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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

British Minister Suggested a Boycott of "Settlement" Products to the "Palestinian Authority"

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

We have said before that the United Kingdom is a great enemy of Israel. Of course, I realize that many British people in all four components of the kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, are sympathetic to Israel, even very sympathetic. But the British government has been hostile to Jews and Israel for many years, although this hostility is usually covered by a mist of slick hypocrisy, sanctimonious posing and the like. Yet the hostility goes back to the beginning of British mandatory rule in Israel, designated as the Jewish National Home by the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations. Since then the UK govt has perpetrated several velvet-gloved assaults on the Jews and Israel. Among the highlights are the 1939 "White Paper on Palestine," the refusal to bomb the railroad tracks leading to the death camps like Treblinka, etc., the use of the British armed forces to keep Jews out of the Jewish National Home during the Holocaust, when the Jews most needed a home, the pressure by British diplomats on southern European countries not to let Jewish refugees embark from their ports to escape Nazi genocide, the acquiescence by Britain's Foreign Office in the 1941 Farhud massacre of Jews in Baghdad, the post-WW2 refusal to let Jewish Holocaust survivors into the Jewish National Home, the encouragement to Arab states and the palestinian Arab leadership to fight against the rise of a Jewish state [as envisioned in the Jewish National Home principle]. The last item entailed supplying weapons to Arab armies and actual intervention in combat against the Jewish forces by British tanks, artillery, fighter aircraft, and ground forces.

The rise of Israel and its survival and demonstrated ability to defend itself caused great disappointment among highly placed persons in London and throughout the Empire. The failure of conventional warfare by the Arab armies in 1948-1949 led to an intensified psychological and cognitive warfare effort against the Jews and the Jewish national state. This effort culminated in production of the "palestinian people" notion, a people invented for political/diplomatic purposes, a people that had never existed in history as a people or nation. The harm done to Israel and the Jews by this invented notion is incalculable. Of course, it cannot be easily proven that British psywar experts invented the "palestinian people," but there is much evidence for this assertion.

Now British diplomacy shows once again that the UK is as hostile and dangerous for the Jews as are the Arab states as a group. The Palestinian Authority deputy minister of the economy, Abdel Hafez Nofal, revealed that the British minister of trade had suggested to him that the PA institute a boycott of products of Israeli settlements, that is, products of any Israeli community or factory or plant across the 1949 armistice line from the pre-1967 Little Israel, the rump of the Jewish National Home territory left to the Jews after the War of Independence. So a British minister recently prodded the PA into ordering a boycott by its population of Jewish products made in the wrong place, that is, on the wrong side of the armistice line. To be sure, since Arab workers too work in many of the Jewish-owned plants, we could say that the products are also Arab in part. Here is the quote:

. . . Abdel Hafez Nofal, 56 years old, Palestinian deputy minister of the Economy. He is "Mr Boycott": "Everything started when the English minister of Trade said to me, 'We have decided to boycott the products of the settlements. And you?'"
[Il Sole- 24 Ore, 22 October 2010; p12]

. . . Abdel Hafez Nofal, 56 anni, vice ministro palestinese dell'Economia. "Mister Boycott" è lui. «Tutto è incominciato quando il ministro del Commercio inglese mi disse: "Noi abbiamo deciso di boicottare i prodotti delle colonie. E voi?"
[qui]

It is not fully clear whether, when the British minister said "We have decided. . .", that the "we" referred to the British or to the EU. In any case, it is likely that the UK took the lead in the EU in pushing for a boycott.

So here we have another British effort for greater peace and greater international understanding. And treating Jews like the British govt thinks that they ought to be treated. Of course, Britain, like the Arabs, does not want to admit any wrongdoing against Jews. But if the UK admitted its ugly Holocaust record of refusing refuge to Jewish refugees from the Nazis, that might be a contribution to Middle East peace. And if not to peace, then to a greater understanding of history.

CLARIFICATION:
The statement by the PA economics minister may not be totally accurate. This is because neither the EU nor the UK has an explicit, formal policy to boycott goods produced in Jewish communities across the Green Line [the 1949-1967 armistice line]. However, it's obvious that both EU and UK are tending in that direction.The EU requires products from Judea/Samaria to be labelled as such but does not require a distinction between goods made by Jews and goods made by Arabs. On the other hand, the UK government has a "voluntary" agreement whereby foodstuffs made/grown by Jews in Judea-Samaria are labelled differently from foodstuffs made/grown by Arabs in the same area.

Further, the constant vilification of Israel in UK media --not all to be sure, but significantly on the BBC which is a state body with its policy on foreign affairs dictated by the Foreign Office-- indicates the direction of UK state policy. The Guardian, Independent [sic!] and several other UK papers specialize in vilifying Israel, often using traditional Judeophobic themes. Then several ostensibly non-governmental bodies in the UK, such as the university teachers union, advocate a boycott of Israeli universities, whereas the Trades Union Congress [TUC], I am informed, advocates a boycott of settlement products. I have no doubt that these non-governmental bodies are not only influenced by hostile UK media but by govt officials as well as govt operatives within their ranks.

Both the previous Labour govt and the present "Conservative" govt are capable of favoring a boycott of settlements as well as a total boycott of Israel, as some loud-voiced academics already advocate. These "civil society" groups provide a moral cover for any anti-Israel move by the govt itself now or in the future. The British govt may have already taken a decision to implement a boycott of settlement products at some opportune moment in the future. In such an eventuality, it would be helpful if the Palestinian Authority were already implementing such a policy so that the UK govt would not seem to be "more Arab" or "more palestinian" than the Arabs/palestinians. If such a decision has already been taken and conveyed to the PA, as Minister Nofal asserts, then his statement would be both accurate and instructive.
- - - - - - - - -
The palestinian Authority's boycott policy in action [here].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The notion of a "palestinian people," previously unknown to history, including to Arab historians, has its parallels in other states/peoples/nations without a history created for political convenience by Great Powers. Consider "Panama" which was simply part of Colombia, created in order to facilitate building of the Panama Canal by the USA, and Pakistan, formed by Britain out of mainly Muslim regions of India, to fulfill the demand of the Indian Muslims for a separate state so as not to be ruled by Hindus who were the majority in India.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Other links on British hostility to Israel and Jews.
here1&here2&here3&here4&here5&here6&here7&here8
&here9&here10

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.

