Jewish Leaders - Conferfence of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations-- Objects to Obama Anti-Israel Policy

EXPANDED 7-26-2009

In the Obamanoid Administration's frenetic drive to harm and humiliate Jews, they unwisely picked on a sore point for most Jews. They demanded that Israel's government prevent a Jew from building a small housing development [ca. 20 units] on a plot of land that he had legally bought in Jerusalem, a plot that had formerly belonged to the notorious Arab Nazi collaborator and Holocaust collaborator, Haj Amin el-Husseini, British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem. The State Dept objected because the plot was under Jordanian control --in the Jordanian-occupied zone of Jerusalem-- between 1948 and 1967, what Arab propagandists and Western journalists and diplomats call "East Jerusalem" or "Arab East Jerusalem." In fact, before Israel's War of Independence was initiated by Arab forces at the end of November 1947, thousands of Jews lived in what later became "East Jerusalem." Indeed, Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem since at least 1853, according to the French diplomat and historian Cesar Famin and the British writer Bartlett.

The Jews living in what became "East Jerusalem" began to flee the attacks of Arab irregulars in December 1947. First, from the Shimon haTsadiq quarter, quite close ironically --about 100 meters-- to the plot in question where the State Dept --apparently Obama too-- does not want Jews to build homes or to live. Later Jews fled the nearby Nahalat Shimon and Siebenbergen Houses quarters. Finally, the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab-occupied "East Jerusalem" was completed in May 1948 when the Jews were driven out of the Jewish quarter of the Old City, many of the men being held prisoners by the Arab Legion of Transjordan [now Jordan] for months.

When Jews were the majority in the mid-19th century, this was a majority in the post-1948 "East Jerusalem". That was in the Old City. All of the city was the Old City at that time. The Old City became part of the latter day "East Jerusalem." The Old City was off bounds to Jews from 1948 to 1967. So in the mid-19th century, Jews were the majority in what was later to be called by Arab propagandists and their journalistic pimps: "traditionally Arab East Jerusalem."

The major leadership group of the organized American Jewish community, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations [which groups some 50 Jewish groups together] has properly issued a statement on the State Dept's insolent, racist anti-Jewish behavior. To be sure, they did not use the terms that I use, but their statement is a useful clarification of some of the issues involved. Here is the statement [through Newsmax]:

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has long advocated and supported the unity of Jerusalem, the capital of the State of Israel. As such, we believe that legal construction by residents of the city should be allowed as long as it is in keeping with the standards and requirements of the municipality and the national government. We find disturbing the objections raised to the proposed construction of residential units on property that was legally purchased and approved by the appropriate authorities. The area in question houses major Israeli governmental agencies, including the national police headquarters. The United States has in the past and recently raised objections to the removal of illegal structures built by Arabs in eastern Jerusalem even though they were built in violation of zoning and other requirements often on usurped land. In addition to the Jewish housing, the project called for apartment units for Arabs as well.

It is particularly significant that the structure in question formerly was the house of the infamous Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini who spent the war years in Berlin as a close ally of Hitler, aiding and abetting the Nazi extermination of Jews. He was also linked to the 1929 massacre in Hebron and other acts of incitement that resulted in deaths and destruction in what was then Palestine. There has been an expressed desire by some Palestinians to preserve the building as a tribute to Husseini.

As a united city, Jerusalem’s Jewish and Arab residents should be permitted to reside wherever legal and security requirements allow. Hundreds of Arab families have moved into Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the same right should be accorded to Jewish residents in live where they choose in Jerusalem. To do otherwise would undermine and prejudge the status of the city.

No government of Israel has or can pursue a discriminatory policy that would prevent the legitimate presence of Jews in any area of its capital.

