More on Arabs Refuting the Big Lie of "Israeli apartheid"

We have already shown [here] photos of Arabs rubbing shoulders with Jews in a Jerusalem shopping mall, enjoying the amenities of the mall and the joy of shopping, a favorite activity of mankind in the 21st century. Shopping is a joy for Arabs as much as for any other people, if not more so. The shopping mall in Dubai is reputed to be the biggest, the grandest, the most splendid in the world. Here are a few more photo shots of Arabs enjoying shopping in Jerusalem. While doing so, unconsciously or not, they are disproving the Big Lie of "Israeli apartheid," a favorite of the fanatic Judeophobes in the West and of those whose minds have been "bent," so to speak. These Arabs are refuting the Big Lie, arguing with their feet, as it were. The lie itself is most likely an invention of Western psychological warfare agencies and experts, probably British.

Here are two Arab-Muslim women in the full headgear and robes sitting in a restaurant in the mall and eating. One is caring for a baby. A Jewish waitress is seen at left.

Arab women are seen happily shopping, going through piles of clothes in a shop. Look at the back of the store and to the left. Arab-Muslim women are most easily identified by their distinctive garments.

Two happy shoppers leaving a store. Actually, the younger woman on the left seems quite happy and satisfied, the older woman not so much. Note the Hebrew writing on an advertising poster to the left of the younger woman.

Here is empirical evidence that these Arab women are not suffering "apartheid" in Israel. Nevertheless, the fanatic true believers in the West in inherent Israeli evil, the heirs of 17 centuries of Judeophobic indoctrination, of the demonization and dehumanization of Jews, will probably not be swayed by mere empirical facts. We bear in mind that most of those groups and individuals called "Left" or "leftist" in the world today share that destructive Western mental heritage. Most of the "Left" today in countries like Britain, the USA, Sweden and Norway, as well as some other Western countries and some Eastern and African countries under Western cultural-intellectual influence (especially British), is a manipulated body of public opinion. Despite Marx and Engels' claim that they were devising a "scientific socialism," they could not or would not shake the rigid influence of Kant and Hegel, particularly the Judeophobia of these two philosophers. Many of Marx and Engels' self-described followers today are incapable of logical reasoning, of empirical induction, or of rational thought. They believe more in comfortable slogans that they have indoctrinated [or inoculated?] with than in the evidence of their own eyes.
Psychological warfare techniques and mass psychological manipulation are dominant tools in shaping contemporary public opinion.

- - - - - - - -
For more on this topic, see here.

Britain Fostered Arab-Jewish Conflict during the Mandatory Period

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

Isaiah Friedman has published a new book which concludes that British policy in the Land of Israel during the mandatory period fostered Arab-Jewish conflict, including encouraging the pogrom in Jerusalem in April 1920:

In this myth-shattering study, Isaiah Friedman provides a new perspective on events in the Middle East during World War I and its aftermath. He shows that British officials in Cairo mistakenly assumed that the Arabs would rebel against Turkey and welcome the British as deliverers. Sharif (later king) Hussein did rebel, but not for nationalistic motives as is generally presented in historiography. Early in the war he simultaneously negotiated with the British and the Turks but, after discovering that the Turks intended to assassinate him, finally sided with the British. There was no Arab Revolt in the Fertile Crescent. It was mainly the soldiers of Britain, the Commonwealth, and India that overthrew the Ottoman rule, not the Arabs. Both T.E. Lawrence ('Lawrence of Arabia') and Sir Mark Sykes hoped to revive the Arab nation and build a new Middle East. They courted disappointment: the Arabs resented the encroachment of European Powers and longed for the return of the Turks. Emir Feisal too became an exponent of Pan-Arabism and a proponent of the 'United Syria' scheme. It was supported by the British Military Administration who wished thereby to eliminate the French from Syria. British officers were antagonistic to Zionism as well and were responsible for the anti-Jewish riots in Jerusalem in April 1920. During the twenties, unlike the Hussein family and their allies, the peasants (fellaheen), who constituted the majority of the Arab population in Palestine, were not inimical towards the Zionists. They maintained that 'progress and prosperity lie in the path of brotherhood' between Arabs and Jews and regarded Jewish immigration and settlement to be beneficial to the country. Friedman argues that, if properly handled, the Arab-Zionist conflict was not inevitable. The responsibility lay in the hands of the British administration of Palestine.
[above taken from here. The book is: British Pan-Arab Policy, 1915-1922]

