What Does Obama's Speech Mean? Are Jews Less Important than Muslims for Obama?

Obama's inaugural speech was eloquent and full of lofty phrases, not to mention platitudinous rhetoric, as such speeches usually are. John F Kennedy's inaugural speech is still remembered. Yet, Obama inserted a few novelties into the speech, novelties concerning both Jews and Muslims. Jews have long outnumbered Muslims in the United States. Indeed, Muslim numbers were once very small. They have much increased in recent years, but there are still more Jews. So what does it mean that Obama put Muslims before Jews in his speech, as if the Muslims were more numerous? Hugh Fitzgerald makes the additional point that the United States was founded in part on Judaic ideas taken from the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, I point out the aggression against American shipping by the Barbary Pirates, the subsequent wars by American forces against the pirate ports of North Africa, and the suspicion towards Muslims of early American leaders on account of what they learned about Islamic jihad as a motivation for this piracy. This is not to forget the sympathy for Jews and/or a Jewish restoration to the Land of Israel expressed by George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and others.
Here is part of Obama's speech:

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

Note that Muslims take precedence over Jews despite American tradition and the historical record. What does it mean? Here are Hugh Fitzgerald's impressions:

The Inaugural Speech was thankfully sober and unsoaring, but it contained one phrase that disturbs.
That phrase is this:
"The United States is a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers."
The traditional formulation has always paired "Christians" with "Jews" -- "Christians and Jews." Such a blatant change, then, in that traditional formulation is sure to attract notice. It invites inspection. It disturbs. The order in which these adherents of different faiths are named, and which is paired with the obviously, and rightly, dominant “Christians” (this country was both founded on Christian or, to include the Old Testament, Judeo-Christian principles, and owes its development right up to the present day to those same ideas, enshrined in our political and legal institutions which are, after all, the best thing America has to offer) both count. [Hugh Fitzgerald at jihadwatch]

. . . on what basis did Obama make the decision to move up “Muslims” in the ranking, right after, or even possibly paired with, Christians, leaving the Jews demoted, in a sense? It cannot be on the basis of population, for there are twice as many Jews in the United States as there are Muslims (and of the approximately 3 million Muslims, 2 million are unorthodox Black Muslims). And if he did not wish, after the word “Christians,” to give any pride of place, why not mix it up still more: “Christians, and Buddhists, and Jews, and Hindus, and people of other faiths, and people of no faith at all, nonbelievers of every level of doubt”? Was this one more attempt to impress on the public the notion that we must appease Muslims, we must make of them something they are not in this country, in order to hold onto their loyalty that otherwise is in danger of being lost? What exactly is the justification for putting "Muslims" right after, or even paired with, “Christians”?

Full text of Obama's inaugural speech here. Obama continues:

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Why a special appeal to the "Muslim world"? Why not Russia and/or China? Or India? Does this mean because many in the Muslim world have been threatening and expressing hatred toward the United States that a special effort must be made to appease them? Then, what about Latin America? There are many there too who hate and are suspicious of the United States. Why doesn't Obama want to appease them? After all, they are closer neighbors to the USA than any Muslim state. And then there's Africa, the native continent of Obama's father. What about them? Neither Africa nor Latin America are mentioned in the speech. Russia and China are suspicious of the United States. If the USA is going to appease, then why not appease them?

Why Muslims yes, and those nations and continents no? Does he mean to appease Muslims? How? What would appeasing Muslims mean for the Jews? Are Jews lives and rights less important than those of Muslims, in particular of those Muslims now called "palestinians"?

Then Obama tells us that he believes that "the old hatreds shall someday pass." Does he really believe --or care-- that Muslims will stop hating non-Muslims, whether Jews, Christians, Hindus, or Buddhists for that matter?

