Background to Mumbai -- More than 1370 years of Arab & Muslim assaults on India

UPDATING 11-30-2008 at bottom

The Mumbai terrorist assault of the past few days can be added to previous Islamist atrocities, including the Mumbai commuter trains [2006], the London bus & subway bombings of 2005, the Madrid commuter train bombings [2004], and Bali and Istanbul and Baghdad [over and over], and last but not least, 9-11. Since the usual suspects and other culprits have already started the "root causes" game, that is, that the "real" cause is either Israel or Indian discrimination against Muslims or whatever, it is necessary to go back into history in order to see that Arab and other Muslim assaults on India go back to the earliest days of Islam. Andrew Bostom provides the historical perspective so often missing in the Mainstream Mass Media. An excerpt from Bostom's article follows below:

Rarely understood, let alone acknowledged, however, is the history of brutal jihad conquest, Muslim colonization, and the imposition of dhimmitude shared by the Jews of historical Palestine, and the Hindus of the Indian subcontinent. Moreover, both peoples and nations also have in common, a subsequent, albeit much briefer British colonial legacy, which despite its own abuses, abrogated the system of dhimmitude (permanently for Israel and India, if not, sadly, for their contemporary Muslim neighboring states), and created the nascent institutions upon which thriving democratic societies have been constructed. Sir Jadunath Sarkar (d. 1958), the preeminent historian of Mughal India, wrote with admiration in 1950 of what the Jews of Palestine had accomplished once liberated from the yoke of dhimmitude. The implication was clear that he harbored similar hopes for his own people.

"Palestine, the holy land of the Jews, Christians and Islamites, had been turned into a desert haunted by ignorant poor diseased vermin rather than by human beings, as the result of six centuries of Muslim rule. (See Kinglake's graphic description). Today Jewish rule has made this desert bloom into a garden, miles of sandy waste have been turned into smiling orchards of orange and citron, the chemical resources of the Dead Sea are being extracted and sold, and all the amenities of the modern civilised life have been made available in this little Oriental country. Wise Arabs are eager to go there from the countries ruled by the Shariat. This is the lesson for the living history." [1] [quote from Sarkar]

Earlier, I reviewed at length the legacy of Muslim jihad conquest and imposition of the Shari'a in historical Palestine. The current essay provides a schematic overview of the same phenomena in India, focusing on the major periods of Muslim conquest, colonization, and rule.

A Millennium of Jihad and Dhimmitude on the Indian Subcontinent

The 570 year period between the initial Arab Muslim razzias (ordered by Caliph Umar) to pillage Thana (on the West Indian coast near Maharashtra) in 636—637 C.E., and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (under Qutub—ud—din Aibak, a Turkish slave soldier), can be divided into four major epochs: (I) the conflict between the Arab invaders and the (primarily) Hindu resisters on the Western coast of India from 636—713 C.E.; (II) the Arab and Turkish Muslim onslaughts against the kingdom of Hindu Afghanistan during 636—870 C.E.; (III) repeated Turkish efforts to subdue the Punjab from 870 C.E. to 1030 C.E. C.E. highlighted by the devastating campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni (from 1000— 1030 C.E.); and finally (IV) Muhammad Ghauri's conquest of northwestern India and the Gangetic valley between 1175 and 1206 C.E. [2]
[read more of this article in the American Thinker]
- - - - - - - - - - -

See more by Bostom on the ideological background of Judeophobia among Indian Muslims.
Srdja Trifkovic on the history of Arab & Islamic assaults on India.
Andrew Bostom's response to the philistine conventional media coverage of the Mumbai atrocity. He reviews much of the history of jihad in India and draws parallels with the oppression of Jews in the Land of Israel. Here are Bostom's comments on media coverage in a letter sent to me:

The "coverage" of the Mumbai massacre(s) has been an appalling spectacle of IGNORANCE, denial, and scapegoating--of the victims. If Hindus and Jews (and in the end, all potential non-Muslim victims of jihad) don't realize their shared predicament--targeting by jihad hatred-- after these events, then they never will, possibly hastening their separate destruction.

Destruction of these peoples means the end of civilization. The MSM seem quite comfortable with such an eventuality.
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: More on Obama's lies about the economy, Part II of "Barak Obama's Evil Genius," propaganda analysis, psychological warfare, etc.

Obama's Senior Advisors, Zbig & Scowcroft, Smell Jewish Blood

Israel's weak international standing, partly because of Western and Arab-Muslim Judeophobia, partly because of Israel's own weak leadership, especially since Sharon's "conversion" to the "peace now" creed, have led the enemies of Israel and the Jews to think that now is the time to administer a death blow to Israel. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, old foreign policy paladins, zombies in the netherworld between life and death, smelled Jewish blood and returned to earth. Having taken a vacation from their tombs, these undead creatures now advise the president-elect of Change, Youth, the New, Purity and Innocence on how to bring death to Israel. They used one of the usual channels of the Old Politics --the Washington Post (also see JTA report)-- to advise Obama. Now is the time to make "peace" between Israel and "palestinians" and thereby solve all Middle East problems [the linkage lie]:

We believe that the Arab-Israeli peace process is one issue that requires priority attention [over all others]

Because they now smell Jewish blood!

. . . in many ways the current situation is such that the opportunity for success has never been greater, or the costs of failure more severe.

Shmuel Rosner rightly sneers at the fraud perpetrated by zbig & scowler, starting off by summarizing their claims:

Israeli-Palestinian peace is important, it can make Arab governments more cooperative, we already know the parameters in which to solve it, etc. (Scowcroft and Brzezinski include the laughable idea that an international peacekeeping force should be the one responsible for preventing terror attacks from Palestinian territory. These guys, apparently, have never heard of Hezbollah and Lebanon.)

Referring to zbig-scowler's claim quoted above: ". . . the opportunity for success has never been greater. . . " Rosner responds:

Oh, really? How so?

The authors do not provide any proof from which to conclude that now, more than ever (to coin a phrase), success stands so close that the American government can simply reach out and grab it. How soon they forget! Bill Clinton went to Camp David thinking exactly the same. Condi Rice, similarly misguided, dragged dozens of leaders to Annapolis.

"Never been greater"? Why? Because Hamas controls Gaza and Abbas's Palestinian Authority can barely claim to represent a fraction of the Palestinian people? Or maybe because Iran is on the rise and is funding Palestinian terrorists? Or is it because Hezbollah has proved, in the past two years, that international monitoring is a bad joke? Or because both Israel and the Palestinians are undergoing severe leadership crises?

Lest anyone conclude that zbig & scowler are decent folk, sincere peacemongers perhaps tragically misunderstood, he may read our earlier post: on Zbig, "Barack Obama's Evil Genius," Part 1, and on Scowler, see this JTA report.
- - - - - - - -

Coming: More on Obama's lies about the economy, Part II of "Barak Obama's Evil Genius," propaganda analysis, psychological warfare, etc.

Swedes Call Brits Liars -- Somebody finally challenges BBC

Swedish state TV has shown up the BBC as falsifying a story of starvation in the land of Niger in West Africa. The Swedes with cooperation from Norwegians, of all people, documented the fraud in a 2005 BBC "report" on starvation in Niger, with star BBC journalist Hilary Andersson. Hilary is proficient in a favorite BBC technique of pulling at your heartstrings, eliciting tears from the coldest hearts, winning sympathy for the deserving and the undeserving. Andersson once illustrated a story about alleged contemporary events in Bethlehem by going on melodramatically about the New Testament story of King Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents that supposedly took place in Bethlehem more than 2000 years ago.

. . . Herod is going to search for the child [Jesus] to kill him. . .