A real anti-imperialist would expose how imperialist powers instigate conflicts between peoples. Isaiah Friedman does that. Most so-called "Middle East scholarship" does not do that. To the contrary, most "Middle East scholarship" today serves the Judeophobic purposes set as British imperial policy as far back as 1920. During the mandatory period, Arnold Toynbee, an official at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, was a prime exponent of Judeophobia and anti-Zionism. After Israel's independence, Toynbee's journal, International Affairs, published through the RIIA, favored articles whitewashing the Arabs' actions in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, as well as embellishing Arab conduct towards Jews and in general throughout history. He was a prime architect of the UK's anti-Zionist policy during the mandatory period. He also whitewashed Ottoman and Turkish [that is, Muslim] ethnic cleansing and massacre --genocide-- of Armenians before, during and after World War I, reversing an ostensibly British pro-Armenian policy that had lasted from the Congress of Berlin [1878] until well into WW I. By favoring Turks and other Muslim peoples over Armenians and other non-Muslim Middle Eastern peoples [such as Jews], British policy curiously converged with Bolshevik/Communist/Soviet policy from before WW I until the fall of the USSR, whereas Western Communists and Russian nationalists have continued their anti-Zionism, Judeophobia, Israelophobia till today, again strangely converging with British policy.

Their anti-Jewish policy led to the British 1939 "White Paper on Palestine" which severely restricted Jewish immigration into the internationally designated Jewish National Home [the Land of Israel] when the Jews most needed a home. That is, during the Holocaust. Britain's severely enforced restrictive immigration policy was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jews. Another aspect of the policy was encouraging Arab attacks on Jews, both by Arabs in the country --as Friedman points out [see above]-- and by Arab states in the 1945-1949 period [comprising Israel's independence struggle and the war against the Arab states' invasion of the country].

Toynbee also expressed his Judeophobia in his world history, called A Study of History, which takes a very contemptuously anti-Jewish tone. Now, Toynbee's granddaughter, Polly Toynbee, is still blaring on the "hate the Jews" horn at the Israelophobic Guardian newspaper. Britain's anti-Israel policy continues, today focussing its venom on the State of Israel.

Friedman's book was published very recently and I have not had a chance to see it. However, I have read several articles by Friedman in the scholarly journals. I also heard him speak years ago and had a chance to ask him some questions on the topic of this book, the period around 1920 in the Land of Israel and British policy at that time toward that place. So, I recommend the book knowing Friedman's work as I do. I will try to get the book as soon as I can.

- - - - - - - -
On British instigation of the 1920 "Nebi Musa" pogrom in Jerusalem, see:
Richard Meinertzhagen, Middle East Diary. Meinertzhagen was a British intelligence official for the Foreign Office in 1920, whereas he identifies UK army officers, such as Colonel Waters-Taylor, Ernest Richmond, and Ronald Storrs, as perpetrators of the anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist policy.
Also see William Ziff, The Rape of Palestine, &
Horace Samuel, Revolt by Leave.
Note that H Samuel refers to the 1936-1939 "Arab Revolt" as a revolt that took place with the permission of the British authorities in the country.

On this also see,
Ernest Hemingway, "On the Quai at Smyrna" and the epigraph to Chapter II, both in the collection In Our Time
George Horton, The Blight of Asia
Marjorie Housepian, The Smyrna Affair
Samuel Katz, Days of Fire & Jabo
Pierre van Paassen, Forgotten Ally &
Days of Our Years
Albert Londres, Le Juif errant est arrive (circa 1930).

