 54 years to convince the world public that there is a "palestinian people," a number of historians, political scientists and other scholars have debunked the fake notion of this people that never was. These scholars have not only been Jews and other non-Arabs but include Arabs as well. In fact, Rashid Khalidi, a friend of former US president Barack Obama has written this, at least in his academic publications, whereas he is usually careful to lie in his political pronouncements to the media. For his confirmation that there never was a "palestinian people," an article by him in the International Journal of Middle East Studies (1988). Another Arab historian, Abd al-Ghani, made the same point on official PA [palestinian authority] TV of all places:

“Before the Balfour Promise, when the Ottoman rule [1517-1917] ended, Palestine’s political borders as we know them today did not exist, and there was nothing called a Palestinian people with a political identity as we know today”, historian Abd Al-Ghani admitted on official PA TV on November 1 [2017].
[Abd al-Ghani is also saying that the country sometimes called "palestine" in the West along with Holy Land and other names did not exist as any kind of territorial or administrative entity under Ottoman rule, nor for that matter, under the previous Mamluk Empire ]
. . . .
In 1917, says this Arab historian on official PA TV, there was no such thing as a Palestinian people. This statement amounts to saying that the whole narrative of an ‘indigenous Palestinian people’ was made up at a later point in time.

See the article by Judith Bergman on the MIDA site. Link here:

Labels: , ,

Sunday, July 15, 2018

The European Dream Is Exhausted -- Regis Debray

Once upon a time in the 1960s, when many 20th century fairy tales were told or concocted, Regis Debray was a true believer in violent revolution in the style of Fidel Castro and Ernesto "Che" Guevara. He believed that Castro-Guevara style guerrilla warfare could and would liberate the world and install a socialist paradise on earth.

Since then he has mellowed and become disillusioned with those ideas of his innocent youth, full of half-baked theories from France's elite academic institutions.

Now he tells us that after the mystique of revolution has disappointed him, The European Dream, that is,  the dream of a European Union that would bring the ever warring Europeans into a future of peace and harmony and prosperity, has died. He says there has been an "exhaustion of the European dream" which has led many in Europe back towards nationalism and he sees that as a danger. But an EU internally unified might be more of a danger to the rest of the world than a disunified EU where people in many countries resent the domination of the EU by Germany to the detriment of other countries. And where many resent the loss of democracy in the various member states because power in the EU has been concentrated in Brussels and Frankfurt (for the Eurozone currency area). It may be a healthy sign, encouraging for the rest of the world that the Eurodream has lost its angelic sheen, what with the Eurozone's torture of Greece and further impoverishment of the already poor and the loss of democratic control over decisions that affect the lives of many millions. Nevertheless, even the UK vote to leave and the disillusionment in the member states do not mean that the EU will fall apart or disappear any time soon.

See here the excerpt from Debray's interview in LeFigaro. Debray, we can say, has grown wiser with age. But not entirely.
LeFigaro: À côté de l'Europe post-démocratique et post-historique, on assiste au retour de l'histoire et des nations. . .
Régis Debray: Oui. Et pas toujours pour le meilleur. C'est l'inconvénient avec le retour du refoulé. Ça peut tourner à l'aigre et au méchant. Que le retour du national et la revanche du politique sur le management, inéluctable après l'épuisement du rêve européen, tournent à un indigénisme identitaire et bas de plafond, c'est bien le danger.
[emphasis added. LeFigaro, 2 Mai 2018]

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

France Foreign Ministry Falsifies International Law, Accusing the US of Violating It

In a fit of desperation at seeing their beloved "Palestinians" losing ground politically/diplomatically, the French Foreign Ministry, led by foreign minister Jean-Yves LeDrian accused the United States of violating international law by deciding to move its embassy to Jerusalem. It is very seldom that France or its NATO allies accuse the USA of violating international law. So this statement is remarkable for that reason, besides being a lie. See below the French statement:

France disapproves of the American decision to transfer the United States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as President Macron has reaffirmed on several occasions. This decision contravenes international law and in particular the UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. [here]
La France désapprouve la décision américaine de transférer l’ambassade des Etats-Unis en Israël de Tel Aviv à Jérusalem, comme l’a rappelé à plusieurs reprises le président de la République. Cette décision contrevient au droit international et en particulier aux résolutions du Conseil de sécurité et de l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies. [ici]

Why is the French statement a lie? 
The San Remo Conference and the League of Nations assigned the Land of Israel, what the Europeans --although not the Arabs-- called "Palestine." as the Jewish National Home in 1920 and 1922 respectively. The Preamble to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1922) specifically referred to the historical connection of the Jews with the Land:
Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine  and to the grounds for the reconstituting their national home in that country . . . .
Even after the exile from Jerusalem forced by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, who changed the city's name to Aelia Capitolina, Jews returned to Jerusalem in late Roman times and after other periods when they had been expelled from the city and forbidden to live there. Jews have lived in Jerusalem continuously after the Crusades since the Mongol withdrawal from the city in 1260. In more recent times, Jews became the absolute majority of inhabitants of the Holy City in the middle of the nineteenth century, by 1853, if not before. In 1853, the Old City was the whole city. Hence the Jews were the majority then in the Old City and up to at least 1900.

Now the Quai d'Orsay [French foreign ministry] makes a legal argument supposedly based on international law. But Article 80 of the UN Charter, 1945, confirmed Jewish rights to the Land under the Jewish National Home principle previously adopted by San Remo and the League. Hence, in November 1947 when the UN General Assembly recommended accepting the partition plan for the country of the UNSCOP [UN Special Committee on Palestine], the existing legal status of the Land of Israel ["Palestine"] was that of the Jewish National Home. Since the UNSCOP Partition Plan was a recommendation, it was not law. In fact, the General Assembly can only make recommendations on political matters, according to the UN Charter. Therefore, subsequent General Assembly resolutions on the Land of Israel are no more law and no more binding than the UNSCOP plan. Therefore, the General Assembly resolutions that the Quai d'Orsay statement mention are not law and not at all binding. They are only recommendations.

Security Council resolutions are considered binding. However, the SC cannot legally revoke rights of peoples and states that it does not like or no longer approves. Especially when the people or state in question is already exercizing that right. The anti-Israel resolutions of the GA and SC of the past and future can rightly be seen as Judeophobia, anti-Jewish expressions. The France of today is the heir of Vichy France and has no right to lecture Israel on its rights no more than the Palestinian Arabs whose top leaders collaborated with Nazi Germany and in the Holocaust.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Are Blonde Arabs Still Semites? Do They Have a Right to Live in the Holy Land?

Does anybody remember that about ten years ago or more, an Arab or Iranian prof at Columbia University in New York [Prof Hamid Dabbash?] told a Jewish young woman student that she wasn't a Semite because she had green eyes? We could dismiss this claim on the grounds that the prof's argument was racist. It was racist. It also defined Semite rather narrowly in a racial, genetic sense. But the argument has to be answered on the empirical level about the relevance of green eyes because simply pointing out that the argument is racist does not make an impression on people who really don't care if it is racist or not. But who often search for something, anything, apparently factual to hold against the Jews. So in my efforts to vitiate this noxious claim by Prof Dabbash [as I recall his name] I will point out that in my own personal experience I have met more than one Arab who had green eyes. And some who had blue and gray eyes. But as you probably understand, we are dealing here with an unthinking cult or mystique --not interested in empirical facts-- that wants to see Jews as alien to the Middle East, not only to the Land of Israel. So Jews have to be put into a box of being European in appearance which some are. On the other hand . . . OK, let's try a lighter, more sarcastic approach while supplying some photographs for the sake of empirical evidence. In that light, please read what follows:

In my unwearying efforts to be politically correct, I have landed upon a hard to solve problem. We all know that according to PC, pale white, blond-haired, blue-eyed people are BAD while black folk are GOOD, and that people with skin color of shades in between are rated accordingly. But what do we do if a blond, white Arab girl slaps an olive-skinned or darker Israeli soldier? Which one is right and which one wrong? A conundrum even harder to solve is when an Arab terrorist murderer is blond and blue-eyed, like young lion Mr Ahmed Nasr Jarrar in the photo below, and the Israeli victim of murder is a swarthy Jew like Rabbi Raziel Shevahh [may his memory be a blessing], murdered by Jarrar and his accomplices in a drive by shooting . According to the standard PC rules of skin-color-based morality, the Jew would be right and the blond Arab wrong. Likewise in the case of Ahed Tamimi. 
However, it does not seem to be working out that way. It seems that L'il Ahed, aka Shirley Temper, is being justified by the legions that are devoted to PC. This will no doubt happen in the Jarrar case too. Is there any Court of PC or PC Court of Appeals where we can go to complain about the violation of the standard PC rules, of the standard PC skin color rating? Please notify us when you obtain an answer. CC to the hasbara office at the foreign ministry.
[On the other hand, is it a sinister Zionist coincidence that two stalwart blond, Nordic Arabs are in trouble with the Zionist occupation forces in a one-month period?]

Le star di Pallywood

Ahed Tamimi of the notorious Tamimi clan whose members have been involved in many terrorist murders, including the Sbarro restaurant bombing massacre in Jerusalem in 2001.  Here  is a video of the  recent incident where she slaps a soldier. [Also here & here & here]. Note how each of the four news sources presents the video differently, in shorter or longer versions, in versions favorable or unfavorable to the claims of Ms Tamimi and her family. Here is a report of connections between Amnesty International and the Tamimis [here]. The Daily Mail considers whether there has been media bias on the Australian Broadcasting Company in favor of the Tamimi narrative [here]. Rikki Hollander of CAMERA analyzes media coverage of the Ahed Tamimi case here.

Ahmed Nasr Jarrar murderer of Rav Raziel Shevahh, זכרונו לברכה

Here is how Palestinian Media Watch labels this photo [here]:
Posted text and text on top of image: "This young lion is of that lion"

Texts below faces: "Martyr Nasr Jarrar ... Martyr Ahmed Nasr Jarrar"
[Official Fatah Facebook page, Feb. 6, 2018]
The image shows terrorist Ahmed Nasr Jarrar (left) and his father, terrorist Nasr Jarrar, who is holding an assault rifle. The father was a Hamas terrorist who planned two attacks in central Israel - a double suicide bombing in the Sheba Hospital and a truck bombing in a multi-story building - attacks that were thwarted when he was killed and other members of his terror cell were caught by Israeli soldiers in 2002. [source is PMW here]

Here below is a photo of Rabbi Raziel Shevahh זכרונו לברכה with part of his family. Note that Rav Shevahh has dark eyes and black hair, unlike his murderer, Jarrar [source here] :
Rabbi Raziel Shevach with his family, in an undated photo (Courtesy of the family)

Labels: ,

Monday, February 26, 2018

The Romans Saw Jerusalem as Part of Judea, that is as Jewish

Pliny the Elder was one of the greatest scholars of ancient Rome. His most famous work is the Natural History [Historia Naturalis. He wrote about Jerusalem in that book. Here is one many mentions of Jerusalem in it:

Jerusalem, by far the most famous city of the East, not merely of Judea.

Hierosolyma longe clarissima urbium Orientis, non Ivdaeae modo.
[Historia Naturalis, V:xv:70]

Here is another quote which refers to Machaerus [מכור], a Jewish mountain fortress east of the Dead Sea. Yes, Machaerus is east of the Dead Sea:

Machaerus, at one time next to Jerusalem the most important fortress in Judea.

