Arabs Opposed Zionism on account of Islam -- Condi Rice smears Israel as Apartheid state
Rice compounded her raging hypocrisy by equating Israel with a racist, segregationist --apartheid-- society, like the American South where she grew up.
. . . as a black child in the South, forbidden to use certain water fountains and shunned from certain restaurants, she [Rice] was also in a good position to understand the feelings of the Palestinians. [Jerusalem Post 11-29-07]This is dishonest because Arabs in Israel were never forbidden to use water fountains or eat in restaurants with Jews. In fact, one of the early victims of Arab terrorist attacks in Jerusalem back in the 1990s --post-Oslo-- was an Arab who had taken his wife out to dinner at a Jewish restaurant in downtown Jerusalem, on Nahalat haShiv`ah Street. A terrorist came and started shooting at those dining at outdoor cafe tables. And he killed a fellow Arab who was dining there, who was even treating his wife with respect. Of course, one could split hairs and claim that Rice was not imputing to Israel the kind of jimcrow segregation that she and other Blacks had suffered when she was a child. But her words were not precise enough to make a distinction. The next paragraph in the Post's article went:
"I know what it is like to hear to that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are Palestinian," she said. "I understand the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness."So it is unclear whether she was referring only to checkposts and certain roads, or trying to combine the checkposts, roads, water fountains, and restaurants all together, to produce an implicit or insinuated charge of racist humiliations identical to those in the South, along with the justified prohibitions on Arabs using certain roads leading to Jewish settlements where Arabs in the past had murdered Jewish travelers in drive by shootings, especially frequent starting in early 2001. In other words, Arabs had murdered Jews on certain roads leading to Jewish settlements in drive by shootings and this led to forbidding Arab drivers to drive on those roads. In addition, everybody has to go through checkposts here in Israel. I too and my family have to go through checkposts and metal detectors in order to get into shopping malls, supermarkets, and other public places. This too is a result of Arab terrorism. It is a rightful, justified measure to protect everyone who legitimately uses those public places, including Arabs who may come to shop or obtain information at the city hall, etc. Of course, Jews are humiliated when the world's only superpower says that Jews have no right to live in the heart of their historic homeland, and have fewer rights than the Arabs who want to murder them.
As said before, Arabs too have been victims of Arab terrorism. Now, some claim that Jews don't have the right to go to live in Judea-Samaria, the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland. That too is racism, anti-Jewish racism, whether it comes from a Republican secretary of state of the United States, or some raging, foaming at the mouth "leftist" anti-Zionist, or even from a foolishly inconsistent Jewish socialist who perceives the Judeophobia underlying "anti-Zionism," yet takes pride in opposing Jewish settlements in places like Judea-Samaria that he does not approve of Jews living in. Thereby, he too becomes an antisemite or Judeophobe.
Furthermore, the lie about Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria being illegal is one of the false bases of the so-called "peace process" and of the racist event that just took place at Annapolis. In fact, the British Empire forbid Jews to buy real estate in most of Judea-Samaria in the 1939 "Palestine White Paper," a ban implemented in 1940. This policy was found illegal by the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission. It was part of Britain's contribution to the Holocaust. Today's British anti-Zionists might take pride in it if they knew about it. In fact, the Jewish National Home principle encouraged Jews to settle in the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland, the Jewish National Home designated by the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations, confirmed by the UN charter [article 80]. Hence, the claim commonly made that Judea-Samaria are "occupied" by Israel is false, as is the claim that Geneva Convention IV forbids Jews to voluntarily go live in Judea-Samaria, even if they are "occupied," which they are not. These are more false premises of the Annapolis war & genocide conference. Again, no real international law forbids Jewish settlement in Judea-Samaria, the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland and the internationally designated Jewish National Home. Only racist, Judeophobic laws enacted by Judeophobes could forbid Jewish settlement, Judeophobes like the EU Commission and EU parliament, the UK, the US State Department, and the Arabs.
Rice in her hypocrisy --or ignorance of Arab-Muslim history-- overlooked the age-old Arab-Muslim oppression of non-Muslims in Arab-Muslim-ruled society, the dhimmis. However, Pierre Rondot conveniently explains that before the Middle Eastern countries of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq were ruled by Western powers under the mandates given to France and Britain, the non-Muslims suffered an inferior legal status.
The principle of equality of the various communities, affirmed by the mandates, totally contradicted the previous rules. Up till then in fact [up to the start of mandatory government ca. 1920], Muslim primacy had remained unchallenged. [Rondot, p 127]Rondot goes on to point out that the Muslim Arabs were not pleased with this new dispensation of equality in the several countries under mandate, including Israel, which the Western powers and the League had given the territorial name "palestine," not traditionally used by the Arabs.
Le principe de l’égalité des diverses communautés, affirmé par les mandats, contredit entièrement les règles antérieures. Jusqu’alors, en effet, la primauté musulmane était demeurée incontestée. [Pierre Rondot, Les Chretiens de l'Orient (Paris: Peyronnet 1955), p 127]
But it involved for the Christians [Arabic-speaking Christians] only a secondary role there [in the Arab nationalist and anti-Zionist movement]; Islamic sentiment formed, behind the national idea, the most powerful motive to bring into play against the Zionist invaders. No Christian could nor did claim the role that little by little circumstances let fall as by right upon Haj Amin Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. [p 129]Rondot is saying that the Arab anti-Zionist movement in the Land of Israel and elsewhere in the Arab-dominated countries, was motivated by Muslim bigotry, which also needed to keep Arabic-speaking Christians subordinate in the movement.
Mais il ne peut s’agir là [dans le mouvement arabe nationaliste et antisioniste] pour les Chrétiens, que d’un rôle secondaire; le sentiment islamique constitue, derrière l’idée nationale, le ressort le plus puissant à faire jouer contre les envahisseurs sionistes; nul Chrétien ne pouvait prétendre et n’a prétendu au rôle que peu à peu les circonstances ont dévolu à Hadj Amine Husseini, grand mufti de Jérusalem. [p 129, voir aussi pp 233-234]
Rondot is coy about admitting what "Muslim primacy" meant specifically. He avoids describing the whole dhimmi system [dhimma, dhimmitude] (see here & here too), and notably as applied to Jews. He is also coy about the career of Haj Amin el-Husseini, who was an eager Nazi collaborator and took part in the Holocaust, urging the Germans to kill more Jews.
Getting back to Saudi racist-Judeophobic influence on United States policy, the Saudis forbid Jewish American citizens to come to Saudi Arabia back in the 1950s. At that time, American Jewish organizations complained a great deal about the Judeophobia of this discriminatory Saudi policy which was accepted by the United States. Somehow, walt-mearsheimer do not deal with this issue. They represent the State Department which has always been indulgent toward Arab abuses. In the 1930s, when German Jews were fleeing from Nazi Germany, the State Department made it very difficult for Jewish refugees from Germany to come to the United States. During the Holocaust, the State Department's anti-Jewish policy was continued in regard to both letting in refugees and to destroying the mass murder factories of Nazi Germany, such as Auschwitz. Of course, the British role in the Holocaust was more prominent and more active.
The Annapolis Conference was a move toward war and genocide. It was not legitimate diplomacy. It undermined the legitimate interest of the American people in living in a world of democratic, peace-loving states, rather than war-mongering, jihad-mongering kingdoms and tyrannies like Saudi Arabia. The representatives of Israel at the conference were not legitimate representatives [that is, olmert & livni, etc]. Therefore, the conclusions and agreements made at the conference are not legitimate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More on walt-mearsheimer's lies, frauds, & dishonesty; propaganda, peace follies, the false bases of Annapolis and of the "peace process," Jews in Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, etc.