US Congress Endorses a Jewish State in the Jewish Homeland

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

As Prez Obama gets ready to meet Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, he ought to bear in mind the past commitments that American presidents and the Congress have made in favor of setting up the Jewish National Home in the Land of Israel. Here is the Committee on Foreign Affairs [name of committee of that time] of the House of Representatives, Resolution 52:

. . . expressing satisfaction at the recreation of Palestine as the national home of the Jewish race

[source: Reuben Fink. America and Palestine (New York: American Zionist Emergency Council; 1944)]

Here is a joint resolution of of the US Congress [1922]:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. . .

[source: Reuben Fink. America and Palestine (New York: American Zionist Emergency Council; 1944)]

President Obama should be reminded of these prior US commitments before he complains that Israel does not honor its commitments. The British Empire, however, was the pioneer in the field of violating solemn commitments to the Jewish people, when the UK violated its mandate from the League of Nations to foster development of the Jewish National Home through its 1939 "White Paper on Palestine." This White Paper policy doomed innumerable Jews to being caught up in the Holocaust. Yet Britain still considers itself morally fit to lecture morality to the world and to Israel in particular.

Here is more on the commitments of US presidents and the Congress to the Jewish National Home:

Woodrow Wilson 1919	Warren Harding 1922	Calvin Coolidge 1925	Barack Obama 2009	Hillary Clinton 2009	George Mitchell 2009

The U.S. 2009: "Two-state solution is the only solution"
Congress 1922: One Jewish National Home in Palestine

April 20, 2009
Eli E. Hertz

For a PDF printable version please click HERE

The current U.S. administration that is so persistent on the need to honor 'past agreements' seems to ignore unwavering support for reconstructing the Jewish national home in Palestine by our past presidents and both Houses of Congress:

U.S. Resolution 322: A joint resolution of both Houses of Congress unanimously endorsed the "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. June 30, 1922.

President Woodrow Wilson: "I am persuaded that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth." March 3, 1919.

President Warren G. Harding: Signed the Lodge-Fish joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. September 21, 1922.

President Calvin Coolidge: Signed the Convention between the United States and Great Britain in respect to British rights in Palestine. The convention was ratified by the Senate on February 20, 1925, and by the president on March 2, 1925. The Convention was proclaimed on December 5, 1925­. The convention's text incorporated the "Mandate for Palestine " text, including the preamble. By doing so, the U.S. government recognized and confirmed the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – as is spelled out in the Mandate document.

The following text was selected from the U.S. Congressional Record (1922) and exhibits the powerful sense of the Member of Congress in favor of reestablishing the Jewish national home in Palestine:

"Palestine of to-day, the land we now know as Pales­tine, was peopled by the Jews from the dawn of history until the Roman era. It is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. They were driven from it by force by the relentless Roman military machine and for centuries prevented from re­turning.

"At different periods various alien people succeeded them, but the Jewish race had left an indelible impress upon the land. To-day it is a Jewish country. Every name, every landmark, every monument, and every trace of whatever civili­zation remaining there is still Jewish. And it has ever since remained a hope, a longing, as expressed in their prayers for these nearly 2,000 years. No other people has ever claimed Palestine as their national home. No other people has ever shown an aptitude or indicated a genuine desire to make it their homeland. The land has been ruled by foreigners. Only since the beginning of the modern Zionist effort may it be said that a creative, cultural, and economic force has entered Pales­tine . The Jewish Nation was forced from its natural home. It did not go because it wanted to. A perusal of Jewish history, a reading of Josephus, will convince the most skeptical that the grandest fight that was ever put up against an enemy was put up by the Jew. He never thought of leaving Palestine.

"But he was driven out. But did he, when driven out, give up his hope of getting back? Jewish history and Jewish literature give the answer to that question. The Jew even has a fast day devoted to the day of destruction of the Jewish homeland. Never throughout history did they give up hope of returning there. I am told that 90 per cent of the Jews to-day are praying for the return of the Jewish people to its own home. The best minds among them believe in the necessity of reestablishing the Jewish land. To my mind there is something prophetic in the fact that during the ages no other nation has taken over Pales­tine and held it in the sense of a homeland; and there is some­thing providential in the fact that for 1,800 years it has remained in desolation as if waiting for the return of its people."

U.S. Congressional Records 9801 (1922)

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

What the World Needs to Know Now about the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.

As Prime Minister Netanyahu flies to Washington to meet His Phoniness, here are some points to bring up to the world.


The US president during the Holocaust was Franklin D Roosevelt, known as liberal and a progressive, like Obama. FDR made no effort to help the Jews in the death camps, the labor camps, or on the railroads on their way to them, or the Jews in the ghettoes, as in Warsaw. The British policy was that their BBC "news" outlet could not report on the Holocaust until too much became known about it in London and continuing to ignore it would have lost credibility for the bbc. FDR made a few minor gestures in the last half of the war which supplied little help to the Jews. This was done under considerable public pressure.

The UK issued the "White Paper on Palestine" in 1939 which in effect revoked unilaterally the UK's mandate from the League of Nations to foster development of the Land of Israel as the Jewish National Home. This was a violation of international law, as the League's Permanent Mandates Commission concluded. But the UK was not moved to allow Jews into Israel when the Jews most needed a home, even a temporary refuge. This was a precedent of a major Western power violating a solemn commitment to help the Jews. Israel can expect nothing better from Washington. Tony Blair in facts speaks of his pet project of another Arab state in the Land of Israel, as if the UK had never betrayed the Jews so severely.

The vehement anger in Washington and London against Jews settling in/moving to/ Judea-Samaria, parts of the internationally designated Jewish National Home, is RACISM. It is simply the old Judeophobia dressed up in fake anti-imperialist garb. Obama as a Black man should be the last US official to push this Judeophobic, RACIST policy. However, it is undeniably useful to the anti-Jewish racists that they have a brown-face as their front man to hide behind. It is forgotten that the US Govt energetically worked to bring Black Americans into neighborhoods that were purely white, including ethnic neighborhoods of Irish, Italian, and Polish Americans. This was all done for the sake of anti-Racism. Why can't US officials today realize and admit that their policy on Jews in Judea-Samaria is anti-Jewish Racism?

If these foreign policy paladins are unaware, their anti-settlement policy allows the Arabs to continue their age-old oppression of Jews. Condoleeza Rice tried to pretend that somehow the Jews were racist to the Arabs. In fact, throughout history since the Arab Conquest, the Arabs have had the upper hand and have oppressed, exploited economically and humiliated Jews. Tony Blair and Obama ought to be informed of this historical reality. Maybe they really don't know.

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.

Obama Administration Trying to Sell a Dead Horse -- The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

UPDATING 5-8-2009 see at bottom

The Peace Process -- Peace of Mind for Judeophobes

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a dead horse. It doesn't work. Iran is a signatory to the treaty, yet, as everyone with any sense knows, Iran is working to develop nuclear weapons, which is a violation of the treaty. And the so-called "international community" does nothing to stop them. Several Euro powers have been negotiating with Iran for years to have them stop the nuclear weapons development. Yet nothing concrete is done. Several deadlines have been set. When Iran fails or refuses to meet a deadline, a new, later deadline is set, or more concessions are offered by the Euro side. Now Obama, the boy genius and would-be messiah, wants "tough diplomacy" with Iran. Maybe he thinks that he has a magic secret that the seasoned Euro diplomats are unaware of. Yet his administration is against force or the threat of force against Iran's serious violations of the treaty, not to mention Iran's violation of international law by making threats to destroy Israel. So the NPT treaty is a dead horse. Yet one of Obama's dimbulb underlings is trying to sell that dead horse. Presumably she is speaking for the Administration.
What do we make of a government that tries to sell dead horses?

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States," Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting, according to Reuters.
....

What good is the treaty if it does not in fact prevent nuclear proliferation? Since it is obvious that the treaty doesn't work -- in fact any treaty can be violated if no one tries to enforce it-- then why is the Obama regime pushing it? If the USA opposes nuclear proliferation and upholds international law, then why has it not taken effective forceful action against Iran, starting perhaps with severe sanctions but not ending there, if necessary? Why foreclose the use of force from the start? Does the Obama Administration --or the Bush regime before it-- really mean to oppose the ayatollahs getting the bomb?

The report goes on:

She [Gottemoeller] declined to say, however, whether the Obama administration would press Israel to join the treaty.

A senior White House official said the administration considered the nuclear programs of Israel and Iran to be unrelated "apples and oranges."

Asked by The Washington Times whether the administration would press Israel to join the NPT, the official said, "We support universal adherence to the NPT. [It] remains a long-term goal."

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
[Eli Lake, Washington Times, see full article here]

Instead of trying to stop proliferation, precisely proliferation to an aggressive state motivated by a fanatic ideology, it seems that Obama & Co. want Iran to have the Bomb and want to take it away from Israel.
- - - - - - -
For our reasoning as to why the Bush regime may have wanted Iran to have the Bomb, see here. For EU help for Iran's bomb see here. For Alan Abelson on "small nuclear wars" see here.
- - - - - - -
UPDATING 5-8-2009 A study from Israel's Institute for National Security Studies about the weaknesses of the NPT.

Miracle of Miracles -- Arab States, like Israel, Fear an Obama "Engagement" with A-jad's Iran

UPDATING 5-(7&10&11)-2009 LINK REPLACED 12-2-2010

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

The half-brights and all-dumbs and smart ignoramuses in the Obama Administration have run into a likely unforeseen obstacle to their obsessive dream of helping the Iranian ayatollahs obtain the Bomb. The six Arab sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf have

. . . concerns [about this policy that] . . . sound strikingly like those coming from the mouths of Israeli officials.
[AP, Salah Nasrawi, 6 May 2009 updated link as of 12-2-2010]

Like Israel, they fear the prospect of a fanatic Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Once upon a time the US claimed to fear nuclear proliferation. A treaty against nuclear proliferation [NPT] was duly drawn up and signed by most states, including Iran, which is now violating it. However, after years of European negotiations with A-jad's government over stopping nuclear weapons development, with new deadlines repeatedly offered when Iran did not comply with previous deadlines, the new wet-behind-the-ears administration of Barack Obama declares that it opposes the military option against the nuclear weapons development of Iran.

