Mahmud Abbas Starts New Anti-Israel Blood Libel

Mahmud Abbas and his "Palestinian Authority" started another blood libel smear against Israel. In the Middle  Ages in Europe Jews were sometimes accused of murdering a Christian, typically a boy before puberty,  to use his blood for ritual purposes. This is the ritual murder libel and such accusations often led to mob violence against Jews. Muslims traditionally didn't need such elaborate accusations to hate Jews --or Christians for that matter-- or to take to violence against them. Non-Muslims in Muslim states, the dhimmis, were not allowed to cast any doubt on the Muslim religion or to defy Muslim rule. The mere charge of blasphemy is enough to incite Muslims to kill kufar [= unbelievers]. We see that still today Muslims in places like Pakistan still strike out at non-Muslims on grounds of blasphemy against Islam, even if the charge is false. Likewise the charge by Abbas that Jews who merely go up on the Temple Mount contaminate that holy place. The charge does not have to be murder or anything close. But Christian bigots needed a false charge of murder.

The "Palestinian Authority" ruled by Abu Mazen [Abbas] has been supplying its population with pretexts for murdering Jews for several months now.  Jews "contaminating" the Temple Mount by going up on it has been enough to incite violence against Jews, even murder of Jews. The Jews' mere presence on the Temple Mount is contaminating, Abbas says. But in order to bring Christians to support the PA/PLO, Abbas is now furnishing them with libels of murder by Jews. That is what happened after the PA official in charge of opposing Israel's anti-terrorist protection wall [a fence for most of its length] and of opposing Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria flew into a rage in a demonstration against the wall/fence and then had a heart attack. Israeli soldiers were charged with killing him by beating him with a rifle butt or hitting with tear gas cannisters or using tear gas that he inhaled. Even silly Cathy Ashton's silly replacement as foreign affairs commissioner on the European Commission, Signora Federica Mogherini, demanded an investigation of the death of this PA official Ziyad Abu `Ayn.

Who is Ziyad Abu `Ayn? He is a convicted terrorist who back in 1979 placed a bomb in the marketplace in Tiberias, Israel, killing two Jewish children. Now over fifty years old, Abu `Ayn was a PA official in charge up till now the PA official in charge of opposing Jews moving into Judea-Samaria and of opposing the anti-terrorist wall/fence. He was reported in HaArets to have had hypertension, a condition which predisposes people to have heart attacks. And he was seen at one point clutching his chest after collapsing. That too is a sign of heart disease.

Abu `Ayn was not killed by Israeli forces. He was not beaten by Israeli forces, although he was clearly trying to provoke them. And he did not die from tear gas inhalation, which in any case is almost impossible when tear gas is used out of doors.

Here is the testimony of Ro'i Sharon, an Israeli reporter for Channel 10, a station usually favoring the "peace process". The testimony was heard on Channel 10 TV by the blogger at My Right Word:

Abu Ein collapsed some 5 minutes after the incident [when demonstrators and border guards were shoving each other] and after an hour, the hospital announced his death.  He wasn't choked [Sharon was standing next to him at the moment of the tiff] but was pushed and it was over in a few seconds. He even was interviewed for a TV station.  No rifle butts or such were employed. No rocks were thrown. There was a confrontation line, shouting, a few tear gas grenades tossed at the beginning but the incident happened afterwards. Sharon said it was a very low-key demo.

Note that no other demonstrator complained about the gas. [here]
http://myrightword.blogspot.co.il/2014/12/the-blue-glove-and-ziad-abu-ein.html

Here is more testimony, this time from a British TV news reporter:

A British television news reporter has revealed that Palestinian demonstrators near the West Bank village of Turmusaya prevented an Israeli medic from providing aid to a Palestinian Authority official who collapsed after he shoved and verbally abused Israeli officers on the scene.
In a live report for the UK’s Sky News broadcaster, Middle East correspondent Tom Rayner reported that Ziad Abu Ein, a convicted terrorist who was appointed by the PA to organize campaigns against Jewish settlements in the West Bank, was lying on the ground “unconscious” after the clash – although separate footage shot by Kremlin broadcaster RT displayed Abu Ein conscious and sitting up after his altercation with the IDF officers.
“When he’s on the floor, an Israeli medic does come up to him, she tries to clear an area around him, but Palestinians pick him up and take him straight to a vehicle,” Rayner said, in footage viewed by The Algemeiner. The medic was “not able to deliver any first aid,” Rayner continued, and Abu Ein was “declared dead when he got to a hospital in Ramallah.”
As The Algemeiner reported today, Rayner had earlier said on Twitter that “When Abu Ein is unconscious on ground, Israel medic attempts to assist, asks crowd to make space, Palestinians rush him to a vehicle instead.” Rayner also reported that Abu Ein repeatedly asked the Israeli officer he clashed with for his name, calling him a “dog.” [here]