Then he argues, "America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace." This is the same Obama who told his mass audience in Berlin that "the Afghan people need our troops and your troops." Maybe peace can only be achieved by sending American troops to Afghanistan. Is that the role that Obama sees America playing in bringing about peace? Does peacemaking also mean pressuring Israel to allow the Arabs to obtain a strategic-territorial position that will allow them to destroy Israel and cut the Jews' throats? Obama sent Senator George Mitchell, son of a Lebanese mother, to Israel to urge Israeli concessions that cancel out Jewish rights. He already demanded preventing Jews from building homes in Judea-Samaria. This was eight years ago in his notorious Mitchell Report. He now claims that the American interest requires a "solution" [a Final Solution?] in the Middle East, a solution of the Arab-Israeli or "palestinian-Israeli" conflict. Indeed, is this solution meant to be a Final Solution of the Jewish Problem? Mitchell has already proven his anti-Jewish racism. And Mitchell is the agent of Obama. Hence, Obama is an anti-Jewish racist.
- - - - - - - - - -
Judith Apter Klinghoffer comments on Obama here.
- - - - - - - - - -

Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc

Not Humanitarianism, Not Honesty Nor Love for Human Rights Motivates Condemnation of Israel's Gaza Operation

I'm mad at Efraim Karsh. He has said many things about the hypocritical Western and International reaction to Israel's defensive war in Gaza and Israeli defensive actions in general that I have long believed, that I have long been convinced of. So I'm jealous that he said these things first, that he took the words out of my mouth. But let's acknowledge that Karsh deserves a lot of praise for saying them so well, better than I could I suppose, although I have a few quibbles with him, mainly over nomenclature. Given that Karsh teaches in London, in the heart of the beast as it were, he is to be commended for his courage to remain an independent thinker in hostile surroundings. He is also to be commended for staying clear-headed in those circumstances.

Only Palestinian Interaction with Israel Wins World Attention by Efraim Karsh
. . . .
In other words, the extraordinary international preoccupation with the Palestinians is a corollary of their interaction with Israel, the only Jewish state to exist since biblical times, a reflected glow of the millenarian obsession with the Jews in the Christian and the Muslim worlds. Had their dispute been with an Arab, Muslim, or any other adversary, it would have attracted a fraction of the interest that it presently does.
. . . .

Indeed, the fact that the international coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the libels against Zionism and Israel, such as the despicable comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa, have invariably reflected a degree of intensity and emotional involvement well beyond the normal level to be expected of impartial observers would seem to suggest that, rather than being a response to concrete Israeli activities, it is a manifestation of longstanding prejudice that has been brought out into the open by the vicissitudes of the conflict.
. . . .

For millennia Jewish blood has been cheap, if not costless, throughout the Christian and Muslim worlds, where the Jew became the epitome of powerlessness, a perpetual punching bag and a scapegoat for whatever ills befell society. There is no reason, therefore, why Israel shouldn't follow in the footsteps of these past generations, avoid antagonizing its Arab neighbors and exercise restraint whenever attacked. But no, instead of knowing its place, the insolent Jewish state has forfeited this historic role by exacting a price for Jewish blood and beating the bullies who had hitherto been able to torment the Jews with impunity. This dramatic reversal of history cannot but be immoral and unacceptable. Hence the global community outrage and hence the world's media provision of unlimited resources to cover every minute of Israel's "disproportionate" response, but none of the devastation and dislocation caused to Israeli cities and their residents.

Put differently, the Palestinians are but the latest lightning rod unleashed against the Jews, their supposed victimization reaffirming the millenarian demonization of the Jews in general, and the medieval blood libel - that Jews delight in the blood of others - in particular. In the words of David Mamet, "The world was told Jews used this blood in the performance of religious ceremonies. Now, it seems, Jews do not require the blood for baking purposes, they merely delight to spill it on the ground."
--read it all here--

Professor Efraim Karsh is Head of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Studies at King's College, University of London, and a member of the Board of International Experts of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. His recent books include Islamic Imperialism: A History

Now, Karsh's article implies that the "humanitarian" and "pro-peace" and "human rights" organizations which are major instruments for demonizing Israel, along with much of the Western press, especially in Britain, are instruments of Judeophobes. The NGO Monitor website [see the blogroll at right] goes farther and shows that many of these bodies are in fact funded by governments, making their designation as "non-governmental organizations" totally ridiculous. Hence, it follows that many Western governments are Judeophobic, particularly the UK govt which seems to direct Amnesty International, which in any case has its head office conveniently located in London. Not only do AI and other such bodies smear Israel, but they omit information about the persecution or mistreatment of Jews [ie, as AI does regarding Jonathan Pollard].

