Emet m'Tsiyon

What Motivates Arabs & Muslims in the Struggle against Israel?

2012-02-02T11:35:00.000-08:00

The Muslim religion has been a chief motivating factor for Arabs opposing a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. The Ottoman Empire settled Europeans in Israel in the late 19th century and they were welcomed by the local Muslim Arabs. Why? Because they were Muslims. The Ottoman state, in which Arabs --including Palestinian Arabs-- held high posts was a Sunni Muslim state. When the European great powers at the Congress of Berlin in 1878 assigned Austria-Hungary to take over Bosnia --then as now dominated by the Muslim minority-- from the Ottoman state, many of the Bosnian Muslims did not want to remain in Bosnia that was coming under Austro-Hungarian --that is, infidel-- rule. Thousands of Bosnian Muslims were resettled elsewhere in Ottoman territory, including a couple of thousand in Israel. They were welcomed as fellow Muslims, although they did not speak Arabic and many of them were blonds.

On the other hand, Jews were coming to Israel in the same period from many parts of the Jewish Diaspora, from Ukraine, Belarus and Rumania [an Ottoman possession up to 1878] as well as from Yemen, Morocco, Georgia, Bukhara, Iraq and so forth. Indeed, the Arab-Muslims were not so much opposed to Jews immigrating into the country in the 19th century, as they were to Jews having power, Jews not acting like inferior, oppressed and humiliated dhimmis. As long as Jewish immigrants knew their place --their inferior place-- as Jews, and paid the Islamically ordained head tax on non-Muslims, the jizya, they were treated with the usual contempt but not prevented from immigrating. However, the jizya and some of the other disabilities on dhimmis in Muslim law were abolished in the late 19th century due to European pressure on the Ottoman Empire. The local Muslim resentment of Jews increased years after abolition of the jizya and of the full dhimma [parts of the dhimma remained in effect] in the last decade of the century. Abolition of the dhimma was part of the reason for the resentment.

When the Arab League secretary general, Abdul-Rahman Azzam Pasha, threatened Jews with war if a Jewish state were set up [October 1947], he spoke in terms of a jihad lasting scores of years, like the crusader wars and the Mongol invasions. He spoke in terms of Muslim volunteers --not only Arabs-- coming from far flung zones of the domain of Islam in order to fight the Jews. Why was this so?

Robert Reilly has explained the core motives for Muslim opposition to a Jewish state within any borders. Reilly attempts to:

elucidate the source of Arab intransigence in refusing to reach an accommodation with Israel short of the restoration of all that was lost in the repeated attempts to destroy it. In fact, even that restoration may not be enough. Anyone familiar with Al Manar (. . .) TV and the general propaganda against Israel throughout the Middle East might reasonably ask if there are any conditions under which the Arab world would allow Israel to continue to exist, other than by the strength of its own arms. And if not, why not? Organizations such as Hamas, quoted above, and Hezbollah repeatedly make clear that the real problem is the very existence of Israel. But why is this a problem, and is its nature political or religious and theological? If it is the former, a negotiated settlement may be possible. If it is the latter, this is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Which is it? The answers to these questions must be sought in the heart of Islamic revelation – in the Qur’an.
Islam says nothing about states, only peoples, and these it defines through religion. How does Islam regard Judaism? In Surah 5, Allah says that He established a Covenant with the Jews and gave them His revelation. The Jews possessed the Holy Land by virtue of this Covenant. But then the Qur’an cites the offence for which the Jews are forever cursed: “they changed my words.” The Jews changed God’s words; they changed His revelation. One can only appreciate how great and unforgivable this offence is by grasping the orthodox Muslim understanding that the Qur’an has co-existed eternally with God, in heaven, in Arabic, exactly as it exists today. Within this understanding of the Qur’an, the enormity of the Jewish offence becomes clear as a blasphemous act of colossal pride, for which they lost their right to the Holy Land.

Therefore, the Jewish claim to, and exercise of, sovereignty over the Holy Land and, indeed, sovereignty over some Muslims there, on the basis of Surah 5, is an incalculable offense and, for many Muslims, simply unacceptable. This is what drives the animus against Israel’s very existence. Until someone comes up with a new interpretation of Surah 5 that is widely accepted in the Muslim world, it is hard to have a great deal of hope for the sort of peace in the Middle East that we see in Europe.

If Jewish sovereignty in Israel is incompatible with the Qur’an, the rest becomes clear. Then one sees why, when Gaza was given the chance for self-rule, it was not used to display Palestinian capacity and desire for the rule of law and democratic constitutional government, but was turned into a weapons platform against Israel. It is why, at the 2000 Camp David summit, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat turned down Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer of more than 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with a capital in East Jerusalem, without even bothering to make a counter offer. By proffering a Palestinian state and substantial reparations, Israel was interested in ending the conflict. Arafat was interested in using the conflict to end Israel. Little has changed since then, including the recent Palestinian attempt to declare a state unilaterally.

Reilly contradicts the usual hokum about the Arab struggle against Israel being motivated by nationalist causes, hatred of "European colonialists" or "European intruders" [as if the Jews living in Europe were simply considered "Europeans" by the majority of Europeans], and so on. As I noted at the beginning, the Arab Muslims in the country welcomed the settlement of Europeans in the country provided that they were Muslims. The Ottoman Empire sometimes sent natives of Europe to govern parts of the country [not a distinct entity in Ottoman times]. One of these was Ahmad al-Jazzar Pasha. He was not liked but not because he was a native of Europe. So the colonialism charge against the Jews/Israelis is a red herring. Moreover, for many years about half of the Israeli Jewish population has been Oriental Jews, usually defined as Jews from Muslim countries. That didn't make a difference to Arab enemies of Israel. The Oriental Jews were fleeing Muslim lands where they had been oppressed as dhimmis for centuries. The charge of being "Europeans" is another red herring. Likewise, the charge of having a different skin color, of being "white" compared to the "non-white" Arabs made against the Jews. Indeed there is a broad range of skin colors among both Jews and Arabs, and that includes the Ashkenazi Jews who also show a range of skin colors. Reilly has explained the Muslim religious motives which keep Arabs from recognizing and making peace with Israel [here]. That said, some Arabs of Muslim background have supported Israel on Quranic or other grounds. More on one of those Arabs in another post.

Hizbullah Hiding Weapons under Buildings in South Lebanon

2012-01-28T14:04:00.001-08:00

The Hizbullah hides weapons and ammunition underneath homes in south Lebanon. This was one of the reasons for Hizbullah's relative success against Israel in the 2006 Lebanon war. Israel warned residents of south Lebanon to evacuate the area in view of coming Israeli attacks in an effort to win the release of Israeli soldiers taken captive by the Hizb and to destroy as much as possible of the Hizb's weapons stores. Most residents did evacuate and a number of houses were struck by Israel, with resulting secondary explosions indicating the presence of ammunition/weapons stores. However, the evidence of such stores was widely denied, especially by the anti-Israel media in the West and by "leftist" groups --sometimes in the guise of "human rights" & "peace"-- and by a number of Western governments. Neither Israel's assertions of weapons stored in homes illegally according to international law, nor the photos and other evidence provided by Israel could convince those who fanatically wanted to believe in Israel's inherent evil. To be frank, all this international criticism, albeit ignorant, unjust and hypocritical, does have a restraining effect on Israel's exercise of military power, which obviously helped Hizbullah in the 2006 war. Now a report in Il Sole-24 Ore tells us that again today the Hizb is illegally storing weapons in buildings in southern Lebanon.

The UN Security Council assigned the UNIFIL [UN interim Force in Lebanon] to supervise the cease-fire after the Lebanon War of the summer of 2006. This was in addition to previous assignments, in all of which UNIFIL had failed.

Following the July/August 2006 crisis, the Council enhanced the Force and decided that in addition to the original mandate, it would, among other things, monitor the cessation of hostilities; accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the south of Lebanon; and extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons. [here. This official UN site links to Sec. Council res 1701; in it see paragraphs 8, 11,14,15]

UNIFIL was also supposed [paragraphs 11b, 11e, 14] to help the Lebanese army take control of southern Lebanon --an area under Hizbullah control before 2006-- and to help it prevent weapons not authorized by the Lebanese govt from entering the country. In fact, the Lebanese army does not go into south Lebanon [south of the Litani River] without Hizb permission, nor does UNIFIL travel freely in the country. Nor has the Lebanese army or UNIFIL been effective in keeping Hizbullah from bringing weapons into the country. These weapons, including long distance rockets that can strike anywhere in Israel, have been brought in and many of them are stored in southern Lebanon south of the Litani, despite the assurances of SC res 1701. Again, weapons heavy and light have been stored under civilian buildings, as occurred up to and including the 2006 war. The fact that weapons are being stored under buildings now supports Israel's charge of the same during the 2006 war.

. . . in a country in which the police and regular army are in part connected with Hizbullah and Syrian secret services, there is no doubt that --especially in the southern region between the Litani River and the Israeli border (an area where the [UN] blue helmets are stationed) not even the al-Qaeda cells present in a couple of Palestinian refugee camps near Tyre could succeed in carrying out attacks and moving through the territory without the Shiite militias [Hizbullah] and Damascus' agents being informed of it. The relations between UNIFIL and Hizbullah have progressively worsened in recent years due to the numerous weapons and explosives depositories hidden by the militiamen under the buildings, which have sometimes exploded because they were stored in a faulty manner or due to sabotage attributed to the Israelis. The latest episode took place in November in the sector assigned to the Italian contingent, bringing back to the forefront the substantial failure of UNIFIL which --based on Resolution 1701-- was supposed to disarm Hizbullah.

This disarmament was never performed even if the command [of UNIFIL] at Naqoura attributes that task to the Lebanese forces that, in order to perform it, could ask for support from the blue helmets. In practice, no one has ever tried to take away weapons from the Hizbullah which --on the other hand-- has been reinforced [since 2006], restoring its rocket arsenals and even acquiring Iranian missiles capable of striking all Israeli territory, not only the Galilee. Two weeks ago, visiting Beirut, UN secretary-general Ban-Ki Moon, confirmed the need to disarm Hizbullah, asking all militias to give up their arsenals and saying that he was "concerned" by the Lebanese situation. [Il Sole-24 Ore, 28 January 2012, Gianandrea Gaiani]

In the original

. . . in un Paese nel quale polizia ed esercito regolari sono in parte legati a Hezbollah e servizi segreti siriani non c'è dubbio che, soprattutto nella regione meridionale tra il Fiume Litani e il confine israeliano (area di schieramento dei caschi blu) neppure le cellule di al Qaeda presenti in un paio di campi profughi palestinesi vicino a Tiro riuscirebbero a compiere attentati e a muoversi sul territorio senza che i miliziani sciiti e gli agenti di Damasco ne siano informati. I rapporti tra Unifil ed Hezbollah sono peggiorati progressivamente negli ultimi anni a causa dei numerosi depositi di armi ed esplosivi occultati dai miliziani sotto gli edifici, che a volte sono esplosi perché stoccati in modo errato o a causa di sabotaggi attribuiti agli israeliani. L'ultimo episodio è accaduto in novembre nel settore assegnato al contingente italiano riportando alla ribalta il sostanziale fallimento di Unifil che in base alla Risoluzione 1701 avrebbe dovuto disarmare Hezbollah.
Un disarmo mai attuato anche se il comando di Naqoura attribuisce tale compito alle forze libanesi che per espletarlo potrebbero chiedere il supporto ai caschi blu. Nella pratica nessuno ha mai cercato di sottrarre armi agli Hezbollah che invece si sono rafforzati ripristinando gli arsenali di razzi e acquisendo persino missili iraniani in grado di colpire tutto il territorio israeliano e non solo la Galilea. Due settimane or sono, in visita a Beirut, il Segretario generale dell'Onu Banki-moon ha ribadito la necessità di disarmare Hezbollah chiedendo a tutte le milizie di rinunciare al loro arsenale e dicendosi ''preoccupato'' per la situazione libanese.[Il Sole-24 Ore, 28 Gennaio 2012, Gianandrea Gaiani]

This article tells us several things:
1) The Hizbullah hides weapons and explosives in civilian buildings thereby endangering civilians --non-combatants-- and in violation of the laws of war. This supports charges that Israel made against Hizbullah during the 2006 war;
2) the Hizb has rearmed since the 2006 war, in fact with more weapons than before that war. The border with Syria has been porous since the cease fire in August 2006, enabling Iran to ship heavy weapons through Syria to the Hizb;
3) Neither the Lebanese army nor UNIFIL ever tried to disarm Hizbullah, although SC res 1701 called for disarmament of militias in Lebanon.
4) foreign states have shipped weapons, including heavy weapons into Lebanon since 2006, although this violates UN SC res. 1701. These states have principally been Iran and Syria;
5) UN Security Council res. 1701 has failed.
The Lebanese army was obviously not capable of performing such disarmament as called for, nor did it ask for help from UNIFIL for this purpose. Of course you probably knew all this but now it is confirmed by a serious journalist. Moreover, Ban-Ki Moon is "concerned." Sheikh Nasrallah, head of the Hizb, responded sarcastically, "This concern reassures us and pleases us." UN SC res. 1701 failed to stop Hizb rearmament, failed to protect Lebanese sovereignty and independence against Hizbullah and Syria, and failed to keep bring peace or advance peace between Israel and Lebanon.
Moreover, since US diplomacy [through Condoleezza Rice] was a major force in negotiating 1701, this was also a failure for US diplomacy, unless US diplomacy really wanted the results that have eventuated.

One more point. Nasrallah asserts: "We confirm that our choice is the way of resistance and the weapons of resistance." ["Confermiamo che la nostra scelta sono la via della resistenza e le armi della resistenza'']. This begs the question: What is Resistance anyway? Is Nasrallah's resistance, the Hizb's resistance, the same as that of the French Maquis in WW2 and of its leaders, such as Jean Moulin? In fact, Hizbullah opposes the independence of its own country, Lebanon, acting to assert Iranian domination over Lebanon. Furthermore, can anyone imagine Jean Moulin taking pride in murdering German civilians, including children, as Hizbullah [and Fatah and Hamas, etc] take pride in murdering Jews and Jewish children, as the Nazis did? Here we have a case of semantic subversion in which these Arab/Muslim terrorists try to steal the favorable Western view of the anti-Nazi resistance in WW2 in behalf of murderous, well-armed organizations essentially different in character from the WW2 Resistance and for purposes that are kindred to Nazi purposes.
- - - - - - -
Quotes from Moon and Nasrallah found in the Il Sole article cited above.

How an Academic Clown Defends Muslim Bigots from the Truth

2012-01-21T15:12:00.000-08:00

Juan Cole epitomizes a whole school of professors and instructors of Middle Eastern, Islamic and Arabic studies who constantly seek to whitewash Arab/Muslim sins of commission or omission in word or deed. This school of academics who favor and cover up for Arab nationalism and its various specific causes, no matter what, has its counterparts in Western and Soviet foreign ministries and in the West's corps of journalists, who often operate in tandem with their diplomatic corps. Prof Martin Kramer caught Cole in a crude and sloppy cover up which ought to embarass Cole if he were susceptible to feeling embarassed over his mistakes and frauds.

Cole recently defended the Muslim Brotherhood from the truth about its genocidal plans for the Jews, not just Israelis, but Jews. An Israeli reporter who knows Arabic reported that two speakers at a Muslim Brotherhood rally held in Cairo quoted the medieval hadith that foretold that at Judgment Day the Muslims would kill the Jews. According to this Muslim fable, some Jews would hide behind rocks and trees that would in turn cry out: O Muslim, O slave of Allah. A Jew is hiding behind me. Come kill him. [see here]. Cole read a translation of the Israeli's report and promptly jumped to a conclusion [not very scholarly that]. He denied that his pets of the Religion of Peace [so designated by Pres. George Bush II] could speak in such unkind terms, while using as proof a short Arabic press report of the rally which did not mention recital of a quote from Muslim literature calling for killing the Jews. But an argument from silence is never conclusive. Rather than pursue the truth of the matter, Cole failed to search for the video of the proceedings --held at the al-Azhar Islamic university in Cairo-- which was available online and was found by Martin Kramer. Kramer has the videos [here]. By the way, Hamas --now rulers of Gaza-- tucked this notorious genocidal hadith into Article 7 of the Hamas charter more than 20 years ago. So it's quite appropriate that Hamas leader Ismail Haniyyah has announced that Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. [See photos of Haniyyah hugging MB leaders.]

Now, as indicated above, it is not only journalists and professors who belong to the whitewash-the-Arabs school. Diplomats too fall into that troublesome class. The blogger Challah Hu Akbar contrasts the behavior of the chief diplomat of the US State Dept, Madame Hilary Clinton, towards Muslim Brotherhood leaders as compared with her attitude toward Israel's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Here's the story:

Israeli media recently reported that US officials are offering numerous excuses as to why they do not wish to meet with Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman during his upcoming visit. The most outrageous claim was that “we [US officials] do not want to be photographed with him.”
While US officials say they do not wish to be photographed with Lieberman, the foreign minister of the only stable country in the Middle East that’s still a reliable US ally, they seem to have no qualms being seen with Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

Below is a photo of Anne Patterson, US ambassador to Egypt, meeting with Mohammad Badie, General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, on January 18. On January 11, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns met with Mohammed Morsi, head of the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party. On January 12, former president Jimmy Carter also met with Badie. [see several affectionate photos here]

Carter of course never met a Judeophobe whom he didn't like. But the current problem is the Obama White House and the Clinton State Dept who decided to have the US ambassador to Egypt meet and be photographed with MB leaders but who not meet or be photographed with FM Lieberman. Now, the MB leader who shook hands with the US ambassador is an undeniably charming fellow. Here are a few quotes from him:

. . . the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life. . .

Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny, and all we need is for the Arab and Muslim peoples to stand behind it and support it. [here]

Funny, isn't it, that the General Guide [or Supreme Guide] of the Muslim Brotherhood can say these hateful things, including expressions of hostility to America, and then smile and shake the hands of the American ambassador [actually, an ambassadress] to Egypt? Funny, isn't it, that the Obama administration has no qualms about dealing with this hate-ridden bigot and fanatic maniac?

All the same, it ought not be forgotten that Cole is not the first prof of ME and Arabic studies to defend or cover up for repulsive and reprehensible Arab/Muslim actions. Prof William Polk was whitewashing the Arabs fifty years ago as an academic and also practiced the same policy as a high State Dept official.

Jewish Temple Menorah Found Illustrated on Ancient Bread Stamp

2012-01-18T06:26:00.000-08:00

Another sensational archeological find!! The Israel Antiquities Authority announced the finding of a Byzantine era bread stamp showing the menorah [candelabrum] of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The seven-branched menorah was a common Jewish symbol in the centuries after destruction of the Temple by Roman and auxiliary forces in 70 CE. A Greek-language inscription was found on the knob used to hold the stamp. This inscription seems to be the baker's name. He was advertising kosher quality of his product and his own bakery. See photos at bottom of this post.
What do the Arabs and their friends who lately and fashionably have been denying the Jewish history of the Land of Israel [as per PLO charter, Article 20; see at bottom] have to say about that?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A Stamp with the Temple Menorah was Uncovered in Excavations near Akko (January 2012)

The tiny stamp was used to identify baked products and it probably belonged to a bakery that supplied kosher bread to the Jews of Akko in the Byzantine period

General view of the excavation

A 1,500 year old seal bearing an image of the seven-branched Temple Menorah was discovered near the city of Akko.
A ceramic stamp from the Byzantine period (6th century CE) was discovered in excavations the Israel Antiquities Authority is currently conducting at Horbat Uza east of Akko, prior to the construction of the Akko-Karmiel railroad track by the Israel National Roads Company. This find belongs to a group of stamps referred to as “bread stamps” because they were usually used to stamp baked goods.
According to Gilad Jaffe and Dr. Danny Syon, the directors of the excavation on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, “A number of stamps bearing an image of a menorah are known from different collections. The Temple Menorah, being a Jewish symbol par excellence, indicates the stamps belonged to Jews, unlike Christian bread stamps with the cross pattern which were much more common in the Byzantine period”. According to Syon, “This is the first time such a stamp is discovered in a controlled archaeological excavation, thus making it possible to determine its provenance and date of manufacture. The stamp is important because it proves that a Jewish community existed in the settlement of Uza in the Christian-Byzantine period. The presence of a Jewish settlement so close to Akko – a region that was definitely Christian at this time – constitutes an innovation in archaeological research”. The excavators add, “Due to the geographical proximity of Horbat Uza to Akko, we can speculate that the settlement supplied kosher baked goods to the Jews of Akko in the Byzantine period”.
The stamp is engraved with a seven-branched menorah atop a narrow base, and the top of the branches forms a horizontal line. A number of Greek letters are engraved around a circle and dot on the end of the handle. Dr. Leah Di Segni, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem suggested this is probably the name Launtius [see comment on name below]. This name was common among Jews of the period and also appears on another Jewish bread stamp of unknown provenance. According to Dr. Syon and Gilad Jaffe, “This is probably the name of the baker from Horbat Uza.”
Horbat Uza is a small rural settlement where clues were previously found that allude to it being a Jewish settlement: a clay coffin, a Shabbat lamp and jars with menorah patterns painted on them were discovered there.
Dr. David Amit of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who has made a study of bread stamps, adds, “A potter engraved the menorah image in the surface of the stamp prior to firing it in a kiln, whereas the owner’s name was engraved in the stamp’s handle after firing. Hence we can assume that a series of stamps bearing the menorah symbol were produced for Jewish bakers, and each of these bakers carved his name on the handle, which also served as a stamp. In this way the dough could be stamped twice before baking: once with the menorah – the general symbol of the Jewish identity of Jewish bakeries, and the private name of the baker in each of these bakeries, which also guaranteed the bakery’s kashrut.

- - - - - - -Article by Israel Antiquities Authority- - - - - -

PLO charter, Article 20, denies the Jewish history of the Land of Israel, the country that the Romans called Judea [IVDAEA] in the heyday of the Roman Empire. The relevant sentence reads:
"Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood." [translation in: Walter Laqueur & Barry Rubin, eds., The Israel-Arab Reader (New York/London: Penguin 2008), p. 119]

Also see this recent post at Emet m'Tsiyon about another recent archeological finding.

Comment on the name on the knob. The announcement above published on the site of the Antiquities Authority may have been translated from Hebrew, which is usually written without vowels, as many readers know. Hence, the name spelled Launtius in the announcement may have been Leontios in Greek.

Is Islamism Fascism? -- Martin Kramer Presents the Analyses for of Manfred Halpern, Maxime Rodinson, & Said Amir Arjomand

2012-01-05T10:44:00.000-08:00

Can we really, honestly describe Islamism as fascistic or a form of fascism?

Martin Kramer quotes Manfred Halpern:

The neo-Islamic totalitarian movements are essentially fascist movements. They concentrate on mobilizing passion and violence to enlarge the power of their charismatic leader and the solidarity of the movement. They view material progress primarily as a means for accumulating strength for political expansion, and entirely deny individual and social freedom. They champion the values and emotions of a heroic past, but repress all free critical analysis of either past roots or present problems.

Halpern continued:

Like fascism, neo-Islamic totalitarianism represents the institutionalization of struggle, tension, and violence. Unable to solve the basic public issues of modern life—intellectual and technological progress, the reconciliation of freedom and security, and peaceful relations among rival sovereignties—the movement is forced by its own logic and dynamics to pursue its vision through nihilistic terror, cunning, and passion. An efficient state administration is seen only as an additional powerful tool for controlling the community. The locus of power and the focus of devotion rest in the movement itself. Like fascist movements elsewhere, the movement is so organized as to make neo-Islamic totalitarianism the whole life of its members.

See Martin Kramer here. Kramer also quotes Maxime Rodinson & Said Amir Arjomand to the same effect.

I would point out that Joseph Schumpeter writes about Arab imperialism as one form of the phenomenon in his book on the subject.

Many researchers have written books and articles on Arab-Nazi collaboration:

Daniel Carpi, Elias Cooper, Martin Cuppers, Zvi El-Peleg, Jonathan C Friedman, Klaus Gensicke, Elliott A Green, Sylvia Haim, Lukasz Hirszowicz, Elie Kedourie, Majid Khadduri (1960), Mathias Kuentzel, Bernard Lewis, Klaus-Michael Mallmann,Rafael Medoff, Robert Melka, Milos Mendel, Joseph Nevo, Francis Nicosia, Monte Penkower, Anwar Sadat (1957), Joseph Schechtman, George H Stein, Simon Wiesenthal, & David Yisraeli.

New Archeological Discovery in Jerusalem -- Confirms 2nd Temple Practices

2012-01-05T07:46:00.000-08:00

One of the many sensational archeological discoveries in Jerusalem in recent years, in and around the Temple Mount, was a seal inscribed with the Aramaic words Daka l'adonay [דכא ליה]. These words mean "Pure for God." The Aramaic daka is equivalent to the Hebrew zakh, meaning pure. The la [ל] means "for." The two letters YH [יה] are an abbreviation for the name of God, usually written YHVH in English by Jews. The ancient Jews did not want to write out the full name of God out of respect for holiness. Here is the story in brief with a nice, big photo:

Ancient Seal with Hebrew Inscription 'Seal of God'

Israeli archaeologists have announced the discovery of a rare clay seal – likely used to certify the purity of ritual objects used in the Second Temple – at an excavation site under the Old City of Jerusalem.The coin-sized seal, measuring about two centimeters in diameter, bears two Aramaic words meaning “pure for God.”

It is the first “direct archaeological evidence of activity on the Temple Mount and the workings of the Temple during the Second Temple period,” according to the Israel Antiquities Authority.
Archaeologist Ronny Reich of Haifa University said the seal dates from between the 1st century B.C. to 70 A.D.

“It seems that the inscribed object was used to mark products or objects that were brought to the Temple, and it was imperative they be ritually pure. This stamped impression is probably the kind referred to in the Mishnah as a chotem, or seal. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that such an object or anything similar to it was discovered in an archaeological excavation and it constitutes direct archaeological evidence of the activity on the Temple Mount and the workings of the Temple during the Second Temple period,” archaeologists Eli Shukron of the IAA and Prof. Reich said in a statement.
The rare seal was unearthed at the City of David excavation site just outside the Temple Mount compound. Last month, archaeologists found four bronze coins stamped around 17 A.D. by the Roman official Valerius Gratus during an excavation at the site.

- - - - - - - -
The photo and text below it come from the Land of Israel blog. We know that the seal is from the Second Temple Period since it uses the Hebrew letters in the form that we still use today, with slight differences. In the First Temple Period, Jews/Israelites used an alphabet [כתב עברי קדום] much like that used by the Phoenicians/Canaanites which became the model for the Greek alphabet. The first version of the Greek alphabet was called Phoinikia after the Phoenicians. Alphabet is of course a word derived from the first two letters of the Greek alphabet, alpha and beta, which names are taken from the first two letters of the Hebrew/Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet, alef and beyt.