Despite this testimony by journalists running counter to the PA's false narrative, Signora Mogherini of the European Commission chooses to smear Israel by insinuation of malevolently killing, even murdering, Ziyad Abu `Ayn. She called for an investigation of his death, despite the testimony against any foul play on Israel's part.  She described a "deteriorating situation on the ground." But her very expression of statement --which will be seen by Arabs as support for their cause-- is likely to encourage Arab violence, especially since she is echoing Mahmud Abbas, leader of the PA.

Anti-Jewish Racism & Apartheid in the name of "Peace" -- Obama & Clinton back to FDR's Bad Old Days of Fostering the Holocaust

UPDATING 9-17-2010 see at bottom

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

Official Washington is in a tizzy. Jews who are simply not pliable enough actually believe that they have a right to live and build new homes in what the international community designated as the Jewish National Home [San Remo 1920; League of Nations 1922, etc].

The Administration of Palestine. . . shall facilitate Jewish immigration . . . and shall encourage . . . close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands. . .
[League of Nations mandate, Article 6; 1922]

Needless to say, Britain reneged on its duties as Administrator of the Jewish National Home fairly quickly, making if difficult for Jews to immigrate into the country and to settle the land. This obstruction of Jewish exercise of Jewish rights culminated on the eve of the Holocaust with an official British statement, the 1939 "White Paper on Palestine," which severely limited Jewish immigration into the country, the internationally designated Jewish National Home, when Jews most urgently needed a home, a refuge. Further, Jews were forbidden by the British White Paper policy to buy real estate in most of the country. Thereby, Britain, the UK, was imposing an anti-Jewish apartheid policy on the country through Land Purchase Regulations promulgated in 1940, a year after the White Paper but in line with it. Britain was a silent partner in the Holocaust and the Foreign Office's hostile policy towards Israel since then should be seen in that light. Incidentally, the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations ruled that the 1939 White Paper policy was a violation of the mandate. That didn't stop the British from applying the restrictions on Jewish rights embodied in the White Paper. So much for British respect for international law.

Now, Washington follows the old UK policy. It's bad enough that Washington wants Israel to share its scarce territory with a state [Palestinian Authority] that even now, in its embryonic stages incites murderous hatred of Jews, but Washington, particularly Hilary Clinton's State Department, is pressuring Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu not to allow Jews to resume building homes in Judea-Samaria even after the unjust 10-month moratorium expires shortly. In Sharm ash-Shaykh, Clinton and veteran facilitator of Arab terrorism, George Mitchell, pressed Israel to give in once again on this important issue of human rights. But Clinton, Mitchell and Obama don't give a damn about the human rights of Jews, just as an earlier American Liberal, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, avoided trying to save Jews' lives during the Holocaust, thereby giving auxiliary support to British policy towards the Holocaust.

Now that the conference between Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas, Mubarak, King Abdullah [Plucky Little King #2] and Clinton has ended --supposedly to resume-- Hilary Clinton, US Secretary of State, has come to Jerusalem to nag and pressure our leaders more in order to persuade them to divest Jews of human rights. In fact these are also national rights made into international law by the League of Nations mandate for a Jewish National Home [1922], in Article 6. So the United States under its present leadership works against the international law which recognized Jewish rights. Bear in mind that the Israeli people have suffered greatly from "peace processes" and "peace efforts" and "peace accords." Need we mention Oslo? Thousands of Israelis have been murdered and wounded since Oslo was signed on the White House lawn on 13 September 1993, seventeen years ago. The rate of deaths from Arab terrorism rose astronomically after Oslo, although lying shills for mass murder like the Norwegian Terje Larsen pretended that Oslo had benefited the Israeli people, falsely claiming that fewer Israelis had died from terrorism since Oslo.