Karsh points out that this Judeophobia disguised as humanitarian concern for the Arabs now called "palestinians," has roots far back in the past. For an example, look at many of the TV broadcasts purporting to deliver news about Israel and the Arabs. The news stories have a plot and are constructed on the model of the medieval passion plays. The Israelis [Jews] continually crucify innocent "palestinians" [a collective Jesus] for no discernible reason. The Israelis' alleged cruelty seems unreasonable and to flow from the Israelis' naturally evil character. This is the structure of the passion play. The "palestinians" are shown traversing an endless passion caused by those who tormented Jesus, who called for his blood. Atavistic of course but also very 21st century.

The instruments of the demonization cited by Karsh are the media and NGOs. Now, it should be borne in mind that diplomacy is not merely a matter of well-dressed, well-mannered diplomats traveling around the world and going to cocktail parties. Diplomacy is also influencing public opinion in foreign countries [and one's own country] which is done through the press, media, schools, universities, textbooks, religious preaching, and statements by self-styled "humanitarian," "pro-peace," and "human rights" bodies [NGOs]. By dressing up in the garb of lofty ideals and values, like peace, messages can be transmitted that have nothing to do with those values or may even be opposed to those values, as well as being false. As far as international law is concerned, it is often overlooked by those who claim to be devoted to it and is often misrepresented by parties to conflict [as parties to civil suits interpret law in their own interest]. Whereas Clausewitz wrote that war is an extension of diplomacy, we could also say that diplomacy is an extension or adjunct or instrument of war.

The Red Cross [ICRC] knows that int'l law requires access to prisoners of war by the ICRC. Warring parties that do not provide such access are to be denied humanitarian services by the ICRC. Yet the ICRC is now vitally concerned with the humanitarian needs of Gaza denizens, who helped Hamas take power there. By rights, since the Hamas refuses access to Gilad Shalit, the ICRC should refuse to provide humanitarian services in Gaza. Nevertheless, a high official of the ICRC, a Swiss body, was shown on TV this morning in Gaza wringing his hands over the humanitarian state of affairs there caused by Hamas' abuse of Jewish human rights, its denial of any human rights to Jews at all. NGOs in general, and Amnesty in particular, are not to be taken at face value when they chirp about human rights abuses, etc. They're no better than the media and often serve the same interests and policies.
- - - - - - - - -

Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc

When Will the IDF Take the Philadelphi Corridor?

If Israel does not hold the Philadelphi Corridor, then no one else will prevent the import of rockets into Gaza. Euro observers will not do the job. The EU is in the main hostile to Israel anyhow -- especially the UK. If Israeli troops are not sitting in the border zone during negotiations, then any demand Israel makes to put troops there will have little weight.

Under the Oslo accords, Israel had the right to full control over the Gaza side of the Egyptian border up to a width of 600 meters. Israel never gave up that right which was recognized by the Arabs, the PLO, and the United States.

Now is the time for Israeli troops to take the border zone of Gaza with Egypt.

Make Red Cross [ICRC] Access to Gilad Shalit a precondition for negotiating a cease fire.

What Israel Needs to Do and Demand Diplomatically about Gaza

UPDATING 1-15-2009 see at bottom

Israel seems to have won the war in Gaza militarily. Eventhough the Hamas is still shooting rockets at Israeli cities and the very top Hamas leader, Khaled Mash`al in Damascus, is calling for unending war, Ismail Haniyah the Hamas political leader in Gaza itself sounded like he wanted a cease fire very badly. Hence, what is needed now is to win --not the peace, unlikely in any case, but the cease fire. Israel's military campaign seems to have been excellently conducted by General Gabriel Ashkenazi. But the diplomatic side of the struggle is confused, going in different directions, lacking clear-sighted leadership --and not making the right demands that need to be accepted by the international community, the powers, the West, or whatever it's called.

We need to state several goals. These include what I called for in my post of a few days ago.

1) Israeli troops controlling the Philadelphi Corridor, the border zone between Gaza and Egypt, because international forces cannot be trusted. Or, such forces, whether NATO or EU or UN can be trusted to be hostile to Israel and to serve the interests of their governments or organizations. European observers have watched over the crossing between Egypt and Gaza since the criminal withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005, that is, 3 1/2 years. Whether or not they tried to stop the import of weapons into Gaza through the border crossing, they did not have anything to do with the underground tunnels through which the grad/katyusha rockets were brought into Gaza without interference from either European observers or Egyptians troops/police. Only our own forces can be trusted to stop bringing weapons into Gaza and they must control above ground and under ground.