[in an article by Ronald Kessler, chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com]

Notes to the statement:
1) the plot of land is not only close to the national police headquarters and several government ministries but to the Hebrew University's sports complex, to the Hadassah Hospital, Mount Scopus branch, and to the Hyatt Hotel.
2) at least 68 Jews were massacred in Hebron in 1929, on account of mass murder incitement by agents of the mufti Husseini. Hebron is considered one of the four Jewish holy cities, along with Jerusalem, Safed, and Tiberias.
3) a massacre of Jews took place in Baghdad in the Spring of 1941, during the Shavu`ot holiday. Iraqi investigators later concluded that this massacre --called the Farhud-- had been instigated by the Judeophobic agitprop of Husseini and his associates over a period of about two years, while Husseini was living there from 1939 to 1941. It was at the time of the massacre that Husseini fled, first to Iran then to Turkey then to Italy where he met Mussolini, and finally to Berlin where he met Hitler. Husseini asked Hitler "to solve the problem of the Jews in the Arab countries as the problem was being solved in Germany." He was pleased when Hitler told him that this was his purpose too.
4) The plot in question, once owned by Haj Amin el-Husseini [Husayni], formerly called The Shepherd's Hotel, is about 75 meters south of a cluster of Israeli govt buildings, including ministries. It is about 100 meters east of the Shim`on haTsadiq Quarter, a residential quarter of poor Jews who were mostly driven out of their homes in late December 1947 [12-29-1947]. One family stayed on, fleeing only in the first ten days of January 1948. The Jews in this neighborhood were the first group in the country who were driven out of their homes and could not come back after the war, whereas Jews were driven out of south Tel Aviv in the same period but could return after the Arab attackers in neighboring Jaffa were defeated in about April-May 1948.

Many readers may be unaware of the historical facts cited by the Conference of Presidents and by me in my post. That is, they are victims of the everyday, very conventional falsification of history regarding the Jews, Israel, and the Arabs that has been going on for many years and has long infected the State Dept, whether as falsifiers or believers. The position of the State Dept, indeed of Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton, is a rejection of Jewish human and civil rights. It is unacceptable for a supposedly democratic government to take such positions.

By the way, I can attest, as a resident of Jerusalem, that my Arab fellow residents of the city delight in the several shopping centers in the city. If you visit Jerusalem, you can see Arabs riding buses with Jews, eating at Jewish restaurants in the shopping malls, shopping, trying on clothes, spending money [yes, they have money for all the poor mouthing done on their behalf by Arab propagandists, their pimp Western journalists, fake Western "human rights" and "humanitarian" NGOs (supposed "non-governmental organizations" that often, indeed usually, get funding from --- governments)], being treated in hospitals with the Jews, etc.

SOURCE ON HUSSEINI:
"German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini: Zionism and the Arab Cause" in Walter Laqueur and Barry Rubin, eds., The Israel-Arab Reader (Penguin Books 2008), pp 51-55.

MORE on Obama anti-Israel policy here.

fake hr outfit hrw drops its mask, raising dough in saudiarabia by promising to fight israel, downplaying saudi hr cirimes

The fake "human rights" outfit, "human rights watch," has lately hit a new low. It sent a delegation to Saudi Arabia of all places to raise funds, telling the Saudis of how eagerly they had smeared Israel's good name over the Gaza war in January of this year. This fund-raising mission was written up in the Arab News published in Saudi Arabia. The Arab News report was then discovered by NGO Monitor which was shocked by the blatant hypocrisy of raising funds to fight alleged Israeli violations of human rights by seeking donors in Saudi Arabia, a land where the laws explicitly deny human rights, instead embodying traditional Islamic supremacy which has long oppressed scores of millions, indeed hundreds of millions of non-Muslims since the Muslim conquests began in the seventh century.

The controversy ensuing on the revelations of hrw's unscrupulous acts was covered by NGO Monitor, by a column in the Wall Street Journal, by Jeffrey Goldberg's blog in the Atlantic Monthly, and on many web sites including Augean Stables. It is interesting in this context to note that at least two Saudi government officials were present at one of the hrw fund-raising meetings in Riyadh, according to the admission of Kenneth Roth, HRW executive director. Note the cutesy deceit employed by hrw when referring to Saudi Arabia.

The organization recently called on the Kingdom to do more to protect the human rights of domestic workers [in the Arab News report].

As far as I know, the Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia violates the human rights of domestic workers, particularly foreigners, rather than protecting them. Indeed, wealthy Saudis belonging to the kingdom's elite often have slaves. One Saudi couple brought a young girl as a slave with them to live in the United States, in Colorado, I think. This was discovered a few years ago and the couple had to go to jail. Seems to me that the Saudis have an awful lot of human rights improvement to do right there in the kingdom before they point their fingers at Jews whose human rights are rather explicitly rejected by Saudi law.