As to Liberal American presidents, we don't really know what "liberal" means. Franklin Roosevelt was considered a Liberal. As said above, he did not try to save Jews from the Holocaust. Although American and British bomber aircraft reached the Auschwitz area in Poland to strike at military targets, they never tried to bomb the death camps in that region, to bomb the gas chambers or the crematoria -- or even the railroad tracks that led to the camps. The concern of those governments for the Holocaust and its victims is a pretense at best. In that period, Britain violated its international commitment to the Jews, to the Jewish National Home, by preventing Jewish refugees from finding refuge there. Britain went so far as to pressure governments in southern Europe to prevent Jewish refugees from embarking from their ports. This is not a matter of conjecture or interpretation. It is fact but not what is usually taught in schools and universities. Instead we hear the big lie, also propounded by the so-called "Left", that Britain favored the Jews and helped create the State of Israel. Shameless big lies coming forth from the mouths of academics, politicians, diplomats, and officials of so-called [misnamed] "non-governmental organizations." [see Notes below]

There is another case that shows how official Washington discriminates against Jews and Israel, doing so with the collaboration of fake "human rights" and "civil rights" groups. Jonathan Pollard has been in jail since 1985, for 25 years. Yes, he was a spy. Yet, his sentence is virtually a life sentence. He has never been given pardon or clemency. His sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States constitution. This amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and states:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Yet other spies were sentenced around the same time as Pollard, the Walker family, Christopher Boyce, Andrew Daulton Lee, an Egyptian spying for his country, and others. Their sentences were nearly all lighter than Pollard's, although Pollard had spied for a friendly country, not an enemy like the Soviet Union which Boyce, Lee and the Walkers had done. The Egyptian was sentenced to several years. Boyce and Lee are already out of jail. Pollard's sentence is a virtual lifetime sentence. The US Justice Department even broke --even violated-- a plea bargain agreement with Pollard, after he had confessed to spying as his part of the accord. The secretary of defense even intervened in the case, sending the judge a special letter that has never been disclosed to the public. Nevertheless, despite the unfair sentence and the unfair procedure, no self-designated "civil rights" group or "human rights" group has ever taken up the defense of Pollard's civil and human rights. Neither the American Civil Liberties Union, led by former US attorney general, Ramsey Clark [a sympathizer of Khomeini & Saddam Hussein -- yes, look it up], nor "Human Rights Watch" nor Amnesty International has ever made a public statement in favor of Pollard or complained of his mistreatment. Professor Eugene Narrett once inquired of Amnesty if they had taken a position on Pollard's case. They answered him that they had not since they felt it was not of interest --or some similar excuse to avoid defending Pollard's rights.

Of course, official Washington can get very humanitarian and very human rights conscious when it involves someone working for Washington. Consider the case of a Chinese-American sentenced to only eight years by China for spying on China's oil industry. This spy's name is Xue Feng.

US consular officials have visited Mr Xue nearly 30 times during his detention, and President Barack Obama raised the case with President Hu Jintao during a state visit to Beijing last November. The US ambassador to China, Jim M Huntsman Jr, was in the Beijing courtroom when the sentence was handed down Monday.
"Now that the Chinese legal system has ruled, I believe the time has come for Dr Xue, who has already been detained for two and a half years, to be released," Mr Huntsman said in a statement. I urge the Chinese authorities to take into account the long ordeal he has suffered and in the spirit of justice allow him to return home and be reunited with his family."
The statement said the US government was dismayed by the verdict and was concerned about both his right to due process under Chinese law and his well-being while in prison.
[International Herald-Tribune, 6 July 2010].

So US diplomats know how to talk the civil rights talk [as in the reference to "due process"] and play on the heartstrings with the hope that he can go back to his family. And Obama whom some regard as a Great Emancipator, intervened on Xue's behalf when in China on other business. But at eight years, even if added to the 2 1/2 years awaiting trial, Xue's sentence is nothing compared to Pollard's. But it seems that few in the United States care about Pollard. Those groups that one might naturally assume should be concerned for the unconstitutionality and cruelty and abuse of power in the Pollard case, have been silent. As said, not a peep from the ACLU or HRW or Amnesty.

So the Jews --both in Israel and the United States-- are much in the position of the Black slave Dred Scott. The US Supreme Court ruled in his case that:
"The negro . . . had no rights which the white man was bound to respect"
[Dred Scott v. Sandford, US Supreme Court decision, 1857]

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Notes:
On the British diplomats trying to prevent Jewish refugees from escaping Europe, see:
William Perl, The Four Front War (New York: Crown 1979).
On US policy to do nothing to stop the Holocaust, see:
Arthur Morse, While Six Million Died (New York 1968).
David Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews (New York: Pantheon 1984)

Also the website of the David Wyman Institute:
http://www.wymaninstitute.org/
Also authors such as Laurel Leff, Rafael Medoff, Monty Penkower, Ben Hecht, even "Leftist" journalists like Lawrence Lipton, Sidney Zion, Sol Stern and others.