Obama and his crowd --divided into young wackos and scary, white starched shirt old and middle-aged white men-- claim that they know of some magical diplomatic means to stop Iran's nuclear development. They forget --or pretend not to know-- that the threat of force is also a tool of diplomacy and that "tough diplomacy" [an Obama term?] needs the threat or potential of military force to back it up, and not just tough, angry words. Or maybe the "engagement" policy is not meant at all to lead to peace but to cause more chaos in the Middle East. Anyhow, the six states of the Gulf Cooperation Council [the GCC: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates] plus Egypt seem to think that any deal ensuing from the "engagement" process might endanger them and their interests.

US allies in Mideast cautious over Iran overtures -- Salah Nasrawi, [AP 6 May 2009 updated link as 12-2-2010]

Washington's efforts to start a dialogue with Iran have sent ripples of alarm through the capitals of America's closest Arab allies, who accuse Tehran of playing a destabilizing role in the Middle East.

The concerns being raised by Arab leaders sound strikingly like those coming from the mouths of Israeli officials.
"We hope that any dialogue between countries will not come at our expense," said a statement Tuesday by the six oil-rich nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council, who have long relied on U.S. protection in the region.

The Obama administration has been reaching out to Iran in a marked shift after shunning contacts for decades. But U.S. allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel, say Tehran is not a positive force in the region with its support for Islamic militant groups such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit conveyed the concerns this week when U.S. envoy Dennis Ross, who is dealing with Iran, visited Cairo.
"Iran's behavior in the region is negative in many aspects and does not help in advancing security, stability and peace," he [Aboul-Gheit] told Ross.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was in Saudi Arabia and Egypt this week, has sought to reassure the Arab allies that any contacts with Iran would be "open and transparent" and regional allies would be kept informed "so nobody gets surprised."
. . . . .

Israel and the U.S. suspect Iran's program to enrich uranium is aimed at developing nuclear weapons — a concern shared by the GCC.

"There exists a strategic and military threat (to Gulf countries) and we are against any nuclear program that isn't approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency because we believe that the Iranian nuclear program should not destabilize the region," the organization said in its statement.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's son, an increasingly influential figure in the regime, said Tuesday that Egypt and Iran also do not always see eye to eye.

"Both Egypt and Iran are key countries in the region, but we have our differences regarding the future of the region and peace," said Gamal Mubarak. Egypt, the Arab world's most populous nation, has long seen Iran as a regional rival.

Egypt has become increasingly vocal over its concerns about Iran, especially following its discovery in April of what it described as a "Hezbollah cell" plotting to destabilize the country. The Iranian-backed Lebanese group has denied the accusations, while admitting it did have an operative in Egypt supervising weapons shipments to the Palestinian Hamas group.

In a rare confluence of interests with its Arab neighbors, Israel has also singled out Iran as the greatest threat to stability in the region.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to meet with President Barack Obama later this month and is expected to push for a tough U.S. stance on Iran. Israel argues that progress in peace with the Palestinians can't happen unless Iran is reined in.

The London-based Palestinian daily, Al-Quds Al-Arabi even said the Arab moderates governments are actively working on building an alliance with Israel to counter Iranian influence in the region.
[full article - AP, 6 May 2009 updated link as of 12-2010]

Adding to its credibility is that this report comes from the Associated Press, signed by Salah Nasrawi, who bears an Arab name. Despite what Hilary [Obama's secretary of state] as well as one of Obama's Jewish flunkeys, Rahm ["Kapo"] Emanuel said, to the effect that if Israel did not come to terms with the "palestinians," Israel would not get support against Iran from Arab states, it seems that the Arabs are not listening. It seems that they too fear Iran first of all more than they worry about "progress . . . in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians."

Last month, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Israel that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians. [Jerusalem Post, 5-4 & 5-5-2009]

Apparently, Hilary and Rahm Kapo were just making empty threats to Israel, since the Arab states in question seem to be much closer to Israel's position --on this issue-- than to the American or, perhaps, the Anglo-American position of appeasing the ayatollahs of Iran.
- - - - - - -
UPDATING 5-(7&10)-2009 Jennifer Rubin at the Contentions blog also noticed this story. See her comment and 25 reader comments.
Caroline Glick on Arab rejection of linkage between Arab-Israeli issues and the Iranian nuclear weapons development.
Yoram Ettinger on linkage between the Iranian bomb project and Arab-Israeli negotiations.
David Hazony on linkage here, particularly on "national security advisor" Jones.
LINK ADDED 12-2-2010: I have replaced the original link to this story. I found it at first on the Yahoo site whence it has unfortunately vanished. The link now shown here is to HaArets which left out the reporter's name, Salah Nasrawi.