Did the Western Great Powers Ever Want to Stop the Iranian Nuke Program? -- The Same Powers Favored Mussolini with the Same Trick

2011-12-18T06:54:00.000-08:00

UPDATING 1-13-2012

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.

It has been known for years that Iran was working on a nuclear program. Former Israeli prime minster Yits'haq Rabin was warning about it before he was killed in 1995. This program has long seemed aimed at producing an Iranian atomic bomb, despite Iran's commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in violation of that treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency was dealing with the issue years ago. Yet nothing concrete has been done by the major Western powers to stop the nuke program or, more precisely, nothing that we know of other than economic sanctions. And even those sanctions waited for years to be imposed. Iran was given a "last chance" to mend its nuclear ways as far back as 2003. But there were several subsequent "last chances."

The US delegate to the IAEA gave a rather good speech at the March 2006 meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors. But little if any concrete action came out of the meeting. One problem was the head of the IAEA at the time, Muhammad Barada'i, an Egyptian who consistently belittled warnings that the Iranian nuclear project was meant to produce a nuke bomb. He did this although his own government seems to have been concerned with Iranian aggressive actions and intentions toward the Sunni Muslim world, as were several other Sunni Arab powers, like Saudi Arabia.

All this time Iran's work on developing the nuke bomb has been progressing, and sanctions of any seriousness were only applied relatively recently. This means that US presidents going back to Bill Clinton were not acting against the threat of an Iranian nuke bomb. These presidents include Clinton, George Bush II [I don't know about his father], and Obama who openly declared a soft policy on Iran. Obama's policy is softer now even than that of Britain although the US and Britain are so often in lock-step on foreign policy issues. This article & this one indicate that the Obama administration is opposed to stronger sanctions on Iran called for by the House of Representatives. Here is a report of British actions imposed after rioters instigated by the Iranian govt attacked the UK embassy in Teheran.

Elliott Abrams, a former Bush Administration defense official, lists a number of recent Obama administration statements that discard any threat or possibility of military force to be used against Iran and/or its nuke program. Abrams interprets a recent declaration by an Obama "national official," the deputy national security advisor, as giving:

. . . a White House assurance that the United States does not intend to challenge an assertion of Iranian dominance in the region. [here]

For years the great powers avoided placing sanctions on Iran which was violating its commitment to the NPT [non-proliferation treaty]. Now, the great powers are imposing sanctions. But what does that mean? The game of great powers imposing sanctions that will not accomplish their ostensible purpose, in this case preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb, has a history. Consider the sanctions imposed by the League of Nations on Italy over the invasion of Ethiopia in the 1930s.

The regime [Mussolini's regime] conquered its empire of stone and sand in Ethiopia, its "place in the sun." It succeeded in doing that, in fact, with Anglo-French backing. France and England, through the League of Nations which they controlled, had a fake economic embargo passed against Italy. However, excluded from it [the embargo] was the supply of Iraqi oil which our [Italian] troops marching on Addis Ababa could not do without. In any event, those sanctions were never applied and were even revoked immediately after the success of the Duce's colonial undertaking.
[Mario Jose Cereghino e Giovanni Fasanella, Il Golpe Inglese (Milano: Chiarelettere 2011), p 36-- emphasis added].
[The key phrase in this passage is "fake economic embargo". In the original it is "finto embargo economico"]

So fake or inadequate economic sanctions are an old trick of great powers. The authors of the passage quoted are saying in essence that Britain and France wanted Italy to conquer Ethiopia in that period. The delay of sanctions against Iran for years --let's say at least since 2003-- and the eventual imposition of inadequate sanctions just show that the powers can still get away with their old tricks. Nothing new under the sun.

- - - - - - - -
12-18-2011 Jonathan Tobin sees the sanctions as weak and notes the Obama administration's refusal to sanction dealings with Iran's central bank [National Bank of Iran].
1-5-2012 Jonathan Tobin sees Obama as reluctant or unwilling --and in case unlikely-- to enforce the sanctions against dealing with the Iranian Central Bank. Read him here.
1-8-2012 Michael Rubin believes that the Washington "foreign policy establishment" engages in doubletalk in order not to propose real and biting sanctions on Iran's ayatollahs [here]
1-13-2012 Jonathan Tobin wonders if the Obama administration condemnation of the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist conceals a reluctance to stop Iran's nuke project [here]

UNESCO Presented Ancient Israeli Mosaics -- Once Upon a Time

2011-12-15T06:09:00.000-08:00

UNESCO was not always as hostile to Israel as it is now. This UN body, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, was once not as corrupt as it is today. As recently as 1965, UNESCO published --together with the French publisher Flammarion-- the book Israeli Byzantine Mosaics [French title: "Mosaiques Byzantines Israeliennes", by Ernst Kitzinger (Paris: Flammarion 1965). At that time, UNESCO wanted to promote art to the masses. So they published, with Flammarion, a series called Great Art in Pocket Editions [Grand Art en Editions de Poche]. Israeli Byzantine Mosaics was part of that series. I bought it at the UN building in New York in those days. As I understand, books in the series were also published in English and maybe other languages besides French.

The mosaic was a highly developed art form in the Byzantine period preceding the Arab-Muslim conquests. It did not die off in the East --including Israel-- immediately after the conquest but it died out gradually, slowly, as did other features of civilization. Many more mosaics from that period have been found in Israel since Kitzinger's book was put out by UNESCO. Some of the mosaics are Jewish, as at Beyt Alpha and Tsipori [Sepphoris], others are Christian and pagan [early in Byzantine times]. Yet the techniques and workmanship are strikingly similar, indicating that the same workshop or workshops served Jews, Samaritans, Christians and pagans.

Here are two of the Jewish mosaics:

Huldah [location]: Mosaic floor with seven-branched menorah [candelabrum] from the Holy Temple in Jerusalem plus other Jewish ritual objects. These latter are, from right to left, a shofar [ram's horn used on the Rosh haShanah holiday]; an incense shovel as used in the Temple; an etrog [citron in English], a citrus fruit used on the Sukkot holiday; and what appears to be a lulav, a palm frond, also used on the Sukkot holiday. The Greek inscription says "Praise for the People." The mosaic is dated to the 6th century.

Beth Alpha [location -- Beyt Alfa בית אלפא]: Mosaic floor. The Binding of Isaac was a favorite Jewish theme in that historical period, since it is the story of the Jews' forefather being saved from death at the last moment by God. This theme appears in a number of Jewish mosaics from the Byzantine period which followed --as we know-- the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE [Hurban haBayit] by Roman legions and their auxiliary forces [including Arabs], and the exclusion of Jews from Jerusalem by Emperor Hadrian in 135 CE. The names Abraham [אברהם] and Yits'haq [יצחק = Isaac] written in Hebrew appear over the heads of those two persons, along with the Hebrew words Al Tishlahh [אל תשלח]. These words mean: "Do not send", part of the words of God's angel to Abraham in Genesis 22:12 , Biblical reading portion: Vayera. The Biblical verse is: Don't send your hand against the boy and don't do anything to him. A modern Jewish translation gives this as: Do not raise your hand against the boy, or do anything to him [The New Jewish Publication Society translation; Philadelphia: JPS 1985]. This mosaic too is dated to the 6th century.

The general importance of the Jewish mosaics is that they refute the present claim of the "Palestine Liberation Organization" and its offshoot, the "Palestinian Authority" that there is no Jewish history in the Land of Israel, the country that they now call "Palestine," the name imposed on the country by the Emperor Hadrian after he had suppressed the Jewish revolt led by Bar Kokhba, 132-135 CE. Note that two languages appear in the inscriptions on these mosaics, Hebrew and Greek. Arabic does not appear. The PLO's denial of Jewish history in the country is made in the PLO charter, Article 20:

The claim of historical or religious ties between the Jews and Palestine does not tally with historical realities nor with the constituents of statehood in their true sense. [PLO Charter, article 20]

The fact that photos of these mosaics were published by UNESCO is doubly important since UNESCO in recent decades has gone along with the lies of the PLO/PA, the Arab states, and the OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference]. The OIC dominates UNESCO as it does the UN "human rights council" and the UN generally, with 56 or so UN member states belonging to it, more than a quarter of all UN member states. Recently, the UNESCO has admitted "palestine" as a member although Arab domination of the country goes back only to the Arab conquest, completed in 640 CE.

The PLO/PA intends to use UNESCO to impose its false version of history and to assert Muslim domination over Jewish holy places and historic sites in the country which have long been controlled by Muslims [such as the Temple Mount and the Tomb of the Patriarchs/Cave of Machpelah in Hebron]. More recently, in the 1990s, the PLO/PA has claimed Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem and Joseph's Tomb in Sh'khem [Nablus] as Muslim holy places, although in the past Rachel's Tomb was seen as a Jewish shrine and Joseph's Tomb was shared by Jews, Samaritans, Christians and Muslims.

Gingrich Told the Truth!!! Never a "palestinian people" in History

2011-12-12T13:55:00.000-08:00

EXPANDED & REVISED 12-13-2011&1-18-2012

There never was a "palestinian people" in all history, and the present day sub-set of Arabs fashionably called "palestinians" have no special tie to the ancient Philistines, a people who disappeared with the Babylonian Conquest when the bulk of them were deported to Mesopotamia as were many or most of the Jews.

We know that before the 1960s nobody was talking about a "palestinian people" distinct from Arabs but somehow ethereally connected with them. Before the founding of the PLO in 1964, the Palestinian Arabs were typically Pan-Arabists. George Habash was the leader of an outfit called the Arab National Movement before the 1967 Six Day War. After that war, he founded the PFLP, the "popular front for the liberation of palestine." That is, even after founding of the PLO in 1964 many or most Palestinian Arabs saw themselves primarily as Arabs. So even after January 1, 1964, when the PLO was founded at a conclave in Cairo, the "palestinian people" continued to stress their Arab identity. Indeed the PLO charter stresses this pan-Arab identity of the "palestinian people" in its very first article.

Palestine Liberation Organization Covenant, Article One:
Palestine is the homeland of the Palestinian Arab people and an integral part of the great Arab homeland, and the people of Palestine is an integral part of the Arab nation.

Gingrich pointed out that the "palestinian people" was an "invented people" [see video of Gingrich's interview here; transcript here].

I believe that the Jewish people have the right to have a state, and I believe that the commitments that were made at a time [commitments made from 1917 through 1922 by Britain, other major powers & the League of Nations]. . . remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community. [links to video and transcript above]

Gingrich stressed that those later known as "palestinians" were part of the "Arab community" which is how they saw themselves and --I believe-- still see themselves. The PLO Covenant [or Charter] agrees with Gingrich. It is a clearly pan-Arab document, as we see above.

Further, many knowledgeable observers agree with Gingrich but I would like to address the issue by describing the political maneuvers of Haj Amin el-Husseini [also spelled al-Husayni]. Husseini was the chief Palestinian Arab leader from 1921 up to about 1950. In this capacity he was also a Nazi collaborator, as were other Arab nationalists. But Husseini was the most prominent Arab Nazi collaborator and a participant in the Holocaust of the Jews. A number of important books and articles have been published in recent years describing and detailing Arab-Nazi relations. But first a little on Husseini's career.

The British mandatory authorities in the Jewish National Home, to which Western powers gave the territorial name "Palestine," not used during rule by the Ottoman Empire, appointed Husseini to be Mufti [chief Muslim religious judge] of Jerusalem in 1921, also creating a new post for him near the end of that year at the newly created Supreme Muslim Council. He became notorious for promoting atrocities against Jews in the Land of Israel during the mandatory period [1920-1948]. He too was an Arab nationalist, a pan-Arabist, rather than a "palestinian nationalist" as he is so often mistakenly described today.

On this issue, I found some interesting documentation in a new book on Nazi-Arab collaboration. The authors write that while the Germans were winning the war --up to early 1943, the Battles of el-Alamein [1942] & Stalingrad [1943] -- Husseini and his comrade and rival, Rashid Ali al-Gailani [former prime minister of Iraq], vied for German recognition of one them as leader and absolute chief of "the Great Arab Empire" which they hoped that the Germans would help establish. They were both in Berlin for the bulk of the war. The authors write:

In June 1942, Al-Husseini brought up a new element. During a discussion with Ettel [a Nazi official], he claimed to be the president of a secret organization baptized "Arab Nation". This league had been founded in his time by Hussein, the sherif ofMecca [great-grandfather of Abdullah, present king of Jordan] and leader of the revolt against the Turks during the First World War. In their demand for independence, he explained, the Arabs attributed [to him, Husseini] the leadership role in this organization, which counted members and trusted persons in all of the Arab countries. Al-Gailani was also part of it and had only been prime minister of Iraq because of this recognition in fact of his [Husseini's] position. Al-Husseini stated to Ettel that he intended to have his role as leader recognized by the Germans. Thus he would fulfill his project of making himself uncontested leader of the Arab world.
[Martin Cuppers & Klaus-Michael Mallmann, Croissant fertile et croix gammee (Paris: Verdier 2009; trans. from German), p 131. The book has also been translated into English]

Now this "secret" organization may have been fictitious, a device for Husseini to advance his own ambitions. But those ambitions were not fictitious. The ambitions were seeing himself as the pan-Arab ruler. In this regard also see the record of his meeting with Hitler on November 28, 1941. Hitler actually fed or played up to Husseini's aspirations for pan-Arab leadership for himself. Hitler promised that when the Germans had conquered the Middle East, Husseini would be

. . . the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. [here]

So the chief leader of the Palestinian Arabs was in fact motivated by pan-Arab ambitions, not by narrow "palestinian" aspirations. All this supports Gingrich's position.
- - - - - - - - - - -
12-15-2011 Prof. Richard Landes, a historian at Boston University, defends Newt Gingrich's assertion that the "palestinians" are an "invented people" [ici in French]
12-15-2011 "palestinian Media Watch" [PMW] presents facts supporting Gingrich's position.
- - - - - - - - -
Daniel Pipes has a useful account of the development of the "palestinian people" notion [here], also go to the two links in his article. I have some reservations about Pipes' account. He ascribes the origin of the "pal ppl" notion to the year 1920. I say on the contrary that the Arab leadership in Israel recognized the existence of a country called "palestine" in that year, mainly because the Greater Syria that they aspired to be part of was rendered impossible by the French overthrow of Faisal the Hashemite's Syrian kingdom in July 1920 and the French-British division of what the Arabs called bilad ash-Sham --a traditional Arab geographical concept-- called Greater Syria in English. Neither Syria nor palestine are indigenous Middle Eastern geographical terms but were used by ancient Greek writers. Syria included the Syria, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon of today. "Palestinian" as an adjective for southwestern Syria was used by Herodotos, although Judea was the usual Greek and Latin name for the country, after Alexander's conquests and probably before then. But the Arab leadership/elite in Israel did not recognize or consider itself as a "palestinian people" in 1920. Rather they called "palestine" an Arab country. Consider the slogan "Palestine for the Arabs" which the Arab leadership issued on a decorative stamp in the 1930s [see Kimmerling & Migdal, The Palestinians, in Hebrew edition if not in English ed.].
1-18-2012 Robert R Reilly wrote an excellent piece for Crisis magazine in which he not only confirms Gingrich's assertion but expands his scope to include the Muslim religious motives which keep Arabs from recognizing and making peace with Israel [here]. See our post here for Quranic background to Reilly's article. While several verses in the Quran agree with the Biblical account that the Land of Israel [called Holy Land in the Quran] was divinely assigned to the Jews, these verses and other humane and universalistic verses are abrogated either by other verses in the Quran or by later Muslim teachings, hadiths, the sunna, etc.

Mad Falsehoods by Obama's Ambassador in Brussels

2011-12-04T12:37:00.000-08:00

UPDATED 12-11-2011

Obama and his gang of clowns armed with a vast diplomatic and military apparatus never cease to amaze. Obama's man in Brussels, capital not only of Belgium but of the slyly Judeophobic European Union --plus a goodly supply of frankly bigoted, Judeophobic Muslims-- amazed with his ignorance and bigotry. Tragically, the man is son of a Holocaust survivor but has no understanding of what happened to his father and why. I will let Omri Ceren tell the story:

Muslim Anti-Semitism Is Not Israel’s Fault

It’s Israel’s fault:

Growing global anti-Semitism is linked to Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians, the American ambassador to Belgium told stunned Jewish conference attendants in Brussels earlier this week…. [Howard] Gutman told participants he was apologizing in advance if his words are not to their liking. He then proceeded to make controversial statements about his views on Muslim anti-Semitism, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Friday. A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned, and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, Gutman said. He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.

In no particular order:

(1) As a sheer historical matter, of course, he’s demonstrably wrong.

Muslim anti-Semitism stretches back centuries. Just last week we passed the 70th anniversary of the meeting between the Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler, where the two of them conspired to wipe out European and Middle East Jewry. The Mufti, citing Muslim dogma and history, committed to helping the Nazis fulfill their genocidal ambitions. A few decades later, then-Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was explaining to Congress why the U.S. was withholding war planes from Israel while selling them to Saudi Arabia, and he explained that Muslim states “have felt for a long time – it goes back centuries – a very particular animosity toward the Jews because they credited the assassination of Mohammed to a Jew.”

It could be Dulles just didn’t realize that Muslim anti-Semitism had only existed for a couple of decades, and that the Mufti just didn’t know he was supposed to wait for the creation of Israel to become anti-Semitic. Although given how Muslim anti-Semitism is eschatological, and involves precise roles for Jews during the end-times and reserves an explicit place for them in hell, it’s more likely he hated Jews for religious reasons and that Gutman is making things up.

[Omri Ceren's article continues here][Gutman's speech is here, though it may be taken down in the near future]. My comments on this speech below.

Gutman's falsehood participates in slaying the whole concept of the innocent civilian. If Jewish civilians outside Israel [or inside Israel, of course] are guilty for what Israel does, however far they may be from decision-making in Jerusalem, then they are not innocent civilians or, in other words, the innocent civilian does not exist.
Consider as an example, the attacks on Jews in France after the al-Durah affair of 9-30-2000. They were justified by some "leftists" in France as deserved by those French Jews since they were not sufficiently vocal in opposing Israeli policy. That's also an endorsement of thuggery, of intimidating people into taking a certain political position. It is totally opposed to the democratic liberal ethos.

As another example, consider the town of Malmo in Sweden which has a large Muslim population which has been harassing Jews for a number of years. The mayor, Ilmar Reepalu (SDP), stated that the Jews' support for Israel directly correlates to a rise in Judeophobia [antisemitism], which he went on to explain doesn't exist in Malmö]. Jews need therefore to be more critical of Israel, Reepalu argued. [thanks to Tundra Tabloids]

Now, quite often, those who deny the existence of an innocent Jewish civilian, whine and moan over Arabs in Gaza who are all innocent civilians protected --supposedly-- by the Geneva Convention IV [of course, they don't know what it says -- check article 28]. On the other hand, Islamic law denies the existence of innocent civilians, since it believes in collective guilt of the dhimmi and kufar peoples. That is why it was just to many Muslims to kill any Christian after Pope Benedict made his remarks criticizing Islam through quoting a Byzantine emperor of hundreds of years ago. Several Christians were murdered, most were not even Catholics.

So these "leftists" and Muslims have slain the innocent civilian principle. Ambassador Gutman, Obama's man in Brussels, is doing that too. We should try to get them to admit that.
- - - - - - - - -

Jonathan Tobin comments on Gutman's mad speech as well as on the rabid remarks of Obama's Secretary of Defense Panetta, threatening Israel not to take preemptive action against the genocidal ayatollahs of Iran and generally blaming Israel for everything untoward in the Middle East [here]
Ron Radosh too comments on Gutman and Panetta's verbal effusions [here]
12-5-2011 Jonathan Tobin takes apart Gutman's non-apology, non-disavowal of his offensive remarks [here].
12-11-2011 Omri Ceren defends Gutman's critics against the nasty and stupid criticism of them made by pro-Nazi [vichyite], vicious "leftists" on the "Jewish left" [here] in defense of Gutman. Ceren pays particular attention to a vicious pre-Vichyite named jjGoldberg, self-identified as a 1960s "leftist." Like cheap wine, Goldberg has turned sour over time and is now cheap vinegar חומץ בן יין. He's worse than ever.
Daniel Greenfield [Sultan Knish] comments on Gutman's offensive speech [here]
Gutman tries to wiggle out of the implications of his remarks. The actual text of the offending speech is as bad as previously reported [here]. "It is a tension and perhaps hatred largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem," Gutman said as quoted by Foxnews.
Abe Foxman of ADL admits that, "Anti-Semitism, indeed Muslim anti-Semitism, was alive and well before the creation of Israel. Indeed, the extreme reaction to an independent Jewish state to this day in the Muslim world is connected to anti-Jewish attitudes that persisted for centuries" [here].
12-12-2011 Omri Ceren updates what we may call the Gutman-Muslim Affair [here]

Seventy Years Since the Arab Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, Met Hitler

2011-11-29T05:47:00.000-08:00

Expanded12-5-2011

The Arab Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem met Hitler the other day 70 years ago, on 28 November 1941. The seventieth anniversary of a friendly, palsy meeting between the greatest mass murderer in history, Adolf Hitler [yes, Stalin gave him stiff competition] and a would-be mass murderer who took part in Hitler's genocidal crimes. We know what went on at the meeting since two written records were made, one by Hitler's secretary, one Schmidt, the other by the Mufti himself.

Here we quote from the German record:
The Fuhrer then made the following statement to the Mufti, enjoining him to lock it in the innermost depths of his heart:
1. He (the Fuhrer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe.
2. . . . the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasus.
3. . . . Germany's objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations which he had secretly prepared. . .
. . .
The Grand Mufti replied that it was his view that everything would come to pass just as the Fuhrer had indicated. He was fully reassured and satisfied by the words which he had heard from the Chief of the German State. . . .
The Grand Mufti thanked him. . . .
[translated text in Walter Laqueur and Barry Rubin, editors, The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict (seventh revised & updated edition; London & New York: Penguin Books 2008), pp 54-55. The first edition of this book came out in 1969 with Laqueur alone as editor. The record of the Husseini-Hitler discussion has been in the book from 1969 through all the revisions and updatings.
The Mufti's own record of the discussion which he recorded in his diary was published in Joseph B Schechtman, The Mufti and the Fuehrer (New York: Yoseloff 1965), pp 306-308.]

A short film of the Mufti, Haj Amin el-Husseini [also spelled al-Husayni] arriving at Hitler's offices for the meeting is at this link with narration in French. The film is obviously of great documentary importance. It was no doubt made by the Germans in Berlin and then sent to the Vichy government of France who put in a French narration and most likely supplied it to movie theaters as a newsreel. TV was not in common use. Note that Husseini gives the Nazi salute [upraised arm] when he meets Hitler. Also see this video .
This site has a lot of documentation, photos and texts, about the Mufti.
Photos of the Mufti and his associates, including a German veteran fighting with the Arab forces against Israel in 1948 as a mercenary, are here.

Some background for Husseini should be known. He belonged to the Husseini clan, one of the most influential among the Arab-Muslims in Jerusalem. The Ottoman Empire gave members of the family high posts in government, first in the Jerusalem area, then in the government of the empire as a whole, one serving as a governor in Anatolia and elsewhere. Haj Amin el-Husseini served as an officer in the Ottoman army in World War I, but I don't know whether he was involved in the Armenian genocide perpetrated by that army. However, it was the British who gave him political predominance over the Arabs in the newly created Palestine, the territorial name for the Jewish National Home juridically erected at the San Remo Conference in April 1920 and endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922. In March 1921, the British made him mufti --chief Muslim judge-- of the Jerusalem area, and in December of that same year he was made president of the newly created Supreme Muslim Council which controlled the public money of the Muslim community in the newly created Palestine. This position gave him even more power than the first. Members of the Husseini family have been prominent in the PLO, such as Faisal Husseini, his great-nephew, and Leila Shahid, now the PLO spokeswoman and chief liar representing the PLO/Palestinian Authority in France, a grand-daughter of the Mufti.

The following books and articles are useful for info, documentation and pix on the Mufti and his collaboration with the Nazis:

M S Arnoni, Rights and Wrongs in the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1968). This book has a photo of Husseini with Himmler on which Himmler has written a dedication ["Seiner Eminenz dem Grossmufti -- zur Erinnerung"] plus a pix of Husseini & Nasser.
Zvi El-Peleg, HaMufti haGadol (Tel Aviv: MOD publishing House 1989). This has the cover page of the Nazi weekly, Wiener Illustrierte which shows the Mufti saluting Muslim units of the German army [probably the Bosnian Muslim SS division] plus a few other significant pix. El-Peleg's book came out in English too but I don't know if that edition has the pix.
Martin Gilbert, Exile and Return [Philadelphia: Lippincott 1978]. This book has a pix of the Mufti shaking hands with a Nazi official wearing a swastika armband, when he arrived in Berlin.
Jennie Lebel, Haj Amin uBerlin (Tel Aviv: 1996; in Heb.) This book in Hebrew has relevant pix, inc. documents in German. Much detail here about the Mufti's collaboration with the SS in Bosnia. Jennie Lebel is/was a collateral descendant of Theodore Herzl. She used much documentation in the Serbo-Croatian language which other researchers were not capable of using.
Joseph B Schechtman, The Mufti and the Fuehrer (New York: Yoseloff 1965).

The best on line source for photos on Arab-Nazi collaboration is the site Bibliotheque Proche-Orientale [ http://aval31.free.fr/ ] in both French & English [mostly French]. It also has a link to the short video [from a film] mentioned and linked to above of the Mufti coming to his meeting with Hitler in Berlin, with soundtrack in French. This site has a lot of material on the subject of Arab-Nazi collaboration, mostly French, plus pix.

Another online source of photos of the Mufti is here: http://users11.jabry.com/mtolivesviews/muftiphotos.html
These photos come from John Roy Carlson, Cairo to Damascus (New York: Knopf 1951)

Several useful books on Arab-Nazi collaboration and Nazi influence on Arab nationalism, including the Palestinian Arab movement, are here in French & English:
Matthias Kuntzel's book with links to Amazon in English & French:
http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-Jew-Hatred-Islamism-Nazism-Roots/dp/0914386360

http://www.amazon.fr/Djihad-haine-Juifs-terrorisme-international/dp/2356310401/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322036262&sr=8-1
Matthias Küntzel: Djihad et haine des Juifs : Le lien troublant entre islamisme et nazisme à la racine du terrorisme international

http://philosemitismeblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/livre-croissant-fertile-et-croix-gammee.html
Martin Cüppers, Klaus-Michael Mallmann
Croissant fertile et croix gammée : Le Troisième Reich, les Arabes et la Palestine

http://www.amazon.fr/Nazi-Propaganda-Arab-World-Jeffrey/dp/0300168055/ref=sr_1_cc_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322036590&sr=1-3-catcorr
Jeffrey Herf
Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World

Klaus Gensicke, The Mufti of Jerusalem and the Nazis, The Berlin Years (London: Valentine Mitchell 2011)
http://www.amazon.com/Mufti-Jerusalem-Nazis-Berlin-Years/dp/0853038449/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323097866&sr=1-1

This is a very large subject that is often suppressed from school history books on World War II and the Holocaust, and from books and articles on Arab nationalism and the Middle East in WW2.

The Name "palestine" an Imperialist Imposition

2011-11-18T08:45:00.000-08:00

When the Roman empire under Emperor Hadrian had suppressed the last major Jewish revolt in the Land of Israel, the Bar Kokhba Revolt [135 CE], the Romans renamed the Province of Judea "palaestina," more exactly Syria Palaestina, using "palaestina" as an adjective and thus subordinating the country semantically to Syria. That is, as by Herodotos much earlier, Israel was seen by the Romans as a mere section of Syria, the "palestinian" section. The historian and classical archeologist, Elsa Laurenzi, affirms that although "palestine" had been used in early classical times by Herodotos [also as an adjective for what he believed was part of Syria], the term was not generally used in the Roman period until it was brought back from "the dustbin of history," so to speak, after defeat of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. I see the name change as a sign of Roman triumphalism and vindictiveness, an expression of antagonism to the vanquished Jews.

Palestine
This place name, connected with the Philistine population, is first found in the classical [Greek] sources in Herodotos [5th century BCE]. It was introduced as the official name for the region by the Romans after the events of 132-5 [CE], deliberately counterposing it to the official name Iudaea, traditionally used up to that time, in the setting of a series of repressive actions. As such it is often rejected in Jewish circles who prefer "Land of Israel."

Palestina
Questo toponimo, legato alla popolazione dei Filistei, si riscontra per la prima volta nelle fonti classiche in Erodoto (V secolo a.e.c.). E` introdotto come nome ufficiale della regione dai Romani dopo gli avventimenti del 132-5 [e.c.], contrapponendolo programmaticamente a quello di Iudaea, tradizionalmente usato fino a quel momento, nell'ambito di una serie di interventi repressivi. Come tale e` spesso respinto negli ambienti ebraici, che preferiscono "Terra di Israele." [Elsa Laurenzi, Le Catacombe ebraiche (Roma: Gangemi 2011) p22].

Again, as Laurenzi says, "palestine" was a name imposed on the country by enemies of the Jews. It was part of a series of repressive actions by imperialists who had defeated a Jewish rebellion. Nevertheless, the Romans too considerably regretted the Bar Kokhba War which had seen many Roman soldiers slain by the Jews, as the Roman Fronto pointed out. As least one full legion was wiped out, the XXII Deiotariana Legion. Maybe one more met the same end. In the view of the Bar Kokhba Revolt making such an important impact on both the Jews and the Roman Empire, it is curious that Laurenzi refers to the uprising as "the events of 132-5."

Note that in Roman usage the name Judea applied to the whole country, to all of Israel. In fact the Province of Judea and the earlier Kingdom of Judea ruled by Herod, a client king of Rome, included Samaria, Galilee, the Golan Heights, and the east bank of the Jordan River. Sometimes, as in several verses of the Christian New Testament, Judea is used in a narrow sense together with Samaria as separate regions. But this was a reflection of Jewish usage, not Roman. Jews sometimes used Judea to translate Judah [Yehudah], the ancient southern kingdom of the Israelites after the split of the monarchy.

Judea the Roman & Greek Name for Israel -- "palestine" a Later Imperialist Imposition

2011-11-17T04:37:00.001-08:00

Judea was the Roman name for the Land of Israel, for all of it, including Samaria, the Galilee, the Golan Heights and the east bank of the Jordan River. This is often forgotten today in the face of the massive propaganda campaign aimed at convincing the world that there was a historical "palestinian people" with an ancient history living in a land that what was --supposedly-- always called "palestine." We know the ancient history of the Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman periods not only from Jewish sources --which the Judeophobes prefer to view as suspect-- but also, and even more so, from Roman and Greek sources. These include Hecataeus [Hekataios] of Abdera, Varro, Alexander Polyhistor, Livy, Suetonius, Tacitus, Plutarch, Cicero, Pliny the Elder, Diodorus, Polybius, Strabo, Ptolemy, and so on. Most or nearly all of the extant writings of these authors concerning Jews are conveniently gathered in Menahem Stern's Greek and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences 1974-). Otherwise, they are also found scattered among many ancient and later manuscripts, print publications and translations. Of course, the falsifiers habitually overlook these writings, while discrediting ancient Jewish writings. After all, it would not do to have non-Jewish authors confirming what the Jews say. So they are overlooked, as said.

We have already presented documentation that the official Roman name of the Land of Israel was Judea. This place name was actually written IVDAEA in Latin and Ioudaia in Greek [as transcribed into the Latin alphabet]. We see this name on coins & military diplomas and in manuscripts, etc. The Roman Empire used the terms Iudaea and Provincia Iudaea until it defeated the Jews in the Bar Kokhba Revolt 132-135 CE. It was only after victory in that war that Emperor Hadrian imposed the name "Syria Palaestina" on the country, replacing the name Judea, as a punishment for the Jews, by renaming their very homeland so that it would no longer seem to be theirs. This may have given a certain psychological satisfaction to some of the Roman imperialists, as if their Jewish enemies had been wiped out with the name of their country.

Of course, despite today's pervasive propaganda in favor of "palestine" and "palestinian", the real scholars are aware of the true historical names in use in ancient times. Elsa Laurenzi, a historian and specialist in classical archeology at the La Sapienza University in Rome, supplies concise definitions of relevant terms. Now we will present her definition of Iudaei; in another post we will present her definition of "palestine":

Iudaei
The name Iudaei identifies the people of Israel in the Latin sources, both literary and legal. It derives from the place name [toponym] of their place of origin, Iudaea, and indicates a double identification, religious and ethnic. Its extensive spread is attested by the very permanence of the term "giudeo" [= Jew] in the Roman dialect [of Italian]. Only starting with the 6th century, with the issue of the Novelle [new laws] of Emperor Justinian, was the synonym Hebraei [Hebrews] established, which remained rare however up to Medieval Latin.

Iudaei
Il nome Iudaei identifica il popolo di Israele nelle fonti latine, tanto letterarie quanto legali; deriva dal toponimo del luogo di provenienza, la Iudaea, ed indica una doppia identificazione, religiosa ed etnica; la sua diffusione e` testimoniata dalla stessa permanenza del termine "giudeo" nel dialetto romanesco. Solo a partire dal VI secolo, con l'emanazione delle Novelle del'Imperatore Giustiniano, si afferma il sinonimo Hebraei, che rimane comunque raro fino al latino medievale. [Elsa Laurenzi, Le Catacombe ebraiche (Roma: Gangemi 2011), p 12]

Elsa Laurenzi points out that in the Roman mind, the Jews were named after their country, Judea. She adds that Emperor Justinian introduced the term Hebrews as the official name for the Jews, although --I would add-- it had been used earlier by Pausanias and others. It is interesting that in both Italian and Russian Hebrew is used today as the proper name for Jew, of course in forms specific to each language: Ebreo in Italian and Yevrey in Russian.

Euro Fools Can't Solve Their Own Problems but Tell Israel What to Do

2011-10-29T16:48:00.000-07:00

UPDATED 11-21-2011 See at bottom.

The Eurozone countries, the 17 that use the common euro currency, have failed to solve their own economic problems and their solution for Greece's debt crisis in 2010 only made the situation worse. This has been obvious for a long time. Some economists even foresaw that the solution put into practice in the Spring of 2010 would only make the situation worse. The mistakes were so obvious that even the usually rock-headed Obama supporter, Paul Krugman, sumarizes the mistakes in his column in the Int'l Herald Tribune & The New York Times.

If it weren’t so tragic, the current European crisis would be funny, in a gallows-humor sort of way. For as one rescue plan after another falls flat, Europe’s Very Serious People — who are, if such a thing is possible, even more pompous and self-regarding than their American counterparts — just keep looking more and more ridiculous.
. . . . . . . . .
at this point, Greece, where the crisis began, is no more than a grim sideshow. The clear and present danger comes instead from a sort of bank run on Italy, the euro area’s third-largest economy. Investors, fearing a possible default, are demanding high interest rates on Italian debt. And these high interest rates, by raising the burden of debt service, make default more likely.It’s a vicious circle, with fears of default threatening to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. To save the euro, this threat must be contained. But how? The answer has to involve creating a fund that can, if necessary, lend Italy (and Spain, which is also under threat) enough money that it doesn’t need to borrow at those high rates. Such a fund probably wouldn’t have to be used, since its mere existence should put an end to the cycle of fear. But the potential for really large-scale lending, certainly more than a trillion euros’ worth, has to be there. And here’s the problem: All the various proposals for creating such a fund ultimately require backing from major European governments, whose promises to investors must be credible for the plan to work. Yet Italy is one of those major governments; it can’t achieve a rescue by lending money to itself. And France, the euro area’s second-biggest economy, has been looking shaky lately, raising fears that creation of a large rescue fund, by in effect adding to French debt, could simply have the effect of adding France to the list of crisis countries. . . . You see what I mean about the situation being funny in a gallows-humor fashion? What makes the story really painful is the fact that none of this had to happen.
Think about countries like Britain, Japan and the United States, which have large debts and deficits yet remain able to borrow at low interest rates. What’s their secret? The answer, in large part, is that they retain their own currencies, and investors know that in a pinch they could finance their deficits by printing more of those currencies.
If the European Central Bank were to similarly stand behind European debts, the crisis would ease dramatically. Wouldn’t that cause inflation? Probably not: whatever the likes of Ron Paul may believe, money creation isn’t inflationary in a depressed economy. . . . . But such action, we keep being told, is off the table. The statutes under which the central bank was established supposedly prohibit this kind of thing, although one suspects that clever lawyers could find a way to make it happen. The broader problem, however, is that the whole euro system was designed to fight the last economic war. It’s a Maginot Line built to prevent a replay of the 1970s, which is worse than useless when the real danger is a replay of the 1930s.
And this turn of events is, as I said, tragic. . . . .

Yet that achievement is under threat because the European elite, in its arrogance, locked the Continent into a monetary system that recreated the rigidities of the gold standard, and — like the gold standard in the 1930s — has turned into a deadly trap. Now maybe European leaders will come up with a truly credible rescue plan. I hope so, but I don’t expect it. The bitter truth is that it’s looking more and more as if the euro system is doomed. And the even more bitter truth is that given the way that system has been performing, Europe might be better off if it collapses sooner rather than later.

[ A version of this op-ed appeared in print on October 24, 2011, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: The Hole In Europe’s Bucket.]

Those oh so clever Europeans who have solutions for everybody else's problems, can't solve their own. In Greece's case, they gave the country billions in bailout funding but left Greece to borrow money in the open market without a guarantee from the European Central Bank [ECB] or any other institution, like the IMF, that it would back up the loan repayments on Greek state bonds. Hence, the interest rate that Greece had to pay went up and up and Greece obviously could not pay back loans at 40% or higher. Moreover, the solution that the wealthier or more fiscally sound Eurozone states forced on Greece just happened to kill growth in the Greek economy. That too made it impossible for Greece to pay off debt at high interest rates on its own. How come nobody in Euroland foresaw this outcome 18 months ago? If somebody did foresee it, it was not part of the "rescue" plan for Greece. As Krugman says, the Euros took a problem and made it worse. The solution was itself a problem. The remedy made the illness worse. And the foolish Euro physicians who made the disease worse may end up by killing the patient. In light of all this, how can we trust the Euros' proposals for "solving" Israel's problems?? Are the Euro solutions for Israel meant to kill the patient?? Of course, the US State Dept's cures for Israel's problems might be just as deadly as those of the Euros.
- - - - - - - - - -
11-21-2011 Barry Rubin wonders why the EU, in the midst of its own dire economic crisis, has just increased its financial aid to the palestinian authority, headed by the corrupt Mahmoud Abbas & Salem Fayyad.
Bat Yeor offers a philosophical explanation of the European Union's Judeophobia & Arabophilia/Islamophilia [here]

Arab Prisoner of Arabs Says No Human Rights in Arab World

2011-10-18T12:00:00.000-07:00

The usual suspects, Amnesty International and UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon, have been making the expected hypocritical comparisons of Gilad Shalit's treatment to that of the 1000 Arab prisoners, including hundreds of mass murderous terrorists, who were released today in a trade for Gilad Shalit. Ban, who is supposed to be neutral as UN secretary-general, made a equivalence, just like Amnesty did. How curious!! He told Reuters today:

"I am very encouraged by the prisoner exchange today after many many years of negotiation," Secretary-General Ban told Reuters today. "The United Nations has been calling for (an end to) the unacceptable detention of Gilad Shalit and also the release of all Palestinians whose human rights have been abused all the time."[UN Watch]

Omri Ceren summarizes the Amnesty statement [here]. More pro-Hamas propaganda. That is, more propaganda that equates the mass murderers of Hamas with the civilized state of Israel:

But Amnesty’s statement on the Shalit trade, titled “Israel-Hamas prisoner swap casts harsh light on detention practices of all sides,” is a barrel-scraping embarrassment even by the organization’s notoriously low standards. The vast majority of the press release is handed over to criticizing Israeli detention policies, while a grand total of two paragraphs are spent condemning Shalit’s ordeal.

Shalit’s name does not even appear below the fifth paragraph of the 20-paragraph statement, while alleged Israeli human rights violations- relevant to the swap or not – are repeatedly noted. Israel is explicitly and twice accused of Geneva violations.

Amnesty's statement is, again, clever propaganda.

NGO Monitor explains that neither Amnesty nor the ineptly named Human Rights Watch raised its voice in over five years of Shalit's incarceration under conditions illegal by int'l law. That is, he was not allowed any visits by the Red Cross [ICRC] nor was he allowed into the sunshine nor, it seems, outdoor exercise. Apparently, he was kept underground. We know about the lack of sunshine since it has been reported that he has a Vitamin D deficiency, a result of not getting sunshine [Ayala Hasson on Israel TV Channel 1 tonight]. Other so-called "human rights groups" too failed to demand that Shalit be treated according to the international law of war regarding prisoners.

On the other hand, let's hear the testimony of an Arab --a Palestinian Arab in fact-- who was the prisoner of an Arab regime. Ashraf al-Hajouj was a physician held prisoner in Libya for 8 1/2 years by the Qaddafi regime, along with 5 Bulgarian nurses. They were all charged with deliberately inoculating 438 Libyan children with AIDS virus in the Benghazi pediatric hospital. Dr Hajouj and the nurses were released in July 2007 by the intervention of President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. Hajouj said after his release:

In the Arab world, there are no human rights. . .
En el mundo arabe no hay derechos humanos. . .
[El Pais, 26 July 2007; tambien Pagina/12]

He spoke of

the corruption that rots away at Libya and many other [Arab] countries.

Since he had been brought to Libya when he was two years old and raised there, he was bitter over how the Libyans treated him:

I always considered Libya my country. . . If [Libya and the family members of the children who got AIDS] seek the truth about the AIDS contagion, they will have to look away from us [himself and the Bulgarian nurses] because we are all innocent. [El Pais, 26 July 2007]

Al-Hajouj was apparently abandoned by the PLO/PA who did not defend him or the nurses against the silly charges of deliberately infecting the children. Nor did the Arab League defend him. So he was granted Bulgarian citizenship and went to Sofia, capital of Bulgaria, after his release. Only al-Hajouj and two of the nurses --out of five-- were well enough to talk to the press. "We have returned from hell to paradise," one of the nurses said. "Only God knows that I will show the whole world that we were always innocent," Dr al-Hajouj added. One nurse tried to commit suicide because she could not tolerate the torture she underwent, including electrical shocks. Another nurse said that their first year was the worst when the women were kept in a tiny room in a police station with one single mattress as their only furniture. In that year they were allowed four visits with diplomats from the Bulgarian embassy -- but they were not allowed to talk to the diplomats. The husband of one of the women was also living in Benghazi. He too was incarcerated but only for five years up to 2004. After that, since he was not allowed to leave the country, he stayed in the Bulgarian embassy until leaving Libya at the same time as his wife.

The five nurses and the physician were taken into the elite military hospital in Sofia for a physical and psychological check up. The director of the hospital, General Stoyan Tonev, stated that they were suffering "submarine sailors syndrome," which affects people who have lived "enclosed for a long time in small spaces under bad conditions."

So it seems that these six prisoners in Libya were held under conditions closer to those of Shalit than to those of the terrorist prisoners in Israel. But Amnesty, Ban Ki Moon and HRW want to draw a false moral equivalence between how Israel treats prisoners and how Hamas treats prisoners. Recall that Shalit was never allowed a visit by the Red Cross, as required by the international law of war.

During part of the time of the nurses' and the Arab physician's imprisonment in Libya, Libya held the chairmanship of the UN Human Rights Commission. One does not suppose that the Commission ever criticized Libya on account of how the nurses and the physician were being treated.

Obama Flunkey Leon Panetta Comes to Israel, Threatening Us with Lies

2011-10-03T09:24:00.000-07:00

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta came to Israel today to pressure Israel to make more concessions --which habitually evoke more Arab demands. Panetta's technique is to lie where he thinks it useful. Which is what Hilary and Bill Clinton do too. Not to mention Obama himself. Obama's recent speech at the UN was rather favorable to Israel, considering his past statements and positions on Israel issues. Carolyn Glick pointed out that he had merely propounded a moral equation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which for him was less hostile than past speeches on Israel. But the relatively short and sweet honeymoon is over.

Panetta came to Israel, warning/threatening Israel through reporters on his plane:

"It's pretty clear, at this dramatic time in the Middle East, when there have been so many changes, that it is not a good situation for Israel to become increasingly isolated. And that is what has happened. . . . The important thing there is to again reaffirm our strong security relationship with Israel, to make clear that we will protect their qualitative military edge. . . . As they take risks for peace, we will be able to provide the security that they will need in order to ensure that they can have the room hopefully to negotiate."
Panetta said he was confident Israel had maintained its military superiority in the region "but the question you have to ask is - is it enough to maintain an military edge if you are isolating yourself diplomatically?"
"Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength." [msnbc/Reuters 10-2-2011]

Note that Panetta demands that Israel take "risks for peace." We have been there before. We have taken risks. Or several Israeli governments and prime ministers have taken risks, ostensibly on our behalf [such as the ill-fated Oslo Accords]. That ended in blood and tears. It resulted in mass murder by unsatisfied Arab terrorists. Meanwhile, Panetta does not demand any risks from the Arabs, from the Palestinian Authority.

But he is willing for the US to help Israel keep its "qualitative military edge". This acknowledges that Israel's ostensible peace partner, the Palestinian Authority is not and will not be trustworthy once it is transformed into a state, that it may not keep the peace. That is why making concessions to the PA in exchange for "peace" means taking "risks." Now since the PA/PLO cannot be trusted to keep the peace and it continues to indoctrinate crude but effective Judeophobic hate propaganda among its population, including school children --the future generation-- then there really is no reason to take risks. But Obama and traditional State Dept policy going back to the Republican secretary of state William Rogers in 1969, has proposed a "peace" with merely "insubstantial alterations" [Rogers' words] in the pre-1967 armistice lines [the 1949 lines]. Obama is continuing the policy of Richard Nixon's secretary of state, Rogers.

Of course, Panetta warns [= threatens] Israel that it is becoming "increasingly isolated." Later in his remarks he accuses Israel: "you are isolating yourself diplomatically." This is a threat that if Israel does not do as Obama/Panetta/HClinton demand, Israel will be "increasingly isolated," since the Obama administration will make sure of it. But it would be foolish to substitute momentary approval by great powers, including a USA guided by the State Dept and Obama's ilk, for tangible security assets, which is a wooden way of saying that we need territory in mountainous Judea-Samaria for our defense, in order to have the "secure. . . boundaries" stipulated in Security Council res. 242, but also because these areas contain the ancient heartland of the Jewish homeland plus most of the age-old traditional Jewish holy places and places of great importance in Jewish/Israeli history, such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem, Herod's palace at Herodion east of Bethlehem, southeast of Jerusalem, etc. Panetta, Obama, Hilary & Bill Clinton and Co. seem not to know that all of Judea-Samaria were part of the internationally designated Jewish National Home established in international law about 90 years ago and never revoked.
A peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority allowing it to set up a state with the 1949 armistice lines as its borders would be an injustice to the Jews, not only jeopardizing their security but depriving them of their historical and religious heritage.

Israel is not necessarily becoming "increasingly isolated." Yes, Erdogan in Turkey doesn't like us and will not like us regardless of Israeli concessions to the Arabs or apologies to Turkey. We have always been "isolated" from the Arab states, when not at war with them. Yet Israel has good relations with a number of states in the Far East, Africa, South America, North America and even in Europe. Even the Arab states are now turning toward domestic and intra-Arab problems, not to mention the prospect of a nuclear Iran. However much they may detest Israel, it is not their priority concern. Despite arguments made by US diplomacy in fulfillment of the Baker-Hamilton [Iraq Study Group] Report recommendations, that the Arabs would not support action against a would-be nuclear Iran unless Israel gave the Palestinian Authority what it demanded, we have since learned from Wikileaks that a nuclear Iran was a greater concern for several important Arab govts than Israel was. So describing Israel as "increasingly isolated" was not a description of the real world but a threat of what would happen to Israel if it did not follow Obama/State Dept policy.

Panetta did utter a true statement. He said that "real security" needs both strong diplomacy and military power. This is true as a generalization. But applying Panetta's principle of Israeli "risks for peace" would not achieve "real security" but would lessen it.

The only thing positive in Panetta's remarks was that he states that a Middle East peace cannot be achieved through the UN but only through negotiations.
- - - - - - -
Panetta confirms pro-PA/PLO policy in talks in Ramallah [here]. Mahmud Abbas repeats demand for Israel to surrender before negotiations.
Panetta warns against unilateral attacks on Iran [here, contains a video of Panetta's remarks]. Does that mean that the USA under Obama doesn't want to disrupt or have anyone else disrupt, the Iranian nuclear bomb program? It probably does mean that which would be in line with previous policy.
In the video Panetta states: "I want to emphasize that there is a need and an opportunity for bold action on both sides to move towards a negotiated two state solution. There is no alternative to negotiations." "Bold action" usually means Israeli concessions. But here Panetta calls for "bold action on both sides." That may be a slight pro-Israel nuance. But in his visit to Ramallah, Panetta seemed to reaffirm support for the PLO/PA, as Saeb Erikat reported on the visit. Panetta also said that the Obama administration would not follow Congress in stopping funding of the PLO/PA over its unilateral endeavor to have a state recognized through the UN without negotiating with Israel. But if there is no funding cut off, how can Panetta and Obama bring about a PLO/PA return to direct negotiations with Israel? Will they adopt the PLO/PA's preconditions for negotiations as their own? These demands are, as is well known, a full, immediate stop to what the PLO/PA calls settlement activity, as well as accepting Obama's demand of May 19, 2011, that negotiations be based on the pre-1967 armistice lines with land swaps, which is essentially the 1969 Rogers Plan as an explicit demand.
More on Panetta in Israel [here]
Jonathan Tobin comments on Panetta's demand that Israel take "risks for peace." Tobin essentially agrees with me on this point [here].
Michael Rubin reports that the US State Dept gave Ahmadinejad's son and daughter-in-law visas to come to New York for the UN General Assembly meeting with Dad. This is relevant in view of Panetta's urging that no unilateral attack on Iran be undertaken by anyone, certainly not by Israel. It also shows the State Dept's role in being cordial to barbarians. [here]

abu mazen & erdogan --classic Muslim diplomacy updated to the 21st Century

2011-09-19T13:11:00.000-07:00

UPDATINGS see at bottom

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

Everyone has heard of how Abu Mazen, head of the sinister Fatah party/terrorist group and now of the Palestinian Authority, an outgrowth of the illegitimate Oslo Accords, is appealing to the UN to recognize another Arab state to be called "palestine," whereas there are already too many Arab states cluttering the map as it is. In appealing for recognition of a state without Israel's agreement, having refused to negotiate with Israel for three years, Abu Mazen is violating the Oslo Accords signed by the PLO and Israel, as well as UN SC resolution, 242. The OsloII Accords had stipulated that neither side was to change the status of the territories in dispute by unilateral action. Yet that is what Abu Mazen [= Mahmoud Abbas] is trying to do.

Likewise, Erdogan, Islamist prime minister of Turkey, is showing contempt for international law and even the UN. Erdogan has demanded an Israeli apology for killing nine Turkish jihadist thugs on the Mavi Marmara who had murderously attacked Israeli naval commandos boarding the ship while enforcing the rightful blockade of the Gaza Strip. Indeed, the UN Palmer Commission found that the blockade was right and proper and that the Turkish IHH jihadist terrorist group --to which the thugs belonged-- had received help and encouragement from its own govt. Erdogan disregards all that, demanding an Israeli apology for killing the thugs plus an end to the rightful blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza, plus pecuniary compensation for the victims' [the jihadists'] families. After release of the Palmer Report, Erdogan threatened to send Turkish warships to escort "humanitarian aid" ships on the way to Gaza, this time threatening to break the blockade by direct military force.

But Erdogan does not stop with Israel. He threatened Cyprus not to carry out explorations for oil and natural gas in its own exclusive maritime economic zone, justifying these threats by self-invented international law. Supposedly if Cyprus drilled for oil and gas, that would violate the rights [Note that term "rights" again used to justify threats of war!] of Turkish Cypriots in the Turkish occupation zone of northern Cyprus. So Turkey's dubiously legal occupation zone in northern Cyprus [covering about 35-40% of the island] becomes a pretext used to justify threats made on Cypriot drilling off the southern coast of the island!!

But the best comes last!! Turkey is now threatening the EU --those wonderful, world-scale peacemongers-- that if they allow fellow EU member, Cyprus, to assume the rotating EU presidency for three months in its turn, then Turkey will freeze relations [or maybe break relations --it's not clear] with the EU. This was reported by Anatolian News, the Turkish state news agency. He also issued another condition: that peace negotiations over Cyprus must be concluded by July 2012, when Cyprus is supposed to rise to the presidency. Otherwise Erdogan will freeze relations [see Il Giornale qui]. What this implies is that negotiations must be concluded to Erdogan's satisfaction. He must be satisfied with the resulting agreement --or else!! We don't know whether or not the corrupt EU, caught up in its own Judeophobia, as well as in the cobweb of a Eurabia of its own making, will withstand this ultimatum.

What we do see is how Erdogan's methods parallel Abu Mazen's. Abbas is the one who stopped negotiating with Israel. That occurred three years ago when the corrupt and pliable Olmert was prime minister. Yet Abu Mazen now blames Israel for the lack of negotiations, while he demands Israeli capitulation to his terms and conditions before negotiations even begin, whereas settlements, for instance, were supposed to be a final status issue left for final status negotiations, not for unilateral declaration of a state [which is indeed tantamount to a declaration of war]. Likewise, Erdogan basically demands that the EU force capitulation to his demands on the part of Cyprus, otherwise. . .

Abu Mazen now has Britain, France, and the EU's foreign affairs commissioner, the veddy Bwitish Catherine Ashton [Baroness Ashton no less!!] urging Israel to accept a "compromise" not contained in previous agreements, and promising the PLO/PA other goodies if he plays the good boy at the UN and doesn't ask for more than they are ready to give him at this time [maybe in six months. . . ]. Just this morning, 20 September 2011, the international media announced that Abu Mazen was ready to negotiate at any time with Netanyahu, thus responding to Netanyahu's previous proposal to meet with Abu Mazen in New York around the UN session and start negotiating there. However, Saeb Erikat, Abbas' spokesman and designated chief of negotiations for the PLO/PA, made it clear that Israel would have to accept at least two pre-conditions before Mahmud Abbas would meet him, 1) immediately freeze all settlement activity; 2) accept the so-called "67 borders" [= 1949-1967 armistice lines] as borders. Of course, it was agreed by the PLO/PA on several occasions that these two issues would be left for negotiations.

Note that the arbitrary, bullying style of Erdogan matches that of Mahmud Abbas who also violates signed agreements at will, makes extravagant demands for /observance of/adhesion to/ already concluded accords and/or chisels away at existing agreements in order to improve his position, and threatens war on suitable occasions, backs down if the prey/enemy becomes aroused, etc. [Erdogan backed down slightly on some of his threats]. This kind of behavior thus is not restricted to Turkey's Erdogan or to the PLO/PA's Abu Mazen. Rather it seems like a widespread pattern of Muslim diplomatic behavior. This is because many recent Arab and Muslim non-Arab leaders, like saddam hussein, Nasser, hafiz assad, arafat, erdogan, A-jad, Qadafi, Ibn Saud, share the notable traits of Rodomonte, an Arab character in the Italian epic poem, Orlando Furioso, and later in the operas Orlando Furioso [Vivaldi] & Orlando Paladino [Haydn]. He is full of braggadoccio [often called after him, rodomontade], he makes threats [think of Saddam hussein's "the sea will run red with American blood," --the "mother of all battles,"], he obeys no law --so it seems--, is totally arrogant, lawless, unrestrained, contemptuous of others, etc. He is described as a hyperbolic character, his deeds and actions and undertakings are hyperbolic. Erdogan fits or wants to fit into that mold.

Rodomonte: figlio di Alieno e re di Sargel nell’Algeria. . . . Rodomonte possiede doti fisiche sovrumane, è un personaggio iperbolico, e iperbolici sono i suoi gesti, le sue azioni, le sue imprese.

Again, these tactics are not Erdogan's or Abu Mazen's. They are Standard Operating Procedure for Muslim strong men. They demand concessions before negotiations. They demand what they had agreed not to demand. They cry "injustice", "aggression" and threaten, they set loose a shower of lies of all sorts, lies about history --current, medieval & modern-- lies affirming atrocities, including the most bizarre [that Israel gave aphrodisiac substances to Arab young women & teen age girls, etc]. They have to be bribed to get them to do what they had already agreed to do. Abu Mazen uses these same tactics with his approach to the UN and the associated demands. He violates the Oslo accords, refuses to negotiate and accuses Israel of refusing to negotiate. And many MSM organs, such as CNN [by its kevin flowers] and France24 go along with this crap [by allowing Mustafa Barghouti offer his smorgasbord of lies]. But this is SOP. Negotiating with Muslims/especially Arabs is always an exasperating exercise.

As the blogger J E Dyer points out, Erdogan's "objective is to make what Cyprus was going to do anyway -- and what is none of his business -- the subject of negotiation, because that gives Turkey an officially acknowledged veto. Think of it as leveraging himself into an imperial situation, by acquiring an ever-larger region over which he holds an acknowledged veto on one thing or another."
This is a pattern of diplomacy that I've noticed on the part not only of Erdogan and Abu Mazen, but of Iran and Pakistan and Indonesia, all Muslim states, although Hitler used some of these methods in the 1930s, before WW2 began. He too threatened war but promised peace if only -- if only he were given suitable bribes in the form of territory -- The Saarland, Sudetenland, Danzig, Memel, etc.
- - - - - - -

Other Views on PLO/PA UDI:
Previous post by Eliyahu m'Tsiyon [here& here&here]
Gov Rick Perry in the JPost [here]
Alan Baker & Dan Diker [here]
Rick Richman [here]
Evelyn Gordon [here]
Michael Rubin [here]
A summary in French reminding us of how the PLO/PA is violating prior agreements and commitments, & how EU member states will be violating an EU commitment if they vote for PLO/PA UDI. This is quoted from an open letter to the President of the French Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy, from the Marseille chapter of the pro-Israel group, Association France-Israel --General Koenig. French original follows the English translation:
"All the resolutions by international bodies (UN resolution 242 and those that reiterate its terms) and the treaties made between the parties in the framework of the Oslo accords refer the settlement of differences and the working out of solutions to negotiations between the parties. Moreover, the European Union --that includes France-- is a co-signatory and guarantor of the 1995 Interim Accords, called Oslo 2, which reaffirm the principle of negotiation between the parties and forbid unilateral initiatives like the one that the Palestinian officials in Ramallah now want to promote.

"It is up to you to work to ensure the fidelity of the European Union to its own signature."

Toutes les résolutions des instances internationales (la résolution 242 de l'ONU et celles qui reprennent les termes) et les traités passés entre les parties dans le cadre des accords d'Oslo renvoient le règlement des différends et l'élaboration de solutions à des négociations entre les parties. De plus, l'Union européenne, - elle implique la France -, est co-signataire et garante de l'application des Accords intérimaires de 1995, dits "Oslo 2", qui réaffirment ce principe de négociation entre les parties et prohibent les initiatives unilatérales comme celle que les responsables palestiniens de Ramallah veulent aujourd'hui promouvoir.

Il vous appartient d'œuvrer pour assurer la fidélité de l'Union européenne à sa propre signature.

The Iranian ambassador to Egypt says that Abu Mamzer's UDI gambit at the UN is a step toward destroying Israel [here][thanx Isreallycool].
9-27-2011 Erdogan's bodyguards attack UN guards [here] -- and a wonderful time was had by all.

Mahmud Abbas' Comrades Set Up Oriana Fallaci to Be Blown Apart -- Give Them a State!!

2011-09-12T04:27:00.000-07:00

The Euro Thugs are collaborating with the fake "moderates" led by Mahmud Abbas to upgrade the PLO/PA's status against Israel.

France and Spain, along with the European Union's high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Catherine Ashton, are in advanced stages of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority over a "package deal" that will enable the 27 member states of the EU to vote at the United Nations General Assembly in favor of upgrading the PA to the status of a non-permanent member of the UN.

The Europeans are also trying to gain the United States' agreement to abstain from the vote and continue its financial aid to the Palestinians, in return for a promise by PA President Mahmoud Abbas not to take Israel to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Three senior European diplomats involved in the negotiations told Haaretz that the PA president had informed the EU of his decision not to turn to the UN Security Council on September 20 and request that Palestine be accepted as a full member of the organization.

Abbas, who realizes that the United States will exercise its veto power at the Security Council, has decided to turn to the UN General Assembly, whose resolutions are less binding, in order to seek the support of the European Union member states in the vote.

Abbas is expected to meet in Cairo today with Ashton, who is in charge of the EU's foreign policy, and with the foreign ministers of the Arab League Monitoring Committee. During both meetings the diplomatic deal being worked out will be discussed. [HaArets, 9-12-2011]

But who does Mahmud Abbas represent? He was one of the top leaders of Fatah for years under arafat's overall leadership. And what is Fatah? What do they represent? Do they represent hope for a better world perhaps? Or hope for barbarism perhaps? The late Oriana Fallaci, the noted Italian journalist, had good reason to hate and despise Fatah:

. . . come stroll with me along the Street of Contempt that Muslims harbor for women. A contempt that I experienced even in circumstances when it would have been justified to expect at least a little humanity. In 1973, I experienced it in a unit of Palestinian fedayin who were being hosted at that time in Jordan by King Hussein. The only civilized, simpatico leader that I met in the Islamic world of today, aside from Ali Bhutto. (. . .)
And here is the story of my experience with the Palestinian fedayin. One night the secret base of that unit was struck by a violent aerial raid by the Israelis. When the first bombs fell, everybody started to run towards the solid refuge offered by a cave across a field, and I did the same. But in front of the entrance the commander stopped me. He grunted that to allow a woman to be elbow to elbow with his men would be an obscenity, an insult to Allah. He then ordered two deputy commanders to install me somewhere else. And guess where those evildoers locked me up? In an isolated shack, a wooden shed used to store explosives. I only realized this when I lit a match in order to understand where I was. The flame illuminated dozens of boxes with the inscription: "Explosives-Dynamite-Explosives." But the worst was not even in this detail. It was in the fact that they had not locked me up there out of stupidity or haste or by mistake. They locked me up there on purpose. In order to enjoy themselves. Almost that the chance of seeing me blown into the air because of the explosion of a bomb was the funniest thing in the world. In fact, after the raid, they all split their sides laughing, scornfully laughing with pleasure: "We never had such fun. We never had such a good time." [Oriana Fallaci, La Rabbia e l'Orgoglio (Milano 2004), pp 111-112; English title: The Rage and the Pride; in הזעם והגאווה, the Hebrew edition, pp 87-88]

But doesn't the EU know what the Fatah really stands for? That the Fatah has not changed its stripes since they obtained a mini-state in Judea-Samaria in 1974? I'm sure that the EU does know all of these things. But their hatred for Jews leads them to pretend that Fatah is ready to live at peace with Israel. It is not only the Fatah/PLO/PA that has not changed, the major EU states, UK, France, Germany have not changed their basic hatred for Jews since Hitler was forced to abandon Auschwitz.

Moreover, the EU support for Fatah [= PLO/PA] tells us that the EU does not honor agreements with Israel. Just as European states did not honor the rights of their own Jewish citizens before and during the Holocaust --when Hitler told them that Jews have no rights that Europe is bound to honor-- the EU spits on international law that supports Israel's rights, allies with Israel's bloodthirsty Arab enemies, and does not care that Arabs honor the accords that they made with Israel, such as the Oslo accords, the Israel-Egypt treaty, etc. The Arabs are tools for satisfying the genocidal urges towards Jews of leading EU member states.

- - - - - -
Previous links on the PLO/PA UDI on Emet m'Tsiyon [here & here]
Raison Garder has issued an important statement [in French] on the PLO/PA UDI. Here is the title:

UNE DECLARATION DE GUERRE TRAVESTIE

EN DEMANDE DE RECONNAISSANCE

Nous sommes à la veille d’une intense campagne de propagande qui vise à pousser les opinions et les gouvernements européens à soutenir la demande unilatérale de reconnaissance d’un Etat de Palestine à l’O.N.U.

Nous sommes inquiets devant la décision à venir de la France et de l’Union Européenne.

This statement correctly identifies the PLO/PA UDI as a declaration of war disguised as a request for recognition.

A Declaration of War -- The "Palestinian Authority's" UDI [unilateral declaration of independence] Gambit at the UN

2011-09-08T09:42:00.000-07:00

UPDATED 10-2-2011 at bottom

Barry Rubin points out that the PA/PLO's gambit of asking the UN --whether the Security Council or General Assembly is secondary-- to approve an Arab state in the Land of Israel without negotiating borders and other issues with Israel could lead to a lot of violence and violates all prior agreements with Israel as well --I would add-- as violating Security Council resolutions 242 & 338 that call for Israel and its Arab neighbors to negotiate the issues between them in order to make peace. I will quote from 242 at the end [338 is just a reconfirmation of 242] so that readers can see that the PLO/PA is violating the Security Council's own resolutions that are supposed to be binding, according to the UN charter.

Bear in mind that if borders are not agreed on with Israel, then the PLO/PA will be declaring a state which will spread over land that rightly belongs to Israel or --in any event-- is claimed by Israel or perhaps their own declaration will be phrased in such a way as to claim all of Israel --all the land from the Jordan to the sea. This is what the PLO did in its 1988 Algiers Declaration --its previous declaration of a state-- by implication. Now, if today's PLO/PA claims any land that Israel also claims and that can be shown to already belong to Israel or is claimed by Israel, then a PLO/PA UDI [unilateral declaration of independence] will essentially be a declaration of war.

Rubin starts by quoting from the cynical and amoral Obama henchman, Rahm Emanuel:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” –Rahm Emanuel

By Barry Rubin

One of the amazing things about the amazing incompetence of the Obama Administration is that we’ve become so accustomed to it that we take for granted things that would have made opinion makers during past presidencies clutch the upper left side of their chests and collapse, writhing in agony.

Or to put it another way, if an Obama policy falls in the public arena and the mass media acts deaf will anyone say: “OMG! Can this really be happening?” Well, I will follow Rahm Emanuel’s advice and hope that this serious crisis could be for this administration an “opportunity…to do things you think you could not do before” or to start looking for a new policymaker.

Consider that the United States is on the verge of a foreign policy disaster that could easily have been averted by proper statecraft. The Palestinian Authority (PA, technically speaking, along with its Hamas partner) is about to demand that the United Nations break every Israel-Palestinian agreement over almost twenty years, destroy any possibility of serious future negotiation, reward Palestinian intransigence, and generally make a mess of the Middle East.

The specific issue is recognition of a Palestinian state as existing right now. The result, as I’ve outlined previously, would be catastrophic and don’t let anyone get away with pretending that this isn’t a bad thing or won’t make much difference.

A “normal” U.S. policy would have begun pressing the PA to back down from this strategy almost a year ago, when PA leaders began talking about it. Rather than take quick action—or, indeed, punish, pressure, or even criticize the PA for anything it did—the Obama Administration stood by and made disapproving murmurs from time to time.

We are now facing the consequences of the policy of: let’s be weak so people will like us; leading from behind; not rewarding friends or punishing enemies,; refusing to use U.S. leverage (Turkey votes against sanctions on Iran? Let’s put them in charge of Syria’s future!); and generally letting other countries walk all over the United States. I’d love to list other examples of similar issues here but don’t want to take your time so you can fill in the additional details.

Now, the cloud once the size of a man’s hand has turned into a more serious big brother of Hurricane Irene. If you don’t mind my mixing hurricanes, think of U.S. foreign policy as New Orleans.

A colleague suggests that the administration is now panicked. I think it isn’t panicking but should be. A sign of not understanding the magnitude of the problem is that it is only now starting to do what should have begun around September 2010, not September 2011. If you are a U.S. citizen living in a Muslim-majority country you might think about what you will be doing later this month.

As a result, the United States has no leverage over the PA, a client that depends on Washington for any possibility of actual peace, having a real state, and paying its bills. Equally, it has no leverage over virtually any other country in the world in terms of voting on this issue. America has been transformed from superpower to super-cower, begging the PA to take pity on it and back down from an obviously successful strategy.

I love the way the New York Times’ article puts it:

“The Obama administration has initiated a last-ditch diplomatic campaign to avert a confrontation this month over a plan by Palestinians recognition as a state at the United Nations. It may already be too late, according to senior American officials and foreign diplomats.”

Yes, it might also be too late—just maybe—to stop the American Civil War or prevent the 1929 stock market crash. What the Obama Administration has done is to:

–Propose a new round of PA talks with Israel.

–Made clear that it will veto the PA bid in the Security Council.

This is about the most serious threat since a small mammal (I don’t want to offend anyone by mentioning its precise species) told the Big Bad Wolf not to blow down its house of straw and eat him or he’d bleed all over the Wolf’s clothes.

First, the PA doesn’t want negotiations with Israel. It has been rejecting talks for two years, even refusing them during a requested Israeli freeze of construction on West Bank settlements, even when an east Jerusalem freeze was added to it. The PA also rejected talks within minutes after Obama laid his personal prestige on the line in September 2009 to announce a high-level summit at Camp David.

Let’s face it: these people don’t want serious negotiations. Why? Because they don’t want a peace agreement with Israel; they want a state unfettered by concessions or compromise so they can pursue total victory and Israel’s destruction. (There’s nothing “right-wing” about that conclusion. All the facts point to it and only wishful thinking says differently.)

As for the U.S. vetoing the proposal, what does the PA care about that? It will mainly hurt the United States. There will be a vote in the General Assembly with a margin of support for the PA (cowardly Western democracies which know the idea is terrible will abstain and let the United States take the heat) similar to the size of the majority in the U.S. Congress supporting a declaration endorsing Mother’s Day. Second, there will probably be anti-American riots throughout the Muslim-majority world. Any good done by Obama’s almost three-year-long effort to make Arab and Muslims like him will be cancelled out.

Fortunately, though, Obama doesn’t hold a grudge, at least against foreign enemies who “diss” him and America.

I know that I’ve tried to be entertaining here through the use of sarcasm and humor. But my warning and critique are not exaggerated. This was an avoidable crisis and will be much worse than almost anyone recognizes.

The non-EPA approved icing on the cake is that afterward the Obama Administration will do absolutely nothing to the PA or to affect negatively those who voted for it which will, of course, encourage additional acts of diplomatic hostility and real world disasters of this type. The Obama Administration’s apparent motto is expressed by wearing a large sign that says, “Kick me.” Unfortunately, the object being kicked isn’t the personal property of the chief executive but belongs to the United States of America.
- - - - end of Rubin article [see at Pajamas Media here]- - - - -

UN Security Council resolution 242 [relevant excerpts]:
The Security Council
. . . .
Affirms that the fulfillment of [UN] Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace. . .
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of force. . . .
Requests the Secretary-General to . . . promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement. . . --end--

Obviously, a declaration of a state that has not obtained the agreement of Israel violates the Security Council's principle of agreement and is not likely to be peaceful and accepted, nor is it likely to lead to a just and lasting peace. In addition, secure. . . boundaries refers to defensible borders. Otherwise, indefensible borders can tempt a belligerent power that wants to land from another state to go to war. Not only do the PLO/PA reject secure boundaries for Israel but by refusing to negotiate boundaries with Israel and by implicitly or explicitly claiming all of the land from the Jordan to the sea, the PLO/PA is rejecting peace with Israel. It is important to note that Obama himself, in his notorious May 19, 2011, speech, also rejected secure boundaries for Israel by demanding that Israel agree to go back to the very insecure 1949 armistice lines [he said "1967 lines"]. Let us bear in mind that those insecure lines tempted Jordan, Egypt and Syria to instigate war on Israel in June 1967. Curiously, Jordan is now warning against a PLO/PA UDI which it believes will be negative for Jordan. Jordan has also stated that it would vote against the UDI in the General Assembly.

Furthermore, whereas Rubin addresses the likely real world outcomes and causes of a PLO/PA UDI, we ought to also mention the injustice that it would represent. Here is an immoral, unjust, murderous entity, speaking in the name of a people that no one had heard of 100 years ago, that now demands a state without negotiating with Israel. Indeed the Arab leadership in the Land of Israel [Arab Higher Committee] had denied the very existence of a country called "palestine" in testimony in 1946 before the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry on Palestine. And in the name of this entity, invented apparently by psychological warfare/cognitive warfare experts after Israel's reestablishment as a state in 1948, a new state might be recognized in the name of a people that did not exist in history. And this injustice is being perpetrated against the Jews, oppressed, exploited, humiliated and reviled for centuries in both Christendom and Islam.
- - - - - - - - -
10-2-2011 Emanuele Ottolenghi discusses the PLO/PA's UDI gambit at the UN [here]. Ottolenghi, Jerry Gordon, & Mike Bates in discussion. Ottolenghi points out the PLO/PA side refuses to negotiate, instead making impossible demands for pre-conditions.

Is Israel Being Alinskyed or Greenberg-Carvilled?

2011-09-05T14:31:00.000-07:00

UPDATING 9-8-2011 at bottom
Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.

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

Stanley Greenberg is the brains behind the current Israeli "social protest." This has emerged through a recent report by Israeli investigative journalist, Kalman Libeskind of Ma`ariv [כאן], and was suggested in an opinion piece by Dror Eyder in Yisrael haYom about six weeks ago [7-29-2011; weekend supplement, p7]. Greenberg is a pollster and political strategist close to the Clinton White House, less so to Obama. His PR and political strategy firm took part in giving BP a clean, "green" ["environmentally friendly"] image, even winning over eco organizations, whereas BP in fact was less concerned about safety violations in its quest for profits than were other oil companies. It was BP that did much to cause last year's offshore oil platform explosion in the Gulf of Mexico which resulted in an environmental disaster.

The astute commentator and blogger, J.E. Dyer, wrote an excellent piece on the Greenberg connection and the reality of the "protest movement" in Israel. Here are parts of it:

Is Israel Being Alinskyed … or just Greenberg-Carvilled?

An MSNBC news spot on The Weather Channel (TWC) this morning caught my attention. Out of the blue, for no apparent reason, the news announcer informed his audience that thousands had taken to the streets in Israel this weekend to protest the high cost of living. It was, he said, the eighth week of protests there.

TWC is usually about as interested in foreign social-protest news as Sports Illustrated. In fact, street demonstrations abroad basically have to bleed if they’re going to lead in the American mainstream media. People are out demonstrating around the globe all the time, and the average American hears about it only if he frequents the right specialty websites. I couldn’t help noticing these few out-of-place sentences on Israel, because they were so unusual.

What possessed NBC-Universal properties MSNBC and TWC to feature protests in Israel in their news coverage this morning? That’s an interesting question. It is not, shall we say, made less interesting by the report of Maariv’s Kalman Libeskind, referenced by Arutz Sheva on 3 September, that American Democratic strategist Stanley Greenberg orchestrated the protests in Israel’s major cities this weekend.

According to the report:

Greenberg directed the strategists to create a protest that was not led by one specific group, in order to create social ferment. An unnamed left-wing leader would eventually step into this ferment and take the reins, Greenberg predicted.

The Israeli strategists reportedly include Boaz Gaon, Moshe Gaon and Eldad Yaniv, who worked in Ehud Barak’s successful race for Prime Minister in 1999, also in cooperation with Greenberg.

Greenberg, who advised Bill Clinton on campaign strategy in the 1990s (and Al Gore and John Kerry in their campaigns), runs the Democratic strategy firm Democracy Corps with James Carville and Bob Shrum. He’s also a pollster with his own research firm, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. Married to Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), he gained national fame for providing living quarters for Rahm Emanuel rent-free for five years. He acquired additional notoriety for spearheading the effort to rebrand British Petroleum as the Greenest Big Oil Company in the Whole Entire Universe.

That’s the yada-yada most websites have on this today. What I haven’t seen yet is an analogy to the fascinating project undertaken by the Greenberg-Carville firm in the Bolivian presidential election in 2002, when they were known as GCS. The company was hired by incumbent president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada (“Goni”) to run his reelection campaign, an essay in expeditionary politics that was captured in a documentary released in 2005 called Our Brand is Crisis.

. . . . . . . . .
Given that Stanley Greenberg is one of this group’s leading lights, it should be no surprise that his approach, in enriching Israeli politics again in 2011, is to “create social ferment” so that an “unnamed left-wing leader” could step in and take the reins. The country’s falling apart, so who will the Israelis turn to? Libeskind seems to think Ehud Barak is being positioned as the turn-to guy – and given Greenberg’s connection with his 1999 campaign and the trio of Barak advisers, that doesn’t appear to be a bad guess.

Israel isn’t falling apart, of course. Commentators there have had a healthy suspicion of the organizing force behind the series of protests, which started in mid-summer with demonstrations against the high cost of housing in the major cities. In early August, Caroline Glick cited the work of Israeli bloggers in uncovering the following facts:

[A]s a handful of bloggers have shown, more than eighty percent of the protest leaders are professional far Left activists. For instance, Maariv bloggers Uri Redler and Rotem Sela researched the affiliation of all the speakers at the July 23rd rally in Tel Aviv. They found that out of 27 speakers, 21 are known leftist activists affiliated with Hadash, the communist party, with Meretz, with the New Israel Fund, with the Nationalist Left proto-party, and with the anarchists.

Redler and Sela also exposed that several “grassroots,” leaders are in fact professional political operatives affiliated with communist politicians and radical pressure groups. For instance, an activist named Tzika Bashour announced on Facebook that he would begin a general strike on August 1. Yediot Ahronot and Ynet covered his move as an authentic call of distress by an Average Joe.

The papers failed to mention that Bashour is a public relations executive who ran communist MK Dov Hanin’s campaign for the Tel Aviv mayoralty.

None of this means housing costs aren’t insane in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, or that Israelis don’t have legitimate beefs. But with a little professional spadework, the blogging community has demonstrated that the “popular protests” look a lot like the ones orchestrated by the usual-suspect organizers in the United States; i.e., “Astroturf.”

Israeli-in-the-street bloggers aren’t buying the “social justice paroxysm” theme either. Jerusalem Diaries is typical in reporting that the “protesters” out this weekend were mainly out for a nice time on a summer evening, with friends and food headlining the “protest.” The Muqata called the demonstration in Tel Aviv the city’s “biggest block party ever.” The socially-fermenting events featured well-publicized pop music and crowds snarfing down all the beer, cappuccinos, pizza, and puu-puus they could get their hands on. There are highly organized professional malcontents manning these protests, certainly, but not an enraged citizenry ready to man the barricades and go to the mattresses with the Netanyahu government.

In light of this array of facts and associations, it’s no real surprise that Greenberg & Co participated in the 2006 Take Back America Conference sponsored by Campaign for America’s Future, an organization closely connected to the Apollo Alliance and funded by major unions, MoveOn.org, and the Tides Foundation [The Tides Foundation is funded by George Soros -- note by Eliyahu].

. . . . . . . .

[Greenberg has a] manipulative, media-theme-building approach to politics. . . . He doesn’t have a history of being anti-Zionist; that’s not the point here. Although he bills himself as a triangulating, “Third Way” centrist, his affiliations are very much with professional left-wing manipulators of public sentiment, and that is how he comes off in the latest instance with the protests in Israel.

To the question, “Why now? Why in the summer of 2011?” the obvious answer would be, “Because the UN vote on Palestinian statehood is coming up in September.” But I don’t assess Greenberg to be a mastermind here. He’s a hired strategist. His specialty is positioning politicians to be the turn-to guy. Something else is going on. As usual, the fact that GE-owned NBC networks are pointedly reporting faux “social ferment” as if it’s the real thing suggests a manufactured-news campaign. Rockets from Gaza aren’t the only thing coming at Israel as the UN vote nears.

- - - - - - end of JE Dyer article - - - - - [read it all here] - - - - - -

UPDATING 9-8-2011
The novelist David Grossman is a hero of the Israeli "Left" or anti-national camp. I personally see him as one of our very own Vichyites. Be that as it may, speaking during a book tour in Paris on the occasion of publication of one of his books in French, he showed how sneaky, cynical and sinister he is when it comes to politics. He wants the protest movement's leaders to hide their real goals until the time is ripe, perhaps for a putsch or coup d'etat. Note that our great humanitarian is eager to throw more than 500,000 Jews out of their homes. In the name of peace, of course. He also extols the value of solidarity. This obviously does not mean solidarity with Jews --especially Jews who live where he and the Arab Islamofascists and the pan-Arabists do not want them to live.
Quoting from the Walla site:
The Israeli writer David Grossman believes that the social protest must . . . transform into a substantial political force and leverage its public success. . .
"At the moment there is a consensus among all the participants in this protest not to speak of politics. . . But I believe that soon all these marchers will become a political force because this protest cannot remain a matter of good will alone. It must become a political means that will finally ask where did the money go, where did all those billions go over the years. The answer is that most of it went to the settlements, the settlers, and the army [A FALSE CLAIM] that defends the settlements that are a distorted situation and in any event will be evacuated in a future peace accord with the Palestinians."
Grossman indicated that, "Now is not a good time to speak of politics and the occupation because the moment that they start to talk about it, the support for the protest will go down by hundreds of percentage points." He added: "Finally Israelis are going out of their houses in masses, more than 400,000 [INFLATED NO.], so it's a positive thing to put differences aside because what we see here is a society that is trying to return to the values that built it, first of all the value of solidarity. . . . to take the bold step towards an accord [with the Palestinian Arabs]."
. . .
[Grossman also stated]: "To this day, the Arabs have really not yet recognized the Jews' right to live here and maintain a state of their own. We must not forget this. Therefore, we must have a strong army."

Once Respected French Monthly Descends to the Level of Propaganda Rag

2011-08-25T06:00:00.001-07:00

Radio Paris ment, Radio Paris est allemand.
[Slogan of the Free French during WW2 -- Paris Radio lies,
Paris Radio is German--rhymes in French]

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

Once upon a time when reason was more prevalent in the world than nowadays, Le Monde Diplomatique provided intelligent commentary and important facts about contemporary events, going into depth about various subjects. However, over the years Mondiplo --said to be linked to the French foreign ministry-- became more and more the captive and the vehicle of simplistic slogans about the "Third World", "palestine liberation" and such. Now it takes an outrageously simplistic anti-Israel stance, at the cost of making itself ridiculous. As the Free French and the French Resistance used to say during the German occupation of France, Paris Radio lies, Paris Radio is German [Radio Paris ment, Radio Paris est allemand -- rhyming in French] we may say today: Mondiplo Lies, Mondiplo resembles Nazi propaganda.

Is that unfair? Consider a headline in Le Monde Diplomatique [English ed. translated from the French--February 2007]: "Jerusalem's Apartheid Tramway." This headline is used although nothing in the article justifies it. Now, more than four years after the agitprop article appeared, the tram has begun service and Jews and Arabs are riding the tram in the same cars. And the tram stops in Arab neighborhoods, Beyt Hanina and Shu`afat [two stops] as well as near Damascus Gate where it can serve both Jews and Arabs. Indeed, Arabs ride the tram and wait at the stops in Arab neighborhoods. I rode the tram southbound yesterday and stood next to an Arab woman and her two daughters. They got on in Shu`afat neighborhood and were standing next to me. Interestingly, they were not wearing head coverings. The mother was relaxed but the older, teenaged daughter --dressed in tight pants and with painted fingernails-- was looking around in a very suspicious way, maybe to see if we had horns. Since the tram was air-conditioned, I didn't mind standing.

How do the mendacious journalists for LeMondeDiplomatique [English ed.] get to defining the tram as an "apartheid tramway"?? Their reasoning is strikingly flawed. They quote an Israeli official spokesman as saying that: "the tram must serve the Jewish quarters (Israel’s politically correct term for settlements) such as Pisgat Ze’ev, as well as Arab quarters like Shu’fat." They do not deny that Arabs would be allowed to ride the tram but speculate if Arabs will be able to afford to travel on it. Then they insinuate apartheid or what used to be called jimcrow in America: "How will the settlers react to seeing Arabs travelling on the tram? One person we spoke to wondered whether there should be separate carriages for Arabs and Israelis." This is all speculation at best, contradicting the pains taken by the Israeli spokesman to explain the intention to make the tram available to all. Yet the Mondiplo authors insinuate the possbility of apartheid. Nevertheless, despite having no real grounds to claim "apartheid" they still entitle the article: "Jerusalem's Apartheid Tramway." This brings LeMonde Diplo close to the level of pre-WW2 Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda. Maybe not quite there. But on the way.

So here was another lie about "apartheid" in Israel that turns out to be totally false. Further, some anti-Israel group in France sued French firms involved in the tram project. Supporters of the suit throw around slogans and pejoratives like: apartheid, illegal, "occupied" territory, international law, "judaizing" Jerusalem [which has had a Jewish majority since 1853 or earlier] and other usual epithets. Here is a video in French from France24 in which Arabs interviewed claim that it would be of no use to them, because --inter alia-- there would be no stops in Arab neighborhoods [ici&ici][I originally saw this story on France24 in English but cannot find the English], which is false, as we have seen.

Another lying slogan thrown around in the context of the tram claims that Jewish neighborhoods in "east Jerusalem" were built on "stolen land." The stolen land argument is also false since Jews began to purchase much real estate in and around Jerusalem in the late Ottoman period --from the 1860s to 1914-- when it became possible for Jews to purchase real estate. This "stolen land" claim is a big lie but a separate issue. Suffice it to say that Neveh Ya`aqov and much of Pisgat Ze'ev --served by the tram, among other areas -- were built on land belonging to the pre-1948 agricultural village of Neveh Ya`aqov [founded 1924].

Here's a pix of a flyer in Arabic distributed by the CitiPas [OR City Pass] company that operates the tram for the purpose of attracting Arab riders.

Note the diagram of the tram's route. The three tram stops encircled in blue ink on the diagram are in Arab neighborhoods [Beyt Hanina and Shu`afat (two stops in Shu`afat)].

Will Mondiplo admit its gross misuse of the apartheid label?

Spain drove the Jews out of Spain, now Spain's socialist govt wants to drive the people of Israel out of the Land of Israel

2011-08-21T05:18:00.000-07:00

UPDATING 8-22-2011 at bottom

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

More than 500 years ago, Spain didn't want the Jews in their country. Now it turns out that the Socialist govt of Spain doesn't want the Jews in their own country, in the Jews' country. That is, in Israel.

Guysen reports the statement of the Spanish foreign minister, one Trinidad Jiménez.

Ms Trinidad Jiménez, foreign minister of Spain,

expressed the wish that the meeting of European Union foreign affairs ministers, scheduled for next week, will move ahead the recognition of a Palestinian state. In an interview with the newspaper El Pais, she stated: "There is a feeling that now is the moment to do something, to give the Palestinians the hope that a state can become reality. We must give them a signal, for if we don't do so, that might generate great frustration among the Palestinians."

Espagne : il est temps de donner l'espoir d'un pays aux Palestiniens
La ministre espagnole des Affaires étrangères Trinidad Jimenez a fait le voeu que la réunion des ministres des Affaires étrangères de l'Union européenne, prévue la semaine prochaine fera progresser la reconnaissance d'un Etat palestinien. Dans une interview au journal El Païs, elle a affirmé : ''Il y a le sentiment que c'est le moment maintenant de faire quelque chose, de donner aux Palestiniens l'espoir qu'un Etat puisse devenir réalité. Nous devons leur donner un signal, car si nous ne le faisons pas, cela pourrait générer une grande frustration chez les Palestiniens''.
[Guysen News 8-21-2011]

So the EU and PLO/PA [here called "palestinians"] don't have to honor signed agreements with Israel. The EU doesn't have to respect its own "Quartet" guidelines for a settlement. The Jews don't deserve hope. The Jews don't deserve respect for their lives --note that this statement comes after murderous onslaughts by Arab/Muslim terrorists on Israel. International law regarding the conditions for determining that a state exists and that it deserves to be recognized as such are of no importance as the 21st century descendants of those who drove Jews out of Spain in 1492 repeat their ancestors' cruelty, this time not against Jews in Spain but against Jews in their own historic homeland. But the poor "palestinians", a people unknown to history, first appearing in the 1960s as a psychological warfare/cognitive warfare concept, have rights that the Jews, descended from ancient Israel, do not have. Maybe next week Madame Trinidad will tell us that the Jews ought to be punished for crucifying Jesus.
- - - - - - -
8-21-2011 German Press Agency [Deutsche Presse Agentur - DPA] also reports on the Spanish FM's statement, although mistakenly identifying her as a male. A person of any gender that you can imagine can be deadly and dangerous in the office of foreign minister.
8-22-2011 UPDATING -- The Spanish ambassador to Israel was summoned to the Israeli foreign ministry today for an explanation of Madame Jiménez's simplistic concern over not causing "frustration" to those Arabs now fashionably identified as "palestinians." The ambassador is said to have explained that his minister was not understood [Israel Radio in French & in El Pais in Spanish].
The original interview in El Pais & a report in Spanish of the Spanish FM's silly or disingenuous remarks about "hope" for Arabs, not for Jews [aqui & in El Pais aqui]. This is a way for the Eurohypocrites to encourage the Arabs to make war on Israel and slaughter our civilians. The British are veteran practitioners of these warmongering tricks and it seems that Spanish diplomats have learned them too.

Israel complains to Spain over FM's comment on a Palestinian state [Israel Radio web site]

"The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has voiced its objection to comments made by Spain's foreign minister that Madrid has decided to recognize a Palestinian state in ...The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has voiced its objection to comments made by Spain's foreign minister that Madrid has decided to recognize a Palestinian state in order to allow the Palestinian people to realize their dream.
"The Spanish ambassador to Israel was summoned to the Foreign Ministry, where he was told by Deputy Director General for European Affairs, Naor Gilon, that the comments by the foreign minister were disappointing and surprising.
"The Spanish ambassador is said to have replied that the comments, in a Spanish newspaper interview, were not understood correctly, and that Spain has not yet decided how to vote when the United Naitons is expected to vote on a Palestinian state.
"The ambassador to Israel said that Spain would support such a resolution if it also stressed the need to return to the negotiating table and to ensure that Israel's security would be preserved in any agreement ."

Note Spain's disingenuous hypocrisy. Instead of telling the PLO/PA to negotiate for a state with Israel, it tells Israel and that the PLO/PA should negotiate after it is no longer necessary for them to negotiate in order to obtain a state. Recall that today's Socialist Spanish govt follows the same pro-Arab policy as Spain's fascist govt under Francisco Franco.

The Good Life in Gaza -- The Dolce Vita in the World's Largest Prison

2011-08-15T05:18:00.000-07:00

UPDATED at bottom 8-21&23-&10-20-2011

What most of the MSM won't tell you. The rich in Gaza live the Dolce Vita. Here is a recent report from Il Sole-24 Ore, an Italian business/financial daily . Close observers of matters in and concerning Gaza have been aware for a few years now that those with money in Gaza have places to spend it, what with a new shopping center, gourmet restaurants, chic hotels, including the newly opened Al-Mashtal, as described by Francesca Marretta. Meanwhile, other reports have shown the abundant supply of food in Gaza for those who may not have the means to enjoy Roots, the local gourmet restaurant, or other bourgeois locations for mundane pleasures.

Here is Francesca Marretta's report in partial translation:

Five Menus, Fitness Room, and Pool for Men Only: Even in Gaza, It's la Dolce Vita on Ramadan Evenings
"With five menus . . . and as many dining halls, even the most refined palates find satisfaction. If the fish carpaccio as antipasto . . . is suited for those who want to keep their figures, those inclined to the sin of gluttony can choose Pizza Mamma Anna with shrimp, tomato, turkey salami and olives or the Don Nabil [= Arab name] with tomato, mozzarella, olives, anchovies, basilicum and olive oil. For eat and run, but still in slow food style, it is advisable to consult the sandwich menu, decidedly cheap when compared with the opulence of the place.
The air conditioning "a go go" is deceptive as is the marble flooring, the oak furniture, the multilevel pool faced by the terrace. It's hard to believe you're in Gaza, a place where 70% of the population officially lives below the poverty line [but poverty is much worse in Egypt--Eliyahu]. . . .
The structure was finished in 2006 when the management was in the hands of Movenpick which, however, left Gaza when Hamas took over in 2007. . . .

In these Ramadan evenings, the al-Mashtal's restaurants are thronged with customers who arrive at the chic night club to celebrate the iftar.. . . The hotel building is owned by the Palestinian Padico, a consortium also supported by capital from the Persian Gulf. Padico is headed by the Nablus magnate and suitable candidate for prime minister of the PA, Munib al-Masri.
. . . The Western customer not used to the usages and customs of Hamas' Gaza might be misled by the elegant long-stemmed goblets placed on the tables. It is useless to ask for the wine menu. No palestinian law blocks the consumption of alcohol. But the Islamist govt of Gaza does not allow it, not even for foreigners.

. . . Beyond the quiet guaranteed by the absence of hotel guests, a stay at the al-Mashtal, located at Soudania, presents several advantages compared with other chic hotels in Gaza, such as the Aldeira that faces the boardwalk [OR seaside promenade] at Rimal or the very new and elegant al-Matal, near the archeological museum. At equal prices, the five star managed by Spaniards [ArcMed Group], besides super-sized beds, has a fitness room with a tread mill, exercise bike, and weights. Schedule for men: 1100 h to 1300 h and 1700 to 2100. For women: 900 to 1100 and 1300 to 1700.

The sauna and Turkish bath are rigorously separate too.. . . In the summer heat, barely alleviated by a sea breeze, the hotel's strong point appears to be the multilevel pool, surrounded by palm trees, lounge chairs, and small tables. It is no use to ask for the schedule that assigns access for men and for women. Bathing and lounging in the sun are permitted only to gentlemen. Ladies may dip only if they are below the age of twelve.
---by Francesca Marretta, in Il Sole-24 Ore, 14 August 2011--

In another article, Francesca Marretta points out that

In Gaza, food is not lacking but liberty. Not only because of the closure of borders imposed by Israel as well as by Egypt. The Palestinians of the Strip live under the magnifying glass of Hamas. In order to leave the Strip not only is a permit needed from Israel or from Egypt, but from the Islamic government too. . . . Food items of all kinds are coming into Gaza. [Il Sole-24 Ore, 14 August 2011]

A Gaza non manca il cibo, ma la libertà. Non solo per effetto della chiusura dei confini imposto da Israele, come dall'Egitto. I palestinesi della Striscia vivono sotto la lente d'ingrandimento di Hamas. Per lasciare la Striscia non serve solo il permesso israeliano o quello del Cairo, ma anche quello del governo islamico. . . . A Gaza entrano beni alimentari di ogni genere. [Il Sole-24 Ore, 14 Agosto 2011]

- - - - - - - - - - - -
8-21-2011 New York Times report confirms Francesca Marretta's picture of tight Hamas control over the lives of Gazans [here]
8-23-2011 Even the US-based Associated Press has noticed middle class prosperity in Gaza, in an article picked up by HaArets, believe it or not [here]. But workers in Gaza are often paid very low wages by their employers, fellow Muslim Arabs. "Many employed Gazans are paid miserly wages, keeping them struggling. They include the seamstress Nisrine, who is paid 5 dollars a day, money that her family keeps. Baker Sami Awad, 27, earns 9 dollars a day to support his five siblings and his sister's two children."
10-20-2011 The al-Mashtal Hotel had the dishonor of hosting terrorist mass murderers released in the trade for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who was held by Hamas for more than five years under illegal and cruel conditions in violation of international law.
A pix of the pool at the al-Mashtal.
An AP article on the al-Mashtal avoids mentioning the many prosperous Arabs who do patronize the hotel, as Francesca Marretta described.

Real Problems, False Answers from Demagogues & Subversives

2011-08-06T12:33:00.000-07:00

REVISED 8-7-2011 LINK ADDED at bottom 8-8&14&15&25-2011

It has long been known that demagogues and those who would take over a state take advantage of real issues, real problems. So it was in Weimar Germany when the Nazis of the National Socialist German Workers Party took advantage of the world economic crisis at the end of the 1920s. The Nazis too blamed the tycoons of the time --often identified by them as "Jewish international bankers." Needless to say, the Nazis did not solve Germany's or the world's economic problem. Rather they brought about a war that led to the destruction of much of Germany and of many Germans, besides the tens of millions of Jews and other peoples slaughtered in the war.

The economic crisis reached America too where it became known as the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt came to power and improved the situation but the United States did not get out of the Depression until the war with massive, government-funded war production and massive recruitment of millions of young men into the armed forces.

Israel's housing crisis is real. The situation became noticeable and started to be talked about early this year. Israel's central bank governor, Stanley Fisher, recently said at a press conference that he had made a choice in his management of Israel's monetary situation. He said that he preferred to bring down unemployment rather than solve the housing problem, since helping one situation with the tools available to him meant hurting the other situation. Indeed, the latest unemployment stat for Israel was 5.7% which is an excellent rate compared to Western Europe and the United States. Nevertheless, housing was getting more expensive, whether for sale or for rent. Especially in the Tel Aviv metro area, called here Gush Dan. Also, food prices have been going up. This reminds us that after some 15 or 16 Euro countries joined the euro currency, the Eurozone, food and other consumer prices went up there and have not come down, although theoretically this should not have happned. People complain in Italy, France and Germany over these inexplicable price rises. In Israel, the food price rise led to the cottage cheese boycott of several weeks ago.

This seems to have given a number of oppositionist bodies funded and coordinated by the New Israel Fund [itself funded in turn by the Ford Foundation among other sources] the idea to use socio-economic issues, rather than their usual whining about the sad fate of Arab terrorists and genocide mongers, in order to bring down the govt. So an employee of an outfit funded by NIF, Dafne Leef, set up a tent in the middle of Rothschild Boulevard in a fairly fancy part of Tel Aviv.
She claimed that she could not rent an apartment at a decent price in the fancier parts of Tel Aviv. She is a poor little rich girl. But the gimmick worked and she has been joined by others throughout the country. Tents supplied courtesy of funds provided by NIF, the Qadima Party, the Hadash Party [Communists], etc.

But what are the causes of the shortage of affordable housing? First of all, the freeze in building in Judea-Samaria, which Prez Obama pressured PM Netanyahu into accepting. Insofar as the NIF supports Obama's anti-Israel, anti-Jewish policy, then the NIF and its constituent funded bodies, like Shatil, are morally complicit in the freeze and in the consequent shortage of affordable housing. Another cause is the increased immigration [`aliyah] of Jews from France and elsewhere in Europe. They are being substantially driven out by the increased Judeophobia there, the most violent and dangerous part of it coming from the large Muslim population in France [not to say that all French Muslims take part in anti-Jewish violence], encouraged by some of the "extreme Left" in France, such as Trotskyist Olivier Besancenot. The immigrants from France are often fairly prosperous and have bought up much of the expensive upscale housing, especially on Israel's coast.

Lastly, in a period when building in Judea-Samaria is next to impossible, bureaucratic Israeli structures of long standing, such as the Lands Administration [minhal m'qarq`in], do their bit, as they have been doing for years, to retard building in the country inside the Green Line, keeping the supply of housing and commercial real estate down, and all this by dragging out the process of approval for building plans for years, up to seven years according to Netanyahu. The Lands Administration is in itself an entrenched special interest and protects certain special interests, the owners of existing built real estate [besides the fact that the head of the Lands Administration is among the highest paid officials in Israel, making more in 2006 than the prime minister in 2010]. When demand for RE outpaces supply, the prices of existing RE go up. It's the old, simple law of supply and demand. Netanyahu has long wanted to remedy this situation, talking about it even in his first term. In July 2009, two years ago, he was trying to pass legislation to reform the Lands Administration but something always came up to derail the final change [Globes, 5-5-2011Hebrew]. So this is something that Netanyahu has been working on for years but could not succeed in pushing through fully and finally. Various entrenched interests were opposed. Almost two weeks ago, Netanyahu pulled out at a press conference a new version of his program to reform the Lands Administration. The self-appointed leaders of the housing protests rejected his plan, claiming that it would make people rich, especially the hated but unnamed "tycoons." Yet, insofar as the Lands Administration was keeping down the housing supply by delaying approval of building plans, then the "protest" leaders were opposing a measure to increase the supply --and a larger supply would of course bring down prices. Maintaining the present system in fact enriches real estate owners, owners of existing built up real estate, because it limits the supply of new housing. So somebody is getting rich either way. If there is more building the contractors and building materials suppliers can get rich. If the Lands Administration is not reformed and Netanyahu's other plans to build homes and rental apartments do not go through then the owners of existing RE get richer.
By opposing the prime minister's proposals the self-appointed protest leaders show that they do not want a solution to the housing problem and do not want to help people.

Of course, the fact that the hard core of the protest movement does not want solutions but is more focused on bringing down Netanyahu, has not escaped many observers in Israel. Dror Eyder, writing in Yisrael HaYom [ 7-29-2011], reports on a lecture by Stanley Greenberg, a public opinion pollster and manipulator for Bill Clinton. Greenberg lectured here in Israel at a meeting of the Rubinger Forum meant to discuss reviving the Israeli "Left," and how to persuade people that there was a "palestinian partner" for peace, that the "settlements" were a "disaster" [conveniently giving the unthinking "leftist" herds somebody to hate], and that it was necessary to go back to socialist economics. Greenberg lectured about 1/2 year ago. He gave his audience "ten steps" to defeat their adversaries in Israel.

Curiously, the audience was told to read an essay by the anti-Communist Czech intellectual, Vaclav Havel, "The Power of the Powerless." Ironically, the "Left" in Israel is far from powerless and has always dominated major state institutions since independence, even under Likud govts. They dominate the police, the judiciary, the prosecutor's office, public broadcasting, etc., although some of this is changing, albeit too slowly. They once dominated the economy, exercising enormous power of people who simply wanted a job. Those who did not hold the Histadrut's red membership booklet could not get jobs controlled by the Histadrut which was probably most jobs at one time. Or would have to join in order to get the job, which was my wife's experience. Nevertheless, this membership did not protect her job. She taught for one year at a school owned by the Histadrut, an `Amal school. At the end of one year she was laid off, although a good teacher. All the new teachers were laid off at the end of one year [if they stayed more than a year they would have seniority to keep the job], except for a favored one or two who had ingratiated themselves with the principal. So the "Left" is hardly the disadvantaged or weaker party in Israel. They use their institutional control to continue to shape policy against the wishes of the majority of the people. In short, enemies of Israel at home and abroad, including the NIF, have been thinking of strategies for bringing down the govt.

So the "mass protests" are backed up by a lot of money and powerful institutions and individuals. One of the "leftists" admitted the reality, with some amount of commendable embarassment and regret. Money from the EU and the NIF [much of it originating with the Ford Foundation] is financing the "protest" movement. It is likely that the movement will keep on "protesting" whether any problems get solved or not. The money is there. And when you are paid to organize a protest, you don't drop out until your employer changes his policy.

But Netanyahu, ironically, was able to use these protests as a lever for pushing through his own, long-desired reform of the Lands Administration. It is obvious that the housing problem has been on his mind for a long time, and up till now he could not get his program through because of the opposition of entrenched interests. Now apparently, with the unwitting and maybe unwilling help of the protest movement's self-appointed leadership, he has finally done it. This is like a jiu jitsu fighter using his enemy's strength against that enemy. If this works out, I say to him Kol haKavod, all honors to you. More power to him. Likewise, minister of interior, Eli Yishai, used the situation to approve 930 units of new housing to be built in the Har Homa neighborhood of southeast Jerusalem. Approval of these units had been held up for almost two years out of a desire not to upset Obama who is bothered by Jews having a place to live. Yishai also recently approved a project in northern Samaria in a place called Harish for 4,700 housing units. Another place where Obama doesn't want Jews to live.

For an understanding of some of Israel's basic problems, see an essay by Martin Sherman, a shrewd and knowledgeable social and political analyst. He had an excellent op ed in the JPost showing what some of the real problems are in Israel and some of their causes as well as some of the obstacles to solving them. I agree with just about everything in the article. I have often read Sherman's articles in the JPost and Nativ and elsewhere and had a long conversation with him while he worked as a high official in the Ministry of Agriculture. He is both knowledgeable and honest, as well as shrewd.

To conclude with the leadership of the "protest movment." They are great with slogans. Slogans, slogans, slogans. But they are noticeably weak on solutions. They rejected Netanyahu's proposed solutions to the housing shortage with specious arguments [see above]. But they have a slogan. A favorite slogan: Social Justice. What's wrong with this slogan? Because just about everybody agrees with it, just about everybody can claim to be for social justice. But it means different things to different people. Everybody has his own notion of what social justice is. The strict Muslim wants Muslim rule over the whole world and the non-Muslims as subjects of the Islamic state must be dhimmis, people tolerated in a state of inferiority, like Jews and Christians in the traditional Islamic state that the Muslim Brotherhood --"moderates" according to big shots in Washington-- wants to go back to. On the other hand, a Catholic priest, Father Charles Coughlin, published a weekly paper in the 1930s in America entitled Social Justice. He didn't much like Jews. But he too wanted social justice. He said so himself. But he wanted his version. Although he ranted every week on radio about "international bankers," at first more often insinuated to be Jews, later, usually asserted to be Jews, Coughlin had quiet meetings with at least one international banker who was not a Jew. And after supporting Roosevelt for election in 1933, he became openly pro-Nazi starting in 1936. So the slogan social justice [ צדק חברתי] can mean being pro-fascist. The protest organizers are cleverly using vague, empty slogans. But these do not provide a solution. They are more meant to bring people into the movement --and hopefully bring down the Netanyahu-Likud govt, from their standpoint-- than to provide real solutions to help real people.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
8-8-2011 Yoaz Hendel writes that the demonstrators on Rothchild Boulevard represent not the people of Israel but only one of several "tribes" that make up the people [here]. The protest movement, specifically "the rally last night, was created by the media of this same tribe." And, Hendel writes, the numbers were "tens of thousands," not the 300,000 claimed by various media. He too agrees that "social justice" is a matter of opinion and point of view.
8-14-2011 Sarah Honig in the JPost provides her definitions helpful for understanding the current protest movement. She takes up terms like: front organization, astroturf, useful idiot & others [here].
8-15-2011 Zalman Shoval points to the demagogic slogans like "social justice", used by organizers of the protests, as well as to the foreign funding enjoyed by some of them [here]. Shoval acknowledges the real problems that exist, as well as the Orwellian quality of the protest organizers' response to the prime minister's proposal to reform the Israel Lands Administration [or Authority].
Benny Avni belittles the notion that the tent protest movement will bring down the Netanyahu government [here]. I concur.
8-25-2011 Yaniv Moyal, a protest leader outside the circle of Daphni Leef and her charmed circle of professional/full time radicals, complains that most of the media give that group all of the attention although they are young people of little experience and arrogant, domineering disposition [here in JPost]

Obama Promotes Islamist Turkey to Israel -- What about Israel's Honor?