2) the release of Gilad Shalit. Moreover, Red Cross access to Shalit, required by international law, must precede any negotiations for a cease fire. The scandal of holding Shalit incomunicado --if he is still alive-- for 2 1/2 years must end. If the ICRC is not given access to Shalit, then that is justification for prevention of ICRC access to Gaza and provision of humanitarian services to its population. That is international law.

3) disarmament of Hamas and other Arab terrorist forces in Gaza of all heavy weapons as enumerated in our post of 5 January 2009. This is obviously needed to prevent future attacks from Gaza. Disarmament can be carried out by international observers with Israeli officers together. It will not happen without Israeli officers along.

4) Israel control/censorship of all radio and TV broadcasting from Gaza plus school curriculum and teaching, etc. This is already part of the so-called Road Map that the Euro hypocrites want to force on Israel. But only those parts that help the Arabs and weaken Israel. The Euros and the Quartet seem to have forgotten that vital part of their own Road Map.

In addition, Israel should propose that those who are so concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza [the situation in Sderot did not interest them for the last eight years] who are often those who claim --falsely-- that Gaza is the most crowded place on earth and other such nonsense, relieve the crowding and the poor humanitarian situation in Gaza by letting people there migrate. For a start, Egypt could let several tens of thousands of refugees from Gaza stay in Egypt, if only temporarily. Also, forcing the media, press, schools, etc. in Gaza to be more humane in their teaching could only be humanitarian for the children growing up there. Enough of the genocidal Hamas version of Sesame Street for instance.

Lastly, Israel must clearly state that Hamas ideology is genocidal, Nazi-like. This is part of the answer to the Euro-hypocrites who are so concerned over the Gaza humanitarian state of things. Every one should be urged to read the Hamas Covenant [& commentary]. Further, we ought to remind everyone that there are much severer, much graver humanitarian crises in Africa, in Sudan for example, where genocide and mass murder have been going on for 52 years
on and off.
- - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 1-15-2009 Martin Peretz --of all people-- agrees with me that Hamas does not want to make peace and will not make peace, so the only acceptable outcome [besides destroying Hamas as much as possible] is a permanent cease fire without loop holes allowing Hamas to rearm, etc. See here.

Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc

Obamanazi Shows His Hand -- Wants Israel to "compromise"

When fascism comes to America,
it will be called anti-fascism.
[attributed to Huey Long]

Barack Obama, the man who isn't sure who he really is, has shown his anti-Israel hand. He said today, approximately:

Each side "knows the compromises that need to be made."

That's an old line that we are used to hearing from the State Department for many years now. It's a stale line. It's deceitful. The State Department was an enemy of the Jews before WW2, in the 1930s. The head of the German desk, Eleanor Dulles, sympathized with Hitler. Sometimes compromises on both sides are needed to make peace. However, Arabs --and other Muslims-- do not as a rule make compromises. They make demands and once a demand has been accepted or agreed to by the other side, they make a new demand. It has been clear since the disastrous Oslo Accords that the PLO has no intention of making peace but merely have used the so-called "peace process" in order to improve their strategic situation on the ground. That is, they have successfully managed to receive areas strategically vital to Israel by diplomacy and negotiations, not so much their own diplomacy and negotiations but US diplomatic pressure on Israel. The first Bush + Clinton + Bush 2 have all pressured Israel to make concessions [=" compromises"]. The more Israeli concessions the more PLO demands, the more war and the more dead Jews [and dead Arabs too].

More recently, the UK and US have promoted or enabled Hamas control of Gaza. The UK did this more openly, the US less so. However, Condonazzia of the Third Rice, US secretary of state, helped Hamas take over Gaza in two very specific ways:
1) she pressured Israel to allow Hamas to take part in the Palestinian Authority elections in January 2006, although according to the Oslo accords, only parties that accepted those accords were to be allowed to take part in PA elections. Hamas not only rejected those accords but vows never to make peace with Israel and its charter openly, clearly calls for mass murder of the Jews, that is, genocide. This is especially notable in Article 7 of the Charter that repeats the medieval Muslim fable of the Muslims killing Jews at the End of Days.

