Year-Old Latma Satire Had It Right on Assad Basher & Obama's Soft Spot for Him

UPDATING 6-2&20&22&30&7-1-2011 at bottom

The Peace in Peace Process refers to peace
of mind for Judeophobes.

Sometimes art anticipates reality, or reads reality more accurately than the professional pundits, analysts and commentators. In June of last year, the Latma satirists produced The Three Terrors, named after the three famous operatic tenors, Pavarotti, Domingo and Carreras, but modeled in character after Ahmadinejad, Erdogan [Erdung], and Assad Basher.

At one point the Assad character sings:

. . . and I a serial killer who should spend all his life in jail [chorus: oy vey, oy vey] . . .

Of course he is a serial killer. But he doesn't do it one at a time, to be sure. He slaughters en masse and his minions torture as well. Perhaps the video of Assad Basher's troops placing a protestor in the path of tank treads can convince even the hardest hearts in the West and among the anti-Israel crowd that Jews would be treated this way too, if Assad's gangsters could get a hold of them. In any case, the repeated cruelty of the Assad regime over the past 10 weeks does not seem to have much moved the Western "human rights crowd." Where are the demos in London, Paris, Milan and Berlin calling for international intervention to save millions of Arabs from Assad's butchery? Where are all the friends of the Arabs who get upset when Assad's household terrorists --those whom he deploys abroad-- shoot rockets at Israeli children, as does Hamas, and then Israel strikes back? When Israel strikes back, those unrepentant or unreconstructed Euros get angry. But when Arabs are slaughtered by Arab tyrants, we hear no public condemnation. The same goes for when Israel struck back at Hizbullah in 2006 after the Hizb raided across the border killing and kidnapping a dozen soldiers. The Euros protested then. But when the Hizb attacked fellow Arabs, civilians in Beirut, in 2008, no Euro protests were audible.

The Three Terrors does not spare Ahmadinejad whose government has been working for a nuclear bomb for some 20 years. The A-jad character thanks Obama for his help for the Iranian bomb project:

I wish to thank Obama for his patience, for playing dumb, [chorus: for playing dumb ] 'cause now I got the peace of mind to build me a nuclear bomb [chorus: the nuclear bomb]. . .

Obama and Bush before him have facilitated the Iranian Bomb project. Back in 2003 the US and other Western powers were giving A-jad "a last chance." But the last chance was not really the last. And now Iran is close to having the Bomb or has already achieved one or two such bombs.

As we said, art sometimes anticipates reality. In this case it really is not funny.
- - - - - - - -
6-1-2011 Jennifer Rubin on Obama's promised largesse to Egypt & Tunisia plus his continued indulgence of Assad Basher [here]
6-2-2011 Hilary Clinton has conducted a thorough study of the matter, using quantum mechanics, boolean algebra and supercomputers, and has scientifically, mathematically concluded that Assad Basher's ". . . legitimacy. . . is, if not gone, nearly run out." [here]. Her scientific approach included careful measurement of the legitimacy that Junior Basher had stored up when the Vogue issue came out with the puff story on his wife, the "Rose of the Desert." Hilary's patient, scientific, almost scholarly approach to this issue is why she is so highly paid.
6-10-2011 Leon Wieseltier on how Obama's Syria policy betrays both America's values and America's interests [here]
6-12-2011 Lee Smith on the good sides and bad sides of the Arab Spring [here]
Leon Hadar sees the "Arab Spring" as more a series of conflicts between tribes, politicized religious sects, powerful factions and families than as an unalloyed drive for liberal freedoms [here]
Con Coughlin has negative thoughts about the outcomes of some of the Arab Spring revolts [here]
6-15-2011 Tony Badran says that Obama doesn't want to do anything to stop Assad [here]. "Syrians are fully aware who stands behind them in the international community. In recent weeks, they have burned the flags of China, Russia, and Iran. Why haven't they burned the American flag? Perhaps it's because they still hold out hope that Washington will come to their aid. That hope is itself a form of leverage. Obama should not squander it by continuing to bet on Assad as he murders people in the street."
6-20-2011 Jackson Diehl wrote an excellent column for the Washington Post on Obama's two-faced attitude toward the Middle East, soft on Assad and tough on Israel [here]
6-22-2011 Lee Smith presents us with a powerful package of perspicacious insights about the obstacles to making peace between Israel and Syria [here]
6-30-2011 Basher Assad's little goons of the Hizbollah were busy six years ago getting rid of an enemy [or obstacle] of the Assad gang, the Hizbollah and the Iranian ayatollahs' regime [here]. This enemy was Rafiq Hariri, killed by a car bomb or truck bomb with 22 others. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon has finally submitted indictments of four Hizb leaders to Lebanese officials.
Corriere's report is [qui]
Neil MacDonald of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. wrote up an extensive account of the STP investigation back in November 2010 [here]. This article is for those who really want to get into the subject.
7-1-2011 William Harris on the indictments of Hizbullah big guns in the Hariri murder case [here]
Michael Rubin on Obama's similarity to Assad toady Dennis Kucinich [here]
Evelyn Gordon [here] on Obama' latest Syria policy --stated by Hilary the other day. Assad should still stay in power in Syria in order to lead a "transition" to --- reforms -- in cooperation with the opposition whose rank and file he has been torturing and slaughtering for months. Is this bizarre or just weird?
Jonathan Tobin points out that the indictments of Hizbullah terrorist officials in the Hariri by the Special Tribunal on Lebanon begs the question of what Obama is going to do. Not only about Lebanon & Hizbullah but about Syria that supports and enables Hizbullah [& Iranian] domination of the Land of the Cedars. [here]