Because of his supposed descent from David through his father, Joseph [Matt 1:1-17]. In Jewish tradition, those of Davidic descent are the most legitimate to be kings of Israel. Herod was Jewish by religion but his forefathers were not Jews, let alone of the House of David. Thus he plausibly feared challenge to his kingship by descendants of David. In the NT story, in order to keep Jesus safe from Herod, his parents took him to Egypt. Then,

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted. . . he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and younger. . .

The NT then goes on with Mother Rachel's lament copied from the Book of Jeremiah [31:15]:

A voice is heard in Ramah,
Weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted because they are no more.
[Matt 2:13-18; NIV version]

Hilary Andersson's obvious intent was to have Herod's cruelty as depicted in the NT --a book hallowed in the West-- rub off on Israel. Herod was king of Judea as a Roman client king. If stretching Herod's ancient guilt to enshroud modern Israel was not her purpose, then why did she go on at length --this is TV news where every second is precious-- about an ancient story when supposedly reporting contemporary events??? She wanted Israel's allegedly cruel nature to be established in a hallowed narrative, fundamentally unchallengeable by rational discourse. And that is the basic BBC purpose too, as approved by the dominant British psychological warfare experts.

The Swedes and Norwegians are --as governments-- hostile to Israel themselves. So their refutation of another lachrymose BBC tale comes as a welcome surprise.

A documentary broadcast on Swedish public television on Tuesday called into question the reputation of Britain’s public broadcaster, the BBC, for filing misleading and inaccurate reports about the severity of a food shortage in Niger in 2005
. . .
In interviews with experts from the international development community, other journalists, Niger’s prime minister at the time, as well as local farmers from the village of Zinder in Niger where the first BBC reports originated, Ektvedt uncovered evidence to suggest that BBC had misrepresented the facts.

“I’ve never heard of anyone starving to death here,” said one woman from Zinder in the Norwegian documentary "Sultbløffen" (‘The Hunger Bluff’).

“It was tough, but I never saw anyone die of hunger.”

Yet the BBC stories from the time report that thousands of people were dying from starvation in Zinder.

This is revolutionary. If even Swedes and Norwegians cast doubt on the BBC's veracity, albeit not in regard to Israel, what might happen next in the media world?? The BBC of course defended their star tearjerker:

"BBC News refuted the TV2 allegations unequivocally and we absolutely stand by the validity and professionalism of Hilary Andersson's reports," reads the BBC's statement to SVT, which was also supplied to The Local.

What can we expect next from the BBC? An admission of guilt in falsifying??
- - - - -
Thanks to Martin Kramer & Camera as well as Swedish TV.
- - - - - - -
Curiously, another British anti-Israel propagandist, self-styled historian Stewart Perowne, insisted that Herod was an Arab [His mother was an Arab, his father an Edomite/Idumaean, which Perowne overlooks, unless he falsely claims that the Edomites were Arabs!]. If Herod was an Arab, then (according to Hilary Andersson's logic) shouldn't his cruelty in the Bethlehem Slaughter be attributed to -- Arabs?? Can't these British propagandists get their stories straight?? [Stewart Perowne, The Pilgrim's Companion in Jerusalem and Bethlehem (London: Hodder & Stoughton 1964), p32].

Perowne has only words of praise for Herod, nothing negative: ". . . a brilliant and energetic ruler. . . a great builder" [p32]. The NT story of the Slaughter of the Innocents is not mentioned, which is curious in a guidebook for the Christian pilgrim. Here is a sampling of the flavor of the book, pro-British Empire, pro-Arab allies of Britain, anti-Israel by insinuation:

"The British mandatory regime imposed here [in Bethlehem] as in Jerusalem, respect for order and dignity, a tradition which the present Government of Jordan has most happily perpetuated." [p 131]

And the book's dedication:

TO THE KING GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE OF THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN AS AN AFFECTIONATE TRIBUTE TO THEIR COURTESY DIGNITY AND FORTITUDE THIS BOOK IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY THE AUTHOR

Their "fortitude" probably refers to their fortitude in struggle against Israel.
- - - - - - -
Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.

Obama's kind of folks take the lion's share of blame for the subprime and the general, worldwide economic collarpse

UPDATING 11-24-2008 see at bottom

Obama's friends among "liberal" politicians, directors at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Clinton Administration, bear the lion's share of guilt for the subprime mortgage collapse that led to the general worldwide economic collapse. Nevertheless, let's not exonerate Bush Jr and Hank Paulson, his Treasury secretary, for their neglect of problems that were evident two years ago. But Obama consulted with Franklin Raines and got big contributions from Raines' Fannie Mae, while Rahm ["Kapo"] Emanuel was a director at one of the two Federal-govt sponsored lenders and dealers in subprime mortgages, not to mention Jim Johnson, formerly of Lehman Bros who was asked by Obama to sit on his vice-presidential candidate selection committee, along with Caroline Kennedy of the super-rich Kennedy family.

John Steele Gordon explains how the crisis developed, going back to the Franklin Roosevelt administration of the 1930s, with a historical parallel from the 19th century:

. . . . Modern standards preclude government officials and members of Congress from the sort of speculation that was rife in the 1830’s. But today’s affinities between Congressmen and lobbyists, affinities fueled by the largess of political-action committees, have produced many of the same consequences.

Consider the savings-and-loan (S&L) debacle of the 1980’s. The crisis, which erupted only two decades ago but seems all but forgotten, was almost entirely the result of a failure of government to regulate effectively. And that was by design. Members of Congress put the protection of their political friends ahead of the interests of the financial system as a whole.
. . . .
Why was the integrity of the banking system not the first priority? Part of the reason lay in the highly fragmented nature of the federal regulatory bureaucracy. A host of agencies—including the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the FSLIC, state banking authorities, and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB)—oversaw the various forms of banks. Each of these agencies was more dedicated to protecting its own turf than to protecting the banking system as a whole.
. . . .
For good measure, the Bank Board changed its accounting rules, allowing the thrifts to show handsome profits when they were, in fact, going bust. It was a case of regulators authorizing the banks they regulated to cook the books. Far worse, the rule that only locals could own an S&L was eliminated. Now anyone could buy a thrift. High-rollers began to move in, delighted to be able to assume the honorific title of “banker.”
. . . .
A mortgage used to stay on the books of the issuing bank until it was paid off, often twenty or thirty years later. This greatly limited the number of mortgages a bank could initiate. In 1938, as part of the New Deal, the federal government established the Federal National Mortgage Association, nicknamed Fannie Mae, to help provide liquidity to the mortgage market.
Fannie Mae purchased mortgages from initiating banks and either held them in its own portfolio or packaged them as mortgage-backed securities to sell to investors. By taking these mortgages off the books of the issuing banks . . . .

. . . in 1995, regulations adopted by the Clinton administration took the Community Reinvestment Act to a new level. Instead of forbidding banks to discriminate against blacks and black neighborhoods, the new regulations positively forced banks to seek out such customers and areas. Without saying so, the revised law established quotas for loans to specific neighborhoods, specific income classes, and specific races. It also encouraged community groups to monitor compliance and allowed them to receive fees for marketing loans to target groups.

. . . Fannie and Freddie were now permitted to invest up to 40 times their capital in mortgages; banks, by contrast, were limited to only ten times their capital. Put briefly, in order to increase the number of mortgages Fannie and Freddie could underwrite, the federal government allowed them to become grossly undercapitalized—that is, grossly to reduce their one source of insurance against failure. The risk of a mammoth failure was then greatly augmented by the sheer number of mortgages given out in the country.
. . . .
That was bad enough; then came politics to make it much worse. Fannie and Freddie quickly evolved into two of the largest financial institutions on the planet, with assets and liabilities in the trillions. But unlike other large, profit-seeking financial institutions, they were headquartered in Washington, D.C., and were political to their fingertips. Their management and boards tended to come from the political world, not the business world. And some were corrupt: the management of Fannie Mae manipulated the books in order to trigger executive bonuses worth tens of millions of dollars, and Freddie Mac was found in 2003 to have understated earnings by almost $5 billion.