Here are several links on the issue which I will follow with my own comments made first on Augean Stables.
1. The Arab News report here

2. The first NGO Monitor report here.

3. The CAMERA report ici, later CAMERA report [7-28-2009]

4. Law professor David Bernstein in the Wall Street Journal.

5. Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic [qui] . Goldberg also interviewed Kenneth Roth, executive director of hrw, who revealed that two Saudi govt officials were at one of the fund-raising sessions.

We certainly weren't soliciting Saudi government funds and would never take them. As for whether any government people were there, the closest was a guy from the national human rights commission and someone from the Shura Council

Now, isn't Roth being just a bit too disingenuous? Isn't the very presence of govt officials [one from the human rights commission no less!] in a state that violates human rights regularly in accord with its own laws compromising when the emphasis of the fund-raising appeal was Israel's alleged hr violations, not those of Saudi Arabia, which I repeat rejects the very idea of human rights??

6. NGO Monitor article of May 27, 2009, report of 16 June 2009 and NGO Monitor fact sheet on hrw & fresh article by NGO Monitor director, Gerald Steinberg כאן

7. Posts and discussion threads on the Augean Stables blog on this issue.
a) here - b) aqui c) ici

Here are some of my own comments on the hrw/Saudi scandal first made on Augean Stables:

Here’s a sincerity test for whitson and roth. Whitson says the following, insinuating that she may have harshly criticized Saudi anti-human rights policies while in the kingdom. [In an interview with the Jerusalem Post,]

Whitson dismissed the impression left in the Arab News report that the organization’s sales pitch in Saudi Arabia had been based on its work slamming Israel, saying there was Saudi press censorship, and it was clear that HRW’s work in Gaza was the angle that the authorities in Riyadh would want to highlight.
Most of this sentence is true enough and I agree that the Riyadh govt would want to highlight critiques of Israel. But, if she did criticize Saudi practices and policies, and such criticism was omitted from the Arab News report, then why did she not make it forcefully clear once she had returned to the USA that she strongly disapproved of the ban on religious worship other than Muslim worship in Saudi Arabia [isn’t this an HR issue?] and she disapproved of the severe limits on women’s freedom, and cruel treatment of foreign workers, especially, but not only, non-Muslims, etc???
Since she did not make such a critical attitude towards Saudi practices clear once she had come back to the US [as far as I know], one must assume that she had little if anything to say about these matters while in the kingdom. Hence, her insinuation about omissions in the Arab News Report was meant to mislead, that is, to lie.

I would go further. Why do we hear so much about HRW “reports” and “critiques” of Israeli policy in the media but so little, if any, about “reports” and critiques of Arab regimes practices, including those of Saudi Arabia, which is near an extreme even within the Arab world?? Then, in the course of criticizing alleged Israeli violations in Gaza, has hrw ever discussed the anti-human rights implications of the Hamas charter [inc. Article 7] which now governs Gaza??

RL sarcastically remarks, “And, of course, the HRW fundraisers paid no attention to Saudi preferences.” Obviously. Further, making a funds appeal to the Saudis on the grounds of HRW’s leading role in anti-Israel propaganda or, if you like, “information” warfare or agitprop or perhaps “public spirited, disinterested, testimony to Congress based purely on principled concerns, already shows a bias on hrw’s part. That is, stressing anti-Israel efforts to Saudi donors implies that hrw has taken sides.

One of the problems here is that the US MSM are already in the pockets of the anti-Israel, pro-Arab forces in the establishment.

By the way, while we’re on the subject of HR policies by Arabs govts, what about genocide going on in the Sudan since independence in 1956?

To continue:

The Hamas charter is clearly a pro-genocide document. This is very clear in Article 7, which quotes a medieval Muslim Hadith fable foretelling the genocide of the Jews at Judgement Day, a genocide to be performed by Muslims. The loyal Muslim, reading that fable, might logically ask, Why wait till Judgement Day. Now, if HRW still considers genocide an offense against HR, if it ever did, then Hamas’s pro-genocide position ought to be taken into account in any treatment of the Gaza War of January 2009. In other words, Hamas is a political/religious body that is blatantly opposed to human rights. The Gaza War has to be seen in that light.