This all goes to support our theory that Obama pushed to get rid of Mubarak in Egypt while supporting Assad's staying in power in Syria for one and the same reason: His strategy is to surround Israel with hostile regimes: on the south, [Syrian-supported] Hamas in Gaza and an Egyptian govt under Muslim Brotherhood influence; in the north and northeast, Hizbullah [an arm of the Holocaust-denying Iranian ayatollahs] in Lebanon & the Iranian allied Assad regime in Syria. Bear in mind that the Assad regimes's politcal party, the Ba`ath was founded in emulation of the German Nazis. That Assad's Syria has helped the anti-American terrorists in Iraq is apparently of no consequence to Obama & his deep thinkers in DC, like Lee Hamilton & Zbig brzzzski.

Syrian Regime Opponents See Obama as Favoring Assad Basher

UPDATED see at bottom 8-7-2011

Barry Rubin compares Obama's rhetoric on the "Arab Spring" with the actual policy of the Obama administration. He also quotes from a message that he received from an Arab friend:

How ironic. President Barack Obama extolls the “Arab Spring,” helps overthrow the Egyptian and Tunisian governments, made a try to do so in Bahrain (until the State Department talked the White House out of it), and is still trying in Yemen and in Libya (with military intervention!) yet does nothing on Syria, the most repressive by far of all these countries (except Libya).

So, here’s how the Middle East works. As an Arab friend writes to me:

“Everyone, whether anti- or pro-regime, is convinced that the U.S. government is protecting [Syrian dictator] Bashar al-Assad and wants him to stay. The longer this administration stands by its incredibly stupid position telling him to "lead the transition" as he kills and tortures at will, it will be stained by his obscenity.”

In other words, when the U.S. government defends the Assad regime the people believe it supports the Assad regime. Every principle set down by the Obama Administration on Egypt and elsewhere—whether right or wrong—is being violated by that same government in Syria!

. . . . .

And the Syrian oppositionists correctly believe that they aren’t getting any international support. Palestinian groups that have practiced terrorism for decades are treated as saints and victims; the Syrian people (and Iranian, Turkish, and Lebanese oppositions, too) are treated like pariahs. Western students do nothing for them; Western students and activists don’t protest on their behalf.