Both companies, moreover, made generous political contributions, especially to those members of Congress who sat on oversight committees. Their charitable foundations could be counted on to kick in to causes that Congressmen and Senators deemed worthy. Many of the political contributions were illegal: in 2006, Freddie was fined $3.8 million—a record amount—for improper election activity.
. . . .
Since banks knew they could offload these sub-prime mortgages to Fannie and Freddie, they had no reason to be careful about issuing them. As for the firms that bought the mortgage-based securities issued by Fannie and Freddie, they thought they could rely on the government’s implicit guarantee. AIG, the world’s largest insurance firm, was happy to insure vast quantities of these securities against default; it must have seemed like insuring against the sun rising in the West.
. . . . .
Many people, especially liberal politicians, have blamed the disaster on the deregulation of the last 30 years. But they do so in order to avoid the blame’s falling where it should—squarely on their own shoulders. For the same politicians now loudly proclaiming that deregulation caused the problem are the ones who fought tooth and nail to prevent increased regulation of Fannie and Freddie—the source of so much political money, their mother’s milk.
[John Steele Gordon, Commentary, November 2008]

The rest is history, as they say. Read more here. Obama and Hilary's people were deeply involved in creating the conditions that produced the crisis. Obama's supporters and appointees were deeply involved and made a profit out of the situation while times were good. Think of R Emanuel, Raines, J Johnson. Think of the large contributions that Obama got from these Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more money than most other members of Congress got.
- - - - - - -
NOTE: By "Obama's kind of folks" I am referring to Democratic Party politicians and bankers and businessmen connected to Obama's party. I don't blame poor people, black or otherwise, who received the subprime mortgages. These people lost their equity in their homes when they could no longer make mortgage payments and the houses were foreclosed, especially in cases where the interest rate had gone up. Further, it is a bank's responsibility to examine a borrower's credit worthiness, not the borrower's. When govt regulations ordering banks to avoid poor credit risks were removed, the banks recklessly gave out mortgage loans and bankers made big profits. Think of Obama's friends and associates named above, among others. Then came the crash. Thanks, BHO and friends.
- - - - - -
UPDATING 11-24-2008 Judith Klinghoffer argues that the steep rise in oil prices brought down the economy.
Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.

Obama vows to promote genocide process called "peace process"

What has happened in and to Israel since the Oslo Accords [9-1993] has demonstrated that it was a tragic mistake at best to try to make peace with the PLO. The number of Israeli victims of Arab terrorism has increased manifold since Oslo, fifteen years ago, compared with the fifteen preceding years. Jewish rights in the Land of Israel have been reduced and --in Judea-Samaria-- have been almost obliterated. The PLO has never changed its charter which vows to destroy Israel in several verbal formulations. Somehow Clinton was persuaded to accept the swindle of PLO charter changes which never occurred. Meanwhile, arch-terrorist arafat has died to be replaced by Holocaust-denier Abu Mazen and by the Hamas which is even franker in its genocidal aims than is the Fatah. There has not been anything going on worthy of being called a "peace process." Yet the diplomats continue to heave and churn in their nefarious efforts for the "peace process" cause. The electronic and print media, the schools from K to university level, the mosque preachers, in Judea-Samaria [Fatah-dominated] and Gaza [Hamas-dominated] continue to incite genocidal hatred of Jews, slanders against Jews medieval and modern from the Muslim Hadith to the Protocols and Hitlerite ravings. This mass murder incitement cannot but have an effect on future events, basically vitiating any hope for real peace. Yet the peace-processors churn on and on.

As expected, champion faker, Barack Obama, George Bush's true successor in the White House, has taken up the relay for genocide from Bush's administration. He assured Holocaust-denier Abu Mazen that the murder process must go on:

"Obama promised that he'll continue efforts to push the peace process forward in order to arrive at a two state solution," Erekat said. "He said he will work with both the Palestinians and the Israelis to achieve peace, which is in the interest of both parties"

This was according to Abu Mazen's advisor Sa'eb Erikat, a propagandist trained in communications skills by US taxpayer funds supplied through the USAID working through the PASSIA. It is no wonder that zbig brzzzzzzki's protege hastens to support the "peace process." Of course, there is nothing peaceful about it. The only peace in the "peace process" is peace of mind for antisemites.

Those who doubt this should ask why the "peace process" includes Syria, the govt of which has slaughtered tens of thousands of its own citizens, suppresses freedom of expression, democracy, etc. , and also spreads Nazi-like lies against Jews [not only against Israel], such as the lie about Jewish ritual murder. Former Syrian "defense" minister Mustafa Tlas finds Jewish ritual murder in the 1840 Damascus Affair in which scores of Jews were tortured to force confessions. Tlas tortures his fellow Arab Syrians. Why wouldn't he do it to Jews? What kind of peace could ensue from a "peace" accord with these Arab Nazis?

The more important question perhaps is why Washington is so eager to build up Syria, knowing its many crimes in Syria itself, in Lebanon, its participation in terrorism against American troops in Iraq, and its sponsorship for genocidal anti-Jewish terrorists in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.

Those who want to believe that Obama is not racist against Jews should ask him and his flunkeys two questions:

1-- Why has he never spoken out in favor of pardon or clemency for Jonathan Pollard? Doesn't Pollard have rights under the 8th Amendment to the US constitution that forbids "cruel and unusual punishments"? This is asked in view of the light sentences given to non-Jewish spies, including an Arab spying for Egypt, in the same period when Pollard was sentenced. Don't Jews have human rights, civil rights?

2- Why doesn't Obama defend the right of Jews to live in Judea-Samaria and Gaza? If Blacks have rights to live wherever they like in America, why don't Jews have the right to live in Judea-Samaria, part of the Land of Israel? Would Obama support exclusion of Jews from certain areas of the United States? If he doesn't support Jewish rights of residence in the Jewish homeland, why should he support them in the USA? Does Obama support the use of armed force by US Army and US marshals to enforce equal residence rights for Blacks in the USA [which has happened], why shouldn't Israel use its armed forces to support Jewish residence rights in the Land of Israel?

Now, if Obama and his fellow Democrats were really against Bush Jr, why didn't they challenge Bush Jr's policy against Jewish settlement and housing construction in Judea-Samaria???
In foreign policy Obama looks to be a more virulent, more destructive version of Bush.

Obama has many Judeophobic advisors. Melanie Philips and others have mentioned zbig, McPeak, Scowcroft, and so on. The least to be said about these advisors is that they are dominated by oldtimers from carter's harmful administration up through Clinton's. This belies of course obama's claim to represent Change, the New, the Innocent, the Untainted, the Uncorrupt ad nauseam.
- - - - - - - -
Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.

Obama flunkey denies that Obama supports Saudi "peace plan"

UPDATED 11-20-2008
see at bottom

Dennis Ross, now an Obama flunkey, formerly a "peace processor" in the State Dept during Clinton's tenure, has denied that the so-called "Arab peace plan," first proposed by Saudi Arabia, will be part of president-elect Obama's foreign policy. We all recognize the peaceful role played by Saudi Arabia for many years in financing Hamas and before that funding arafat and the Fatah. We also acknowledge that Saudi Arabia is the right country to propose peace plans because of its known devotion to religious tolerance, human rights and justice for all, especially Jews.

However, the trouble with Ross' denial is that a flunkey made it, not Obama himself. It cannot be taken seriously if The One himself does not make it. On the other hand, BHO has contradicted himself so often that we can never be sure where he stands on any issue. And where he stands today might not be where he stands two weeks from now.