On Judgement Day, the Muslims will kill the Jews who will hide behind rocks and trees. The rocks and trees will cry out: O Muslim, a Jew is hiding behind me. Come kill him.

Nevertheless, although the Hamas Charter was known to Condonazzia --or should have been known to her-- she still pressured the foolish olmert and/or Sharon to allow participation by the anti-democratic Hamas in the PA elections. Maybe she did this in the name of "democracy" despite Hamas' clear loathing for democracy. The State Dept has also lately held up the sister movement to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, as a democratic player in that country's politics.

2) Condonazzia also pressured Sharon before the withdrawal from Gaza to also withdraw from the border zone along the Egyptian border, called the Philadelphi Corridor. Without supervision by Israeli forces, the smuggling of heavy weapons, grad/katyusha rockets, anti-aircradft missiles, anti-tank missiles, RPGs, etc., under the border increased manifold. Sharon, who suffered Alzheimer's and had apparently suffered some small strokes before the two strokes that made him into a vegetable, was not mentally fit to contend with Condonazzia and gave in on this vital issue. Now, because Israeli forces did not stay in that border zone --which instead was supervised by reluctant EU or NATO observers who couldn't care less for Jewish lives-- Hamas was able to build up a formidable, very threatening force in Gaza.

On both counts above, Condonazzia helped create the monstrous Hamas Islamo-terrorist statelet in the Gaza Strip. On both counts above, Condonazzia of the Third Rice bears major responsibility --that is, guilt-- for the current war going on there. She is guilty for the hundreds of dead on both sides, as well as those killed in the Fatah-Hamas civil war in June 2007 and before, and for the local Christians murdered by Hamas and other Islamists since the Hamas takeover. This war could rightly be called "Condi's War."

But Condonazzia's policy was a continuation of anti-Israel State Dept policy. Obama is more obvious in his hatred. We have seen this kind of hatred before from State Dept types. Those in the State Dept who didn't want to help Jews under the Nazi threat during and before WW2 were still around when Israel was being created and had not changed their spots. The Eisenhower Administration was ruled in foreign policy by the Dulles brothers, whose sister Eleanor had sympathized with Hitler. The Jimmy Carter regime had zbig brzezinski. Bush I had James Baker. And now Obama seems set on bringing zbig back into policymaking. Maybe james baker too.

What we can do now is to protest against Obama. He deserves no period of grace. We already know that he is a mortal threat. Those of us in Israel could protest at parties held here in Israel by the Democrats Abroad-Israel to "celebrate" the inauguration of this anti-Jewish racist. The DA-Israel wants this to be a "bipartisan" celebration. Some Republicans may want to attend. But decent Jews will not want to go. The party of Jewish rights, of real peace for Jews and Israel, cannot celebrate Obama.

Details of the "celebration":
Where: Zollis Pub in Jerusalem, Rehov Rivlin 5 in the Nahalat Shiv`ah quarter south of Jaffa St [Rehov Yafo]
When: 20 January 2009, while the inaguration is going on Washington. Doors open at 5:30 pm. The inaugural ceremony starts at 7:00 pm [12:00 noon EST] and will be shown on a screen in the pub.
Cost: 65 sheqels per person; 55 for early reservations.

For those who want to go in, it would be appropriate to boo peacefully when Obama appears on screen. Those who wish to protest outside could carry posters saying:
Obamanazi, Hands Off Israel
Obama, anti-Jewish Racist
Obama, Martin Luther King was a Zionist
Obama Is Not My President [for American citizens only]
Obama, Your Peacemaking Is War-making
Obama, Jews Have Rights Too
Obama, Arabs Are Historic Oppressors of Jews
Obama, Why Not Worry about Blacks Oppressed in Sudan by Arabs?
Is Obama Ungrateful for Jewish Civil Rights Help?

One of the interesting things about the anti-Israel demonstrations taking place in various parts of the world, is that the "leftist" demonstrations often recycle old State Dept anti-Israel slogans, as Obama does, and also feature slogans that once would have been considered Nazi. They are still Nazi. Anyhow, it now appears that what much of what is called the "Left" serves the anti-Israel policies of the UK Foreign Office and US State Dept. The "Left's" former devotion to the working class is forgotten while promoting the IslamoNazis of Hamas, Iran, Hizbullah, etc. Whereas Lenin stated that imperialism was an expression of finance capital, the Left today ignores the huge capital possessed by Arab potentates who support Hamas, as well as exploiting --sometimes enslaving-- millions of foreign workers in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc. Most of the "Left" today is a vehicle for Judeophobia and for promoting Islamic jihad.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
More on Obama's position regarding Israel & the Arabs, including quotes from The One that We Have Been Waiting For [here]
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.