Why do only anti-Western movements and opponents of governments friendly to the West get Western support? [here]

Indeed. Why does the US Govt or, if you like, the Obama administration support regimes that stand against what Western values are supposed to be? Regimes that violate human rights every day? Why does Obama work so hard at undermining countries --Israel in particular-- that embody those values in their everyday governmental practice?
- - - - - - - - -

See our previous posts on the revolt in Syria[here]&[here]&[here]& [here]& [here]. Posts are listed earliest first.
6-20-2011 Jackson Diehl wrote an excellent op ed for the Washington Post on Obama's Middle Eastern policy. He is soft on Assad Basher and tough on Israel [here]
8-7-2011 The Hill reports on the US public relations outfit that arranged for Assad's wife to have a profile of her done for Vogue [here]

Arab Witness to the 1929 Hebron Massacre Prays for More Massacres of Jews

More news on those peace-and-freedom-loving Palestinian Arabs. MEMRI shows that some Arabs take pride till this day in past acts of mass murder perpetrated against peaceful Jews.
Hamas TV interviewed an Arab woman from Hebron who lived at the time of the Hebron massacre in 1929, which took place 19 years before the rise of the State of Israel, 19 years before there were any Arab refugees from Israel to lament and complain about. It was thoughtful of Mrs Jaber to remind us of that massacre before the pretexts supplied today for massacres existed. In 1929, there were no Arab refugees and no State of Israel. Yet there was a massacre. In any case, Mrs Jaber liked that early, pre-state episode of mass murder so much that she would like to see it repeated, but on a much larger scale.
MEMRI also has a video of this interview for those who don't want to believe that that's how many Arabs think:

92-Year-Old Palestinian Woman in a Right-of-Return Demonstration On Hamas TV: Palestinians Should Massacre the Jews Like We Massacred Them in Hebron

Following are excerpts from an interview with Sara Jaber, a 92-year-old Palestinian who participated in a Right of Return demonstration on the Jordanian-Israeli border. The interview was aired on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV on May 13, 2011.

Interviewer: "Please tell us who you are."

Sara Jaber: "I am from Hebron. The Jaber family."

Interviewer: "What is your name?"

Sara Jaber: "Sara Muhammad 'Awwadh Jaber."

Interviewer: "How old are you?"

Sara Jaber: "I am 92."

Interviewer: "So you remember May 15, 1948, the day of the Nakba."

Sara Jaber: "Why wouldn't I remember? May Allah support us. I hope we forget those days. Allah willing, you will bury [Israel], and massacre the Jews with your own hands. Allah willing, you will massacre them like we massacred them in Hebron."

Interviewer: "What does this day mean to you? You have lived 63 years since the Nakba. You have experienced the entire Nakba..."

Sara Jaber: "92 years. That's 92. I lived through the British era, and I lived through the massacre of the Jews in Hebron. We, the people of Hebron, massacred the Jews. My father massacred them, and brought back some stuff..."

Interviewer: "Thank you very much. [interview here]

- - - - - - - -
This interview is helpful in that an Arab woman admits that the Hebron massacre took place. Jews don't have to spend energy proving that it happened to the ever so righteous "leftists" and other doubters of whatever a Jew says, although are eager to believe any lie out of an Arab's mouth. That ilk finds the truth of the Hebron massacre to be an inconvenient truth. But Mrs Jaber admits the massacre frankly, brutally frankly. Sometimes the Arabs can be brutally frank, especially if they think that they are winning. They lie when they think that they are in a weaker positions.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Video of the interview here.
This video was shown on the Glenn Beck show on Foxnews TV on 5-19-2011.
Info about the massacre on the website of the Hebron Jewish community [here]. Includes an account of the massacre by Pierre van Paassen who came to Hebron shortly after the slaughter.

Good & Bad News out of Syria, yet Obama Still Calls Assad a Reformer

Tom Gross has circulated some videos of what goes on in Syria nowadays.

First the good news. Syrian protestors burned --get this-- Iranian and Russian flags but not Israel or American flags, eventhough Obama was still pretending on Thursday, 19 May 2011, that Assad could still "lead reforms" in Syria, after two months of slaughtering Syrians who oppose the regime. In his notorious speech of that date, Obama offered Assad a choice:

President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way. [here]

The videos are at this link.

Now the bad news. Tom and others [see the link] are circulating a video of a Syrian tank deliberately running over a wounded Syrian protestor lying on the ground. This is done twice, not once, not by mistake, by a Syrian tank helped by troops on the ground who helpfully arrange the protestor's body on the ground so that it will be directly in the way of the advancing tank's tread. The brutality and cruelty of the Syrian army to fellow Syrians, as shown on the video, are shocking. If your system is weak, you can forgo it.