As to the Saudi plan, it is also called the "Arab peace plan" because the Arab League adopted it in 2002 during a massive Arab campaign to mass murder Jews by bombings, suicide and otherwise. All this notwithstanding, one could be more trusting about Arab "peace plans" if the Arabs were more at peace with each other. Instead, we have Arab slaughter of fellow Arabs in Iraq [mainly Sunnites against Shi`ites], in Lebanon: Muslims against Arabic-speaking Christians, in Algeria: [Sunni Muslims against Sunni Muslims], Sudan: Arabic-speaking black Muslims against tribal, non-Arabic speaking Muslims, and lastly, in Gaza, Fatah against Hamas, etc etc.

Getting back to Obama & Co., he is still surrounded by the ilk of Zbig B, Brent Scowcroft, Lee Hamilton, Rashid al-Khalidi, etc. Obama has never sent a signal that he supports the human and civil rights of Jews. Does he favor pardon or clemency for Jonathan Pollard, a victim of a "cruel and unusual punishment," sentenced virtually to life in jail for espionage whereas others sentenced for espionage in the same period --for instance, in behalf of Egypt-- got light sentences of a few years. Does Obama oppose the racist exclusion of Jews from purchasing land in Judea-Samaria which was imposed by the British mandate govt in 1939-1940 or the even more racist denial by Jordan from 1948 to 1967 of the Jewish right to even inhabit Judea-Samaria?? If the answer to both questions is No, then Obama is an anti-Jewish racist.
- - - - - - - -
Here is commentary on this matter from the Italian "leftist" press.
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: Obama's corruption and Israelophobia, UK Holocaust partnership, the UK threat towards Israel, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, the Land of Israel, archeology, etc.

Obamanazi & Rahm Kapo's advisors Reveal the Plan

UPDATING at bottom 11-17-08

Hiding behind the Young, Fresh, New, Innocent face of Barack Obama, the "non-politician" supposedly untainted by Washington's corruption, are zbigniew brzezinski and brent scowcroft, corrupt foreign policy paladins from the carter and Reagan administrations. Their hate for Jews and Israel is palpable. They are now sharpening their knives over the prostrate body of Israel that they now believe has been brought down by domestic termites, the olmerts, livnis, and pereses and other species of pest.

Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect.

Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party. [London Times, 11-16-2008]

Arrogantly overlooking Israel's rights to Judea-Samaria and Gaza under international law, contemptuously eager to trample the human rights of Jewish inhabitants of Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem, eager to put all Jews in Israel in danger of both large conventional Arab armed forces and Arab low-intensity warfare so as to finish Hitler's work through the instrumentality of the Arabs --Hitler's allies during WW 2 and the Holocaust-- obama, the handmaiden of zbig and scowcroft, wants Israel to go back to the 1949-1967 armistice lines [Israel had no borders], which Abba Eban, a notorious dove, called "Auschwitz lines." Obama's Dorian Gray portrait is looking more hideous than ever [see link].

The Saudi plan is not a peace plan. It is silly of course to think that merely signing a paper called a "peace treaty" brings peace. Poland had correct diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany in 1939. They were "at peace" before the German invasion in September of that year. Moreover, Israel needs the high ground of Judea-Samaria to defend the country as a whole. This area would have to be given up by Israel according to the Saudi Plan and according to the State Department and UK Foreign Office as well. Yet, from the international legal standpoint, the whole country, including Transjordan, was legally part of the Jewish National Home juridically erected by the international community in 1920 at San Remo. The notion of a "palestinian people" is a post-1948 invention of British psychological warfare experts. Indeed, the UK is a more dangerous enemy of Israel than the Arabs are. Note that zbig is to speak before the ChathamHouse, that is, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a bastion of Judeophobia since Arnold Toynbee's days there from the 1920s through the 1950s. Don't forget the UK's silent partnership in the Holocaust. Britain's policy is based now as then on sheer Judeophobia. It cannot be appeased by Israeli territorial concessions to the Arabs. If the Arabs wanted to make real peace with Israel, the British would try to thwart it.

All this is not to say that the Arabs, including apartheid-like Saudi Arabia, are not a problem in themselves. Saudi Arabia forbids Jews to even enter the kingdom, let alone live there. This is based on old Muslim law. Arab-Muslims allowed Jews to live in the Land of Israel but only as oppressed, economically exploited, humiliated dhimmi subjects when the Arabs ruled the Land. Today, the Arabs and other Muslim fanatics have added Nazi and other European forms of Judeophobia to their age-old Islamic Judeophobia [on this see Andrew Bostom's recent compilation on Islamic Antisemitism].

The enemies of the Jews and Israel want Israeli retreat on the ground in order to seriously weaken Israel so that it cannot defend itself. It would also mean erasing the residence rights of Jews anywhere in the world. If they cannot live in their own homeland, then where do Jews have a right to live? Retreat would also mean deep humiliation of Jews. Israel's going back to the 1949 armistice lines "with insubstantial alterations," was the thrust of the 1969 Rogers Plan by Nixon's first secretary of state, William Rogers. So Obama's policy will not only be a worsening of George Bush Jr's anti-Israel policy [which also hides behind the black face of Condonazzia of the Third Rice] but will be a return to Nixon's declared policy in 1969.

The Obama policy is sheer evil. It is the true countenance behind obama's Young, Fresh, Innocent face.

UPDATING: LGF refers to the deceitful background of Uzi Mahanaimi, coauthor of the piece in the London Times.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More on obaminable, more on zbig b, history of Jewish-Arab relations, Jews in the Land of Israel, in Jerusalem, archeology, British silent partnership in the Holocaust, etc.

"Obama, Candidate of the Super-Rich"-- Michel Gurfinkiel

In Italy the fascists are divided
into two categories: the fascists and
the anti-fascists
-- Ennio Flaiano
[quoted by Oriana Fallaci in The Rage and the
Pride, Italian edition, Milan 2004, p 161]

Obama had a lot of rich folk, even very rich folk, on his side in the recent election campaign. That did not stop Obama, of course, from demagogically attacking John McCain for supposedly being on the side of the rich, of "billionaries," as Obama put it.

"We don't need four more years of the old tired economic policies that favor billionaires." [approximate quote].

The typical deceitful demagoguery of a sinister politician. Michel Gurfinkiel, an editor of the French weekly, Valeurs Actuelles, shows how Obama was deceitful:

But what may surprise some observers, is that Obama also benefits [besides from Blacks & the "Left"] from the support of Very Big Capital. According to the economic analysis agency, Prince & Associates, the "average large fortunes" of America, whose wealth is situated between 1 and 10 million dollars, mostly support the Republican candidate John McCain. But two-thirds of the "super-rich," whose wealth reaches or exceeds 30 million dollars, support Obama. Warren Buffet, the largest fortune in the United States and the world, according to Forbes magazine (62 billion dollars), has announced that he was voting for the Democratic candidate, just like the financier George Soros (9 billion dollars).

This is reflected in Obama having

the largest election budget in American history. . . [much] more than that of the Republican George Bush in 2004.

Obama gathered

four times more funds than McCain for his campaign on the national level....
The super-rich have not rallied to Obama out of opportunism. They have been betting on him since the beginning of his campaign. . . . Some of them even before he was committed [to running]. . . .
The tax raises proposed by the Democrats do not scare them, to the extent that their wealth is globalized and, thereby, escapes --at least in part-- American taxation.

Octobre 30, 2008
USA/ Obama, candidat des super-riches
-- Michel Gurfinkiel
. . . .
Mais ce qui surprendra peut-être certains observateurs, c’est qu’Obama bénéficie en outre du soutien du Très Grand Capital. Selon l’agence d’analyse économique Prince & Associates, les « grandes fortunes moyennes » américaines, dont le patrimoine se situe entre 1 et 10 millions de dollars, soutiennent en majorité le candidat républicain John McCain. Mais les deux tiers des « super-riches », dont le patrimoine atteint ou dépasse les 30 millions de dollars, soutiennent Obama. Warren Buffet, la plus grosse fortune des Etats-Unis et du monde selon le magazine Forbes (62 milliards de dollars), a fait savoir qu’il votait pour le candidat démocrate, tout comme le financier George Soros (9 milliards de dollars).