Some Ideas for Bibi on What to Say about Peace to Obama & the World

Benyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, should say a number of things to the world and Obama in his upcoming speech. He should take into consideration that some of Obama's lies and misrepresentations and distortions in the Cairo speech need to be countered.

1- He should stress the long Jewish/Israelite history in the Land of Israel going back more than 3,000 years. The kingdom of David was established around the year 1000 BCE. Jews have always lived in the Land despite massacres --mass slaughter-- by Roman and Byzantine armies, Arab invaders and occupiers [who defeated the Byzantines], and Crusaders. Jews in Exile have always tried to return to the Land when possible.

2-- It is true that Jews suffered persecution in many parts of the world, certainly in Christendom and Islam, although maybe not everywhere as Obama said in Cairo. It is also true that Jews suffered the Holocaust as a kind of culmination of centuries of Judeophobia. But Obama should not be allowed to exculpate the Arabs from guilt either for centuries of oppression/persecution/humiliation/economic exploitation of Jews or for collaboration in the Holocaust. Bibi might add that all non-Muslims under Islamic rule suffered oppression mandated by Islamic law.

3-- Arab collaboration with the Nazis and in the Holocaust was widespread among the Arab nationalists, but one man, Haj Amin el-Husseini, is emblematic of this collaboration. Husseini [Husayni] was the British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem and head of the British-created Supreme Muslim Council. The British tolerated his attacks on Jews --perpetrated by his followers-- in the 1920s and 1930s and even encouraged them. The British also enlarged the scope of Hitler's victims by preventing Jews from escaping from the Nazi-controlled domain in Europe. Hence, the British violated the international commitment they had made to the League of Nations to facilitate development of the Jewish National Home. Like Obama and his administration today, who rail against "Jewish settlements," the British forbid Jews to buy real estate in most of the Jewish National Home. The UK violated international law in harming Jews and their rights and violated their commitment to the Jewish people. How can Israel trust the UK or its cultural offshoot, the English-speaking USA? Neither power did anything major to save Jews during the Holocaust, whereas the British deliberately prevented escape.

4-- Hamas and Hizbullah, which the Obama administration wants to chat with, have clearly stated Nazi principles regarding the Jews. Hamas openly advocates genocide of Jews in its charter, Article 7. The German Nazis never openly advocated genocide of Jews. Hamas and Hizbullah must be taken at their world.

5-- It seems that the Obama administration is trying to disavow commitments made to Israel by previous administrations in return for Israeli concessions. Obama is trying to bury his forerunner Bush's understandings with Israel about the legitimacy of Jewish settlement in Judea-Samaria.

British Subject in Samaria Refuses to Host the Queen

A British Royal Subject Living in Samaria Tells the Queen that She Is Not Welcome while Her Government Tries to Choke the Jews Economically while Denying Jewish Human and National Rights

The British position is in fact Racist. It continues the British policy during the Mandate period in Israel and during the Holocaust to keep Jews out of Judea-Samaria and to allow/encourage the Arabs to drive out the Jews who were already there, especially as expressed in the 1939 White Paper policy. Of course, British policy encouraged Arabs to kill Jews in Baghdad [1941] and during the War of Independence [1947-1949], sending British troops to fight on the side of the Arabs. The official British information policy was to suppress news of the Holocaust as it was happening and could have been alleviated.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Your Majesty, You're Not Welcome

By edict of a subject of Her Britannic Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II

Item: The British Embassy in Tel Aviv has decided to boycott Israeli
companies that invest in Judea and Samaria.

Your Majesty, one of your Ambassadors, Tom Phillips, who represents you in Israel, has recently decided that he would boycott the Kirya Tower in Tel Aviv, because it is partly owned by Africa-Israel whose owner, Lev Levayev, also owns a subsidiary company that has built homes in Judea and Samaria.

Now, I must confess that I am not entirely surprised: the same ambassador, His Excellency Tom Phillips, decided back in July of last year that, even though I am still a British citizen, a subject of the Crown, I am no longer fit to be represented by him, when His Excellency decided to ban "settlers" from British Embassy functions. That is to say, I no longer enjoy your royal protection.

You see, I live in Kfar Tapuach, a "settlement" in the "Israeli-occupied West Bank". To be more precise, I live in the heart of Samaria, just a few miles due south of Shechem. When I go running with my dog to the small hill a few dozen yards from my house, we overlook the city that the Arab occupiers call "Nablus". Because I chose to make my home here, where my ancestors lived millennia ago, I am no longer worthy of the words inscribed in my British passport: "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all
those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary". Unless - we should now add - the bearer happens to be an Israelite living in the heartland of Biblical Israel.

Well, with all due respect to Your Majesty and to His Excellency the British Ambassador to Israel, I am not exactly devastated by the blow. I never really expected your diplomatic services or security forces to look after me or my people, whether in the "West Bank," or "Israel proper," or anywhere else in the world.

I know that Britain was the only country in the entire world to voluntarily declare war against Nazi Germany, and I am aware of Britain's magnificent, impressive war effort during those hideously dark years - a record that will forever stand to Britain's credit - but still, Britain's record concerning Jews during the Holocaust is somewhat dismal. I am too weary to detail, once again, the Royal Air Force's refusal to bomb the railway lines taking Jews to the Nazi death camps even while bombing more distant targets; Martin Gilbert, in Auschwitz and the Allies, has documented this sorry episode far better than I could.

Are you aware that the entire British Empire accepted fewer Jewish refugees than the port of Shanghai? And do you remember the restrictions that the government of your father, King George VI, placed on Jews from Reich-occupied countries finding refuge in Britain? Again, I know that Britain's record in that regard is far better than that of most other countries, but it's not as if there was very stiff competition.

And do you remember that your father's government fought bitterly against Jewish independence anywhere in the Land of Israel? Are you even aware that during and after the Holocaust, when more than ever we needed refuge, and at a time when the God of Israel granted your father the infinite privilege of ruling over the Holy Land, the Royal Navy patrolled these shores to ensure that the survivors of Hitler's accursed inferno would not be allowed home? Are you aware that when the British Army left Haifa, Jaffa, Tzfat (Safed), Lod (Lydda), Ramle, and other places in 1948, they turned the police fortresses with their armouries and weapons over to the Arab forces?