Bear in mind that the anti-Israel terrorist groups, Hamas and Hizbullah, are closely allied with and much dependent on the Syrian Assad regime. The pro-genocide Iranian regime is also closely allied with Syria. Likewise, the Erdogan neo-Islamist regime in Turkey, the one that is sponsoring "freedom flotillas" to Gaza to help Hamas. Need we add that most of the world's "Left" is also pro-Assad, pro-Hamas, pro-Hizbullah, pro-Iranian [that is, in favor of the Iran of the ayatollahs].

- - - - - - - -
5-24-2011 Daniel Pipes wants Assad and his regime to go, to imscray, beat it, get ouda here, depart, croak, do 23 skiddoo or whatever you would like to call it. And Pipes gives reasons why it should disappear from the face of this Vale of Tears [here]
5-26-2011 Syrian demonstrators burn the Hizbollah flag [see video here]
5-28-2011 Michael Young on Nasrallah of Hizbullah's support for the Syrian Assad regime [here]
Michael Singh examines Syria's strategic value for Iran's ayatollahs and their aid for the Assad regime in repressing Arab opponents [here]
Suleiman al-Khalidi, of Reuters reports on his torture and jailing in Syria [here]

Prime Minister Netanyahu's Response to Obama's Sinister Pro-Arab Fascist Speech

UPDATED 6-9-2011 at bottom
The "peace" in "peace process"
stands for peace of mind for
antisemites.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's Office issued the following statement following President Obama's sinister speech that denied Jewish human and civil rights:
- - - - - - - -
Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace.
Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.

That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.

Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.

Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel.

Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace.

Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority’s decision to embrace Hamas, a terror organization committed to Israel’s destruction, as well as over Mahmoud Abbas’s recently expressed views which grossly distort history and make clear that Abbas seeks a Palestinian state in order to continue the conflict with Israel rather than end it.
- - - - - END- - - - -

Needless to say, I do not agree with the first sentence of the Prime Minister's Office's statement that Obama is committed to peace. Obama appears to be committed to undermining peace, encouraging Arab warmongers, and depriving Jews of human and civil rights.
- - - - - -
Daniel Pipes on the speech [here]. In case you're wondering, Pipes considers the speech and the policy that it contains to be "folly."
Omri Ceren, Robert Satloff, Aaron David Miller note that Obama's speech was a grave departure from past US policy on Israel-Arab peacemaking [here]
More Omri Ceren on "change" [here]
Charles Krauthammer on what is new & what old in Obama's allocution [here]
Robert Satloff on Obama's move closer to the Arab position [here]
Jackson Diehl on Obama's mistakes in his speech [here]
Evelyn Gordon on how Obama undermines Israel's negotiating ability and international status [here]
Jonathan Tobin explains that Obama's speech did not appease Arabs angry at his lack of support for Arab uprisings against their own tyrannical regimes, nor did it satisfy the never satisfied PLO/PA leadership, while undermining Israel [here]
Binyamin [Benjamin] Netanyahu's speech after meeting with President Obama [here]. Slightly more of the exchange between the two leaders [here].
Judith Klinghoffer believes that Obama's speech was based on demands from Saudi Arabia that he come out strongly on the Arab side in return for the Saudis bringing down the price of oil on the world market through increased production. The world market price of oil has come down in recent weeks.
Dore Gold on how Obama reversed past US official policy in favor of "defensible borders" for Israel [here]
Wall Street Journal on "The 1967 Line of Fire" [here]
David Bernstein gives some historical perspective on US promises to Israel [here]
Ronald Radosh describes tensions within the White House between now resigned "peace envoy" George Mitchell, Dennis Ross, and Obama himself which led to making Obama's speech less hostile than it otherwise would have been [here]
Yoram Ettinger on Obama's unrealistic understanding and/or ignorance about the Middle East [here]
Washington Times editorial on Obama breaking promises to Israel [here]
Prominent Democratic politicians, Jews and non-Jews, disagree intelligently with Obama's positions on Israel [here] as expressed in the speech of 5-19-2011.
Benny Avni's questions about Obama's speech [here]
Ari Shavit on the bad and the good in Obama's speech [here]
6-9-2011 Carlo Panella on Obama's speech. He upset both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs and demonstrated his ignorance of the situation and the issues once again [qui]

Do the West & the Arabs Have the Right to Set Up a State to Be Called "palestine"?

