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

Sinister Smears of the Obama Campaign -- Obama Follows in Bush Jr's Footsteps

The other day I saw a panel discussion on Fox TV [on Israeli cable TV] about the US election campaign. A young woman with more good looks than good sense was there to represent the Obama campaign. Her name was Roginsky and allowed that she was Jewish, adding that some people among the Jews had "craven fears" about Obama. That is not merely a smear, it is a vicious insult against millions of people. Millions, not only Jews, have well founded, justified fears of Obama. They are not "craven." How can you trust a candidate who has switched positions so cynically as Obama has, surpassing the typical cynicism of politicians?? How about the anti-war candidate during the primaries who now wants to send more troops to Afghanistan?? [This is not to judge whether or not more troops should be send to Afghanistan but his cyncism in being both for and against American troops in foreign lands].

In this same vein, Obama in his notorious infomercial promised to spend more on the US armed forces, and he also promised to create something like, as I recall, a "civilian security corps," whatever that means. This ominous-sounding body would be financed, according to him, in an amount equal to the regular defense budget, thus doubling it. It is now 500 billion dollars. Doubling would bring it to one trillion bucks. Doesn't quite make sense but maybe Obama will claim again that he was misunderstood or that he had made a "poor choice of words." Indeed, the promise of a new "security corps" with undefined functions sounds bizarre --and menacing!

Then we have his twin claims that McCain would mean another term for Bush and that McCain is somehow to blame for the economic crisis. But in foreign policy at least, an Obama presidency, as Carolyn Glick agrees, would more likely represent another term for Bush than would a McCain presidency.

Another indication that an Obama presidency, has v'shalom חס ושלום, would mean a fourth term for the Bush dynasty. Recall that Bush belongs to the very upper crusty Bush family of Connecticut. George Bush Sr [Prez George B I] moved down to Texas to be near the oil that he was investing in. George Jr [Prez George B II] was raised there. Now, quite a few upper crusties are openly backing Obama, including Christopher Buckley, the son of William F Buckley, jr., founder of the National Review. This fact belies Obama's repeated claim that the rich are on McCain's side. Of course, as the Prince de Ligne said: In order for things to stay the same, everything must constantly change.

Miss Roginsky claimed on Fox&Friends that she was not afraid --as a Jew, she insinuated-- of an Obama presidency, nor were her relatives in Israel. Well, I can't verify that claim but if she is not afraid of Zbig Brzezinski, Obama's chief foreign policy advisor, formerly jimma carter's national insecurity advisor, then she is a fool or a traitor to the Jews. Likewise for the influence on Obama of Rashid al-Khalidi, of the well-connected Jerusalem Khalidi family, once prominent in the Ottoman Empire's governing class, now well-connected with the British and American foreign policy establishments. Think of his relative Walid Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab spokesman back in the 1940s, later at the American University of Beirut and later well-ensconced at Harvard. Needless to say, both AUB and Harvard are well connected entities in the US Establishment.

Rashid al-Kh has been at AUB and the Univ of Chicago where he regularly palled around with Obama --giving Obama the Arab nationalist version of Middle Eastern history, particularly regarding Israel. Rashid is now at Columbia which some students call Bir Zeit on the Hudson due to the pervasive pro-Arab, anti-Israel bias there, especially in the Middle East studies department, now headed by Rashid, I believe. His career also included being a PLO spokesman in Beirut in the late 1970s, early 1980s [see Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes for more on Rashid]. Non-Jewish Americans may be more concerned about Bill Ayers. This man was a violent terrorist back in the late 1960s-early 1970s. People did get killed in his and his comrades' [the Weathermen's] activities. He too has a rather upper crusty background. It's curious that after being a fugitive from the law for some ten years on the terrorist charges, when he finally was caught and tried on those charges, he got off. Did Daddy's money have anything to do with it?