As I said, I am not particularly surprised that His Excellency the British Ambassador is not entirely enamoured of what we Jews are doing today in your former colony.

I look over Shechem - the city where, three and a half millennia ago, when your ancestors in England were still living in trees and painting their faces with woad, my great-great- great (however many times over) grandfather Jacob saw his sons, Shimon (Simeon) and Levi, declare war against the entire city of Shechem because their prince dared to rape their sister Dinah. I needn't go into the gory details here, because it's clearly written in my people's national history book - Genesis, Chapter 34. (In 1611, your ancestor, King James I, commissioned an English translation of my people's holy book, so Your Majesty should have no difficulty reading the text.)

Ever since that day, 3,500 years ago, we have known to rely on no one's protection but our own and God's. It is an interesting concept of time and of history: your roots in England go back to 1066 - almost a thousand years; a history of which to be justifiably proud. Yet when your history was just beginning, our roots were already buried more than 2,500 years deep in Shechem. In fact, the village in which I live, Kfar Tapuach, gets its first mention in the Bible; again, look it up in Joshua 12:17, 16:8, 17:7, and plenty of other places. You see, my people's historical and geographical record pinpointed the location of Kfar Tapuach, and delineated the borders of our Holy Land, and defined the borders of the territory of each of the twelve Tribes of Israel well
over 2,000 years before the Domesday Book was ever compiled.

Well, I suppose that I, and hundreds of thousands of other Jews here in our Holy Land, will just have to get used to the idea that you and your kingdom find the idea of Jews settling their own land most distasteful. Very well, so be it. But I have to tell you, unaccustomed as I am to taking so discourteous a tone to Your Majesty, so long as this policy continues you are no longer welcome in my house here in Kfar Tapuach.

Your government's ideology concerning the appropriate location of Jews in Israel affects me about as much as my proclamation affects you. We will continue to live where we want in Israel, we will continue to build, we will continue to settle our Land as and where we want. Your father's army, navy and air force were unable to prevent us from building our national home even when Britannia ruled the waves and controlled the skies around these parts. Today, the British Empire is but a distant memory and your influence here is even lower than Ehud Olmert's credibility.

I understand that you and your government are anxious to appease the Muslims. On reflection, that's probably a wise policy. As much as we Jews had a written history in Shechem back when your ancestors in England were still living in trees, we will still be living here, building our Land and bringing sacrifices and singing psalms to God in our Holy Temple, long after your descendants will be living as dhimmis in the Islamic Republic of Englandistan.

Adar 12, 5769 / 08 March 2009
~=~=~=~=~=~= ~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[hat tip Sanda Lam]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unfortunately, Mr Jacobson is too confident that British influence in Israel is low. It is too high. Just consider that a few weeks ago Tony Blair somehow persuaded Ehud Barak, minister of defense, to allow British agent Gerry Adams, who masquerades as an Irish anti-imperialist, into Gaza in order to meet with Hamas for a photo op meant to humanize and defumigate those Nazi murderers.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There have been quite a few encouraging archeological developments recently but I have not had the time to sort them out and report them. Will try soon although the usual political/diplomatic crisis keeps me busy.

UK Nazi-Sympathizers Lead the Euro Pack in Making the Hamas & Hizbullah Socially Acceptable in EU Land

UPDATINGS 4-(23&24) & 5-14-2009 [see at bottom]

An excellent article appeared today in the Jerusalem Post on how the UK is working to embellish, edulcorate and perfume the Hamas, whether in the name of progress, democracy, enlightenment, humanity, peace or international understanding. Alistair Crooke, Tony Blair's point man in working with Hamas as early as 2002, is still at work on this nefarious project.
Here is a link to the article in the JPost. Links to earlier, relevant posts on Emet m'Tsiyon are below on this page.

Analysis: The energetic Hamas lobby
Apr. 22, 2009
JONATHAN SPYER , THE JERUSALEM POST

A meeting was meant to take place on Wednesday in the Grimond Room at Portcullis House, adjoining the House of Commons in London. The planned meeting was titled "Talk with Hamas" and was meant to feature a video link to Damascus.

Khaled Mashaal, leader of Hamas, was supposed to address members of Parliament and journalists via the link, but he failed, due to a technical glitch.

This planned meeting was the latest event in an ongoing and organized campaign to break the Western boycott of Hamas and transform policy toward the organization. Much energy is being expended in the UK. But London is only a way station, with the real prize being the transformation of the US stance.

This campaign is part of a larger effort to change the way that the West sees Islamist movements - and by doing so to bring many of the arguments made by such movements into the mainstream.

Who is behind this effort? The invitation to MPs to the Mashaal meeting came from the office of Independent MP Clare Short.

However, it was issued in the name of John, Lord Alderdice. This name immediately offers a pointer. Alderdice, a veteran Northern Irish politician, is head of the board of advisers of an organization called Conflicts Forum.

Conflicts Forum is jointly led by Alistair Crooke and Mark Perry, former intelligence officers from the UK and US, respectively. It describes its aim as opening "a new relationship between the West and the Muslim world."

What this anodyne phrase means in practice is revealed in a remarkably frank document published by this group, in which it explains the means it intends to use to bring about the basic change in perception that will bring Hamas and Hizbullah into the mainstream.

The document notes the need to build a "link-up between activist groups and mobilizers of opinion in order to shift the debate on Islamism from a predominantly defensive posture to a positive assertion of Islamist values and thinking."

It suggests "articulation of Hamas's and Hizbullah's values, philosophy and wider political and social programs... Being more proactive in statements and rephrasing discourse to focus on the positive aspects of Islamist ideology."

The Conflicts Forum publication lays down a precise strategy for the promotion of Hamas and Hizbullah in the West - of which the meeting in the British Parliament forms a part.

The various PR devices suggested include "Use influential individuals - key Muslim personalities... use the Internet, DVD, interviews, podcasts... Link with mass organizations in Western countries - social movements, trade unions - to challenge hegemonic discourse. Approach editors of established journals... with a view to the possibility of them doing a special issue on Islamist thinking or on particular issues."

Undoubtedly, the attempted video link between Hamas HQ in Damascus and the Grimond Room in Portcullis House was meant to be a worthy contribution to this extensive effort to "re-brand" Hamas and Hizbullah.

The UK, and the EU as a whole, remain committed to the Quartet conditions which Hamas must meet to become a partner for dialogue. Hamas (or at least its "military wing") remains on the EU list of proscribed terror organizations.

A cursory observation of the backers of Conflicts Forum, however, reveals a curious paradox. In January 2007, the group proudly announced that it had been awarded a grant of €500,000 by the EU, to develop "more inclusive and legitimate approaches to transforming the Middle East conflict." More specifically, the project entails the "engagement" of "faith-based movements."

So the EU, while currently opposing "engagement" with Hamas, also appears to be offering financial support to a body engaged in lobbying for the organization.

How important are the efforts of Conflicts Forum and its associated groups? Are initiatives such as Wednesday's planned meeting likely to have a tangible effect on policy?

Britain has, of course, already announced that it intends to hold talks with Hizbullah. On Hamas, however, no immediate significant shift in British government policy looks likely.

The Hamas Lobby is busy and active. It encompasses former senior diplomats such as Sir Jeremy Greenstock, as well as the Conflicts Forum nexus.

Foreign Secretary Miliband has praised the Egyptian role in managing dialogue with Hamas in the following terms: "Others speak to Hamas. That's the right thing to do, and I think we should let the Egyptians take this forward."

A knowledgeable source noted that many in the Foreign Office consider that engagement with the group is a "matter of time."

Still, for as long as the US remains firmly committed to insisting that Hamas first abide by the three Quartet conditions (committing to nonviolence, recognizing Israel and accepting previous agreements and obligations), the UK is unlikely to openly break ranks. Differences might well surface if a Palestinian unity government were to be formed. But this too currently looks highly improbable.

Ultimately, the main obstacle to the success of Lord Alderdice, Clare Short and their friends in Conflicts Forum may well be the nature of their client. Hamas leaders have an unfortunate tendency to be candid regarding their movement's goals. This makes presenting the "positive aspects of Islamist ideology" something of a challenge.

Hamas "Foreign Minister" Mahmoud Zahar, for example, speaking last week, stated bluntly that "[Hamas] will never recognize the enemy in any way, shape or form."

A few months ago, the same speaker asserted that "they [Jews] have legitimized the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine... They have legitimized the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people."

Spinning statements of that kind into moderation would pose a challenge to the smoothest of PR operators. But as the planned Portcullis House meeting showed, Hamas possesses an experienced, well-oiled, well-funded (largely by the European taxpayer) lobby in the heart of London, in which it may take justifiable pride.

Jonathan Spyer is a Senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, IDC, Herzliya.
[Jerusalem Post, 4-22-2009]

Kudos to Jonathan Spyer. Here is a link to earlier British pro-Hamas efforts going back to at least 2002 [& see here & here & here]. Today's Islamists and their friends claim to see Muslims everywhere as victims and use the term Islamophobia to describe this alleged victimization. We might charge the UK with Jihadophilia, the love of Islamic jihad, to describe how the UK promotes Islamobarbarism.

Postscript to J Spyer's article by Barry Rubin [link here --see at bottom of linked to page]:

Just as distinguished and very well-mannered British apologists for Hamas were holding a meeting explaining that Hamas is misunderstood, the group continues its openly antisemitic and genocidal rhetoric. See for yourself.

In a recent booklet entitled The Zionist Holocaust, here is what Hamas has to say:

Page 10: "that country, the one called `Israel'...believes only in killing and destruction...some of its principles are endless fighting, shedding blood and corruption. For the Jews, all men are flocks of lambs [i.e., fit for slaughter], while only they [the Jews] are fit to live ...”

Page 221: The Palestinians have only two options, to surrender or wiping out Israel and the Jews.

Oh and the Introduction is written by Ismail Haniya, who is often referred to as a "moderate" and the leader of Hamas's "political wing."
[Memo to Haniya: That was very clever of you to hide the Hamas leadership and set up its command post in Shifa hospital. That way if Israel attacked you could accuse it of war crimes and since it didn't you were safe and could run your war from there. And you probably don't even have to worry about the Western media picking up the story.] [Here at bottom of linked to page]

For a frank statement of genocidal intentions by Hamas, see the Hamas charter, Article 7, among other parts of the charter.
Israeli journalist, formerly of `Al HaMishmar, Pinhas `Inbari, explains that both Israel and PA/Fatah ought to rightly be suspicious of the EU [in Hebrew for the JCPA].
UPDATING 5-14-2009 Michael Young describes Alistair Crooke's role in trying to make Hamas & Hizbullah socially acceptable in polite society. Young also explains why Crooke's idea is a bad one.

Tony Blair Supports Hamas Officially -- Gerry Adams of the IRA [Sinn Fein] now officially a British agent

Peace --the last refuge of the scoundrel
Eliyahu m'Tsiyon [circa 2007]

Tony Blair is the former two-faced prime minister of the UK, called Tony Phoney by his fellow Britishers. After leaving his PM's office, he was appointed as envoy to the "peace process" [that is, to Israel and the palestinian authority] by the Quartet to see how its "Road Map to peace" was being implemented. Yet, true to form, Tony Phoney has disregarded those items in the "Road Map" that required corrective action by the PA. Moreover, he has shown his contempt for peace by promoting the anti-peace Hamas whose very charter openly calls on Muslims to kill Jews. That is, Blair aids a genocidal Islamic jihad gang. One way that he helped them very recently was to intervene with the Israeli government to allow one Gerry Adams into Gaza in order to have a photo op with Hamas leaders and proclaim his "solidarity" with them. Our foreign ministry had wisely --for once-- opposed letting Adams into Gaza, understanding what he was likely to do. Thwarted by the Foreign Ministry, Blair turned to Defense Minister Barak [Labor Party] who complied with Blair's hysterical urgings:

Tony Blair intervened directly with Defense Minister Ehud Barak to enable Northern Ireland politician Gerry Adams through the Erez Crossing and into the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, where he met Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The decision to let Adams into the Gaza Strip came against recommendations by the Foreign Ministry, which had urged that Israel not facilitate his passage because he was unwilling to promise not to meet with Hamas representatives.

The Foreign Ministry was concerned that high profile meetings of international politicians with Hamas would only grant the organization legitimacy.