Barry Obama's Evil Genius -- Part II

UPDATING 9-22-2009 & 10-11-2009 see at bottomhttp://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-lurks-behind-obamas-pro-islam-anti.html

Barry Obama's Evil Genius [cont.]
Obama's remarks in the last two days of the Gaza War [1-6 & 1-7-2009] hint at a harsh new anti-Israel policy once The One gets into the White House. Obama's mentor in foreign affairs is one Zbigniew Brzezinski, called an "Evil Genius" by Nessim Cohen-Tanugi. On 1-6 he expressed concern over the civilians in both Gaza and Israel. On 1-7, he only expressed concern only over the well being of "palestinian" civilians in Gaza, not Jews in Sderot or anywhere else. This reflects a deeper problem which is one of the reasons why Obama was put into office as president. This problem is that he serves powerful interests in Washington, in the US political establishment, and among entrenched interests in the foreign policy establishment particularly. Simply because he is black he can be more useful than a white-skinned president. This is because he can persuade constituencies in the United States and around the world to work for US foreign policy goals. He will be more trusted than a white, at least at the start of his term of office, by the American black community, by Blacks outside the US, and by "leftists" in general who today seem more influenced [manipulated] by psywar, by misleading images, by prejudices, by hate campaigns, than in the past. They are more emotionally directed than reason-directed.

The Obama policy will be the same as that of a white president [or worse than what a white president might dare to do] because he will be insulated, at least at the start, from charges of racism and Judeophobia. Yet his policy will be old wine in new bottles. How could it be otherwise if Zbig is his mentor? What does it mean that he is supported by jimmy carter, whose relatively short, four-year presidency was a disaster for civilization and for mankind? After all, it was Zbig and carter who pressured Israel to give up land to the Arab Nazi-admirer Anwar Sadat. They aggressively pushed the Shah of Iran to get out and make way for the Islamomaniac, IslamoNazi, Khomeini, whose disciple Ahmadinejad is now building the Bomb. They helped consolidate a PLO-Syrian condominium [co-rule] in Lebanon. And they helped Osama bin Laden and the Taliban to get their start by providing training, money, and weapons [with Saudi cooperation] for the war against the Russians in Afghanistan. The American people had the good sense to get rid of jimmy [& zbig] after only four years, thus preventing a fourth term for these two monsters.

Nessim Cohen-Tanugi calls zbig Obama's Evil Genius. Barry does seem to be directed by an evil genius. Zbig is known to have been working with him for several years. Bear in mind too that Obama's mother worked in the US foreign policy apparatus, with an outfit that provided microcredit or some such for poor folk in Pakistan. So Obama seems almost to have grown up as a part of the system. On 2 November 2008, we quoted from the beginning of Cohen-Tanugi's article on zbig and his nefarious accomplishments. C-T calls zbig the originator of the green belt strategy to harass the Communist Soviet Union. But sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

In 1998, after Jihadists connected to Afghanistan were already causing mayhem in the Middle East, Africa and Europe, zbig was interviewed by Le Nouvel Observateur and asked if he had any regrets about helping al-Qa`ida get started in Afghanistan. He answered that there was no reason to worry over "a few excited Islamic fundamentalists." If you want to feel the chill that some people get from horror movies, consider that zbig was making policy for the most powerful state on earth. Zbig is for Obama the Portrait of Dorian Gray, as it were. Zbig is the real inner ugliness of Obama.

Cohen-Tanugi goes on:

. . . Islamism has spread to all the continents in less than 30 years [since Khomeini's takeover in 1979], not only in America and in Russia, but in England, Spain, France, Pakistan, India, China, Turkey and Iraq and, obviously, all around Israel. There are tens of thousands of dead who were victims of it [Islamism] and this is only the beginning [C-T's numbers are much too low. An estimated 150,000 have already died in Algeria alone because of fanatic Muslim movements]. The severest international problem of this century is the destructive Islamist epidemic.

Brzezinski and the Oil Stakes
In fact, the theory of the green belt was conceived as early as 1970 by the Englishman Bernard Lewis (great specialist on Arab and Jewish history) with Huntington (another celebrated geopolitical expert) and Brzezinski who was to become Jimmy Carter's national security advisor in 1977. His [Lewis'] analysis --later deformed and redirected by Brzezinski-- was to "Balkanize" the Muslim states in order to create mini oil states and prevent the creation of an immense Muslim state possessing the absolute majority of oil resources, thus capable of imposing its views on the Western world. Hence, it would be better to allow the creation of and give rise to a long series of independent oil states. This was already what Britain undertook with Kuwait, the Emirates, etc. Iran and Iraq, the two founding states of OPEC, wanted on the contrary to establish a common oil policy with OPEC.

Brzezinski's original contribution was to have focussed the problem on the Muslim states encircling Russia, not in order to balkanize the Muslim world but in order to use it against Communist ideology by means of Islamism. Brzezinski was able to convince the Democrats, under the presidency of Carter to give support to Khomeini in order to overthrow the Shah and start the operation of his doctrine. Brzezinski was the one truly responsible for the islamization of Iran. Once again he played the sorcerer's apprentice.

Khomeini, far from allying with America, called it the Great Satan and Israel the Little Satan. Everybody remembers the painful episode of the American hostages in Iran in Carter's time. The frightful American disaster in Iran was the result of Brzezinski's evil sorcery.
[more to come of Cohen-Tanugi's article on Zbig]
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 9-22-2009 Zbig is feeling rambunctious again. He called lately for the US air force to shoot down Israeli planes flying over "our" [i.e., American] airspace in Iraq on their way to wreck Iranian nuclear facilities [here & here & here]. Curious, isn't it, that Iraqi airspace is "our" [= American]
airspace in Iraq?? Sounds imperialistic, doesn't it? Yet Zbig was Pres. Obama's mentor and Obama is supposed to be "leftist." What do the terms right and left mean anyhow nowadays??
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.

Israel Must Demand Control of Philadelphi Corridor & Return of Shalit as part of any cease fire

UPDATING link added at bottom 1-6-2009
plus more on # of calories allowed to Jews
in besieged Jerusalem [1948]

Many politically knowledgeable Israelis are not surprised that the current government's conditions for a cease fire in Gaza are so inadequate. This govt not only failed to bring the 2006 war against Hizbullah to a successful conclusion --due to the lack of the right strategy, ignorance of the enemy, ignorance of how that enemy was supplied [they knew that the weapons came from Iran to Syria to the Hizbullah across the Syrian border but acted as if they did not know]-- but failed on the very important diplomatic front. Security Council Resolution 1701 did not provide for forceful supervision by international forces of the Syria-Lebanon border nor for Israeli action if international [UN] forces could not or would not stop the Hizb's import of weapons from Syria.

So we are now faced with a rearmed Hizbullah on the northern front --a Hizb more heavily armed than 2 1/2 years ago. And this present govt is to blame in large part, along with the major powers sitting on the UN Security Council. That fool Siniora, PM of Lebanon, worked at the UN to soften Res. 1701, thus working against his own interests, since the rearmed Hizb turned against him and his govt and his Lebanese Sunni community more forcefully than before.

It is not clear what Israel's govt is now calling for as proposals for a cease fire accord. I heard four points talked about on TV but cannot find that proposal on the web. They were very unsatisfactory in any event. Here is some of what olmert is calling for:

"Olmert is interested in the establishment of an international supervision and enforcement mechanism for any cease fire between Israel and Hamas." [HaArets, 1-2-2009]

Now, Israel has been betrayed time and again by "international supervision" bodies. These bodies go back to the ConsularTruce Commission set up to supervise the truce between Israel and Arab forces in the city of Jerusalem in the early summer of 1948. At the time, the three powers making up the commission, the USA, France, and Belgium, through their consuls stationed in Jerusalem --in consultation with Count Bernadotte, the UN peacemonger-- spent much of their time deciding how many calories worth of food per Jew should the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem be allowed to bring in to the city during the truce [called the First Truce in the war]. It may surprise some to learn that the US consul was the most adamant about limiting the number of calories per Jewish resident to be allowed into the Holy City to 2,800 per day. The French and Belgian consuls were inclined to be more generous to the Jews [3,400/day]. Finally, the US consul got the Frenchman and Belgian to come over to his side, while the Jewish Agency delegate to the commisison and military governor of the city --Dov Joseph (actually a civilian)-- rejected the commission's decision. The American consul justified his position by asserting that millions of Chinese were living on the verge of starvation at that time. Be that as it may, when the American public learned of this low number, a protest was aroused and the decision was changed [see reference note below*].