Since HR are supposed to be universal, then opposing Jews’ HR means opposing HR as such. Also, supporting Hamas means opposing Jews’ HR. This applies to HRW’s wealthy Saudi donors too, obviously. Now, we come to another point, which no doubt bothers many critics of HRW. Was hrw’s ostensible concern for “civilians” in Gaza merely a pretext for supporting Hamas’ war against Israel, Hamas’ genocidal war on Israel??? No doubt, this belief caused some previous hrw donors to stop funding the fake HR body. I have not closely examined hrw’s indictment of Israel regarding that war. However, if hrw accepted false claims made by Hamas and other Arab interested parties that members of the Hamas armed forces [inc. the Hamas Gaza police] were “civilians”, then hrw not only lacks credibility but is consciously supporting Hamas’ genocidal efforts. This is because various sources identified persons claimed by name by Hamas and other Arab sources as civilians as being in fact Hamas policemen or members of other Hamas armed forces. Hamas had even claimed that commanders of its armed forces that had been killed were civilians. Since such claims by Hamas were belied, then hrw is taking the Hamas side by accepting its claims.

Next, what are the human rights bona fides of hrw’s Saudi donors? Are they supporters in good faith of human rights in Saudi Arabia while living in luxury in their palaces in Riyahdh, with their servants, foreign and domestic –or slaves, dare we ask?? Do these people accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN, for example??? Or do they adhere to the Cairo Declaration of human rights in Islam, which is a clearly anti-hr manifesto??? More particularly, do these donors accept the traditional Islamic doctrine that Jews are not only kufar [unbelievers] but the worst of unbelievers?? That Jews are destined to be humiliated by Muslims, slaughtered at Judgement Day, etc?? Do they agree with the endorsement of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the Hamas charter??

In short, I would like to see proof in both word and deed that the Saudi donors to hrw are supporters of human rights as such, and not merely cleverly using HR against Jews and Israel. Until Whitson and Roth supply convincing indications about the hr commitment of their Saudi donors, then whitson, roth and hrw should be considered human rights fakers.

--end of my comments on Augean Stables--

To sum up about hrw's Saudi donors. Here are a few questions for hrw to answer about them:
Did or do hrw's Saudi benefactors acknowledge the humanity of Jews; are these contributors in Saudi Arabia people who believe in universal humanity? In the humanity of Jews in particular?
Or do hrw's Saudi donors believe in regime propaganda, in the Saudi school system, in the official Saudi Wahhabite creed which dehumanizes sectarian Muslims, let alone Jews and other non-believers in Islam?
Do the Saudi benefactors of hrw accept the Islamic prejudices against Jews that go back to the early days of Islam?

Or do they just see the utility and expediency in smearing Israel with the fake "human rights" brush?

As far as hrw is concerned, what has it done for violations of the human rights of Jews?? This is a big subject, but let us just ask about the human rights of Jonathan Pollard. Did hrw ever defend his rights? Pollard received a sentence that violates the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." Pollard life sentence --in practice-- is much longer than that of other persons convicted of espionage by the United States. Where was the voice of hrw to protest this miscarriage of justice?

Of course, our fake "human rights" outfit, hrw, went to Saudi Arabia in order to raise money against Israel. They did not ask for money for general human rights advocacy but for anti-Israel advocacy in particular. So the human rights of some are more equal than the hr of others.

Now, far be it from me to criticize HRW alone and neglect other phoney "human rights" outfits. Another one is Amnesty International. Here is a truly shocking example of "amnesty" deploring a film against stoning of women in Iran. This film exposed the ugly reality of that phenomenon. In short, amnesty international defends hr violations, provided that authorized human rights violators do the violating. In this case, the government of Iran and Muslim bigots there are allowed to violate the human rights of women.

"Human Rights" is very often a corrupt racket, just a political, propaganda club for beating designated targets, like Israel, while Hamas and Iranian Muslim bigots are allowed to get away with it.

"The Poilet Drupped the Bumms in Gude Feyeth" -- quoth a Scottish NATO spokesman [& Jamie Shea]

When we recently heard that the Scottish Trade Union Congress was calling for a boycott of Israel, we were reminded of the immortal words of another Scotsman, an erstwhile spokesman for NATO forces in Yugoslavia when they were bombing Serbia and its province of Kossovo. Although NATO was ostensibly fighting the war to protect the Kossovo Albanians, allegedly subject to Serbian genocide, NATO air forces bombed a large group of fleeing Kossovo Albanians. I believe that the NATO forces killed about 70 or 80 of these people. The spokesman was asked to explain himself at a press conference and stated in his quaint, folksy Scottish burr [concealing a world class propagandist] that: "The pilot dropped the bombs in good faith" [quotes & reports here & here & ici & aqui]. In other words, the spokesman wanted and expected the international press to take his word for it that the bombs had been dropped "in good faith." Maybe the pilot did bomb those refugees in good faith. Apparently the international press took the spokesman's word for it and so did the Scottish TUC. After all, the spokesman was not a Jew. He was British. He speaks for Her Britannic Majesty. Maybe next we'll hear that Himmler operated the death camps "in good faith."