Cette mobilisation se traduit, en pratique, par le plus gros budget électoral de l’histoire américaine, estimé d’ores et déjà à plus de 200 millions de dollars, soit plus de 10 milliards de plus que celui du républicain George W. Bush en 2004. Obama aurait réuni quatre fois plus de fonds que McCain pour sa campagne à l’échelle nationale, selon le New York Times, et jusqu’à sept fois plus dans certains Etats. Le Washington Post observe pour sa part qu’Obama aurait dépensé 82 millions de dollars pour des spots télévisés pendant les deux premières semaines d’octobre, c’est à dire la moitié du budget global du candidat démocrate John Kerry pendant la campagne de 2004.

Les super-riches ne se sont pas ralliés à Obama par opportunisme : ils ont misé sur lui dès le début de la campagne, voire même, pour certains d’entre eux, avant même qu’il ne s’engage. Au début de l’été, ce soutien était déjà si important que le sénateur de l’Illinois a refusé l’aide publique – la bagatelle de 84 millions de dollars – à laquelle il avait droit. S’il l’avait acceptée, il aurait dû en effet accepter un plafonnement des autres sources de financement et publier la liste détaillée des contributeurs. Ce qui revenait à se lier doublement les mains, pour un résultat inférieur à celui qu’il était en droit d’espérer à travers les seules aides privées.

Les super-riches estiment que les difficultés économiques des années 2003-2008 (chute du dollar, hausse des matières premières et de l’énergie, bulles spéculatives) sont dues pour l’essentiel à un problème de confiance et que celle-ci ne peut être restaurée qu’à travers un changement d’administration à Washington. Les hausses d’impôt proposées par les démocrates ne leur font pas peur, dans la mesure où leurs patrimoines sont mondialisés et échappent donc, au moins en partie, à la fiscalité américaine.
[Michel Gurfinkiel est un des rédacteurs de l'hebdomadaire français, Valeurs Actuelles.]
- - - - - - - - - -
Everybody, American or not, has to ask himself whether a deceiver of this magnitude can be trusted in any way. Did any of the 200 million dollars that Obama collected for his election campaign come from Arab sources hostile to Israel?
- - - - - - - -
Coming: more on Obama, Emanuel, Zbig; Jews in the Middle East, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, etc; the fascism and Nazism of the so-called "Left," Arabs and Muslims as imperialists and allies of the "Left," propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.

Is Rahm Emanuel a kapo or merely a Vichyite?

There is no reason to have any more confidence in Obama now than before the election. The appointment of Rahm Emanuel was a clever way of disarming foolish Jews who are not aware that this person was instrumental in foisting on the Israeli people the worst disaster since the Holocaust. I refer to the Oslo accords. He worked at the Clinton White House in 1993 and directed the setting up of the signing ceremony on the white house lawn, where arafat and Rabin made a false "peace." Emanuel's views are "peace now" views, that is, they are Vichyite views and he could charitably be called a Vichyite. No doubt there is much more to be said about both Emanuel and Obama, which we will do as time goes on.

Meanwhile, Shabbat Shalom

- - - - - - - - - -
Coming: more on Obama, Emanuel, Zbig; Jews in the Middle East, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, etc; the fascism and Nazism of the so-called "Left," Arabs and Muslims as imperialists and allies of the "Left," propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.

Should We View Rashid al-Khalidi, Walid al-Khalidi, and Edward Sa`id as Colonialists --or Imperialists?

Yaacov Lazowick reports the following claim by Prof Juan Cole who would disqualify children from certain activities on account of the deeds of their fathers:

About a year ago Juan Cole made an unfair statement about Tzipi Livni, whereby since her father had been a terrorist in the Irgun, she had no moral standing to be requiring a cessation of Arab terror; since she's Israel's Foreign Minister, he effectively was rejecting her right to negotiate. Her father's identity was more important than her own actions, you see. At the time I responded, and he responded to me, and you can see my summary of the exchange here.

Actually, we could take the principle that Cole enunciated and go farther with it. Rashid al-Khalidi is Obama's friend and has a well-paying post at Columbia U. The Khalidi family long were part of the Arab-Muslim upper crust in Jerusalem and indeed belonged to the governing class of the Ottoman Empire. Consider Yusuf Diya al-Khalidi.

Now, my query to Juan Cole: Should Rashid be considered an imperialist because his family were favored by the Ottoman Empire with high, prestigious positions?? Moreover, Walid Khalidi worked with prestigious American and British institutions, such as American U of Beirut, Harvard, etc. If AUB is an imperialist or colonialist institution, as a strict theorist of neo-colonialism should agree, then should Walid [and Rashid too who also held a post at AUB] be considered imperialists or colonialists?

Edward Said's father was an American citizen who fought in WW One for the USA. After WW One, he "settled" in Egypt and became prosperous. He was not a native Egyptian nor was his family ancestry Egyptian. He was a citizen of a Western state, an imperialist state by Lenin's definition. So William Said [Edward's father] was a settler in Egypt while the country was under British hegemony. That is he was a colonist, or maybe even a colonialist. Can anything that Said be taken as genuine, by Edward Said's own standards, since his father was a colonialist and he himself was raised in upper-middle class prosperity in a country where the overwhelming majority of people were very poor??

[based on a comment to Yaakov Lazowick’s blog of 11-5-08]
For more data on the family background of Rashid and Walid Khalidi, see:

Yaacov Shimoni, Political Dictionary of the Arab World [in Hebrew only: יעקוב שמעוני, לקסיקון פוליטי של העולם הערבי (ירושלים , כתר 1988 ) ע'113

Yaacov Shimoni and Evyatar Levine, eds., Political Dictionary of the Middle East in the 20th Century (New York: Quadrangle 1974), p 222

On Edward Said's father, see:
Justus Reid Weiner, "My Beautiful Old House," Commentary September 1999. Also see the footnotes to this article which were once available on line, and the letters in response to Weiner's article which were published in Commentary in January 2000. In particular, see the letters of Jerold Auerbach and Marlin Moshe Levin, as well as the rejoinder to the letters by Justus Weiner himself.

One more point in response to Juan Cole. Arab terrorism throughout the decades since 1920 has been aimed at murdering as many Jewish civilians as possible. Perhaps piece-meal genocide would be a better term for what is usually called Arab or "palestinian" terrorism. On the other hand, the terrorism of the Irgun [ אצ''ל ] and other Jewish armed groups was mainly aimed at the British, although there were occasional acts of retaliation for Arab genocidal actions. Looming above all other Arab acts was the Arab collaboration in the Holocaust, particularly in the person of Haj Amin el-Husseini [Husayni], the British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem.
- - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More on Zbig Brzezinski as Obama's Evil Genius, more on Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, the Land of Israel, propaganda analysis, etc.

No 100 Days of Grace for Zbig Brzezinski's Front Man "president"

Barack Obama won the presidential election thanks to his own lies and massive support for him by the media [MSM]. This is not to mention intimidation of voters by Obama supporters in Philadelphia and other places, apparently deliberate late dispatch of absentee ballots so that overseas voters would not be able to vote, an effective propaganda campaign in parts of the Jewish community, etc.

It is likely that he will soon make lying propaganda against Israel. He might declare that Israel is an apartheid state, that it oppresses "poor palestinians", that it took Arab land away from "poor palestinians", that it has no right to exist [this might be insinuated rather than explicitly stated], that Jews have no human or civil right to live on "Arab land," that Israel is to blame for the wars, etc. Since this is what is likely to happen, especially if no opposition emerges, then Obama should not get any days of grace at all. Strong criticism of Obama must continue. His critics must continue to demand release of what Obama said at the Khalidi farewell party in Chicago. Public demos and rallies would be helpful if some participation is assured. Even a small demonstration can be helpful. Interviews on talk radio, letters and articles for Jewish newspapers, lectures by and interviews with competent experts should be considered.

Remember that the Holocaust president Franklin D Roosevelt was a Democrat. Why can't a president Obama be just as bad? At the same time, bear in mind that certain Republicans, such as the Dulles family, helped the Nazis and later the Arabs. Eleanor Dulles was head of the German desk in the State Dept in the 1930s [This is not the time to speak of her relationship (tragic for him) with the Zionist and scholar of medieval Jewish literature, David Blondheim.]. Allen and John Foster Dulles were notoriously pro-Arab while running the foreign policy of the Eisenhower administration.

It should be pointed out that Obama's Israel policy is going to be a continuation of Bush's anti-Israel policy. But worse. Bush and his sidekick, Condonazzia of the Third Rice, oppose the Jewish right to live in Judea-Samaria, the Gaza Strip, and parts of Jerusalem under Jordanian control up June 1967. The Jewish majority in Jerusalem since 1853 makes no difference to them. That Arabs drove Jews out of their homes in Jerusalem starting in December 1947, in areas later taken over by Jordan, makes no difference to them. They always have an excuse: Peace. Even if their "solution" brings war not peace, they always claim to be working for peace. Even if their "solution" denies the national, human and civil rights of Jews, it is all for the sake of "peace."

So the answer to them has to be: Racism. You are for racism against Jews, not for peace. You hypocritically base your position on misrepresentations of international law. Your "peace process" is racist, Judeophobic. Your "humanitarian" concerns are hypocritical. If you really wanted peace, why not stop the mass-murder war in Sudan?? If you were really humanitarian, you should have intervened to stop the genocide against Blacks in southern Sudan fifty years ago. Why did the State Dept try to close the gates of immigration to the United States in the 1930s to Jews who were fleeing for their lives, whereas now neither Bush nor Obama really care about preventing illegal immigration of non-Jews who are not fleeing for their lives.

Why is Obama so dangerous? Because he is the new bottle for old wine. His skin color provides a hiding place for old time State Dept and CIA activists. He will shelter these old time racists and Judeophobes. He is their front man. You can't accuse us of racism against Jews. Our president is Black. Besides, Jews aren't a race. Jews have too much power. Jews are racist against poor palestinians [naturally, it is not mentioned that Arabs have oppressed Jews in Arabia and the lands conquered by the Muslim Arabs since the time of Muhammad, as well as holding them in theological contempt]. Jews are to blame for the wars. Even the wars that we helped start with our diplomacy, our espionage, our psywar guidance, our weapons, our training, our organizing, our money. The Dulles Brothers could not say these things so easily and have them believed since they were so obviously Establishment. They always appeared in public in jacket, tie, vest and tightly buttoned collar. But Obama's more relaxed sartorial style can be more effective in helping to convince the hoi polloi. His non-Establishment pretense can carry the day.

Then too, Obama is a superb demagogue, employing ruthless lies, as we have seen. You don't want to be the target of his demogoguery. He will come out in support of the whole Arab Judeophobic program and set of accusations. Apartheid, land theft, alien intruders, aggressors, oppressors, colonialists, racists, a Jewish state is illegitimate because a theocracy [and the Muslim states? Saudi Arabia?], etc. Unless friends of Israel and the Jews can anticipate him and state the truth about Arab oppression of Jews over the centuries before he gets control of the White House. As Zbig Brzezinski's front man, Obama is a danger not only to Jews but to the world [as N Cohen-Tanugi indicated in an earlier post]. And Obama is a great front man just as he is a superb demagogue. At the same time, protests against Obama should not spare Bush nor his secretary of state, Miss Bitter Rice [riso amaro].

The evil role of Jewish Democrats must be acknowledged before ending. They never effectively opposed Franklin Roosevelt's pro-Holocaust policy. Now they support Obama even when they understand what he really is. Congressman Jerold Nadler showed that he understood Obominable's cynical opportunism in remarks made at a Florida synagogue, not for public consumption [shown on Foxnews just before the election]. Yet Nadler still supported Obama.

Don't give Obama any days of grace. Don't wait until he makes his appointments. We know that they and he are going to be bad. His anti-Israel promises to Abu Mazen [Holocaust denier] have already leaked out. My last forecast is that even American Blacks may come to hate him, if their sons, boyfriends, husbands, brothers, start coming home from Afghanistan in body bags where the One says that he wants to send more troops.
- - - - - - - - - -

Coming: More on the dangers of the obominable one, Jews in Jerusalem, Zbig and the State Dept and Damascus fascists, history, propaganda analysis, psywar analysis, etc.

Obama Sleeps with the Rich then Accuses McCain of Being Sold out to the Rich

I saw Obama this morning [Monday] on TV performing his act, identifying with the poor, blah blah:

"We don't need four more years of the old tired economic policies that favor billionaires." [approximate quote].

It is noteworthy that Obama somehow confuses McCain with Bush, although McCain and other senators had warned about problems with subprime mortgages two years ago. Obama was not one of them. Bush, to be sure, seems to have done little or nothing to correct the problem. But Obama did the same.

It's also funny that precisely Obama said this since he has very rich supporters, like the billionaire George Soros [also a confessed Nazi collaborator in WW2 Hungary], like Theresa Heinz Kerry, and like two of the fellows who helped bring down the economy by making large mortgage loans to people who did not have a good credit history or enough income to support a large mortgage if their interest rates went up. Which is what happened and many of these people lost their homes and the equity --the investment-- that they had put into them. This was because when they could no longer pay off their mortgages, their homes were foreclosed. And they lost what they had already paid in. This also brought down real estate prices in the US since so many homes were foreclosed that the real estate market was flooded and the banks could not sell them for anywhere near the price they had been bought at. I am now talking about Franklin Raines and James Johnson, two bankers/financiers, well-connected in Washington, executives at Fannie Mae, who were consulted by Obama on economic and other matters. Since it is admitted by the Washington Post that Raines was consulted by the Obama campaign more than once, it does not matter whether he was a formal advisor to the campaign.

Obama rants on TV about how McCain is for the rich. Yet we know that Obama himself gets big bucks from rich folks. In his short career in Washington, Obama has gotten a lot of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more than most other senators in 2007. James Johnson, just by the way, was an executive at Lehman Brothers from 1985 to 1991. Yet Obama has the deceitful hhutspah to accuse McCain. And some of these friends of his had something to do with the economic crash, namely Johnson and Raines. Here are some links on James Johnson and Franklin Raines and Johnson. Johnson and Raines took good care of themselves while at Fannie Mae, giving themselves multimillion dollar bonuses, while they helped prepare the origins of financial crisis.

Another prominent Democrat Jamie Gorelick was at Fannie Mae. She's the same one who, while in the Justice Dept in the Clinton Administration, erected a legal wall against CIA and FBI sharing info about terrorists. She too got nice fat bonuses.

Things get even cozier when we get back to Jim Johnson and learn that he was on the team, with Caroline Kennedy [JFK's daughter] and Eric Holder, to select a vice presidential candidate for Obama. Moroever, the New York Times [12 June 2008] described Johnson as:

the consummate Washington insider whom Senator Barack Obama tapped to head his vice-presidential search effort

This fact about Johnson flagrantly contradicts Obama's pretense during the election campaign, especially the primaries, that he was really an outsider to Washington and untainted by its corruption. How does Obama's earlier claim square with Johnson being an insider, "the consummate Washington insider"?? Obama's chronic hypocrisy, his cynical opportunism, his dishonest demagoguery, his ruthless lies turn one's stomach. Or should.

Then there are Joe Biden's friends among the trial lawyers, like one Mr Scruggs. An earlier post dealt with this corruption [see links at that post].