On British pro-Holocaust policy, see books by Walter Z Laqueur, Martin Gilbert,William Perl, Bernard Wasserstein, William Ziff, and others plus previous posts here at Emet m'Tsiyon [& here].
UPDATE
Obama statement in favor of continued anti-Jewish apartheid policy in Judea-Samaria [here] & [here]
Also note that George Mitchell stressed the US government's desire to see the "settlement freeze" continue in his press conference after yesterday's conference at Sharm ash-Shaykh.
Hilary butts in with her obnoxious two cents in favor of denying Jewish rights: "Clinton told reporters that the U.S. wants the construction halt extended." [Bloomberg report here]
Khaled Abu Toameh's view of Abbas' policy on settlements [here & here].
Jewish efforts to pressure Obama against his pro-apartheid position [here]

UPDATING 9-17-2010 Obaminable gang supports apartheid against Israel at the UN [here]
10-5-2010 Caroline Glick asks whether Jews have civil rights [here]. I have written that Jews today, particularly Israelis, are in the position of Dred Scott, the Black American slave in whose case the US Supreme Court wrote: ". . . the negro had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" [see above]

Tel Aviv Gay Murders a Provocation for the Sake of False "Peace"

Last night, 1 August 2009, a

black-clad, masked gunman stormed into the Tel Aviv Gay and Lesbian Association building and opened fire in a basement room where gay teenagers were holding a weekly support group.
. . . Witnesses said the gunman entered the center at around 11 P.M. and opened fire in all directions [HaArets, Internet 2 Aug 2009]
The man then holstered his pistol and fled the scene on foot into the busy streets of Tel Aviv, Rosenfeld said. [AP, 2 August 2009]

This murderous shooting was performed by a professional killer. He did not shout slogans or leave any message or any sign of who he was or whom he represented. He did not state a moral or ideological position in regard to homosexuality. He simply came, did his dirty and deadly business and got away. The various witnesses quoted did not mention any ideological, political, moral, or religious message uttered, stated or left behind in written form by the murderer. It appears that the hit man had a job which he did quickly and efficiently. And he got away quickly too. Not being caught was of utmost importance. The crime was executed in a professional manner. It was carefully planned beforehand. How the killer would escape was carefully considered.

The next question is Why. A number of haredi politicians had expressed condemnation of homosexuals and their sexual orientation. Several years ago, a young haredi bought a knife and lightly stabbed 3 participants in a gay parade in Jerusalem. This was the most serious act of anti-gay violence reported by HaArets in its background article for the present attack. The perpetrator in Jerusalem appears to have been a religious fanatic, a hothead, in direct contrast to the murderer who acted last night. Further, in regard to Haredim, their murder rate is low and often those who do the most shouting, who make the most noise, are not at all involved in a crime that seems to result from their agitation. On the other hand, we know that some factions of Haredim readily riot over a number of causes. Recently, we have had Haredi riots in Jerusalem over a public parking lot being kept open on the Sabbath and over a mother from the Toldot Aharon [nearly identical to Neturey Qarta] faction of Haredim being accused and jailed for starving one of her own children. Haredi young men like to riot, it seems, and for many of the same motives that other young men riot: a release of the sexual tension that marks young men, a proof of manhood, a challenge to what they may consider illegitimate authority, etc. Anyhow, how many young men don't like a good fight, especially if there isn't much danger of actually getting killed? Indeed, several years ago Haredi riots took place in Jerusalem over several nights against a planned gay parade. But there is a very great distance between acting out hatred of gays in riots in Jerusalem against the police --or between a hothead's stabbing parade participants-- and sending a trained, professional assassin to Tel Aviv to perform a murder in a club for gay youth. The murderer is most unlikely to have been a Haredi man or to have been sent by any Haredi party or organization.

This conclusion is not based on the official condemnations of the murder by Shas Party spokesmen and officials --which are quoted in the HaArets article linked to here-- but on our knowledge of the past behavior of the Haredi community, and its various and sundry factions, and on our personal acquaintance with many Haredim.

Well, if the deed was not performed by or in behalf of Haredim, then who was behind the crime? Here we fall back on the cui bono principle. This means, who benefitted from the crime or any other act.

The anti-national Israeli journalist, Aluf Benn of HaArets, complained in the NYTimes that Obama was widely perceived as hostile by Israelis.

A Jerusalem Post poll of Israeli Jews last month [June] indicated that only 6 percent of those surveyed considered the Obama administration to be pro-Israel, while 50 percent said that its policies are more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli. [Aluf Benn, NYT, 27 July 2009]

In contrast, prime minister Netanyahu is favorably perceived by Israelis.

Netanyahu is the defender of national glory in face of unfair pressure [by the Obama gang]. . . So far, Israelis have embraced Mr. Netanyahu’s message. [Aluf Benn, NYTimes, 7-27-2009]

What's worse, even the anti-national so-called "Left" in Israel, usually ready to be manipulated by and do the bidding of Washington and its EuroJudeophobic allies [the EU] were not jumping on Obama's manic "anti-settlement" bandwagon, which Aluf Benn had earlier discussed in an opinion column in HaArets:

Though Mr. Obama has succeeded in prodding Mr. Netanyahu to accept the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, he has failed to induce Israel to impose a freeze on settlements. In fact, he has failed even to stir debate about the merits of one: no Israeli political figure has stood up to Mr. Netanyahu and begged him to support Mr. Obama; not even the Israeli left, desperate for a new agenda, has adopted Mr. Obama as its icon. As a result, Mr. Netanyahu enjoys a virtual domestic consensus over his rejection of the settlement freeze [Aluf Benn, NYTimes 7-27-2009]

So something had to be done to make Israelis, or at least some Israelis, at least the amorphous so-called "Left," so often ready to demonstrate for all sorts of causes, receptive to the Obama administration's racist demand on Israel to "freeze settlements." This demand is itself an assault on freedom, on a value that the gay movement evokes in behalf of tolerance for itself. Maybe some more thougtful gays did perceive the anti-freedom, anti-human rights, nature of the demand. In particular, the Obama Administration seeks to vitiate the right of Jews to live in Judea-Samaria or even the parts of Jerusalem occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, even though Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem since 1853, and that means in the Old City, in "east Jerusalem," which in 1853 was the whole city.

Aluf Benn indicates that for Obama's policy to win over any substantial part of the Israeli public, an effort would have to be made to divide the Israelis. This might be done by creating a divisive issue, even a spurious issue. The murders of last night were indeed a divisive issue. The Meretz member of Knesset Nitsan Horovits, with typical lack of thought, described the murder as a "blind attack," a hate crime. Tsipi Livni, the mentally challenged leader of the Kadima Party ranted about "hatred. . . intolerance, incitement and violence." Labor MK, Sheli Yakhimovich, a former radio journalist, thoughtlessly attributed the crime to "ongoing incitement." [quotes from Horowitz, Livni, & Yakhimovich from HaArets, here]. They were all insinuating that Shas was guilty, because the party had indeed opposed granting certain rights to homosexuals, etc. So if the attack was meant as a provocation, it has succeeded. It has divided public opinion and provoked a militant movement and demonstrations against the unknown perpetrators, sometimes identified with Shas:

Within a couple of hours of Saturday night's attack, hundreds of members of the city's gay and lesbian community gathered with placards and candles to protest the killings, while Shas was accused by some of inciting the attack.

"I warned in a column last year that Israel is a place which, on the one hand has liberal laws, but on the other does not attempt to counter homophobia," Danny Zak, a gay activist and journalist, told the Jerusalem Post during the demonstration. "A murder was waiting to happen," Zak added.

"The Shas party has the blood of two innocent kids on their hands," he said. "Shas has blamed gays for earthquakes and diseases. This is incitement, but no one is put on trial for it," he said. [Jerusalem Post, 2 August 2009][also see here]

So the "gay community" now has a cause and an available hate object, Shas, whom to blame --plausibly for some-- for somehow inciting the murders, although the murderer was obviously a trained, coldblooded professional. Many will forget that --as we said above-- those who make the most noise are unlikely to be the ones who actually carried out the murder. But the gay movement and the "Left" will no doubt demonstrate and raise the issue of the murders on all sorts of occasions.

The official condemnations by the prime minister, other ministers, other officials, and particularly Shas officials will most likely fall on deaf ears, at least among the more simple-minded among the gays and among the hotheaded haters of the present government on the "Left." The division among Israelis thus caused will harm the present government and its attempt to stand up to Obama's pressure. The murders are likely to end up benefitting those who hate Netanyahu and want to soften his resistance to the racist, anti-Jewish winds raging in Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Jewish Leaders Should Tell President Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATING 7-3-2009 links added

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools