H St-John Philby: British Agent, Muslim convert, Enemy of Israel

 The career of H St-John Philby shows the ambivalence, if not treachery, of British policy towards Jews and Zionism in the twentieth century. Philby is described as an orientalist  meaning that he knew Arabic and several tongues of Muslim peoples in India and Iran and some of the history of that vast area.

Over the years he served the Empire as a diplomat, intelligence officer and political officer. He became a British government official in India in  1907 but his career took off during WW I when he became head of a British army occupation unit in Iraq.  In 1917 he was sent to the Nejd (central Arabia, roughly speaking) to meet its ruler at the time, Abdel-Aziz ibn Sa`ud. Philby's mission was to persuade Ibn Sa`ud not to attack Britain's ally against the Ottoman Empire, Husayn [Hussein] the Hashemite, Sharif of Mecca, recently recognized by the British as King of the Hijaz, NW Arabia, where Mecca and Medina are located. 

Philby was the British Resident in Transjordan in 1921-1924. Now Resident was a clever British imperialist institution. A  Resident was more than a diplomat. A Resident was there not to rule an obstensibly independent country directly  but to give "advice" when requested or needed --from the British standpoint, sometimes the kind of advice that one cannot afford to refuse. The British had assigned Transjordan de facto to Abdullah [also assigned to the Jewish National Home; see clause 25 of the "Mandate for Palestine" of the League of Nations], son of the  Sharif Husayn, as part of their reward to him for military aid during WW One. While Philby was the Resident for Hashemite-ruled Transjordan, The Saudis of the Nejd attacked and conquered the Hijaz [1924-25]. Some believe that Philby encouraged the Saudis to fight and conquer  their old rivals the Hashemites, although he was the Resident in Hashemite-ruled Transjordan. Be that as it may, we see that Philby was a significant figure in British policy and intrigue in the Middle East in the first half of the 20th century. The pièce de résistance may be Philby's conversion in 1930. He subsequently served as an advisor to Ibn Saud in his capital Riyadh, formerly capital of the Nejd. He stayed there until 1954, a year after Ibn Saud's death, when he was expelled, then settling in Lebanon.

Now I am going to present a report of what Philby said at a gathering of Italian and Muslim intellectuals held in Italy in 1955. Philby was a Muslim of course but not an Arab. Maybe a would-be Arab. The conclave was meant to discuss the relations between Islamic and Western civilizations. The Italian writer, Guido Piovene, reported that the meeting turned into a trial of the West on the part of the Muslim intellectuals present, including Philby. 

Here is a passage from Piovene's short book on the event that comprises a long quote from Philby as well as observations by Piovene:

"Philby is an adventurous Englishman. He converted to Islam, lived in Saudi Arabia for many years as advisor to Ibn Saud, and  was later expelled for reasons that remain in dispute. He now lives in Lebanon. Muslim fundamentalism found specifically this neophyte to be a disappointed  defender who, having abandoned the West, saw the West invading his own refuge. The authentic Muslims do not seem to consider Philby one of their own and viewed his strict Islamic practice with skepticism and reserve [emph added]. 'The Islamic world,' Philby told us, 'before putting others on trial, should put itself on trial for having left its own religion and accepted Western civilization as superior to its own. Unfortunately, Islam has lost something by Westernizing, the essential principles of its own culture as well as the conviction that its own culture was superior to all others. The materialistic culture of the West has prevailed [in the Islamic world] and has introduced there its distinguishing vices; while exploiting petroleum, the Americans have brought wealth and corruption. Previously the poor of the Orient looked forward to a reward after death. Now, like Westerners, they  aspire to the material goods of this life. The winds of modernism have induced the Muslims to contravene the precepts of the Quran; polygamy has been abandoned; the fasts have been lightened for those who work. The strict Wahhabite movement which is opposed to modern tendencies, flourished between one [world] war and the other. It has now lost its following. For that reason, what clash there might be between the two worlds is not seen, nor is on what basis the trial might take place. The conflict is merely political and its principal cause – that nobody wanted to talk about—is the problem of Palestine. The Palestinian state [here meaning Israel] is not the work of Jews but of European colonialists, imperialists, exploiters, who adopted Zionism as an instrument. Here is the reason for the conflict [between Islam & the West]; it is not a religious conflict since one of the parties [the Muslims] has already been assimilated.'

 

"Thereby Philby accepted the thesis of the majority that the clash between Orient and Occident is today merely political. But, while most of the others viewed this favorably, Philby viewed it with regret. In short, he rejected that universalism, that religious syncretism, that today make up the obligatory religion of all international gatherings." [The Italian original follows below]

This is the place to bring in  a number of my own comments and observations.

1. The Arab-Muslims at the meeting know his background and do not trust him. [The authentic Muslims do not seem to consider Philby one of their own ... etc]

2. H St-John Philby prefers authentic, traditional Islam to the Westernized Islam of the second half of the 20th century. For instance, Philby regrets the passing of polygamy.

3. H St-John Philby appears more Muslim than the Muslims. Indeed he scolds the born Muslims for copying the West. He charges them with abandoning their superior civilization for the inferior Western civilization.

4. The West is materialistic, whereas traditional Islam is spiritual. [Christianity traditionally valued --or claimed to value-- the spiritual over the material, spiritualiter against carnaliter]

5. Since the Muslims have assimilated to Western civilization, the clash between the West and Islam, or Philby might have put it as between the West and the Orient, is purely political and not religious.

6. Israel was not established by Jews but by "European colonialists, imperialists, exploiters." Hence Zionism was not an authentic, genuine Jewish movement but was a pretext for "Europeans" whose motives were colonialism, imperialism, and exploitation. The charge of "imperialism" coming precisely from a British imperialist is rather rich of course.                   Now, the whole effort to make Zionism seem to be not genuinely Jewish reminds me of a somewhat similar effort by another British imperialist, Arnold Toynbee, a historian and director of studies at the Royal Institute of International Affairs [RIIA-Chatham House; also partly funded by the American Rockefeller Foundation], and frequent contributor to the RIIA's journal International Affairs, an official British publication inasmuch as it was the organ of the Royal Institute. Toynbee argued in the early or mid-1950s that Israel was not an authentically Jewish state since it had been founded and  governed at the start by unreligious Jews, by socialists and secularists rather than by religious Jews, and especially not by the so-called Ultra-Orthodox [in Israel called Haredim] whom he seems to have considered the most authentic Jews. Another similarity between Philby and Toynbee was the latter's favoring of spirituality. For Toynbee, the secularized West had rejected its spiritual Christian heritage.

7. Philby's use of the term "Palestinian state" to refer to Israel suggests that the "Palestinian people" notion was not yet in the open in 1955. Philby uses the term "Palestinian state" more as a geographic reference.

Some of the themes enunciated by Philby are still around in Western anti-Israel discourse. "Colonialist" and "imperialist" are still often used although they appear usually in "Leftist" rhetoric. "Exploiter" is not often heard nowadays since today's "Left" has little to say about the working class who used to be considered by the "Left" the constant objects of capitalist exploitation. Use of the term exploiter today would remind folk too much of the old themes of fighting for the working class, which is out for now.

Philby's sympathy for Islam is still around and was enunciated by both US presidents, Bush 2 and Obama. Bush notoriously declared that Islam was "a religion of peace." Obama traveled to Cairo in 2009 to make a speech extolling Islam and sympathizing with its travails and difficulties.

Philby spoke in favor of Islam and championed the Arab anti-Israel cause. Did he stay a British agent all his life? Was his conversion to Islam a cover for promoting British policy?

Piovene's Original Text in Italian

Philby è un inglese aventuroso, convertitosi all'Islam, vissuto a lungo nell'Arabia Saudita come consigliere di Ibn Saud, più tardi espulso per motivi che rimangono controversi. Ora vive nel Libano. L'integralismo mussulmano trovò un defensore deluso proprio in questo neofita che, abbandonato l'Occidente, vede l'Occidente invadere il suo stesso rifugio. I mussulmani autentici non sembrano considerare Philby uno dei loro, e accoglievano non senza scetticismo e riserbo il suo rigorismo islamico. "Il mondo islamico," ci ha detto Philby, "prima di processare gli altri, deve processare se stesso, per avere lasciato la propria religione e acccettato la civiltà occidentale come superiore alla sua. Disgraziatamente l'Islam ha perduto occidentalizzandosi i principi essenziali della propria cultura; e insieme la convinzione che la propria cultura sia superior a tutte. La cultura materialistica dell'Occidente vi ha prevalso, e vi ha introdotto i vizi che la distinguono; sfruttando il petrolio, gli americani hanno portato la richezza e la corruzione; i poveri dell'Oriente prima aspettavano un compenso dopo la morte, adesso ambiscono, come gli occidentali, i beni materiali di questa vita. La ventata del  modernismo ha indotto i mussulmani a contravvenire ai precetti coranici; è stata abbandonata la poligamia; sono stati alleviate i digiuno per chi lavora; il movimento rigoristico Wahabita contro le tendenze moderne, fiorito tra una guerra e l'altra, ha perduto il suo seguito. Non si vede perciò quale contrasto possa esservi tra i due mondi, né su che basi possa avere luogo il processo. Il contrasto è solo politico; e la sua causa principale, di cui nessuno ha voluto parlare, è il problema della Palestina. Lo stato palestinese [il stato di Israele] è opera non di ebrei, ma di europei colonialisti, imperialisti, sfruttatori, che hanno adottato il sionismo come strumento. Ecco il motivo del contrasto; nessun contrasto religioso, perché una delle parti è stata ormai assimilate."

 

Philby accedeva dunque alla tesi dei più, che il contrasto tra Oriente e Occidente  è oggi soltanto politico; ma, mentre la maggioranza degli altri vedeva questo con favore, Philby se ne rammaricava. Egli rifiutava insomma quell'universalismo, quell sincretismo religioso, che costituiscono oggi la religione d'obbligo di tutte le riunioni internazionali.                             [Guido Piovene, Processo dell'Islam alla civilta` occidentale (Milano: Oscar  Mondadori 2001) pp 24-25]

Abdel-Razek Abdel-Kader, Le Conflit judéo-arabe

_________ . Le Monde arabe a la veille d'un tournant

Nihad Ghadri, The Great Challenge (np, nd)

Yaacov Shimoni and Evyatar Levine, Political Dictionary of the Middle East in the 20th Century (New York: Quadrangle 1974)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brit Elite Rag -- The Financial Times -- Assaults Israel Again

UPDATING 3-4-2010 at bottom

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

Martin Peretz, editor of the New Republic, has done another expert job of highlighting the Israelophobia [Judeophobia] of the British elite daily, the Financial Times. Recall that the FT is not a "leftist" paper. It is solidly pro-capitalist. Hence, Israelophobia or anti-Zionism, the up to date form of Judeophobia, is not limited to "leftists" or socialists. It is a mental disease cutting across class lines and supposed ideological divisions. Emet m'Tsiyon has featured the FT's anti-Zionism before [here]. Martin Peretz' latest response to FT agitprop is here. Some excerpts follow:

Hardly a day goes by that the Financial Times doesn’t do a hit job on Israel. The otherwise sober pink sheet has such an obsession with the Jewish state that I’ve come to wonder what its views were on the rescue of Jewish children into England during the Nazi onslaught on them and on their parents.
. . . . .
The paper simply refuses to name Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. But it’s much worse than that. The Financial Times writes about the “government in Tel Aviv.’ This is not just weird. It is a lie. The FT wants to rewrite the history of the Middle East. If it can’t tell the truth about a simple geographical fact, on what, pray tell, can it be trusted?

Let's put that claim that Israel's capital is Tel Aviv in historical context. It was a regular feature of Soviet and Communist anti-Israel agitprop before the fall of the Soviet Union. Now, this pretense is employed by the --shall we say it again?-- capitalist Financial Times.

Right now the FT is screeching at Israel for the assassination of top Hamas murderer and operative, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, in Dubai, which quite plausibly may have been carried out by Israel's Mossad spy agency. Maybe the FT regrets that there is one less top Hamas operative running around the Middle East, working to perpetrate mass murder against Jews. Anyhow, in order to properly chastise Israel for --presumably-- killing him, the FT minimizes his importance. It describes him as a mere "Hamas gun-runner." Well, if he was not so important, then why is the FT so upset? Mass murder goes in the Middle East almost every day. In Iraq, dozens of non-combatant civilians are slaughtered regularly. Those murders do not evoke as much gall and spleen from the FT --if any-- as does the assassination of one leader of Hamas whom that Iranian-sponsored mass murder organization officially mourned. Peretz comments:

. . . the FT has dismissed his [al-Mabhouh's] importance by calling him “a Hamas gun-runner in Dubai.” This is so far from the truth that it is actually laughable. He was a murderer, a certified murderer, and is an official of the far-flung Hamas movement, which specializes in the murder of Israelis. He is more than a gun-runner. But even gun- running for Hamas, recipient of military hardware from Iran and Syria, cannot be seen with indifference by Jerusalem.
http://www.tnr.com/print/blog/the-spine/another-hit-job-the-financial-times

Just to clarify the situation. Dubai is officially in a state of war with Israel as part of the United Arab Emirates. The UAE has been in a state of war with Israel since it became a state. The Hamas is not only in a state of war with Israel but openly proclaims the desirability of murdering all Jews. It does this in Article 7 of its charter. The Hamas TV in Gaza constantly brainwashes its population, starting with small children, with reasons for slaughtering Jews and for continuing war against the Jews until Israel and the Jews are destroyed. There is no possibility that any Hamas official could be extradited from Dubai to be put on trial in Israel or from elsewhere in the UAE or from Syria where Hamas has its headquarters or from any Arab state, be it the most "moderate" Arab state of all. Obviously, in a state of war the rules applying in relations between countries at peace do not apply.

The United Kingdom can rightly be seen as the most dangerous center in the world for anti-Israel agitprop. There must be a reason why British NGOs lead in smearing Israel for alleged "human rights" violations, why the movement to boycott Israeli universities is centered in Britain, why Muslim fanatics are allowed to preach murder of Jews [and all non-Muslims] in British mosques and to demonstrate publicly calling to "behead those who insult Islam", without being charged with sedition. Moreover, we may ask why terrorists who placed bombs on the Paris subway, the Metro, in the mid-1990s were taking directions from leaders based in -- London. It was French investigators who dubbed the British capital -- Londonistan. Why?

If there really is such a thing as an Israeli-Arab "peace process," then an expression of regret by the British government for the British government's role in the Holocaust from 1939 to 1945 would be helpful. Surely, the UK government should not be allowed to take part in any supposed "peace process" without an admission of guilt for the British government's past pro-Holocaust policies and without an expression of deep regret.

- - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 3-4-2010 Martin Peretz updates the story of FT's mourning over the death of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. He links to an excellent article by British historian Andrew Roberts that puts the whole subject into a truthful, historical and contemporary perspective [here]. Apparently, even in Britain, a land so much of which is benighted, voices of outrage over the mad attacks on Israel in the FT were such as to lead the FT to publish Roberts' rebuttal of the anti-Israel fanatics.

"The Poilet Drupped the Bumms in Gude Feyeth" -- quoth a Scottish NATO spokesman [& Jamie Shea]

When we recently heard that the Scottish Trade Union Congress was calling for a boycott of Israel, we were reminded of the immortal words of another Scotsman, an erstwhile spokesman for NATO forces in Yugoslavia when they were bombing Serbia and its province of Kossovo. Although NATO was ostensibly fighting the war to protect the Kossovo Albanians, allegedly subject to Serbian genocide, NATO air forces bombed a large group of fleeing Kossovo Albanians. I believe that the NATO forces killed about 70 or 80 of these people. The spokesman was asked to explain himself at a press conference and stated in his quaint, folksy Scottish burr [concealing a world class propagandist] that: "The pilot dropped the bombs in good faith" [quotes & reports here & here & ici & aqui]. In other words, the spokesman wanted and expected the international press to take his word for it that the bombs had been dropped "in good faith." Maybe the pilot did bomb those refugees in good faith. Apparently the international press took the spokesman's word for it and so did the Scottish TUC. After all, the spokesman was not a Jew. He was British. He speaks for Her Britannic Majesty. Maybe next we'll hear that Himmler operated the death camps "in good faith."

The same thing was said in substance by Jamie Shea, apparently not a Scot, who seems to have been the chief NATO spokesman at the time of the Kossovo War.

NATO forces, of which British forces were a part, also killed Serbian civilians during the Kossovo war back in 1999. But apparently it was all "in good faith," since I have heard of no boycott called by the Scottish TUC of the Scottish NATO spokesman or of British products or of British officials or of British universities, so on and so forth. Likewise, British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan in ongoing wars in those places have killed local civilians in air strikes and in other ways. So too the allies of the UK, the United States and other NATO powers have killed civilians in those countries. Yet no call for a boycott by the Scottish TUC or the Irish TUC or any other English-speaking TUC. What gives then, oh Righteous Moralists of the TUC of the Highlands and the Lowlands and the Foggy Islands at sea?? Why aren't you boycotting Britain, or at least the English or maybe the Americans?? Anyhow, who is more responsible for the war --the UK or the USA? Shouldn't you be boycotting at least one of them to show your distaste for those two wars [or those three wars if we include the Kossovo assault on Serbia]?? What about your abhorrence of civilian deaths caused by First World armies?? How many poor Afghans have to die before you boycott both the UK and USA??

Maybe the Scottish TUC and the Irish TUC and all the other TUCs in the British Isles ought to be boycotting themselves. Maybe British hypocrisy is a threat to world peace.

Anti-Jewish Racist UK Continues Its War against the Human Rights of Jews

Racist UK continues war against the human rights of Jews

The United Kingdom, often called Great Britain, accepted a mandate, a trust, from the League of Nations on behalf of the Jewish people to foster development of the Jewish National Home in the Land of Israel. This meant fostering "close settlement" on the land by Jews. As everyone ought to know, the UK violated its mandate, its commitment to the Jewish National Home principle, precisely on the eve of the Holocaust. The Land of Israel --unfortunately labelled "palestine" by the League of Nations-- was recognized as historically Jewish. The League stated: ". . . recognition has thereby been given [by the mandate] to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" [preamble of the League of Nations mandate, 1922].

The worst single violation by the UK of this mandate was the 1939 "White Paper for Palestine" which severely limited Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel precisely when the Jews most needed a home, on the eve of the Holocaust. The "White Paper" also severely restricted Jewish land purchase in the country, including all of Judea & Samaria, except for the Jerusalem area where Jews could buy real estate only from non-Arabs, non-Muslims. Here the British were showing their ugly Judeophobic face, self-righteously pretending to only meaning to be pro-Arab, as if the Arabs deserved that kind of support. In any event, the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations found that the White Paper was a violation of the mandate. This finding that they were violating international law did not stop the UK. Hundreds of thousands of Jews, if not millions, died because of this White Paper policy and other British policies during the Holocaust and WW2. The United Kingdom can properly be considered a sleeping partner in the Holocaust. [see other UK pro-Holocaust activity here and here].

Now, the UK is stepping up its war against the Jewish right to live in Judea-Samaria, areas where the British had forbid Jews to purchase real estate back in 1939-1940. It seems that the British want to continue the Holocaust through Arab hands now rather than German hands, as the 1939 policy had effectively delivered millions of Jews into the Nazis' hands.

Here is a recent report on British efforts against Jews going to live in Judea and Samaria, parts of the heart of ancient Israel and of the internationally designated Jewish National Home. In other words, Britain's Judeophobic policy has been consistent since the days of the mandate [long before the 1939 White Paper] till today.

A new book has come out spelling out the international law applying to the Land of Israel and the rights of the Jewish people thereto. Here are some references to it [here, ici, aqui, qui, פה]. This book clearly explains why Judea-Samaria [and Gaza too] remain to this day legally and juridically part of the Jewish National Home and therefore of the State of Israel which embodies the Jewish State envisaged by the San Remo Conference [1920] and the League of Nations [1922]. Therefore, the position of the UK against Jewish settlement in Judea-Samaria has no foundation in international law, although many propagandists and British Judeophobes who misrepresent international law claim that Jews living in or going to move to Judea-Samaria are acting "illegally." This UK position is anti-Jewish and inhuman. The supposed British concern for Arab welfare is sheer hypocrisy. It is simply a smokescreen for fighting the Jews and their rights and humanity.
- - - - - - - -
Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.

British AgitProp Agencies Assault Israel, Skynews Omits Mention of Karsenty Acquittal

Was it a coincidence that 5 or 6 weeks after the alleged killing by an Israeli tank shell of a Gaza Arab cameraman working for Reuters, the story was revived on Skynews on 5-22-2008, a day after a French appeals court had acquitted Philippe Karsenty of libel for calling the alleged killing by Israeli troops of 12-year old Muhammad al-Durah [30 September 2000] -- a hoax?? British anti-Israel agitprop seems to be moving into high gear not only to deflect attention from the court decision in Paris but to intensify their usual smearing of Israel.

Now, it's not just coming from the BBC but from Sky and Reuters which are also British agencies. Coincidentally or not, just a day or two after a court in Paris ruled that Philippe Karsenty was not guilty of libel for calling the alleged Muhammad al-Durah killing [Sept 2000] a hoax, Skynews ran a similar, although not identical, smear of Israel with the cooperation of Reuters. The questionable character of the coincidence is confirmed by the fact that Skynews did not report the verdict in the Karsenty-France2-al-Durah case, which I ascertained from searches on Sky's website of posts between 5-20 & 5-24.

The French court made its ruling after the judges viewed extended but incomplete footage of events at the Netsarim intersection that day in 2000. The judge had called for all footage still in the hands of France2 to be shown to the court's next session [France2 and its employes had earlier alleged that 27 minutes of film footage remained that had not been broadcast] . However, France2 did not comply fully with the court's order and only showed 18 minutes of the alleged 27 at the next session [November 2007]. Some or all of the missing 9 minutes had been seen several years ago by Richard Landes, a history professor at Boston University, Luc Rosenzweig, a former chief editor of LeMonde, Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte, both journalists, separately on at least two separate occasions. Jeambar and Leconte published their reaction to viewing the footage, the "rushes," in an op ed in the French daily, LeFigaro. Rosenzweig published his conclusions on the MENA website which is available through the Guysen Israel News website linked to from our blogroll. Much info on this matter is found on Menahem Macina's debriefing website, including Jeambar & Leconte's op ed.

What the judges saw in the 18 minutes that France2 did bring to court indicated that the boy was alive after allegedly being killed according to the original France2 broadcast in 2000, even shifting a red cloth in his hand that in a still photograph might seem flowing blood. The judges were impressed that the death of Little Muhammad was not proven, let alone that Israeli bullets had killed him. They criticized France2, a state TV broadcaster, and Charles Enderlin, the France2 Jerusalem correspondent responsible for the original blood libel of late September 2000, among others. A pdf file of the court's verdict is available here.

Curiously indeed, after a French court rejects the al-Durah blood libel, Skynews and Reuters bring up the slightly stale case of a Gazan cameraman working for Reuters, insinuating that Israeli soldiers had deliberately killed him, knowing that he was a journalist. And this is done with considerable emotive verbiage on the part of Sky "news" presenters and Alistair MacDonald, head of the Reuters Jerusalem bureau, who is interviewed in the Sky feature story. MacDonald arrogantly asks: Why the Israelis had killed Our cameraman who was Only Going About His Business. Right there we have a dubious and unsupported factual claim, that is, that the Israelis knew that they were killing a cameraman. MacDonald's approach is like that of asking a man when he is going to stop beating his wife. Such a question presumes that the man beats his wife, without facts, without admission on his part.

Now, if we assume that the cameraman is indeed dead, then we need to point out that the tank was 1 kilometer or more away from the cameraman when it fired. Further, the film showed him carrying a film camera on his shoulder, which could easily look like a RPG launcher or like an anti-tank missile launcher to an observer a kilometer away. Moreover, Gaza Arab terrorists have in the past disguised themselves as journalists as well as medical personnel, painting the word "PRESS" on terrorist jeeps and hiding in ambulances, transporting weapons and explosives on ambulances, even using ambulances as car bombs. Obviously, on a battlefield, it is difficult to know who is that figure standing one kilometer away, besides the fact that Arab journalists in Gaza not only sympathize with one side over the other but have often provided direct help to terrorists in the form of information, carrying or concealing weapons, etc. Therefore, it was not likely that the tank crew knew that they were aiming at a cameraman. Of course, even if they were close to a man carrying a camera --shoulder-mounted or not-- and wearing an iridescent yellow press vest, they could not be sure that he was really a cameraman or journalist.

Another problem with this story as presented on Skynews on 5-22-2008 is that the number of dead victims in the incident has jumped from 3 [including the cameraman] on 4-16-2008 to nine [9] on 5-22-08. So the problem is not only the mendacity of Arab journalists & cameramen but the mendacity of Western journalists too. [see quotes below].

Indeed, it is a problem that journalists [including cameramen] with proper press credentials may take part in "news" hoaxes, like the Muhammad al-Durah "killing" hoax, which was perpetrated by Gaza cameramanTalal Abu Rahma with Charles Enderlin's cooperation. Indeed, Prof Richard Landes reports that when he viewed the rushes with Enderlin in the latter's Jerusalem offices, and that he [Landes] pointed out that much of the footage seemed fake, Enderlin answered: "Oh, they're always doing that" [that is, the Arab cameramen working for Enderlin].

On the other hand, it must be taken into account that anyone going onto a battlefield knowingly and willingly must know that he is taking a risk to his life, even if he is Only Going About His Business, in the words of the Sky/Reuters agitprop presentation. A battlefield is not a playground [שדה קרב אינו מתחם משחקים ] .

Now, despite engaging in moralistic high dudgeon over what they insinuate to have been the deliberate killing of a Reuters cameraman by Israel, neither Sky nor Reuters mentioned that Gaza Arab terrorists have been shooting rockets at the Israeli civilian population for more than seven years. If we search the Skynews and Reuters websites, we note that --although rockets are shot into Israel every day, mainly at the small city of Sderot-- there was no mention of Sderot by Sky between 19 March 2008 and now [6-6-2008]. Nor did Reuters mention Sderot from 28 April 2008 till now [6-6-2008]. This latest Reuters mention of Sderot focusses not on Israeli victims but on Gaza Arab victims. Hamas terrorists [al-Qassam] claimed that they had shot rockets at Sderot "in response to" Israeli attacks that had allegedly killed civilians in Gaza. But Hamas and other jihadist gangs shoot at Israel every day, usually at Sderot and neighboring farming communities, more recently at the larger city of Ashqelon. Apparently, Sky and Reuters would rather engage in a high dudgeon passion play over an allegedly dead Arab cameraman working for Reuters "going about his business" rather than make it the business of Sky/Reuters reporters and cameramen to go to Sderot or nearby kibbutzim to find out what it's like to be bombarded daily by Arab jihadi terrorists. By the way, a factory worker was killed yesterday [5 June 2008] on a kibbutz near Sderot. He was the father of three children.

The hypocritical --indeed, rather silly-- propaganda onslaught on Israel fits into a larger strategy, not only to demonize and dehumanize Israel and Israelis and Jews generally, but to support the Hamas campaign to raise the minimal blockade of Gaza [which gets food shipments from Israel regularly]. This propaganda assault is done by Hamas in cooperation with UN officials in Gaza who constantly speak of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza [where most of the adult population supports genocidal terrorists] but not the humanitarian plight of Jews in Sderot, Ashqelon, and neighboring towns, villages, and kibbutsim. The "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza is blamed on an Israeli "siege." But this "siege" is so light that it does not prevent medium-sized weapons from being brought in from Egypt through tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border, and maybe in other ways too. If there is no "humanitarian crisis" for Jews in Sderot, Ashqelon, etc, according to UN officials, Hamas leaders, NGO spokesmen, and the major media --especially British media-- then maybe that means that Jews are not human. That's the purpose of the Skynews/Reuters propaganda assault.
- - - - - - - - -

HOW DID THREE BECOME NINE in ONLY FIVE WEEKS??

Original BBC report, with video, on this incident (Augean Stables post, analysis and commentary on this incident) . According to the original BBC report, there are only 2 casualties besides the cameraman, not 8 [Sky report of 5-22-2008]. Two plus one equal three.

In other violence throughout the day, a Reuters cameraman was among three killed when his car exploded, apparently after being hit by an Israeli tank shell.
Two others died in the blast that killed the Reuters cameraman
[BBC 4-16-2008]

Here's the Reuters report on the incident:

GAZA, April 16 (Reuters)- A Reuters cameraman and two other Palestinian civilians were killed on Wednesday in what local residents said was an Israeli air strike in the Gaza Strip. [Reuters 4-16-08]

Five weeks later:

Five weeks on from the death of Palestinian cameraman Fadel Shana, Israel has yet to announce the findings of its investigation into the incident - which also killed eight civilians, most of them teenagers or children. [Skynews, 5-22-2008, updated 5-23-08]

It seems that Time is not only a Great Healer but a Great Multiplier. This is a three-fold multiplication of the number of victims in only five weeks [4-16 to 5-22], from three to nine!!!

Film recovered from his camera shows an Israeli tank opening fire several hundred metres away, Reuters adds. [BBC, ibid.]

"Several hundred" is an indefinite number. Use of an indefinite, indeed vague, number is an old media trick meant to disguise an amount either too small or too large for purposes of the political message, without exactly lying. "Several hundred" might mean anything from 300 meters to 2 kilometers or more. Of course, measuring an exact distance is not easy without surveying tools.
On the other hand, Sky puts the Israeli tank "a mile away" [1 mile is nearly two km].

Shana was filming Israeli tanks on a ridge a mile away, when one of them opened fire... [Skynews. 5-22-08, updated 5-23-08]

Sky reports that:

Reuters news agency is demanding to know why the Israelis killed one of its cameramen as he was legitimately going about his business in Gaza.
[Skynews. 5-22-08, updated 5-23-08]

I have a demand too. I demand to know how 3 victims reported by BBC on 16 April had multiplied to 9 victims in Sky's report of 5-(22 & 23).

By the way, note that the collateral victims, besides the cameraman --sanctified simply by belonging to the press, are mainly "teenagers or children" [according to the Sky report quoted above]. What are children, or even teenagers, doing on a battlefield?? Weren't there any responsible adults to tell the kid victims to go home?? Bear in mind that the classical anti-Jewish blood libel, such as Simon of Trent, involves Jews allegedly killing a boy. So alleged death story of the Reuters cameraman also alludes to boys being killed, as was the case in the Muhammad al-Durah hoax.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Skynews passion play about the cameraman here1, here2, here3 by order of date. The first two are videos, the third is text.
Reuters report on French court decision absolving Karsenty of libel charge.
BBC report on the same.
Seconddraft and Augean Stables sites which bring much info about the Al-Durah Affair.
Draft English translation of the French court ruling.
- - - - - - -
Coming: more on Jews caught up in the Armenian genocide, archeology in Jerusalem, peace follies, obama's subtle fakery, propaganda, etc.

Marxist-Leninist Writes His Judeophobic Drivel by the Grace of a Superrich Arab Amir

UPDATING at bottom

Prof Richard Landes at The Augean Stables blog has a long, mad quote from James Petras published on Al-Jazeera. Here is the link to the Augean Stables post. Prof Petras is an obsessive Judeophobe who has found solace in the warm bosom of Qatar's al-Jazeera website. For many years he published "anti-imperialist" articles [against US policy in South America, not always good policy, to be sure], particularly in the "Marxist-Leninist" Monthly Review. But there are a number of bizarre positions and inner contradictions in Petras' stance and arguments.

Petras uses the phrase: "On the key issue of a compromise on the key issue of Jerusalem..." This is the same language used by State Dept officials and anti-Israel MSM commentators about Jerusalem, as if the Arabs would make peace if Jerusalem were redivided as it was for 19 years, between 1948 and 1967, and only for those 19 years.

It is noteworthy that Petras published "anti-US imperialism" screeds in the "Marxist-Leninist" Monthly Review [which has disavowed part --only part-- of what Petras said in his favorable review of the walt-mearsheimer tract] for many years. Now, al-Jazeera operates out of Qatar, not exactly a socialist or revolutionary state, nor a poor state. The per capita yearly income in Qatar is rather high on a world scale. Al-Jazeera operates there by the grace of the Shaykh or Amir or whatever title the local potentate holds. He is not exactly a democrat [small D]. Qatar also hosts, by the grace of the Shaykh or Amir, the Middle Eastern HQ of Centcom, the high command of US forces in Iraq. So Petras is being published --indirectly to be sure-- by the grace of the Amir of Qatar who also shows his grace to CENTCOM. Further, the journalists who actually set up al-Jazeera were mainly veterans of BBC and Voice of America, which Petras' old Marxist-Leninist friends might call "imperialist" press services. If I'm not mistaken, the potentate of Qatar also holds a share of ownership in al-Jazeera [maybe a majority share] which is also a commercial TV operator, if I am not mistaken, thus a profitmaker. Curiously, the corporate headquarters of Al-Jazeera are in London, although it operates out of Qatar. Figure that one out.

Be that as it may, Qatar and the other Persian Gulf emirates and sheikdoms, etc., plus Saudi Arabia, own a great deal of capital and real estate in Western countries, including the United States. So by allowing his pen to be rented out by al-Jazeera, Petras seems to be --collaborating-- with imperialists, at least according to Lenin's definition. Lenin said that big capital or finance capital was imperialist by definition.

So Petras' role as a pristine pure Marxist-Leninist anti-imperialist would seem to be very tarnished by his association with or employment by Qatar's al-Jazeera.

UPDATING:
Here is a web article with documentation on the al-Jazeera link to the Qatar government and ruling family, as well as on the career history of most of its original journalists and editors as employes of BBC or VOA. George Bush, visiting Qatar, referred to the ruler as an "amir." However, shaykhs abound in the ruling al-Thani family. According to a book on Al-Jazeera by Hugh Miles (London 2005), the Amir and/or government of Qatar have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Al-Jazeera which is a commercial enterprise but apparently not yet profit-making [correct error above]. Hence, members of the al-Thani family and/or the Qatar govt have given al-Jazeera additional capital inputs or loans over the years [see Miles book, p 346, quoted in the web article linked to from this paragraph].
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More lies of the "peace process" and Annapolis, more on Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, elsewhere in the Land of Israel, etc.

Britain wanted to use Arabs to protect its interests in the Middle East

The French scholar of the Middle East, Pierre Rondot, asserts that Britain wanted to use the Arabs to protect British Middle Eastern interests. It is noteworthy that Rondot was a strong sympathizer of the Arabs against Israel and Zionism, yet, being French, he did not have a motive to cover up British policies and motives.

Great Britain, for reasons both of fact and sentiment, continues to be with the Arab nation; its favor in 1917 towards Zionism, its resignation to the arrangements of 1920 [at the San Remo Conference?] do not allow it to forget its essential design, which is to entrust the care of its transit interests in the Near East to an alliance with the Arabs; it also emancipated, as soon as it could, Transjordan (treaty of 1928) and Iraq (treaty of 1930); it also ended up during the second world conflict [WW2], as the patron if not the inventor of the 'Arab League,' evolving in the first days of peace [after WW2] towards the even more concrete projects of 'Greater Syria' and 'The Fertile Crescent.' [p 124]

La Grande Bretagne, pour des raisons de fait comme de sentiment, ne cesse pas d'etre avec la nation arabe; sa faveur de 1917 envers le sionisme, sa resignation aux accomodements de 1920 ne lui fait pas oublier son dessin essentiel, qui est de confier a` une alliance arabe le soin de ses interets de transit en Proche-Orient; aussi emancipe-t-elle, de`s qu'elle le peut, Transjordanie (traite de 1928) et Iraq (traite de 1930); aussi aboutira-t-elle , au cours du second conflit mondial, au patronage sinon a` l'invention de la 'Ligue arabe,' pour evoluer aux premiers jours de la paix vers les projets plus concrets encore de la 'Grande Syrie' et du 'Croissant Fertile.'
[Pierre Rondot, Les Chretiens de l'Orient (Paris: Peyronnet 1966), p 124]

Rondot was not British and was not beholden to the British government. Therefore, he was not compelled or induced to cover up the true British policy in the Middle East. Today, unofficial spokesmen for Britain and unofficial defenders of British policy pretend that Britain was solidly pro-Zionist and pro-Jewish before the rise of the State of Israel. That's just another of the big lies now circulating so widely. The chomskys and edward saids compulsively propound the lie of British favoritism for Zionism, whereas the truth was the opposite. Rondot clearly says that Britain was pro-Arab. Earlier posts on this blog have pointed to British encouragement for establishing the Arab League, while British enthusiasm for the League was greater than that among the Arabs themselves. Britain propounded the Arab League notion at the same time that it was serving as a silent partner in Hitler's Holocaust of the Jews.

Now, with Condi Rice's tragic Annapolis Conference over, but leaving ominous signs for the future, we can say that the United States seems to be taking over the pro-Arab role of Britain, while the State Department asserts in a pro forma manner that it wants peace for the Jews. Arab spokesmen, Sa'eb Erikat and Nabil Abu Rudeyna, spokesmen for terrorist leader, Mahmud Abbas, are already denying, today, 28 November 2007, that anything agreed on at Annapolis binds them or obliges them in any way and that they made no concessions at Annapolis. We can expect that in the future, the Bush White House and the State Department will criticize or even punish Israel for not fulfilling supposed commitments made by Israel at Annapolis. But they will not criticize or punish the PLO/Arab/PA side for any barbarity or violation of commitments. More or less like British policy up to 1948.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: the lies and falsehoods that Annapolis was based on, propaganda, peace follies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron and the Land of Israel, etc.

Star British Journalist Adores Walt- Mearsheimer's Anti-Israel Fraud

You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God)
The British journalist
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to.
Humbert Wolfe, poet, 1930

Max Hastings is a veteran and eminent or maybe overrated British journalist. He praised the walt-mearsheimer travesty in a review for the London Sunday Times [2 Sept 2007]. His review was uncritical, even gushing, although he did complain about the style which he thought somewhat heavy.

Hastings endorses the ridiculous falsehoods of Walt-Mearsheimer. He summarizes their position as saying, inter alia, that America gives Israel's governments "unconditional support."

But they [walt-mearsheimer] are dismayed by America’s unconditional support for its [Israel's] governments’ policies, including vast sums of cash aid for which there is no plausible accounting process.

This is simply a lie. For instance, on Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria. These areas were part of the Jewish National Home set up by the San Remo Conference in 1920, and endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922. They are legal. Yet, United States policy is opposed to them and considers them an "obstacle to peace."

It is not the settlements that are illegal. What was illegal --according to the League's Permanent Mandates Commission-- was the British White Paper policy starting in 1939 that prevented Jews from buying real estate in most of the National Home despite the clear principles enunciated by the Mandate issued to Britain in 1922. As to settlements, US policy opposes them, although the US is not so ready to declare them illegal as the UK is.

It may be forgotten in 2007 that in the spring of 2002, President Bush, very vehemently opposed Israel's Defensive Shield operation, aimed at overcoming the mass murderous terrorists operating out of the Arab cities controlled by the "Palestinian Authority." Bush demanded that Israel's army immediately turn around and leave those areas, this was after the Park Hotel bombing in Netanya, Israel, on the Jewish festival of Passover, that had slaughtered 29 Jews. Yet, Bush opposed necessary Israeli defensive actions. Indeed, many of the Bush Administrations policies toward Israel and the Arabs are harmful to Israel. Without providing a long list, I will mention the Bush State Department's plans for an "international conference" at Annapolis [see here & here] which can do no good for Israel, plus the massive funds contributed to the Palestinian Authority.

As to funds unaccounted for, the Palestinian Authority --favored by the State Dept, the UK Foreign Office, the BBC, the EU, and in fact by President Bush-- is notorious for funds unaccounted for. Yet, it seems that walt-mearsheimer & Hastings are not concerned about how the PA spends or misplaces the huge sums donated to it.

[It is curious that Hastings does not mention a charge against the so-called Israel Lobby made in walt-mearsheimer's original article on that subject in 2006 in the London Review of Books and in their book. They charge that the Israel lobby was behind the Iraq War. It is peculiar that Hastings doesn't mention the accusation. In any case, Mearsheimer admitted the truth, contradicting his own and Walt's lie about the Iraq War in an interview with a journalist on US National Public Radio. Camera picked up this interview in which Mearsheimer gainsaid one of the central claims in his book, that the Bush Administration made war on Saddam Hussein's Iraq in order to serve Israel.]

And many Israeli government actions, including the expansion of West Bank settlements and the invasion of Lebanon, reflect repressive policies that do not deserve Washington’s endorsement: “While there is no question that the Jews were victims in Europe, they were often the victimisers, not the victims, in the Middle East, and their main victims were and continue to be the Palestinians." [w-m's words]

Hastings packs a lot of smear into a fairly short paragraph. Why is it "repressive" [Hastings' word] for the Israeli government to allow Jews to live in Judea-Samaria, the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland? The League of Nations' palestine mandate states [Article 6]:

"The Administration of Palestine . . . shall facilitate Jewish immigration . . . and shall encourage. . . close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

This is what the Israel government has done and Hastings now smears it as "repressive." International law still recognizes Judea-Samaria & Gaza as parts of the Jewish National Home. The truly "repressive" action was that of the UK government in violation of the Mandate, as expressed in the 1939 White Paper policy and in various regulations to implement that policy. Some of these regulations forbid --in a racist manner-- land purchase by Jews in most of the country. And this on the eve of the Holocaust!

Furthermore, Israel was attacked from Lebanon by the Hizbullah in July 2006. The seizure of two wounded Israeli soldiers and the killing of several others was accompanied by a barrage of katyusha rockets on Israeli towns and villages along the northern border. The Hizbullah is an armed militia with a Judeophobic ideology containing Nazi-like elements. It operates independently of and in opposition to the parliamentary government of Lebanon. It is a protege of the Iranian and Syrian regimes, both of which make Nazi-like propaganda against Jews. Max Hastings, a respected British journalist, considers Israel's defensive actions in Lebanon to be "repressive." He has written an insidious, mendacious tract, using words for emotive purposes rather than rational meanings.

Hastings and walt-mearsheimer also reverse the historical relations between Jews and Arabs. Saying that the Jews were victims only in Europe but not in Arab-Muslim ruled lands is simply a lie. Jews in Arab-Muslim-ruled lands were subject to the oppressive dhimma rules of Muslim law, described below in our comments on Jimmy Carter. The Arab-Muslims in the Land of Israel historically oppressed and exploited Jews, precisely in Israel, precisely in Jerusalem. See here & here & here. As to the W-M claim about Jews being "victimisers" rather than victims of Arabs, Palestinian Arabs in particular, see the previous post about the role in the Holocaust of Haj Amin el-Husseini, British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem [see here & here too, etc]. It is curious that Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, utters similar falsehoods about the Arab-Jewish relationship, comparing Arab terrorism with the civil rights movement of American blacks. This is evidence that the walt-mearsheimer article and book were meant to serve State Department purposes, also in view of the fact that Walt & Mearsheimer have been State Department consultants.

Hastings goes on to present a distorted picture of outside lobbying and political-financial pressures on American foreign policy in the Middle East.

The authors argue that American policy towards Israel is decisively and unhelpfully influenced by the power of a domestic lobby spearheaded by AIPAC (the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee). This organisation wields extraordinary power in raising funds for American political candidates whom it favours, and bringing down wrath upon those whom it deems insufficiently supportive.

Comment: The Saudi lobby is not mentioned in the review, although it is likely much more powerful than the pro-Israel lobby and closer to the heart of the Bush family with its ties to the oil industry, although it is backed by a much smaller constituency in American public opinion. How about the fat speakers fees paid to ex-presidents like Carter and Clinton who give lectures in the Persian Gulf emirates [UAE]? How do we know how much money Saudi Arabia, the Gulf emirates and other wealthy Arabs may be donating to presidential candidates? Changing the relative size of the pro-Israel community --the body of pro-Israel opinion-- in the US is one of the main purposes of the w-m book.

Jimmy Carter too seems to be propounding the same big lie as Walt-Mearsheimer, Rice, and Hastings about the Arabs as victims of the Jews, reversing historical and current reality.

Former president Jimmy Carter incurred not merely criticism but vilification when he published a book entitled Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid, likening Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians to that of the old white regime in South Africa towards its black majority.

When someone terribly slanders someone else, what should the reaction be? How should Jews react when an ex-president of the US makes hate propaganda against Israel? Applying the label "Apartheid" to Israel is very false and very sinister, since the charge embodies other charges, such as racism, whereas Jews suffered from racism in South Africa and from something much like apartheid in traditonal Arab-Muslim society. Arab/Muslims suppressed, exploited, humiliated, oppressed Jews for more than a thousand years in the status of dhimmis. Dhimmis were non-Muslims tolerated in the Muslim state. But they were tolerated only in the inferior status of dhimmis. This status involved such things as special taxation, originally conceived of as a form of tribute in the Quran [9:29]. Muslim law [shari`ah] specifically aimed to humiliate the dhimmi, as in how one of the special taxes on dhimmis, the jizya, was to be paid. In some places, the dhimmi had to accept a blow on the back of the neck when he paid it. In other, milder cases, the dhimmi had to offer the Muslim official the coin with his hand open, palm upwards. The official would then lift up the coin from the dhimmi's hand. This was to prevent the dhimmi's hand from being above that of the official --as the case would be if the dhimmi dropped the coin into the official's hand-- which would constitute humiliation of a Muslim, in the eyes of Islamic law. In Muslim courts, the dhimmi's testimony was worth one-half that of the dhimmi, and a dhimmi woman's testimony was worth even less. For more on the dhimmi status, see here and here and other posts on this blog.

One of the things that the Nazis did to ready their population and other Europeans and people elsewhere for the Holocaust was to constantly vilify the Jews. Carter vilifies the Jews --ostensibly only the state of Israel-- by libelling Israel as "apartheid," then Max Hastings claims that the Jews are vilifying Carter. For the record, in Israel, Arabs vote for the parliament, the Knesset, there is an Arab cabinet minister, Arab judges, including a supreme court judge. Arabs go to university with Jews. Arabs go to school with Jews, although most Arab parents prefer that their children get an Arab education with a Muslim religious component. Arabs ride buses with Jews [how else did the suicide bombers get on the buses?]. Arabs eat in the restaurants with Jews. Now in apartheid South Africa, this ethnic equality did not exist. I don't say "racial equality" since skin color is not the problem between Arabs and Jews. There is in fact a broad range of skin colors among both peoples, particularly among Jews and Arabs in Israel.

A major theme of the walt-mearsheimer tract is that Jews or the "Israel Lobby" dominate what the American media say about Israel. In my view, the Petro-Diplomatic Complex has more influence over what the American media write about Israel than Israel's supporters do. Anyhow, here is Hastings:

The American media, claim the authors, even such mighty organs as The New York Times and The Washington Post, do less than justice to the Palestinians, much more than justice to the Israelis. . . There is no American counterpart to such notably Arabist British polemicists as Robert Fisk.

The problem is that the New York Times and Washington Post have often published false reports libelling Israel. Hastings, uncritically approving w-m's claim, turns the situation around to have it that the NYT and WaPo favor Israel over those Arabs, now fashionably called "Palestinians." Bear in mind that one hundred years ago, the Muslim-Arabs themselves did not speak of "Palestine" let alone a "Palestinian people." As late as 1946, Palestinian Arab spokesmen testifying before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine, demanded that the Palestine mandated territory --set up to embody the Jewish National Home in international law in 1920 at San Remo, endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922 and so on, confirmed by the UN Charter [Article 80] after WW2-- be a part of Syria or Greater Syria, in conformity with the traditional Arab geographical concept of bilad ash-Sham [Greater Syria, including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel, grosso modo]. Few Americans, certainly not friends of Israel, would agree that the NYT or WaPo are friendly to Israel. Now, as to Robert Fisk, he is a notorious journalistic liar. Fisk has an aversion to facts that don't fit his anti-Israel arguments. Fisk shames the British people. One of his lies was published in an article that I read after Iraq's conquest of Kuwait, a fellow Arab state, in 1990. Fisk claimed that there had been a "Province of Palestine" in the Ottoman Empire before WW One. This is completely false. At that time, the country on both sides of the Jordan was divided between the province of Syria [vilayet of Sham; also translated as "province of Damascus"], the province [vilayet] of Beirut, and the mutesariflik of Jerusalem [also called "independent sanjaq of Jerusalem"]. So when Robert Fisk claimed that there had been an Ottoman "province of Palestine," he was either lying or he was ignorant. Fisk's purpose was to project the "palestinian people" notion back into the past.

To be sure, Hastings criticizes the book's style.

Mearsheimer and Walt’s book argues its points at such ponderous length that it makes pretty leaden reading.

But this is a trivial point when he has uncritically accepted all of their political and historical claims. Then Hastings gets into high dudgeon about freedom of the press, etc.

. . . it is extraordinary that, in a free society, the legitimacy of the expression of their opinions should be called into question.

But is it legitimate to lie so grossly on important public issues?
Then Hastings quotes walt-mearsheimer wanting to have Israel downgraded as an ally of free, democratic countries besides Israel allegedly being immoral and oppressive to Arabs, in their terms.

“We show,” say the authors, “that although Israel may have been an asset during the cold war it is increasingly a strategic liability now that the cold war is over. Backing Israel so strongly helps fuel America’s terrorism problem and makes it harder for the United States to address the other problems it faces in the Middle East.”

Here Hastings, and w-m forget how US foreign policy --including in its so-called "realist" mode [walt & mearsheimer are supposed to be "realists" on foreign policy]-- has created problems in the Middle East which one may or not agree favor American interests but surely are harmful to Israel. For instance, was it good for the United States under President Carter --his foreign policy managed by Zbig Brzezinski-- to have supported the takeover of Iran by the Muslim fanatic Khomeini [1978-1979], whom Ahmadinejad obeyed at the time?? Does Hastings remember the Teheran hostage crisis, perpetrated by those whom the US had helped to take over Iran? Was it good for the United States to have favored the takeover of Lebanon by Syria, which it did under President Ford [in 1976, Kissinger was secretary of state] and under President Bush Senior [in 1990, James Baker was secretary of state, encouraging Syria to crush its last Lebanese opposition]?? Was it good for the United States to have helped Iraq, to have helped Saddam Hussein, in the 1980s, then having to fight Iraq in 1991 after it had conquered Kuwait and was threatening Saudi Arabia?

Americans ring-fence Israel from the normal sceptical processes of democracy, while arguments for the Palestinians are often denounced as pernicious as well as antisemitic.

Indeed, many arguments for the Arabs now called "palestinians" are "perncious as well as antisemitic." How about "the right of return"? The Palestine mandate and the Jewish National Home principle endorsed by the League of Nations stipulated a Jewish "right of return." However, the Arab political leadership of the Mufti Husseini and his Arab Higher Committee for Palestine called for cancelling that right, as the Nazis in Germany became more of a threat to the Jews. Precisely on the eve of the Holocaust, when the Jews needed a home more than ever, the British government accepted the Arab position and severely curtailed Jewish immigration into the internationally designated Jewish National Home, in violation of the Mandate, according to the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission.

Mearsheimer and Walt conclude, weakly but inevitably, with a mere plea for more open debate in the US about Israel. “Because most Americans are only dimly aware of the crimes committed against the Palestinians,” they say, “they see their continued resistance as an irrational desire for vengeance. Or as evidence of unwarranted hatred of Jews akin to the antisemitism that was endemic in old Europe.

Here Hastings & walt-mearsheimer come close to the shrill tones used by the "left" against Israel's alleged "crimes." They repeat --by implication and insinuation-- the lie that, yes, there was "antisemitism . . . endemic in old Europe" but not in the Arab world. Hence, this line indicates a convergence between the so-called "left" and Establishment foreign policy planners against Israel.

For Europeans, all this adds up to a bleak picture. Only America might be capable of inducing the government of Israel to moderate its behaviour, and it will not try. Washington gives Jerusalem a blank cheque, and all of us in some degree pay a price for Israel’s abuses of it.
After that remark, I shall be pleasantly surprised to escape an allegation from somebody that I belong in the same stable of antisemites as Walt and Mearsheimer.

So Hastings wants the USA to exert massive pressure on Israel's government, which is weak anyhow, in order to "moderate" Israel's behavior, whereas it is not considered that Arab behavior needs to be moderated, although Abu Mazen's Palestinian Authority has not fulfilled any of the requirements of the so-called Road Map, such as ending hostile propaganda against Israel and disarming terrorist militias. Yes, I consider Hastings to be an antisemite, or rather a Judeophobe. Another British scribbler, one Daniel Levy, treated the walt-mearsheimer tract favorably in a review in HaArets [available in English]. This Daniel Levy is the son of Lord Levy, one of Tony Blair's major campaign contributors. Another British journalopropagandist, Gwyn Dyer, falsifies the status of the 1949-1967 armistice lines, calling them Israel's "legal borders." This is of course par for the course in British journalism, although journalists elsewhere spread the same lie. If Hastings, Dyer, & Fisk are exemplars of British journalism, then it's simply a propaganda industry, although Britain can do much better.

Walt-Mearsheimer are political scientists, so their book can be considered political science fiction.
The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M Walt
- - - - - - -
Coming: Condi and the false analogy between Abu Mazen and Dr Martin Luther King [a Zionist, in fact], Jews in the Land of Israel, Jerusalem and Hebron, peace follies, propaganda, war for order, etc.

Arabs in Gaza Want Israel

The title of this post does not fit the usual mass media and "leftist" propaganda in the West. According to the usual picture put forth by the media/Left/diplomats, the Arabs in Gaza, Judea & Samaria are eager to be rid of Israeli control or "occupation," to be ruled by Hamas or Fatah --according to taste-- and to establish their own state, a "Palestinian" state, although there was never a "palestinian" nation or state in history. However, Fatah and Hamas both of them supported by Western powers to one extent or other, yet bitter rivals for power and the pecuniary goodies provided by Western and Arab support, have created chaos within Gaza by their internecine combat. This has led many Arabs to feel that they were better off when Israel ruled Gaza and to even wish that Israel might return and rid them of their homegrown tyrants and nemeses.

Prof. Richard Landes at the Augean Stables blog, has written up this subject with a goodly number of quotes. A video showing a Gazan Arab uttering a wish for Israel to come back and rule Gaza appeared on Youtube about a week ago. I found the following in the Israeli daily newspaper Yisraeli, of 31 May 2007. The Israeli reporter Guy Tsabari interviewed the Gazan Arab journalist Sami Musa. Here is what Musa had to say:

. . . The difficult economic situation is causing many Palestinians to long for Israeli rule in the Strip. The functionaries of the [palestinian] Authority have not received salaries for a long time now. Goods are running out in the grocery stores and markets and the stock is not being renewed, because the purchasers don't have anything to pay with. . .
. . . From an economic standpoint, things were much better before implementation of the Oslo Accords. . . The Palestinian workers worked in Israel and brought a lot of money into the Strip, our teachers worked for the Israeli Ministry of Education, and even the Gaza municipality received budgets from Israel. Today we don't have any of this. . .

Although the various nationalist/jihadist groups have brought wreckage into the lives of the Arabs in Gaza and Judea-Samaria, despite the huge sums --the billions-- of Western, Japanese, and Arab money that have come into the palestinian authority zones, into the hands of Fatah, PA, and Hamas leaders, the West continues to support these gangs. Several previous posts here have shown that the UK government under Tony Blair has worked to advance the Hamas. Quisling Norway too favors the Hamas. The EU, however, officially disapproves of Hamas and favors the old PA/Fatah leadership of Mahmud Abbas, Abu `Ala'a, Dahlan, etc. The US State Department seems especially sweet on Muhammad Dahlan, himself a murderous thug. If the Hamas were less stubborn, they could have had the open support of most Western states and the EU, and still kept the Nazi-like clauses of their Hamas charter. Article Seven of the Hamas charter repeats an old Muslim fable, a hadith [tradition] from a thousand years ago or more. At the End of Days, the Muslims will fight the Jews. The Jews will hide behind rocks and trees. These inanimate objects will call out: O Muslim, a Jew is hiding behind me. Come kill him.

And Western governments, including Norway that has Jewish blood on its hands, support the Hamas, although most Western states are not as blatant as Norway, nor as diplomatically active in promoting the Hamas as the UK has been [in addition to UK tolerance for jihadists generally]. One sometimes wonders whom the Arab terrorist factions, Hamas & Fatah & the rest are meant to represent and to help, the Arabs or the West.

By the way, internecine combat among palestinian Arab factions, groups, gangs, and movements has a long history. For instance, in July-August 1978 hundreds of palestinian Arabs were killed in internecine combat in the southern Beirut neighborhoods of Sabra & Shatila & Burj al-Barajnah. In one case, one faction bombed an apartment building in which a rival faction had its offices, in an effort to wipe out the leadership of that other faction. In these actions, hundreds of non-combatants were killed. Of course, the anti-Israel media find it necessary to forget about these incidents of intra-Arab fighting, the better to smear Israel.
- - - - - - -
Coming: Jews in Jerusalem and Hebron, more on James Baker & US policy towards Israel, peace follies, propaganda, etc.