Of course, we shouldn't forget how "community organizers" like ACORN were pressuring banks throughout the 1990s to lend big money to people who were poor credit risks and would have difficulty paying their mortgage instalments, especially if their interest rates went up. Which is what happened. The thinking of the "community organizers" helped bring on the subprime crisis.

It would be tragically ironic if those resentful of the economic crisis were to elect someone whose associates bear much of the blame for the crisis, and this out of spite against Bush, who is not McCain. Things could get worse. Not all change is for the better. Think about it.

Zbig, "Barack Obama's Evil Genius" - Part I

UPDATING 10-11-2009 link added at bottom

When fascism comes to America,
it will be called anti-fascism.
attributed to Huey Long, governor of Louisiana

Zbig Brzezinski is "Barack Obama's Evil Genius," according to Nessim Cohen-Tanugi, a French-Jewish political analyst, writing in Israel Actualites published in Jerusalem. How so?

Barack Obama's Evil Genius -- by Nessim Cohen-Tanugi
Le mauvais Genie de Barak Obama

There are many Jews, even those seduced by Obama, who are troubled by some of his old --and new, alas-- associations and friendships. But the worst danger is yet to come: The presence at his sides of his advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, whom we consider a pro-Islamist Dr Strangelove.

Everything has already been said about some of Obama's devilish old associations, his ties with the extreme left, Black Power racist, Black Nazi antisemite, Farrakhan. . . [Ayers, ACORN, and] the Syrian swindler Antoin Rezko, currently a boarder at a federal prison. But the future is much more troubling than the past because of the presence at his side of Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, now 79 years of age, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Incendiary
Zbigniew Brzezinski was the geopolitical theoretician . . . the architect of the American intervention in Afghanistan [1979]. . . It was he who elaborated the strategy called "the green belt." . . . that had as its goal the destabilization of Russia by igniting Islamism [Islamic fundamentalism].

In fact, Russia was encircled as by a belt by a series of countries with Muslim majorities (called green after the color of Islam), that were satellites in the framework of the Soviet Union. It was Brzezinski's idea to destabilize all these countries, secularized by Communism, by introducing into them the ferment of fanatical Islamism, with the help of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis were obviously interested. They sent a number of fanatical imams violently condemning secular Communist morals and calling on the Muslims to chase out the "infidels" who dared to subjugate Muslims. Afghanistan served as a testing platform and in a few years the fanatic Afghan rebels had obliged the Russians to leave the country. Osama ben Laden had been charged by the Saudis with managing the operation. We know with what success!

In [an] article in Le Lien [of 2000] we had severely criticized this strategy, estimating that it was extremely dangerous to fight against one evil by using an even worse evil. We had warned the Americans, seduced by Brzezinski's theories, against playing "sorcerer's apprentices." Two years later [after the article of 2000], Osama ben Laden burnt down and destroyed the Twin Towers as well as part of the Pentagon. The White House was spared thanks to the heroism and sacrifice of the passengers of another Boeing. Alas, we were right beyond what we had feared.
Brzezinski might at least have regretted his mistake. When a journalist asked him: "Don't you regret having favored Islamic fundamentalism, having given weapons and advice to future terrorists?" he answered unshaken, "What is more important for the history of the world: The talibans or the fall of the Soviet empire? A few excited Islamic fundamentalists or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" [This exchange was published in Le Monde in 2002-Eliyahu]
[This article by Cohen-Tanugi was published 28 Octobre 2008 in Israel Actualites].
-End Part I-

After the destruction of the Twin Towers, which took about 3,000 lives, Obama's mentor Zbig spoke of "a few excited Islamic fundamentalists." What manner of monster is this?
- - - - - - - -

UPDATING Link added about further Zbig shenanigans 10-11-2009 [here]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More on Obama's lies about the economy, Part II of "Barak Obama's Evil Genius," propaganda, psychological warfare, etc.

Obama's Blatant Deceit & Dishonesty Are Revolting

Deception is a politician's middle name. But Obama goes beyond the rule even for politicians. His deceit and dishonesty are revolting.

I am most concerned about his pretense, his imposture, to be a friend of Israel. But first let's get to his misinterpretation of John McCain's words that the US economy was "fundamentally strong. " McCain said these words when the fall of Lehman Brothers brought the crisis dramatically to light. McCain did not mean that everything was perfect with the American economy. Attention should be paid to the word "fundamentally." McCain was saying that "fundamentally" the economy was sound, which was and is an arguable position, if we think of the immense US railroad network, electricity grid, road network, manufacturing capacity, skilled work force, and enterprising businessmen as the "foundation." McCain was well aware that there were major problems in the financial sector that needed to be fixed by proper regulations, which he said a few days later. In my view, he was implicitly distinguishing between the "foundation" and the much impaired financial and juridical superstructure which needed repair.

By stressing the soundness of the foundation McCain meant to be reassuring at a time of crisis, although aware of major flaws in the superstructure. The Obama campaign deliberately misinterpreted McCain's words as if he were a pollyanna pretending that everything was fine. This misinterpretation caused great damage to McCain and he did not properly respond by pointing to the deliberate misinterpretation on the part of his rivals. Perhaps the McCain campaign thought that any response would just sound like a weak excuse, like so many of Obama's own excuses, and would just get McCain into more trouble. But I am outraged by the dishonesty of the Obama campaign's deliberate misinterpretation, perhaps counting on the semi-literacy of much of the public not to understand McCain's actual intent.

Now to the gigantic fraud of Obama's alleged support for Israel. Obama was the friend of Israel's bitter enemies. He listened to outrageous anti-Israel arguments by Khalidi, whose historical research, meant for a small, restricted audience, may be acceptable [I have read books and articles by Khalidi] but whose public, political propagandistic statements are false, slanderous, paranoid, and deceitful and meant to serve Arab mass murderers who enjoy a certain support from Judeophobic circles in the West. If Arab Judeophobia did not enjoy a certain support in the West, then how did al-Khalidi and Edward Sa`id get to be professors at Columbia, a very very Establishment institution?? Just look at the roster of members of Columbia University's board of directors. Zbig Brzezinski too once taught at Columbia, now known to some as Bir Zeit on the Hudson.

At the fulsomely praise-ridden [praise for PLO spokesman al-Khalidi] farewell dinner for Khalidi leaving the Univ of Chicago for Columbia that has been the focus of so much controversy lately, an Arab boys dance group performed. We don't know what dances they exactly performed for Khalidi's farewell dinner, but on an earlier occasion they performed mock beheadings of Jews and Americans. [see Debbie Schlussel's report here]. Obama and his crew of professional liars like the kapo-like Miss Roginsky mentioned in our last post, have no scruples when it comes to hiding and denying his links to Judeophobic Arabs and plain and simple Jew-haters like Brzezinski. Don't forget that Zbig helped Khomeini take over Iran, helped Bin Ladin get his start as a terrorist in Afghanistan, and helped to entrench the Syrian invaders in Lebanon. Here is a photo of Zbig in his Dorian Gray ugliness.


[photo from Israel Actualites-Le Lien 28 Octobre 2008]

Nessim Cohen-Tanugi calls Brzezinski "Barak Obama's Evil Genius" [Le mauvais genie de Barak Obama] in the title of the article which the photo of Zbig accompanies. Cohen-Tanugi is rather mild in describing Zbig but I won't bother to complain because of the tedium involved in reaching a 100% correct and precise evaluation of this creature from the primordial muck.

Suffice it to say that Obama voters are voting for evil. On the other hand, some might want to think that maybe Obama is just ignorant. After all, he once called Iran a "tiny" country whereas Iran has an area of ca. 1,648,000 sq km [= 634,000 sq miles - Statesman's Yearbook]. This number of square kilometers makes Iran today roughly three times [3x] as big as Germany between the two world wars [Germany now is 326,789 sq km - Statesman's Yearbook]. Would Obama have called Germany "tiny" then --or now? Maybe Obama called Iran "tiny" not out of ignorance but in order to minimize the threat that a nuclear Iran would represent, perhaps on the advice of Zbig who helped the current Iranian regime to take power in the first place. If so, then Obama was not being ignorant about geography but rather disingenuous, that is, he was dishonest and deceitful. If so, he was not only being anti-democratic by deceiving the voters, but he was indeed evil as is his mentor Zbig.