The people of Israel, later called Jews, have lived in and been connected to the Land of Israel for about 3450 years since the going out from Egypt. From the time of Alexander of Macedon [died 323 CE] till Roman Emperor Hadrian, Greeks and Romans called the country Judea, that is, the Jewish land, the land of the Jews. The name is also spelled Judaea and IVDAEA in Latin. The name is confirmed in the Greek and Latin writings of that long period. It was not a land inhabited by Arabs, although there were some there and in the vicinity, no doubt. It was Hadrian who changed the country's name to Syria Palaestina [in 135 CE]. This was an act of hostility to the Jews who had rebelled against the Empire three times. Changing the name was meant as a punishment for the Jews and a way of obliterating the Jewish identity of their country. The Jews also suffered in that many were sold as slaves and otherwise driven off their lands, although Jews remained the predominant population in the country. Today, in a way not far different from Hadrian's, world empires use the name "palestine" in order to deny the Jews rights in their own homeland. The empires and much or most of the West, as well as the Arab and Muslim world, demand that Israel, the national state of the Jews, allow establishment of an Arab state to be called "palestine" in the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland. They follow in the footsteps of Emperor Hadrian.

Yet there never was a "palestinian people" in all history. Such a people is a modern invention of psychological/cognitive warfare, probably by British psywar experts. The notion that Israel was fighting not Arabs but a "palestinian people" came to world attention in 1964 with foundation of the Palestine Liberation Organization. At that time, the PLO declared to the king of Jordan, Hussein, that the land that they wanted for a state was NOT any land under his rule, not the "West Bank" of Jordan, but the part of the ancient Land of Israel under Jewish control, that is, the State of Israel within its 1949 armistice lines, since Israel had no land borders at that time. But if we examine this newly minted people, "the palestinians," we may ask how they differ in essential ways from the Arabs east of the Jordan? Or from the Arabs in Syria? Do they speak a different language? The PLO's declaration of a state of Palestine in November 1988 in Algiers expressed loyalty to the general Arab culture and cultural legacy. Indeed, the PLO has long been a member of the Arab League, another Arab state waiting to take power, as it were.

Today, now that Israel won in 1967 --in the face of Arab genocidal threats-- the lands of Judea-Samaria, formerly under Jordanian rule, and now that the PLO collaborates diplomatically with major world powers supposedly with the aim of setting up an Arab state in Judea-Samaria to be called "palestine," the Powers, the UN, the EU, and just about everybody overlook the basic refusal of the PLO/PA to make peace with Israel in any boundaries. Abu Mazen published an op ed [ghost written] in the NYTimes the other day in which he said that if the UN would recognize a PLO/PA state, the PLO/PA would use this status to prosecute Israel, to delegitimize Israel in world legal forums, such as the World Court at the Hague, the Int'l Criminal Court, the misnamed UN "Human Rights Council," etc. So no peace can come out of concessions made to the PLO/PA or out of negotiations with the PLO/PA. Actually, Abu Mazen has refused to negotiate with Israel for more than 2 1/2 years, since September 2008 when olmert was still prime minister. Further, the PLO/PA has made a pact with the Hamas for a joint govt of the territories already ceded by Israel to the racist, anti-Jewish PLO/PA. And the Hamas is brutally frank in its aim of genocide against the Jews. This aim appears in Article 7 of the Hamas charter. Obviously, Israel should not negotiate with a Nazi-like body such as Hamas. Hitler, to be sure, was never as frank in his genocidal purposes as the Hamas now is. But Obama may demand in today's speech that Israel negotiate with the Hamas Nazis nevertheless. He is part of the problem today.