The same thing was said in substance by Jamie Shea, apparently not a Scot, who seems to have been the chief NATO spokesman at the time of the Kossovo War.

NATO forces, of which British forces were a part, also killed Serbian civilians during the Kossovo war back in 1999. But apparently it was all "in good faith," since I have heard of no boycott called by the Scottish TUC of the Scottish NATO spokesman or of British products or of British officials or of British universities, so on and so forth. Likewise, British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan in ongoing wars in those places have killed local civilians in air strikes and in other ways. So too the allies of the UK, the United States and other NATO powers have killed civilians in those countries. Yet no call for a boycott by the Scottish TUC or the Irish TUC or any other English-speaking TUC. What gives then, oh Righteous Moralists of the TUC of the Highlands and the Lowlands and the Foggy Islands at sea?? Why aren't you boycotting Britain, or at least the English or maybe the Americans?? Anyhow, who is more responsible for the war --the UK or the USA? Shouldn't you be boycotting at least one of them to show your distaste for those two wars [or those three wars if we include the Kossovo assault on Serbia]?? What about your abhorrence of civilian deaths caused by First World armies?? How many poor Afghans have to die before you boycott both the UK and USA??

Maybe the Scottish TUC and the Irish TUC and all the other TUCs in the British Isles ought to be boycotting themselves. Maybe British hypocrisy is a threat to world peace.

Could the New Obama Learn some Principles from the Old Obama?

Of course, many people have a hard time figuring out who Obama really is, or maybe, who he himself thinks he is. Does he know who he is? Anyhow, having said so many things during his relatively short lifetime, saying one thing and its opposite over and over on many issues, he was bound to say something right for once. Like the broken clock that tells the right time twice a day.

Many years ago, when he was a young, opportunistic college student,

Citing a Rastafarian Reggae musician as his foreign policy authority, Obama ruminated,
"When Peter Tosh sings that 'everybody's asking for peace, but nobody's asking for justice,' one is forced to wonder whether . . . [various] issues, severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem, instead of the disease itself."
[quoted by Carolyn Glick, JPost 7-6-2009]

Well, different people define justice differently. The Muslim definition of justice is especially problematic because in the strict Muslim view, justice exists when and where Muslims rule over non-Muslims with the latter in a distinctly inferior, humiliating position. Now Obama is demanding "peace" without justice, as he claimed in his notorious Cairo speech that building homes for Jews to live in Judea-Samaria "undermines efforts to achieve peace."

Be that as it may, I and many others believe that justice means, among other things, overcoming the bigotry of Muslim law in the Middle East, granting equality of rights and human dignity to non-Muslims as well as Muslims. When Muslims had unchallenged control over the Land of Israel, they humiliated Jews here, who had few rights. As dhimmis, Jews suffered all sorts of indignities, which I have detailed on earlier posts on this blog [search for "dhimma" and "dhimmi"]. The Arab Muslims and many Arabic-speaking Christians in this country denied the Jews' right of return to their land, although this right is specifically acknowledged by the Quran, the Arabs' holy book, itself [search for posts on Quran and Zionism in this blog]. Unfortunately, Britain which had accepted the international commitment of fostering development of the Jewish National Home in Israel violated its commitment. This followed Arab requests/demands to stop Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel, demands made in 1939 on the eve of the Holocaust. Now Arabs called "palestinians" make similar demands --Abu Mazen demands a stop to all Jewish settlement as a precondition for negotiations with Israel. Again unfortunately, freshman US president Barack Hussein Obama agrees with the Arab demand that "all settlement activity" must stop. Hence Obama is agreeing with a racist Arab demand, a demand which reflects traditional Arab-Muslim supremacist thinking. Therefore, Obama is a racist against Jews or goes along with racism against Jews. In contrast to his opinion in 1983 when writing for a college student magazine, he no longer is concerned about Justice or, shall we say, he is only adheres to the Muslim notion of justice which is hostile to Jews and other non-Muslims.