Another threatening aspect of Obama is his promise to intensify US involvment in the so-called Arab-Israeli or "palestinian"-Israeli "peace process." In fact, nothing that deserves to be called a "peace process" has been going on. Israel allowed the PLO to take control of various pieces of territory in Judea-Samaria and Gaza in 1994 after the Oslo Accords. Since those accords were signed in 1993 on the White House lawn Arab terrorism against Israel intensified. The Jewish victims have increased manifold. In the past, US "peace process" involvement has almost always meant US pressure on Israel to concede to Arab demands. So US involvement in a fake "peace process" is not what Israel needs. More "peace process" means more death, more humilitation, more violation of Jewish national and human rights. This is because Israel's enemies among the Arabs, among Europeans and among Americans deny or belittle the Jewish right to live in Judea-Samaria and Gaza, all parts of the internationally designated Jewish National Home [San Remo Conference 1920, League of Nations 1922]. With advisors like Zbig and al-Khalidi, a president Obama would be likely to join the UK and the European Union in ganging up on Israel and giving much more money to the Palestinian Authority. The US already gives the PA a couple of hundred million bucks per year. Let's point out again that Bush talks a good game of anti-terrorism but in fact overlooks the terrorist nature of the PA and Abu Mazen and the genocidal nature of the anti-Jewish incitement in the PA's schools, mosques, press and electronic media. Bush's girl sidekick, Condi Rice, has already expressed some soft sentiments in favor of the openly genocidal Hamas [Article 7 Hamas charter].

Maybe Miss Roginsky doesn't understand that Judeophobia or antisemitism can be the policy of governments, not merely of private persons with prejudices. Governments do policy planning. It is my conviction that the UK and EU have both done very Judeophobic policy planning. The "peace process" is a Judeophobic policy. It takes on a fake color of "humanitarianism." But why aren't the UK, EU and other bodies more interested in the actual genocide that goes on in the Sudan, for instance?? Why aren't Rashid al-Khalidi and his tutorial pupil, Obama, more interested in the Sudan massacres than in what Israel is alleged to have done, which pales before what happens in the Sudan regularly and has been happening there since 1956, off and on. Part of the reason, but only part, is the influence and effect of millions of Arab dollars poured into US universities to set up Arab and Muslim studies centers which have become sources of pro-Arab, anti-Israel propaganda. Rashid has benefitted from some of that filthy lucre. Arabs are recycling their oil wealth, much provided as part of US, British and French tax manipulations. Check it out.
As said above, the focus on Israel's alleged wrongdoing, while overlooking the very gross wrongdoing of Arab states, represents Judeophobia, as does the denial of Jewish rights to live in Judea-Samaria and Gaza, often based on misrepresentations of international law. Yet Miss Roginsky is not worried. A fool or a traitor.

Unfortunately, many people, understandably angry about the economic crisis, are thinking of voting for Obama in order to spite Bush. But Obama's "community organizing" pals had a lot to do with persuading banks to give out risky subrprime mortgages and thus helped to bring down the system. McCain and other senators --not including Obama-- warned about the subprime threat two years ago. Bush is partly to blame for the crisis. So is Obama and those "community organizers" like ACORN whose thinking he represents. So is Allen Greenspan. But McCain is less responsible. It would be tragically ironic to vote for Obama against McCain out of spite at Bush, whose foreign policy gives a tragic, pro-terrorist prelude to an Obama foreign policy. Which is not to see McCain as perfect or absolutely trustworthy either. But Obama is so sinister, so menacing, such a cynical opportunist and ruthless liar that the choice for McCain is clear.

Anti-Jewish Racists Deny the Jewish Right to Live in Judea-Samaria

It seems that the Palestinian Authority is the tail that wags the Western dog, making its overly generous Western benefactors jump through the hoops of "politically correct" Judeophobia and anti-Jewish racism, particularly, but not only, on the "settlement" issue. Do Jews have the right to live in Judea-Samaria, the heart of the ancient Land of Israel? The palestinian authority denies this right. Its brothers in the Arab League delightedly pick up the relay baton to beat the Jews with, and major Western powers fall in line. Saudi Arabia shares the denial of Jewish rights with other Arab League members and has great influence over American policy as well. Saudi money also influences other Arab states. Indeed, one report claims that a proposed UN Security Council resolution against Israeli "settlements" actually originated with the Saudis, not the palestinian authority.

Meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice has accepted the Arab claims and joined in the hate chorus against Israel. She does not want Jews to even build homes in Jerusalem which has had a Jewish majority since 1853, if not before, in Jerusalem, a city which became famous and significant to the world because of the Jewish history that took place there.

Condi represents the State Department which has long been anti-Israel in mood, tone, and policy, no matter who was in the White House. The racist attitude of Condi and her department as to where Jews may and may not reside goes back many years. This SD policy has no foundation in international law, which does not stop Condi and her cothinkers in the EU and UN from misrepresenting international law. One of the first to do this was the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, whose position is reported here.

Why is it racist to exclude Jews from inhabiting Judea-Samaria, or Gaza for that matter? First, because forbidding people to live in certain places because of their ethnic group or race, is racism, right off, ipso facto. Then, the forbidden people are Jews. Jews have been forbidden to inhabit many countries since their defeat at the end of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. This includes the city of Jerusalem at the time of the defeat [135 CE] and Arabia after Muhammad and various countries in Europe from which Jews were driven out: England, France, Spain, parts of Germany, etc. The Russian Empire kept most Jews segregated in an area called the Pale of Settlement [Maybe the Quartet wants us to go back to live in the Pale of Settlement. That settlement would be OK]. So Condi Rice's policy should be viewed as anti-Jewish racism right off for that reason. The policy is often justified by claims that Judea-Samaria are "occupied" and that "international law" [Geneva Convention IV] forbids "transfer" of population to occupied territories. But Judea-Samaria are parts of the ancient Jewish homeland, of the Roman province of Judea. Denying the right of an exiled people to live in its homeland is unjust right off, isn't it? As to "transfer," which means compulsory migration, it does not apply since the Jews who went to live in Judea-Samaria and the Gaza Strip did so willingly, indeed eagerly. Ironically, the no "transfer" clause in Geneva IV was meant to prevent Nazi-like mass deportations, which the "international community" --including the Western allies-- had done nothing to stop in the case of the Jews during the Holocaust, albeit a few countries were helpful to the Jews at that time.

International law, properly understood without the self-interested misrepresentations made by Arabs and Western Judeophobes and UN officials, recognizes the Jewish rights to Judea-Samaria which are parts of the Jewish National Home recognized by the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations, a status confirmed in the UN charter [Article 80]. The partition plan recommended by the UN General Assembly in 1947 could not withdraw that recognition since it was a mere recommendation. Moreover, the Security Council did not have authority to withdraw a right recognized in the Charter itself.

Why are the EU, UK, USA, and UN so eager to deny Jewish rights to "settle" or build homes in Judea-Samaria??? Why does Condi Rice claim that Jews living in Judea-Samaria are "obstacles to peace" or some version of this claim?? Why isn't the Arab refusal to recognize the Jewish rights of residence in those places seen as an "obstacle to peace"?? The most likely explanation is Judeophobia. If they were really interested in human welfare, peace, human rights, etc. then they would have denounced the genocide perpetrated in the Sudan many years ago. Even now, the UN spends more time berating and dehumanizing Israel than it does on, for instance, the Darfur humanitarian crisis. If it's not Judeophobia, anti-Jewish racism, then find a better answer.

Just to clear up some history, while the Jewish National Home was controlled by British mandatory forces, Jews were driven out of several localities of great historical and religious importance for Jews, Hebron, parts of the Old City of Jerusalem, etc. Now the Arabs have the hutspah to claim that the part of Jerusalem that Arab forces took over in 1947-1948 is "traditionally Arab east Jerusalem." Yet the city has had a Jewish majority at least since 1853, with the all Jews living in the Old City in that year. In modern times, forbidding Jews to live in certain places was a feature of Nazi rule and their Judenrein policy. But the British too imposed land purchase regulations on Israel in 1940 as a follow up to the 1939 White Paper on palestine. Israel was divided into zones where Jews could or could not buy real estate. In the Jerusalem zone, Jews could only buy real estate from other Jews or from non-Muslims, not from Muslim Arabs. Most of the country was off limits to Jewish land purchase. And this was during the Holocaust!!! When Transjordan [now Jordan] took over most of Judea-Samaria in 1948, it imposed a total exclusion of Jews from living anywhere in the kingdom or even visiting the kingdom or even visiting Jewish holy places [such as Hebron and the Temple Mount], although Jordan had agreed to visits to the Jewish holy places in the armistice accord with Israel. If someone can supply a better explanation than Judeophobia for the exclusion of Jews, please let me know.

More recently, the so-called Quartet, the UN, EU, Russia, and USA pressured Israel to accept the so-called Road Map "peace plan." But this is a racist, Judeophobic document, since it demands that Israel stop building homes for Jews in parts of the internationally recognized Jewish National Home. The Road Map puts conditions on the palestinian Arabs too, to be sure, but we hear no demand that the PA stop violation of the two crucial conditions: 1) to stop anti-Jewish hate agitation and propaganda in its TV, radio, press, schools, mosques, etc. 2) to disarm terrorist militias. So here we have in fact two offenses by the "international community" against the Jews and the State of Israel. One is the simple, obvious racism of campaigning against Jews living in Judea-Samaria. The other is the violation of past international commitments to Israel and the Jews, such as the Jewish National Home principle accepted in 1920 at San Remo and subsequently endorsed in several international instruments, as well as the Road Map itself that made certain demands on the Arab side, as above, which nobody seems to remember anymore, not even the Israel government under its current illegitimate prime minister who by rights should be prosecuted and sent to jail for many many crimes. Here is a position taken by the government [Israel govt takes position ].
l
Now, the UN Security Council is taking up the Jewish offense of living where the Judeophobes don't want them to live. The EU and UK state with gusto that Jews don't have rights to live in the "wrong" places. The US position is slightly more moderate. That is, Jews building homes in Judea-Samaria or living there, are disrupting a "peace process" or an "obstacle to peace" or whatever slander the State Dept and Condi can think up. Ban-Ki Moon, UN secretary general, groundlessly claims that building for Jews inhabitants in Judea-Samaria is against "international law," which is false. It is also not Moon's job to interpret international law, much less to misrepresent it. President Bush took pride in being the first president of the US to come out for a "palestinian state," that is for a people that never existed in history, in an interview with a French paper. He added that he didn't want such a state to look like "Swiss cheese," a hint that Jewish settlements could do that [Maqor Rishon, 6-13-2008] . But what about the State of Israel and Jewish rights?? Furthermore, the Security Council debate is being spearheaded by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states which have a very bad record on human rights, as everyone knows. It is quite relevant that both Jordan and Saudi Arabia have laws forbidding Jews to live in those countries. And now they want to enforce such exclusion in the Jews' own country!!!

- - - - - -
Coming: Jewish victims of the Armenian gencide, Jerusalem archeology, Hebron, Land of Israel, peace follies, propaganda, etc.

Scholar of Arabic, Yehoshu`a Porat: The Arabs Don't Want a "palestinian state."

The weakly argued claim by the White House-State Department crowd that what they call a "palestinian state" will bring peace between Israel and the Arab world, is belied by Professor Yehoshu`a Porat, one of the outstanding Israeli specialists on the Arab world, Arab culture, and Arab politics. Porat discussed this issue with Haggai Segal of Maqor Rishon [14 III 2008].

Porat was a leader of the "leftist" Merets party until he learned about the 1993 Oslo Accord, an agreement made with Norwegian mediation, by the way [I add parenthetically that Norwegian involvement is usually disastrous, as Sri Lanka has also learned]. Porat did not trust the PLO leadership nor did he like the terms of the Oslo Accord. He belonged to Merets because of his arch-secularist views, not because he believed in "peace" with the PLO. Responding to the interviewer's question, he laughed at those Israeli politicians, particularly ministers in the present government, who believe that the PLO and/or Hamas and the palestinian Arabs generally really want a "palestinian state," as George Bush, Condoleezza Rice [riso amaro], Tony Blair & the Washington & London gangs repeatedly claim.

I don't believe that there is a chance --or that there ever was a chance-- that a palestinian state will arise.

The interviewer adds that Porat thinks that the "palestinians" don't want a separate state so much. Porat asserts:

There is no palestinian identity in itself. Their identity is Palestinian-Arab. Above all, they want the country to be Arab. Therefore, they are attached to the Arabic literary language which, like Latin, is not a living language but rather a symbol of the unity of the Arab nation. If you would propose to them that Palestine be a part of Syria, and if they believed that thereby they would get rid of us --they would not refuse. Not one of them would be opposed [to that proposal].

Of course, this is obvious to anyone who has carefully read the PLO Charter. Its first article goes:

Article I: Palestine is the watan [homeland, fatherland] of the Palestinian Arab people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

It is obvious from this article and the rest of the PLO charter or covenant that the PLO is a pan-Arabist body. It really does not represent an aspiration to a separate state, as Porat points out. Moreover, PLO and Hamas spokesman have pointed out clearly that they do not aspire to political independence separate from the Arab world as a whole. Zuhayr Muhsayn [Zuheir Muhsein] stated this in 1977 in an interview published in the American weekly Seven Days and the Dutch paper Trouw. Mahmud al-Zahhar, a Hamas leader, stated this quite recently to the Economist, not exactly a pro-Israel publication. So when Bush & Condi & Tony & Javier Solana and any other politicians or diplomats rant on about a "two-state solution" or a "palestinian state," then they are either fooling themselves or --more likely-- fooling those who listen to them.

By the way, when Yehoshu`a Porat compared literary Arabic to Latin he was making a historical-political argument. Latin was spoken in the many parts of the Roman empire in Europe. These places included Dacia [Romania] in the east, the Iberian peninsula [Spain & Portugal] in the southwest, Gaul [France] in the northwest, and Italy in the south. When the empire collapsed, the Latin language developed into what is called Romance and many Romance dialects. Several of these dialects developed into national languages that became identified with nation-states [French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, etc.]. Classical Arabic also broke down into dialects, that is, spoken vernaculars, such as Iraqi, Syro-Palestinian, Egyptian, Mughrabi [North African]. However, most Arab states insist on the primacy of classical, literary Arabic. And that's the form of the language that they teach in their schools, although this teaching of a language that the pupils do not speak retards the pupils' development of command of any written language, leaving many kids semi-literate [as in Algeria]. The refusal of the PLO & Hamas leadership to give up the classical, literary language is an assertion of a desire for political unity, for pan-Arabism, a pan-Arabist single Arab state. Anyhow, the palestinian Arabs are said to speak the same dialect as the Syrians, so developing a form of language separate from the Syrian form/dialect would be artificial. The PLO & Hamas insist on the pan-Arab identity of the palestinian Arabs.

Porat is the author of the definitive history of modern palestinian Arab politics, The Palestinian Arab National Movement [or similar title].
- - - - - - - -
Coming: English prof who writes for the Nation, lies on Obama's behalf, and looks to the State Dept for authority; more on Jews in Jerusalem & Hebron; archeology in Israel; peace follies; propaganda, etc.

"Peace in the Middle East -- An impossibility," quoth Moshe Sharon

Professor Moshe Sharon has clearly asserted the impossibility of peace in the Middle East. I would amend this to say that under present and foreseeable circumstances peace between the Arabs and Israel is impossible. As Sharon points out the main obstacle to peace is the Arab-Muslim attitude toward non-believers, especially the Jews whom they have oppressed as dhimmis for more than a thousand years. Their religion commands the Arabs/Muslims to make perpetual war against non-Muslim states --with truces allowed when this is for the ultimate benefit of the Muslim war machine, to give it time to rearm and regroup-- until the whole world is brought under the rule of Islam. The name that Muslims give to war for conquering the lands of non-believers [kuffar] is jihad. When non-believers are overwhelmingly militarily superior to the Muslims and are perceived by the Muslims as willing and able and ready to use that military superiority against them, then the Muslims can be very peaceful.

Sharon shows up the fatuity or the cynicism of the "peace processors" and "peacemongers" of varied and sundry stripes. Here are Sharon's words:
In the present situation in the Middle East:

On one hand, they [the Arabs] arm themselves well and get ready for war. On the other hand, they speak about "peace" and even publish "peace plans" every so often, which are meant to turn Israel into a narrow, indefensible piece of land, which can be conquered in a single offensive.
Various Israeli governments and the American State Department which is influenced by the Saudis, backed up by misled communications media, lacking information and defeatist, have convinced themselves and the public for years that the moment that the Arabs sign an agreement, whether a "peace treaty" or any other agreement, they will of necessity also honor it. While doing so, they [the Arabs] have always demanded that Israel pay for such pieces of paper with territory that is vital for its [Israel's] defense. But the Arabs have proven again and again that they only fulfill the clauses of an agreement that they choose to fulfill and only as long as it is worthwhile for them to fulfill them [such clauses].
. . . . .
Not much remains of the "peace treaty" with Egypt beyond a piece of paper which represents a continuing cease fire, much like the ones that existed between 1956-1957, 1968-1973, and 1973-1979.
Egypt takes first place in the world in antisemitic publications and their distribution. This is only one of the crude violations of the peace treaty with Israel. Even Jordan --the very existence of which is dependent on the protection that Israel grants it-- does not fulfill all of the clauses of the peace treaty that it signed, and its communications media spread anti-Israel poison. [Nativ, January 2008]
[MORE TO COME]

Sharon correctly mentions the US State Department as a problem, which he sees as stemming from its susceptibility to Saudi pressure. But he apparently does not see the State Dept as representing a much more major and central problem than he realizes. Furthermore, he attributes the State Dept's problematic nature to Saudi influence. This does not explain why the State Dept was hostile to Jews before the Holocaust in the 1930s and during the Holocaust from 1939 to 1945. In that period, Saudi oil was just beginning to be developed and the Saudi royal family had nowhere near the wealth that it possesses today, and indeed the kingdom was fairly new as kingdoms go, having been established only in 1925, as the kingdom of Nejd & Hijaz, with British approval. The Saudis modestly applied their dynastic name to the kingdom in 1932, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but their influence was very minor before King `Abdul-`Aziz ibn Sa`ud met with President Franklin Roosevelt in early 1945 on his way home from the Yalta Conference.

Sharon is professor emeritus of Islamic & Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
- - - - - - - - - -

A Peace Agreement Is Not Necessarily Peace

Here's another fraud of the "peace process." It is the notion, widely disseminated and advocated by Western politicians, diplomats, journalopropagandists, and other peacemongers, that an agreement --in particular one called a "peace agreement"-- means peace, represents peace, will lead to peace, and so on. Agreements and accords can just as easily lead to war, even peace accords can lead to war. So if President Bush Junior can bring about an "agreement" between Israel and the "palestinian authority," most likely by twisting craven Olmert's arm, that most likely will not mean peace or bring peace. It will simply be an agreement that can improve the strategic situation of the Arab enemies of Israel, especially if Israel gives up strategic territory, such as the north-south Judea-Samaria mountain ridge [גב ההר] for the sake of a "peace agreement." In that case, a "peace accord" will surely lead to more war, to more rockets falling on Israeli cities, and so on.

For example, look at the Munich Accord of October 1938. It was touted by British PM Neville Chamberlain as "peace in our time. . . peace with honor" With Czechoslovakia strategically weakened by having given up the mountainous Sudetenland, mainly populated by ethnic Germans who were Czech citizens, Hitler invaded and occupied the rump --the remainder-- of Czechoslovakia in March of 1939. Yet Britain and France did not much protest this invasion. It was not until Hitler's Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, in cooperation with the Communist USSR, that Britain and France decided formally thatHitler was an enemy. But they did little about it. The period between the invasion of Poland in 9-1939 and the invasion of France in June 1940, less than a year later, is called the Phoney War [la drole de guerre]. This is because little was done to fight the Nazis or get ready to fight them in that period. By the way, at that time, Communists in the parliaments of France and Britain were opposed to any measures of military defense by their countries. This contributed to the French defeat in 1940. Before we forget, Poland and France both had full diplomatic relations with Germany before they were attacked and invaded in 1939 and 1940 respectively.

Other falsehoods of the misnamed "peace process" are
1) the notion of a "palestinian people" which in fact never existed in history, and even now does not exist. Whereas the PLO charter [see Article I particularly], which supposedly guides the palestinian authority, claims that the "palestinian Arab people" is part of the Arab nation and Palestine is part of the Great Arab Fatherland [call it Homeland, if you don't want to acknowledge the Nazi nature of the PLO], the Hamas on the other hand, believes in the Islamic nation, al-Ummah al-Islamiyyah. In fact, neither the PLO/PA nor the Hamas and its satellites like Islamic Jihad are really interested in a "palestinian" state alongside Israel. They ultimately want a great Arab state --the PLO/PA-- or an great Islamic state ruled by a new caliph --Hamas.
2) the "peace process" is really leading towards peace and is meant to lead towards peace. Shmuel Trigano, quoted in an earlier post here, points out that what is really going on is more of a war process [processus de guerre]. See the earlier post of 15 December 2007.
3) a corollary of 2) is the falsehood of the trustworthy, scientific nature of the "peace process." By calling it a "process," the mindbenders are insinuating that the "peace process" somehow has the trustworthy inevitability of an industrial process or a technical process.
4) That there is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict which must be solved. However, the other Arab states are nearly all enemies of Israel as are many many Muslim states. Consider Pakistan and Malaysia. Both Pakistan and Malaysia oppress and persecute the non-Muslim minorities in those countries. Just in recent years the civil rights of non-Muslims in Malaysia, mostly Chinese and Indians [Hindus & Sikhs], have been further cut away and these people have been more and more subject to Muslim Shari`ah law with all that implies [dhimmi status].
5) While the Organization of the Islamic Conference and most of its member states openly avow their hostility to Israel, the EU and several of its member states individually and other Western states, give billions of dollars every year to the PA, supposedly to build up its economy. In fact, much of the money goes to corrupt leaders at or near the top or to finance terrorist operations, and/or to pay the PA "security services" [arafat created more than dozen of them, so none would get so strong as to be able to challenge his supremacy], and/or to pay for the PA schools that slander Jews every day and incite hatred for them [that is, us Jews] and pay for the PA electronic media that do the same, etc. So, objectively speaking, many Western states and the EU are also hostile to Israel, perhaps more hypocritically than the Arabs.

In view of the above, let's honestly admit that Shmuel Trigano is right. We are facing a war process, not a peace process.
- - - - - - - -
Coming: More on the falsehoods of the "peace process," peace follies, propaganda, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, & the Land of Israel, Jewish history, etc.