Defense officials said the decision to allow Adams into Gaza was taken by Barak after Blair brought a personal request to him during a meeting earlier this week.

The officials said Blair had told Barak that Adams, the leader of the Irish Republican Army-linked Sinn Fein party, had experience as a mediator, and could pass messages and act as a go-between for Israel and Hamas.

Israeli officials refused to meet with Adams because he was willing to meet with Hamas representatives.

Adams is scheduled to go to Ramallah for talks on Friday.

Adams's meeting with Haniyeh, at an undisclosed location in Gaza City, was not announced ahead of time.

TV footage from a local news outlet showed Adams sitting in an armchair next to Haniyeh. "We want to help. We support the Palestinian people," Adams said. [read more here in Jerusalem Post 4-9-2009]

Blair has been working to promote Hamas as a partner for peace since at least 2002, through his operative in Israel, the appropriately named Alistair Crooke [for more on blair & hamas see here & here]. So we see that Blair is a lover of Hamas, or perhaps he sees Hamas as a convenient tool for helping the Arabs finish Hitler's work, whereas the UK was a silent partner in the Holocaust in the 1930s & 1940s [see earlier posts on the Emet m'Tsiyon blog]. The Hamas quite frankly declares genocide of the Jews to be its goal in its charter, see especially Article 7. This article quotes a medieval Muslim fable from the Hadith in which rocks and trees call on Muslims to kill Jews at the End of Days.

Meanwhile, Gerry Adams, the smooth, oily spokesman for the IRA under the rubric of the Sinn Fein political party demonstrates that he is an agent of British anti-Israel, Judeophobic policy. After all, Blair understood very well what Israel's Foreign Ministry also understood, that Adams would use his visit to Gaza to promote the Hamas. So, for all his anti-imperialist pretensions, Adams works for the same goals regarding Israel and the Jews as does the British Empire. Adams is an agent. Coincidentally, a few days ago, British foreign minister Miliband was in Rabat-Ammon [Amman] in Jordan, complaining that the Jerusalem municipality was wrongly demolishing illegally built Arab houses in the city, not mentioning that the municipality also demolishes illegally built Jewish houses and other structures. This means that Miliband was denying the Jewish right of sovereignty over Jerusalem, a city that owes its importance to the world to its place in Israelite/Jewish history and religion. It is a city where Jews have been the majority since 1853, at least, and that was in the Old City, which was the whole city at that time. Miliband also pretends not to know that the Arab forces, including the British-officered Arab Legion of Jordan [then Transjordan] drove Jews out of parts of Jerusalem that they captured in 1947-1948, including the Old City with its ancient Jewish holy sites & medieval Jewish Quarter. Jews could not return to their homes after that war, ended by an armistice accord in 1949. This part of Jerusalem was Judenrein for 19 years until Israeli forces retook it in 1967, allowing Jews to live there once again. Arab spokespersons have the hhutspah to call that area "traditionally Arab East Jerusalem." Judeophobic Britain denies Jewish rights of residence there, whereas British forces helped the Arabs to drive out the Jews from there in 1947-1948. So the policy of the UK has not changed in 61 years regarding Jewish rights of residence in Jerusalem.
- - - - - - - - -
More on British anti-Israel intrigue: Bill Rammell, a British minister of state, said that the Obama administration is "comfortable" with British overtures to the Nazi Hizbullah [I call them Nazis because they espouse Nazi-like views of the Jewish people]. See Jerusalem Post, 4-5-2009 [based AP report] & Aurora [Spanish-language Israeli weekly 4 (7-15) 2009].

NGO Hypocrisy Makes "human rights" a Tragic Joke

Dishonest attacks on Israel and its operation in Gaza to stop Hamas from terrorizing the Israeli population in the south by frequent shooting of rockets and mortars were made by EU politicians and journalists, by the prime minister of Turkey [with its unadmitted oppression of and genocide of non-Muslims and non-Turks], and by a host of falsely labelled "non-governmental organizations." That is, part of the fakery of the "NGOs" is that in fact most are funded directly or indirectly by --governments!! Indeed, I would say that all or almost all of the most prominent, most influential NGOs are government-funded or funded by very wealthy, very politically influential individuals. Hence, these bodies are not "non-governmental" at all.

One of these bodies unfairly criticizing Israel was the so-called "Human Rights Watch." This led to a criticism of HRW's position in the Jerusalem Post, written by Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor. Then Kenneth Roth of HRW sent his dishonest rebuttal. Links to these opinion articles are found here on the Augean Stables blog. Rather than get bogged down in the specific charges and countercharges regarding Israel's just defensive operation in Gaza against the Nazi-like Hamas, it is more important now to take up the basic problem represented by the NGOs. First is the comment by "Nelson," otherwise anonymous, on the Augean Stables. Following that is my response to Nelson.

It’s time to admit it: the so-called era of human rights is over. The UN, HRW, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, hundreds of NGOs and so on have, with their hipocrisy, their willful blindness, their selective rhetoric transformed the whole idea of human rights into a tragic joke. They have shown, for instance, that they cared more for the fate of the Rwandan Huttu génocidaires than for their hundreds of thousands of Tutsi victims. They have much more time for the terrorists imprisioned in Guantánamo than for the relatives of the victims of 9/11.
The whole talk about human rights has become little more than a empty slogan, a whip with which to blackmail Western democracies and a shield to be used in order to protect the perpetrators of large scale crimes from the punishments they richly deserve.
With human rights reduced to a sorry farce, there’s no option but to return to old fashioned concepts of justice, of crime and punishment, things that can only have any kind of meaning within the borders of really functioning national states.
Like socialism, social justice, internationalism or the brotherhood of men, the very concept of human rights, a utopic dream to begin with, became its opposite: a pathetic nightmare.
[Comment by nelson — January 26, 2009 @ 3:36 pm]

Here is my response to Nelson with some changes and amendments:
Nelson said the important things about the “human rights” and “humanitarian” and “peace” NGOs that have to be said. I agree with just about everything that he wrote.
Now, these NGOs are not really “non-governmental” for the most part. Most are funded by govts, or groups of govts [like the EU] or by very wealthy individuals. For instance, the ICRC [international committee of the red cross / Comite International de la Croix Rouge] is a Swiss govt agency that decided --during WW2 & the Holocaust-- not to broadcast the early information that they had about the Holocaust [especially from Swiss physicians who had cared for the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front]. They claimed then that they had no legal mandate to interfere in such matters. Then --during the Holocaust-- they were legalistic against the Jews. They’re still legalistic against the Jews. Now, they take part in accusing Israel of war crimes, along with UN spokesmen, other NGOs, anti-Israel govts, hypocritical European politicians, Western and Arab psywar experts, etc. These accusations are usually based on false interpretations of international law.

Anyhow, NGOs serve political purposes. They are not meant to serve the abstract ideals and lofty ends that they profess. They are instruments –indeed weapons– of diplomacy, of what Lenin called “political warfare.” Now, we know what Clausewitz said about diplomacy and war. War is an extension of diplomacy, he said. I would turn that around and say that diplomacy is also an instrument of war, and so is the propaganda produced and disseminated by the NGOs.
In their book on the UN, A Dangerous Place [which preceded Moynihan’s book of the same title], Abraham Yeselson and Anthony Gaglione wrote that the UN has about as much relevance to peace as a battleship or an atomic bomb. The UN is a weapon of nations in conflict, they wrote. Likewise the NGOs. The propaganda emanating from them is often an insult to the intelligence and often produces results opposite to what they claim to work for. Everyone should explore the site of Steinberg’s NGO Monitor which reports –inter alia– on the sources of funding of many NGOs.
For instance, B’Tselem, mentioned in an earlier post by Richard Landes [of Augean Stables], has received funds from jimmy carter’s Carter Center in Atlanta. The Carter Center has in turn received funds from the Bin Laden Group [Yes, Osama’s family firm] and –years ago– from the BCCI bank, mainly owned by the Sheik and govt of Abu Dhabi. So these NGOs are not so innocent, although some of their activists may be truly naive and ignorant and/or deluded, indoctrinated, brainwashed. So Mr Roth seems to be playing a role in international diplomacy, whether or not he is aware of his role.

Abu Yussif, apparently an Arabic-speaking Christian commenting on the Roth-Steinberg exchange on Augean Stables, makes this comment:

i'm not getting why ken roth would want palestinian civilians to be condemned to subjugation under the worst cynical and callous islamic masters. it is one thing to microscopically contest military tactics, but another to serve as a “defender of human rights” to [= for] the worst abusers of human rights.

suppose mr roth gets his wish and israel is punished, censured, whatever. all he has accomplished is giving an extra meansure of breathing room and a freer hand to hamas to brutalize and terrorize their own population (and let’s not forget what they do to israelis at the same time). he has just cemented palestinians in more misery and removed any hope that the civilian population might experience any of the human rights mr roth and his group are supposed to be “watching”.

why does mr roth care so little about palestinian civilians in their day-to-day lives under terrorists who plainly admit they have no intention of doing anything other than enslaving the masses?
it’s not for the sake of “human rights”, i’m sorry to say. maybe it’s because he loathes the palestinians and wants to ensure their suffering is maximized. if so, he’s doing an excellent job.
[Comment by abu yussif — January 26, 2009 @ 9:29 am]

- - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc

Not Humanitarianism, Not Honesty Nor Love for Human Rights Motivates Condemnation of Israel's Gaza Operation

I'm mad at Efraim Karsh. He has said many things about the hypocritical Western and International reaction to Israel's defensive war in Gaza and Israeli defensive actions in general that I have long believed, that I have long been convinced of. So I'm jealous that he said these things first, that he took the words out of my mouth. But let's acknowledge that Karsh deserves a lot of praise for saying them so well, better than I could I suppose, although I have a few quibbles with him, mainly over nomenclature. Given that Karsh teaches in London, in the heart of the beast as it were, he is to be commended for his courage to remain an independent thinker in hostile surroundings. He is also to be commended for staying clear-headed in those circumstances.

Only Palestinian Interaction with Israel Wins World Attention by Efraim Karsh
. . . .
In other words, the extraordinary international preoccupation with the Palestinians is a corollary of their interaction with Israel, the only Jewish state to exist since biblical times, a reflected glow of the millenarian obsession with the Jews in the Christian and the Muslim worlds. Had their dispute been with an Arab, Muslim, or any other adversary, it would have attracted a fraction of the interest that it presently does.
. . . .

Indeed, the fact that the international coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the libels against Zionism and Israel, such as the despicable comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa, have invariably reflected a degree of intensity and emotional involvement well beyond the normal level to be expected of impartial observers would seem to suggest that, rather than being a response to concrete Israeli activities, it is a manifestation of longstanding prejudice that has been brought out into the open by the vicissitudes of the conflict.
. . . .

For millennia Jewish blood has been cheap, if not costless, throughout the Christian and Muslim worlds, where the Jew became the epitome of powerlessness, a perpetual punching bag and a scapegoat for whatever ills befell society. There is no reason, therefore, why Israel shouldn't follow in the footsteps of these past generations, avoid antagonizing its Arab neighbors and exercise restraint whenever attacked. But no, instead of knowing its place, the insolent Jewish state has forfeited this historic role by exacting a price for Jewish blood and beating the bullies who had hitherto been able to torment the Jews with impunity. This dramatic reversal of history cannot but be immoral and unacceptable. Hence the global community outrage and hence the world's media provision of unlimited resources to cover every minute of Israel's "disproportionate" response, but none of the devastation and dislocation caused to Israeli cities and their residents.

Put differently, the Palestinians are but the latest lightning rod unleashed against the Jews, their supposed victimization reaffirming the millenarian demonization of the Jews in general, and the medieval blood libel - that Jews delight in the blood of others - in particular. In the words of David Mamet, "The world was told Jews used this blood in the performance of religious ceremonies. Now, it seems, Jews do not require the blood for baking purposes, they merely delight to spill it on the ground."
--read it all here--

Professor Efraim Karsh is Head of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Studies at King's College, University of London, and a member of the Board of International Experts of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. His recent books include Islamic Imperialism: A History

Now, Karsh's article implies that the "humanitarian" and "pro-peace" and "human rights" organizations which are major instruments for demonizing Israel, along with much of the Western press, especially in Britain, are instruments of Judeophobes. The NGO Monitor website [see the blogroll at right] goes farther and shows that many of these bodies are in fact funded by governments, making their designation as "non-governmental organizations" totally ridiculous. Hence, it follows that many Western governments are Judeophobic, particularly the UK govt which seems to direct Amnesty International, which in any case has its head office conveniently located in London. Not only do AI and other such bodies smear Israel, but they omit information about the persecution or mistreatment of Jews [ie, as AI does regarding Jonathan Pollard].