In this context, news about the meeting between the Anointed One and 16 so-called "Jewish leaders" reflects a shameful situation of toadying to a Judeophobe. To be sure, Obama stacked the deck by excluding Jewish leaders who were likely to disagree with him or challenge him convincingly. Hence, there was no real meeting between obama and Jewish leaders but only between obama and his Jewish toadies.

Getting back to the quote from Obama above, the "disease," the real "problem," is Judeophobia, both on the part of Arab/Muslims and Westerners. That problem is the main obstacle to peace.

What Jewish Leaders Should Tell President Obama

Prez Obama is supposed to meet American Jewish leaders today. Here are some of the things that they should tell him:

1-- His anti-settlement policy is anti-Jewish racism.

2-- The State Department and UK Foreign Office opening to Hamas is tantamount to favoring Nazis since Hamas has clearly Nazi purposes. The Hamas Charter in general and Article 7 in particular call for genocide against the Jews, based on medieval Muslim teachings.

3-- His policy of denying Jewish rights to live in Judea-Samaria endangers the rights of American Jews to live wherever in the United States the Judeophobes, like obama and gang, don't want them to. [On this point, Professor Alan Dershowitz is simply a fool].

4-- There has never been a "Palestinian people" in all history. Those Arabs themselves did not see themselves as a distinct people nor did they or other Arabs perceive a distinct country called "palestine."

5-- The Arabs as Muslims oppressed, persecuted, and economically exploited Jews [and other non-Muslims] for 1400 years in the status of dhimmis.

6-- Arab nationalists, particularly the leading palestinian Arab politician and Muslim religious leader, Haj Amin el-Husseini [husayni], Mufti of Jerusalem, collaborated with the Nazis in general and in the Holocaust in particular.

7-- American universities disgrace themselves day after day with pro-Nazi liars on their faculties, slandering the Jews. Hence, it is difficult for younger Americans to form fact-based, well informed opinions about Arab and Israeli matters. One of the big liars is Obama's friend, Rashid al-Khalidi, who worked as a PLO propagandist.

8-- The PLO and its leading faction, Fatah, do not want peace with Israel. Only the peace of the grave for Israel. Consider the broadcasts full of anti-Jewish lies and war incitement on palestinian authority TV, radio, newspapers, schools, mosques, etc. They teach hate not peace or coexistence, aided and abetted by European Union funds and money from the USA too.

9-- Jonathan Pollard is unjustly kept in jail in that his sentence for espionage was much longer that given to others sentenced for espionage around the same time as he. His sentence is practically a life sentence whereas an Egyptian sentenced around the same time got only a few years. Likewise, Christopher Boyce and the Walker family. Pollard's extra-harsh sentence violates the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause of the US Bill of Rights [Amendment 8] of the US constitution. Obama is supposed to know the Constitution as a law professor. Pollard's sentence represents anti-Jewish discrimination, Judeophobia, in the American body politic.

10-- To think that the US or other outside powers can force peace on a conflict like the Arab-Israeli one, or that they really want peace, is ridiculous. If the US, UK, EU really wanted peace, they could start by reducing the huge funds that they give to the palestinian authority and Hamas in Gaza.

More on Iran's Guilt in the AMIA massacre in Argentina in 1994

All the News that's Fit to Print
[that is, we print all the news that fits our line]
The masthead motto of the New York Times

Since most of the English-language media works by the policy of the New York Times, that is, they publish only the news that fits their policy, then it is likely that otherwise well-informed readers dependent on English-language media will not know of the latest developments in the case of the AMIA massacre of 1994. In that year Iranian agents used a truck bomb to destroy the AMIA Jewish Community center in Buenos Aires, murdering 86 people. This followed by two years a similar bombing at the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires which killed fewer people, only 29 for a total of 115. After years of investigation, Argentine investigators determined that Iranian agents --including the Hizbullah master terrorist `Imad Mughniyyah-- had blown up the AMIA building and the embassy.