Machaerus, secunda quondam arx Ivdaeae ab Hierosolymis.
[Historia Naturalis, V:xv:72]

Note the respect that Pliny the Elder, Gaius Plinius Secundus [23-79 CE], showed for Jerusalem and for Judea, and thus for the Jews. European attitudes toward the Jews have changed for the worse since then. Also note that in Pliny's time, the Romans called the country where Jerusalem was located Judea. It was not until the Roman defeat of the Jewish Bar Kokhba Revolt, about  56 years after the death of Pliny the Elder, that Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the Provincia Ivdaea to Provincia Syria Palaestina. a name that evolved over the centuries into simply Palaestina. Bear in mind that Hadrian imposed the new name on the country as a punishment for its people, the Jews, who had bravely rebelled against the Roman Empire. Use of the name today is a kind of taking sides after the fact with the Roman imperialists. Hadrian likewise changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, bringing together his own clan or gens name, Aelius, with the name of the famous hill in Rome where the Senate was located [now the Campidoglio].
Another point, Judea was the Roman name for the land that the Jews called the Land of Israel.  A Jew was called Ivdaeus and Jews were Ivdaei.

It is also significant that in its original form, Syria Palaestina meant Palestinian Syria, with the word Palaestina being an adjective, whereas Judea was seen as part of Syria which was an old geographical conception of Greeks and Romans. As indicated, this changed over the centuries, with Palaestina --coming to be seen as a noun rather than as an adjective-- as the Roman name for the Land of Israel, which the Romans had earlier had called Judea [Ivdaea], the country's name in the heyday of the Empire. Judea stretched along both sides of the Jordan River --as we see from Machaerus [מכור] being east of the Dead Sea, a southern extension of the Jordan. Judea to be sure stretched much further west of the Jordan than east of the River. And today Israel only has its ancient lands that were to the west of the River.

This matter of ancient names of the country and the country in which Jerusalem was located is of course of great importance nowadays when Mahmoud Abbas, potentate of the Palestinian Authority, utilizes a false history of this country in order to deny Jewish rights in Jerusalem, in any part of Jerusalem. Yes, he denies Jewish rights in any part of the Holy City. Otherwise why would he object to President Trump recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, which it has been since 1948, and whereas Trump is transferring the embassy for the time being to the present main consular building of the  USA consulate general in the city which is located in a place that Israel has held since 1948 and was not acquired by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War?
- - - - - - - - - -
For those who know the New Testament, the country is called Land of Israel in Matthew I:20-22. Elsewhere in the NT the country is called Judea, following the Roman usage. In some places, in the NT, Judea is used together with Samaria, following the narrower Jewish usage of the place name Judea which saw Judea as the continuation of the name Judah for the southern kingdom of the Israelites/Jews.

See a Roman document, an truly ancient document fairly well preserved for its age, that shows that ancient Rome called this country Judea or IVDAEA [here].

About the name Aelia Capitolina:
Aelia was still in use when the Arabs conquered the country. The Arabs retained pre-Arab place names in the conquered territories. Hence, they called Jerusalem at first Iliya, their pronunciation of Aelia (as proven by their coins, inter alia). Only a few hundred years after the conquest did they begin to use al-Quds and Bayt al-Maqdis which were copied from Jewish terms, haQodesh and Beyt haMiqdash, which originally referred to holiness and the Temple, and later were applied by Jews to the city of Jerusalem.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, February 07, 2018

What Did Russia Get in Return for Alleged Support for Trump?

For the past year, the first year of the Trump administration, Washington has been roiled by the quarrel between anti-Trump and pro-Trump factions, roughly speaking Democrats against Republicans although some Republicans also have worked against the president. The anti-Trumpers have tried to delegitimize Trump and his presidency. Allegations have been made by the anti-Trump side --including most of the press & media-- of Trump complicity or collusion with Russia in order to win the election. These charges led Trump to appoint a special investigator to conduct an inquiry. The special investigator was Robert Mueller, former head of the FBI.

The investigation has turned up little so far to support those allegations, as far as the public knows, even according to anti-Trump sources. Be that as it may, one essential question has not been asked, to my knowledge. That is: What did the Russians get for their alleged collusion with Trump? After all, if they colluded with Trump's representatives to support him, if they wanted to put him in the White House, and colluded with Trump or his campaign for that purpose, would they have done it expecting nothing in return?