[See several links from this linked to post for more on Zbig]
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: The evil, sinister schemes of Zbig as spelled out by Nessim Cohen-Tanugi of the French-language Le Lien newsletter.

Sinister Smears of the Obama Campaign -- Obama Follows in Bush Jr's Footsteps

The other day I saw a panel discussion on Fox TV [on Israeli cable TV] about the US election campaign. A young woman with more good looks than good sense was there to represent the Obama campaign. Her name was Roginsky and allowed that she was Jewish, adding that some people among the Jews had "craven fears" about Obama. That is not merely a smear, it is a vicious insult against millions of people. Millions, not only Jews, have well founded, justified fears of Obama. They are not "craven." How can you trust a candidate who has switched positions so cynically as Obama has, surpassing the typical cynicism of politicians?? How about the anti-war candidate during the primaries who now wants to send more troops to Afghanistan?? [This is not to judge whether or not more troops should be send to Afghanistan but his cyncism in being both for and against American troops in foreign lands].

In this same vein, Obama in his notorious infomercial promised to spend more on the US armed forces, and he also promised to create something like, as I recall, a "civilian security corps," whatever that means. This ominous-sounding body would be financed, according to him, in an amount equal to the regular defense budget, thus doubling it. It is now 500 billion dollars. Doubling would bring it to one trillion bucks. Doesn't quite make sense but maybe Obama will claim again that he was misunderstood or that he had made a "poor choice of words." Indeed, the promise of a new "security corps" with undefined functions sounds bizarre --and menacing!

Then we have his twin claims that McCain would mean another term for Bush and that McCain is somehow to blame for the economic crisis. But in foreign policy at least, an Obama presidency, as Carolyn Glick agrees, would more likely represent another term for Bush than would a McCain presidency.

Another indication that an Obama presidency, has v'shalom חס ושלום, would mean a fourth term for the Bush dynasty. Recall that Bush belongs to the very upper crusty Bush family of Connecticut. George Bush Sr [Prez George B I] moved down to Texas to be near the oil that he was investing in. George Jr [Prez George B II] was raised there. Now, quite a few upper crusties are openly backing Obama, including Christopher Buckley, the son of William F Buckley, jr., founder of the National Review. This fact belies Obama's repeated claim that the rich are on McCain's side. Of course, as the Prince de Ligne said: In order for things to stay the same, everything must constantly change.

Miss Roginsky claimed on Fox&Friends that she was not afraid --as a Jew, she insinuated-- of an Obama presidency, nor were her relatives in Israel. Well, I can't verify that claim but if she is not afraid of Zbig Brzezinski, Obama's chief foreign policy advisor, formerly jimma carter's national insecurity advisor, then she is a fool or a traitor to the Jews. Likewise for the influence on Obama of Rashid al-Khalidi, of the well-connected Jerusalem Khalidi family, once prominent in the Ottoman Empire's governing class, now well-connected with the British and American foreign policy establishments. Think of his relative Walid Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab spokesman back in the 1940s, later at the American University of Beirut and later well-ensconced at Harvard. Needless to say, both AUB and Harvard are well connected entities in the US Establishment.

Rashid al-Kh has been at AUB and the Univ of Chicago where he regularly palled around with Obama --giving Obama the Arab nationalist version of Middle Eastern history, particularly regarding Israel. Rashid is now at Columbia which some students call Bir Zeit on the Hudson due to the pervasive pro-Arab, anti-Israel bias there, especially in the Middle East studies department, now headed by Rashid, I believe. His career also included being a PLO spokesman in Beirut in the late 1970s, early 1980s [see Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes for more on Rashid]. Non-Jewish Americans may be more concerned about Bill Ayers. This man was a violent terrorist back in the late 1960s-early 1970s. People did get killed in his and his comrades' [the Weathermen's] activities. He too has a rather upper crusty background. It's curious that after being a fugitive from the law for some ten years on the terrorist charges, when he finally was caught and tried on those charges, he got off. Did Daddy's money have anything to do with it?

Another threatening aspect of Obama is his promise to intensify US involvment in the so-called Arab-Israeli or "palestinian"-Israeli "peace process." In fact, nothing that deserves to be called a "peace process" has been going on. Israel allowed the PLO to take control of various pieces of territory in Judea-Samaria and Gaza in 1994 after the Oslo Accords. Since those accords were signed in 1993 on the White House lawn Arab terrorism against Israel intensified. The Jewish victims have increased manifold. In the past, US "peace process" involvement has almost always meant US pressure on Israel to concede to Arab demands. So US involvement in a fake "peace process" is not what Israel needs. More "peace process" means more death, more humilitation, more violation of Jewish national and human rights. This is because Israel's enemies among the Arabs, among Europeans and among Americans deny or belittle the Jewish right to live in Judea-Samaria and Gaza, all parts of the internationally designated Jewish National Home [San Remo Conference 1920, League of Nations 1922]. With advisors like Zbig and al-Khalidi, a president Obama would be likely to join the UK and the European Union in ganging up on Israel and giving much more money to the Palestinian Authority. The US already gives the PA a couple of hundred million bucks per year. Let's point out again that Bush talks a good game of anti-terrorism but in fact overlooks the terrorist nature of the PA and Abu Mazen and the genocidal nature of the anti-Jewish incitement in the PA's schools, mosques, press and electronic media. Bush's girl sidekick, Condi Rice, has already expressed some soft sentiments in favor of the openly genocidal Hamas [Article 7 Hamas charter].

Maybe Miss Roginsky doesn't understand that Judeophobia or antisemitism can be the policy of governments, not merely of private persons with prejudices. Governments do policy planning. It is my conviction that the UK and EU have both done very Judeophobic policy planning. The "peace process" is a Judeophobic policy. It takes on a fake color of "humanitarianism." But why aren't the UK, EU and other bodies more interested in the actual genocide that goes on in the Sudan, for instance?? Why aren't Rashid al-Khalidi and his tutorial pupil, Obama, more interested in the Sudan massacres than in what Israel is alleged to have done, which pales before what happens in the Sudan regularly and has been happening there since 1956, off and on. Part of the reason, but only part, is the influence and effect of millions of Arab dollars poured into US universities to set up Arab and Muslim studies centers which have become sources of pro-Arab, anti-Israel propaganda. Rashid has benefitted from some of that filthy lucre. Arabs are recycling their oil wealth, much provided as part of US, British and French tax manipulations. Check it out.
As said above, the focus on Israel's alleged wrongdoing, while overlooking the very gross wrongdoing of Arab states, represents Judeophobia, as does the denial of Jewish rights to live in Judea-Samaria and Gaza, often based on misrepresentations of international law. Yet Miss Roginsky is not worried. A fool or a traitor.

Unfortunately, many people, understandably angry about the economic crisis, are thinking of voting for Obama in order to spite Bush. But Obama's "community organizing" pals had a lot to do with persuading banks to give out risky subrprime mortgages and thus helped to bring down the system. McCain and other senators --not including Obama-- warned about the subprime threat two years ago. Bush is partly to blame for the crisis. So is Obama and those "community organizers" like ACORN whose thinking he represents. So is Allen Greenspan. But McCain is less responsible. It would be tragically ironic to vote for Obama against McCain out of spite at Bush, whose foreign policy gives a tragic, pro-terrorist prelude to an Obama foreign policy. Which is not to see McCain as perfect or absolutely trustworthy either. But Obama is so sinister, so menacing, such a cynical opportunist and ruthless liar that the choice for McCain is clear.