2011-07-28T06:07:00.000-07:00

UPDATING 8-3&11&18-&9-5-2011 at bottom

The Obama administration is now pushing Israel to make up with Turkey by apologizing for killing 9 Turkish thugs/jihadists on the Mavi Marmara in 2010. They don't ask Erdogan to apologize to Israel for trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza, an act of war on Turkey's part although executed through an ostensibly non-official body, the terrorist IHH. Apologizing to Erdung will only encourage him to continue his life of crime, Islamist crime. And what about Obama's commitment to the US's NATO ally, Greece, which is threatened by Erdung's renewed Turkish imperial drive? Or, speaking about blockades, what about the Turkish blockade of Armenia that has been going on since 1993?

Carolyn Glick and the Jerusalem Post editorial staff realize the dangers in the Obama approach.

1) Jerusalem Post editorial 7-26-2011
The US is keenly pursuing reconciliation between Turkey and Israel. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convinced UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to postpone until the end of August the release of the UN’s Palmer Commission report on the Mavi Marmara. The delay would facilitate negotiations between Jerusalem and Ankara aimed at returning to semi-normalcy in relations and allow for the burying of the Palmer Commission report, which reportedly upholds the legality of Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, but takes the IDF to task for using disproportionate force.

The Obama administration is convinced that resolution of the Mavi Marmara fiasco is the key to maintaining the Israel-Turkey-US strategic triangle, so essential in American eyes to a stable Middle East.

The US, therefore, wants Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to back a formula that includes an apology for “operational mishaps” that resulted in the loss of nine Turkish lives in the Israel Navy commando raid last year, and payment of compensation through a fund to be set up by the Turkish governmen. - - -[Excerpt from JPost editorial 7-26-2011; Read rest here]- - -

Note that the Obama administration is not asking the Turks to apologize to Israel, although Israel was the victim of an act of war on Turkey's part --breaking a legal and justified blockade of the Gaza Strip, now controlled by the Nazi-like Hamas. To be sure, Turkey's act of war was executed through an ostensibly non-official body, the terrorist IHH, but was nonetheless a Turkish govt act in view of the strong ties between the govt and the IHH [see here & here].

Secretary of State Clinton's claim that an Israeli apology was needed for the sake of "stability" is hardly convincing given that the US under Obama has caused much instability in the Middle East and has seldom shown any sign that it appreciates stability as such. Recall that Obama and his gang helped bring down Mubarak in Egypt, although Mubarak's fall has unleashed much still ongoing instability with the danger that the Muslim Brotherhood might come to power there.

2) Carolyn Glick does her usual good job, providing information and analysis.

No Prizes for Erdogan

July 27, 2011, 3:10 PM

Comments (4)

Shortly after Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Recip Erdogan came to power in 2002, he began undermining Turkey's strategic alliance with Israel. Erdogan officially ended the alliance last May when he sent the IHH, an al Qaeda-aligned, Turkish NGO affiliated with his Islamist AKP Party to lead the pro-Hamas flotilla to Gaza.

Aboard the Mavi Marmara, IHH members violently attacked IDF naval commandos who boarded the ship in order to prevent it from breaking Israel's lawful maritime blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza coast. In the life and death battle that ensued, nine of the IHH assailants were killed.

By attempting to break Israel's lawful blockade, passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara and the rest of the ships in the flotilla were engaged in illicit acts of war against the Jewish state and providing illicit aid and comfort to an illegal terrorist organization. In supporting and arguably organizing the flotilla, including the Mavi Marmara, Erdogan himself was waging an unlawful war against Israel.

Erdogan reacted to the Mavi Marmara incident with enraged indignation. He demanded that Israel apologize for its commandos' actions and pay compensation to the families of the dead. He also demanded an international inquiry into Israel's actions.

Answering his call, the UN set up a commission to investigate last year's flotilla episode. The report has been ready since May. But its publication has been repeatedly delayed. According to media accounts of its findings, the UN commission agrees that Israel's blockade of Gaza is legal. It also claims that the naval commandos used disproportionate force in fending off the Mavi Marmara passengers' assault against them.

In a bid to salvage Turkey's ties to Israel and so increase waning Congressional support for Turkey, the Obama administration has been mediating talks between Israel and Turkey for the past few months. According to news reports, the administration is now pressuring Israel to agree to Erdogan's demand for an apology and to pay compensation to the families of those killed onboard the Mavi Marmara. The U.S. is also demanding that Turkey agree not to press damages or war crimes claims against Israeli personnel in international or other courts.

Given President Obama's expressed admiration and support for Erdogan, it makes sense that he is pushing this position. But the question remains, why is Turkey insisting that Israel apologize and pay damages for the IDF's lawful actions on the Mavi Marmara? What is he trying to achieve? And what would be the consequences if Israel were to bow to U.S. pressure and apologize?

There are two explanations for Erdogan's behavior. First, there is the issue of honor, which plays such a prominent role in Islamic society. He views the Mavi Marmara incident in the context of honor politics. And he demands an apology from Israel in order to increase his honor and diminish Israel's.

Most of Israel's objections to Erdogan's demand to date have centered around this issue. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon have cited this as the primary reason for refusing to apologize.

But while unpleasant, honor is probably not Erdogan's main rationale for pursing his demand for an Israeli apology. Since he was reelected to serve a third term as prime minister last month Erdogan has been openly seeking to establish a neo-Ottoman Turkish hegemonic position in the Arab world.

To this end he has been actively interfering in the popular revolt against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. The IHH has been hosting Syrian opposition leaders in Turkey. Erdogan's clear aim is to replace Iran as Syria's overlord in a post-Assad Syria.

Erdogan has also been actively engaging Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood since the overthrow of former president Hosni Mubarak in February. Erdogan plans a high profile visit to Egypt in the near future. And he plans to end his visit to Egypt by crossing the Egyptian border with Gaza. There he will become the highest-level foreign leader to visit Gaza since the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood Hamas took over in 2007.

As far as Erdogan is concerned, if he gets the U.S. to force Israel to apologize, it will be a massive public relations coup in his bid to convince the Arabs to accept his leadership. After all, Israel would be apologizing for having had the temerity to oppose the aggression of IHH terrorists engaged in an act of war against Israel. An Israeli apology would serve as proof that his double game of remaining a NATO member and carrying out aggression against Israel is the winning formula. If Israel apologizes for defending itself against Turkish aggression, Erdogan will have succeeded where the Arabs have failed.

Obviously, on the merits, Israel has no reason to apologize. And Turkish promises not to file lawsuits and war crimes complaints against Israel will have no legal weight. The Turkish pledge will not bind the relatives of the dead. And an Israeli apology and compensation will provide them with a prima facie claim that Israel admits culpability.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and senior IDF officers reportedly argue in favor of an apology, claiming the strategic alliance with Turkey is so important that Israel must be willing to swallow its pride in order to rebuild it.

This argument has apparently won over Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor. It has also caused Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to temper his honor-based rejection of the Turkish demand.

The problem with this argument is that it fails to take address Erdogan's second, and more strategically significant motivation of using Israeli humiliation to strengthen his image as a pan-Islamic leader.

That motivation gives lie to the notion that Erdogan has any interest in reinstating Turkey's strategic alliance with Israel. The man who is cultivating Hamas in the PA, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, is not going to permit the Israeli Air Force to renew its training flights over Turkish airspace.

Erdogan is not going to share intelligence with Israel on Iran. He will not cooperate with Mossad agents along Turkey's border with Iran or Syria.

Instead he will use his ability to humiliate Israel and curb its military operations to demonstrate to the Muslim Brotherhood that it should accept Turkey's role as regional hegemon and operate under its wings.

Moreover, Israel can fully expect that under Erdogan, Turkey will share any intelligence information Israel provides with the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that any intelligence information Turkey transfers to Israel to be of limited value.

The UN announced on Sunday that it was delaying the publication of its report on the Mavi Marmara for another month. The expectation is that Israel will bow to Turkish and U.S. pressure and apologize and so obviate the need for the report to ever see the light of day.

Given the true stakes involved, Israel must stick to its guns and say no apology, no compensation, and no political prize for Erdogan.

Originally published in The Jewish Press.

Posted on July 27, 2011 at 3:10 PM
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/07/no-prizes-for-erdogan.php?pf=yes

Hilary and her State Dept apparently have a deep psychological need to protect Turkey's reputation even when it has committed the most heinous crimes. A few years ago Hilary tried to get Turkey and Armenia to make up by glossing over the Armenian genocide issue. In the case of the Turkish Armada and the Mavi Marmara affair, Hilary is shoving the guilt, the onus onto Israel when it is really Turkey that is guilty. [here & here]
8-3-2011 Fiamma Nirenstein, deputy chairperson of the Italian parliament's foreign affairs committee, reports that Erdogan now demands an apology from the Armenian president, Serzh Sarksyan, who recently responded to a question about recovery of Armenia's lost territories now incorporated in Turkey --including Mount Ararat-- that: "The future is only in the hands of the youth." [qui][& in English here]. Let's see if Obama & Hilary join in with Erdogan in demanding that the Armenian president apologize.
8-8-2011 Moshe Ya`alon calls Turkish demand for an apology for the Mavi Marmara incident [provoked by Turkey] "rude" [here]
Herb Keinon in Jerusalem Post reports on divisions among top ministers in the security cabinet over whether Israel should somehow apologize to Turkey for killing nine Turkish thugs on the Mavi Marmara in May 2010 [here]. The usually foolish Dan Meridor claims that with "wisdom" on both sides, good relations can return [But if the Turks don't want to return to good relations?]. Minister Ya`alon, Avigdor Lieberman, Eli Yishai, and Benny Begin oppose any apology to Turkey. Ehud Barak unbecomingly accepts the State Dept/Obama position. Netanyahu & Steinitz have not committed themselves.
8-9-2011 Israelo-American peacemonger joins in the chorus of simpletons advocating an "apology" to Turkey for Turkey's brutality [here]. One Barry Leff of "Rabbis" for "Human Rights" [human rights for some humans, not for others] demonstrates his own ignorance and that of his group whose dishonest and foolish antics in the past have led to other Jews being killed. Is Leff aware that Turkey has been blockading Armenia for at least 18 years? Is he aware of the Turkish conquest of northern Cyprus in 1974? and the 100,000s of refugees thus created? Why doesn't he propose that Turkey apologize to Armenia and Cyprus? Would not that be the right, the moral thing for him to do?
8-11-2011 The Jerusalem Post reports that Obama made a special call to PM Netanyahu to pester him about an apology to Turkey [here]. Bibi, just say No!!!
Pressure from Turks resident in Germany has led Stuttgart University to "capitulate[d] to pressure from resident Turkish Muslims and cancel[ed] an event entitled, "Persecution, Expulsion and Annihilation of Christians in the Ottoman Empire'" [here & here]. The Western university continues to decline.
Israel Matzav on Erdogan's demand for an apology from Armenia [here]
8-14-2011 Oded Eran wants Israel to offer to make some sort of apology to Turkey, not because it's justified in any way but to keep Obama happy [here]. That is precisely a good reason not to make any apology. The more Israel gives in to Obama the worse he treats Israel.
8-18-2011 Tony Badran sees Obama as allowing Erdogan to lead his policy on Syria [here]
8-22-2011 Ely Karmon examines the issue in the JPost [here]. He stresses the strangely exaggerated involvement of Obama and Hilary in pressuring Israel to apologize to Turkey.
9-5-2011 Caroline Glick sees Erdogan's scapegoating of Israel as useful for his neo-Ottoman policy of expanding Turkey's influence in the Islamic world [here]

Israel Anti-Boycott Law Misrepresented by Interested Parties, as Expected

2011-07-13T06:33:00.000-07:00

Israel's new anti-boycott law does not "criminalize" speech --nor even pro-boycott speech or acts-- as was claimed in a rather overheated reaction by the New Israel Fund. Rather, the law defines pro-boycott agitation as a tort, a civil wrong [in Hebrew `avlah עוולה]. As such, parties injured by a boycott can sue for damages. Moreover, the Israeli government is to withhold state benefits and favors, grants, subsidies, guarantees, etc, from those who practice or advocate a boycott. Hence there is no criminal punishment in the law, no jail sentences; the State of Israel is not "criminalizing" boycotters, as the NIF claimed. It is denying state benefits which it has the right to do to protect the state and people of Israel. [See text of law at link below comments. See Hebrew text פה {pdf} or כאן] Maybe the NIF thought that they could get away with lying about the law, depending on the general ignorance of the Hebrew language.

The NIF has been charged by NGO Monitor with funding pro-boycott activities and advocacy. The NIF itself is funded by --among other bodies-- the Ford Foundation, which in its turn helped to organize and fund participating anti-Israel outfits that created an anti-Israeli hate atmosphere at the racist, Judeophobic Durban "anti-racism" conference which took place in early September 2001, just before the 9-11 tragedy. Among hateful things done at Durban in 2001 was to advocate the BDS strategy against Israel [BDS = boycott, divestment, sanctions].

What does the law do?
1) the law does not restrict free speech except insofar as injured persons or bodies may sue the boycott advocates for damages under the old damages law [neziqin]. Laws in civilized countries restrict free speech, of course, on the grounds of libel which can lead to imposing payment of damages on libellers, as well as on the grounds of incitement to violence, sedition, threats of violence, etc.
2) the law also allows the govt to withhold govt grants, subsidies, or other special state benefits and favors from advocates of the boycott, not including pensions, child allowances, etc.
3) BDS advocacy is treated as a civil offense perhaps warranting damages or withholding of state benefits. It is not treated as a criminal matter. The law does not forbid bds advocacy.

One member of Knesset explained why the law was needed. MK Tsipi Hotobeli said today --in a radio discussion with Uri Avneri, head of the pro-BDS "Gush Shalom" outfit, that it is hard for Israel to denounce and complain about BDS efforts abroad when they are allowed here at home.
Further, those who criticize the law should ask whether the govt should have to pay public money [state benefits-but this does not include pensions or regular social benefits enjoyed by citizens] to those who act against the public interest .

Ironically, those who defend boycott advocacy on the grounds of freedom of speech are themselves guilty of undermining the human rights of others, particularly but not only Jews who live or wish to live in Judea-Samaria. Uri Avneri and "Peace Now" advocate preventing Jews from peacefully migrating to live in Judea-Samaria and advocate boycotting products made by Jewish firms in those areas, firms which hire Arabs as well as Jews.

Those who boycott settlement products because they believe that Jews have no right to live or conduct businesses or manufacturing in Judea-Samaria are taking a racist, apartheid position against Jews. Although they typically justify this position on the grounds of international law, the interpretations of int'l law that they brandish about are false. They typically claim that Geneva Convention IV, article 49, forbids "transfer" of population to "occupied territory." It does. However, recall that Germany, Austria and Japan were avowedly occupied by US, USSR, UK, and France after WW2. Many civilians from the occupying powers voluntarily moved into those countries while they were occupied. Nobody complained that Geneva IV, article 49 [or whatever] forbid these civilians to move into occupied countries. Large parts of Japan are still occupied by Russia, that is, they were annexed in the Soviet Communist days by the USSR, although Japan never recognized that annexation and there is as yet no Russian-Japanese or Soviet-Japanese peace treaty as far as I know. Hundreds of thousands --if not millions-- of Soviets/Russians were moved into these formerly Japanese areas. Nobody gives a damn but the Japanese. Nor is the situation considered a threat to international peace.

Now many of us would argue that Judea-Samaria are not occupied, and this on various grounds [such as the Jewish National Home principle]. Further, "transfer" means compulsory migration, whereas the Jews living in Judea-Samaria were willing migrants. But even if J-S were occupied and even if Geneva IV, 49, applied to voluntary migrants [not persons subject to "transfer"] across the Green Line, the position demanding exclusion of Jews from Judea-Samaria would still be racist. Legal perhaps, but racist against Jews. Since when do advocates of liberty and human rights want to punish people who have flouted restrictive laws [if J-S were occupied and if Geneva IV, 49, applied legally]?? And BDS relies on these false interpretations of law and is a legalist-nativist argument as well, which humanitarians and human rights advocates should eschew. BDS falsely speaks in the name of human rights.

The bds campaign actively tries to prevent people --Jews-- from exercising human rights, the right to live where their long-time enemies don't want them to live. Hence it is BDS that is racist. Racist against Jews. This is the argument that should be made. Heretofore, the Yesha Council, Women in Green, and such groups have NOT been making the right arguments to the world.

Here is an interesting case in which a person who would likely be called "a progressive" sued someone who libelled him, thereby restricting the libeller's freedom of speech and press.

The so-called Association for Civil Rights in Israel [ACRI] issued a position paper against the new law, while NIF has so far just sent around a whining email [their position paper will likely follow soon]. The paper does not mention --probably due to the author's ignorance-- that in the United States a private person was allowed to sue for damages to his work and endeavors caused by libel of the group to which he belonged and in which he was named personally. Libel laws too have "a chilling effect" on freedom of speech. The ACRI paper decries the permission granted by the new law to private persons to sue for damages caused by boycott calls. But a trial was begun on such a matter in the USA. The defendant --who was promoting libel through his newspaper, eventually settled in the plaintiff's favor. This represented a restriction on the defendant's freedom of speech as well as on freedom of the press.

I refer to a suit against Henry Ford by a Jew. In the early 1920s, Ford's newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, worked out its own version of the forged and plagiarized Protocols of the Elders of Zion, also naming individual Jews.

"Aaron Sapiro, a lawyer who was organizing farmers' cooperatives [kind of like a community organizer], sued Mr Ford and his paper for a million dollars on the ground that his valuable work would be ruined by their lies. The trial was begun in Detroit in 1926 but it was never finished because Mr Ford apologized to Aaron Sapiro and to the Jewish people as a whole . . . [Ford] said: 'I deem it to be my duty . . . to make amends for the wrong done to the Jews. . . asking their forgiveness. . .'" [Rabbi Lee Levinger, A History of the Jews in the United States (NY: UAHC 1959), p 358].

Henry Ford to be sure was an intense Judeophobe and Nazi sympathizer. He had to produce his own version of the Protocols because --among other things-- the original version was --anti-Roman Catholic & anti-Protestant and sympathetic to the Russian Orthodox Church. The anti-Catholic hate in the original would not have gone down well in the United States.

So, although the libel trial against Ford did not conclude, Sapiro's claim --which restricted Ford's freedom of speech-- was accepted for trial as justiciable. Sapiro did not have to wait for governmental action. Of course the case is not identical. But I think it is rather close to the "private action" that the ACRI paper so deplores. Curiously, the Ford Foundation, founded with Henry Ford's money, works against the Jews as did its namesake, Henry Ford.

- - - - -
NGO Monitor's comments and translation of the law [here]
Eli Hertz compares the present Israeli anti-boycott law with an American anti-boycott law [here]
Isi Leibler discusses anti-Israel boycotts and the anti-boycott law [here]
Eugene Kontorovich blasts hypocrisy of anti-boycott law defamers [here]
7-29-2011 Martin Sherman argues that those circles in Israel advocating boycotts against Israel and/or opposing the anti-boycott law have been undemocratic in their recent history and constitute the greatest threat to democracy in Israel [here]

The Moral Depravity of the "Free Gaza" Flotilla movement

2011-07-11T01:33:00.000-07:00

Somehow the aura of "humanitarianism" has attached itself to the so-called "free gaza flotilla." However, let's examine what their actions are designed to accomplish and who their allies and beneficiaries are in this effort.
The "free gaza" movement openly demands removal of the blockade on Gaza. That would mean that the Hamas Islamofanatic/Islamofascist govt of Gaza would be free --free to bring in any sort of heavy weapon that can be loaded on a ship. And shipping by sea is a more convenient way of transporting heavy weapons than by land. So they want Hamas in Gaza to have heavy weapons. In the past, Hamas has used the lighter, simpler weapons available to it to attack the Jewish civilian population in southern Israel, not only in Sderot but in Ashqelon, Ashdod, Beersheva and other towns and villages. The children of Sderot have been living under rocket attack, first by the rather simple Qassam rockets "home made" in Gaza which were not very accurate. The children often developed serious traumas from rocket attacks, even if they were not physically touched by the rockets or the shrapnel or pieces of broken houses. Now the Hamas has longer-range heavier rockets, like the Grad or Katyusha, which are somewhat more accurate and bear more explosives. In the last Israel-Hamas war 12-2008/1-2009 the Hamas shot rockets from Gaza that hit schools and kindergartens in Beersheba, a city previously out of range. The "free gaza" flotillas want to improve Hamas' chances in the next war. So much for the purposes of the flotilla.

Now about the beneficiaries and allies of the "free gaza" movement. Christopher Hitchens has drawn up a powerful indictment of flotillamania, also explaining what Hamas stands for. By the way, I don't always agree with Hitchens:

Boat People

Some questions for the "activists" aboard the Gaza flotilla.

By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, July 4, 2011, at 11:03 AM ET

Palestinian boats and the Freedom Flotilla in the port of Gaza City

The tale of the Gaza "flotilla" seems set to become a regular summer feature, bobbing along happily on the inside pages with an occasional update. A nice sidebar for reporters covering the Greek debt crisis: a built-in mild tension of "will they, won't they?"; a cast of not very colorful characters but one we almost begin to feel we know personally. Such cheery and breezy slogans—"the audacity of hope" and "free Gaza"—and such an easy storyline that it practically writes itself. Since Israel adopts a posture that almost guarantees a reaction of some sort in the not-too-distant future, and since there was such a frisson of violence the last time the little fleet set sail, there's no reason for it not to become a regular seasonal favorite.

However, given the luxury of time, might it not be possible to ask the "activists" onboard just a few questions? (Activist is a good neutral word, isn't it, with largely positive connotations? Even flotilla, with its reassuring diminuendo, has a "small is beautiful" sound to it.) Most of the speculation so far has been to do with methods and intentions, allowing for many avowals about peaceful tactics and so forth, but this is soft-centered coverage. I would like to know a little more about the political ambitions and implications of the enterprise.

It seems safe and fair to say that the flotilla and its leadership work in reasonably close harmony with Hamas, which constitutes the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. The political leadership of this organization is headquartered mainly in Gaza itself. But its military coordination is run out of Damascus, where the regime of Bashar Assad is currently at war with increasingly large sections of the long-oppressed Syrian population. Refugee camps, some with urgent humanitarian requirements, are making their appearance on the border between Syria and Turkey (the government of the latter being somewhat sympathetic to the purposes of the flotilla). In these circumstances, isn't it legitimate to strike up a conversation with the "activists" and ask them where they come out on the uprising against hereditary Baathism in Syria?

Then again, Syria's other proxy party in the region is Hezbollah, which operates a state-within-a-state and maintains a private army on the territory of Lebanon. Senior associates of this group have recently been named in a U.N. indictment concerning the broad-daylight murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005. Hezbollah's leadership and propaganda organs, while refusing all cooperation with the United Nations, are currently expressing undying solidarity with the Assad regime, which relies additionally on heavy support from the dictatorship in Iran. Again, the Hamas leadership seems compromised at best by its association with this local Tehran-Damascus axis. Surely there must be some spokesman for the blockade-runners who is able to give us his thinking on this question, too? At a time of widespread democratic and pluralist revolution in the region, Hamas imposes its own version of theocracy on Gaza and seems otherwise aligned with the forces that stand athwart the hope of continued and deeper change. Who wants to volunteer time to make this outfit look more presentable? Half the published articles on Gaza contain a standard reference to its resemblance to a vast open-air prison (and when I last saw it under Israeli occupation, it certainly did deserve this metaphor). The problem is that, given its ideology and its allies, Hamas qualifies rather too well in the capacity of guard.

Only a few weeks ago, the Hamas regime in Gaza became the only governing authority in the world—by my count—to express outrage and sympathy at the death of Osama Bin Laden. As the wavelets lap in the Greek harbors, and the sunshine beats down, doesn't any journalist want to know whether the "activists" have discussed this element in their partners' world outlook? Does Alice Walker seriously have no comment?

Hamas is listed by various governments and international organizations as a terrorist group. I don't mind conceding that that particular word has been used in arbitrary ways in the past. But what concerns me much more is the official programmatic adoption, by Hamas, of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This disgusting fabrication is a key foundational document of 20^th-century racism and totalitarianism, indelibly linked to the Hitler regime in theory and practice. It seems extraordinary to me that any "activist" claiming allegiance to human rights could cooperate at any level with the propagation of such evil material. But I have never seen any of them invited to comment on this matter, either.

The little boats cannot make much difference to the welfare of Gaza either way, since the materials being shipped are in such negligible quantity. The chief significance of the enterprise is therefore symbolic. And the symbolism, when examined even cursorily, doesn't seem too adorable. The intended beneficiary of the stunt is a ruling group with close ties to two of the most retrograde dictatorships in the Middle East, each of which has recently been up to its elbows in the blood of its own civilians. The same group also manages to maintain warm relations with, or at the very least to make cordial remarks about, both Hezbollah and al-Qaida. Meanwhile, a document that was once accurately described as a "warrant for genocide" forms part of the declared political platform of the aforesaid group. There is something about this that fails to pass a smell test. I wonder whether any reporter on the scene will now take me up on this.

- - - - - - - - end hitchens - - - - - - -

To conclude, the whole notion of a "palestinian people" was invented for the sake of a psychological warfare/cognitive warfare struggle against Israel. The flotillas and fly-ins serve that purpose with professional expertise.
- - - - - - - -

Hamas organizer behind flotilla [here]
Israel officials explain the threat represented by the flotilla [here]
NGO Monitor: Flotilla won't bring peace [here]
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs on Hamas organizers behind the fooltilla [here]

Brits Echo US State Dept Soft Hand with Syria -- More UK Hypocrisy

2011-07-06T05:22:00.000-07:00

UPDATING 7-13&20&21&23&24&25&27&8-4&6&9-2011 at bottom

BRITAIN ECHOES OBAMA POLICY ON SYRIA: The British are still waiting for Assad to carry out reforms!! Can you believe the naked hypocrisy?

Syria: London condemns the repression in Hama: "The violent repression in Hama will only undermine the regime's legitimacy a little more and raise serious question about its will to put into practice the reforms that it recently announced," William Hague, British minister of foreign affairs stressed in a communiqué. "No true political dialogue can take place at the moment when a brutal military oppression is being conducted," he added. At least eleven civilians were killed by Syrian forces on Tuesday in Hama, a city in the center of the country. [Guysen News 7-5-2011]

Syrie: Londres condamne la répression à Hama "La violente répression à Hama ne fera que saper un peu plus la légitimité du régime et soulèvent de sérieuses questions sur sa volonté de mettre en oeuvre les réformes qu'il a annoncées récemment", a souligné le ministre britannique des Affaires étrangères William Hague dans un communiqué. "Aucun véritable dialogue politique ne peut avoir lieu au moment où est menée une répression militaire brutale", a-t-il ajouté. Au moins onze civils ont été tués par les forces syriennes mardi à Hama, une ville du centre du pays.

London thinks [ostensibly] that Assad's regime still has some "legitimacy" left because it says, "The violent repression in Hama will only undermine the regime's legitimacy a little more ." When did the Assad regime in Syria --going back to the 1960s-- ever have legitimacy? The Hama massacre of 1982 did not undo the regime's legitimacy at all as far as Her Majesty's Govt was & is concerned.
7-5-2011 Washington is still wringing its hands over Syrian repression. "The United States is very troubled by the continuing attacks on peaceful demonstrators in Syria"-- State Dept. Harsh criticism? Maybe not in the circumstances. Anyhow the State Dept is not troubled enough to demand that Assad get out. Recall that Obama told Mubarak to get out for much less.

Syrie: les USA réclament le départ des troupes syriennes d’Hama (Guysen.International.News)Les Etats-Unis ont réclamé aujourd'hui le départ des forces syriennes de la ville d'Hama, exigeant aussi du régime qu'il cesse sa "campagne d'arrestations". "Les Etats-Unis sont très inquiets de la poursuite des attaques contre des manifestants pacifiques en Syrie", a souligné Victoria Nuland, la porte-parole du département d'Etat.

- - - - - -
Carlo Panella sees Bashar Assad's speech of 20 June 2011 as resembling a Goebbels speech [qui]. He thinks that Assad fears fitna, chaos within the Muslim community [Il Foglio, 21 Giugno 2011]. Among other things, Assad reported in the speech that 64,000 Syrians had been arrested or were being sought for arrest and punishment by Syrian security forces. Panella published his article on June 21, but UK chief diplomat, William Hague, was still calling Assad a potential reformer on July 5, 2011.
7-20-2011 Hilary/Obama backtracks on harsh words for Assad. Brutality is OK and the Syrian Opposition should cooperate with Assad Basher to bring reforms -- That's Washington's message about Syria as of now and the EU falls in line [here].
Tony Badran diagnoses earlier stages of the pathology of Obama Syria policy [here]
7-21-2011 Barry Rubin picks apart a lunatic editorial in the New York Times [State Dept mouthpiece] which tells the Lebanese prime minister to be a good boy and follow through on the international tribunal's indictments of the Hizbullah operatives who organized and carried out the murder of Rafiq Hairi & a score of others, and arrest them [here]. Unless the current Lebanese PM wants to end up like Hariri, he is quite unlikely to taken any meaningful action against Hizbullah operatives as long as the Hizb controls Lebanon. But the NYT can pretend that we are living in a civilized world.
Tony Badran now diagnoses the latest stages of Obama's pathological Syria policy [here]. Should we blame Obama's mentors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Lee Hamilton, or an ingrained and insane Third Worldism transmitted to him as a contagion from the Communist who served him as a father figure in his youth?
7-23-2011 Barry Rubin again ponders why Obama & Co. are still trying to prop up the Syrian Assad regime, although it is hated by most Syrians and is likely to be overthrown [according to Israeli intelligence] [here]. Instead of trying to work with the Syrian opposition --a heterogeneous group to be sure-- in order to keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of a future Syrian power structure as much as possible, the Obama administration throws out several fraudulent arguments. One is the lie that Israel wants Assad and his regime to stay in power. Another is the danger that the Muslim Brotherhood might take power in a post-Assad Syria. But we can't trust that as being a real concern in Washington, since Obama and others speaking for him urged the powers that be in Egypt to allow "non-secular" forces to share power in a new, post-Mubarak Egypt, and one of Obama's "national security" clowns, Clapper, even minimized the Islamist nature of the MB by falsely claiming that it was "largely secular."
7-24-2011 Lee Smith calls the Obama White House's Syria policy "morally obtuse" [here]. Smith believes that the regime is doomed.
7-25-2011 Elliott Abrams judges the sincerity of Assad's offer to allow political parties to organize in Syria, provided that they respect "freedom and basic rights." [here]
Tony Badran offers ways that Obama & his administration could use to pressure Assad into leaving. But Badran makes the diagnosis that Obama is still reluctant to tell Assad to leave [here]
7-25-2011 Hossein Askari [here] writes: "While the Arab Spring has threatened the Assad regime, at first the White House lent support to Syria’s dictator, privately arguing that Assad’s fall would increase both instability in the region . . . . Such hypocrisy—backing oppressive regimes in Riyadh, Manama and Damascus while professing unquestioned support for human rights and democratic values—undermines U.S. credibility and influence in the Middle East . . . ."
8-3-2011 Fiamma Nirenstein on the Security Council's failure to speak out about the regime massacres in Syria [here]
8-4-2011 Catherine Ashton has given your ever loyal and ever modest blogger a helping hand. She told the world after Bashar Assad had taken "a step in the right direction" by issuing a new law permitting a multi-party political situation in Syria [here]. She did this after French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, had sneered at Assad's move as a joke and a "provocation." The rather dull-witted Mrs Ashton or Baroness Ashton is holding on to the old British position of forgiving indulgence for Assad after even Obama had taken a more hostile stance toward Assad. She helped me, as said above, because other leaders, like Obama and Juppe, had already distanced themselves more from Assad, thereby leaving me without as much to criticize in them as before. She is the EU foreign affairs commissioner and seems to becoming an embarassment for the EU. They should throw her out now in order to maintain any semblance of decency.
8-6-2011 Jonathan Tobin reports that UNESCO, headed by former Clinton honcho, Anthony Lake, continues to give money to Syrian govt programs --money raised from American children among others, while the regime keeps on slaughtering its people and while world powers finally rebuke Assad & his regime that [here]
8-9-2011 Eyal Zisser gives the 20th century historical background of Syria and the present regime [here]

How Obama's State Dept Works to Keep Assad Basher in Power

2011-07-02T13:04:00.000-07:00

UPDATINGS up to 7-17&20&21&24&8-6&7-2011

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.

Despite the usual viscous peace-loving goo that is often emitted by the State Dept, it is obvious now and has been --for years in fact-- that successive US administrations have worked to keep the Assad regime in power in Syria. They have worked to protect it from enemies both at home and abroad [such as Israel, such as the Lebanese anti-Syrian March 14 Movement, etc]. This was done despite the aid that the Assad regime gave to al-Qa`ida and pro-al-Qa`ida terrorists to get into Iraq and kill American troops there as well as Iraqi civilians.

Elliott Abrams talks about Obama's latest Syria policy on the Council for Foreign Relations blog, of all places. The policy now is that the Syrian opposition --whose rank & file Assad Basher's regime has been torturing and slaughtering for months now-- should talk with the regime in order to bring about "reforms" and "transition" in Syria. It is a weird, if not bizarre, policy. Here is Abrams:

In the last week the news has brought reports of additional repression in Syria, and of the American response: to urge Syrian dissidents to negotiate with the Assad regime.

This Washington Post account describes typical events on the ground in Syria:

“Around 100 peaceful protesters calling for freedom were met with police and baton-wielding security forces Thursday at Damascus University. Students gathered outside the faculty of economics in the Baramkeh area of Damascus minutes after 3pm today calling for freedom. Dozens more students joined together with the small group as the chanting became more forceful. One female protester managed to unfurl a flag before police and security forces charged on the crowd.”

On June 23, The New York Times reported that “Syrian forces backed by snipers and tanks stormed into the border town of Khirbet al-Jouz…sending hundreds of refugees fleeing to Turkey from the informal camp where they had sought shelter from a violent crackdown on protests in the country’s rural northwest.”

The Assad regime has adopted a diplomatic and propaganda plan so clear in its duplicity that I had assumed no one would fall for it. While the killing and jailing continue, the regime has also allowed one single meeting of dissidents in Damascus. In response, according to the Guardian newspaper in London, “The US is pushing the Syrian opposition to maintain dialogue with Bashar al-Assad’s regime as details emerge of a controversial ‘roadmap’ for reforms that would leave him in power for now despite demands for his overthrow during the country’s bloody three-month uprising.”

The Guardian account continues: “Quiet US interest in the roadmap dovetails with public demands from Washington that Assad reform or step down. Robert Ford, the US ambassador, has been urging opposition figures to talk to the regime, said Radwan Ziadeh, a leading exile, who insisted the strategy would not work. ‘They are asking Bashar to lead the transition and this is not acceptable to the protesters,’ he said. ‘It is too late.’”

The State Department denies that it is pushing the opposition into compromising its objectives and principles, but the Guardian then reports this: “A state department spokesman said: ‘We are encouraging genuine dialogue between the opposition and the regime but we are not promoting anything. We want to see a democratic Syria but this is in the hands of the Syrian people.’”

So, it is in the hands of the Syrians—but just in case they don’t get the message it is again clarified: the United States wants the regime to talk, not to fall. In recent trips to the Middle East and in conversations with Arab democracy activists, I have often been asked why the United States is backing Bashar. After months of denying it, I can only conclude they were right. How else can one read these news reports?

It is not possible to have “genuine dialogue” with a regime that has murdered roughly 1,400 peaceful protesters, jailed up to 10,000 more, and continues to shoot and imprison anyone it pleases. The American call for such “dialogue” is an act of realpolitik that abandons all claim to morality.

That is bad enough, but realpolitik must then be judged by its logic and its fruits. There are none, except for undermining the moral position of the United States. To repeat what has been written here before, the Assad regime is an enemy of the United States. It has the blood of tens of thousands of Syrians on its hands but also of thousands of Americans, killed in Iraq by jihadis it led into Iraq for that purpose. It is Iran’s only Arab ally, and provides Iran with a Mediterranean port, a border with Israel through Hizballah, and an arms trafficking route from Iran to Hizballah. It supports and houses Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups. The fall of the Assad regime would be the greatest blow we can strike against Iran and its terrorist allies today.

“Encouraging genuine dialogue” is a pitiful position for the United States to take when our interests—and those of our enemies—are so clear, and when astonishingly courageous Syrians keep risking their lives to bring down the Assad regime. Our interests and our values coincide in Syria, and both are undermined when our policies have the effect of prolonging in power a vicious, anti-American regime allied to terrorist groups and to Iran. This policy is folly, not realpolitik. - - - - - end of Abrams - - - -

7-5-2011 BRITAIN ECHOES OBAMA POLICY ON SYRIA: The British are still waiting for Assad to carry out reforms!! Can you believe the naked hypocrisy?

Syrie: Londres condamne la répression à Hama "La violente répression à Hama ne fera que saper un peu plus la légitimité du régime et soulèvent de sérieuses questions sur sa volonté de mettre en oeuvre les réformes qu'il a annoncées récemment", a souligné le ministre britannique des Affaires étrangères William Hague dans un communiqué. "Aucun véritable dialogue politique ne peut avoir lieu au moment où est menée une répression militaire brutale", a-t-il ajouté. Au moins onze civils ont été tués par les forces syriennes mardi à Hama, une ville du centre du pays.

Syrie: les USA réclament le départ des troupes syriennes d’Hama (Guysen.International.News)Les Etats-Unis ont réclamé aujourd'hui le départ des forces syriennes de la ville d'Hama, exigeant aussi du régime qu'il cesse sa "campagne d'arrestations". "Les Etats-Unis sont très inquiets de la poursuite des attaques contre des manifestants pacifiques en Syrie", a souligné Victoria Nuland, la porte-parole du département d'Etat.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
More on Syria and Obama's policy on helping the Assad gang stay in power. [here & here& others].
The word "power" by the way reminds me of one Samantha Power, the leading humanitarian phoney in the White House on Obama's staff. She went so far as to write a book about the US failure to effectively oppose past genocide & also recommended sending troops to Israel to enforce a pro-Arab settlement on Israel.
The slaughter in Syria may not yet be genocide. But mass slaughter fits what's happening.
7-4-2011 Barry Rubin points out that the Obama White House's warm spot for the Assad regime extends to Lebanon where the Obamanoids have allowed Hizbullah, Assad's allies, to take over the govt. Rubin says that the recent indictment of 4 Hizbullah operatives for murdering former Lebanese prime minister, Rafiq Hariri, has not moved Obama to do anything concrete to punish the Hizb for that murder and others [here]
7-7-2011 John Hannah wonders about the paradox of Obama's toleration for Assad Basher while he had told Mubarak to get out shortly after the protests began in Egypt [here]
7-16-2011 Barry Rubin tries to fathom the depths of Obama's Middle Eastern policy and to identify the reasons for it [here]
7-20-2011 Hilary/Obama backtracks on harsh words for Assad. Brutality is OK and the Syrian Opposition should cooperate with Assad Basher to bring reforms -- That's Washington's message about Syria as of now and the EU falls in line [here].
Tony Badran diagnoses earlier stages of the pathology of Obama Syria policy [here]
7-21-2011 Barry Rubin picks apart a lunatic editorial in the New York Times [State Dept mouthpiece] which tells the Lebanese prime minister to be a good boy and follow through on the international tribunal's indictments of the Hizbullah operatives who organized and carried out the murder of Rafiq Hairi & a score of others, and arrest them [here]. Unless the current Lebanese PM wants to end up like Hariri, he is quite unlikely to taken any meaningful action against Hizbullah operatives as long as the Hizb controls Lebanon. But the NYT can pretend that we are living in a civilized world.
Tony Badran now diagnoses the latest stages of Obama's pathological Syria policy [here]. Should we blame Obama's mentors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Lee Hamilton, or an ingrained and insane Third Worldism transmitted to him as a contagion from the Communist who served him as a father figure in his youth?
7-23-2011 Barry Rubin again ponders why Obama & Co. are still trying to prop up the Syrian Assad regime, although it is hated by most Syrians and is likely to be overthrown [according to Israeli intelligence] [here]. Instead of trying to work with the Syrian opposition --a heterogeneous group to be sure-- in order to keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of a future Syrian power structure as much as possible, the Obama administration throws out several fraudulent arguments. One is the lie that Israel wants Assad and his regime to stay in power. Another is the danger that the Muslim Brotherhood might take power in a post-Assad Syria. But we can't trust that as being a real concern in Washington, since Obama and others speaking for him urged the powers that be in Egypt to allow "non-secular" forces to share power in a new, post-Mubarak Egypt, and one of Obama's "national security" clowns, Clapper, even minimized the Islamist nature of the MB by falsely claiming that it was "largely secular."
7-24-2011 Lee Smith calls the Obama White House's Syria policy "morally obtuse" [here]. Smith believes that the regime is doomed.
8-3-2011 Fiamma Nirenstein on the Security Council's failure to speak out about the regime massacres in Syria [here]
8-4-2011 Catherine Ashton has given your ever loyal and ever modest blogger a helping hand. She told the world after Bashar Assad had taken "a step in the right direction" by issuing a new law permitting a multi-party political situation in Syria [here]. She did this after French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, had sneered at Assad's move as a joke and a "provocation." The rather dull-witted Mrs Ashton or Baroness Ashton is holding on to the old British position of forgiving indulgence for Assad after even Obama had taken a more hostile stance toward Assad. She helped me, as said above, because other leaders, like Obama and Juppe, had already distanced themselves more from Assad, thereby leaving me without as much to criticize in them as before. She is the EU foreign affairs commissioner and seems to be becoming an embarassment for the EU. They should throw her out now in order to maintain any semblance of decency.
8-6-2011 Jonathan Tobin reports that UNESCO, headed by former Clinton honcho, Anthony Lake, continues to give money to Syrian govt programs --money raised from American children among others, while the regime keeps on slaughtering its people and while world powers finally rebuke Assad & his regime about that [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]

Big Lie of the "Free Gaza" Flotilla -- Gaza Gets Tons of Food Everyday

2011-06-29T13:35:00.000-07:00

UPDATING 6-30-2011 see bottom

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

Here is a video showing Gaza's well-stocked open air food markets and shopping centers. Cellular phones and autos abound. The bourgeois [petit-bourgeois if you like] lifestyle is alive and well in the Gaza Strip.

The yearly billions in foreign aid that the Strip receives do a lot to promote consumption. The Gaza standard of living is on average notably higher than in the typical Egyptian village. Can you find poor people in Gaza? Probably. You can also find them in London, Paris and New York. Why not compare the number of homeless people sleeping on the streets in New York or Paris with the proportionately comparative number in Gaza. Probably fewer homeless in Gaza. On the other hand, I stayed on the Boulevard Richard LeNoir in Paris a few years ago. In the middle of this broad boulevard is a wide pedestrian island-cum-public park. Once a week or more often, a soup kitchen was set up in this park for the homeless and other poor folk. Those succoring the poor were giving out a kind of thick, congealed green substance that may have wanted to be pea soup. In any case, it must have been edible because a hundred or more people lined up for the food every time it was given out. As far as I know, Gaza does not have that.
- - - - - - - -
Here is a video [here]
Who is behind the current "Free Gaza Flotilla"? They're not a darling little group of sweet, innocuous pacifists. The main organizers are Muslim Brotherhood personalities, assisted by the US-based pro-Arab group, the ISM [international solidarity movement] [see here].
Daled Amos on the real purpose of the "free gaza flotilla." Quotes Adam Shapiro of the ISM (for solidarity with Nazis) [here]
Elder of Ziyyon on why the Dutch journalists, who wanted to embed with the "freedom flotilla", have quit (Elder presents a google translation of a Dutch press article) [here]. One of the journalists who quit was of Muslim origin herself [Hasna Maroudi]. Fund-raiser for the Dutch "freedom flotilla" boat was the Dutch rep of Hamas --Amin Abou Rashed-- who cooperated with other Muslim Brotherhood figures, and is seen in a photo with the notorious Muslim hate preacher on al-Jazeera, Yusuf al-Qaradhawi [their photo together in the original article here]. Al-Qaradhawi came back to Egypt for the first time in years after Mubarak's overthrow, thanks in part to Obama's support for bringing the anti-democratic Muslim Brotherhood into a future "democratic govt" of Egypt. Bear in mind that the Muslim Brotherhood rejects democracy and human rights in principle.
CAMERA refers to the Dutch journalist story and links to a professional translation of an article in Trouw [here][thanx to NGO Monitor]
NGO Monitor argues that the "freedom flotilla" will not bring peace. Of course not, guys, it's not supposed to bring to bring peace. Peace is not its purpose [here].
NGO Monitor has a translation from the Dutch De Telegraaf online news site [here] & from Trouw [here also linked to indirectly above through CAMERA]
Can you ever satisfy the Arabs and their friends? A Euro-funded, pro-Arab [pro-Fatah & Hamas] group called Gisha complains that Gaza's problem is not the inability to bring in food but the ability to export food and other goods [here].
Here is a video [here] showing a line of big trucks bringing supplies into Gaza through the crossing from Israel at Kerem Shalom near the Egyptian border with Israel and Gaza. The initials A.R.E. on some large boxes of refrigerators stand for Arab Republic of Egypt. That is, Gaza is importing refrigerators from Egypt. Remember that on the whole, Gazans have a higher standard of living than the average Egyptian.
6-4-2011 Belgian flotilla contingent going home due to disappointment with flotilla leadership & other reasons [here in Flemish]. This after Dutch journalists left because of humiliating treatment at hands of flotilla, as well as finding out that a Hamas operative was the flotilla's chief organizer. Dutch-Moroccan pro-flotilla militant changes her position and leaves Athens for Holland [here in Dutch]
New city to be built in Gaza [here, in Arabic, use google translator]
Melanie Philips quotes a flotilla leader [of ISM] who admits that the purpose of the flotilla is not humanitarian but political, aiming to open up Gaza port to any cargo that Hamas wants to bring in. That implies that the ISM and the "gaza freedom flotilla" are meant to enable Hamas bring in heavy weapons without any interference. Iran has already sent ships to bring heavy weapons to Gaza.[here too].
Tom Gross shows us pix of fun on the beach at Gaza [here]. The Flotilloonies might enjoy dipping their feet into the sea on the Gaza beach.
Alice Walker promises to deliver LOVE to Gaza, and explains that she is going there because she loves children & trees, etc. [video here] [NOTE: She does not love Israeli children in southern Israel who live at the mercy of Hamas rockets].

"The West's Proxy War against Israel"

2011-06-21T06:28:00.000-07:00

UPDATING 6-24-2011 at bottom

The "peace" in Peace Process refers
to peace of mind for Judeophobes
- Eliyahu
When fascism comes to America, it
will be called "anti-fascism."
- Huey Long

Are ostensibly humanitarian or human rights-oriented NGOs serving as anti-Jewish, anti-Israel political tools of Western powers? Let us first look at the history of governments using "non-governmental" organizations to attack Jews, whether physically or verbally. The Encyclopedia Judaica [JTo], vol 3, col 86, tells us:

In Rumania and czarist Russia, anti-Semitism was to a large extent government-sponsored . . .

Focussing on the Russian Empire, where the most Jews lived at that time, we read:

. . . the first known reactionary anti-Semitic organization, the Sacred League [usually called the Holy League], which sprang up after the assassination of Czar Alexander II in March 1881, was clandestine, although arch-reactionary high officials and even ministers seem to have furthered it. In their eyes the Jews were the source of all rebellion, and they themselves used terror and violence to destroy the "leaven of revolution." It is generally believed that the Sacred League was instrumental in fomenting the pogroms of 1881 and 1882. It was dissolved at the end of that year. Toward the end of 1904, when the Japanese war was going badly for Russia, and early in 1905, when the revolution broke out, another anti-Semitic organization was formed, the Union of the Russian People, rather similar in character and aims to its predecessor. This league was openly recognized, and even furthered by the Czar and his government, together with its secret fighting squads, the "Black Hundreds," which were largely responsible for the pogroms of 1905 and for counterrevolutionary political assassinations. The Union of the Russian People, acting in the open, continued in existence until World War I, and inspired the formation of several similar "patriotic" organizations. . . Even during the war [WW 1], government-sponsored Anti-Semitism scarcely abated. . . [EJ, vol 3, col 86.]

Today, we see Israel confronted with a series of extremely hostile demands on it by several Western powers. Britain, France and Germany appear to have joined in with Obama's demand [enunciated on 19 May 2011] that Israel start negotiations after having already conceded that negotiations will start with the assumption that the 1949-1967 armistice lines will be the future border except for "land swaps" between the little vulnerable pre-1967 Israel and a future Arab state to be called "palestine." This acre-for-acre formula allows the Arab side, aggressors in two wars on the Judea-Samaria front [1947-1949 & 1967], to start over again without losses of territory to punish and compensate for their aggression. It also disregards the stipulation in Security Council resolution 242 [post-6 Day War] that negotiations between the parties should work towards "secure and recognized boundaries." This Obama formula would, therefore, deny Israel "secure" borders, which means defensible borders on the Judea-Samaria front.

But Obama's negotiating formula is a diplomatic position. It is in the area of open diplomacy. There are also surreptitious ways that Obama and his administration utilize for working against Israel. They seek to embarass and discredit [that is, delegitimize] Israel in world public opinion. Caroline Glick, referring to Joel Fishman's research, tells us that the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc sought to do that after the Six Day War.

. . . in the aftermath of World War II, and particularly after Israel’s victory in the Six Day War, the Soviets adapted Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda to demonize Israel as the new, collective Jew and in turn demonize the collective Jew as the new Nazi Germany. [Caroline Glick based on J Fishman, "The Big Lie and the Media War against Israel: From Inversion of Truth to Inversion of Reality," in Jewish Political Studies Review, March 2007]

Apparently, at least since the fall of the USSR, Western states too depict Israel in the colors of evil, playing on centuries-old themes of Western Judeophobia. One such device is the encouragement by the Obama administration and its close supporters for publicity stunts designed to embarass Israel, like the "Free Gaza" Flotilla which seems now to be coming out in its second, 2011 edition. The Hamas jihadists [a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood] who rule Gaza enforce Islamic law there and aim to go farther with it. It hardly needs to be said that Islamic law not only denies basic human dignity to non-Muslims but severely restricts what Muslims can do, and holds women --even Muslim women-- as degraded inferiors. That is, Islamic law --shari`ah-- is opposed to freedom. A movement aiming to support Hamas can no more be called a "freedom movement" than Simon Legree can be called a champion of liberty. In a widespread effort to besmirch Israel:

According to Fishman, . . . ex-Nazi propagandists [in Communist & Arab service, developed propaganda/psywar themes] to delegitimize Israel . . . after 1967. The call to arms was published first in a Pravda editorial in October 1967. There, Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement was reviled as dedicated to “genocide, racism, treachery, aggression, and annexation . . . all characteristic attributes of fascists.”

Caroline Glick comments:

With both the Soviets and the Arabs spewing the same inverted message, it didn’t take long for it to become the rage in Europe. Europe’s adoption of the Nazi-inspired propaganda in which reality was inverted and Israel – the victim of Arab imperialist, genocidal aggression – became the imperialist, genocidal aggressor was facilitated by France’s embrace of the Arab camp after its withdrawal from Algeria . . .

Consider here too De Gaulle's notorious statement [27 November 1967] that the Jews were "a domineering people." Glick goes on:

By 1975, with the UN General Assembly’s adoption of the Soviet-Arab sponsored resolution 3379 defining Zionism as racism, most European governments had fallen in line with the Soviet-Arab propaganda war.

Here we should add Bat Yeor's research on the EU-Arab alliance, which she calls Eurabia. After Europe was won over to the anti-Israel cause, Glick adds,

They in turn spent the next generation bringing their message to America.

But I trust that no one will be surprised if I point out that there were Judeophobes/antisemites in America even before the Six Day War. Judeophobes/antisemites can be found both among what is called "the Left" and what is called "the Right." These sectors of public opinion are not necessarily so different. Let's consider Franklin D Roosevelt to whom Obama has been compared. How did FDR feel about Jews? Did he try to help Jews during the Shoah or did he try to prevent them from being saved and rescued? Many books have been written on this historical issue. The truth of the matter indicts what are called Liberals and what are called the Left. To be sure, in America there were also Liberals and Leftists, as well as Conservatives and Republicans who helped the Jews. For example Hugh Scott, Republican congressman from Philadelphia, who revealed info about the ongoing Holocaust to Jewish activists with the Bergson Group. This was info that FDR was keeping back from the public. Others who helped spread the info as well as the fact that the FDR administration was not helping Jews were Josiah DuBois, Charles Beard, etc.

More characteristic of "Liberals" today is Senator John Kerry, Democratic candidate for president in 2004, a close associate of the White House, and several times an Obama envoy to Assad Basher in Syria. The significant point here is that Kerry has also been a friend of the "Free Gaza" movement, giving a letter of recommendation to Code Pink leaders before they set off to Egypt in December 2009 on a Freedom March to Gaza, five months before they joined the Turkish Armada to Gaza, thugs of which attacked Israeli naval commandos on 31 May 2010. Kerry called the Code Pinkers "humanitarian," whereas their aim was to undermine the blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt, thereby allowing Hamas to import heavy weapons by sea into the Hamas-ruled zone. The weapons would be used against Israel of course. As to humanitarian needs, tons of food were and are transported into Gaza from Israel every day, and Gaza gets much of its water and electricity supply from Israel.

Code Pink became widely known for acting out clownish antics in order to arouse opposition to President Bush's war in Iraq. However, Obama has sent more troops to Afghanistan than Bush had there, yet Code Pink has not played its flamboyant, histrionic, juvenile stunts to oppose Obama's war in Afstan, although formally opposing it. Here is something about Code Pink's relationship to the White House. First,

Jodie Evans [Code Pink founder and leader] . . . was one of Obama’s top funders and donors in the 2007-2008 presidential campaign [here]

She also "gave Kerry $1000 in 2004 for his presidential run." [here]
Next, Jodie Evans has White House access:

Code Pink has worked as a conduit between Hamas and Obama, delivering a letter from the terrorist group to Obama last June. Jodie Evans met with Obama administration official Buffy Wicks at the White House after Code Pink brought the letter out of Gaza. [here, also see here & here]

Evans and her other gal ghoul friends of code pink & male companions like Bill Ayres, another friend of Obama, took part in the "Gaza Freedom March" which in fact supported the Hamas, enemies of freedom [here].
Another friend of Free Gaza in Washington is Lee Hamilton, director of the Woodrow Wilson Center [1/3 US govt funded]. Hamilton is a mentor of Obama and the Hamilton of the Baker-Hamilton Report, which recommended that the US move closer to the Syrian Assad Basher regime at Israel's expense, pushing Israel to surrender the strategically vital Golan Heights to the murderous Assad gang. Hamilton had his Center confer the Woodrow Wilson Public Service Award [here] on Turkish foreign minister Davutoglu just a few weeks after his govt, Erdung's govt, had sponsored the May 2010 "Freedom Flotilla" to Gaza [here].
To top off all of this, Obama's misnamed "counterterrorism czar", John Brennan, was the chief White House contact for the "Free Gaza" convoy.

The Encyclopedia Judaica tells us that in Tsarist Russia, "high officials and even ministers seem to have furthered" the anti-Jewish Holy League. About 20 years later, the anti-Jewish body, "the Union of the Russian People, rather similar in character and aims to its predecessor [was founded]. This league was openly recognized, and even furthered by the Czar and his government, together with its secret fighting squads, the 'Black Hundreds'" who perpetrated pogroms. Is there any similarity between the tsarist Russian method for attacking Jews and the Obama method?
- - - - - - -
The Wiesenthal Institute cites EU funding for "Israel=apartheid" event at Erasmus University in the Netherlands [here]
EU foreign affairs commissioner, Catherine Ashton, makes a typically hypocritical EU utterance on violence in Gaza [here pdf].
Martin Peretz on Western hostility to Israel disguised as a "peace process." [here]
Gaza physicians complain that medicines brought by the ostensibly "humanitarian" Turkish Armada are past their expiry date [here]
Lee Smith welcomes Fatah-Hamas pact because it exposes Western mendacity re possibility of peace between Israel and Palestinian Arabs [here]
Pix of "Free Gaza" movement with Hamas honcho Ismail Haniyah in Gaza [here]
Organizers of the "Audacity of Hope" humano ship to Gaza admit to not carrying humano goods [here]
NGO Monitor researches funding sources for NGOs operating in the Land of Israel. Typically they are heavily funded by the EU, EU member states and powerful institutions in Western countries [here].
Phyllis Chesler describes the Flotilla of Fools and the ignorance, bigotry and narcissism of its actors [here]
Pajamas Media reported on Code Pink's obsequious visit to the ayatollahs of Iran back in 2008, oblivious to the execution of an Iranian woman [here]
6-24-2011 The pro-Hamas convoy to Gaza does not want to openly acknowledge what Hamas really stands for. Hamas stands for war and killing of Israeli civilians, while suppressing their fellow Arabs in Gaza [here]

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

2011-05-30T01:58:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-29T04:27:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-23T09:45:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-22T08:49:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-20T02:45:00.000-07:00

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"?

2011-05-19T03:52:00.000-07:00

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 "

2011-05-15T06:44:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-08T04:49:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-06T08:25:00.000-07:00

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]

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan --Israel's Enemy, Hamas' Friend-- Mocks Turkish-Armenian Friendship

2011-04-26T05:31:00.000-07:00

Turkey's Islamist prime minister, Erdogan, is not satisfied with continuing to deny the Ottoman Empire's genocide of Armenians during WW One. He has now demanded destruction of a statue celebrating Turkish-Armenian friendship. Erdung recently visited the Kars region, part of historic Armenia and near the present Turkish border with Armenia. He called the monument a monstrosity, and pointed to its location near the tomb of a Muslim scholar. Of course, Erdung can get away with saying and doing almost anything, since he enjoys the favor of America's WonderBoy President, the highly cynical Barack Hussein Obama who --before his election in 2008-- had promised the Armenian-American community that he would recognize the Armenian genocide. Since then, of course, Obama has curried favor with the Erdung govt in Turkey, used Turkey against Israel in the "Free Gaza" Turkish armada, and refused to call the Armenian genocide a genocide.

The statue's sculptor, a Turk named Mehmet Aksoy, warned that destruction of his work would remind the world of the Taliban's destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, and would harm Turkey's candidacy for membership in the European Union.

"La Turquie détruit une statue célébrant l'amitié avec l'Arménie La Turquie a entamé mardi le démontage d'un imposant monument célébrant l'amitié avec l'Arménie près de la frontière entre les deux pays, après que le Premier ministre eut tourné en dérision la statue et demandé son enlèvement. Recep Tayyip Erdogan avait déclenché un torrent de critiques lors d'une visite à Kars en janvier au cours de laquelle il avait fustigé la statue comme une monstruosité... une drôle de chose érigée à proximité de la tombe d'un érudit musulman. Les critiques avaient vu notamment dans ses propos des accents islamiques orthodoxes: les statues considérées comme idolâtres sont souvent rejetées par l'islam. Le sculpteur Mehmet Aksoy a averti que la démolition de son oeuvre rappellerait la destruction des Bouddhas de Bamiyan en Afghanistan par les talibans et gênerait la candidature d'Ankara à l'entrée dans l'Union européenne." [Guysen News 26 IV 2011]

Since we're on the subject of Armenian-Turkish relations, there are still scholars who seek to deny or minimize the genocide or claim that it was just part of the war, etc. Yet, Eitan Belkind, an activist in the NILI group led by Aaron Aaronsohn, was an eyewitnes to massacres of Armenian civilians during WW I. Aaronsohn's sister, Sarah, was an eyewitness to the cruel deportation of Armenians from their homes in Anatolia toward the area of Dayr az-Zur [Deir ez-Zor] in the Syrian Desert where many of the mass murder acts were actually committed. Ironically, a Syrian ruler has lately killed many of his fellow Arabs in Dayr az-Zur who were protesting his despotic rule.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Earlier posts about the Armenian genocide on this blog, also Aaron & Sarah Aaronsohn, Eitan Belkind: here & here & here & here & here.
4-28-2011 Syrian oppositionist Farid Ghadry asks Erdogan why he doesn't send a "freedom flotilla" to Syria, while Erdogan noisily and actively demonstrates concern for Gaza [here]

Why Did Obama Harshly Scold Mubarak, Demanding that He Leave, while Coddling Bashar Assad?

2011-04-22T07:42:00.000-07:00

UPDATING 4-23&24&26&27&5-7-2011See at bottom

Many have noticed that Obama and Hilary were rough with Mubarak, telling him to leave office just a few days into the mass demonstrations in Egypt, whereas it took them two or three weeks to tell Qaddafi to get out, and whereas Washington --Obama, Hilary, the State Dept-- are still coddling Bashar [Basher] Assad. What explains this differential treatment? Many competent commentators have taken a stab at the question. Lee Smith wrote a fine article on the subject. Just this afternoon [4-22-2011, Israel Channel 1], Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv University, pointed out that Hilary called Basher a "reformer" just a few weeks ago, albeit to widespread contempt. Zisser, like Smith, discussed the differential treatment for Mubarak who was not exceptionally bad or cruel, as Arab rulers go, and for Bashar, who --Zisser pointed out-- is being protected or coddled or treated leniently by the Washington mob. But Zisser did not claim to have an answer.

Why this differential treatment? In fact, there is one and the same answer for Obama wanting to get rid of Mubarak while keeping Assad in power. Obama and his evil advisors and mentors, like Zbig Brzezinski and Lee Hamilton, want Israel to be encircled by enemies. So Obama encourages Turkey against Israel, scoffing at the Armenian-Americans who naively supported him on account of his promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. He encouraged the Code Pink and Free Gaza campaigners who teamed up with the Turkish jihadists on last May's convoy to Gaza. Lee Hamilton's Woodrow Wilson Center even gave Turkish FM Davutoglu the Woodrow Wilson award a few weeks after the Mavi Marmara incident. No doubt as a reward for embarassing Israel in world public opinion.

Syria is a very hostile state on Israel's northeast which supports the equally hostile Hizbullah on Israel's north in Lebanon. Both, by the way, are clearly Judeophobic, not merely "critical" of Israel. The Hizbullah, well-armed by Iran and Syria, could not exist in Lebanon as a state within a state --as the hegemonic body in the state-- without Syrian support. Iran which is farther away threatens Israel with the Bomb and with long-distance rockets. Obama was counting on a strong, stable anti-Israel front on Israel's north and northeast to threaten and pressure Israel, joining with Western diplomatic pressure from the US, UK, EU, etc. The protest movement in Syria threatens that strong, stable anti-Israel front.

Mubarak on the other hand was cooperating with Israel on security matters, especially in regard to Hamas and Iran. To be sure, he was violating the 1979 treaty with Israel in regard to anti-Israel agitation and propaganda in the Egyptian media, schools, etc. But he was cooperating, if only minimally, on security, especially in regard to Hamas. Hamas is an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, a sworn enemy of Mubarak, and of course a bitter enemy of Israel and the Jews based on medieval Islamic teaching. Obama wanted to much increase MB influence over Egyptian policy towards Israel, if not to bring the MB into the govt. Recall that a US official said --before Mubarak's ouster-- that "non-secular" factors in Egyptian society and politics should be brought into the govt for the sake of "democracy." "Non-secular" factors was a clear reference to the MB. And now, the post-Mubarak regime is giving in to various MB demands, warning of renegotiating the agreement for purchase of Egyptian natural gas. The two serious candidates for president of Egypt, `Amr Musa --head of the Arab League-- and the repulsive Muhammad al-Barada`i who helped along the Iranian Bomb Project, are talking against Israel, warning of intervening against any Israeli attack on the Hamas and demanding reopening of the 1979 treaty besides the gas purchase agreement. Obama's endeavors to encircle Israel with a more hostile power on the south [more hostile, less amenable to peace with Israel than Mubarak was] have borne fruit. That has happened. Note that democracy was never Obama's real concern. Demonstrators have been shot since Mubarak's ouster. Dissidents like Maikel Nabil Sanad are now in jail. Ten or more Copts were killed in clashes with MB thugs. The army damaged Coptic monasteries. Moreover, the people in Egypt are poorer and less secure economically than before the ouster, albeit things were bad then too.

So here Obama succeeded in having a more anti-Israeli front set up on the south. Yet, the northern anti-Israel front is being shaken by pesky demonstrators in Syria who demand freedom for their country and improvement in their situation. The Syrian demonstrations are a blow to Obama's encirclement strategy. So after more than a month of anti-regime protests in Syria, Obama and his Washington gang have not demanded that Assad get out. The criticisms from the State Department are relatively mild. Of course, the Assad regime is immensely more bloodthirsty than Mubarak ever was. Obama's concern is not with decency or democracy but with encircling Israel with very hostile powers. Hence, the answer to the question asked by Lee Smith and Eyal Zisser is one and the same. Obama wants to encircle and besiege Israel. Assad serves that purpose much better than Mubarak.

Also consider why Obama has been soft on Iran, friendly to Erdogan's Turkey and Pakistan [another Muslim fanatic state].

Lastly, consider the role of the so-called "left" and the so-called "human rights" organizations. These bodies, insofar as they focus their hatred on Israel, serve the anti-Israel policy of the EU, UK, and the old hatred for Jews of the US State Department. The self-styled "human rights" outfits like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch hate Israel more than they love or believe or serve the cause of human rights. The anti-Israel "Left" cares much less about exploited, ill-treated workers --in Abu Dhabi or Dubai, let us say-- or about the vast capital concentrated in the hands of the Arab oil billionaires than they do about harming Jews in Israel. They are unwitting tools at best of the UK, EU, & US State Department.

- - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 4-23-2011 Can it be true that goody goody "peace groups", like CodePink for instance, can be considered "tools" of wealthy and powerful Establishment forces? Alana Goodman thinks so. She wondered why "the anti-war movement has pretty much evaporated under President Obama". She concludes that "the anti-war movement was little more than a partisan anti-Bush movement. Obama has continued most of Bush’s counterterrorism tactics, increased AfPak [Afghanistan-Pakistan] drone strikes, kept open Guantanamo Bay, sent the U.S. into a war in Libya and tinkered with Miranda rights for terrorists. And yet no massive anti-war protests greet him in California, nobody burns him in effigy, nobody chants that he’s 'the real terrorist.'" [here]
Simon Tisdall admits that Western govts are soft on Assad the Basher, some --such as the US & UK-- wanting to keep him in office supposedly for the sake of "Israel-Palestine peace efforts." The so-called "peace efforts" & "peace process" are thinly disguised efforts to weaken Israel and thereby give the Arabs a chance to finish Hitler's work. As I say above, the Obama gang wants to maintain a strong, stable anti-Israel front on Israel's northern & northeastern borders. [Tisdall here]
Walter Russell Mead points out that the reasons given for US intervention in Libya are present "in spades" in Syria. Mead also reminds us that, "For decades now, Syria has been a principal state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. Hezbollah and Hamas would not exist in their present forms without Syrian protection and support. On its own behalf, and as Iran’s closest strategic ally in the Arab world, Syria has a long record of arming, training and sheltering terrorists." [here]
Washington Times editorial 4-23-2011 [here] supports Alana Goodman's premise that the "anti-war movement" dried up under Obama and her conclusion that the "anti-war movement" under Bush was mainly a partisan movement cynically manipulated by Democrats [here].
4-24-2011 Elliott Abrams notes the disrepancy in Obama's positions toward Mubarak and Assad respectively. Abrams calls for stronger US action.
William Harris says that Bashar the Basher is committing war crimes. Further, Harris does not think very highly of Obama's Syria policy: "It is difficult to think of anything more obstinately counter-intuitive than Barack Obama's reluctance to give up on the Syrian dictatorship and the bankrupt policy of "engagement" [with Assad]. Morality, strategic interest, and simple good sense together demand an end to the nonsense about reforming what cannot be reformed; if it survives, the dictatorship will be so blood-soaked that no decent person could "engage" its leadership. On the other hand, a new Syria will mean a new Middle East, with the Iranian theocracy's capability in the Levant dealt a stunning reverse and new prospects for a real Arab-Israeli peace process. " [see here]
Carlo Panella has written several pieces about Syria: "Assad First Slaughters the Demonstrators, Then He Calls Them Martyrs"[in Italiano qui] e "Nazi Repression in Syria. . ." [qui] e "Assad's Opponents" qui.
Wall Street Journal on the Syria lobby in Washington [here].
4-27-2011 Aaron David Miller, ex-State Dept, informs us that "the Assads hold a special place in the schemes and dreams of U.S. policymakers." But, but. They're bloodthirsty bastards, aren't they? How could Washington possibly like them? [here]
Lee Smith asks "Why Is Obama Protecting Assad?" [here]. He quotes Michael Doran who writes that Obama was counting on Assad's Syria to be part of a general, comprehensive "peace" agreement between Israel and the Arab states. Doran writes: “the Obama administration has made the Arab-Israeli peace process the organizing principle of its Middle East policy.” Getting rid of Assad would somehow thwart that purpose. Doran implies that Assad staying in power in Syria is essential to this "peace" strategy. Doran doesn't explain why a Syrian govt without the Assad clan could not also make "peace" or even peace with Israel. Or be just as likely or just as unlikely to do so.
Lee Smith concludes: "the Obama White House’s Syria policy is not pragmatic and cautious. Rather, it is adventurist and ideological. The administration is sheltering Damascus in order to salvage its own bankrupt Middle East policy. If he loses Assad, Obama is lost in the region and the administration will be forced, obviously against its will, to recalibrate. The question is, how much will U.S. interests suffer in the meantime?" [here]. What Lee Smith and Doran say fits in with what Aaron David Miller wrote: "the Assads hold a special place in the schemes and dreams of U.S. policymakers."
Syrian oppositionist Farid Ghadry asks where the West is in Syria's time of travail. He especially wants to know why Erdogan of Turkey wants to send a "freedom flotilla" to Hamas-ruled Gaza but is not interested in sending a similar "freedom flotilla" to the Syrian people [here].
Elliott Abrams on Obama's Syria policy [here]
Julian Borger on British Syria policy since Junior Basher rose to power in 2000 [here]
St Andrews University in Britain said to be embarassed over Syrian funding for a "Syrian Studies" center [here]. A pimp of the pen like Patrick Seale, a toady for the Syrian regime, is an advisor to the center.
Washington Times editorial scolding Obama's policy ["The Nobama Doctrine"] & calling for intervention to save the Syrian people [here]
Lee Smith has more on why Obama & Company are soft on the Assads [here]: ". . . in place of a rational intellect and a moral center, all the White House has is an imaginary peace process, a pipe dream that requires the “reform-minded” Bashar al-Assad to come to his senses and engage with Washington."
4-30-2011 James Traub gives reasons why he thinks that Western powers were so fond of Syria and Bashar the Basher [here]
Elliott Abrams complains about the soft Obama adminstration response to Syrian govt physical abuse of an American diplomat [here]
Jonathan Spyer takes on the Israeli fools [Uri Sagi, Alon Liel, etc] who want a "deal" with Assad's Syria and need the West to prop him up until that will o'the wisp eventuality [here]
Barry Rubin points out that Assad's Syria has never been a real partner for peace for Israel despite what the Obama and previous US administrations have "believed" or pretended to believe. This should have been known and understood in the West as far back as the 1960s. [I believe that it probably was understood in the West]. He goes on to point out the danger of surrendering Israel's natural defense of the Golan Heights to Syria. How can we know in advance that the Assad gang or any succeeding regime in Syria will keep a peace treaty with Israel if it controls the strategic advantage of the Golan Heights? [here]
Barry Rubin points out that everybody --every Western govt, in particular-- should have [& could have] known just how bad the Syrian regime was many years ago. But up till the recent revolt, the Western govts were playing dumb about Junior Assad, Bashar the Basher [here].
Another piece by Barry Rubin, if combined with his two articles linked to above on Syria, supports my argument that Obama and his gang want Israel to be surrounded by hostile powers. Barry might not agree explicitly with my sound inferences from his analyses.
5-7-2011 Barry Rubin despairs over any decent response to the Syria crisis emerging from Washington's Foggy Bottom [and Foggy Top][here]

Vittorio Arrigoni Was an Enemy of Human Rights, a Warmonger & a Hatemonger

2011-04-15T03:27:00.000-07:00

UPDATED 4-16 & 20&21-2011

"Human rights activist" and "peace campaigner" were some of the chief words of praise thrown at Vittorio Arrigoni, a pro-Nazi activist in the "International Solidarity Movement" that campaigns to help our generation's Nazis to kill Jews. Yesterday, Thursday, 14 April 2011, Arrigoni was kidnapped in Gaza by a jihadist gang called at-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad [= the Oneness (of God) and Jihad]. In the usual brutal relations between rival jihad gangs, the Hamas, currently ruling in Gaza had arrested some of the group's leaders and militants, so the Tawhid gang kidnapped Arrigoni --a supporter of Hamas-- threatening to kill him if its comrades were not released by 5 pm, today, Friday, 15 April 2011. As is consistent with typical jihadi behavior, Arrigoni was executed many hours before the group's own deadline had passed. Hamas operatives ["policemen"?] found him murdered overnight. He had been strangled with a metal cable.

All this may serve to depict Hamas as a "moderate" gang contrasted with the barbarians of at-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad. Hamas of course refuses any peace with Israel and preaches the mass murder of Jews at the End of Days, although Hamas is too impatient to wait till then and murders en masse even before then, as it has done. Hamas' genocidal vision is contained in its charter, especially Article 7, which concludes with a medieval Muslim fable of how at Judgment Day Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, hiding from the Muslims. The rocks and trees will cry out, according to this fable, O Muslim, O Slave of Allah, a Jew is hiding behind me. Come kill him.

But what is more important now is to expose just how vicious, how contemptuous of human rights and peace Arrigoni was. Here is one of his own blog posts:

"Michele Alliot-Marie, French foreign minister, expressed her solidarity yesterday --during a press conference in Israel-- with the soldier Gilad Shalit, the only Israeli prisoner in Palestinian hands.

"Despite the French minister knowing very well that Shalit was taken prisoner during an Israeli attack on the border of Gaza (and therefore is a prisoner of war), insofar as she appeared yesterday with the soldier's parents at her side, she spoke of a "war crime" to be imputed to the Palestinians of the Strip. She passed in silence over the clear and real Israeli crimes every day in Gaza.

"By virtue of these statements of hers and her silence in view of the tragedy of occupied Palestine, when crossing at the Erez Passage and entering the Strip, Michele Alliot-Marie met a deserved reception today on the part of relatives of thousands of Palestinian political prisoners (many of them women and children) illegally held captive and tortured every day in Israeli jails."

Michele Alliot-Marie, ministro degli Esteri francese, ieri in Israele durante una conferenza stampa ha espresso la sua solidarietà al soldato Gilad Shalit, unico prigioniero israeliano in mano ai palestinesi.

Nonostante il ministro francese sappia benissimo che Shalit è stato fatto prigioniero durante un attacco israeliano al confine di Gaza (e quindi è un prigioniero di guerra), a quanto pare ieri con di fianco i genitori del soldato ha parlato di “crimine di guerra” imputabile ai palestinesi della Striscia. Tacendo sui palesi e reali crimini israeliani ogni giorno a Gaza.[here in Italian]

In virtù di queste sue dichiarazioni e al suo silenzio dinnanzi al dramma della Palestina occupata, oggi passando il valico di Erez ed entrando nella Striscia, Michele Alliot-Marie ha trovato la meritata accoglienza da parte dei parenti delle migliaia di prigionieri politici palestinesi ( molte le donne e i bambini) rinchiusi illegalmente e torturati ogni giorno nelle carceri israeliane.[qui]

There are several lies here, one of which Arrigoni contradicted in another one of his blog posts. That is, the lie that Shalit was taken prisoner during an Israeli attack on the border of Gaza. In the other post, he boasts that Shalit was taken prisoner by a "Palestinian commando squad." This indicates that he knew that the event was initiated by the Arab side. This is because commando squads operate behind enemy lines, in this case, behind Israel's lines. Hence, Arrigoni was consciously lying. The other post also includes gems like "the ongoing genocide in Gaza." [here]. Those who really want to wallow in this pig's muck can go to the other post. It's in Italian but the google translation isn't too bad [bad, but clear enough if you read it carefully]. He writes there that mayors of cities that showed solidarity with Shalit [held incomunicado in Gaza for almost five years without ICRC (Red Cross) visits] by turning off the lights in such places as the Colosseum in Rome, etc., as well as the local Jewish communities are "accomplices in Israel's war crimes."

Was he useful to Hamas? His Gaza kidnappers wanted to trade him for some of their members held by Hamas. In other words, the "militants" who killed him knew that this ISM activist was a valuable asset to Hamas.

On the other hand, maybe the Hamas put the other group up to kidnapping Arrigoni so that the Hamas itself could appear more "moderate" by comparison. The first explanation is probably the correct one. But Arrigoni was clearly an enemy of Jews and Jews' human rights, the rights of Gilad Shalit in particular. A commenter on his blog made that clear, disputing some of the lies:

[first the commenter posted the wiki link in English to the Shalit page] "Really, things happened differently: Some Hamas militants crossed the border and kidnapped him.

"If he is a prisoner of war, then he has the right to be visited by the IRC [international red cross], something that Hamas refuses to allow."

Here is the commenter's comment in the original:
"essù

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit

"Veramente le cose sono andate diversamente: dei militanti di Hamas hanno attraversato la frontiera e lo hanno rapito.

"Se è un prigioniero di guerra, allora ha diritto ad essere visitato dalla CRI, cosa che Hamas rifiuta di permettere."

Arrigoni also showed a most decidedly non-peaceful, non-pacifistic attitude to the Egyptian blogger Maikel Nabil Sanad who refused induction into the Egyptian army since he did not want to fight Israel. On his twitter, Arrigoni called Sanad a traitor. Sanad has been in jail for several days now, supposedly for insulting the Egyptian army. Arrigoni stood in solidarity with the Egyptian army --against a true pacifist-- by calling Sanad a "traitor."

Here's what he said about Sanad on his Twitter page:
"No habibi you're not a spy, you're a traitor. . . . VikUtopia . . . Vittorio Arrigoni"
He also provided a link to a Ynet article on Sanad, showing that he was well aware of his stance. Far from being a "peace activist" or "peace campaigner," Arrigoni emphatically urged Arabs to make war on Israel.

Aussie Dave at IsreallyCool blog put up some photos that he found on our peacemonger's facebook page [here at IsreallyCool]. Look at them closely. Clearly, VikUtopia [arrigoni] did not want peace with Israel but the destruction of Israel so that the Arabs that are today fashionably called "palestinians" can take all of what they call "palestine," that is, all of the Land of Israel. No "two-state solution" for him.

More cartoons from Arrigoni's facebook page [here]

Can the MSM media please stop falsifying what this creep really stood for? He was an enemy of both peace and human rights.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Fiamma Nirenstein on the murder of Arrigoni, "A Pacifist? He Hated Israel" [in Italian & English], and a statement in the Italian parliament made to Signor Napolitano, the President of Italy [qui in Italiano], about Arrigoni and the murder by his beloved Hamas of the Israeli boy, Daniel Viflikh.
JustJournalism points out that major British media cover up the fact that Hamas has been holding an Israeli prisoner for almost five years incomunicado, in violation of the international laws of war by not allowing ICRC [Red Cross] visits to the prisoner, Gilad Shalit. We don't even know if he is still alive, if he has not been murdered in captivity, as the Hizbullah in Lebanon did to Israeli prisoners several years ago.
Let's not forget another Italian Communist murdered by Arab terrorists after having helped Arab children in Gaza [here Go to bottom]
4-21-2011 Arrigoni was literally in bed with Amnesty International, another gang of Israel haters [here]
4-23-2011 Claudia Milani, an Amnesty International representative in Gaza appears in the mourning tent set up for Arrigoni in Gaza. Both Photos #181 & #182 at the link show her wearing both a kefiyya and a PLO flag. How more obvious can it be that she --and therefore the Amnesty that she represents-- is [are] not impartial? However, the yahoo page does NOT identify her as Amnesty's rep.
Also note that Claudia seems rather well-dressed otherwise. Her hair has been professionally dressed, so it seems. Moreover, her hair has been streaked. The other woman in photo #181 seems be more mature, and thus her hair seems to have been dyed. All the necessities for feminine good grooming available in Lager Gaza.[here]