Now let us return to the Jews' ties to the Land of Israel. Jews were a substantial part of Israel's population until the Crusader conquest. Between the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and 1112 or 1113, a dozen years later, the Crusaders massacred the bulk of the Jews in the country [according to historian Moshe Gil & others]. The Jews were ground down between two millstones, Islam and militant Christendom. Even after the Crusader massacres had subsided, the Jews were still a noticeable part of the population. After the Crusades, of course, the Jews returned to their pre-Crusades status of subjects of the Islamic state, dhimmis. And the Mamluk Empire, succeeding the Crusaders probably treated the worse Jews than they had been treated before, if that were possible. The flow of Jews to the Diaspora continued. Those who want to deny that Jews in the Dispersion were of Judaic descent, should bear in mind that the pagan Roman Empire had begun to forbid conversion of non-Jews to Judaism and this prohibition was made more severe under the subsequent Christianized empire. The prohibition served to preserve the original Jewish stock over the centuries. The genetic ties between Jews in the Diaspora from Minsk to Marrakesh and from Berlin to Baghdad have been confirmed by modern DNA studies, which even show a genetic affinity to some of the Arabs and other Mediterranean peoples, albeit there is not much affinity in cultural or moral terms between Jews and Arabs.

In recognition of --among other things-- the preservation of Jewish ethnicity since Roman times, the international community at the San Remo Conference [1920] and in the League of Nations [1922] recognized the Land of Israel --which they unfortunately called "palestine"-- as the Jewish National Home. Britain accepted the League's mandate to foster development of the National Home, including fostering "close settlement" of Jews on the land [Article 6 of the Mandate]. Needless to say, Britain betrayed its commitment to the Mandate, and in fact prevented Jews from finding refuge in the Jewish National Home when the Jews most needed a home, that is, during the Holocaust. Today, the National Home as a legal entity binding on the international community is largely forgotten, certainly at the UN, and by Britain in particular. This teaches us that Jews cannot trust Britain or the international community in general. Unfortunately, the United States is now following the anti-Jewish, anti-Israel path earlier trod by the United Kingdom. The Powers cannot be considered morally competent to judge Israel or to determine its future. The Jews cannot rely on the promises of the Powers.

Obama's speech can only be awaited with suspicion at best.

- - - - - - - - -
Jackson Diehl explains why suspicion is justified [here]

Arab Rioters Hide behind Ambulance on "Nakba Day "

Rioters in Qalandiya thrown rocks at Israeli troops from behind an ambulance [here].



UPDATE
video of ambulance in motion [here].

More White House/Obama/Hilary Cover Up for Assad Basher

As bloody, murderous repression continues in Syria, the Obama gang continue to cover up for Assad the Basher. Hilary gave an asinine interview to La Stampa, saying things which even a sixth grade teacher would be ashamed to tell her class, so silly and unbelievable they were. She needed an excuse as to why the USA was attacking Qaddafi in Libya but would not attack Basher Assad in Syria, or call on him to give up power. Here are main points of the interview as quoted in Corriere della Sera:

The USA -- "We don't have certain data, but we know that Syria can still pass reforms. On the other hand, no one believed that Qaddafi would have done it." Thus the American secretary of state Hilary Clinton stressed the differences between the situation in Libya and that in Syria, during an interview given to the daily La Stampa. "People believe that there is a possible path [of dialogue & cooperation] with Syria. For that reason, we continue, together with our allies, to exert pressure" [on Syria, that is, on Assad's regime], the chief of America's diplomacy added, also referring to the sanctions that were passed against Damascus. [qui]

GLI USA - «Non abbiamo dati certi, ma sappiamo che la Siria può ancora varare riforme. Nessuno invece credeva che Gheddafi lo avrebbe fatto» Così il segretario di Stato americano Hillary Clinton ha sottolineato le differenze fra la situazione in Libia e Siria, nel corso di un'intervista concessa al quotidiano La Stampa. «La gente ritiene ci sia un percorso possibile con la Siria. per questo continuiamo insieme ai nostri alleati a fare pressioni», ha aggiunto il capo della diplomazia americana, riferendosi anche alle sanzioni che sono state varate nei confronti di Damasco. [qui]

This would be pathetic and laughable if were not so sad and dangerous. The sanctions that she mentioned were mild and toothless. She says all this after a host of Syrian/Assadian deeds demonstrating the bloodthirsty, tyrannical nature of the Syrian/Assadian regime. Has she forgotten the murder of Rafiq Hariri in Beirut, only six years ago, together with two dozen other people?? How about all the murders of the anti-Syrian leaders in Lebanon, members of parliament and journalists, etc? What about the short-lived Lebanese president, Rene Mu`awad, murdered 20 years ago, after the Taif Accord? What about Kamal Jumblatt and Bashir Jemayel? What about the 20,000 to 30,000 Syrians slaughtered by Junior Assad's father, Hafiz, in Hama in 1982? And Bashar who shows no mercy to his own people eagerly helps the Hizbullah in Lebanon to kill as many Jews in Israel as possible. Does any of that make an impression in Washington? Does any of it evoke any pangs of conscience there? Of course it supports what we said here at Emet m'Tsiyon as to an Obama policy erecting and maintaining an array of very hostile states around Israel, more eager to go to war with Israel than Mubarak was.