Truce supervisory bodies, like UNIFIL and UNTSO have often performed in a way fundamentally hostile to Israel. Likewise officials of such bodies, such as one Odd Bull, a Scandinavian. Bull and other officials of international bodies, whether the UN or UNESCO or ICRC and so on come from specific countries and are, unsurprisingly, beholden to the policies of their own governments. This is one reason why a body like the UN is inherently unjust. The votes taken in the General Assembly and Security Council represent the interests and policies of the constituent govts. So if an issue comes up involving Israel and Arabs, the Arabs can count on the votes of Arab League states and Muslim states, and many other states that want Arab or Islamic support in UN voting for their own interests and pet projects and for their side in their own conflicts. In order to get Arab voting support, they must vote for the Arab side against Israel. Meanwhile, Israel has no bloc of automatic supporters. Of course, in UN debate, Israel's enemies and their allies and collaborators speak in terms of lofty morality. The UN Human Rights Council is notorious for being run by states that are major violators of human rights. Consider Libya and Sudan, etc.

Now the last paragraph presents only part of what's wrong with international bodies but it should be enough to prove the point. Rather than depend on international truce supervisors, Israel
1) needs to keep its own forces along the Philadelphi Corridor [the Egyptian border with Gaza] and in the northern Gaza Strip, whence most of the rockets have been shot at Israel, perhaps with unarmed observers from other powers too. But the armed personnel have to be Israeli.
This does NOT mean ruling over a large Arab population since northern Gaza is not heavily populated.

2) must demand the release of Gilad Shalit as a prelude to negotiations. Shalit is an Israeli soldier held captive by Hamas for 2 1/2 years [two and one-half]. He has been held illegally since the Hamas did not allow the Red Cross [ICRC] access to Shalit. We don't know if he's dead or alive.
Israel's govt should have made an international issue of this violation long ago.

3) Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza must be disarmed of all heavy weapons, katyusha rockets, armored cars, anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, etc. Teams made up of armed Israeli and international inspectors must be able to travel around the Gaza Strip and inspect wherever they want in the search for such weapons. In recent days, mosques, schools, an Islamic university and other public buildings have been sites of rocket storage and warehouses for other heavy weapons. Israeli officials have charged that Shifa hospital in Gaza has served as a headquarters for Hamas war activities. This is a violation of international law but [using such locations for military purposes] but the Western media, which mostly works for the interests of their respective Western countries, usually does not report such Israeli charges or when they do, they minimize or cast doubt on such reports.

4) It is often claimed that the Gaza Strip is the most crowded place on earth. Well, it's not. But saying so has become a conventional, politically correct lie. Metropolitan Tel Aviv is more crowded. However, if major powers think that Gaza is too crowded then they could help Gaza people find other places to live, to migrate to so that they can leave the Strip.

I doubt that the olmert-livni-barak gang of clowns will adopt my proposals, but they most be offered.
- - - - - - - - - -
Here's is an interesting analysis of the issues around the current Gaza war by David Hornik, formerly of the Davis Institute at the Hebrew University [here].

LINK ADDED 1-6-2009
The folly of the Shimon Peresoid leadership of Israel that cannot comprehend the reality of Hamas jihadist hatred, as commented by Andrew Bostom, introducing David Littman's insight into Hamas genocidal Judeophobia and jihadism [פה ].
* Note on the Jerusalem Consular Truce Commission: Dov Joseph, Faithful City: The Siege of Jerusalem, 1948 (London: Hogarth 1962), pp 228-230; Menahem Kaufman, America's Jerusalem Policy, 1947-1948 (Jerusalem: Institute of Contemporary Jewry 1982), pp 58-60.
- - - - - - - - - -

Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.