The Obama Administration Moves into a Full Pro-Nazi, Judeophobic Position

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

Little comment from me is needed on Evelyn Gordon's short essay below on the Obama administration anti-Israel position. It is implicitly and fundamentally pro-Nazi. That is, it means to take away Jewish rights in the Land of Israel, national rights to govern the land, rights of residency throughout the Land, rights to Jewish religious and archeological sites, and so on. It means to set up a genocidal Arab terrorist state alongside Israel.

By implicitly rejecting Security Council resolution 242 of 1967 it means to throw Israel to the Arab wolves, without the "secure and defensible boundaries" that SC res. 242 called for. Mitchell is in fact rejecting any real negotiations. He is embracing the position of the Judeophobic Saudi wahhabite Muslim kingdom that actively spreads Islamic fanaticism around the world. Mitchell, Obama & Company are flouting the real international law that recognized the Jewish right to reconstitute the ancient Jewish state in the Jewish national home [Preamble to the League of Nations mandate].

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Evelyn Gordon

HONEST BROKER, ANYONE?

Nothing in George Mitchell’s interview with PBS last week received more attention than the envoy’s implied threat to revoke American loan guarantees to Israel. That’s a pity — because far more worrisome is the goal he set for the negotiations, as highlighted by Aluf Benn in today’s Haaretz. “We think the way forward … is full implementation of the Arab peace initiative,” Mitchell declared. “That’s the comprehensive peace in the region that is the objective set forth by the president.”

The Arab initiative mandates a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines — every last inch of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. It also demands a solution to the refugee problem “in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194,” which Arabs interpret as allowing the refugees to “return” to Israel.

Later in the interview, Mitchell says this initiative requires “a negotiation and a discussion,” and that you can’t negotiate by telling “one side you have to agree in advance to what the other side wants.” Yet by saying his goal is “full implementation” of this initiative, he’s effectively saying, “You can have your negotiation and discussion, but Washington has no intention of being an honest broker: it fully backs the Arab position on borders, Jerusalem, and even (to some extent) the refugees.”

This is the administration’s clearest statement yet that it’s abandoning the position held by every previous U.S. administration: that Israel needs “defensible borders” — which everyone agrees the 1967 lines are not. Mitchell also thereby abandoned the position, held by every previous administration, that any deal must acknowledge Israel’s historic ties to the Temple Mount via some Israeli role there, even if only symbolic (see Bill Clinton’s idea of “sovereignty under the Mount”). The Arab initiative requires Israel to just get out.

And Mitchell effectively took Syria’s side on that border dispute: no Israeli government ever agreed to withdraw farther than the international border, whereas the Arab initiative mandates the 1967 lines — i.e., including the territory Syria illegally annexed pre-1967.

Even worse, the Arab initiative addresses none of Israel’s concerns, such as recognition as a Jewish state or security arrangements. That means Mitchell just announced support for all Arab demands without obtaining any parallel concession to Israel. Under those circumstances, why would the Arabs bother making any?

And his repeated demand that Israeli-Palestinian talks deal with borders first indicates that this was no slip of the tongue. After all, the only thing Israel has to give is territory; having once ceded that via an agreement on borders, it has nothing left to trade for, say, security arrangements — which, as a veteran Israeli negotiator told Benn, has actually proved one of the hardest issues to resolve in previous rounds of talks. Borders first, an Israeli minister summed up, is “a trap. We only give, we don’t get anything.”

George Bush’s Road Map viewed the Arab initiative as merely one of many “foundations” for talks. Mitchell’s adoption of its “full implementation” as a goal thus represents a deterioration in U.S. positions that ought to worry all Israel supporters.

- - - - - -end of article on Commentary's Contentions blog- - - - - - - -

This stance by Mitchell is Zbigniew Brzezinski and Jimmy Carter's dream. It fulfills their Judeophobic hatred. It was for the purpose of promoting such Judeophobic, pro-Nazi policies that the JStreet lobby was set up using the money of George Soros, the multi-billionaire. Mitchell of course is a flunkey not only for Obama but for the foreign policy establishment. No doubt the British partners in crime of the US foreign policy establishment will soon join in to support this position.

Western Great Powers Give Iran One Last Chance on Its Nuclear Program -- in 2003!!

UPDATING 1-4 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 20 & 3-3 & 4 & 4-21-2010

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

One of the good things about reading old newspapers is that, if you're still alive and kicking and the world still spinning on its axis, then the terrible things that the old paper reported are really not all that bad. You can look back at the horrors and crimes of the past and take satisfaction in still being alive. Another thing is that old newspaper articles can illuminate what is happening now as you read. I found a good example of that in a report from September 10, 2003, in Avvenire, that I came across just lately. Germany, Great Britain and France, I learned, wanted to give Iran a "last chance" to prove that it was fulfilling its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] and was not developing nuclear weapons. And these powers had persuaded the United States to agree that the IAEA [international atomic energy agency] should give Iran one last chance. US ambassador Kenneth Brill, who sits on the IAEA's council of governors, announced that the US had been persuaded by other member states sitting on the council of governors

"to give Iran a last chance to stop its evasions."
[ I had at first translated Brill's statement fromthe Italian translation back into English. I have since found the original English text (quoted just above) here & here]

So the Agency governors decided that Iran has "till the end of October, 2003," to prove that it is not in non-fulfillment of its obligations under the NPT. That's very reassuring to read now in the first days of 2010. After all, the same thing, the same last chance, several times repeated, has been given to the Iranians and is being given again. So the "last chance" was given over and over. Yet, I and whoever reads this is still alive. So maybe things aren't so bad.

Now, what sort of regime was in power in Iran that the West was treating so leniently? It was a very Judeophobic regime. It was a regime that hated Israel. It was also a regime that had come to power with the help of the Carter administration in the United States, that is, with the help of president jimmah carter and his national insecurity advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, both of them fervent haters of Israel.

Then, the Iranian Islamist regime, at first headed by Ayatollah Khomeini, had sent assassins abroad to kill Iranian opponents of the regime, Ali Akbar Tabatabai, Shapur Bakhtiar, and others. There is a list of 58 assassination attempts --mostly successful-- outside Iran, perpetrated by Islamic Republic agents. The list includes names of places and victims, intended and unintended, of assassination. The victims were mostly Iranians living abroad, opponents of the regime, but included several non-Iranians, among them translators of Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses, as well as collateral victims. The murders were perpetrated on orders of the regime. The total number of victims is several more than 58 [here]. Some of the victims were murdered in the United States and France, although both states had done much to make Khomeini's return to Iran possible. That is not very nice international behavior. But Iran didn't care about offending and the West did not seem especially offended, not even states where such murders had been perpetrated by Iranian agents.

We cannot forget the countless people killed by the regime within Iran, although we don't know their names. On the other hand, the death sentence issued by Khomeini against the novelist Salman Rushdie was notorious. Rushdie has been living in hiding from Iranian assassins for more than 20 years. His offense was Islamic blasphemy, which Khomeini, Ahmadinajad and their gang wanted to forbid even in non-Muslim countries. It's curious how few Western intellectuals were willing to stand up for Rushdie's freedom of speech, even while he was living in Britain. Rushdie's life is still in danger. None of this brought the Western great powers to strongly oppose the Iranian regime. After all, the United States and France had served as midwives for the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini and his gang.

The Judeophobia of the Khomeini regime and its Lebanese satellite, Hizbollah, known at first in the West as "The Party of God" [the literal translation of Hizbollah], is notorious. A Hizbollah paper in Lebanon wrote, in reaction to the French elections of 1987 [or 1988?] that "The Jewish microbe is everywhere" [Le microbe juif est partout]. This was because the elections did not turn out as Hizbollah/Iran had wanted, for which they blamed the Jewish voters in France. [This was published in LeFigaro at that time].

But the really strong expressions of hatred of Jews [stronger even than those before] appeared on 20 October 2006 when Ahmadinajad warned

"Israel will disappear . . . [because of] the rage of hundreds of millions of Muslims"

He described the Israeli people as

terrorists and enemies of religion [= Islam].
[quoted by Carlo Panella in Fascismo Islamico (Milan: Rizzoli 2007), pp 23-24.

This is a case of projection where Islamic fanatics project their own character on others, particularly on their designated enemies. Ahmadinajad also lied in that same speech about Britain and the United States creating Israel, a lie that fit in conveniently with what walt-mearsheimer were saying at the time. All this was known about Ahmadinajad and his regime in 2006, yet the "last chances," which were being given already in 2003, continued to be given. US secretary of state, Colin Powell, appointed by George W Bush, declared himself "open to dialogue" with Iran in 2003 [Corriere della Sera, 31 December 2003]. Likewise, candidate, later president, Barak Hussein Obama, declared that he was eager for dialogue, smart diplomacy, and negotiations with Iran in the years 2008 and 2009. So last chances go back more than six years from now, as does openness to dialogue.

This was all notwithstanding the Iranian boasts over the years of military advances, specifically in long-range rocket development, as well as in nuclear development. These rockets can reach Europe, not to mention Israel. What have all the attempts to placate Islamist Iran achieved? Iran recently declared that it would develop ten new uranium enrichment sites [International Herald Tribune, 30 November 2009].

The Iranian government responded defiantly Sunday [11-29-2009] to an international call for a halt in its uranium enrichment work by vowing to do the opposite, as it approved a plan to build ten additional enrichment facilities.
[IHT, 11-30-2009]

It sure as hell looks like the major Western powers want Iran to have The bomb. We forecast in June 2007 that that was the case. Unfortunately, it looks more and more as if we were right.

We will leave for another time the consideration of the motives for Western appeasement of Islamic fundamentalist Iran.
- - - - - - - - - - -

For previous articles on this issue on the Emet m'Tsiyon blog see here & here & here & here
- - - - - - - - - - -
UPDATINGS 1-12-2010 more links to articles on this issue: Jonathan Tobin on Commentary's Contentions blog [here]
Rick Richman follows up on Tobin [here]. So after more than six [6] years of missed "deadlines" or deadlines that never died, Obama and his partners in facilitating an Iranian bomb are still missing their own deadlines.
1-13-2010 Iranians believe that the Iranian regime murdered the recently assassinated Iranian physicist in Teheran, using some of their Hizbollah agents [here].
1-20-2010 The Saudis are worried about increasing Iranian hegemony in the Middle East, according to Lee Smith [He quotes the following words from a pre-Obama American official] : “'. . . what the Saudis were really concerned about. The number one issue in Riyadh is Iran.' . . .
'. . . the Saudi line,' the former [American] official said, 'was this: ‘Americans, are you going to do anything about our number one issue? If not, we will go our own road.’” [here]
Rick Richman [Commentary blog, 3-3-2010] points out the fatuousness of Obama's Iran bomb policy, guided perhaps by Zbig Brzezinski's mad dreams of "deterrence" of a bomb-equipped Iran [here]. Zbig of course wants the mad mullahs to have the bomb. Why not? He helped them take power as Carter's national insecurity advisor. When Carl Foreman's film, Dr Strangelove, came out in the early sixties, the character of Strangelove was widely believed to be based on Henry Kissinger. Actually, Zbig fits the bill just as well as Dr K does. He too loves the bomb.
3-4-2010 More good cheer from Washington and New York on the Iranian bomb threat, by Emmanuele Ottolenghi [here]
4-21-2010 Jennifer Rubin thinks that the Obama crowd is still procrastinating about The Iranian Bomb[here].