Karsh points out that this Judeophobia disguised as humanitarian concern for the Arabs now called "palestinians," has roots far back in the past. For an example, look at many of the TV broadcasts purporting to deliver news about Israel and the Arabs. The news stories have a plot and are constructed on the model of the medieval passion plays. The Israelis [Jews] continually crucify innocent "palestinians" [a collective Jesus] for no discernible reason. The Israelis' alleged cruelty seems unreasonable and to flow from the Israelis' naturally evil character. This is the structure of the passion play. The "palestinians" are shown traversing an endless passion caused by those who tormented Jesus, who called for his blood. Atavistic of course but also very 21st century.

The instruments of the demonization cited by Karsh are the media and NGOs. Now, it should be borne in mind that diplomacy is not merely a matter of well-dressed, well-mannered diplomats traveling around the world and going to cocktail parties. Diplomacy is also influencing public opinion in foreign countries [and one's own country] which is done through the press, media, schools, universities, textbooks, religious preaching, and statements by self-styled "humanitarian," "pro-peace," and "human rights" bodies [NGOs]. By dressing up in the garb of lofty ideals and values, like peace, messages can be transmitted that have nothing to do with those values or may even be opposed to those values, as well as being false. As far as international law is concerned, it is often overlooked by those who claim to be devoted to it and is often misrepresented by parties to conflict [as parties to civil suits interpret law in their own interest]. Whereas Clausewitz wrote that war is an extension of diplomacy, we could also say that diplomacy is an extension or adjunct or instrument of war.

The Red Cross [ICRC] knows that int'l law requires access to prisoners of war by the ICRC. Warring parties that do not provide such access are to be denied humanitarian services by the ICRC. Yet the ICRC is now vitally concerned with the humanitarian needs of Gaza denizens, who helped Hamas take power there. By rights, since the Hamas refuses access to Gilad Shalit, the ICRC should refuse to provide humanitarian services in Gaza. Nevertheless, a high official of the ICRC, a Swiss body, was shown on TV this morning in Gaza wringing his hands over the humanitarian state of affairs there caused by Hamas' abuse of Jewish human rights, its denial of any human rights to Jews at all. NGOs in general, and Amnesty in particular, are not to be taken at face value when they chirp about human rights abuses, etc. They're no better than the media and often serve the same interests and policies.
- - - - - - - - -

Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc

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.

The West, Especially Britain, More Dangerous to Israel than the Arabs

UPDATNG 12-16-2008 AT BOTTOM
UDATING 12-19-2008 on Red Cross [ICRC] access to Gilad Shalit

The West has a history of nearly 2000 years of vilifying, defaming, and falsely accusing Jews, as well as persecuting them. Christian Judeophobia and anti-Judaism based on religion was joined by "post-Christian" Judeophobia in the writings of Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Voltaire, d'Holbach and others. Most of the "post-Christian" Judeophobia actually had roots in the teachings of the Christian reformer, Martin Luther. Be that as it may, Judeophobia in word and practice culminated in the Holocaust. Has this Judeophobia ended? Or has it changed form? Has it just changed its dress? Is today's fashionable "anti-Zionism" just old wine in new bottles?
[בעברית : אותה הגברת באדרת אחרת ]

Next question. What does the West want in the Middle East? Does it want peace between Israel and the Arabs? Does it want peace without Israel, that is, peace of mind for antisemites? Does it want war?

If the West wants peace between Israel and the Arabs, then why does it finance the PLO/Palestinian Authority? The European Union gives the PA about 480 million euros per year. This is in addition to large sums given by the United States, Japan and wealthy Arab states. The PA makes constant Judeophobic propaganda on its radio, TV, press, in its schools and mosques and "universities." Where is there any PA desire to make peace? Yet the EU and other Western entities continue to fund the PA. Note, despite the huge expenses incurred by Israel's health system because of mass murderous terrorist attacks, whereas the EU was financing the PA since its inception in mid-1994, and whereas the PA under Arafat was funding terrorism [see for example the court decisions in the trial of Marwan Barghouti] , the EU has never offered to compensate the great expenses to Israel's health system which their proteges, the PA, forced upon Israel.

The EU --particularly the UK-- provide the PLO/PA and its Hamas rival with
1- diplomatic support, including in the UN and other international organizations. The EU allows the UN to continue to exist despite its harmful effect on the cause of world peace generally. The UN "Human Rights" Council in particular is a threat to peace as well as to truth in the international atmosphere.
2- propaganda support/psywar support which is provided both through the media and through "reports" and activities of so-called, ostensibly humane, "non-governmental organizations." Yet most of these NGOs are actually funded by Western governments [see the NGO Monitor site, inter alia]. Western media agencies like the BBC are notorious for pro-Arab, pro-PLO and pro-Hamas propaganda. The BBC is a UK government agency.
3- sales of weapons and military training and expertise, also given to the PA forces.

The West as a whole talks a lot about "international law." So do Western agencies and media, especially the notorious NGOs. Yet a fundamental part of the international law of war is that prisoners be available for visits by the International Red Cross to ascertain their condition. But Hamas has been holding an Israeli prisoner, Gilad Shalit, for more than 2 years [if he is still alive] without any visits by the Red Cross [specifically by the International Committee of the Red Cross, an agency of Switzerland, a supposedly neutral country]. I am not aware that the Red Cross [ICRC] has even asked for such visits. Yet the Red Cross [ICRC] continues to provide services to Gaza, eventhough a country or government [such as Hamas in this case] openly violates international law concerning prisoners of war. This violation of international law means that the ICRC should cut off aid and ties with the Hamas govt and the territory that it controls. But that has not happened on the ostensible grounds of humanitarianism. Meanwhile, the Hamas' game in regard to Shalit seems to be the same ghoulish Muslim jihadist ploy of bargaining with body parts that the Hizbullah previously engaged in. The Red Cross should have cut off ties to Gaza, Hamastan, long ago. Of course, during the Holocaust the same Red Cross [ICRC] refused in principle to help Jews, saying that helping Jews was not part of its mandate, not part of international law, etc. But Arabs have more rights than Jews, so it seems.

Other Western entities, especially the UK and Norway, deal with the Hamas and want to expand their dealings with it, despite [perhaps because of] its charter which is Nazi-like in many ways [see the genocidal medieval Muslim fable quoted in part in Article 7]. Part of the problem of EU bias is described in Bat Ye'or's book, Eurabia.

Within the EU constellation, it seems that Britain is the most consistently and dangerously hostile to Israel. For one thing, it appears that it was British psywar experts who invented the destructive "palestinian people" notion.

Here are links describing some of the UK's dirty anti-Israel machinations.

British foreign minister Miliband revealed the ugly face of Her Majesty's diplomacy on his recent trip to Israel.

Tony Blair's liaison with the terrorists, Alistair Crooke, spells out his deceitful hatred of Jews and Israel. Crooke was assigned by Blair as far back as 2002 to make contact with Hamas and try to bring these IslamoNazis into the "peace process."

London Times joins in with bbc in smearing Jews.

Melanie Philips on British Foreign Office misinterpreting international law concerning Judea-Samaria and settlements. British FO wants EU to boycott settlements.

UPDATING 12-16-2008
Melanie Philips with two astounding reports about official, governmental conduct:
1) How the BBC Arabic service incites Arabs against Jews
2) The London Metropolitan Police [Scotland Yard] employs Muslim jihadists/terrorists, ostensibly to "fight terrorism."
It is indeed a sign of the sincerity of the British powers-that-be in favoring Muslim terrorism that they even endanger their own population, overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxons & Celts!!
- - - - - - - - -END UPDATE- - - - - -

The EU arrogantly demands that Israel implement a racist policy against Jews by forbidding Jews to "expand" "settlements" in Judea-Samaria, the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland. The following brief report in French reports the EU demand, although it fails to mention the central British role in pushing for this policy. The EU seems to want to put Jews back in a ghetto which was how Jews lived in Western Europe more than 200 years ago. These hypocritical Euro Judeophobes claim that "settlement expansion" --which could mean no more than building new homes for people who grew up in the settlement as children and have now gotten married and want to live where they grew up and be close to their parents-- is "harmful to peace efforts." This is old wine in new bottles. The old Euro Judeophobia which wanted to keep Jews in ghettoes in European towns and cities is now extended to the Jewish homeland where the Judeophobes, both Arabs and Europeans, want to keep Jews out of Judea-Samaria, the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland. The pretext for the new Judeophobia is "international law" and "peace" and rights for Arabs, not Jews, although Arabs too kept Jews in ghettoes and segregated quarters, as in Jerusalem and Damascus.

''Il faut arrêter l'expansion des implantations dans les territoires,'' ont déclaré les représentants de l'Union européenne à Tsippi Livni, Ministre des affaires étrangères . Les parlementaires ont précisé que cette expansion nuisait aux efforts de paix. La Ministre est actuellement à Bruxelles pour négocier un rapprochement économique et politique entre Israël et l'Union européenne.
(Guysen.International.News / 2008-12-02 13:41:00 ISRAEL)

Of course the EU won't admit that by encouraging and supporting Arab anti-Jewish bigotry they are encouraging war by Arabs against Israel. Here's a report on a confidential EU document that outlines plan for political war on Israel in support of Arab Nazis.

NGO Monitor explains what kind of "NGO"s get EU funding in the EuroNazi project to murder Jews through the instrumentality of the Arabs. That is so that the EuroPhoneys can keep their hands clean so to speak. Let the Arabs do the dirty work --which they enjoy anyhow-- and the Euros can stand off at the side and pretend to sympathize with the poor, downtrodden Arabs [like the king of Saudi Arabia & the Sheik of Kuwait, etc] & the poor "palestinians" oppressed by those mean Jews who want to repeat the crucifixion of Jesus by crucifying, symbolically in the "news"/passion plays of the bbc and other Euro public opinion-molding agencies, the modern collective Jesus [that is, the "palestinians," a people that never existed in history but was invented by Western psywar experts for the psywar struggle against Israel]. Note that the NGOs, so-called "non-governmental organizations," get large amounts of funding precisely from governments.

German firms hungry for money disregard "sanctions" on Nazi Iran. Big surprise!!

UN envoy to Middle East makes vicious, inhuman and dehumanizing attack on Jews in Hebron.

The EU loves other Arab Nazis too, that is the Syrian regime which is ruled by the Baath Party, originally modelled on the German Nazi Party. The Washington crowd, including Obama's gang, likes the Damascus fascists too. See link:
Israel govt asks EU not to reward Syria with relations upgrade.

US and UK fund Arab propaganda efforts and train Arab propagandists.
- - - - - - - -
UPDATING 12-19-2008
A reader notifed us that the ICRC has requested access to Gilad Shalit from his captors, the Hamas IslamoNazi organization currently ruling the Gaza Strip.

We have repeatedly reminded those holding him of their legal obligations, calling on them both publicly and through our direct contacts to treat him humanely.
The ICRC has repeatedly asked to be allowed to visit Gilad Shalit and to convey family messages to him. [ICRC website 12-10-2008]

The question is how to deal with a political, state-like entity that rejects international law in practice and in principle. Since Hamas openly proclaims its commitment to jihad, Islamic holy war, which is obviously opposed to international law, as well as its commitment to shari`ah, Muslim law in general, which rejects the principle of human rights, and since the majority of the voters in the last election in Gaza supported Hamas, then what humanitarian obligations does the rest of the world have toward the Hamas-ruled Gaza entity? Doesn't international law mandate the Red Cross to cut off support to such entities? Wouldn't the refusal of Gaza's rulers to allow ICRC access to Shalit be enough to justify cutting off all humanitarian activities in behalf of the Gaza population?? Now, the Israeli govt has not made any such argument or demand. As far as I know the olmert-barak-livni gang of clowns has not publicly denounced Hamas for this serious violation of basic international law. Nor have they demanded that foreign states and organizations providing aid to Gaza cease such activities until Hamas demonstrates minimal compliance with this very basic rule of international law [that is, access to prisoners by the ICRC].
- - - - - - - -

Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.