To conclude: Isn't Hilary ashamed to sound so stupid --or so disingenuous? Obama has no shame, as we know. These people are a disgrace to America and very dangerous to Israel, the rest of the world, and of course to America.

- - - - - - - - - -
Jackson Diehl on Washington policy towards Basher Assad [here].
An interview with Hilary Clinton for Italian TV [in English on the State Dept site]. This may be the source of the quotes from Hilary in La Stampa and quoted in turn from La Stampa by Corriere. It was picked up from the the State Dept site by Elliott Abrams. The questioner is referring to Syria:

QUESTION: (Inaudible) they are big ethical case.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, and I think it’s fair to say that everyone has the same concerns – the United States, Italy, our other European and Arab partners – about what’s going on in Syria. And we have been absolutely outspoken on that. We have begun to sanction Syrian leaders. I know the EU is considering doing the same. But the situation in Syria is even more complex in many, many eyes. There are deep concerns about what is going on inside Syria, and we are pushing hard for the Government of Syria to live up to its own stated commitment to reforms. So I think it’s – it is fair to say --

QUESTION: But the Syria case is particularly poignant, the (inaudible).

SECRETARY CLINTON: It is poignant.

QUESTION: At this point, this is a country where they have killed most people in the street.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t have that comparison, but what I do know is that they have an opportunity still to bring about a reform agenda. Nobody believed Qadhafi would do that. People do believe there is a possible path forward with Syria. So we’re going to continue joining with all of our allies to keep pressing very hard on that
- - - - - - - - -
5-14-2011 Fouad Ajami on the diplomatic strategy of the Syrian Assad regime [here]. Ajami is a respected historian of Lebanese origin, now at the Hoover Institution in California.
Michael Young on Obama, Syria, and the New York Times [here]. Young is an editor at the Beirut Daily Star.

Cameron as Anti-Israel -- Melanie Philips nails him

Melanie Philips has another knowledgeable and perceptive column on the UK's anti-Israel policy under the "conservative" govt of David Cameron's "conservative party."

I want to highlight her recounting of the relevant history of British betrayal of the Jews during the Holocaust when the UK was bound by its international commitment --the Palestine mandate-- to facilitate Jewish immigration into the Land of Israel and to aid Jewish "close settlement on the land" [the Mandate, Article 6]:

It was the British who, out of sheer breathtaking malice against the Jewish people, first incited the (hitherto mainly benignly disposed) Arabs against the Jews returning to their ancestral homeland in Palestine in the early years of the 20^th century. It was the British who set out to undermine and reverse their own government’s policy to re-establish the Jewish national home in the land of Israel. It was the British who reneged on their internationally binding treaty obligation to settle the Jews throughout Palestine – including the areas currently known as the ‘West Bank’ and Gaza – with the result that they kept out desperate Jews trying to flee Nazi Europe, causing thousands to be murdered in the Holocaust. At the same time, they encouraged Arab immigration from neighbouring countries and turned a blind eye to the pogroms carried out by these Arab newcomers against the Jews whose land it was supposed to be –thus laying the groundwork for the false claim that the Arabs were the rightful inheritors of the land. And all the time, the British cloaked this vicious treachery in the honeyed fiction that they were the true friends of the Jewish people and had their interests at heart.

The history of the British in this terrible conflict between Jew and Arab is not merely a chronicle of the utmost perfidy and malevolent Judeophobic bigotry. It is also directly responsible for the continuation of the conflict to this day. For Arab aggression against the Jews has been rewarded and encouraged from the start, by robbing the Jews of their rightful inheritance and giving great chunks of it to their aggressors. But if aggressors are rewarded, the inevitable result is more aggression until they achieve their final terrible aim. [read it all here]