In fact, if we look at Trump's foreign policy over the past year since the inauguration, we see that he in fact worked against Russian policy in three areas, Syria, the Ukraine, and North Korea. In Syria, Trump had American aircraft attack a Syrian air force base from which planes flew to make a chemical warfare attack on civilians in rebel-held areas. The Syrian regime of Bashar Assad is being protected and aided by Russia. In Ukraine, the Trump administration sold weapons to the Ukrainian government which is engaged in a war, now in a cease fire phase, with Russian-backed, ethnic Russian rebel militias in eastern Ukraine. Perhaps Russian troops too are directly involved in combat on the side of the rebels.

As to North Korea, Trump has several times attacked and threatened the regime and its dictator, Kim Jung Un [Little Rocket Man]. This policy on Trump's part has led to clashes with Russia at the UN Security Council. Further, Trump succeeded in getting Security Council resolutions passed critical of North Korea. Hence, we do not see what Russia got in return for any help to Trump and his campaign.

Next, we have to ask whether Russia or its government did anything that gave or might have given the election to Trump. This question is important because it was being alleged by Democrats that Russia did indeed help Trump against Hillary Clinton. Did the Russkis do anything to swing the election in Trump's favor? And if so, the thinking ran, then Trump's election was illegitimate. This is obviously a partisan claim on behalf of the Democrats and Hillary. But is there any truth to it? Anti-Trumpers have pointed to a massive dump of information by Wikileaks of emails exchanged among active employes of the Democratic National Committee and other Democratic figures, emails which put the Democratic Party and Clinton's campaign in a very bad light. Indeed, these emails were embarassing to Clinton, her party and her campaign organization. One item that emerged was that high officials of the DNC [democratic national committee] had worked against Hillary's rival in the primary elections, one Bernie Sanders --who espoused a political line allegedly to the "Left"  of  Clinton-- whereas the DNC was supposed be impartial.

The Democrats and Hillary did not deny that these embarassing emails were real and truthful. Rather they counter-attacked, after release of the emails, by claiming that Russia had leaked them to Wikileaks, as if only a state or only Russia could have hacked into the computers of the DNC and then supplied the emails to Wikileaks. However, Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks, specifically denied on TV [I watched the TV program] that his organization had gotten the emails from Russia. You don't have to believe Assange of course. However, did the emails uploaded to the Internet by Wikileaks have to have come from a hacking operation? Besides, there are other hackers and other interested parties. Another possible explanation is that someone in the DNC organization had leaked them to Wikileaks. And here we have the unexplained murder of Seth Rich, an employe of the DNC whose body was found in Washington with valuable personal effects like his watch and wallet still with him. Did Rich have anything to do with supplying the emails to Wikileaks? We can only  speculate.

If anything or any person swung votes from Hillary to Trump, it was FBI director, James Comey's last minute revelation before the election that the investigation into Hillary had to be renewed because additional emails. from and to Hillary had been found on the computer of Anthony Weiner, estranged husband of Hillary's gal Friday, Huma Abedin [before, after and during Hillary's presence at the State Department]. That's why Hillary was so angry at Comey. She wanted him fired from the FBI. She in fact called for him to be fired from the FBI about a week before Trump did in fact fire him in early 2017. At that time, nobody was saying that Hillary was undermining public respect for law and order.

Before concluding, we must say that many countries want to influence elections in other countries. Least of all is the United States ashamed of doing that. During the 2015 election campaign for the Knesset, it was notorious in Israel that the Obama administration, of which a Hillary presidency would have been a continuation, was interfering with money and personnel in Israel's election in favor of the Labor Party, or to be more precise, in favor of the Zionist Union party which brought together Labor with a few members of Tsipi Livni's HaTenu`ah party.

So it would come as no surprise to learn that Russia wanted to influence the 2016 US presidential election. But Russia would hardly be unique in doing that or trying to do that.

Before concluding, one might argue that Obama's administration, of which Hillary was a shameful part, both aided Russia and hurt Russia. Obama helped Russia in Syria among other ways by allowing Assad's regime to get away with using poison gas against his own population through not enforcing Obama's own "red line" against such use and making an agreement that Russia would take Syria's stock of poison gas and chemical weapons away from Syria, as a substitute for US military action against Syria's stock of such weapons. In fact, Syria still has such weapons and they were reportedly used just the other day against the rebel-held Damascus suburb of Ghouta. Moreover, while Hillary was secretary of state, it is credibly alleged, she intervened to facilitate the purchase by a Russian company of part of US uranium production [used in building nuclear weapons]. This facilitating of the Russian purchase took place after the Russian company had made a sizable "charitable" contribution to the Clinton family foundation, widely considered a tax free depository for moneys paid to the Clintons.

But back to the point. While letting Russia's protege, Assad in Syria, get away with murder literally, the Obama administration also worked against Russia in its next door neighbor, the Ukraine. Victoria Nuland of the State Department and other US officials were encouraging neo-fascist parties in the Ukraine --Right Sektor & Svoboda-- to work to overthrow the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovich, who was considered pro-Russian. This overthrow was in fact accomplished. Ms Nuland, by the way, met with leaders of the anti-Yanukovich movement in Kiev, such as Mr Klichko, whom she affectionately called Klich. So the Russians had reason to hate Obama as well as reasons to appreciate his help for them, as in Syria. Furthermore, it is hardly clear that any help or support Russia may have given to Trump's candidacy won or swung the election for him.

Nevertheless, the most important argument against Russian complicity or collusion with Trump to help him win the election is the lack of any sign that Trump has delivered any return or quid pro quo to Russia or Putin personally. Rather, Trump record has been more anti-Russian.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, February 01, 2018

Obama's IRS Discriminated against Pro-Jewish, Pro-Israel & Conservative Non-Profit Organizations

Additional info
see below:

The United States is supposed to be the land of a free marketplace of ideas. The freedoms of speech and press are very broad in the United States compared to the major European countries, for instance. And the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] is supposed to give tax exemption to non-profit groups or bodies advocating for any sort of ideological or political or social position.

However, the Obama Administration clearly did not believe in the free marketplace of ideas. It discriminated, surreptitiously to be sure, against a variety of pro-Israel and conservative bodies. One such group was Z Street which found out that its application for tax exemption was being deliberately held up by the IRS under instructions from Washington. We present below an exposition by Z Street founder, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, of the development of her group's case until finally overcoming IRS obstruction:

It took seven years for Z Street to learn the truth about why our tax-exempt status was delayed.

The first IRS viewpoint discrimination case to be filed, Z Street v. IRS, has been settled, with disturbing revelations about how the Internal Revenue Service treated pro-Israel organizations applying for tax-exempt status.
I founded Z Street in 2009 to educate Americans about the Middle East and Israel’s defense against terror. We applied for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code in December 2009—a process that usually takes three to six months.
Instead, the application languished. In late July 2010, an IRS agent truthfully responded to our lawyer’s query about why processing was taking so long: Z Street’s application was getting special scrutiny, the agent said, because it was related to Israel. Some applications for tax-exempt status were being sent to a special office in Washington for review of whether the applicants’ policy positions conflicted with those of the Obama administration.
So in August 2010 we sued the IRS for violating Z Street’s constitutional rights, including the First Amendment right to be free from viewpont discrimination—government treatment that differs depending on one’s political position. [article in WSJ continues here] [also see here on Z Street website]
- - - - - - - - -
Additional info
2-7-2018 See Jonathan Tobin here.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Mahmoud Abbas Tells European Union that He Wants All of Israel, including west of the Green Line

“We are keen on continuing the way of negotiations,” Abbas said. “We are determined to reunite our people and our land.” [here & here emph. added]

The above is what Mahmoud Abbas told Federica Mogherini, High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs of the European Union and the foreign ministers of the EU states on Monday this week [1-22-2018 & here] in Brussels.

This phrase "to reunite our people and our land" seems to be a euphemism for the Arabs' taking all of the State of Israel including the land that Israel held between 1948 and 1967. In other words, it is a masked refusal to accept Israel in any borders. Now, Abbas and the PLO as a whole and Hamas and the other Palestinian Arab terrorist and political groups believe that all of the Land of Israel belongs to them as well as to Islam. To confirm that consider the word "reunite." If something has to be reunited, that means it was once united but is no longer. They know that they already control part of "palestine" [= the Land of Israel roughly speaking]. And what they don't control must be reunited with what they already control, Abbas implies.
And reuniting "our people" means bringing the dispersed Palestinian Arabs living in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere with the status of refugees, back together in one state comprising the whole land of Israel, probably to be ruled by the Fatah and other factions that run the zones of Judea-Samaria now under PA/PLO rule.

The PLO Charter by the way speaks of the whole land that they call "palestine" needing to be "liberated"  from Israel. Likewise the PLO's Declaration of a State of Palestine of November 1988. These were obviously  rejections of peace. But maybe Mogherini and her staff are too ignorant or too stupid or too insensitive to the subtle Arab use of rhetoric to understand Abbas' real meaning. If they did understand Abbas' meaning would they have encouraged him and said they support him on the Jerusalem issue? She said:
“I want to reassure President Abbas of the firm commitment of the European Union to the two-state solution with Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two states,” Mogherini said during the meeting. [here & here]                                        
Let's leave aside the stupidity and impracticality of the notion of one city as the shared capital of two states. Did Mogherini understand that Abbas had just told her that he does NOT support the two-state solution, that he and those he represents are claiming the whole country?

Speaking of refugees, it is curious that the so-called "international community" --no doubt Mogherini is part of it-- seems to forget what happened in other situations where there were refugees on an ethnic basis. How is it that precisely the Europeans forgot that many Greeks were driven out of Anatolia, Turkey of today, and almost nobody in Europe but the Greeks themselves care about Greek rights and claims to the Smyrna [now Izmir] region from which most or nearly all Greeks were driven out? The total number of Greeks driven out is estimated at more than 1,100,000 while another 600,000 to one million were slaughtered in the period of 1914 to 1922 [some researchers put the numbers higher or lower]. Greece accepted more than one million refugees in the 1922-23 period and the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen negotiated an agreement between both Greece and Turkey to accept the principle of population exchange rather than go to war. As part of this agreement, Turkey agreed to let Greece expel some 400,000 Muslims living in northeastern Greece, Thrace, and take them in on Turkish territory. This was in exchange for the 1,200,000 or 1,500,000 Greeks that Ataturk and his army had already driven out of Anatolia, what is now Turkey.

For his services in the cause of mutual ethnic cleansing, Nansen received the Nobel Peace Prize. But that was not the end of Turkish-perpetrated ethnic cleansing. In 1955, while both Turkey and Greece were members of NATO, the Turkish government incited a pogrom in Istanbul, previously Constantinople (a Greek-speaking city before the Turkish conquest of 1453), that ended with the expulsion by the mob of tens of thousands of ethnically Greek Turkish citizens. The Turks got away with it. Somehow NATO let them get away with it.

How is it that the Europeans, including the wonderful folk at EU headquarters in Brussels, Mogherini and her staff, have forgotten that once upon  a time, a man got a Nobel Peace Prize for promoting the principle of population exchange?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For more info on the expulsions of 1922-23, see:
Ernest Hemingway, "On the Quai at Smyrna" and the epigraph to Chapter II, both in the collection In Our Time
George Horton, The Blight of Asia
Marjorie Housepian, The Smyrna Affair

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
What does Fatah, Abbas' faction, mean by "our land"?
It seems that they mean the whole country from the river to the sea, from the Jordan to the Med.
See here.
More EU hypocrisy related to covering up for Abbas [here], for his claims on the reasons for the Shoah.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Other relevant articles:
Fiamma Nirenstein on Abbas' speech in Ramallah on 1-14-2018 [Italiano qui -English  here]

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Abu Mazen's Mendacious Historical Monologue -- Did Cromwell Found Zionism?

Link added 3-21-2018

One of Mahmoud Abbas' elaborate and ludicrous lies was that Oliver Cromwell, the leader of Puritan, Protestant forces in the English civil war against the king and his established church, the Anglican church, had founded Zionism. I often find Abbas' speeches to be entertaining, though offensive at the same time. He also claimed that Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism, another one of Abbas' large fibs that I will take up later.

But back to Cromwell. Abbas claims that after staging a coup against the king and founding a republic, Cromwell:
came up with the idea of transferring the Jews from Europe to the Middle East, to this region, because they [who are they? Was Cromwell a plural person?] wanted this region to become an advanced post to protect the interests and the convoys coming from Europe to the East. He asked Holland, which owned the largest fleet in the world, to transfer the Jews. . . [here]
First, let's get rid of the last lie in the paragraph, that about Holland. England and Holland were bitter enemies in that period and indeed fought several wars with the main motive probably being trade competition. They were hardly about to cooperate.

Now did Cromwell found Zionism? Is there a tiny smidgen of truth buried among Abbas' lies? Did Cromwell have any contact or connection with Zionism? Actually: Yes. But as usual with Abbas, if he has anything to do with the truth, he reverses it.
Now, living in Amsterdam while Cromwell was the ruler of England was a rabbi named Menasseh ben Israel [מנשה בן ישראל]. Rabbi Menasseh was interested in the redemption of the Jewish people from their exile. And he had a theory: If the Jews were totally scattered throughout the world, if the Jewish Diaspora covered every country, then that would be the trigger to begin the messianic redemption of the Jews that would return them to their own land, the Land of Israel. Now to accomplish this total dispersion, Jews had to be everywhere. But just across the North Sea from Amsterdam was the island of Great Britain where England was located. Jews had been expelled from there in 1290. And still in the 1650s Jews were not allowed to live there, at least not openly as Jews. "The complete redemption would come after the complete Exile. This motivated him to seek permission for Jews to return to and settle in England. For this purpose he wrote a book, The Hope of Israel, which opens with a dedication to the parliament and state council" of England. "The book aroused the interest of Oliver Cromwell, the ruler of the state. . . In 1655 Menasseh ben Israel was given permission to come to England" [Jaacov Avishai, אלף אישים (Tel Aviv: Amihai nd), p 518] to plead his case. Many leading Englishmen supported Rabbi Menasseh's plea for readmission. But many others opposed it. So Cromwell decided to allow Jews to come and settle in England quietly without making a public pronouncement on the issue.

The historian Solomon Grayzel reports that the book was originally written in Spanish (maybe called La Esperanza de Israel, published 1650). The rabbi later translated it into Latin and it was this edition that had a dedication to the English parliament.

Grayzel believes that two reasons prompted Cromwell and others to promote the return of Jews to England. 1) The belief that Jews had helped Holland, their rival, become more prosperous and therefore that Jews could help England likewise; & 2) The messianic beliefs and the interest in the Hebrew Bible of many English Protestants at the time which opened them to Menasseh ben Israel's theory. (Solomon Grayzel, A History of the Jews [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society  1959], pp 495-499). Just by the way, Rabbi Menasseh was friendly with the great painter Rembrandt who painted his portrait.

Now back to Mahmoud Abbas and his lies. We see that a Jew, Rabbi Menasseh, initiated or encouraged a certain interest in the Zionist idea in England. We also see that Cromwell reacted favorably to the rabbi's call to let Jews come back and settle in England. Cromwell did not initiate it. His main reason was likely to foster English trade and prosperity. But he did not collaborate with the Dutch on any scheme to transport Jews to the Land of Israel. And he did not establish any English colonies in the Land of Israel or Syria or Egypt of today. And he no doubt worried more about Dutch competition and rivalry and war with the Dutch rather than with conquering any Arab-inhabited or Arab-ruled land. The main consequence of Cromwell's support for Menasseh ben Israel was that Jews could come to England and openly live as Jews.

Zionism meaning the return of Jews to their Land existed long before Cromwell. It is prophesied in the Bible, such as in the book of Zechariah, and is found in the Jewish daily prayers. It is even prophesied in the Quran. At best, Abbas reverses the truth if he comes anywhere near it. So Abbas has all the credibility of a used car dealer who wears a greasy necktie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2-12-2018 BESA Center on Abbas' lying speech [here]

Labels: , , ,