Argentina went so far as to give Interpol a list of eight persons who ought to be arrested on international arrest warrants. Former Argentine president Nestor Kirchner spoke about the AMIA affair in his speech to the UN General Assembly in the fall of 2007. However, neither Kirchner's speech nor the fact that Argentina had demanded arrest of the perpetrators through the Interpol got coverage suitable to the importance of the story in English-language "news" media, although it got much more coverage in Spanish-language media. That is, depending on English-language media will leave one ill-informed.

June 15, 2009
Wiesenthal Center Applauds Arrest Warrants Against Leading "Local Connection" Suspect of the AMIA Bombing

The Simon Wiesenthal Center applauded the decision by Argentine judge Rodolfo Canicoba Corral to endorse the indictment issued two weeks ago by State Prosecutor Alberto Nisman, the head of the AMIA Bombing Investigation Unit, demanding the arrest of Colombian-born Lebanese-resident Samuel Salman El Reda, who is accused of coordinating the logistics for the deadly bombing of the AMIA Jewish Center in 1994.

Nisman's indictment shows that El Reda established himself in Argentina in 1987. He cooperated with Mohsen Rabbani (former Iranian Cultural Attaché in Buenos Aires who has an INTERPOL's "Red Notice" warrant pending against him), and was responsible for coordinating the "operative group" that arrived from abroad in order to carry out the attack in Buenos Aires. El Reda later facilitated the escape of those involved in the blast. The indictment also states that El Reda was in contact with a person known under the alias of André Marqués, who supervised the attack from Foz do Iguazu, on the Brazilian side of the Triple Frontier [where Argentina, Brazil & Paraguay meet]. El Reda left Argentina in August, 1994 (a month after the attack) and went to Lebanon, where he has been living since then.

"We welcome this new decision which strengthens the work of Prosecutor Nisman and the efforts to bring the Iranian-backed terrorists to justice," said Dr. Shimon Samuels, Director for International Relations of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

"The warrant against El Reda lives up to the recent statement by the Argentine Supreme Court: impunity is not an option in the AMIA bombing. Truth and justice must prevail," added Sergio Widder, the Center's Director for Latin America.

For further information contact Shimon Samuels at +336 09770158, or Sergio Widder at +54911 4425-1306.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is one of the largest international Jewish human rights organizations with over 400.000 members. It is an NGO at international agencies including the United Nations, UNESCO, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the OAS and the Latin American Parliament.

El Centro Wiesenthal apoya el pedido de captura contra la persona acusada de ser el líder de la "conexión local" del atentado contra la AMIA

El Centro Simon Wiesenthal apoyó la decision del juez Rodolfo Canicoba Corral, quien dio lugar al pedido de arresto contra Samuel Salman El Reda, acusado de ser quien coordinó la logística para llevar adelante el atentado contra la AMIA en 1994. El arresto de El Reda había sido requerido dos semanas atrás a través de un dictamen emitido por el fiscal Alberto Nisman, titular de la Unidad de Investigación AMIA.

El dictamen del fiscal Nisman explica que El Reda, de origen colombiano, se estableció en Argentina en 1987, fue colaborador de Mohsen Rabbani (ex Agregado Cultural de la embajada iraní en Buenos Aires, sobre quien pesa un pedido de captura internacional con "Notificación Roja" de INTERPOL), tuvo a su cargo la coordinación del "grupo operativo" encargado de llevar a cabo el ataque terrorista en Buenos Aires, y facilitó luego el escape de los involucrados en el mismo. El dictamen establece, también, que El Reda estuvo en contacto con una persona conocida con el alias de André Marqués, quien supervisó el ataque desde Foz do Iguaçu, en el lado brasilero de la Triple Frontera. El Reda se fue de Argentina y se estableció en El Líbano en agosto de 1994, donde reside hasta el presente.

"Apoyamos esta nueva decision que fortalece el trabajo del fiscal Nisman y los esfuerzos para conducir a los terroristas que contaron con el apoyo de Irán ante la justicia", señaló el Dr. Shimon Samuels, Director de Relaciones Internacionales del Centro Simon Wiesenthal.

"El pedido de captura contra El Reda está en sintonía con el reciente pronunciamiento de la Suprema Corte de Justicia: la impunidad no es una opción válida en la causa del atentado contra la AMIA. Deben prevalecer la verdad y la justicia", agregó Sergio Widder, Director para América Latina del Centro.

Para mayor información, comunicarse con Sergio Widder al 4802-1744 o bien (15) 4425-1306. Si llama desde fuera de Argentina, + 5411 4802-1744 ó + 54911 4425-1306.

El Centro Simon Wiesenthal es una organización judía internacional de derechos humanos con más de 400.000 miembros en todo el mundo. Tiene status de ONG ante la ONU, la UNESCO, la OEA, la OSCE, el Consejo de Europa y el Parlamento Latinoamericano.

The above report from the Wiesenthal Center is only an update on a long story.

The reason why so little attention has been given to these two atrocities in Buenos Aires is probably that the US and UK governments have desired all along to protect the image of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which broad knowledge of Iranian involvement in these two atrocities would have besmirched. If these Buenos Aires crimes had been more widely known, the US and UK might have had to take a stronger line against Iran obtaining the Bomb, which apparently these two powers want the Iranian ayatollahs to have. Note how mild Obama's first remarks were in regard to the violent, brutal suppression by the ayatollahs of the anti-regime demonstrators in Iran in June of this year.

What Are the Issues Involved in the Racist Obamanoid Demand for a "Settlement Freeze"

UPDATING 7-3-2009 links added

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

Obama and his whole morally corrupt and dishonest administration are calling for a "freeze" on Jews living in Judea-Samaria. This can be interpreted within a certain range of meanings. But this range is short and narrow. It is racist against Jews in any case. Here are some of the implications and issues involved in the "freeze" demand:

1 -- Jewish human rights. Where do the Jews have a right to live? Did the USA or UK or other major powers recognize Jewish human rights in the 1930s and 1940s? Do the USA, UK, EU powers and other Western and other powers want the Jews to live in ghettos??

2-- Jewish national rights. Do Jews have national rights in the Jews' historic homeland? In the Land of Israel including Judea-Samaria? Do we have rights to live in Tel Aviv but not Hebron? 200 years ago a few thousand Jews did live in Hebron but there was no Tel Aviv. Do the USA, UK, EU powers and other Western and other powers want the Jews to live in ghettos in their own homeland??

3-- Respect for agreements, accords and treaties made with Jews. The UK govt clearly violated the terms of the League of Nations "mandate for Palestine" to which the UK had committed itself, by issuing the 1939 "White Paper for Palestine." The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League found Britain in violation of its mandate on account of the White Paper. Now the obama administration scoffs at the accords made by Pres Bush with Israel while Sharon was PM just a few years ago.

4-- Does the denial of Jewish rights to inhabit Judea-Samaria threaten Jewish residency rights in other countries throughout the world, especially Western countries? The Western states as a whole did not allow Jewish refugees to take refuge in those countries before and during the Holocaust. Do they now want to get rid of the Jews as they did then? What does it mean that German chancellor Angela Merkel demands an end to settlement building? She also thinks that "a two-state solution" is "urgently needed."

5-- The US position on Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria is more subtle than the Euro and UK positions which falsely claim that the settlements are "illegal." The US holds that they are "obtacles to peace." In other words, Jews endanger peace by exercising and insisting on their rights. Since obama continues this established state dept position, his claim to be making changes in favor of human rights is a fake.

6-- Many writings and official statements from various sources, official and unofficial, state explicitly or imply that when Jews exercise the right of going to live in Judea-Samaria they are oppressing others.

7-- Do the powers that collaborated in the Holocaust, the US, UK, Russia, the major EU members, have the right to dictate "peace" terms to Jews that are really warmongering ultimatums??

8-- Will the "freeze" of settlements encourage Arab racism against Jews and/or racism against Jews elsewhere, in the West? In the UK of course? Will the "freeze" policy of the West encourage attitudes of ethno-religious supremacism among the Arabs, who do not need much encouragement anyhow?

9-- What does it mean when the US, UK, EU, and other world powers blame Israel in advance for the next war, whereas these powers, the West in particular, promote Arab war on Israel and Arab intransigeance in negotiations by the fact that they generously finance the anti-Israel NGOs, Fatah [in its palestinian authority guise], Hamas [through the PA and through the oil rich Arab oil states that are overpaid for oil deliberately by the USA, UK, & France?? The EU shamelessly finances anti-Israel, anti-Jewish propaganda through the fake "NGOs"???

If the Arabs really wanted to make peace, wouldn't the UK, EU, & USA try to prevent it? Wouldn't they stop the Arabs from making peace?

These are simply basic points and issues that will be broadened and elaborated on later.

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools